Date: 10-06-2013

Case Style: Amanda Erwin v. Mary Frances Estep

Case Number: CJ-2010-367

Judge:

Court: District Court, Canadian County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: M. E. McCollam and Mark Stanley

Defendant's Attorney: Derrick Teague and W. Brett Willis for Mary Frances Estep

John L. Miller for the Board of County Commissioners of Canadian County

D. Norman Easter for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Description: Amanda Erwin sued Mary Frances Estep on a negligence theory claiming to have been injured as a direct result of the failure of defendant to exercise due care claiming:

1. Amanda Erwin (“Erwin”) is a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

2. Mary Frances Estep (“Estep”) is a resident of Canadian County, Oklahoma.

3. Canadian County is a political subdivision of the State of Oklahoma.

4. The acts giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in Canadian County, Oklahoma.

5. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and venue is proper in Canadian County.

Claim for Relief against Estep

(Negligence)

6. On May 31, 2009, at approximately 8:31 a.m., Estep operated a motor vehicle on or about Sunset Drive at or near the intersection of Reformatory Road in El Reno, Oklahoma in Canadian County, Oklahoma.

7. While operating the motor vehicle, Estep negligently, willfully and/or with reckless disregard for the rights of others collided with Erwin, who was traveling northbound on a bicycle.

8. As a result of the collision, Erwin sustained severe and painful bodily injuries and suffered additional damages.

9. As a direct result of Estep’s negligence, certain property belonging to Erwin was damaged. Claim for Relief AQainst Canadian County

(Negligence)

10. Erwin incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above.

11. On May 31, 2009, at approximately 8:31 a.m., Canadian County, by and through the office of the Canadian County Sheriff, provided traffic control at the intersection of Sunset Drive and Reformatory Road during a certain event referred to as the Route 66 Triathlon.

12. Traffic control, at the time and place referred to above, was provided by a certain Lieutenant Tony Harrison (“Harrison”), acting in the course of his employment and within the scope of his duties as an authorized agent of the Canadian County Sheriffs Department.

13. Harrison negligently performed his duties.

14. As a result of Harrison’s negligence, Erwin sustained severe and painful bodily injuries and suffered additional damages.

15. As a direct result of Harrison’s negligence, certain property belonging to Erwin was damaged.

WHEREFORE, Erwin prays for judgment against Mary Estep and Canadian County, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of $10,000 as and for actual damages, for punitive damages in excess of $10,000, for property damages in excess of $10,000 and for the costs of this action such other relief to which he may be entitled.

Mary Frances Estep appeared and answered as follows:

1. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs Petition and therefore denies same.

2. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs Petition.

3. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

4. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

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

CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST ESTEP (NEGLIGENCE)

6. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

7. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

8. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs Petition and therefore denies same.

9. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST CANADIAN COUNTY (NEGLIGENCE)

10. Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs Petition requires no answer.

11. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Petition and therefore denies same.

12. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs Petition and therefore denies same.

13. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s Petition and therefore denies same.

14. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 14 of Plaintiff’s Petition and therefore denies same.

15. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs Petition and therefore denies same.

GENERAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

For further defense, Defendant asserts the following general and affirmative defenses:

16. The allegations contained within Plaintiffs’ Petition fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

17. If Plaintiff sustained injuries or incurred expenses as alleged, such injuries or expenses resulted from pre-existing or unrelated medical, genetic, or environmental conditions, diseases, or illnesses of the Plaintiff.

18. If Defendant was in any manner negligent or otherwise at fault, any such negligence and fault being specifically denied, such negligence was a mere condition by which the Plaintiff’s damages were made possible and was not the proximate cause of those damages.

19. The accident was unavoidable and occurred without negligence or otherfault on the part of the Defendant.

20. Insufficiency of service of process.

21. The accident and/or injuries of Plaintiff were a result of the negligence of the Plaintiff, other parties, and/or third parties, thereby precluding recovery from this Defendant.

22. Any injuries, damages, or losses suffered by Plaintiff were proximately caused or contributed to by the negligence of, comparative fault of, or failure to mitigate damages by the Plaintiff, her agents, other parties and/or third parties, and any recovery for them should be barred or reduced accordingly.

23. Plaintiff assumed the risk of injury, thereby precluding recovery from this Defendant.

24. Defendant reserves the right to further answer and amend its answer as information is revealed through discovery.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Mary Frances Estep, prays forjudgment in her favor, together with costs, attorneys’ fees, and such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and just.

Outcome: This matter comes on for hearing on this day of September, 2013, on Defendant Board of County Commissioners of Canadian County’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Defendant appears through its counsel of record, Andy A. Artus and Plaintiff appears through her counsel, Mark Stanley. The Court having reviewed all of the briefs and having heard oral argument, sustains the Motion. The Court finds that the exemptions provided in the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act, found at OkIa. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(6) and (20) apply. Therefore, the Defendant, Board of County Commissioners of Canadian County, is dismissed from this lawsuit with prejudice based on the argument and authority stated in the Defendant’s briefs.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: