Date: 08-04-2012

Case Style: Krysta Hale v. Chevis Royal

Case Number: CJ-2011-377

Judge: Tom Newby

Court: District Court, Garfield County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Eric Edwards, Edwards, Eric N., P.C., Enid, Oklahoma

Defendant's Attorney: Maurice G. Woods, III and Christine B. McInnes, McAtree & Woods, Inc., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Description: COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, KRYSTA HALE, an individual, and for her causes of action against the Defendant, CHEVIS ROYAL, an individual, alleges and states as follows:

1. Plaintiff, KRYSTA HALE, is an individual residing in Enid, Garfield County, Oklahoma.

2. Defendant, CHEVIS ROYAL, is an individual residing in Enid, Garfield County, Oklahoma.

3. On or about June 18, 2010, Plaintiff was operating her vehicle in Enid, Oklahoma. Defendant caused his vehicle to rear-end and collide with said vehicle, resulting in personal injury and property damage to Plaintiff.

4. As a direct result of Defendant’s negligence and negligence per se (failure to devote proper attention, failure to yield, following too closely), Plaintiff suffered property damage, personal injury, incurred medical bills, lost income and suffered other damages, physical, emotional and economic in nature. The damages incurred exceed the sum of $10,000.00.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court award herjudgment against Defendant as follows: for actual damages in excess of $10,000.00; for her costs, including a reasonable attorney fee; for interest; and for such other and further relief which the Court deems proper.

ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED PETITION

COMES NOW the Defendant, Patricia Morgan, and for her Answer to the First Amended Petition filed herein by the Plaintiff; alleges and states as follows:

1. The Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph I of the Plaintiffs First Amended Petition, therefore, said allegation is denied and this Defendant demands strict proof thereof

2. The Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Plaintiffs First Amended Petition.

3. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Plaintiffs First Amended Petition are not directed to this Defendant, and therefore, no response is necessary. However, should a response be required, this Defendant denies said allegations and demands strict proof thereof

4. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 of Plaintiffs First Amended Petition and demands strict proof thereof

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

5. The incident complained of in the Plaintiffs First Amended Petition was caused

by the negligence of third parties over whom this Defendant had no control or supervision, and therefore, liability will not attach to this Defendant.

6. The incident complained of in the Plaintiffs First Amended Petition was the direct result of the negligence of the Plaintiff in a degree to either prohibit or lessen any recovery thereunder.

7. The injuries complained of by the Plaintiff were not the proximate result of any actions of Defendant.

8. The incident complained of in the Plaintiffs First Amended Petition was the result of a sudden emergency andlor unavoidable casualty presented to this Defendant and, at all times pertinent thereto, this Defendant acted reasonably and prudently; and therefore, liability will not attach to this Defendant.

9. The Plaintiff sustained no injury or was not injured as severely as alleged as a result of the incident in this suit.

10. Plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of a known danger and is not entitled to recover herein.

11. The Plaintiffs First Amended Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

12. Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages are not warranted under the facts and circumstances of this case.

13. The Defendant reserves the right to amend or abandon any or all of the allegations stated.

14. It is anticipated that additional affirmative defenses will become known through the discovery process; therefore, this Defendant reserves the right to plead them as they are discovered.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Patricia Morgan, prays that judgment be rendered in her favor, that he be awarded his costs and attorney fees, and any and all other relief the Court deems just and equitable.

Outcome: COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Krysta Hale, and hereby dismisses the Defendants, Chevis Royal and Patricia Morgan, in the above styled and numbered cause with prejudice toward the bringing of any further action.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: