Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 01-27-2016

Case Style: Cheryl Donaldson v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

Case Number: CJ-2014-4405

Judge: Mary Fitzgerald

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Nancy Lloyd, James Lloyd and Jim Lloyd

Defendant's Attorney: Tim Martin

Description: Tulsa, OK - Cheryl Donaldson sued Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. on a negligence theory claiming:

1. Plaintiff Donaldson is a resident of the Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
2. Defendant Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. ("Dollar Tree'') is a corporation formed in Virginia and
operating in Oklahoma.
3. On or about June 6, 2013, Plaintiff was shopping at the Dollar Tree store #1136 19cated ar''
2710 South Harvard Avenue in Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
4. Plaintiff was on the premises of the Dollar Tree store at the express or implied invitation o
the Defendant.
5. Plaintiff slipped due to liquid on Defendant's floor.
6. The liquid that caused Plaintiff to slip and injure herself was a hidden danger on Defendant's premises.
7. Defendant has a duty to maintain the premises in a safe condition for customers like Plaintiff who are invitees.
8. Defendant has a duty to either remove or warn invitees of dangers.
9. In the exercise of reasonable care the Defendant knew or should have known of the dangers
on the premises.
10. The dangers complained of herein, were created by the Defendant or by Defendant's employees who were acting within the course and scope of their employment at all times complained of.
11. Defendant failed to warn Plaintiff of the danger associated with the liquid on Defendant's floor.
12. Defendant's failure to maintain their premises in a safe condition proximately caused Plaintiff's injuries and damages.
13. Plaintiff sustained serious injuries, and aggravated preexisting conditions, as a result of Defendant's negligence.
14. Plaintiff s injury forced her to incur medical expense and disrupted her life.

15. Plaintiff sustained damages for which she is entitled to recover.

Wherefore, premises considered, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant for actual damages in a sum NOT in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code, plus such costs, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and legal expenses and other relief this Court deems equitable and just.

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

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: