Date: 09-14-2013

Case Style: Kayla Renee Lewis v. Maegan Henning

Case Number: CJ-2009-858

Judge: Tom A. Lucas

Court: District Court, Cleveland County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: William A. Gosney, Matthew C. Goodin, Neil P. McGuffee

Defendant's Attorney: James L. Gibbs, Bryan E. Stanton for Maegan Henning

Michael Byrd for Homer C. Bursell and Jonathan Faith

Description: Kayla Renee Lewis and Mary Allen sued Maegan Henning Jonathan Faith and Homer C. Bursell on auto negligence theories claiming:


1. Plaintiffs, Mary Allen and Kayla Lewis are residents of Oklahoma City, Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma;

2. All events alleged herein occurred in Norman, Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma.

3. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court;

4. On December 22, 2008, while the Plaintiff Kayla Lewis, was stopped in a line of traffic at the stoplight at the intersection of Lindsey Street and Pickard Avenue in Norman, Oklahoma, the Defendant Maegan Henning (“Henning”) did negligently, and with gross disregard for the safety and welfare of others, cause her vehicle to collide into the rear of the vehicle being operated by Kayla Lewis.

5. As a direct and proximak cause of Henning’s negligence and disregard, Plaintiff Kayla Lewis was thrown violently about the interior the vehicle and sustained painful, serious temporary and permanent personal injuries; has and will suffer pain of mind and body; has incurred medical and other financial expenses for such injuries, and has suffered great loss of time and inconvenience.

6. Immediately after the first collision whereby Henning slammed into the rear of Plaintiff’s vehicle, Defendant Jonathan Faith (“Faith”) did negligently and with gross disregard for the safety and welfare of others, cause his vehicle to collide into the rear of the Henning vehicle, which then slammed into Kayla Lewis’ vehicle for a second time.

7. As a direct and proximate cause of Faith’s negligence and disregard (the second collision), the Plaintiffs vehicle was then launched into vehicle stopped in front of the Plaintiff, and Kayla Lewis was again thrown violently about the interior of the vehicle, sustaining additional painful, serious temporary and permanent personal injuries, pain of mind and body, medical and other financial expenses, and a great loss of time and inconvenience.

8. The vehicle operated by Faith was owned by Defendant Homer C. Bursell. Defendant Bursell did negligently entrust Faith with his vehicle, which directly and proximately resulted in said collisions.

9. The vehicle operated by the Plaintiff, Kayla Lewis, was owned by Lewis’ grandmother, Mary Allen. As a result of the defendants’ combined negligence, Mary Allen has suffered significant property damage, loss of time, great inconvenience and emotional suffering. Furthermore, as of the date this Petition is filed, the Plaintiffs vehicle is still inoperable as a result of these collisions, and on April 16th, 2009, Defendant Henning testified in open Court, under oath, that “I have instructed not to pay anything to get [Mary Allen’sl car fixed”.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants in an amount in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), together with attorney fees, interest, costs, and any such further relief the Court deems equitable, just and available to the Plaintiffs.


Defendant Meagan Henning appeared and answered as follows:

1. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

2. Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 in the Plaintiffs’ Petition.

3. Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

4. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

5. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

6. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

7. To the extent Plaintiffs submit a response from this Defendant is warranted, Defendant denies Paragraph 7 of the
Plaintiffs’ Petition.

8. To the extent Plaintiffs submit a response from this Defendant is warranted, Defendant denies Paragraph 8 of the Plaintiffs’ Petition.

9. To the extent Plaintiffs submit a response from this Defendant is warranted, Defendant denies Paragraph 9 of the Plaintiffs’ Petition.

10. Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested in the WHEREFORE paragraph of Plaintiffs’
Petition.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Plaintiffs’ Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

2. Defendant denies she was negligent so as to cause or contribute to Plaintiffs’ injuries or damages.

3. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the Oklahoma Comparative Negligence statute.

4. Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages, if any, are the result of Plaintiffs’ own negligence or own conduct.

5. The accident was unavoidable as to this Defendant and occurred without negligence of Defendant.

6. The subject accident was caused by Jonathan Faith.

7. Defendant had the right to assume that Plaintiffs would obey the law and could not have anticipated their negligence.

8. Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages, if any, were caused or contributed to by the negligence and/or negligence per se of a third party over whom this Defendant had no control or right to control.

9. The injuries complained of in Plaintiffs’ Petition are the result of health care problems which developed prior to the date of the alleged accident, which were neither caused nor aggravated by Defendant, for which Defendant is not liable.

10. The injuries complained of in Plaintiffs’ Petition are the result of health care problems which developed subsequent to the date of the alleged accident, which were neither caused nor aggravated by Defendant, for which Defendant is not liable.

11. Defendant complied and abided by all applicable statutes, evidences, etc.

12. Failure to mitigate damages.

13. Estoppel.

14. Laches.

15. Insufficiency of process.

16. Insufficiency of service of process.

17. Statute of limitations.

18. Defendant specifically reserves the right to amend and/or otherwise add or delete affirmative or general defenses and/or amend her Answer upon completion of further discovery.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant Maegan Henning prays Plaintiffs take nothing by way of their Petition filed herein and this Honorable Court dismiss this action, or in the alternative, judgment be rendered in her favor, together with costs, reasonable attorney fees and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.


Defendants Jonathan Faith and Homer C. Bursell appeared and answered as follows:

I. Defendants generally and specifically deny each and every material allegation contained in Plaintiff’s Petition unless otherwise stated herein.

2. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Petition and therefore deny the same and demand strict proof thereof.

3. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs Petition.

4. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs Petition.

5. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs Petition and therefore deny same and demand
strict proof thereof.

6. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs Petition and demand strict proof thereof.

7. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs Petition and demand strict proof thereof.

8. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs Petition and demand strict proof thereof.

9. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs Petition and demand strict proof thereof.

10. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs Petition and therefore deny the same and demand strict proof thereof.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Plaintiff, KAYLA RENEE LEWIS, was negligent and such negligence on the part of Plaintiff was the sole cause and/or proximate cause and/or contributed to the accident forming the basis of this lawsuit and the damages alleged and sought by Plaintiff. Such negligence on the part of Plaintiff is pled in bar or reduction of Plaintiffs damages, if any.

2. The accident was solely caused and/or proximately caused by the negligence of third- parties over whom these Defendants had no control and for whose acts these Defendants are not responsible.

3. The accident was an “unavoidable” accident as that term is defined by law in the State of Oklahoma.

4. Defendants reserve the right to show the Court that Plaintiff suffered from preexisting and/or subsequent injuries of the like and kind for which she complains in this lawsuit.

5. Defendants would show that Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages, if any, by failing to be compliant with instructions of medical care providers and/or participating in medical care which was unnecessary and unreasonable in costs in relation to the injuries claimed.

6. Defendants reserve the right to either add or withdraw any affirmative defenses as investigation and discovery continue.

7. Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every material allegation contained in Plaintiff’s Petition and demand strict proof thereof.

WHEREFORE, having fUlly answered, Defendants pray that Plaintiff takes nothing herein and for such other and fUrther relief that this Court deems proper in equity or at law.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: