UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

J. H., a minor, by and through 

his mother and next friend,

ANITA HALL,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CV-___________________

UCOMPLAINT

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, J. H., a minor, by and through his mother 

and next friend, Anita Hall, and brings this protective suit against the 

Defendant Ford Motor Company. This suit is being filed in addition to an 

identical action currently pending before the Circuit Court of Montgomery 

County, Alabama to ensure jurisdiction over the Defendant is protected 

against any running of the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff 

alleges as follows:

UNature of Cause of Action

1. This action arises from a vehicular accident in Alabama that 

occurred on August 25, 2018, that involved serious injuries to J.H. a minor 

Alabama resident while the right front seat of a 1999 Ford F150 truck.

UThe Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §1332, because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, 

Case 0:20-cv-61667-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 1 of 11
exclusive of interest and costs, and because Defendant is incorporated and 

has its principal places of business in states other than the state in which 

the Plaintiff resides.

3. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff J.H., a minor, was and is 

a resident of Covington County, Alabama.

4. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff Anita Hall, as mother and 

next friend of J. H., a minor, is over the age of 19 years and was and is a 

resident of Covington County, Alabama.

5. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining 

common law and state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 

because Defendant Ford Motor Co. has a registered agent of service in 

Florida, CT Corp. System, 1200 South Pine Island Road, Plantation, 

Florida 33324 and Defendant does business by agent and is engaged in 

marketing and promoting its products in the State of Florida. 

7. Defendant, Ford Motor Company (hereinafter “Ford”), is 

believed to be a foreign corporation but at all times material doing business 

in Broward County, Florida. Ford designed, manufactured, and/or 

distributed the subject vehicle and its component parts through its whollyowned and controlled subsidiaries and authorized dealers with its 

expressed intentions and expectation that the subject vehicle would be 

sold and/or used in the United States, including Florida and Alabama. 

Case 0:20-cv-61667-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 2 of 11
8. Ford is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court as it has 

sufficient contacts with the state of Florida and engages in continuous and 

systematic business in the state of Florida. Ford placed the subject vehicle 

into the stream of commerce with the expectation that it would be 

distributed, sold, or used in the United States, including the state of 

Florida and Alabama. 

9. Ford is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court as it has 

sufficient contacts with the state of Florida and engages in continuous and 

systematic business in the state of Florida and continues to generate 

significant profit from its intended and purposeful business in Florida, 

included but not limited to multiple authorized Ford dealers located in 

Florida, including Broward County. 

10. Ford is registered to do business in the State of Florida by 

registering with the Florida Secretary of State. As a result of such 

registration, Ford has made continuous and regular filings with the 

Secretary of State. Ford also maintains a registered office and registered 

agent in Broward County State of Florida. Ford’s current registered agent 

of service in Florida is CT Corporation System, 1200 South Pine Island 

Road, Plantation, Florida 33324. 

11. The Ford product involved in this action is a 1999 F150 Super 

Cab truck, VIN No. 2FTZX0726XCA52634. 

Case 0:20-cv-61667-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 3 of 11
UStatement of the Facts

12. On August 25, 2018, along interstate I-65 near Montgomery, 

AL, Plaintiff J.H., was the right front seat passenger of a 1999 Ford F150 

Super Cab truck. Said vehicle, while traveling on I-65, was forced off the 

road by a vehicle operated by Makeil James Gordon, an Alabama resident. 

Gordon lost control of his vehicle, crossing the median and traveled in the 

path of the Hall vehicle, causing it to leave the roadway and overturn. At 

the time of the incident, the Hall vehicle and its components, were being 

used as intended. J.H. was properly wearing his seatbelt at the time of the 

accident. 

13. The 1999 Ford F150 was designed, engineered, manufactured 

and marketed by Defendant Ford. The vehicle was in substantially the 

same condition as it was when sold by Ford.

14. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and 

wantonness of Defendant, as well as the defective condition of the roof, 

and/or restraint system in the Ford F150, as well as the breach of 

warranty of Ford, J.H. suffered injuries that resulted in incomplete 

quadriplegia.

15. At Ford, safety is supposed to be “Job 1.”

Case 0:20-cv-61667-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 4 of 11
UCOUNT ONE

(Alabama Extended Manufacturers Liability Doctrine “AEMLD”)

16. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the 

allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 13 above as if set out here 

in full. 

17. At the aforesaid time and place, and for some time prior 

thereto, Ford was engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, 

distributing, marketing and/or selling the Ford F150 model made the 

basis of this suit throughout the United States, including the State of 

Florida and Alabama, for use by the general public. During that period of 

time, Ford, for valuable consideration, designed, manufactured, 

distributed, marketed and/or sold the roof structure and restraint system 

of the Ford F150 made the basis of this suit which injured the Plaintiff’s 

decedent. At the time J.H. was injured, the F150 roof structure and 

restraint system made the basis of this suit were being used in a manner 

that was foreseeable, but the roof and/or restraint system were defective 

and unreasonably dangerous in its design, manufacture and/or 

marketing, to the human body. Ford negligently, and/or wantonly 

designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, and/or sold the Ford 

F150 truck with a defective and/or unreasonably dangerous roof and/or 

restraint system that lacked adequate crashworthiness for rollover events.

18. The defective condition of the roof and/or restraint system in 

the F150 made the basis of this suit was a proximate cause of J.H.’s 

Case 0:20-cv-61667-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 5 of 11
injuries and renders Ford liable to Plaintiff pursuant to the Alabama 

Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine.

19. The roof and/or restraint system of the Ford F150 was 

defective and/or unreasonably dangerous in design, manufacture and/or 

marketing (warnings) as it relates to the component’s characteristics for 

occupant protection and crashworthiness in a foreseeable rollover event 

and lack of proper warnings regarding said issues. The defective condition 

of the roof and/or restraint system of the Ford F150 as it relates to said 

issues has been known by Ford for some time, including numerous prior 

substantially similar incidents.

20. Ford had a duty to determine if there were potential hazards 

to consumers that were associated with the foreseeable uses of its 

products.

21. As a proximate result of the aforesaid wrongful, negligent 

and/or wanton conduct of, Ford, J.H. suffered injuries and damages, 

including but not limited to the following:

a. Plaintiff was caused to suffer physical permanent 

injuries rendering him a quadriplegic. 

b. Plaintiff was caused to spend large sums of 

money in the nature of doctors, hospitals, and 

drug bills in an effort to cure and treat said 

injuries and will be caused to do so in the future.

c. Plaintiff was caused to suffer great physical pain 

and mental anguish and will be caused in the 

future to suffer great physical pain and mental 

anguish.

Case 0:20-cv-61667-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 6 of 11
d. Plaintiff was caused to be permanently injured 

and disfigured.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Ford for 

compensatory and punitive damages in excess of the jurisdictional 

requirements of this Court in an amount to be determined by a jury, 

together with interest from the date of injury, and the costs of this 

proceeding.

COUNT TWO

(Negligence and Wantonness) 

22. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the 

allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 21 above as if set out here 

in full.

23. At the aforesaid time and place, and for some time prior 

thereto, Ford, undertook a duty to design, manufacture, market (warn), 

inspect, distribute, and/or sell the 1999 Ford F150 made the basis of this 

suit and/or its component parts, including the roof and/or restraint 

system in a reasonably safe condition for its intended use by the Plaintiff 

and the general public. Ford negligently and/or wantonly designed, 

manufactured, inspected, and/or sold on the subject roof structure 

and/or restraint system. Such conduct caused the roof and/or restraint 

system of the Ford F150 to be unsafe when used as intended. 

24. Ford had a duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare 

of the public when designing the roof and/or restraint system of the 1999 Ford 

F150 made the basis of this action.

Case 0:20-cv-61667-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 7 of 11
25. Ford had a duty to determine if there were potential hazards 

to consumers that were associated with the foreseeable uses of its 

products.

26. The defective and dangerous condition of the Ford F150 roof and/or 

restraint system was a proximate cause of the injuries to Plaintiff and renders 

said Ford liable to the Plaintiff.

27. Ford, negligently and/or wantonly failed to complete an adequate 

hazard analysis and risk assessment of the Ford F150 roof structure and/or 

restraint system for potential occupant harm in a foreseeable rollover events.

28. As a proximate result of the aforesaid wrongful, negligent 

and/or wanton conduct of, Ford, J.H. suffered injuries and damages, 

including but not limited to the following:

a. Plaintiff was caused to suffer physical permanent 

injuries rendering him a quadriplegic. 

b. Plaintiff was caused to spend large sums of 

money in the nature of doctors, hospitals, and 

drug bills in an effort to cure and treat said 

injuries and will be caused to do so in the future.

c. Plaintiff was caused to suffer great physical pain 

and mental anguish and will be caused in the 

future to suffer great physical pain and mental 

anguish.

d. Plaintiff was caused to be permanently injured 

and disfigured.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Ford for 

compensatory and punitive damages in excess of the jurisdictional 

requirements of this Court in an amount to be determined by a jury, 

Case 0:20-cv-61667-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 8 of 11
together with interest from the date of injury, and the costs of this 

proceeding.

UCOUNT THREE

U(Breach of Warranty)

29. Plaintiff re-alleges all allegations contained in paragraphs 1 

through 28 of the Complaint as if set out here in full.

30. Defendant Ford, expressly and/or impliedly warranted that 

the F150 truck and/or its component parts involved in the occurrence 

made the basis of this Complaint were reasonably fit and suitable for the 

purposes for which they were intended to be used. The Plaintiff claims 

that the Defendant Ford breached said expressed or implied warranties 

of merchantability and/or fitness for a particular purpose in that the roof 

structure and/or restraint system of the F150 truck and/or its 

component parts were not reasonably fit and suitable for the purposes for 

which they were intended to be used, but to the contrary, said roof 

structure and/or restraint system and/or its component parts were 

unmerchantable and commercially unfit quality. The Plaintiff further 

claims that as a proximate result of the aforesaid breach of warranties by 

Defendant Ford, J.H. suffered injuries that resulted in quadriplegia.

31. As a proximate result of the aforesaid wrongful, negligent 

and/or wanton, conduct and breach of warranties of Ford, J.H. suffered 

injuries and damages, including but not limited to the following:

a. Plaintiff was caused to suffer physical permanent 

injuries rendering him a quadriplegic. 

Case 0:20-cv-61667-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 9 of 11
b. Plaintiff was caused to spend large sums of 

money in the nature of doctors, hospitals, and 

drug bills in an effort to cure and treat said 

injuries and will be caused to do so in the future.

c. Plaintiff was caused to suffer great physical pain 

and mental anguish and will be caused in the 

future to suffer great physical pain and mental 

anguish.

d. Plaintiff was caused to be permanently injured 

and disfigured.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for compensatory 

damages against Defendant Ford for such an amount in excess of the 

jurisdictional requirements of this Court and as a jury may award, and the 

costs of this action. 

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY STRUCK JURY

U/s/ David Dearing

DAVID DEARING (885673)

Attorney for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:

BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,

METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.

P. O. Box 4160

Montgomery, Alabama 36103-4160

(334) 269-2343

Case 0:20-cv-61667-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 10 of 11
UDEFENDANT MAY BE SERVED AS FOLLOWS:

Ford Motor Company

c/o CT Corporation System

1200 South Pine Island Road

Plantation, Florida 33324

Case 0:20-cv-61667-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 11 of 11