Date: 08-06-2012

Case Style: Timothy Fields v. Matthew Dixon

Case Number: CJ-2011-5389

Judge: Bryan C. Dixon

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Raymond Edward Bays, Chris D. Caldwell, Danielle Patricia Daniel, Ray Bays & Associates, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Defendant's Attorney: Richard N. Healy, III, Phillips Murrah, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Description: COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Timothy Fields, and for his cause of action hereby alleges and states as follows:

1. At all times herein relevant Plaintiff was a resident of Oklahoma County, Okiahona.

2. At all time herein relevant Defendant was a resident of Cleveland County, Oklahoma.

3. The acts complained of herein occurred in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.

4. On or about August 7, 2009 at or about the hour of 11:40 p.m. Plaintiff was a pedestrian standing next to his vehicle in a parking lot located at 8029 S.W. 3 Street in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.

6. At this same point in time Defendant was in his vehicle in the same parking lot when he pulled out and headed straight towards Plaintiff.

7. Plaintiff saw the Defendant coming and jumped between his car and the car next to him to get out of his way. Defendant then swerved striking the tail end of Plaintiffs vehicle causing the vehicle to strike into Plaintiff and pin him between two cars.

8. Defendant was negligent in the operation ofhis vehicle. His negligence includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the following acts:

(a) Driving under the influence;

(b) Failing to remain alert and give flill attention to the operation of his vehicle;

(c) Failing to operate his vehicle in a reasonable and proper manner; and,

(d) Failing to maintain a proper look-out.

9. Defendant’s negligence constitutes negligence per se as a result of his violation of state traffic statutes and Oklahoma City traffic ordinances.

10. As a direct and proximate result of said Defendant’s negligence Plaintiff sustained serious and permanent bodily injuries, physical and mental pain and suffering, both past and future medical expenses, past and future pain and suffering, property damage, lost wages and diminished earning capacity and has been injured and damaged in an amount in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief and judgment against Defendant in an amount in excess than the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code, together with interest, costs ofthis action, attorney fees and for such other relief that may be available and deemed appropriate by the Court.

ANSWER

The Defendant, Matthew Dixon, for his Answer to the Petition filed herein, alleges and states:

1. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in numerical paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

2. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in numerical paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

3. Defendant admits the allegations set forth in numerical paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

4. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in numerical paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

5. No response is necessary to numerical paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

6. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in numerical paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

7. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in numerical paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

8. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in numerical paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

9. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in numerical paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

10. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in numerical paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

11. Any damages alleged by Plaintiff is due to the acts or omissions of third parties over whom the Defendant exercised no control.

12. The damages suffered by Plaintiff, if any, is the result of unavoidable casualty which was neither reasonably foreseeable nor would reasonable prudence have prevented.

13. Any negligence on the part of the Defendant, which is specifically denied, is of a comparatively lesser degree than the negligence of the Plaintiff, thereby barring his recovery.

14. At all times material, the Defendant operated his vehicle properly and in accordance with Oklahoma law.

15. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate any alleged damages to himself.

16. Any physical damage alleged by the Plaintiff is merely an aggravation of a pre—existing condition.

17. Medical bills not reasonable/necessary for the injuries Plaintiff allegedly sustained.

18. Defendant respectfully requests leave to amend his Answer, adding or deleting affirmative defenses, depending upon facts adduced in discovery.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered, the Defendant, Matthew Dixon, prays this Court enter judgment in his favor as against the Plaintiff; award him costs and attorney fees as allowed by law; and, for such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: