Brady Brammer (bbrammer@spauldinglaw.com)
SPAULDING LAW
1955 W. Grove Parkway, Suite 250
Pleasant Grove, Utah 84602
Telephone: (801) 893-3951
Attorneys for Plaintiff Trevor Walker
IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH
TREVOR WALKER, an individual;
1.
2.

Plaintiff,
vs.
McDONALD’S CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation; ROSSCO, INCORPORATED, a
Utah Corporation doing business as
McDONALD’S; THE COCA-COLA
COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation; SWIRE
PACIFIC HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, a
Delaware Corporation doing business as
SWIRE COCA-COLA, SALT LAKE CITY
and SWIRE COCA-COLA, USA; and DOES 150.

3.
4.

COMPLAINT:
STRICT LIABILITY
BREACH OF THE IMPLIED
WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY
NEGLIGENCE
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
TIER III DISCOVERY
(JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)

Defendants.
SUMMARY OF ACTION
Plaintiff Trevor Walker’s Diet Coke was spiked at a McDonald’s Drive-Thru located in
Riverton, Utah. The Utah State Crime Lab confirmed the drink contained a heroin substitute—
buprenorphine/Suboxone (Exhibit A). The drug negatively interacted with Mr. Walker’s
medication, causing him to lose feeling in his arms and legs, lose the ability to walk, and
eventually lose consciousness. Mr. Walker suffered respiratory repression resulting in
excitotoxicity, post-traumatic stress disorder, and severe anxiety. Despite an immediate police
investigation, McDonald’s failed to preserve the video recording of the Drive-Thru in question
and video of the event was deleted and spoliated.

 COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Trevor Walker, (“Trevor” or “Plaintiff”) through counsel, hereby complains
against Defendant McDonald’s Corporation (“McDonald’s”), Rossco Incorporated (“Rossco”),
The Coca-Cola Company (“Coca-Cola”), Swire Pacific Holdings Incorporated (“Swire”), and
DOES 1 through 50 (”DOES 1-50”, and together with McDonald’s, Rossco, Coca-Cola, and
Swire, “Defendants”) and each of them alleges:
PARTIES
1.

Plaintiff is an individual residing in Salt Lake County, State of Utah.

2.

Upon information and belief, Defendant McDonald’s is a Delaware corporation

with its principal place of business in Illinois.
3.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Rossco is a Utah corporation with its

principal place of business in West Jordan, Utah.
4.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Coca-Cola is a Delaware corporation

with its principal place of business in Georgia.
5.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Swire is a Delaware corporation doing

business in Salt Lake County as Swire Coca-Cola, Salt Lake City and Swire Coca-Cola, USA
with its principal place of business in Draper, Utah.
6.

The true names and capacities, whether individual, plural, corporate, partnership,

associate or otherwise, of DOES 1-50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues
said defendants by such fictitious names. The full extent of the facts linking such fictitiously
sued defendants with the causes of action alleged is unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed
and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the defendants designated herein as a Doe was and
is negligently, carelessly, recklessly, unskillfully, unlawfully, tortiously, wantonly, wrongfully,
2

 illegally, or in some other actionable manner, responsible for the events and happenings
hereinafter referred to, and thereby negligently, carelessly, recklessly, unskillfully, unlawfully,
tortiously, wantonly, wrongfully and illegally proximately caused the hereinafter described
injuries and damages to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will hereafter seek leave of court to amend this
Complaint to show such defendants’ true names and capacities after the same have been
ascertained.
7.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, that at all times mentioned herein, defendants

and each of them, including DOES 1-50, were agents, servants, employees, and joint venturers of
their co-defendants, and were, as such, acting within the course, scope and authority of said
agency, employment, and joint venture, and that each and every defendant, as aforesaid, when
acting as a principal, was negligent in the selection and hiring of each and every co-defendant as
an agent, employee, contractor, subcontractor, and joint venturer, and that each Defendant by and
through its officers, directors, or managing agents, authorized, ratified or otherwise approved the
acts of the remaining defendants, and said officers, directors, or managing agents participated in
said acts with the Defendants, including DOES 1-50.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8.

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to U.C.A. §§ 78A-5-102 and 78B-3-205.

9.

Venue is proper in this forum pursuant to U.C.A. § 78B-3-307.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

10.

On August 12, 2016, Trevor Walker and his three young children (ages 8, 3, and

12 months at the time) went through the Drive-Thru at the McDonalds located at 2002 W. 12600
S. in Riverton, Utah. Trevor ordered two happy meals for his children and two chicken sandwich
meals for himself and his wife. As part of the adult meals, he ordered two Diet Coke beverages.
3

 11.

Trevor began drinking his Diet Coke on the way home, which was approximately

1-2 miles away. Upon arriving home, Trevor watched the children while Rachelle was working
at their in-home hair salon.
12.

While holding the 12-month old baby, and typing an email, Trevor noticed that

his fingers started to become non-responsive. He began to lose feeling in his arms and legs. His
vision became distorted. He handed the baby to his older child (age 8) who after seeing this,
asked: “Daddy, are you okay?” Trevor managed to send two text messages to his wife:
Text No. 1: “Something is vey (sic) wrong with me. I am having sensations in my
arms and everything is moving slowly. I’m feeling scared. I don’t know what to do.”
Text No. 2: “I’m so scared I’m trying to be calm. I need you.”
13.

Trevor tried to stand, but blacked out and fell on a nearby table and collapsed to

the floor. He was unable to get up from the floor until Rachelle arrived, and called their
neighbors. The neighbors assisted to lift Trevor and place him into the car. Rachelle then took
Trevor to the emergency room.
14.

A urinalysis performed at the hospital confirmed

the presence of Buprenorphine.
15.

Rachelle compared Trevor’s Diet Coke to her own

at the hospital. While Rachelle’s Diet Coke looked like a regular
Diet Coke, Trevor’s had speckles and a film on the surface—a
fact that Trevor was not aware of due to the lid placed by
McDonald’s on the drink.
16.

While at the hospital emergency room, Rachelle

called the police department and reported the suspicious drink
4

Figure 1 - Rachelle's Diet Coke above,
Trevor's below

 and its effect on Trevor. The Unified Police Department of Greater Salt Lake took custody of the
drink and sent it to the state crime lab for testing.
17.

On August 29, 2016, the Utah Bureau of Forensic Services analyzed a sample of

Trevor’s Diet Coke and positively identified the presence of buprenorphine in the vial.
Buprenorphine is a common replacement for heroin or other opioids and is generally ingested
through a dissolvable sublingual film that could easily be dissolved into a drink. A copy of the
Utah Bureau of Forensic Services’ Report is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
18.

Immediately after Trevor and Rachelle filed a police report, the police began

investigating the matter. The primary suspect was the McDonald’s Manager’s younger brother
identified herein as Employee #1. It has since been discovered that prior to, and leading up to
August 12, 2016, Employee #1 was a known drug user, had posted on social media about his
drug use, and had posted about disrespecting McDonald’s customers through the Drive-Thru
window. Further, on information and belief, by virtue of the Manager being the sibling of
Employee #1, it is believed that she was fully aware of these activities and behaviors. Both the
Manager and Employee #1 quit their jobs at McDonalds shortly after the police interviewed them
as part of the follow-up criminal investigation.
19.

The police attempted to obtain video surveillance from the location, which

included surveillance of the Drive-Thru area. It is believed that the McDonald’s Manager
provided footage to the police. However, the footage was from August 13, 2016—the day after
the incident. Additionally, rather than preserve the footage from August 12, 2016, McDonalds
allowed the footage to be deleted. It is unknown whether the footage was allowed to be deleted
to protect Employee #1 or to protect McDonalds from liability. Upon information and belief, the
lack of video footage was the primary reason that none of the employees have been arrested.
5

 20.

As a result of drinking the spiked Diet Coke, Trevor has sustained substantial

damages. The spiked Diet Coke interacted with Trevor’s medication at the time, and created a
substantial risk of death. Additionally, Trevor suffered respiratory repression resulting in
excitotoxicity, post-traumatic stress disorder, and severe anxiety. These have required Trevor to
seek counseling, have interrupted his closest relationships, have impacted his work, have
disrupted his sleep and diet habits, and have caused severe distress. He has ongoing needs for
medication and counseling that will continue for the foreseeable future and likely his entire life.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Strict Liability—Against All Defendants
21.

Trevor realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 20 of this

Complaint as if set forth fully herein.
22.

Defendants are in the business of manufacturing (Coca-Cola), distributing

(Swire), or selling (McDonalds and Rossco) food products and are in the chain of distribution for
the Diet Coke received and ingested by Trevor on August 12, 2016 (the “Diet Coke”). The
Defendants are each a participant in the enterprise responsible for placing the Diet Coke in the
stream of commerce and thus, subject to strict liability under the laws of Utah.
23.

Moreover, to the extent the Diet Coke was altered or modified, such modification

occurred prior to the sale of the Diet Coke to Trevor. Accordingly, U.C.A. 78B-6-705 and 78B5-818 are not applicable and provide no shelter from strict liability to Defendants, nor can fault
be allocated away from Defendants.
24.

Trevor seeks to recover damages because he was injured by a defective and

unreasonably dangerous product—the Diet Coke he ingested on August 12, 2016. The Diet

6

 Coke and the buprenorphine contained therein was dangerous to an extent beyond which would
be contemplated by the ordinary and prudent buyer or consumer.
25.

As a direct, legal, and proximate result, Trevor has suffered and continues to

suffer harm, special damages, and economic loss in an amount to be determined by the trier of
fact.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of Implied Warranty—Against All Defendants
26.

Trevor realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 of this

Complaint as if set forth fully herein.
27.

Defendants impliedly warranted that the Diet Coke was of merchantable quality,

safe and fit for human consumption. Trevor purchased and consumed the Diet Coke, and
reasonably relied upon the skill and judgment of Defendants as to whether the product was of
merchantable quality and fit for human consumption.
28.

Defendants breached these implied warranties in that the subject products was

contaminated with buprenorphine before it was delivered to Plaintiff.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence and Negligence Per Se—Against All Defendants
29.

Trevor realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 28 of this

Complaint as if set forth more fully herein.
30.

Defendants were negligent in the manufacture, distribution, or sale of the Diet

Coke, thus causing Trevor’s injury.
31.

More specifically, the Defendants each owed a duty to properly supervise, train,

and monitor employees, or the employees of their agents or subcontractors, in the preparation of

7

 the product (Diet Coke), and ingredients it sold, and doing so to ensure compliance with each
Defendant’s own specifications and performance standards as well as to ensure compliance with
all applicable health regulations which prohibit the distribution of controlled substances or other
unsafe ingredients such as buprenorphine in food or beverages. The defendants violated one or
more of the safety requirements that the law imposes 1 and, as a result, breached duties owed to
the Trevor, and injuring Trevor as a direct and proximate result of such breaches.
32.

Defendants’ negligent acts include, but are not limited to:
a.

Failure to prevent the contamination of the product (Diet Coke) or

product-ingredients with buprenorphine, including the failure to implement or non-negligently
perform inspection and monitoring of the product or product-ingredients such that its adulterated
condition would be discovered prior to its sale or distribution to the public.
b.

Failure to properly supervise, train, and monitor their employees, or the

employees of their agents or subcontractors, on how to ensure the manufacture, distribution or
sale of food product (the Diet Coke) free of adulteration by potentially lethal substances.
Particularly with regards to the known problems and proclivities of Employee #1 by the on-site
Manager.
33.

The state food safety regulations applicable here, and as set forth above, establish

a positive and definite standard of care in the import, manufacture, distribution, or sale of food,
and the violation of these regulations constitutes negligence per se.
34.

Trevor was in the class of persons intended to be protected by these statutes and

1

These include, but are not limited to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act and the Utah Wholesome Food
Act, which prohibits the manufacture, distribution and sale of adulterated food containing any “substance that may
render it injurious to health.”

8

 regulations and was injured in the direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ violation of
applicable food safety regulations.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress—Against All Defendants
35.

Trevor realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 34 of this

Complaint as if set forth fully herein.
36.

Defendants knew or should have known that their failure to exercise due care in

the performance of their duties would cause Trevor severe emotional distress.
37.

As a direct, legal, and proximate result, Trevor has suffered and continues to

suffer harm, special damages, and economic loss in an amount to be determined by the trier of
fact.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
38.

In committing the acts alleged in this Complaint, Defendants knew or should have

known of the defective, unsafe, and dangerous conditions of the product that they manufactured,
prepared, and sold to Trevor as well as the employee risk created by Employee #1. In
committing the acts described in this Complaint, the Defendants acted in conscious disregard of
the rights and safety of Trevor and are guilty of malice, oppression, and/or fraud thereby
warranting an assessment of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish the
Defendants and deter others from engaging in similar wrongful conduct.
JURY DEMAND
Trevor hereby demands a trial by jury.

9

 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Trevor prays for relief as follows:
A.

For general damages according to proof;

B.

For medical, hospital, and related expenses according to proof;

C.

For loss of earnings according to proof;

D.

For punitive damages;

E.

For attorneys’ fees and costs incurred herein; and

F.

For such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

DATED: July 30, 2018.

SPAULDING LAW
/s/ Brady Brammer
Brady Brammer
Attorneys for Plaintiff

10

 8r29r2016 Utah Bureau of Forensic Services
4501 South Constitution Blvd, Salt Lake City. UT 34129 (801) 965-443?

 

CL Case#: 02016-18?6 Agency Case 161328T9
Agency: UNIFIED POLICE DEPT OF GREATER Report#: 1

SALT LAKE
Agency Address: 3365 900 SALT LAKE CITY UT

84119

 

Forensic Analysis SUBSTANCE ANALYSIS

Evidence Submission Information

 

 

Evidence Submitted; 08i24i2018
How Received: Hand Delivered
Investigating Of?cer: Jared Nichols
Delivered By: Donny Gasu
Received By: Tamara Harper

Case Names
Type Name Race
Suspect 

Crimes

POSSESSION OR USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
Chain of Custody Statement

The item(s) submitted under the police agency case numbers referenced in this report were in a sealed condition at the
time any examination. testing. or analysis was commenced by the undersigned, and that said examination or handling,
if any, of the actual items within any such sealed containers was accomplished in a manner to preserve the integrity of
the item to assure that any chance of misidenti?cation. or environmental cross-contamination would be avoided by
adherence to standardized procedures within the Utah State Crime Laboratory appropriate to any processes applicable
to the examination. analysis. or testing of said items. Any deviation from said procedures. and reasons therefore is
noted below. The breaking of any seal or part of the container in which the item was submitted. has been followed by a
reinsertion of the item into its original container. followed by any examination. testing or analysis and resealing of that
container with the undersigned's initials placed over such new seal.

Forensic Analysis Report Follows

 

Page 1 of 2

Exhibit A

Bi29f2016 Utah Bureau of Forensic Services
4501 South Constitution Blvd, Salt Lake City, UT 84129 (801) 965-4487

 

CL Caseti: (32016-1876 Agency Case 1613287"?!
Agency: UNIFIED POLICE DEPT OF GREATER Report#: 1

SALT LAKE
Agency Address: 3365 900 SALT LAKE CITY UT

841' 19

 

Forensic Analysis SUBSTANCE ANALYSIS

Item 1 (Agency Item 1). No controlled substances were identified in the o?vwhite powder in the paper cup.
Item 2 (Agency Item 2). The sealed brown paper bag represented as containing a swab of cup was not analyzed.

Item 3 (Agency Item 3). was identified in the brown liquid in the glass trial.

I declare under criminal penalty of the State of Utah that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed 0n: 09f07i2016

01in

Kelly Whittie
Forensic Scientist II

Page 2 of 2

Exhibit A