Date: 09-05-2012

Case Style: Bobby Lee Smith, Jr. v. Daniel Wayne Winburn

Case Number: CJ-2011-2760

Judge: Carlos Chappelle

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Billy D. Griffin, Griffin, Reynolds & Associates, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Defendant's Attorney: Timothy Crow, Schroeder & Associates, Tulsa, Oklahoma

Description: Bobby Lee Smith, Jr. sued Daniel Wayne Winburn on an auto negligence theory claiming to have been injured in a car wreck caused by Winburn.

The allegations made by Plaintiff are not available.

Defendant filed the following answer:


The Defendant, DANIEL WAYNE WINBURN, appears by and through his atto1èy oC record, Timothy F Crow and for his Answer to Plaintiffs Petition alleges and states as, follows:

1. and 2.

As to the facts and allegations set forth in numbered Paragraphs One and Two of Plaintiff’s Petition, it is admitted that a collision occurred involving the Plaintiff; BOBBY LEE SMITH, JR., and the Defendant, DANIEL WAYNE WINBURN, on the date and at the location described. Further, Defendant admits fault. However, as to all further allegations in said Paragraphs, this Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny and denies on that basis or denies said allegations.

3. and 4.

As to the facts and allegations set forth in numbered Paragraphs Three and Four of Plaintiff’s Petition, this Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny and denies on that basis or denies said allegations.

5. This Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every material allegation contained in the Petition of the Plaintiff except that which may be heretofore admitted.

Defendant readopts and realleges the statements previously made herein.

DEFENSES and AVOIDANCES

6. For further answer and defense, the Defendant admits fault but denies the injury claim.

7. For further answer and defense, the incident alleged may not have been the direct cause of Plaintiff’s alleged in] uries and damage.. 8. For further answer and defense, the Defendant would state that no recovery of damages should be allowed for any losses that the Plaintiff reasonably could have avoided and failed to do so.

9. For further answer and defense, this Defendant states that the injuries complained of in Plaintiffs Petition axe the result of preexisting health problems that were neither caused nor aggravated by this Defendant and for which this Defendant is not liable.

10. For further answer and defense, this Defendant would state that the injuries complained of in Plaintiff’s Petition may be the result of health care problems which developed subsequent to the date of the alleged accident, which were neither caused nor aggravated by this Defendant and for which this Defendant is not liable.

11. For further answer and defense, this Defendant reserves the right to plead additional affirmative defenses and amend his Answer upon the completion of discovery.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant, DANIEL WAYNE WINBURN, prays for judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiff, together with his costs of this action and such other and further relief as the Court deems is just and equitable.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NOTICE

Employees of Farmers Insurance Exchange, a Member of the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: