Preview
FILED
2 CIT l ESERVE 4/12/2024 12:08 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS 00., TEXAS
Fernando Soto DEPUTY
DC-24-05449
CAUSE NO.
KAREN PAIGE, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
Plaintiff, § 101st
§
VS. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
THE KROGER CO. AND KROGER §
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, I, §
Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION
COMES NOW, KAREN PAIGE, Plaintiff in the above-entitled and numbered cause of
action, complaining of Defendants, THE KROGER CO. AND KROGER LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, I, and in support thereof would respectfully show the Court as follows:
I.
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN (LEVEL 2)
1.1 Pursuant to TEX. RULE 0F CIV. P. 190.4, the discovery of this case is to be conducted
under Level 3 Discovery Control Plan.
II.
PARTIES
2.1 Karen Paige (“Plaintiff”) is a resident of Mesquite, Dallas County, Texas.
2.2 Kroger Limited Partnership, I (“Defendant Kroger Limited Partnership, I”) is a
foreign entity doing business in the State of Texas. Kroger Limited Partnership, I. has designated
Corporation Service Company, DBA CSC Lawyers Inco as its agent for service in Texas.
Therefore, service of process on Kroger Limited Partnership, I. may be made by serving its process
agent: CSC Lawyers Inco, 211 E 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin. TX 78701.
2.3 The Kroger Co. is a foreign company doing business in Texas. The Kroger Co. has
designated Corporation Service Company, DBA CSC Lawyers Inco as its agent for service in
PLAINTIFF‘S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE l
Texas. Therefore, service of process on The Kroger Co. may be made upon its registered agent,
CSC Lawvers Inco, 211 E 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701.
III.
JURISDICTION and VENUE
3.1 This Court has jurisdiction in this cause since the damages to Plaintiff are within
the jurisdictional limits of this Court.
3.2 Venue is proper pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §15 .002 because the
events giving rise to this suit occurred in Dallas County, Texas.
3.3 All conditions precedent have occurred.
IV.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
4.1 Pursuant to TEX. RULE 0F CIV. P. 47(c)(3), Plaintiff’s claim for monetary relief is
over $250,000.00 but not more than $1,000,000.00.
V.
FACTS
5.1 On or about June 25, 2022, Plaintiff entered the Kroger located at Gus Thomasson
Rd, Ste 150, Mesquite TX. Plaintiff was walking to the 1st Convenient National Bank located at
the front end of the store. There was a puddle of water on the floor at the front of the store which
caused Plaintiff to slip and fall onto the ground. Defendant's negligence in failing to adequately
inspect the store and maintain a safe premises caused Plaintiffs injuries.
5.2 At the time of the incident in question, Plaintiff was an invitee of Defendant.
Defendant knew or should have known of the unreasonably dangerous condition and neither
corrected nor warned Plaintiff of it. Plaintiff did not have any knowledge of the dangerous
condition and could not have reasonably been expected to discover it. Defendant either created the
condition and/or failed to correct the condition or to warn Plaintiff about the dangerous condition,
PLALNTIFF‘S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 2
which constituted negligence, and such negligence was the proximate cause of the occurrence in
question and Plaintiff s resulting injuries.
VI.
NEGLIGENCE
6.1 Plaintiff would show that, based on the above-described facts, Defendant was
negligent. Defendant, as occupier and owner of the premises, with control over the premises, had
a duty to inform Plaintiff of the dangerous condition and make safe the dangerous condition
existing on Defendant’s premises.
6.2 Defendant is liable to Plaintiff under the theory of premises liability and negligence
based on the following negligent conduct:
a. Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition;
b. Failure to inspect the premises where the dangerous condition existed;
c. Failure to correct the condition by taking reasonable measures to safeguard
persons who entered premises;
d. Failure to inform Plaintiff of the dangerous condition existing on the premises;
d. Failure to act as a reasonably prudent premises owner would act in the same or
similar situation; and
e. Other acts deemed negligent;
6.3 Each of the foregoing acts or omissions, whether taken singularly or in any
combination, constitutes negligence, and was a proximate cause of Plaintiffs injuries and
damages listed below.
PLALNTIFF‘S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 3
VII.
DAMAGES
7.1 As a result of the incident made the basis of this lawsuit described in the preceding
paragraphs and the negligence and/or negligence per se of Defendant, Plaintiff sustained
significant injuries and damages in the past and will in reasonable probability sustain these
damages in the future. Plaintiff will show that she has suffered actual damages within the
jurisdictional limits of this Court.
7.2 Plaintiff respectfully requests that the trier of fact determine the amount of the
damages and losses that she has incurred in the past and will reasonably incur in the future, as well
as the monetary value of these damages, which include, but are not limited to:
a. Physical pain and mental anguish;
b. Disfigurement;
c. Physical impairment;
d. Medical care expenses;
e. Loss of earning capacity; and
f. Out-of-pocket economic losses.
