Legal Brief

Here's a somewhat novel claim made by a working girl in Texas who got stiffed by her john in more ways than one. The names have been changed to protect the guilty.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

JUDICIAL CENTRE OF EL PASO

MONA S. SLEAZY

Plaintiff

VERSUS

JOHN BRUTUS

Defendant

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

1. The Plaintiff claims from the Defendant the sum of $2,000.00 for breach of contract between the two parties which has resulted in significant damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of the Defendant’s actions.

2. On or about January 31st, 2001 in the City of El Paso in the State of Texas, after considerable haggling, the Defendant entered into an oral agreement with the Plaintiff whereby the Plaintiff agreed to permit the Defendant limited access to her property for a period of time and the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the sum of $250.00 for said access. This access was to be limited to uses for which such property would normally be utilized and it was expressly agreed between the parties that the Defendant would take great care of the property and would leave it in the same state of repair as it was prior to the agreement being entered into between the parties.

3. The Defendant had access to the Plaintiff’s property for a period of one hour. During this hour, the Defendant made full use of the Defendant’s property and performed an intensive exploration of the property, examining and making use of all of the areas which might yield some productive resources.

4. The Defendant fully utilized the resources of the Plaintiff for the period of one hour which included the use of the said property’s caverns and the Defendant conducted extensive drilling and pumping operations during that time.

5. The Defendant caused damages to three areas of the Plaintiff’s property which have resulted in economic losses to the Plaintiff and have negatively impacted the Plaintiff’s ability to earn future income from said property.

6. First, the Defendant, following extensive exploration of a cavern normally utilized for activities involving the collection and usage of nourishment for the property did insert two articles into said cavern. The first article did not cause any damage and did not seem out of place but following this the Defendant inserted a much larger cylindrical piece of equipment into the cavern which was of such a length and girth that it was too long to fit into said cavern without considerable hardship on the part of the property. Said equipment was continuously inserted and removed with no care whatsoever given to possible damage and hardship which this might cause to the property. The property suffered temporary damage preventing it from entering into other oral contracts for some period of time and causing a swelling of its outer regions which made it less attractive to prospective customers.

7 .Second, while the Defendant was utilizing this one area of the property in this manner, he was also performing exploratory operations on another area of the property which had not yet been explored and was unfamiliar with the techniques and uses contemplated by the Defendant. Notwithstanding this, the property endured the Defendant’s explorations however, when the Defendant attempted to commence drilling and pumping operations into this dark and hereunto unexplored region, the Plaintiff protested and directed the Defendant towards a more lucrative and conventional area of the property (hereinafter referred to as “the Main Cavern”).

8. The Defendant grudgingly agreed to relocate his equipment but once relocated he showed a blatant disregard for the property and immediately commenced extensive drilling and pumping operations without first ensuring that the property was properly prepared for such an intrusive enterprise. In the midst of these drilling and pumping operations, the Defendant suddenly and with out warning removed his equipment from the Main Cavern and quickly relocated it into the cavern which it had begun operations which had not yet fully recovered from the previous operations and the Defendant’s equipment emitted a potentially harmful substance into this cavern without any prior warning being given, showing a blatant disregard for the Plaintiff and her property. Said emission filled the cavern to overflowing and caused considerable damage to the exterior of the cavern making it less photogenic and appealing to future customers.

9. Third, the sudden and abrupt removal of the equipment from the Main Cavern resulted in damage being caused to the shrubs and bushes surrounding the Main Cavern which had been carefully pruned and cared for by the Plaintiff. Furthermore, as a result of the reckless manner in which the Defendant operated his equipment in and around the area, the opening to the Main Cavern was unnecessarily enlarged, thereby making it less attractive and economically viable and more accessible to small children thus creating a potential future danger.

10. Upon completion of the Defendant’s operations, the Defendant refused to pay the Plaintiff the agreed upon fee for the use of her property in direct contravention of the agreed upon term of the oral contract entered into between the two parties.

11. The Plaintiff has suffered extensive damages as a direct result of the Defendant’s actions, in addition to the loss of the agreed upon fee and hereby seeks damages in the sum of $2,500.00 representing both real and punitive damages.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS 5TH DAY OF MAY, 2001.