A Michigan glove manufacturer has filed a response to a suit filed against it alleging that its gloves were “fraudulently marketed as a cut-resistant glove for safe glass handling.” Union City, Mich.-based Glove Coaters Inc. has denied many of the allegations made against it by Anthony Lopez, who claims he was cut by a piece of glass while wearing the company’s gloves last July while working at Craftsman Fabricated Glass in Houston.
While the company allows “that it describes itself as ‘a U.S. manufacturer of high-quality rubber coated safety gloves,’” officials there note that they lack sufficient knowledge to form a belief about the truth of the allegation that the glove he was wearing at the time of the accident was manufactured by Glove Coaters.”
Additionally, Glove Coaters “denies that the statements on its website rise to the level of warranties but admits that its website states that its ‘manufacturing process generates a safety glove that is durable, cut-resistant, and comfortable.’”
“Defendant admits that its website states that its gloves can be utilized as cut-resistant gloves safe for glass handling,” writes the company.
However, the company denies “that its product was defectively designed” and that it is liable to Lopez “under the theory of strict liability.”
“Defendant admits that it has engaged in the business of marketing, distributing, selling and/or supplying cut-resistant glass handling gloves but denies that it has engaged in the business of designing or manufacturing such gloves as those terms are commonly defined,” writes the company. “Defendant denies that the gloves made the basis of this lawsuit were in a defective condition or were unreasonably dangerous.”
Glove Coaters further denies that it was negligent or that it fraudulently marketed its gloves.
“[Glove Coaters] lacks sufficient knowledge to form a belief about the damages [Lopez] has incurred but denies that any act or omission by defendant was the cause of such damages,” continues the response.
In addition, the company makes several affirmative defenses and claims that: Lopez is guilty of contributory negligence; he assumed the risk of the activity he was performing before his accident; his injuries are the result of an unavoidable accident; he failed to mitigate his damages; and the company “cannot be held liable for the actions of third-parties over whom it had no control nor right of control.”
Glove Coaters is seeking a jury trial in the case and hopes to recover all of its costs and attorney’s fees.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas had previously denied the company’s motion to dismiss the case based on allegations that Lopez’s employer was responsible for selecting “appropriate hand protection.”