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

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 07-02-2013

Case Style: Patricia Cramberg v. Susan Dean

Case Number: CJ-2011-6640

Judge: Carlos Chappelle

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Clark Otto Brewster and Corbin Brewster

Defendant's Attorney: Michael S. Ashworth

Description: Patricia Cramberg sued Susan Dean on an auto negligence theory claiming to have been injured and damaged in a car wreck in Tulsa County, Oklahoma caused by Dean.

The specific claims made by Plaintiff are not available.

Defendant Susan Dean appeared and answered as follows:

1.

The facts and allegations set forth in numbered Paragraph I of Plaintiffs Petition are denied.

2.

On the basis of information and belief the facts and allegations set forth in numbered Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs Petition are admitted.

3. The facts and allegations set forth in numbered Paragraph 3 of Plainfiffis Petidon admitted.

4. The facts and allegations set forth in numbered Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs Petition are admitted.

5.

The facts and allegations set forth in numbered Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs Petition are admitted.

6.

The facts and allegations set forth in numbered Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs Petition are admitted in part and denied in pail.

7.

The facts and allegations set forth in numbered Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs Petition are admitted.

8.

It is admitted that a collision occurred between the Plaintiff, PATRICIA CRAMBERG, and the Defendant, SUSAN DEAN, as set forth in numbered Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs Petition.

9.

It is admitted that a collision occurred between the Plaintiff, PATRICIA CRAMBERG, and the Defendant, SUSAN DEAN, as set forth in numbered Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs Petition. However, this Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the remaining facts and allegations set forth in numbered Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Petition and thus denies same.

10.

It is admitted that a collision occurred between the Plaintiff, PATRICIA CRAMBERG, and the Defendant, SUSAN DEAN, as set forth in numbered Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

11.

It is admitted that a collision occurred between the Plaintiff, PATRICIA CRAMBERO, and the Defendant, SUSAN DEAN, as set forth in numbered Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs Petition. However, this Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the remaining facts and allegations set forth in numbered Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Petition and thus denies same.

12.

Defendant reincorporates paragraphs 1-11 as if the same were here set forth in full.

13.

It is admitted that a collision occurred between the Plaintiff, PATRICIA CRAMBERG, and the Defendant, SUSAN DEAN, as set forth in numbered Paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs Petition. However, this Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the remaining facts and allegations set forth in numbered Paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s Petition and thus denies same.

14.

It is admitted that a collision occurred between the Plaintiff, PATRICIA CRAMBERO, and the Defendant, SUSAN DEAN, as set forth in numbered Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs Petition. However, this Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the remaining facts and allegations set forth in numbered Paragraph 14 of Plaintiff’s Petition and thus denies same.

15.

It is admitted that a collision occurred between the Plaintiff, PATRICIA CRAMBERG,
and the Defendant, SUSAN DEAN, as set forth in numbered Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs Petition. However, this Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the remaining facts and allegations set forth in numbered Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs Petition and thus denies
same.

16.

This Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every material allegation contained in the Petition of the Plaintiff except that which may be heretofore admitted.

Defendant readopts and realleges the statements previously made herein.

ADDITIONAL DEFENSES AND AVOIDANACES

17.

For further answer and defense, this Defendant states that Plaintiff’s occurrence was an unavoidable accident, casualty, and/or misfortune occurring without fault on the part of this Defendant.

18.

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

19.

For further answer and defense, should the Defendant 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.

20.

For farther answer and defense, this Defendant would state the Plaintiff failed to use ordinary care with due regard to the existing conditions to prevent injury to herself

21.

For further answer and defense, the Defendant 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.

22.

For further answer and defense, this Defendant states that the injuries complained of in Plaintiffs Petition are the result of preexisting health problems that were neither caused nor aggravated by this Defendant and for which this Defendant is not liable.

23.

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

24.

For further answer and defense, this Defendant reserves the right to plead additional affirmative defenses and amend her Answer upon the completion of discovery and receipt of 3226 disclosures.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant, SUSAN DEAN, prays for judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiff, together with her costs of this action and such other and further relief as the Court deems is just and equitable.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NOTICE

Employees of Farmers Insurance Exchange, a Member of the Farmers Insurance Group of
Companies.

Outcome: The Plaintiff, PATRICIA CRAMBERO, appears and dismisses this cause th prejudice
to the right of bringing any other future action.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: