Case 4:23-cv-00138 Document 1-1 Filed 11/09/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 4

VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF

GLOUCESTER COUNTY

DAVID STANSBURY,

Plaintiff,

Case ~
V.
dURY DEMAND
HOME DEPOT U.S.A, INC. )
Serve: )
CORPORATION SERVICE )
COMPANY, )
100 Shockoe Slip F12, )
Richmond, VA 23219 )
(RICHMOND CITY) )
)
Defendant. )
)

COMPLAINT

COIVIES NOW the Plaintiff, DAVID STANSBURY by counsel, and respectfully moves this Court

for judgment against Defendants, HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC., on the grounds and in the amount

as hereinafter set forth.

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, DAVID STANSBURY, (hereinafter "Mr. Stansbury), is an adult citizen and

resident of the City of Cherokee Village and County of Sharp, and resides at 20 Powhatan Drive,

Cherokee Village AR 72529.

2. Defendant, HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC. (hereinafter "Defendant"), is a stock corporation

whose principal place of business is located in Atlanta, Georgia, and is a business entity that is

authorization to transact business under the laws of the State of Virginia and can be served through

its Registered Agent, Corporation Service Company at 100 Shockoe Slip F 2. Richmond, Virginia

23219.
 Case 4:23-cv-00138 Document 1-1 Filed 11/09/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 5

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. Paragraphs 1 through 2 are hereby incorporated by reference and re-alleged as if fully

restated herein.

4. This complaint was filed within the applicable statute of limitations.

5. The amount in controversy satisfies the Court's jurisdictional requirements.

6. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Honorable Court because this action arises from
et
an incident suffered by Mr. Stansbury on Defendant's premises that took place on September 21

2021, located at the Home Depot Store Number 46501ocated at 6921 Waltons Lane, Gloucester,

Virginia 23061.

CLAIM FOR NEGLIGENCE

7. Paragraphs 1 through 6 are hereby incorporated by reference and re-alleged as if fally

restated herein.

8. On or about September 21't 2021, Mr. Stansbury was an invitee, lawfully on the premises

located at 6921 Waltons Lane, Gloucester, Virginia 23061.

9. At the same time and place, there existed a hazardous condition on the premises.

10. The alleged hazardous condition of the improperly placed lumber and failing to secure the

lumber in the bin creating an unreasonable risk of harm and a foreseeable hazard which caused the

lumber to fall and hit Mr. Stansbury on the head and sustain severe and permanent bodily injuries.

11. On the aforesaid date and time, the Defendant and its agents, employees and/or servants,

owned, maintained, and/or controlled the premises located at 6921 Waltons Lane, Gloucester,

Virginia 23061 and its agents, employees and/or servants, and failed to secure and move the lumber

from the premises, causing an unreasonably dangerous condition..

12. The hazardous and dangerous condition at the location where Mr. Stansbury was injured
 Case 4:23-cv-00138 Document 1-1 Filed 11/09/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID# 6

was created by, maintained by, laiown to and/or allowed to rema.in on the premises by the

Defendant and its agents, employees and/or servants, failed to warn Mr. Stansbury, that a

dangerous condition existed on the premises.

13. The Defendant and its agents, employees and/or servants, had prior notice and were aware

of said hazardous and dangerous condition on the premises.

14. The Defendant and its agents, employees and/or servants negligently allows the defect to

exist without remedying said defect or placing adequate warnings of said hazardous condition.

15. The Defendant and its agents, employees and/or servants includes but is not limited to

negligent and failure to properly secure, remove and/or remedy a hazardous and dangerous

condition that was lmown to exist by the Defendant and its agents, employees and/or servants and

negligently securing and/or removing said hazardous and dangerous condition.

16. The Defendant and its agents, employees and/or servants negligently created a nuisance

and allowed it to exist for a period of time without remedying said hazardous and dangerous

condition.

17. Through the above-listed acts and omissions, The Defendant failed to use the ordinary care

that ordinarily careful persons would use to avoid injury to the others under the same or similar

circumstances.

18. On the date specified, The Defendants and their employees, agents, representatives were

negligent in that they:

a. knew or should have known that there was improperly placed lumber, constituting

dangerous, hazardous and unsafe condition;

b. failed to fix, secure, adjust and/or maintain the dangerous, hazardous, and unsafe

condition;
 Case 4:23-cv-00138 Document 1-1 Filed 11/09/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID# 7

c.failed to provide warning signs and/or notice regarding the condition of the lumber,

d. created said dangerous, hazardous, and unsafe condition and failed to address it and

make it safe in a timely manner;

e.failed to properly and timely inspect the area where the Plaintiffwas injured and address

the dangerous, hazardous, and unsafe condition in a timely manner;

f.failed to exercise due and reasonable care.

g. Failed to properly remove and/or secure the lumber creating an unreasonable risk of

harm and a foreseeable hazard.

19. The standard for negligence in the context of premises liability in Virginia depends upon

whether the plaintiff is an invitee, licensee, or trespasser. De Ende v. Wflkinson's Adm'r, 1857 Va.

LEXIS 55, *84.

20. "To the invitee the possessor owes not only this duty [of reasonable care], but also the

additional duty to exercise reasonable affirmative care to see that the premises are safe for the

reception of the visitor ... and to give such warning that the visitor may decide intelligently

whether or not to accept the invitation or may protect himself against the danger if he does accept

it." Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 343.

21. As such, the owner of a property has an affirmative duty to make its premises reasonably

safe, or to give her invitee warning of any unsafe conditions which are unlikely to be discovered

by the invitee. Tate v. Rice, 227 Va. 341, 345.

22. This duty has been further articulated in terms of foreseeability, such that "[i]f an ordinarily

prudent person, given the facts and circumstances [the defendant] knew or should have kaown,

could have foreseen the risk of danger resulting from such circumstances, [they] had a duty to
 Case 4:23-cv-00138 Document 1-1 Filed 11/09/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID# 8

exercise reasonable care to avoid the genesis of the danger." Memco Stores, Inc. v. Yeatman, 232

Va. 50 (1986).

23. Mr. Stansbury had he been effectively alerted to it he would not have had the lumber fall

onto his head while on the Defendant's premises had the lumber been removed, secured or properly

blocked off with warnings to the guests.

24. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant and its agents, employees and/or

servants' negligent actions, Mr. Stansbury sustained serious and permanent injuries, sustained past

and future pain, suffering and mental anguish, has been prevented from parricipating in his normal,

daily activities and transacting business, suffered a period of disability and inconvenience, incurred

medical bills and other incidental expenses, has sustained loss of earnings, and has been hampered

in the conduct of his personal activities.

25. Mr. Stansbury did not fail to mitigate his damages, he did not assume the risk of injury,

nor was he contributorily negligent.

WHERFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relie£

1. The process and summons issue, as provide by law, requiring Defendant to appear and

Answer Plaintiff s Complaint;

2. That service be had upon Defendant as provided by law;

3. That the Court award and enter a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against the

Defendant for compensatory and special damages in an amount that will fully compensate the

Plaintiff; Monetary awards provided to Plaintiff in the sum of Three Million Five Hundred

Thousand Dollars($3,500,000.00);

4. For the costs of litigating this case;

 Case 4:23-cv-00138 Document 1-1 Filed 11/09/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID# 9

5. Plaintiff respectfully demands a jury of twelve (12) and reserves the right to amend this

Compla.int to conform to evidence as it develops;

6. All other relief, legal or equitable, that this Honorable Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully Submitted,
DAVID STANSB
_
By:
Phillip S. Georges, Esq.
VSB #66596
Counsel for Plaintiff

Phillip S. Georges, PLLC

501 Union Street, Suite 200D
Nashville, TN 37219
T: 615-486-4115
F: 615-576-8668
E: Phil@wolfpacklawyers.com