Preview
FILED
4/5/2024 4:11 PM
1 CIT ESERVE FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS 00., TEXAS
Shunta Jackson DEPUTY
CAUSE N0.DC-24-051 13
FABIAN SPEED § IN THE DISTRICT COURT 0F
Plaintiff, §
§
V. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
MARVEL CAR WASH, LLC § 162nd
Defendant. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION
Plaintiff, Fabian Speed (“Plaintifl”) files this Original Petition, complaining of and against,
Marvel Car Wash, LLC (“Defendant”) and would respectfully show the following:
I.
PARTIES
l. Plaintiff, Fabian Speed, is an individual residing in Harris County, Texas.
2. Defendant, Marvel Car Wash, LLC is a Texas company with its principal place
of business in in Dallas County, Texas and may be served through its registered agent, Thomas J
Irons at 17950 Preston Road, Suite 650 Dallas, TX 75252 or wherever he may be found. Plaintiff
requests issuance of citation to Defendant.
DISCOVERY CIBNTROL PLAN
3. Pursuant to the Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190.3, Plaintiff requests a Level 3
Discovery Control Plan.
III.
VENUE AND JURISDICTION
4. Venue for this case is proper in Dallas County, Texas, pursuant to §15.002(a)(1) of
the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code 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.
5. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court because the amount-in-controversy is Within the
jurisdictional limits of this Court. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 47(0), Plaintiff seeks
monetary relief of more than $250,000 but not more than $1,000,000. Plaintiff reserves the right
to amend this declaration as the facts of this case are more thoroughly discovered.
IV.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
6. On or about April 21, 2022, Plaintiff FABIAN SPEED, While inside his vehicle,
entered the Defendant’s Marvel Car Wash, LLC premises at 8060 Woodbridge Pkwy, Sachase,
Texas 75048 (the “Premises”) to utilize its automotive car washing service as an invitee.
Immediately prior to the incident Defendant’s employees directed Plaintiff to drive onto the car
wash tracks and signaled Plaintiff to put his car in neutral. After following Defendant’s employee’s
instructions, the car wash started.
7. At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was in the second phase of the car wash when
the driver’s side oscillating brush (“brush”) failed to operate as it was intended, and it collided
with Plaintiff’s vehicle. The brush began crushing everything in its path, initially moving up the
vehicle’s hood, shattering the windshield, and causing shards of glass to be thrust into Plaintiff’s
face, onto his lap, and down to his feet. Without the protection of the windshield the cleaning
chemicals started covering him and the inside of his exposed vehicle. The malfunctioning brush
continued to invade the interior of Plaintiff‘s vehicle, crushing the dashboard towards Plaintiff’s
body, causing him to have to jump into the back of his vehicle to avoid being impaled.
8. Once the car wash began Plaintiff was completely at the mercy of the system and
Defendant’s employees. Plaintiff could not stop the car wash process himself or get out of his
vehicle Without fear of additional injuries. Throughout this entire incident, the Plaintiff was
continuously sounding his horn, trying to attract the attention of anyone and request assistance
Page 2 of 7
from Defendant’s employees, but it wasn’t until Plaintiff was almost finished with the car wash
that someone finally came out and hit the emergency stop.
9. Defendant failed to notify anyone or place any warnings, barricades, or spotters to
warn of the existence of the malfunctioning brush. Defendant knew or should have known of the
dangerous condition on their premises which included the broken oscillating brush.
10. As a result of the incident, the Plaintiff was forced to seek medical attention, and
has missed work while recovering from and receiving treatment for his injuries. Additionally,
Plaintiff’s vehicle was extremely damaged as a result of the incident.
V.
CAUSES OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE/PREMISES LIABILITY
11. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all paragraphs in this Petition.
12. Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of ordinary care in maintaining a safe environment,
including a responsibility to inspect and make safe any dangerous condition or give adequate
warning of any hazardous conditions on its premises.
13. Defendant’s agents or employees knew or should have known of the dangerous
conditions on the premises which was in their control at the time of the incident in question.
14. Defendant breached their duty of ordinary care and are liable to Plaintiff for
negligence by:
a. Failing to inspect and make safe any dangerous condition on the premises;
b. Failing to give adequate warning of any hazardous conditions;
c. Failing to care for the premises in a reasonable manner;
d. Failing to make the premises reasonably safe;
e. Failing to adequately warn of the broken brush;
Page 3 of 7
f. Failing to make the brush reasonably safe;
g. Failing to remove the brush from the premises;
h. Failing to develop and implement proper safety protocol for inspecting the
premises;
i. Failing to develop and implement proper safety protocol for fixing any
dangerous conditions on the premises;
j. Failing to enforce any existent precautionary measures and safety protocols;
k. Creating the dangerous condition;
1. Disregarding the safety of Plaintiff;
m. Allowing Plaintiff into the car wash;
n. Failing to supervise the car wash process to ensure customers safety while
inside the system; and
o. Other acts deemed negligent.
15. Moreover, Defendant is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the acts
and omissions of their agents, servants, employees, and statutory employees and agents, including
the janitorial staff, security, maintenance staff, or any other staff member in charge of keeping the
premises clean and safe for customers. The acts and/or omissions committed by Defendant’s
agents, servants, and/or employees were performed during the course and scope of their
employment with Defendant, which proximately caused the damages pled herein.
16. Each of these acts and/or omissions above, whether taken singularly or in any
combination, constitutes negligence. Defendant’s negligence proximately caused injury and
damages to Plaintiff, which Plaintiff will continue to suffer in the future and for the remainder of
his natural life.
GRoss NEGLIGENCE
Page 4 of 7
17. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all paragraphs in this Petition.
l8. Defendant’s conduct as described above constituted gross negligence in that its acts
or omissions, when Viewed objectively from the standpoint of Defendant at the time of its
occurrence, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the
potential harm to others; and Defendant had actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but
nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, and welfare of others,
including Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to, and seeks, exemplary damages in this action
under Sections 41.001 et seq. of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code.
VI.
DAMAGES
19. As a result of the occurrence that forms the basis of this lawsuit, as detailed above,
and as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff has suffered serious
injuries which resulted in severe pain, physical impairment, discomfort, mental anguish, distress,
and other medical problems. Plaintiff has incurred medical expenses, and is likely to incur future
medical expenses, for the treatment of injuries caused by Defendant’s negligence. Therefore,
Plaintiff brings suit for the following damages:
a. past and future physical pain and suffering;
b. past and future physical impairment;
c. past and future mental anguish;
d. past and future medical expenses;
e. property damages & diminished value; and
f. such other and further items of damages as may be supplemented as a result
of the discovery performed in this suit.
Page 5 of 7
20. Furthermore, the determination of many of these elements of damage is peculiarly
within the province of the jury. Plaintiffs do not, at this time, seek an exact & certain amount of
damages for any of these particular elements of damage, but would instead rely upon the collective
wisdom of the jury to determine an amount that would fairly and reasonably compensate them.
VII.
21. Plaintiff requests a jury for all issues presented here in and the appropriate jury fee
has been paid.
VIII.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
22. All conditions precedent to Plaintiff’s right to sue and to recover actual damages
stated herein have been performed or have otherwise occurred.
IX.
DESIGNATED E-SERVICE EMAIL ADDRESS
23. 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:
service@bushlawgrp.com. This is the undersigned’s only E-Service email address, and service
through any other email address will be considered invalid.
X.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff prays that Defendant be cited to appear herein and, after a trial on the merits, that
the Court enter judgment awarding Plaintiff actual damages and additional damages as allowed by
law, exemplary damages, costs of court, pre- and post-judgment interest to the maximum extent
as allowed by law, and all such other and fiirther relief, both general and special, at equity and at
law, to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.
Page 6 of 7
Dated: April 2, 2024
Respectfully submitted,
BUSH & BUSH LAW GROUP
Kevin Christiansen
Texas Bar N0. 24101283
Email: kchristiansen@bushlawgrp.com
Teri M. Russell
Texas Bar No. 24108362
Email: trussell@bushlaw2rp.com
3710 Rawlins Street, Suite 1420
Dallas, Texas 75219
Telephone: (214) 615 -6394
Facsimile: (833) 817-6428
E-service only: service@bushlaw2m.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
Page 7 of 7
Preview
FILED 4/5/2024 4:11 PM 1 CIT ESERVE FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS 00., TEXAS Shunta Jackson DEPUTY CAUSE N0.DC-24-051 13 FABIAN SPEED § IN THE DISTRICT COURT 0F Plaintiff, § § V. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS § MARVEL CAR WASH, LLC § 162nd Defendant. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Plaintiff, Fabian Speed (“Plaintifl”) files this Original Petition, complaining of and against, Marvel Car Wash, LLC (“Defendant”) and would respectfully show the following: I. PARTIES l. Plaintiff, Fabian Speed, is an individual residing in Harris County, Texas. 2. Defendant, Marvel Car Wash, LLC is a Texas company with its principal place of business in in Dallas County, Texas and may be served through its registered agent, Thomas J Irons at 17950 Preston Road, Suite 650 Dallas, TX 75252 or wherever he may be found. Plaintiff requests issuance of citation to Defendant. DISCOVERY CIBNTROL PLAN 3. Pursuant to the Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190.3, Plaintiff requests a Level 3 Discovery Control Plan. III. VENUE AND JURISDICTION 4. Venue for this case is proper in Dallas County, Texas, pursuant to §15.002(a)(1) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code 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. 5. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court because the amount-in-controversy is Within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 47(0), Plaintiff seeks monetary relief of more than $250,000 but not more than $1,000,000. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this declaration as the facts of this case are more thoroughly discovered. IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 6. On or about April 21, 2022, Plaintiff FABIAN SPEED, While inside his vehicle, entered the Defendant’s Marvel Car Wash, LLC premises at 8060 Woodbridge Pkwy, Sachase, Texas 75048 (the “Premises”) to utilize its automotive car washing service as an invitee. Immediately prior to the incident Defendant’s employees directed Plaintiff to drive onto the car wash tracks and signaled Plaintiff to put his car in neutral. After following Defendant’s employee’s instructions, the car wash started. 7. At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was in the second phase of the car wash when the driver’s side oscillating brush (“brush”) failed to operate as it was intended, and it collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle. The brush began crushing everything in its path, initially moving up the vehicle’s hood, shattering the windshield, and causing shards of glass to be thrust into Plaintiff’s face, onto his lap, and down to his feet. Without the protection of the windshield the cleaning chemicals started covering him and the inside of his exposed vehicle. The malfunctioning brush continued to invade the interior of Plaintiff‘s vehicle, crushing the dashboard towards Plaintiff’s body, causing him to have to jump into the back of his vehicle to avoid being impaled. 8. Once the car wash began Plaintiff was completely at the mercy of the system and Defendant’s employees. Plaintiff could not stop the car wash process himself or get out of his vehicle Without fear of additional injuries. Throughout this entire incident, the Plaintiff was continuously sounding his horn, trying to attract the attention of anyone and request assistance Page 2 of 7 from Defendant’s employees, but it wasn’t until Plaintiff was almost finished with the car wash that someone finally came out and hit the emergency stop. 9. Defendant failed to notify anyone or place any warnings, barricades, or spotters to warn of the existence of the malfunctioning brush. Defendant knew or should have known of the dangerous condition on their premises which included the broken oscillating brush. 10. As a result of the incident, the Plaintiff was forced to seek medical attention, and has missed work while recovering from and receiving treatment for his injuries. Additionally, Plaintiff’s vehicle was extremely damaged as a result of the incident. V. CAUSES OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE/PREMISES LIABILITY 11. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all paragraphs in this Petition. 12. Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of ordinary care in maintaining a safe environment, including a responsibility to inspect and make safe any dangerous condition or give adequate warning of any hazardous conditions on its premises. 13. Defendant’s agents or employees knew or should have known of the dangerous conditions on the premises which was in their control at the time of the incident in question. 14. Defendant breached their duty of ordinary care and are liable to Plaintiff for negligence by: a. Failing to inspect and make safe any dangerous condition on the premises; b. Failing to give adequate warning of any hazardous conditions; c. Failing to care for the premises in a reasonable manner; d. Failing to make the premises reasonably safe; e. Failing to adequately warn of the broken brush; Page 3 of 7 f. Failing to make the brush reasonably safe; g. Failing to remove the brush from the premises; h. Failing to develop and implement proper safety protocol for inspecting the premises; i. Failing to develop and implement proper safety protocol for fixing any dangerous conditions on the premises; j. Failing to enforce any existent precautionary measures and safety protocols; k. Creating the dangerous condition; 1. Disregarding the safety of Plaintiff; m. Allowing Plaintiff into the car wash; n. Failing to supervise the car wash process to ensure customers safety while inside the system; and o. Other acts deemed negligent. 15. Moreover, Defendant is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the acts and omissions of their agents, servants, employees, and statutory employees and agents, including the janitorial staff, security, maintenance staff, or any other staff member in charge of keeping the premises clean and safe for customers. The acts and/or omissions committed by Defendant’s agents, servants, and/or employees were performed during the course and scope of their employment with Defendant, which proximately caused the damages pled herein. 16. Each of these acts and/or omissions above, whether taken singularly or in any combination, constitutes negligence. Defendant’s negligence proximately caused injury and damages to Plaintiff, which Plaintiff will continue to suffer in the future and for the remainder of his natural life. GRoss NEGLIGENCE Page 4 of 7 17. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all paragraphs in this Petition. l8. Defendant’s conduct as described above constituted gross negligence in that its acts or omissions, when Viewed objectively from the standpoint of Defendant at the time of its occurrence, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others; and Defendant had actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, and welfare of others, including Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to, and seeks, exemplary damages in this action under Sections 41.001 et seq. of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. VI. DAMAGES 19. As a result of the occurrence that forms the basis of this lawsuit, as detailed above, and as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff has suffered serious injuries which resulted in severe pain, physical impairment, discomfort, mental anguish, distress, and other medical problems. Plaintiff has incurred medical expenses, and is likely to incur future medical expenses, for the treatment of injuries caused by Defendant’s negligence. Therefore, Plaintiff brings suit for the following damages: a. past and future physical pain and suffering; b. past and future physical impairment; c. past and future mental anguish; d. past and future medical expenses; e. property damages & diminished value; and f. such other and further items of damages as may be supplemented as a result of the discovery performed in this suit. Page 5 of 7 20. Furthermore, the determination of many of these elements of damage is peculiarly within the province of the jury. Plaintiffs do not, at this time, seek an exact & certain amount of damages for any of these particular elements of damage, but would instead rely upon the collective wisdom of the jury to determine an amount that would fairly and reasonably compensate them. VII. 21. Plaintiff requests a jury for all issues presented here in and the appropriate jury fee has been paid. VIII. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 22. All conditions precedent to Plaintiff’s right to sue and to recover actual damages stated herein have been performed or have otherwise occurred. IX. DESIGNATED E-SERVICE EMAIL ADDRESS 23. 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: service@bushlawgrp.com. This is the undersigned’s only E-Service email address, and service through any other email address will be considered invalid. X. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiff prays that Defendant be cited to appear herein and, after a trial on the merits, that the Court enter judgment awarding Plaintiff actual damages and additional damages as allowed by law, exemplary damages, costs of court, pre- and post-judgment interest to the maximum extent as allowed by law, and all such other and fiirther relief, both general and special, at equity and at law, to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled. Page 6 of 7 Dated: April 2, 2024 Respectfully submitted, BUSH & BUSH LAW GROUP Kevin Christiansen Texas Bar N0. 24101283 Email: kchristiansen@bushlawgrp.com Teri M. Russell Texas Bar No. 24108362 Email: trussell@bushlaw2rp.com 3710 Rawlins Street, Suite 1420 Dallas, Texas 75219 Telephone: (214) 615 -6394 Facsimile: (833) 817-6428 E-service only: service@bushlaw2m.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF Page 7 of 7