HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-01095
"
"
~
'"
~
\J I
::t !
,
I
!
,
,
\I) ,
.\.
.
"
~~
\
I
)
./
;/
,
.He:RI......S Re:TURN - SUMMONS/COMPI.AINT
t:-t0
c~
CO......ON PL.EAS NO. 97-/0 7 J-
COUNTY COURT
VERSUS
TERM, 19
QJ g!n' i ~C~ GI f
(I () C I Crrvf
NO. riff 7 ].-5
\,~ f~J ,'/'!A-
SERVED AND MADE KNOWN TO ,J "w""'l t:--.br l$..Delendant Company
by handing a true and attested copy 01 the within Summons/Complaint, issued in the above captioned matter
on flr../ / 1)- ~J 19 tf7 ,at ;JiJo o'cloCk,I2--M., E.S.T./D.S.T.
at !It. J J m4. I't<. + S T , in the County 01 Philadelphia,
'j),', /
State of Pennsylvania, to Cl, 1: ~ ' -!f( /Ii ( J
C (1) the aloresoid delendant, personally;
o (2) an adult member 01 the family 01 said defendant, with whom said delendant resides, who stated that
o Delendant
his/her relationship to said delendant is that 01
o (3) an adult person in charge of defendant's residence; the said adult person having relused, upon re-
quest, to give his/her name and relationship to said delendant;
o (4) the manager/clerk of the place 01 lodging in which said delendant resides;
~5) agent or person lor the time being in charge of delendant's o/lice or usual place 01 business.
o (6) the and ollicer 01 said delendant Company;
So Answers,
SWORN TO AND SUBSa.lBfO
, b.foro mo this ~.:; 8 1997 d..y
JOHN D. GREe:N, She,;f!
,\,J. 9
~-R.
_.____... .n~___.__
U.;.I ~
Notarial Seal
JedeU. Ba,tar. Jr., Notary Public
Philadcl~hla, Phlladalphla County ft
My Commission E'p1r.. JUM 4, 'O~
Merrt>or, Penns)+lana AModabOO of Nnw'"
'1 !
BY'~YJ~ ff-rt!Z-
/),'puty Sh III
1 ].~g fRe\'. 12 A)7)
3. The action Is currenUy pending In the Court of Common Plea. of
Cumberland County Pennsylvania under general number 9'7.1095 CIvil Action.
4. The complaint Wit served upon these Defendanb by service upon their
registered agenb for service of process, In Philadelphia, on April 15, 1997, accompanied
by a summons and notice to plead, copIes of which are also attached II Exhiblb Band
c
5. This notice of removal was filed less than thirty (30) days after service of
the summons and Initial pleading upon the Defendanb.
6, Notice of Removal has been filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania and has been served upon the attorneys for the
Plaintiff, as Is reflected by the affidavit of service attached hereto, marked II Exhibit D.
7. Removal Is proper under the above cited seetion of the United States
Code.
Respectfully submitted,
TimJ.Harrin
Atty. no. 71242
Attorneys for Defenda
Date: 4 - 2'1-17
-2-
IN THE UNITED STATFS DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LEON RUDY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) NO.
w. )
)
HECHlNGER STORE COMPANY and )
BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION )
)
Defendant ) J.
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
NOW COMFS, the defendants, BLACK & DECKER (U.s.) INC., (Incorrectly
named herein as "Black & Decker Corporation") and HECHlNGER COMPANY
(Incorrectly sued herein as "Hechinger Store Company") by and through their attorney,
and file this notice of the removal of the above entitled action from the Court of
Common Pleas, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, to the United States DisbictCourt
for the Middle Disbict of Pennsylvania, pursuant to Title 28 U.s.C. SSl441 and 1446. In
compliance with the requirements of 28 u.s.C. Sl446(a), Defendants state as foUows:
1. This is a diversity action with the Plaintiff, Leon Rudy, being a dtizen of
Pennsylvania, the Defendant Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. being it citizen of the State of
Maryland, and Defendant Hechinger Store Company being a citizen of the State of
Delaware. Defendants attach hereto and make a part hereof Plaintiffs complaint In this
matter, marked as Exhibit A. in support of the foregoing.
2. Defendants reasonably believe the amount In controversy, exclusive of
costs, fees and Interest. Is In excess of $50,000.
-.
IN THE UNITED ST A TE5 DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LEON RUDY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) NO.
v.. )
)
HECHlNGER STORE COMPANY and )
BLACK Ie DECKER CORPORA nON )
)
Defendants. )
CERnFlCA TE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 29th day of April. 1997, I. Tim J. Harrington. Jr., Esquire,
affirm that I served the attached Notice of Removal by depositing same in the United
Stales Man, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Ron Turo, Esq.
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Plaintiff
Prothonotary
Cumberland County
Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
'V. '. h-
Tim J. H;rrin Jr.
7. At all relev8Ilt times Defendant Black 8Ild Decker was authorized to conduct business 8Ild
did conduct business by distributing, selling 8Ild otherwise placing its products in the stream of commerce
in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania including Cumberland CoWlty, Pennsylvania. At all relevant times
Defendant Black 8Ild Decker was in the business of designing, manufacturing, marketing 8Ild/or
distributing tools including miter saws WIder the trademark "Black 8Ild Decker". At all relevant times
Defendant Black 8Ild Decker acted through its authorized agents, serv8llts 8Ild/or employees, who were
acting in the course 8Ild scope of their employment with the Defendant Black 8Ild Decker 8Ild in
further8llce of the Defendant Black 8Ild Decker's business 8Ild interest WIder the control 8Ild right of
control of Defendant Black 8Ild Decker.
8. At all times material hereto, Defendants Hechinger 8Ild Black 8Ild Decker acted jointly
8Ild/or severally.
9. At sometime prior to JWle 10,1996, the Plaintiff purchased a Black 8Ild Decker miter saw
at the Hechinger Store in Cumberland CoWlty, Pennsylvania.
10. On or about JWle 10, 1996, Plaintiff was operating the miter saw previously purchased at
the Hechinger Store in his home which was designed, lJIDJIufactured 8Ild/or sold by the Defendants, when
his hand made contact with the blade of the saw due to a defective design of the product 8Ild/or a
manufacturer defect of the product 8Ild/or the products maICWlction, resulting in the il\iuries 8Ild damages
alleged throughout this complaint.
11. At all relevant times, Plaintiff exercised reasonable care 8Ild caution for his own safety 8Ild
was in no manner negligent.
12. As a direct and proximate result of the incident described above, the Plaintiff sustained
il\iuries as more fully set forth below.
COUNT I . STRICT LIABILITY
13. Paragraphs 1 through 12 above are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in their
full text.
and/or a manufacturer defect of the product and/or the products malfunction or the malfunction of the
14. PlaintiJTs uuuries were the direct and proximate result of a defective design of the product
miter saw, resulting in the uuuries and damages alleged throughout this complaint. As a direct and
proximate result of the incident described above, PlaintiJT sustained uuuries including but not Umited to
the foDowing, all or some of which may be permanent in I18ture:
a. Lacerations and UUury to the left hand including amputation of partial fmger of
the left hand;
b. Severe pain and suffering;
c. Permanent scaring and diBftgW'ement; and
d. Severe shock to the nervous system.
15. All ofPlaintiJrs resultant losses, UUuries and damages were the direct and proximate result
of the defective condition of the miter saw at issue and/or the product's malfunction, t'.9 more fully set forth
throughout this complaint.
16. Said product was designed, manufactured and/or sold by the Defendanta.
foDowing reasons:
17. Defendants are strictly liable to PlaintiJT under the restatement ofTorta ~ 402 (Al for the
a. In designing, manufacturing and/or selling a defective product;
b. In failing to properly design, manufacture and/or seD the product at issue with an
adequate necessary and proper safety blade guards so as to prevent UUury to
ultimate users and consumers such as PlaintilT;
c. In failing to properly design, manufacture and/or seD the product at issue with an
adequate, necessary and proper braking system so as to avoid UUury to the
ultimate users and consumers such as PlaintiJT;
d. In failing to properly test and/or inspect the product for defective conditions
including but not Umited to the lack of adequate, necessary Md proper safety
blade guards and with adequate, necessary and proper braking system;
e. In failing to warn users of the dangerous condition of the producta in that the
product was not designed, manufactured and/or sold with adequate, necessary and
proper blade guards and with adequate, necessary and proper braking system:
f. In failing to provide adequate, necessary and proper warnings and/or instructions
regarding use of the product and the defective conditions of the product;
g. And/or in manufacturing the product at issue containing manufacturing defects:
LEON RUDY,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURl' OF c:x:t+Qo.l PLEAS OF
CUMBERlAND a:>uNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
HEX:HI~ER S'roRE CX'MPANY AND
BLAe< & DEX:KER CORPORATION,
Defendant
No. 97-1095 Civil~Term
'.
FILED CIVIL AcrION - LAW
HARRISBURG, PA
MAY 121997
MARY E. 0' WREA, CLERK
Por ,> ""
o yClerl1
UNITED STATES DISTRIcr COURl'
FOR TIlE MIDDLE DISTRIcr OF PENNSYLVANIA
Please acknowledge receipt of this case by signing and dating this docunent.
REXXlRD RECEIVED:
Date: f'14L., /:2,//17
j
jJ({ll~ C -'J ,}01c11li'-1
, (si ature & title)
Vj2.t '2'l
" I
Cl:.t-~
,.{
;r
>: ('\J '-
O~, roO
~ f~.J "') ,.~
11117.,'1 );.,,:;
0" 1((
U:~ (-'- . ~ :::J
~_.. '~
?;'-:'. c') ,'f.'
CIC" 'j' -.
Ul'-~ ,
-'., >- <:(Q
[C" .:t ~' '.i 0...
r :c
'l- I- ~
0 0' 0