Mark Barcus District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma">

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 10-14-2013

Case Style: Elvin Ledon Miller v. Karen Dawn Harper

Case Number: CJ-2010-5364

Judge: Mark Barcus

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: William C. Sellers

Defendant's Attorney: Mark W. Maguire

Description: Elvin Ledon Miller sued Karen Dawn Harper on a negligence theory.

The Pre-Trial Order provided in part:

a. What: Automobile Collision - Personal injuries
b. Where: Northbound on Highway 169 between 41st Street and 31st
Street in Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
c. When: May 28, 2007 at approximately 2:30 p.m.
d. Who: Elvin LeDon Miller (Plaintiff) - Injured passenger in vehicle
involved in collision;
Karen Dawn Harper (Defendant) - Driver of vehicle involved in collision;
e. Other:
Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s General Statement of Facts as set forth above. Defendant would propose the following General Statements of Facts:
Defendant’s General Statement of Facts:
a. What: Automobile accident
b. Where: Highway 169, Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
c. When: May 28, 2007
d. Who: Plaintiff and Defendant
3. Plaintiff’s Contentions:
Grounds for Recovery Applicable Statute. Ordinance,
Common Law Rule
Negligence
Negligence per se
Damages or Relief Sought Amount
a. Personal Injuries:
(Permanent - $25,000.00; Temporary $15,000.00) $40,000.00
Describe:
b. Pain and suffering: (Past - $25,000.00; Future - $25,000.00) 50,000.00
c. Medical and hospital expense:
(Past - $26,089.00; Estimated Future - $5,000.00) 31089.00
TOTAL $121,089.00
4. Defenses:
Grounds for Recovery Applicable Statute. Ordinance,
Common Law Rule
a. General denial.
b. Denial of negligence.
c. Denial of damages.
d. Denial that Plaintiff’s alleged medical treatment and billings were reasonable or necessary or causally related as a result of this accident.
e. Contributory/comparative negligence of the Plaintiff.
f. 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.
g. The occurrence in question and any damages resulting therefrom may have been the result of an unavoidable accident occurring through no fault of this Defendant.

* * *

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: