Date: 09-16-2015

Case Style: Teresa Hunt v. Premier Attractions Management, LLC operating as White Water Bay

Case Number: CJ-2014-2430

Judge: Patricia G. Parris

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Jason Hicks

Defendant's Attorney: David Donchin and Kaci L. Trojan

Description: Oklahoma City, OK - Teresa Hunt sued Premier Attractions Management, LLC operating as White Water Bay on a negligence theory claiming:

1. Teresa Hunt was a citizen and resident of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma at the time of
the incident hereinafter described.
2. White Water Bay is located and doing business in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma at the
time of the incident hereinafter described.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This is an action arising from an incident that occurred in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, when White Water Bay was negligent in causing the incident that is the subject of this
action.
4. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties hereto, jurisdiction of the subject matter
hereof, and venue is proper.
THE CAUSE OF ACTION
5. On June 24, 2013, Plaintiff was injured when White Water Bay negligently maintained its premises and failed to warn of dangerous conditions on its premises.
6. The incident occurred at White Water Bay located at 3908 W. Reno Avenue in Oklahoma City, OK
7. Teresa Hunt, an invitee, was swimming in the lazy river when her foot was trapped in a poorly maintained, dangerous jet. Teresa had no warning of the hidden dangerous condition.
• 8. The incident hurt Teresa Hunt and caused the injuries and damages to her that are
described below.
9. At all times Teresa Hunt was acting in a safe and prudent manner.
DUTIES OWED BY WHITE WATER BAY
10. White Water Bay was required to follow the safety rule of maintaining their business in a reasonably safe condition.
11. White Water Bay was required to follow the safety rule of warning customers of dangerous conditions upon the premises, which are known and/or should be known to Defendant but not to Plaintiff
12. White Water Bay was required to follow the safety rule of using ordinary care for the safety of Teresa Hunt and others.
13. White Water Bay was not allowed to needlessly endanger Teresa Hunt or anyone else by violating the safety rules listed above.
DUTIES VIOLATED BY WHITE WATER BAY
14. At the thie of the incident, White Water Bay violated the duty to follow the safety rule of maintaining their business in a reasonably safe condition, which needlessly endangered the safety of Teresa Hunt and others.
15. At the time of the incident, White Water Bay violated the duty to follow the safety rule of warning customers of dangerous conditions upon the premises, which are known and/or should be known to the Defendant but not to the Plaintiff, which needlessly endangered the safety of Teresa Hunt and others.
16. At the time of the incident, White Water Bay violated the duty to follow the safety nile of using ordinary case, which needlessly endangered the safety of Teresa Hunt and others.
17. At the time of the incident, White Water Bay needlessly endangered Teresa Hunt and others by failing to follow the safety rules listed above.
CAUSATION OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES AND DAMAGES
18. The injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff, more particularly described below, were produced in a natural and continuous sequence from White Water Bay’s violation of the above described independent duties of ordinary care for the safety of Teresa Hunt.
19. The injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff were a probable consequence from White Water Bay’s violation of the above described independent duties of ordinary care for the safety of Teresa Hunt.
20. White Water Bay should have foreseen and anticipated that a violation of the above described independent duties to use ordinary care would constitute an appreciable risk of harm to others, including Teresa Hunt.
21. If White Water Bay had not violated the above described independent duties to use ordinary care for the safety of Teresa Hunt, then the Plaintiff’s injuries and damages would not have occurred.
COMPENSATORY DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY PLAINTIFF
22. The injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of White Water Bay’s violations of the above described safety rules, include but are not limited to the following:
Pursuant to the provisions of 12 O.S. §3226(A)(2)(a), Plaintiff submits this preliminary computation of damages sought in this lawsuit. As this is an action for injuries suffered by an adult, Plaintiff advises that all damages recoverable by law are sought, including those listed in OUJI3d 4.1. Under item (K), Plaintiff’s medical bills total $24,520.52. At this point, Plaintiff does not know the amount of future medical expense. These items are among the elements for the jury to consider in fixing the amount of damages to award to Plaintiff. Other than the amounts which plaintiff has specifically identified, and which are capable of being ascertained to some degree of certainty, Plaintiff is unable to guess or speculate as to what amount of damages a jury might award. The elements for the jury to consider include the following:
A. Plaintiffs physical pain and suffering, past and future;
B. Plaintiff’s mental pain and suffering, past and future;
C. Plaintiffs age;
D. Plaintiff’s physical condition immediately before and after the accident;
E. The nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries;
F. Whether the injuries are permanent;
G. The physical impairment;
H. The disfigurement;
I. Loss of [earnings/time];
J. Impairment of earning capacity;
K. The reasonable expenses of the necessary medical care, treatment, and services, past and future.
AMOUNT OF DAMAGES
23. Plaintiff’s injuries and damages are in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction under 28 Usc 1332 (currently $75,000.00) plus interest, costs and all such other and further relief for which should be awarded as judgment against White Water Bay in an amount to fully and fairly compensate Plaintiff for each and every element of damages that has been suffered.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
24. The Plaintiff demands a jury trial for all issues of &ct presented by this action.
RESERVATION OF ADDITIONAL CLAIMS
25. The Plaintiff reserves the right to plead further upon completion of discovery to state additional claims and to name additional parties to this action.

Outcome: NOW ON this 28th day of August, 2015, comes before this Court Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. After reading the briefs and hearing oral argument from counsel, the Court finds the motion should be and therefore is DENTED.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: