Date: 08-10-2012

Case Style: Gayelynn DeWoody v. Matthew D. Davis

Case Number: CJ-2011-3459

Judge: Dana Kuehn

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Kimberly N. Clark, Boettcher & Lobaugh, Tulsa, Oklahoma

Defendant's Attorney: Andrea L. Medley, Schroeder & Associates, Tulsa, Oklahoma

Description: Gayelynn DeWoody sued Matthew D. Davis on an auto negligence theory claiming to have been injured in a car wreck caused by Mr. Davis.

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, MATTHEW D. DAVIS

The Defendant, MATTHEW D. DAVIS, appears by and through his attorney of record, Andrea L. Medley and for his Answer to Plaintiffs Petition alleges and state:

1.

It is admitted that a collision occurred between the Plaintiff, GAYEI2YNN1 DEWOODY, and the Defendant, MATTHEW D. DAVIS, as set forth in Plaintiffs Petition. ‘Defendant will admit fault for the accident.

2.

The remaining facts and allegations set forth in Plaintiffs Petition are denied.

3.

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.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND AVOIDANCES

4.

For further answer and defense, should the Defendant be found negligent, which is not admitted but is expressly denied, this Defendant states that his negligence was not the direct cause of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damage.

5.

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.

6.

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

7.

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.

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, MATTHEW D. DAVIS, 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.

Outcome: The Plaintiff, GAYELYNN DEWOODY, appears and dismisses this cause with._ prejudice to the right of bringing any other future action.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: