Date: 07-13-2015

Case Style: Lauren Lim v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.

Case Number: CJ-2014-936

Judge: Tad Balkman

Court: District Court, Cleveland County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Robert W. Haiges and John D. Coury

Defendant's Attorney: Michael Brewer

Description: Oklahoma City, OK - Lauren Lim sued Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. on a premises liability theory claiming:

1. On or about July 27, 2012, the Plaintiff was a business invitee/patron at Defendant’s retail store located at or near 501 SW 19th Street, Moore, Cleveland County, OK.
2. While a business invitee/patron on the premises of the Defendant, the Plaintiff slipped in the store entrance where a liquid had been spilled.
3. Defendant’s numerous employees in the immediate area of that entrance were aware or should have been aware of the hazardous condition of the floor in the area in which customers must walk, but failed to alleviate the hazard by removing the liquid.
4. Further, Defendant failed to warn of the hazard which was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs injuries.
5, As a result of said negligent acts and/or omissions, Plaintiff suffered personal injuries which caused and continues to cause pain, suffering, medical expenses, lost wags, and loss of quality of and enjoyment of life.

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S PETITION
Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, East, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, (“WalMart”), for their Answer to Plaintiffs Petition, state as follows:
Wal-Mart generally and specifically denies each and every allegation of Plaintiffs Petition, unless such allegation is specifically admitted.
1. As to the allegations contained in paragraph no. 1 of Plaintiffs Petition, it is Defendant’s belief that on or about July 27, 2012, Plaintiff may have been a business invitee on one of its premises in the City of Moore, Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma; otherwise, the allegations are denied.
2. As to the allegations contained in paragraph no. 2 of Plaintiffs Petition, the allegations are denied.
3. As to the allegations contained in paragraph no. 3 of Plaintiffs Petition, the allegations are denied.
4. As to the allegations contained in paragraph no. 4 of Plaintiff’s Petition, the allegations are denied.
5. As to the allegations contained in paragraph no. 5 of Plaintiff’s Petition, the allegations are denied.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
For its Affirmative Defenses, Wal-Mart states as follows:
1. Wal-Mart generally and specifically denies Plaintiff’s claims of liability, negligence and damages.
2. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
3. Contributory/comparative negligence of the Plaintiff.
4. The alleged accident was caused by the acts or omissions of third parties not under the control of Wal-Mart.
5. Plaintiff’s injuries, if any, were brought about by superseding and intervening cause.
6. Plaintiff’s injuries, if any, were a result of a pre-existing condition.
7. Plaintiff’s actions were the sole cause of any injuries.
8. Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages.
9. Defendant had no duty to Plaintiff under Oklahoma law.
10. Statute of Limitations.
11. If a dangerous condition is proven to have existed, it was open and obvious, and Wal-Mart had no duty to warn about it.
12. Wal-Mart had no actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition.
13. Wal-Mart reserves the right to amend its Answer to Plaintiff’s Petition,
including asserting additional affirmative defenses, as discovery continues.
1. On or about July 27, 2012, the Plaintiff was a business invitee/patron at Defendant’s retail store located at or near 501 SW 19th Street, Moore, Cleveland County, OK.
2. While a business invitee/patron on the premises of the Defendant, the Plaintiff slipped in the store entrance where a liquid had been spilled.
3. Defendant’s numerous employees in the immediate area of that entrance were aware or should have been aware of the hazardous condition of the floor in the area in which customers must walk, but failed to alleviate the hazard by removing the liquid.
4. Further, Defendant failed to warn of the hazard which was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs injuries.
5, As a result of said negligent acts and/or omissions, Plaintiff suffered personal injuries which caused and continues to cause pain, suffering, medical expenses, lost wags, and loss of quality of and enjoyment of life.

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

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: