You are on page 1of 10

DOCUMENT 2

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

manufacture, assembly and/or distribution of the unilube system/oil change center


involved in the occurrence made the basis of this lawsuit;
No. 28, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities who or which tested,
inspected, approved or issued any approval 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. 29, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities who or which conducted
safety inspections or analysis of or with reference to 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 and/or the
design or manufacturing process of each product including, but not limited to, the
products liability insurance carrier for the manufacturer and/or distributor of any of
the aforesaid products;
No. 30, 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. 31, whether singular or plural, that entity, other than those entities described
above, which is the successor-in-interest of any of those entities described above;
No. 32, whether singular or plural, that entity or those entities who is the parent
corporation of any of the named defendants described above;
No. 33, that person or entity who operated the unilube system/oil change center
negligently and wantonly and/or failed to properly maintain the unilube system/oil
change center.
Plaintiff avers that the identities of the fictitious party defendants herein are otherwise
unknown to Plaintiff at this time, or if their names are known to Plaintiff at this time,
their identities as proper party defendants are not known to Plaintiff at this time and
their true names will be substituted by amendment when ascertained,

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

his employment by the Defendants as aforesaid.

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.

4. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Workmens Compensation Act of

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

not limited to, future lost wages and death benefits.

5
DOCUMENT 2

5. Plaintiff re-alleges all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 5

against each of the fictitious party defendants.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff claims of the Defendants such benefits as JAKE

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

benefits as allowed by law, plus costs of this action.

COUNT II
NEGLIGENCE AND BREACH OF WARRANTY AGAINST UNILUBE SYSTEMS,
LTD, HESSAIRE PRODUCTS, INC., FLYNN DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, INC.,
AND WURTH USA, INC.

6. COMES NOW the Plaintiff, ANDREA DOWNING, as mother and guardian

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

shows unto the Court as follows:

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

business of designing, manufacturing, selling, distributing and/or installing the product(s)

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.

9. Said Defendants, including Fictitious Party Defendants, during said period of

time and for valuable consideration, designed, manufactured, sold, distributed and/or

installed one or more of the aforementioned products and its attendant equipment, which

contributed to the fatal injuries suffered by Jake Jennings.

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.

Said Defendants, including Fictitious Party Defendants, knew, or in the exercise of

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

caused to be injured and damaged as described herein.

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

said Defendants liable to Plaintiff pursuant to the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's

Liability Doctrine.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff Andrea Downing, as mother

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

managing this lawsuit.

8
DOCUMENT 2

THE PLAINTIFF HEREBY DEMANDS A TRIAL BY STRUCK JURY TO HEAR


ALL ISSUES IN THE TRIAL OF THIS MATTER.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ G. Whit Drake


G. WHIT DRAKE (DRA011)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Of Counsel:
DRAKE LAW FIRM
Two Perimeter Park South
Suite 510 East
Birmingham, AL 35243
(205) 970-0800

PLEASE SERVE THE DEFENDANTS BY CERTIFIED MAIL AS FOLLOWS:

Carl Cannon Chevrolet Buick GMC


299 Carl Cannon Boulevard
Jasper, AL 35501

Unilube Systems, Ltd.


4918 Rondo Dr.
Fort Worth, TX 76106

Hessaire Products
11550 US Hwy 278 E
Holly Pond, AL, 35083

Flynn Distributing Company, Inc.


2012 Old Montgomery Hwy
Birmingham, AL 35244

Wurth USA, Inc.


93 Grant Street
Ramsey, NJ 07446

9
DOCUMENT 2

10