Date: 09-16-2012

Case Style: Amy Keith v. Paul Majer

Case Number: CJ-2011-6314

Judge: Bryan C. Dixon

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: George Kanelopoulos

Defendant's Attorney: John Nowakowski

Description: Amy Keith sued Paul Majer on an auto negligence theory claiming:

1. That on or about June 12, 2010, the Plaintiff was lawfully stopped in a westbound direction on S.W. 59th Street in the city of Oklahoma City, County of Oklahoma, State of Oklahoma, when the Defendant, who was traveling in a westbound direction on S.W 59th Street, did negligently drive his vehicle into the rear of Plaintiff’s vehicle which directly caused the Plaintiff serious and permanent personal and bodily injuries.

2. That this court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter.

3. That the Plaintiff in no way caused or contributed to the cause of the subject collision and is otherwise fault-free and entitled to recover the full extent of her damages from the named Defendant.

4. The Defendant was negligent in failing to devote full time and attention to his driving, following too closely, traveling at an excessive rate of speed under the conditions, failing to maintain a safe and assured distance with the Plaintiff’s vehicle, failing to properly utilize his brakes and/or steering mechanism to avoid impacting the Plaintiff’s vehicle, driving recklessly and failing to exercise ordinary care while operating a motor vehicle.

5. As a direct result of the named Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff suffered bodily injuries which are pennanent in nature, has incurred medical expenses for the treatment of the same, incurred lost wages, and has further sustained pain and suffering which will continue into the future entitling her to judgment against the named Defendant in an amount in excess of $75,000.00.

WhEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Amy Keith, prays that this court enter Judgment on her behalf against the Defendant, Paul Majer, in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, for actual damages, together with attorney fees, interest, costs, and any further relief to which she may be entitled.

Defendant answered as follows:

1.

The Defendant admits that on or about June 12, 2010 at the approximate location of SW 59th and S. Independence a collision occiirred between vehicles driven by the parties. The defendant specifically denies those remaining allegations and claims contained in Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

2.

The Defendant admits those allegations and claims contained in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

3.

The Defendant specifically denies those allegations and claims contained in Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

COMES NOW Defendant, Paul Majer, and states the following affirmative defenses to the Petition filed by Plaintiff herein:

4.

The Defendant was confronted with a sudden emergency not brought about by his own negligence, and in reacting to that emergency, the Defendant acted as a reasonable and prudent person would have acted under such circumstances.

5.

The accident was an unavoidable accident, casualty and misfortune that occurred without negligence on the part of the Defendant.

6.

Whether the Plaintiff suffers from any pre-existing or post-arising medical condition will be developed during discovery and Defendant herein reserves all defenses in that regard.

7.

Whether the Plaintiff has acted to mitigate her damages will be developed during discovery and Defendant herein reserves all defenses in that regard.

WHEREFORE, having answered, Defendant prays that Plaintiff takes nothing by way of her Petition herein and that Defendant be dismissed with costs and attorney fees and any other relief this Court may deem equitable and just.

The pre-trial order approved by the Court provided in part:

III. PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS: That on or about June 12, 2010, the Plaintiff was lawfully stopped in a westbound direction on s.W. 59th Street in the city of Oklahoma City, County of Oklahoma, State of Oklahoma, when the Defendant, who was traveling in a westbound direction on S.W 59th Street, did negligently drive his vehicle into the rear of Plaintiff’s vehicle which directly caused the Plaintiff serious and permanent personal and bodily injuries. The Defendant was negligent in failing to devote full time and attention to his driving, following too closely, traveling at an excessive rate of speed under the conditions, failing to maintain a safe and assured distance with the Plaintiff’s vehicle, failing to properly utilize his brakes and/or steering mechanism to avoid impacting the Plaintiff’s vehicle, driving recklessly and failing to exercise ordinary care while operating a motor vehicle. As a direct result of the named Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff suffered bodily injuries which are permanent in nature, has incurred medical expenses for the treatment of the same, incurred lost wages, and has further sustained pain and suffering which will continue into the future entitling her to judgment against the named Defendant. DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS: Grounds for Defense Sudden Emergency Unavoidable accident Excessive damages 4. Pre-existing condition or injury 5. Post-arising condition or injury 6. Cause v. condition/no proximate cause 7. Failure to mitigate damages 8. General denial of liability and damages Common law; 47 0.S. § 11-401 47 O.S. § 11-402 47 O.S. § 11-403 Common law Common law; IV. No. 1. 2. 3. Applicable Statute, Ordinance, Common Law Rule Common Law Common Law 23 0.S. § 61 and §97; Shebster, Inc. v. Ford, 361 P.2d 200 (Okla. 1961); Missouri-Kansas RR, Co. v. Edwards, 361 P.2d 459 (Okla. 1961) Common Law Common Law Common Law Common Law Common Law

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: