EFILED 1N OFFICE CLERK OF STATE COURT CLARKE COUNTY. GEORGIA 8" wee, IN THE STATE COURT OF CLARKE COUNTY ETHELY - STATE OF GEORGIA $502,201? ?3'34 PM 7? M. JAMES KEVIN MAYS and if ?oa?etsaaesaw, amt. MELINDA MAYS Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA, d/b/a THE UNIVERSITY OF UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, DEKALB OFFICE ENVIRONMENTS, MITY-LITE, PROSPECT CAPITAL MITY HOLDINGS OF DELAWARE, MITY, INC. and JOHN DOE NOS. 1?5 FILE NO.: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES COME NOW, Plaintiffs, James Kevin Mays and Melinda Mays, who ?le this Complaint against the Defendants Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, d/b/a the University of Georgia, University of Georgia Athletic Association, Inc., Dekaib Office Environments, Inc., Mity-Lite, Inc, Prospect Capital Corporation, Mity Holdings of Delaware, Inc., MITY, Inc., and John Doe Nos. 1-5, showing the Court as follows: I PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE Plaintiffs James Kevin Mays (hereinafter ?Kevin Mays?) and Melinda Mays (hereinafter ?Melinda Mays?) are residents of the State Of Tennessee. Plaintiff Kevin Mays?s Notice of the Claim Pursuant to the Georgia Tort Claims Act, O.C.G.A. (hereinafter ?Mr. Mays?s Notice?), that is the subject of this Complaint was provided in writing to Defendant Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, d/b/a The University of Georgia (hereinafter ?Board of Regents"), and to Wade Damron, Director of Risk Management Services, Georgia Department of Administrative Services, Risk Management Services Division, by certi?ed mail, return receipt requested, on December ll, 2018. Mr. Mays?s Notice was also provided to Edward Tate on behalf of the Board of Regents, Jere W. Morehead on behalf of the University of Georgia Athletic Association and the University of Georgia Athletic Association, Inc, and W. Gregory McGarity on behalf of the University of Georgia Athletic Association. A true and correct copy of Mr. Mays?s Notice is attached hereto as ?Exhibit True and of the return receipts re?ecting delivery of Mr. Mays?s Notice are attached hereto as ?Eithibit . . Plaintiff Melinda Mays?s Notice of the Claim Pursuant to Georgia Tort Claims Act, 50~21u26 (hereinafter ?Mrs. Mays?s Notice?), that is the subject of this Complaint was provided in writing to Defendant Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, d/b/a The University of Georgia (hereinafter ?Board of Regents?), and to Wade Damron, Director of Risk Management Services, Georgia Department of Administrative Services, Risk Management Services Division, by certi?ed mail, return receipt requested, on December 11, 2018. Mrs. Mays?s Notice was also provided to Edward Tate on behalf of the Board of Regents, Jere W. Morehead on- behalf of the University of Georgia Athletic Associatitm and the University of Georgia Athletic Association, Inc, and W. Gregory McGar-ity on behalf of the University of Georgia Athletic Association. A true and correct copy of Mrs. Mays?s Notice is attached hereto as ?Exhibit True and correct copies of the return receipts re?ecting delivery of Mrs. Mays?s Notice are attached hereto as ?Exhibit Pursuant to O.C.G.A. 5041-26, an action may be commenced under this article as more than ninety (90) days have elapsed since the presentation of Mr. Mays?s Notice and Mrs. Mays?s Notice without action by the Georgia Department of Administrative Services. Defendant Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, d/b/a The University of Georgia. (hereinafter ?Board of Regents?), is a department and agency of the State of Georgia. i?ursuant to-IArticIe 8, Section 4, Paragraph 1 of the 1983 Georgia Constitution, the government, control, and management of the University System of Georgia and all of the institutions in said system is vested in the Board of Regents. The University of Georgia is a unit of the University system of Cieorgia. Defendant Board of Regents is a state agency domiciled in the State of Georgia and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to the Georgia Tort Claims Act, O.C.G.A. 50411-23. Venue is proper in this Court. Pursuant to 0.C.G.A. 50-2165, service of process may be perfected upon Defendant Board of Regents by serving its Chief Executive Officer and Chancellor, Dr. Steve Wrigley, at 270 washington-Strect Southwest, Suite 7025, Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. 5 0-21 ~35, service of process may be perfected upon Wade Damron, ?Director of the Risk Management Diyision of the Department of Administrative Services at 200 Piedmont Avenue, Suite 1220, West Tower, Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. 50?21-35, on December 5, 2019 a stamped ?filed" copy oi?this Complaint was sent via statutory overnight delivery, return receipt requested by email notification, to Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General of Georgia at 40 Capitol Square, SW, Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia 30334. A Certi?cate of Notice to the Attorney General is attached hereto as ?Exhibit certifying that this requirement has been met. Defendant University of Georgia Athletic Association, Inc. (hereinafter Athletic Association?) is a corporation licensed to do business in this State. Defendant UGA Athletic Association is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Venue is proper in this Court. 10. Service of process may be perfected upon Defendant UGA Athletic Association by serving Ryan Nesbi?t, at 456 East Broad Street,'Room 22-5, Athens, Athens~Cla1?ke County, Georgia. 11. Defendant Mity-Lite, Inc. (hereinafter ?Mity-Lite?) is a corporation licensed to do business in the State of Utah. Defendant Mity-Litelis subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to the long arm statute, 9-108], since in person or through an agent, Mity- Lite transects business withinthis "State, and committed a tortious injury in this state connected with transacting business within this State; and because it regularly does or solicits business, Or engages in a persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed, or services rendered in this State. Venue is preper in this Court. 12. Service of process may be perfected upon Defendant Mity-Lite by serving Craig Judd at . .1 3.01, W400 N-Orem, Utah County, Utah pursuant to 9-10-94. 13. Defendant Prospect Capital Corporation (hereinafter ?Prospect Capital?) is a corporation I licensed to "do business in the State of Maryland. Prospect Capital owns 100% of the equity of MITY Holdings of Delaware, Inc. (hereinafter Delaware?), a consolidated holding company. As of June 30, 2018, Delaware owns 95.58% of the equity of MITY, Inc. (f/k/a Enterprises, Inc.) Effective March 13, 2019, MJTY Delaware?s equity ownership of MITY increased to 100%. MITY owns 100% of Mity-Lite. 14. Defendant Prospect Capital is Subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to the long arm statute, O.C.G.A. 9-10-91. Defendant Proslnect Capital, through its minimum contacts, is liable for the torts of its subsidiary, Mity-Lite, who transacts business in this State and committed a tortious injury in this State. Venue-is proper in this Court. 15. Service of process may be perfected upon Defendant Prospect Capital by serving - Northwest Registered Agent Service, Inc., 5000 Thayer Center, Suite C, Oakland, Garrett County, Maryland pursuant to O.C.G.A. 9?10-94. 16. Detendant MITY Delaware is a corporation licensed to do business in the State of Delaware. Defendant MITY Delaware is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to the long arm statute, 9-10-91. Defendant PrOSpeet Capital, through its minimum contacts, isI-liab-le for the torts of its subsidiary, Mity-Lite, who transects business in this State and committed a tortiousinjury in this State. Venue is proper in this Court. 17. Service of process may be perfected upon Defendant MITY Delaware at Corporations Companies, 1110., 910 Foulk Road Suite 201 Wilmington, New Castle County, Delaware pursuant to 0.C.G.A. 940?94. 18. Defendant MITY is a corporation licensed to do business in the State of Utah. Defendant M-ITY is. subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to the long arm statute, 0.0.6.3, Defendant Prospect Capital, through its minimum contacts, is liable for the torts of its subsidiary, Mity-Lite, who transects business in this State and committed a tortious injury in this State. Venue is proper in this Court. 19. Service of process may be perfected upon Defendant MITY by serving Paraeorp ..Int:01porated at 1108 East South UniOanvenue, Midi/ale, Salt Lake County, Utah pursuant to O.C.G.A. 9?10-94. 20. Defendant Dekalb Office Envirorunents, Inc. (hereinafter ?Dekalb Office?) is a corporation licensed to do business in this State. Defendant Of?ce is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Venue is proper in this Court. 2] . Service of process may be perfected upon Defendant Dekalb Of?ce by Serving Michael Sullivan. with Taylor English Duma, LLP, at 1600 Parkwood Circle SE Suite 400, Atlanta, Cobb Count?Georgia. 22. Defendants John Doe Nos. 1-5 are additional individuals, parties and/?or entities who are parent of subsidiary entities; or are agents, employees or independent contractors of the same or of one or more of the Defendants. Defendants John Doe Nos. 1-5 will be named and served with Summonses and Complaints once their identities are known. 23. Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to the Georgia Tort Claims Act, O.C.G.A. 50:21-23, as the injury to Plaintiff Kevin Mays Occurred in Clarke County, Georgia. Venue is proper in? this Court as to all other Defendants under the facts and circumstances set forth herein pursuant to the provisions ofGa. Const. Art; 6, 2, and (100.1%. 9~10-31. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 24. Mity-Lite SwiftSet? Folding chairs are patented folding chairs designed, created, manufectufed, tested, labeled,- packaged, supplied, marketed, sold, advertised, and otherwise distributed and placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Mity-Lite. 25. Defendant Dekalh Office is airetailer and full-service corporate furniture dealership, of which Defendant Mity~Lite is a vendor. 26. Upon information and belief, in December 2010, Defendant Board of Regents and Defendant UGA Athletic Association purchased. and received new Mity-Lite SwiftSet? folding chairs from (hereinafter ?Mity?Lite folding chairs?) and with the assistance of Defendant Dekalb Office, 27. Plaintiff Kevin Mays along with his wife, Plaintiff Melinda Mays, and other UGA football .__teaml prospects were invited to Sanford Stadium to attend an o?icial visit at the University of Georgia (hereinafter with their son Cade Mays. Cadc Mays was an offensive line prospect for the UGA football team from Knoxville, Tennessee. .28. Plaintiffs Kevin Mays and Melinda Mays with their sons, Cade and Cooper, together with the other prospects, were invited to and did attend a dinner beginning at 8:00 PM on December 15, level inside Sanford Stadium'at UGA in Athens, Georgia. 29. The tables had assigned seating with place cards. Plaintiff Kev-in Mays sat in his assigned seat. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Kevin Mays?s seat was one of the Mity-Lite folding chairs purchased from Defendant Dekalb Of?ce (hereinafter ?the subject folding chair?). 30. During dinner, as Plaintiff Kevin Mays attempted to stand up, the building support column sitnated behind the subject folding chair prevented the subject folding chair from moving backwards, and the subject folding chair folded up, catching his finger in the hinge of the subject folding Chai?t'. 31. As a result, Plaintiff Kevin Mays?s right pinky ?nger was partially amputated as the subject folding Chair wedged against the column. His severed finger shot across the floor. 32. UGA Offensive Line Coach Sam Pittman picked up Plaintift Kevin Mays severed finge1 9111511111113 ?oor, and it was put on ice. 33. Plaintiff Kevin Mays was ttansported to Piedmont Hospital 111 Athens for treatment where he was diagnosed with partial amputation and fractnie involving the ?fth distal phalanx of the tight hand. Plaintiff Kevin Mays is right-handed; At the Emergency Room, his pain level on a scale from 1-10 was a 10. 34. Unfortunately, Plaintiff Kevin Mays?s severed finger could not be Ive-attached. The stump of Plaintiff Kevin Mays 3 finger was 3111 g1cally treated, Medications for pain and infection were admmistei ed and he was discharged with care instructions. 35. Plaintiff Kevin Mays had continuing pain and trouble as a result of the amputation. He rated his best pain at 8 out of 10 and his worst pain at 10 out of 10. His right hand also has experienced swelling, tenderness and decreased mobility. 36. He was seen by an orthOpedist in his hometown of Knoxville, Tennessee. 011 December 26,2017, Blaintii?f Kevin Mays underwent a full thickness skin graft to his ?ngertip to correct the dermal defect at Knoxville Orthopedic Surgery Center in Knoxville, Tennessee. 37. On February 20, 2018, the end-of. Plaintiff Kevin Mays's amputation stump was reopened in order?to remove any nail cells to stop the end of his ?nger from producing a dog?like nail protruding from the'stomp. The bone at the. original amputation site was slivcred and hurting so much that he could not bear for anything to touch the end of the stump. The doctor located the ?hone area and cut the end of the bone back to be smoothed, and the stump was closed. The pain associated with this procedure was as if Plaintiff Kevin Mays was starting the healing all over again. 38. To-date, Plaintiff Kevin Mays continues to suffer pain and decreased use of his right hand. 39. As a proximate result of the tortious conduct of the Defendants, Plaintiff Kevin Mays?s ?nger was partially amputated and he has suffered and continues to suffer grievous injury. 40. As a proximate result of Defendants? conduct, Plaintiff Kevin Mays has suffered and will continue to, suffer lost income, andhas incurred and will continue to incur, medical expenses. In addition, Plaintiff Kevin Mays has suffered and will continue to suffer mental and physical pain and suffering including disfigurement, and the less of ability to labor. 41. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs in damages. COUNT I STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS PROSPECT CAPITAL. MITY DELAWARE. MITY AND MITY-LITE 42. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 41 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 43. Defendant Mity-Lite was, at all relevant times, engaged in the business of designing, creating, manufacturing, testing, labeling, packaging, supplying, marketing, selling, advertising, warning and othemise distributing and placing in the stream of commerce Mityiite folding chairs. 44. At the time of Defendant Mity~Lite?s design, manufacture and sale of the Mity-Lite folding chairs, they were unsafe and defectively~designed for consumers using the folding chair in a ?reasonably :foreseeable manner, in that-the folding chairs posed an unreasonably high risk of serious injury to consumers. 45. Defendant Mity?Lite knew, or should have known, that there was a substantial and unnecessary risk of injury to those who used its folding chairs, and it failed to either determine the seriousness of the danger or reduce the risk to an acceptable minimal level. 46. Defendant Mity?Lite did not correct the defects or take other steps to reduce the danger of injury peseii by its folding chairs. Correcting the defect; or reducing the danger was both feasible and reasonable. 47. Speoi?eally, all times relevant, Defendant Mity-Lite designed, manufactured, and placed into the stream of commerce Mity-Lite folding chairs which were defectively designed for the following reasons, inter alia: - a. theylwere defective in design and formulation, making use of the product more dangerous than the ordinary consumer would expect and more dangerous than risks associated with like products; 13 I h. a hinge that had. multiple pinch points, which acted like shears and/or crush points; c. the shears andfor crush points existed in a location of the seat pan sides commonly known . by manufacturers to beused by the-hands of those ingressing and egressing from the chair during normal use, which is a foreseeable injury to them but unknown to the typical user, who would not expect the collapse of folding of the chair with the seat pan back edge going d. the shears andXor crush points Were. unprotected to prevent or limit consumers? ?ngers from being amputated, crushed or otherwise injured; and e. the risks associated with the use of the folding chairs outweighed their utility. 48. Defendant Mity-Lite sold the subject folding chair as new to and through Defendant Dekalb Office. 49. The subject folding chair was um?easonably dangerous and defective, when used in the manner for which it was intended in light of its nature and intended function or for reasonably foreseeable use. 50. - The'design detects existed in the subject folding chair at the time it left the control of Defendant Mity-Lite and continued in the defective condition up to and including when Plaintiff ..Kevin Mays?s pinky ?nger was'partially amputated by the subject folding chair on December 15, 2017. 51. Plaintiff Kevin Mays used the subject folding chair in a reasonable manner as it was designed and intended to be used. 52. Plaintiff Kevin Mays could not have discovered any defect therein through the exercise of due care, and the injury was not due to any misuse by Plaintiff Kevin Mays. 53. Plaintiff Kevin Mays did not have substantially the same knowledge as Defendant Mity- Lite. 54. Defendant Mity-Lite, as a manufacturer, marketer, distributor and seller of Mity-Lite folding chairs, is held to the level of knowledge of an expert in its field. 55. Defendant Mity?Lite?s designing, creating, manufacturing, labeling, packaging, supplying, II -.,marketing, selling, advertising, and otherwise distributing and placing in the stream of commerce the defectively-designed subject folding chair directly and proximately caused Plaintiff Kevin Mays to be severely injured. 15 '56. As a proaimate result of his injuries, he has suffered and will continue to suffer damages for which Defendant Mity~Lite is liable. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. 51?141, Defendant Mity~Lite is strictly liable for the unreasonably dangerous and defective condition of the subject folding chair. 58. Defendant Prospect Capital, Defendant Mity Delaware, and Defendant MITY are strictly liable fer the torts of their subsidiary, Defendant Mity~Lite, under the doctrines of alter ego, apparent'or ostensible agency, and/orjoint venture. 59. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. Plaintiff Kevin Mays is entitled to punitive damages, as the behaitior of Defendant Prospect Capital, Defendant Mity Delaware, and Defendant MITY and their subsidiary, Defendant Mity-Lite, is evidence of willful misconduct, malice, fraud, or-?oppresSion, orthat entire want of care Which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences. . COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS PROSPECT CAPITAL. MITY DELAWARE. MITY AND MITY-LITE 60. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference Paragraphs through 59 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein, 61. Defendant Mity-Lite owed a. duty to Plaintiff Kevin Mays to exercise reasonable care when it designed, created, manufactured, tested, labeled, packaged, supplied, marketed, sold, advertised, wanted and?otherwise distributed and placed in the stream of commerce Mity-Lite folding chairs, including the subject folding chair. 62. Defendant Mity?Lite breached its duty to exercise ordinary care in that Defendant Mity- Lite designed, created, manufactured, tested, labeled, packaged, supplied, marketed, sold, advertised, and otherwise distributed and placed in the stream of commerce Mity-Lite folding chairs, including the subject felding chair, that were unreasonably dangerous and defective in design, vtihen used in a manner for which the folding chairs were intended in light of their nature and intended function or for reasonably foreseeable use. 63. Speci?cally, Defendant Mity-Lite breached its duty of care when it placed into the stream 17 of. commerce Mity~Lite folding chairs which were defectively?designed and dangerous for the following reasons, inter and: a. they were defective in design and fonnulation? making use of the product more dangerous than the ordinary consumer would expect and more dangerous than risks associated with like products; 1). they contained a hinge that had multiple pinch points, which acted like shears antifor crush points; the shears and/or crush points existed in a location of the seat pan sides commonly known by manufacturers to be used by the hands of those ingressing and egressing from the chair during nonnal use, which is a foreseeable injury to them but miknown to the typical user, who would not expect the collapse or folding of the chair with the seat pan bash edge going up; d. the shears andfor crush points were unprotected to prevent or limit consumers? ?ngers from being amputated, crushed or otherwise injured; and the risks? associated with the use of the folding chairs outweighed their utility. 64. As a direct and proximate result of the defective condition of the subject folding chair ,jdesigned, thanttfactured and sold by Plaintiff Kevin Mays?s right pinky finger was partially amputated. 65. Ass direct and proximate result 'of the negligence of Defendant Mity~Lite and the injury to Plaintiff Kevin Mays, he has suffered and will continue to suffer damages fer which Defendant 18 Mity-Lite is liable. 66. Defendant Mity-Lite?s failure to exercise reasonable care in the design, study, development, manufacture, promotion, sale and marketing of the folding chairs, including the subject folding chair, proximately caused Plaintiff Kevin Mays?s injuries. 67. Defendant Mity-Lite knew or should have known that it was foreseeable that users of the Mity~Litc folding chairs such as Plaintiff Kevin Mays would suffer injuries as a result of Defendant Mity-Lite?s failure to exercise ordinary care in designing, manufacturing, packaging, labeling, premoting, distributing and selling the subject felding chair. 68. Defendant Prospect Capital,.Defendant Mity Delaware, and Defendant MITY are liable for the torts of their subsidiary, Defendant Mity-Lite, under the doctrines of alter ego, apparent or ostensible agency, and/orjoint venture. 69. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. 51-12-5.l, Plaintiff Kevin Mays is entitled to punitive damages, as the behavior of Defendant Prospect Capital, Defendant Mity Delaware, and Defendant MITY and their subsidiary, Defendant MityaLite, is evidence of willful misconduct, malice, fraud, tvantonness,? or oppression, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences. CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT DEKALB OFFICE 70. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference. Paragraphs '1 through. 69 of the Complaint as though fully set 'forth herein. 7 . Defendant Dekalb Office supplied, through Defendants Board of Regents and UGA Athletic Association, the Mity-Lite folding chairs, including the subject folding chair, for end users and is subject to liability to those whom Defendant Dekalb Of?ce should expect to use the chairs, ineluding Plaintiff Kevin Mays, in themanner fer which and by a person for whose use they were supplied; ?72. Defendant Dekalb Office owed a duty to Plaintiff Kevin Mays to exercise reasonable care in" promoting, recommending, distributing and selling Mity-Lite folding chairs, including the subject folding chair. 73. Defendant Dekalb Of?ce breached its duty of care by its negligent acts including, but not limited to: a. Dekalb Of?ce promote-d, Speci?ed, recommended, distributed and sold Mity?Lite folding chairs, including the subject folding chair. that were unreasonably 20 dangerous and defectively-clesigned, when used in a manner for which they were intended in light of their nature and intended function or for reasonably foreseeable use; b. Dekalb Office should not have promoted, speci?ed, recommended, distributed or sold the Mity?Lite folding chairs, including the subject folding chair, for banquet dining purposes; and e. Dekalb Of?ce should have treined its employees, sales personnel, and/or agents on the correct uses of the Mity~Lite folding chairs, including the subject folding chair, and regarding the risks cf using Mity~Lite folding chairs. 74. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant Dekalb Of?ce?s conduct, Plaintiff Kevin Mays was severely injured, and as a. proximate result of his injuries, he has suffered and will continue to suffer damages for which Defendant Dekalb Office is liable. .75. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. Plaintiff Kevin Mays is entitled to punitive damages as the behavior of Dekalb Of?ce is evidence of willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, or oppressi011,,or_that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences. 2 COUNT IV "3 3?1th 0F EXPRESS AGAINST DEFENDANTS AND DEKALB OFFICE 76. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 tln'ough 75 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. In the course of Defendant Mity-Lite?s designing, creating, manufacturing, labeling, packaging, supplying, marketing, selling, advertising, warning and otherwise distributing and placing in the stream of commerce the Mity?~Lite folding chairs, including the subject. folding chair, through persons authorized by it, Defendant Mity?Lite acted in such a way that they extended an express warranty to Plaintiff Kevin Mays,lthe ultimate consumer, warranting that the subject folding chair would be free of defects in design and/or workmanship and/or would be merchantable andior fit for the particular purpose for which it was sold. 78. Plaintiff Kevin Mays reasonably alndjusti?ably relied upon Defendant Mity-Lite?s express warranties and used the subject folding chair. 79. I In the course of Defendant Dekaib Office?s marketing, selling, advertising, and otherwise distributing and placing in the stream of commerce the Mitwaite folding chairs, including the 22 subject folding chair, through persons authorized by it, Defendant Dekalb Of?ce acted in such a Wei/that they extended an eXpress warranty to Plaintiff Kevin Mays the ultimate consumer, warranting that the subject folding chair would be free of defects in design and/or workmanship and/or would be merchantable andlor ?t for the particular purpose for which it was sold. 80. Plaintiff Kevin Mays reasonably and justifiably relied upon Defendant Dekalb Of?ce?s express warranties and used the subject folding chair. 81. The actions undertaken by and/or on behalf of Defendant Mity-Lite and Defendant Dekalb Office that occurred as part of the course of the sale of the folding chairs in question to Defendant Board ofRegents and Defendant UGA Athletic Association were suf?cient to extend this warranty to Plaintiff Kevin Mays as the ultimate consumer. 82. Defendant Mity-Lite and Defendant Dekalb Office expressly warranted that the folding chairs were safe, including the subject folding chair. 83. The Mitwaite folding chairs, including the subject folding chair, did not conform to that express representation because they were defectively designed and were otherwise defective. 23 34. As a result, Defendant Mity-Lite and Defendant Dekalb Office breached their warranties when they exposed ordinary users, including Plaintiff Kevin Mays, to a dangerous and defectively designed folding chair. 85. The conduct of Defendant Mity-Lite and Defendant Dekalb Of?ce in breaching their express warranties were direct, proximate. and/or contributing causes of Plaintiff Kevin Mays?s serious injuries, and as a proximate result of his injuries, he has suffered and will continue to suffer damages fer which Defendant Mity?Lite and Defendant Dekalh Office are liable. ?86. Pursuant to 0.C.G.A. 11-2-313, Defendant Mity~Lite and Dekalb Office are liable in damages to Plaintiff Kevin Mays for the unreasonably dangerous and defectively designed subject folding chair. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. 55, 51426.1, Plaintiff Kevin Mays is entitled to punitive damages, as the behavicr of Defendant Mity-Lite and Defendant Dckalb Of?ce is evidence of willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, or oppression, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences. 24 COUNT - BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY AGAINST DEFENDANT MITY-LITE AND DEKALB OFFICE 88. Plaihtiffs incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 87 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 89. In the course of Defendant Mity-Lite?s designing, creating, manufacturing, testing, labeling, packaging, supplying, marketing, selling, advertising, warning and otherwise distributing and placing in the stream of commerce the Mity~Lite folding chairs, including the subject folding chair, through persons authorized by it, Defendant Mity~Lite acted in such a way that they impliedly warranted said product to be of merchantable quality to be safe and ?t for its intended use to Plaintiff Kevin Mays, the ultimate consumer, warranting that the subject folding chair would be ?free of defects in design and/or workmanship'and/or would be merchantable andfor ?t for the particular purpose for which it was sold. 90. Plaihtiff Kevin Mays reasonably and justi?ably relied upon Defendant Mity?Lite?s implied warranties and acted in a foreseeable and reasonable manner when he got up from the subject folding chair. The defective design of the Mity?Lite folding chair caused his finger to be partially amputated. 25 In the course of Defendant De?lcalb Office?s marketing, selling, advertising, and otherwise distributing and placing in the stream of commerce the folding chairs, including the ect folding chair, through persons authorized by it, Defendant Of?ce acted in such a way that they impliedly warranted Said productto be of merchantable quality to be Safe and ?t for its intended use to Plaintiff - Kevin Mays, the ultimate consumer, warranting that the subject folding chair would be Free of defects in design and/or workmanship and/or would be merchantable and/or ?t for the particular purpose for which it was sold, 92. Plaintiff Kevin Mays reasonably and justi?ably relied upon Defendant Dekalb Office?s implied warranties and acted in a foreseeable and reasonable manner when he got up from the subject folding chair. 93. i The "actions undertaken by and/or 'on behalf of Defendant Mity-Lite and Defendant Dekalb Of?ce that occurred as pad of the course of the sale of the Mity-Lite folding chairs to Defendant Board of Regents and Defendant UGA Athletic Association, including the subject folding chair, were sufficient to extend this warranty to Plaintiff Kevin? Mays, the ultimate consumer. 94, Defendant Mity Lite and Defendant Dekalb Of?ce impliedly warranted that the folding chair .was safe, including the subject folding chair. 26 95. Contrary to such implied warranty, the subject folding chair was not of merchantable quality and was not safe or fit for its intended use because said Mity?Lite folding chairs, including the subject folding chair, were unreasonably dangerous, defectively designed and otherwise defective, and un? for the ordinazy purpose for which it was intended. 96. The conduct of Defendant Mity-Lite and Defendant Dekalb Office in breaching their 'impliediwai'ranties were direct, proximate and/or contributing causes of Plaintiff Kevin Mays?s serious injuries, and as a proximate result of his injuries, he has suffered and will continue to suffer damages for which Defendant Mity?Lite and Defendant Dekalb Office are liable. 97. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. 11-2-3144 and 1-2615, Defendant Mity-Lite and Dekalb Of?ce are liable in damages to Plaintiff Kevin Mays for the unreasonably dangerous and defectively designed subject folding chain 98. PurSuant to O.C.G.A. 5 ~12-5.1, Plaintiff Kevin Mays is entitled to punitive damages, as the behavior of Defendant Mity-Lite and Defendant Dekalb Of?ce is evidence of willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, or Oppression, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences. 2? COUNT V1 NEGLIGENCE CLAIM AGAINST DEF ENDANTS BOARD OF REGENTS AND UGA ATHLETIC ASSOCATION 99. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 98 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 100. Defendant Board of Regents and Defendant UGA Athletic Association owed a duty to Plaintiff Kevin Mays to exercise reasonable care in the selection, purchase and use of chairs used in its premises, the placement of the chairs, set-up of the chairs, provision of the appropriate amount of clearance for-the chairs from any poSts and Walls, including the subject folding chair, and to make sure Plaintiff Kevin Mays would be safe from harm when using the subject folding chair. 101'.- Defendant Board of Regents and Defendant UGA Athletic Association breached their duties to exercise ordinary care to make sure Plaintiff Kevin Mays would be safe from harm by the 'Mity~Lite folding chairs for cornmercial banquet dining, and placing the subject folding chair in a tight space with a structural column behind the chair, which prevented safe movement of the chair, causing the chair to trap and sever Plaintiff Kevin Mays?s ?nger. 28 'ma Defendant Board of Regents and Defendant UGA Athletic Association knew or should have known that it was foreseeable that the use and placement of the Mity-Lite folding chairs, the set-up of Mity-Lite folding chairs, the clearance or lack of clearance for the Mity-Lite folding chairs front any posts and walls, including the subject folding chair, would cause Plaintiff Kevin Mays to suffer injuries as a result. 103. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant Board of Regents and Defendant GA Athletic Association?s breach of their duty of care, Plaintiff Kevin Mays was severely injured. As a proximate result of his injuries, he has suffered and will continue to suffer damages for which Defendant Board of Regents and Defendant UGA Athletic Association are liable. PREMISES LIABILITY CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS BOARD OF REGENTS AND UGA ATHLETIC ASSOCATION 104. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 103 of the Complaint as though fully herein. 1 05. Defendant Board of Regents was the owner/occupier of the banquet space inside Sanford Stadium where-this incident occurred on December 15, 2017 (hereinafter 29 106. Upon ?information and belief, Defendant Athletic Association was the owner/occupier of the Premises. 107. At all times material hereto, Defendant Board of Regents and/or Defendant UGA Athletic Association maintained, possessed. and controlled the Premises. 1 08' Plaintiff Kevin Mays and Plaintiff Melinda Mays were invitees of Defendant Board of Regents at Sanford Stadium at UGA and wefe properly on the Premises. 109. Plaintiff Kevin Mays and Plaintiff Melinda Mays were invitees ofDefendant UGA Athletic Association at Sanford Stadium at UGA and were properly on the Premises. 10. Defendant Board of Regents and/otDefendant UGA Athletic Association, as owners or occupiers of the Premises, and their respective employees or agents, had a duty of ordinary care to keep'the Premises safe for invitees Such as Plaintiff Kevin Mays and others lawfully on the Premises. 30 Plaintiff Kevin Mays, despite exercising. ordinary care for his own personal safety, lacked knowledge of the hazard due to actions of Defendant Board of Regents and/or Defendant UGA Athletic Association or to conditions under their control. 1 12. Defendant Board of Regents and Defendant UG-A Athletic Association breached their duty of ordinary care, by using Mity?Lite folding chairs in the Premises for commercial banquet dining, and by placement of theMity-Lite folding chairs, including the subject chair, in a place that made ingress and egress from the folding chair unreasonably dangerous. 1 13. As a direct and proximate result'of Defendant Board of Regents?s and Defendant UGA Athletic Association?s conduct, Plaintiff Kevin Mays was severely injured, and as a proximate result of his injuries, he has suffered and will continue to suffer damages for which the Defendants are liable. \114. Defendant Board of Regents and Defendant UGA Athletic Association are liable in dainages to'Plaintiff Kevin Mays for", among other things, failing to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises safe by having the subject folding chair with a defective design on the Premises, by placement of the subject. folding chair without the proper clearance for its safe operatioii and assigning that seat to Plaintiff Kevin Mays. 3i i115. Defendant Board of Regents?s and DefendanLUGA Athletic Association?s conduct in failing to keep the Premises safe was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff Kevin Mays? injuries. 116. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. 51-3-1, Defendant Board of Regents and Defendant UGA Athletic Association are liable to Plaintiff Kevin Mays in damages. As a proximate result of his injuries, hehas Suffered and will continue to suffer damages for which Defendant Board of Regents and Defendant Athletic Association are liable. UNT NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS AGAINSTDEFENDANTS JOHN DOE NOS. l~5 117. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1, through 116 of the Complaint as though fully set foith herein. 1 18. Onihformation and belief, at all times material hereto, some or all of John Doe Nos. 1-5 designed, created, manufactured, supplied, sold or otherwise distributed and placed in the stream of commerce Mity?Lite folding chairs, including the subject chair, that were unsafe and defectively designed for consumers using the folding chairsin a foreseeable manner. 32 .119. On information and belief, at all times materialhereto, some or all of John Doe Nos. 1-5 had a duty of care and breached that duty when they designed, created, manufactured, supplied, sold or otherwise distributed and placed in the stream of commerce Mity?Lite folding chairs, including the subject chair, that were unsafe and defectively designed for consumers. 120. On information and belief, at all times material hereto, some or all of John Doe Nos. 1-5 had a duty of care and breached that duty when they promoted, distributed, recommended and sold Mity-Lite folding chairs, including the subject chair, that were unsafe and defectively designed and thereby breached their duty of care. 121. On information and belief, at all times material hereto, some or all of John Doe Nos. 1-5 designed, created, manufactured, supplied, sold or otherwise distributed, placed in the stream of commerce Mity?Lite folding chairs, including the subject folding chair, and acted in such a way that they-extended an express or implied Warranty to the ultimate consumer warranting that the Mity-Lite folding chairs would be free of defects in design andfor workmanship and/or would be merchantable and/or fit for the particular purpose for which it was sold. 122. On information and belief, at all times material hereto, some or all of John Doe Nos. 1-5 had a duty ,of care and breached that duty of care when they negligently utilized the Mity-Lite 33 folding chairs, including the subject chair, in a banquet environment and then placed the subject folding chair in a tight space with a structural column behind it, causing the folding chair to trap and sever the finger of Plaintiff Kevin. Mays. 123. 011 information and belief, at all times material hereto, some or all of John Doe Nos. 1-5 livers the'o'viiners and occupiers of the Premises and had a duty of care to keep the Premises safe, which duty they breached by using Mity-Lite folding chairs, including the subject chair, in a ?banquet environment and then placing the subject folding chair in a tight space with a structural eclumn behind it, causing the folding chair to trap and sever the ?nger of Plaintiff Kevin Mays. -124. The. breaches by John Doe Nos. 1-5 of their duties of care caused or contributed to the injury suffered by Plaintiff Kevin Mays and his damages which proximately resulted therefrom, for which they are liable. 25. Plaintiff Kevin Mays is entitled to punitive damages, as the behavior of John Doe Nos. 1- 5 is evidence of willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, or oppression, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumptionof a conscious indifference to consequences 34 COUNT IX LOSS OF CONSORTIUM AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 126. Plaintiffs incorporates by reference Patagraphs 1 through 125 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein 12?. Plaintiff Kevin Mays and Plaintiff Melinda Mays are one another?s lawful spouses 128. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants? conduct, and the :esulting iniuries to Plaintiff Kevin Mays, Plaintiff Melinda Mays was deprwived and continue to be deprived of her spouse 3 society, services and consortium I29. . Purshant to 0.C.G.A. 51-1-9; Defendant Board of Regents, Defendant UGA Athletic Association, Defendant Prospect Capital, Defendant Mity Delaware, Defendant MITY, Defendant Mity?Lite, Defendant Dekalb Office, and Defendant John Doe Nos. 1-5 are liable to Plaintiff Melinda Mays in damages for loss of consortium. -35 PROCEDURAL MATTERS 130. The counsel answering this Complaint consents to electronic service of the pleadings as is allowed by Q.C.G.A. 1-50). 131. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. 9-1 1-4 Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that the attorneys who are listed in the Pleadings may issue and sign subpoenas for persons sought to be deposed in thisaction. 132. The Defendant answering this Complaint was duly and preperly served with the Summons ?arid the Cozit'plaint, I I PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Kevin Mays and Melinda Mays pray for the following relief: Cl) That process issue and that the Defendants be served as provided by law; . (i2) For a BY JURY: (3) That Plaintiff Kevin Mays be awarded general damages in accordance with the enlightened conscience of an impartial jury, including damages for pain and suffering, loss of ability to labor, I (4) That Plaintiff Kevin Mays be awarded damages for past and future medical expenses, in an amount currently known to be in excess of 1 7,421 to be proven through the evidence at the time of trial; 36 I (5) That Plaintiff Kevin Mays be awarded damages for past and future lost income, to be proven through the evidence at the time of trial; (6) Thai Plaintiff Melinda Mays be awarded general damages for loss of consortium in an amount to be determined at trial; (7) I That Plaintiffs be awarded interest and costs; (8) That Plaintiffs be awarded punitive damages on all counts for which such damages are available; and i (9) That Plaintiffs be awarded each other relief as this 001111 deems just and proper and permitted under Georgia law. This 5'h day of December 2019. GARLAND, SAMUEL 36 L053, P.C. xiv/Robin N. Lee]; ROBIN N. LOEB, ESQ. Georgia Bar No: 455702 /s/Sara D. Sibley SARA D. ESQ. Georgia Bar No: 312208 Arterneysfor Plainti?fr Kevin Mays and Melinda Mays 3151 Maple Drive, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30327 (404) 262-2225 Facsimile (304) 365-5041 QEKQEgsllaw_,eoan (Robin. Loeb) sdsQagsllaWeom (Sara Sibley) 37