CHEROKEE COUNTY WALMART SLIP & FALL LAWSUIT

Posted on : July 21, 2016
slip and fall accidents in Texas

Plaintiffs, Judicial District

v.

WAL-MART STORES, INC. AND

WAL-MART STORIES TEXAS, LLC

CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE  TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE:

NOW COMES MI=1 F= and PM F , Jr. (“Mrs. FM” and “Mr. FMB” and collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), in the above-numbered and styled cause, complaining of Defendants Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”) and Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC (“Wal-Mart Texas,” and collectively, “Defendants”), and files this their Original Petition and Request for Disclosure, and for cause of action would respectfully show the Court as follows:

I.DISCOVERY & NATURE OF CASE

1. Plaintiffs intend to conduct discovery under Level 3 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure pending the submission of an agreed scheduling order by the parties and approval and entry of the order by the Court.

2. MINE brings this action as a business invitee to recover for the damages
she sustained as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure to use ordinary care to protect her from dangers which Defendants knew, or should have known, existed on their premises at the time of her injury.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE– PAGE I

II.PARTIES

3. Plaintiff 11/111= TM is a resident of Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana.

4. Plaintiff PM F.11 Jr. is a resident of Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana.

5. Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a foreign for-profit corporation duly authorized to do business in the State of Texas, and may be served with process by and through its registered agent, CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201- 3136.

6. Defendant Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC is a foreign limited liability company duly authorized to do business in the State of Texas, and may be served with process by and through its registered agent, CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201-3136.

III. VENUE AND JURISDICTION

7. Venue is proper in Cherokee County, Texas in that the events giving rise to this
cause of action and claims in this lawsuit occurred in Cherokee County, Texas.

8. Jurisdiction is proper in that the damages sought well exceed the minimum
jurisdictional limits of the Court.

IV. FACTS

9. Defendants own and operate the Wal-Mart Supercenter (“Store 180”) located at
1311 S. Jackson Street, Jacksonville, Texas 75766.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE- PAGE 2

10. At all times mentioned herein, Mrs. F= was Defendants’ business invitee at Store 180.

11. Mrs. FEll visited Store 180 on the afternoon of March 20, 2013.

12. While walking near the shoe department of Store 180, 11/1M F=. slipped on a puddle of clear fluid on the ground. Mrs. F= tried to correct her balance and contorted her body in the process. When she fell, Mrs. F landed on her knee. According to an eyewitness, she “took a hard fall.” The flooring where Mrs. F fell was a solid surface.

13. Mrs. F lay on the floor in tremendous pain. While lying on the ground, Mrs. F noticed a large puddle of clear fluid, approximately two feet in diameter, on the floor behind her.

14. An eyewitness came to MF’s aid and helped her to her feet. She had throbbing pain in her left knee, neck, and lower back. She walked out of the store, but her body continued to ache throughout that day.

15. Later that evening, Mrs. F sought medical attention at the local clinic in Jacksonville, Texas. She was prescribed pain medication, but it provided no relief. Her knee, neck, and lower back continued to cause tremendous pain and discomfort.

16. Upon her return to Louisiana, MF consulted with a physician. The fall left Mrs. F with a medial meniscus tear in her left knee and an annular tear at L4-5 in her lower back. The annular tear has required strenuous treatment including multiple injections, physical therapy, and pain management. Two years later, Mrs. F= still suffers from constant pain in her lower back on a daily basis.

17. Upon information and belief, the clear fluid on which Mrs. FM slipped was either of the following:

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE- PAGE 3

Defendants should have known of its presence, but failed to remove the hazard and failed to warn Mrs. Fof the hazard;

A) A puddle of water created by an associate or employee of the Defendants; or

B) A puddle of water which Defendants’ associate(s) or employee(s) actually knew was present on the floor and failed to warn Mrs. For clean and dry the floor.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT 1: NEGLIGENCE

18.Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate paragraphs 1-17 above and alleges that Defendants were negligent in one or more of the following respects:

a) In failing to warn Mrs. F.of an unreasonably dangerous condition existing in an area of Store 180 under Defendants’ control;

b) In failing to maintain an area of Store 180 under Defendants’ control in a clean and dry condition reasonably safe and prudent manner;

c) In creating an unreasonably dangerous wet and slippery condition in an area of Store 180 under Defendants’ control; and

d) In failing to correct and/or repair an unreasonably dangerous wet and slippery condition existing in an area of Store 180 under Defendants’ control.

19. Each of these acts and omissions, whether taken singularly or in combination, constituted negligence by Defendants and is the proximate cause of the incident made the basis of this suit and the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE- PAGE 4

COUNT 2: PREMISES LIABILITY

20. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate paragraphs 1-17 above and allege that Defendants owed Plaintiff MF a duty of ordinary care to keep the areas of Store 180 it controlled in a reasonably safe condition.

21.Defendants breached the aforementioned duty in one or more of the following respects:

a) In creating a slip and fall hazard by spilling water on the floor;

b) In failing to inspect the shoe department of Store 180 and warn invitees of the dangerous condition caused by the puddle of water, which they knew or should have known posed an unreasonable risk of harm;

c) In failing to cure the dangerous condition posed by the puddle of water, which it knew or should have known posed an unreasonable risk of harm;

d) In failing to place barriers and or warnings to alert Mrs. F of the hazardous wet floor; and

e) In failing to notice and clean up the water on the floor for a period of at least 30 minutes prior to the Plaintiffs injury.

22. Each of these acts and omissions, whether taken singularly or in combination, was a breach of Defendants’ duties to Plaintiff-114 M F and is the proximate cause of the incident made the basis this suit and the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs.

DAMAGES

23. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ negligence, M sustained severe bodily injuries which included, but are not limited to a medial meniscus tear in her left knee and an annular tear at L4-5 in her lower back. The injuries mentioned have had an adverse effect on Mrs. F’s health and well-being. Further, she has experienced physical pain and suffering, physical impairment, and mental anguish visit. In all reasonable probability, she will continue to suffer in this manner into the future, if not for the balance of her natural life.

24. Mrs. FEE has incurred past medical expenses, which exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits of the court, and, in all reasonable likelihood, she will continue to incur future medical expenses as a result of her injuries.

25. Mrs. F would further show that she was married to Mr. F on the date or the incident made the basis of the lawsuit and as a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendants described above, there has been a substantial impairment of the marital relationship between Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have sustained a loss of the affection, solace, comfort, companionship, society and assistance that they previously received from each other, in an amount which exceeds the minimal jurisdictional limits of the Court.

VII. JURY DEMAND

26. Plaintiffs hereby demand trial by jury.

VIII. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

27. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiffs request that Defendants disclose, within 50 days of the service of this request, the information or material described in Rule 194.2

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs pray that Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon final hearing, Plaintiffs have and recover judgment against the Defendants for past and future medical expenses, past and future physical pain and suffering, past and future emotional distress and mental anguish, and loss of consortium.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE- PAGE 6

Judgment and post-judgment interest in the highest lawful rate, and any further relief both at law and in equity to which Plaintiffs may be justly entitled.

Respectfully Submitted,

ROC1 :I,LE MCC’L.L.P.

By:

Cregory 11. I evel State Bar No. 02275800 greg.bevel@romclawyers.com

Paige Tackett

State Bar No. 24083935

ptackett@romclawyers.com

325 N. St. Paul Street

Suite 4500

Dallas, Texas 75201

(214) 953-0182 Telephone

(214) 953-0185 Facsimile

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Posted in : Gregory H. Bevel

Comments are closed.