Date: 07-09-2014

Case Style: Ron D. Moody and Teresa Moody v. Process Manufacturing Co., Inc.

Case Number: CJ-2010-1044

Judge: Mark Barcus

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Jimmy Frasier, Steve R. Hickman and Frank Frasier

Defendant's Attorney: Brent Olsson, Elizabeth D. Oglesby and Lawson Vaughn

John A. Gladd, Mediator

Description: Ron D. Moody and Teresa Moody v. Process Manufacturing Co., Inc.

Issue # 1.
Issue: PREMISES LIABILITY (PREMISE)
Filed by: MOODY, RON D
Filed Date: 02/17/2010
Party Name: Disposition Information:

Defendant: PROCESS MANUFACTURING CO INC
Disposed: DISMISSED - SETTLED, 06/13/2014. Other.

Defendant: PROCESS MANUFACTURING CO INC
Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 07/09/2014. Dismissed- Settled.

Issue # 2.
Issue: PREMISES LIABILITY (PREMISE)
Filed by: MOODY, TERESA
Filed Date: 02/17/2010
Party Name: Disposition Information:

Defendant: PROCESS MANUFACTURING CO INC
Disposed: DISMISSED - SETTLED, 06/13/2014. Other.

Defendant: PROCESS MANUFACTURING CO INC
Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 07/09/2014. Dismissed- Settled.

This is an action for personal injuries received by Ron D. Moody on the 16th day of January, 2009.

On that day Plaintiff was delivering products to the Defendant’s place of business and he entered a pedestrian door and proceeded to a freight door so that he could unload his freight from his YRC delivery truck onto the dock and to the Defendant business. On lifting the door, as he had done on previous occasions, a chock block which had been placed on the door as a counterweight, and not secured, fell from the door, striking the Plaintiff’s head, inflicting injuries to his person.

3. PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:
A. List All Theories of Recovery and the Applicable Statutes, Ordinances, and Common Law Rules Relied Upon
Negligence - Common Law and Premises Liability
B. List Damages or Relief Sought
All damages allowed by OUJI 4.1 and damages for loss of consortium
4. DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS:
List All Theories of Defense and the Applicable Statutes, Ordinances, and Common Law Rules Relied Upon
1. Assumption of the risk.
2. Open and obvious condition.
3. Comparative negligence.
4. Pre-existing condition or maladies.
5. Failure to mitigate damages.
6. Subsequently occurring condition, injury or maladies not caused by this Defendant.
7. Plaintiff was a trespasser to whom no duty was owed by this Defendant.
8. General denial of liability.
9. Excessive damages.
10. Course, scope, reasonableness and necessity of medical treatment.
11. Failure to properly identify damages under 12 0.S. § 2008 (A)(2).
5. DEFENDANT’S CLAIMS FOR RELIEF:
List Any Claims of Relief Sought (by Cross-claim, Counterclaim, or Set-Off), and the Applicable Statutes, Ordinances, and Common Law Rules Relied Upon
Defendant reserves the right to claim any allowable costs should it be declared the prevailing party.

Outcome: Resolved in mediation and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: