Date: 04-08-2013

Case Style: Kathryn Hagmeier v. American Terrazzo Company

Case Number: CJ-2011-4155

Judge: Carlos Chappelle

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Thomas A. Layon and Richard E. Warzynski

Defendant's Attorney: James K. Secrest and Richard C. Honn for American Terrazzo Company, Ltd.

Richard W. Wassall for Intervenor Zurich America

Description: Kathryn Hagmeier sued American Terrazzo Company, American Terrazzo Company, Ltd., Flintco, Inc., Manhattan Construction Company, Tulsa Vision Builders and others on negligence theories.

Plaintiff Kathryn Hagmeier was employed as a sales manager for Superior Management Group (“SMG”) in 2009. SMG manages the Tulsa Convention Center (“TCC”) and the Ba]lk of Oklahoma Center (“BOK”). Herjob included recruiting persons and businesses to rent space at the TCC for events of all sizes and types.

Defendant American Terrazzo Company, LTD (“Alt”) is located in Texas and was awarded the contract to install a new terrazzo floor in the TCC during the spring and summer of 2009. Zurich North America Insurance Co. (“Zurich”) was the workers compensation carrier for SMG on the date Katy was injured.

On July 27, 2009, Kathryn flagmcier was giving a tour to prospective clients who were interested in renting space for a birthday party. As she escorted her clients through the west side entrance into the East/West Gallery on the first floor of the Tulsa Convention Center, she saw a group of workers she identified as ATC employees working on the new terrazzo floor.

There were no warning cones, signs, tape, or any barriers to foot traffic being used anywhere in the area. She asked one of the ATC workers where she and her customers should walk in order to safely proceed to the stairs and elevators on the cast end of the Gallery, and was given instructions, She proceeded with her group as directed to the north elevator, which they took to the second floor. After about fifteen minutes. she and her customers came back down in the same elevator.

As the door opened, Katy Hagmeier saw no warning signagc, cones, cautioniaccent tape, or other barriers, and further, she also saw that the ATC crew was working in a different area of the Gallery floor away from the elevator. She stepped out with her right foot as she held the door for her customers, and her foot slipped in a wet substance causing her to fall down onto her tail boric and lower back. She sustained what turned out to be a severe back injury. This resulted in a two level lumbar fusion with hardware and two surgeries.

The evidence indicates that while Ms. Hagmeier and her customers were on the second floor, one or more of the ATC crew treated the terrazzo floor in front of the elevator with ‘Terra Glaze”, and failed to set up any warning signs, caution tape, or barriers which would have prevented] ust this type of incident from happening.

3. Plaintiff’s Contentions: (List all theories of reeovcry and the applicable statutes, ordinances and common law rules relied upon.

A. Common law negligence.

List Daniages or Relief Sought:

A. Medical expenses - past: $130,438.68

Medical expenses - future 14,688.00

B. Lost Wages 11,351.90

C. Physical pain and suffering - past: 72,100.00

Physical pain and suffering - futureS 292,365.00

D. Temporary impairment of function, limited ranges of motion, loss of strength and endurance, limitation of activities, nature and extent of injuries, etc 50,000.00

Permanent impairment of function, sensory and motor deficits, and limitation of motion, loss of strength and endurance, etc. resulting from traumatic injuries requiring surgical intervention consisting of laminectomies, discectomies, bone graft fusions with “InFuse” and “Legacy” instrumentation at LA-S-SI, and subsequent surgical removal with residual

limitations and permanent modification of activities 250,000.00

Permanent disfigurement/scarring of plaintiff’s low back 50,000.00

4. Defendant’s Contentions: (List All Theories of Defense and the Applicable Statutes, Ordinances and Common Law Rules Relied Upon).

The Defendant denies that its employees were working on the new Terrazzo floor on the date that the Plaintiffherein contends that she slipped and fell. None ofthe AJ’C workers believe that they were anywhere near the elevators on the east end of the gallery of the Tulsa Convention Center and do not believe that they gave any instructions to anyone concerning where to go with her prospective clients. This Defendant further denies that any wet substance was put on the floor of the elevator that the Plaintiff stepped off of causing her to fall.

This Defendant further states that if there was any kind of condition of which the Plaintiff complained, it had to have been put on the floor by someone other than this Defendant. Further, this Defendant states that the condition about which the Plaintiff complains was open and obvious and that the Plaintiff was well aware of the fact that there was construction going on in various parts of the Tulsa Convention Center, as her office was on the Mezzanine and she had to go in and out around different areas that were being renovated, This Defendant specifically states that there was no negligence on its part that was the cause of Plaintiffs alleged injury and damage.

This Defendant further states that the Plaintiffs comparative negligence bars any action against this Defendant and that if this Defendant is found guilty of any negligence of any kind, which is expressly denied, the Plaintiff was guilty of negligence in a greater degree than this Defendant, which precluded the Plaintiff from recovering herein.

This Defendant further states that the Plaintiff herein, being aware of various dangers and risks ongoing in the Tulsa Convention Center, voluntarily exposed herself to those dangers and risk which precludes the Plaintiff from recovering herein.

Outcome:

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts: Dr. Eugene Feild

Comments: