Preview
FILED
3/14/2022 3:20 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Miranda Lynch DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-21-03869
MICHAEL WALKER, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
§§§§§§§§§§§
Plaintifl,
VS.
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
USA, INC., AND POLYPIPE
HANDLING SPECIALISTS, INC.
D/B/A MIDLAND CARRIERS,
Defendants.
116th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION
COMES NOW, Michael Walker (“Plaintiff”), and files his First Amended Petition against
Defendants Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. and Polypipe Handling Specialists, Inc. d/b/a
Midland Carriers (collectively “Defendants”), and in support thereof would respectfully show this
Honorable Court as follows:
I.
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
1. Pursuant to Rules 190.1 and 190.4 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, discovery
in this lawsuit is intended to be conducted under Level 3.
II.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff, Michael Walker, is a resident of Louisiana.
4. Defendant, Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. (“Pioneer”), is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business at 5205 North O’Connor Blvd., Suite 200, Irving,
Texas 75039. Defendant has appeared and answered.
5. Defendant, Polypipe Handling Specialists, Inc. d/b/a Midland Carriers (“Midland
Carriers”), is an Oklahoma corporation with its principal place of business in Edmond, Oklahoma.
Defendant has appeared and answered.
6. In the event any parties are misnamed or are not included herein, it is Plaintiff’s
3’ CS
contention that such was a “misidentification, misnomer,” and/or such parties are/were “alter
egos” of parties named herein. Alternatively, Plaintiff contends such “corporate veils” should be
pierced to hold such parties properly included in the interest of justice.
HI.
JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND RULE 47 STATEMENT
7. The Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this lawsuit and the amount in
controversy is above the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Honorable Court as Plaintiffs seek
aggregate monetary relief over $1,000,000.00. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 47. Additionally, removal to
federal court would be improper because this lawsuit does not involve a federal question, this
lawsuit lacks diversity and/or because of the forum defendant rule. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441(b)(2).
Therefore, removal of this action would be improper.
8. Venue of this lawsuit is proper in Dallas County, Texas pursuant to Texas Civil
Practice and Remedies Code § 15.002(a)(3) because Defendant Pioneer had its principal office in
Dallas County, Texas, at the time the action accrued.
IV.
FACTS
11. On or about April 5, 2019, Plaintiff was moving a large spool of industrial lay flat
hose using a Bobcat at a wellsite complex (HULET 138, HULET 164 and/or HULET 166) in
Reagan County, Texas owned and operated by Defendant Pioneer. Defendant Midland Carriers
designed, manufactured and sold the lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system, believed to be
a Midland Carriers Model LF 660 Lay Flat Hose Retrieval and Deployment System. While
traveling down a road at the wellsite complex with the lay flat hose retrieval and deployment
system on the front of the Bobcat, Plaintiff struck a terrain hazard that caused the hose to unravel.
The end of the hose, with its large metal connector, swung up and behind the Bobcat and entered
the cab, shattering the rear glass and striking Plaintiff in the head. As a result of the incident,
Plaintiff suffered severe injury and significant damages.
V.
CAUSES 0F ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT PIONEER
14. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs above herein by reference.
A. NEGLIGENCE
15. Defendant Pioneer committed acts and omissions which, collectively and severally,
constituted negligence and which proximately caused Plaintiff s injuries and damages.
16. Defendant Pioneer had a duty to exercise ordinary care, meaning the degree of care
that would be used by a company of ordinary prudence under the same or similar circumstances.
Defendant Pioneer breached its duty in at least, but not limited to, one or more of the following
ways:
a. Failing to properly grade and maintain roads at the premises;
b. Failing to warn of terrain hazards on the roads at the premises;
c. Failing to properly and adequately hire, train, supervise, and retain employees,
contractors, and agents with regard to monitoring operations and the safety of
operations on the premises;
d. Failing to provide adequate staff, supervisors, and safety personnel with regard to
monitoring operations and the safety of operations on the premises;
e. Failing to exercise reasonable care when directing and controlling the work being
done on the premises and/or with the equipment on the premises;
f. Failing to ensure compliance with its policies and procedures related to the safety
of operations and monitoring the safety of operations on the premises;
g. Failing to perform duties stated or implied by the contract with Plaintiff s employer
and other contractors on the premises;
h. Failing to meet the industry standards of care required by the oil and gas industry;
i. Violations of OSHA regulations and standards; and
j. Other acts or omissions deemed negligent.
17. Each of the foregoing breaches, Whether taken singularly or in combination,
constituted negligence. Such negligence was a proximate cause of the occurrence in question and
the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff.
B. PREMISES LIABILITY
18. On information and belief, Defendant Pioneer owned, occupied, and/or controlled
the area where Plaintiff sustained injuries. The condition of the premises where Plaintiff was
injured posed an unreasonable risk of harm, and Defendant Pioneer had actual knowledge or
reasonably should have known of the unreasonably dangerous condition. Moreover, Plaintiff did
not have actual knowledge of the unreasonably dangerous condition.
19. Plaintiff was an invitee who entered the premises with the knowledge and for the
benefit of Defendant Pioneer. Defendant Pioneer had a duty to either warn Plaintiff of this
unreasonably dangerous condition or make the unreasonably dangerous condition safe.
20. Defendant Pioneer breached this duty by failing to warn Plaintiff of this known
unreasonably dangerous condition. Defendant Pioneer also breached this duty by failing to make
this known unreasonably dangerous condition reasonably safe. As the owner and/or operator of
the premises, Defendant Pioneer’s breach proximately caused the injuries and damages suffered
by Plaintiff.
VI.
CAUSES 0F ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT MIDLAND CARRIERS
21. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs above herein by reference.
22. Plaintiff brings design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence,
and gross negligence claims against Defendant Midland Carriers with respect to the subject lay
flat hose retrieval and deployment system.
A. DESIGN DEFECT
23. On information and belief, Defendant Midland Carriers designed, manufactured,
distributed, tested, sold, and supplied the subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system.
The subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system was defectively designed, manufactured,
tested, distributed, sold and supplied because: (l) there was a foreseeable risk the subject lay flat
hose retrieval and deployment system would allow the lay flat hose to unravel during transport in
a manner which likely could cause serious bodily injury; (2) the risk could have been reduced or
avoided with a safer alternative design that would prevent the lay flat hose from unraveling during
transport; (3) Defendant Midland Carriers did not adopt a safer alternative design; and (4)
Defendant Midland Carriers’ failure to adopt the safer alternative design rendered the subject lay
flat hose retrieval and deployment system unreasonably dangerous while being used for its
intended purpose.
24. At the time of design and manufacture, the safer alternative design was available,
and the harm of the defective design was foreseeable. Specifically, the subject lay flat hose
retrieval and deployment system did not have clamps to hold the end of the hose onto the spool
during transport. The defective design, manufacture, testing, distribution, sale, and supply of the
subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system rendered it unreasonably dangerous, which
directly and proximately caused Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
25. Defendant Midland Carriers’ failure to use a safer alternative design was reckless,
willful, wanton, heedless, and in disregard of the safety of workers using the subject lay flat hose
retrieval and deployment system. As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to recover actual and punitive
and/or exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact.
B. MANUFACTURING DEFECT
26. At all pertinent times, Defendant Midland Carriers was engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, selling, and/or otherwise placing lay flat hose retrieval and
deployment systems, including but not limited to the subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment
system, into the stream of commerce in Texas.
27. When the subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system left Defendant
Midland Carriers’ control, defects in its manufacture rendered it defective and unreasonably
dangerous in that it was prone to fail in the foreseeable course of use.
28. In particular, the lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system was defectively
manufactured and/or assembled by Defendant Midland Carriers such that the components of the
lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system would no longer function properly, which caused
injuries to Plaintiff. The defective manufacture of the lay flat hose retrieval and deployment
system directly and proximately caused Plaintiff’ s injuries and damages.
C. FAILURE To WARN
29. Defendant Midland Carriers failed to give adequate and proper warnings and
instructions regarding the dangers of the subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system and
its components, which rendered the subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system
unreasonably dangerous and was a producing and proximate cause of Plaintiff‘s injuries and
damages
D. NEGLIGENCE
30. Defendant Midland Carriers and its agents, servants, and employees, for whose acts
it is responsible were negligent in designing, manufacturing, marketing, maintaining, distributing,
selling and/or supplying the lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system, Defendant Midland
Carriers and its agents, servants, and employees engaged in certain acts and omissions constituting
negligence, including, but not limited to:
a. Failing to properly design the subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system;
b. Failing to properly manufacture the subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment
system;
c. Failing to properly inspect the subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment
system;
d. Failing to properly test the subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system;
e. Failing to adequately warn the parties to this case and others similarly situated,
regarding the use, operation, and dangers of the subject lay flat hose retrieval and
deployment system; and
f. Other acts deemed negligent and grossly negligent.
3 l. These breaches, among others, constituted negligence. Such negligence was a
proximate cause of the occurrence in question and the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff.
VII.
GROSS NEGLIGENCE (ALL DEFENDANTs)
32. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs above herein by reference.
33. Plaintiff alleges that all acts and omissions on the part of Defendants, taken
singularly or in combination, constitute gross negligence and were the proximate cause of
Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
34. Defendants’ acts and omissions, when viewed objectively from the Defendants’
standpoint at the time such acts and omissions occurred, involved an extreme degree of risk,
considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others. Defendants had actual,
subjective awareness of the risk, but proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety
and welfare of Plaintiff. Such gross negligence was a proximate cause of the occurrence and
Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
35. Because Defendants are liable for gross negligence, punitive and/or exemplary
damages should be assessed against them in an amount to be determined by the jury, as a deterrent
to future bad conduct and as a punishment for their bad acts and omissions.
VIII.
DAMAGES
36. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs above herein by reference.
37. Plaintiff seeks compensation for the following damages that resulted from this
incident:
a. The medical expenses that Plaintiff has incurred in the past and will, in all
probability continue to incur in the future;
b. Past and future physical pain and suffering of Plaintiff;
c. Past and future mental anguish of Plaintiff;
d. Past and future physical impairment and disability of Plaintiff;
e. Past and future disfigurement and scarring;
f. Past and future lost wages;
g. Loss of earning capacity;
h. Cost of suit;
i. Pre- and post-judgment interest;
j. Punitive and/or exemplary damages; and
k. Any and all damages to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled under the law.
38. As a result of said occurrences, Plaintiff sustained severe injuries to his body, which
resulted in physical pain, mental anguish, and other medical problems. Plaintiff has sustained
severe pain, physical impairment, discomfort, mental anguish, and emotional distress. In all
reasonable probability, Plaintiff s physical pain, physical impairment, and mental anguish will
continue indefinitely.
39. Plaintiff would futther show that the conduct of Defendants constitutes gross
negligence, as that term is defined and understood under Texas law. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks
exemplary damages from Defendants, in addition to actual and/or compensatory damages.
IX.
PRESERVATION 0F EVIDENCE
40. Plaintiff hereby requests and demands that Defendants preserve and maintain all
evidence pertaining to any claim or defense related to the incident made the basis of this lawsuit
and the damages resulting therefrom, including, but not limited to, photographs; videotapes;
audiotapes; recordings; business or medical records; bills; estimates; invoices; checks;
correspondence; memoranda; files; facsimiles; emails; voicemails; text messages; investigations;
cellular telephone records; calendar entries; and any electronic image, data, or information related
to Plaintiff, the referenced incident, or any damages resulting therefrom. Failure to maintain such
items will constitute spoliation of the evidence.
X.
NOTICE REGARDING PRODUCTION OF SELF-AUTHENTICATING DOCUMENTS
41. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.7, you are hereby put on actual
notice that any documents produced in response to written discovery will be used in pretrial
proceedings and at trial and will be deemed authentic unless you make valid objections to
authenticity pursuant to this rule.
PRAVER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that citation issue and be
served upon Defendants in a form and manner prescribed by law, requiring that the Defendants
appear and answer, and that upon final hearing or final trial hereof, the Court enter judgment in
his favor for actual damages, exemplary damages, costs of court, pre- and post-judgment interest
at the maximum rate allowed by law, and for each other and further relief to which he may be
justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
ABRAHAM, WATKINS, NICHOLS,
AGOSTO, AZIZ & STOGNER
By: /s/ Muhammad S. Aziz
Muhammad S. Aziz
Texas Bar No. 24043538
David J. Baluk
Texas Bar No. 24078186
800 Commerce Street
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (713) 222-721 1
Facsimile: (713) 225—0827
Email: maziz@awtxlaw.com
Email: dbaluk@awtxlaw.com
-and-
REYNA INJURY LAWYERS, P.C.
By: /s/ Juan P. Revna
Juan P. Reyna
Texas Bar No. 24027649
5656 S. Staples, Ste 114
Corpus Christi, Texas 78411
Telephone: (361) 993 -8 1 00
Facsimile: (361) 993-8101
Email: jr@jremalawfirm.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 14th day of March 2022, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served upon all counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure.
/s/ David J. Baluk
David J. Baluk
10
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Maria Sandoval on behalf of David Baluk
Bar No. 24078186
msandoval@awtxlaw.com
Envelope ID: 62587902
Status as of 3/14/2022 3:42 PM CST
Associated Case Party: POLYPIPE HANDLING SPECIALISTS INC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Brendan Doherty bdoherty@glllaw.com 3/14/2022 3:20:57 PM SENT
Shannon RRamirez sramirez@glllaw.com 3/14/2022 3:20:57 PM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Donna Peavler dpeavler@peavlerbriscoe.com 3/14/2022 3:20:57 PM SENT
Jessica Dean jdean@awtxlaw.com 3/14/2022 3:20:57 PM SENT
Janie Karrington jkarrington@peavlerbriscoe.com 3/14/2022 3:20:57 PM SENT
Juan P. Reyna 24027649 jr@jreynalawfirm.com 3/14/2022 3:20:57 PM SENT
Sandy Dixon sdixon@peavlerbriscoe.com 3/14/2022 3:20:57 PM SENT
Rhonda Rackley rrackley@glllaw.com 3/14/2022 3:20:57 PM SENT
Maria Sandoval msandoval@awtxlaw.com 3/14/2022 3:20:57 PM SENT
Muhammad S.Aziz maziz@awtxlaw.com 3/14/2022 3:20:57 PM SENT
Sara KimbroughScudday SScudday@peavlerbriscoe.com 3/14/2022 3:20:57 PM SENT
David Baluk dbaluk@awtxlaw.com 3/14/2022 3:20:57 PM SENT
Ramsey Al-Azem ral-azem@awtxlaw.com 3/14/2022 3:20:57 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 3/14/2022 3:20 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Miranda Lynch DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-21-03869 MICHAEL WALKER, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF §§§§§§§§§§§ Plaintifl, VS. PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS USA, INC., AND POLYPIPE HANDLING SPECIALISTS, INC. D/B/A MIDLAND CARRIERS, Defendants. 116th JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION COMES NOW, Michael Walker (“Plaintiff”), and files his First Amended Petition against Defendants Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. and Polypipe Handling Specialists, Inc. d/b/a Midland Carriers (collectively “Defendants”), and in support thereof would respectfully show this Honorable Court as follows: I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 1. Pursuant to Rules 190.1 and 190.4 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, discovery in this lawsuit is intended to be conducted under Level 3. II. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, Michael Walker, is a resident of Louisiana. 4. Defendant, Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. (“Pioneer”), is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 5205 North O’Connor Blvd., Suite 200, Irving, Texas 75039. Defendant has appeared and answered. 5. Defendant, Polypipe Handling Specialists, Inc. d/b/a Midland Carriers (“Midland Carriers”), is an Oklahoma corporation with its principal place of business in Edmond, Oklahoma. Defendant has appeared and answered. 6. In the event any parties are misnamed or are not included herein, it is Plaintiff’s 3’ CS contention that such was a “misidentification, misnomer,” and/or such parties are/were “alter egos” of parties named herein. Alternatively, Plaintiff contends such “corporate veils” should be pierced to hold such parties properly included in the interest of justice. HI. JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND RULE 47 STATEMENT 7. The Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this lawsuit and the amount in controversy is above the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Honorable Court as Plaintiffs seek aggregate monetary relief over $1,000,000.00. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 47. Additionally, removal to federal court would be improper because this lawsuit does not involve a federal question, this lawsuit lacks diversity and/or because of the forum defendant rule. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441(b)(2). Therefore, removal of this action would be improper. 8. Venue of this lawsuit is proper in Dallas County, Texas pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 15.002(a)(3) because Defendant Pioneer had its principal office in Dallas County, Texas, at the time the action accrued. IV. FACTS 11. On or about April 5, 2019, Plaintiff was moving a large spool of industrial lay flat hose using a Bobcat at a wellsite complex (HULET 138, HULET 164 and/or HULET 166) in Reagan County, Texas owned and operated by Defendant Pioneer. Defendant Midland Carriers designed, manufactured and sold the lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system, believed to be a Midland Carriers Model LF 660 Lay Flat Hose Retrieval and Deployment System. While traveling down a road at the wellsite complex with the lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system on the front of the Bobcat, Plaintiff struck a terrain hazard that caused the hose to unravel. The end of the hose, with its large metal connector, swung up and behind the Bobcat and entered the cab, shattering the rear glass and striking Plaintiff in the head. As a result of the incident, Plaintiff suffered severe injury and significant damages. V. CAUSES 0F ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT PIONEER 14. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs above herein by reference. A. NEGLIGENCE 15. Defendant Pioneer committed acts and omissions which, collectively and severally, constituted negligence and which proximately caused Plaintiff s injuries and damages. 16. Defendant Pioneer had a duty to exercise ordinary care, meaning the degree of care that would be used by a company of ordinary prudence under the same or similar circumstances. Defendant Pioneer breached its duty in at least, but not limited to, one or more of the following ways: a. Failing to properly grade and maintain roads at the premises; b. Failing to warn of terrain hazards on the roads at the premises; c. Failing to properly and adequately hire, train, supervise, and retain employees, contractors, and agents with regard to monitoring operations and the safety of operations on the premises; d. Failing to provide adequate staff, supervisors, and safety personnel with regard to monitoring operations and the safety of operations on the premises; e. Failing to exercise reasonable care when directing and controlling the work being done on the premises and/or with the equipment on the premises; f. Failing to ensure compliance with its policies and procedures related to the safety of operations and monitoring the safety of operations on the premises; g. Failing to perform duties stated or implied by the contract with Plaintiff s employer and other contractors on the premises; h. Failing to meet the industry standards of care required by the oil and gas industry; i. Violations of OSHA regulations and standards; and j. Other acts or omissions deemed negligent. 17. Each of the foregoing breaches, Whether taken singularly or in combination, constituted negligence. Such negligence was a proximate cause of the occurrence in question and the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff. B. PREMISES LIABILITY 18. On information and belief, Defendant Pioneer owned, occupied, and/or controlled the area where Plaintiff sustained injuries. The condition of the premises where Plaintiff was injured posed an unreasonable risk of harm, and Defendant Pioneer had actual knowledge or reasonably should have known of the unreasonably dangerous condition. Moreover, Plaintiff did not have actual knowledge of the unreasonably dangerous condition. 19. Plaintiff was an invitee who entered the premises with the knowledge and for the benefit of Defendant Pioneer. Defendant Pioneer had a duty to either warn Plaintiff of this unreasonably dangerous condition or make the unreasonably dangerous condition safe. 20. Defendant Pioneer breached this duty by failing to warn Plaintiff of this known unreasonably dangerous condition. Defendant Pioneer also breached this duty by failing to make this known unreasonably dangerous condition reasonably safe. As the owner and/or operator of the premises, Defendant Pioneer’s breach proximately caused the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff. VI. CAUSES 0F ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT MIDLAND CARRIERS 21. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs above herein by reference. 22. Plaintiff brings design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence, and gross negligence claims against Defendant Midland Carriers with respect to the subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system. A. DESIGN DEFECT 23. On information and belief, Defendant Midland Carriers designed, manufactured, distributed, tested, sold, and supplied the subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system. The subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system was defectively designed, manufactured, tested, distributed, sold and supplied because: (l) there was a foreseeable risk the subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system would allow the lay flat hose to unravel during transport in a manner which likely could cause serious bodily injury; (2) the risk could have been reduced or avoided with a safer alternative design that would prevent the lay flat hose from unraveling during transport; (3) Defendant Midland Carriers did not adopt a safer alternative design; and (4) Defendant Midland Carriers’ failure to adopt the safer alternative design rendered the subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system unreasonably dangerous while being used for its intended purpose. 24. At the time of design and manufacture, the safer alternative design was available, and the harm of the defective design was foreseeable. Specifically, the subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system did not have clamps to hold the end of the hose onto the spool during transport. The defective design, manufacture, testing, distribution, sale, and supply of the subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system rendered it unreasonably dangerous, which directly and proximately caused Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. 25. Defendant Midland Carriers’ failure to use a safer alternative design was reckless, willful, wanton, heedless, and in disregard of the safety of workers using the subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system. As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to recover actual and punitive and/or exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact. B. MANUFACTURING DEFECT 26. At all pertinent times, Defendant Midland Carriers was engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, marketing, selling, and/or otherwise placing lay flat hose retrieval and deployment systems, including but not limited to the subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system, into the stream of commerce in Texas. 27. When the subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system left Defendant Midland Carriers’ control, defects in its manufacture rendered it defective and unreasonably dangerous in that it was prone to fail in the foreseeable course of use. 28. In particular, the lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system was defectively manufactured and/or assembled by Defendant Midland Carriers such that the components of the lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system would no longer function properly, which caused injuries to Plaintiff. The defective manufacture of the lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system directly and proximately caused Plaintiff’ s injuries and damages. C. FAILURE To WARN 29. Defendant Midland Carriers failed to give adequate and proper warnings and instructions regarding the dangers of the subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system and its components, which rendered the subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system unreasonably dangerous and was a producing and proximate cause of Plaintiff‘s injuries and damages D. NEGLIGENCE 30. Defendant Midland Carriers and its agents, servants, and employees, for whose acts it is responsible were negligent in designing, manufacturing, marketing, maintaining, distributing, selling and/or supplying the lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system, Defendant Midland Carriers and its agents, servants, and employees engaged in certain acts and omissions constituting negligence, including, but not limited to: a. Failing to properly design the subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system; b. Failing to properly manufacture the subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system; c. Failing to properly inspect the subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system; d. Failing to properly test the subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system; e. Failing to adequately warn the parties to this case and others similarly situated, regarding the use, operation, and dangers of the subject lay flat hose retrieval and deployment system; and f. Other acts deemed negligent and grossly negligent. 3 l. These breaches, among others, constituted negligence. Such negligence was a proximate cause of the occurrence in question and the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff. VII. GROSS NEGLIGENCE (ALL DEFENDANTs) 32. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs above herein by reference. 33. Plaintiff alleges that all acts and omissions on the part of Defendants, taken singularly or in combination, constitute gross negligence and were the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. 34. Defendants’ acts and omissions, when viewed objectively from the Defendants’ standpoint at the time such acts and omissions occurred, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others. Defendants had actual, subjective awareness of the risk, but proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety and welfare of Plaintiff. Such gross negligence was a proximate cause of the occurrence and Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. 35. Because Defendants are liable for gross negligence, punitive and/or exemplary damages should be assessed against them in an amount to be determined by the jury, as a deterrent to future bad conduct and as a punishment for their bad acts and omissions. VIII. DAMAGES 36. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs above herein by reference. 37. Plaintiff seeks compensation for the following damages that resulted from this incident: a. The medical expenses that Plaintiff has incurred in the past and will, in all probability continue to incur in the future; b. Past and future physical pain and suffering of Plaintiff; c. Past and future mental anguish of Plaintiff; d. Past and future physical impairment and disability of Plaintiff; e. Past and future disfigurement and scarring; f. Past and future lost wages; g. Loss of earning capacity; h. Cost of suit; i. Pre- and post-judgment interest; j. Punitive and/or exemplary damages; and k. Any and all damages to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled under the law. 38. As a result of said occurrences, Plaintiff sustained severe injuries to his body, which resulted in physical pain, mental anguish, and other medical problems. Plaintiff has sustained severe pain, physical impairment, discomfort, mental anguish, and emotional distress. In all reasonable probability, Plaintiff s physical pain, physical impairment, and mental anguish will continue indefinitely. 39. Plaintiff would futther show that the conduct of Defendants constitutes gross negligence, as that term is defined and understood under Texas law. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks exemplary damages from Defendants, in addition to actual and/or compensatory damages. IX. PRESERVATION 0F EVIDENCE 40. Plaintiff hereby requests and demands that Defendants preserve and maintain all evidence pertaining to any claim or defense related to the incident made the basis of this lawsuit and the damages resulting therefrom, including, but not limited to, photographs; videotapes; audiotapes; recordings; business or medical records; bills; estimates; invoices; checks; correspondence; memoranda; files; facsimiles; emails; voicemails; text messages; investigations; cellular telephone records; calendar entries; and any electronic image, data, or information related to Plaintiff, the referenced incident, or any damages resulting therefrom. Failure to maintain such items will constitute spoliation of the evidence. X. NOTICE REGARDING PRODUCTION OF SELF-AUTHENTICATING DOCUMENTS 41. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.7, you are hereby put on actual notice that any documents produced in response to written discovery will be used in pretrial proceedings and at trial and will be deemed authentic unless you make valid objections to authenticity pursuant to this rule. PRAVER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that citation issue and be served upon Defendants in a form and manner prescribed by law, requiring that the Defendants appear and answer, and that upon final hearing or final trial hereof, the Court enter judgment in his favor for actual damages, exemplary damages, costs of court, pre- and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law, and for each other and further relief to which he may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, ABRAHAM, WATKINS, NICHOLS, AGOSTO, AZIZ & STOGNER By: /s/ Muhammad S. Aziz Muhammad S. Aziz Texas Bar No. 24043538 David J. Baluk Texas Bar No. 24078186 800 Commerce Street Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-721 1 Facsimile: (713) 225—0827 Email: maziz@awtxlaw.com Email: dbaluk@awtxlaw.com -and- REYNA INJURY LAWYERS, P.C. By: /s/ Juan P. Revna Juan P. Reyna Texas Bar No. 24027649 5656 S. Staples, Ste 114 Corpus Christi, Texas 78411 Telephone: (361) 993 -8 1 00 Facsimile: (361) 993-8101 Email: jr@jremalawfirm.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 14th day of March 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon all counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. /s/ David J. Baluk David J. Baluk 10 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Maria Sandoval on behalf of David Baluk Bar No. 24078186 msandoval@awtxlaw.com Envelope ID: 62587902 Status as of 3/14/2022 3:42 PM CST Associated Case Party: POLYPIPE HANDLING SPECIALISTS INC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Brendan Doherty bdoherty@glllaw.com 3/14/2022 3:20:57 PM SENT Shannon RRamirez sramirez@glllaw.com 3/14/2022 3:20:57 PM SENT Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Donna Peavler dpeavler@peavlerbriscoe.com 3/14/2022 3:20:57 PM SENT Jessica Dean jdean@awtxlaw.com 3/14/2022 3:20:57 PM SENT Janie Karrington jkarrington@peavlerbriscoe.com 3/14/2022 3:20:57 PM SENT Juan P. Reyna 24027649 jr@jreynalawfirm.com 3/14/2022 3:20:57 PM SENT Sandy Dixon sdixon@peavlerbriscoe.com 3/14/2022 3:20:57 PM SENT Rhonda Rackley rrackley@glllaw.com 3/14/2022 3:20:57 PM SENT Maria Sandoval msandoval@awtxlaw.com 3/14/2022 3:20:57 PM SENT Muhammad S.Aziz maziz@awtxlaw.com 3/14/2022 3:20:57 PM SENT Sara KimbroughScudday SScudday@peavlerbriscoe.com 3/14/2022 3:20:57 PM SENT David Baluk dbaluk@awtxlaw.com 3/14/2022 3:20:57 PM SENT Ramsey Al-Azem ral-azem@awtxlaw.com 3/14/2022 3:20:57 PM SENT