Date: 08-15-2012

Case Style: Theresa M. Anderegg v. Howard Thompson

Case Number: CJ-2011-5789

Judge: Rebecca B. Nightingale

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Tony Edwards and Matthew B. Patterson, The Edwards Law Firm, McAlester, Oklahoma

Defendant's Attorney: Maurie E. Woods, II, McAtee & Woods, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Description: Theresa M. Anderegg sued Howard Thompson on an auto negligence theory claiming to have been injured in a car wreck caused by Thompson.

ANSWER

COMES NOW the Defendant, Howard Thompson, and for his Answer to the Petition filed herein by the Plaintiff; alleges and states as follows:

1. The Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs Petition, and therefore, said allegations are denied and Defendant demands strict proof thereof.

2. The Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2, 3, and 4 ofPlaintiffs Petition.

3. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8 of Plaintiffs Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

4. The incident complained of in the Plaintiffs Petition was causedbythe negligence of third parties over whom this Defendant had no control or supervision, and therefore, liabilitywill not attach to this Defendant.

5 The incident complained of in the Plaintiff's Petition was the direct result of the negligence of the Plaintiff in a degree to either prohibit or lessen any recovery thereunder.

6. The injuries complained of by the Plaintiff were not the proximate result of any actions of Defendant.

7. The incident complained of in the Plaintiffs Petition was the result of a sudden emergency and/or unavoidable casualty presented to this Defendant and, at all times pertinent thereto, this Defendant acted reasonably and prudently; and therefore, liability will not attach to this Defendant.

8. The Plaintiff sustained no injury or was not injured as severely as alleged as a result of the incident in this suit.

9. Plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of a known danger and is not entitledto recover herein.

10. The Plaintiffs Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

11. The Defendant reserves the right to amend or abandon any or all of the allegations stated.

12. It is anticipated that additional affirmative defenses will become known through the discovery process; therefore, this Defendant reserves the right to plead them as they are discovered.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Howard Thompson, prays that judgment be rendered in his favor, that he be awarded his costs and attorney fees, and any and all other reliefthe Court deems just and equitable.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: