damon szatkowski and : court of common pleas karen m. szatkowski damon...

DAMON SZATKOWSKI and : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

KAREN M. SZATKOWSKI, on behalf of her son : LUZERNE COUNTY

DAMON SZATKOWSKI, :

:

Plaintiffs, :

v. :

:

GENERAL MOTORS, LLC : No. ______________________

c/o Corporation Service Company :

2595 Interstate Drive, Suite 103 :

Harrisburg, PA 17110 :

and :

RICK WEAVER BUICK, PONTIAC, :

GMC, INC. :

714 W. 12th Street :

Erie, PA 16501 :

Defendants. :

NOTICE TO PLEAD

You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the

following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint is served, by

entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your

defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do

so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court,

without further notice, for any money claimed or for any other claim or relief requested by the

Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you.

YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO

NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE

OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.

LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTHEASTERN PA, INC.

410 Bicentennial Building 145 E. Broad Street

15 Public Square - or - Room 108

Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701 Hazleton, PA 18201

(570) 825-8567 (570) 455-9512

ROSS FELLER CASEY, LLP

BY: /s/ Matthew A. Casey

MATTHEW A. CASEY, ESQUIRE

ROBERTA A. GOLDEN, ESQUIRE

IDDO HAREL, ESQUIRE

BRIAN J. MCCORMICK, JR., ESQUIRE

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

2

ROSS FELLER CASEY, LLP By: Matthew A. Casey, Esquire

Roberta A. Golden, Esquire

Brian J. McCormick, Jr., Esquire

Iddo Harel, Esquire

Attorney ID Nos. 84443/52901/81437/209830

One Liberty Place

1650 Market Street

Suite 3450

Philadelphia, PA 19103

(215) 574-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff(s)

DAMON SZATKOWSKI and : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

KAREN M. SZATKOWSKI, on behalf of her son : LUZERNE COUNTY

DAMON SZATKOWSKI, :

:

Plaintiffs, :

v. :

:

GENERAL MOTORS, LLC : No. ______________________

c/o Corporation Service Company :

2595 Interstate Drive, Suite 103 :

Harrisburg, PA 17110 :

and :

RICK WEAVER BUICK, PONTIAC, :

GMC, INC. :

714 W. 12th Street :

Erie, PA 16501 :

:

Defendants. :

CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Damon Szatkowski (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) and Karen M. Szatkowski file this

Complaint on behalf of her son, Plaintiff Damon Szatkowski, by and through their undersigned

counsel, hereby file their Complaint against Defendants General Motors, LLC and Rick Weaver

Buick, Pontiac, GMC, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), and, in support thereof, aver as follows:

3

I. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Damon Szatkowski is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

and Luzerne County, residing at 212 Greystone Drive, Shavertown, Pennsylvania.

2. Plaintiff Damon Szatkowski was catastrophically injured as a result of an

automobile crash which occurred on December 3, 2011, during which time he was a

seatbelted driver of a 2006 Pontiac Solstice, registered in the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania, with a vehicle identification number (VIN) of 1G2MB35B56Y115912

(hereinafter, “the subject vehicle”).

3. Plaintiff Damon Szatkowski was born on July 14, 1994 and was 17 years of age

when the relevant events regarding this claim occurred.

4. Plaintiff Karen M. Szatkowski is an adult individual and citizen of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania residing at 212 Greystone Drive, Shavertown, Luzerne County,

Pennsylvania.

5. Plaintiff Karen M. Szatkowski is the mother of Plaintiff Damon Szatkowski.

6. Plaintiff Karen M. Szatkowski files this Complaint on behalf of her son, Plaintiff

Damon Szatkowski, in her capacity as his parent and agent.

7. Defendant General Motors, LLC (“New GM”) is a Delaware limited liability

company. With respect to the facts alleged and claims asserted in this Complaint, New GM is the

corporate successor of General Motors Corporation (“Old GM”), which filed a voluntary

Complaint for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on June 1, 2009. On July 10,

2009, New GM acquired substantially all of the assets and assumed certain liabilities of Old GM

by way of a Section 363 sale under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Plaintiff’s causes of action

4

in this lawsuit are brought against New GM, and Plaintiff does not assert any causes of action

against Old GM. Although this Complaint references facts against Old GM, it is for background

and reference purposes only. At all times relevant to the claims in this lawsuit, New GM has been

in the business of developing, manufacturing, and marketing cars throughout the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania. New GM has a network of authorized retailers that sells New GM vehicles and

parts throughout Pennsylvania. General Motors, LLC may be served with process through its

registered agent for service of process in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Corporation Service

Company, 2595 Interstate, Dr., Suite 103, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110.

8. The subject vehicle was, upon information and belief, designed, manufactured,

inspected, tested, inspected, marketed and sold by Defendant New GM.

9. Defendant Rick Weaver Buick, Pontiac, GMC, Inc. (“Rick Weaver”) is a domestic

corporation doing business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and may be served with process

at 714 W. 12th Street, Erie, Pennsylvania.

II. VENUE AND JURISDICTION

10. This Court has jurisdiction over each Defendant because each either has its

principal place of business in Pennsylvania, or does sufficient business in, or has sufficient

minimum contacts with, or otherwise intentionally avails itself of the markets of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through its business operations in Pennsylvania.

11. Venue is properly laid in this County pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil

Procedure 1006 and 2179.

12. The amount in controversy exceeds the local rules for amounts in controversy

requiring arbitration.

5

III. FACTS

13. Jeffrey Pyros (uncle of Plaintiff Damon Szatkowski) owned a 2006 Pontiac Solstice

STD, which he purchased new from Defendant Rick Weaver. Jeffrey Pyros purchased the 2006

Pontiac Solstice because of the vehicle’s advertised quality, reliability, and safety features. The

2006 Pontiac Solstice, Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) 1G2MB35B56Y115912, and was

purchased new by Jeffrey Pyros.

14. On December 3, 2011, at approximately 2:59 pm, Damon Szatkowski was driving

himself and a friend, Danny Saba, in his uncle’s 2006 Pontiac Solstice on a Pennsylvania roadway,

North Street in Luzerne Borough in a reasonable and customary manner. It was a clear and dry

afternoon.

15. At all material times, Damon was wearing his lap and shoulder seatbelt which

was, upon information and belief, designed, manufactured, tested, installed, and sold by Defendant

New GM.

16. As Damon Szatkowski was travelling southbound on North Street, suddenly and

without warning, the 2006 Pontiac Solstice became uncontrollable and veered to the right, where

it struck a retaining wall on the west side of North Street.

17. The airbags in the 2006 Pontiac Solstice which Damon Szatkowski was driving did

not deploy.

18. This type of collision would and should typically deploy the airbags.

19. Unbeknownst to Damon Szatkowski, the 2006 Pontiac Solstice had a serious and

unreasonably dangerous defect with the ignition switch. Specifically, the ignition switch had the

ability to change from the “run” position to the “accessory” position thereby causing the engine to

lose power with a resultant loss of power to the steering, brakes, air bags, and other essential safety

functions of the car (the “Ignition Switch Defect”.) This defective condition directly resulted in a

6

loss of power exactly at the time and place where Damon Szatkowski most needed these essential

functions.

20. The 2006 Pontiac Solstice driven by Plaintiff was one of the vehicles subject to a

recent recall.

21. The problem with the 2006 Pontiac Solstice driven by Damon Szatkowski was not

unique. To the contrary, it is a problem that eventually resulted in a recall notice being issued by

New GM for certain of its vehicles, including all 2006 Pontic Solstices.

22. At all material times, Defendant New GM was and is authorized to do business

throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Luzerne County, which it does regularly and

for which it receives significant revenue. The subject vehicle, which, upon information and

belief, was designed, manufactured, tested, inspected, marketed, distributed, and sold by

Defendant New GM, was purchased by a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania resident (Plaintiff’s

uncle) from a Pennsylvania dealer, was registered in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and

was, at all material times, held out as a Pennsylvania vehicle with a Pennsylvania license plate

GM Issues Information Service Bulletins

23. Throughout 2005, Old GM received numerous field reports of vehicles losing

engine power when the key moved out of the “run” position. A proposal was approved to redesign

the key head, but later cancelled. Instead of recalling the vehicles to replace the defective ignition

switches, Old GM issued an Information Service Bulletin entitled the “Information on Inadvertent

Turning of Key Cylinder, Loss of Electrical System and No DTCs” (No. 05-02-35-007)

(hereinafter, the “Bulletin”). The Bulletin was issued to GM dealers warning about a stalling

problem related to inadvertent shifting of the ignition switch.

7

24. The Bulletin recognized that there was a “potential for the driver to inadvertently

turn off the ignition due to low ignition key cylinder torque/effort.”

25. The Bulletin applied to the following vehicles – the 2005 and 2006 Chevrolet

Cobalt, the 2006 Chevrolet HHR, the 2005 and 2006 Pontiac Pursuit (Canada only), the 2006

Pontiac Solstice and the 2003 to 2006 Saturn Ion, which all had the same ignition switch.

26. In October 2006, Old GM updated the Bulletin (“Information on Inadvertent

Turning of Key Cylinder, Loss of Electrical System and No DTCs” (No. 05-02-35-007A))

(hereinafter, the “Updated Bulletin”) to include additional vehicle and model years. Specifically,

GM included the 2007 Chevrolet Cobalt, the 2007 Chevrolet HHR, the 2007 Pontiac G5, the 2007

Pontiac Solstice, the 2007 Saturn Ion and the 2007 Saturn Sky. The Updated Bulletin included the

same service advisories to GM dealers as the earlier version.

GM Belatedly Issues A Repair Recall Of Some Vehicles

27. On February 7, 2014, New GM filed a Part 573 Defect Notice with the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) to recall 2005 to 2007 model year Chevrolet

Cobalt and 2007 Pontiac G5 vehicles (the “Feb. 7 Defect Notice”). The Feb. 7 Defect Notice stated

that the “ignition switch torque performance [in these vehicles] may not meet General Motors’

specifications”, resulting in the non-deployment of airbags in crash events. The notice called for

the recall of approximately 600,000 vehicles.

28. The Feb. 7 Defect Notice did not acknowledge that the Ignition Switch Defect could

occur under normal driving conditions.

29. The Feb. 7 Defect Notice also failed to indicate the full extent to which GM had

been aware of Ignition Switch Defect.

8

30. Seventeen days later, on February 24, 2014, New GM issued a letter to NHTSA,

which amended the Feb. 7 Defect Notice to include a more detailed chronology. The chronology

indicated that GM first learned of the Ignition Switch Defect during the launch of the 2005

Chevrolet Cobalt from field tests by its engineers.

31. This latest letter furnished information dating back 10 years, and dealt directly

with New GM’s recall obligations and product warranties, which have been known to New GM

since July 2009.

32. The updated chronology, at a minimum, demonstrates GM’s knowledge, actions,

inaction, and conscious disregard related to the ignition switch.

33. On February 25, 2014, New GM again amended the Feb. 7 Defect Notice to expand

the recall to include additional models and model years, including 2003-2007 Saturn Ions, 2006-

2007 Chevrolet HHRs, 2006-2007 Pontiac Solstices, and 2007 Saturn Skys, bringing the number

of vehicles affected by the recall to more than 1.3 million.

34. On March 4, 2014, NTHSA issued GM a Special Order demanding that it provide

additional information on 107 specific requests by April 3, 2014, including information to

“evaluate the timing of GM’s defect decision making and reporting of the safety defect to

NHTSA.”

35. On March 11, 2014, GM filed a new Part 573 report superseding its February 25th

filing. The new chronology provided with the report indicated that GM was aware of the Ignition

Switch Defect in 2001—significantly earlier than its previous 2004 disclosure. GM now

indicated that it had a report from 2001 that revealed a problem with the ignition switch during

pre-production of the Saturn Ion.

9

36. In a video message addressed to GM employees on March 17, 2014, CEO Mary

Barra admitted that the GM had made mistakes and needed to change its processes.

37. According to Ms. Barra, “Something went terribly wrong in our processes in this

instance, and terrible things happened.” Barra continued to promise, “We will be better because of

this tragic situation if we seize this opportunity.”

38. On March 28, 2014, the recall was expanded to include the following vehicles:

2008-2010 Pontiac Solstices; 2008-2010 Pontiac G5s; 2008-2010 Saturn Skys; 2008-2010

Chevrolet Cobalts; and 2008-2011 Chevrolet HHRs.

39. This second expansion included an additional 824,000 cars bringing the total

number of recalled vehicles to approximately 2.2 million.

40. According to GM, “the dealers are to replace the ignition switch,” presumably

with one with sufficient torque to prevent the inadvertent shut down of the ignition, power

steering, power brakes, and airbags.

41. Although Old GM developed an insert for the key ring that changed it from a slot

design to a hole design, to prevent the key from easily jogging the ignition switch out of the run

position, the redesigned ignition switch was not installed in vehicles until the 2007 model year.

42. The Ignition Switch Defect has been linked to numerous crashes and fatalities.

43. Given the vast number of instances of sudden engine power loss and non-

deployment of airbags related to the Defective Ignition Switch and New GM’s discovery or

knowledge of many or all of the instances beginning with its inception in July 2009, New GM

should have aggressively taken remedial measures to address these defects. New GM failed to do

so. In fact, this first recall was not implemented until 2014 – nearly ten years after the first

instances of engine power loss.

10

44. In the wake of the news about the ignition defects, consumers have become

rightfully skeptical about whether New GM is coming forth with truthful information about the

sudden loss of power defect.

45. In late March 2014, GM customers received a letter from New GM advising them

that their vehicles were being recalled. In that letter, New GM amazingly advised GM automobile

owners that they should take all the weight off of their key chain and, by so doing, their car would

not stall.

46. New GM’s statements in the recall notice were not accurate, were not sufficient

and not reasonable.

47. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ negligence, negligent and

defective design and manufacture, which caused Damon to be in an unsafe car that lost steering,

caused his collision and failed to deploy the airbags, Damon Szatkowski suffered severe bodily

injuries including, but not limited to, a traumatic brain injury and paralyses resulting from the

traumatic brain injury, together with shock, anxiety, depression, weakness, emotional distress,

and other physical and emotional injuries and upset, the full extent of which are not yet known

and some or all of which may be permanent in nature, pain producing and disabling.

48. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ negligence, negligent and

defective design and manufacture, Damon Szatkowski sustained severe and permanent injuries

resulting in serious impairment of bodily functions, all and some of which are permanent, known

and unknown, as well as other personal injuries and damages which are not currently apparent,

but which will arise in the future, including, but not limited to the following:

a. A severe traumatic brain injury with right depressed skull fracture;

b. A severe subdural hematoma, as well as an epidural hematoma;

11

c. Subarachnoid hemorrhage and right intraparenchymal hemorrhage with

midline shift;

d. Severe gait dysfunction;

e. Dystopia;

f. Spastic triplegia with non-functional use of left upper extremity;

g. Limited use of right leg;

h. Dysarthria associated with left facial palsy;

i. Seizures;

j. Other cervical, spinal, and head injuries, which are presently known and

unknown;

k. Other permanent and severe injuries and severe physical disorders and

disabilities to the body and internal organs;

l. Permanent severe injuries as documented and described in the medical

records;

m. Permanent and severe neurological injuries;

n. Multiple surgical procedures, including a right craniotomy, insertion of a

gastrostomy tube and the insertion of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt to

relieve hydrocephalus;

o. Functional disabilities and impairment;

p. Permanent and severe disfigurement;

q. Past physical pain and suffering;

r. Future physical pain and suffering;

s. Past mental anguish;

t. Future mental anguish;

u. Past severe emotional distress;

v. Future severe emotional distress

w. Past medical expenses;

x. Past loss of life’s pleasure;

12

y. Future loss of life’s pleasures;

z. Humiliation and embarrassment

aa. Past loss earnings;

bb. Future loss of earning capacity and the value of household services;

cc. Incidental and other expenses; and

dd. Such other ills and injuries which will be set forth, and more fully

described as this lawsuit continues.

49. The injuries have had a serious effect on Damon Szatkowski’s health and well-

being. Some of the effects are permanent and will abide with Damon for a long time into the

future, if not for his entire life. These specific injuries and their ill effects have, in turn, caused

Damon Szatkowski’s physical and mental condition to deteriorate generally and the specific

injuries and ill effects alleged have caused and will, in all reasonable probability, cause Damon

Szatkowski to suffer consequences and ill effects of this deterioration throughout his body for a

long time in the future, if not for the balance of his natural life. As a further result of the nature

and consequences of his injuries, Damon Szatkowski suffered great physical and mental pain,

suffering and mental anguish and in all reasonable probability, will continue to suffer in this

manner for a long time into the future, if not for the balance of his natural life.

50. By reason of the aforesaid injuries sustained by Plaintiffs were forced to incur

liability for medical treatment, medications, hospitalizations and similar miscellaneous expenses

to restore Damon Szatkowski’s health, and hereby makes a claim for these expenses.

51. Because of the nature of his injuries, Plaintiff Damon Szatkowski has been

advised, and therefore, avers that he will be forced to incur similar expenses in the future, and a

claim is made therefore.

52. As a result of his injuries, Plaintiff Damon Szatkowski has undergone and in the

13

future will undergo, and makes a claim for:

a. great physical and mental suffering;

b. great inconvenience in carrying out his daily activities;

c. loss of life’s pleasures and enjoyment;

d. great humiliation and embarrassment; and

e. scars and disfigurement.

53. As a result of his injuries, Plaintiff Damon Szatkowski continues to be plagued

by persistent pain and limitations and, therefore, avers that his injuries may be of a permanent

nature, causing residual problems for the remainder of his lifetime.

54. The grievous injuries of suffered by Damon Szatkowski were caused solely and

exclusively by the negligence, negligent and defective design and manufacture, as set forth

above and below, of all Defendants, and/or their agents, servants and employees, and were due in

no matter whatsoever to any fault or failure to act on the part of Plaintiff Damon Szatkowski.

IV. CLAIMS AGAINST GM DEFENDANTS

COUNT I – Negligence, Gross Negligence, Recklessness

55. Plaintiffs Damon Szatkowski and Karen M. Szatkowski re-allege as if fully set forth,

each and every allegation set forth herein.

56. Plaintiffs hereby assert a cause of action for negligence strictly and solely against

“New GM.”

57. Each and every act of negligence asserted herein by the Plaintiffs is asserted against

the New GM and the GM Defendants, only, and not the Old GM.

58. The GM Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to design, manufacture, fabricate,

assemble, inspect, market, distribute, sell, and/or supply products in such a way as to avoid harm

14

to persons using them such as Plaintiffs.

59. The GM Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to detect known safety defects in GM

vehicles.

60. The GM Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty, once it discovered the safety defects,

such as the Ignition Switch Defect, to provide thorough notice of the defect, including a warning

that the defective vehicles should not be driven until an appropriate repair procedure is developed

and performed.

61. The GM Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty, once it discovered the ignition switch

defect, to ensure that an appropriate repair procedure was developed and made available to drivers.

62. The GM Defendants knew that drivers, such as Plaintiff, expect that the company

will employ all reasonable efforts to detect safety defects, warn drivers of their existence, and

develop and make available an appropriate repair procedure.

63. The GM Defendants’ efforts to discover, provide notice of, and provide repair

procedures for safety related defects exist for the benefit of Plaintiff and other drivers of GM

vehicles. New GM was aware that by providing maintenance and repair information and

assistance, including through its authorized dealerships, GM had a responsibility to Plaintiff and

other drivers to take the reasonable measures listed above.

64. Between July 10, 2009, and March 2014, the GM Defendants breached their duties

to Plaintiff by failing to provide appropriate notice of and repair procedures for the Ignition Switch

Defect in the vehicle driven by Plaintiff. In doing so, New GM departed from the reasonable

standard of care required of it.

65. The GM Defendants, acting by and through their agents, servants and employees,

were negligent, careless and reckless as described above.

15

66. It was foreseeable that if the GM Defendants did not provide appropriate notice and

repair procedure for the defect, that Plaintiff and other drivers would be endangered.

67. Plaintiff’s injuries were reasonably foreseeable to New GM.

68. Plaintiff could not through the exercise of reasonable diligence have prevented the

injuries caused by New GM’s negligence.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Damon Szatkowski and Karen M. Szatkowski demand

damages, including punitive damages, against Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount in

excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, and in excess of prevailing arbitration limits,

exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and costs.

COUNT II - Civil Conspiracy Against The GM Defendants

69. Plaintiffs Damon Szatkowski and Karen M. Szatkowski re-allege as if fully set

forth each and every allegation set forth above.

70. The GM Defendants and the New GM were involved in a civil conspiracy, as two

or more persons whose goal was to accomplish a cover up of the Defective Ignition Switch at the

New GM. The cover up was for the purpose of an unlawful act, to wit, the defective condition

which proximately caused damage to Plaintiff.


damages against Defendants, including punitive damages, jointly and severally, in an amount in



COUNT III - Fraud by Non Disclosure


forth, each and every allegation set forth herein.

16

72. Plaintiffs hereby assert a cause of action for fraud by non-disclosure strictly and

solely against New GM. That is, each and every act constituting fraud by non-disclosure asserted

herein by the Plaintiff are asserted against the New GM only and not the Old GM.

73. As set forth above, from July 2009 to the present, New GM intentionally concealed

or failed to disclose material facts from the Plaintiff, the public, and NHTSA.

74. As early as 2001, during pre-production development of the Saturn Ion, Old GM

became aware of issues relating to ignition switch “passlock” system. The 2001 report stated the

problem included a “low detent plunger force” in the ignition switch.

75. In 2003, before the launch of the 2005 Solstice, Old GM became aware of incidents

wherein the vehicle engine would suddenly lose power in the event the key moved out of the “run”

position when the driver inadvertently contacted the key or steering column. An investigation was

opened and, after consideration of lead-time required and the cost and effectiveness of potential

solutions, the investigation was closed with no action taken.

76. New GM had a duty to disclose the facts to the Plaintiff and New GM knew: (1)

that Damon Szatkowski and his uncle were ignorant of the material facts that New GM did not

disclose and/or intentionally concealed; and (2) the Plaintiff did not have an equal opportunity to

discover the material facts that GM did not disclose and/or intentionally concealed.

77. By failing to disclose these material facts, New GM intended to induce Plaintiff to

take some action or refrain from acting.

78. Plaintiff relied on New GM’s non-disclosure and Damon Szatkowski was injured

as a result of acting without knowledge of the undisclosed facts.


damages, including punitive damages, against Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount in

17



COUNT IV – Strict Liability



80. New GM, at all times relevant to this action, was engaged in the design, testing,

manufacture, distribution, and sale of automobiles, including the subject automobile.

81. The subject automobile was expected to and did reach users and consumers without

substantial change in the condition in which it was sold.

82. The subject automobile was in a defective condition creating risk of harm to a user

or a consumer, Plaintiff.

83. The defects set forth herein caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

84. These injuries and losses were caused by New GM’s designing, manufacturing,

fabricating, assembling, inspecting, marketing, distributing, selling and/or supplying the subject

automobile in a defective condition for which it is strictly liable to the Plaintiff pursuant to

RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 402A.

85. These injuries were caused by New GM’s designing, manufacturing, fabricating,

assembling, inspecting, marketing, distributing, selling and/or supplying the subject automobile

without proper and adequate warnings, instructions, and/or guidelines for safe use for which it is

strictly liable to the Plaintiff.


damages against Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand

($50,000.00) Dollars, and in excess of prevailing arbitration limits, exclusive of pre-judgment

18

interest, post-judgment interest, and costs.

COUNT V – Breach of Warranty



87. In designing, manufacturing, fabricating, assembling, inspecting, marketing,

distributing, selling and/or supplying the subject automobile, New GM expressly warranted that

the product was safe for its intended and foreseeable uses and made other express warranties

concerning the quality and characteristics of the product.

88. In designing, manufacturing, fabricating, assembling, inspecting, marketing,

distributing, selling and/or supplying the subject automobile, New GM impliedly warranted that it

was of merchantable quality, was fit and safe for the ordinary and particular purpose for which it

was sold, and was free of all defects.

89. The aforesaid express and implied warranties were breached by New GM in that

the automobile constituted a serious danger to the operator and others, was not safe for its intended

or foreseeable uses, was not of merchantable quality, was not fit and safe for the ordinary purposes

for which it was sold, and was not free from all defects.

