Case Style: Tyler Puckett v. Christine Zenthoefer
Case Number: CJ-2013-4222
Judge: Jefferson D. Sellers
Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Attorney: John Truskett
Defendant's Attorney: Tim Campbell
Description: Tulsa, OK - Tyler Puckett sued Christine Zenthoefer on a premises liability theory claiming:
I. Plainti ff was at all material times a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
2. Defendant Christine Zenthoefer was at all material times upon information and belief a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
3. Defendant Chris Zenthoefer was at all material times upon information and belief a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
4. Defendant John Doe, a business entity, is a business whose identity is unknown now, but may be revealed through the course of discovery. Defendant John Doe is an entity that transacts business/engages in commerce on a regular basis in Oklahoma, and the claims alleged here arise out of the Defendant John Doe's actions and/or inactions in Oklahoma.
5. Defendant Jane Doe, an individual, is a person residing in Oklahoma whose identity is unknown at this time, but may be revealed through the course of discovery.
6. This incident occurred in Tulsa County, OK on about 05/19/12.
7. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter.
8. This accident happened at the instant premises in Tulsa County, OK.
9. This accident directly caused personal injuries to Plaintiff.
10. Plaintiff was at the instant premises. 1 1. An explosion injured Plaintiff.
12. Plaintiff sustained injuries directl y from this accident.
13. Defendants own the subject real property where this accident occurred.
14. Defendants managed, supervised, repaired and/or maintained the subject real property where this accident occurred.
15. Defendants directly caused injuries and damages to Plaintiff.
16. Defendants breached duties owed to Plaintiff.
17. Defendants were negligent, negligent per se and/or committed res ipsa.
18. Plaintiff was an invitee at Defendants' premises at the date and time of this accident.
19. Defendants violated the implied warranty of habitability and/or construction.
20. Defendants had the responsibility to use ordinary care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition for the use of Defendants' invitees.
21. Defendants violated that responsibility.
22. Defendants had the responsibility to either remove and/or warn the invitee Plaintiff of any hidden danger on the premises that the Defendants either actually knew about and/or that Defendants should have known about in the exercise of reasonable care or that was created by Defendants.
23. Defendants violated that responsibility.
24. The danger was neither open nor obvious.
25. The danger was neither ordinarily observable nor readily observable to Plaintiff.
26. The danger that caused Plaintiff harm and injury was a hidden danger.
27. The premises was not in a reasonably safe condition for Plaintiff at the date and time of this accident.
28. At the date and time of the accident at the place where this accident occurred there was a dangerous condition that the Plaintiff invitee did not actually know about and would not be expected to observe in the exercise of ordinary care.
29. The hidden danger was totally and/or partially obscured from Plaintiff s sight.
30. The Plaintiff invitee would not be expected to observe said dangerous condition in the exercise of ordinary care.
31. Defendants were negligent.
32. Defendants failed to warn Plaintiff of the hazard and/or hidden danger.
33. Defendants freely and voluntarily invited Plaintiff to the subject premises on the instant date for purposes of commerce and/or business.
34. Plaintiff was at the subject property by permission of Defendants.
35. Due to the improper maintenance, management, security and/or repair of the premises, Plaintiff directly suffered injuries necessitating much medical treatment.
36. Defendants improperly and negligently made actions and/or omissions, including but not limited to failing to properly maintain, manage, secure, and/or repair the subject premises.
37. Defendants' actions and/or omissions directly caused injuries and damages to Plaintiff.
38. Defendants had a duty to Plaintiff, whose presence on the subject premises was known and/or reasonably should have been known, not to injure Plaintiff by needlessly exposing Plaintiff to danger by a failure to warn of any hidden danger on the premises that was known to Defendants and that Plaintiff was not likely to discovery by himself.
39. Defendants breached duties owed to Plaintiff.
40. It was Defendants' duty to use ordinary care to keep the subject premises in a reasonably safe condition, state of maintenance and/or repair for the use of Plaintiff.
41. Defendants had a duty to either remove and/or warn Plaintiff of any hidden danger on the premises that Defendants either actually knew about or that they should have known about in the exercise of reasonable care or that was created by Defendants.
42. However, Defendants breached these duties, directly causing harm to Plaintiff.
43. Defendants had a duty to conduct a reasonable inspection of the premises to uncover any hidden danger.
44. A hidden danger existed at this premises; a dangerous condition that Plaintiff did not actuall y know about and would not be expected to observe in the exercise of ordinary care under these circumstances.
45. The circumstances were such that Plaintiff would not be expected to observe the
dangerous condition in the exercise of ordinary care.
46. As a direct result of the actions and/or omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff was injured and suffered damages.
Outcome: Settled for an undisclosed sum and dismissed with prejudice.