Date: 10-12-2012
Case Style: Andrew O'Neal d/b/a Owasso Liquor and Wine v. Richard W. Stremlow d/b/a VSSI
Case Number: CJ-2011-5726
Judge: Rebecca B. Nightingale
Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Attorney: Chris Hunt
Defendant's Attorney: Joel Allen Bulleigh and Stephen F. Bulleigh
Description: Andrew O'Neal and Scott O'Neal d/b/a Owasso Liquor and Wine v. Richard W. Stremlow d/b/a VSSI on a breach of contract theory.
Defendant answered as follows:
1. All allegations contained in Plaintiffs Petition are generally and specifiSjy denied unless expressly admitted hereinafter.
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
2. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph I of Plaintiffs Petition.
3. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs Petition. Video Surveillance & Security, Inc. (“VSST”) is an Oklahoma domestic for profit Business Corporation, not a trade name or dba for Richard W. Stremlow individually.
4. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs Petition, Defendant admits that jurisdiction and venue are property in this court.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
5. To the extent Defendant understands the allegations in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Petition; Defendant admits that he is the owner and operator of VSSI, an Oklahoma corporation. Any other allegations in this Paragraph that are not expressly admitted above are denied.
6. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs Petition, Defendant states that he sold and installed a Stealth MS P05 Station P05 Computer in accordance with the terms and conditions of Invoice #988 dated July 15, 2009 to Owasso Liquor & Wine. Any other allegations in this Paragraph that are not expressly admitted above are denied.
7. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs Petition, Defendant states he properly and in a workmanlike manner installed the Stealth M5 P05 Station POS Computer as requested by Plaintiff and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Invoice #988 dated July 15, 2009. Any other allegations in this Paragraph that are not expressly admitted above are denied.
8. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Petition, Defendant states Plaintiff paid to Defendant the total amount of Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($17,500) in accordance with the terms and conditions of Invoice #988 dated July 15, 2009. Any other allegations in this Paragraph that are not expressly admitted above are denied.
9. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of Plaintiffs Petition.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract)
10. Defendant, Richard Stremlow, incorporates the allegations in Paragraphs 1-9 above.
11. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraphs 12 and 13 of Plaintiffs Petition.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Implied Warranty)
12. Defendant, Richard Stremlow, incorporates the allegations in Paragraphs 1-11 above.
13. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraphs 15 and 17 of Plaintiffs Petition.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence)
14. Defendant, Richard Stremlow, incorporates the allegations in Paragraphs 1-13 above.
15. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraphs 19 and 21 of Plaintiffs Petition.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. Defendant is the wrong party to this action.
2. Plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action against Defendant.
3. Defendant denies he, his agents, servants or employees were guilty of breach of contract herein.
4. Defendant denies he, his agents, servants or employees were guilty of breach of implied warranty herein.
5. Defendant denies he, his agents, servants or employees were guilty of negligence herein.
6. Should Defendant, his agents, servants or employees, be found guilty of negligence, which is not admitted but is
expressly denied, Defendant states that his negligence was not the proximate cause of the Plaintiffs’ alleged injury and damage, if any.
7. Should Defendant be found guilty of negligence, which is not admitted but is expressly denied, Defendant states that Plaintiffs, Andrew O’Neil and Scott O’Neil, were likewise guilty of negligence and that the negligence of Plaintiffs exceeded that of Defendant, thereby precluding Plaintiff from recovering herein.
8. Defendant states that the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged injury and damages, if any, was the negligence of third parties over whom Defendant had no control.
9. Defendant affirmatively states that at all times herein, the services performed by this Defendant for the Plaintiffs, Andrew O’Neil and Scott O’Neil, were commensurate with the standard of care of other installers of similar point of sale systems iii the community.
10. For further answer and defense, this Defendant states that the Plaintiffs fail to state a good and valid cause of action against this Defendant for punitive damages, and further denies that it committed any act or omission which would entitle the Plaintiffs to recover punitive damages.
11. Plaintiffs’’ Petition, to the extent that it seeks punitive damages, violates Defendant’s right to both procedural and substantive due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma in that:
a. The standards under which such claims are submitted are so vague as to be effectively meaningless and threaten the deprivation of property for the benefit of society without the protection of fundamentally fair procedures;
b. The highly penal nature of punitive damages threatens the possibility of excessive punishment and almost limitless liability without the benefit of fundamentally fair procedures and any statutory limitations;
c. The introduction of evidence of financial worth is so prejudicial as to impose liability and punishment in a manner bearing no relation to the extent of the injury;
d. Oklahoma Law does not place reasonable constraint on the jury’s discretion when considering punitive damages;
e. Oklahoma Law does not provide sufflcient post-trial procedures and standards, at the District Court level, for scrutinizing a punitive damage award;
f. Oklahoma law is not sufficiently established for adequate appellate review of punitive damage awards.
12. Plaintiffs’ Petition, to the extent it seeks punitive damages, violates Defendant’s right to equal protection under the law and is otherwise unconstitutional under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma.
13. Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages is unconstitutional and in violation of the due process clauses contained in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and in Section 7, Article IT of the Oklahoma Constitution in that, among other reasons, the standards for an award of punitive damages are unconstitutionally vague, and the issue is so prejudicial as to render an award the product of bias and passion in a way lacking the basic elements of fundamental fairness, in the absence of existing statutory limitations on a maximum possible award, and could unfairly result in an award bearing no relation t othe nature and extent of Plaintiffs’ injuries, if any.
14. Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages is unconstitutional under Article II, Section
9 of the Oklahoma Constitution in that, among other reasons, it constitutes an excessive fine designed to punish a wrongdoer for the benefit of society.
15. Defendant reserves the right to amend this Answer to allege any further defense, affirmative or otherwise, or cross claim, counterclaim or third-party claim which such investigation and discovery may reveal.
WHEREFORE, this Defendant prays that Plaintiffs action be dismissed with prejudice and that the Defendant be awarded his costs and attorney fees expended herein, and such other and further relief which the Court may deem equitable.
Outcome: COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, Andrew O’Neil and Scott O’Neil, d/b/a Owasso Liquor and Wine, and hereby dismisses all claims and causes of action in the above styled and captioned matter, against the Defendant, Richard W. Stremlow, d/b/a VSSI, with prejudice.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
