Greensburg woman seeks damages after tuxedo-draped mannequin falls on her |

Greensburg woman seeks damages after tuxedo-draped mannequin falls on her

Rich Cholodofsky

A tuxedo-draped mannequin toppled onto the head of a Greensburg woman shopping with her son at a men’s clothing store in Westmoreland Mall last year, causing her ongoing head and vision injuries, according to a two-count lawsuit filed in Westmoreland County.

Melinda Scalzo alleges in court papers the weight from tuxedo jackets placed on a mannequin at the Men’s Wearhouse caused it to fall on her while she was shopping on April 7, 2018.

An employee at the Men’s Wearhouse store Monday referred questions about the lawsuit to the company’s corporate headquarters in Texas. Corporate officials did not respond to a request for comment.

In court documents, Scalzo contends she suffered a concussion, chronic post-traumatic migraine headaches, cognitive impairment, dizziness, sleep difficulty and other health issues resulting from the crash. She said she needed surgery to repair her vision and the incident exacerbated mental health disorders.

“She has endured and may continue to endure pain, suffering, inconvenience, embarrassment, mental anguish and emotional and psychological trauma,” according to the lawsuit.

Scalzo’s husband, Justin, claimed loss of consortium from his wife. Both are seeking an unspecific amount in damages in the lawsuit.

Rich Cholodofsky is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Rich at 724-830-6293, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Local | Westmoreland
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.