Docstoc

Complaint.Amended.Barr

Document Sample
Complaint.Amended.Barr Powered By Docstoc
					                           AMENDED COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION

        1.         Plaintiff Plaintiff (“Plaintiff”) is an adult individual who resides at,

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

        2.         Defendant Owens-Illinois, Inc., d/b/a Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc.

(“Defendant Owens”), is a corporation duly authorized and existing under the laws of the

Commonwealth of Ohio with a principal office located at One Michael Owens Way, Perrysburg,

OH 43551, which, at all times relevant hereto, was engaged in the conduct of business in

Pennsylvania. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant was engaged in the business of

manufacturing and distributing, inter alia, long-neck glass beer bottles.

        3.         Defendant MillerCoors LLC (“Defendant MillerCoors”), is a corporation duly

authorized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado which, at all times relevant

hereto, was engaged in the conduct of business in Colorado. At all times relevant hereto,

Defendant was engaged in the business of manufacturing, inter alia, the alcoholic beverage beer.

        4.         Defendant Frank B. Fuhrer Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Frank B. Fuhrer Wholesale

Company (“Defendant Fuhrer”), is a corporation duly authorized and existing under the laws of

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which, at all times relevant hereto, was engaged in the

conduct of business in Allegheny County. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant was engaged

in the business of wholesale distribution of alcoholic beverages, inter alia, the sale of Coors

Light beer.

        5.         At all times relevant hereto, the Defendants were operating by and through their

duly authorized agents, servants and employees who at all times relevant hereto were engaged in

and upon the performance of their duties, within the course of their employment and scope of

their authority.
          6.    The events hereinafter complained of occurred on or about November 13, 2011, at

approximately 2 A.M. at Plaintiff’s place of employment, the Garage Door Saloon (“the

Saloon”), located at 223 Atwood Street in the city of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County,

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

          7.    Sometime prior to the date set forth above, Defendant Owens manufactured a

certain Product, specifically a 16 ounce long-neck glass beer bottle that was sold to Defendant

MillerCoors.

          8.    Sometime prior to the date set forth above, Defendant MillerCoors manufactured

a certain Product, specifically the bottled beer Coors Light, and incorporated Defendant Owens’

long-neck glass beer bottles into the packaging of said Product, and sold the finished bottled beer

Product (“the Product”) to Defendant Fuhrer for wholesale distribution thereafter (collectively

“Defendants”).

          9.    Sometime prior to the date set forth above, Defendant Fuhrer sold to and

delivered the Product so purchased by the Saloon in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

          10.   At or about the date and time set forth above, the Plaintiff was present at the

Saloon in his capacity as a bartender, restocking a beverage cooler contained within the drink

service area of the bar.

          11.   As was his custom and practice in unloading a case of bottled beer, the Plaintiff

picked up a case of the Product, set it next to the aforesaid beverage cooler and began to restock

the beverage cooler with the Product, pulling bottles from the case and placing them into the

cooler.

          12.   As such, Plaintiff utilized the Product for the purposes of doing work upon it.
       13.      As the Plaintiff moved one of the long-neck glass beer bottles from the case to

the cooler, the Product spontaneously exploded in his hand, from which propelled a shard of

glass into his left eye, the result of which caused rupture of his bulbus oculi (globe of eye) and

severing of his cornea.

       14.     Plaintiff exercised reasonable care in his use of the Product and could not have

avoided the danger encountered through any further exercise of due care.

       15.     Plaintiff was unaware that the Product could explode in the manner in which it did

and, as such, was unable to anticipate the danger encountered.

       16.     By spontaneously exploding in Plaintiff’s hand the Product malfunctioned.

       17.     Neither Plaintiff nor anyone else that Plaintiff is aware of used or manipulated the

Product in an abnormal fashion.

       18.     No secondary forces or actions caused or contributed to the Product exploding.

       19.     Defendants knew that a certain percentage of the Product spontaneously exploded

or broke.

       20.     Defendants failed to warn Plaintiff about this known characteristic of the Product.

       21.     Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiff had his mother drive him to the UPMC St.

Margaret’s hospital emergency room.

       22.     The Plaintiff was then emergently transported via ambulance from UPMC St.

Margaret’s to UPMC Presbyterian where he underwent emergency surgery of his left eye.

       23.     Presently, the Plaintiff is partially blind in his left eye, has three sutures in his

eyeball and will likely require additional surgical treatment.

       24.     Immediately prior to the time Plaintiff sustained such injuries, Plaintiff was

informed and believed and in reliance thereon alleges that, Defendant Owens’ Product was then
in the condition existing when Defendant Owens sold and delivered it to Defendant Coors and in

the same condition existing when Defendant MillerCoors sold and delivered the Product to

Defendant Fuhrer and delivered the Product to the Garage wherein Plaintiff came in contact with

the Product.

       25.     Plaintiff is informed and believes, and in reliance thereon, alleges that the same

condition of the Product existed when Defendant Owens sold and delivered it to Defendant

MillerCoors that in turn delivered it to Defendant Fuhrer that in turn delivered it to the Saloon

wherein the Plaintiff came in contact with the Product and the condition of the Product remained

unchanged when Plaintiff attempted to stock the Product.

       26.     Plaintiff is informed and believes that no reasonable secondary causes were

responsible for the explosion from which he was injured.

       27.     When Defendant Owens sold or distributed the Product it was expected to and did

reach Plaintiff without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold.

       28.     At the time of the sale or distribution of the Product by Defendant Owens it was

in a defective condition, which defect resulted in a malfunction that was the proximate cause of

the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff, and for which the defendants are strictly liable.

       29.     Defendant Owens warranted that the Product was merchantable and fit and safe

for its intended use.

       30.     Plaintiff relied on the warranties made by Defendant Owens, which warranties

were breached by Defendant Owens by virtue of the injuries suffered by Plaintiff.

       31.     The Defendants are guarantors of the Product’s safety.

       32.     The Defendants, by placing the Product into the stream of commerce, are

responsible to all who come within the boundaries of its use, including the Plaintiff.
       33.     The Defendants had a responsibility to give ultimate users and/or consumers of

the Product adequate warnings and instructions of the possible risks of using the Product that

may be required, or that are created by the inherent limitations in the safety of the use of the

Product.

       34.     The Product must be provided with every element necessary to make it safe for its

intended use, and without any condition that makes it unsafe for its intended use.

       35.     Alternative designs, including but not limited to, plastic and aluminum containers,

of the Product are available that would eliminate the danger encountered by Plaintiff without

impairing the Product’s usefulness or making it too expensive.

       36.     The aforesaid alternative designs are feasible with regard to spreading the loss as

some and/or all of the alternative designs have already been manufactured, distributed and sold

into the market place.

       37.     As a general principle, all parties agree that a person or entity may not, by their

actions or conduct, needlessly endanger the public.

       38.     As a general principle, all parties agree that a person or entity that needlessly

endangers the public is responsible for the harms and losses created by their conduct.



                                             COUNT I
                                          Strict Liability
                        Plaintiff v. Graham Packaging Holdings Company
                           d/b/a Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc.
       39.     Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if

fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows:

       40.     Defendants designed, manufactured, assembled, inspected, tested, distributed and

sold the Product so as to render the Product defective and unsafe for its intended use.
          41.   Defendant’s design, manufacturing, assembling, inspection, distribution and sale

of the Product caused the defective and unsafe condition that resulted in a malfunction as alleged

herein.

          42.   When the Plaintiff sustained injuries as alleged herein, the Defendant Owens’

Product was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to a user or consumer in that it was

unfit, unsafe, not usable for the purpose for which it was intended, dangerous and defective in

nature, design, materials, and defective in manufacture.

          43.   Such condition was not observable by Plaintiff who, lacking the technical

knowledge and skill, required to examine or determine said defects described above, relied on

the duty of Defendants, and each of them, to deliver the aforesaid Product at the time of sale by

each in a condition fit for use, and for the purpose intended.

          44.   The breach of such duty by Defendants, and each of them, and such defective

condition and resultant malfunction of the aforesaid Products, was a proximate cause of injuries

so sustained by the Plaintiff.

          45.   The aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries and damages were caused

by and were the direct and proximate result of the defective condition and/or negligent or

otherwise tortious conduct of the Defendants, subjecting them to strict liability in tort in the

following particulars:

                a. In designing manufacturing, selling and/or distributing the Product when it
                   was in a defective condition; and/or

                b. In failing to inspect and/or improperly inspect the Product to discover the
                   defective condition; and/or

                c. In manufacturing, distributing, selling and/or supplying the Product without
                   reasonable, adequate, sufficient and proper testing and inspection thereof;
                   and/or
               d. In failing to warn or advise persons using the Product of the defective
                  condition of which the Defendants were aware or in the exercise of reasonable
                  care should have been aware; and/or

               e. In failing to properly test, inspect and examine the Product when the
                  Defendants knew that danger to life and limb could result if the Product was
                  defective when used for its intended purpose; and/or

               f. In manufacturing, selling, distributing and/or supplying the Product which
                  were not in conformity with the applicable standards of the industry and/or
                  with applicable safety standards for intended use; and/or

               g. In failing to provide the Plaintiff and other users of the Product with a safe
                  Product or safe alternative thereto; and/or

               h. In designing, manufacturing and/or selling or distributing the Product in a
                  condition that resulted in a malfunction; and/or

               i. In designing, manufacturing and/or selling or distributing the Product which
                  were defective and unfit for intended use and for any foreseeable use; and/or

               j. In designing, manufacturing and/or selling or distributing the Product with a
                  defective condition which was not obvious to users thereof and to the Plaintiff
                  in particular; and/or

               k. In failing to affix or provide the Product with caution stickers, markers or
                  labels warning the user of the hazards involved in the use of the Products;
                  and/or

               l. In manufacturing and/or distributing the Product which were defective in
                  design so that they were not safe for intended use; and/or

               m. In manufacturing and/or distributing the Product with a defective condition in
                  such a fashion that it would spontaneously burst during normal handling of the
                  Product.

       46.     By reason of the aforesaid conduct of the Defendants, the Plaintiff sustained the

following injuries, all of which are or may be of a permanent nature: rupture of the left bulbus

oculi, or globe of the eye, laceration to the left cornea of the eye, of which required emergency

surgery, and may require surgical treatment in the future.
        47.    As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has expended and/or may be compelled to

expend large sums of money for medical and surgical attention, hospitalization, medical

supplies, surgical appliances, medicines and attendant services.

        48.    As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has suffered and/or may suffer a loss of

earning and an impairment of his earning capacity and power.

        49.    As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has suffered and/or may continue to suffer

great pain, inconvenience, embarrassment and mental anguish.

        50.    As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has been and/or may be deprived of the

ordinary pleasures of life.

        WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants to recover damages in

excess of the jurisdictional limits of a Board of Arbitrators of this Honorable Court.

                                             COUNT II
                                             Negligence
                            Plaintiff v. Graham Packaging Holdings Company
                           d/b/a Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc.
        51.    Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if

fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows:

        52.    The aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries and damages were caused

by and were the direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, in any or all of

the following respects:

               a. In failing to properly and adequately provide protective devices and safety
                  features on the Product to prevent such injuries; and/or

               b. In failing to properly design the Product in order to avoid such injuries; and/or

               c. In failing to properly and adequately manufacture the Product in order to
                  provide a safe Product; and/or

               d. In failing to adequately assemble and fabricate the Product in order to provide
                  a safe Product; and/or
               e. In failing to provide adequate warnings and cautions and/or directions
                  concerning the dangers and potential dangers in handling the Product; and/or

               f. In failing to properly and adequately design, fabricate, manufacture, sell,
                  label, transport, or supply the Product in a safe condition; and/or

               g. In failing to adequately and properly test and/or inspect the Product in order to
                  provide a safe Product; and/or

               h. In failing to provide and/or establish and/or follow proper and/or adequate
                  quality control methods in the manufacture of the Product so as to provide a
                  safe Product; and/or

               i. In failing to keep abreast of the state of the art in science, engineering, and
                  specific machine industry in connection with the design of the Product; and/or

               j. In failing to disclose to purchasers or users that the Product was defectively
                  and/or unreasonably designed, thereby making it dangerous to use; and/or

               k. In failing to properly and/or adequately make the Product so that users would
                  be aware of the latent danger therein; and/or

               l. In failing to properly design and/or manufacture the Product to insure that the
                  Product would not explode upon handling; and/or

               m. In failing to properly and/or adequately test or inspect the Product in order to
                  insure its proper construction; and/or

               n. In failing to provide the Plaintiff and other users of the Product with a safe
                  Product or safe alternative thereto.

       53.     By reason of the aforesaid conduct of the Defendants, the Plaintiff sustained the

following injuries, all of which are or may be of a permanent nature: rupture of the left bulbus

oculi, or globe of the eye, laceration to the left cornea of the eye, of which required emergency

surgery, and may require surgical treatment in the future.

       54.     As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has expended and/or may be compelled to

expend large sums of money for medical and surgical attention, hospitalization, medical

supplies, surgical appliances, medicines and attendant services.
       55.     As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has suffered and/or may suffer a loss of

earnings and an impairment of his earning capacity and power.

       56.     As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has suffered and/or may continue to suffer

great pain, inconvenience, embarrassment and mental anguish.

       57.     As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has been and/or may be deprived of the

ordinary pleasures of life.

       WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants to recover damages

in excess of the jurisdictional limits of a Board of Arbitrators of this Honorable Court.

                                            COUNT III
                                       Breach of Warranty
                        Plaintiff v. Graham Packaging Holdings Company
                           d/b/a Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc.
       58.     Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if

fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows:

       59.     The Product manufactured by Defendant Owens, sold to Defendant MillerCoors

for incorporation into its final Products, and of which was sold to Defendant Fuhrer for

distribution to the ultimate consumer, was not of merchantable quality. Rather, the Product was

unfit, unsafe, and not usable for the purpose for which they were intended. Such condition

constituted breach of the Defendants express and/or implied warranty of merchantability and/or

fitness that the Product was fit for the purpose for which they were designed, and that they were

a safe and suitable instrument to be used as a beer container.

       60.     In using the Product, Plaintiff relied on Defendants skill and judgment and the

implied warranty of fitness for the purpose for which the Product was purchased.
       61.     The Product was not fit for the intended purpose and, as a result of the

Defendants’ breach of warranty of fitness of the long-neck glass beer bottles, Plaintiff relied on

that warranty to his detriment and sustained injuries as herein stated.

       62.     The abovementioned incident and the resulting injuries and damages were caused

by and were the direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ breach of express and/or implied

warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, in any or all of the following

respects:

               a.   In that Defendants did not have the Product adequately, properly, and/or
                    timely tested prior to its use; and/or

               b.   In that the Product was not of fair, average quality in the trade in which the
                    Defendants dealt; and/or

               c.   In that the Product was not fit for the ordinary purpose for which the Product
                    is customarily used; and/or

               d.   In that the Defendants knew or should have known that the Product was
                    dangerous and likely to cause damage to users; and/or

               e.   In that the Product was not of merchantable quality and was not in
                    conformity, insofar as safety is concerned, with Products used in a normal
                    course of business; and/or

               f.   In that the Defendants knew or should have known that in order to make the
                    Product safe for use, it should have been provided with appropriate safety
                    devices and/or safety features; and/or

               g.   In that the Defendants knew, or should have known, that due to the
                    inherently dangerous nature of the design of the Product, it should have been
                    provided warning on the Product to protect users; and/or

               h.   In that the Product was not properly and adequately tested and/or inspected
                    by the Defendants in order to provide a safe Product; and/or

               i.   In that the Defendants did not provide, establish, or follow proper and
                    adequate quality control methods in the manufacture of the Product so as to
                    provide a safe Product; and/or
               j.   In that the Defendants did not keep abreast of the state of the art in the
                    science and engineering of the industry involving labeling and/or
                    construction of the Product; and/or

               k.   In that the Defendants did not disclose to the users of the Product, such as the
                    Plaintiff, that the Product was defectively and/or unreasonably designed,
                    thereby making the Product dangerous to use; and/or

               l.   In that the Defendants knew, or should have known, that Plaintiff was relying
                    upon the expertise of the Defendants in designing, fabricating,
                    manufacturing, labeling, and/or supplying the Product; and/or

               m. In expressly or impliedly warranting that the Product was properly and/or
                  adequately tested and inspected when the same was not true; and/or

               n.   In expressing to impliedly warranting that the Product was safe for use;
                    and/or

               o.   In expressly or impliedly misrepresenting that the Product was safe for use;
                    and/or

               p.   In expressly or impliedly warranting that the Product was safe for use in
                    compliance with the safety standards of the industry.

       63.     By reason of the aforesaid conduct of the Defendants, the Plaintiff sustained the

following injuries, all of which are or may be of a permanent nature: rupture of the left bulbus

oculi, or globe of the eye, laceration to the left cornea of the eye, of which required emergency

surgery, and may require surgical treatment in the future.

       64.     As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has expended and/or may be compelled to

expend large sums of money for medical and surgical attention, hospitalization, medical

supplies, surgical appliances, medicines and attendant services.

       65.     As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has suffered and/or may suffer a loss of

earnings and an impairment of his earning capacity and power.

       66.     As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has suffered and/or may continue to suffer

great pain, inconvenience, embarrassment and mental anguish.
          67.    As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has been and/or may be deprived of the

ordinary pleasures of life.

          WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants to recover damages

in excess of the jurisdictional limits of a Board of Arbitrators of this Honorable Court.

                                              COUNT IV
                                           Strict Liability
                                     Plaintiff v. MillerCoors LLC

          68.    Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if

fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows:

          69.    Defendants designed, manufactured, assembled, inspected, tested, distributed and

sold the Product so as to render the Product defective and unsafe for its intended use.

          70.    Defendant’s design, manufacturing, assembling, inspection, distribution and sale

of the Product caused the defective and unsafe condition that resulted in a malfunction as alleged

herein.

          71.    When the Plaintiff sustained injuries as alleged herein, the Defendant

MillerCoors’ Product was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to a user or consumer

in that it was unfit, unsafe, not usable for the purpose for which it was intended, dangerous and

defective in nature, design, materials, and defective in manufacture.

          72.    Such condition was not observable by Plaintiff who, lacking the technical

knowledge and skill, required to examine or determine said defects described above, relied on

the duty of Defendants, and each of them, to deliver the aforesaid Product at the time of sale by

each in a condition fit for use, and for the purpose intended.
        73.    The breach of such duty by Defendants, and each of them, and such defective

condition of the aforesaid Products, was a proximate cause of injuries so sustained by the

Plaintiff.

        74.    The aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries and damages were caused

by and were the direct and proximate result of the defective condition and/or negligent or

otherwise tortious conduct of the Defendants, subjecting them to strict liability in tort in the

following particulars:

               a. In designing manufacturing, selling and/or distributing the Product when it
                  was in a defective condition; and/or

               b. In failing to inspect and/or improperly inspect the Product to discover the
                  defective condition; and/or

               c. In manufacturing, distributing, selling and/or supplying the Product without
                  reasonable, adequate, sufficient and proper testing and inspection thereof;
                  and/or

               d. In failing to warn or advise persons using the Product of the defective
                  condition of which the Defendants were aware or in the exercise of reasonable
                  care should have been aware; and/or

               e. In failing to properly test, inspect and examine the Product when the
                  Defendants knew that danger to life and limb could result if the long-neck
                  glass beer bottle were defective when used for its intended purpose; and/or

               f. In manufacturing, selling, distributing and/or supplying the Product which
                  were not in conformity with the applicable standards of the industry and/or
                  with applicable safety standards for intended use; and/or

               g. In failing to provide the Plaintiff and other users of the Product with a safe
                  Product or safe alternative thereto; and/or

               h. In designing, manufacturing and/or selling or distributing the Product which
                  were defective and unfit for intended use and for any foreseeable use; and/or

               i. In designing, manufacturing and/or selling or distributing the Product with a
                  defective condition which was not obvious to users thereof and to the Plaintiff
                  in particular; and/or
               j. In failing to affix or provide the Product with caution stickers, markers or
                  labels warning the user of the hazards involved in the use of the Products;
                  and/or

               k. In manufacturing and/or distributing the Product which were defective in
                  design so that they were not safe for intended use; and/or

               l. In manufacturing and/or distributing the Product with a defective condition in
                  such a fashion that it would spontaneously burst during normal handling of the
                  Product.

       75.     By reason of the aforesaid conduct of the Defendants, the Plaintiff sustained the

following injuries, all of which are or may be of a permanent nature: rupture of the left bulbus

oculi, or globe of the eye, laceration to the left cornea of the eye, of which required emergency

surgery, and may require surgical treatment in the future.

        76.    As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has expended and/or may be compelled to

expend large sums of money for medical and surgical attention, hospitalization, medical

supplies, surgical appliances, medicines and attendant services.

        77.    As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has suffered and/or may suffer a loss of

earning and an impairment of his earning capacity and power.

        78.    As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has suffered and/or may continue to suffer

great pain, inconvenience, embarrassment and mental anguish.

        79.    As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has been and/or may be deprived of the

ordinary pleasures of life.

        WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants to recover damages in

excess of the jurisdictional limits of a Board of Arbitrators of this Honorable Court.

                                             COUNT V
                                            Negligence
                                   Plaintiff v. MillerCoors LLC
        80.    Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if

fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows:

       81.     The aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries and damages were caused

by and were the direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, in any or all of

the following respects:

               a. In failing to properly and adequately provide protective devices and safety
                  features on the Product to prevent such injuries; and/or

               b. In failing to properly design the Product in order to avoid such injuries; and/or

               c. In failing to properly and adequately manufacture the Product in order to
                  provide a safe Product; and/or

               d. In failing to adequately assemble and fabricate the Product in order to provide
                  a safe Product; and/or

               e. In failing to provide adequate warnings and cautions and/or directions
                  concerning the dangers and potential dangers in handling the Product; and/or

               f. In failing to properly and adequately design, fabricate, manufacture, sell,
                  label, transport, or supply the Product in a safe condition; and/or

               g. In failing to adequately and properly test and/or inspect the Product in order to
                  provide a safe Product; and/or

               h. In failing to provide and/or establish and/or follow proper and/or adequate
                  quality control methods in the manufacture of the Product so as to provide a
                  safe Product; and/or

               i. In failing to keep abreast of the state of the art in science, engineering, and
                  specific machine industry in connection with the design of the Product; and/or

               j. In failing to disclose to purchasers or users that the Product was defectively
                  and/or unreasonably designed, thereby making it dangerous to use; and/or

               k. In failing to properly and/or adequately make the Product so that users would
                  be aware of the latent danger therein; and/or

               l. In failing to properly design and/or manufacture the Product to insure that the
                  long-neck glass beer bottle would not explode upon handling; and/or
               m. In failing to properly and/or adequately test or inspect the Product in order to
                  insure its proper construction; and/or

               n. In failing to provide the Plaintiff and other users of the Product with a safe
                  Product or safe alternative thereto.

       82.     By reason of the aforesaid conduct of the Defendants, the Plaintiff sustained the

following injuries, all of which are or may be of a permanent nature: rupture of the left bulbus

oculi, or globe of the eye, laceration to the left cornea of the eye, of which required emergency

surgery, and may require surgical treatment in the future.

       83.     As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has expended and/or may be compelled to

expend large sums of money for medical and surgical attention, hospitalization, medical

supplies, surgical appliances, medicines and attendant services.

       84.     As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has suffered and/or may suffer a loss of

earnings and an impairment of his earning capacity and power.

       85.     As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has suffered and/or may continue to suffer

great pain, inconvenience, embarrassment and mental anguish.

       86.     As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has been and/or may be deprived of the

ordinary pleasures of life.

       WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants to recover damages

in excess of the jurisdictional limits of a Board of Arbitrators of this Honorable Court.

                                             COUNT VI
                                       Breach of Warranty
                                    Plaintiff v. MillerCoors LLC

       87.     Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if

fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows:
       88.     The Product manufactured by Defendant Owens, sold to Defendant MillerCoors

for incorporation into its final Products, and of which was sold to Defendant Fuhrer for

distribution to the ultimate consumer, was not of merchantable quality. Rather, the Product was

unfit, unsafe, and not usable for the purpose for which they were intended. Such condition

constituted breach of the Defendants express and/or implied warranty of merchantability and/or

fitness that the Product was fit for the purpose for which they were designed, and that they were

a safe and suitable instrument to be used as a beer container.

       89.     In using the Product, Plaintiff relied on Defendants skill and judgment and the

implied warranty of fitness for the purpose for which the Product was purchased.

       90.     The long-neck glass beer bottles were not fit for the intended purpose and, as a

result of the Defendants’ breach of warranty of fitness of the long-neck glass beer bottles,

Plaintiff relied on that warranty to his detriment and sustained injuries as herein stated.

       91.     The abovementioned incident and the resulting injuries and damages were caused

by and were the direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ breach of express and/or implied

warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, in any or all of the following

respects:

               a.   In that Defendants did not have the Product adequately, properly, and/or
                    timely tested prior to its use; and/or

               b.   In that the Product was not of fair, average quality in the trade in which the
                    Defendants dealt; and/or

               c.   In that the Product was not fit for the ordinary purpose for which the Product
                    is customarily used; and/or

               d.   In that the Defendants knew or should have known that the Product was
                    dangerous and likely to cause damage to users; and/or
              e.   In that the Product was not of merchantable quality and was not in
                   conformity, insofar as safety is concerned, with Products used in a normal
                   course of business; and/or

              f.   In that the Defendants knew or should have known that in order to make the
                   Product safe for use, it should have been provided with appropriate safety
                   devices and/or safety features; and/or

              g.   In that the Defendants knew, or should have known, that due to the
                   inherently dangerous nature of the design of the Product, it should have been
                   provided warning on the Product to protect users; and/or

              h.   In that the Product was not properly and adequately tested and/or inspected
                   by the Defendants in order to provide a safe Product; and/or

              i.   In that the Defendants did not provide, establish, or follow proper and
                   adequate quality control methods in the manufacture of the Product so as to
                   provide a safe Product; and/or

              j.   In that the Defendants did not keep abreast of the state of the art in the
                   science and engineering of the industry involving labeling and/or
                   construction of the Product; and/or

              k.   In that the Defendants did not disclose to the users of the Product, such as the
                   Plaintiff, that the Product was defectively and/or unreasonably designed,
                   thereby making the Product dangerous to use; and/or

              l.   In that the Defendants knew, or should have known, that Plaintiff was relying
                   upon the expertise of the Defendants in designing, fabricating,
                   manufacturing, labeling, and/or supplying the Product; and/or

              m. In expressly or impliedly warranting that the Product was properly and/or
                 adequately tested and inspected when the same was not true; and/or

              n.   In expressing to impliedly warranting that the Product was safe for use;
                   and/or

              o.   In expressly or impliedly misrepresenting that the Product was safe for use;
                   and/or

              p.   In expressly or impliedly warranting that the Product was safe for use in
                   compliance with the safety standards of the industry.

       92.    By reason of the aforesaid conduct of the Defendants, the Plaintiff sustained the

following injuries, all of which are or may be of a permanent nature: rupture of the left bulbus
oculi, or globe of the eye, laceration to the left cornea of the eye, of which required emergency

surgery, and may require surgical treatment in the future.

          93.    As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has expended and/or may be compelled to

expend large sums of money for medical and surgical attention, hospitalization, medical

supplies, surgical appliances, medicines and attendant services.

          94.    As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has suffered and/or may suffer a loss of

earnings and an impairment of his earning capacity and power.

          95.    As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has suffered and/or may continue to suffer

great pain, inconvenience, embarrassment and mental anguish.

          96.    As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has been and/or may be deprived of the

ordinary pleasures of life.

          WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants to recover damages

in excess of the jurisdictional limits of a Board of Arbitrators of this Honorable Court.

                                              COUNT VII
                                             Strict Liability
                              Plaintiff v. Frank B. Fuhrer Holdings, Inc.
                              d/b/a Frank B. Fuhrer Wholesale Company

          97.    Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if

fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows:

          98.    Defendants designed, manufactured, assembled, inspected, tested, distributed and

sold the Product so as to render the Product defective and unsafe for its intended use.

          99.    Defendant’s design, manufacturing, assembling, inspection, distribution and sale

of the Product caused the defective and unsafe condition that resulted in a malfunction as alleged

herein.
        100.   When the Plaintiff sustained injuries as alleged herein, the Defendant Fuhrer’s

Product was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to a user or consumer in that it was

unfit, unsafe, not usable for the purpose for which it was intended, dangerous and defective in

nature, design, materials, and defective in manufacture.

        101.   Such condition was not observable by Plaintiff who, lacking the technical

knowledge and skill, required to examine or determine said defects described above, relied on

the duty of Defendants, and each of them, to deliver the aforesaid Product at the time of sale by

each in a condition fit for use, and for the purpose intended.

        102.   The breach of such duty by Defendants, and each of them, and such defective

condition of the aforesaid Products, was a proximate cause of injuries so sustained by the

Plaintiff.

        103.   The aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries and damages were caused

by and were the direct and proximate result of the defective condition and/or negligent or

otherwise tortious conduct of the Defendants, subjecting them to strict liability in tort in the

following particulars:

               a. In designing manufacturing, selling and/or distributing the Product when it
                  was in a defective condition; and/or

               b. In failing to inspect and/or improperly inspect the Product to discover the
                  defective condition; and/or

               c. In manufacturing, distributing, selling and/or supplying the Product without
                  reasonable, adequate, sufficient and proper testing and inspection thereof;
                  and/or

               d. In failing to warn or advise persons using the Product of the defective
                  condition of which the Defendants were aware or in the exercise of reasonable
                  care should have been aware; and/or
               e. In failing to properly test, inspect and examine the Product when the
                  Defendants knew that danger to life and limb could result if the long-neck
                  glass beer bottle were defective when used for its intended purpose; and/or

               f. In manufacturing, selling, distributing and/or supplying the Product which
                  were not in conformity with the applicable standards of the industry and/or
                  with applicable safety standards for intended use; and/or

               g. In failing to provide the Plaintiff and other users of the Product with a safe
                  Product or safe alternative thereto; and/or

               h. In designing, manufacturing and/or selling or distributing the Product which
                  were defective and unfit for intended use and for any foreseeable use; and/or

               i. In designing, manufacturing and/or selling or distributing the Product with a
                  defective condition which was not obvious to users thereof and to the Plaintiff
                  in particular; and/or

               j. In failing to affix or provide the Product with caution stickers, markers or
                  labels warning the user of the hazards involved in the use of the Products;
                  and/or

               k. In manufacturing and/or distributing the Product which were defective in
                  design so that they were not safe for intended use; and/or

               l. In manufacturing and/or distributing the Product with a defective condition in
                  such a fashion that it would spontaneously burst during normal handling of the
                  Product.

       104.    By reason of the aforesaid conduct of the Defendants, the Plaintiff sustained the

following injuries, all of which are or may be of a permanent nature: rupture of the left bulbus

oculi, or globe of the eye, laceration to the left cornea of the eye, of which required emergency

surgery, and may require surgical treatment in the future.

       105.    As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has expended and/or may be compelled to

expend large sums of money for medical and surgical attention, hospitalization, medical

supplies, surgical appliances, medicines and attendant services.

       106.    As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has suffered and/or may suffer a loss of

earning and an impairment of his earning capacity and power.
       107.    As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has suffered and/or may continue to suffer

great pain, inconvenience, embarrassment and mental anguish.

       108.    As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has been and/or may be deprived of the

ordinary pleasures of life.

        WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants to recover damages in

excess of the jurisdictional limits of a Board of Arbitrators of this Honorable Court.

                                             COUNT VIII
                                              Negligence
                              Plaintiff v. Frank B. Fuhrer Holdings, Inc.
                              d/b/a Frank B. Fuhrer Wholesale Company

       109.    Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if

fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows:

       110.    The aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries and damages were caused

by and were the direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, in any or all of

the following respects:

               a. In failing to properly and adequately provide protective devices and safety
                  features on the Product to prevent such injuries; and/or

               b. In failing to properly design the Product in order to avoid such injuries; and/or

               c. In failing to properly and adequately manufacture the Product in order to
                  provide a safe Product; and/or

               d. In failing to adequately assemble and fabricate the Product in order to provide
                  a safe Product; and/or

               e. In failing to provide adequate warnings and cautions and/or directions
                  concerning the dangers and potential dangers in handling the Product; and/or

               f. In failing to properly and adequately design, fabricate, manufacture, sell,
                  label, transport, or supply the Product in a safe condition; and/or

               g. In failing to adequately and properly test and/or inspect the Product in order to
                  provide a safe Product; and/or
               h. In failing to provide and/or establish and/or follow proper and/or adequate
                  quality control methods in the manufacture of the Product so as to provide a
                  safe Product; and/or

               i. In failing to keep abreast of the state of the art in science, engineering, and
                  specific machine industry in connection with the design of the Product; and/or

               j. In failing to disclose to purchasers or users that the Product was defectively
                  and/or unreasonably designed, thereby making it dangerous to use; and/or

               k. In failing to properly and/or adequately make the Product so that users would
                  be aware of the latent danger therein; and/or

               l. In failing to properly design and/or manufacture the Product to insure that the
                  long-neck glass beer bottle would not explode upon handling; and/or

               m. In failing to properly and/or adequately test or inspect the Product in order to
                  insure its proper construction; and/or

               n. In failing to provide the Plaintiff and other users of the Product with a safe
                  Product or safe alternative thereto.

       111.    By reason of the aforesaid conduct of the Defendants, the Plaintiff sustained the

following injuries, all of which are or may be of a permanent nature: rupture of the left bulbus

oculi, or globe of the eye, laceration to the left cornea of the eye, of which required emergency

surgery, and may require surgical treatment in the future.

       112.    As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has expended and/or may be compelled to

expend large sums of money for medical and surgical attention, hospitalization, medical

supplies, surgical appliances, medicines and attendant services.

       113.    As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has suffered and/or may suffer a loss of

earnings and an impairment of his earning capacity and power.

       114.    As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has suffered and/or may continue to suffer

great pain, inconvenience, embarrassment and mental anguish.
       115.    As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has been and/or may be deprived of the

ordinary pleasures of life.

       WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants to recover damages

in excess of the jurisdictional limits of a Board of Arbitrators of this Honorable Court.

                                              COUNT IX
                                          Breach of Warranty
                              Plaintiff v. Frank B. Fuhrer Holdings, Inc.
                              d/b/a Frank B. Fuhrer Wholesale Company

       116.    Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if

fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows:

       117.    The Product manufactured by Defendant Owens, sold to Defendant MillerCoors

for incorporation into its final Products, and of which was sold to Defendant Fuhrer for

distribution to the ultimate consumer, was not of merchantable quality. Rather, the Product was

unfit, unsafe, and not usable for the purpose for which they were intended. Such condition

constituted breach of the Defendants express and/or implied warranty of merchantability and/or

fitness that the Product was fit for the purpose for which they were designed, and that they were

a safe and suitable instrument to be used as a beer container.

       118.    In using the Product, Plaintiff relied on Defendants skill and judgment and the

implied warranty of fitness for the purpose for which the Product was purchased.

       119.    The long-neck glass beer bottles were not fit for the intended purpose and, as a

result of the Defendants’ breach of warranty of fitness of the long-neck glass beer bottles,

Plaintiff relied on that warranty to his detriment and sustained injuries as herein stated.

       120.    The abovementioned incident and the resulting injuries and damages were caused

by and were the direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ breach of express and/or implied
warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, in any or all of the following

respects:

               a. In that Defendants did not have the Product adequately, properly, and/or
                  timely tested prior to its use; and/or

               b. In that the Product was not of fair, average quality in the trade in which the
                  Defendants dealt; and/or

               c. In that the Product was not fit for the ordinary purpose for which the Product
                  is customarily used; and/or

               d. In that the Defendants knew or should have known that the Product was
                  dangerous and likely to cause damage to users; and/or

               e. In that the Product was not of merchantable quality and was not in conformity,
                  insofar as safety is concerned, with Products used in a normal course of
                  business; and/or

               f. In that the Defendants knew or should have known that in order to make the
                  Product safe for use, it should have been provided with appropriate safety
                  devices and/or safety features; and/or

               g. In that the Defendants knew, or should have known, that due to the inherently
                  dangerous nature of the design of the Product, it should have been provided
                  warning on the Product to protect users; and/or

               h. In that the Product was not properly and adequately tested and/or inspected by
                  the Defendants in order to provide a safe Product; and/or

               i. In that the Defendants did not provide, establish, or follow proper and
                  adequate quality control methods in the manufacture of the Product so as to
                  provide a safe Product; and/or

               j. In that the Defendants did not keep abreast of the state of the art in the science
                  and engineering of the industry involving labeling and/or construction of the
                  Product; and/or

               k. In that the Defendants did not disclose to the users of the Product, such as the
                  Plaintiff, that the Product was defectively and/or unreasonably designed,
                  thereby making the Product dangerous to use; and/or

               l. In that the Defendants knew, or should have known, that Plaintiff was relying
                  upon the expertise of the Defendants in designing, fabricating, manufacturing,
                  labeling, and/or supplying the Product; and/or
               m. In expressly or impliedly warranting that the Product was properly and/or
                  adequately tested and inspected when the same was not true; and/or

               n. In expressing to impliedly warranting that the Product was safe for use; and/or

               o. In expressly or impliedly misrepresenting that the Product was safe for use;
                  and/or

               p. In expressly or impliedly warranting that the Product was safe for use in
                  compliance with the safety standards of the industry.

       121.    By reason of the aforesaid conduct of the Defendants, the Plaintiff sustained the

following injuries, all of which are or may be of a permanent nature: rupture of the left bulbus

oculi, or globe of the eye, laceration to the left cornea of the eye, of which required emergency

surgery, and may require surgical treatment in the future.

       122.    As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has expended and/or may be compelled to

expend large sums of money for medical and surgical attention, hospitalization, medical

supplies, surgical appliances, medicines and attendant services.

       123.    As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has suffered and/or may suffer a loss of

earnings and an impairment of his earning capacity and power.

       124.    As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has suffered and/or may continue to suffer

great pain, inconvenience, embarrassment and mental anguish.

       125.    As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has been and/or may be deprived of the

ordinary pleasures of life.

       WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants to recover damages

in excess of the jurisdictional limits of a Board of Arbitrators of this Honorable Court.
Respectfully submitted,

PORTNOY & QUINN, LLC



BY:__________________________
      Brendan B. Lupetin, Esquire
      Attorney for the Plaintiff

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:26
posted:2/6/2013
language:
pages:28