Date: 05-30-2013

Case Style: Jennifer Hingey v. Gordon Bratton

Case Number: CJ-2011-5028

Judge: Jefferson D. Sellers

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Amber Pickio Garrett and D. Mitchell Garrett

Defendant's Attorney: William S. Leach and Jessica Dickerson

Description: Jennifer Hingey, individually and as parent and next friend of Nichole sued Gordon Bratton and AAA of Oklahoma on auto negligence theories claiming to have been injured and/or damaged as a result of a car wreck caused by Bratton that occurred in Tulsa County.

1. That Plaintiff Hingey is a resident of Tulsa, State of Oklahoma. That PlaintiffNicole. Hingey, by and through her mother, Jennifer Hingey, is a resident of Tulsa, State of Oklahoma. That upon information and belief, Defendant Gordon Bratton is a resident of Tulsa, State of Oklahoma. That upon information and belief, Defendant AAA of Oklahoma is a domestic not-for-profit company doing business in the State of Oklahoma. That the automobile accident giving rise to this action occurred in Tulsa, Oklahoma thus making jurisdiction of this Court just and proper.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

2. On or about July 15, 2010, Plaintiffs Jennifer Hingey and Nicole Hingey, a minor, were passengers in the vehicle driven by Mindy Whitehead traveling on Memorial Drive near
Street, in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Defendant Gordon Bratton failed to stop his truck for traffic and struck the vehicle in which Plaintiffs were passengers. Defendant Gordon Bratton “not paying attention” to the traffic and did carelessly, recklessly and negligently fail to operate his motor vehicle properly and safely and with disregard for others.

3. That by failing to operate his vehicle in a safe manner, Defendant Gordon Bratton committed negligence per Se.

4. That as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence and negligenceper se, Plaintiff Hingey suffered serious bodily injuries, has endured and continues to endure both physical and mental pain and suffering, has incurred and continues to incur medical expenses, has lost the enjoyment of life, and has suffered further damages all of which will be more particularly proven at trial and which entitle Plaintiff Hingey to collect a sum in excess of$ 10,000.00 from the Defendants.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

5. Plaintiffs re-allege and re-incorporate all allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-4.

6. That at the time of the accident, Defendant Gordon Bratton was acting in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant AAA of Oklahoma, thus making it liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

7. That as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Bratton’s negligence, Plaintiff Hingey suffered severe bodily injuries. These injuries have caused the Plaintiff to incur past and future medical expenses, mental and physical pain and suffering, has incurred and continues to incur medical expenses, has lost the enjoyment of life, and has suffered further damages all of which will be more particularly proven at trial and which entitle Plaintiff Flingey to collect a sum in excess of $10,000.00 from the Defendant AAA of Oklahoma.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

8. Plaintiffs re-allege and re-incorporate all allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-7.

9. On or about July 15, 2010, Plaintiff N. Hingey accompanied her mother, Plaintiff Hingey, and both were passengers in the vehicle driven by Mindy Whitehead traveling on Memorial Drive near 3 1St Street, in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Defendant Gordon Bratton failed to stop his truck for traffic and struck the vehicle in which Plaintiff N. Hingey was a passenger. Defendant Gordon Bratton “not paying attention” to the traffic and did carelessly, recklessly and negligently fail to operate his motor vehicle properly and safely and with disregard for others.

10. That by failing to operate his vehicle in a safe manner, Defendant Gordon Bratton committed negligence per Sc.

11. That as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence and negligenceper se, Plaintiff N. Hingey suffered serious bodily injuries, has endured and continues to endure both physical and mental pain and suffering, has incurred and continues to incur medical expenses, has lost the enjoyment of life, and has suffered further damages all of which will be more particularly proven at trial and which entitle Plaintiff N. Hingey to collect a sum in excess of$lO,000.00 from the Defendants.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

12. Plaintiffs re-allege and re-incorporate all allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-11.

13. That at the time of the accident, Defendant Gordon Bratton was acting in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant AAA of Oklahoma, thus making it liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

14. That as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Bratton’s negligence, Plaintiff N. Hingey suffered severe bodily injuries. These injuries have caused the Plaintiff to incur past and future medical expenses, mental and physical pain and suffering, has incurred and continues to incur medical expenses, has lost the enjoyment of life, and has suffered further damages all of which will be more particularly proven at trial and which entitle Plaintiff N. Hingey to collect a sum in excess of $10,000.00 from the Defendants AAA of Oklahoma.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiffs pray that this Court award them damages in excess of$10,000.00 each from both Defendants, including attorney’s fees, costs, interest, and any such further relief that this Court deems just and proper.


Defendant Bratton appeared and answered as follows:

1. ‘Mr. Bratton states that he resides in Osage County, Oklahoma. Mr. Bratton is without fficient infonation to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph I of aintiffs’ Amended Petition, and therefore denies same.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

2. Mr. Bratton denies the allegations in Paragraphs 2-4 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

3. Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition is an incorporation of prior allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Mr. Bratton denies the allegations in Paragraph S of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.

4. Mr. Bratton admits that he was employed by AAA at the time of the collision, and denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.

5. Mr. Bratton denies the allegations in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

6. Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition is an incorporation of prior allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Mr. Bratton denies the allegations in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.

7. Mr. Bratton denies the allegations in Paragraphs 9-li of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

8. Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition is an incorporation of prior allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Mr. Bratton denies the allegations in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.

9. Mr. Bratton denies the allegations in Paragraphs 13-14 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.

10. Mr. Bratton denies the allegations in the unnumbered paragraph of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition beginning
“WHEREFORE.”

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

11. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

12. Plaintiffs have failed to allege what statute or ordinance they claim Defendants violated and have thus failed to state a claim for negligence per Se.

13. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by waiver and/or estoppel.

14. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations and/or laches.

15. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by their own comparative and/or contributory negligence.

16. Mr. Bratton was not negligent.

17. Should Mr. Bratton be found negligent, which is denied, any such negligence was not the proximate or direct cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged injury or damage.

18. Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries are not of the nature or to the extent alleged.

19. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, if any.

20. Plaintiffs’ injuries, if any, may be the result of pre-existing conditions.

21. Should Mr. Bratton be found negligent, which is denied, Plaintiffs other persons were likewise negligent and the negligence of Plaintiffs or other persons exceeded that of Mr. Bratton, thereby precluding recovery against Mr. Bratton.

22. Mr. Bratton is entitled to a set-off or credit in the amount of any settlement or compromise heretofore or hereafter reached by Plaintiffs with any other party or person for any of Plaintiffs’ alleged damages.

23. Mr. Bratton reserves the right to amend this answer and to include additional affirmative defenses upon the completion of discovery.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Gordon Bratton requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition, that Plaintiffs take nothing by way of their Petition, and that this Court grant Mr. Bratton his costs, attorney fees, and such other relief that the Court deems just and proper.

Outcome: Outcome pending

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: