RUBIN, GLICKMAN AND STEINBERG P . C . Attorney for Plaintiff

Matthew Taylor Wilkov, Esquire

Attorney I. D . No. 74259

2605 North Broad StreetP O . Box 1277

Lansdale , PA 19446

(215 ) 822-7575IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASOFMONTGOMERY COUNTY , PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL ACTION - LAW

JASON REALL377 RidgeRoadTelford, PA 18967

Plaintiff2004 - 19507-0000

ComplaintCivilAction

MontgomeryCounty ProthonotaryWilliam E Donnelly, July 01 2004 12 22:00 PM.

LIFESAFER INTERLOCK , INC.1908 Hudson AvenueCincinnati, OH 45212

FirstDefendant.

and.

.NATIONALINTERLOCKSERVICE(PA) LTD.

c o CorporationSystem1515MarketStreet, Suite1210

Philadelphia, PA 19102SecondDefendant

.

.

.

and..

H & R AUTO RADIO SERVICE , INC .

155 York RoadWarminster , PA 18974

Third Defendant

.

.

and

COMMONWEALTHOF PENNSYLVANIA

DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION

400 North Street

KeystoneBuildingHarrisburg, PA 17120

Fourth Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NOTICELaw Offices

RUBIN

GLICKMAN

AND

You havebeen sued in Court. Ifyou wish to defend againstthe claimsset forth in the following pages,

youmust takeaction within twenty (20 ) days after thisComplaintandNoticeare served by entering a written

appearance personally, orby attorney, to the claimsset forth againstyou . You are warned that ifyou fail to do so,

the casemay proceed withoutyou and a Judgmentmaybe entered against you by the Court, without further claims

or reliefrequested by the Plaintiff. Youmaylosemoney or property or other rights importantto you .STEINBERG

Lansdale , PA

YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A

LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONEGO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO

FIND OUTWHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.

LawyerReference Service

100 West Airy Street (Rear)

Norristown, PA 19404 -0268

(610) 279-9660 , Extension 201

Law Offices

RUBIN

GLICKMAN

AND

STEINBERG

Lansdale, PA

RUBIN , GLICKMAN AND STEINBERG , P. C . Attorney for Plaintiff

Matthew Taylor Wilkov , Esquire

Attorney I .D . No. 742592605 North Broad StreetP . O . Box 1277Lansdale , PA 19446

(215 ) 822- 7575

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASOFMONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL ACTION - LAW

No.JASON REALL

377 RidgeRoadTelford, PA 18967

Plaintiff.

VS..

.

.LIFESAFERINTERLOCK, INC.1908HudsonAvenue

Cincinnati, OH 45212FirstDefendant

.

and ..

.

.NATIONALINTERLOCKSERVICE(PA) LTD.

c / CTCorporationSystem1515MarketStreet, Suite 1210

Philadelphia, PA 19102SecondDefendant

.

.

.

.

and ..

.H & R AUTO RADIO SERVICE, INC.

155 York Road

Warminster, PA 18974

Third Defendant.

and

.

COMMONWEALTHOF PENNSYLVANIA

DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION

400 North Street

KeystoneBuilding

Harrisburg, PA 17120Fourth Defendant

.

.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT

Law Offices

RUBIN

GLICKMAN

AND

STEINBERG

Lansdale, PA

Plaintiff, Jason Reall, by and through his attorney , Matthew Taylor Wilkov, Esquire, brings this

action at law pursuant to Pa .R . C .P . 1001 et seq. , and respectfully represents :

1. Plaintiff, Jason Reall, is an adult citizen of the Commonwealthof Pennsylvania, residingat 377

Ridge Road, Telford Montgomery County , Pennsylvania .

2 . First Defendant, LifeSafer Interlock, Inc. (hereinafter“ LifeSafer ), is an Ohio Corporationwith its

principalplace of business at 1908 Hudson Avenue, Cincinnati,Ohio.

3 . Second Defendant, National Interlock Service (PA ) Ltd. (hereinafter “ National Interlock ), a

Pennsylvania Corporation with a registered address c Corporation System , 1515Market Street,

Suite 1210 , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania

4. Third Defendant, H & R Auto Radio Service, Inc., (hereinafter“ H & , is a Pennsylvania

Corporation with its principal place of business 155 York Road, Warminster, Bucks County ,

Pennsylvania .

5. Fourth Defendant, Commonwealth ofPennsylvania , Department of Transportation (hereinafter

PennDOT), is an administrative department of the executive branch ofthe Commonwealth , with offices

at 400 North Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

. At all times material hereto , the Defendants , each of them , were acting and /or failing to act

individually and/or by and through each of their principals ,agents, workmen , servants and/ or employees

acting within the scope of their authority.

. At all timesmaterial hereto, FirstDefendant, LiféSafer, engaged in the business ofdesigning,

manufacturing, distributing, advertising,marketing, promoting, selling and leasing ignition interlock

Law Offices

RUBIN

GLICKMAN

AND

STEINBERG

Lansdale, PA

devices . On information and belief, said entity does business in The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ,

and at all times relevanthereto, itdesigned ,manufactured , distributed, advertised , marketed, promoted

and sold in interstate commerce, and in Pennsylvania, an interlockdevice known as the FC100.

8. At alltimes relevanthereto, SecondDefendant, NationalInterlock, wasengaged in business as a

distributor, dealer and lessor oftheLifeSafer interlock device in the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania,

and atalltimes relevanthereto,marketed , advertised, promoted , sold, leased,monitored and performed

maintenanceon the interlockdevicesmanufacturedbyFirst Defendant, including, butnot limited to, the

FC100, and more specifically, the subject FC100 bearing the SampleHead No. FC010851 hereinafter

referred to as “ the FC100"). NationalInterlock also assisted in the developmentofthe FC100.

9. Atalltimes relevanthereto, Third Defendant , H & R was engaged in business as a Designated

Service Center for Second Defendant,NationalInterlock, under contractwith Second Defendantto

install,maintain, operate,monitor, distribute, and service the LifeSaferFC100 interlock device designed

and manufactured by FirstDefendant, LifeSafer, at their place of business in Warminster, Pennsylvania

and at all times relevant hereto ,marketed , advertised, promoted , sold , leased,monitored and performed

maintenanceon the interlock devicesmanufactured First Defendant, including, butnot limited to , the

FC100, and more specifically, the subject FC100 bearing the Sample Head No. FC010851 and consisting

of a sample head , relaymodule, siren andassociated wiring (hereinafter referred to as“ the FC100 ").

10. At all times relevant hereto, Fourth Defendant, PennDOT, remained the administrative

department of the executive branch of the Commonwealth , chargedwith the authority to regulate,Law Offices

supervise, and administer driver licensing and registration, including the authority to enforcejudicial

orders for individuals with DUI-related license suspensions to either procure an interlock device such as

RUBIN

GLICKMAN

AND

STEINBERGLansdale, PA

the FC100, or suffer further license suspension .

11. On or about May 7, 2001, Plaintiffwas convicted in the Court of Common Pleas ofMontgomery

County for DrivingUnderthe InfluenceofAlcohol, atwhich time Plaintiffwas sentenced to 30 months

ofconfinement, 2 years probation, paymentofcourt costs and a $ 300 fine. Plaintiffwas notordered by

the court to installan interlock device at the end ofhis 1 year license suspension .

12. Via correspondencefrom Fourth Defendant, PennDOT, dated April8, 2002, PennDOT advised

Plaintiff that his driver s license would notbe restored for an additionalyear unless he fulfilled the

requirement of having an approved Ignition Interlock System installed inhis vehicle, and advising of the

approved installation centers. A photocopy of Fourth Defendant s correspondence to Plaintiff is

attached hereto as Exhibit “ A ” andmade a part hereof.

13. On page two ofFourth Defendant s correspondence to Plaintiff, Second Defendant, National

Interlock, is listed as an approved vendor of an approved Ignition Interlock System , and National

Interlock s telephonenumber is provided.

14 . Fourth Defendantdid nothave the authority to refuse to restore Plaintiff s driver' s license and to

require the installation ofan interlock device, absent a judicial order for same.

15 . Pursuant to Fourth Defendant' s illegal and improper requirement, Plaintiff contacted Second

Defendant, National Interlock , at the telephone number provided by Fourth Defendant

Law Offices16 . Agents of Second Defendant, National Interlock , answered the telephone at the number provided

RUBIN

by Fourth Defendant, PennDOT, and advised Plaintiff to bring his automobile to the place of business ofGLICKMAN

AND

STEINBERG

Lansdale, PA

Third Defendant, H & R

17. On or about April 30, 2002, Plaintiff brought hisvehicle, a 1986 Oldsmobile Calais, VIN

1G3NT6945GM321301, to Third Defendant s premises at 155 York Road, Warminster, Pennsylvania,

and entered into a contract with Second Defendant, NationalInterlock, for the installation of an FC100.

18. On April 30 , 2002, Plaintiff paid to Second Defendant NationalInterlock, and/or Third

Defendant, H & R, the amount of $ 158. 34 , and in return, Second and Third Defendants' agents installed

an FC100 interlock system , owned by Second Defendant, and designed andmanufactured by First

Defendant, inPlaintiff s automobile.

19. The FC100 is intended to prevent drivers from operating vehicles while under the influence of

alcohol. Drivers are required to blow into the in order to start the vehicle, and then must provide

breath samples atrandom intervalswhileoperatingthe vehicle. If a breath test is notpassed, the FC100

is designed to cause the horn to begin honking until the vehicle is turned off.

20. FirstDefendant, LifeSafer, advises consumers that they should keep water with them in their

vehicles for occasions where a failed test occurs . Consumers are advised to rinse theirmouth out with

water when failed tests occur, placing the consumer in the extremely dangerous position of reaching for

thedevice, blowing, reaching for water, opening thewater, rinsing their mouth with water, and blowing

again, all while operating a movingautomobile.

21. Between April20, 2002and on or about July 24, 2002, Plaintiffexperienced frequent problems

Law Officeswith the FC100.

RUBIN

GLICKMAN22. Repeatedly , between April 20, 2002 and July 24, 2002, Plaintiff telephoned the facility operated

AND

by Third Defendant, H & R .STEINBERG

Lansdale, PA

23 . Repeatedly , between April 20 2002 and July 24, 2002, Plaintiff brought his vehicle back to the

facility owned by Third Defendant, H & R , for service.

24 . Each time Plaintiff complained to personnel employed by either Third Defendant, H /or

Second Defendant, National Interlock, hewas advised that the FC100 was working as it issupposed to

work.

25. On the evening of July 24, 2002, Plaintiff decided to drive his automobile to his brother -in-law ' s

home.

26. While en route to his brother-in- law s home, on Swamp Creek Road (State Road 1030 ) in

Marlborough Township, MontgomeryCounty, Pennsylvania the FC100 sounded offwith a warning

tone.

27. The sound of thewarningtone advised Plaintiffthathehad themanufacturer s intended, limited

prescribed amount of time in which to render a breath sample. While blowing vigorously into the FC100,

and simultaneouslyoperating hismovingautomobile, as the device is intended to be used, Plaintiffwas

caused to pass out, losingconsciousness, thereby causing him to lose control ofhismoving vehicle,

causing a violentone car accident.

28. Asa resultof themisconduct ofthe defendantsin the unsafe and defective design, manufacturer' s

Law Officesdefect, and/or improper service andmaintenance, and improperrequirementfor the installationofthe

RUBIN

GLICKMAN FC100 (as set forth below ), Plaintiff sustainedmultiple severe injuries.

AND

STEINBERG

Lansdale, PA

29. Plaintiff, Jason Reall, suffered severeanddisablinginjuriesto his body, includinghisbones,

muscles, skin , tendons, ligaments,and blood vessels, includingwithout limitation of the foregoin : Left

femoralneck fracturewith hematomain the left piriformismuscle; left lower lobe atelectasis; subcaptial

fractured left hip, requiringopen reduction and internal fixation; Grade III open leftwrist comminuted

and intra-articular distal radius fracture requiring open reduction and internal fixation ; fractures of the

medialand lateralhumeral condyles requiring internal fixation ; fracture ofthe olecranon requiring

internal fixation; closed head injury; split thickness skin grafting; surgical removalofhardware ;

avascularnecrosis of the hip; permanentdisability; permanent scarring and disfigurement; and secondary

complications, the fullextentofwhich injuriesisnotyet fully known, and someorallofwhich are

permanentin nature.

30 .As a resultof themisconductofthe defendants and the productdefect and recklessdisregard for

safetymanifested by these defendants, and each of them , asset forth below, the Plaintiffhasbeen

required, and hemay in the future continue to require, repeated surgical intervention ,medical care, and

other treatment, andhe has incurred, andmay in the future incur expenses formedicinesand medical

care to attend to , treat, alleviate,minimizeand/or attemptto cure his conditions, and hemay in the future

sustain a loss of earnings and /or earningcapacity because of the nature of his injuries.

31. As a resultof themisconductofthe defendants and the productdefectand recklessdisregard for

safety manifested by these defendants,and each of them as set forth below , the hasbeen

Law Offices

preventedand in the future he maybeprevented and precluded from attendingto his normaldutiesandRUBIN

GLICKMAN advocacies; in addition, he has suffered, and in the future hemay continue to suffer pain ,mentalanguish,

AND humiliation ,disfigurement , scarring, a loss of“ wellbeing, ” restrictions in his ability to engage in hisSTEINBERG

Lansdale, PA normalactivities, and inabilityto pursuethe normaland ordinary pleasures of life .

32. Based on information they had, should havehad or of which they were aware, the defendants

knew that allFC100 interlock devices, were defective as designed, in that the consumer isplaced in a

dangerous position every time they operate their automobile,when the consumermust respond to a

demand for a breath sample in a limited amount oftime, while operating a moving automobile.

33. The defendants advertised the FC100 in nationalconsumer, professional, and trademagazinesand

publications as well as other general interest publications and newspapers and on the internet, and in

brochures, representing, among other things, thatthe FC100 wasa quality, safe device.

34. Notwithstandingthe defendants' knowledgeofproblemswith random test requirementof the

FC100, the defendants failed to advise lessees of the FC100, including the Plaintiff, of potential

problems, and they engaged in a calculated pattern and practice to hide the defective nature ofthe FC100

from lesseesofthe FC100.

COUNT I

Strict Liability

Plaintiff . First Secondand Third Defendants

35. Paragraphs " 1" through 34 " are incorporated by reference as if set forth in extenso .

36. First Defendant, LifeSafer, is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, distributing,

advertising, marketing, promoting, selling and leasing ignition interlock devices to includethe subjectLaw Offices

RUBIN

GLICKMANFC100

AND

STEINBERG

Lansdale, PA

37. Second Defendant,National Interlock, is engaged in business as a distributor, dealer , owner and

lessor ofthe LifeSafer FC100 interlock device in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania , and at alltimes

relevant hereto,marketed, advertised , promoted , leased, and performed maintenance on the FC100

manufacturedbyFirstDefendant.

38. Third Defendant , H engaged in business as a Designated Service Center for Second

Defendant, NationalInterlock, undercontractwith SecondDefendantto install, maintain, operate,

monitor, distribute, and service the LifeSafer FC100 interlock device designed and manufactured by First

Defendant, LifeSafer.

39. The FC100 which caused Plaintiff s injurieswas expected to and did, reach Plaintiffwithout

substantialchange in the condition in which it was soldand/or leased.

40. The FC100 was in a defective condition , unreasonably dangerous to motor vehicle drivers,

passengers, and bystanders, including the Plaintiff,when the FC100 left the aforesaid Defendants

possession or controlin that undernormal conditions, usage and application, the FC100 would require

automobile operators to render breath samples atrandom times, while operating a moving vehicle , and

require such a significant volume of breath , in a limited span of time, that an operator could lose

consciousnesswhile hurriedly attempting to clear the device, which caused the aforesaid injuries to

Plaintiff

Law Offices41. Plaintiffused theFC100 in a mannerand for the purpose for which itwas intended and which was

RUBIN

GLICKMAN reasonably foreseeable by First, Second, and Third Defendants.

AND

STEINBERG

Lansdale, PA

. The subjectFC100 was defectivelydesigned and/ormanufacturedbyFirst Defendant, and

distributed, installed, inspected, andmonitoredby Second and Third Defendants.

43. Atalltimesmaterial hereto, the FC100 was defective in that thedevice randomly requiresdrivers

to supply ameasured quantity of breath in a limited amountof time, often failing to register the breath of

a driver who isnot impaired or attemptingto circumventthedevice, and thus, the device itself,was not

made safe for its ordinary and intendeduse. Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff, eitherdirectlyor

indirectly,with adequate or sufficientwarnings regarding the known or reasonably foreseeable risks and

dangers inherent to the FC100 interlock device.

44 . The activities engaged in by First, Second , and Third Defendants created an unreasonable risk of

harm to Plaintiff. The FC100 was unsafe and thereby created a seriousrisk of personal injury to the

Plaintiff.

45. As a directand proximateresultof the defective condition of the FC100 Plaintiff suffered the

serious and severe injuriesoutlined above.

COUNT II

Negligence

Plaintiffvs . First, Secondand Third Defendants

46. Paragraphs" l through 45" are incorporatedby referenceas if forth in extenso.

47 . First, Second, and Third Defendants knew or should have known that the FC100 , in its ordinary

Law Offices

RUBIN

GLICKMAN

AND

STEINBERG

Lansdale, PA

and foreseeable uses, would be, and is,used by automobile operators while operating their automobiles

on public and private roadways.

48. First Defendant, LifeSafer, knew or should have known that the FC100 designed,manufactured,

treated , produced , tested, inspected , marketed , distributed and/ or sold , in ordinary and reasonably

foreseeable use, would and did fail to perform as intended. Second Defendant, National Interlock, knew

or should have known that the it participated in designing, treated, tested , inspected ,marketed ,

distributed, sold and/or leased, andmonitored in ordinary andreasonably foreseeableuse, would and did

fail perform as intended . Third Defendant , H knew or should have known that the FC100 it

installed,tested , inspected, marketed, distributed, sold and/ or leased, andmonitored, in ordinary and

foreseeable use, would and do fail to perform as intended .

49. Dueto their superiorknowledge ofthe defects in all FC100 interlock devices, the First, Second,

and Third Defendantshad a duty to disclose to thepublic, to includethePlaintiff, the defectivenatureof

theFC100. The Defendants breached their duty to the public including the Plaintiff, butnotdisclosing

their knowledgeof the defectsto the public, including the Plaintiff

50. The aforesaid Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care with respect to the design,

development,manufacture, production , testing, inspection ,marketing, and/ or leasingof the FC100, by,

among other things: Failing to design, manufacture, and/or lease the FC100 in a manner to ensure that

undernormalusage, conditions and applications, the FC100would notendangercustomers, consumers,

and lessees by creating an unreasonable distraction while they operate their automobiles, failing to clear

Law Officeswith the rendering of a breath sample, requiring a breath sample ofunreasonable quantity/ volume; failing

RUBIN to test or adequately test; failing to warn or to adequately or sufficiently, either directlyorindirectly, the

foreseeable users of the defectivenature of the FC100; failing to representaccurately to consumers,GLICKMAN

AND

STEINBERG whether directly or indirectly, that the FC100would pose a safety risk; and failing to remove or

Lansdale , PA

11

recommend the removal ofthe FC100 from the market, or to undertake theresponsibility to test for ,

remove, or replacethe FC100.

51. As a direct and proximate resultofthe First Second, and Third Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff

suffered the seriousand severe injuriesoutlined above.

COUNT

Breach of Express Warranties

Plaintiffvs. First, Second and Third Defendants

52 . Paragraphs " " through "51" are incorporated by reference as ifset forth in extenso.

53.First, Second, and Third Defendantshave breached their expresswarranties to thelessee ofthe

FC100, Plaintiff, Jason Reall, in that the FC100 did notperform asrepresented by the aforesaid

Defendants

54 . As a direct and proximate result of the First, Second, and Third Defendants ' breach of their

express warranties, Plaintiff acted to his detriment in leasing the defective FC100, which Plaintiff would

not have leased had he been told the truth, and which as a result, placed thePlaintiff, a reasonably

foreseeable operator, atan increasedrisk ofharm . Asa direct and proximate result ofaforesaid

Defendants' breach of their express warranties, Plaintiff suffered the serousand severe injuries outlined

above.

Law Offices

RUBIN

GLICKMAN

AND

STEINBERG

Lansdale, PA

12

COUNT IV

Breach of Implied Warranties

Plaintiffvs. First, Second and Third Defendants

55. Paragraphs " " through "54" are incorporated by reference as if set forth in extenso .

56 . First, Second , and Third Defendants have breached the implied warranty ofmerchantability in that

the FC100wasdefective andnot fit for theordinarypurposes for which such interlock devicesareused,

that is, to improvethe safety of automobile travel by preventing lessees from driving while intoxicated .

57. First, Second, and Third Defendantsbreached the implied warranty of fitness for a particular

purposein thatthe FC100 was defective and notfit for the purposefor which suchdevicesare installed.

Defendants were aware of the particular purpose forwhich interlock devices are intended , and Plaintiff

relied upon the aforesaid Defendants skill and judgment in selecting the FC100 for his own use.

58. Asa resultof First, Second, and Third Defendants breach of the impliedwarranties, Plaintiff

acted to his detriment in selecting the FC100 to lease for his own use, which Plaintiff would not have

leased, andPlaintiffwould have selected, hadhe been told the truth, andPlaintiffwas, therefore,

seriously injured asa result.

Law Offices

RUBIN

GLICKMAN

AND

STEINBERG

Lansdale, PA

13

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jason Reall, demandsjudgmentagainstFirstDefendant, LifeSafer,

SecondDefendant, NationalInterlock, and Third Defendant, H & R jointly, severally , and in the

alternative in an amount in excess of FIFTY THOUSAND ($ 50,000 .00) DOLLARS, which

amountexceeds the jurisdictional amount for compulsory arbitration ., and such other reliefas the

Courtshalldeem appropriate.

COUNT V

State Created Danger

Plaintiff vs. Fourth Defendant

59. Paragraphs" " through "58" are incorporated by reference as ifset forth in extenso.

60. At all times relevant hereto , Fourth Defendant, PennDOT , remained the administrative

departmentof theexecutive branch of the Commonwealth, charged with the authority to regulate,

supervise , and administer driver licensing and registration , to include the authority to enforce judicial

orders for individuals with - related license suspensions to either procure an interlock device such as

the FC100, or suffer further license suspension .

61. Fourth Defendant, PennDOT, is a proper state actor under42 U .S .C . 1983.

62. Fourth Defendant, through their policiesand procedures, and throughtheir failure to approve andLaw Offices

RUBIN

GLICKMANselect a safe design of an interlock device , as well as by the imposition of a requirement that Plaintiff

installan interlockdevicethat Fourth Defendantdid not have authority to order, violated theAND

STEINBERGconstitutionalrightsofPlaintiff under 42 U .S .C .

Lansdale, PA

63. Plaintiff never received a judicialorder requiring installation of an interlock device.

64. Fourth Defendant, PennDOT, exceeded its authority by requiring Plaintiff to installan interlock

device or suffer an additional year of license suspension .

65. Fourth Defendant directed Plaintiff to visit Third Defendant' s premises, where he could lease

FirstDefendant s FC100 from Second Defendant.

66 . Fourth Defendantlabeled Second Defendantan “ approved installation center. "

67. information and belief,Fourth Defendantprescribedoperatingstandards for the FC100,

labeled the FC100 and approved device, and evaluated Second Defendant and approved them as a state

sanctioned installation center.

68. As a result of the foregoing, Fourth Defendant , PennDOT, or should have known that the

FC100 requiresusers to render breath tests whileoperatingamoving automobile, knew or should have

knownof the extremevolumeof breath requiredin order to clear theapparatus, knew or shouldhave

known that failure to render a satisfactory breath sample in a limited period of timewould cause a siren

to sound off and lights to flash on a user' s automobile, and knew or should have knownof the extremely

distracting, and therefore dangerous, nature of the FC100.

69. Given the dangerous and defective design of the FC100, Fourth Defendantknowingly placed

Plaintiff in a position where Fourth Defendant knew Plaintiff was likelyto come to harm .Law Offices

RUBIN

GLICKMAN70. Fourth Defendant created and/ or substantially contributed to the circumstance which caused

AND

Plaintiff to suffer multiple seriousand permanent injuries , by requiring Plaintiff to lease an interlockSTEINBERG

Lansdale, PA

15

device from a vendor approved by Fourth Defendant, without any legalauthority to impose any such

restriction on Plaintiff 's driving privileges .

71. The harm caused to Plaintiff was foreseeable and direct, in that Plaintiff would never have had the

dangerously designed FC100 installed in his vehicle , without being requiredby Fourth Defendant to do

so

72. Fourth Defendantapproved the FC100 and the installation/service facility, andas a resultknew

of or should have known of, the dangerous nature ofthe FC100 and its operating procedures.

73. By the foregoing, Fourth Defendantacted in willfuldisregard for thesafety of the ,who

should nothave been required to install an FC100 in his automobile.

74 . A relationship existed between Plaintiff and Fourth Defendant in that Plaintiff hadno choice but

to abide by Fourth Defendant's requirements in order to lawfully operate a motor vehicle on the

roadways in theCommonwealth .

75. Fourth Defendant used their authority to create an opportunity that otherwise would not have

existed for Plaintiffto be injured as a resultof blowing into an FC100and passing out, whileoperating

an automobile.

76. Fourth Defendant acted with deliberate indifference when imposing the interlock device

requirement on Plaintiff, refusing to lift the unlawfulrequirementwithout judicial order, despite the factLaw Offices

RUBIN

GLICKMAN that FourthDefendanthad no authority to order theimposition of the interlock requirementin the first

ANDplace.

STEINBERG

Lansdale, PA

16

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jason Reall, demandsjudgmentagainstFourth Defendant,

Commonwealth ofPennsylvania, Department of Transportation, in an amount in excess ofFIFTY

THOUSAND ( 50,000. 00) DOLLARS, which amount exceeds the jurisdictional amount for

compulsoryarbitration., and such other reliefas the Court shall deem appropriate.

Respectfullysubmitted,

RUBIN, GLICKMAN AND STEINBERG , P. C .

By:Matthew Taylor

Attg

Law Offices

RUBIN

GLICKMAN

AND

STEINBERG

Lansdale, PA

17

VERIFICATION

I, JASON REALL Plaintiff in the within action , state that the facts set forth in the foregoing

Complaint are true, correct and accurate to the best ofmyknowledge, information and belief. I

understandthat false statementsmadeherein are subject to thepenaltiesof18 Pa. C .S .A . , relating

to unsworn falsification to authorities.

Date: 628Jason Reall

Law Offices

RUBIN

GLICKMAN

AND

STEINBERG

Lansdale, PA

I 21,MARKED4-12-02 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION

BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING

HARRISBURG PA 17123

04 / 08/ 02

JASON LOREN REALL

377 RIDGE RD

DRIVER' S LICENSE NUMBER: 23427484

BIRTH DATE: 12

ELIGIBILITYDATE : 05 / 07 / 02

TELFORD PA 18969

Dear MR . REALL

This is a RESTORATION REQUIREMENTS LETTER . It lists what youmust do to restore your driving privilege . PLEASE BE AWARE THAT

THIS LETTER DOES NOT AUTHORIZE YOU TO DRIVE You will be notifiedby the Department of Transportation ( ) that your drivingprivilege has been restored Only after that may you drive .

An ELIGIBILITY DATE is listed above . This is the date you are eligible

to have your driving privilege restored , provided no other violationsare processed against your driving record This date is effective

regardless of any other dates listed within this letter .

Please read the following information carefully and be sure to

complete all requirements to have your driving privilege restored .Unless another address is indicated , return any documents and / or

fees to the MAILING ADDRESS listed at the end of this letter .

PROOF OF INSURANCE- 30 days of your ELIGIBILITYDATE, provide a copy of one of

the following to PENNDOT to show that allmotor vehicles currently

registered in Pennsylvania in your name are insured:

* Insurance ID card

* Declaration page of your insurance policy* Insurance Binder

* An application of insurance to the PA Auto Insurance Plan

If you do not own a motor vehicle currently registered in Pennsylvania ,

send a signed statement of this fact to PENNDOT which reads " I donot own any motor vehicles currently registered in Pennsylvania "

Please include your name , address , driver ' s license number and date

of birth on the statement .

COURT ORDERED TREATMENT PROGRAM (ACT 122 )You must successfully complete the treatment program for alcoholor drug addiction ordered by the Court of MONTGOMERY CTY , CourtNumber 6539 , Court Term 2000 . The Court must certify toPENNDOT that you completed the treatment program . PENNDOT recommendsthat you CONTACT YOUR PROBATION OFFICER and/ or the Court to ensurethat PENNDOT is properly notified .

EXHIBIT

ALL-STATELEGAL

LICENSE NO . 23427484

TERM SUSPENSION / REVOCATION- You have a YEAR ( S ) suspension revocation that began orwill begin ) on 05 / 07/ 01. Credit for serving this suspension / revocation began (or will begin on 05 / 07 /01 and will end on 05 / 07 / 02 .The suspension / revocation resulted from a violation on 03 / 11/of Section 3731, DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE

IGNITION INTERLOCK

You are required to have an approved Ignition Interlock System

installed in all of your vehicle( s ) Approximately 30 days before

your ELIGIBILITYDATE, you should contact one of the following

approved vendors listed below to make arrangements to have theSystem installed.

Interlock Installation Services - 1- 800 - 452- 1739- Consumer Safety Technology , Inc . - 1- 877 - 777 - 5020-National Interlock , Inc . ( serving Eastern PA) - 1 - 866 - 342 - 4984

- American Court Services ( serving Central /Western PA ) - 1- 888 - 565 -6227- Guardian Interlock Systems - 1 - 800 -499 - 0994

- Draeger Interlock , Inc. - 1 - 800 - 385 - 8666

You will need to provide the vendor the following court informationbefore the System can be installed.

COUNTY COURT NUMBER

6539

COURT TERM

2000

Pleaseretain a copy of this letter to assist you in this process.

If you choose not to install the Ignition Interlock System in yourvehicle ( s ) , your driving privilege will remain suspended for anadditional year .

IGNITION INTERLOCK LICENSE

order to have your driving privilegerestored you must apply foran Ignition Interlock license. Ignition Interlock license entitlesyou to drive only vehicles equipped with an Ignition Interlock System.You may make application 30 days BEFORE your eligibility date.

An application is enclosed for your convenience.

2

LICENSE NO. 23427484

This letter identified the requirements necessary to restore yourdriving privilege and we are looking forward to working with you to dothis . Unless another address was indicated , return any documents and/ orfees to the MAILING ADDRESS listed below . Phone numbers are providedfor your use . To ensure prompt customer service , please write yourdriver ' s license number , listed at the beginning of this letter , on all

documents you send to PENNDOT . Thank you .

. . REMEMBER , your ELIGIBILITY DATE is 05 / 07/ 02 .

MAILING ADDRESS :PENNDOT

Bureau of Driver Licensing. 68693

Harrisburg PA 17106 - 8693

INFORMATION ( 7 : 00 AM to 9 : 00 PM

IN STATE 1 - 800 - 932- 4600

OUT- OF - STATE 717 - 391-6190

TDD IN STATE 1 - 800 - 228 - 0676

TDD OUT - OF - STATE 717 - 391-6191

LICENSE NO. : 23427484

IGNITION INTERLOCK LICENSE APPLICATION

To apply for an Ignition Interlock license , please sign below

and submit this page with a check or money order in the amount of$ 9 . 00 to the mailing address listed at the bottom of this letter .

Your check or money order should be made payable to PENNDOT .

DRIVER' S LICENSE NUMBER - 23427484

JASON LOREN REALL377 RIDGE RD

TELFORD PA 18969

SIGNATURE TELEPHONE NO

If your address has changed , please print the correct address here:

If you choose not to install an Ignition Interlock System , you donot have to apply for an Ignition Interlock license.

MAILING ADDRESS :PENNDOT

68693Harrisburg , PA 17106 - 8693