Date: 05-01-2013

Case Style: John Thomas Argo v. Kyle D. Caldwell

Case Number: CJ-2006-1926

Judge: Tom A. Lucas

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Stanley M. Ward, Woodrow K. Glass and Scott F. Brockman

Defendant's Attorney: Tim D. Cain

Description: 1. That at all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff was and now is a resident of the City of Norman, Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma

2. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon further alleges that at all times herein mentioned, Defendant CaIdwell was and now is a resident of the City of Norman, Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma.

3. On or about July 12, 2002, Plaintiff was driving his 1996 Chevrolet s-i o pickup truck at the intersection at Crestmont and 24th Avenue NW. in the City of Norman, and Defendant rear-ended Plaintiff When Plaintiff was forced to stop his vehicle to avoid a collision with another vehicle.

4. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence in failing to keep a clear distance from Plaintiffs vehicle, Plaintiff was injured in the rearend vehicle collision and suffered physical injuries to his person causing Plaintiff to be sore and lame, and necessitating medical and medical-related expenses, all to Plaintiffs damages in a sum in excess of ten Thousand Dollars($1 0,000.00). This Defendant excluded from remaining causes of action.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

5. Plaintiff was a member of the Norman High School Varsity soccer team and was involved in a soccer game against Putnam City West Varsity High School Soccer Team on or about April 16, 2002 which commenced at approximately 8:00 pm at the Norman High School soccer field, Norman, Cleveland County, Oklahoma.

6. During the second half of play, Plaintiff, playing in the position of Right Wing, had advance towards Putnam City West’s goal and proceeded to make a shot towards the goal and was out of the play when the Defendant Doe ran towards the Plaintiff intentionally striking him with such force to knick Plaintiff to the ground whereby Plaintiff suffered physical injuries of broken or cracked bones in his back.

7. Defendant Doe’s conduct was willful, unjustified and in violation of the National Federation of Sate High School Association Rules for Soccer which have been adopted by Defendant OSSAA. Defendant Doe’s conduct was well beyond that which could be reasonable be expected in an athletic competition and constituted unreasonable and dangerous play.

8. Defendants had a duty to observe certain rules and conduct that are designed for safe competitions and avoidance of unnecessary dangerous or rough play. Defendants violated this duty and utilized tactics that were reasonably known or could be expected to cause physical injuries that are not reasonably foreseeable.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

9. Plaintiff alleges and re-alleges paragraphs 5 through 8 above as if fully set forth herein.

10. Defendant Doe, by words or deeds intentionally struck the Plaintiff from a position and at a time that Defendant could have avoided the contact. Defendant Doe’s conduct was intentional and designed to punish Plaintiff for his attempt at scoring a goal against Defendant’s team. Defendant Doe knew that Plaintiff was away from the play yet elected to intentionally knock Plaintiff to the ground in a manner beyond that allowed or that could reasonably be allowed in such athletic games of this nature.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

11. Plaintiff alleges and re-alleges paragraphs 5 through 8 above as if fully set forth herein.

12. Defendant Putnam City Independent School District #1 (hereinafter Defendant Putnam City) and OSSPA encouraged the wrongful deeds of Defendant Doe and others by failing, refusing, or neglecting to take any action against Defendant Doe for his willful and wrongful conduct that resulted in the injuries to the Plaintiff.

13. Defendants Putnam City and OSSAA failed, refused or neglected to supervise, train, and require its employees or agents to abide by the conduct and rules set forth by the Notional federation of State High School Athletic Association for the sport of soccer.

14. Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer injuries as a direct and proximate cause of Defendants conduct and encourage players directly or indirectly through inaction to believe that it was permissible to play soccer with a reckless disregard to the rules of good sportsmanship and play that is designed to cause injury or deliberate indifference to any injury that could be caused by such intentional or reckless conduct.

15. Defendants Putnam City and OSSAA failed, refused, or neglected to supervise, review, discipline or in any manner control or instruct coaches, players, or referees in the appropriate safe play that would be expected of children in this age group.

16. Defendants Putnam City and OSSAA inaction or indifference has created an ever increasing hostile atmosphere where dangerous, excessive physical contact is allowed or expected and the resulting injuries were foreseeable and preventable.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff prays this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff against the Defendants, jointly and severally in an amount in excess of $10,000.00 upon each cause of action, grant Plaintiff injunctive relief, impose punitive damages and award Plaintiff his attorney fees and costs and for such further relief as the Court finds just and equitable.


Defendant appeared and answered as follows:

I

Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation except those which may be specifically admitted herein.

II

Defendant is without sufficient information to admit the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 4, 5 and 6 and therefore respectfhlly denies the same and demands strict proof.

III

Paragraph 2 is admitted.

IV

Paragraph 3 is admitted.

V

Defendant is without sufficient information to admit the allegations contained in paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 and therefore respectfully denies the same and demands strict proof

VI

With regard to paragraph 11, defendant admits he was involved in an accident with plaintiff at about the time and place alleged. He denies generally and specifically any negligence on his part. Any remaining allegations are denied and strict proof is demanded.

VII

With regard to paragraphs 12 and 13, defendant again denies generally and specifically any negligence on his part. He is without knowledge as to the extent of any injuries, if any, suffered by plaintiff and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof Any additional allegations are denied and strict proof is demanded.

VIII

Plaintiffs prayer for relief in the First Cause of Action is denied and strict proof is demanded.

IX

With regard to the Second Cause of Action, paragraph 14, defendant readopts and realleges his Answer to the previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

X

With regard to paragraph 15, defendant Caidwell admits he is insured by defendant State Farm, although the allegation is irrelevant and the presence or identity ofthe defendant’s liability insurance carrier is not admissible in this action. The remaining allegations are denied and strict proof is demanded.

XI

The remaining paragraphs in the Amended Petition, including paragraphs 16 through 29, are not directed against this defendant and require no response. In the alternative, defendant is without sufficient information to admit any ofthe remaining allegations and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The plaintiff was negligent and such negligence on the part of the plaintiff proximately caused or contributed to the accident and plaintiffs damages, if any, and such negligence on the part of the plaintiff comparatively was greater than the negligence of the defendant and plaintiff is therefore not entitled to recover herein.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff suffered from a pre-existing condition which was neither caused nor aggravated by the actions of this defendant.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Third-party or non-party responsibility or negligence.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant reserves the right to sever the claims involving the “soccer” defendants’ insurance action from his automobile accident case.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant reserves the right to plead and prove additional Affirmative Defenses as warranted by the evidence.

Outcome: Comes now the Plaintiff, John Thomas Argo, by and through his attorney of record, Ward & Glass, LLP, and hereby dismisses the above-styled and numbered cause as to Defendants Kyle D. Caldwell and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, in its capacity as Caldwell’s insurer only, with prejudice toward the bringing of any further action, with each party to bear their own costs.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: