Date: 06-18-2012

Case Style: Melanie D. Seiber v. Shelli R. Butler

Case Number: CJ-2011-6177

Judge: Bryan C. Dixon

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Michael W. Phillips

Defendant's Attorney: Laurie Fong

Description: Melanie D. Seiber sued Shelli R. Butler on an auto negligence theory and alleged:

1. On or about April 12, 2011, Plaintiff, Melanie Seiber, was O traveling westbound on Interstate 44 near May Avenue exit, Oklahoma City, 0 State of Oklahoma, when her vehicle was rear ended by Defendant, Shelli R, Butler.

2. That as a result of the actions and non-actions of the Defendant, Plaintiff lost time from work, sustained lost time from work, sustained serious injuries for which she incurred medical expenses fees, endured pain and suffering and was prevented from transacting business.

Defendant answered and alleged:

1. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph I of the Plaintiffs Petition and demands strict proof thereof and therefore denies the same.

2. Defendant denies paragraph 2 of the Plaintiff’s Petition.

Affirmative Defenses

I. The Plaintiff’s Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted by Defendant.

2. The Plaintiff was guilty of comparative negligence of such a degree as to reduce or bar recovery from the Defendant.

3. The injuries of the Plaintiff, if any, were due to conditions beyond the control of the Defendant.

4. This accident was an unavoidable accident, casualty and misfortune which occurred without negligence or any other unlawful act or omission on the part of the Defendant.

5. The injuries of the Plaintiff, if any, were not proximately caused by any action on the part of the Defendant.

6. Defendant alleges that, if Plaintiff sustained damages which are not admitted, but specifically denied, then Plaintiff’s damages arose as a result of a sudden emergency not brought about by Defendant’s negligence or by any other act or omission on the part of Defendant.

7. Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff’s injuries, if any, were caused by the sole neghgence of Plaintiff, thus barring recovery herein.

8. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s injuries and damages, if any, were pre-existing and unrelated to the occurrence alleged by Plaintiff herein.

9. Defendant alleges that the Plaintiffs injuries and damages, if any, were proximately caused by a third party over which Defendant has no control.

10. Defendant reserves the right to amend or supplement this answer as discovery progresses.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, Shell R. Butler, prays that the Plaintiff, Melanie D. Seiber, take nothing by way of the Petition, that Defendant be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: