Texas Man Sues Caterpillar, Inc. After Heavy Machinery Injury

Posted on : April 16, 2017

CAUSE NO 2013B-0254

GARY RAMSEY and § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

SANDRA RAMSEY §

 

Plaintiffs, §

§ 392ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

§

v. §

§

CATERPILLAR INC. §

§ HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

Defendant. §

 

PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE:

COME NOW, Gary Ramsey and Sandra Ramsey (“Plaintiffs”), complaining of

Defendant Caterpillar Inc. (“Caterpillar”), and file this their Third Amended Original Petition,

and for their claims and causes of action would respectfully show the Court as follows:

 

I. PARTIES

 

1. Gary Ramsey and Sandy Ramsey, individuals, are residents of Scurry, Kaufman

County, Texas.

2. Defendant Caterpillar Inc., a Delaware corporation, has already been served with

process in this matter and has appeared by and through its counsel at the law firm of Baker &

Hostetler LLP, 811 Main Street, Suite 1100, Houston, Texas 77002.

 

II. VENUE AND JURISDICTION

 

3. Venue is proper in Henderson County, Texas, pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. &

REM. CODE § 15.002, because it is the county in which all or a substantial part of the events or

omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

 

4. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case as the amount in

controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court.

 

III. DISCOVERY

 

5. Plaintiffs intend to conduct discovery under the Level 3 tailored Amended Agreed

Scheduling Order jointly submitted by the parties and approved by the Court.

 

IV. FACTS

 

6. Mr. Ramsey is a residential and commercial plumber by trade. During his years as

a plumber, he acquired other laborer-related skills, making him a self-proclaimed “jack-of-all

trades.” Outside of work, Gary enjoyed race car building, repairing and driving. Gary was the

breadwinner for his household, consisting of his wife, Sandra, and three grandchildren. His

income as a plumber declined sharply during the onset on the 2008 recession. In order to support

his family, he sought the help of a family friend, Jerrold Howell, for extra income. Beginning in

2009, Gary was hired as a personal assistant to Defendant Jerrold Howell. He was paid $400

cash every week by Defendant Howell to run errands, repair plumbing on various properties,

paint vehicles, deliver checks, feed Defendant Howell’s cows, build hog cages on his farm, and

perform other personal tasks at the request of Howell. Gary was not, however, an employee of

Jerrold Howell Enterprises, Inc. doing business as JC’s Tire Services.

7. On January 4, 2012, Mr. Ramsey was at JC’s Tire Services. While at the tire shop,

Howell summoned Gary to assist by inflating a flat tire on a Caterpillar 120H Motor Grader

(“Motor Grader”). This tire had a multi-piece rimmed wheel. At that time, Gary had some

general experience changing and inflating tires of passenger vehicles and trucks. However,

during the course of his career, he had never been exposed to a multi-piece rimmed wheel. Gary

balked at the task because he lacked specialized knowledge, to which Defendant Howell replied,

PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION- Page 3

“The best time to learn is now.” Mr. Ramsey approached the Caterpillar and began to change the

tire himself. Neither Howell nor the tire shop employees directed, supervised, or warned Gary of

the potential dangers of improperly changing and inflating a multi-piece rim wheel tire. JC’s Tire

Services did not offer any warnings, safety equipment, or a proper air hoses extension for

servicing this equipment. Gary did not see any warning signs or posters on JC’s Tires Services

premises.

8. The Motor Grader did not contain any exterior warning label communicating

and/or depicting the potential hazard associated with changing and inflating a multi-piece

rimmed tire.

9. The Motor Grader did not contain any instructions describing the proper

procedure to change a tire on a multi-piece rimmed wheel.

10. Multi-piece rims are inherently dangerous in design for several reasons. First,

they are explosive. Unlike a single-piece rim, the components of a multi-piece rim, including a

base ring, a lock ring and a flange, must be properly seated before inflating the tire. If the

components are not properly seated, then they can explosively separate from increased pressure

of the tire inflation, resulting in serious bodily injury and death. Furthermore, adding inflation air

cannot be accomplished while remaining outside of the potential trajectory of an explosively

separating side ring.

11. Single-piece rims do not have lock rings that explosively separate. Second, they

are not commonly used or readily encountered. Instead, most people, even tire mechanics, have

experience inflating single-piece rimmed tires on passenger vehicles and bicycles.

12. The single piece rim is a safer alternative design compared to the multi-piece rim.

13. Multi-piece rims were historically called “widow makers.” “Killer rings” is

another moniker these rims have acquired. They have been largely outlawed in North America

because of the thousands of fatalities and catastrophic injuries incurred by unsuspecting users

since the 1970s. Newspapers are riddled with stories of severe injuries and tragic deaths resulting

from this rim design. The design of the wheel has been deemed “inherently dangerous.” The

Motor Grader causing Mr. Ramsey’s injuries was designed, manufactured, and equipped with a

multi-piece wheel assembly by Caterpillar Inc. in 1998. The risk of deadly explosions involving

multi-piece wheel assemblies was well-known and well-documented within the manufacturing

industry long before this Motor Grader was designed, manufactured, and delivered into the

stream of commerce by Caterpillar.

14. The multi-piece rim assembly lacks critical safety mechanisms; a tire on an

assembly can inflate even if the wheel components are loose or missing. Caterpillar has known

of this hazard at least as early as 1975. And Caterpillar has been a named defendant in multi-
piece rim explosion litigation since as early as the 1980s.

15. In 1975, in response to the danger associated with the multi-piece rim, Caterpillar

designed a modified multi-piece rim assembly and submitted it to the United States Patent Office

(Patent No. 3,882,919) as a “safety rim assembly for wheels . . . which prevents the sudden

dislodgment of rim components during tire inflation and disassembly, and eliminates the safety

hazard represented thereby.”

16. Caterpillar asserted in this 1975 patent application that, “One of the problems

encountered with such mounting arrangements is that improper seating of the lock ring . . .

usually results in a sudden dislodgment of the lock ring . . . The lock ring and bead seat are thus

liable to be catapulted off of the rim with explosive force, becoming hazardous and potentially

lethal projectiles.”

17. In 1984, Caterpillar submitted to the United States Patent Office (Patent No.

4,438,797) another modification of its multi-piece rim design because the “configuration has the

potential to permit partial inflation of the tire if the lock ring is not properly installed or omitted.”

Caterpillar created this rim design, called the “SUR-LOC” or “Modified Multi-Piece (MMP),” to

prevent the tire from holding “any inflation pressure” in an instance of misassembly.

18. According to the testimony of Caterpillar’s designated corporate representative,

the Motor Grader Gary Ramsey serviced was equipped with Caterpillar-designed and patented

SUR-LOC wheel/rim assemblies.

19. Witness testimony creates speculation that Mr. Ramsey attempted to inflate the

tire without the lock ring engaged. Yet according to Caterpillar’s patent application, its SUR-
LOC design should have prevented tire inflation under these circumstances.

20. Caterpillar contracted Titan International, Inc., formerly known as T.D. Holding

Company of Virginia, to manufacture the SUR-LOC wheel/rim assemblies in accordance with

Caterpillar’s patented design specifications.

21. Industry-wide safety guidelines and standards exist for servicing multi-piece

rimmed tires, which include four main components: (1) training for all tire servicing employees;

(2) the use of industry-accepted procedures that minimize the potential for employee injury; (3)

the use of proper equipment such as clip-on chucks, restraining devices or barriers to retain the

wheel components in the event of an incident during the inflation of tires; and (4) the use of

compatible components. However, a person can still be injured or killed even if these guidelines

are followed. Mr. Ramsey had no idea these guidelines and standards existed when he began to

change and inflate the Motor Grader tire.

22. This Motor Grader, a functional commercial vehicle rather than an aesthetic

consumer product, had no warning labels on its vast exterior to warn the user of its multi-piece

rims. The only warning for changing and inflating this type of tire was found in an instructional

booklet in the cab of the Caterpillar. The booklet contained graphic illustrations regarding the

hazard of standing in front of a multi-piece rim during inflation. However, Gary was not the

owner of the Caterpillar Motor Grader or its operator. Gary never saw the owner’s manual.

23. The owner’s manual and industry manual both fail to provide instructions on how

to safely re-assemble the multi-piece rimmed wheels.

24. Neither the owner’s manual or the industry manual even mention the lock ring

and the critical role it plays in avoiding explosive separations of the multi-piece rimmed wheel.

25. Caterpillar designs its own warning labels and determines where to place them on

Caterpillar machines, whether on the exterior of the machine or inside the operator’s manual.

26. Had Gary been given a graphic warning on the outside of the Motor Grader near

the tires, he would have comprehended it and heeded it.

27. Gary Ramsey was a reasonably foreseeable third-party “user” (servicing

mechanic) of the Caterpillar Motor Grader.

28. Caterpillar markets multi-piece rims to its customers as convenient and efficient

to service, without warning of the increased danger associated with this rim. Thus Caterpillar

sells Motor Grader with multi-piece rims without providing its customers of a sane appreciation

of the risk of this rim. And Caterpillar still encourages the buyers’ selection of multi-piece rim

product option over the single-piece rim despite the disparate risk of explosive separation.

29. To this day, Caterpillar continues to design, manufacture, market, and distribute

Motor Graders equipped with multi-piece rims.

30. The risk of explosive rim separations associated with the multi-piece rimmed

wheel is not communicated to distributors and end users of the product deliberately. Instead,

Caterpillar continues to promote the fiction that multi-piece rimmed wheels and single-piece

rimmed wheels are equally safe to the end user, when in reality they are not.

31. Upon information and belief, Caterpillar has a systematic practice of concealing

reports of bodily injury and death associated with the multi-piece rimmed wheels to both its

product design and safety engineers, not just customers and end users.

32. Upon information and belief, at the time and place of the injuries suffered by

Gary Ramsey, the multi-piece rim assembly, side ring and lock ring were in substantially the

same condition as when manufactured. It was being used in a manner anticipated and intended

by Caterpillar.

33. An inspection of this Motor Grader revealed the wheel base weighs 135 pounds

and the flange weighs 46 pounds. The final component, a lock ring, is a thin, malleable piece of

metal that weighs approximately 6 pounds. Due to the flimsy nature of the lock ring, it is

reasonably foreseeable that the lock ring will be replaced one or more times over the lifespan of

a Motor Grader.

34. The Motor Grader has six wheels, two in the front and four in the rear. While

there is inconsistent testimony as to which rear wheel Gary Ramsey was servicing on the Motor

Grader at the time of the explosion, it appears all four rear wheels were Caterpillar-designed and

patented SUR-LOC multi-piece wheels, according to the testimony of Caterpillar’s designated

corporate representative.

35. With no background information of his own, without an adequate and reasonable

warning and without any written instructions to explain the role of the lock ring, Gary tried to

inflate the multi-piece rimmed tire in the same manner as the other vehicle tires he had

commonly serviced in the past. While standing directly in harm’s way, Gary inflated the tire just

as he did every other tire he filled on a vehicle, standing in the center of the explosion trajectory

path of the multi-piece rim. At that moment, the multi-piece rimmed wheel separated and

exploded with life-threatening force in Gary’s face, propelling his body across the tire shop,

splitting open his face, and knocking him unconscious. Like the many other victims of multi-
piece rim explosions, he should have died in that moment. Amazingly, Gary Ramsey survived

the explosion and has been released from the hospital.

36. It was not the tire that exploded in Gary Ramsey’s face causing him to sustain a

traumatic brain injury. The tire was not damaged when the wheel/rim assembly explosively

separated; it was reused on the Motor Grader after the explosion. There is no evidence to show

that the tire was defective in design or manufacture.

37. As a direct and proximate result of the violent and unexpected explosion of the

multi-piece rim assembly, Mr. Ramsey has sustained several permanent injuries, causing

tremendous pain, anxiety, and humiliation. Gary suffered a traumatic brain injury, concussive

retinopathy and vitreous detachment; a severed bulging disk in his back causing pinched nerves

and shooting pain in his legs; vestibular disorder; loss of motor skills; significant loss of taste,

smell, and hearing; he suffers from severe mood disturbances, including depression, aggression,

anxiety, frustration; short-term memory loss; inability to cope with new or unfamiliar situations;

impaired judgment. He takes multiple medications daily; he cannot lift more than ten pounds; he

cannot drive; he cannot handle finances; he cannot provide income for his the five members of

his household; he no longer has a sexual relationship with his wife; he cannot live without the

supervision of a full-time, around the clock caretaker.

38. The former jack-of-all-trades, go-getter, and family hero now spends many of his

days confined to a recliner. Even limited to his home, Mr. Ramsey cannot cook because he has

lost his sense of smell and combined with his limited attention span, he has accidentally set

several meals on fire. He cannot clean because Gary has suffered permanent trauma to his back,

he cannot support his own weight for long periods of time without collapsing to the floor. He

cannot make minor repairs because of his neurological damage; he has lost many of fine motor

skills. He cannot run errands because of the brain damage; he cannot remember where he is and

his purpose for being there. His life will never be the same again; he will always be entirely

dependent upon another person for his care and well-being.

39. Without a sane appreciation of the dangers associated with the product, Mr.

Ramsey failed to take adequate precautions to avoid harm. Had Caterpillar used a warning label

on the exterior of the machine, Mr. Ramsey would have understood and heeded the warning

upon reading it.

 

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

 

COUNT 1: NEGLIGENCE

40. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference all preceding sections of this Third

Amended Original Petition and would show that Mr. Ramsey’s resulting injuries and damages

were proximately caused by the negligent conduct of Defendant Caterpillar Inc. in one or more

of the following respects:

a) In designing an unreasonably dangerous 120H Motor Grader;

b) In incorporating multi-piece rimmed wheels into its product design;

c) In incorporating multi-piece rimmed wheels in its 1998 120H Motor

Grader construction;

d) In failing to incorporate an available safer alternative design of single-
piece rims into its 1998 120H Motor Grader design. A safer alternative

design for the rim was readily available at the time of manufacture and

distribution that was economically and technologically feasible at the time

the 120H Motor Grader left Caterpillar Inc.’s control;

e) In failing to incorporate a single-piece rim wheel into its 1998 120H

Motor Grader design;

f) In placing the multi-piece rim wheel, an unreasonably dangerous design

taking into consideration its utility and inherent risk of use, into the stream

of commerce;

g) In placing the multi-piece rim wheel into the stream of commerce with a

marketing defect. The defect was the proximate cause of the incident

described above and the resulting injuries and damages to the Plaintiffs;

h) In failing to modify or retrofit the 120H Motor Grader wheel to eliminate

its dangerous propensities;

i) In failing to exercise the duty of reasonable care to design, manufacture,

distribute, market, sell, and otherwise supply to the general public,

including Mr. Ramsey, products which were not defective and

unreasonably dangerous;

j) In failing to foresee that consumers would not have a sane appreciation for

the risk associated with changing and inflating a multi-piece rimmed

wheel and tire;

k) In defectively warning consumers of the lethal risk associated with

servicing and inflating multi-piece rims that have a proclivity to

explosively separate and injure and kill its users;

l) In failing to advise/inform and warn all users with a warning label on the

exterior of its equipment;

m) In failing to monitor the incident of injury and death occurring between

1998 and 2012 from multi-piece rimmed heavy equipment;

n) In failing to create, distribute, and issue post-sale warning labels to

dealers, intermediaries, and buyers with instructions to place warning

labels on the exterior of Caterpillar Motor Graders;

o) In failing to communicate the incidents of injuries and death associated

with multi-piece rimmed wheels to Caterpillar product customers;

p) In failing to communicate the incidents of injuries and death associated

with multi-piece rimmed wheels to Caterpillar product design engineers;

and

q) In failing to warn distributors and consumers of the injuries and deaths

associated with multi-piece rimmed wheels;

r) In marketing the multi-piece rim as more convenient to service than the

single-piece rim;

s) In marketing the convenience of servicing multi-piece rims when the

convenience of service would require tire mechanics to violate OSHA

safety standards while servicing the wheels;

t) In knowing that the convenience of servicing multi-piece rims eliminates

the use of a safety cage and puts tire mechanics in harm’s way;

t) In requiring workers in all Caterpillar plants to use safety cages to inflate

multi-piece rimmed tires, but not requiring customers and foreseeable

users to use safety cages to inflate multi-piece rimmed tires;

u) In misleading customers deliberating about the safety of the multi-piece

rim in comparison to the single-piece rim;

v) In failing to reduce the risk of explosive separation by designing a

wheel/rim assembly with inverted components requiring the entire

assembly to be removed before a tire change;

w) In designing and patenting a defective wheel/rim assembly called SUR-
LOC that allows a tire to inflate without the wheel components being

properly seated and engaged;

x) In failing to provide written instructions explaining to the user how to re-
assemble the multi-piece rimmed wheels.

41. The lack of training, education, supervision, research, cautionary practices and

indifference on the part of Defendant Caterpillar Inc. exposed Mr. Ramsey to an unnecessary and

unreasonable risk of harm which subsequently has been detrimental to his well-being and

lifestyle, and in all likelihood has diminished his years of life expectancy.

42. Caterpillar had actual knowledge of the dangerous and defective condition of the

multi-piece wheel assembly and its proclivity to explosively separate causing grievous injury or

death. Notwithstanding the actual knowledge of the dangerous and defective condition of the

multi-piece wheel assembly, Caterpillar continued to market the defective and dangerous multi-
piece wheel assembly without safety modification or adequate warning. Also, Caterpillar failed

to sell exclusively the single-piece wheel assembly which was available as standard equipment to

purchasers of the Motor Grader. Caterpillar’s conduct in continuing to distribute the Motor

Grader with the unmodified multi-piece wheel assembly installed rather than the available and

safe, single-piece wheel assembly and Caterpillar’s failure to warn of the dangers of the multi-
piece wheel assembly were willful, reckless and wanton acts and such conduct justifies an award

of punitive damages no less than ten times the award of compensatory damages awarded to the

Plaintiffs in this matter in order to punish Caterpillar for its wrongful conduct and to deter other

entities similarly situated from continuing to market dangerous and defective machinery where

an alternative and safe design is available.

43. Each of these acts and omissions, whether taken singularly or in combination,

constituted negligence on behalf of Defendant Caterpillar Inc. which were the proximate cause of

the incident made the basis of this lawsuit and the subsequent injuries and damages sustained by

Gary and Sandy Ramsey.

COUNT 2: GROSS NEGLIGENCE

44. The harm done by Caterpillar Inc. and/or its agents, servants, and officers was

aggravated by the kind of conduct for which the law allows the imposition of exemplary

damages, in that Caterpillar Inc.’s conduct, when viewed objectively from Defendant’s

standpoint at the time of the conduct, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the

PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION- Page 13

probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others, and Caterpillar Inc. was actually,

subjectively aware of the risk involved, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference

to the rights, safety, or welfare of others. Plaintiffs, therefore, are entitled to recover and seek

exemplary damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of the court.

COUNT 3: STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY DEFECTIVE DESIGN

45. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege all preceding sections of this

Third Amended Original Petition and would further show that at all times material hereto,

Defendant Caterpillar Inc. engaged in the business of selling, distributing, supplying,

manufacturing, marketing and promoting the Caterpillar 120H Motor Grader with multi-piece

rim wheels, which was defective and unreasonably dangerous to consumers, including the

Plaintiff, at the time it was placed into commerce.

46. At the time of the design, manufacturing, distribution, marketing and sale of the

multi-piece rim assembly by Caterpillar, the rim assembly contained unreasonably dangerous

design defects and was not reasonably safe as intended to be used and was defective in one or

more of the following ways:

a) The 120H Motor Grader wheel contained unreasonably dangerous design

defects and was not reasonably safe as intended to be used, subjecting

Gary Ramsey to unreasonable risks and hazards not ordinarily

contemplated by users of wheels; and

b) The aforementioned multi-piece rim assembly was unreasonably

dangerous and defective in its design because of its proclivity to

explosively separate and injure Mr. Ramsey and others within the range of

the explosion while being put to the use intended and anticipated by Gary

Ramsey and members of the general public.

47. At the time of the violent and unexpected explosion of the multi-piece rim

assembly, the multi-piece rim assembly was being used in a manner anticipated or intended, or

reasonably expected by the Defendant Caterpillar Inc. Also, the multi-piece rim assembly was in

substantially the same condition as when manufactured by said Defendant.

48. Caterpillar Inc. had available an alternative single-piece wheel design, which was

sold as standard equipment on the Caterpillar Motor Grader. The single-piece wheel assembly

was a safe design which was available and a reasonable design which, if implemented, would

have completely eliminated the danger created by the proclivity of the multi-piece wheel

assembly to explosively separate causing serious injury or death to unknown users of the

equipment. Also, Caterpillar Inc. took no steps to modify the multi-piece wheel assembly to

diminish the danger of explosive separation of the wheel assembly.

49. Caterpillar Inc. had actual knowledge of the dangerous and defective condition of

the multi-piece wheel assembly and its propensity to explosively separate causing grievous

injury or death. Notwithstanding the actual knowledge of the dangerous and defective condition

of the multi-piece wheel assembly, Caterpillar Inc. continued to market the defective and

dangerous multi-piece wheel assembly without safety modifications or adequate warning.

50. Caterpillar Inc. failed to sell exclusively the single-piece wheel assembly, which

was available as standard equipment to purchasers of the Motor Grader and was economically

and scientifically feasible. Implementing a single-piece design into this 120H Motor Grader

would not have destroyed the utility of the wheel and the overall function of the machine.

51. Both Caterpillar Inc.’s actions in continuing to sell and distribute the Motor

Grader with the unreasonably dangerous, defective, and unmodified multi-piece wheel assembly

installed rather than the available and safe single-piece wheel assembly and its failure to warn of

the dangers of the multi-piece wheel assembly were willful, reckless and wanton acts and such

conduct justifies an award of punitive damages no less than ten times the award of compensatory

damages awarded to Gary Ramsey and Sandra Ramsey in this case.

COUNT 4: STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY FAILURE TO WARN

52. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege all preceding sections of this

Third Amended Original Petition and would further show that the Caterpillar 120H Motor

Grader was defective and unreasonably dangerous when if left the possession of Defendant

Caterpillar in that it contained warnings insufficient to alert end users, including the Plaintiffs

herein, to the dangerous risks associated with the use of the Caterpillar 120H Motor Grader.

53. The aforementioned multi-piece rim assembly was unreasonably dangerous and

defective because of the Defendant Caterpillar Inc.’s failure to adequately warn and instruct

concerning the assembly, handling, dangers, and defects inherent in the use of the multi-piece

rim assembly when being used in a manner intended and anticipated by Gary Ramsey.

54. A bright, prominent label located on the side of the Motor Grader where it could

be observed by end users would have mitigated Mr. Ramsey’s injuries, along with potentially

thousands of others who have, or will, died or suffered as a result of wheel/rim explosions. As

leaders in the industry, Caterpillar should be obligated to make products safer by placing cheap,

yet effective, labels on its Motor Graders and any other machine equipped with multi-piece rims.

55. The owner’s manual and industry manual do not provide adequate instructions on

how to properly re-assemble the multi-piece rimmed wheel.

 

VI. DAMAGES

 

56. As a result of the incident made the basis of this lawsuit, Plaintiffs sustained the

following damages which exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits of the court for which they

seek reimbursement:

a) Past and future medical expenses;

b) Past and future pain and suffering;

c) Past and future physical impairment;

d) Past and future disfigurement;

e) Past and future mental anguish;

f) Past and future lost wages and future loss of earning capacity;

g) Loss of consortium.

 

VII. PUNITIVE DAMAGES

 

39. Caterpillar Inc.’s acts or omissions described herein, when viewed from the

standpoint of the Defendant at the times(s) of their act(s) or omission(s), involved an extreme

degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to Plaintiffs and

others. Defendant had actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved in the above-described

acts or omissions, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or

welfare of the public in general and Plaintiffs in particular.

 

VIII. JURY DEMAND

 

40. Plaintiffs respectfully request a trial by jury. The jury fee has been paid.

 

IX. PRAYER

 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs Gary Ramsey and Sandra

Ramsey pray that the Defendant Caterpillar Inc. be cited to appear and answer herein, and that

upon final trial hereof, Plaintiffs have and recover from Defendant judgment for all damages

proved, including costs of court, pre-judgment interest and interest from the date of judgment

until same is paid, attorneys’ fees and costs, through trial and any appeal, and for such other and

further relief, either at law or in equity, to which Plaintiffs have shown themselves justly entitled.

PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION- Page 17

Respectfully Submitted,

ROCHELLE MCCULLOUGH, L.L.P.

By: _/s/ Gregory H. Bevel______

Gregory H. Bevel

State Bar No. 02275800

M. Paige Tackett

State Bar No. 24083935

greg.bevel@romclawyers.com

ptackett@romclawyers.com

325 North Saint Paul Street, Suite 4500

Dallas, Texas 75201

(214) 953-0182 Telephone

(214) 953-0185 Facsimile

THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES ANDREW CARTER

By: /s/ James Andrew Carter

James Andrew Carter

State Bar No. 24031801

jac@carterlawoffice.com

P.O. Box 10050

Tyler, Texas 75711

Telephone: 903.509.4777

Facsimile: 903.509.4778

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify pursuant to Rule 21a. of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, that a true

and correct copy of the forgoing document was forwarded to the following counsel of record as

described below on this the 1

st day of December, 2015.

_/s/ Gregory H. Bevel___________

Gregory H. Bevel

Via Electronic Service

Via Facsimile 713.751.1717

W. Ray Whitman

Gregory C. Ulmer

James E. Phillips

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

1000 Louisiana, Suite 2000

Houston, Texas 77002-5009

PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION- Page 18

Via Electronic Service

Via Facsimile 903.675.1275

Melvin G. Bateman

BATEMAN & BATEMAN LLP

214 East College Street

Athens, Texas 75751

Posted in : Gregory H. Bevel

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *