(Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability)   (Breach of Express Warranty)   (Negligence)   (Strict Liability In Tort – Restatement (Second) Of Torts § 402A)   (Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act)   26.  Defendant Forjas Taurus manufactures “Rossi” branded .38 Special revolvers and  .357 Magnum revolvers in Sao Leopoldo, Brazil.  Defendant Braztech is the exclusive North  American importer and distributor of Rossi firearms.   The Revolvers   27.  The Revolvers are “Rossi” branded Models R35102, R35202, R85104, R97206,  R97104, R46202, R46102, for use with .38 Special cartridges.  The Revolvers’ swing-out  cylinder is designed to hold either five (5) or six (6) cartridges.  They all have the same owner’s  manual.   29.  The Revolver has two defects (“the Safety Defects”) that render the internal safety  mechanisms inoperable.   30.  Rebound Slide – Hammer Seat Defect:  For the blocking function of the  hammer seat – rebound slide seat alignment to be effective, the seats or tabs must be aligned  vertically and fitted together to be in close contact when the hammer is in the rebound position.  This fitting will provide the maximum material resistance to hammer rotation from a drop or  sharp impact.  The Revolvers suffer from a design and/or manufacturing defect in that the seats  or tabs, which are metal injection molded components, are improperly fitted or shaped.  As a  result, the seats are not aligned and are misshaped so that the hammer can rotate forward and fire  a cartridge even when the trigger is not pulled.     31.  Hammer Block Defect:  Certain Revolvers suffer from a second design and/or  manufacturing defect relating to the hammer block.  In Revolvers with the Hammer Block  Defect, the side plate has a hammer block groove that is too wide and angled forward too much.   As a result, the location of the hammer block changes as it moves up-and-down and allows it to  fall away from its normal blocking position and become trapped on the revolver's fame.  When it  becomes trapped, the hammer block does not return to the blocking position when the trigger is  released and, therefore, does not prevent a drop-fire.   33.  The Taurus Defendants claim in their owner’s manuals that the Revolvers are  equipped with safety features to prevent drop fire incidents:  The hammer is of the rebounding type, in which the firing  pin is not thrust into contact with the chambered cartridge  except when the trigger is pulled.  In addition, the hammer- trigger mechanism incorporates an interior hammer block  which interposes a block of steel between the hammer nose  and primer.  The hammer block is withdrawn only when  the hammer is cocked, thus preventing an accidental  discharge should the revolver be dropped, uncocked, and  sustain a sharp blow on the hammer.  Therefore, unlike most single-action revolvers, your Rossi  revolver is mechanically safe when carried with the  cylinder fully loaded.   34.  Despite these representations and assurances, the common design and  manufacture of the Revolvers as described is defective and as a result the internal safety  mechanisms are impaired or completely ineffective such that an unintended discharge is more  likely when the Revolvers are dropped from a height at which the Revolvers are normally used.   35.  Since the design of the Rebound Slide – Hammer Seat Defect is common to all  Revolvers and is found in all Revolvers, the use and/or maintenance of the Revolvers by  Plaintiffs and Class Members have no effect on the defective design of the Revolvers and the  damages resulting from the defective design.  Furthermore, the defectively manufactured side  plate hammer block groove (the Hammer Block Defect) is machine cut and is not impacted by  the use and/or maintenance of the Revolvers by Plaintiffs and Class Members.     37.  Upon information and belief, for years, the Taurus Defendants have knowingly  manufactured, marketed, and sold thousands of defective Revolvers with the Safety Defects to  consumers throughout Florida and the United States.   38.  Upon information and belief, the Taurus Defendants consciously and intentionally  decided not to recall and/or retrofit the defective Revolvers which they know are unreasonably  dangerous and defective.   39.  Upon information and belief, discovery of internal documents from the  Defendants will show that they have been aware of the problems with the Safety Defects since  the early production of the Revolvers and such discovery will most likely reveal that Taurus has  been aware of the Safety Defects since the Revolvers were first designed, manufactured,  imported, tested, produced, and distributed in the United States.   40.  Defendants have not taken any steps to warn consumers in Florida or elsewhere in  the United States about the dangers of using the Revolvers.   41.  The Safety Defects have manifested, sometimes causing serious bodily injury.  The Defendants are and were aware of those manifestations (and upon information and belief,  Defendants are and were aware of many more), but have refused to remedy the defects.   43.  Plaintiffs William Burrow and Oma Louise Burrow (the “Burrows”) own one of  the Revolvers, a Rossi model R35102 revolver, S/N EX43410.  Mr. Burrow purchased the  Revolver new from Academy Sports + Outdoors on October 26, 2012 for $259.99 (“Plaintiffs’  Revolver”).  Plaintiffs’ Revolver has the Safety Defects that are common to the Revolvers.   46.  The design and manufacture of the Plaintiffs’ Revolver as it relates to the Safety  Defects is the same as all the Revolvers, and, as a result, it did not prevent an unintended  discharge when it was dropped from a height at which the Revolvers are normally used.  47.  Plaintiffs bring this suit as a nationwide class action on behalf of themselves and  all others similarly situated pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2), and/or 23(b)(3) of the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure. The Class that Plaintiffs seek to represent is defined as follows:  All individuals in the United States who own a Revolver.   48.  Subject to additional information obtained through further investigation and  discovery to be conducted, the foregoing definition of the Class may be expanded or narrowed  by amendment or amended complaint. Specifically excluded from the Class are the Taurus  Defendants, their officers, directors, agents, trustees, parents, children, corporations, trusts,  representatives, employees, principals, servants, partners, joint ventures, or entities controlled by  the Taurus Defendants, and their heirs, successors, assigns, or other persons or entities related to  or affiliated with the Taurus Defendants and/or their officers and/or directors, or any of them; the  Judge assigned to this action, and any member of the Judge’s immediate family; and persons  who seek recovery for physical injuries suffered as a result of a defective Revolver.     51.  Typicality:  Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the  Class, as all such claims arise out of the Taurus Defendants’ conduct in designing,  manufacturing, testing, marketing, advertising, warranting and selling the defective Revolvers.  The defects of the Revolvers render each Class Member’s claims, legal theory, and injury  common and typical.   53.  Predominance and Superiority:  The class action in this instance is appropriate for  certification because questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class predominate  over questions affecting only individual members, and this Class action is superior to other  available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, since individual  joinder of the Class is impracticable. The common liability issues in this Class Action may be  resolved efficiently on a class-wide basis.  Should individual Class Members be required to bring  separate actions, assuming Class Members were aware of the latent defects, this Court and/or  courts throughout the nation would be confronted with a multiplicity of lawsuits burdening the  court system while also creating the risk of inconsistent rulings and contradictory judgments.  In  contrast to proceeding on a case-by-case basis, in which inconsistent results will magnify the  delay and expense to all parties and the court system, this class action presents far fewer  management difficulties while providing unitary adjudication, economies of scale and  comprehensive supervision by a single court. The common design defects of the Revolvers are  latent defects, and the Revolvers are defective in a way that would not be apparent to Plaintiffs  and Class Members. As a result, Class Members are unaware of the defects and their claims  against Defendants as a result of the latent defects; therefore, without notice of the defects, a  failure of justice will occur in the absence of a class action.   57.  Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, incorporate  by reference the paragraphs 1-56 and all Exhibits attached hereto as though expressly stated  herein in this paragraph.   59.  Plaintiffs and all Class Members are “consumers” and the transactions at issue in  this Complaint constitute '”trade or commerce” as defined by Florida Statutes §§ 501.203(7) and  (8), respectively. Florida Statute § 501.204(1) declares unlawful “[u]nfair methods of  competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the  conduct of any trade or commerce.”   60.  Consumers and the consuming public under the FDUTPA include Florida  residents and non-residents of Florida and Florida has a strong interest in regulating the conduct  of corporations headquartered within the state. There are no geographical or residential  restrictions contained within the express language of the FDUTPA and the Act applies to Taurus  Defendants regardless of where the distribution and/or sale of Revolvers occurred.   61.  In violation of the FDUTPA, the Taurus Defendants employed fraud, deception,  false promise, misrepresentation and the knowing concealment, suppression, or omission of  material facts in their distribution, sale, marketing, and/or advertisement of the Revolvers,  including information in the Taurus Manuals, on the website of the Taurus Defendants, and the  material facts as set forth in the following paragraph.  The actions occurred, at least in part, at the  Taurus Defendants’ facilities in Miami, Florida.   64.  The Taurus Defendants violated the FDUPTA by failing to disclose to and  concealing from Plaintiffs, Class Members, prospective purchasers, and the public the defects in  the Revolvers.   65.  The Taurus Defendants engaged in the concealment, suppression, or omission of  the aforementioned material facts with the intent that others, such as Plaintiffs, Class Members,  and/or the general public would rely upon the concealment, suppression, or omission of such  material facts.   66.  These misrepresentations, practices, and omissions of the material facts are likely  to affect a consumer’s choice of or conduct regarding the ownership and/or use of the Revolvers  and the issue is not whether Plaintiffs and Class Members relied on the misrepresentations,  practices, concealment, and omissions of the material facts, but whether the misrepresentations,  practices, concealment, and omissions of the material facts were likely to deceive a consumer  acting reasonably in the same circumstances and Plaintiffs and Class Members need not prove  individual reliance. Since proof of reliance is not necessary, issues relating to causation and  damages will be common to Plaintiffs and all Class Members. To the extent reliance is required  by law, reliance and damages are sufficiently shown by the fact that Plaintiffs and Class  Members own and/or use the Revolvers.   67.  The Taurus Defendants’ concealment, suppression, or omission of material facts  as alleged herein constitutes unfair, deceptive and fraudulent business practices within the  meaning of the FDUTPA.   69.  Upon information and belief, the Taurus Defendants knew that, at the time the  Revolvers left the Taurus Defendants’ control, the Revolvers contained the Safety Defect  described herein. At the time of manufacture, distribution, and/or sale, the Revolvers contained  the common design defects. The defects reduced the effectiveness and performance of the  Revolvers and rendered them unable to perform the ordinary purposes for which they were used  as well as caused the resulting damage described herein.   70.  As a direct and proximate cause of the violation of the FDUTPA, described  herein, Plaintiffs and Class Members have been injured in that they own and/or use Revolvers  with the defects based on misrepresentations and nondisclosure of the material facts alleged  herein, including but not limited to, nondisclosure of the defects.  Furthermore, Plaintiffs and  Class Members are damaged because they did not receive a firearm with the characteristics,  features, and capabilities as represented by the Taurus Defendants.  The Revolvers that were  delivered to the Plaintiffs and Class Members have a lower market value than they would have  had if the Defendants had delivered firearms that were not defective and had effective internal  safety features.   71.  The Taurus Defendants’ unlawful conduct is continuing, with no indication that  the Taurus Defendants’ unlawful conduct will cease.   73.  The Taurus Defendants acted willfully, knowingly, intentionally, unconscionably  and with reckless indifference when it committed these acts of consumer fraud described herein.   Said acts and practices on the part of the Taurus Defendants were and are illegal and unlawful  pursuant to Florida Statute § 501.204.   74.  As a direct result and proximate result of the Taurus Defendants’ violations of the  FDUTPA, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered damages, regardless of whether the  Revolvers have malfunctioned or manifested the defects in some way.  Plaintiffs and the Class  Members are entitled to compensatory damages, including damages for the diminished value of  the Revolvers. Further, Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to equitable and declaratory  relief, damages allowed under FDUTPA, costs, the establishment of a common fund if  necessary, and statutory attorney fees.  75.  Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, incorporate  by reference paragraphs 1-56 and all Exhibits attached hereto as though expressly stated herein  in this paragraph.   77.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, and the Class, demand judgment against the  Taurus Defendants for compensatory damages for himself and each member of the Class, for the  establishment of a common fund, plus attorney’s fees, interest and costs.  78.  Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, incorporate  by reference paragraphs 1-56 and all Exhibits attached hereto as though expressly stated herein  in this paragraph.   79.  The Taurus Defendants designed the Revolvers with the Safety Defect, rendering  the Revolvers inherently dangerous and creating a substantial, clear, extreme and unreasonable  risk of serious injury or death to Plaintiffs and Class Members. The Taurus Defendants  manufactured, assembled, marketed, distributed, and sold the Revolvers with the defects. The  Revolvers were in the same defective condition due to the defects from the time they left the  Taurus Defendants’ control until they reached the Plaintiffs and Class Members, all of whom use  the Revolvers in the manner intended by the Taurus Defendants.   80.  The Revolvers were sold in substantial and unreasonably dangerous condition to  an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer, including,  Plaintiffs and Class Members.   82.  The Taurus Defendants are strictly liable in tort for all injuries, damages, and  losses that have or may result from the unintentional and unwanted discharge of a Revolver, and  for the cost of rendering the Revolvers safe.    83.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, and the Class, demand judgment against the  Taurus Defendants for compensatory and punitive damages for himself and each member of the  Class, for the establishment of a common fund, plus attorney’s fees, interest and costs.  84.  Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, incorporate  by reference paragraphs 1-56 and all Exhibits attached hereto as though expressly stated herein  in this paragraph.   86.  The Plaintiffs registered their Revolvers with the Taurus Defendants by  submitting a signed “Warranty Card” to the Defendants.  The Plaintiffs are in privity with the  Taurus Defendants.   87.  The express warranties made to the Plaintiffs and Class Members in the owner’s  manual include the following: (a) “Rossi revolvers are designed and made to offer maximum  safety when correctly used;” (b) “Rossi revolvers are manufactured to perform properly with the  original parts as designed;” (c) “[t]he hammer is of the rebounding type, in which the firing pin is  not thrust into contact with the chambered cartridge except when the trigger is pulled;” (d) “the  hammer-trigger mechanism incorporates an interior hammer block which interposes a block of  steel between the hammer nose and primer” and that “[t]he hammer block is withdrawn only  when the hammer is cocked, thus preventing an accidental discharge should the revolver be  dropped, uncocked, and sustain a sharp blow on the hammer;” (e) “unlike most single-action  revolvers, your Rossi revolver is mechanically safe when carried with the cylinder fully loaded;”  and (f) “[b]efore shipment, your firearm was carefully inspected and test fired in order to ensure  that it conformed to our specifications and standards.”  The Taurus Defendants breached these  express warranties by not providing a product which could provide the benefits described in this  paragraph and as a result of the Taurus Defendants’ breach of these express warranties, Plaintiffs  and Class Members have been damaged.   89.  The express warranties made to the Plaintiffs and Class Members and set forth in  the “The Rossi Revolver Lifetime Repair Policy” include that the Taurus Defendants “will  repair, free of charge, any firearm manufactured or distributed by BrazTech International L.C.”   90.  Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs notified the Defendants of the  mechanical failure in their Revolver.    91.  The Taurus Defendants breached these express warranties by not providing a  product which was not safe and which has not been and cannot be repaired.  As a result of the  Taurus Defendants’ breach of these express warranties, Plaintiffs and Class Members have been  damaged.   92.  The Taurus Defendants provided the express warranties described above to  Plaintiffs and Class Members.  Plaintiffs and Class Members are the express beneficiaries of the  express warranties. To the extent required by law, the Taurus Defendants have expressly waived  privity of contract as a requirement to the enforceability of any of their express warranties.    94.  The breach of the express warranties described above is a proximate cause of the  Plaintiffs’ and the Class Members’ injuries, and the warranties have failed in their essential  purpose.   95.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, and the Class, demand judgment against the  Taurus Defendants for compensatory damages for themselves and each member of the Class, for  the establishment of a common fund, plus attorney’s fees, interest and costs.  96.  Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, incorporate  by reference paragraphs 1-56 and all Exhibits attached hereto as though expressly stated herein  in this paragraph.   97.  At all times mentioned herein, the Taurus Defendants designed, manufactured,  marketed, distributed, and sold the Revolvers with the defects, and prior to ownership of the  Revolvers by Plaintiffs and Class Members, the Taurus Defendants impliedly warranted to  Plaintiffs and Class Members that the Revolvers were of quality and fit for the use for which  they were intended, that the Revolvers were merchantable, would operate effectively, were safe  for normal use, suitable for the ordinary and usual purposes for which they were intended, and  would not create an unreasonable risk of injury to consumers.    98.  Plaintiffs and Class Members, in owning and/or using the Revolvers, relied upon  the skill and judgment of the Taurus Defendants.  