Anda di halaman 1dari 6

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHTENAW MARY ARMBRUSTER Plaintiff, Case No. 12vs.

Hon. JENNIFER HOEY LAMBERS and BURTON HOEY, individually, and both d/b/a JENNY=S MARKET, jointly and severally, Defendants. __________________________________________/ DON FERRIS (P26436) FERRIS & SALTER, P.C. Attorney for Plaintiff 4158 Washtenaw Avenue Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108 (734) 677-2020 _________________________________________/ COMPLAINT, AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff, by her attorneys, Ferris & Salter, P.C., by Don Ferris, says: COMMON ALLEGATIONS 1. Plaintiff is a resident of Washtenaw County, Michigan. 2. Defendant Jennifer Hoey Lambers owns a 60 acre farm, and Defendant Lambers and the farm does business as Defendant Jenny=s Market at 8366 Island Lake Road, Dexter, Washtenaw County, Michigan 48130 3. Defendant Burton Hoey is Jennifer Hoey Lambers father, and does business with Defendant Lambers as Defendant Jenny=s Market. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Defendant Hoey was an agent real or apparent, of Jennifer Hoey Lambers and of Jenny=s 1 -NO

Market, and was acting within the scope of his agency in his negligent actions which injured Mary Armbruster. 4. The amount in controversy substantially exceeds this Court minimum jurisdictional requirement of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000) Dollars. 5. Mary Armbruster was a temporary seasonal worker for all of the Defendants beginning the weekend of September 3, 2011. 6. Mary was not an independent contractor. 7. Mary was not a person who was furnished by anyone to work for Defendants. 8. She instead on her own asked Defendants to work as a temporary seasonal worker to work on weekends driving a wagon to provide hayrides for customers of Defendants.
9. Defendants provided faulty and unsafe equipment and an unsafe wagon and an unsafe route for Mary to drive. 10. The reins for the two horse team were faulty and unsafe because they were mismatched and uneven, causing Mary to have to hold one rein in each hand to adequately steer the two horses. 11. Mary complained about the reins to Defendants, but Defendants failed to correct the faulty and unsafe reins. 12. The wagon which Mary drove was faulty and unsafe because the seat where she sat to drive the two horses wasn=t bolted down. 13. This made it extremely difficult to control the horses when they started to trot or run. 14. Mary complained about the seat to Defendants, but Defendants failed to adequately fix the faulty seat. 15. Defendants also negligently and dangerously set a course for the hayride which required the wagon to be driven down a steep, dangerously unsafe hill with uneven ground.

16. On Saturday, September 24, 2011, Mary was driving Defendants= wagon with the faulty and unsafe seat, with a team of two horses with the faulty and unsafe reins, over the unsafe course. 17. Mary tried to prevent the team of horses from running down the hill by pulling back on the reins while seated, using the back of the seat to enable her to exert force on the horses. 18. Because Defendants had negligently failed to secure the seat to the wagon, it came loose, leaving Mary to stand on the wagon with no fulcrum to exert pressure on the horses 19. The horses then bolted down the hill, and Mary attempted to slow them down so that they could turn at the bottom of the hill and not run into the road. 20. While she was exerting all of her standing weight on each of the reins, one in each hand, she was jerked off the front of the wagon, and was run over. 21. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants= negligent acts and omissions, Plaintiff Mary Armbruster fractured her spine between the T11 and T12 vertebrae, and despite multiple surgeries, is paralyzed from the waist down. 22. If Defendants equipment was not faulty, if Defendants had adequately bolted the seat, and had provided safe tack to Plaintiff, she would not have been pulled off the wagon and injured. 23. As a result of such injuries, Plaintiff: A. Was forced to suffer a permanent loss of health and detriment to the body as a whole. B.

Was forced to endure and is continuing to endure severe pain from the

injuries, and from the corrective surgeries. C. Was and is required to take numerous drugs and medications to alleviate pain and suffering. D. Suffered a great deal of mental pain and anguish and was extremely

nervous and upset. She will continue to suffer from the injuries sustained and the mental anguish and anxiety in the future. E. F. Is paralyzed from the waist down. Was forced to continue treatment to help assuage pain and to insure proper healing and will be required to continue treatment for an undetermined time. G. Was required to submit to x-rays, MRIs, CT scans, laboratory examinations, and other manipulations of the body. H. Has been required to endure many other discomforts and pain associated with the foregoing. I. J. Has undergone surgeries to attempt to repair the spinal damage. Has undergone lengthy physical therapy to attempt to improve the use of her legs. Has hundreds of thousands of dollars in past and future medical bills. Is disabled, and will likely remain so for a lengthy period of time. M. Suffered impaired strength, daily pain, and has suffered a permanent impairment of strength and limitation of movement, along with permanent pain. N. Has affected her ability to lead a normal life both at home and outside of home. O.
P.

Can no longer engage in the regular physical and recreational activities.


Plaintiff=s life has been completely changed forever.

COUNT I C NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANTS 24. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as though fully stated herein, all of the Common Allegations of this Complaint. 25. Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff to use due care and caution in providing safe equipment, including a bolted seat, non-faulty reins and tack, and a safe course over which to drive the wagon so as not to place Plaintiff and her passengers in danger. 26. Contrary to the duties owed Plaintiff, Defendants were negligent by: A. Providing faulty and unsafe equipment and an unsafe wagon and an unsafe route for Mary to drive. B. The reins for the two horse team were faulty and unsafe because they were mismatched and uneven, causing Mary to have to hold one rein in each hand to adequately steer. C. Defendants failed to correct the faulty and unsafe reins after Mary complained about the reins being faulty and unsafe. D. Defendants= wagon which Mary drove was faulty and unsafe because the seat where she sat wasn=t bolted down. This made it extremely difficult to control horses when they started to trot or run. This caused her to stand, and be and underneath the wagon. E. Defendants failed to adequately fix the faulty seat after Mary complained about it being faulty and unsafe. F. Defendants set a dangerous course for the hayride which required the wagon to the pulled off

be driven down a steep, dangerously unsafe hill with uneven ground. 27. Plaintiff was free of any negligence on her part.

28. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants= negligence, Plaintiff suffered the injuries and damages detailed in Paragraphs 21 and 23 above.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Mary Armbruster demands judgment against Defendants Jennifer Hoey Lambers, Burton Lambers, and Jenny=s Market in whatever amount over Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) that the trier of fact finds Plaintiff is entitled to, plus costs, interest, and attorney=s fees.

Dated: January 3, 2012

________________________ DON FERRIS (P26436) FERRIS & SALTER, P.C. Attorney for Plaintiff 4158 Washtenaw Avenue Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108 (734) 677-2020 JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury. Dated: January 3, 2012 ________________________ DON FERRIS (P26436) FERRIS & SALTER, P.C. Attorney for Plaintiff 4158 Washtenaw Avenue Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108 (734) 677-2020