This case was last updated from PACER on 05/30/2021 at 09:07:21 (UTC).

Baker v. Deere and Company

Case Summary

Baker v. Deere and Company

 

Link to case in App

 

On March 30, 2021, Robert “Mike” Baker and Wendy Baker (“Plaintiffs”), represented by John Tindall Burkhead of The Law Offices of Frank L. Branson filed a personal injury lawsuit against Deere and Company d/b/a John Deere Company (“Defendant” or “John Deere”), seeking damages along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest among other reliefs for the alleged injury caused to Mike Baker from the failed brakes of a tractor manufactured by Defendants. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas with Judge David C. Godbey presiding.

 

The Plaintiffs filed this complaint for the alleged brake failure in the tractor “John Deere LA 105” (the “Mower”) manufactured by the defendant, which led to Plaintiff sustaining multiple injuries including multiple open fractures, laceration of intrinsic muscle and tendon at ankle and foot level, and partially amputating his right big toe. As a result of these injuries, Plaintiff received an open reduction internal fixation surgery with incision and drainage; he still struggles with balance to this day.

 

In the complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that “The braking system is defectively designed because the brakes can fail during ordinary use. Here, when the operator presses the brake pedal, it pulls a lever, and the lever rotates a shaft that applies the friction brake via a mechanical brake caliper. Unfortunately, with this design, an aluminum block on the brake pedal linkage comes in contact with a transmission bracket and interferes with its movement, which limits the brake caliper’s ability to create friction and which reduces brake force, which ultimately limits the operator’s ability to stop the mower, even though there is plenty of brake pad friction material remaining and the brake pedal is pushed all the way to the end of its effective travel,” and that “Defendant knew or should have known that the Mower’s breaks were subject to early failure and the user could experience brake failure during ordinary use, which would prevent the mower from stopping and cause an accident like the one that occurred in this case. The warnings to test the brakes prior to use were inadequate to warn the user that even if the brakes worked prior to use that the brakes could still fail during the mowing operation.”

 

The Plaintiffs further alleged that “Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in the designing, researching, manufacturing, marketing, supplying, promoting, sale, testing, quality assurance, quality control and distribution of the Mower into interstate commerce. Defendant knew or should have known that those individuals that were using the mower were at risk for suffering harmful effects from it, including a complete loss of braking power that results in the user being thrown from the mower and experiencing severe and personal injuries which are permanent and lasting in nature, physical pain and mental anguish, including diminished enjoyment of life.”

 

There are four claims for relief laid down by Plaintiff. These claims are for alleged strict product’s liability for design defect, alleged strict product’s liability for failure to warn, alleged negligence, and alleged gross negligence.

 

In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff has requested the court to pass judgment for full and fair compensation for actual damages, attorneys’ fees, treble damages, exemplary or punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum amount allowed by law, costs of suit, and a sum of money as determined by a jury to be fair and reasonable within the jurisdictional limits of this Court for the damages indicated above, at the Plaintiff’s election of remedy, to the extent applicable.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.






Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    3:21-CV-00754

  • Filing Date:

    03/31/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Product Liability

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

David C Godbey

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

Robert "Mike" Baker

Robert Baker

Wendy Baker

Mike

Defendant

Deere and Company doing business as John Deere Company

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

John Tindall Burkhead

Attorney at The Law Offices of Frank L Branson

4514 Cole Avenue, Suite 1800

Dallas, TX 75205

Defendant Attorneys

Chris Allen Blackerby

Attorney at Germer Beaman & Brown PLLC

One Barton Skyway, 1501 S. Mopac Expy, Suite A400

Austin, TX 78746

Ben T Zinnecker

Attorney at Germer Beaman & Brown PLLC

One Barton Skyway, 1501 South Mopac Expressway, Suite A400

Austin, TX 78746

 

Court Documents

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11

11 #1

Proposed Order Proposed Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

#12

#13

#14

#15

5 More Documents Available
View All Documents

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/21/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#15) REPLY filed by Deere and Company re: #8 MOTION to Dismiss Claims in Plaintiffs' Original Complaint (Zinnecker, Ben) (Entered: 05/21/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#14) SCHEDULING ORDER: This case is set for trial on 10/3/2022 before Judge David C Godbey. The setting is for a one week docket. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 5/21/2021) (twd) (Entered: 05/21/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#13) Joint STATUS ON STATUS, SCHEDULING, AND RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE filed by Robert Baker, Wendy Baker. (Burkhead, John) (Entered: 05/10/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#12) Appendix in Support filed by Robert Baker, Wendy Baker re: #11 Response. (Burkhead, John) Modified text on 5/10/2021 (mjr). (Entered: 05/07/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#11) RESPONSE filed by Robert Baker, Wendy Baker re: #8 MOTION to Dismiss Claims in Plaintiffs' Original Complaint (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Proposed Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss) (Burkhead, John) (Entered: 05/07/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#10) CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Deere and Company. (Blackerby, Chris) (Entered: 05/04/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#9) ORDER REQUIRING STATUS AND SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: The parties are directed to confer within 14 days of the date of this Order regarding the following matters, and report to the Court within 14 days after the conference the parties' position. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 4/26/2021) (twd) (Entered: 04/26/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#8) MOTION to Dismiss Claims in Plaintiffs' Original Complaint filed by Deere and Company Attorney Ben T Zinnecker added to party Deere and Company(pty:dft) (Zinnecker, Ben) (Entered: 04/23/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/07/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#7) SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Deere and Company; served on 4/2/2021. (mjr) (Entered: 04/08/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#6) Summons Issued as to Deere and Company. (ykp) (Entered: 04/01/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) Request for Clerk to issue Summons filed by Robert Baker, Wendy Baker. (Burkhead, John) (Entered: 04/01/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/31/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Rutherford). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (mjr) (Entered: 04/01/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/31/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) Civil Cover Sheet to #1 Complaint by Plaintiff Robert "Mike" Baker. (Burkhead, John) Modified text on 4/1/2021 (mjr). (Entered: 03/31/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/31/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Robert "Mike" Baker. (Burkhead, John) (Entered: 03/31/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/31/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against Deere and Company filed by Robert "Mike" Baker. (Filing fee $402; Receipt number 0539-11753848) Summons(es) not requested at this time. In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the # Judges Copy Requirements and # Judge Specific Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Burkhead, John) (Entered: 03/31/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where MIKE is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer John Tindall Burkhead