Case Document 1-1 Filed 02/20/15 Page 1 of 10 Eaglgp?: 5 STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CC. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO.: DEBORAH D. LAMONT, Plaintiff 3k v. M2M LLC COMPLAINT and PRECISION BRUSH COMPANY, Defendants NOW COMES Plaintiff, by and through counsel, and complains against Defendants as follows: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL The Plaintiff respectfully demands trial by jury as to all of her claims and causes so triable. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Deborah Lamont (?Lamont?) is a resident of Presque Isle, County of Aroostook, and State of Maine. 2. Defendant M2M LLC is a Virginia corporation which sells barbeque equipment and otherwise does business in the State of Maine. 3. Defendant Precision Brush Company (??Precision? is an Ohio corporation which manufactures and sells metal brushes that are sold throughout the nation and in the State of Maine. Case Document 1-1 Filed 02/20/15 Page 2 of 10 PageID 6 JURISDICTION 4. The Aroostook County Superior Court of the State of Maine has both personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this case. more 5. In or around- June, 2011, Deborah Lamont and her husband,-Brian Lamont, received a gift of a ?ManGrate? barbecue grill from their son, who had purchased it from Amazon.com. 6. Included in the delivery package of the Lamonts? ManGrate grill was an accompanying ManGrate grill brush. 7. The ManGrate grill brush was manufactured by Defendant Precision Brush Company and sold to Defendant M2M, for branding and retail sale by Defendant M2M as a ?ManGrate? product. 8. The term ?ManGrate? is a registered trademark and brand name owned by M2M which refers to a product line of barbecue grills and grill accessories, including grill brushes, marketed and sold by MZM. I I 9. Between July, 2011 and August 19, 2012, the Lamonts? ManGrate grill brush was used in a normal fashion to clean the ManGrate grill on a weekly basis in the non-winter months and was stored under an outdoor gazebo with their ManGrate grill. 10. On or about August 19, 2012, Lamont ingested a metal bristle fragment that had dislodged from her ManGrate grill brush and become attached to a mushroom burger while it was cooked by Lamont on her ManGrate grill. Case Document 1-1 Filed 02/20/15 Page'gof 10 PageID 11. Lamont suffered serious and painful injuries as a result of ingesting a metal bristle fragment from the ManGrate grill brush, and the subsequent surgical procedure to remove it from her esophagus. 12. The bristles of the Lamonts? ManGrate grill brush are made of high carbon steel. 13. High carbon steel is exceptionally strong and rigid, but also highly susceptible to corrosion during foreseeable conditions for use and storage of a grill brush. 14. The high carbon steel bristle that was surgically extracted from Lamont?s body matched in compositional qualities with the high carbon steel bristles that remained on the Lamonts? ManGrate grill brush. 15. The high carbon steel bristle fragment (The Fragment) surgically extracted from Lamont?s body was a fragment that had broken off from a bristle of the Lamonts? ManGrate grill brush. 16. The Fragment was compromised due to signi?cant corrosion. 17. The bristles on the Lamonts? ManGrate grill brush were compromised due to signi?cant corrosion. 18. The corrosion of the bristles on the Lamonts? ManGrate grill brush caused reduction in the diameter of the bristle wires, weakening of the bristle wires, and fracturing. 19. The corrosion of the bristles on the Lamonts? ManGrate grill brush caused The Fragment to fracture off from a bristle 0n the Lamonts? ManGrate grill brush, resulting in Deborah Lamont ingesting The Fragment. 20. At all times pertinent hereto, the ManGrate grill brush was marketed by MZM as being particularly effective and well suited for use with the ManGrate grill through a Case Document 1-1 Filed 02/20/15 Page 4 of 10 PageID 8 combination of unusually long and strong bristles and a long wooden handle which allows it to reach down into and scrub the unusually deep cast iron grates of the ManGrate grill. 21. At all times pertinent hereto, the Lamonts used, stored and maintained their ManGrate grill brush in a reasonable and ordinary manner. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE 22. Plaintiff repeats and reasserts the allegations contained in the Paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein. 23. Defendants M2M and Precision, as the manufacturer and/or seller of the ManGrate grill brush, owe a duty of care to foreseeable users of the ManGrate grill and ManGrate grill brush, including but not limited to a duty to: a. anticipate how the ManGrate grill and ManGrate grill brush will be ?used, including that the grill brushes will be used to vigorously scrub grills; b. anticipate how the ManGrate grill and ManGrate grill brush will be stored and maintained, including, but not limited to, taking into consideration that they are likely to be stored outdoors; c. design, manufacture and/or sell barbeque grills and grill brushes that are reasonably safe for common and foreseeable uses; and d. refrain from selling barbecue grills and grill brushes that are unreasonably dangerous for common and foreseeable uses. 24. Defendants M2M and Precision breached a duty of care and were negligent in their design, manufacture, and/or sale of the ManGrate grill brush due to failures that include but are not limited to: Case Document 1-1 Filed 02/20/15 Page 5 of 10 PageID 9 a. failure to anticipate foreseeable uses of the ManGrate grill brush, including its use to vigorously scrub grills; b. failure to anticipate foreseeable storage and maintenance of the ManGrate grill brush, including its storage outdoors; c. designing, manufacturing, and/or selling the ManGrate grill brush with high carbon bristles that are highly susceptible to corrosion, weakening, fracturing, and fragmentation during common and foreseeable use, storage, and maintenance of the ManGrate grill brush, creating the unreasonable risk that a user will be harmed by ingesting a fragment of ManGrate grill brush bristle. 25. As a direct and proximate result of negligence, Deborah Lamont suffered serious injuries and damages, including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, reasonable and necessary medical expenses and lost wages, all of which are continuing, in such amounts as shall be proven at trial. COUNT II STRICT LIABILITY 26. Plaintiff repeats and reasserts the allegations contained in the Paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein. 27. Defendants M2M and Precision were, at all times pertinent to this Complaint, - engaged in the business or designing, manufacturing and/or selling the ManGrate grill and ManGrate grill brush. 28. Defendants MZM and Precision designed, manufactured and/or sold the ManGrate grill brush that injured Deborah Lamont. Case Document 1-1 Filed 02/20/15 Page 6 of 10 PageID 10 29. The ManGrate grill brush that injured Deborah Lamont was defective and unreasonably dangerous to foreseeable users, including Deborah and Brian Lamont, for reasons including, but not limited to: a. failure to anticipate foreseeable uses of the ManGrate grill brush including its use to vigorously scrub grills; b. failure to anticipate foreseeable storage and maintenance of the ManGrate grill brush including its storage outdoors; c. the high carbon steel used in the ManGrate grill brush bristles is highly susceptible to corrosion, weakening, fracturing, and fragmentation during common and foreseeable use, storage, and maintenance of the ManGrate grill brush, creating the unreasonable risk that a user will be banned by ingesting a fragment of ManGrate grill brush bristle; d. the ManGrate grill brush that injured Deborah Lamont failed during foreseeable use and a fragment did in fact fracture off a bristle due to corrosion, weakening, and fracturing of the brush bristles, causing Deborah Lamont injury when she ingested the fragment; e. the ManGrate grill brush failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect during foreseeable use, because the grill brush bristles fractured and fragmented under foreseeable use, maintenance, and storage conditions; and f. the risks associated with the ManGrate grill brush; as designed, manufactured, and sold; outweighed the bene?ts of the ManGrate grill brush as designed, manufactured, sold and installed. Case - Document 1-1 Filed 02/20/15 Page 7 of 10 PageID 11 30. The ManGrate grill brush described above reached the Lamonts without signi?cant change to the condition in which it was designed and manufactured. 31. Deborah Lamont was a person who might reasonably be expected to use a ManGrate grill brush. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the ManGrate grill brush, Deborah Lamont suffered serious injuries and damages, including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, reasonable and necessary medical expenses and lost wages, allof which are continuing, in such amounts as shall be proven at trial. COUNT BREACH OF WARRANTY 33. Plaintiff repeats and reasserts the allegations contained in the Paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein. 34. MZM expressly and impliedly warranted that the ManGrate grill brush was ?t for the purposes for which it was sold and made other express and implied warranties as to its condition and suitability for use. 35. M2M breached these warranties by the designing, manufacturing and/or selling the ManGrate grill brush in a dangerous, defective and unreliable condition. 36. As a direct and proximate result of the breaches of warranty, Deborah Lamont suffered serious injuries and damages, including, but not limited to, pain and suffering, reasonable and necessary medical expenses and lost wages, all of which are continuing, in such amounts as shall be proven at trial. WHEREF ORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages, interest, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. Case Document l-l Filed 02/20/15 Page 8 of 10 PageID 12 Dated: January 5,2015 1114328.doc Jam . O'Connell Esq. 6 Bar No. 4078 Alicia F. Curtis, Esq. Maine Bar No. 10033 Berman Simmons, RA. PO. Box 961 Lewiston, ME 04243?0961 (207) 784-3576 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Case Document 1-1 Filed 02/20/15 Page9of 10 . I STATE OF MAJNE SUPERIOR COURT DISTRICT COURT AROOSTOOK 33_ Location Docket No. Docket No. Deborah D. Lamont Plaintiff v. SUMMONS Precision Brush Company Defendant USE IN ANOTHER couury? c/o James Benjamin, Agent 14400 Industrlal Avenue Address Maple Heights, OH 44137 The Plaintiff has begun a lawsuit against you in the (Bimk (Superior) Court, which holds sessions at (street address) 144 Sweden Street, Suite 101 in the Fawn/City of Caribou County of AIOOS took . Maine. If you wish to oppose this lawsuit, you or your attorney MUST PREPARE AND SERVE A Suite 101 Caribou Maine Oil/db (Mailing Address) (Town, City) (Zip) before, or within a reasonable time after, it is served. IMPORTANT WARNING OR IF, AFTER YOU ANSWER, YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT ANY TIME THE COURT NOTIFIES YOU TO DO SO, JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE FOR THE MONEY DAMAGES OR OTHER RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE COMPLAINT. IF THIS OCCURS, (Seal of Court) Godot James E. O'Connell Esq. Clerk Berman Simmons, P.A. (Attorney for) Plaintiff Lisbon St., P-O. BOX Address Lewiston, ME 04243?0961 (207) 784?3576 Telephone Date: 1/5/15 Rev. 09/97 Case Document 1-1 Filed 02/20/15 Page 10 of 10 Pagelp_#_t STATE OF MAINE County of ,ss. On (date). I served the Complaint (and Summons) upon Defendant by delivering a c0py of same at the following address: to the above?named Defendant in hand. to (name). a person of suitable age and discretion who - was then residing at Defendant?s usual residence. to (name), who is authorized to receive service for Defendant. by (describe other manner of service): Costs of Service: Service: 5 Travel 5 Postage 3 Signature Other 3 Total Agency