Date: 10-01-2012

Case Style: Kathryn Marquardt v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Case Number: CJ-2010-2287

Judge: Tracy Schumacher

Court: District Court, Cleveland County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Bryan Irons

Defendant's Attorney: Brock C. Bowers and Michael W. Brewer

Description: COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Kathryn Marquardt, by and through her attorney, Bryan Irons, and for her Petition states as follows:

1. That the Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Oklahoma.

2. That the Defendant is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the State of Arkansas.

3. That all acts and occurrences arose out of an injury that occurred on the 2’d day of January, 2009.

4. That this Court has jurisdiction and venue over the subject matter and the parties involved.

5. That as a result of the negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff was injured and continues to suffer from physical injuries as a direct result of the negligence of the Defendant. That the injuries of the Plaintiff are the direct and proximate
result of the negligence of the Defendant.

6. That as a result of the negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff has incurred medical expenses.

7. That as a result of the negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff has sustained damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00).

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Plaintiffprays for judgment against the Defendant for compensatory damages for an amount in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), and for interest and attorney’s fees in the a4ditional sum in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), and such other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper.


Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, incorrectly identified in Plaintiffs Petition as Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, (“Wal-Mart�), for its Answer to Plaintiff’s Petition, states as follows:
Wal-Mart generally and specifically denies each and every allegation of Plaintiffs Petition, unless such allegation is specifically admitted.

1. As to the allegations contained in paragraph no. 1 of Plaintiffs Petition, Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny whether Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Oklthoma; therefore, the allegations are denied.

2. As to the allegations contained in paragraph no. 2 of Plaintiff’s Petition, it is admitted to the extent that Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., is a Delaware limited partnership, and its home office is in the State of Arkansas; otherwise, the allegations are denied.

3. As to the allegations contained in paragraph no. 3 of Plaintiffs Petition, the allegations are denied.

4. As to the allegations contained in paragraph no. 4 of Plaintiffs Petition, it is admitted to the extent that this Court is one of many jurisdictions; otherwise, the allegations are denied.

5. As to the allegations contained in paragraph no. 5 of Plaintiffs Petition, the allegations are denied.

6. As to the allegations contained in paragraph no. 6 of Plaintiffs Petition, the allegations are denied.

7. As to the allegations contained in paragraph no. 6 of Plaintiffs Petition, the allegations are denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

For its Affirmative Defenses, Wal-Mart states as follows:

1. Wal-Mart generally and specifically denies Plaintiff’s claims of liability, negligence and damages.

2. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

3. Contributory/comparative negligence of the Plaintiff.

4. The alleged accident was caused by the acts or omissions of third parties not under the control of Wal-Mart.

5. Plaintiffs injuries, if any, were brought about by superseding and intervening cause.

6. Plaintiffs injuries, if any, were result of a pre-existing condition.

7. Plaintiffs actions were the sole cause of any injuries.

8. Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages.

9. Defendant had no duty to Plaintiff under Oklahoma law.

10. If a dangerous condition is proven to have existed, it was open and obvious, and Wal-Mart had no duty to warn about it.

11. Wal-Mart had no actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition.

12. Improperly named party.

13. Improper service.

14. Statute of Limitations.

15. Wal-Mart reserves the right to amend its Answer to Plaintiffs Petition, including asserting additional affirmative defenses, as discovery continues.

WHEREFORE, having hilly Answered, Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., incorrectly identified in Plaintiffs Petition as Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, (“Wal-Mart�) requests that judgment be entered in its favor, and that it be awarded its costs incurred in defending this case, as well as any other relief to which it is entitled.

Outcome: Plaintiff, Kathryn Marquardt, dismiss her case against Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, incorrectly identified in Plaintiff’s Petition as Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (“Wal-Mart�) with prejudice to re-filing.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: