Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
The information collected on this form is used solely for court administration purposes. This form does not
supplement or replace the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law or rules of court.
Commencement of Action:
lEI Complaint D Writ of Summons D Petition
S D Transfer from Another Jurisdiction D Declaration of Taking
E
Lead Plaintiffs Name: Lead Defendant's Name:
C MARK E. MATTHEWS SPANGLER CANDY COMPANY
T
Dollar Amount Requested: D within arbitration limits
I Are money damages requested? lEI Yes D No (check one) lEI outside arbitration
limits
o
N Is this a Class Action Suit? DYes lEI No Is this an MDJ Appeal? DYes lEI No
Nature of the Case: Place an "X" to the left of the ONE case category that most accurately describes your
PRIMARY CASE. If you are making more than one type of claim, check the one that
you consider most important.
TORT (do not include Mass Tort) CONTRACT (do not include Judgments) CIVIL APPEALS
[] Intentional D Buyer Plaintiff Administrative Agencies
D Malicious Prosecution D Debt Collection: Credit Card D Board of Assessment
D Motor Vehicle D Debt Collection: Other D Board of Elections
D Nuisance D Dept. of Transportation
[] Premises Liability D Statutory Appeal: Other
S lEI Product Liability (does not include
mass tort) D Employment Dispute:
E D SlanderlLibell Defamation Discrimination
[] Employment Dispute: Other D Zoning Board
C D Other:
D Other:
T
I [] Other:
o MASS TORT
N B
D Asbestos
Tobacco
Toxic Tort - DES
D Toxic Tort - Implant
REAL PROPERTY MISCELLANEOUS
D Toxic Waste
D Ejectment D Common Law/Statutory Arbitration
D Other;
D Declaratory
B D
D
D
Eminent Domain/Condemnation
Ground Rent
LandlordlTenant Dispute
B Mandamus
Judgment
Non-Domestic Relations
D Mortgage Foreclosure: Residential Restraining Order
PROFESSIONAL LIABLITY D Mortgage Foreclosure: Commercial D Quo Warranto
D Dental D Partition D Replevin
D Legal D Quiet Title DOther:
D Medical D Other:
D Other Professional:
Updated /1112011
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WESTMORELAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA ~ CIVIL DIVISION
Defendant.
BERNARD P. MATTHEWS, JR., ESQ.
PA I.D. #54880
vs.
Defendant.
NOTICE TO DEFEND
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 and notice are
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 in the complaint or for any claim or relief
requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you.
vs.
Defendant.
AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Mark E. Matthews and Kristina Matthews, Individually
and as Parents and Natural Guardians of MBM, a minor, by and through their attorneys,
MEYER, DARRA.GH, BUCKLER, BEBENEK & ECK, P.L.L.C., and Bernard P. Matthews, Jr.,
Esquire, and file this Complaint in Civil Action, averring in support thereof as follows:
I. Factual Background
3. Mark E. Matthews and Kristina Matthews are husband and wife and the parents
"Dum Dum" sucker which it has placed into the stream of commerce for purchase and
distributed and sold by Spangler (hereinafter "Defective Dum Dum Sucker") when suddenly and
without warning the candy ball slipped and/or came off the stick and lodged in MBM's throat,
causing MBM's airway to close for an extended period oftime and further causing MBM's life
7. Mark E. Matthews and Kristina Matthews witnessed MBM gasping for air while
dislodge the candy ball from MBM's throat and clear his airway.
9. The candy ball caused MBM to sustain an injury to his throat for which he was
10. MBM's near-death experience continues to cause severe emotional and mental
12. Spangler designed, manufactured and distributed the Defective Dum Dum Sucker.
13. The Defective Dum Dum sucker was unreasonably dangerous and defective in its
manufacture in that shortly after MBM began sucking on the candy ball, suddenly and without
warning, the candy ball slipped and/or came off the stick and lodged in MBM's throat instead of
14. The Defective Dum Durn Sucker was expected to and did reach the user without
substantial change in the condition in which it was designed, manufactured, distributed and sold
by Spangler.
15. As designed, manufactured, distributed and sold by Spangler, the Defective Durn
Dum sucker was unreasonably dangerous and incapable of being safely used by its intended user
16. As a direct and proximate result of the defective and unreasonably dangerous
design, manufacture, distribution and sale of the Defective Dum Dum sucker, the candy ball
slipped and/or came off the stick and lodged in MBM's throat, causing MBM's airway to close
for an extended period of time and further causing MBM's life to be in peril due to lack of
oxygen.
17. As a direct and proximate result of the defective and unreasonably dangerous
design, manufacture, distribution and sale of the Defective Dum Dum sucker, MBM was caused
to sustain an injury to his throat, he was bruised about his body due to his father's heroic efforts
to dislodge the candy ball from this airway, and he was caused to endure and, in the future, will
endure pain and suffering, emotional trauma, anxiety and distress, loss of life's pleasures and
inconvenience.
18. As a direct and proximate result of the defective and unreasonably dangerous
design, manufacture, distribution and sale of the Defective Dum Dum sucker, MBM has incurred
and, in the future, may incur medical bills and other out-of-pocket losses and damages.
WHEREFORE, and based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs, Mark E. Matthews and Kristina
Matthews, as parents and natural guardians of MBM, a minor, respectfully request a judgment in
favor of MBM and against the Defendant, Spangler Candy Company, in an amount in excess of
Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00), punitive damages, and costs of this action and any other
20. Despite knowledge that the candy ball of its Dum Dum suckers has a propensity
to slip and/or come off the stick suddenly and without warning, Spangler failed to warn Plaintiffs
and other users of such risks, dangers and hazards, thereby knowingly creating a dangerous
21. Despite knowledge of the hazards and dangers associated with minor children of
MBM's age choking on the candy ball of a Dum Dum Sucker, Spangler failed to warn Plaintiffs
and other users of such risks, dangers and hazards, thereby knowingly creating a dangerous
22. The conduct of Spangler described in paragraphs 20-21 was outrageous, willful
23. As a direct and proximate result of the defective and unreasonably dangerous
design, manufacture, distribution and sale of the Defective Dum Durn sucker and failure to warn,
the candy ball slipped and/or came off the stick and lodged in MBM's throat, causing MBM's
airway to close for an extended period of time and further causing MBM's life to be in peril due
to lack of oxygen.
24. As a direct and proximate result of the defective and unreasonably dangerous
design, manufacture, distribution and sale of the Defective Dum Dum sucker and failure to warn,
MBM was caused to sustain an injury to his throat, he was bruised about his body due to his
father's heroic efforts to dislodge the candy ball from this airway, and he was caused to endure
and, in the future, will endure pain and suffering, emotional trauma, anxiety and distress, loss of
25. As a direct and proximate result of the defective and unreasonably dangerous
design, manufacture, distribution and sale of the Defective Dum Dum sucker and failure to warn,
MBM has incurred and, in the future, may incur medical bills and other out-of-pocket losses and
damages.
WHEREFORE, and based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs, Mark E. Matthews and Kristina
Matthews, as parents and natural guardians of MBM, a minor, respectfully request a judgment in
favor of MBM and against the Defendant, Spangler Candy Company, in an amount in excess of
Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00), punitive damages, and costs of this action and any other
27. Spangler negligently designed, manufactured and distributed the Defective Dum
Dum Sucker in that shortly after MBM began sucking on the candy ball, it slipped and/or came
off the stick and lodged in MBM's throat instead of slowly dissolving while it remained affixed
29. The doctrine ofres ipsa loquitur establishes Spangler's negligence liability in that
the candy ball should not slip and/or come off the stick in the absence of negligence in
manufacture, MBM's conduct as the cause of the candy ball slipping and/or coming off the stick
is eliminated as a matter of law due to his age, and the indicated negligence is within the scope of
30. The Defective Dum Dum Sucker was expected to and did reach the user without
substantial change in the condition in which it was designed, manufactured, distributed and sold
by Spangler.
31. As designed, manufactured, distributed and sold by Spangler, the Defective Dum
Dum sucker was unreasonably dangerous and incapable of being safely used by its intended user
unreasonably dangerous design, manufacture, distribution and sale of the Defective Dum Dum
sucker, the candy ball slipped ofI the stick and lodged in MBM's throat, causing MBM's airway
to close for an extended period of time and further causing MBM' s life to be in peril due to lack
of oxygen.
unreasonably dangerous design, manufacture, distribution and sale of the Defective Dum Dum
sucker, MBM was caused to sustain an injury to his throat, he was bruised about his body due to
his father's heroic efforts to dislodge the candy ball from this airway, and he was caused to
endure and, in the future, will endure pain and suffering, emotional trauma, anxiety and distress;
34. As a direct and proximate result of Spangler's negligent conduct and the defective
and unreasonably dangerous design, manufacture, distribution and sale of the Defective Dum
Dum sucker, MBM has incurred and, in the future, may incur medical bills and other out-of-
WHEREFORE, and based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs, Mark E. Matthews and Kristina
Matthews, as parents and natural guardians of MBM, a minor, respectfully request a judgment in
their favor and against the Defendant, Spangler Candy Company; in an amount in excess of
Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00), punitive damages, and costs of this action and any other
36. Mark E. Matthews and Kristina Matthews were situated in close physical
proximity to MBM and witnessed their son choking on the candy ball and gasping for air.
37. Mark E. Matthews and Kristina Matthews endured the terror of desperately
trying to dislodge the candy ball from MBM's throat before it was too late to save his life.
38. Mark E. Matthews and Kristina Matthews were caused to endure and, in the
future, will endure pain and suffering, emotional trauma, anxiety and distress, loss of life's
pleasures and inconvenience as a result of their contemporaneous, sensory witness of the near-
Matthews, respectfully request a judgment in their favor and against the Defendant, Spangler
damages, and costs of this action and any other relief deemed just and proper.
MEy){il, DARRAGH,
BE~~~ & ECK, P.
/" / .
By: J
~ER~ D WS, JR., ESQ.
riey for l~{ iffs, Mark E. Matthews
Kristina M thews, Individually and
ents an Natural Guardians ofMBM,
ammor
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this filing complies with the Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial
System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts requiring that
confidential information and documents be filed differently than information and documents that
I, Mark E. Matthews, hereby verify that the statements set forth in the foregoing
Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
I understand that these statements of fact are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.§
Date: _%_i c
t-/1-----iUI_I ~-=------_
Mark E. Matthews