Date: 06-17-2012

Case Style: Vickey Parish Thomas v. Christopher Lee Rowley

Case Number: CJ-2009-5450

Judge: Barbara G. Swinton

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Jeffrey Taylor

Defendant's Attorney: Hilary S. Allen, Michael L. Darrah and Andrew M. Gunn

Description: Vickey Parish Thomas sued Christopher Lee Rowley and Yellow Cab Co. of Oklahoma, LLC claiming:

1. The Plaintiff, Vickey Thomas, is a resident of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, and the State of Oklahoma. The Defendant, OFF Investments, Ltd, dlb/a Yellow Cab Co., does business in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. The Defendant, Christopher Lee Rowley, is a resident of Guthrie, Logan County, State of Oklahoma. The accident that is the subject of this litigation occurred on or about 27 April 2005, at or near the intersection of NW 161h Street and Ross Avenue, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County. This Court has jurisdiction
of the jurisdiction and venue of this action and of the parties hereto.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - NEGLIGENCE (ROWLEY)

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Vickey Parish Thomas, by and through counsel, for her First Cause of Action against the Defendant, Christopher Lee Rowley, alleges and states as follows:

2. The Defendant, Christopher Lee Rowley, was the operator of a taxi cab owned, leased, and/or operated by GEF Investments, Ltd. The Defendant, Christopher Lee Rowley negligently operated his vehicle by parking his vehicle on NW 16th Street to let out the Plaintiff at her destination, rather than pulling his vehicle to a safe place off of NW it Street. Christopher Lee Rowley, negligently operated his vehicle by talking on his cellular telephone while operating his vehicle at the time of the accident, rather than watching other vehicular traffic on the roadway. Christopher Lee Rowley, negligently operated his vehicle by talking on his cellular telephone rather than allow the Plaintiff to pay and make a speedy exit from the car.

3. The Defendant’s negligent operation of the vehicle while the Plaintiff was exiting the taxi caused an unknown driver to crash into the rear of the vehicle. Plaintiff suffered injuries because of the collision. The Plaintiff’s bodily iiiuries and damages are as a result of the acts, conduct and/or omissions of the Defendants (one or both of them), and without any negligence on the part of the Plaintiff contributing thereto.

4. In addition to the common law acts of negligence stated above, the Plaintiff, Vickey Thomas, alleges that the Defendant, Christopher Lee Rowley, is liable to the Plaintiff by way of statutory law, and/or local ordinance that renders the Defendant liable under theories of negligence per se.

5. The Plaintifi’s injuries are permanent, painful, and progressive. The Plaintiff has incurred reasonable and necessary medical care and treatment, and will incur reasonable and necessary medical care and treatment in the future for the injuries sustained in the accident. The Plaintiff has incurred and/or realized medical expenses for reasonable and necessary medical care and treatment for her injuries from the collision, and will most probably realize and incur, reasonable and necessary medical care and treatment expenses in the future because of the injuries from the collision.
The Plaintiff has sustained and/or realized, and will sustain and/or realize, loss of financial resources and/or income because of the injuries from the collision. The Plaintiff has realized physical pain and suffering in the past, and will realize physical pain and suffering in the future, because of the injuries and damages sustained in the collision. The Plaintiff has sustained and/or will sustain emotional pain and suffering in the past, and will most probably sustain emotional pain and suffering in the future because of the injuries and damages sustained in the collision. The Plaintiff has sutained, and will sustain in the future, the loss of enjoyment of life because of the injuries and damages sustained in the collision. The hjuries and damages that the Plaintiff, Vickey Parish Thomas, sustained, and that she will sustain, are in a sum in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) actual damages, exclusive of lawful costs and interest. Further, the Defendant’s actions constitute a willful disregard for the public’s safety and Plaintiff in particular.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays judgment on her First Cause of Action in favor of the Plaintiff, and against the Defendant, for her compensatory damages in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) and punitive damages in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), exclusive of costs and interest, together with the awarding of lawful casts, interest and other relief this Court deems just, equitable and proper.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - NEGLIGENCE (GEl�)

COMES NOW, the Plaintifl Vickey Parish Thomas, by and through counsel, for her Second Cause of Action against the Defendant, GEF Investments, Ltd, alleges and states as follows:

6. GEF Investments, Ltd, is the owner of the vehicle which Christopher Lee Rowley was operating at the time of the accident.


7. Christopher Lee Rowley was acting within the scope of employment with GEF Investments, Ltd, at the time of the accident.

8, GEF Investments, Ltd. is liable to the Plaintiff for the negligent actions of its employee, servant, and/or agent, Christopher Lee Rowley.

9. GEF Investments, Ltd, was negligent in its maintenance, hiring, training, supervision, and retention of Christopher Lee Rowley.

10. The Plaintiffs bodily injuries and damages are as a result of the acts, conduct and/or omissions of the Defendants (one or both of them), and without any negligence on the part of the Plaintiff contributing thereto.

11. The Plaintiff’s injuries are permanent, painful, and progressive. The Plaintiff has incurred reasonable and necessary medical care and treatment, and will incur reasonable and necessary medical care and treatment in the future for the injuries sustained in the accident. The Plaintiff has incurred and/or realized medical expenses for reasonable and necessary medical care and treatment for her injuries from the collision, and will most probably realize and incur, reasonable and necessary medical care and treatment expenses in the future because of the injuries from the collision. The Plaintiff has sustained and/or realized, and will sustain and/or realize, loss of financial resources and/or income because of the injuries from the collision. The Plaintiff has realized physical pain and suffering in the past, and will realize physical pain and suffering in the future, because of the injuries and damages sustained in the collision. The Plaintiff has sustained and/or will sustain emotional pain and suffering in the past, and will most probably sustain emotional pain and suffering in the fUture because of the injuries and damages sustained in the collision. The Plaintiff has sutained, and will sustain in the future, the loss of enjoyment of life because of the injuries and damages sustained in the collision. The injuries and damages that the Plaintiff, Vickey Thomas, sustained, and that she will sustain, are in a sum in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) actual damages, exclusive of lawlb.1 costs and interest. Further, the Defendant’s actions constitute a willful disregard for the public’s safety and Plaintiff in particular.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays judgment on her Second Cause of Action in favor of the Plaintiff, and against the Defendant, for her compensatory damages in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) and punitive damages in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), exclusive of costs and interest, together with the awarding of lawful costs, interest and other relief this Court deems just, equitable and proper.

Defendants answered, claiming:

1. Defendants admit that GEE Investments, LLC., does business in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma but deny that GEE Investments, LLC is the proper entity to sue in this case. Defendants admits that Christopher Rowley is a resident of Guthrie, Logan County, Oklahoma and that an accident occurred on April 27, 2005, at or near the intersection of NW 1 6th Street and Ross Avenue in Oklahoma City, OK, and that this Court has jurisdiction and venue of this action despite Defendants’ deniai of Plaintiff’s allegations.

2. Defendants admit that Christopher Rowley was the operator of a taxi cab at the time of the accident. Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

3. That Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s
Petition.

4. That Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

5. That Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

6. It is admitted that GEE Investments, LLC, was the owner of the cab that Christopher Rowley was operating. Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Petition as stated.

7. That Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

8. That Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

9. That Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

10. That Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

11. That Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

3. That said accident was caused or contributed to by the negligence of third persons over whom these Defendants had no control.

4. Defendants specifically deny that were in any way negligent in the happening of said accident and the resulting injuries to Plaintiff, if any; however, if they were negligent, which is specifically denied, that the Plaintiff was also negligent and that such negligence either caused or contributed to said accident and would prevent any recovery herein.

5. Discovery is still ongoing and Defendants reserve their right to amend this Answer as discovery progresses.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered, Defendants pray that Plaintiff take nothing by way of her Petition and that Defendants recover their costs and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

1. Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

2. These Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in Plaintiff’s Petition, both generally and specifically.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: