Case Style: Mercedes Rey Acosta v. Outrun Group, LLC d/b/a Dirts Away CAr Wash Detail and Propane
Case Number: CJ-2012-779
Judge: Rebecca B. Nightingale
Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Attorney: William D. Thomas, Tulsa, Oklahoma
Defendant's Attorney: Tim C. Cheek, Cheek Law Firm, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Description: Mercedes Rey Acosta sued Outrun Group, LLC d/b/a Dirts Away CAr Wash Detail and Propane on a negligence theory.
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Mercedes Rey-Acosta, for her claim and cause of action against the Defendant mentioned above, alleges and states as follows:
1. That the events giving rise to this cause of action occurred in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
2. That Dirts Away Car Wash, Detail and Propane is an organization located in the City of Broken Arrow, County of Tulsa, in the State of Oklahoma.
3. That this Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this action.
4. That on or about May 25, 2011 while on the property of the Defendant, Plaintiff fell into a drain hole that was not covered and concealed by water, thereby, causing serious and painful injury to the Plaintiff.
5. That had Defendant Dirts Away Car Wash, Detail and Propane exercised reasonable diligence under its general duty of care the drain cover would have been in place protecting Plaintiff and thus the injury could have been avoided.
6. That as a result of the Defendantâ€™s negligence and Plaintiffâ€™s injuries the Plaintiff was forced to expend large sums of money to affect a cure for her painflil injuries.
7. That Defendant has, during all times relevant herein, been negligent in maintaining the premises in a reasonable and safe condition in an area of that premises open to public access.
WHEREFORE, premises considered Plaintiff, Mercedes Rey-Acosta, prays for actual damages in the sum of money exceeding $10,000.00 together with interest and for all other relief to which she may be entitled.
COMES NOW the Defendant, Outrun Group, LLC d/b/a Dirts Away Car Wash, Detail and Propane, by and through the undersigned, and for its Answer to Plaintiff s#mended Petition, states as follows:
1. As to paragraph 1 of the Amended Petition, Defendant admits the events, alleged therein, would have occurred in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma; however, Defendant generally denies the events occurred as described in the Amended Petitiounless specifically admitted to herein.
2. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Amended Petition.
3. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Amended Petition.
4. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Amended Petition and therefore denies the same.
5. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Amended Petition.
6. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Amended Petition. fl\
7. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Amended Petition.
COMES NOW Defendant and further asserts the following affirmative defenses:
1. Plaintiff was contributorily and/or comparatively negligent.
2. The premises condition complained of in the Amended Petition was open and obvious.
3. Plaintiffs damages were caused by an intervening/superseding cause.
4. The premises condition comphiined of in the Petition was the product of the act of a third party upon which Defendant had no control.
Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.