Date: 07-12-2013

Case Style: Amy Edison v. CVS Pharmacy

Case Number: CJ-2011-9825

Judge: Thomas E. Prince

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Mark Litton

Defendant's Attorney: Calvin G. Sharpe

Description: Amy Edison sued CVS Pharmacy, Oklahoma CVS Pharmacy a/k/a CVS Caremark on premises liability theories claiming:

1. That the Plaintiff, Amy Edison, is a citizen and resident of Oklahoma County and the State of Oklahoma.

2. That the Defendant. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., is a foreign for rofit business corporation licensed to do business in the State of Oklahoma.

3. That the Defendant, Oklahoma CVS Pharmacy, L.L.C. is a dcmestic limited liability company licensed to do business in the State of Oklahoma.

4. That on or about June 28, 2008, the Plaintiff was a business invizee/customer at the Defendants’ business located at 2323 N. Martin Luther King Avenue, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.

5. That on or about June 28, 2008, the Plaintiff, Amy Edison, sustained injuries when an employee of the Defendants’, acting within the scope and course of the r employment, negligently was vacuuming the store and the Plaintiff tripped and fell over thc vacuum cord
which was in the aisle.

6. That the Defendants owed a duty to the Plaintiff and is responsible for the negligent actions of its employee which was acting within the course and scope of their employment. The Defendants were negligent by breaching its duty owed to the Plaintiff in one of or more of the following particulars:

A) Failure to keep the Defendants’ premises in a reasonably safe condition and free from hidden snares, traps and pitfalls;

B) Failure to periodically inspect areas where the Defendants knew or should have known that the Plaintiff or any invitee/customer would reasonably be expected while on this premises;

C) Failure to warn or protect the Plaintiff of danger that Defei dants knew or should have known existed on the premises;

D) Failure to have proper assistance so as to not place the Plaintiff in harm’s way while in the Defendants’ store.

7. As a direct and proximate cause of the negligence of the Defendants and its employee, acting within the scope and
course of their employment, the Plaintifi, Amy Edison, sustained severe injuries to her muscles, ligaments, tendons, soft tissues, bony structures, nerve centers and blood vessels of her body were pulled, torn, lacerated, strained, twistud, traumatized and their functions impaired. The Plaintiff’s injures are permanent, painful and p ogressive.

8. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants and its employee acting within the scope and course of their employment, the Plaintiff, Amy Edison, was required to obtain medical treatment, has incurred medical expenses, wiLl incur future medical expenses, will require future medical treatment, has incurred pain and suffering, lost income, lost wage earning capacity and will incur future pain and suffering. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Amy Edison, prays for a judgment against he Defendants in an amount to exceed $10,000.00, costs, attorney fees, interest at a lawful rate and any other such relief this Court deems just and equitable.

Defendants appeared and answered as follows:

1. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to of the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs Petition but leaves the Plaintiff to her strict proof.

2. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs
Petition.


3. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs Petition.

4. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs Petition but leaves the Plaintiff to her strict proof.

5. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

6. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs Petition.

7. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs Petition.

8. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs Petition.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, Oklahoma CVS Pharmacy, L.L.C., demands judgment on its behalf and that the Plaintiff be assessed the costs of defending this action and whatever other relief this Court deems just and appropriate.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Plaintiff’s Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

2. Plaintiffs Petition is barred because other individuals or entities or causes are responsible for any injuries allegedly suffered by Plaintiff.

3. Plaintiff was contributorily negligent, and any recovery must be reduced accordingly, or barred entirely.

4. The alleged defect of which Plaintiff complains was open and obvious to the Plaintiff, and any recovery by the Plaintiff should be reduced accordingly or prohibited entirely.

5. Plaintiffs injuries, if any, are attributable to causes other than the acts and/or omissions of the defendant and are reasonably capable of being apportioned among the causes pursuant to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 433A. Plaintiffs recovery against the defendant, if any, must be denied for injuries not attributable to the defendant.

6. Plaintiff’ s Petition is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

7. Plaintiff’s Petition fails due to insufficiency of service of process.

8. Any injuries or damages suffered by Plaintiff were caused by the voluntary assumption of the risk by Plaintiff.

9. Any injuries or damages complained of in Plaintiffs Petition were the natural, probable and proximate result of her physical condition, anatomy and physiology of the Plaintiff.

10. The proximate cause of Plaintiffs alleged injury or any consequent damages were an unavoidable casualty or inherent physiological problem in Plaintiffs physical constitution over which Defendant had no control.

11. Defendant demands a jury trial.

Outcome: Settled for an undisclosed sum and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: