Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
7/12/2017 12:41 PM
64-CV-2017-900266.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
WALKER COUNTY, ALABAMA
SUSAN ODOM, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WALKER COUNTY, ALABAMA
ANDREA DOWNING, an )
individual, as biological mother and )
guardian of ADDIE )
JENNINGS and COLTON JENNINGS, )
minor dependents of JAKE JENNINGS, )
deceased; )
)
Plaintiff, ) Case No.:___________________
)
v. )
)
CARL CANNON CHEVROLET BUICK )
GMC, a corporation; UNILUBE SYSTEMS, )
LTD, a corporation; HESSAIRE PRODUCTS,)
INC., a corporation; FLYNN DISTRIBUTING)
COMPANY, INC., a corporation, WURTH )
USA, INC., a corporation; and THOSE )
OTHER PERSONS, CORPORATIONS, )
AND OTHER LEGAL ENTITIES )
DESIGNATED HEREIN AS )
FICTITIOUS PARTIES, )
)
Defendants. )
No. 1, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities who or which was the
decedents employer at the time of the occurrence made the basis of Plaintiffs
complaint;
No. 2, that person or those persons, individually and/or as partners, who was
decedents employer at the time of the occurrence made the basis of Plaintiffs
complaint;
No. 3, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities who or which issued any
policy of insurance which provided coverage for decedents injuries on the occasion
made the basis of this action, including, but not limited to, protection under the
Workmens Compensation Act of Alabama;
No. 4, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities other than those entities
described above, which is the successor-in-interest of any of those entities described
above.
No. 5, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities who or which was
involved in planning which related in any way to the safety of the decedent in the
DOCUMENT 2
execution of work being done at the time of the occurrence made the basis of this
lawsuit;
No. 6, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities who or which conducted
safety inspections or analyses at or with reference to the site of the occurrence made the
basis of this lawsuit;
No. 7, whether singular or plural, any and all insurance carriers which made any visit
to or loss control inspection of the work site where decedent was injured prior to the
occurrence made the basis of Plaintiffs complaint;
No. 8, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities, including but not limited
to the comprehensive general liability insurance carrier of the premises owner which
conducted safety inspections of, or with respect to, the site of the occurrence made the
basis of this lawsuit but not limited to the equipment, systems or methods utilized by
decedents employer on the occasion made the basis of this lawsuit;
No. 9, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities who or which controlled
or had the right to control the work being done at the time of the occurrence made the
basis of this lawsuit;
No. 10, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities who or which was the
owner or owners of the premises involved in the occurrence made the basis of this
lawsuit;
No. 11, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities who or which supervised
the job being done at the site of the occurrence made the basis of this lawsuit;
No. 12, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities whose duty it was to
maintain the premises involved in the occurrence made the basis of this lawsuit in a
reasonably safe condition at the time of said occurrence;
No. 13, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities who or which had any
duties with regard to housekeeping at the site of the occurrence made the basis of this
lawsuit;
No. 14, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities, who or which inspected,
approved or issued any approval at any time prior to the occurrence made the basis of
this lawsuit relative to the premises and/or work being done at the time of said
occurrence;
No. 15, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities other than those entities
described above, whose breach of contract or warranty contributed to cause the
occurrence made the basis of this lawsuit;
No. 16, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities, that individual or whose
individuals, other than those individuals and entities described above whose negligence,
wantonness, or other wrongful conduct contributed to cause the occurrence made the
basis of this lawsuit;
2
DOCUMENT 2
No. 17, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities who or which provided
any insurance coverage, of whatever kind or character, to any of the named or fictitious
Defendants herein;
No. 18, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities who were sub-
contractors on the premises involved in this lawsuit who breached their duty to
properly maintain said premises;
No. 19, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities who or which designed,
manufactured, distributed, assembled, sold or otherwise supplied a device commonly
referred to as a unilube system/oil change center involved in the injury the decedent in
the occurrence made the basis of this lawsuit, any component part thereof, or any
attendant equipment used or available for use therewith;
No. 21, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities who or which had any
responsibility for the defective and/or unreasonably dangerous condition of the
previously described unilube system/oil change center which was in operation when
Plaintiff was injured in the occurrence made the basis of this lawsuit, any component
part thereof, or any attendant equipment used or available for use therewith, from the
date of manufacture through the date of its acquisition by the Defendants;
No. 22, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities who or which, prior to
the occurrence made the basis of this lawsuit altered or repaired the unilube system/oil
change center involved in said occurrence, any component part thereof, or any
attendant equipment used or available for use therewith;
No. 23, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities who or which suggested
or specified that the unilube system/oil change center involved in the occurrence made
the basis of this lawsuit, or any attendant equipment used as it was being used at the
time of the occurrence;
No. 24, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities who or which failed to
warn or issued inadequate warnings or instructions regarding the use or operation of
the unilube system/oil change center involved in the occurrence made the basis of this
lawsuit, any component part thereof, or any attendant equipment used or available for
use therewith;
No. 25, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities which provided product
liability and/or general liability insurance coverage for the manufacturer and/or
distributor of the unilube system/oil change center involved in the occurrence made the
basis of this lawsuit at the time of the occurrence or at any time prior thereto;
No.26, whether singular or plural, that person or those persons, that entity or those
entities, whose duty it was to maintain the unilube system/oil change center involved in
the occurrence made the basis of this lawsuit from the time it was manufactured or
assembled until the time of the decednts injury made the basis of this lawsuit;
No. 27, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities who or which did any
consulting work, i.e., advertising, engineering, etc., referable to the design,
3
DOCUMENT 2
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT
COUNT I
CLAIM FOR WORKMENS COMPENSATION BENEFITS
4
DOCUMENT 2
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, ANDREA DOWNING, as mother and guardian of Addie
Jennings and Colton Jennings, minors and dependents of JAKE JENNINGS, deceased, and
claims of the Defendant, CARL CANNON CHEVROLET BUICK GMC, benefits under the
Workmens Compensation Act of Alabama, as amended, and respectfully shows unto the
Court as follows:
1. That on June 12, 2017, the relationship of employer and employee, or master
and servant, existed between JAKE JENNINGS and Defendant, CARL CANNON
CHEVROLET BUICK GMC, located in Jasper, Alabama, and Mr. Jennings and Defendant
were on said date subject to the Workmens Compensation Act of Alabama, as amended.
2. Plaintiff further avers that while so employed and engaged in the business of
the Defendants and while acting within the line and scope of his employment with the
Defendants, Mr. Jennings suffered injuries subsequently leading to his death, and said
injuries were the proximate result of an accident which arose out of and during the course of
3. At the time of said accident, Mr. Jennings was performing his duties for the
Defendants and, in performance of said duties, was caused to suffer injuries and subsequent
death when a flammable substance ignited nearby, causing a flash fire to erupt.
Alabama for the purpose of recovering the amounts to which Plaintiff, as mother and
guardian of the dependents of Jake Jennings, deceased, is entitled thereunder including, but
5
DOCUMENT 2
JENNINGS dependents are entitled to receive under the Workmens Compensation Act of
Alabama, as amended, and Plaintiff prays that this Court will take jurisdiction of this petition
for compensation, that notice be given to Defendants of the filing hereof as required by law,
and that, upon a final submission, that this Court award to Plaintiff workmens compensation
COUNT II
NEGLIGENCE AND BREACH OF WARRANTY AGAINST UNILUBE SYSTEMS,
LTD, HESSAIRE PRODUCTS, INC., FLYNN DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, INC.,
AND WURTH USA, INC.
of Addie Jennings and Colton Jennings, minors and dependents of JAKE JENNINGS,
deceased, and adopts and realleges each and every allegation previously set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 5 of this Complaint as if fully set out herein. Plaintiff respectfully
7. On or about June 12, 2017, JAKE JENNINGS, the deceased, was legally upon
the property of the Defendant, CARL CANNON CHEVROLEY BUICK GMC, in Jasper,
Alabama, acting within the line and scope of his employment with said Defendant in a
reasonably safe and prudent manner. At said time and place, JAKE JENNINGS was
operating the unilube system and oil change center, as required by his employment, in a
6
DOCUMENT 2
reasonable and prudent manner. While operating said equipment, he was caused to be injured
and subsequently die when a flammable substance ignited and created a flash fire.
8. At the aforesaid time and place, and for sometime prior thereto, Defendants
Unilube Systems, Ltd., HessAire Products, Inc., and Flynn Distributing Company, Inc., and
one or more of the Fictitious Party Defendants described in the caption, were engaged in the
involved in the occurrence made the basis of this lawsuit throughout the United States,
including the State of Alabama, for use by the general public, to wit: the unilube system/oil
change center which includes but is not limited to the machine(s) and/or mechanical
equipment, the electrical equipment, any safety device(s) used on the premises made the
basis of this lawsuit, and any component part(s) of the aforementioned products or any
attendant equipment used or available for use with the aforementioned products.
time and for valuable consideration, designed, manufactured, sold, distributed and/or
installed one or more of the aforementioned products and its attendant equipment, which
10. At said time and place, said products and its attendant equipment, which were
in substantially the same condition as when manufactured, sold, distributed and/or installed,
were being used in a manner that was foreseeable. Said products and their attendant
equipment were not reasonably safe when being used in a foreseeable manner, but, to the
contrary, were defective and unreasonably dangerous to the human body when being so used.
7
DOCUMENT 2
reasonable care should have known, that said products and their attendant equipment were
unreasonably dangerous to the human body when being so used in a foreseeable manner.
11. Defendants expressly and/or impliedly warranted that the products and
equipment made the basis of this complaint were reasonably fit and suitable for the purposes
for which they were intended to be used. Plaintiffs aver that Defendants breached said
express and/or implied warranties in that the said products were not reasonably fit and
suitable for the purposes for which they were intended to be used. Plaintiffs further aver that,
as a proximate result of the aforesaid breach of warranties by Defendants, Jake Jennings was
12. The foregoing wrongful conduct of the Defendants, including Fictitious Party
Defendants, was a proximate cause of the fatal injuries suffered by Jake Jennings and renders
Liability Doctrine.
and guardian of the dependents of Jake Jennings, demands judgment against each of the
named Defendants, including Fictitious Party Defendants, jointly and severally, for punitive
damages in an amount which will adequately compensate the Plaintiff for the loss sustained
by her due to the Defendants conduct, and which will adequately reflect the enormity of the
Defendants' wrongful acts and effectively prevent other similar wrongful acts. Further,
Plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment consistent with the verdict, and that it also
award Plaintiff interest from the date of judgment and the costs incurred by the Court in
8
DOCUMENT 2
Respectfully Submitted,
Of Counsel:
DRAKE LAW FIRM
Two Perimeter Park South
Suite 510 East
Birmingham, AL 35243
(205) 970-0800
Hessaire Products
11550 US Hwy 278 E
Holly Pond, AL, 35083
9
DOCUMENT 2
10