Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-3579COZEN O'CONNOR By: PATRICK C. TIMONEY, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 67020 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 665-7276 RON TURO, ESQUIRE Attorney ID. No. 28 S. Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688 CLARK NEAL and BARBARA NEAL 111 N. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Plaintiff, GROUPE SCHNEIDER, individually and t/a, d/b/a SQUARE D 1415 Roselle Road Palatine, IL 60067 and SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC t/a, d/b/a SQARE D 1415 Roselle Road Palatine, IL 60067 and SQUARE D COMPANY 1415 Roselle Road Palatine, IL 60067 Defendants. Attomeys for Plaintiff COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION NO.: o JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Clark Neal is a citizen of the state of Pennsylvania residing at the above captioned address. 2. Defendant Groupe Schneider, t/a, d/b/a Square D is a French Corporation with its North American headquarters located at 1415 Roselle Road, Palatine, Illinois 60067. 3. Defendant Groupe Schnieder's registered agent for service in Pennsylvania is CT Corporation, 1515 Market Street, 12th Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Defendant Schneider Electric, t/a, d/b/a Square D is a French Corporation with its North American headquarters located at 1415 Roselle Road, Palatine, Illinois 60067. 5. Defendant Schneider Electric's registered agent for accepting service in Pennsylvania is CT Corporation, 1515 Market Street, 12th Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 6. Defendant Square D Company is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business located at 1415 Roselle Road, Palatine, Illinois 60067. 7. Defendant Square D Company's registered agent for accepting service in Pennsylvania is CT Corporation, 1515 Market Street, 12th Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 8. At all times relevant hereto, Groupe Schneider, Schneider Electric and Square D Company conducted business under the name "Square D." 9. Upon information and belief, Schneider Electric and/or in the alternative, Groupe Schneider is the successor in interest to Square D Company and is liable for the obligations, liabilities and debts of Square D Company. 10. At all times relevant hereto, Clark Neal was acting in the course and scope of his employment for Valk Manufacturing Company, 66 E. Main Street, New Kingston, Pennsylvania 17020. 11. On August 22, 2001, Clark Neal was operating an overhead crane at the Valk Manufacturing plant via a pendant electrical control box manufactured by the Defendant. -2- 12. Clark Neal was operating the overhead crane towards the north end of the building by depressing a crane control button on the pendant electrical control box. 13. As the crane moved towards Clark Neal, the control button became stuck in the "on" position. 14. At the time when the crane control button became stuck in the "on" position, Clark Neal was unable to reach the emergency stop button on the pendant control or to move to a position outside of the path of the steel materials being moved by the crane. 15. The moving crane knocked Clark Neal backwards and caused serious 16. The switch which failed is identified as a Square D class 9001, Type KA-2 series H push button (hereinafter "the switch"). COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE CLARK NEAL V. DEFENDANTS 17. Plaintiffincorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 16 as though more fully set forth in length herein. 18. The switch was designed, manufactured and sold by Defendant, Groupe Schneider and/or Schneider Engineering and/or the Square D Company. 19. The aforesaid accident was caused by the negligent, careless and reckless acts of defendant Group Schneider and/or Schneider Electric and/or the Square D Company including, but not limited to, the following: (a) designing, manufacturing, selling and distributing a switch which it knew or should have known was subject to becoming stuck in the "on" position such that injury could occur to those using the switch; (b) failing to properly test the switch; -3- (c) failing to provide appropriate warnings and instructions concerning the proper use and maintenance of the switch and the dangers associated with the use of the switch; (d) designing and manufacturing the pendant control box without a fail-safe or "deadman" emergency stop; and (e) failing to recall the switch when it knew or should have known that the switch was defective and likely to cause injury. 20. As a direct result of the negligence of defendants, Clark Neal suffered injuries to his back including, but not limited to, a fractured pelvis and hip. 21. As a further result of the negligence of defendants, Clark Neal has incurred medical bills and expenses in the course and treatment of his injuries and will continue to incur such bills and/or expenses in the future. 22. As a further direct result of the negligence of defendants, Clark Neal sustained lost wages and will continue to sustain further lost wages in the future. 23. As a further result of the negligence of defendants, Clark Neal sustained other costs and expenses and will continue to incur such costs and expenses in the future. 24. As a further result of negligence of defendants, Clark Neal has experienced great pain and suffering, humiliation, anxiety, fear, disability, embarrassment and loss of life's pleasures and will continue to suffer the same in the future. WHEREFORE, Clark Neal demands judgment against Groupe Schneider, Schneider Electric, and Square D Company for an amount in excess of $50,000.00 together with interest, cost of suit, attorney's fees and such other damages as this Court may deem appropriate. COUNT II ~ STRICT LIABILITY CLARK NEAL V. DEFENDANTS 25. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 as though more fully set forth in length herein. -4- 26. The aforesaid control pendant and switch were manufactured by defendant, Groupe Schneider and/or defendant Schneider Engineering and/or defendant Square D Company. 27. The aforesaid accident was caused solely by the dangerous and defective condition of defendants' control pendant and switch including, but not limited to the following: (a) the switch was subject to the becoming stuck in the "on" position during its normal use and operation such as it was likely to cause injury to a machine operator; (b) the control box did not include a "deadman" feature, which would cause a machine to stop functioning when the controller's hands were no longer on the box; (c) the switch was likely to wear in a manner that would cause it to fail in the "on" position; and (d) the control pendant and switch did not include adequate warnings and instructions concerning the use and maintenance of the pendant control box and the switch. 28. As a result of the defective condition of defendants' product, Clark Neal sustained injuries as set forth more fully above. WHEREFORE, Clark Neal demands judgment against Groupe Schneider, Schneider Electric, and Square D Company for an amount in excess of $50,000.00 together with interest, cost of suit, attorney's fees and such other damages as this Cot~ may deem appropriate. COUNT III: LOSS OF CONSORTIUM BARBARA A. NEAL V. DEFENDANTS 29. Plaintiffs hereby incorporates herein the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 28 as though more fully set forth at length herein. 30. As a direct result of the negligence of defendants, Barbara A. Neal has been deprived of the companionship and consortium of her husband. -5- WHEREFORE, Barbara A. Neal hereby demands judgment in her favor and against defendants in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000) Dollars, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys' fees and such other damages as this Court may deem appropriate. COZEN O'CONNOR .ff~TRICK C. TIMONEY, ESQUIRE 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 665-7276 Dated: July ,2003 TURO ~W OFFICES ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, CLARK NEAL VERIFICATION I, Clark Neal, verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: July ~ ~2003 CLARK NEAL ~ VERIFICATION I, Barbara Neal, verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Dated: July ~'. ~:~ ,2003 BARBARA NEAL SHERIFF'S RETURN - U.S. CASE NO: 2003-03579 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND NEAL CLARK ET AL VS. GROUPE SCHNEIDER ET AL CERTIFIED MAIL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law served the within named DEFEND~kNT ,GROUPE SCHNEIDER , by United States Certified Mail postage prepaid, on the 29th day of July ,2003 at 1530:00 HOURS, at 1415 ROSELLE ROAD PALATINE, IL 60067 , a true and attested copy of the attached COMPLAINT & NOTICE Together with , The returned receipt card was signed by SUE MITCHELL 07/31/2003 Additional Comments: on Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Certified Mail 4.65 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 32.65 Paid by TURO LAW OFFICES Sworn and subscribed to before me this 2~7~day of~,~,~- ~J A.D. Sheriff of Cumberland County on 08/19/2003 SHERIFF'S RETURN CASE NO: 2003-03579 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAIqD NEAL CLARK ET AL VS. GROUPE SCHNEIDER ET AL CERTIFIED MAIL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law served the within named DEFENDANT ,SCHNEIDER GROUPE T/A D/B/A , SQUARE D by United States Certified Mail postage prepaid, on the 29th day of July 1415 ROSELLE ROAD PALATINE, IL 60067 and attested copy of the attached COMPLAINT with receipt card was signed by SUE MITCHELL 07/31/2003 Additional Comments: ,2003 at 1530:00 HOURS, at & NOTICE , a true Together The returned on Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Certified Mail 4.65 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 20.65 Paid by TURO LAW OFFICES Sworn and subscrikked to before me this ~?~.day of ~;3 A.D. ! So an~Lwers~Y . /// Sheriff of Cumberland County on 08/19/2003 SHERIFF'S RETURN CASE NO: 2003-03579 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND NEAL CLARK ET AL VS. GROUPE SCHNEIDER ET AL CERTIFIED MAIL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law served the within named DEFENDANT ,SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC T/A D/B/A , SQUARE D by United States Certified Mail postage prepaid, on the 29th day of July ,2003 at 1530:00 HOURS, at 1415 ROSELLE ROAD PALATINE, IL 60067 and attested copy of the attached COMPLAINT & NOTICE with receipt card was signed by SUE MITCHELL 07/31/2003 Additional Comments: a true Together The returned on Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Certified Mail 4.65 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 20.65 Paid by TURO LAW OFFICES Sworn and subscribed to before me this 29 ~ day of~ ~OO~ A.D. thonotary Sheriff of Cumberland County on 08/19/2003 SHERIFF'S RETURN - U.S. CASE NO: 2003-03579 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND NEAL CLARK ET AL VS. GROUPE SCHNEIDER ET AL CERTIFIED MAIL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law served the within named DEFENDANT ,SQUARE D COMPANY , by United States Certified Mail postage prepaid, on the 29th day of July ,2003 at 1530:00 HOURS, at 1415 ROSELLE ROAD PALATINE, IL 60067 , a true and attested copy of the attached COMPLAINT & NOTICE Together with , The returned receipt card was signed by SUE MITCHELL 07/31/2003 Additional Comments: on Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Certified Mail Affidavit Surcharge 6 00 4 65 00 10 00 00 20 65 Paid by TURO LAW OFFICES Sworn and subscribed to before me this ~ day of~ ,,~r ~&~3 A.D. "~ P~othonot ary ' So answer~ j //~-~ ~. Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County on 08/19/2003 · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Schneider Electric t/a d/b/a Square D 1415 Roselle Road Palatine, IL 60067 7002 2410 PS Form 3811, August 2001 A. Sign ~ [] Addressee S. Received by ( Printed Name) C. D te of Delivery D. Is delivery address different from item I, [] Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: [] No 3. Service Type ~ Certified Mail [] Express Mail [] Registered [] Return Receipt for Merchandise [] Insured Mail [] C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) [] Yes 0007 8504 6648 Domestic Return Receipt · Complete items 1,2, and 3. Also complete . S'g e~.re ~_~/~' / ~ j · Pdnt your name and address on the reverse ~.~/.f'~/.~.///~ ~/~'~,/ [] Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by (Pdnted Name) I C. D~ate of [j)elivery · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,~ J -~/~ / ! ~'~ ' or on the front if space permits. . I /f~ ( ~ Groupe Schneider t/a d/b/a Square D 1415 Rose±le Road Palatine, IL 60067 2 7002 2410 0007 PS Form 3811, August 2001 D. Is delivery address different from item 1 ? [] Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: [] NO 3. Serdce Type ~] Certified Mail [] Express Mail [] Registered [] Return Receipt for Merchandise [] Insured Mail [] C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) [] Yes 8504 6631 03-3579 civ Domestic Return Receipt 102595~2-M-1035 · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete A. SigQ~.ure item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired, ~ ( ' ~//./~ j /.// 0 Agent · Print your name and addre~ on the reveme ~/~~ D Addms~e so that we can return the card to you. B Affach this ca~ to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space pe~its. ~a~ D ~y 1415 Roselle R~d Palat~e, IL 60067 B. Received by ( Printed Name) C. Dat¢of DeJivery D. Is delivery address differect from itern l? []Yes -" If YES, enter delivery address below: [] No 7002 2410 PS Form 3811, August 2001 3. Service Type F~ Certified Mail [] Express Mail [] Registered [] Return Receipt for Merchandise [] Insured Mail [] C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) [] Yes 0007 8504 6655 03-3579 civ Domestic Return Receipt 102595~)2-M- 103S KELLEY JASONS McGUIRE & SPINELLI, L.L.P. BY: W. MATTHEW REBER, ESQUIRE ANGELA M. COLL, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 67035/87488 Suite 1500, Centre Square West 1500 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 854-0658 CLARK NEAL and BARBARA NEAL VS. Plaintiffs, GROUPE SCHNEIDER, individually and t/a; d/b/a SQUARE D; SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC t/a, d/b/a SQUARE D; and SQUARE D COMPANY Defendants. Attorneys for Defendant, SQUARE D COMPANY :IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT :COURT FOR THE MIDDLE :DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : :Docket No. e95 -~b~TtP : :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1446, Defendant, Square D Company, incorrectly named as Groupe Schneider, individually and t/a; d/b/a Square D; $.chneider Electric t/a/, d/b/a Square D; files herewith a certified copy of the Notice of Removal filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on August 21, 2003. KELLEY JASONS McGUIRE & SPINELLI, L.L.P. ~tn;~aet ty s .~o r iDle eb~ern d a n t, - Square D Company Date: August 22, 2003 KELLEY JASONS McGUIRE & SPINELLI, L.L.P. BY: W. MATTHEW REBER, ESQUIRE ANGELA M. COLL, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 67035/87488 Suite 1500, Centre Square West 1500 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 854-0658 C¥ 03-1466 Attorneys for Defendant, SQUARE D COMPANY CLARK NEAL and BARBARA NEAL, h/w Plaintiffs, VS. GROUPE SCHNEIDER, individually and t/a, d/b/a SQUARE D and SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC t/a, d/b/a SQUARE D; and SQUARE D COMPANY Defendants. : UNIT~;D STATES DISTRICT : COURT FOR THE MIDDLE :DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : PILED :: Docket No. o~ - 3~?? HgFIRISBuRG, PA : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED A~]G 2 I 2003 Per ~ NOTICE OF REMOVAL ]. This action was commenced by the filing of a Complaint on July 28, 2003 in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas. 2. The Complaint was issued and served upon Square D Company, on or about July 31, 2003. 3. Diversity jurisdiction requires that the pattie:; be citizens of different states, and that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. See, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 4. By the Complaint, plaintiffs allege that they are residents of Pennsylvania. 5. Defendant, Square D Company, is incorpora'ted under the laws of the State of Delaware and has a principal place of business in Illinois. Cr~if~ct frgF/ ~e r_ _eCO~d 6. Plaintiffs are residents of Pennsylvania and the defendant, Square D Company is not a resident of Pennsylvania, establishing complete diversity between plaintiff and defendant. 7. Upon information and belief, "Group Schneider, individually and t/a, d/b/a Square D and Schneider Electric t/a, d/b/a Square D" do not exist as corporate entities; therefore, only Square D Company is a Defendant in this action. 8. It is specifically alleged upon the Complaint that the amotmt in controversy herein is in excess of $50,000.00. 9. When evaluating claims that do not demand a precise amount of damages, the amount in controversy is not measured by the low end of an open-ended claim, but rather by a reasonable reading of the value of the rights being litigated. See Dempsey v. Federal Express Corp., et al, 2001 WL 1356505 (E.D.Pa). 10. If the complaint does not contain a demand fi)r an exact monetary amount, the court must make an independent appraisal of the claim and after a generous reading of the complaint, arrive at the reasonable value of the rights being litigated. Id. 11. Based upon Plaintiff's complaint, including claims for lost wages, pain and suffering and permanent disability, it would appear that the amount placed in controversy by Plaintiffs' Complaint exceeds $75,000. 12. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441, defendant remc,ves the within action to this Court in that it is a civil action between citizens of different states and the amount placed in controversy by Plaintiffs' Complaint exceeds the sum of $75,000. 13. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(a), defendant is attaching copies of all process, pleadings and Orders in the state court action. 14. Following the filing of this Notice of Remowd, defendant is giving written notice of the Notice of Removal to the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas. 15. This Notice is timely, being filed within thirty (30) days of the receipt by Petitioner with a copy of the initial pleading. WHEREFORE, notice is given that this action is removed from the Court of Common Pleas of the Ninth Judicial District of Pennsylvania (Cumberland County) to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Dated: August 20, 2003 KELLEY JASONS McGUIRE & SPINELLI, L.L.P. W. Matthew Reber Angela M. Coil Attorneys for Defendant, Square D Company COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA : SS AFFIDAVIT W. Matthew Reber, Esquire, being duly sworn, hereby deposes and says that he is the attorney for defendant, Square D Company in the within action; That he has authority to make this Affidavit on its behalf; That he has read the foregoing Notice of Renmval and knows the contents thereof; and, That the same is tree of his own knowledge, :information and belief. W. Matthew Reber, E~ire Sworn to and subscribed before me this 20th day of August, 2003. / NOT/I~RIAJ. SEAL I ~NIC~LE A. KOSCt~AN, Notary Public City of ~adel~ia, ~a. Coun~ M~ ~mmiss~n Expires Oct. 11, 2~4 COZEN O'CONNOR By: PATRICK C. TIMONEY, ESQUIRE Attmxaey I.D. No. 67020 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 665-7276 RON TURO, ESQUIRJE Attorney ID. No. 28 S. Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688 Attorneys for Plaintiff LEGRL JUL ZQQ3 CLRIMS MA~IAGEMI:NT CLARK NEAL and BARBARA NEAL 111 N. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Plaintiff, GROUPE SCHNEIDER, individually and t/a; d/bla SQUARE D 1415 Roselle Road Palatine, IL 60067 and SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC t/a, dfo/a SQ.&RE D 1415 Roselle Road Palatine, IL 60067 and SQUARE D COMPANY 1415 Roselle Road Palatine, IL 60067 Defendants. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION NO-: 0.3 - '2/S-.-t~ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff, Clark Neal is a citizen of the state of Pennsylvarda residing at the above captioned address. 81461 2. Defendant Groupc Schneider, t/a, clFo/a ,Square D is a Frer~ch Corporation with its North American headquarters located at 1415 Koselte Kosd, Palatine, Illinois 60067. 3. Defendant Groupe Schnieder's registered agent for service in Penusylvania is CT Corporation, 1515 Market Stre¢i, 12~ Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Defendant Schneider Electric, t/a, d/b/a Square D is a French Corporation with its North American headquarters located at 1415 Rosellc Road, Palatine, Illinois 60067. 5. Defendant Schneider Elcctric's register~,~d agent for accepting service in Pennsylvania is CT Corporation, 1515 Market Street, 12th Flour, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania- 6. Defendant Square D Company is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place ofbusines~ located at 1415 Roselle Road, Palatine, Illinois 60067. 7_ Defendant Square D Company's registered agent for accepting service in Pennsylvania is CT Corporation, 1515 Market Street, 12~h Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 8. At all times relevant hereto, Oroupe ScImeider, Schneider Electric and Sqtlare D Company conducted business under thc name "Square D." 9. Upon information and belief, Schneider Electric and/or in the alternative, Groupe Schneider is the successor in interest to Square D Company and is hable for the obligations, liabilities and debts of Square D Company. 10. At all times relevant hereto, Clark Neal was acting in the course and scope of his employment for Va)k Manufacturing Company, 66 E. Main Street, New Kingston, Pennsylvania 17020. l 1. On August 22, 2001, Clark Neal was operating an overhead crane at the Valk Manufacturing plant via a pendant electrical control box manufactured by the Defendant. -2- 12- Clark Ncal was operating the oved~ead crane towards the north end of the building by depressing a crane control button on the pendant ¢]Lectrical control box. As the crane moved towards Clark Neal, the control button became stuck 13. in the "on" position_ 14_ At the time when the crane control button became stuck in the "on" position, Clark Neal was unable to reach the emergency stop button on the pendant control or to move to a position outside of the path of the steel materials being moved by the crane. 15. The raovingcrane knocked Clark Neal backwards and caused serious injuries. 16. The switch which failed is identified as a Square D class 9001, Type KA-2 series H push button (hereinafter "the switch"). COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE CLARK NEAL V. DEFENDANTS 17. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 16 as though more fully set forth in length herein: 18. The sWitch was designed, manufactured and sold by DafandanL Groupe Sehneidcr and/or Schneider Eng/neering and/or the Square D Company. 19. The aforesaid accident was caused by the negligent, careless and reckless acts of defandant Group $chnaidex and/or Schneider Electric and/or the Square D Company including, but not limited to, the following: (a) designing, mmaUfacturing, selling and distributing a switch which it knew or should have known was subject to becoming stuck in the "on" position such that injury could occur to those using the sWitch; (b) failing to properly test the switch; (c) /'ailing to provide appropriate warnings and instructions concerning thc proper use and maintenance of thc switch and the dangers associated with the use of the switch; (d) designing and manufacturing the pendant con~xol box without a fail-safe or "deadman" emergenc;y ~top~ and (¢) failing to recall the switch when it knew or should have known that the switch was defective and likely to cause injury. 20. As a direct result o£the negli§ence o£defendants, Clark Neal suffered injuries to h/s back including, but not l~mited to, a fractured pelvis and hip. 21. As a further result of the negligence of defendants, Clark Neal has incurred medical bills ~nd expensas ha the course and treatmenX of his injuries and will continue to incur such bills and/or expenses in the future. 22. As a further direct result of the ne§l/gence of defendant~, Clark Neal sustained lost w--,§es and will continue to sustain further lost wages in the future. 23. As a further r~sult of thc negligence of defendants, Clark lqeal sustained other costs and expenses and will continue to incur ~uch costs and expenses in the future. 24. As a further result of negligence ofde£endants, Clark Neal has experienced ~reat pain and suffering, humiliation, axociety, fear, disability, embarrassment and loss of life's pleasures and will continue to suffer the same in the future. WHEF,.EFORE, Clark Neal demands judgment against C~roupe Schneider, Schneider Elec~c, and Square D Company for an amount in ~:xcess of $$0,000.00 together with interest, cost of suit, attorney's fees and such other damales as this Court ma), dee.~ appropr/ate. COUNT II - STRICT LIABILITY CLARK NEAL V. D~FENDANTS 25. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegatior~ contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 as though more fully set forth in length herein. 26. The aforesaid control pendant and switc,h were manufactured by defendant, Groupe Schneider and/or defendant Schneider Engineering and/or defendant Square D Company- 27. Th6 aforesaid accident was caused solely by the dangerous and defective condition of defendants' control pendant and switch including, but not limited to the following: (a) the switch was subject to the becoming stuck in the "on" position during its normal use and operation such as it was likely to cause injury to a machine operator; (b) the control box did not include a "deadman" feature, which-would cause a machine to stop functioning when the controller's hands were no longer on the box; (e) the switch was likely to wear in a manner that would cause it to'fail in the "on" position; and (d) the control pendant and switch did not include adequate warnings and instructions concerning thc use and maintenance of the pendant control box and the switch. 28. .Ns a result of the defective condition of defendants' product, Clark Neal sustained injuries as set forth more fully above. WHEREFORE, Clark Neal demands judgment against Groupe Schneider, Schneider Electric, and Square D Company for an amount in excess of $50,000.00 together with interest, cost of suit, attorney's fees and such other damages as this Court may deem appropriate. COUNT III: LOSS OF CONSORTIUM BARBARA A. NEAL V. DEI*EiND~NTS 29. Plaintiffs hereby incorporates herein th,~ allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 28 as though more fully set forth at length herein. 30. As a direct result of the negligence of defendants, Barbara A. Neal has been deprived of the companionship and consortium of her hu.sband_ -5- WHEREFORE, Barbara A. Neal hereby demands judgment in her favor and against defendants in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000) Dollars, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys' fees and such other damages as this Court may deem appropriate. COZEN O'CONNOR BY': -I~.TKICK C. TIMONEY, ESQUIRE 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 665-7276 pat,a: luly ~ ~7 ,2003 TURO 7W OFFICES ruxo,, ESQU ATTORNEYS FOR ?LAINT~Fr, CLARK NEAL -6- VERIFICATION I, Clark Neal, verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are tree and correct to the best of my kno~vledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein a~e made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to un~wom falsification to authorities. Dated: July ~,2003 VERIFICATION I, Barbara Neal, verify that thc statements made in thc ~toregoing Complaint arc true and co~rect to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. ]~c undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to thc penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsificatibn to authorities. Dated: July ~ ~' ,2003 0