Date: 06-18-2012

Case Style: Detelina Hendrix v. Fidel Luna

Case Number: CJ-2011-5992

Judge: Roger H. Stuart

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Michael D. Denton, Jr. and Nathan D. Richter

Defendant's Attorney: Richard M. Healy

Description: Detelina Hendrix sued Fidel Luna on an auto negligence theory alleging:

1. Plaintiff is a resident of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.

2. Defendant is a resident of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, and maybe served in accordance with Oklahoma law at 1117 Southwest 30th Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.

3. This action arises out ofan automobile collision which occurred on August 12,2010, in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. Accordingly, venue and jurisdiction lie with this Court.

4. On August 12, 2010, Plaintiff was traveling eastbound on Southwest 44th street in South Oklahoma City. As Plaintiff entered the intersection of Southwest 44Ih and S. Pennsylvania Avenue, a vehicle traveling south bound on Pennsylvania Avenue operated by Defendant, Fidel Luna, ran a red light, and, without notice and warning to Plaintiff, crashed into the Plaintiffs vehicle causing a violent collision which proximately and directly caused Plaintiff to suffer serious injuries and other damages and losses.

5. Said collision was the sole and proximate result of the common law negligence, and negligenceper Se, of the Defendant Fidel Luna by failing to operate the motor vehicle in a reasonable and prudent manner.

6. Plaintiff was injured as a result of said collision, and Plaintiffs injuries are the direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant Fidel Luna.

7. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff has incurred medical bills, endured pain and suffering, has lost income, and has incurred other consequential harms and losses.

8. Plaintiff further alleges that the acts and omissions of Defendant Fidel Luna evidence a reckless disregard for the rights of others; therefore, punitive damages should be imposed against the Defendant, all in an amount in excess of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00).

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant, on each cause of action for actual damages in an amount in excess of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), and Plaintiff thi-ther demands judgment against the Defendant on each cause of action forpunitive damages in an amount in excess of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), together with her costs, expenses, attorney fees and other such relief as may be equitable and just.

Defendant answered and alleged:

The Defendant, Fidel Luna, for his Answer to the Petition filed herein, alleges and states:

1. Defendant admits the allegations set forth in numerical paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

2. Defendant admits the allegations set forth in numerical paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

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

4. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in numerical paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

5. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in numerical paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

6. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in numerical paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

7. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in numerical paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

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

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

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

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

11. 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 Plaintiff’s recovery.

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

13. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate any alleged damages to herself.

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

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

16. Defendant expressly denies that the Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages and such is violative of the Eighth Amendment.

17. 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, Fidel Luna, 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: