Date: 01-21-2014

Case Style: Brandy Jones v. Scott Tribble, Carolyn Schaum, and Madeline Schaum

Case Number: CJ-2011-5829

Judge: Mark Barcus

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Michael Eugene Carr, Nikolas Anthony Rankin, Guy Thiessen, A. Laurie Koller, Raymond S. Allred

Defendant's Attorney: Scott Robert Hall for Bandy Jones

William Vaburkleo for Carolyn and Madeline Schaum

Description: Brandy Jones sued Scott Tribble, Carolyn Schaum, and Madeline Schaum on auto negligence theories claiming:

1. This case arises out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on or about March 20, 2010, in or near the City of Broken Arrow, County of Tulsa, State of Oklahoma.

2. On or about said date, Plaintiff was riding as a passenger in a vehicle driven by Russell Turner. Mr. Turner was driving his vehicle on 145th Street near the intersection of 41st Street when he had to pull his vehicle off the roadway due to stalled cars in the roadway ahead. Defendant Tribble, who was driving in the same direction and behind Mr. Turner, slid off of the road and collided with Mr. Turner’s vehicle. Shortly after the collision between Mr. Turner’s vehicle and Defendant Tribble’s, Defendant Madeline Schaum drove her vehicle into Mr. Turner’s vehicle as well.

3. The first collision was caused by the negligence of Defendant Tribble as follows:

A. He was driving too fast for conditions;

B. He was careless;

C. He failed to maintain a proper lookout;

D. He failed to take proper driving precautions considering road conditions;

E. He violated various Statutes of the State of Oklahoma; and

F. He was otherwise negligent as will be more fully set forth after discovery is completed.

4. The second collision between Plaintiffs vehicle and Defendant Madeline Schaum’s was caused by the negligence of Defendant Madeline Schaum as follows:

A. She was driving too fast for conditions;

B. She was careless;

C. She failed to maintain a proper lookout;

D. She failed to take proper driving precautions considering road conditions;

E. She violated various Statutes of the State of Oklahoma; and

F. She was otherwise negligent as will be more fully set forth after discovery is completed.

5. As a result of the negligence of the Defendants, Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages in excess of $75,000.00 as follows:

A. Past medical expenses;

B. Future medical expenses;

C. Past physical pain;

D. Future physical pain;

E. Past mental suffering;

F. Future mental suffering;

G. Past lost earnings;

H. Future lost earnings;

I. Loss of earning capacity;

J. Permanent injuries;

K. Physical impairment;

L. Other damages to be set forth after discovery is completed. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants for the injuries and damages set forth above, costs of suit herein incurred, interest and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.


Defendants Carolyn Schaum and Madeline Schaum appeared, answered and cross claimed against Defendant Trimble, as follows:

1.

Defendants, Carolyn Schaum and Madeline Schaum, generally and specifically deny each and every material allegation contained in the Petition filed on behalf of the Plaintiff except for those which may be specifically admitted hereinafter.

2.

Defendants Carolyn Schaum and Madeline Schaum admit that there was a automobiles at the approximate time and location alleged in Plaintiffs Petition. Carolyn Schaum and Madeline Schaum deny the allegations of negligence contained numbered Paragraph 4 and its various subparts of Plaintiffs Petition and demand strict proof thereof.

3.

Defendants Carolyn Schaum and Madeline Schaum are without sufficient knowledge, information or belief to either admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth within Plaintiffs Petition and thus deny the same.

ADDITIONAL RESPONSES

4.

For finther answer and defense, Defendant Madeline Schaum states that she was confronted with a sudden emergency, not of her own making, and thereafler exercised her best judgment in making every reasonable attempt to avoid an accident.

5.

For further answer and defense, should Defendant Madeline Schaum be found negligent, which is not admitted but is expressly denied, this Defendant states that her negligence was not the direct cause of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damage.

6.

For further answer and defense, Defendants Carolyn Schaum and Madeline Schaum would state that no recovery of damages should be allowed for any losses that the Plaintiff reasonably could have avoided and failed to do so.

7.

For further answer and defense, Defendants Carolyn Schaum and Madeline Schaum state that the direct cause of Plaintiff’s occurrence was by the negligence of third parties over whom these Defendants had no control, and for those acts these Defendants are not responsible.

8.

For further answer and defense, Defendants Carolyn Schaum and Madeline Schaum state that the injuries complained of in Plaintiff’s Petition may be the result of preexisting health problems that were neither caused nor aggravated by these Defendants and for which these Defendants are not liable.

9.

For further answer and defense, Defendants Carolyn Schaum and Madeline Schaum would state that the injuries complained of in Plaintiff’s Petition may be the result of health care problems which developed subsequent to the date of the alleged accident, which were neither caused nor aggravated by these Defendants and for which these Defendants are not liable.

10.

Reasonableness and necessity of medical treatment.

11.

Defendants Carolyn Schaum and Madeline Schaum deny the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages, if any.

12.

For further answer and defense, the Plaintiffs Petition fails to state a claim against Defendants Carolyn Schaum and Madeline Schaum for which relief can be granted.

13.

For further answer and defense, Defendant Carolyn Schaum would state that she is not a proper party Defendant to the cause of action alleged in Plaintiffs Petition.

14.

For further answer and defense, Defendant Carolyn Schaum would request this Court to dismiss the action on the ground that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the person of Defendant Carolyn Schaum.

15.

For flirther answer and defense, Defendants Carolyn Schaum and Madeline Schaum state that discovery is just commencing and reserve the right to plead additional affirmative defenses and amend their Answer upon the completion of discovery.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendants Carolyn Schaum and Madeline Schaum, pray for judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiff, together with their costs of this action and such other and ffirther relief as the Court deems is just and equitable.

CROSS-CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT SCOTT TRIBBLE

COME NOW the Defendants Carolyn Schaum and Madeline Schaum, and for their Cross-Claim against Defendant, Scott Tribble, allege and state:

1.

That the accident was proximately caused or contributed to by the negligence of Defendant, Scott Tribble.

2.

That, in the event Plaintiff proves her allegations contained in the Petition against Defendants, Carolyn Schaum and Madeline Schaum, then Defendants Carolyn Schaum and Madeline Schaum, pursuant to 12 O.S. §832, is entitled to judgment against Defendant Scott Tribble for any monies they pay to Plaintiff that exceed their pro rata share.

WHEREFORE, Defendants Carolyn Schaum and Madeline Schaum, pray the Court to award a judgment against Scott Tribble for any monies Defendants Carolyn Schaum and Madeline Schaum pay to Plaintiff in excess of their pro Ma share in the event that Plaintiff is awarded judgment against the Defendants, Carolyn Schaum and Madeline Schaum, to include attorney fees, costs and such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED


1. This Defendant denies, generally and specifically, each and every material allegation contained in the Amended Petition of the Plaintiff on file herein, except that which is hereinafter admitted, and demands strict proof thereof Petition.

2. This Defendant admits those allegations contained in ¶ 1 of Plaintiffs Awended

3. This Defendant specifically denies those allegations contained in ¶J 2, 3 sub-parts) of Plaintiffs Amended Petition, and demands strict proof thereof.

4. This Defendant admits those allegations contained in ¶ 4 of Plaintiffs Petition.

5. This Defendant specifically denies those allegations contained in ¶ 5 (including subparts) of Plaintiffs Amended Petition, and demands strict proof thereof

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. This Defendant states that he was confronted with a sudden emergency, not caused by any negligence on his part, and that he acted as a reasonable and prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances, making every reasonable attempt to avoid an accident.

2. This Defendant states that he was confronted with an unavoidable accident, not caused by any negligence on his part, and that he acted as a reasonable and prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances, making every reasonable attempt to avoid an accident,

3. This Defendant specifically denies that he was negligent in the happening of the subject incident, and that, if this Defendant is later found to have been negligent, that such negligence was not the proximate cause of the subject incident and any injuries, damages, or losses, sustained by the Plaintiff

4. For further answer and defense, this Defendant states that the Plaintiff’s claimed damages, if any, are barred and/or limited by the Oklahoma Doctrine of Comparative Negligence.

5. This Defendant would state that any injuries, damages, or losses sustained by the Plaintiff were soldy and proximately caused by the negligence of third persons who were not agents, employees, or servants of the Defendant and over whom the Defendant exercised no degree of authority or control.

6. This Defendant would state that any injuries, damages, or losses sustained by the Plaintiff were solely and proximately caused by the negligence of Defendant, Madeline Schaum.

7. This Defendant herebypleads any and all affmnative defenses available to him under the Oklahoma Pleading Code, which now or may hereinafter be applicable.

8. This Defendant specifically reserves the right to amend this Answer to include additional, general, or affirmative defenses on the completion of discovery.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Defendant, Scott Tribble, having fully answered the Amended Petition of the Plaintiff on file herein prays that the Plaintiff take nothing by virtue of said Petition and requests that this Defendant be dismissed from this action, together with his attorney’s fees, costs and interest, and such other relief that this Court deems just and proper.

CROSS-CLAIM AGAINST MADELINE SCHAUM

COMES NOW the Defendant, Scott Tribble, by and through his attorney of record, Scott R, Hall of the law firm of Scott R. Hall & Associates, PLLC, Tulsa, Oklahoma, and for his Cross-Claim against the Defendant, Madeline Schaum, states and avers as follows:

1. Defendant, Madeline Schaum, was negligent in the operation of her vehicle at the time of the subject accident and collided into the vehicles being driven by the Defendant, Scoff Tribble, and Plaintiff, Brandy Jones.

2. As such, based on the negligence of Defendant, Madeline Schaum, to the extent that this Defendant is required to make any payments herein, she is entitled to indemnification andJor contribution against loss and/or liability against Defendant, Madeline Schaum, for said sums.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Defendant, Scott Tribble, prays for judgment over and against the Defendant, Madeline Schaum, both for loss and for liability and indemnity and contribution for any sums he may be required to expend herein, together with his attorney’s fees, costs, and interest, and such other relief that this Court deems just and proper.

Outcome: 1-20-2013 CTFREE - 87532480 Nov 20 2013 1:55:25:603PM - $ 0.00

BARCUS, MARK: CASE CALLED FOR JURY TRIAL ON 11-18-13. BOTH SIDES PRESENT IN OPEN COURT AND ANNOUNCE READY FOR TRIAL. PLAINTIFF PRESENT AND REPRESENTED BY NIKOLAS RANKIN. DEFENDANTS PRESENT AND REPRESENTED BY SCOTT HALL AND BARON VANBURKLEO. DEE DEE TANNER COURT REPORTER. THE JURORS ARE CALLED AND SWORN TO QUALIFICATIONS. THE JURY IS IMPANELED AND EXAMINED FOR CAUSE. ONE (1) JUROR EXCUSED FOR CAUSE.

PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES ARE MADE. TWELVE (12) JURORS AND ONE ALTERNATE ACCEPTED TO TRY THIS CAUSE.

OPENING STATEMENTS ARE MADE. FIVE (5) WITNESSES SWORN FOR THE PLAINTIFF, ONE BEING AN EXPERT AND APPEARING BY VIDEO. DEFENDANT HAD NO WITNESSES. RULE WAS INVOKED. PLAINTIFF PRESENTS EVIDENCE AND RESTS. DEFENDANT PRESENTS EVIDENCE AND RESTS. BOTH SIDES REST.

THE JURY IS INSTRUCTED AS TO THE LAW. CLOSING ARGUMENTS ARE MADE. THE SWEARING OF THE BAILIFF IS WAIVED AND ON 11-20-13 AT 10:50 A.M., THE JURY RETIRES FOR DELIBERATION IN THE CUSTODY OF THE BAILIFF. AT 11:55 A.M., THE JURY RETURNS INTO OPEN COURT WITH THEIR VERDICT, WHICH IS READ IN OPEN COURT, ORDERED RECORDED AND FILED, AND IS TO WIT: (PINK VERDICT FORM) "WE, THE JURY, EMPANELED AND SWORN IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED CAUSE, DO, UPON OUR OATHS, FIND THE ISSUES IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS, SCOTT TRIBBLE AND MADELINE SCHAUM" TEN (10) JURORS CONCURRING, SIGNED BY FOREPERSON. JURY DISCHARGED.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: