PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

The makers of a toy water gun that was allegedly responsible for giving a Montgomery

County child a severe facial laceration that led to a “prominent and very disfiguring” scar are moving to transfer a product liability complaint by the boy’s parents from state court to the U.S. District Court in Center City, Philadelphia.

Philadelphia attorney Bradley D. Remick, of the firm Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman and Goggin, filed a petition for removal to the federal courthouse on behalf of client Poolmaster Inc., the Sacramento, Calif.-based company that manufactures the Jumbo Hot Shots Power Launcher.

Edward D. DiPietro and his wife, Kathleen DiPietro, filed suit in late January at the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on behalf of their minor son, Nicholas, over claims that the then-11-year-old boy became injured in early July 2011 while playing with friends.

At the time, Nicholas, his brother and their two other friends were playing with the water gun manufactured by the defendant.

At one point, one of the friends twirled the water launcher over his head, causing the tubular parts of the toy to separate, and leading the larger tube to propel and strike Nicholas in the face close to his right eye and nose, the lawsuit shows.

As a result of the incident, Nicholas sustained a severe laceration to the area between his eyes that required sutures to close, the lawsuit states.

The couple, who reside in Gilbertsville, Pa., are being represented by Exton, Pa. attorney Justin J. McCarthy.

The plaintiffs accuse the defendant of negligence for failing to properly, adequately and safely manufacture, fabricate, assemble and construct the Poolmaster Water Launcher so as to prevent its two major plastic tubular components from separating during use.

Nicholas’s parents claim that their son ended up sustaining a very prominent facial scar due to his injury, and that he has also suffered from headaches, anxiety, stress, embarrassment, and a loss of life’s pleasures.

The plaintiffs’ lawsuit also contains counts of strict liability and breach of warranty.

In the defense’s notice of removal, which was filed Feb. 28, Remick writes that the proper venue to adjudicate the matter is the federal court system because the amount of damages sought by the plaintiffs is believed to exceed a Pennsylvania trial court’s jurisdiction.

The damages sought by the plaintiffs are believed to be in excess of $75,000, the removal petition states, although the plaintiffs’ complaint says the couple seeks more than $50,000 in damages.

The federal case number is 2:13-cv-01091-BMS.