90. Plaintiff suffered the injuries and damages described herein as a direct and

proximate result of the acts and/or omissions of New GM.





19

COUNT VI – Punitive Damages



92. Prior to December 3, 2011, Defendant New GM knew or willfully and/or

recklessly disregarded the fact that subject vehicle was dangerous and hazardous to drivers such

as Damon Szatkowski.

93. Despite such knowledge, and in willful, wanton, outrageous and reckless

disregard for human life and safety, including the safety and well-being of Damon Szatkowski,

Defendant New GM nevertheless allowed its defective automobiles, including the subject

vehicle, to remain in the stream of commerce where they could injure and/or cause the death of

drivers, pedestrians and citizens such as Defendant New GM and failed to warn owners and

drivers of the defective automobiles of the potential danger posed by the design of the

automobile, all to avoid potential lost revenue.

94. Despite such knowledge, and in willful, wanton, outrageous and reckless

disregard for human life and safety, including the safety and well-being of Damon Szatkowski,

Defendant New GM failed to recall, repair or modify the defective automobiles and failed to

warn and/or inform owners and drivers of the automobiles of the dangers posed and how to

reduce and/or eliminate those dangers, all to avoid the expense of these procedures and to

prevent potential lost sales caused by adverse publicity.

95. Defendant GM’s conduct, as set forth above, was willful and wanton misconduct,

was reckless, and evidenced a reckless disregard for human life and safety, including the safety

and well-being of Damon Szatkowski.

96. Plaintiff Damon Szatkowski suffered, and continue to suffer, the injuries and

20

damages described herein as a direct and proximate result of the acts and/or omissions of

Defendant New GM set forth above.




interest, post-judgment interest, and costs

V. CLAIMS AGAINST RICK WEAVER

COUNT VII - Negligence



98. Throughout the relevant time period, Defendant Rick Weaver knew that the subject

vehicle was defective in that these vehicles had an unreasonably dangerous propensity to

unexpectedly shut off, powering down their cars’ engines, and thereby injuring the user of these

vehicles and others, including Plaintiff.

99. Defendant Rick Weaver was under a duty to disclose and warn of the defective

nature of the subject vehicle.


proximate result of the acts and/or omissions of Defendant Rick Weaver set forth above.





21

COUNT VIII – Strict Liability



102. Defendant Rick Weaver at all times relevant to this action was engaged in the,

distribution, sale, and or servicing of automobiles and sold the subject automobile.

103. The subject automobile was expected to and did reach users and consumers,

including Plaintiff, without substantial change in the condition in which they were sold.

104. The subject automobile was in a defective condition creating risk of harm to a

user or a consumer, including Plaintiff.

105. The defects set forth herein caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

106. Plaintiff’s injuries and losses were caused by Defendant Rick Weaver inspecting,

marketing, distributing, selling, and/or supplying the automobile in a defective condition for

which Defendant Rick Weaver is strictly liable to the Plaintiff pursuant to RESTATEMENT

(SECOND) OF TORTS § 402A.

107. Plaintiff’s injuries and losses were caused by Defendant Rick Weaver inspecting,

marketing, distributing, selling and/or supplying the automobile without proper and adequate

warnings, instructions, and/or guidelines for which Defendant Rick Weaver is strictly liable to

the plaintiff.


proximate result of the acts and/or omissions of Defendant Rick Weaver.




22


COUNT IX – Breach of Warranty



110. Defendant Rick Weaver breached express and implied warranties to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands damages against Defendants, jointly and severally,

in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, and in excess of prevailing

arbitration limits, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and costs.

ROSS FELLER CASEY, LLP

BY: /s/ Matthew A. Casey

MATTHEW A. CASEY, ESQUIRE

ROBERTA A. GOLDEN, ESQUIRE

BRIAN J. MCCORMICK, JR., ESQUIRE\

IDDO HAREL, ESQUIRE

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: July 11, 2014

earend

Typewritten Text

Date: July 10, 2014

earend

Typewritten Text

earend

Typewritten Text

earend

Typewritten Text

Date: July 10, 2014

earend

Typewritten Text

earend

Typewritten Text

damon szatkowski and : court of common pleas karen m. szatkowski damon...

Documents