I 􀁾 By: Matthews. Carlton. Stein. Shielj 972 234 1750j. .) Jan-18-99 10:06AMj ') Page 1 MATTHEWS. CARLTON. STEIN. SHIELS. PEARCE. DUNN & KNOTT, L.L.P. CROSSPOINT ATRIUM 8131LBJ FREEWAY,
SUITE 700 DALLAS, TEXAS 75251 (972) 234-3400 OFFICE (972) 234-1750 FAX NO. OF PAGES: 11 (INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE) FAX TO NO. TO: FROM: 972/450-2837 JOliN BAUMGARDNER, P.E. DIRECTOR
OF PUBLIC WORKS PAUL K. PEARCE, JR. SPECIAL MESSAGE: PERSON TO CONTACT IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS TRANSMISSION: Karrie Beasley TELEPHONE NO. (972) 234-3400 OUR FILE NO. DATE:
1730/54462 January 18. 1999 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS AlTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY
NAMED ABOVE. IF· THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY
DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROH BITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY 􀁔􀁅􀁌􀁅􀁐􀁈􀁏􀁎􀁾
AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THr::. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE.
I , B¥: Matthews, Carlton, Stein, Shielj 972 234 1750i ) Jan-18-99 10:06AMi Page 2 mul.Y L (:Akl.lON GREGOllY M. nwr Ru8E1lT J.PAVlS RO(;(iE DUNN ltORu.TL. EDEN IElINlI'lik L CrABill
DANIEL /\. KNOTT DIZMtAN S. 1.AJl!lQN MATTHEWS, CARLTON, STEIN, SffiELS, PEARCE, DUNN & KNOTT, L.L.P. tirruRNLYS AND COUNSELORS 1S131 1.81 fREEWAY, SUITE 700 DALLAS. TEXAS 75251 "fEtEPHONE:
(9"72) 234·3400 lElECOPIER; (972) 234-\750 January 18, 1999 TOM n. Ml\T111f.\Vli (1910-1988) TOMD. MArnl1'W!).lll. I\SIIL£Y B. McCLAIN D.MY MlIKI'H'I PAUL 1(. PEARl't'. JR. 'I1tOMAS
A. SHIELS K1'I'INlirH.k. S1E\l'l VIA FACSIMlLtf# 97214$0-2837 Mr. Jolm Bamngardner, P.E. Director of Public Works P.O. Box 9010 16801 Westgrove Drive Addison, Texas 75001-9010 Re: CalISe
Nu. 98-9944-E; Paul Dorsey and Angelic Verka;k liS. Broadway Grill, I"c., tVWa Broadway arm, Tony So Augustus, andthe Town OfAddifon TML Claim No. 9900052677 Our File No. 1730154462
Dear Mr. Baumgardner: Pcr our telephone convel'sation, please review the 􀁡􀁴􀁴􀁡􀁣􀁨􀁥􀁤􀁾 .After After your review, please contact me as pTl)mptly as possible since our responses need
to be filed today. Sincerely, '?------.--.... 􀁾 􀁾 _. 􀁾 􀀭􀀭􀁾i,) PAUL K. PEARCE, JR. 􀁾 PKP/klb t: 1233111/7JOl54462lLTRIBAUMGARD. /
􀁾􀁴 By: Matthews. Carlton. Stein. 􀁾􀁨􀁩􀁥􀁬􀁩 972 234 1750; ) CAUSE NO. 98-9944-E Jan-18-99 10:07AM; Page 3 PAUL DORSEY and ANGt:LIC VERKAJK BROADWAV GRILL, INC., d/b/a BROADWAY GRILL,
TONY S. AUGUSTUS, and THE TOWN Oli' ADDISON §§§§§§§§§ IN THE COUNT COURT AT LAW NO. S DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT THE TOWN OF ADDISON'S OBJECTIONS AND 􀁒􀁅􀁓􀁐􀁏􀁎􀁓􀁾􀁓'ro PAUL DORSEY'S
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO: Paul Doney, by and through his attorney of record. John B. Schorsch, Jr., MASTROGIOVANNI, SCHORSCH, MERSKY & Z.l\OAR. P.C., 2323 Bryan Street, Suite
2350, Dallas, Texas, 75201. COMES NOW. The Town uf Addison, Defendant ill the above-styled and nWl1bcred cause, pursuant to Rule 168 ofthe Tex.R.Civ.P.• and makes the following 􀁏􀁢􀁪􀁾􀁣􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁳
and Responses to Paul Dorsey's First Set ofInterrogatories. Respectfully submitted, By: PAUL K. PEARCE, JR. State Bar No. 15683600 MATTHF.WS, CARLTON, STEIN, SHIELS, PEARCE, DUNN & KNOTT,
L.L.P. 8131 LBJ Freeway, Suite 700 Dallas. Texas 75251 9721234·3400 (office) 972/234-1750 (lelecopier) ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT THE TOWN OF ADDISON Dlil'iiNllAN"I" THE TOWN OF ADPISON's
OBJI::(:TIONS ANO 􀁒􀁬􀀻􀁓􀁉􀀧􀁏􀁎􀁓􀁬􀀺􀁩􀁾 "fO PAUl. DORSEY'S FIRST SlIT OF INTERROGATORIES T: 1233\1117JOIJ4462\DlSCIOBJ_ANS.ROG PA(i!i I
/,nt By: Matthews. Carlton. Stein. Srieli 972 234 1750i ) Jan-18-99 10:07AM-.. '\ J ) Page 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy ofthe above and foregoing
instrument has been served upon all 􀁣􀁯􀁵􀁮􀁾􀁥􀁬 of record, in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. on this the__day of , J999. PAUL K. PEAReR, ,JR. DEFF.Nn"m THIi TOWN
ot: ADDISON'S ORIFCTIONS AND 􀁒􀁾􀁓􀁊􀀧􀁏􀁎􀁓􀁾􀁓 TO PAW. rxmSF.Y'S FIRS .. S1;'1 Of 􀁬􀁎􀁔􀁉􀀻􀁒􀁒􀁏􀁑􀁁􀁲􀁯􀁒􀁉􀁆􀀮􀁾 "/'·1213111/710154462IDISC10/J.I.ANSROG
,Sent By: Matthews, Carlton, Stein, Shielj 972 234 1750j ') INTERRO{iATQWES INTERROGATORY NO. I: Jan-18·99 10:07AMj ) Page 5 Identify the person responding to these Interrogatories on
behalf of Defendant RESPONSE; This Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 1 to the extent that it seeks disclosure of the residential address and phone number ofthe individuals responding
to these Inlerrogatories. This Defendant would show that such information is irrelevant to any issue in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Further, this Defendant objects to providing such infonnation for lhe reason that it unduly invades the privacy interests of the individuals. Allematively, this Defendant moves
for a Protective Order pursuant Rule 166b(5) ofthe Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure. Subject to the foregoing and without waiving 􀁾􀁡􀁭􀁥􀀮 Carmen Moran Director of Development Services
Town Hall 5300 Beltline Road Addison. Texas (972) 450-7018 John Baumgardner, P.E. Director ofPubHe Works P.O. Box 9010 16801 Westgrove Drive Addison, 􀁔􀁥􀁸􀁡􀁾 75001-9010 (972) 450-2886
Captain Ronald C. Davis Town ofAddison Police Departmenl 4799 Airport Parkway Addison, Texas (972) 450-7100 INTERROGATORY NO.1; Identify every document reviewed by you in responding
to these Interrogatories. DEfENDANT TIlli TOWN or ADDISON'S OBJF.CTI0NS AND 􀁒􀀱􀀺􀁳􀀱􀀧􀁕􀁎􀁓􀁾 10 PAlll. DORSl;Y'S FtRsI SIn OF 1NJERIlooATORIP.S T:12JJ\/1/7J0I54462IDISClOBJ ,Al'IS.ROG
'Sent By: Matthews) Carlton) Stein) Shielj 972 234 1750j ..) RESPONSE: Jan-18-99 10:08AMj Page 6 This Defendant objects to Interrogatol}' No. 2 to the extent that it is vague, overly
broad, unduly burdensome and seeks production of information exempted from discovery by virtue of . Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure 166b(3){a)(b){e){d), all) well as the attorney/client
privilege. Subject to the foregoing and without waiving same, see the documents attached hereto as Exhibits, as well as those produced in response to this Plaintiff's Request for Production.
INTERROGATORY NO, 3; identify each person who is believed by Defendant to possess knowledge ofany facts relevant to any claim or defense being asserted by any party to this litigation
and describe or summarize the relevant facts ofwmch each such individual is believed to be knowledgeable. RESPONSE: This Defendant objects to Interrogatory No.3 to the cxtent that it
seeks disclosure of the residential address and phone numher of its employees. This Defendant would show that such information is irrelevant to any issue in this case and is not reasonably
calculated 10 lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Further, this Defendant objects to providing such information for the reason that it unduly invades the privacy interests of
the individuals. Alternatively. this Defendant moves for a ProtectiveOl:der pursuant Rule 166b(5) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. This Defendant further objects to this 􀁉􀁮􀁾􀀧􀁉􀁔􀁯􀁧􀁡􀁴􀁯�
�􀁹 to the extent that ;s vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks disclosure ofinformation exempted from 􀁤􀁩􀁾􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁲􀁹 by virtue of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 166b(3)(a)(b)(c)(d),
as well as the attorney/client privilege. Subjlw'Ct Lo the foregoing and without waiving same. 1. 2. 3. 4. Stephen Becnel 18250 Mar.sh Lanc #1303 Dallas. Texas 75287 Pamela Halli5ey
(witness to accident) 18081 Midway Rd. #225 Dallas, Texas 75281 Rob Nomlan Neville (witness to accident) 3811 Portsmouth Circle Plano. Texas 15023 Thomas D. Reynolds (witness to accident)
18250 Marsh Lane #1305 Dallas, Texas 75287 5. Donald Allison Tittle 2821 Carlisle #204 Dallas, TX 75204 6. . Attorneys that Donald Allison Tittle allegedly contacted: a. Michael C. Brown
Figari & Davenport 4800 Nation:; Bank Plaza 901 Main Street Dallas, Texas DF:FF.NDANT Till: TOWN Of ADDISON'S OBJECTIONS AND RF$..ONSF_" TO PM" DoRSF,y'S FIRS"r SET 01' lN1ERROGATORJES
T: IlJJIII17JOt54462IDTSCIOBJ_ANSROG
,Sent By: Matthews, Carlton, Stein, 􀁾􀁨􀁩􀁥􀁬􀀻 972 234 1750; ) Jan·18·99 10:08AM; \ ./Page 7 b. Martin Lc Noir 18625 Midway Rd. #522 Law Offices of Martin Le Nair Dallas, Texas 75287
3300 Oak Lawn, Suite 600 13. Investigator Steve Rooney Dallas, Tex,as 15219-4269 Addison Police Department c. Joe Shearin 4799 Airport Parkway .. Law Offices of Joe Shearin Addison.
TX 75001 1845 Woodall Rogers Freeway 14. Officer S.D. Hobbs Suite 1200 Addison Police Department Dallas, Texas 4799 Airport Parkway d. Jim Rolfe Addison, TX 75009 Law Offices ofJim Rolfe
(972) 450-7100 2821 Routh Street 15. Officer R.O. Snyder Dallas. Texas 75201 Addison Police Oepmtment e. County Judge Vickers Cunningham, 4799 Airport Parkway COWlty Court at Law #8
Addison, TX 75009 .Frank CTOwley Courthouse, 4th Floor (972) 450·7100 133 N. Industrial 16. Officer L.C. Taylor Dallas, TX Addison Police Department 7. Mr. David Martin 4799 Airport
Parkway U-Haul Center of Plano Addison, TX 75009 4101 Plano Parkway (972) 450-7100 Plano. Texas 75093 17. Officer Jeff Wade 8. Ms. Su..'>aIl 􀁋􀁡􀁬􀁴􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁾 Addison Police Department
Plano Police Department 4799 Airport Parkway 909 14th Street Addison. TX 75009 Plano, TX (972) 450-7100 9. Mr. Richard Taylor 18. Officer S.S. Smith Dallas Police Department Addison
Police Department 911 Division 4799 Airport Parkway 1SOO Marilla Addison, TX 75009 Dallas, TX 75201 (972) 450-7100 to. Steven Patrick Hiss 19. Officer S.J. Rooney 38t 7 Portsmouth Circle
Plano. Texas 75023 Addison Police J)epartment 4799 Airport Parkway 11. Roger Hiss Addison. TX 75009 7147 Burch Ho)Jow Lane (972) 450-7100 West Chester, OH 45069 12. Michelle Christine
Hiss DEFENDANT THi:: TOWN 01' ADDISON'S OOIf.(TlONS ANO RF_<;l'ON!'iF.!'i TO PAlIl, DORsey's FIRST SET Of INTERROGATORIES PAGES T:\233\l117JOI54462IDISCIOBJ_ANS.ROG
Sent By: Matthews, Carlton, Stein, Shielj 972 234 1750j .J 20. Officer M.A. Raines Addison Police Department· . . 4799 Airport Parkway Addison, TX 75009 (972) 450-1100 21. Robin D. Jones
Street Superintendent Town of Addison 16801 Wcstgrove Drive Addison, TX 75001-9010 (971) 450-2849 22. Angelic Verkaik c/o Mr. Jeff Stark KaLER&STARK 1410 AvenueG Plan\), Texas 75074
23. Paul Dorsey c/o Mr. John B. Schorsch, Jr. MASTROGIOVANNI. SCHORSCH. MERSKY & ZAGAR, p.e. . 2323 Bryan Street, Suite 2350 Dallas, Texas 75201 Jan-18-99 10:09AMj 􀁾􀀩 Page 8/17 See
also lht: Answer to Interrogatory No.1. Further, this Defendant incorporates by referCI1ce all persons named or mentioned in all documents produced by this Defendant, as well as all
persons identified as having relevant knowledge hy any party to this litigation. INTERROGATORY NO.4: Identify each person you may call to testify as an expert witness at trial of this
case, including damage witnesses who are experts. and slate the following: a. lht' sllbjt:ct mattt:r about which the expert is expected to testify; b. the mental impressions and opinions
held by the expert; and c. the facts known to the expert (regardless ofwhen the factual information was acquired) which relate to or fonu the basis ofthe mental impressions and opinions
held by the expert. DEFENDANT THF. TOWN 01' AODISON'S OD1ECTIONS ANn 􀁒􀁆􀁟􀁾􀁬􀀧􀁻􀀩􀁎􀀡􀀻􀁆􀀧􀀢TO PAUL 􀁉􀁬􀁑􀁒􀁓􀁅􀁙􀀧􀁾FIR."T SETOF INIEMOOATOJ.1f.5 7:' \23JI/I/7J0I54462lDISCIOBJ_ANS.ROG
l'AGf6
Sent By: Matthews. Carlton. Stein. Sbielj 972 234 1750j ) RESPONSE: Jan-18-99 0:09AMj Page 9/17 ThisDefendantobjects to Interrogatory No.4, and Subsections b and c only to the extenl
that they are vague. overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to the foregoing and without waiving same, no decision has been made coneerning expert witnesses at this time. INTERROGATORY
NO. S: Idenlify each expert used for consultations who is not expected to be called as a witness at trial. but whose opinions or impressions have been reviewed by or have contributed
to the opinions of a testifying expert. and state the following: a. the mental impressions and opinions held by the expert. b. a description of all documents or tangible things containing
such experl·s impressions and opinions; and c. the facts known to tbe expert (regardless ofwhen the factual information was acquired) which relate to or fonn the basis ofthe mental impressions
and opinions held by the testifying expert. RESPONSE; This Oefendant objects to lnterrogatvry No.5 to the extent that it is vague. Further. this Defendant objects to InterrogatQry No.5.
Subsections b. and c_ to the extent that they are vague. overly broad and unduly burdensonle. Subjecl to the foregoing and without waiving same, none at this time. INTERROGATORY NO.6:
Since you have contended that the conduct alleged in Section VII ofPlaintifts' Original Petition does not constitute a governmental function(s), as that tenn is defined in Section 101.0215.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code, please identify each and every fact which supports this conlention. RESPONSE: This Defendant objects to Intel1'Ogatory No.6 to the extent that it is vague,
overly broad. unduly burden50me, and 􀁳􀁾􀁫􀁳 production ofinfonnation exempted from discovery by virtue ofTexas Rules of Civil Procedure 166b(3)(a)(b)(c)(d). as well as the attorney/client
privilege. SUbject to the foregoing and without waiving same, see Paragraph 111 ofThe Town ofAddison's Original AnlOwer which has been filed in this case. Paragraph rn of lhc Answer
specifically provides that The ToWn of Addison '"would show that at all times in question. it was engaged in the performance of a governmental fimction." DEfENDANT'1'HJ; TOWN OF ADDISON'S
OJJJI3C110NSAND RESl'(lNSF!) TO PAn 􀁄􀀹􀁒􀁳􀁅􀁘􀀮􀁾FIRST SET Of JNIWOOAIOlUES T:!1331J117JOI544621{)/SClOB.I_ANSROG PAG!::?
Sent By'; Matthews J Carlton J Stein J 􀁾􀁢􀁩􀁥􀁬 j 972 234 1750 j ) . Jan-18·99 􀁾􀁏􀀻􀀰􀀹􀁁􀁍􀁪 . ) Page 10117 INTERROGATORY NO.7; ldentify every accident involving a pedestrian and
a motor vehicle n'om January 1. 1993 to the present. which has occurred on the block ofAddison Road between Broadway Road and Arapaho Road. RESPONSE: This Defendant objects to Interrogatory
No.7, to the extent that it is vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to the foregoing and without waiving same. since January 1, 1996, none other than the accident in question
and the accident described in 􀁴􀁨􀁾 attached Exhibit"A". INTERROGATORY NO.8: Identify every complaint or report, of any type, you have received from January I. 1993 to the present regarding
pedestrian uaffic on Addison Road at the location of the Broadway Grill. RESPONSE: This Defendant objects to Interrogatory No.8 to the extent that it is vague, overly broad and unduly
burdensome. Subject to the foregoing and without waiving same, no complaints. See also the Answer to Interrogatory No.7. INTERROGATORY NO.9: IdentitY every complaint or report, or any
type, you have received from Janumy I, 1993 lO the present regarding the ab!'ience ofa pedestrian cross walk, a STOP sign, a yield sign, streetlights, hazard lights or hazard signs or
any other device or signal to warn, ac;sist or protect pedestrian traffic on Addison Road at the location uribe Broadway Grill. RESPONSE: This Defendant objects to Interrogatory No.9)
to the extent that it is vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to the foregoing and without waiving same, none. However, in 1998, there was a change made in the street Jighting
in the area. See also the attached Exhibits "A" and "B'.... {)F.Ff.NOANT THb TOWN OF ADDISON'S QBJt!CI'IONS ANO RESPONSES TO UVL DoRsU'S FIRST SEIor ImERROGAIORI"A-; T: \213\/1/7]()\544621D1SCIUJJJjf
NS ROO PI\Cif 8
Sent By: Matthews, Carlton, Stein, 􀁾􀁨􀁩􀁥􀁬􀀬􀀭 972 234 1750-.'J ' INTERROGATORY NO, 10: Jan-18-99 10:10AM; I Page 11/17 State with 􀁾􀁰􀁣􀁣􀁩􀁦􀁩􀁣􀁩􀁴􀁹 why you have not installed
or erected street lights. hazard lights or signs. a pedestrian \,'I'OSS walk, a STOP sign. a yield sign or any other device or signal to warn, assist or protect pedestrian traffic on
Addison Road at the location ofthe Broadway GrilL . BESPONS":: This Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 10 to the extent that it is vague. overly bIOtld and unduly burdensome. Further,
this Defendant objects to said Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks disclosure of intbrmation exempted from discovery by 'fe}(3S Rules of Civil Procedure 166b(3)(a)(b)(c)(d). as
we]) as the attorney/client privilege. Subject to the foregoing and without waiving same, the 􀁾􀁩􀁧􀁮􀁡􀁧􀁥􀀮 street markings, and traffic signals at the location are sufficient to
warn. assist and protect pedestrian traffic. Further, there is p protected pedestrian crossing at the intersection ofAddison Road, Broadway and Lindberg, lNTERROGATORVNO.ll: Identify
every complaint ur n.'1'Ort. ofany type, you have received from January 1. 1993 to the present regarding the design ofthe Pathway at the Broadway Grill. RESPONSE: This Defendant objects
to Interrogatory No. 11 to the extent that it is vague and overly broad Subject to the foregoing and without waiving same. none. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identity every occasion from January
I, 1993 to the present on which the Broadway Grill has been cited, reprimanded. penalized or otherwise warned by you or the COWlly ofDallas for exceeding its maximum occupancy limitation.
RESpONSE: This Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 12 to the extentlhal il is vague and overly broad, Subject to the foregoing and without waiving same, see the attached Exhibit "C",
. DEfENDAl'OT THF. TUWN 01' 􀁁􀁄􀁄􀁉􀁓􀀰􀀱􀀧􀁬􀀧􀁾OSJF.GIIONS AND R£sPONSES TO PAUl. DORSEY'S FIRST SET Of ImERRQ(jAIORUiS T:\113\1\1710\54462\DISClOBJ_ANS.RO(i PAGE 9
Sent By: Matthews, Carlton, Stein, 􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁥􀁬􀁪 972 234 1750j ) Jan-18-99 jO:10AMj J Page 12/17 INTERROGATORY NO, 13: Identify 􀁾􀁶􀁥􀁲􀁹 complaint or report, of any type. 􀁹􀁯􀁾 have
received from January 􀁾􀀮 1993 􀁾􀁯 the present regarding allegations that the Broadway Gnll e}(cceds or has exceeded Its maxunUnl occupancy limitation.· RESPONSE: This Defendant objects
to Interrogatory No. 13 to the extent that it is vague and overly broad. Subject to the foreguing and without waiving swne, 􀁾 the attached Exhibit ·'C'. llSTERROGATORY NO. 14: For every
document responsive to PlaintiffPaul Dorsey's first Rt:qucst for Production which you are withholding under an alleged claim ofprivilege. stale the following: a. a general description
ofthe document; b. the identity of the person(s) who created the document; c the date or approximate date on which the document WH.O; created; and d. the identity orall person(s) who
have seen or otherwise reviewed the contents ofthe document. RESPONSE: All responsive documents are being produced with the exception ofthe defense altorney's tile which has been generated
since this case was filed against The Town ofAddison. This Defendant contends that the information contained in its attomey's tile is not subject to disclosure by "irtue of Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure 166b(3)(a)(b)(c)(d), as well as the attorney/client privilege. INTERROGATORY NO, lSi identify each and every inspection you have attended, conducted, or ordered to
be conducted of the Broadway Grill for compliance with building, occupancy. SIltety or any other code for the period January I, 1993 to the present. RESPONSE: This Defendant objects
to Interrogatory No. 15 to the eKtent that it is vague. overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to the foregoing and without waiving same, see the atttachcd Exhibit UD". DEI'I:iNUANI
THE TOWN OF AOOlSON'S OIJJEGIlONS AND RESPONSFS TO PAUL IJORSEY'S tlRSIJ:i&TOI' INTEMOGAIONES r..\13JII II 710154461lDISCIOBl_ANS.RW PACiE 10
'Sent By: Matthews, Carlton, Stein, Shiel; 972 234 1750j ) INTERROGATORY NO. 16: J 􀁾n . 18 -991 0 : 11AM ; ) Page 13/17 Please identify each and evcry ordinance, law, statute, rule
or procedure which you maintain directs when, bow, 􀁩􀁴􀁾 and to what extent you 􀁾 to cause tht' installation or-erection of street lights, hazard lights. wJlrd 􀁾􀁩􀁧􀁮􀁳􀀬 a pedestrian
cross walk. a STOP sign, a YlELD sign or any other device or signal to warn, ass\:'t or protect pedestrian traffic on the roads in Addison_ RESPONSE: This Defendant objt:cts to Interrogatory
No. 16 to the extent that it is vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to the foregoing and without waiving same, such decisions are made based upon factors such as the locati(ln
of the roadway or intersection. the terrain of the land; the lJ'affic volwne; visibility; sight lines; visual obstructions; and development in the area. among others. After considering
such factors, discretion is used in the application oftraffic engineering standards to determine what traffic cnntrol devices or marking:; to utilize at a particular location. The Uniform
Traftic Control Device manual is used as a general guide when, in the discretion of the traffic engineer, it is appropriate. INTERROGATORY NO. Uj Identify each and every City Council,
City Commissioner, School Board. 7.oning. planning or other meeting at which the safety of thc Broadway Grill or the pedestrian traffic at the location of the Broadway Grill, was discussed
or scheduled to be discussed for the period January 1, 1993 to the . present. RESPONSE: This Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 17 to the extent that it is vague. overly broad and
unduly burdensume. Subject to the foregoing and without waiving same, see the attached Exhibit "E".. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Any and all communications you have reccived from the Kondas
law linn. Augustus, or anyone else regarding lhe Broadway Grill. . RESPONSE: TIIis Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 18 to the extent it is vague and overly broad. Subject to to
the foregoing and without waiving same, see the attached Exhibit "F". Dt-;l'hNUANl UIE TOWN 01' ADmsoN'S OBJECTIONS AND 􀁒􀁆􀀮􀀧􀀵􀁐􀁏􀁎􀁓􀁆􀁾􀁏􀀻·ro PAUL DoMEY'S ARST SET OF lNJERRQ(;ATORIES
T: 12JJIJ117JOI544621DlSC\OB./_ANS.ROG PAGI'.II
􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁴 By: Matthews, Carlton, Stein, Shielj 972 234 1750j ) INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Jan-18-9910:11AMj '\) Page 14/17 Identify the pro\.-edwe, if any, for the cxpungement. removal or
destruction of files from the Addison Police Department for the period January t, 1993 to the present. . RESPONSE: This Defendant objecls to Interrogatory No. 19 to the extent that it
is vague and overly broad. Subject to the foregoing and without waiving same, see the attached Exhibit "0"_ INTERRQGATORY NO.20i For each and every admission contained in the Plaintiffs
First Requests for Admission to you ror which you have given a response other than an unequivocal admission, identify each and every fact which supports each qualified admission or deniol.
RESPONSE: This Defendant 􀁯􀁢􀁪􀁥􀁣􀁾 to Interrogatory No. 20 to the extent that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks disclosure ofinformation exempted trom discovery by virtue
of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 166b(3){a)(b)(c)(d), as well as the attorney/client privilege. . DEFF.NOANTTHf TOWN Of ADDISON'S OHll::CnONS AND REsroNSfS TO PAUL DoRSliY'S fIRST SET
Of INrWlOGAIQRIES 1"12111/11730154462IDISCIOBJ_ANSROG ['Atit' 12
Sent By: Matthews, Carlton, Stein, Shielj 972 234 1750j ) VERIFICATION Jan-1B-99 10:12AMj ) Page 15/17 STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DALLAS §§§ BEFORE ME. the undersigned authority in said
County and Stale on this day personally appeared CARMEN MORAN, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrwnent, and who, after being dUly sworn, on
oath acknowledged to me that she has read the above and foregoing answers to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6. 8, U, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20. and that said answers and responses
are. to her knowledge and belief, true and correct. CARMEN MORAN DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TOWN OF ADDISON· GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE on this the_ day of _ 1999.
Notary Public, in and for Said County and State My Conumssion Expires: DIOH,NDANT 0fH£ TOWN OF ADDISON'S 􀀰􀀸􀁊􀁊􀁩􀁇􀁊􀁬􀁮􀁎􀁾AND REsPONSES TO PAlo 􀁉􀁬􀁑􀁒􀂧􀁦􀀮􀁙􀂷􀁾 FIRS]" SET or
lNrERRQ(iA-lUlUES T.12JJI/l/730\54461\DJSCIOBJ.ANS.ROG PAGE 13
Sent By: Matthews, Carlton, Stein. §hieli 972 234 1750i ") £ERIFICATION Jan -18-991 0: 12AM i ) Page 16/17 STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DALLAS §§§ BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority in
said County and State on this day personally appeared JOHN BAUMGARDNER, known to me to be the person whose name is 􀀡􀀡􀁬􀁵􀁨􀁾􀁲􀁩􀁢􀁥􀁤 to the foregoing instrument. and who, after
being duly sworn, on oath acknowledged to me that he has read the above and foregoing answers to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4. 5. 6, 7. 8, 9, JO, 11, 14, 16. and 20. and that said answers
and responses are, to his knowledge and belief, true and corrC\;t. JOHN BAUMGARDNER, P.E. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TOWN OF ADDISON GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE on this the
_ day of _ 1999. Notary Public, in and for Said County and State My CoIllIl:iliisivn Expires: DEFENDANT THE TOWN Ot AUIJISON'S OSJF.CflONS AND REl;PONSIiS TO PAUL DoRsEy"S FIRST SET
Of INTERROQATURIIiS T:\2JJIJ1J7301.'i44621fJlfi>CIOBJ_ANSROG P"OEI4
Sent By: Matthews, Carlton, Stein, Shielj 972 234 1750j 􀀮􀀺􀀺􀁾 VERIFICATION Jan-18-99 10:12AMj ) Page 17/17 STATE OF TEXAS CO{JNTY OF DALLAS §§§ BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority
in said COWlty and State on this day persOnally 􀁡􀁰􀁰􀁥􀁡􀁲􀁾 RONALD C. DAVIS, Captain, Town of Addison Police Department, known to me to be me person whose name is subscribed to the
foregoing instrwDent, and who, after being duly sworn, on oath acknowledged to me lhat he has read the above and foregoing answers to Inrerrogatory Nos. 1,2.3.4, S, 6. 7,8, 14, 18, 19
and 20, and that said 􀁡􀁮􀀮􀁾􀁷􀁥􀁲􀁳 and respomes are. ro his knowledge and belief. true and corrcct. RONALD C. DAVIS, CAPTAIN TOWN Olt' ADDISON POLICE DEPARTMENT GIVEN UNDER MY HAND
AND SEAl. OF OFFICE on this the _ day of _ 1999. Notary Public. in and for Said County and State My Commission Expires: om.NDANT l"HE TOWN at: AUDISON'S 08JI:;CTIONS J\NO RfSPONS!iS
1"0 PAUL DoRSEY'S FIRST SE.T OF lNJERROQAJ􀁾􀀱􀁬􀀮􀁓 r:\Z33\1\17301f;446Z\D/.f;CIOB..T ANS.RUG PI\C11::: IS
JAN-18-1999 14:18 STATE OF TEXAS §§ COUNTY OF DALLAS § YERIFICATION ) P.02/02 BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority in said County and State on this day personally appeared JOHN BAUMGARTNER,
known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument. and who. after being duly sworn, on oath acknowledged to me that he has read the above and foregoing
answers to Interrogatory Nos. 1.2.3,4,5,6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14. 16. and 20, and that said answers and responses are, to his knowledge and belief, true and correct. R, P.E. DIRECTOR OF
UBLIC WORKS TOWN OF ADDISON GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE on this the Ii day 􀁯􀁾􀁾 , . 􀁾 1999. ' , 􀁾􀁴􀁾􀁱􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭 Said County and State My Commission Expires: 􀁾􀀱􀁾􀁊􀀹􀁱
I SItIRLlY A. 1IEIDII1. NOTARY PUBLIc State of 'Texas ; Comm. Exp. 􀁾􀀹􀀹 DefENDANT TIlE TOWN OF ADDISON'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PAUL DORSEY'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGA'roRU::_l>
T:12331/11730154462iDISCIOBJ_ANS.ROG ., .....:. ..... .:􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁦􀁩􀁾􀁾􀀮􀁾􀂷􀁾􀁾􀀺 .􀁲􀀺􀀮􀁾􀀺􀁪..:.'.<:{? :/;..... 􀁫􀁡􀁾􀀿􀀺􀁾􀀻􀀮􀀯􀂷 ::.:. t PJ\GE14 TOTAL P.02
) CAUSE NO. PAUL DORS,EY and ANGELIC VERKAIK VS. BROADWAY GRILL, INC., d/b/a BROADWAY GRILL, TONY S. AUGUSTUS, and THE TOWN OF ADDISON §§§§§§§§§§ FILED 􀁉􀁎􀁔􀁈􀁅􀁃􀁏􀁕􀁎􀁔􀁹􀁣􀀿􀁾􀁴􀀭􀀹
PM 4:07 􀁾􀀬􀀴􀁲􀀺􀀺􀁻􀁟BUUtJCK c-LOU:1TY' CLFRK AT LAW NO. :7 􀁄􀁁􀁌􀁌􀁾􀁓 COljih DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Plaintiffs,
Paul Dorsey and Angelic Verkaik, for their causes of􀁾􀁣􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮 against Defendants Broadway Grill, Inc., d/b/a Broadway Grill, Tony S. Augustus, and The Town of Addision, and states
as follows: PARTIES AND SERVICE Broadway Grill, Inc., d/b/a Broadway Grill can be served by and through its registered agent for services of process Carol C. Kondos, registered agent,
at 1595 N. Central Expressway, Richardson, Texas 75080, or any officer ofthe corporation including but not limited to John T. Auletta or John Peter Kondos at 15375 Addison Road. The
Town ofAddison can be served by and through its City Secretary Carmen Moran at its office located at 5300 Beltline Road Suite A, Addison, Texas 75240. Tony S. Augustus can be served
by delivering a copy ofthis petition and citation to Tony Augustus, at 2521 Skiles Plano, Collin County, Texas, 75075. PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION
) II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE Jurisdiction and Venue are proper in the County Court at Law, Dallas County, Texas. Plaintiffs' causes ofactionare properly brought in Dallas County, Texas, pursuant to § 15.001 and § 101.102(A) ofthe Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Plaintiffs' causes ofaction arose in whole or in part
in Dallas County, Texas. At the time ofthe events alleged in this petition, Plaintiffs Paul B. Dorsey (Dorsey) and Angelic Verkaik (Verkaik) were both injured in Dallas County, Texas.
Defendant, Broadway Grill, Inc. d/b/a Broadway Grin (Broadway) is a Texas Corporation doing business in Dallas County, Texas. Defendant Tony S. Augustus owns the real property and improvements
where the Broadway Grill conducts its business and where the hazardous conditions exist. That real property and the improvements are located in Dallas County, Texas. The Town of Addison
is a governmental unit as that teon is defined by Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 101.102 and is located within Dallas County, Texas. m. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS In
the late hours of October 11, 1996 and the early morning of October 12, 1996, Plaintiffs Dorsey and Verkaik and a third person, Michael Joseph Gunning were patrons at the Broadway Grill,
located at 15375 Addison Road, Dallas, Texas. In the early morning hours of October 12, 1996, Plaintiffs though visibly intoxicated were served alcoholic beverages by agents, representatives
and employees ofthe Broadway Grill. Plaintiffs' intoxicationwas apparent to Broadway Grill, its agents, representatives and employees. Plaintiffs were directed to and did exit the Broadway
Grill through the front door of the premises. The entrance walkway from the front door of the premises leads PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 2
') directly to Addison Road ("The Pathway"). There is no marked crosswalk across Addison Road at the location where The Pathway intersects with Addison Road. There is no stop light or
stop sign at the location where The Pathway intersects with Addison Road. There is no warning, signage, nor any pronounced lighting along The Pathway or at the location at which The
Pathway intersects with Addison Road. There is moreover, insufficient parking at the Broadway Grill to allow for on site 􀁰􀁾􀁫􀁩􀁮􀁧 sufficient to meet the facilities regular occupancy,
and more specifically the occupancy which existed on October 11, 1996 and October 12, 1996. The insufficient parking forces patrons of the Broadway Grill to use The Pathway and, consequently,
to traverse east and west across Addison Road. On infonnation and belief, the Broadway Grill regularly and routinely allowed and encouraged more patrons to enter and stay in the barthan
is pennitted by its occupancy permit, code restrictions, good practice or its actual parking capacity. On infonnation .and belief, these Defendants had been warned and/or were well aware
of the dangerous condition(s) which they maintained. These hazards were known to and/or created by Defendants Broadway and Augustus. In the early morning hours of October 12, 1996, Plaintiffs
exited the Broadway Grill. Plaintiffs were intoxicated as a result ofthe alcohol served to them by employees, agents or servants ofthe Broadway Grill. Plaintiffs' intoxication during
and after being served alcoholic beverages by employees, agent or servants of the Broadway Grill was apparent to the employees, agents and servants ofthe Broadway Grill. Plaintiffs entered
the west side ofAddison Road from The Pathway, en route to a parking facility located on the east side ofAddison Road. Addison Road is a four-lane thoroughfare which runs north and south.
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 3
) While crossing from The Pathway on the west side of Addison Road to the parking on the east side ofAddison Road, all three individuals (Plaintiffs and Mr. Gunning) were simultaneously
struck by a car driving north on Addison Road. Mr. Gunning was killed instantly while both Plaintiffs were critically injured. IV. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT All conditions precedent, pursuant
to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 101.101 et seq. if any, to filing suit against The Town of Addison have been met, satisfied or otherwise waived. V. COUNT ONE Plaintiffs
reassert and incorporate herein the allegations set forth above. Broadway and Augustus as owners and operators of the business and realty, respectively, owed a duty of ordinary care
to Plaintiffs to protect Plaintiffs from unreasonable and foreseeable risks ofharm. Instead, one or more ofthese Defendants facilitated Plaintiffs inebriation and then sent them into
a kno'\W and obvious hazard of their creation; The Pathway into Addison Road. These Defendants breached their duty ofcare to Plaintiffs by among other things: (1) constructing and or
maintaining The Pathway which leads directly, in an uninterrupted fashion, from the front door ofthe Broadway Grill into Addison Road; a busy, four-lane road. The Pathway is not properly
lighted. This created an obviously dangerous condition that these Defendants knew, or should have known would be hazardous to all patrons (sober and particularly drunk) exiting and entering
its establishment; PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 4
.. ,) (2) failing to provide warnings, signage, crossing guards, or lighting to forewarn and protect the bar's patrons from the known hazards ofThe Pathway. These Defendants knew, or
should have known, its patrons would be placed into this foreseeable risk of hann; (3) failing to provide sufficient parking which created the necessity for its patrons to park across
the street from the Broadway Grill and treversee (east/west or west-east) across Addison Road. These Defendants knew, or should have known, that the overcrowding ofits facility would
force its patrons to be placed into a known hazardous crossing ofAddison Road. These Defendants knew, or should have known, its patrons would be placed into this foreseeable risk ofharm;
(4) exceeding the proper capacity limits established by code, licence, permit and reason. The overcrowding of the facility necessitated the need for additional parking across Addison
Road. These Defendants knew, or should have known, its patrons would be placed into this foreseeable risk of harm.(5) failing to respond, correct or forewarn patrons ofthese known and
foreseeable hazards. These Defendants could have altered The Pathway, provided sufficient lightning on The Pathway, barricaded The Pathway at the spot it met Addison Road, posted warning
signs on The Pathway or in the bar, provided an alternate pathway to a proper road crossing, hired crossing attendants, not exceeding their parking capacity or other reasonable or necessary
measures to warn and/or protect patrons from these known hazards. Each ofthese acts and/or omissions, singularly or in combination with others, constituted negligence which led to the
accident in the early morning hours ofOctober 12, 1996. But for one or more ofthese acts and/or omissions, Plaintiffs would not have been injured on October 12, 1996. PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL
PETITION PAGES
As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of these Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered severe physical and mental pain, suffering, and anguish. In all reasonable probability, Plaintiffs
shall continue to suffer mental pain, suffering, and anguish far into the future, if not for the rest of their lives. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of these Defendants,
Plaintiffs have incurred medical expenses, permanent impairment, disability, disfigurement, lost earnings, and loss of past and future earning capacity. Plaintiffs seek recovery for
all real damages, including but not limited to all medical expenses, past and future lost income and earnings, past, present, and future mental anguish, pain and suffering, permanent
impairment, disability, disfigurement, past andfuture lost eamirtg capacity, all having been proximately and directly caused by the negligent acts and/or omissions of these Defendants.
VI. COUNT TWO Plaintiffs reassert and incorporate herein the allegations set forth above. Plaintiffs, pleading in the alternative and without waiving any other claims or relief further
assert that as a provider, seller, or server ofalcoholic beverages, Defendant Broadway is liable under Section 2.02 ofthe Texas Alcohol and Beverage Code (The Dram Shop Act) because
Plaintiffs were served alcoholic beverages when they were visibly intoxicated and it was apparent to Defendant Broadway that Plaintiffs were intoxicated. Plaintiffs became intoxicated
and, nonetheless once visibly intoxicated, Defendant Broadway, through its agents, employees or servants served Plaintiffs additional alcoholic beverages. Plaintiffs were subsequently
injured as a direct and proximate result PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 6
of Defendant Broadways improper service to them of alcoholic beverages. Defendant Broadway violated §2.02 of the Texas Alcohol and Beverage Code in the following respects: (1) Defendant
Broadway, its agents, employees or servants served and/or sold alcoholic beverages to Plaintiffs when it was apparent that Plaintiffs were intoxicated to such a degree as to present
a clear danger to themselves or others; .(2) As a direct and proximate result oftheir intoxicated state, Plaintiffs found themselves in an unreasonably dangerous situation (The Hazardous
Pathway) and directly or proximately suffered severe emotional and physical damages; and (3) On, infonnation and belief, the required practice and habit of Defendant Broadway was to
allow patrons, visibly and apparently intoxicated to be served additional alcoholic beverages. As a direct and proximate result ofthese acts and/oromissions ofDefendantBroadway which
violated The Dram Shop Act, Plaintiffs suffered severe physical and mental pain, suffering, disfigurement and anguish. In all reasonable probability, Plaintiffs shall continue to suffer
mental pain, suffering, disfigurement, pennanent impairment and disability, and physical pain and anguish far into the future, ifnot for the rest of their lives. As a direct and proximate
result ofthe acts and/or omissions ofDefendant Broadway which violated The Dram Shop Act, Plaintiffs have incurred medical expenses, lost earnings, and lost past and future earning capacity.
But for Defendant Broadways aforementioned acts/omissions in violation ofThe Dram Shop Act, Plaintiffs would not have been injured. PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 7
· 􀀮􀁾 /Therefore, Plaintiffs seek recovery for all real damages including but not limited to medical expenses, past and future lost income and earnings, past, present, and future mental
anguish, 􀁰􀁾􀁮􀀬 suffering and disfigurement, permanent impainnent and disability, and past and future lost earning capacity all having been proximately and directly caused by the acts
and/or omissions of this Defendant. COUNT THREE Pleading further in the alternative and without waiving any other claims or relief, the Plaintiffs allege as follows: The Town of Addison
(Addison) is a government unit as that term is defined by Section 101.001ofthe Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Addison is fully aware ofthe auto accident ofOctober 12,1998, its
location, the surrounding circumstances, and the death and serious injuries which resulted therefrom. Addison is in whole or in part responsible for and liable to Plaintiffs for the
injuries sustained by Plaintiffs because it failed to exercise ordinary care in undertaking the following governmental functions: negligent street construction ordesign; deficient warning
signals; the failure to repair or remedy known traffic hazards; maintenance oftraffic signals; the failure to utilize signs or street painting to warn ofor correct a known hazard or
hazards; and the failure to enforce building code(s) and/or inspection. Addison knew or should have known of the dangers created by the east/west ingress and egress to and from The Pathway
into Addison Road. Addison knew or should have known of the inherent hazard created by the location and use ofThe Pathway relative to crossings of Addison Road. The absence of street
lights, hazard lights or signs; a pedestrian cross walk; a STOP sign; a yield sign; or even enforcement of the code and license PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 8
provisions which serve to restrict the capacity and parking of the Broadway Grill, were all known to Addison to be hazardous to pedestrians and yet were not corrected. Addison, on information
and belief, knew the many dangers which existed for pedestrians at this location. Addison failed to exercise a reasonable degree of care. Addison knew or should have known of these hazards
and failed to correct them or warn oftheir existence. Each ofthese acts and/or omissions, singularly or in combination with others, constituted negligence which led to Plaintiffs injuries
on October 12, 1996. But for each of these acts and/or omissions, singularly or in combination, Plaintiffs would not have been injured on October 12, 1996. As a direct and proximate
result ofAddison's negligence, Plaintiffs suffered severe physical and mental pain, suffering, and anguish. In all reasonable probability, Plaintiffs shall continue to suffer mental
pain, suffering, and anguish far into the future, ifnot for the rest oftheir lives. As a direct and proximate result ofAddison's negligence, Plaintiffs have incurred medical expenses,
permanent impairment, disability, disfigurement, lost earnings, and loss past and future earning capacity. Therefore, Plaintiffs seek recovery for all real damages including but not
limited to medical expenses, past and future lost income and earnings, past, present, and future mental anguish, pain and suffering, permanent impairment, disability and disfigurement,
and past and future lost earning capacity. These injuries were all proximately and directly caused by Addison's negligent acts and/or omissions. PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 9
), EXEMPLARY DAMAGES Plaintiffs were injured as a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants. The Defendants' activities were the cause in fact of the harm
suffered by Plaintiffs. Defendants Broadway and Augustus each knowingly and recklessly ignored the hazardous conditions which caused Plaintiffs' injuries. Defendants Broadway and Augustus
each had actual awareness ofone or more of the negligent acts and/or omissions. Defendants Broadway and Augustus each exhibited a gross neglect and willful disregard for the safety and
welfare of these Plaintiffs. The actions ofDefendants Broadway and Augustus constituted malice in that their acts and omissions, individually and collectively, when viewed objectively
at the time of the injuries, involved an extreme degree ofrisk, considering the probability and potential magnitudeofharm to others. Therefore, Plaintiffs should be awarded exemplary
damages, jointly and severely, against both Defendants, Broadway and Augustus, pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 41.001 et seq. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED,
Plaintiffs pray that Defendants be duly cited to appear and answer herein and that the court award judgment, jointly and severely, against Defendants for all actual damages, exemplary,
and punitive damages all in excess ofthe minimum jurisdictional limits ofthe court. Plaintiffs further pray that pre-judgment and post-judgment interest PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION
PAGE 10
be assessed against Defendants at the maximum rate, jointly and severely. Finally, Plaintiffs pray for such other and further relief, both special and general, at law and at equity,
to which they may show themselves to be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, Texas te Bar No. 17807500 MASTROGIOVANN! SCHORSCH MERSKY & ZAGAR, P.C. 2323 Bryan Street, Suite 2350
Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 922-8800 (Telephone) (214) 922-8801 (Te1ecopier) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF PAUL DORSEY 􀁂􀁙􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀿􀀿 Texas State Bar No. Keller & Stark 1410 Avenue G Plano,
Texas 75074 (972) 398-9300 (Telephone) (972) 398-9302 (Telecopier) ATIORNEYFORPLAINTIFFANGELIC VERKAIK C:\MyFilcs\DORSEY\IDORSEYP.LEA PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 11