Date: 03-14-2013

Case Style: Travis J. Repp v. Patty M. Haines

Case Number: CJ-2010-3818

Judge: Dana Kuehn

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Esther M. Sanders, Randall Gause, Timothy E. Tipton

Defendant's Attorney: Mark W. Maguire and Meredith D. Lindaman

Description: Travis J. Repp sued Patty M. Haines on an auto negligent theory claiming to have been injured and/or damaged as a direct result of a car wreck caused by Haines that occurred in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

An automobile accident occurred on October 8, 2008, wherein Plaintiff was tràveli south on South Elm Place in the outside lane. Defendant Haines was also traveling south on South Elm Place in the inside lane. Traffic slowed in front of the Defendant and Defendant changed lanes unsafely in front of the Plaintiff, causing the Plaintiff to take evasive action, resulting in damages to Plaintiff’s motorcycle and injuries to the Plaintiff
Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s General Statement of Facts as improper. Defendant states the General Statement of Facts should note as follows:

Defendant’s General Statement of the Facts:
1. What: Automobile accident
2. Where: South Elm Place and West Vicksburg Street, Broken Arrow, OK
3. When: October 8, 2008
4. Who: Plaintiff and Defendant

Plaintiff’s Contentions:

1. List all theories of recovery and the applicable statutes, ordinances and common law rules relied upon.
Negligence of Defendant Patty Haines

a) That Defendant was negligent in the operation of her vehicle;

b) Negligence per se in violation of 0/cia. Stat tit. 47 §11-901(a) which states as follows: “It shall be deemed reckless driving for any person to drive a motor vehicle in a careless or wanton manner without regard for the safety of persons or property or in violation of the conditions outlined in Section 11-801”;

c) Negligence per se in violation of The Oklahoma Traffic Code, Title 37 §645 A, which states as follows: “It shall be unlawful and an offense for any driver to fail to remain alert and give frill attention to the safe operation of his vehicle while it is in motion”;

d) Failure to maintain a proper lookout while driving, which resulted in said wreck;

e) Failure to devete hill time and attention to the operation of her motor vehicle, which resulted in said wreck;

f) Failure to use reasonable and proper care in the operation of her motor vehicle, which resulted in said wreck; and

g) Failure to take action to avoid or diminish the effects of any wreck that occurred between said parties.

2. List damages or relief sought:

Personal Injuries

Medical expenses totaling $19,307.00 and continuing

Past and future physical pain and suffering in excess of$lO,000.00

Past and future mental pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment and quality of life in excess of $10,000.00

Defcndant’s Contentions:

List all theories of recovery and the applicable statutes, ordinances and common law rules relied upon.
Theory Authority

a) General denial.

b) Denial of damages.

c) Contributory/comparative negligence.

d) Denial that Plaintiffs alleged medical treatment and billings were reasonable or necessary or causally related as a result of this accident.

e) This Defendant would state that any injuries, damages or losses sustained by the Plaintiff may have been solely and proximately caused by the negligence of Co-Defendant to this action, Jane Doe, who is not an agent, employee or servant of this Defendant, and over whom this Defendant exercised no degree of authority or control.

f) This Defendant would state that any injuries, damages or losses sustained by Plaintiff may have been solely and proximately caused by the negligence of third persons, not parties to this action, who are not agents, employees or servants of this Defendant, and over whom this Defendant exercised no degree of authority or control.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: