Date: 12-31-2013

Case Style: Sue Rollins v. Ethan Treisa and Shannan Hickley

Case Number: CJ-2011-1780

Judge: Tom A. Lucas

Court: District Court, Cleveland County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Ashley L. Smart

Defendant's Attorney: Thomas P. Manning

Description: Sue Rollins sued Ethan Treisa and Shannan Hickley on auto negligence theories claiming:

1. That the Plaintiff, Sue Rollins is a resident of Pottawatomie County, State of Oklahoma.

2. That the Defendant, Ethan Treisa, is a resident of Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma.

3. That the Defendant, Shannan Hinckley, is a resident of Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma.

4. Thai on or about the 3rd day of September, 2011, in Norman, Oklahoma, Plaintiff Sue Rollins was driving a 2007 Red Honda Accord traveling eastbound on West Main Street. Plaintiff was operating her vehicle in a reasonable and prudent manner. Defendants were traveling in the same direction behind Plaintiff. Plaintiff stopped due to traffic conditions when Defendant Ethan Treisa rear ended Plaintiff. Subsequently, Defendant Shannan Hinckley rear ended Defendant Ethan Treisa, which caused Defendant Ethan Treisa to collide with Plaintiffs vehicle for a second time.

5. That Defendant’s Ethan Treisa and Shannan Hinckley were negligent in operating their vehicles which caused the incident complained of herein. Defendant’s failed to devote full time and attention to their driving. Said collision resulted in Plaintiff suffering injuries. The collision was the direct result of the negligence of the Defendant’s Ethan Treisa and Shannan Hinckley.

6. Prior to this collision, Sue Rollins was in good health with a normal life expectancy, but as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff has sustained damages for which she is entitled to recover.

7. Pursuant to the provisions of 12 OS. § 3226(B)(2), Plaintiff submits this preliminary computation of damages sought in this lawsuit. As this is an action for injuries suffered by an adult, Plaintiff advises that all damages recoverable by law are sought, including those listed in OUJI 2d 4. 1. Under item (K), Plaintiffs medical bills incurred to date are unknown at this time as Plaintiff continues to receive treatment. At this point, Plaintiff does not know the amount of future medical expenses as Plaintiff continues to receive treatment for her injuries. These items are among the elements for the jury to consider in fixing the amount of damages to award plaintiff Other than the amounts which Plaintiff has specifically identified, and which are capable of being ascertained to some degree of certainty, Plaintiff is unable to guess or speculate as to what amount of damages a jury might award. The elements for the jury to consider include the following:

A. Plaintiffs physical pain and suffering, past and future;

B. Plaintiffs mental pain and suffering, past and future;

C. Plaintiffs age;

D. Plaintiffs physical condition immediately before and after the accident;

E. The nature and extent of Plaintiffs injuries;

F. Whether the injuries are permanent;

G. The physical impairment

H. The disfigurement;

I. Loss of [earning/time];

J. Impairment of earning capacity;

K. The reasonable expenses of the necessary medical care, treatment and services, past and future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment in an amount in excess of $10,000.00 for compensatory damages, together with attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs of this action, and for such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.


Defendant, Shannan Hinckley, appeared and answered as follows:

1. Defendant Shannan Hinckley generally and specifically denies each and every material allegation contained in the Petition filed on behalf of the Plaintiff except those which are specifically admitted hereinafter.

2. Defendant Shaiman Hinckley is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations in Paragraphs 1 and 6 of Plaintiffs Petition. Therefore, Paragraphs 1 and 6 of Plaintiffs Petition are denied and Defendant, Shannan Hinckley, demands strict proof thereof

3. Defendant, Shaman Hinekley admits the allegations in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Plaintiffs Petition.

4. Defendant Shamian Hinckley admits an accident happened at or near the date and time described in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs Petition, but denies the remaining allegations.

5. Defendant Shannan Hinckley denies the allegations in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs Petition and demands strict proof thereof AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

7. The Defendant, Shannan Hinckley, contends that the Plaintiff is negligent and that such negligence caused or contributed to the cause of the accident. A recovery by the Plaintiffs, if any, must be reduced by her percentage of negligence.

8. The accident in question, and any injuries resulting there from, was caused by the negligence, misconduct, or some act or failure to act on the part of a third party(s) over whom the Defendant, Shannan Hinckley, had no control.

9. The damages claimed in Plaintiff’s Petition were a result of pre-existing damages/injuries that were neither caused nor aggravated by this accident and for which Defendant, Shannan Hinckley is not liable.

10. The Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the Defendant, Shannan Hinckley upon which relief can be granted.

11. The injuries complained of in Plaintiffs Petition are the result of health care problems which developed subsequent to the date of the alleged accident, which were neither caused nor aggravated by this accident and for which Defendant Shannan Hinckley is not liable.

12. By way of further defense and pleading in the alternative, the Plaintiffs medical treatment was unreasonable and unnecessary.

13. Defendant, Shannan Hinckley reserves the right to amend this Answer in accordance with Title 12 O.S. § 2015 or, upon the completion of discovery, following proper application to the Court.

WHEREFORE, having frilly answered, Defendant, Shannan Hinekley, prays that the Plaintiff, takes nothing by reason of her Petition and that this action be dismissed for an award of costs and attorney’s fees and for all other relief deemed equitable by the Court.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: