CC-22-04845-B

FILED

8/31/2022 4:50 PM

JOHN F. WARREN

COUNTY CLERK DALLAS COUNTY

CAUSE NO. MARIA L. MEJIA RUIZ IN THE COUNTY COURT Plaintiff

vs. AT LAW NO. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. Defendant DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COMES Maria L. Mejia Ruiz (also “P1aintiff’) complaining of and about Home

Depot U.S.A., Inc. (also “Defendant”) and with cause of action would show unto the Court the

following:

I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

1.1 Pursuant to Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure Rule 190, discovery for this case is intended to

be conducted under Level 3. As required by Rule 47(b), Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure, Plaintiff’s

counsel states that the damages sought are in an amount within the jurisdictionallimits of this

court. As required by Rule 47(c), Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff’s counsel states that

Plaintiff seeks monetary relief in sum greaterthan $1,000,000. The amount of monetary relief

actually awarded, however, will ultimately be determined by jury. Plaintiff also seeks prejudgment and post judgment

interest at the highest legal rate.

II. PARTIES AND SERVICE

PLAINTIFF

2.1 Plaintiff is resident of Dallas County, Texas.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION MEJIA

PAGE

EXHIBIT A-2

Case 3:22-cv-02266-D Document 1-3 Filed 10/10/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID 11
DEFENDANT

2.2 Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Delaware Corporation doing business in the State

of Texas, may be served with process by and through its registered agent, Corporation Service

Company d/b/a CSC Lawyers, Inc. at 21 1E 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701.

III.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3.1 This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant as it is doing business in the State of Texas and

the occurrence which forms the basis ofthis lawsuit occurred in Texas.

3.2 Venue is proper

in Dallas County, Texas under the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies

Code in that the acts or events complained of occurred in Dallas County, Texas.

IV. FACTS

4.1 On or about February 13, 2021, Plaintiff was on the job for Defendant. Plaintiff was

instructed by her supervisorto retrieve large, bulky item using ladder. Due to low staffing

Plaintiffwas made to retrieve the item Via ladder with no assistance. Plaintiff attempted to do as

instructed but was injured in the process.

V. NEGLIGENCE

5.1 Defendant owed nondelegable duty to Plaintiff to provide safe environment to carry on

her work. This duty includes providing reasonably safe and suitable signage and safety tools to

indicate that an unsafe condition may exist, help prevent any injuries, and provide safety training

and instruction to all employees.

5.2 Defendant had reason to anticipate injury of employees due to the nature of the work

involved and negligently failed to perform the duty arising on account ofthat anticipation in terms

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION MEJIA

PAGE

Case 3:22-cv-02266-D Document 1-3 Filed 10/10/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID 12
of providing safe work environment and adequate safety instruction for employees.

5.3 Specifically, Defendant negligently failed to provide safe work environment by having

Plaintiffperform task outside ofher normal job duties that any reasonable person would perceive

as dangerous. The failure ofthe Defendant to perform said duties proximately caused the personal

injuries of Plaintiff complained of herein.

5.4 Moreover, Defendant failed to provide safe instrumentality to Plaintiff. Given the

Plaintiff’s size and strength, this job should have been performed mechanically or, at least, was

job which should have been performed by two people.

VI. NEGLIGENCE PER SE

6.1 Plaintiffis an employee under TEXAS LABOR CODE §411.102(2) and Defendant is defined

as an employer under TEXAS LABOR CODE §411.102(3). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was

negligent and in violation ofTEXAS LABOR CODE §41 1.103 which provides for occupational safety

and states, “Each employer shall provide and maintain employment and place of employment

that is reasonably safe and healthful for employees; install, maintain, and use methods, processes,

devices, and safeguards, including methods of sanitation and hygiene, that are reasonably

necessary to protect

the life, health, and safety of the employer's employees; and take all other

actions reasonably necessary to make the employment and place of employment safe.”

VII. DAMAGES

7.1 As direct and proximate result of the occurrence made the basis ofthis lawsuit, Plaintiff

was injured. For any damagesthat will endure for life of Plaintiff, please refer to National Vital

Statistics Reports United States Life Tables, 2006, for expected life ofPlaintiff. Plaintiffdemands

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION MEJIA

PAGE

Case 3:22-cv-02266-D Document 1-3 Filed 10/10/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID 13
compensation for the following damages.

1. Reasonable medical care and expensesin the past. These expenses were incurred by

Plaintiff for the necessary care and treatment of the injuries resulting from the incident

complained of herein and such charges are reasonable and were usual and customary

charges

for such services;

2. Reasonable and necessary medical care and expenses which will,

in all reasonable

probability, be incurred in the future;

3. Physical pain and suffering in the past;

4. Physical pain and suffering which will,

in all reasonable probability, be suffered in the

future;

5. Mental anguish in the past;

6. Mental anguish which will,

in all reasonable probability, be suffered in the future;

7. Loss of earnings

in the past;

8. Loss of fiiture earning capacity;

9. Past Physical impairment;

10. Future Physical impairment;

1. Past physical disfigurement; and

12. Future physical disfigurement.

7.2 By reason of all ofthe above, Plaintiff has suffered losses and damages

in sum within the

jurisdictional

limits of the Court and for which this lawsuit is brought.

VIII. CONTRIBUTORY/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE BAR

8.1 As the employer of Plaintiff at the time ofthe incident in question and at all times relevant

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION MEJIA

PAGE

Case 3:22-cv-02266-D Document 1-3 Filed 10/10/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID 14
thereto, Defendant was non-subscriber to Texas workers’ compensation insurance. As such,

Defendant should not be entitled to contributory/comparative negligence instruction at the time

oftrial, pursuantto TEX. LABOR CODE §406.033 and Texas common law.

IX.

JURY DEMAND

9.1 Pursuant to Rule 216 of the Texas Rule of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff respectfully requests

that this case be tried before jury.

X. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully prays

that

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

judgment be entered for the Plaintiff against Defendant for damages

in an amount in excess of the minimal jurisdictional

limits of this court, together with pre-judgmentinterest (from the date of

injury through the date ofjudgment) 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 the Plaintiff may be

entitled at law or in equity.

Respectfully Submitted, THE MARYE LAW FIRM, P.C.

/s/ Eric H. Marve ERIC H. MARYE

State Bar of Texas No. 24004798 emaflengaflelawcom

2619 Hibernia Street Dallas, Texas 75204 Phone: (214) 987-8240

Fax: (214) 987-8241

service@magelaw.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION MEJIA

PAGE

Case 3:22-cv-02266-D Document 1-3 Filed 10/10/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID 15