CJ-2024-7084 - Lenora Dunn v. Walmart Supercenter #2804

What's This Case About?

Sliding doors — you know, the ones that whoosh open with futuristic grace like you’re walking onto the bridge of the Starship Enterprise — have betrayed a woman in Oklahoma so completely that she’s now suing Walmart and a small army of corporate entities for $10,000. That’s right: the automatic doors at a Walmart Supercenter allegedly slammed into Lenora Dunn’s leg and ankle like a vengeful robot butler, sparking a legal saga that includes malfunctioning hardware, questionable medical treatment, and a clinic with a name so on-the-nose it sounds like a sketch from a courtroom satire show — The Brooks Accident and Injury Clinic, L.L.C. Because nothing says “I trust your medical expertise” like a business name that sounds like it was generated by a personal injury law AI.

Let’s meet our cast. On one side: Lenora Dunn, an Oklahoma County resident just trying to do what Americans do best — shop at Walmart. On the other? A corporate lineup so stacked it looks like a legal version of The Avengers, but instead of fighting aliens, they’re allegedly failing to maintain functioning automatic doors. We’ve got Walmart Supercenter #2804, its corporate parent Walmart Stores East, LP, E.E. Newcomer Enterprises, Inc., D.H. Pace Company, Inc. (the door people), and — plot twist — The Brooks Accident and Injury Clinic, L.L.C., which somehow also got dragged into this mess. This isn’t just a lawsuit; it’s a Rube Goldberg machine of liability, where one bad door leads to one bad visit, leading to one very long petition.

The story begins, as so many great American tragedies do, at a Walmart on Belle Isle Boulevard in Oklahoma City. On or about November 1, 2022 — not to be confused with November 2, because apparently even the calendar is a key witness here — Lenora Dunn walked up to the store’s automatic sliding doors with the quiet confidence of someone who has successfully entered buildings before. But instead of the smooth, silent glide we’ve all come to expect from modern retail infrastructure, the doors allegedly malfunctioned and whacked her in the leg and ankle. The petition doesn’t specify whether the doors were slow to open, closed too fast, or just had a personal grudge, but the result was clear: Dunn got hurt. And not in a “I’ll shake it off” way — we’re talking medical treatment, ongoing pain, and a life disrupted by what should have been a routine shopping trip.

Now, you’d think the story ends with a Band-Aid and a coupon for free groceries. But no. Dunn sought treatment at The Brooks Accident and Injury Clinic, which, based on the name alone, should have come with a free dramatization of your injury set to moody piano music. Instead, according to the filing, the treatment she received caused further injury to her lower extremity. So not only did the doors assault her, but the very place meant to heal her allegedly made it worse. It’s like going to a firefighter to put out a blaze and ending up with third-degree burns from the hose. At this point, Dunn isn’t just injured — she’s re-injured, and now she’s got a legal bill of particulars longer than the receipt from her last Walmart run.

So why is she suing? Let’s break it down like we’re explaining it to a jury of your overly dramatic aunts. First, there’s products liability — basically, the idea that the sliding doors were defective. Dunn claims the doors were designed or manufactured in a way that made them likely to malfunction and injure people, and that the companies responsible (E.E. Newcomer and D.H. Pace) knew this could happen. They allegedly failed to make the doors safe or warn people that, hey, these things might bite. That’s strict liability, which means you don’t have to prove someone was careless — just that the product was dangerous and it hurt you. Like if a toaster shot out lightning bolts, you wouldn’t need to prove the manufacturer meant to electrify your toast.

Next up: general negligence. This one’s broader. Walmart, as the store owner, had a duty to keep the place safe for customers — especially since Dunn was an “invitee,” which in legalese means “someone legally allowed on the property to spend money.” The door companies had a duty to install and maintain the doors properly. And the clinic? Well, they had a duty not to make her leg worse while trying to fix it. According to the petition, all of them failed. They either knew the doors were dangerous or should have known, and they didn’t fix it, warn anyone, or at least put up a sign that said “Caution: Aggressive Doors.”

And finally, failure to warn — because apparently, no one thought to put up a little “Watch for sudden door closure” sign near the entrance. In a world where we have warning labels on hair dryers saying “Do not use in bathtub,” it’s not totally absurd to argue that malfunctioning automatic doors should come with some kind of heads-up. The claim here is that the defendants knew the doors were risky but didn’t tell the public, leaving shoppers like Dunn to fend for themselves against rogue retail architecture.

Now, what does Dunn want? $10,000 — at least. That’s the minimum threshold for filing in district court, and while it might sound like pocket change compared to the multi-million-dollar lawsuits we hear about, for a case involving a door bump and some questionable chiropractic care, it’s actually pretty bold. We’re talking medical bills, pain and suffering, lost wages, emotional distress — the whole “I will never trust automatic doors again” package. And let’s be real: $10,000 is enough to buy a decent used car, pay off some debt, or, ironically, cover several visits to a different injury clinic that doesn’t sound like it was named in a law firm brainstorming session after three margaritas.

Here’s the thing we can’t stop thinking about: why sue the clinic? That’s the wildcard in this whole deck. Is this a legitimate claim that treatment worsened her injury? Or is it a legal strategy to cast a wider net, hoping someone in this corporate constellation settles to avoid the hassle? Either way, dragging a medical provider into a door-slam lawsuit adds a layer of absurdity that feels almost Shakespearean — if Shakespeare wrote about personal injury law in suburban Oklahoma.

Our take? The most ridiculous part isn’t that someone got hit by a door. It’s that we live in a world where automatic doors — a convenience invented so we don’t have to touch dirty handles — have become weapons of mass litigation. We’ve normalized machines judging our walking speed and deciding whether we deserve entry. And when they fail, as they inevitably do, we don’t just shrug — we sue. And honestly? We’re here for it. Because if there’s one thing America stands for, it’s holding corporations accountable — even when the villain is a sliding door with commitment issues.

We’re not saying Lenora Dunn should get a million dollars. We’re not saying Walmart should install manual crank doors like it’s 1924. But we are saying this case is a beautiful, bizarre monument to the pettiness and passion of the American civil justice system. And if nothing else, maybe — just maybe — this lawsuit will inspire Walmart to finally fix that one door that’s been misjudging people’s entry speed since 2019.

We’re entertainers, not lawyers. But if we were on the jury? We’d at least want a demonstration. Bring in the doors. Recreate the moment. Let’s see if they still got it.

Case Overview

$10,000 Demand Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

April J. Moaning

The Law Office of April J. Moaning, P.L.L.C.

Relief Sought

$10,000 Monetary

Plaintiffs

Lenora Dunn individual
Rep: April J. Moaning

Defendants

Walmart Supercenter #2804 business
Walmart Stores East, LP business
E.E. Newcomer Enterprises, Inc. business
D.H. Pace Company, Inc. business
The Brooks Accident and Injury Clinic L.L.C. business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Products Liability- Strict Liability	Defective automatic sliding doors
2	General Negligence	Defendants' failure to maintain safe premises
3	Negligence-Failure to Warn	Defendants' failure to provide adequate warnings

Petition Text

1,194 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA LENORA DUNN, - vs - WALMART SUPERCENTER #2804, WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, a foreign limited partnership, E.E. NEWCOMER ) ENTERPRISES, INC., D.H. PACE COMPANY,) INC., a foreign for profit business corporation, and) THE BROOKS ACCIDENT AND INJURY ) CLINIC L.L.C., a domestic limited liability ) Company ) Plaintiff, FILED IN DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY Case No. CJ-24-7084 NOV - 1 2024 RICK WARREN GOURT CLERK 110 ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED PETITION COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Lenora Dunn and for her Petition against the Defendants above-named alleges and states as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Lenora Dunn resided in Oklahoma County at the time of the subject incident relevant to the filing of this Petition. 2. Defendants are corporations with a principal place of business in that state of Oklahoma and/or corporations that conduct business in and around Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this lawsuit because Defendants are entities either formed, operated , or authorized to conduct business in the state of Oklahoma and the subject matter of this lawsuit is within the broad jurisdictional scope of Oklahoma district courts. The Defendants also have minimum contacts with the state of Oklahoma. 4. The events giving rise to this action occurred on or about November 2, 2022 in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. 5. Under 12 O.S. §§ 134, 137, 143, and 187 venue is proper in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, because that is where service of process is likely to be performed, and also where the events and omissions giving rise to the claims contained within this Petition occurred. 6. The damages sought are in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) for personal bodily injuries, pain and suffering, past and future medical expenses, loss of enjoyment of life, lost wages, attorney’s fees, and such further relief that this Court deems just and equitable. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7. On or about November 1, 2022 Plaintiff presented at Walmart Supercenter located at 1801 Belle Isle Blvd, Oklahoma City, OK 73118. 8. As Plaintiff entered the automatic sliding doors leading to the main Walmart entry, said doors malfunctioned and hit Plaintiff’s leg and ankle. 9. After the injury to her ankle, Plaintiff presented for treatment at the Brooks Clinic. Said treatment resulted in further injury to Plaintiff’s lower extremity. 10. As a result of the consumption of the above referenced food, Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur medical expenses, and has suffered and will continue to suffer pain, loss of enjoyment of life and emotional distress. COUNT 1: PRODUCTS LIABILITY- STRICT LIABILITY [E.E. Newcomer Enterprises, Inc., D.H. Pace Company, Inc] 11. Plaintiff fully incorporates and restates each and every allegation above as if set forth verbatim herein. 12. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants either manufactured, packaged, or distributed automatic sliding doors to be utilized at Walmart. 13. Defendants manufactured, packaged, and installed the automatic sliding doors with full knowledge that the doors would malfunction and abruptly close while patrons attempted to enter an establishment. 14. Defendants owed a duty of care to consumer such as Plaintiff to design, manufacture, package, and sell a product that is safe to the extent contemplated by a reasonable consumer. The Defendants breached said duty. 15. Defendants also had a duty to give clear and adequate warnings of the dangers associated with the usage of the doors. Defendants breached this duty and Plaintiff suffered injury and damages as a direct and proximate result of the defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the produce Defendants designed, manufactured, distributed, and/or sold without clear and adequate warnings of the associated dangers. 16. Plaintiff was injured as a direct result of Defendants' defective product and wrongful conduct. COUNT 2. GENERAL NEGLIGENCE [All Defendants] 17. Plaintiff fully incorporates and restates each and every allegation above as if set forth verbatim herein. 18. Plaintiff was an invitee at Walmart Supercenter. Accordingly, Defendant Walmart had a duty to Plaintiff to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance of the premises and to keep it in a reasonably safe condition so that members of the general public would not be injured. Furthermore, Defendants E.E. Newcomer Enterprises, Inc., D.H. Pace Company, Inc had a duty to exercise reasonable care when manufacturing, installing, and maintaining their sliding door. Lastly, Defendant Brooks Clinic had a duty to exercise reasonable care when administering treatment to Plaintiff. 19. Defendants, by and through their agents, had actual and constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Further, Defendants failed to warn invitees of the known hazard and dangerous condition of the premises. 20. Defendants knew or should have known that a dangerous, potentially harmful or hazardous condition existed and had the ability to warn, prevent, correct, maintain, inspect, remove and/or remedy the dangerous condition. 21. Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiff by failing to eliminate or remedy the dangerous and defective conditions, or maintain the premises so as to not cause injury to Plaintiff. 22. At all relevant times, it was foreseeable to Defendants that invitees such as the Plaintiff would suffer injury as a result of Defendants’ failure to exercise ordinary care. 23. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff suffered the injuries described herein and it became necessary for Plaintiff to incur expenses for doctors, pharmaceuticals, and other reasonably required and medically necessary supplies and services. COUNT 3: NEGLIGENCE- FAILURE TO WARN [All Defendants] 24. Plaintiff fully incorporates and restates each and every allegation above as if set forth verbatim herein. 25. At all relevant times, Defendants were engaged in the design, manufacture, production, advertising, sale, maintenance and/or distribution of the sliding doors, which were intended for use by consumers such as the Plaintiff. 26. Prior to, on, and after the date Plaintiff entered the sliding doors, Defendants knew or should have known that the doors were dangerous or were likely to be dangerous when used a reasonably foreseeable manner. 27. Prior to, on, and after the date Plaintiff entered the sliding doors, Defendants knew or should have known consumers entering the sliding doors would not realize the dangers presented by the product. 28. Defendants had a duty to give clear and adequate warnings of the dangers associated with said doors. However, Defendants breached their duty to give clear and adequate warnings of the associated dangers. 29. It was foreseeable to Defendants that patrons such as the Plaintiff might suffer injury as a result of their failure to exercise ordinary care in providing adequate warnings. 30. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff suffered the injuries described herein. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a judgment against the Defendants above named for all claims asserted herein as follows: 1. Compensatory damages for past and future, physical and mental pain, suffering, emotional distress and other non-economic damages in an amount to be determined at a trial of this action. 2. Past and future expenses of necessary medical care, treatment, and services. 3. Pre and post judgment interest; 4. Attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs; and 5. Such further relief as the Court deems necessary, just, and proper. Dated this 1st day of November, 2024. Respectfully, April J. Moaning April J. Moaning, OBA # 31650 The Law Office of April J. Moaning, P.L.L.C. 6303 N. Portland Ave., Suite 305 Oklahoma City, OK 73112 Phone: (405) 673-7293 Fax: (405) 561-0121 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIF