Date: 06-15-2012

Case Style: Cassie Mae Shelton v. Patricia Faye Jones

Case Number: CJ-2010-1387

Judge: Tom A. Lucas

Court: District Court, Cleveland County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Eric J. Cavett

Defendant's Attorney: Michael H. Githens

Description: Cassie Mae Shelton sued Patricia Faye Jones, Edgar Jones and Jean Jones on negligence theories claiming:

1. That on March 17, 2009, at approximately 1:20 p.m., PLAINTIFF was the driver of a motor vehicle northbound on Western Avenue at or near S.W. 100th in Oklahoma City, Cleveland County, Oklahoma.

2. That on March 17, 2009, at approximately 1:20 p.m., Patricia Faye Jones was the driver of a motor vehicle southbound on Western Avenue at or near S.W. 100th Street.

3. That Patricia Faye Jones negligently operated her vehicle causing a collision with the vehicle lawfhlly operated by Plaintiff

4. That as a direct and proximate result of Patricia Faye Jones’ negligence, PLAINTIFF has suffered damages that include: (1) pecuniary loss, (2) physical pain and suffering, (3) lost wages, and (4) mental anguish.

COUNT 2: NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT

5. That Defendants, Edgar Jones and Jean Jones, were, at the time of the injury to Plaintiff, the registered owner of the vehicle driven by Patricia Jones.

6. That Defendants, Edgar Jones and Jean Jones, had entrusted the vehicle to Patricia Faye Jones at the time of the injury to Plaintiff.

7. That Defendants, Edgar Jones and Jean Jones, either knew, or should have known, that Patricia Jones was careless, reckless, or incompetent in the operation of a motor vehicle.

8. That as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’, Edgar Jones and Jean Jones, negligent entrustment, Plaintiff suffered damages including: (1) pecuniary loss, (2) physical pain, and (3) lost wages.

Defendants answered claiming:

1. Defendants generally and specifically deny each and every material allegation contained in the Petition filed on behalf of the Plaintiff except for those which may be specifically admitted hereinafter.

2. Defendants admit that there was a collision of automobiles at the approximate time and location alleged in Plaintiff’s Petition.

3. Defendants are without sufficient information, knowledge, or belief to either admit or deny the allegations of injuries and damages alleged in Plaintiff’s Petition, and therefore deny the same, and demand strict proof thereof.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

4. The Defendants deny the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injures and damages, if any.

5. The injuries complained of in Plaintiff’s Petition are the result of pre-existing health problems that were neither caused nor aggravated by this accident and for which Defendants are not liable.

6. The injuries complained of in Plaintiff’s petition are the result of health care problems which developed subsequent to the dale of the alleged accident, which were neither caused nor aggravated by this defendant and for which these defendants are not liable.

7. Defendant’s Edgar Jones and Jean Jones did not negligently entrust the vehicle to the Defendant, Patricia Faye Jones and therefore, ore not proper parties to this lawsuit.

8. Reasonableness and necessity of medical treatment.

9. Discovery in this case is just commencing, and reserves the right to amend their answer to assert additional affirmative defenses as they may be ascertained.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: