COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Lorenzo Espinosa, and files this, his Complaint with this Honorable Court as follows:
COUNT ONE
1.
Defendant, AT&T Corp., d/b/a ATT Global Information Systems (hereinafter referred to as "AT&T", is doing business in the State of Georgia and was doing business in the State of Georgia at all times material to the filing of this Complaint. Said Defendant may be served by service upon its registered agent, that being: Prentice Hall Corporation System, 100 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, Georgia, Fulton County, 30303, and said Defendant is subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this Honorable Court.
2
Defendant, Anthony Davis Associates, upon information and belief, is a California Corporation which may or may not be certified and or licensed to do business within the State of Georgia as a security agency. Said Defendant may be served by registered or certified mail directed to its chief executive officer as well as service upon the Secretary of State. Said Defendant is subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this Honorable Court.
3.
The Defendant, Richard Jewell is an individual residing in the State of Georgia who worked as a security guard at Centennial Park on July 27, 1996. Mr. Jewell may be served at his residence that being: 3649 Buford Highway, Apartment F3, Monico Station Apartments, Atlanta, Dekalb County, Georgia. Said Defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.
4.
The Defendant, The Atlanta Committee for The Olympic Games, Inc., is a Georgia Corporation doing business within this State and was doing business in the State at all times material to the filing of this Complaint. Said Defendant may be served by serving their registered agent for service, that being: William Porter Payne at 250 Williams Street, Suite 6000, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, Fulton County, and said Defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.
5.
Defendant, ABC Corporation whose present identity, name and information is unknown will be named and served once that information becomes available to the Plaintiff and said Complaint will be amended at said time.
6.
Defendant, John Doe, whose present identity, name and information is presently unknown will be named and served at a later date once that information is known to the Plaintiff and said Complaint will be amended at said time.
7.
On Saturday, July 27, 1996, at about 1:00 a.m., the Plaintiff was a spectator on the premises occupied, managed, and controlled by the Defendants. As such, the Plaintiff was attending performances and entertainment sponsored by AT&T at the Global Olympic Village at Centennial Park, Atlanta, Georgia.
8.
At all times relevant and material hereto, the Defendant, Anthony Davis Associates, had a contractual duty to provide security for the premises inuring to the benefit of the spectators and customers at or near the Olympic Village; said premises being under their direction and control.
9.
At or about 1:00 a.m., the Defendant, Richard Jewell, a security guard employed by the Defendant, Anthony Davis Associates, reportedly spotted a suspicious package that could have contained a bomb and/or dangerous instrumentality.
10.
At all times material hereto, including July 27, 1996, through and including 1:30 a.m. the Plaintiff remained as a spectator at Centennial Park near AT&T's Global Village enjoying the concert.
11.
At no times material hereto, did the Plaintiff, in his capacity as a spectator, receive safety warnings of any kind that a bomb was present or may be present nor was the Plaintiff instructed to evacuate from any zone of danger around or near the suspect package.
12.
Saturday, July 27, 1996, at approximately 1:25 a.m., a bomb exploded in front of the AT&T Global Olympic Village at the northeast corner of the sound tower.
13.
At said time and place as the bomb exploded, as outlined herein, and because the Plaintiff in his capacity as a spectator and other spectators were not evacuated and warned in a timely manner in the impending danger, the explosive power of the bomb inflicted injury to the Plaintiff and other spectators.
14.
Defendants had actual and/or constructive knowledge prior to the explosion of the danger presented to those persons lawfully upon the premises.
15.
Specifically, the occurrence made the basis of this Complaint and Plaintiff's resulting injuries and damages were proximately caused by the negligent conduct of the Defendants and/or their employees in one or more of the following particulars:
(a) The Defendants failed to exercise ordinary care by failing to keep their premises and approaches safe as required by O.C.G.A. Section 51-3-1;
(b) The Defendants failed to take proper steps to provide for safe warning and evacuation procedures;
(c) The Defendants failed to adhere to safety standards regarding bomb notice and protection;
(d) The Defendants failed to train and instruct their agents and employees to properly respond to a bomb threat;
(e) The Defendants failed to properly conduct background checks on new applicants for security positions;
(f) The Defendants failed to take all their steps applicable to insure the safety of the Plaintiff and such evidence as will be shown at the trial of this case.
These acts or omissions as enumerated above, singularly and/or in combination with others, constitute negligence which proximately caused the occurrence which forms the basis of this action and Plaintiff's injuries and damages.
As a direct and proximate result of the explosion and negligence of the Defendants as outlined herein, the Plaintiff sustained serious, painful and permanent physical and emotional injuries and damages. In addition, Plaintiff has incurred hospital and medical expenses, has and will experience much mental and physical pain and suffering, has and will lose wages, has a permanent disability, has a diminished capacity to labor and to earn money, and will incur future medical expenses.
WHEREFORE, as a result the Plaintiff prays that process issue and that he have judgment in Count One of this Complaint in an amount as a jury finds just and equitable for compensatory damages.
COUNT TWO
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
16.
Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates Paragraphs 1 through 15 hereinabove as-if fully set forth and repleads and realleges each paragraph.
17.
The actions of the Defendants showed willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, and the entire want of care which raises the presumption of conscious indifference to the consequences as provided by O.C.G.A. Section 51-12-5.1. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages to punish, penalize or deter the Defendant as a jury may find just and equitable.
COUNT THREE
18.
Plaintiff realleges Paragraphs 1 through 17 hereinabove as if fully set forth and repleads and realleges each paragraph.
19.
The acts of the Defendants were in bad faith, and accordingly Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants all expenses of litigation, including attorney's fees as provided by O.C.G.A. Section 13-6-11.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for relief against the Defendants jointly and severely as follow.:
(1) For general damages to compensate Plaintiff in an amount to be determined by the enlightened conscious of a fair and impartial jury;
(2) For any and all special damages in an amount to be proved at trial;
(3) For punitive damages to deter Defendants from repeating said conduct injuring the Plaintiff and the public;
(4) For all costs of the foregoing action;
(5) For all costs of litigation including but not limited to attorney's fees;
(6) For trial by jury; and
(7) For such other relief as thin Honorable Court may deem proper and necessary.
