Date: 02-10-2014

Case Style: Orlando Garcia v. Tim Jay Davenport

Case Number: CJ-2011-5054

Judge: Roger H. Stuart

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Jon C. Franke, William A. Gosney, Jeremy West and Robert N. Ylla

Defendant's Attorney: Bart A. Chancellor

Description: COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Orlando Garcia, for his cause of action against the Defendant, Tim Jay Davenport, and states as follows:

1. On or about December 16, 2009, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Oklahoma County, the Defendant, Tim Jay Davenport, negligently drove his vehicle into the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

2. As a result of the Defendants’ actions, the Plaintiff suffered damages as follows:

A. Medical expenses incurred and expected to be incurred in the future;

B. Mental and physical pain and suffering, past and future;

C. Property damage;

D. Other damages to be set forth after discovery; all of which total $40,000.00.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant as set forth above with his costs, attorney’s fees, interest and other such relief the Court shall deem proper.

TIM DAVENPORT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S PETITION

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

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

1. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every material allegation contained in the Petition filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiff’s Petition.

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

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

4. The negligence of the plaintiff was more than fifty percent (50%) the cause of this accident, thereby preventing Plaintiff’s recovery herein against this defendant. Alternatively, Defendant alleges that the negligence of Plaintiff was a cause of this accident, thereby reducing Plaintiff’s recovery herein against this defendant.

5. Plaintiff voluntarily assumed a risk of harm by virtue of Plaintiff’s actions and conduct at the time of the accident, thereby preventing Plaintiff’s recovery herein.

6. As to Defendant, the accident was unavoidable and occurred without negligence on his part.

7. Defendani was faced with a sudden emergency not of his awn creation and he used his best judgment to avoid a collision.

8. The Defendant denies the nature and extent of Plaintiffs injures and damages, if any.

9. The injuries complained of in Plaintiff’s Petition are the result of preexisting health problems that were neither caused nor aggravated by this accident and for which Defendant is not liable.

10. The injuries complained of in Plaintiff’s petition are 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 costs of this action and for such relief as may be fair and equitable.


11. Reasonableness and necessity of medical treatment.

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

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant prays that Plaintiff’s Petition be dismissed and Plaintiff take nothing thereby; further Defendant prays for the

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: