Quantcast

Plaintiff alleges negligence against Burlington Stores Inc., after injury at Sacramento location

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RECORD

Wednesday, November 27, 2024

Plaintiff alleges negligence against Burlington Stores Inc., after injury at Sacramento location

State Court
770f5b5d ecde 4dc7 8e94 c76b0df834a6

judge and hammer | https://www.pexels.com/

Plaintiff Leah LeGrant has filed a complaint for damages against Burlington Stores, Inc., and several associated entities, including Fairbourne Properties, LLC, FHS Promenade, LLC, FHS Promenade Partners, LLC, FHS Village Partners, LLC, Sacramento Gateway, and Does 1 to 20. The complaint was electronically filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento on May 20, 2024.

The incident that prompted this legal action occurred on June 16, 2022. LeGrant alleges that while she was a patron at a Burlington store located at or near 3671 North Freeway Boulevard in Sacramento, California—referred to as the "subject location"—she suffered severe injuries due to negligence on the part of the defendants. According to the complaint, barriers made of metal and plexiglass or plastic were erected between patrons and cashiers but were not properly secured onto the counter. A cashier allegedly struck one of these barriers negligently, causing it to fall onto LeGrant's lower extremity.

LeGrant asserts that she was exercising due care for her own safety at all relevant times and was acting in a reasonably foreseeable manner. She claims that the negligence of the defendants was a substantial factor in causing her serious physical injuries which have resulted in substantial past and future economic and non-economic damages. Specifically, she accuses the defendants of failing to maintain a safe environment by not securing the barrier properly and failing to warn patrons about potential hazards.

The complaint outlines two main causes of action: premises liability and negligence. Under premises liability, LeGrant contends that all defendants owned, constructed, designed, occupied, leased, operated, managed, serviced, maintained or otherwise controlled the 'subject location'. They had various duties related to ensuring safety but failed in these responsibilities by not securing the barrier adequately. In terms of negligence, LeGrant argues that defendants were responsible for installing and maintaining the cashier barrier but failed to do so safely. Additionally, she claims that they negligently hired and supervised employees who contributed to her injury.

As a result of these alleged wrongful acts by the defendants’ employees—including negligent maintenance and installation practices—LeGrant is seeking judgment from the court for general damages as established at trial; special damages; prejudgment interest; costs of suit; and any other relief deemed just by the court.

Representing LeGrant are attorneys Robert J. Ounjian from Carpenter & Zuckerman and Joseph P. Shirazi along with Simon Esfandi from Compass Law Group LLP. The case is identified under Case No.: 2Vacyroogqagzs in front of judges yet unnamed.

More News