Preview
5/31/2018 6:46 PM
Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 24984375
2018-36443 / Court: 157 By: Nelson Cuero
Filed: 5/31/2018 6:46 PM
CAUSE NO.
ROBERT PETERSON, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff,
Vv. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
INTERPUMP GROUP, SPA,
GENERAL PUMP COMPANY, LLC,
OILNEX, LLC, NEXOIL, LLC, and
DCS CONSULTING, INC.,
Defendants. JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Plaintiff's Original Petition
Plaintiff, Robert Peterson, files this Original Petition against Defendants Interpump Group
SPA, (“Interpump”) General Pump Company, LLC (“General Pump”), Oilnex Supply, LLC
(“Oilnex”), Nexoil, LLC (“Nexoil”) and DCS Consulting, Inc. (“DCS Consulting”) (collectively
“Defendants”), and would respectfully show unto the Court the following:
1
Discovery Level
1 Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery in this matter under Level 2 of the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure
IL.
Jurisdiction and Venue
2 This Court has personal jurisdiction over all of the Defendants because they are
citizens of Texas, the acts and omissions giving rise to the cause of action occurred in Texas, and/or
the Defendants conduct a substantial amount of business in Texas.
3 Venue is proper in Harris County, Texas in accordance with Texas Civil Practice
and Remedies Code §15.002
Til.
Parties
4 Plaintiff Robert Peterson is a resident and citizen of Texas.
5 Defendant Interpump is a foreign corporation with its principal place of business in
Ttaly Interpump transacts significant business in the State of Texas, and specifically Harris
County, but does not maintain a registered agent in the State of Texas. Accordingly, it may be
served with process through the Secretary of the State of Texas at Citations Division, James E.
Rudder Building, 1019 Brazos, Room 105, Austin, Texas 78701
6 Defendant General Pump is a Texas limited liability company with its principal
place of business in Houston, TX. It is a Texas citizen. It may be served with process through its
registered agent, Mayfield Document Services, LLC, at 5850 Granite Parkway, Ste. 215, Plano,
Texas 75024
7 Defendant Oilnex is an Oklahoma limited liability company with its principal place
of business in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Oilnex regularly conducts business in the State of
Texas, and specifically in Harris County, even though it is not registered and does not maintain an
agent for service of process in Texas. Accordingly, it may be served with process through the
Secretary of the State of Texas at Citations Division, James E. Rudder Building, 1019 Brazos,
Room 105, Austin, Texas 78701
8 Defendant Nexoil is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of
business in Amarillo, TX. Itis a Texas citizen. It may be served with process through its registered
agent, Garland D. Sell, 504 South Polk, Suite 101, Amarillo, Texas 79101
9 Defendant DCS Consulting is a Texas corporation with its principal place of
business in Bridgeport, TX. It is a Texas citizen. It may be served through its registered agent,
Donald Stinnet, located at 1/4 Mile East of Highway 101, Bridgeport, Texas 76026.
IV.
Facts
10. On or about February 25, 2018, Plaintiff was working for Kayden Industries
servicing a pressure washer that was manufactured, designed, distributed, installed, serviced and/or
sold by Defendants.
§
4 S
~ < N .
.
ANVgg
\ AS
2 i
|Fy— 4
SS
\\
7.
< \
\ A ‘S
11 The pressure washer malfunctioned and shot a bolt (similar to the one pictured
below) directly into Plaintiff's eye with 3,600 psi of pressure.
4
i
NS S
12. The pressure washer’s malfunction lacerated Plaintiff's eye and caused life.
changing injuries to his face.
“
.
ee
13 Plaintiff was life-lighted to the hospital and underwent emergency surgery on his
eye and facial bones. He eventually had to have his eye removed and replaced with a prosthetic.
Vv.
Causes of Action - Interpump, General Pump, Oilnex, and Nexoil
14 Defendant manufactured, designed, distributed and/or sold the product that injured
Plaintiff with design, manufacturing, and/or marketing defects.
