IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

JEFFERY HENDRICKS, AS §

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE §

OF DIANE HENDRICKS, DECEASED, §

JEFFERY HENDRICKS AND ANGELA §

HENDRICKS, BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AND §

AS NEXT FRIENDS OF B.H. AND T.H., §

MINORS, §

§

Plaintiffs, § 

 §

vs. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-165

 § 

SANDALS RESORTS INTERNATIONAL §

AND UNIQUE VACATIONS, INC. §

§

Defendants. § JURY REQUESTED

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Jeffery Hendricks, as Representative of the Estate of Diane Hendricks, Deceased, Jeffery 

Hendricks and Angela Hendricks, Both Individually and as Next Friends of B.H. and T.H., 

Minors, (“Plaintiffs”), file this, their Original Complaint, complaining of Defendants Sandals 

Resorts International (“Sandals”) and Unique Vacations, Inc. (“Unique Vacations”) and in 

support thereof would respectfully show the Court the following:

I.

PARTIES

1. Plaintiffs, Jeffrey Hendricks, as Representative of the Estate of Diane Hendricks, 

Deceased, and Jeffrey Hendricks and Angela Hendricks, Both Individually and as Next Friends 

of B.H. and T.H., Minors, are individuals residing in the State of Texas.

2. Defendant, Sandals Resorts International, is a foreign for-profit corporation doing 

business in Texas, with its principal office located in Jamaica. Defendant may be served through 

its registered agent: Brian Mair, 4950 SW 72nd Avenue, 2nd Floor, Miami, Florida 33155.

Case 1:20-cv-00165-JRN Document 1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 1 of 10
Page 2 of 10

3. Defendant, Unique Vacations, Inc., is a foreign for-profit corporation doing business in 

Texas, with its principal office located in Miami, Florida. Defendant may be served through its 

registered agent: Brian Mair, 4950 SW 72nd Avenue, 2nd Floor, Miami, Florida 33155.

II.

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

4. Plaintiffs are and were residents of the State of Texas at all times relevant to this case.

5. Defendant Sandals is a Jamaican company and has its principal place of business in 

Jamaica.

6. Defendant Unique Vacations is incorporated under the laws of Florida and has its 

principal place of business in Florida.

7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 

because complete diversity of citizenship exists between the parties and the amount in 

controversy is greater than $75,000.

III.

PERSONAL JURISDICTION

8. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants purposefully availed themselves to 

business dealings in the State of Texas and could reasonably expect to respond to complaints 

therein. Defendants’ purposeful availment of the benefit and protection of the laws of Texas is 

sufficient to support proper exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendants.

IV.

VENUE

9. A civil action may be brought in a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all 

defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). For 

venue purposes, an entity shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district in which such 

defendant is subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in 

Case 1:20-cv-00165-JRN Document 1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 10
Page 3 of 10

question. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2). Because both Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in 

the Western District of Texas and therefore both reside in Texas for venue purposes, venue is 

proper in the Western District of Texas as to both Defendants Sandals and Unique Vacations.

V.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

10. Upon information and belief, Defendant Sandals owns and operates the Beaches Resort 

and Spa in the Turks and Caicos Islands (“Beaches Resort”). 

11. Plaintiffs were staying at Beaches Resort and Spa in the Turks and Caicos Islands. 

Defendant Unique Vacation sold and/or marketed accommodations at Beaches Resort to 

Plaintiffs from July 18, 2019 to July 23, 2019. Plaintiffs reserved and purchased their 

accommodations while they were in Texas. On or about July 19, 2019, Plaintiff Jeffery 

Hendricks reserved a snorkeling tour through Beaches Resort for his family, including Dianne 

Hendricks (“Decedent”). On or about July 20, 2019, Plaintiffs went on the tour. The tour 

operators drove Plaintiffs, Decedent, and other guests via boat to a snorkeling location in the 

Atlantic Ocean. 

12. When they reached the snorkeling location, Plaintiffs and Decedent entered the water and 

began snorkeling, wearing gear provided by the tour operators. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff 

Angela Hendricks could see that Decedent appeared to be struggling in the water. Plaintiff 

Angela Hendricks then helped Decedent get back on the boat. Plaintiff Jeffery Hendricks, who 

also saw his mother struggling in the water, came to assist Plaintiff Angela Hendricks.

13. Plaintiff Angela Hendricks began to yell for help while trying to assist Decedent, who 

was unresponsive and making groaning sounds. Plaintiffs Angela Hendricks and Jeffrey 

Hendricks, along with other guests on the tour, tried to revive Decedent. The tour operators, 

Case 1:20-cv-00165-JRN Document 1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 3 of 10
Page 4 of 10

however, did not help Decedent, despite Plaintiffs’ pleas. Further, there was no life-saving 

equipment on the tour boat. As a result, Decedent died from her injuries.

VI.

CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT SANDALS

A. NEGLIGENCE

14. At the time and on the occasion in question, Defendant Sandals committed acts and 

omissions, which collectively and separately constitute negligence. Defendant Sandals had a 

duty to exercise ordinary care, meaning the degree of care that would be used by any entity of 

ordinary prudence under the same or similar circumstances. Defendant Sandals breached that 

duty by:

a. Failing to exercise safety precautions to prevent individuals from drowning;

b. Failing to act when Decedent was drowning;

c. Failing to properly supervise tour operators;

d. Failing to properly train tour operators;

e. Failing to have lifesaving equipment on the tour boat;

f. Recklessly disregarding the safety of Decedent; and

g. Any other acts so deemed negligent.

15. Such negligence, either singularly or in combination, proximately caused the death of 

Decedent and the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs.

B. GROSS NEGLIGENCE

16. Plaintiffs allege that all acts, conduct, and omissions on the part of Defendant Sandals,

taken singularly or in combination, constitute gross negligence and were the proximate cause of 

Decedent’s death and Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages. When objectively from Defendant 

Sandals’ standpoint at the time in question, its actions involved an extreme degree of risk 

Case 1:20-cv-00165-JRN Document 1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 4 of 10
Page 5 of 10

considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others. Defendant Sandals had 

actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but proceeded with conscious indifference to 

the rights, safety, and welfare of Decedent.

C. NEGLIGENT HIRING

17. Plaintiffs plead that Defendant Sandals owed Decedent a legal duty to employ competent 

tour operators. Plaintiffs sustained damages proximately caused by Defendant Sandals’ breach of 

said duty. In particular, Defendant Sandals was negligent in hiring incompetent, unfit, or reckless 

employees who Defendant knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, to be 

incompetent, unfit or reckless, thereby creating an unreasonable risk of harm to Decedent, and 

others.

D. NEGLIGENT RETENTION

18. Plaintiffs further plead that Defendant Sandals negligently retained the tour operators 

who failed to act when Decedent was drowning. Defendant Sandals owed Decedent a legal duty 

to protect her from its employee’s negligence. Plaintiffs sustained damages proximately caused 

by Defendant’s breach of said duty. In particular, Defendant Sandals was negligent in retaining 

incompetent, unfit or reckless employees, who it knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care 

should have known, to be incompetent, unfit or reckless, thereby creating an unreasonable risk of 

harm to Decedent, and others. 

E. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION & MONITORING

19. Plaintiffs further plead that Defendant Sandals negligently supervised and monitored its

tour operators. Defendant Sandals was negligent in supervising its tour operators, these tour 

operators should have been monitoring the guests of the snorkeling tour to identify and rescue 

any individual who was in danger of drowning. Defendant Sandals owed Decedent a legal duty 

Case 1:20-cv-00165-JRN Document 1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 5 of 10
Page 6 of 10

to protect her from its employees’ negligence. Plaintiffs sustained damages proximately caused 

by Defendant’s breach of said duty. In particular, Defendant Sandals was negligent in 

supervising and monitoring its employees, thereby creating an unreasonable risk of harm to 

Decedent, and others. 

F. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

20. Plaintiffs affirmatively plead that any alleged acts or negligence of Defendant Sandals’

employees were committed while they were acting in the course and scope of their employment 

with Defendant and are thus imputed to Defendant Sandals under a legal theory of respondeat 

superior.

VII.

CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT UNIQUE VACATIONS

A. NEGLIGENCE

21. At the time and on the occasion in question, Defendant Unique Vacations committed acts 

and omissions, which collectively and separately constitute negligence. Defendant had a duty to 

exercise ordinary care, meaning the degree of care that would be used by any entity of ordinary 

prudence under the same or similar circumstances. Defendant Unique Vacations breached that 

duty by:

a. Negligently promoting and/or marketing Defendant Sandals’ hotel;

b. Failing to ensure Defendant Sandals provided safe tours for its guests;

c. Failing to ensure Defendant Sandals’ employees had proper safety training;

d. Failing to ensure Defendant Sandals’ had the proper safety equipment on 

board its tour boats;

e. Recklessly disregarding the safety of Decedent; and

f. Any other acts so deemed negligent.

Case 1:20-cv-00165-JRN Document 1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 6 of 10
Page 7 of 10

22. Such negligence, either singularly or in combination, proximately caused the death of 

Decedent and the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs.

B. GROSS NEGLIGENCE

23. Plaintiffs allege that all acts, conduct, and omissions on the part of Defendant Unique 

Vacations singularly or in combination, constitute gross negligence and were the proximate 

cause of Decedent’s death and Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages. When objectively from 

Defendants Unique Vacations’ standpoint at the time in question, its actions involved an extreme 

degree of risk considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others. 

Defendants had actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but proceeded with conscious 

indifference to the rights, safety, and welfare of Decedent.

VIII.

CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS

A. BYSTANDER LIABILITY

24. Plaintiffs bring claims against Defendants for bystander liability as permitted by Texas

law. Plaintiff Jeffery Hendricks was the son of Decedent. Plaintiff Angela Hendricks was the 

daughter-in-law of Decedent. Minor Plaintiffs B.H. and T.H. were the grandsons of Decedent.

Plaintiffs were near Decedent at the time of her drowning. Plaintiffs witnessed Decedent’s 

drowning by sensory and contemporaneous observation. As a direct and proximate result of 

witnessing the injuries to Decedent, caused by the negligence and careless conduct of 

Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered severe mental and emotional anguish, including mental and 

emotional pain, torment, suffering, and despair.

IX.

SURVIVAL ACTION

25. As a result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants as described above, Decedent suffered 

physical pain and suffering and mental anguish prior to her death. Additionally, her Estate 

Case 1:20-cv-00165-JRN Document 1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 7 of 10
Page 8 of 10

incurred medical and funeral expenses, for which Defendants are liable. As representative of 

Decedent’s estate, Plaintiff Jeffery Hendricks asserts the above-pled causes of action against 

Defendants on behalf of Decedent’s estate pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 71.021.

26. As a result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff Jeffery Hendricks, as 

Representative of the Estate of Diane Hendricks, Deceased, brings this survival action for the 

following damages she sustained, which survive Decedent’s untimely death:

a. Past physical pain and mental anguish;

b. Funeral expenses; and

c. Medical expenses.

X.

WRONGFUL DEATH

27. Because the wrongful conduct of Defendants, and their agents and employees described 

above, caused the death of Decedent, and because Decedent would have a cause of action against 

Defendants for her injuries had she lived, Plaintiffs have a cause of action against Defendants to 

recover damages for the wrongful death of Diane Hendricks pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE §§ 71.002 and 71.003. 

28. As the son, daughter-in-law, and grandsons of Decedent, Plaintiffs are the proper 

beneficiaries of this action pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 71.004(a).

29. Due to the wrongful death of their mother and grandmother, Plaintiffs, individually, seek 

to recover damages for:

a. Past and future pecuniary losses;

b. Past and future loss of companionship and society;

c. Past and future mental anguish; and

d. Loss of inheritance.

Case 1:20-cv-00165-JRN Document 1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 8 of 10
Page 9 of 10

XI.

DAMAGES

30. As a result of this incident, Plaintiffs seek compensation for the following damages:

a. Past physical pain and suffering of Decedent;

b. Past mental anguish of Decedent;

c. Decedent’s medical and funeral expenses;

d. Past and future pecuniary and nonpecuniary wrongful death damages 

including the loss of companionship and society, mental anguish, and loss of 

inheritance;

e. Prejudgment and post-judgment interest; 

f. Court costs;

g. Exemplary damages; and

h. Any and all other damages in which Plaintiffs may be justly entitled.

XII.

PRAYER

31. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs pray that Plaintiffs recover 

damages from Defendants in accordance with the evidence; that Plaintiffs recover costs of the 

court herein expended; that Plaintiffs recover interest to which Plaintiffs are justly entitled under 

the law, both prejudgment and post-judgment; that Plaintiffs recover actual damages; that 

Plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensatory damages; that Plaintiffs recover punitive 

damages; and for such other further relief, both general and specific, both in law and in equity to 

which Plaintiffs may be justly entitled.

[Signatures on following page]

Case 1:20-cv-00165-JRN Document 1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 9 of 10
Page 10 of 10

Dated: February 13, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

ABRAHAM, WATKINS, NICHOLS, 

SORRELS, AGOSTO, AZIZ & STOGNER

/s/ Muhammad S. Aziz

Muhammad S. Aziz

Federal ID No. 868540

State Bar No. 24043538

800 Commerce Street

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 222-7211 – Telephone

(713) 225-0827 – Facsimile 

maziz@awtxlaw.com

-ANDVINAS & GRAHAM, PLLC

/s/ Spence D. Graham

Spence D. Graham

State Bar No. 24036665

Joe Vinas

State Bar No. 24037649

1210 W. Clay Street, Suite 12

Houston, Texas 77019

(713) 229-9992 – Telephone

(713) 229-9993 – Facsimile

graham_spence@sbcglobal.net

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Case 1:20-cv-00165-JRN Document 1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 10 of 10