Date: 12-02-2012

Case Style: Treasure Morgan v. Melvin Dunfee

Case Number: CJ-2011-1648

Judge: Tom A. Lucas

Court: District Court, Cleveland County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: David L. Teasdale, Jerry Foshee and Blake Yaffe

Defendant's Attorney: Christopher C. King

Description: Treasure Morgan sued Melvin Dunfee on a negligence theory claiming:

1. That on or about December 24, 2008, at or near the Wal-Mart parking lot located at 501 SW 19th Street, Moore, Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma, Defendant, Melvin Dunfee, negligently drove a motor vehicle causing a collision with a motor vehicle operated by Plaintiff, Treasure Morgan.

2. That Defendant, Melvin Dunfee, wrongfully, carelessly and negligently drove across parking spaces and struck the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

3. That at all relevant times mentioned herein, Plaintiff, Treasure Morgan, operated her motor vehicle properly and lawfiilly.

4. That as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Melvin Dunfee, the Plaintiff, Treasure Morgan, has sustained serious bodily injuries; has sustained aggravation of all pre-existing injuries; has incurred and will incur fUture medical expenses, has incurred and will occur future loss of wages; has suffered tremendous mental pain and suffering and has incurred property damages all in an amount less than $75,000.00.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: PUNITIVE DAMAGES

For her second claim, Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs and states:

5. That Defendant consumed alcoholic beverages immediately before the collision.

6. That Defendant drove the vehicle in violation of 47 OS. § 11-902(a) which provides in paft
“It is unlawful and punishable as provided in this section for any person to drive, operate, or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle within this state, whether upon public roads, highways, streets, turnpikes, other public places or upon any private road, street, alley or lane which provides access to one or more single or multi-family dwellings, who... (2) is under the influence of alcohol.”

7. That Defendant acted with willful disregard and extreme recklessness by operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

8. That Defendant’s actions were of such an egregious nature as to rise to the level of willful and wanton in nature thereby entitling Plaintiff to Punitive Damages in an amount that will serve as a deterrent to others that act with such a reckless disregard.

9. That as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Melvin Dunfee, the Plthitiff, Treasure Morgan, has sustained serious bodily injuries; has sustained aggravation of all pre-existing injuries; has incurred and will incur future medical expenses, has incurred and will occur future loss of wages; has suffered tremendous mental pain and suffering and has incurred property damages all in an amount less than $75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Treasure Morgan, prays for judgment against the Defendant, Melvin Dunfee, for damages, including punitive damages, in the sum less than $75,000.00, plus interest attorney’s fees, costs, and all such other and further relief that this Court may deem just and proper.

Defendant appeared and answered as follows:


I.

Defendant Dunfee would deny generally and specifically each and every material allegation contained within the Petition of Plaintiff except which may be hereinafter specifically admitted.

II.

With regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 1 of Plaintiffs Petition, Defendant Dunfee would admit that on or about December 24, 2008, he was traveling in the Wal-Mart parking lot located at 501 Southwest 19th Street, Moore, Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma, and was involved in a collision with the Plaintiffs vehicle. Defendant Dunfee would deny the remaining allegations contained in that paragraph.

III.

Defendant Dunfee would specifically deny the allegations contained in ParagraphNos. 2, 3, and 4 of Plaintiffs Petition, and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial.

IV.

Defendant Dunfee would deny Plaintiffs prayer for damages.

V.

With regard to the allegations which Plaintiff seeks to reallege and incorporate by reference for her second claim in her Petition, Defendant Dunfee would incorporate by reference all previous admissions, denials, and subsequently plead affirmative defenses applicable to those allegations.

VI.

Defendant Dunfee would deny the allegations contained in Paragraph Nos 5,6, 7,8, and 9 of Plaintiffs Petition, and Plaintiffs prayer for damages.

VII.

For further answer and defense, Defendant Dunfee would state that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for attorneys fees, and therefore, this part of Plaintiffs prayer should be dismissed from this action,

VIII.

For further answer and defense, Defendant Dunfee would state than an accord and satisfaction has been made with regarding to Plaintiffs claim for property damage in the amount of
$2,193.66.

IX.

For fhrther answer and defense, Defendant Dunfee would state the automobile accident, which is the subject of this lawsuit, was such a minor accident from which one would not reasonably expect to have sustained any personal injuries.

X.

For further answer and defense, Defendant Dunfee would state that some of Plaintiffs alleged injuries may be the result of pre-existing mental or physical conditions, or subsequently developing mental or physical conditions, which are not causally related to the motor vehicle accident,

XI.

For further answer and defense, Defendant Dunfee would deny the nature and extent of injuries claimed by the Plaintiff.

XII.

For further answer and defense, Defendant Dunfee would deny that the medical expenses that the Plaintiff has incurred were reasonable or necessary as a result of the alleged injuries from the accident.

XIII.
Defendant Dunfee would state that the Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages is unconstitutional and violates the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and in Article 2, Section 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution for the following reasons:

A. The standards under which such claims are submitted are so vague as to be effectively meaningless and threaten a deprivation of property for the benefit of society without the protection of fundamental fair procedures;

B. The highly penal nature of punitive damages threatens the possibility of excessive punishment and almost limitless liability without the benefit of fundamental fair procedures of any statutorial limitations;

C. The introduction of evidence of Defendant’s financial worth is so prejudicial as to impose liability and punishment in a manner barring no relation to the extent of any injury allegedly inflicted or any benefit to this Defendant from any alleged wrongdoing and therefore any verdict would be the result of bias and prejudice in a fundamentally unfair manner.

XIV.

Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages constitutes an unconstitutionally excessive fine under Article 2, Section 9 of the Oklahoma Constitution, because such highly penal sanctions may be imposed for the benefit of society under standards so vague and effectively meaningless as to threaten unlimited punishment barring no relation to the extent of injury allegedly inflicted at the unbridled discretion of the jury.

XV.

Plaintiffs punitive damage claim is limited by Title 23, O.S. § 9.1 and the corresponding authorities of the United States Supreme Court.

XVI.

For further answer and defense, Defendant Dunfee would plead all affirmative defenses that may be available to him under Oklahoma law based upon factual evidence that exists at the time of trial.

XVII.

For further answer and defense, Defendant Dunfee would reserve the right to plead additional affirmative defenses, delete or modify affirmative defenses pled, upon completion of discovery or as facts warrant.

Defendant offered to allow judgment to be taken pursuant to 12 O.S. Sec. 1101 in the amount of $1,000.00
WHEREFORE, Defendant Melvin Dunfee, having fully answered the Petition of the Plaintiff, prays for judgment in his favor, and against the Plaintiff, together with an award of his costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and just.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: