Las Vegas Personal Injury Complaint Premises Liability Against Hotel & Casino

Posted by: on Thu, Jan 07, 2016

Share this post

COMES NOW, Plaintiff EFFIE WILLIAMSl (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), by and through her attorneys of record, ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK & ALBRIGHT, and as and for her Complaint against Defendant TEXAS GAMBLING HALL & HOTEL, INC., a Nevada corporation,
d/b/a TEXAS STATION HOTEL & CASINO (hereinafter “Defendant”), DOES I through X, and ROE CORPORATIONS I through XX, inclusive, alleges and avers as follows:
JURISDICTION
1. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was and is a resident of Clark County, Nevada.
2. Upon information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant TEXAS GAMBLING HALL & HOTEL, INC., a Nevada corporation , duly organized under the laws of the State of Nevada, and authorized to conduct business in the State of Nevada, doing business under the fictitious name TEXAS STATION HOTEL & CASINO,
3. 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; and/or
(d) Parties that have assumed or retained the liabilities of any of the Defendants by virtue of an agreement, sale, transfer or otherwise.
Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff, together with appropriate charging allegations, and to join said Defendants in the action.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
4. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every foregoing paragraph set forth above and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set forth at length herein.
5. At all times mentioned herein, particularly on or about October 22, 2014, the Defendant owned, operated, controlled and maintained the property located at 2101 Texas Star Lane, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89032, commonly known as the Texas Station Casino & Hotel.
6. On or about October 22, 2014, Plaintiff was a business invitee, lawfully on the premises of the Texas Station Casino Hotel and walking towards the exit doors.
7. As Plaintiff approached the exit door her toe caught on a wood footing and she fell forward. Plaintiff attempted to stop her fall by catching herself on the door with her outstretched hands. However, the large glass section was missing from the center of the door, causing the Plaintiff to fall through the door causing substantial bodily injuries.
8. There was no caution signs, tape, or any other warnings to alert the Plaintiff of the current hazardous condition of the door due to the missing glass.
8. Defendant is responsible for Plaintiff’s injuries as the owner of the building within which Plaintiff was injured, because Defendant and/or its agents failed to properly install, maintain or cause the proper installation of, secure, inspect, maintain and otherwise ensure that the glass section of the door was present and secure, causing Plaintiff’s injuries.
9. As a direct and proximate result of falling through he door due to the missing glass, Plaintiff suffered severe damage to her neck, back, left arm and shoulder, and head.
10. As a result of Plaintiff’s injuries, Plaintiff has sustained damages in excess of $10,000.00.
11. Plaintiff has been required to retain the services of a law firm to prosecute this action and is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(NEGLIGENCE)

12. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every foregoing paragraph set forth above and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set forth at length herein.
13. Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of care in selecting, purchasing, installing, affixing, maintaining and securing a safe and secure exit door, and in selecting those charged with the task of installing, securing, maintaining and inspecting the same, and keeping the same in a proper and safe working condition.
14. Defendant’s improper design, construction, manufacture and/or installation and maintenance of the exit door was a substantial factor in causing the injuries sustained by Plaintiff.
15. Defendant’s improper design, construction, manufacture and/or installation and maintenance of the exit door created an unreasonably dangerous condition which eventually caused injury to Plaintiff.
16. Defendant’s improper design, construction, manufacture and/or installation and maintenance of the exit door was a defect when the Defendant completed construction, manufacture and/or installation of the same, such that the exit door could not be safely used in the manner and for the purpose for which it was intended.
17. Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise due care in providing a safe place for persons using its facilities, including by ensuring that the facilities were safe and that installed fixtures located therein were properly installed, maintained, secured, and inspected and Defendant breached the Defendant’s duty of care.
18. Defendant breached its standard and duty of care to Plaintiff, including, without limitation, by failing to ensure that the exit door from its facility was safe and secure, which breach led to the Plaintiff’s fall, causing her substantial bodily harm.
19. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of the Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered severe and serious personal injuries. The full nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries are still unknown and when the same are ascertained, Plaintiff will assert them with particularity.
20. It was foreseeable to Defendant that, if the glass section of the exit door was not replaced securely and expeditiously, it could cause serious injuries to persons using said door.
21. Plaintiff has been required to engage the services of various medical providers to care for and treat her injuries. Plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement for past and future medical bills incurred as a result of the injuries that have caused her pain and suffering.
22. Since the incident on October 22, 2014, Plaintiff has 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.
23. Plaintiff has been required to retain the services of a law firm to prosecute this action and is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(NEGLIGENCE via RES IPSA LOQUITUR)

24. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every foregoing paragraph set forth above and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set forth at length herein.
25. Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise due care in providing a safe place for guests to use its facilities, and failed to meet this duty, and said actions and omissions as described above, were a breach of the Defendant’s duty of care.
26. Falling through a door that is designed and meant to include a large glass window which is missing does not ordinarily occur in the absence of someone’s negligence.
27. Defendant held the exclusive control of the exit door which caused Plaintiff’s injury.
28. Plaintiff did nothing to cause the negligent nature of the exit door.
29. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing negligence and carelessness of the Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered severe and serious personal injuries, and the Defendant is liable for the same under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The full nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries are still unknown and when the same are ascertained with more particularity, Plaintiff will assert them with particularity.
30. Plaintiff has been required to engage the services of various medical providers to care for and treat her injuries. Plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement for past and future medical bills incurred as a result of the injuries that have caused her pain and suffering.
31. Since the incident on October 22, 2014, Plaintiff has 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.
32. Plaintiff has been required to retain the services of a law firm to prosecute this action and is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(NEGLIGENCE via STRICT LIABILITY)
33. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every foregoing paragraph set forth above and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set forth at length herein.
34. Permitting invited guests to use doors that are missing major, functional elements, namely, the large, central, glass section, was and is an ultrahazardous situation for which the Defendant is strictly liable to any party who suffers any damage as a result of the same, regardless of fault. Plaintiff did not have any knowledge of the dangers involved when she was entering the area where the defective door was located.
35. Plaintiff was injured and suffered damages, as described above, due to the above-described events when the missing glass caused Plaintiff to fall through the door, for which the Defendant is strictly liable to the Plaintiff, regardless of fault.
36. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has suffered severe and serious personal injuries, and the Defendant is strictly liable for the same. The full nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries are still unknown and when the same are ascertained with more particularity, Plaintiff will assert them with particularity.
37. Plaintiff has been required to engage the services of various medical providers to care for and treat her injuries. Plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement for past and future medical bills incurred as a result of the injuries that have caused her pain and suffering.
38. Since the incident on October 22, 2014, Plaintiff has 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.
39. Plaintiff has been required to retain the services of a law firm to prosecute this action and is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(NEGLIGENCE PER SE)

40. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every foregoing paragraph set forth above and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set forth at length herein.
41. Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of care in installing and maintaining the exits door at issue herein.
42. Defendant’s actions were in direct violation of the Nevada Revised Statutes and/or applicable municipal building codes and/or reasonable and customary construction practices, and, therefore, Defendant’s actions constitute negligence per se.
43. The Nevada Revised Statute and/or applicable municipal building code provisions at issue were enacted to protect the general public while in structures in the State of Nevada.
44. Plaintiff is a member of the general public and are, therefore, in the class of protected persons intended to be protected by the Nevada Revised Statutes and/or applicable municipal building codes and/or reasonable and customary construction practices.
45. The injuries sustained by Plaintiff are of the type of injuries the Nevada Revised Statutes and/or applicable municipal building codes and/or reasonable and customary construction practices were established to protect against.
46. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing statutory violations and the related negligence and carelessness of the Defendant, for which Defendant is liable under the doctrine of negligence per se, Plaintiff has suffered severe and serious personal injuries. The full nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries are still unknown and when the same are ascertained with more particularity, Plaintiff will assert them with particularity.
47. Plaintiff has been required to engage the services of various medical providers to care for and treat her injuries. Plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement for past and future medical bills incurred as a result of the injuries that have caused her pain and suffering.
48. Since the incident on October 22, 2014, Plaintiff has 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.
49. Plaintiff has been required to retain the services of a law firm to prosecute this action and is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, expressly reserving her right to amend her Complaint prior to the time of the trial of the action herein to include all parties and items of damage not yet ascertained, demands judgment against the Defendant for each cause of action as follows:
A. For general damages in an amount in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars;
B. For special damages in an amount in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars;
C. For interest at the legal rate;
D. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit; and
E. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DATED this _____day of October, 2015.

ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK & ALBRIGHT

 

____________________________________________
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
Attorneys for Plaintiff

 

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.