7.3 Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages because the aforementioned actions of
Defendants were grossly negligent. Defendants acted with flagrant and malicious disregard of
Plaintiff s health and safety and for the health and safety of others. Defendants’ acts and omissions
involved an extreme degree of risk considering the probability and magnitude of potential harm to
Plaintiff and others. Defendants had actual, subjective awareness of the risk, and consciously
disregarded such risk.
PLALNTIFF‘S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 4
VIII.
CLAIM FOR PREJUDGMENT
AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST
8.1 Plaintiff herein claims interest in accordance with TEX. FINANCE CODE §304.001
et seq. and any other applicable law.
IX.
RULE 193.7 NOTICE
9.1 Pursuant to TEX. RULE OF CIV. P. 193.7, Plaintiff hereby gives notice to Defendant
that any and all documents produced may be used against the Defendant producing the document
at any pretrial proceeding and/or at the trial of this matter without the necessity of authenticating
the documents.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that Defendant be cited in
terms of law to appear and answer herein, that upon final trial and hearing hereof, that Plaintiff
recover damages in accordance with the evidence, that Plaintiff recover punitive or exemplary
damages, that Plaintiff recover costs of court herein expended, that Plaintiff recover interest to
which Plaintiff is justly entitled under the law, and for such other further relief, both general and
special, both in law and in equity, to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.
PLALNTIFF‘S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 5
Respectfully submitted,
By:
Wm?—
FELIPE . LINK
State Bar No. 24057968
E-Mail: flinkgQlinklaflpceom
CONSTAN CE MUTONG
State Bar No. 24104765
E-Mail: cmutong@1ink1awpc.com
(Above emails are not for service of documents)
LINK & ASSOCIATES
10440 North Central Expy., Ste. 950
Dallas, Texas 75231
Telephone: (214) 214-3001
Facsimile: (214) 521-5871
Designated Service E-mail: e-filing@linklawpc.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
PLAINTIFF‘S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 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.
Link & Associates E-Filing service on behalf of Constance Mutong
Bar No. 24104765
e-filing@linklawpc.com
Envelope ID: 86600025
Filing Code Description: Original Petition
Filing Description:
Status as of 4/15/2024 10:21 AM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Constance Mutong CMutong@linklawpc.com 4/12/2024 12:08:13 PM SENT
Felipe B.Link flink@linklawpc.com 4/12/2024 12:08:13 PM SENT
Link & Associates E-Filing service e-filing@linklawpc.com 4/12/2024 12:08:13 PM SENT
Marilu Duran marilu@linklawpc.com 4/12/2024 12:08:13 PM SENT
Monica lsaac monica@linklawpc.com 4/12/2024 12:08:13 PM SENT
Sara Link sara@linklawpc.com 4/12/2024 12:08:13 PM SENT
Oscar Rodriguez Oscar@LinkLawPC.com 4/12/2024 12:08:13 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 2 CIT l ESERVE 4/12/2024 12:08 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS 00., TEXAS Fernando Soto DEPUTY DC-24-05449 CAUSE NO. KAREN PAIGE, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § Plaintiff, § 101st § VS. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT § THE KROGER CO. AND KROGER § LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, I, § Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS § PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION COMES NOW, KAREN PAIGE, Plaintiff in the above-entitled and numbered cause of action, complaining of Defendants, THE KROGER CO. AND KROGER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, I, and in support thereof would respectfully show the Court as follows: I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN (LEVEL 2) 1.1 Pursuant to TEX. RULE 0F CIV. P. 190.4, the discovery of this case is to be conducted under Level 3 Discovery Control Plan. II. PARTIES 2.1 Karen Paige (“Plaintiff”) is a resident of Mesquite, Dallas County, Texas. 2.2 Kroger Limited Partnership, I (“Defendant Kroger Limited Partnership, I”) is a foreign entity doing business in the State of Texas. Kroger Limited Partnership, I. has designated Corporation Service Company, DBA CSC Lawyers Inco as its agent for service in Texas. Therefore, service of process on Kroger Limited Partnership, I. may be made by serving its process agent: CSC Lawyers Inco, 211 E 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin. TX 78701. 2.3 The Kroger Co. is a foreign company doing business in Texas. The Kroger Co. has designated Corporation Service Company, DBA CSC Lawyers Inco as its agent for service in PLAINTIFF‘S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE l Texas. Therefore, service of process on The Kroger Co. may be made upon its registered agent, CSC Lawvers Inco, 211 E 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701. III. JURISDICTION and VENUE 3.1 This Court has jurisdiction in this cause since the damages to Plaintiff are within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 3.2 Venue is proper pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §15 .002 because the events giving rise to this suit occurred in Dallas County, Texas. 3.3 All conditions precedent have occurred. IV. CLAIM FOR RELIEF 4.1 Pursuant to TEX. RULE 0F CIV. P. 47(c)(3), Plaintiff’s claim for monetary relief is over $250,000.00 but not more than $1,000,000.00. V. FACTS 5.1 On or about June 25, 2022, Plaintiff entered the Kroger located at Gus Thomasson Rd, Ste 150, Mesquite TX. Plaintiff was walking to the 1st Convenient National Bank located at the front end of the store. There was a puddle of water on the floor at the front of the store which caused Plaintiff to slip and fall onto the ground. Defendant's negligence in failing to adequately inspect the store and maintain a safe premises caused Plaintiffs injuries. 5.2 At the time of the incident in question, Plaintiff was an invitee of Defendant. Defendant knew or should have known of the unreasonably dangerous condition and neither corrected nor warned Plaintiff of it. Plaintiff did not have any knowledge of the dangerous condition and could not have reasonably been expected to discover it. Defendant either created the condition and/or failed to correct the condition or to warn Plaintiff about the dangerous condition, PLALNTIFF‘S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 2 which constituted negligence, and such negligence was the proximate cause of the occurrence in question and Plaintiff s resulting injuries. VI. NEGLIGENCE 6.1 Plaintiff would show that, based on the above-described facts, Defendant was negligent. Defendant, as occupier and owner of the premises, with control over the premises, had a duty to inform Plaintiff of the dangerous condition and make safe the dangerous condition existing on Defendant’s premises. 6.2 Defendant is liable to Plaintiff under the theory of premises liability and negligence based on the following negligent conduct: a. Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition; b. Failure to inspect the premises where the dangerous condition existed; c. Failure to correct the condition by taking reasonable measures to safeguard persons who entered premises; d. Failure to inform Plaintiff of the dangerous condition existing on the premises; d. Failure to act as a reasonably prudent premises owner would act in the same or similar situation; and e. Other acts deemed negligent; 6.3 Each of the foregoing acts or omissions, whether taken singularly or in any combination, constitutes negligence, and was a proximate cause of Plaintiffs injuries and damages listed below. PLALNTIFF‘S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 3 VII. DAMAGES 7.1 As a result of the incident made the basis of this lawsuit described in the preceding paragraphs and the negligence and/or negligence per se of Defendant, Plaintiff sustained significant injuries and damages in the past and will in reasonable probability sustain these damages in the future. Plaintiff will show that she has suffered actual damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 7.2 Plaintiff respectfully requests that the trier of fact determine the amount of the damages and losses that she has incurred in the past and will reasonably incur in the future, as well as the monetary value of these damages, which include, but are not limited to: a. Physical pain and mental anguish; b. Disfigurement; c. Physical impairment; d. Medical care expenses; e. Loss of earning capacity; and f. Out-of-pocket economic losses. 7.3 Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages because the aforementioned actions of Defendants were grossly negligent. Defendants acted with flagrant and malicious disregard of Plaintiff s health and safety and for the health and safety of others. Defendants’ acts and omissions involved an extreme degree of risk considering the probability and magnitude of potential harm to Plaintiff and others. Defendants had actual, subjective awareness of the risk, and consciously disregarded such risk. PLALNTIFF‘S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 4 VIII. CLAIM FOR PREJUDGMENT AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST 8.1 Plaintiff herein claims interest in accordance with TEX. FINANCE CODE §304.001 et seq. and any other applicable law. IX. RULE 193.7 NOTICE 9.1 Pursuant to TEX. RULE OF CIV. P. 193.7, Plaintiff hereby gives notice to Defendant that any and all documents produced may be used against the Defendant producing the document at any pretrial proceeding and/or at the trial of this matter without the necessity of authenticating the documents. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that Defendant be cited in terms of law to appear and answer herein, that upon final trial and hearing hereof, that Plaintiff recover damages in accordance with the evidence, that Plaintiff recover punitive or exemplary damages, that Plaintiff recover costs of court herein expended, that Plaintiff recover interest to which Plaintiff is justly entitled under the law, and for such other further relief, both general and special, both in law and in equity, to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled. PLALNTIFF‘S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 5 Respectfully submitted, By: Wm?— FELIPE . LINK State Bar No. 24057968 E-Mail: flinkgQlinklaflpceom CONSTAN CE MUTONG State Bar No. 24104765 E-Mail: cmutong@1ink1awpc.com (Above emails are not for service of documents) LINK & ASSOCIATES 10440 North Central Expy., Ste. 950 Dallas, Texas 75231 Telephone: (214) 214-3001 Facsimile: (214) 521-5871 Designated Service E-mail: e-filing@linklawpc.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF‘S ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 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. Link & Associates E-Filing service on behalf of Constance Mutong Bar No. 24104765 e-filing@linklawpc.com Envelope ID: 86600025 Filing Code Description: Original Petition Filing Description: Status as of 4/15/2024 10:21 AM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Constance Mutong CMutong@linklawpc.com 4/12/2024 12:08:13 PM SENT Felipe B.Link flink@linklawpc.com 4/12/2024 12:08:13 PM SENT Link & Associates E-Filing service e-filing@linklawpc.com 4/12/2024 12:08:13 PM SENT Marilu Duran marilu@linklawpc.com 4/12/2024 12:08:13 PM SENT Monica lsaac monica@linklawpc.com 4/12/2024 12:08:13 PM SENT Sara Link sara@linklawpc.com 4/12/2024 12:08:13 PM SENT Oscar Rodriguez Oscar@LinkLawPC.com 4/12/2024 12:08:13 PM SENT