MICHAEL BARTLETT,             
                        
Plaintiff,           
                       
v.                       
                       
FISCH PRECISION TOOLS, INC., MTD PRODUCTS INC., RURAL KING HOLDING CO.
d/b/a/ RURAL KING

Defendants.


COMES NOW Plaintiff, Michael Bartlett, and for his Complaint against Defendants, Fisch Precision Tools, Inc., MTD Products, Inc. and Rural King Holding Co. d/b/a/ Rural King, states as follows:

1.    At the time of the subject incident the Plaintiff, Michael Bartlett, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), was a resident of Macoupin County, Illinois. 
2.     Fisch Precision Tools, Inc., (hereinafter “Fisch”) is a business conducting and duly authorized to conduct business in the State of Illinois. 
3.    MTD Products Inc., (hereinafter “MTD”) is a business conducting and duly authorized to conduct business in the State of Illinois. 
4.    Rural King Holding Co. (hereinafter “Rural King”), is a business conducting and duly authorized to conduct business in the State of Illinois.  Additionally, Rural King’s corporate headquarters are located in Illinois.
5.    The amount in controversy exceeds $50,000 exclusive of interest and costs and the injury occurred in Macoupin County Illinois.   
6.    Venue is appropriate in Macoupin County, State of Illinois pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-101.
7.    On December 15, 2007 Plaintiff’s spouse purchased an Electric Log Splitter (Fisch Model # LS 8000 II and MTD model # 24AM5A2A) from the Rural King store located in Litchfield, Illinois. 
8.    That on February 18, 2008, in Macoupin County, Illinois, Plaintiff was using the Log Splitter in a manner reasonably anticipated by Defendants when a log was ejected and propelled out of the Log Splitter striking Plaintiff in the face and causing permanent injury to his face.


9.      Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 though 8 as if fully set forth herein.     
10.    That Defendant, Fisch Precision Tools, Inc., in the course of its business, manufactured, designed and sold an Electric Log Splitter under its model name of “Fisch LS 8000 II”.
11.    That when the Electric Log Splitter was sold to Plaintiff, it was in substantially the same condition as it was at the time of the above mentioned injury.
12.    That at the time the product was designed, manufactured, distributed, supplied and/or put into the stream of commerce by Defendant Fisch it was in a defective condition and unreasonably dangerous when put to a reasonably anticipated use in the following respects:
        a.    That the Log Splitter’s “Log Ram” vertical face that comes into                 contact with the log was angled backwards towards the operator                 and thus failing to prevent logs ejecting towards the     operator;
        b.    That the Log Splitter’s “Log Ram” had no serration, roughed face,                 or other griping design to prevent logs from slipping off the “Log                 Ram” face and ejecting towards the     operator;
        c.    The “motor start switch” and the “operating lever” are designed in                 such a way that forces the operator to be in a prone position over                 the “Log Ram” during the entire operation of the log splitter, this                 places the operators face directly over the “log ram”;
        d.    The log splitter has no guard or other device to prevent logs from                 ejecting upwards and into the operators face;
        e.    That there were not adequate warnings affixed to the Log Splitter                 warning of the severity of injuries that could occur from logs ejecting upwards off the “log ram” or of the risk.
13.    That as a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid defective log splitter Plaintiff sustained and suffered serious, permanent and progressive injury to his face, past and future medical bills and expenses, past and future lost wages, and that he suffered, suffers, and will continue to suffer mental anguish and emotional distress and that all of his injuries are painful, permanent and disabling.
     WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court to enter judgment in his favor and against the Defendant, and award him compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial to be fair and reasonable in excess of $50,000; to award him prejudgment interest, attorney fees, and the costs of this action; and to grant such other relief as the Court may deem necessary and proper.

14.    Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 though 13 as if fully set forth herein
15.    That Defendant Fisch failed to use ordinary care and was negligent in its design and manufacture of the Electric Log Splitter in the following respects, to-wit:
        a.    That the Log Splitter’s “Log Ram” vertical face that comes into                 contact with the log was angled backwards towards the operator                 and thus failing to prevent logs ejecting towards the     operator;
        b.    That the Log Splitter’s “Log Ram” had no serration, roughed face,                 or other griping design to prevent logs from slipping off the “Log                 Ram” face and ejecting towards the     operator;
        c.    The “motor start switch” and the “operating lever” are designed in                 such a way that forces the operator to be in a prone position over                 the “Log Ram” during the entire operation of the log splitter, this                 places the operators face directly over the “log ram”;
        d.    The log splitter has no guard or other device to prevent logs from                 ejecting upwards and into the operators face;
        e.    That there were not adequate warnings affixed to the Log Splitter                 warning of the severity of injuries that could occur from logs ejecting upwards off the “log ram” or of the risk.
       
     WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court to enter judgment in his favor and against the Defendant, and award him compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial to be fair and reasonable in excess of $50,000; to award him prejudgment interest, attorney fees, and the costs of this action; and to grant such other relief as the Court may deem necessary and proper.


16.    Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 though 15 as if fully set forth herein.     
17.    That Defendant, MTD, in the course of its business, manufactured, designed and sold an Electric Log Splitter under its model name of “MTD 24AM5A2A”.
18.    That at the time the product was designed, manufactured, distributed, supplied and/or put into the stream of commerce by Defendant MTD it was in a defective condition and unreasonably dangerous when put to a reasonably anticipated use in the following respects:
        a.    That the Log Splitter’s “Log Ram” vertical face that comes into                 contact with the log was angled backwards towards the operator  and thus failing to prevent logs ejecting towards the     operator;
        b.    That the Log Splitter’s “Log Ram” had no serration, roughed face, or other griping design to prevent logs from slipping off the “Log Ram” face and ejecting towards the operator;
        c.    The “motor start switch” and the “operating lever” are designed in such a way that forces the operator to be in a prone position over the “Log Ram” during the entire operation of the log splitter, this places the operators face directly over the “log ram”;
        d.    The log splitter has no guard or other device to prevent logs from ejecting upwards and into the operators face;
        e.    That there were not adequate warnings affixed to the Log Splitter warning of the severity of injuries that could occur from logs ejecting upwards off the “log ram” or of the risk.

     WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court to enter judgment in his favor and against the Defendant, and award him compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial to be fair and reasonable in excess of $50,000; to award him prejudgment interest, attorney fees, and the costs of this action; and to grant such other relief as the Court may deem necessary and proper.

19.    Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 though 18 as if fully set forth herein
20.    That Defendant MTD failed to use ordinary care and was negligent in its design and manufacture of the Electric Log Splitter in the following respects, to-wit:
        a.    That the Log Splitter’s “Log Ram” vertical face that comes into                 contact with the log was angled backwards towards the operator and thus failing to prevent logs ejecting towards the operator;
        b.    That the Log Splitter’s “Log Ram” had no serration, roughed face, or other griping design to prevent logs from slipping off the “Log Ram” face and ejecting towards the operator;
        c.    The “motor start switch” and the “operating lever” are designed in such a way that forces the operator to be in a prone position over the “Log Ram” during the entire operation of the log splitter, this places the operators face directly over the “log ram”;
        d.    The log splitter has no guard or other device to prevent logs from ejecting upwards and into the operators face;
        e.    That there were not adequate warnings affixed to the Log Splitter warning of the severity of injuries that could occur from logs ejecting upwards off the “log ram” or of the risk.

        WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court to enter judgment in his favor and against the Defendant, and award him compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial to be fair and reasonable in excess of $50,000; to award him prejudgment interest, attorney fees, and the costs of this action; and to grant such other relief as the Court may deem necessary and proper.

21.    Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 though 20 as if fully set forth herein
22.    That Defendant, Rural King, in the course of its business sold an Electric Log Splitter under the model name of “MTD 24AM5A2A” and “FISCH LS 8000 II”.
23.    That at the time the product was designed, manufactured, distributed, supplied and/or put into the stream of commerce by Defendant Rural King it was in a defective condition and unreasonably dangerous when put to a reasonably anticipated use in the following respects:
        a.    That the Log Splitter’s “Log Ram” vertical face that comes into                 contact with the log was angled backwards towards the operator  and thus failing to prevent logs ejecting towards the operator;
        b.    That the Log Splitter’s “Log Ram” had no serration, roughed face, or other griping design to prevent logs from slipping off the “Log Ram” face and ejecting towards the operator;
        c.    The “motor start switch” and the “operating lever” are designed in such a way that forces the operator to be in a prone position over the “Log Ram” during the entire operation of the log splitter, this places the operators face directly over the “log ram”;
        d.    The log splitter has no guard or other device to prevent logs from ejecting upwards and into the operators face;
        e.    That there were not adequate warnings affixed to the Log Splitter warning of the severity of injuries that could occur from logs ejecting upwards off the “log ram” or of the risk.

     WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court to enter judgment in his favor and against the Defendant, and award him compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial to be fair and reasonable in excess of $50,000; to award him prejudgment interest, attorney fees, and the costs of this action; and to grant such other relief as the Court may deem necessary and proper.


Respectfully submitted
SANSONE LAW, LLC
            
  
    
BENJAMIN J. SANSONE, IL #6281549
7777 Bonhomme Ave
Suite 2250
Clayton, Missouri 63105
(314) 726-1817
(314) 726-6087 FAX
BJS@SansoneLaw.com    

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF