Date: 09-10-2012

Case Style: Allicea Roberts v. Stephanie Hill

Case Number: CJ-2010-1056

Judge: Tracy Schumacher

Court: District Court, Cleveland County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Kevin E. Hill

Defendant's Attorney: George D. Davis, Richard J. Harris, Katherine Taylor Loy, Kelsie M. Sullivan, and Kaci L. Trojan

Description: Allicea Roberts, a minor by and through her mother and next friend, Diane Roberts, and by and Through her father and next friend, Steve Roberts sued Stephanie Hill and Zachary Endress on auto negligence theories claiming:

1. That the Plaintiff, Allicea Roberts is a resident of Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma.

2. That the Defendant, Stephanie Hill, is a resident of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.

3. That the Defendant, Zachary Endress, is a resident of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.

4. That on or about the 17th day of January, 2010, in Cleveland County, Oklahoma, Plaintiff Allicea Roberts was a passenger in Defendant Zachary Endress’ Black 2010 Toyota Cobalt. Defendant Zachary Endress was traveling northbound on Eastern Avenue. Defendant Stephanie Hill was traveling southbound on Eastern Avenue and attempted to turn left onto south

1. That the Plaintiff, Allicea Roberts is a resident of Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma.

2. That the Defendant, Stephanie Hill, is a resident of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.

3. That the Defendant, Zachary Endress, is a resident of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.

4. That on or about the 17th day of January, 2010, in Cleveland County, Oklahoma, Plaintiff Allicea Roberts was a passenger in Defendant Zachary Endress’ Black 2010 Toyota Cobalt. Defendant Zachary Endress was traveling northbound on Eastern Avenue. Defendant Stephanie Hill was traveling southbound on Eastern Avenue and attempted to turn left onto south unable to guess or speculate as to what amount of damages a jury might award. The elements for the jury to consider include the following:

A. Plaintiffs physical pain and suffering, past and future;

B. Plaintiffs mental pain and suffering, past and future;

C. Plaintiff’s age;

D. Plaintiff’s physical condition immediately before and after the accident;

E. The nature and extent of Plaintiffs injuries;

F. Whether the injuries are permanent;

G. The physical impairment

H. The disfigurement;

I. The impairment of earning capacity after reaching the age of eighteen years;

J. The reasonable expenses of necessary medical care, treatment and services required after reaching the age of eighteen years,

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment in an amount potentially in excess of $75,000.00 for compensatory damages, together with attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment and post- judgment interest, costs of this action, and for such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Stephanie Hill answered as follows:

1. Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Petition and therefore same are denied.

2. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

3. Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Petition and therefore same are denied.

4. Defendant admits an accident occurred but denies the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

5. Defendantdenies the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

6. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs Petition alleging negligence on the part of Defendant Zachary Endress. However, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to either admit or deny the allegation contained in paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Petition that alleges Plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the collision and therefore said allegation is denied.

7. Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Petition and therefore same are denied.

8. Defendantdenies the allegations contained in paragraph 8 (including paragraphs A-JO of Plaintiff’s Petition. Defendant denies Plaintiff’s assertion that paragraph 8 satisfies the provisions of 12 O.S. 3226(2)(B) as Plaintiff did not provide an adequate computation of damages and did not provide the documents on which any such computation is based.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. That said accident was caused or contributed to by the negligence of third persons over whom this Defendant had no control.

2. That the conditions of which Plaintiff complains constitute an aggravation of pre-existing conditions.

3. That Plaintiff’s negligence caused or contributed to the accident.

4. That Defendant was confronted with a sudden emergency and acted as a reasonable and prudent person in light thereof.

5. That Defendant was confronted with an unavoidable accident and acted as a reasonable and prudent person in light thereof.

6. That Plaintiff’s damages and injuries, if any, are the result of other conditions, illnesses or accidents unrelated to the current accident that is the basis for this lawsuit.

7. Discovery is still ongoing and Defendant reserves her right to amend this Answer as discovery progresses.

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

CROSS-CLAIM

COMES NOW Defendant, Stephanie Hill, and for her Cross-Claim against Defendant, Zachary Endress, alleges and states as follows:

1. The automobile accident complained of by Plaintiff in her Petition was caused by the negligence of Defendant Zachary Endress and not by any act or omission of this Defendant.

2. Plaintiff’s injuries and damages, if any, were caused by the negligence of Defendant Zachary Endress.

3. In the event of any judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against this Defendant, she has a right of indemnity and contribution back against Defendant Zachary Endress.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant, Stephanie Hill, prays forjudgment over and against Defendant Zachary Endress for any recovery herein in favor of Plaintiff and against this Defendant.

Zachary Endress answered as follows:


1. That each and every material allegation therein contained except those things specifically admitted hereafter are hereby generally and expressly denied.

2. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Petition except the allegation that Defendant was driving a Toyota Cobalt.

3. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 5 and 6 of the Petition.

4. Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations of Paragraph 7 and 8 of the Petition and therefore demand strict proof thereof.

Affirmative Defenses

1. Comparative negligence of Plaintiff and Co-Defendant.

2. The Defendant lacks legal capacity to be sued.

3. Defendant reserves the right to supplement his affirmative defenses as permitted by the Court.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered, Defendant Zachary Endress prays that Plaintiff take nothing and that Defendant have and recover his costs herein.

Outcome: Plaintiff hereby dismisses all claims and causes of action asserted herein against Defendant, Zachary Endress, with prejudice to the refihing of the same.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: