Date: 08-06-2012

Case Style: Amber M. Howe v. Katherine Elizabeth McDonough

Case Number: CJ-2011-4573

Judge: Roger H. Stuart

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Joe Carson, Homsey, Cooper, Hill & Associates, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Defendant's Attorney: Melissa G. Handke, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Description: COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Amber M. Howe, and for her cause of action against the Defendant, Katherine Elizabeth McDonough, and hereby alleges and states as follows:
1. That the Plaintiff Amber M. Howe, is a resident of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.

2. That Defendant Katherine Elizabeth McDonough is a resident of OKlahoma County, State of Oklahoma

3. That on or about the 6th day of September, 2009, in Edmond, Oklahoma, Plaintiff was driving a 2007 Gray Hyundai, and operating her vehicle in a reasonable and prudent manner.

4. That on or about the 6th day of September, 2009, Plaintiff was traveling Eastbound on State Highway 66 in the inside lane near South Baumann Avenue in Edmond, Oklahoma, when Defendant was travelling Eastbound behind a vehicle driven by Corey James Tillery who was directly behind the Plaintff on State Highway 66 in the inside lane.

5. That Defendant failed to slow, colliding the rear of Corey James Tillery’s vehicle, which then collided with Plaintiffs vehicle.

6. That Defendant Katherine Elizabeth McDonough was negligent in operating her vehicle which caused the collision complained of herein.

7. That Defendant failed to devote full time and attention to her driving.

8. That Defendant failed to give proper distance to the vehicles in front of her.

9. That Defendant was negligent per se.

10. That the collision was directly and proximately caused by the negligence of Defendant Katherine Elizabeth McDonough.

11. Prior to this collision, Plaintiff Amber M. Howe was in good health with a normal life expectancy, but as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Plaintiff has sustained damages for which he is entitled to recover,

12. Pursuant to the provisions of 12 O.S. § 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 4.1. Under item (H), Plaintiffs medical bills incurred to date are in the approximate amount of $58,432.66 which amount is subject to increase. This item is among the elements for the jury to consider in fixing the amount of damages to award Plaintiff. Other than the amount which Plaintiff has specifically identified, and which is capable of being ascertained to some degree of certainty, Plaintiff is unable to guess or speculate as to what amount of damages ajury might award. The elements for the jury to consider include the following:

A. Plaintiff’s physical pain and suffering, past and future;

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

C. Plaintiff’s age;

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

B. The nature and extent of Plaintiffs injuries;

F. Whether the injuries are permanent;

G. The physical impairment; and

H. The reasonable expenses of the necessary medical care, treatment and services, past and ifiture.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment in an amount potentially in excess of $75,000.00 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’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S PETITION

COMES NOW the Defendant, Katherine Elizabeth McDonough, and for the answer to the Petition filed on behalf of the Plaintiff, alleges and states as follows:

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

I. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every material allegation contained in the Petition filed on behalf of the Plaintiff except for those which may be specifically admitted hereinafter.

2. Defendant admits that there was a collision of automobiles at the approximate time and location alleged in Plaintiffs Petition.

3. Defendant is without sufficient information, knowledge, or belief to either admit or deny the allegations of injuries and damages alleged in Plaintiffs Petition, and therefore denies the same, and demands strict proof thereof

4. Discovery in this case is just commencing, and reserves the right to amend her answer to assert additional affirmative defenses as they may be ascertained.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant prays that Plaintiff’s Petition be dismissed and Plaintiff takes nothing thereby; further Defendant prays for the costs of this action and for such relief as may be fair and equitable.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: