Document text
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
MATTHEW DAVIS and JEANETTE DAVIS, P l a i n t i f f s , v. Civil Action No.:2:22-cv-3516 GCS WATER PURIFICATION, LLC a/k/a ALESNA LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company, KEURIG DR. PEPPER INC., a Delaware Corporation, KEURIG DR PEPPER HOLDINGS INC., a Delaware Corporation, and STERLING PROCESS EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES, INC., an Ohio Corporation, Defendants.
COMPLAINT
COME NOW Plaintiffs Matthew Davis and Jeanette Davis (“Plaintiffs”) and state as
follows for their Complaint (“Complaint”) against Defendants:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Matthew Davis is a resident and citizen of Putnam County, West Virginia.
At all relevant times, Mr. Davis was employed by Defendant GCS Water Purification, LLC and
worked for Defendant GCS Water Purificatio n, LLC out of Hurricane, Putnam County, West
Virginia; and, received West Virginia worker s’ compensation coverage from Defendant GCS
Water Purification, LLC a/k/a Alesna LLC.
2. Plaintiff Jeanette Davis is a resident and citizen of Putnam County, West Virginia.
3. Defendant GCS Water Purification, LLC a/k/a Alesna LLC (“GCS”) is a Texas
limited liability company with member ship residing in the state of Texas. At all relevant times,
GCS was engaged in the business of water purifi cation services, which included installation of Case: 2:23-cv-03516-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/23 Page: 1 of 14 PAGEID #: 1
2
water purification equipment. When engaged in the business of installing water purification
equipment, GCS was subject to the jurisdiction of the federal Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (hereinafter “OSHA”) and was re sponsible for compliance with all applicable
OSHA rules and regulations in connection therew ith. At all relevant times, GCS employed Mr.
Davis in Hurricane, West Virginia; maintained a location at 158 Washington Hill Road, Hurricane, West Virginia 25526 from which it c onducted business; and, maintain ed West Virginia workers’
compensation coverage via Argonaut In surance Company, Policy No. WC928708681004, such
that Mr. Davis received West Virginia workers’ compensation coverage in connection with the
incident giving rise to this Complaint .
4. Defendant Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc. is a Dela ware corporation with its principal place
of business located in Plano, Texa s. At all relevant times, Ke urig Dr. Pepper Inc. owned and
operated a manufacturing plant at 960 Stelzer Road, Columbus, Oh io 43219 (the “Plant”). As
such, Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc. was subject to OSHA’s jurisdiction and was responsible for
compliance with all applicable OSHA rules and regul ations in the operations associated therewith.
5. Defendant Keurig Dr. Pepper Holdings Inc. (collectively with Keurig Dr. Pepper
Inc., “Dr. Pepper”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Plano,
Texas. At all relevant times, Keurig Dr. Pepper Holdings Inc. owned and operated the Plant. As
such, Keurig Dr. Pepper Holdings Inc. was subj ect to OSHA’s jurisdiction and was responsible
for compliance with all applicab le OSHA rules and regulations in the operations associated
therewith.
6. Sterling Process Equipment a nd Services, Inc. (“Sterling” ) is an Ohio corporation
with its principal place of busin ess in Columbus, Franklin County, Ohio. At all relevant times,
Sterling was engaged in the business of designi ng, engineering, fabricating and selling custom Case: 2:23-cv-03516-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/23 Page: 2 of 14 PAGEID #: 2
3
metalworks to for various i ndustrial purposes. As such, St erling was subject to OSHA’s
jurisdiction and was responsible for compliance with all applicable OSHA rules and regulations in
the operations associated therewith.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, insofar as
Plaintiffs and Defendants are resi dents of different states and th e amount in controversy in this
matter exceeds $75,000.00.
8. Venue is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), insofar as Sterling is a
resident of the State of Ohio a nd, furthermore, resides in Franklin County, Ohio which is within
this judicial district. Venue is further appropria te because a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Fra nklin County, Ohio, which is within this judicial
district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).
FACTS
9. On or about October 28, 2021, and in the course of his employment with GCS, 34-
year-old Mr. Davis was dispatched from his GCS base of operations in Hurricane, Putnam County,
West Virginia to perform temporary maintenance and installation work in Columbus, Franklin County, Ohio. Mr. Davis traveled from Hurricane, Putnam Count y, West Virginia and met his
immediate supervisors, Joel Alesna and Jake Alesna, in Columbus to install a new 1,500-pound
water pump (“Pump”) in an existing reverse osmosi s (“RO”) system in the Dr. Pepper Plant. This
job was one of GCS’s attempts to secure more consiste nt business from Dr. Pepper.
10. To align the new Pump with the RO system , the new Pump needed to be elevated.
Dr. Pepper contracted with Sterli ng to design, engineer and fabric ate a metal stand on which the
new Pump was to be secured (the “Stand”). Sometime prior to October 28, 2021, Sterling Case: 2:23-cv-03516-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/23 Page: 3 of 14 PAGEID #: 3
4
engineers came to the site, took measurements an d drawings, and gathered information necessary
to fabricate the Stand. Upon info rmation and belief, Sterling ultima tely fabricated an angle iron
stand, all thread, with wobble fe et on the bottom. Fu rthermore, upon info rmation and belief,
Sterling either knowingly or reckle ssly produced the Stand in a ma nner that did not comport with
the specifications and re quirements thereof with
11. On October 28, 2021, Mr. Davis traveled from Hurricane, Putnam County, West
Virginia to accompany Messrs. Alesna and instal l the Pump at the Plant, accompanied by several
Dr. Pepper personnel including maintenance superv isor Hassan. After viewing the stand, Mr.
Davis voiced concern to Messrs. Ales na that the Stand would not be adequate to support the Pump.
Despite Mr. Davis expressing his concerns, Jake Al esna directed Mr. Davis to proceed with the
installation process and took no action to evaluate whether those concerns had merit.
12. GCS personnel attached the Pump to the St and outside the plant near an elevated
entryway. Once the Pump was affixed to the St and, GCS and/or Dr. Pepper personnel secured the
Pump and Stand apparatus to a forklift with ch ains through the Pump’s lifting eyes, simple metal
loops which allow for the Pump to be secure d without potentially dama ging the components in
transit.
13. Once secured to the Stand, the Pump was elevated into the Plant entryway and
moved 6 feet forward. The forklift—stil l outside—could not a dvance further.
14. Due to safety concerns about the stability of the Stand, Mr. Davis asked Dr. Pepper
Maintenance Supervisor Hassan for a second fork truck, which would ensure that the Pump and
Stand remained supported until placed in its inte nded location. Mr. Hassan denied Mr. Davis this
safety measure. Case: 2:23-cv-03516-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/23 Page: 4 of 14 PAGEID #: 4
5
15. With no other option, Mr. Davis and others unhooked th e Pump and Stand from the
fork truck, leaving the full weight of the Pump on the Stand. Meanwhile, the original fork truck
was brought around and into the Plant, so that the Pump and Stand could be resecured to it and
transported to the intended location.
16. As the fork truck approached, Mr. Davi s and a Dr. Pepper employee observed that
the fork truck would not be able to properly align with the Pump an d Stand; had the forks
approached the Pump and Stand at that angle, th e forks would have damage d electrical components
on the Pump. Mr. Davis and a Dr. Pepper employ ee attempted to rotate the Pump and Stand.
17. During this attempt to sligh tly rotate the Pump and Stand, one of the legs of the
Stand snapped off. Before Mr. Davis had an oppor tunity to react and avoi d it, the Pump fell on
Mr. Davis’ left leg, crushing it.
18. As a direct and proximate result of this incident, Mr. Davis suffered multiple
injuries, including (1) detachment of his heel from the remainder of his foot; (2) multiple fractures
to the femur, tibia and fibula; (3) multiple knee in juries; and, (4) a broken thumb. As a result of
his injuries, Mr. Davis underwent su rgery to install a rod through hi s knee to stabilize the leg bones
and reattach his heel. He subsequently spent 3 to 4 months in a wheelch air, followed by several
months with a cane. The substa ntial majority of this treatmen t ultimately took place in West
Virginia.
19. As a further direct and proximate result of this incident, Mr. Davis, a West Virginia
resident, suffers from permanent physical disabilities a nd deformities, includi ng drop foot, severe
limp and a severed nerve, as well as the following damages:
a. pain and suffering, incl uding mental anguish;
b. loss of capacity to enjoy life;
c. annoyance and inconvenience; Case: 2:23-cv-03516-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/23 Page: 5 of 14 PAGEID #: 5
6
d. emotional distress;
e. permanent injuries and impairment;
f. permanent scarring and disfigurement;
g. past and future medical expenses;
h. past and future lost in come and earning capacity;
i. past and future lost services, pr otection, care and assistance; and,
j. other damages incurred as a result of Defendants’ conduct.
20. Additionally, Mrs. Davis has lost the so ciety and companionship of her husband,
Mr. Davis.
COUNT I
(Deliberate Intent – GCS)
21. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by re ference the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 20 of this Compla int as if set forth herein verbatim.
22. At all relevant times du ring his employment with GC S, Mr. Davis was a West
Virginia resident working from a ba se of operations in Hurricane, Putnam County, West Virginia.
At all relevant times, Mr. Davis lived in West Virginia, worked primarily out of West Virginia, was paid in West Virginia, paid West Virginia pa yroll taxes, and was enti tled to (and continues to
receive) West Virginia workers’ compensation benefits.
23. As Mr. Davis is entitled to West Virgin ia workers’ compensation benefits, the
limitations of those benefits, a nd any immunities conferred thereby, are governed by West Virginia
law; specifically, W. Va. Code § 23-4-2.
24. On and prior to October 28, 2021, GCS violat ed W. Va. Code § 23-4-2(d)(2)(B), in
that: Case: 2:23-cv-03516-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/23 Page: 6 of 14 PAGEID #: 6
7
(i) a specific unsafe working c ondition existed in the workplace
which presented a high degree of risk and a strong probability of serious injury or death;
(ii) GCS, prior to the inju ry, had actual knowledge of the
existence of the specific unsafe working condition and of the high degree of risk and the strong probability of serious injury or death presented by the specific unsafe working condition;
(iii) the specific unsafe working condition was a violation of a
state or federal safety statute, ru le or regulation, whether cited or
not, or of a commonly accepted and well-known safety standard within the industry or business of the employer which rules,
regulations and standards were spec ifically applicable to the work
and working condition involved, and were intended to address the
specific hazard(s) presented by the alleged specific unsafe working
condition;
1
(iv) notwithstanding the existence of the facts set forth in
subparagraphs (i) throu gh (iii), inclusive, of this paragraph, the
person or persons alleged to have actual knowledge under
subparagraph (ii) nevertheless inte ntionally thereafter exposed an
employee to the specific uns afe working condition; and
(v) Mr. Davis, upon information and belief, suffe red a serious
compensable injury2 as defined in section one, article four, chapter
twenty-three as a direct and proxi mate result of the specific unsafe
working condition.
25. As direct and proximate resu lt of GCS’s acts and omis sions, Mr. Davis suffered the
injuries described herein which, upon inform ation and belief, exceed 13% whole person
impairment.
1 As it pertains to the alleged violations upon which plaint iff avers will prove element (c) of his claim, please see the
verified statement of Jim McIntosh, an OSHA safety standards expert specializi ng in pipeline safety statutes, rules,
regulations and consensus industry safety standards, served with the Complaint .
2 As of the date of the Complaint , independent medical examiner Dr. Syam Stoll has determined that Mr. Davis has
not yet reached maximum medical improvem ent (“MMI”) with regard to his leg in juries. As a result, while Mr. Davis
has not received a 13% WPI rating, Plaintif fs anticipate that this rating is forthc oming given the nature of Mr. Davis’
injuries. Case: 2:23-cv-03516-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/23 Page: 7 of 14 PAGEID #: 7
8
COUNT II
(Negligence – Dr. Pepper)
26. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by re ference the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Compla int as if set forth herein verbatim.
27. As the owner, operator and cont roller of the Plan t, and due to its active participation
in the work being performed by both its own employees and those of GCS on October 28, 2021,
Dr. Pepper had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the provisi on of safety equipment and
otherwise ensure that the Plant was a safe workplace for all workers therein.
28. Dr. Pepper, through its agents, servants , representatives and/or employees,
negligently breached its duty to Mr. Davis through, among other actions, the following:
a. Failing to ensure that the Stand it ordered fabricated was capable of
supporting the Pump;
b. Failing to provide workers, including Mr. Davis, with an additional fork lift,
despite request, as a safety measure; and,
c. Failing to provide a safe workplace fr ee of hazards routinely controlled in
the industry.
29. As a direct and proximate result of Dr . Pepper’s actions and omissions on and
before October 28, 2021, Mr. Davis sustained the injuries and damages described herein, and
further caused Mr. Davis to suffe r a permanent and substantial phys ical deformity pursuant to
O.R.C. § 2315.18(B)(3)(a).
30. Furthermore, Dr. Pepper’s acts and omi ssions demonstrate that it consciously
disregarded the rights and safety of other persons, including Mr . Davis, in a manner that had a
great probability of causing substa ntial harm, thus constituting actual malice pursuant to O.R.C. §
2315.21. Case: 2:23-cv-03516-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/23 Page: 8 of 14 PAGEID #: 8
9
31. Punitive damages are justified to punish Dr. Pepper for its conscious disregard for
Mr. Davis’ safety, which resulted in severe and permanent injuries to Mr. Davis and a permanent
burden on the rest of his life.
32. Punitive damages will serve to deter Dr . Pepper from continuing to defy basic
safety standards, and from placi ng expediency and financial benefi t ahead of basic minimal regard
for human life, safety, a nd dignity, thus working to protect fu ture workers from such outrageous
and indifferent conduct.
COUNT III
(Strict Product Liability – Sterling)
33. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by re ference the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 32 of this Compla int as if set forth herein verbatim.
34. Sterling designed, manufactur ed, sold, distributed and/ or marketed, the Stand,
which was used by Mr. Davis and others in the manner for which it was designed, manufactured
and marketed by Sterling.
35. The Stand was not reasonably safe from the time it was designed, manufactured
and distributed until Mr. Davis su stained the severe and permanent injuries described herein during
the reasonably foreseeable use of the Stand, insofar as it was inad equate to support the weight of
the Pump it was allegedly designed to hold.
36. At all relevant times, Sterling knew that its customer and end users, including Mr.
Davis, would rely on and trust the Stand, believi ng it would function as advertised. Additionally,
Sterling knew that its customer an d end users, including Mr. Davis, would use the Stand as Plaintiff
did on October 28, 2021.
37. Upon information and belief, the Stand’ s inadequacy was based either (1) on
defective design pursuant to O.R.C. § 2307.75, insofa r as the Stand was not designed to support Case: 2:23-cv-03516-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/23 Page: 9 of 14 PAGEID #: 9
10
the full weight of the Pump; or, (2) on defect ive manufacture pursuant to O.R.C. § 2307.74, insofar
as the metal utilized to fabricate the Stand was flaw ed or otherwise failed to meet the specifications
necessary, thus deviating in a ma terial way from the design specifi cations, formula, or performance
standards applicable thereto.
38. Additionally, upon information a nd belief, the Stand failed to advise end users,
including Mr. Davis, of its capabilities or limita tions, and/or failed to c onform to representations
made by Sterling, rendering it defect ive pursuant to O.R.C. §§ 2307.76–77.
39. As such, the Stand was defective and unsafe for its intended use, as it failed to
perform as safely as an ordinary consumer and/or end user would expect when the Stand was used
as intended and/or in a r easonably foreseeable manner.
40. Furthermore, the risk of danger in the design of the Stand outweighed any alleged
benefits of the design. At the time the Stand left Sterling’s control, safer alternative designs existed
which would have made the Stand safer and woul d have prevented Mr. Davis from being injured
without substantially impairing the Stand’s utility. These sa fer alternative designs were
economically and technologically feas ible at all relevant times. Therefore, the Stand presented a
substantial and unreasonable risk of serious injury to users and/or t hose in the vicini ty of its use.
41. As a direct and proximate result of the defective design and/or manufacture of the
Stand, and Sterling’s failure to warn the end users, including Plaintif f, of the Stand’s capabilities,
Sterling is strictly liable to Plaintiffs for the injuries and damages described herein, and further
caused Mr. Davis to suffer a permanent and substa ntial physical deformity pursuant to O.R.C. §
2315.18(B)(3)(a).
42. Furthermore, Sterling is subject to punitive damages pursuant to O.R.C. §
2307.80(A) insofar as it manifested a flagrant disregard of the safety of persons who might be Case: 2:23-cv-03516-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/23 Page: 10 of 14 PAGEID #: 10
11
harmed by the Stand. At all rele vant times, Sterling had actual or constructive knowledge of the
risks inherent to the Stand, inso far as it fabricated a product inad equate for its precise purpose and
failed to implement safety pre cautions or warn the end users, including Plaintiff of the risks
associated with that defect. In sum, Sterling placed profit over safety and knowingly decided to
forego safer, competent designs.
COUNT IV
(Negligence – Sterling)
43. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate here by reference the allega tions contained in
paragraphs 1 through 42 of this Compla int as if set forth herein verbatim.
44. Sterling owed end users of the Stand, in cluding Mr. Davis, a duty to exercise
reasonable care in manufacturing, fabricating, designing, shipping, se lling and/or distributing the
Stand.
45. Sterling breached this duty and was neglig ent in the following acts or omissions:
a. Sterling failed to properl y design the Stand to s upport the weight of the
Pump such that it would serve as an appropriate support fo r the Pump in the
RO system, despite Sterling perso nnel inspecting the RO system and
specifically designing the Stand for this precise purpose;
b. Sterling negligently manufact ured the Stand to be in adequate to support the
Pump or, alternatively, negligently utili zed inferior or inadequate materials
to fabricate the Stand; and,
c. Sterling failed to make reasonable insp ections and tests to ensure that the
Stand met the specifications and requir ements for its explicit purpose or to
otherwise discover the defects, dangers, and hazards presented by the Stand.
46. Sterling’s negligence direc tly and proximately caused Mr. Davis’ injuries as
described herein, and further caused Mr. Davis to suffer a permanent and substantial physical
deformity pursuant to O.R.C. § 2315.18(B)(3)(a). Case: 2:23-cv-03516-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/23 Page: 11 of 14 PAGEID #: 11
12
47. Furthermore, Sterling’s act s and omissions demonstr ate that it consciously
disregarded the rights and safety of other persons, including Mr . Davis, in a manner that had a
great probability of causing substa ntial harm, thus constituting actual malice pursuant to O.R.C. §
2315.21.
48. Punitive damages are justified to punish Sterling for its conscious disregard for Mr.
Davis’ safety, which resulted in severe and pe rmanent injuries to Mr. Davis and a permanent
burden on the rest of his life.
49. Punitive damages will serve to deter Sterli ng from continuing to defy basic safety
standards, and demonstrating minima l regard for human life, safety , and dignity, thus working to
protect future workers from such outrageous and indifferent conduct.
COUNT V
(Breach of Warranties – Sterling)
50. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate here by reference the allega tions contained in
paragraphs 1 through 49 of this Compla int as if set forth herein verbatim.
51. Sterling, at all times materi al hereto, both explicitly a nd by and through the sale of
the Stand, expressly and impliedly warranted to end user s, including Mr. Davis, through its actions,
representations, promises, affirmations, prom otions, product literatu re, photographs and
promotional material, that the Stand Sterling designed, manufactu red, sold, marketed and/or
distributed was of such quality and reasonably fit for the purpose of serving as safe and suitable
support for the Pump.
52. Additionally, Sterling, at al l times material hereto, expressly and impliedly
warranted to end users, including Mr. Davis, that the Stand was fit for the particular purpose for
which it was allegedly de signed, manufactured, sold, marketed a nd/or distributed; specifically, to
support the Pump in the RO system at the Plant. Case: 2:23-cv-03516-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/23 Page: 12 of 14 PAGEID #: 12
13
53. Mr. Davis relied on the express and imp lied warranties made by Sterling as
described herein.
54. Sterling breached its express and implied wa rranties of fitness and merchantability
by defectively designing, manufacturing, selling, marketing and/or distributing the Stand, which
was not reasonably safe for its intended use as reflected throughout Sterling’s actions,
representations, promises, affirmations, prom otions, product literatu re, photographs and
promotional material.
55. Sterling’s breach of warranties directly a nd proximately caused Mr. Davis’ injuries
as described herein, and further caused Mr. Davis to suffer a pe rmanent and substantial physical
deformity pursuant to O.R.C. § 2315.18(B)(3)(a).
COUNT VI
(Loss of Consortium – All Defendants)
56. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate here by reference the allega tions contained in
paragraphs 1 through 55 of this Compla int as if set forth herein verbatim.
57. As a further direct and proximate re sult of the conduct and actions of the
Defendants as described herein, Mr s. Davis has been deprived of the society, companionship and
consortium of her hus band, Mr. Davis.
58. Mrs. Davis further states that, as a result of Mr. Davis’ injuri es, she has incurred
expenses, which sums shall be made more definite at the time of trial.
WHEREFORE , Plaintiffs demand judgment in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five
Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($25,000.00) against th e Defendants, jointly and severally, for:
a. an amount of compensatory damages determined by a jury;
b. an amount of punitive damages determined by a jury;
c. costs and attorney fees expended in prosecution of this matter; Case: 2:23-cv-03516-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/23 Page: 13 of 14 PAGEID #: 13
14
d. pre-judgment and post-judgment intere st as provided under the law; and
e. any and all other relief to which th e Court deems plaintiff is entitled.
PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A JURY TRIAL ON TH E ISSUES OF LIABILITY AND DAMAGES.
PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A BIFURCATED JURY PROCEEDING ON THE ISSUE OF
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION OFFSET.
MATTHEW DAVIS and JEANETTE DAVIS,
B y C o u n s e l , /s/ David A. Bosak_____________________
David A. Bosak (OH State Bar # 0099361) BAILEY, JAVINS & CARTER, LC 213 Hale Street Charleston, WV 25301 (304) 345-0346 [email protected] Case: 2:23-cv-03516-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/23 Page: 14 of 14 PAGEID #: 14