Date: 06-04-2013

Case Style: Tonia Alix v. Reasors, LLC

Case Number: CJ-2011-3194

Judge: Jefferson D. Sellers

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Richard A. Pizzo and Karen E. Kieth Wilkins

Defendant's Attorney: Thomas E. Steichen, Harold C. Zuckerman and Brice A. Taylor

Description: Tonia Alix sued Reasors, LLC, Reasor's Inc. and Reasor's Holding Company, Inc. on premises liability theories claiming:

1. That the plaintiff is a resident of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

2. That the defendants are domestic corporations doing business in Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.

3. That all the acts and occurrences arouse out of a slip-and-fall accident which occurred on
the 2nd day of July, 2009, at the Reasor’s Store located at 1885 .Soutl+.Yale, Tulsa, OK
74112.

4. That this Court has jurisdiction and venue over this subject mth&’and4parties involved.

5. That as a result of the negligence of defendants, Tonia Alix was ijüre4and continues to
suffer from physical injuries as a direct result of the negligence of the defendants. That
Tonia Alix’s injuries are the direct and proximate result of the negligence of the
defendants.

6. That as a result of the negligence of defendants, plaintiff has incurred medical costs.

7. That as a result of the negligence of defendants, plaintiff has sustained damages in excess
of seventy five thousand dollars ($75,000.00).

8. That the acts of the Defendants in connection with the above described automobile accident were grossly negligent, outrageous, in violation of Oklahoma law, and give rise to claim for punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the plaintiff prays for judgment against the defendants for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of seventy five thousand dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of interest and attorney’s fees, plus attorney’s fees, and such other relief that this Court deems just and proper.

Defendants appeared and answered as follows:

1. The Defendants deny each and every material allegation contained in Plaintiffs Amended Petition except those hereinafter specifically admitted.

2. The Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph I of Plaintiffs Amended Petition.

3. The Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s
Amended Petition.

4. The Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deri the—h
allegations contained in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Plaintiffs Amended Petition.

5. The Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, anft8 of
Piaintiffs Amended Petition.

6. The Defendants deny the Plaintiff is entitled to any relief as prayed for in her Amended Petition filed herein.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

7. The Defendants would state Plaintiffs claims herein are barred, or may be barred, by the applicable statute of limitations.

8. The Defendants would state Plaintiffs claims herein are barred by her own negligence.

9. The Defendants would state Plaintiff’s damages alleged herein arc, or may be, the result of pre-existing conditions.

10. Plaintiffs claims for punitive damages, as it regards Defendants, is constitutionally defective and otherwise improper and should be dismissed for one or more of the following reasons:

a. Plaintiffs claims for punitive damages cannot be sustained because any award of punitive damages under Oklahoma law, without bifurcating the trial and trying all punitive damages issues only if and after liability on the merits has been found, would violate Defendants’ due process rights under the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions and would be improper under common law and public policies of the State of Oklahoma and other applicable laws and statutes.

b. Plaintiffs claims for punitive damages cannot be sustained because any award of punitive damages under Oklahoma law, subject to no predetermined limit (such as a maximum multiple of compensatory damages or a maximum amount) on the amount of punitive damages that a jury may impose would violate Defendants’ due process rights under the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions and would be improper under common law and public policies of the State of Oklahoma and other applicable laws and statutes.

c. Plaintiffs claims for punitive damages cannot be sustained because the standard for determining liability for punitive damages under Oklahoma law is vague and arbitrary and does not define with sufficient clarity the conduct or mental state which gives rise to such a claim. Therefore, any award of punitive damages would violate Defendants’ due process rights under the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions and would be improper undcr common law and public policies of the State of Oklahoma and other applicable laws and statutes,

d. Plaintiffs claims for punitive damages cannot be sustained because there are no meaningful standards for determining the amount of any punitive damages award under Oklahoma law and because Oklahoma law does not state with sufficient clarity the consequences of conduct giving rise to a claim for punitive damages. Therefore, any award of punitive damages would violate Defendants’ due process rights under the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions,

e. Plaintiffs claims for punitive damages cannot be sustained because any award of punitive damages under Oklahoma law by a jury that is not adequately instructed on the limits of punitive damages which may be imposed to further the applicable principles of deterrence and punishment would violate Defendants’ due process rights under the common law and
public policies for the State of Oklahoma and other applicable laws and statutes.

f. Plaintiffs claims for punitive damages cannot be sustained because any award of punitive damages under Oklahoma law by a jury that is not expressly prohibited from awarding punitive damages, or determining thc amount of an award of punitive damages, in whole or in part, on the basis of invidiously discriminatory characteristics, including the residence, wealth, and corporate status of Defendants, would violate Defendants’ due process rights under the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions and would be improper under common law and public policies of the State of Oklahoma and other applicable laws and statutes.

g. Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages cannot be sustained because any award of punitive damages, which is not subject to trial court or appellate court review for reasonableness and furtherance of legitimate purposes on the basis of objective standards would violate Defendants’ due process rights under the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions and would be improper under common law and public policies of the State of Oklahoma and other applicable laws and statutes.

h. Plaintiffs claims for punitive damages cannot be sustained because any award of punitive damages under Oklahoma law, without proof of every element beyond a reasonable doubt, would violate Defendants’ rights under Amendments IV, V, VI, and XIV of the United States Constitution and the related provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution and would be
improper under common law and public policies of the State of Oklahoma and other applicable laws and statutes.

11. The Defendants reserve the right to amend this Answer and to include further affirmative defenses pending the completion of discovery and/or by order of the Court,

WHEREFORE, the Defendants pray the Plaintiff take nothing by way of her Amended Petition and the Defendants be granted judgment along with their costs, a reasonable attorney’s fee and for such other and further relief as this Court finds equitable and just.

Defendants offered to confess judgment in favor of Plaintiff pursuant to Title 12 O.S. 1101.1 in the amount of $125,000.00.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: