Mark Barcus District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma">

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 10-18-2013

Case Style: Stephen Mangar v. Zachary Larsen

Case Number: CJ-2011-6404

Judge: Mark Barcus

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Fred Everett Stoops.Joel A. LaCourse, Karman J. Stoops

Defendant's Attorney: J. Craig Buchan and Meredith Lindaman for State Farm

Description: Stephen Mangar sued Zachary Larsen, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Ronda Jones and Brian Jones on auto negligence theories claiming:

1 That a motor vehicle collision occurred on May 7, 2011, on or near 81St Street and Lewis in the city of Tulsa, county of Tulsa, State of Oklahoma;

2. That Plaintiff was and is, at all times relevant, a resident of the City of Tulsa, County of Tulsa, State of Oklahoma;

3. That to the best of Plaintiffs knowledge, Defendant, Zachary Larsen, hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”, was and is, at all times relevant, a resident of Tulsa, County of Tulsa, State of Oklahoma;

4. That Defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”, was and is, at all times, a Foreign Insurance Company conducting business in the State of Oklahoma.

5. That to the best of Plaintiffs knowledge, Defendant’s, Ronda and Brian Jones, hereinafter referred to as “Defendants”, was and is, at all time relevant, residents of Tulsa, County of Tulsa, State of Oklahoma.

6. That pursuant to 12 O.S. § 133, venue is proper for the reason that the acts complained of herein occurred in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma;

7. That pursuant to 12 OS. §2004(F), this Court has subject jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein.

CAUSE OF ACTION

8. A collision occurred on May 7, 2011, between the Plaintiff and Defendant on or near 81 Street and Lewis Avenue in Tulsa Oklahoma., wherein Defendant, Zachary Larsen struck the Plaintiff from behind as the Plaintiff waited for a traffic light to turn green;

9. After investigation, the Tulsa Police Department determined that the Defendant, Zachary Larsen was in a state of intoxication at the time of the accident. The Police Department arrested and booked the Defendant for his second offense of driving under the influence of drugs.

10. The Police report ifirther indicates that there was no improper action by the Plaintiff and that the accident was the sole fault of Defendant, Zachary Larsen.

11. Plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of Defendant’s negligence.

12, The negligence of the Defendant is as follows:

i. Defendant maintained his vehicle in a careless and wonton matter;

ii. Defendant failed to maintain a proper look out;

iii. Defendant violated various statutes and ordinances of the State of Oklahoma and the City of Tulsa respectively;

iv. Defendant was otherwise negligent as will be set forth after discovery is completed;

13. As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff suffered personal injuries, described herein, including but not limited to:

i. Past medical expenses;

ii. Future medical expenses;

iii. Past physical pain;

iv, Future physical pain;

v. Past mental suffering;

vi. Future mental suffering;

vii, Past lost wages;

viii. Future lost earnings; ix, Permanent injuries; and

x. Property damage.

14. That as a result of the negligence of the Defendant, Plaintiff sues for damages due in the amount in excess of $75,000.00.

15. That Plaintiff believes Defendant Zachary Larsen is underinsured, and that the damages in this case exceed Mr. Larsen’s policy limits. Therefore, Defendant State Farm Mutual Insurance Company is liable for all damages in excess of Defendant Larsen policy limits.

16. That pursuant to 23 O.S. § 9.1 and due to the Defendant’s intentional, malicious and/or reckless disregard for the Plaintiff’s rights by driving while under the influence of intoxicating substances, the Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendants, for the damages set forth above in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, his costs, interest, punitive damages and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

State Farm appeared and answered:

I.

Unless specifically admitted within the body of this Answer, each and every*allegn by the Plaintiff is specifically denied.

II.

This Defendant is without sufficient information at the present time to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained within paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition, and therefore, denies the same, demanding strict proof thereof.

III.

In regard to paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition, State Farm admits it is an insurance company that conducts business in the State of Oklahoma.

IV.

This Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge at the present time to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained within paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition, and therefore, denies the same, demanding strict proof thereof.

V.

This Defendant admits paragraphs 6 and 7 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition.

VI.

This Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge at the present time to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained within paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, and therefore, denies the same, demanding strict proof thereof.

VII.

This Defendant specifically denies paragraph 15 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition, demanding strict proof thereof.

VIII.

In regard to paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition, this Defendant does not know whether Plaintiff is alleging punitive damages as to State Farm and the co-defendant, Zachary Larson, or simply against co-defendant Zachary Larson. In the event, Plaintiff is making a claim of punitive damages against State Farm, this allegation is specifically denied, demanding strict proof thereof.

Ix.

This Defendant denies the prayer of the conclusion of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition beginning “WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, ...“ demanding strict proof thereof.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

I.

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief it can be granted as to Defendant State Farm.

II.

This Defendant would deny the extent of the alleged injuries and damages as a direct and proximate result of this motor vehicle accident based upon the present information and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial.

III.

This Defendant would assert that the extent of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages are in dispute based upon the present information.

Iv.

This Defendant would state Plaintiffs’ alleged damages and injuries may have been caused by a pre-existing or post-developing, unrelated medical condition, disease, ailment, infection or injury for which this Defendant is not responsible.

V.

This Defendant specifically invokes the provisions of 12 O.S. § 3009.1.

VI.

This Defendant hereby pleads all defenses available to it pursuant to the Comprehensive Lawsuit Reform Act of 2009, including all provisions placed into effect on November 1, 2011.

VII.

The Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages is unconstitutional and violates the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and of Article 2, Section 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution for the following reasons: (a) the standards under which such claims are submitted are so vague as to be effectively meaningless and threaten a deprivation of property for the benefit of society without the protection of fundamentally fair procedures; (b) the highly penal nature of punitive damages threatens the possibility of excessive punishment and almost limitless liability without the benefit of fundamentally fair procedures or any statutory limitations; (c) the introduction of evidence of this Defendant’s financial worth is so prejudicial as to impose liability and punishment in a manner bearing no relation to the extent of any injury allegedly inflicted or to any benefit to this Defendant from any alleged wrongdoing and, therefore, any verdict would be the result of bias and prejudice in a fundamentally unfair manner.

Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages constitutes an unconstitutional excessive fine under Article 2, Section 9 of the Oklahoma Constitution because such highly penal sanctions may be imposed for the benefit of society under standards so vague and effectively meaningless as to threaten unlimited punishment bearing no relation to the extent of any injury allegedly inflicted at the unbridled discretion of the jury.

VIII.

This Defendant hereby pleads any and all affirmative defenses available to it under the Oklahoma Pleading Code, now or which hereinafter may be applicable.

Ix.

This Defendant would reserve the right to plead additional defenses, delete or modify defenses pled, upon the completion of discovery or as the facts warrant.

WHEREFORE, having answered, Defendant State Farm requestsjudgment in its favor and against the Plaintiff, for its costs and attorney’s fees incurred and for any further relief this Court deems just and equitable.

Defendant Zachary Larsen did not appear or answer.

Outcome: Dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: