S. L., V. QUALITY CARRIERS, INC., QC ENERGY RESOURCES, INC., CHESAPEAKE OPERATING, LLC, AND LUCKY COUSINS TRUCKING, INC.,

Posted on : April 3, 2018

CAUSE NO. 017-292270-17

IN THE DISTRICT COURT
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

S. L.,
Plaintiff,
v.
QUALITY CARRIERS, INC., QC
ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.,
CHESAPEAKE OPERATING, LLC,
AND LUCKY COUSINS TRUCKING,
INC.,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COMES S. L. (“Plaintiff”) in the above-numbered and styled cause, complaining
of Quality Carriers, Inc, QC Energy Resources, Inc., Chesapeake Operating, LLC., Lucky Cousins
Trucking, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), and files this as his Original Petition and Request for
Disclosure, for cause of action would respectfully show the Court as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff brings this action as an employee to recover for the damages he sustained
as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure to use ordinary care to protect him from
dangers which Defendants knew, or should have known, existed at the time of his injury.

II. PARTIES
2. Plaintiff is an individual residing in Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas.
3. Defendant Quality Carriers, Inc. is a corporation authorized to do business in Texas.
It may be served through its Registered Agent, Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers
Incorporating Service Company, at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701-3218, or where
ever it may be found.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

4. Defendant QC Energy Resources, Inc. is a corporation authorized to do business in
Texas. It may be served through its Registered Agent, Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSCLawyers
Incorporating Service Company, at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701-3218,
or where ever it may be found.
5. Defendant Chesapeake Operating, LLC is a company authorized to do business in
Texas. It may be served through its Registered Agent, CT Corporation System, at 350 N. Saint Paul
Street, Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201, or wherever it may be found.
6. Defendant Lucky Cousins Trucking, LLC is a company authorized to do business
in Texas. It may be served through its Registered Agent, Persis Wahba, at 129 W. 50th Street, Apt.
1F, Bayonne, New Jersey 07002, or wherever he may be found.

III. VENUE AND JURISDICTION
7. Venue is proper in Tarrant County, Texas in that the events giving rise to this cause
of action and claims in this lawsuit occurred in Ft. Worth, Texas.
8. Jurisdiction is proper in that the damages sought well exceed the minimum
jurisdictional limits of the Court.
9. Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $200,000 but not more than $1,000,000.

IV. DISCOVERY
10. Plaintiffs intend to conduct discovery under Level 3 of the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure pending the submission of an Agreed Scheduling Order between the parties and
approval and entry of the Order by the Court.

V. FACTS
11. On or about July 10, 2015, S. L. was gainfully employed by Quality Carriers, Inc.
doing business as QC Energy Resources, Inc. During the scope of his employment with Quality
Carriers, Plaintiff routinely drove to various oil sites in order to deliver goods and materials. One of

Quality Carrier’s clients is Chesapeake Energy, Inc. On the day of the incident made basis of this
complaint, Plaintiff was under the direct supervision of Martin Gonzalez.
12. On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff drove, at the request of his employer, to a job site located
at 4097 Old Crowley Rd., Tarrant County, TX. This site was owned and operated by Chesapeake
Operating, LLC. In order to complete his job, Plaintiff was tasked with climbing a ladder to get to the
opposite end of a salt water tank. The ladder in question had two ends of stairs connected by a
horizontal platform which acted as a crosswalk over the water tank barrier.


13. Inside the salt water tank, corrosive materials were puddled on the floor, making direct
contact with the metal ladder. The ladder had maintained heavy use, and by all accounts, was poorly
maintained. Nevertheless, Plaintiff wasrequired to use the ladder platform at the behest of his employer
for safety purposes.
14. Plaintiff climbed over the forward side of the ladder without issue, crossed the horizontal platform and reversed his direction to descend the opposite end of the ladder into the watertank. Plaintiff gripped both handrails and began his decent. However, due to no fault of Plaintiff, theright railing broke free, causing Plaintiff to fall from his elevated platform into the water tank.


15. Plaintiff attempted to brace for impact and twisted his body to prevent injury to his
face. Unfortunately, Plaintiff landed hard on his left shoulder causing significant, debilitating injury.

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT 1: NEGLIGENCE
16. Plaintiff adopt and incorporate each and every allegation of the aforementioned
paragraphs as if set forth herein verbatim.
17. The incident made the basis of this lawsuit and Plaintiff’s resulting injuries and
damages were proximately caused by the negligent conduct of Defendants. in one or more of the
following respects:

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE Page 5
a) In failing to keep, provide, and maintain a place of employment that
was reasonably safe and healthful for S. L.;
b) In failing inspect the premises for foreseeable defects in company
equipment;
c) In failing to properly maintain the premise to ensure the
functionality of all equipment;
18. The failure to inspect and properly maintain a safe working environment was the
proximate and actual cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. It is foreseeable that a metal structure submerged
in a vat of corrosive chemicals has the tendency to accelerate the oxidation process, therefore
weakening the structural integrity of a metal framed ladder. Defendants owed a duty to ensure their
ladder was in operational condition and breached that duty by requiring their employees to use
their defective equipment.

COUNT 2: PREMISES LIABILITY
1. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate paragraphs 1-18 above and allege that Defendants
owed Plaintiff a duty of ordinary care to keep the areas it controlled in a reasonably safe condition.
2. Defendants breached the aforementioned duty in one or more of the following
respects:
a) In creating a hazard by failing to maintain a safe working environment;
b) In failing to inspect the ladder to ensure that it was properly maintained;
c) In failing to cure the dangerous condition posed by the corroded ladder, which it
knew or should have known posed an unreasonable risk of harm;
d) In failing to place warnings to alert Plaintiff of the risks imposed by using or
operating a metal ladder submerged in corrosive substances; and

e) In failing to notice or attempt to rectify or make safe the hazardous, unsafe
conditions imposed on workers who were required to use the corroded ladder.
19. Each of these acts and omissions, whether taken singularly or in combination, was
a breach of Defendants’ duties to Plaintiff and is the proximate cause of the incident made the
basis this suit and the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs.

VII. DAMAGES
20. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ negligence, S. L. sustained severe
bodily injuries which included, but not limited to, a rotator cuff tear, lower back injury,
headaches and rib pain, and loss of sexual function. The injuries mentioned have had an adverse
effect on S. L.’s health and wellbeing, and as further result of the nature and consequences of her
injures, S. L. has suffered physical pain and suffering, anguish and physical impairment and in all
responsible probability will continue to suffer in this manner into the future, if not for the
balance of his natural life.
21. S. L. has also incurred past lost wages and will incur future impairment of earning
capacity due to the injuries she suffered in this incident.
22. Plaintiff has incurred past reasonable and necessary medical expenses which
exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits of the court and in all likelihood, will continue to incur
future medical expenses as a result of her injuries

VIII. JURY DEMAND
23. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.

IX. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
24. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiff requests that Defendants
disclose, within 50 days of the service of this request, the information or material described in Rule194.2.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

X. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully pray that Defendant be
cited to appear and answer herein, and upon final hearing, Plaintiff have and recover from
Defendant compensation for past medical expenses, future medical expenses, past pain and
suffering, future pain and suffering, past emotional distress, future emotional distress, and past
mental anguish, future mental anguish, costs of court, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest in
the highest lawful rate, and any further relief both at law and in equity to which Plaintiff may be
justly entitled.

Respectfully Submitted,

ROCHELLE MCCULLOUGH, L.L.P.
By: /s/ Wesley H. M. Gould
Wesley H. M. Gould
State Bar No. 24095214
wgould@romclawyers.com
Gregory H. Bevel
State Bar No. 02275800
greg.bevel@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.