Date: 11-03-2015

Case Style: Rodney Neal v. Cox Communications, Inc.

Case Number: CJ-2011-5219

Judge: Bryan C. Dixon

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Kaci Trojan

Defendant's Attorney: Jerry Ruth, Jeff Beeler and Todd Murray

Description: Oklahoma City, OK - Rodney Neal sued Cox Communications, Inc. on an auto negligence theory claiming:

1. On or aboutJuly 31, 2009, Plaintiff was riding his motorcycle on North Gibson Road in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.
2. That on that date, a large truck came in contact with a coaxial cable line owned and operated by Defendant causing said line to lower across Gibson Road.
3. Defendant was called by multiple residents along Gibson Road and placed on notice that there was a low-hanging wire across the roadway and that several residents cable service was out.
4. Laterthat afternoon, Plaintiff crested a rise on Gibson Road. As he did, PlaintiffTs motorcycle struck the low-hanging coaxial cable line which was hanging across the roadway.
5. Upon striking Defer’idants cable, Plaintiff lost control of his motorcycle, thereby damaging the motorcycle and causing serious injury to his left leg, ankle, and foot.
6. Defendant had notice that the downed line was creating a hazard at the time of the accident due to various calls for residents on Gibson.
7. On or about July 31, 2009, in the State of Oklahoma in Oklahoma County, the Defendant had duties imposed by law through various federal and state statutes and/or regulations of the Department of Transportation, including, but not limited to, these regulations, and/or through common law to:
1. On or aboutJuly 31, 2009, Plaintiff was riding his motorcycle on North Gibson Road in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.
2. That on that date, a large truck came in contact with a coaxial cable line owned and operated by Defendant causing said line to lower across Gibson Road.
3. Defendant was called by multiple residents along Gibson Road and placed on notice that there was a low-hanging wire across the roadway and that several residents cable service was out.
4. Laterthat afternoon, Plaintiff crested a rise on Gibson Road. As he did, PlaintiffTs motorcycle struck the low-hanging coaxial cable line which was hanging across the roadway.
5. Upon striking Defer’idants cable, Plaintiff lost control of his motorcycle, thereby damaging the motorcycle and causing serious injury to his left leg, ankle, and foot.
6. Defendant had notice that the downed line was creating a hazard at the time of the accident due to various calls for residents on Gibson.
7. On or about July 31, 2009, in the State of Oklahoma in Oklahoma County, the Defendant had duties imposed by law through various federal and state statutes and/or regulations of the Department of Transportation, including, but not limited to, these regulations, and/or through common law to:
a. Install the cable and/or phone and/or communication line in a safe manner and in compliance with the law.
b. Install the cable and/or phone and/or communication line in a safe manner taking into account that the line(s) may sag and/or dip and over time may be hanging lower than when initially installed in compliance with the law.
c. Maintain the cable and/or phone and/or communication line in a safe manner and in compliance with the law.
d. Maintain the cable and/or phone and/or communication line in a safe manner, in compliance with the law, particularly as to its height above the road way allowing for safe passage of vehicles.
e. Repair the cable and/or phone and/or communication, line in a safe manner in compliance with the law.
f. Inspect the cable, phone, communication, and/or electrical lines in a safe manner in compliance with the law.
8. The road at the location where this incident happened is a well traveled thoroughfare. It was reasonably foreseeable to the Defendant that the road would be used for travel This foreseeability created a further duty, in addition to the statutory, regulatory and common law duties previously mentioned, to safely install, maintain, inspect and/or repairthe line in a safe manner, high enough above the road to be safe for the motoring public and to install, maintain, inspect and/or repair insulation in and around the line.
9. The Defendant negligently, breached these duties by allowing and/or permitting the cable and/or phone and/or communication lines and/or electrical lines to cross the public roadway in violation of the laws and regulations and common law mentioned above, particularly, in such a manner as to be too low for motor vehicles to safely travel under it. In short, the cable/phone/communication line was too low and unsafe.
10. Defendant is negligent per se by violating Oklahoma Administrative Code §265:25-1 -3, which adopts certain safety standards ignored by Defendant.
11. That Defendant intentionally acted with reckless disregard for the safety of motorists in breaching the duties outlined herein when it failed to promptly respond to information concerning the low-hanging cable and/or phone and/or communication line.
12. As a result of this breach, Plaintiff’s motorcycle was damaged and he was caused much pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish and lost wages in an amount in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00).
12. As a result of this breach, Plaintiff’s motorcycle was damaged and he was caused much pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish and lost wages in an amount in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00).

Outcome: 11-03-2015 CTFREE

JUDGE DIXON - ENT: JURY TRIAL CONTINUES AFTER NIGHT'S RECESS. WITNESS SWORN, TESTIMONY HEARD, EXHIBITS OFFERED. PLAINTIFF REST. DEFENDANT DEMURRED. OVERRULED. DEFENDANT CALLS WITNESSES, CROSS EXAMINATION. DEFENDANT REST. DEFENDANT MOVES FOR DIRECTED VERDICT. OVERRULED. PLAINTIFF MOVES FOR DIRECTED VERDICT ON CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. OVERRULED. COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY. CLOSING ARGUMENTS BY PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT. JURY RETIRES TO DELIBERATE AND RETURNS WITH VERDICT AND FINDS: JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF WITH CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE TO THE PLAINTIFF AT 20% AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE TO THE DEFENDANT AT 80%. $250,000 IN DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY THE PLAINTIFF WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PERCENTAGE OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. JURY DISCHARGED, CLERK DIRECTED TO FILE AND RECORD VERDICT ACCORDINGLY. PAM HARTWICK COURT REPORTER.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: