ELECTRONICALLY FILED Pulaski County Circuit Court Larry Crane, …mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kuar/files/201811/2018_11_28_pow… · DONALD BONE, JR., TYRONE JACKSON, DOMINIQUE

1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS

__________ DIVISION

BRITTNEY AUSTIN, KAYANNA NICOLE BOGAN,

DONALD BONE, JR., TYRONE JACKSON, DOMINIQUE

McCLENDON, ZATORIC McFERGUSON, ASHLEY

NEELY, STEVEN OTEY, JR., MARCUS DeSHAWN

SIMMONS, KATRA SIMS, TASHEARA SLOCUM,

ELIJAH SMITH, TIANA TUCKER, VERONICA

WESTON, CRYSTAL WILLIAMS, KEVIN WINSTON,

PATRICK HARDY, RALPH JOHNSON, and RICKY

SIMS,

v. CASE NO.

POWER ULTRA LOUNGE, POWER KITCHEN & BAR, INC.,

POWER BAR AND GRILL, LLC, 6TH & CENTER, LLC,

HERMAN RAY LEWIS, DEFENDANTS

______________________________________________________________________________

Joshua D. Gillispie, Esq. Conrad J. Benedetto, Esq.

Green & Gillispie (pro hac vice to be applied for)

Attorney for Plaintiffs Law Office of Conrad J. Benedetto

1 Riverfront Place, Suite 605 Attorney for Plaintiffs

North Little Rock, AR 72114 1233 Haddonfield Berlin Rd, Suite 1

T: (501) 244-0700 Voorhees, NJ 08043

F: (501) 244-2020 (856) 500-2727

[email protected] [email protected]

Solomon M. Radner, Esq.

(pro hac vice to be applied for)

Excolo Law, PLLC Attorney for Plaintiffs

26700 Lahser Road, Suite 401

Southfield, MI 48033

(866) 939-2656

[email protected]

______________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

NOW COME Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, complaining against Defendants,

and allege as follows:

JURISDICTION PARTIES

PLAINTIFFS

ELECTRONICALLY FILEDPulaski County Circuit Court

Larry Crane, Circuit/County Clerk

2018-Nov-28 13:58:3960CV-18-8155

C06D09 : 23 Pages

mailto:[email protected]



2

1. The actions that led to this Complaint occurred in Little Rock, Arkansas. This

Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Complaint and the parties to this cause of

action, and Pulaski County is the proper and appropriate venue, pursuant to A.C.A. § 16-60-112.

2. Plaintiff BRITTNEY AUSTIN is a resident of Little Rock, Arkansas, in Pulaski

County, and was so at all times relevant to this Complaint.

3. Plaintiff KAYANNA NICOLE BOGAN is a resident of Sherwood, Arkansas, in

Pulaski County, and was so at all times relevant to this Complaint.

4. Plaintiff DONALD BONE, JR. is a resident of North Little Rock, Arkansas, in


5. Plaintiff TYRONE JACKSON is a resident of North Little Rock, Arkansas, in


6. Plaintiff DOMINIQUE McCLENDON is a resident of Little Rock, Arkansas, in


7. Plaintiff ZATORIC McFERGUSON is a resident of Little Rock, Arkansas, in


8. Plaintiff ASHLEY NEELY is a resident of Little Rock, Arkansas, in Pulaski


9. Plaintiff STEVEN OTEY, JR. is a resident of Little Rock, Arkansas, in Pulaski


10. Plaintiff MARCUS DeSHAWN SIMMONS is a resident of Little Rock, Arkansas,

in Pulaski County, and was so at all times relevant to this Complaint.

11. Plaintiff KATRA SIMS is a resident of Little Rock, Arkansas, in Pulaski County,

and was so at all times relevant to this Complaint.

3

12. Plaintiff TASHEARA SLOCUM is a resident of Little Rock, Arkansas, in Pulaski


13. Plaintiff ELIJAH SMITH is a resident of Little Rock, Arkansas, in Pulaski County,

and was so at all times relevant to this Complaint.

14. Plaintiff TIANA TUCKER is a resident of Magnolia, Arkansas, in Columbia


15. Plaintiff VERONICA WESTON is a resident of North Little Rock, Arkansas, in


16. Plaintiff CRYSTAL WILLIAMS is a resident of North Little Rock, Arkansas, in


17. Plaintiff KEVIN WINSTON is a resident of Jacksonville, Arkansas, in Pulaski


18. Plaintiff PATRICK HARDY is a resident of Little Rock, Arkansas, in Pulaski


19. Plaintiff RALPH JOHNSON is a resident of Little Rock, Arkansas, in Pulaski


20. Plaintiff RICKY SIMS is a resident of Lewisville, Texas, in Denton County, and

was so at all times relevant to this Complaint.

21. All Plaintiffs were at the property in question for the benefit of all Defendants.

22. All Plaintiffs were present for the shooting and suffered and continue to suffer non-

physical injuries including psychological injuries, emotional distress, and/or post-traumatic stress

disorder (“PTSD”).

4

23. Plaintiffs Marcus DeShawn Simmons, Donald Bone Jr., Steven Otey Jr., Brittney

Austin, Tiana Tucker, Tasheara Slocum, Kevin Winston, Elijah Smith and Patrick Hardy, all

suffered gunshot wounds.

24. All other plaintiffs suffered physical injuries as a result of the shooting and its

aftermath.

25. At all times relevant to this cause of action, and at the time of the incident described

further herein, Defendant POWER ULTRA LOUNGE (hereafter “Power Nightclub”) was the

assumed name of a nightclub doing business in the State of Arkansas, and can be served with

process via its owner and registered agent: Herman Ray Lewis, Sr, at 220 W. 6TH Street, Little

Rock, AR 72201. Power Nightclub operated as a bar and nightclub in a building located at 220 W.

6TH Street, Little Rock, AR 72201, on property owned by Defendant 6TH & CENTER, LLC.


further herein, Defendant 6TH & CENTER, LLC (hereafter “6TH & CENTER”) was a limited

liability corporation doing business in the State of Arkansas, and can be served with process via

its registered agent: Danny Brickey, Jr., at 400 North Van Buren Street, Little Rock, Arkansas,

72205. 6TH & CENTER owns the property located at 220 W. 6TH Street, Little Rock, AR 72201

– the property in which Power Nightclub operates. 6TH & CENTER permitted Power Nightclub

to operate publicly as a nightclub on its property in exchange for lease payments. 6TH &

CENTER, by agreement with Power Nightclub supported by consideration, assumed a duty of

ordinary care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe manner, which included guarding

against foreseeable harms caused by known defects and hazards. 6TH & CENTER, through its

conduct, assumed a duty of ordinary care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe manner,

which included guarding against foreseeable harms caused by known defects and hazards.

5

Specifically, 6TH & CENTER took part in attempting to address the security deficiencies of Power

Nightclub prior to July 1, 2017, including but not limited to direct involvement in security and

safety decisions, direct involvement in hiring off duty police officers to patrol the premises, direct

involvement in hiring security guards, and, upon information and belief, direct involvement in

hiring other Power Nightclub employees and making other decisions concerning premises safety.

Additionally, 6TH & CENTER, as the landlord, knew or ought to have known of the defective

security conditions on the premises, which existed at the time of the lease agreement and which

made the premises unfit for its intended purpose. The defective security conditions on the premises

were extreme enough to constitute a nuisance dangerous to the general public, and these conditions

remained unabated throughout the lease agreement, despite 6TH & CENTER’s knowledge and

direct involvement. 6TH & CENTER failed to perform its agreement and its assumed duty in a

reasonable manner.


further herein, Defendant POWER KITCHEN & BAR, INC. was a corporation doing business in

the State of Arkansas, and can be served with process via its owner and registered agent: Herman

Lewis, at 220 W. 6TH Street, Little Rock, AR 72201. POWER KITCHEN & BAR, INC. is a

business entity affiliated with Power Nightclub.


further herein, Defendant POWER BAR AND GRILL, LLC was a limited liability corporation

doing business in the State of Arkansas, and can be served with process via its owner and registered

agent: Herman Lewis, at 900 Russenberger Road, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72206. POWER BAR

AND GRILL, LLC is a business entity affiliated with Power Nightclub.

6


further herein, Defendant HERMAN RAY LEWIS, SR (hereafter “Defendant Lewis”) was a

resident of Pulaski County, Arkansas. Defendant Lewis is the owner, president and registered

agent of Power Nightclub, POWER KITCHEN & BAR, INC, and POWER BAR AND GRILL,

LLC. Lewis is being sued personally as a result of his own negligence, including his failure to

discharge his duties as a director of Power Nightclub with ordinary care and in good faith, and

pursuant to A.C.A. § 4-33-830.

30. All of the above individually named Defendants will be collectively referred to

hereafter as “Defendants” and/or “Power”.

31. This complaint relates to an incident that took place at the Power Ultra Nightclub

in Little Rock, Arkansas on or about July 1, 2017, during which one or more individuals opened

fire inside the nightclub around 2:30 a.m., physically injuring, and/or causing emotional and/or

psychological injury to dozens of people, including the Plaintiffs.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

32. On July 1, 2017, approximately around 2:30 a.m., a mass shooting occurred at the

Power Ultra Lounge nightclub (“Power”) in downtown Little Rock, Arkansas, United States.

33. Approximately twenty-eight people were shot and injured, including many of the

Plaintiffs herein, after a dispute that took place at Power.

34. The night of the shooting, a rapper named Ricky Hampton, generally known as

“Finese 2Tymes,” was giving a concert at Power.

35. Advertisement for the concert included a photograph of the headlining performer,

Finese 2Tymes, pointing a rifle toward the camera.

7

36. Finese 2Tymes was believed to have been involved in a shooting just days prior to

this event, of which it is believed Defendants were aware.

37. Patrons under 21 years were injured while being lawfully on Power’s premises,

since it was not supposed to operate as a nightclub.

38. According to officials, alcohol was not supposed to be served at Power past 2 a.m.

39. Multiple reports had been made to the police for previous violent crimes and

shootings occurring in and around Power’s premises.

40. Upon information and belief, patrons have been previously threatened to death with

guns inside of Power.

41. Upon information and belief, in the twenty-four (24) month period preceding the

incident forming the basis of this lawsuit, the City of Little Rock Police Department received,

reported, and/or responded to approximately forty-eight (48) known requests for police service or

assistance to the premises, including, but not limited to, the following:

a. one (1) Aggravated Assault;

b. four (4) Batteries;

c. two (2) Assaults;

d. two (2) Shots Fired Incidents;

e. three (3) Terroristic Threatening Offenses;

f. one (1) Robbery; and

g. five (5) Criminal Mischiefs

42. Upon information and belief, the property was not zoned for this type of use, and

also lacked necessary licenses and permits. At the time of shooting, Power was only zoned as a

8

restaurant with a mixed drink permit and did not have the corresponding permit to host such an

event, despite promoting itself as a concert venue.

43. At all times material to this action, Defendants could not lawfully host said

concert and was not equipped with appropriate security to host such an event.

COUNT I: NEGLIGENCE

44. Plaintiffs hereby incorporates by reference herein all prior allegations.

45. At said time and place, Defendants owned, operated and/or maintained Power and

possessed a duty to maintain the business and its surrounding premises in a safe manner to protect

its patrons from harm.

46. At all times material to this action, Plaintiffs were business invitees of Defendants

while on premises of Power and therefore Defendants owed Plaintiffs the duty to protect them

from imminent criminal harm and reasonably foreseeable criminal conduct by third persons.

47. Defendants, at all times material to this Complaint, knew or should have known

from previous acts of similar violence that there was a likelihood that third persons would endanger

the safety of patrons and owed a duty of care for the safety of their patrons, including Plaintiffs.

48. Defendants knew, or should have known through the exercise of ordinary care

and reasonable diligence, that events not dissimilar to the one that caused Plaintiffs’ injuries had

previously and recently occurred on the premises, and within a recent enough period of time as

to give Defendants adequate notice that similar incidents would occur.

49. Defendants knew, or should have known under the totality of the circumstances,

that the nature, condition, and location of the premises, along with prior similar incidents on the

premises, made Plaintiffs’ injuries foreseeable.

9

50. Defendants knew or should have known that in the twenty-four (24) month period

preceding the incident forming the basis of this lawsuit, the City of Little Rock Police Department

received, reported, and/or responded to approximately forty-eight (48) known requests for police

service or assistance to the premises, including, but not limited to, the following:

a. one (1) Aggravated Assault;

b. four (4) Batteries;

c. two (2) Assaults;

d. two (2) Shots Fired Incidents;

e. three (3) Terroristic Threatening Offenses;

f. one (1) Robbery; and

g. five (5) Criminal Mischiefs

51. Defendants failed to take reasonable measures to prevent such foreseeable harm.

52. Defendants, directly and through their employees, agents, servants and/or

contractors, breached duties owed to Plaintiffs, which were a proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries

and damages claimed, by one or more of the following acts and/or omissions:

a. Failing to provide adequate crowd control on the premises when it knew or

should have known that Plaintiffs were exposed to a risk of harm;

b. Failing to prevent the reasonably foreseeable injuries from occurring to

Plaintiffs;

c. Failing to recognize the high likelihood of injuries by third persons which might

endanger the safety of Plaintiffs;

d. Failing to properly patrol the premises;

e. Allowing guns to be brought into the club;

10

f. Failing to screen for guns and to prevent guns from being brought into the club;

g. Failing to hire and/or utilize properly trained security guards and other

employees;

h. Failing to properly train, instruct and supervise their employees in fulfilling

their duties and obligations to invitees, such as Plaintiffs;

i. Negligently retaining incompetent security guards and other employees;

j. Failing to provide appropriate security measures to ensure the safety of

Plaintiffs;

k. Failing to have sufficient increased security when it is foreseeable that there

will be criminal acts at the concert of said rapper;

l. Failure to secure all outside entrances to Power;

m. Failing to provide an environment that is reasonably safe from security threats;

n. Failing to evaluate the potential security risks posed by the physical and

operational environment at Power;

o. Failing to take all violent and threatening incidents seriously, investigate and

take appropriate corrective action;

p. Failing to provide necessary authority and resources for staff to carry out

violence prevention measures;

q. Inadequate physical qualifications, testing, training, supervision,

communications and instruction of security personnel;

r. Failure to warn their business invitees of the magnitude of criminal activities

that occurred around the premises of Power;

11

s. Failing to secure and monitor the area leading from the outside of Power to the

inside;

t. Failing to properly observe, monitor, and report in order to avoid the shooting;

u. Failing to intervene in order to avoid the shooting;

v. Failing to identify, investigate, report and maintain records of significant

security incidents and suspicious activities in and around the premises of Power,

including but not limited to the parking areas;

w. Failing to exercise reasonable care to detect, forestall or prevent or deter the

danger;

x. Failing to recognize and act promptly in response to previous incidents of

dangers;

y. Failing to adhere to city code and state laws designed to enhance citizen safety,

including laws regulating capacity;

z. Failing to provide and maintain sufficient entry and exit locations;

aa. Failing to otherwise protect Plaintiffs from such danger on Power premises; and

bb. Other such other negligent acts and/or omissions as discovery or the evidence

may show.

21. Defendants breached the aforesaid duties when they knew, or should have known,

the dangerous propensity in Power and yet failed to use ordinary care to guard against foreseeable

harm.

22. Moreover, Defendants knew or ought to have known in light of the surrounding

circumstances that their conduct would naturally and probably result in injuries and damages and

continued such conduct in reckless disregard of the circumstances or extreme indifference from

12

which malice may be inferred. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in order to

punish the wrongdoers and deter others from similar conduct.

23. That as a direct and proximate result of the breach of duty by Defendants, Plaintiffs

have suffered and will continue to suffer: catastrophic pain and injuries, both temporary and

permanent, including: bodily injuries; physical injuries and disabilities; mental anguish; lost

capacity for enjoyment of life; loss of earnings; loss of earning capacity; medical and hospital

expenses; loss of bodily function; mental illness; related expenses incurred to date and to be

incurred in the future, to the extent of which are presently unknown; out-of-pocket expenses; and

general damages in the amount of which will fully and fairly compensate Plaintiffs for the nature

and extent of their injuries. The full extent and nature of all special and general damages will be

shown at the time of trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgement against Defendants for all damages allowed

by law including compensatory and punitive damages and costs, and for such other relief this Court

deems appropriate and just.

COUNT II: NEGLIGENT HIRING


25. Defendants owed a duty of care to provide a reasonably safe environment to the

patrons and other business invitees of Power, including to exercise reasonable care in the hiring

and/or contracting of their agents, servants, employees and/or contractor.

26. Prior to the shooting resulting in Plaintiffs’ injuries, the Defendants, their agents,

employees, servants and/or contractors generally knew or should have known that Power is

commercial property, open to the public, where criminal activity is susceptible to happen if

adequate security is not provided.

13

27. Defendants, their agents, servants, employees and/or contractors breached the

aforesaid duties owed to Plaintiffs by failing to hire and/or utilize properly trained security guards.



harm.

29. Defendants negligently hired security guards, uniformed security personnel or other

security personnel, and/or failed to provide a sufficient number of security guards, uniformed

security personnel or other security personnel on Power.

30. Defendants were negligent in hiring and/or contracting agents, servants, employees

and/or contractors and Plaintiffs damages and injuries were a proximate cause of Defendants’

negligence and recklessness in hiring and/or contracting said agents, servants, employees and/or

contractors.

31. Specific acts and omissions of Defendants’ negligent hiring and/or contracting

include but are not limited to:

a. Failing to investigate the qualifications and backgrounds of their agents,

servants, employees and/or contractors of Power personnel;

b. Failing to investigate whether their agents, servants, employees and/or

contractors of security personnel on Power were qualified to provide

supervision and monitoring in accordance with ordinary safety and the

applicable standard of care of nightclubs;

c. Failing to investigate whether their agents, servants, employees, and/or

contractors of security personnel on Power were qualified to serve and protect

14

patrons at events that took place at Power, such as concerts, where the public

regularly consumes alcoholic beverages;

d. Failing to investigate whether their agents, servants, employees, and/or

contractors of security personnel on Power were mentally and physically

qualified to provide care, to supervise and to monitor the safety of the public at

concerts that took place in Power.

e. Failing to identify, investigate, report and maintain records of significant

security incidents and suspicious activities on Power premises, including but

not limited to the parking areas;

f. Otherwise failing to exercise ordinary care in the hiring of their agents,

servants, employees, and/or contractors.

32. Defendants knew or ought to have known in the light of the surrounding


continued such conduct in reckless disregard of the circumstances from which malice may be

inferred. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in order to punish the

wrongdoers and deter others from similar conduct.

33. That as a direct and proximate result of the breach of duty by Defendants, Plaintiffs

have suffered and will continue to suffer: catastrophic pain and injuries, both temporary and

permanent, including: bodily injuries; physical injuries and disabilities; mental anguish; lost

capacity for enjoyment of life; loss of earnings; loss of earning capacity; medical and hospital

expenses; loss of bodily function; mental illness; related expenses incurred to date and to be

incurred in the future, the full extent of which are presently unknown; out-of-pocket expenses; and

general damages in the amount of which will fully and fairly compensate Plaintiffs for the nature

15

and extent of their injuries. The full extent and nature of all special and general damages will be

shown at the time of trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants for all damages allowed



COUNT III: NEGLIGENT TRAINING


35. Defendants owed a duty of care for to provide a reasonably safe environment to the

patrons and other business invitees of Power, including to exercise reasonable care in the training

of their agents, servants, employees and/or contractors.




adequate training is not provided to security personnel.

37. Defendants, their agents, servants, employees and/or contractors breached the

aforementioned duties owed to Plaintiffs when it failed to train and instruct their personnel in

fulfilling their duties and obligations to business invitees, such as Plaintiffs.



harm.

39. Defendants are directly liable for the injuries and damages described herein, as a

result of their own negligence and carelessness in the training of their agents, servants, employees,

contractors, and/or franchisees.

16

40. Specific acts and omissions of Defendants’ negligent training include but are not

limited to the following:

a. Failing to train their agents, servants, employees and/or contractors to provide

information of the standard of proper surveillance and monitoring techniques

in order to provide a safe environment for their patrons and to anticipate and

circumvent criminal behavior;

b. Failing to train and test their agents, servants, employees and/or contractors and

provide information and assistance regarding the proper response to situations

that constitute safety threats, hazards, and other dangerous circumstances to

patrons in Power for when such threats arise;

c. Failing to instruct their agents, servants, employees and/or contractors on

security information and assistance, including but not limited to being alert and

responsive to potential safety threats;

d. Failing to train their agents, servants, employees and/or contractors with

specific policies, including but not limited to keeping areas leading from the

outside to the inside of Power secure; and

e. Otherwise failing to exercise ordinary care in training security personnel under

the circumstances.




inferred. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in order to punish the wrongdoers

and deter others from similar conduct.

17

42. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of duty by Defendants’ negligence

in training security personnel, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer: catastrophic pain

and injuries, both temporary and permanent, including: bodily injuries; physical injuries and

disability; mental anguish; lost capacity for enjoyment of life; loss of earnings; loss of earning

capacity; medical and hospital expenses; loss of bodily function; mental illness; related expenses

incurred to date and to be incurred in the future, the full extent of which are presently unknown;

out-of-pocket expenses; and general damages in the amount of which will fully and fairly

compensate Plaintiffs for the nature and extent of their injuries. The full extent and nature of all

special and general damages will be shown at the time of trial.




COUNT IV: NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION


44. Defendants owed a duty of care for to provide a reasonably safe environment to the

patrons and other business invitees of Power, including to exercise reasonable care in the

supervision of their agents, servants, employees and/or contractors.




security personnel is not properly supervised.

18

46. Defendants, their agents, servants, employees and/or contractor breached the

aforementioned duties owed to Plaintiffs when they failed to properly supervise their employees

in fulfilling their duties and obligations to business invitees, such as Plaintiffs.



harm.


result of their own negligence and carelessness in the supervision of their agents, servants,

employees and/or contractors.

49. Specific acts and omissions of Defendants’ negligent supervision include, but are

not limited to the following:

a. Failure to monitor and supervise their agents, servants, employees and/or

contractors, to be available and assessable and to provide assistance and

information to them, in order to ensure that patrons at Power, such as Plaintiffs,

are safe;

b. Failure to monitor and supervise their agents, servants, employees, and/or

contractors and being assessable to provide assistance and information to ensure

that proper safety policies and procedures were followed;

c. Failing to emphasize safety in the process of supervising Power;

d. Allowing firearms into Power without detection;

e. Failing to monitor the security stations, patrol areas, parking lots and common

areas through the use of the available video surveillance;

19

f. Failing to maintain records of significant security incidents and suspicious

activities;

g. Failing to conduct periodic emergency drills in order to ascertain the

effectiveness of any emergency plan;

h. Failing to identify, investigate, report and maintain records of significant

security incidents and suspicious activities in Power premises, including but not

limited to the parking areas;

i. Otherwise failing to exercise ordinary care in the supervision of their staff.

50. Defendants knew or should have known through the exercise or reasonable care

that the failure to supervise their agents, servants, employees and/or contractors would subject

others to unreasonable risks of harm.

51. Defendants knew or ought to have known in light of the surrounding circumstances

that their conduct would naturally and probably result in injuries and damages and continued such

conduct in reckless disregard of the circumstances from which malice may be inferred.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in order to punish the wrongdoers and

deter others from similar conduct.

52. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of duty by Defendants in negligent

supervising, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer: catastrophic pain and injuries,

both temporary and permanent, including: bodily injuries; physical injuries and disability; mental

anguish; lost capacity for enjoyment of life; loss of earnings; loss of earning capacity; medical and

hospital expenses; loss of bodily function; mental illness; related expenses incurred to date and to

be incurred in the future, the full extent of which are presently unknown; out-of-pocket expenses;

and general damages in the amount of which will fully and fairly compensate Plaintiffs for the

20

nature and extent of their injuries. The full extent and nature of all special and general damages

will be shown at the time of trial.




COUNT V: NEGLIGENT RETENTION


54. Defendants owed a duty of care to provide a reasonably safe environment to the

patrons and other business invitees of Power, including to exercise reasonable care in the retention

of their agents, servants, employees and/or contractors.




inadequate personnel is retained.

56. Defendants, their agents, servants, employees and/or contractor breached the

aforesaid owed to Plaintiffs when it retained personnel that was incapable of fulfilling their duties

and obligations to business invitees, such as Plaintiffs.



harm.


result of their own negligence and carelessness in the retention of their agents, servants, employees,

and/or contractors.

21

59. Defendants knew or should have known that their agents, servants, employees

and/or contractors were incompetent and yet continued to employ them.

60. Specific acts and omissions of Defendants’ negligent retention include, but are not

limited to the following:

a. Continuing to employ their agents, servants, employees, and/or contractors,

given the high number of previous violent incidents on Power premises;

b. Continuing to employ their agents, servants, employees, and/or contractors,

given the high number of criminal suspects who escaped incidents on Power

premises;

c. Continuing to employ their agents, servants, employees and/or contractors,

notwithstanding complaints from business invitees on Power;

d. Continuing to employ their agents, servants, employees and/or contractors

notwithstanding the lack of follow-up on numerous incidents; and

e. Otherwise failing to exercise ordinary care in the retention of their personnel.

61. Defendants knew or should have known through the exercise or reasonable care

that the failure to retain their agents, servants, employees and/or contractors would subject patrons

of Power to unreasonable risk of harms.




inferred. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in order to punish the wrongdoers

and deter others from similar conduct.

22

63. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of duty by Defendants’ negligence

in retaining personnel at Power, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer: catastrophic

pain and injuries, both temporary and permanent, including: bodily injuries; physical injuries and

disability; mental anguish; lost capacity for enjoyment of life; loss of earnings; loss of earning

capacity; medical and hospital expenses; loss of bodily function; mental illness; related expenses

incurred to date and to be incurred in the future, the full extent of which are presently unknown;

out-of-pocket expenses; and general damages in the amount of which will fully and fairly

compensate Plaintiffs for the nature and extent of their injuries. The full extent and nature of all

special and general damages will be shown at the time of trial.




RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays this Honorable Court grant the following relief:

(a) compensatory damages in an amount determined by a jury;

(b) punitive damages in an amount determined by a jury;

(c) reasonable attorney's fees and costs; and

(d) such other relief as this Court may deem just, proper, and appropriate.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.

Respectfully submitted by:

/s/ Joshua D. Gillispie

ABA # 2010131

23

GREEN & GILLISPIE

Attorneys at Law

1 Riverfront Place, Suite 605

North Little Rock, AR 72114

(501) 244-0700

(501) 244-2020, fax

[email protected]


Documents

ELECTRONICALLY FILED Pulaski County Circuit Court Larry Crane, …mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kuar/files/201811/2018_11_28_pow… · DONALD BONE, JR., TYRONE JACKSON, DOMINIQUE