Preview
FILED
7/31/2023 10:37 AM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Terri Kilgore DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-23-05675
LORI CARR, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiflf §
§
v. § 44th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
JACQUELINE BARNES, g
Defendant. §
§ DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW LORI CARR hereinafter called “Plaintiff,” complaining of
JACQUELINE BARNES hereinafter called “Defendant” and for cause of action would
respectfully show the Court the following:
I.
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
1.0 Plaintiff desires that discovery be conducted under Discovery Level 3 pursuant to Tex. R.
Civ. P. 190.2 and 190.4. Plaintiff will attempt to enter into an agreed discovery control plan with
Defendant. However, failing an agreement on the issues, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an
appropriate discovery control plan tailored to the specific facts and circumstances of this lawsuit.
II.
STATUS OF PARTIES AND SERVICE
2.00 Plaintiff, Lori Carr, is an individual who resided in Denton County, Texas at the time of
the subject wreck.
Carr v. Barnes
Plaintiff” s First Amended Petition
Page 1 of 6
2.01 MICHAEL BARNES is the husband of Defendant, JACQUELINE BARNES, deceased.
By Writ of Scire Facias MICHAEL BARNES was ordered to appear in this matter pursuant to
Tex. R. Civ. P. 152, in response to the suggestion of death of JACQUELINE BARNES, and
assume the role of Defendant in this cause. By service of this First Amended Petition, Plaintiff
requests the appearance of MICHAEL BARNES through counsel.
III.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3.00 Jurisdiction and venue are proper in Dallas County, Texas, pursuant to Texas Civil Practices
and Remedies Code §15.002 (a)(l), in that Dallas County is the county in which all or a substantial
part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.
3.01 This Court has jurisdiction over this cause of action because Plaintiff’ s damages are within
the jurisdictional limits of this Court and all conditions precedent have been performed or have
occurred.
3.02 No federal question exists and complete diversity of citizenship fails to exist.
IV.
FACTS
4.00 On October 29, 2022, Plaintiff Lori Carr was lawfully operating a 2015 Honda Civic. She
was heading southbound on the I35 Highway, close to the intersection with I30. At the same date
and time, Defendant, Jacqueline Barnes was operating a vehicle 2019 Toyota Highlander that was
driving in the same direction and lane as Plaintiff’ s vehicle. As Plaintiff was coming to slow down
due to traffic in front of her, Defendant was careless and struck Plaintiff in the rear end, as a result
causing the domino effect and pushed Plaintiffs vehicle to the front and making Plaintiffs vehicle
to strike the vehicle in front of her.
4.02 Defendant’s negligence proximately caused Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
Carr v. Barnes
Plaintiff” s First Amended Petition
Page 2 of 6
V.
NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT JACQUELINE BARNES
5.00 Defendant had a duty to exercise the degree of care that a reasonably prudent person would
use to avoid harm to others under circumstances similar to those described herein. The injuries and
damages sustained by Plaintiff were proximately caused by Defendant’s negligence. The
negligence of Defendant consisted of, but is not limited to, the following acts and omissions:
a. failing to keep a proper lookout or such lookout, which a person of ordinary prudence
would have maintained under same or similar circumstances;
failing to timely apply the brakes of a vehicle in order to avoid the collision in question;
operating a vehicle at a rate of speed that was greater than an ordinary prudent person
would have driven under same or similar circumstances;
failing to take proper evasive action in an effort to avoid the collision in question;
failing to pay attention to the road and traffic conditions;
engaging in distracted driving; and
in all things, failing to act as a reasonable person of ordinary prudence under the same or
similar circumstances.
5.01 Further, Defendant failed to exercise the mandatory standard of care in violation of the of
V.T.C.A. TRANSPORTATION CODE, §545.062 pursuant to the Negligence Per Se Doctrine which
mandates that:
“an operator shall, if following another vehicle, maintain an assured clear distance
between the two vehicles, so that, considering the speed of the vehicles, traffic, and
the conditions of the highway, the operator can safely stop without colliding with
the preceding vehicle . . .”
5.02 Also, see V.T.C.A. TRANSPORTATION CODE, §545.351, which states:
Carr v. Barnes
Plaintiff’ s First Amended Petition
Page 3 of 6
“an operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under
the circumstances then existing.”
5.03 Each of these acts and/or omissions, Whether taken singularly or in any combination
constitutes negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence, which proximately caused the
collision and injuries and other losses as specifically set forth herein.
VI.
DAMAGES
6.00 As a direct and proximate result of the collision and the negligent conduct of Defendant,
Plaintiff suffered bodily injuries as reflected in the medical records from the health care providers
that have treated the injuries since the collision. The injuries are likely to be permanent in nature.
The injuries have had an effect on Plaintiff s health and well-being. As a further result of the nature
and consequences of these injuries, Plaintiff has suffered and will likely continue to suffer physical
pain and mental anguish in the future.
6.01 As a further result of all of the above, Plaintiff has incurred expenses for medical care and
attention in the past and is likely to incur medical expenses in the future to treat these injuries.
6.02 Plaintiff respectfully requests that the trier of fact determine the amount of damages and
losses for:
Pain and suffering in the past;
a.b. C.d. e.f
Pain and suffering in the future;
Mental anguish in the past;
Mental anguish in the future;
Past medical expenses;
Future medical expenses;
Physical impairment in the past;
owh..L.l
Physical impairment in the future;
Loss of earnings in the past; and
Loss of earning capacity in the future.
6.03 Pursuant to RULE 47 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Plaintiff is required
Carr v. Barnes
Plaintiff’ s First Amended Petition
Page 4 of 6
to state the amount of damages they seek through this lawsuit. This exercise is largely arbitrary as the
Plaintiff defers to the jury to determine the amount of damages incurred as a result of the incident in
question, and discovery is yet to be conducted. Nonetheless, Plaintiff affirmatively states that she
seeks monetary relief of over OVER ONE MILLION AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00),
exlucing interest, statutory or punitive damages and penalties, and attorney’s fees and costs in
accordance with Tex. R. Civ. P. 47(c)(4) and a demand for judgment for all the other relief to which
Plaintiff is justly entitled at the time of filing this suit, which, with the passage of time, may change.
VII.
INTEREST
7.00 Plaintiff further requests both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all damages as
allowed by law.
VIII.
DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT
8.00 The Plaintiff will take the oral and videotape deposition of Defendant at 10:00 am on the
Friday next after the expiration of the tweny days after the date of service. This deposition will be
conducted in person with the witness and all parties at Plaintiffs Counsel Office in 17304 Preston
Road Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75252.
IX.
DESIGNATED E-SERVICE EMAIL ADDRESS
9.00 The following is the undersigned attorney’s designated E-Service email address for all e-
served documents and notices, filed and unfiled, pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 21(f)(2) & 21a:
Daralegal@ekehlaw.com. This is the undersigned’s only E-Service email address, and service
through any other email address will be considered invalid.
Carr v. Barnes
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition
Page 5 of 6
X.
NOTICE OF SELF-AUTHENTICATION
10.00 Pursuant to RULE 193.7 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Defendant is
hereby noticed that the production of any document or things in response to Plaintiffs written
discovery authenticates the document for use against Defendant in any pretrial proceeding or at trial.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff requests that Defendant be cited
to appear and answer, and on final trial hereafter, Plaintiff have judgment against Defendant in an
amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court, together with all pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest as allowed by law, costs of Court, for compensatory and exemplary damages,
and for such other and further relief, in law and in equity, to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.
Respectfully Submitted,
ISINMMMH EIWI1
Nnamdi Ekeh
State Bar No: 2409051 1
EKEH LAW FIRM PLLC
17304 Preston Road Suite 800
Dallas, Texas 75252
Tel: (469) 351-9684
Fax: (855) 828-6215
nnamdi@ekehlaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
Carr v. Barnes
Plaintiff” s First Amended Petition
Page 6 of 6
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Isabel Salas on behalf of NNAMDI EKEH
Bar No. 24090511
ifekehlaw@gmail.com
Envelope ID: 78027692
Filing Code Description: Amended Petition
Filing Description: 1ST
Status as of 7/31/2023 1:01 PM CST
Associated Case Party: LORI CARR
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Nnamdi Ekeh nnamdi@ekehlaw.com 7/31/2023 10:37:06 AM SENT
Isabel Salas paralegal@ekehlaw.com 7/31/2023 10:37:06 AM SENT
Preview
FILED 7/31/2023 10:37 AM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Terri Kilgore DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-23-05675 LORI CARR, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiflf § § v. § 44th JUDICIAL DISTRICT JACQUELINE BARNES, g Defendant. § § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW LORI CARR hereinafter called “Plaintiff,” complaining of JACQUELINE BARNES hereinafter called “Defendant” and for cause of action would respectfully show the Court the following: I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 1.0 Plaintiff desires that discovery be conducted under Discovery Level 3 pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 190.2 and 190.4. Plaintiff will attempt to enter into an agreed discovery control plan with Defendant. However, failing an agreement on the issues, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an appropriate discovery control plan tailored to the specific facts and circumstances of this lawsuit. II. STATUS OF PARTIES AND SERVICE 2.00 Plaintiff, Lori Carr, is an individual who resided in Denton County, Texas at the time of the subject wreck. Carr v. Barnes Plaintiff” s First Amended Petition Page 1 of 6 2.01 MICHAEL BARNES is the husband of Defendant, JACQUELINE BARNES, deceased. By Writ of Scire Facias MICHAEL BARNES was ordered to appear in this matter pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 152, in response to the suggestion of death of JACQUELINE BARNES, and assume the role of Defendant in this cause. By service of this First Amended Petition, Plaintiff requests the appearance of MICHAEL BARNES through counsel. III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3.00 Jurisdiction and venue are proper in Dallas County, Texas, pursuant to Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code §15.002 (a)(l), in that Dallas County is the county in which all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. 3.01 This Court has jurisdiction over this cause of action because Plaintiff’ s damages are within the jurisdictional limits of this Court and all conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred. 3.02 No federal question exists and complete diversity of citizenship fails to exist. IV. FACTS 4.00 On October 29, 2022, Plaintiff Lori Carr was lawfully operating a 2015 Honda Civic. She was heading southbound on the I35 Highway, close to the intersection with I30. At the same date and time, Defendant, Jacqueline Barnes was operating a vehicle 2019 Toyota Highlander that was driving in the same direction and lane as Plaintiff’ s vehicle. As Plaintiff was coming to slow down due to traffic in front of her, Defendant was careless and struck Plaintiff in the rear end, as a result causing the domino effect and pushed Plaintiffs vehicle to the front and making Plaintiffs vehicle to strike the vehicle in front of her. 4.02 Defendant’s negligence proximately caused Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. Carr v. Barnes Plaintiff” s First Amended Petition Page 2 of 6 V. NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT JACQUELINE BARNES 5.00 Defendant had a duty to exercise the degree of care that a reasonably prudent person would use to avoid harm to others under circumstances similar to those described herein. The injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff were proximately caused by Defendant’s negligence. The negligence of Defendant consisted of, but is not limited to, the following acts and omissions: a. failing to keep a proper lookout or such lookout, which a person of ordinary prudence would have maintained under same or similar circumstances; failing to timely apply the brakes of a vehicle in order to avoid the collision in question; operating a vehicle at a rate of speed that was greater than an ordinary prudent person would have driven under same or similar circumstances; failing to take proper evasive action in an effort to avoid the collision in question; failing to pay attention to the road and traffic conditions; engaging in distracted driving; and in all things, failing to act as a reasonable person of ordinary prudence under the same or similar circumstances. 5.01 Further, Defendant failed to exercise the mandatory standard of care in violation of the of V.T.C.A. TRANSPORTATION CODE, §545.062 pursuant to the Negligence Per Se Doctrine which mandates that: “an operator shall, if following another vehicle, maintain an assured clear distance between the two vehicles, so that, considering the speed of the vehicles, traffic, and the conditions of the highway, the operator can safely stop without colliding with the preceding vehicle . . .” 5.02 Also, see V.T.C.A. TRANSPORTATION CODE, §545.351, which states: Carr v. Barnes Plaintiff’ s First Amended Petition Page 3 of 6 “an operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing.” 5.03 Each of these acts and/or omissions, Whether taken singularly or in any combination constitutes negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence, which proximately caused the collision and injuries and other losses as specifically set forth herein. VI. DAMAGES 6.00 As a direct and proximate result of the collision and the negligent conduct of Defendant, Plaintiff suffered bodily injuries as reflected in the medical records from the health care providers that have treated the injuries since the collision. The injuries are likely to be permanent in nature. The injuries have had an effect on Plaintiff s health and well-being. As a further result of the nature and consequences of these injuries, Plaintiff has suffered and will likely continue to suffer physical pain and mental anguish in the future. 6.01 As a further result of all of the above, Plaintiff has incurred expenses for medical care and attention in the past and is likely to incur medical expenses in the future to treat these injuries. 6.02 Plaintiff respectfully requests that the trier of fact determine the amount of damages and losses for: Pain and suffering in the past; a.b. C.d. e.f Pain and suffering in the future; Mental anguish in the past; Mental anguish in the future; Past medical expenses; Future medical expenses; Physical impairment in the past; owh..L.l Physical impairment in the future; Loss of earnings in the past; and Loss of earning capacity in the future. 6.03 Pursuant to RULE 47 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Plaintiff is required Carr v. Barnes Plaintiff’ s First Amended Petition Page 4 of 6 to state the amount of damages they seek through this lawsuit. This exercise is largely arbitrary as the Plaintiff defers to the jury to determine the amount of damages incurred as a result of the incident in question, and discovery is yet to be conducted. Nonetheless, Plaintiff affirmatively states that she seeks monetary relief of over OVER ONE MILLION AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00), exlucing interest, statutory or punitive damages and penalties, and attorney’s fees and costs in accordance with Tex. R. Civ. P. 47(c)(4) and a demand for judgment for all the other relief to which Plaintiff is justly entitled at the time of filing this suit, which, with the passage of time, may change. VII. INTEREST 7.00 Plaintiff further requests both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all damages as allowed by law. VIII. DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT 8.00 The Plaintiff will take the oral and videotape deposition of Defendant at 10:00 am on the Friday next after the expiration of the tweny days after the date of service. This deposition will be conducted in person with the witness and all parties at Plaintiffs Counsel Office in 17304 Preston Road Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75252. IX. DESIGNATED E-SERVICE EMAIL ADDRESS 9.00 The following is the undersigned attorney’s designated E-Service email address for all e- served documents and notices, filed and unfiled, pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 21(f)(2) & 21a: Daralegal@ekehlaw.com. This is the undersigned’s only E-Service email address, and service through any other email address will be considered invalid. Carr v. Barnes Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition Page 5 of 6 X. NOTICE OF SELF-AUTHENTICATION 10.00 Pursuant to RULE 193.7 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Defendant is hereby noticed that the production of any document or things in response to Plaintiffs written discovery authenticates the document for use against Defendant in any pretrial proceeding or at trial. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff requests that Defendant be cited to appear and answer, and on final trial hereafter, Plaintiff have judgment against Defendant in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court, together with all pre-judgment and post- judgment interest as allowed by law, costs of Court, for compensatory and exemplary damages, and for such other and further relief, in law and in equity, to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled. Respectfully Submitted, ISINMMMH EIWI1 Nnamdi Ekeh State Bar No: 2409051 1 EKEH LAW FIRM PLLC 17304 Preston Road Suite 800 Dallas, Texas 75252 Tel: (469) 351-9684 Fax: (855) 828-6215 nnamdi@ekehlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff Carr v. Barnes Plaintiff” s First Amended Petition Page 6 of 6 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Isabel Salas on behalf of NNAMDI EKEH Bar No. 24090511 ifekehlaw@gmail.com Envelope ID: 78027692 Filing Code Description: Amended Petition Filing Description: 1ST Status as of 7/31/2023 1:01 PM CST Associated Case Party: LORI CARR Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Nnamdi Ekeh nnamdi@ekehlaw.com 7/31/2023 10:37:06 AM SENT Isabel Salas paralegal@ekehlaw.com 7/31/2023 10:37:06 AM SENT