Date: 06-05-2013

Case Style: Travis J. Becktol v. C-P Integrated Services, Inc.

Case Number: CJ-2010-1098

Judge: Gary E. Miller

Court: District Court, Canadian County

Plaintiff's Attorney: Richard M. Fogg, John C. Clark, and Renee S. Lonigan-Eberhardt

Defendant's Attorney: James L. Gibbs, II and Bryan E. Stanton

Description: Travis J. Becktol and Tammy Becktol sued C-P Integrated Services, Inc., et al. on auto negligence theories claiming:

1. Venue is proper pursuant to 12 O.S. l34.

2. That Plaintiffs, Travisj. Becktol andTammy Becktol, are residents of Canadian County, Oklahoma.

3. Plaintiffs allege, upon information and belief that the Defendants, John Doe, and other John Doe unknown persons, whose exact true names are unknown at this time, the Defendant XXX, Corporate Entities, whose exact true names are unknown at this time, and Defendant YYY, Unincorporated Associations, whose exact true names are unknown at this time, (hereinafter “other Defendants”) were persons and entities who had both contractual and other duties to Plaintiff Travis Becktol, and failed to perform their contractual and other duties to properly warn the traveling public from obvious and hidden, but foreseeable known dangers, and that as result of such negligent breach of their contractual and common law duty, Plaintiff, Travis Becktol, was injured and suffered damages, both temporary and permanent, for which Plaintiff, Travis Becktol, should be compensated.

4. Defendant C-P Integrated Services, Inc. (hereafter “CPI”) is an Oklahoma Corporation, incorporated under the laws of the State of Oklahoma.

5. In 2008 CPI was awarded the CORE General Maintenance Service contract with the Oklahoma Department of Transportation for Oklahoma, Cleveland, and Canadian Counties.

6. On or about November 24, 2008, CPI operated and controlled a construction zone on Westbound 1-40 near Banner Road in Canadian County.

7. Plaintiffs have reason to believe that Defendant CPI may have assigned portions and responsibilities of the construction zone to “other Defendants” that were under the direct control of CPI.

8. That as a result of this construction, the right lane on Westbound 1-40 near Banner Road was closed,

9. On or about November 24, 2008, at approximately 5:30 p.m., Travis Becktol was driving a vehicle Westbound on Interstate 40 near Banner Road in Canadian County, Oklahoma.

10. That East of Banner Road, Plaintiff came to an abrupt stop due to the construction zone ahead.

11. A vehicle driven by Ashley R. Soward struck the rear of Travis Becktol’s vehicle with enough force to push Plaintiffs vehicle into the median of the Interstate before bitting a cable barrier.

12. Plaintiffs allege that the accident occurred because of Defendant CPI’s and “other Defendants”carelessness and negligence in failing to warn the traveling public of the upcoming construction zone.

13. As a result of this coffision, Plaintiff Travis Becktol has suffered permanent injuries.

14. Plaintiff sues to recover actual and punitive damages in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) based on CPI’s and other Defendants’ negligence and wilful acts or omissions.

15. Plaintiff was married to Tanimy Becktol at the tline of the injury alleged in this Petition. As a result of the injuries sustained by her husband, Travis Becktol, she has suffered loss and injury by reason of the loss of the comfort, services and consortium in an amount in excess of ten thousand dollars, ($10,000.00) together with interest and costs, as provided by law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the above Defendants, an amount in excess of $10,000.00 together with interest and costs thereon as provided by law.

C-P Integrated appeared and answered as follows:

1. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every allegation against it in Plaintiffs’ Petition except those which may be specifically admitted hereinafter.

2. Defendant is without sufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 1 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and, therefore, same are denied.

3. Defendant is without sufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 2 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and, therefore, same are denied.

4. Defendant is without sufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 3 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and, therefore, same are denied.

5. With regard to Paragraph No. 4 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, Defendant admits it is an Oklahoma corporation, incorporated under the laws of the State of Oklahoma.

6. With regard to Paragraph No. 5 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, Defendant admits only it had a concrete repair contact applicable for work performed in Canadian County with the State of Oklahoma during the relevant time period.

7. Defendant is without sufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 6 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and, therefore, same are denied.

8. Defendant is without sufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 7 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and, therefore same are denied.

9. Defendant is without sufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 8 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and, therefore, same are denied.

10. Defendant is without sufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 9 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and, therefore, same are denied.

11. Defendant is without sufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 10 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and, therefore, same are denied.

12. Defendant is without sufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 11 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and, therefore, same are denied.

13. With regard to Paragraph No. 12, Defendant acknowledges Plaintiffs’ alleged statement set forth in the paragraph, but vehemently deny any carelessness or negligence in failing to warn the traveling public of any construction zone. As a result, Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 12 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

14. Defendant is without sufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 13 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and, therefore, same are denied.

15. With regard to Paragraph No. 14, Defendant acknowledges Plaintiffs apparently seeks to recover damages stated, but Defendant denies Plaintiffs are entitled to same.

16. Defendant is without sufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 15 of Plaintiffs Petition, and, therefore, same are denied.

17. Defendant denies Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought in the WHEREFORE Paragraph of their Petition.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

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

2. Defendant denies it was negligent so as to cause or contribute to Plaintiffs’ alleged 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. Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages, if any, were caused or contributed to by the negligence of a third party over whom Defendant had no control.

6. Statute of limitations.

7. This accident may have been caused as a result of a sudden emergency.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. Failure to name a necessary and indispensable party.

11. Failure to join a party pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2019.

12. Lack of capacity to sue or be sued.

13. Insufficiency of service and/or service of process.

14. Release and satisfaction.

15. The allegations in Plaintiffs’ Petition only allege a claim of negligence as to a non-party, Ashley Soward, who is not named as a party to this lawsuit.

16. The allegations in Plaintiffs’ Petition are that “other defendants,” performed apparent work on or about the location of the alleged subject accident which are outside this Defendant’s knowledge, and/or control.

17. Accord and satisfaction.

18. Punitive damages are unconstitutional.

19. Plaintiffs’ Petition fails to state a cause of action for punitive damages against Defendant.

20. Any award of punitive damages to Plaintiffs in this case violates both federal and state constitutional safeguards afforded to Defendant, specifically:

(a) The EightAmendment to the United States Constitution prohibiting excessive fines, as well as by Article 2, Section 9 of the constitution of the State of Oklahoma;

(b) The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution prohibiting substantive and procedural due process violations, as well as by Article 2, Section 7 of the constitution of the State of Oklahoma;

(c) The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guaranteeing equal protection of the laws;

(d) The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eight Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 2, Sections 20 and 21 of the constitution of the State of Oklahoma, to the extent such punitive damages are awarded without requiring the appropriate burden of proof; and

(e) The relevant provisions of Oklahoma law, particularly 23 O.S. § 9.1.

21. To the extent there are unnamed, necessary and appropriate parties to this litigation, Defendant seeks indemnification and contribution from said parties.

22. 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, C-P Integrated Services, Inc., prays Plaintiffs, Travis J. Becktol and Tammy Becktol, take nothing byway of their Petition filed herein and this Honorable Court dismiss this action, or in the alternative, judgment be rendered in his favor, together with costs, reasonable attorney fees and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper!

Outcome: COMES NOW before the Court on the 31st day of May, 2013, Defendant, C-P Integrated Services, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute. Present for Defendant, C-P Integrated, Inc., was its counsel, James L. Gibbs, II. No counsel appeared for Plaintiffs. After reviewing the motion and brief filed by Defendant, C-P Integrated Services, Inc., and no response being filed by Plaintiffs, the Court finds that Defendant’s Motion should be and is hereby GRANTED, and dismisses without prejudice to the refiling of the claim of Plaintiffs, Travis J. Becktol and Tammy Becktol. Plaintiffs have one year within which to refile their claim.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: