Click to Chat

Slip and Fall Sample Form Complaint in Las Vegas, Nevada

Posted by: on Fri, Apr 24, 2015

Share this post

slip-fall-injury-report

 

DISTRICT COURT

 

CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

 

MARY CARROLA,
an individual, and ANDRES CARROLA, an individual

 

Plaintiffs,

 

vs.

 

WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national
banking association;  and SCP
2006-C23-104 LLC; DOES I through X, and ROE CORPORATIONS I through XX,
inclusive,

 

Defendants.

CASE NO.:

DEPT. NO.:

 

 

 

COMPLAINT

 

 

COMES NOW, Plaintiffs, MARY CARROLA,
an individual, and ANDRES CARROLA, an individual, by and through their
attorneys of record, ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK & WARNICK, and as and for
their Complaint against Defendants WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national
banking association, and SCP 2006-C23-104 LLC, DOES I through X, and ROE
CORPORATIONS I through XX, inclusive (hereinafter collectively the
“Defendants”) alleges and avers as follows:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

  1. Plaintiff, MARY CARROLA (hereinafter referred to as
    “Plaintiff Mary”), is and was at all times relevant hereto, a resident and
    citizen of the State of Nevada.
  2. Plaintiff,
    ANDRES CARROLA (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff Andres”), is and was at
    all times relevant hereto, a resident and citizen of the State of Nevada.
  3. Upon
    information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant WELLS FARGO
    BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, was and is a National Banking Association duly
    authorized to conduct business in the State of Nevada.
  4. Upon
    information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant SCP
    2006-C23-104 LLC, was and is a Foreign Limited Liability Company duly
    authorized to conduct business in the State of Nevada.
  5. Upon
    information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, said Defendants owned,
    operated, controlled, and/or maintained, without limitation, that certain
    property and surrounding sidewalks, and common areas, located at 4014 South
    Rainbow Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada wherein the accident at issue occurred for
    the purpose of carrying on a business for profit (hereinafter the “Premises”).
  6. Upon
    information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, Doe Defendants I-X and
    Roe Defendants I-XX were legal residents or entities of Clark County, Nevada,
    and authorized to do business by the State of Nevada.  Furthermore, said Doe and Roe Defendants were
    employees, agents, or servants of Defendants and functioned and assisted in the
    operation, control and/or management of said premises.
  7. The
    true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or
    otherwise, of Defendants DOES I through X and/or ROE CORPORATIONS I through XX,
    inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue said Defendants by such
    fictitious names.  The Plaintiffs are
    informed, believe and thereupon allege that the Defendants designated herein as
    DOES I through X and/or ROE CORPORATIONS I through XX, inclusive, are any one
    of the following:

(a)        Parties responsible in some manner for
the events and happenings herein referred to that caused injuries and damages
proximately thereby to the Plaintiff as herein alleged;

(b)        Parties that are the agents, servants,
employees and/or contractors of the Defendants, each of them acting within the
course and scope of their agency, employment or contract;

(c)        Parties that own, lease, manage,
operate, secure, inspect, repair, maintain and/or are responsible for the
premises referred to hereinafter; or

(d)       Parties that have assumed or retained the
liabilities of any of the Defendants by virtue of an agreement, sale, transfer
or otherwise;

8.         Plaintiffs will ask leave of the Court
to amend this Complaint to insert the true names and capacities of said
Defendants, DOES I-X and ROE CORPORATIONS I-XX, inclusive, when the same have
been ascertained by the Plaintiffs, together with appropriate charging
allegations, and to join said Defendants in the action.

9.         At the time and place aforesaid, the
Defendants did carelessly and negligently operate and maintain the exterior
walkway and patio area of the Wells Fargo exterior ATM machine and allowed
rocks, gravel and stones thereon.

10.       Employees of the Defendants did operate
and maintain the exterior walkways near the ATM machine in a careless and
negligent manner, which resulted in the injury to Plaintiff Mary when she
slipped and fell on the rocks and loose gravel in front of the ATM machine
which constituted a dangerous condition that was not open and obvious to
business invitees.

11.       As a result of the dangerous conditions
existing on Defendants’ property, Plaintiff Mary slipped and fell causing
grievous injury to her person and mental and emotional damage in an amount
undetermined, and which required surgical intervention and the insertion or
placement of metal plates, screws and rods to repair the broken bones.

12.       After falling and breaking her arm and
leg, Plaintiff Mary was taken by ambulance from the Wells Fargo Bank accident
scene to the hospital.

13.       As a proximate result of the negligence
and carelessness of the Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff Mary was caused
to be injured in her health, strength and well-being, sustained severe and
permanent injury to her body, shoulders, arms and legs, and shock and injury to
her nervous system and person, all of which has caused Plaintiff Mary, and will
continue to cause Plaintiff Mary in the future, severe mental, physical and
nervous pain and suffering, and has caused Plaintiff Mary to suffer general
damages in excess of $10,000.

14.       As a further proximate result of the
aforementioned negligence and carelessness of Defendants, and each of them,
Plaintiff Mary was required to, and did, employ physicians, surgeons, and other
health care providers to examine, treat and care for her and she did incur
medical and incidental expenses thereby, the exact amount of which expenses are
unknown at the present time, but Plaintiff Mary alleges that she suffered
special damages in excess of $10,000.

15.       Plaintiff Mary suffered grievous physical
injuries to her body as well as mental and emotional distress, which occurred
as a result of the Defendants, and each of them, allowing stones and landscape
rock and gravel around and/or on the ATM machine patio and walkway with no
barriers or dividers, allowing customers to walk over and through the landscape
beds, rocks and stones, thereby distributing stones regularly and commonly on
the concrete walkway and on the concrete ATM patio, by failing to place any
sort of railing or barrier to prevent the spreading of the rocks onto the patio
and failing to post signage warning of the danger of stones and rocks, gravel,
etc. in the area, and by failing to maintain the area in  safe manner, and failing to regularly remove
the gravel, stones and rocks from the ATM patio and walkway.

16.       Defendants, and each of them, were
otherwise negligent in their operation and maintenance of the area and their
failure to remove the gravel, stones and rocks which was readily foreseeable
would cause and create a hazardous condition on the walkway and ATM patio, and
were otherwise negligent in their operation and maintenance of the walkways and
patio areas near and in front of and adjacent to the Wells Fargo ATM
machine.

17.       Defendants, and each of them, acted in a
negligent and careless manner, thereby breaching their duty of due care owed to
the Plaintiffs herein.

FIRST
CAUSE OF ACTION

(NEGLIGENCE)

            18.       Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and
every foregoing paragraph set forth above and incorporate the same by reference
as though fully set forth at length herein.

19.       On or about December 7, 2014, Plaintiff
Mary was lawfully on the Defendants’ premises located at 4014 South Rainbow
Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada, as a business customer.

20.       Plaintiff Mary, while lawfully walking on
the premises to use the Defendants’ ATM, slipped and fell to the ground as a
result of loose gravel present on the walkway in front of the exterior ATM, and
was injured by the dangerous pre-existing condition on the premises, and by the
Defendants’ failure to properly and regularly maintain said walkways.

21.       Upon information and belief, Defendants
had direct knowledge of the dangerous condition and failed to clean and/or
repair the dangerous condition.

22.       Defendants had a non-delegable duty to
supervise and maintain said premises in a reasonably safe and suitable condition
for its patrons, guests and invitees; and further to take any and all
reasonable precautions to avoid the presence of dangerous and/or artificial
conditions on or around said premises, particularly on the walkway in front of
the exterior ATM, which is open 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.

23.       Upon information and belief, Defendants
employed maintenance personnel, management, subcontractors, and other
supervisory/security personnel for the purpose of supervising employees,
patrons, guests and invitees and maintaining said property, and the surrounding
areas, in a reasonably safe and suitable condition all of which property is
under said Defendants’ exclusive authority and control.

24.       Defendants, despite having actual notice
or constructive notice that a dangerous condition existed on their premises,
and /or its agent(s) or a third party, as the case may be, over which said
Defendants had control and authority, failed to enact proper safeguards and
maintenance, and further failed to warn of said dangerous condition resulting
in serious bodily injury to Plaintiff Mary, all in breach of Defendants’ duty
of due care herein.

25.       In addition to their direct liability,
Defendants, and each of them, were and are vicariously liable for the acts and
omissions of any staff, agents, apparent agents, servants, contractors,
employees or consultants, independent contractors, or singular persons or
entities, whether in house  or outside,
which in any manner caused or contributed to Plaintiff Mary’s irreparable harm
and damage.

26.       As a direct and proximate result of said
negligence and/or reckless conduct herein, as the case may be, Plaintiff Mary,
an able-bodied female before the accident, has sustained damages in excess of
$10,000.00, including in the form of medical expenses, pain and suffering,
enjoyment of life and related damages, including, but not limited to, a broken
arm and broken leg.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(NEGLIGENT
HIRING; SUPERVISION AND FAILURE TO WARN)

            27.       Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and
every foregoing paragraph set forth above and incorporate the same by reference
as though fully set forth at length herein.

28.       While on said premises, Defendants, and
each of them, had a duty to supervise and maintain their premises and/or
perform improvements, and/or clean up the area of gravel, rocks and stones, in
a reasonably safe and suitable condition for their patrons, guests and
invitees; and further to take any and all reasonable precautions to avoid the
presence of dangerous and/or artificial conditions on or around said premises
as described herein.

29.       Upon information and belief, Defendants
employed janitorial and maintenance personnel, as well as management and other
supervisory personnel for the purpose of supervising employees, patrons, guests
and invitees and maintaining said property in a reasonably safe and suitable
condition.

30.       Said Defendants’ failure to warn of a
known dangerous condition, or to discover through exercise of reasonable
diligence under the circumstances that which could have been discovered, and
further failure to hire and adequately train and supervise suitable and fit
employees and/or agents to regularly maintain said property in a safe and
suitable manner has directly and proximately resulted in Plaintiff Mary’s damages
in an amount in excess of $10,000.00 subject to proof at trial.

31.       Plaintiff Mary has been required to
engage the services of various medical providers to care for and treat her
injuries.  Plaintiff Mary is entitled to
reimbursement for past and future medical bills incurred as a result of the
injuries that have caused her pain and suffering.

32.       Plaintiff Mary has, since the incident on
December 7, 2014, experienced pain and suffering, and will continue to endure
future pain and suffering all to her general damages in an amount in excess of
$10,000.00.

33.       Plaintiffs have been required to retain
the services of a law firm to prosecute this action and are entitled to
reasonable attorneys’ fees.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(LOSS
OF CONSORTIUM)

 

34.       Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and
every foregoing paragraph set forth above and incorporate the same by reference
as though fully set forth at length herein.

35.       As a direct and proximate result of the
accident described herein, Plaintiff Mary has suffered significant permanent
injuries that have substantially changed her lifestyle, and which injuries
include an incapacity and incapability to perform the types of jobs and other
duties and responsibilities she performed before the injury.

36.       Plaintiff Andres is the husband of
Plaintiff Mary, and was legally and lawfully married to Plaintiff Mary at the
time of the accident, and is married to Plaintiff Mary at the present
time.

37.       As a direct and proximate result of the
injuries sustained by Plaintiff Mary in the accident described above, Plaintiff
Andres suffered the loss of love, care and consortium of his wife, Plaintiff
Mary, and, therefore, he is entitled to general damages for such losses.

WHEREFORE,
Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the above-named Defendants, and each of
them, jointly and severally, as follows:

1.         For compensatory damages for medical
costs and expenses, both past, present and future, in the amount to be proven
trial;

2.         For general damages for past, present
and future pain and suffering, distress, loss of life activities, and other
damages to be shown at trial;

3.         For past, present and future special
and general damages, as set forth above, including, but not limited to, bodily
injury, permanent disability and bodily impairment, past, present and future
medical expenses, loss of future wages, time and earning capacity, and
impairment and diminishment of future earning capacity, other out-of-pocket
expenses and consequential damages, physical pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment
of life, and an increased likelihood of re-injury, the exact amounts to be
proven at trial;

4.         For general damages for loss of
consortium;

5.         For pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs of court, and such other and
further relief that the Court may deem just and proper.

DATED
this _____ day of April, 2015.

ALBRIGHT,
STODDARD, WARNICK

&
ALBRIGHT

 

By_________________________________

G. MARK ALBRIGHT, ESQ.

Nevada Bar No. 001394

WILLIAM H. STODDARD, JR., ESQ.

Nevada Bar No. 008679

801 South Rancho Drive, Suite D-4

Las Vegas, Nevada 89106

(702) 384-7111

Attorneys
for Plaintiffs

About the Authors: The law firm of Albright, Stoddard, Warnick & Albright is an A-V Rated Nevada-based full-service law firm having attorneys licensed in Nevada, California and Utah. Our firm’s practice includes a strong emphasis on personal injury accidents. Call us at 702-384-7111.

Note: This article, and any other information you obtain at this website, is not offered as legal advice, nor should it be relied upon as such, nor is it a solicitation for legal services. Only a licensed attorney can advise you with respect to your specific legal needs. We welcome your contacting our firm to discuss such representation. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.