Date: 07-21-2015

Case Style: Susan Rapson v. Buffett Partners, L.P.

Case Number: CJ-2014-24

Judge: Thad Balkman

Court: District Court, Cleveland County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Jeremy Carter

Defendant's Attorney: Brooke Churchman

Description: Norman, OK - Susan Rapson sued Buffett Partners, L.P., Furrs Cafeteria, Inc., Furrs Family Buffet, Furrs Family Dining, and Furrs, Inc. on premises liability negligence theory claiming:

1. Plaintiff, Susan Rapson is a resident and citizen of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.
2. Defendant, Buffet Partners, LP (hereinafter “Furrs”), is a limited partnership doing business in Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma under the name Furr’s Cafeteria.
3. Defendants Furr’s Cafeteria, Inc., Furr’s Family Buffet, Furr’s Family Dining, and Furr’ s Inc., are believed to be associated with Defendant Furrs and cooperate in the daily operations of the restaurant where Plaintiff’s claims arose in Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interests and costs, thus giving this Honorable Court jurisdiction.
5. Venue is this Honorable Court is appropriate because the accident giving rise to this suit occurred in Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma, at Defendant’s restaurant.
CAUSE OF ACTION - NEGLIGENCE
COMES NOW the Plaintiff and for her Cause of Action against the Defendants, alleges and states as follows:
6. At all times material hereto, Defendants owned andlor operated a restaurant located in Moore, Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma.
7. Defendants were in exclusive custody, possession and control of the restaurant and it was the duty of Defendants to keep and maintain the restaurant in a reasonably safe condition for those persons invited thereto.
8. On or about February 18, 2012, Plaintiff was a business invitee and guest of the restaurant when Plaintiff tripped and fell to the floor.
9. Notwithstanding their duty, Defendants carelessly, recklessly and negligently created a dangerous, hidden and defective condition, which was unreasonably dangerous and resulted in serious personal injuries to Plaintiff.
10. Defendant did have or should have had both notice and knowledge of the dangerous condition, and did allow and permit the dangerous condition to be and remain in the restaurant.
11. The restaurant was, at all material times, under the exclusive possession, custody and control of Defendants, through its servants, agents and employees, who were then and there engaged in and upon the performance of their duties, within the scope of their authority and in the course of the business of Defendants.
12. The injuries and damages set forth in this Petition were the direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness or recklessness of Defendants, and without any negligence on the part of Plaintiff. The Defendants’ acts of negligence, carelessness or recklessness include, without limitation, the following:
(a) Failing to keep the Restaurant in a safe condition for persons lawfully present;
(b) Permitting the dangerous condition to be and remain at the Restaurant when Defendant knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known of the danger involved;
(c) Failing to warn Plaintiff Susan Tuter of the dangerous condition created by the hazard described in this Petition;
(d) Failing to correct or otherwise remove the dangerous condition of which Defendants knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known;
(e) Permitting persons, and Plaintiff in particular, to traverse the Restaurant when Defendant knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that it was dangerous to do so and involved an unreasonable risk of harm to persons;
(f) Failing to notify or warn Plaintiff of the dangerous condition so that the hazard involved could be avoided;
(g) Maintaining the Restaurant in such a manner as to constitute a danger to persons lawfully present at the Restaurant;
(h) Failing to provide persons lawfully visiting the Restaurant with a safe area to traverse the Restaurant;
(i) Failing to inspect the Restaurant to discover the dangerous condition or in inspecting so carelessly as not to have discovered the dangerous condition;
(j) Maintaining the Restaurant in an improper manner or in employing personnel who were not sufficiently qualified to maintain the Restaurant in a proper manner;
(k) Inspecting the Restaurant in an improper manner or in employing personnel who were not sufficiently qualified to inspect the Restaurant in a proper manner;
(1) Failing to hire, employ or retain personnel sufficiently qualified to supervise maintenance of the Restaurant;
(m) Permitting the existence of a dangerous condition;
(n) Failing to maintain the area where Plaintiff fell when Defendant knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known it to be in an unsafe condition;
(o) Failing to exercise that degree of care and regard for the rights and safety of Plaintiff as was required under the circumstances;
(p) Being otherwise careless, reckless and negligent.
13. Solely as the result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendants as set forth in this Petition, Plaintiff Susan Rapson sustained injuries.
14. As a result of her injuries, Plaintiff Susan Rapson has undergone in the past and will in the future continue to undergo pain and suffering.
15. As a result of her injuries, Plaintiff Susan Rapson has sustained permanent disability and a permanent diminution in the ability to enjoy life and life’s pleasures.
16. As a result of her injuries, Plaintiff Susan Rapson has received and underwent and may hereafter receive and undergo medical attention and care.
17. As a result of her injuries, Plaintiff Susan Rapson has incurred medical expenses and expended various sums of money for all or some of such expenses and may hereafter incur various medical expenses and be obligated to continue to expend such sums or incur such expenditures for an indefinite time in the future.
18. As a result of her injuries, Plaintiff Susan Rapson has incurred and may hereafter incur various other expenses and incidental damages.

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

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: