Date: 09-04-2015

Case Style: Erron M. Lacour v. Mathis Holding, Inc., Mathis Brothers, Mathis Bros. Furniture Co., Inc. and Mathis Brothers Furniture Company

Case Number: CJ-2015-2730

Judge: Bryan C. Dixon

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Eron Lacour, pro se

Defendant's Attorney: Greg Kirby and David Klosterboer

Description: Oklahoma City, OK - Erron M. Lacour sued Mathis Holding, Inc., Mathis Brothers, Mathis Bros. Furniture Co., Inc. and Mathis Brothers Furniture Company on a premises liability theory claiming:

1. Plaintiff Erron M. LaCour is a resident of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
2. Defendants, Mathis Holding Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, is doing business in Oklahoma and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.
3. Defendants, Mathis Brothers, an Oklahoma corporation, is doing business in Oklahoma and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.
4. Defendants, Mathis Bros. Furniture Co., Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, is doing business in Oklahoma and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.
5. Defendants, Mathis Brothers Furniture Company, an Oklahoma corporation, is doing business in Oklahoma and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.
6. That on or about March 26, 2003, Plaintiff Erron LaCour was an invitee, shopping with his parent at the Mathis Brothers Furniture Company at 3434 W. Reno Avenue in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
7. That Plaintiff suffered a severe permanent injury to his right hand when a book case fell onto his hand inside the Defendant’s store.
8. That Plaintiff was transported from the Defendant’s store to Mercy After Hours in Edmond, Oklahoma.
9. That the dangerous condition which caused the Plaintiff’s injury was created either by the Defendants’ or by the Defendant’s employees acting within the scope of their employment.
10. That Defendants’ and!or Defendant’s employees knew or should have known of the dangerous condition on the premises but failed to remove it or warn the Plaintiff of it.
11. The Defendants failed to exercise ordinary care and due diligence in keeping their customer area reasonably safe for Plaintiff and other customers.
12. The Defendants breached their duty to make their store reasonably safe for Plaintiff and other invitees.
13. That Plaintiff’s injury was caused by, and the direct result of the negligence of Defendantr.
14 The Defendants’ failure to maintain the safe condition of their premises was the direct and froximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries.
15. That as a result of the Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff suffered serious injuries necessitating medical treatment. Prior to this incident, Plaintiff was in good health with normal hand function, but as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff has sustained damages for which he is entitled to recover.
16. That as a result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff may sustain damages for future medical care and treatment for which he seeks recovery.
17. That Plaintiff submits this preliminary computation of damages pursuant to 12 O.S § 3226. Plaintiff advises that all damages recoverable by law are sought including those listed in OUJI 4.1. Under (K), the total amount of Plaintiff’s incurred and future medical expenses are not yet known. Under item (I), Plaintiff’s lost wages to date are not yet known. The elements for the jury to consider when fixing the amount of Plaintiffs damages include the following:
A. The Plaintiff’s physical pain and suffering, past and future;
B. The Plaintiff’s mental pain and suffering, past and future;
C. The Plaintiff’s age;
D. The Plaintiff’s physical condition immediately before and after the accident;
E. The nature and extent of the Plaintifl’sl injuries;
F. Whether the Plaintiffs injuries are permanent;
0. The Plaintiffs physical impairment;
H. The Plaintiffs disfigurement;
I. The Plaintiffs Loss of earnings/time;
J. The Plaintiffs Impairment of earning capacity;
K. The reasonable expenses of the Plaintiff’s necessary medical care, treatment, and services, past and future.
18. As a result of the Defendant’s and its employee’s negligence, Plaintiff Erron LaCour suffered serious permanent personal injuries as a minor child; has and will suffer pain as a result of the nature and extent of the Plaintiffs injury; is disfigured as a result of the Defendant’s negligence; has incurred past medical expenses and will incur future medical expenses.

Outcome: COME NOW the Plaintiffs, EDWINA A. LACOUR AND ERRON M. LACOUR, and hereby dismiss with prejudice all claims and causes of action against the Defendants MATHIS
HOLDING, INC., MATHIS BROTHERS, MATHIS BROS. FURNITURE CO., and MATHIS BROTHERS FURNITURE COMPANY.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: