FILED

DALLAS COUNTY
10/21/2015 3:25:53 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK

4: CIT-ESERVE

David Hernandez
DC-15-12892
CAUSE NO. _________________

TODD EADDY and DEVONNA EADDY,

Individually and as Next Friends of
NATALIE EADDY, a Minor,

Plaintiffs,

VS.

THE KART SHOP, LLC doing business as

DALLAS KARTING COMPLEX;

PRECISION KARTING, INC.;

SCCA PRO RACING, LTD.; and

TEXAS MOTOR SPEEDWAY, INC.,

Defendants.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COME NOW TODD EADDY and DEVONNA EADDY, Individually and as Next Friends
of NATALIE EADDY, a Minor (Plaintiffs) to complain of THE KART SHOP, LLC doing
business as DALLAS KARTING COMPLEX; PRECISION KARTING, INC.; SCCA PRO
RACING, LTD.; and TEXAS MOTOR SPEEDWAY, INC. (collectively referred to hereafter as
Defendants) and for causes of action respectfully show the following:
1.00

DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

1.01

Plaintiffs intend to conduct Level 3 discovery under TEXAS RULE

OF

CIVIL

PROCEDURE 190.4.

Plaintiffs Original Petition and Request for Disclosure

Page 1

2.00

REQUEST FOR A JURY TRIAL

2.01

Pursuant to TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 216 Plaintiffs request a jury trial of

this matter. Accordingly, Plaintiffs tendered the proper jury fee to the Court Clerk with the filing
of this Plaintiffs Original Petition and Request for Disclosure.
3.00

REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

3.01

Pursuant to TEXAS RULE

OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE 194 Plaintiffs request that the

Defendants disclose to Plaintiffs, within 50 days of the service of this pleading, the information and
materials described in Rule 194.2(a) through (1), to be produced at THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK L.
BRANSON, P.C., 4514 Cole Avenue, 18th Floor, Dallas, Texas 75205.
4.00

PARTIES & SERVICE OF CITATIONS

4.01

Plaintiff Todd Eaddy is a natural person residing in Denton County, Texas, and he

is the biological father of Kierstin Eaddy.

4.02

Plaintiff DeVonna Eaddy is a natural person residing in Denton County, Texas, and

she is the biological mother of Kierstin Eaddy.

4.03

Natalie Eaddy is a natural person residing in Denton County, Texas, she is the

biological sister of Kierstin Eaddy, and Natalie Eaddy is a minor.

4.04

Kierstin Eaddy passed away without a will. The Plaintiffs will be commencing a

probate proceeding and thereafter a survival cause of action will be alleged against the Defendants
on behalf of the Estate of Kierstin Eaddy.
4.05

Defendant The Kart Shop, LLC doing business as Dallas Karting Complex

(hereinafter Defendant Dallas Karting Complex) is a Texas limited liability company which may

Plaintiffs Original Petition and Request for Disclosure

Page 2

be served with citation by serving its Registered Agent, Mike Dwayne Jones, 5025 FM 1565, Caddo
Mills, Texas 75135.
4.06

Defendant Precision Karting, Inc. (hereinafter Defendant Precision Karting) is a

Texas corporation which may be served with citation by serving its Registered Agent, Robert P.
Murray, 2525 Southwell Street, Dallas, Texas 75229.
4.07

Defendant SCCA Pro Racing, Ltd. (hereinafter Defendant SCCA) is a Kansas

corporation which may be served with citation by serving its Registered Agent, The Corporation
Company, Inc., 112 S.W. 7th Street, Suite 3C, Topeka, Kansas 66603.
4.08

Defendant Texas Motor Speedway, Inc. (hereinafter Defendant Texas Motor

Speedway) is a Texas corporation which may be served with citation by serving its Registered
Agent, CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201.
5.00

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5.01

Pursuant to Sections 15.002(a)(3) and 15.005 of the TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE &

REMEDIES CODE, venue is proper in Dallas County, Texas because Defendant Precision Karting
maintains its principal office in this state in Dallas County.
5.02

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the causes of action herein as the

Plaintiffs damages are within this Courts jurisdictional limits. This Court has personal jurisdiction
over the Defendants.
6.00

RULE 47 STATEMENT OF MONETARY RELIEF SOUGHT

6.01

Plaintiffs request that a jury determine the fair and reasonable amounts of damages

to be awarded to the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs place the decision regarding the amounts of
damages to be awarded in the jurys hands. However, Rule 47 of the TEXAS RULES

Plaintiffs Original Petition and Request for Disclosure

OF

CIVIL

Page 3

PROCEDURE requires Plaintiffs to provide a statement regarding the amount of monetary relief
sought. Accordingly, Plaintiffs state that monetary relief of over $1,000,000.00, in an amount to be
determined by the jury, is being sought.
7.00

STATEMENT OF FACTS

7.01

This lawsuit arises from fatal injuries Miss Kierstin Eaddy sustained while

participating in the Texas Region SCCA SOLO event at the Texas Motor Speedway Bus Parking
Lot on July 20, 2014. At the time of her death Miss Kierstin Eaddy was a minor and 14 years of age.
7.02

Defendant SCCA designed and managed the race course for the event in question.

The participants were racing go-karts individually against the clock through the use of electronic
timing systems. The finish line for the event was designed and set up to point the participants
driving the go-karts at high rates of speed directly toward a metal cable which ran perpendicular to
the racing course and which was located approximately 27 inches above the pavement.
7.03

On or about June 1, 2014 the Eaddys go-kart was taken to Defendant Dallas Karting

Complex. The Eaddys requested the go-kart to be analyzed for racing purposes, and were advised
by an employee of Defendant Dallas Karting Complex (in its Speed Lab) the seat in the go-kart
should be lowered closer to the ground. One or more authorized representatives of Defendant Dallas
Karting Complex (believed to be Scott) then lowered the seat, in part, resulting in the back portion
of the seat being lowered. Miss Kierstin Eaddy then drove the go-kart at that Defendants facility
and reported she was having difficulty reaching the pedals on the go-kart. An employee or
representative of Defendant Dallas Karting Complex then recommended and sold to the Eaddys a
pair of pedal extenders made of plastic to be placed upon the metal gas and brake pedals of the
go-kart.

Plaintiffs Original Petition and Request for Disclosure

Page 4

7.04

The pedal extenders were sold and provided to the Eaddys without any verbal and/or

written warnings or instructions. Those services and parts supplied by Defendant Dallas Karting
Complex were paid by a credit card transaction that same date.
7.05

Plaintiff Todd Eaddy thereafter placed the pedal extenders on the go-kart based upon

the advice and recommendations of Defendant Dallas Karting Complex.

7.06

On or about July 2, 2014 the go-kart was taken to Defendant Precision Karting for

a number of reasons in preparation for an upcoming race on July 20, 2014. Plaintiff Todd Eaddy
specifically requested an employee believed to be named Bob (also believed to be a mechanic
and/or owner of the facility) to inspect and analyze the go-kart for any issues that needed to be
addressed including, but not limited to, the brakes and braking system. One or more employees of
Defendant Precision Karting performed numerous inspections, repairs, and maintenance on the gokart between July 2, 2014 and, upon information and belief, through July 11, 2014. The various
labor, materials, and services Defendant Precision Karting provided to the Eaddys were paid for by
way of a credit card transaction on July 15, 2014.
7.07

Plaintiff Todd Eaddy picked up the go-kart from Defendant Precision Karting on

either July 18 or July 19, 2014.

7.08

Defendants Dallas Karting Complex and Precision Karting had previously made

numerous representations regarding the nature and quality of their respective services, workmanship,
capabilities, expertise, and experience in connection with their respective abilities to inspect, repair,
modify, service, and supply the appropriate parts and labor in connection with racing go-karts.
7.09

On the date of the occurrence in question Miss Kierstin Eaddy had successfully

completed one run on the racetrack located at the bus parking lot owned and operated by Defendant

Plaintiffs Original Petition and Request for Disclosure

Page 5

Texas Motor Speedway. As Miss Kierstin Eaddys second run was finishing, she crossed the finish
line at a speed of approximately 40 to 50 miles per hour, upon information and belief, but was
unable to significantly slow or stop the go-kart prior to the time that it reached the metal cable
directly in the path of the end of the racecourse causing her head, neck, and/or shoulders to strike
the metal cable at a high rate of speed.
7.10

The direction the go-kart traveled from the finish line to the location where Miss

Eaddys body struck the metal cable was lined with orange cones on either side of the racecourse
to send all participants in that very direction.
7.11

Upon information and belief, Defendant Texas Motor Speedway had rented its bus

parking lot to Defendant SCCA for the purposes of the racing held on that day. Upon information
and belief, Defendants SCCA and Texas Motor Speedway knew or should have known the manner
in which Defendant SCCA had designed, laid out, and assembled the racecourse; knew or should
have known the manner in which the racecourse directed all participants directly toward a metal
cable perpendicular to the racecourse approximately 27 inches above the pavement; and knew or
should have known that the location where the occurrence in question caused Miss Kierstin Eaddy
to sustain fatal injuries had no safety measures whatsoever to prevent an accident exactly such as
this including, but not limited to, the absence of any warning signs; the absence of any markers or
indicators which would alert a go-kart driver to the presence of the metal cable which was very
difficult to see (especially at high rates of speed); the absence of any kart barrier systems (which
were economically and technologically available); and the absence of any tires, barriers, or other
safety devices such as large water-filled plastic barriers and/or crash bags which, in reasonable
probability, may very well have lessened Miss Eaddys injuries and/or prevented her death.

Plaintiffs Original Petition and Request for Disclosure

Page 6

7.12

Upon information and belief, shortly after the occurrence in question Defendant

Texas Motor Speedway and/or Defendant SCCA made modifications to the bus parking lot so that
future race participants would not be directed down a path as the racecourse ended with the metal
cable directly in front of the respective racers at their neck or head level. Furthermore, upon
information and belief, Defendant Texas Motor Speedway and/or Defendant SCCA purchased
and/or leased and installed dozens of safety devices near the scene of the occurrence in question
consisting of rubber tires and large water-filled plastic safety barriers.
7.13

The pedal extenders which were recommended by Defendant Dallas Karting

Complex and sold to the Eaddys were unfit for their intended use and unreasonably dangerous. The
Plaintiffs would show it was reasonably foreseeable, despite installing the extenders by way of the
two screws per extender, that the extenders could rotate around the circular metal brake and gas
pedals, especially while in use in a go-kart engaged in racing events experiencing significant shocks,
vibrations, and other physical forces.
7.14

At the time of the occurrence in question it appears the pedal extender on the brake

pedal on the go-kart in question had rotated and was in such a position that the crash bar on the front
of the go-kart prohibited the brake system from actuating in any intended capacity. As such, despite
no act or omission on the part of Miss Kierstin Eaddy, the go-kart failed to slow in any appreciable
manner after crossing the finish line at a racing rate of speed resulting in the occurrence in question
and above-described fatal injuries to Miss Kierstin Eaddy.
7.15

At the time of the occurrence in question Todd Eaddy (Kierstins father), DeVonna

Eaddy (Kierstins mother), and Natalie Eaddy (Kierstins sister) were all present in close proximity
to these tragic events and witnessed these events in person.

Plaintiffs Original Petition and Request for Disclosure

Page 7

8.00

CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT DALLAS KARTING

COMPLEX

8.01

Defendant Dallas Karting Complex had a duty to act as a reasonable and prudent

corporation in connection with its inspection, modifications, recommendations, advice, services, and
regarding the pedal extenders sold to the Eaddys and, as such, had a duty to exercise ordinary care.
Defendant Dallas Karting Complex failed to exercise ordinary care and was negligent as that term
is defined by law. Such negligence was a proximate cause of the occurrence in question and the
Plaintiffs resulting damages. The negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendant Dallas Karting
Complex include, but are not limited to:
a.

Recommending the seat of the go-kart to be moved in an inappropriate

fashion;

b.

Modifying the position of the seat on the go-kart in question in an

inappropriate fashion;

c.

Failing to perform a complete, thorough, and safe analysis of the go-kart in

connection with moving the seat of the go-kart in question;

d.

Advising, recommending, and selling the Eaddys pedal extenders without

providing any warnings and/or instructions in connection therewith; and

e.

Failing to foresee that the metal pedal extenders might rotate and, in such an
instance, that the kart would then be configured such that the metal crash bar
in front of the brake pedal would prohibit the brake system from activating
and functioning as intended.

9.00

CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT PRECISION KARTING

9.01

Defendant Precision Karting had a duty to act as a reasonable and prudent corporation

in connection with its inspection, modifications, recommendations, advice, services, and regarding
the pedal extenders sold to the Eaddys and, as such, had a duty to exercise ordinary care. Defendant
Precision Karting failed to exercise ordinary care and was negligent as that term is defined by law.

Plaintiffs Original Petition and Request for Disclosure

Page 8

Such negligence was a proximate cause of the occurrence in question and the Plaintiffs resulting
damages. The negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendant Precision Karting include, but are not
limited to:
a.

Failing to properly inspect the go-kart, including, but not limited to, the
manner in which the brake pedal extender and the braking system were
configured; and

b.

Failing to ensure the safe operation of the entire kart including the engine,
chassis, and braking system, which included the brake extender.

10.00 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT SCCA

10.01 Defendant SCCA had a duty to act as a reasonable and prudent corporation in
connection with its design, inspection, and management of the racecourse and, as such, had a duty
to exercise ordinary care. Defendant SCCA failed to exercise ordinary care and was negligent as
that term is defined by law. Such negligence was a proximate cause of the occurrence in question
and the Plaintiffs resulting damages. The negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendant SCCA
include, but are not limited to:
a.

Designing the racecourse layout in an unsafe fashion;

b.

Failing to properly inspect the layout of the racecourse;

c.

Failing to properly recognize the unsafe layout of the racecourse;

d.

Managing the racecourse layout in an unsafe fashion;

e.

Failing to provide any safety devices around the racecourse;

f.

Failing to provide any markers or warnings which would alert a go-kart

driver to the presence of the metal cable directly in the path of the finish line
at the end of the racecourse;

g.

Directing the racing participants directly toward the metal cable through the
use of orange cones;

Plaintiffs Original Petition and Request for Disclosure

Page 9

h.

This Defendant knew or should have known the layout of the racecourse
presented an unreasonable risk of harm to the racing participants; and

i.

Failing to establish a finish line for the racecourse a long way from any
possible hazards surrounding the bus parking lot.

11.00 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT TEXAS MOTOR

SPEEDWAY
11.01 Defendant Texas Motor Speedway had a duty to act as a reasonable and prudent
corporation in connection with its inspection and management of the racecourse in question and
Defendant SCCAs activities and, as such, had a duty to exercise ordinary care. Defendant Texas
Motor Speedway failed to exercise ordinary care and was negligent as that term is defined by law.
Such negligence was a proximate cause of the occurrence in question and the Plaintiffs resulting
damages. The negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendant Texas Motor Speedway include, but
are not limited to:
a.

Failing to properly inspect the layout of the racecourse;

b.

Failing to properly recognize the unsafe layout of the racecourse;

c.

Failing to properly remedy the unsafe layout of the racecourse;

d.

Failing to warn Defendant SCCA of the unsafe nature of the racecourse; and

e.

Failing to provide any safety devices at any location surrounding the

racecourse.

12.00 GROSS NEGLIGENCE - PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST ALL

DEFENDANTS
12.01 The Plaintiffs would show there is clear and convincing evidence that the acts or
omissions of the Defendants were reckless and constitute gross negligence as those terms are defined
by law meaning, the acts or omissions which, when viewed objectively from the standpoint of the
respective Defendants at the time of their occurrence, involved an extreme degree of risk concerning
Plaintiffs Original Petition and Request for Disclosure

Page 10

the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others, and of which the Defendants had
actual, subjective awareness of the risks involved, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious
indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others, including Kierstin Eaddy. As such the gross
negligence of the Defendants was a proximate cause of the occurrence in question, Kierstin Eaddys
death, and the Plaintiffs resulting damages.
13.00 BYSTANDER CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
13.01 Plaintiffs Todd Eaddy, DeVonna Eaddy, and Natalie Eaddy were all present at or near
the scene of the occurrence in question. All of the Plaintiffs suffered shock as a result of the direct
emotional impact from perceiving the accident as it happened and/or immediately afterward. All
of the Plaintiffs were closely related to Kierstin Eaddy as they are her parents and sister. As such,
the Plaintiffs further seek an award of both past and future mental anguish damages for each
Plaintiff.
14.00 STATUTORY WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES
14.01 Plaintiffs Todd Eaddy and DeVonna Eaddy bring these causes of action pursuant to
Chapter 71 of the TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE as wrongful death beneficiaries.
14.02 Todd Eaddy is the surviving father of Kierstin Eaddy and DeVonna Eaddy is the
surviving mother of Kierstin Eaddy.
14.03 The Plaintiffs have suffered the loss of their daughter, Kierstin Eaddy, and seek
recovery for damages to the fullest extent allowable by law as wrongful death beneficiaries pursuant
to Chapter 71 of the TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE. The Plaintiffs seek a Judgment
against the Defendants for any and all wrongful death damages which the law allows, both past and
future, including, but not limited to:

Plaintiffs Original Petition and Request for Disclosure

Page 11

a.

Pecuniary loss (meaning the loss of the care, maintenance, support, services,
advice, counsel, and reasonable contributions of a pecuniary value that the
Plaintiffs, in reasonable probability, would have received from Kierstin
Eaddy had she lived);

b.

Loss of companionship and society (meaning the loss of the positive benefits
flowing from the love, comfort, companionship, and society that the
Plaintiffs, in reasonable probability, would have received from Kierstin
Eaddy had she lived); and

c.

Mental anguish (meaning the emotional pain, torment, and suffering

experienced by the Plaintiffs because of the death of Kierstin Eaddy).

15.00 PRAYER
15.01 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs Todd Eaddy and DeVonna
Eaddy, Individually and as Next Friends of Natalie Eaddy, a Minor, pray that the Defendants be
cited to appear and answer herein and that upon final hearing hereof, the Plaintiffs be awarded a
Judgment against the Defendants for:
a.

Any and all wrongful death damages and/or compensatory damages and/or actual
damages allowable by law (both past and future) in amounts to be determined by the
jury as fair and reasonable;

b.

Any and all punitive or exemplary damages in amounts to be determined by the jury
as fair and reasonable;

c.

Costs of court;

d.

Pre-judgment interest at the appropriate rate allowable by law;

e.

Post-judgment interest at the appropriate rate allowable by law until satisfied in full;
and

f.

Any and all other relief, at law and in equity, to which the Plaintiffs may show
themselves justly entitled.

Plaintiffs Original Petition and Request for Disclosure

Page 12

Respectfully submitted,
THE LAW OFFICES OF
FRANK L. BRANSON, P.C.

/s/ Thomas J. Farmer

FRANK L. BRANSON
Texas Bar No. 02899000
E-Mail: flbranson@flbranson.com
THOMAS J. FARMER
Texas Bar No. 06826400
E-Mail: tjfarmer@flbranson.com
Highland Park Place
4514 Cole Avenue, Suite 1800
Dallas, Texas 75205
Telephone: (214) 522-0200
Facsimile:
(214) 521-5485
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
TODD EADDY and DEVONNA EADDY,
Individually and as Next Friends of
NATALIE EADDY, a Minor

Plaintiffs Original Petition and Request for Disclosure

Page 13