UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ANITA HALL, as mother and 

next friend of J.H., a minor,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CV-___________________

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Anita Hall, as mother and next friend of 

J.H., a minor and brings this protective suit against the Defendant Ford 

Motor Co. 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:

Nature 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.

The 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, 

exclusive of interest and costs, and because Defendant is incorporated and 

Case 0:20-cv-61644-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2020 Page 1 of 10
2

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

the Plaintiff resides.

3. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining 

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

4. 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. 

5. 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. 

6. 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. 

Case 0:20-cv-61644-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2020 Page 2 of 10
3

7. 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. 

8. 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. 

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

Cab truck, VIN No. 2FTZX0726XCA52634. 

Statement of the Facts

10. 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 

Case 0:20-cv-61644-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2020 Page 3 of 10
4

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

accident. 

11. 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.

12. 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.

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

COUNT ONE

(Alabama Extended Manufacturers Liability Doctrine “AEMLD”)

14. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the 

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

in full.

15. 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 

Case 0:20-cv-61644-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2020 Page 4 of 10
5

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.

16. 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 

injuries and renders Ford liable to Plaintiff pursuant to the Alabama 

Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine.

17. 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.

Case 0:20-cv-61644-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2020 Page 5 of 10
6

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

to consumers that were associated with the foreseeable uses of its 

products.

19. 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, 

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

proceeding.

Case 0:20-cv-61644-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2020 Page 6 of 10
7

COUNT TWO

(Negligence and Wantonness)

20. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the 

allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 19 above as if set out here 

in full.

21. 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. 

22. 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.

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

to consumers that were associated with the foreseeable uses of its 

products.

24. 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.

Case 0:20-cv-61644-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2020 Page 7 of 10
8

25. 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.

26. 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, 

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

proceeding.

COUNT THREE

(Breach of Warranty)

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

through 26 of the Complaint as if set out here in full.

Case 0:20-cv-61644-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2020 Page 8 of 10
9

28. 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.

29. 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. 

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-61644-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2020 Page 9 of 10
10

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

/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

DEFENDANT 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-61644-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2020 Page 10 of 10