15 Marketing Defect and Failure to Warn. The product was designed, manufactured,
distributed, and/or sold with one or more marketing defects.
e There was an unreasonable risk in the intended or reasonably foreseeable use of
such product;
Defendants knew, foresaw, or should have known about the aforementioned risk;
Defendants failed to adequately warn Plaintiff of the risks, failed to instruct Plaintiff
of the aforementioned risks, and/or failed to adequately instruct Plaintiff how to
avoid the dangers; and
The marketing defect(s) render the defective product unreasonably dangerous
16. Design Defect: The product was designed, manufactured, distributed and/or sold
with one or more design defects.
e Defendants designed the defective product and knew of safer alternative
designs that were available at the time of production;
The safer alternative designs would have prevented or significantly reduced the
aforementioned risks without substantially impairing the defective product’s
utility;
The safer alternative design was economically and technologically feasible at
the time the defective product left Defendants’ control; and
e The design defect(s) rendered the product unreasonably dangerous.
17. Manufacturing Defect The product was designed, manufactured, distributed,
and/or sold with one or more manufacturing defects. Defendants manufactured the conditions,
and at the time, deviated in the quality of construction, plan, and/or specifications rendering the
condition unreasonably dangerous.
18 The design, manufacturing, and/or marketing defect(s) rendered the defective
product unreasonably dangerous.
19. The design, manufacturing, and/or marketing defect(s), which rendered the
defective product unreasonably dangerous, were the producing causes to Plaintiff’s injury.
Causes of Action - DCS Consulting
20. Defendant installed and/or serviced the pressure washer in a negligent manner. The
manner in which Defendant installed and/or serviced the pressure washer posed an unreasonable
risk of harm, and Defendant knew, or reasonably have known, of the unreasonably dangerous
condition. Moreover, Plaintiff did not have actual knowledge of the unreasonably dangerous
condition. Defendant’s negligence proximately caused Plaintiff’ s injuries.
VI.
Damage:
21. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff sustained severe injuries to his body
which resulted in physical pain, mental anguish, disfigurement, and other medical problems.
Plaintiff has sustained severe pain, physical impairment, discomfort, disfigurement, mental
anguish, and distress. In all reasonable probability, Plaintiff's medical problems, disfigurement,
physical pain, physical impairment and mental anguish will continue indefinitely. Plaintiff has
also suffered a loss of earnings in the past, as well as a loss of future earning capacity. Plaintiff
has incurred and will incur pharmaceutical and medical expenses in connection with his injuries.
22. In addition, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages because the aforementioned
actions of Defendants were grossly negligent Defendants acted with flagrant and malicious
disregard of Plaintiff's and others’ health and safety. Defendants were objectively aware of the
extreme risk posed by the conditions which caused Plaintiff's injury, but did nothing to rectify
them. Defendants’ acts and omissions involved an extreme degree of risk considering the
probability and magnitude of potential harm to Plaintiff and others. Defendants had actual,
subjective awareness of the risk, and consciously disregarded such risk. Accordingly, Plaintiff is
entitled to and seeks exemplary damages.
23 Plaintiff has been damaged in a sum far in excess of the minimum jurisdictional
limits of this Honorable Court, for which he now sues. Pursuant to Rule 47, Plaintiff seeks
monetary relief within the jurisdictional limits of this Court and over $1,000,000.00.
VIL.
Jury Demand
24. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.
VIL.
Praye'
25. Plaintiff prays that this citation issue and be served upon Defendants in a form and
manner prescribed by law, requiring that Defendants appear and answer, and that upon trial,
Plaintiff has judgment against Defendants, both jointly and severally, in a total sum in excess of
the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court, plus prejudgment interest and post judgment, for
all costs of Court, attorneys’ fees, exemplary damages, and all such other and further relief, both
at law and equity to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief in excess
of $1,000,000.00,
Respectfully submitted,
ARNOLD & ITKIN LLP
és/ Jason A. Itkin
Jason A. Itkin
State Bar No. 24032461
Cory D. Itkin
State Bar No. 24056438
Ryan S. MacLeod
State Bar No. 24068346
Jacob Karam
State Bar No. 24105653
6009 Memorial Drive
Houston, Texas 77007
Telephone: (713) 222-3800
Facsimile: (713) 222-3850
e-service@arnolditkin
com
ie annolditkin. com
cukuy amolditkin com
nwexler: armalditkin.com
ara i
rnoldi com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
Preview
5/31/2018 6:46 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 24984375 2018-36443 / Court: 157 By: Nelson Cuero Filed: 5/31/2018 6:46 PM CAUSE NO. ROBERT PETERSON, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, Vv. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS INTERPUMP GROUP, SPA, GENERAL PUMP COMPANY, LLC, OILNEX, LLC, NEXOIL, LLC, and DCS CONSULTING, INC., Defendants. JUDICIAL DISTRICT Plaintiff's Original Petition Plaintiff, Robert Peterson, files this Original Petition against Defendants Interpump Group SPA, (“Interpump”) General Pump Company, LLC (“General Pump”), Oilnex Supply, LLC (“Oilnex”), Nexoil, LLC (“Nexoil”) and DCS Consulting, Inc. (“DCS Consulting”) (collectively “Defendants”), and would respectfully show unto the Court the following: 1 Discovery Level 1 Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery in this matter under Level 2 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure IL. Jurisdiction and Venue 2 This Court has personal jurisdiction over all of the Defendants because they are citizens of Texas, the acts and omissions giving rise to the cause of action occurred in Texas, and/or the Defendants conduct a substantial amount of business in Texas. 3 Venue is proper in Harris County, Texas in accordance with Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §15.002 Til. Parties 4 Plaintiff Robert Peterson is a resident and citizen of Texas. 5 Defendant Interpump is a foreign corporation with its principal place of business in Ttaly Interpump transacts significant business in the State of Texas, and specifically Harris County, but does not maintain a registered agent in the State of Texas. Accordingly, it may be served with process through the Secretary of the State of Texas at Citations Division, James E. Rudder Building, 1019 Brazos, Room 105, Austin, Texas 78701 6 Defendant General Pump is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Houston, TX. It is a Texas citizen. It may be served with process through its registered agent, Mayfield Document Services, LLC, at 5850 Granite Parkway, Ste. 215, Plano, Texas 75024 7 Defendant Oilnex is an Oklahoma limited liability company with its principal place of business in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Oilnex regularly conducts business in the State of Texas, and specifically in Harris County, even though it is not registered and does not maintain an agent for service of process in Texas. Accordingly, it may be served with process through the Secretary of the State of Texas at Citations Division, James E. Rudder Building, 1019 Brazos, Room 105, Austin, Texas 78701 8 Defendant Nexoil is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Amarillo, TX. Itis a Texas citizen. It may be served with process through its registered agent, Garland D. Sell, 504 South Polk, Suite 101, Amarillo, Texas 79101 9 Defendant DCS Consulting is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Bridgeport, TX. It is a Texas citizen. It may be served through its registered agent, Donald Stinnet, located at 1/4 Mile East of Highway 101, Bridgeport, Texas 76026. IV. Facts 10. On or about February 25, 2018, Plaintiff was working for Kayden Industries servicing a pressure washer that was manufactured, designed, distributed, installed, serviced and/or sold by Defendants. § 4 S ~ < N . . ANVgg \ AS 2 i |Fy— 4 SS \\ 7. < \ \ A ‘S 11 The pressure washer malfunctioned and shot a bolt (similar to the one pictured below) directly into Plaintiff's eye with 3,600 psi of pressure. 4 i NS S 12. The pressure washer’s malfunction lacerated Plaintiff's eye and caused life. changing injuries to his face. “ . ee 13 Plaintiff was life-lighted to the hospital and underwent emergency surgery on his eye and facial bones. He eventually had to have his eye removed and replaced with a prosthetic. Vv. Causes of Action - Interpump, General Pump, Oilnex, and Nexoil 14 Defendant manufactured, designed, distributed and/or sold the product that injured Plaintiff with design, manufacturing, and/or marketing defects. 15 Marketing Defect and Failure to Warn. The product was designed, manufactured, distributed, and/or sold with one or more marketing defects. e There was an unreasonable risk in the intended or reasonably foreseeable use of such product; Defendants knew, foresaw, or should have known about the aforementioned risk; Defendants failed to adequately warn Plaintiff of the risks, failed to instruct Plaintiff of the aforementioned risks, and/or failed to adequately instruct Plaintiff how to avoid the dangers; and The marketing defect(s) render the defective product unreasonably dangerous 16. Design Defect: The product was designed, manufactured, distributed and/or sold with one or more design defects. e Defendants designed the defective product and knew of safer alternative designs that were available at the time of production; The safer alternative designs would have prevented or significantly reduced the aforementioned risks without substantially impairing the defective product’s utility; The safer alternative design was economically and technologically feasible at the time the defective product left Defendants’ control; and e The design defect(s) rendered the product unreasonably dangerous. 17. Manufacturing Defect The product was designed, manufactured, distributed, and/or sold with one or more manufacturing defects. Defendants manufactured the conditions, and at the time, deviated in the quality of construction, plan, and/or specifications rendering the condition unreasonably dangerous. 18 The design, manufacturing, and/or marketing defect(s) rendered the defective product unreasonably dangerous. 19. The design, manufacturing, and/or marketing defect(s), which rendered the defective product unreasonably dangerous, were the producing causes to Plaintiff’s injury. Causes of Action - DCS Consulting 20. Defendant installed and/or serviced the pressure washer in a negligent manner. The manner in which Defendant installed and/or serviced the pressure washer posed an unreasonable risk of harm, and Defendant knew, or reasonably have known, of the unreasonably dangerous condition. Moreover, Plaintiff did not have actual knowledge of the unreasonably dangerous condition. Defendant’s negligence proximately caused Plaintiff’ s injuries. VI. Damage: 21. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff sustained severe injuries to his body which resulted in physical pain, mental anguish, disfigurement, and other medical problems. Plaintiff has sustained severe pain, physical impairment, discomfort, disfigurement, mental anguish, and distress. In all reasonable probability, Plaintiff's medical problems, disfigurement, physical pain, physical impairment and mental anguish will continue indefinitely. Plaintiff has also suffered a loss of earnings in the past, as well as a loss of future earning capacity. Plaintiff has incurred and will incur pharmaceutical and medical expenses in connection with his injuries. 22. In addition, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages because the aforementioned actions of Defendants were grossly negligent Defendants acted with flagrant and malicious disregard of Plaintiff's and others’ health and safety. Defendants were objectively aware of the extreme risk posed by the conditions which caused Plaintiff's injury, but did nothing to rectify them. Defendants’ acts and omissions involved an extreme degree of risk considering the probability and magnitude of potential harm to Plaintiff and others. Defendants had actual, subjective awareness of the risk, and consciously disregarded such risk. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to and seeks exemplary damages. 23 Plaintiff has been damaged in a sum far in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Honorable Court, for which he now sues. Pursuant to Rule 47, Plaintiff seeks monetary relief within the jurisdictional limits of this Court and over $1,000,000.00. VIL. Jury Demand 24. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury. VIL. Praye' 25. Plaintiff prays that this citation issue and be served upon Defendants in a form and manner prescribed by law, requiring that Defendants appear and answer, and that upon trial, Plaintiff has judgment against Defendants, both jointly and severally, in a total sum in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court, plus prejudgment interest and post judgment, for all costs of Court, attorneys’ fees, exemplary damages, and all such other and further relief, both at law and equity to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief in excess of $1,000,000.00, Respectfully submitted, ARNOLD & ITKIN LLP és/ Jason A. Itkin Jason A. Itkin State Bar No. 24032461 Cory D. Itkin State Bar No. 24056438 Ryan S. MacLeod State Bar No. 24068346 Jacob Karam State Bar No. 24105653 6009 Memorial Drive Houston, Texas 77007 Telephone: (713) 222-3800 Facsimile: (713) 222-3850 e-service@arnolditkin com ie annolditkin. com cukuy amolditkin com nwexler: armalditkin.com ara i rnoldi com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF