Change of Venue Ordered in Defective Fireworks Case
If you ever end up filing a lawsuit against the manufacturer of a product, you can expect that the manufacturer will file a petition with the court to change the venue. Typically, plaintiffs file lawsuits in whichever district they reside in, but companies generally prefer that lawsuits be filed in whichever district the company is based. Judges are then forced to rule on where the lawsuit will be heard.
Plaintiff Harper filed a lawsuit against Sky King Fireworks after he sustained an injury to his eye. The plaintiff alleges that a defective reloadable mortar separated from its base resulting in artillery shell firing directly at the plaintiff.
The plaintiffs reside in New York but the fireworks company is based here in Florida. The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in Pennsylvania which they said was conveniently located for all parties and easily accessible for all parties. The plaintiffs argued simply that it would cost more money to try the case elsewhere.
The defense countered with the fact that none of the parties in the litigation reside in Pennsylvania and none of the operative facts giving rise to the claim happened in Pennsylvania.
The Change of Venue Motion
The judge denied the change of venue motion, but this is not the only problem that the plaintiffs are likely to encounter.
The plaintiffs purchased the allegedly defective fireworks in Pennsylvania where the sale and possession of such fireworks are legal. The plaintiffs then transported the defective fireworks across state lines into New York State where the sale and possession of fireworks are illegal. This fact will be brought into the courtroom. Additionally, the fact that the plaintiff may have attempted to use the mortar in a way that was not anticipated by the fireworks company could present another problem.
The plaintiffs will argue that regardless of the legality of their actions and regardless of what they did with the mortar, the reloadable mortar was defective. Had the mortar not been defective, the plaintiff would have never suffered any kind of injury.
If the plaintiff can prove that the mortar was definitely defective, the defendants can raise the aforementioned arguments. This could diminish their liability by placing some of the fault on the plaintiff, but it likely won’t eradicate it entirely.
In this case, it’s very likely that if the plaintiff’s arguments are true, that the company is responsible for the defective mortar and the injuries that it caused regardless of what the plaintiff was doing with it or if it was allowed where he lives.
New Yorkers flood into Pennsylvania every Fourth of July to bring fireworks back to their native New York where they are heavily restricted.
Talk to a Miami Personal Injury Attorney Today
If you’ve been injured by a defective product, we can help you hold the negligent party accountable. Call the Miami personal injury attorneys at the office of Alan Goldfarb, P.A. today to schedule a free consultation and learn more about our services.