IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

PATRICIA YEARWOOD § Case Number: 5:20-cv-645

Plaintiff §

 §

 §

VS. § COMPLAINT

 §

WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC AND §

WAL-MART STORES, INC. § Jury Trial Demanded

Defendants § 

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COMES Plaintiff, Patricia Yearwood, and files her Original Complaint

against Defendants Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (collectively, 

the “Wal-Mart Defendants”). In support thereof, Plaintiff would respectfully show the 

Court as follows:

I.

PARTIES

1.1 Plaintiff, Patricia Yearwood, is domiciled in Texas and is therefore a citizen 

of Texas and was so at the time of the subject incident. 

1.2 Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC (“Wal-Mart Stores Texas”), is a 

limited liability company incorporated under the laws of Delaware with its principal 

place of business in Arkansas. As evidenced by the location of the incident described 

below, Wal-Mart Stores Texas conducts business in Texas, engages in continuous and 

systematic contacts with the State of Texas, and derives substantial economic profits from 

its business activities in Texas. Wal-Mart Stores Texas can be served with process by 

serving its registered agent, C T Corporation Systems, at 1999 Bryan St., Ste. 900, Dallas, 

Texas 75201. 

Case 5:20-cv-00645 Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 1 of 7
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint Page 2 of 7

1.3 Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart Inc.”), is a Delaware 

corporation authorized to do business in the State of Texas with its headquarters in 

Bentonville, Arkansas. As evidenced by the location of the incident described below, WalMart Stores Inc. conducts business in Texas, engages in continuous and systematic 

contacts with the State of Texas, and derives substantial economic profits from its 

business activities in Texas. Wal-Mart Inc. may be served with process by serving its 

registered agent, C T Corporation System, at 1999 Bryan Street, Ste. 900, Dallas, Texas 

75201. 

II.

VENUE AND JURISDICTION

2.1 Venue is proper in this District and Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim 

occurred in the Western District of Texas. More specifically, the incident that makes the 

basis of this lawsuit occurred in Bexar County, Texas, which is located in the San Antonio 

Division of the Western District of Texas.

2.2 This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as 

there is complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendants and the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.

2.3 This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because 

each of them purposely directed their activities to Texas and the claims made in this 

litigation are the result of injuries that arise directly out of and relate to those activities. 

In particular, this action arises foreseeably from Defendants’ conduct following their

purposeful choice to maintain retail stores in Texas, and their failure to exercise ordinary 

care while doing so. Defendants should have reasonably anticipated being haled into 

court in Texas given the substantial connection between their activities in Texas and the 

Case 5:20-cv-00645 Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 2 of 7
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint Page 3 of 7

claims made in this lawsuit. Thus, this action seeks to adjudicate issues deriving directly 

from or connected directly with their tortious activities in Texas, and this Court’s personal 

jurisdiction over this Defendants in this action arises from that nexus. Defendants

themselves created the contacts with Texas; they purposefully availed themselves of the 

privilege of conducting activities within Texas. Defendants have sufficient minimum 

contacts with the State of Texas to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over them

by a court in the forum state. Based upon the direct connection between the Defendants’

activities in Texas and the claims made against them, as well as the minimum contacts 

each of them purposefully made with the State of Texas, the exercise of personal 

jurisdiction here is consistent with the Texas Long Arm statute and with due process; it 

does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice and is neither unfair 

nor unreasonable. 

III.

BACKGROUND FACTS

3.1 On September 8, 2019, Plaintiff was an invitee in Wal-Mart Supercenter 

Store No. 2769 located at 5626 Walzem Road, San Antonio, Texas, which is located in 

Bexar County, Texas. On such date, Plaintiff was shopping at Wal-Mart when she slipped 

and fell on water that had been leaking from an A/C unit within the store. As a result of 

the fall, Plaintiff was rushed to the emergency room where it was determined that she 

suffered a severely fractured femur and other injuries that would require immediate 

surgery. 

3.2 At the time of the incident, no warning signs were placed in the area of the 

incident that would provide notice of the dangerous condition. 

3.3 At the time of the incident Wal-Mart Supercenter Store No. 2769 was owned 

and/or operated by the Wal-Mart Defendants. 

Case 5:20-cv-00645 Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 3 of 7
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint Page 4 of 7

CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS

WAL-MART STORES TEXAS AND WAL-MART INC. 

IV.

NEGLIGENCE AND RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

4.1 Wal-Mart Defendants committed actions of omission and commission, 

which collectively and severally constituted negligence, and that negligence proximately 

caused both the crash in question and Plaintiff’s damages.

4.2 Wal-Mart Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff to exercise ordinary care. 

Wal-Mart Defendants’ negligent acts or omissions include, without limitation, one or 

more of the following:

(a) Failure to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition for 

restaurant guests;

(b) Failing to inspect the premises to discover latent defects;

(c) Failure to protect invitees from unreasonable risks of harm;

(d) Failure to warn invitees of unreasonable risks so that the invitee 

may avoid them;

(e) Failure to make safe any dangerous condition that Defendants 

should have known of; 

(f) Failing to use reasonable care to avoid a foreseeable risk of injury;

and

(g) Failing to properly maintain the A/C units, within the store, which 

were leaking water. 

V.

PREMISES LIABILITY

Case 5:20-cv-00645 Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 4 of 7
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint Page 5 of 7

5.1 In addition, or in the alterative, at the time of the incident, the Wal-Mart 

Defendants owned, occupied, and/or otherwise controlled the premises where the 

incident occurred.

5.2 Plaintiff was on the premises at the express or implied invitation of the WalMart Defendants and entered the premises as a member of the public for a purpose for 

which the premises are held open to the public or for a purpose connected with the 

business of the possessor that does or may result in their mutual economic benefit. As 

such, Plaintiff was an invitee on the premises at the time of the incident. 

5.3 A condition of the premises posed an unreasonable risk of harm—

specifically, the leaking A/C unit, and Defendants knew or reasonably should have 

known of the danger.

5.4 Defendants failed to exercise ordinary care to protect Plaintiff from the 

danger by both failing to adequately warn her of the condition and failing to make that 

condition reasonably safe. 

5.5 Defendants’ failure to use ordinary care proximately caused the incident in 

question and Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. 

DAMAGES

VI.

ACTUAL DAMAGES

6.1 As a result of the subject incident, Plaintiff suffered in the past, and will 

likely suffer in the future, damages including physical pain and mental anguish, physical 

impairment, disfigurement, lost earnings, loss of earning capacity, and reasonable and 

necessary medical expenses. Those damages were proximately caused by the negligence 

of Defendants. 

VII.

Case 5:20-cv-00645 Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 5 of 7
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint Page 6 of 7

PREJUDGMENT AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST

7.1 Plaintiff seeks pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum 

legal rate.

VIII.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

8.1 All conditions precedent to Plaintiff’s rights to recover and Defendants’ 

liability have been performed or have occurred.

IX.

JURY DEMAND

9.1 Plaintiff requests a trial by jury and tender the requisite fee. 

X.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

10.1 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that Defendants

be cited to appear and answer herein, that this cause be set down for trial before a jury, 

and that Plaintiff recover judgment of and from Defendants for her actual damages, in 

such an amount as the evidence shows and the jury determines to be proper, together 

with pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, and such other and 

further relief to which Plaintiff may show herself to be justly entitled, whether at law or 

in equity.

Respectfully Submitted,

WATTS GUERRA LLP

By: /s/ Jorge L. Mares

MIKAL C. WATTS

State Bar No. 20981820

mcwatts@wattsguerra.com

FRANCISCO GUERRA, IV

State Bar No. 00796684

fguerra@wattsguerra.com

JORGE L. MARES

State Bar No. 24087973

Case 5:20-cv-00645 Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 6 of 7
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint Page 7 of 7

jmares@wattsguerra.con

Four Dominion Drive

Bldg. 3, Suite 100

San Antonio, Texas 78257

Telephone No.: 210.447.0500

Facsimile No.: 210.447.0501

And

RYAN ORSATTI LAW, PLLC

 4634 De Zavala Road

 San Antonio, Texas 78249

 Telephone: 210.525.1200

 Fax: 210.951.5545

 RYAN L. ORSATTI

State Bar No. 24088910

Email: ryan@ryanorsattilaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 5:20-cv-00645 Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 7 of 7