DOCUMENT 2

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
5/3/2018 3:03 PM
43-CV-2018-900267.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
LEE COUNTY, ALABAMA
MARY B. ROBERSON, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR LEE COUNTY, ALABAMA

CORRIE and TRACY ANDREWS, )

as Parents and Next Friends of )
SADIE GRACE ANDREWS, deceased, )
)
Plaintiffs, ) CIVIL ACTION NO.:
)
v. )
)
TUF-TITE, INC.; J & L CONTRACTORS, )
INC.; FREY–MOSS STRUCTURES, INC.; )
BIRMINGHAM HIDE & TALLOW )
COMPANY, INC.; BUDGET ROOTER, )
LLC; EAGLE CREAMERY, INC.; )
BRUSTER’S ICE CREAM, INC.; )
BRUSTER’S; CITY OF AUBURN; )
JAMES E. SEGREST; et al, )
)
Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

STATEMENT OF THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, Corrie Andrews, is over the age of nineteen (19) years and is a

resident citizen of Lee County, Alabama.

2. Plaintiff, Tracy Andrews, is over the age of nineteen (19) years and is a

resident citizen of Lee County, Alabama.

3. Plaintiffs Corrie & Tracy Andrews are the parents and next friends of Sadie

Grace Andrews, deceased.

4. Defendant, Tuf-Tite, Inc. (hereinafter “Tuf-Tite”) is a foreign corporation

doing business in the State of Alabama. Tuf-Tite designed, manufactured, and/or

distributed the subject grease interceptor and/or component parts through its wholly-

owned and controlled subsidiaries and authorized dealers with the express intention and

expectation that the subject grease interceptor and/or component parts would be

distributed, sold, and/or used in the State of Alabama. Tuf-Tite is subject to the
 DOCUMENT 2

jurisdiction of this Court as it has sufficient contacts with the State of Alabama and

engages in continuous and systematic business in the State of Alabama. Tuf-Tite placed

the subject grease interceptor and/or component parts into the stream of commerce with

the expectation that it would be distributed, sold, or used in the State of Alabama and

continues to generate significant profit from its intentional and purposeful business in

Alabama. Tuf-Tite has an active website accessible in Alabama which has numerous

interactive features through which Tuf-Tite exchanges information with Alabama

customers and establishes channels for providing regular advice to Alabama customers.

Defendant Tuf-Tite can be served at Schenk Annes Teper Campbell LT, 311 S. Wacker

Dr., Suite 2500, Chicago, IL 60606.

5. Defendant, J & L Contractors, Inc. (hereinafter “J & L”) is believed to be a

domestic corporation doing business in the State of Alabama. Defendant J & L Contractors

can be served at Jeffrey J. Evans, 729 East Glenn Avenue, Auburn, AL 36830.

6. Defendant, Frey – Moss Structures, Inc. (hereinafter “Frey – Moss”) is a

foreign corporation doing business in the State of Alabama. Defendant Frey – Moss is

registered with the Secretary of State of Alabama, does business in the State of Alabama

and Lee County, Alabama. Frey – Moss designed, manufactured, and/or distributed the

subject building, grease interceptor and/or component parts through its wholly-owned

and controlled subsidiaries and authorized dealers with the express intention and

expectation that the subject building, grease interceptor and/or component parts would

be distributed, sold, and/or used in the State of Alabama. Frey – Moss is subject to the

jurisdiction of this Court as it has sufficient contacts with the State of Alabama and

engages in continuous and systematic business in the State of Alabama. Frey – Moss

placed the subject building, grease interceptor and/or component parts into the stream
 DOCUMENT 2

of commerce with the expectation that it would be distributed, sold, or used in the State

of Alabama and continues to generate significant profit from its intentional and purposeful

business in Alabama. Frey – Moss has an active website accessible in Alabama which has

numerous interactive features through which Frey – Moss exchanges information with

Alabama customers and establishes channels for providing regular advice to Alabama

customers. Defendant Frey – Moss can be served at Corporation Service Company Inc.,

641 South Lawrence Street, Montgomery, AL 36104.

7. Defendant, Birmingham Hide & Tallow Company, Inc. (hereinafter

“Birmingham Hide & Tallow”) is believed to be a domestic corporation doing business in

the State of Alabama. Defendant Birmingham Hide & Tallow Company can be served at

T. Owen Vickers, 2700 First Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203.

8. Defendant, Budget Rooter, Inc. (hereinafter “Budget Rooter”) is a domestic

corporation doing business in the State of Alabama. Defendant Budget Rooter can be

served at Matthew Cannon, 1810 Lee Rd 42, Opelika, AL 36804.

9. Defendant, Eagle Creamery, Inc. (hereinafter “Eagle Creamery”) is a

domestic corporation doing business in the State of Alabama. Defendant Eagle Creamery

can be served at Linda P. Latham, 1181 Magnolia Lake Circle, Lanett, AL 36863.

10. Defendant, Bruster’s Ice Cream, Inc. (hereinafter “Bruster’s Ice Cream”) is

believed to be a foreign corporation doing business in the State of Alabama. Bruster’s Ice

Cream designed, manufactured, and/or distributed the subject building, grease

interceptor and/or component parts through its wholly-owned and controlled subsidiaries

and authorized dealers with the express intention and expectation that the subject

building, grease interceptor and/or component parts would be distributed, sold, and/or

used in the State of Alabama. Bruster’s Ice Cream is subject to the jurisdiction of this
 DOCUMENT 2

Court as it has sufficient contacts with the State of Alabama and engages in continuous

and systematic business in the State of Alabama. Bruster’s Ice Cream placed the subject

building, grease interceptor and/or component parts into the stream of commerce with

the expectation that it would be distributed, sold, or used in the State of Alabama and

continues to generate significant profit from its intentional and purposeful business in

Alabama. Defendant Bruster’s Ice Cream has an active website accessible in Alabama

which has numerous interactive features through which Bruster’s Ice Cream exchanges

information with Alabama customers and establishes channels for providing regular advice

to Alabama customers. Defendant Bruster’s Ice Cream can be served at 1445 Market St.,

Bridgewater, PA 15009.

11. Defendant, Bruster’s (hereinafter “Bruster’s”) is believed to be a foreign

corporation doing business in the State of Alabama. Bruster’s designed, manufactured,

and/or distributed the subject building, grease interceptor and/or component parts

through its wholly-owned and controlled subsidiaries and authorized dealers with the

express intention and expectation that the subject building, grease interceptor and/or

component parts would be distributed, sold, and/or used in the State of

Alabama. Bruster’s is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court as it has sufficient contacts

with the State of Alabama and engages in continuous and systematic business in the State

of Alabama. Bruster’s placed the subject building, grease interceptor and/or component

parts into the stream of commerce with the expectation that it would be distributed, sold,

or used in the State of Alabama and continues to generate significant profit from its

intentional and purposeful business in Alabama. Defendant Bruster’s has an active website

accessible in Alabama which has numerous interactive features through which Bruster’s

exchanges information with Alabama customers and establishes channels for providing
 DOCUMENT 2

regular advice to Alabama customers. Defendant Bruster’s can be served at 1445 Market

St., Bridgewater, PA 15009.

12. Defendants Bruster’s Ice Cream and Bruster’s own, operate and/or control

multiple authorized stores in the State of Alabama. These stores have the sole purpose

of selling and distributing Bruster’s products throughout Alabama. Bruster’s Ice Cream

and/or Bruster’s has owned, operated and/or controlled these authorized Alabama stores

for decades prior to the events giving rise to this action.

13. Defendant City of Auburn is a municipal entity with its principal place of

business in Lee County, Alabama. Notice, required by § 11-47-23 and §11-47-192, Code

of Alabama, 1975, as amended, has been provided by Plaintiffs to the City of Auburn.

Defendant City of Auburn can be served at 144 Tichenor Hall, Suite 1, Auburn, AL 36830

14. Defendant James E. Segrest is over the age of nineteen (19) years and is

a resident citizen of Lee County, Alabama. Defendant Segrest is an employee of Defendant

City of Auburn. Defendant Segrest can be served at City of Auburn, 144 Tichenor Hall,

Suite 1, Auburn, AL 36830

15. FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS “A,” “B,” and “C” are those persons,

corporations, and/or other legal entities whose negligence, wantonness or other wrongful

conduct combined and concurred with the negligence, wantonness or other wrongful

conduct of defendants herein named or fictitious defendants to result in the injuries and

death alleged in this lawsuit.

16. FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS “D,” “E,” and “F” are those persons,

corporations, and/or other legal entities that designed, engineered, manufactured,

assembled, delivered, installed, sold or otherwise placed into the stream of commerce,
 DOCUMENT 2

the grease interceptor, cover, and/or component parts of the grease interceptor, which is

the subject matter of this lawsuit.

17. FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS “G”, “H”, and “I”, are those persons,

corporations or other legal entities that owned, serviced, inspected, and/or maintained

the subject grease interceptor, cover, and/or component parts of the grease interceptor,

which is the subject matter of this lawsuit.

18. FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS “J,” “K”, and “L” are those persons, corporations

or other legal entities that failed to notify and/or warn of the hazards associated with the

grease interceptor, cover, and/or component parts of the grease interceptor, which is the

subject matter of this lawsuit.

19. FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS “M,” “N,” and “O”, are those persons,

corporations and/or other legal entities that had any role in the distributive chain regarding

the grease interceptor, cover, and/or component parts of the grease interceptor, which is

the subject matter of this lawsuit.

20. FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS “P,” “Q”, and “R” whether singular or plural, is

that entity or those entities, other than the entities described herein, which is the

successor-in-interest of any of those entities described above.

21. All of said fictitious defendants are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time but

will be substituted by amendment when ascertained.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

22. On October 14, 2017, in Lee County, Alabama, Plaintiffs and their children

were visiting Bruster’s Ice Cream, which was owned and operated by Defendant Eagle

Creamery, Inc., located at 2172 E. University Drive, Auburn, Alabama.

 DOCUMENT 2

23. At this location, two grease interceptors were installed in a landscaped

picnic area adjacent to the building.

24. During this visit, Sadie Grace Andrews fell into one of the grease

interceptors and drowned.

25. The subject grease interceptor, cover and/or component parts were

designed, engineered, tested, manufactured, assembled, delivered, installed, marketed

and distributed by Defendants Tuf-Tite, J & L Contractors, Frey – Moss, Birmingham Hide

& Tallow and Fictitious Defendants.

26. The subject grease interceptor, cover and/or component parts are owned,

serviced and/or maintained by Defendants Eagle Creamery, Bruster’s Ice Cream, Bruster’s,

Budget Rooter, Birmingham Hide & Tallow, City of Auburn, and Segrest.

27. At the aforesaid time and place, the condition of the subject property and

subject grease interceptor, cover and/or component parts caused the interceptor to be a

hidden and extremely dangerous trap.

28. As a direct and proximate result, Sadie Grace Andrews suffered severe

injuries and was wrongfully killed.

29. The action for the deceased minor is brought pursuant to §6-5-391, Code

of Alabama, 1975.

COUNT I
(AEMLD)

30. Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in

full.

31. Defendants Tuf-Tite, Frey – Moss, J & L Contractors, Birmingham Hide &

Tallow and Fictitious Defendants designed, engineered, tested, manufactured, assembled,

 DOCUMENT 2

delivered, installed, modified, distributed, marketed and/or otherwise placed into the

stream of commerce the grease interceptor, cover and/or component parts.

32. At the time of the accident, the grease interceptor, cover and/or

component parts were being used in a manner as intended and reasonably foreseeable

to Defendants and fictitious Defendants.

33. At the time of the incident, the grease interceptor, cover and/or component

parts were unreasonably dangerous and defective in that the grease interceptor and/or

cover was not equipped with quality materials, locking devices, guards, and/or devices to

prevent unintended entry into the grease tank.

34. The grease interceptor, cover and/or component parts were unreasonably

dangerous and thereby defective by reason of unsafe design.

35. As a direct and proximate result of the defective condition of the grease

interceptor, cover and/or component parts, Sadie Grace Andrews was severely injured

and wrongfully killed.

36. This claim is brought under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability

Doctrine.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants in such an amount

as a jury may award for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and for the costs of

this action.

COUNT II
(Negligence)

37. Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in

full.

38. Defendants Tuf-Tite, Frey – Moss, J & L Contractors; Birmingham Hide &

Tallow and Fictitious Defendants negligently designed, engineered, manufactured, tested,

 DOCUMENT 2

assembled, delivered, installed, sold, marketed and/or placed into the stream of

commerce and failed to warn, guard and/or recall the grease interceptor, cover and/or

component parts made the basis of this lawsuit.

39. As a proximate consequence of the negligence of Defendants and Fictitious

Defendants, Sadie Grace Andrews was wrongfully injured and killed.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants in such an amount

as a jury may award for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and for the costs of

this action.

COUNT III
(Wantonness)

40. Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in

full.

41. Defendants Tuf-Tite, Frey – Moss, J & L Contractors; Birmingham Hide &

Tallow and Fictitious Defendants wantonly designed, engineered, manufactured, tested,

assembled, delivered, installed, sold, marketed and/or placed into the stream of

commerce and failed to warn and/or recall the grease interceptor, cover and/or

component parts made the basis of this lawsuit.

42. Defendants Tuf-Tite, Frey – Moss, J & L Contractors, Birmingham Hide &

Tallow and Fictitious Defendants knew of potential hazards associated with unintentional

entry into grease tanks and failed to design for, guard against, and/or warn about those

hazards.

43. As a proximate consequence of the wantonness of Defendants and

Fictitious Defendants, Sadie Grace Andrews was wrongfully injured and killed.
 DOCUMENT 2

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants in such an amount

as a jury may award for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and for the costs of

this action.

COUNT IV
(Negligence)

44. Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in

full.

45. Defendants Birmingham Hide & Tallow, Budget Rooter, Eagle Creamery,

Bruster’s Ice Cream, Bruster’s, and Fictitious Defendants negligently failed to inspect,

warn, own, service, guard, and/or maintain the grease interceptor, cover and/or

component parts made the basis of this lawsuit.

46. As a proximate consequence of the negligence of Defendants and Fictitious

Defendants, Sadie Grace Andrews was wrongfully injured and killed.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants in such an amount

as a jury may award for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and for the costs of

this action.

COUNT V
(Wantonness)

47. Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in

full.

48. Defendants Birmingham Hide & Tallow, Budget Rooter, Eagle Creamery,

Bruster’s Ice Cream, Bruster’s, and Fictitious Defendants wantonly failed to inspect, warn,

own, service, guard, and/or maintain the grease interceptor, cover and/or component

parts made the basis of this lawsuit.

 DOCUMENT 2

49. Defendants Birmingham Hide & Tallow, Budget Rooter, Eagle Creamery,

Bruster’s, and Fictitious Defendants knew of potential hazards associated with

unintentional entry into grease tanks and failed to maintain the subject grease interceptor,

cover and/or component parts.

50. As a proximate consequence of the wantonness of Defendants and

Fictitious Defendants, Sadie Grace Andrews was wrongfully injured and killed.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants in such an amount

as a jury may award for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and for the costs of

this action.

COUNT VI
(Negligence)

51. Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in

full.

52. Defendant Eagle Creamery, Budget Rooter and Fictitious Defendants

negligently maintained the property and/or negligently damaged the subject grease

interceptor and/or cover made the basis of this lawsuit.

53. As a proximate consequence of the negligence of Defendants and Fictitious

Defendants, Sadie Grace Andrews was wrongfully injured and killed.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants in such an amount

as a jury may award for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and for the costs of

this action.

COUNT VII
(Wantonness)

54. Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in

full.
 DOCUMENT 2

55. Defendant Eagle Creamery, Budget Rooter and Fictitious Defendants

wantonly maintained the property and/or wantonly damaged the subject grease

interceptor and/or cover made the basis of this lawsuit.

56. Defendants and Fictitious Defendants knew of potential hazards associated

with damaging the subject grease interceptor and/or cover.

57. Defendants and Fictitious Defendants further knew of potential hazards

associated with failing to properly maintain the premises at issue.

58. As a proximate consequence of the wantonness of Defendants and

Fictitious Defendants, Sadie Grace Andrews was wrongfully injured and killed.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants in such an amount

as a jury may award for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and for the costs of

this action.

COUNT VIII
(Negligence)

59. Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in

full.

60. Defendants City of Auburn, Segrest and Fictitious Defendants negligently

maintained the property and/or negligently damaged the subject grease interceptor

and/or cover made the basis of this lawsuit.

61. As a proximate consequence of the negligence of Defendants and Fictitious

Defendants, Sadie Grace Andrews was wrongfully injured and killed.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants in such an amount

as a jury may award for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and for the costs of

this action.
 DOCUMENT 2

COUNT IX
(Wantonness)

62. Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in

full.

63. Defendant City of Auburn, Segrest and Fictitious Defendants wantonly

maintained the property and/or wantonly damaged the subject grease interceptor and/or

cover made the basis of this lawsuit.

64. Defendants and Fictitious Defendants knew of potential hazards associated

with damaging the subject grease interceptor and/or cover.

65. Defendants and Fictitious Defendants further knew of potential hazards

associated with failing to properly maintain the subject premises.

66. As a proximate consequence of the wantonness of Defendants and

Fictitious Defendants, Sadie Grace Andrews was wrongfully injured and killed.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants in such an amount

as a jury may award for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and for the costs of

this action.

COUNT X
(Respondeat Superior)

67. Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in

full.

68. On October 14, 2017, Defendant Segrest and Fictitious Defendants,

employees of the City of Auburn, were acting as agents, employees and/or servants of

Defendant City of Auburn.

69. Defendant Segrest and Fictitious Defendants were acting within the line

and scope of their employment with Defendant City of Auburn.

 DOCUMENT 2

70. Defendant Segrest and Fictitious Defendants violated the standards

established by the City of Auburn.

71. Because Defendant Segrest and Fictitious Defendants were agents of

Defendant City of Auburn at the aforesaid time and place, Defendant City of Auburn is

liable for the negligent or wanton acts of Defendant Segrest and Fictitious Defendants.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants in such an amount

as a jury may award for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and for the costs of

this action.

COUNT XI
(Premises Liability)

72. Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in

full.

73. On October 14, 2017, Plaintiffs Corrie & Tracy Andrews, along with their

children, including Sadie Grace Andrews, were invitees at Bruster’s, 2172 E. University

Drive, Auburn, Alabama.

74. Defendants Eagle Creamery, Bruster’s Ice Cream and/or Bruster’s were

required to use reasonable care and diligence to keep the premises in a safe condition for

invitees like Plaintiffs Corrie and Tracy Andrews and Sadie Grace Andrews. The Defendants

had a duty to (a) warn Plaintiffs and Sadie Grace Andrews of the danger, of which the

Defendants knew or should have known, and of which Plaintiffs and Sadie Grace Andrews

were ignorant, (b) to use reasonable care to have the premises in a reasonably safe

condition for the contemplated uses, within the contemplated invitation, and (c) to guard

its customers from foreseeable dangers.

75. The Defendants negligently or wantonly breached their duty to Plaintiffs

and Sadie Grace Andrews by failing to warn them of a danger that the Defendants knew
 DOCUMENT 2

or should have known about and of which Plaintiffs and Sadie Grace Andrews were

ignorant. The Defendants further negligently or wantonly breached their duty by failing

to use reasonable care to have the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to guard

its customers from foreseeable dangers.

76. The Defendants breach of their duties, as aforesaid, directly led to the

injuries and wrongful death of Sadie Grace Andrews.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants in such an amount

as a jury may award for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and for the costs of

this action.

COUNT XII
(Respondeat Superior)

77. Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in

full.

78. On October 14, 2017, Defendant Eagle Creamery was acting as agent,

employee and/or servant of Defendant Bruster’s Ice Cream and/or Defendant Bruster’s.

79. Defendant Eagle Creamery was acting within the line and scope of the

agreement with Defendant Bruster’s Ice Cream and/or Defendant Bruster’s

80. Defendants Bruster’s Ice Cream and Bruster’s exercised control over Eagle

Creamery to ensure the premises were in a safe condition for invitees.

81. Because Defendant Eagle Creamery was an agent of Defendant Bruster’s

Ice Cream and/or Defendant Bruster’s at the aforesaid time and place, Defendant Bruster’s

Ice Cream and/or Defendant Bruster’s are liable for the negligent or wanton acts of

Defendant Eagle Creamery.

 DOCUMENT 2

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants in such an amount

as a jury may award for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and for the costs of

this action.

COUNT XIII
(Combined and Concurring Conduct of All Defendants)

82. Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in

full.

83. The conduct of all named and Fictitious Defendants combined and

concurred to cause the severe injuries and wrongful death of Sadie Grace Andrews.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants in such an amount

as a jury may award for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and for the costs of

this action.

J. Cole Portis_______________________
J. COLE PORTIS (POR018)
Attorney for Plaintiffs

Jere L. Beasley __________________

JERE L. BEASLEY (BEA020)
Attorney for Plaintiffs

J. Greg Allen ________________

J. GREG ALLEN (ALL021)
Attorney for Plaintiffs

OF COUNSEL:
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin,
Portis & Miles, P.C.
Post Office Box 4160
Montgomery, AL 36103
(334) 269-2343
cole.portis@beasleyallen.com
jere.beasley@beasleyallen.com
greg.allen@beasleyallen.com

JURY DEMAND REQUESTED ON ALL COUNTS