Alan W.

Mortensen (6616)
Lance L. Milne (14879)
DEWSNUP KING OLSEN WOREL
HAVAS MORTENSEN
36 South State Street, Suite 2400
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Tel.: (801) 533-0400
Fax: (801) 363-4218
Email: amort@dkowlaw.com
lmilne@dkowlaw.com

James T. Corrigan (Pro Hac Vice Pending)

O’LEARY, SHELTON, CORRIGAN,
PETERSON, DALTON & QUILLIN, LLC
1034 S. Brentwood Blvd.
Penthouse-1A, 23rd Floor
St. Louis, MO 63119
Tel.: (314) 405-9000
Fax: (314) 833-3073
Email: Corrigan@onderlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT

SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

SUNNY MAHE and SATEKI RENO MAHE, COMPLAINT AND

Individually and on behalf of the heirs and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
estate of ELSIE K. MAHE, Deceased
(TIER 3)
Plaintiffs,
Case No.
v.

BLINDVISION, a Utah Corporation, Judge:

CENTURY BLINDS, INC., a California
Corporation, HUNTER DOUGLAS, INC., a
New Jersey Corporation, HUNTER
DOUGLAS FABRICATION COMPANY, a

1
California Corporation, TURNILS NORTH
AMERICA, INC. a New York Corporation,
and DOES I-X, Utah Corporations,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs, Sunny Mahe and Sateki Reno Mahe, individually, and as representatives and

guardians on behalf of and for the benefit of the heirs of Elsie K. Mahe, Deceased, and on behalf

of the Estate of Elsie K. Mahe, Deceased and by and through their counsel, hereby complain of

the Defendants and allege as follows:

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. Plaintiffs, Sunny Mahe and Sateki Reno Mahe, are mother and father,

respectively, of and heirs of Elsie K. Mahe, deceased. They are also the mother and father and

guardians of Evie Mahe, Ellie Mahe, Sateki Reno Mahe, III, Emmie Mahe, Tonga Teancum

Mahe, and Steel Mahe. The Plaintiffs bring this action for the benefit of all the heirs of Elsie

Mahe, deceased. Plaintiffs are residents of the State of Utah

2. Defendant BlindVision is a Utah corporation authorized to do business in the

State of Utah with agents and/or property in Utah, with its principal place of business in Salt

Lake County, and caused an event to occur in Utah County, Utah from which Plaintiffs’ claims

arise. BlindVision lists its business purpose as being “Window Covering Sales” on documents

filed with the Utah Division of Corporations and its name is listed on the blinds in question.

3. Defendant Century Blinds, Inc. is a California corporation authorized to do

business in the State of Utah with agents and/or property in Utah. Century’s service address is

2
#2 Parkway, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458. Century Blinds, Inc. is a fabricator for

Hunter Douglas, Inc., a window covering manufacturer based out of #2 Parkway, Upper Saddle

River, New Jersey 07458. Defendant Century Blinds, Inc. regularly transacts business in the

State of Utah, maintains continuous and systematic business contacts and regularly ships

products to and within the State of Utah, derives substantial revenue from the goods used or sold

in the State of Utah and it purposely directs business activities, including the sale of window

covering to Utah residents. This cause of action arises out of these contacts with the State of

Utah as this action relates to the sale of window coverings manufactured, distributed and/or

marketed by Defendant Century Blinds, Inc. that were sold in the State of Utah to a resident of

the State of Utah and thus, Century Blinds, Inc. is subject to the Utah Long Arm Statute.

4. Defendant Hunter Douglas, Inc. is a Delaware corporation authorized to do and

doing business in the State of Utah with agents and/or property in Utah. Hunter Douglas’

principal office is at #2 Parkway, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 07458. Defendant Hunter

Douglas, Inc. regularly transacts business in the State of Utah, maintains continuous and

systematic business contacts and regularly ships products to and within the State of Utah, derives

substantial revenue from the goods used or sold in the State of Utah and it purposely directs

business activities, including the sale of window covering to Utah residents. This cause of action

arises out of these contacts with the State of Utah as this action relates to the sale of window

coverings manufactured, distributed and/or marketed by Defendant Hunter Douglas, Inc. that

were sold in the State of Utah to a resident of the State of Utah and thus, Hunger Douglas, Inc. is

subject to the Utah Long Arm Statute.

3
 5. Defendant Hunter Douglas Fabrication Company is a California corporation

authorized to do and doing business in the State of Utah. Hunter Douglas Fabrication

Company’s principal office is located at 2080 Enterprise Blvd., West Sacramento, California

95691. Defendant Hunter Douglas Fabrication Company regularly transacts business in the State

of Utah, maintains continuous and systematic business contacts and regularly ships products to

and within the State of Utah, derives substantial revenue from the goods used or sold in the State

of Utah and it purposely directs business activities, including the sale of window covering to

Utah residents. This cause of action arises out of these contacts with the State of Utah as this

action relates to the sale of window coverings manufactured, distributed and/or marketed by

Defendant Hunter Douglas Fabrication Company that were sold in the State of Utah to a resident

of the State of Utah and thus, Hunger Douglas Fabrication Company is subject to the Utah Long

Arm Statute.

6. Defendant Turnils North America, Inc. is a New York corporation authorized to

do and doing business in the State of Utah with agents and/or property in Utah. Turnils North

America, Inc’s principal office is located at 1327 Northbrook Parkway, Suite 410, Suwanee,

Georgia 30024-7258. Defendant Turnils North America, Inc. regularly transacts business in the

State of Utah, maintains continuous and systematic business contacts and regularly ships

products to and within the State of Utah, derives substantial revenue from the goods used or sold

in the State of Utah and it purposely directs business activities, including the sale of window

covering to Utah residents. This cause of action arises out of these contacts with the State of

Utah as this action relates to the sale of window coverings manufactured, distributed and/or

4
marketed by Defendant Turnils North America, Inc. that were sold in the State of Utah to a

resident of the State of Utah and thus, Turnils North America, Inc. is subject to the Utah Long

Arm Statute.

7. Defendants John Does I-X are persons or entities that may be responsible for

Plaintiff’s injuries and damages whose names and entities are unknown at this time. Upon belief

and suspicion, the persons or entities are Utah corporations or entities and the knowledge of the

identity of these entities is or will be known by the Defendants. The actual names and entities of

these persons or entities will be substituted when known.

8. This court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 78-3-4.

FACTS

9. Sunny and Reno Mahe (herein after Plaintiffs) are and were the natural parents

and guardians of Elsie K. Mahe, deceased, and are Elsie’s heirs at law, and are the personal

representatives of the estate of Elsie K. Mahe.

10. On or about November 22, 2016, decedent, Elsie Mahe, while playing in her

home became entangled in a cord of a set of corded window coverings and suffered catastrophic

injuries and ultimately passed away from these injuries on November 29, 2016.

11. On information and belief, Defendants BlindVision, Century Blinds, Hunter

Douglas Incorporated, Hunter Douglas Fabrication Company, Turnils North America, Inc., and

Does I-X, (herein after Defendants) manufactured, assembled, marketed, distributed, installed,

and sold the window coverings involved in Elsie’s death.

5
 12. Prior to dying, Elsie Mahe endured great fear, pain, and suffering as a result of the

strangulation caused by the window covering referenced herein.

13. As a direct and proximate result of Elsie Mahe’s death, Plaintiffs have incurred

expenses associated with her death, including but not limited to, medical bills and funeral and

burial expenses in the amounts to be determined at trial.

14. As a direct and proximate result of Elsie’s death, Plaintiffs have suffered and will

continue to suffer the loss of their daughter, and sister, causing them extreme mental and

emotional anguish, loss of care, comfort, companionship, society, guidance, counsel, nurture,

love, affection, association, consortium, services, and support of Elsie Mahe, the permanent

destruction of their family unit; additional injuries and damages to be proven in trial.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF – PRODUCT LIABILITY

Plaintiffs allege against Defendants, each of the them, and John Does 1-10 as follows:

15. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as if fully set forth herein paragraphs 1-14 of

Plaintiffs’ complaint.

16. Defendants designed, manufactured, distributed, installed, and/or retailed the

corded window covering product referenced in this complaint for the purposes of marketing it to

the consuming public, including plaintiffs.

17. The corded window covering product referenced in this complaint was

unreasonably dangerous and defective in one or more of the following respects:

a. Defendants allowed the aforesaid product to be sold without mechanisms to

prevent strangulation;

6
 b. Defendants allowed the product to contain cords capable of obtaining a length
in excess of 7 ¼ inches, which posed an unreasonable risk of strangulation;

c. Defendants’ product failed to contain warnings and/or failed to provide

adequate information regarding possible strangulation hazards associated with
the product;

d. Defendants’ product failed to contain a lift cord system that would eliminate
cord hazards and/or the risk of strangulation;

e. Defendants failed to take adequate measures to redesign and/or recall their

product to avoid the risk of strangulation, or having undertaken to redesign
and/or recall the product, failed to modify, retrofit or adequately recall the
known defective product; and

f. Defendants failed to supply with the product at the time of sale and/or
installation adequate safety devices to reduce access to and/or eliminate loops
and cord hazards.

18. At all times pertinent hereto, the blind was used in a manner reasonably

anticipated by Defendants.

19. The blind and its parts were expected to and did reach the user without substantial

change in the condition in which they were distributed.

20. Defendants anticipated or could reasonably foresee Elsie’s use and/or contact with

the blind at the time the blind left their possession.

21. The danger posed by the defective condition of the blind and its component parts

were not readily recognizable by the ordinary user, including Elsie Mahe.

22. Defendants knew or should have known that the users of the blinds, such as Elsie

Mahe, would not realize the dangerous condition of the blind.

7
 23. Elsie Mahe could not have reasonably discovered, would not be expected to

discover and did not discover the defects in the blind through the exercise of reasonable care.

24. The defects and/or the defective condition of the blind and its component parts

were the proximate cause of Elsie’s death and of Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages.

25. To the extent the Defendants’ acts or omissions resulted from willful and

malicious conduct, or conduct demonstrating knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a

disregard of, public health, safety and the rights of others, plaintiffs are entitled to recover

punitive damages.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF – NEGLIGENCE

Plaintiffs allege against Defendants, each of them, and John Does 1-10, as follows:

26. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding allegations in paragraphs 1-25 as if fully set

forth herein.

27. Defendants failed to use ordinary care in designing, manufacturing, testing,

labeling, distributing, supplying and servicing the blind and its component parts so as to not

injure or kill its users, including Elsie Mahe, in one or more of the following respects:

a. Defendants were negligent in allowing the aforesaid product to be sold

without mechanisms to prevent the possibility of strangulation;

b. Defendants negligently allowed the product to contain cords capable of

obtaining a length in excess of 7 ¼ inches, which pose an unreasonable risk of
strangulation;

c. Defendants’ product negligently failed to contain warnings and/or failed to

provide adequate information regarding the possible strangulation hazards
associated with the product;

8
 d. Defendants’ product negligently failed to contain a lift cord system that would
eliminate cord hazards and/or the risk of strangulation;

e. Defendants negligently failed to take adequate measures to redesign their

product to avoid the risk of strangulation;

f. Defendants negligently failed to modify, retrofit and/or adequately recall a

known defective product sold by them;

g. Defendants were negligent in the installation, maintenance and/or

modification of the product;

h. Defendants negligently failed to supply with the product at the time of sale
and/or installation adequate safety devices to reduce access to and/or eliminate
loops and cord hazards;

i. Defendants’ product was negligently manufactured and sold in a condition

such that it failed to perform safely as an ordinary consumer would expect
when the product was used in a reasonably foreseeable manner;

j. Defendants failed to consult with plaintiffs as to the product most suitable for
their application and failed to consult and advise her regarding alternate
feasible designs and cordless alternatives.

28. The above negligence caused and/or contributed to Elsie’s pain and suffering,

fatal injuries and death, and plaintiffs’ damages.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF – BREACH OF WARRANTY

Plaintiffs allege against Defendants, each of them, and John Does 1-10, as follows:

29. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding allegations in paragraphs 1-28 as if fully set

forth herein.

30. Defendants expressly or impliedly warranted that the blind and its component

parts were merchantable, free from defects, fit for the purposes for which they were intended and

fit for reasonably foreseeable uses, including the use in question.

9
 31. Defendants breached their warranties regarding the blind and its component parts.

32. The Defendants’ breach of warranty was a proximate cause of Elsie’s pain and

suffering, fatal injuries and death, and plaintiff’s injuries and damages.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

a. For special damages, including but not limited to medical bills, funeral, burial and

related expenses, arising out of the death of Elsie Mahe;

b. For general damages, including but not limited to damages for the loss of the care,

comfort, companionship, society, guidance, love, affection, association, services and support of

Elsie Mahe;

c. For the pre-morbid fear, pain, and suffering experienced by Elsie K. Mahe;

d. For punitive damages to the extent allowed by law;

e. For costs, expenses and attorney’s fees associated with this proceeding to the

extent allowed by law;

f. For pre- and post-judgment interest to the extent allowed by law; and

g. For such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper under the

circumstance.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury of all issues triable of right by a jury.

Dated this 22nd day of February 2018.

10
 /s/ Alan W. Mortensen
Alan W. Mortensen
Lance L. Mortensen
DEWSNUP KING OLSEN WOREL
HAVAS MORTENSEN
36 South State Street, Suite 2400
Salt Lake City, UT 84111-0024

James T. Corrigan
O’LEARY, SHELTON, CORRIGAN,
PETERSON, DALTON & QUILLIN, LLC
1034 S. Brentwood Blvd.
Penthouse-1A, 23rd Floor
St. Louis, MO 63119
(314) 405-9000 telephone
(314) 833-3073 facsimile

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs’ Address:
c/o DEWSNUP KING OLSEN WOREL
HAVAS MORTENSEN
36 South State Street, Suite 2400
Salt Lake City, UT 84111

11