§ § 

BYWALMART 

Defendant. TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS 

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 

Comes Now, DOLORES CASANOVA, Plaintiff herein, and brings this suit for relief against 

WALMART STORES TEXAS, LLC D/B/A NEIGHBORHOOD MARKET BY WALMART, 

Defendant herein, and would show unto the court as follows: 

I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN LEVEL 

1. Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery according to Discovery Level 1 because Plaintiff 

seeks damages of less than $250,000.00. 

II. PARTIES AND SERVICE 

2. DOLORES CASANOVA ("Ms. Casanova") is an individual residing in Dallas, 

Texas. The last three digits of her driver's license number are 748. 

3. Defendant WALMART STORES TEXAS, LLC D/B/A NEIGHBORHOOD 

MARKET BY WALMART (hereinafter "Defendant" or "Walmaii") is a foreign corporation 

authorized to do business in Texas. Issuance of citation is requested at this time. Defendant 

WalMart may be served with process on its registered agent: 

CT Corporation System 

1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900 

Dallas, Texas 75201 -3136. 

Plaintiff's Original Petition ,•:~;:~•·· 

. 

~-• o,· Iv,.'•, ACERTIFIEDCOPY Dolores Casanova vs. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC d/b/a Wal-Mart Neighborhood Mar.•:C,<f "o\ ATTEST: 612312022 

Page ' o c. • 1 of 6 :u . ~: THOMAS A. WILDER 

:t, ."<: DISTRICT CLERK 

\ ~_,, :e,'./TARRANT COUNTY, TEX/ 

•••['? ~ ;,• BY: IRMA JI MAREZ 

......... 
Defendant pursuant to Section 17.042(2) of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code because 

Defendant committed a t01i in the State of the Texas. 

6. Venue is proper pursuant to Section 15.002(a)(l) of the Texas Civil Practices and 

Remedies Code because all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim 

occurred in Tarrant County, Texas. 

IV. FACTS 

7. On or about August 3, 2020, Plaintiff suffered injuries on Defendant's premises. Ms. 

Casanova was a patron, thus, an Invitee of Walma1i, store #3594, a grocery store owned by 

Defendant Walmart and located at:2610W. Pioneer Parkway, Pantego, Texas 76013. 

8. On this date, Ms. Casanova was in Walmaii heading towards customer service to 

obtain a money order to pay for a bill. As she was in the middle of the customer service ai·ea, she 

slipped and fell on water on the floor. The water was leaking from boxes a Walmaii employee was 

opening. Ms. Casanova believes that there were frozen drinks or the like in those boxes. Defendant's 

employee nearby had on headphones and was not paying attention and there was no "wet floor" or caution signs on display anywhere. 

9. After the fall, a manager was called and he helped Ms. Casanova up. There were no 

wet floor signs on the other end to wain the public and people like Ms. Casanova. The Defendant 

never inspected and dried the floor, nor put a wai·ning sign in the area to wai·n persons such as the 

Plaintiff's Original Petition .• •~~;:.:::·•· 

. ~•m~ "~'.\-/•, A CERTIFIED COPY Dolores Casanova vs. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC dlbla Wal-Mart Neighborhood Ma1:•'.:f' _ 00\ ATTEST: 812312022 

Page ' o c. • 2 of 6 : u . ~: THOMAS A. WILDER 

~t, :<f DISTRICT CLERK 

',:.,,, :i,'>'lrARRANT COUNTY, TEXJ 

·•-~o s~/ BY· IRMA JIMAREZ 

·········· . 
A. NEGLIGENCE AND RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR 

11. At all relevant times herein, Defendant had such control over the premises in question 

that Defendant owed certain duties to Plaintiff; the breach of which proximately caused the injuries 

set forth herein. 

12. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff was an "invitee," as classified under Texas law 

at the time of the incident in question. Plaintiff entered Defendant's premises in question for the 

mutual benefit of Plaintiff and Defendant and/or for a purpose connected with the business of 

Defendant. Defendant' employees had control of the area where Plaintiff was injured. 

13. Defendant, Defendant' agents, and employees failed to maintain a safe environment 

for its guests by not properly inspecting the floor in the store, and dry the greens enough to stop the 

leak in the establishment. The floor was still wet from the drinks boxes that were opened by a WalMaii employee, that was causing a dangerous condition for anybody walking in that ai·ea, that resulted 

in Plaintiffs injuries and damages. If Defendant' employee(s) had either dried the floor in that ai·ea, 

inspected, or placed wai·ning signs or cones neai· the wet floor, Ms. Casanova 's injuries could have 

been avoided. 

14. At all times pertinent herein, Defendant, Defendant's agents and employees, who were 

acting in the scope of their employment, ai·e liable to Plaintiff for their negligent conduct towai·d the 

Plaintiff: 

a. In Defendant failing to place waining cones or signs in the ai·ea to warn persons, 

Plaintiff's Original Petition .• •,;~:.:~··· 

. ~• 0' Iv,.'•, A CERTIFIED COPY Dolores Casanova vs. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC dlb/a Wal-Mart Neighborhood Mm:•t 00\ ATTEST: 812312022 •o c. · Page 3 of 6 : u ~ : THOMAS A. WILDER 

: t, .-< : DISTRICT CLERK 

\ ~._,, '.(:>'./TARRANT COUNTY, TE>U 

••t?. ...... ~~••• BY: IRMA JIMAREZ 
g 

g

severe injuries and damages; 

e. In Defendant, Defendant's employee(s) and agents failing to use due and 

reasonable care to remove the dangerous condition that caused Plaintiff severe 

injuries and damages after it was created; 

f. In Defendant failing to properly train and supervise its employees and agents to 

identify and make safe dangerous conditions, which pose an unreasonable risk of injury such as the condition that was created by Defendant's employee(s) and 

agent(s) who proximately caused Plaintiffs injuries and damages; 

g. In Defendant's employee(s) and/or agent(s) failing to warn Plaintiff which 

proximately caused Plaintiffs injuries and damages; 

h. In Defendant, through its employee(s) and/or agent(s), creating an unreasonable 

risk of harm by creating a dangerous condition; thereby putting Defendant on 

notice because when an owner or occupier of a premise, or those for whose conduct 

it is responsible, creates a condition that poses an unreasonable risk of harm, an 

inference of knowledge may arise that Defendant knew or should have known 

about the risk of danger to Plaintiff. Keetch v. Kroger, 845 S.W.2d 262, 265 (Tex. 

1992); Robledo v. Kroger, 597 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. Civ. App.- Eastland 1980, writ 

ref d n.r.e.); See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Diaz, 109 S.W.3d 584, 589 (Tex. 2003); 

1. Negligence 

14. Defendant exercised control and possession of the location of the Plaintiffs fall 

occurred. 

15. Defendant had a duty to exercise the degree of care that a reasonably prudent person 

would use to avoid harm to others under similar circumstances. Defendant and their employees failed 

to make safe the floor in question on the morning of Plaintiffs fall by creating the subject condition 

and/or allowing it to persist due to the leak from boxes opened earlier by a Walmaii employee. Thus, 

Defendant created an unreasonably dangerous condition and then failed to warn or make safe the 

floor; the only means of ingress or egress to the ai·ea where Plaintiff was walking. 

16. Defendant negligently, cai·elessly, or recklessly disregarded their duty, which 
, 

g

VI. PLAINTIFF'S DAMAGES 

18. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff suffered serious 

physical injuries and resulting damages, detailed below: 

A. Reasonable medical care and expenses in the past; 

B. Reasonable and necessary medical care and expenses, which will in all 

reasonable probability be incurred in the future ; 

C. Physical pain and suffering in the past; 

D. Physical pain and suffering in the future; 

E. Mental anguish in the past; 

F. Mental anguish in the future; 

G. Loss of earnings in the past; 

H. Physical impairment in the past; 

I. Physical impainnent in the future ; 

J. Disfigurement. 

PRAYER 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the 

Defendant be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon a final hearing of the cause, judgment 

be entered for the Plaintiff against Defendant for damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limits 

of the Court; together with pre-judgment interest (from the date of injury through the date of 

judgment) at the maximum rate allowed by law; post-judgment interest at the legal rate, costs of court; 

and such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled at law or in equity. 

Plaintiff's Original Petition ·•'.;;:.:R;;;:;.. A CERTIFIED copy 

Dolores Casanova vs. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC d/b/a Wal-Mart Neighborhood Mm:-'J

0 

• ";~··. ATTEST: 812312022 :o c. • Page 5 of 6 : u ~ : THOMAS A. WILDER 

~t, :<: DISTRICT CLERK 

••~

., :i_'iiTARRANT COUNTY, TEXJ 

•••~Cf ~~;.•• BY: IRMA JI MAREZ 

··----·· 
Craig W. Thomas 

State Bar No. 24048047 

5899 Preston Road, Ste #203 

Frisco, Texas 75034 

214-855-8788 - Telephone 

888-638-1552- Facsimile 

eservicejmckeylawfirm@gmail.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

Plaintiff's Original Petition ... ,:.~;:~~·• ... 0' "'-" A CERTIFIED COPY Dolores Casanova vs. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC d/b/a Wal-Mart Neighborhood Mm{f ,. 0~\ ATTEST: 812312022 ' o c. • Page 6 of 6 :u ?j : THOMAS A. WILDER 

: U .'<: DISTRICT CLERK 

... 

~

. . ~/TARRANT COUNTY, TEXI 

••t? 'i;,•• BY: IRMA JI MAREZ 

.........