Preview
| e © wun
1 || CHRISTOPHER C. PIERSON, Esa., P.E., SBN 134991
BROWNWOOD CHAZEN & CANNON
2 | 525 B Street, Suite 1300
San Diego, California 92101
3 || Telephone: (619) 744-6800
Facsimile: (619) 744-6811
SAUINTY
pA COUNT
Attorney for Plaintiff, ALAMEDA ©
5 LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY APR 25 2003
y SUPERIOR
/ ae pyey C URT
6 SUMBIONS ISSiien CLERK OF TY A. pd eo
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
10
11 | LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE Case No.;
COMPANY, 1Q4-093625-
12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Plaintiff,
13 [Labor Code § 3252]
V.
14
DOE LADDER; and DOES 1 through
15 | 20, Inclusive,
16 Defendants.
17
Plaintiff alleges:
18
1, LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY (“PLAINTIFF”) was,
19
and now is, authorized to write Workers’ Compensation Insurance in California and at
20
all times herein mentioned insured TRUCK RAIL HANDLING (“EMPLOYER’) against
21
liability to its employees for compensation benefits under the workers’ compensation
22
laws of the State of California.
23
2. At all times herein mentioned EMPLOYER was the employer of
24
SUKHVINDER BAINS (“EMPLOYEE?’).
25
3. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, DOE LADDER; and DOES 1
26
through 20, Inclusive, and each of them, were individuals and/or partnerships, and/or
27
corporations and/or government entities residing in and/or authorized to do and doing
28
BROWNWOOD 1
CHAZEN & CANNON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
San DIEGO.
business in the County of Alameda, State of California.
4. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate or
bd
otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who
WO
therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious names and will amend this Complaint
to show their true names and capacities when they have been ascertained. Plaintiff is
informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the Defendants named herein as
a DOE is in some manner legally responsible for the events and happenings alleged
herein and proximately caused the damages to Plaintiff as hereinafter alleged.
5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each
10 Defendants was the agent or employee of the other Defendants, and at all relevant
11 times was acting within the purpose and scope of said agency or employment.
12 6. On or about April 25, 2002 at or near 45051 Industrial Drive in the City of
13 Fremont, County of Alameda, State of California, EMPLOYEE, while in the course and
14 scope of his employment, was injured when a ladder failed and broke causing
15 EMPLOYEE to sustain serious injury.
16 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes that as a direct and proximate result of
17 negligent design, manufacture and/or maintenance of said ladder by Defendants DOE
18 LADDER; and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive, a defect existed in the ladder which
19 caused it to fail and injure EMPLOYEE during the course and scope of his employment.
20 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
21 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
22 [Negligence]
23 8. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
24 paragraphs 1 through 8 inclusive, and incorporates the same herein by reference as
25 though fully set forth.
26 9. Each and all of the defendants had a duty to exercise due care in regard
27 to their activities.
28 fT]
BROWNWOOD 2
CHAZEN & CANNON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
10. Defendants DOE LADDER; and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive, by their
conduct relating to the subject product, breached their respective duties. This breach of
duty included, but is not limited to, negligent and careless manufacturing, design,
assembling, customizing, modifying, engineering, testing, certifying, promoting,
marketing, and the sale of the subject ladder.
11. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that the failure of
the Defendants and each of them to properly inspect, maintain and warn potential users
or consumers so as to rid it of any dangerous condition, was an additional breach of
duty owed to the Plaintiff amounting to negligence.
12. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, the Defendants,
and each of them, further breached their respective duties by negligently and carelessly
misrepresenting known deficiencies with the subject product.
13. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that Defendants
knew or should have known of the dangerous conditions that existed in the subject
ladder and failed to appropriately take steps to rectify the problem or warn EMPLOYEE.
14. The negligence of Defendants and each of them, was the actual, legal,
and proximate cause of damages sustained by the Plaintiff.
15. As a proximate result of said negligence by defendants, and each of
them, and of the resulting injuries sustained by EMPLOYEE, Plaintiff has been
obligated to pay, and has paid Workers’ Compensation Benefits to and/or on behalf of
EMPLOYEE. Pursuant to the provisions of §§3852-3856 of the Labor Code, Plaintiff's
22 damages will be proven at the time of trial.
23 16. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that it will be
24 required to pay further Workers’ Compensation benefits and sums for medical care and
25 treatment for an indefinite time in the future, and Plaintiff prays that when the extent of
26 this liability has been ascertained that this complaint may be amended accordingly.
27 /Tl
28 ‘Tl
BROWNWOOD 3
CHAZEN & CANNON
ATTORNEYS aT Law
San Disco
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
[Strict Product Liability]
17. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1
though 16, inclusive, above and incorporate by this reference said paragraphs as if
same were set forth in full herein.
18. Defendants, DOE LADDER; and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive, were at
all times herein mentioned engaged in some aspect in the business of selling,
marketing, repairing, assembling, customizing, installing, or providing to members of the
10 general public, the product herein described. The subject product was manufactured,
11 designed, assembled, repaired, retrofitted, marketed, and sold by the Defendants and
12 each of them, to be used in the manner herein described.
13 19. The product sold by the Defendants and each of them, reached the
14 foreseeable user and/or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which
15 it was at the time it was sold.
16 20 The subject product sold by the Defendants and each of them, was in a
17 defective condition, and unreasonably dangerous when it left the hands of each of
18 these defendants and did not meet the reasonable expectations of the ordinary
19 consumer and user. Said defective condition included, but is not limited to design and
20 manufacturing defects in said product, which caused the ladder to fail and injure
21 EMPLOYEE during the course and scope of his employment.
22 21. The subject product was defectively designed, assembled, manufactured,
23 tested and certified. Defendants, DOE LADDER; and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive
24 were aware of, or should have been aware of, the defects and/or deficiencies including,
25 but not limited to, the defects in the subject ladder and/or its specifications. Plaintiff is
26 informed and believes and thereon alleges, that the Defendants and each of them,
27 failed to adequately warn owners and users of the defects in a timely and reasonable
28 manner.
BROWNWOOD 4
CHAZEN & CANNON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Sawn DrEGo
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
22. Defendants and each of them, placed the product into the channels or
streams of commerce in a defective condition and the Defendants and each of them,
are strictly liable to Plaintiff under Section 402 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts
and applicable statutes and case law for the damages set forth herein.
23. On or about April 25, 2002, as a direct and proximate result of the
aforementioned design and manufacturing defects in said product and its component
parts, the ladder failed injuring EMPLOYEE during the course and scope of his
employment.
24. The aforementioned conduct of the defendants and each of them directly
10 and proximately caused the resulting injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff.
11 25. As a proximate result of said negligence by defendants, and each of
12 them, and of the resulting injuries sustained by EMPLOYEE, Plaintiff has been
13 obligated to pay, and has paid Workers’ Compensation Benefits to and/or on behalf of
14 EMPLOYEE. Pursuant to the provisions of §§3852-3856 of the Labor Code, Plaintiff's
15 damages will be proven at the time of trial.
16 26. ‘Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that it will be
17 required to pay further Workers’ Compensation benefits and sums for medical care and
18 treatment for an indefinite time in the future, and Plaintiff prays that wnen the extent of
19 this liability has been ascertained that this complaint may be amended accordingly.
20 MT f
21 //1
22 //1
23 MTT
24 ITI
25 HTT
26 HT]
27 {fl
28 /Tt
BROWNWOOD )
CHAZEN & CANNON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN DIEGO
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of
them as follows for:
1. Workers’ Compensation benefits and future disability benefits and costs
of medical care and treatment according to proof;
2. Prejudgment interest;
3. Costs of suit incurred herein;
4. Reasonable attorneys fees;
5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deed just and proper.
9 Dated: April 24, 2003 BROWNWOOD, CHAZEN & CANNON
10
11
By: Che hh A
12 CHRISTOPHER C. PIERSON, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff,
13 LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BROWNWOOD 6
CHAZEN & CANNON
Preview
| e © wun 1 || CHRISTOPHER C. PIERSON, Esa., P.E., SBN 134991 BROWNWOOD CHAZEN & CANNON 2 | 525 B Street, Suite 1300 San Diego, California 92101 3 || Telephone: (619) 744-6800 Facsimile: (619) 744-6811 SAUINTY pA COUNT Attorney for Plaintiff, ALAMEDA © 5 LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY APR 25 2003 y SUPERIOR / ae pyey C URT 6 SUMBIONS ISSiien CLERK OF TY A. pd eo 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 10 11 | LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE Case No.; COMPANY, 1Q4-093625- 12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Plaintiff, 13 [Labor Code § 3252] V. 14 DOE LADDER; and DOES 1 through 15 | 20, Inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 Plaintiff alleges: 18 1, LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY (“PLAINTIFF”) was, 19 and now is, authorized to write Workers’ Compensation Insurance in California and at 20 all times herein mentioned insured TRUCK RAIL HANDLING (“EMPLOYER’) against 21 liability to its employees for compensation benefits under the workers’ compensation 22 laws of the State of California. 23 2. At all times herein mentioned EMPLOYER was the employer of 24 SUKHVINDER BAINS (“EMPLOYEE?’). 25 3. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, DOE LADDER; and DOES 1 26 through 20, Inclusive, and each of them, were individuals and/or partnerships, and/or 27 corporations and/or government entities residing in and/or authorized to do and doing 28 BROWNWOOD 1 CHAZEN & CANNON ATTORNEYS AT LAW COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES San DIEGO. business in the County of Alameda, State of California. 4. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate or bd otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who WO therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious names and will amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities when they have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the Defendants named herein as a DOE is in some manner legally responsible for the events and happenings alleged herein and proximately caused the damages to Plaintiff as hereinafter alleged. 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each 10 Defendants was the agent or employee of the other Defendants, and at all relevant 11 times was acting within the purpose and scope of said agency or employment. 12 6. On or about April 25, 2002 at or near 45051 Industrial Drive in the City of 13 Fremont, County of Alameda, State of California, EMPLOYEE, while in the course and 14 scope of his employment, was injured when a ladder failed and broke causing 15 EMPLOYEE to sustain serious injury. 16 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes that as a direct and proximate result of 17 negligent design, manufacture and/or maintenance of said ladder by Defendants DOE 18 LADDER; and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive, a defect existed in the ladder which 19 caused it to fail and injure EMPLOYEE during the course and scope of his employment. 20 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 21 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 22 [Negligence] 23 8. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in 24 paragraphs 1 through 8 inclusive, and incorporates the same herein by reference as 25 though fully set forth. 26 9. Each and all of the defendants had a duty to exercise due care in regard 27 to their activities. 28 fT] BROWNWOOD 2 CHAZEN & CANNON ATTORNEYS AT LAW COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10. Defendants DOE LADDER; and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive, by their conduct relating to the subject product, breached their respective duties. This breach of duty included, but is not limited to, negligent and careless manufacturing, design, assembling, customizing, modifying, engineering, testing, certifying, promoting, marketing, and the sale of the subject ladder. 11. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that the failure of the Defendants and each of them to properly inspect, maintain and warn potential users or consumers so as to rid it of any dangerous condition, was an additional breach of duty owed to the Plaintiff amounting to negligence. 12. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, the Defendants, and each of them, further breached their respective duties by negligently and carelessly misrepresenting known deficiencies with the subject product. 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known of the dangerous conditions that existed in the subject ladder and failed to appropriately take steps to rectify the problem or warn EMPLOYEE. 14. The negligence of Defendants and each of them, was the actual, legal, and proximate cause of damages sustained by the Plaintiff. 15. As a proximate result of said negligence by defendants, and each of them, and of the resulting injuries sustained by EMPLOYEE, Plaintiff has been obligated to pay, and has paid Workers’ Compensation Benefits to and/or on behalf of EMPLOYEE. Pursuant to the provisions of §§3852-3856 of the Labor Code, Plaintiff's 22 damages will be proven at the time of trial. 23 16. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that it will be 24 required to pay further Workers’ Compensation benefits and sums for medical care and 25 treatment for an indefinite time in the future, and Plaintiff prays that when the extent of 26 this liability has been ascertained that this complaint may be amended accordingly. 27 /Tl 28 ‘Tl BROWNWOOD 3 CHAZEN & CANNON ATTORNEYS aT Law San Disco COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS [Strict Product Liability] 17. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 though 16, inclusive, above and incorporate by this reference said paragraphs as if same were set forth in full herein. 18. Defendants, DOE LADDER; and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive, were at all times herein mentioned engaged in some aspect in the business of selling, marketing, repairing, assembling, customizing, installing, or providing to members of the 10 general public, the product herein described. The subject product was manufactured, 11 designed, assembled, repaired, retrofitted, marketed, and sold by the Defendants and 12 each of them, to be used in the manner herein described. 13 19. The product sold by the Defendants and each of them, reached the 14 foreseeable user and/or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which 15 it was at the time it was sold. 16 20 The subject product sold by the Defendants and each of them, was in a 17 defective condition, and unreasonably dangerous when it left the hands of each of 18 these defendants and did not meet the reasonable expectations of the ordinary 19 consumer and user. Said defective condition included, but is not limited to design and 20 manufacturing defects in said product, which caused the ladder to fail and injure 21 EMPLOYEE during the course and scope of his employment. 22 21. The subject product was defectively designed, assembled, manufactured, 23 tested and certified. Defendants, DOE LADDER; and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive 24 were aware of, or should have been aware of, the defects and/or deficiencies including, 25 but not limited to, the defects in the subject ladder and/or its specifications. Plaintiff is 26 informed and believes and thereon alleges, that the Defendants and each of them, 27 failed to adequately warn owners and users of the defects in a timely and reasonable 28 manner. BROWNWOOD 4 CHAZEN & CANNON ATTORNEYS AT LAW Sawn DrEGo COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 22. Defendants and each of them, placed the product into the channels or streams of commerce in a defective condition and the Defendants and each of them, are strictly liable to Plaintiff under Section 402 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and applicable statutes and case law for the damages set forth herein. 23. On or about April 25, 2002, as a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned design and manufacturing defects in said product and its component parts, the ladder failed injuring EMPLOYEE during the course and scope of his employment. 24. The aforementioned conduct of the defendants and each of them directly 10 and proximately caused the resulting injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff. 11 25. As a proximate result of said negligence by defendants, and each of 12 them, and of the resulting injuries sustained by EMPLOYEE, Plaintiff has been 13 obligated to pay, and has paid Workers’ Compensation Benefits to and/or on behalf of 14 EMPLOYEE. Pursuant to the provisions of §§3852-3856 of the Labor Code, Plaintiff's 15 damages will be proven at the time of trial. 16 26. ‘Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that it will be 17 required to pay further Workers’ Compensation benefits and sums for medical care and 18 treatment for an indefinite time in the future, and Plaintiff prays that wnen the extent of 19 this liability has been ascertained that this complaint may be amended accordingly. 20 MT f 21 //1 22 //1 23 MTT 24 ITI 25 HTT 26 HT] 27 {fl 28 /Tt BROWNWOOD ) CHAZEN & CANNON ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN DIEGO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them as follows for: 1. Workers’ Compensation benefits and future disability benefits and costs of medical care and treatment according to proof; 2. Prejudgment interest; 3. Costs of suit incurred herein; 4. Reasonable attorneys fees; 5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deed just and proper. 9 Dated: April 24, 2003 BROWNWOOD, CHAZEN & CANNON 10 11 By: Che hh A 12 CHRISTOPHER C. PIERSON, ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiff, 13 LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BROWNWOOD 6 CHAZEN & CANNON