Date: 08-17-2012

Case Style: Mary Jo Tannehill v. Jorge Antonio Callejas

Case Number: CJ-2011-6674

Judge: Carlos Chappelle

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Richard A. Pizzo, Tulsa, Oklahoma

Defendant's Attorney: Kurt K. Hoffman, Schroeder & Associates, Tulsa, Oklahoma

Description: Mary Jo Tannehill sued Jorge Antonio Callejas on an auto negligence theory claiming to have been injured in a car wreck caused by Callejas. The claims made by the Plaintiff are not available.

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT. JORGE ANTONIO CALLEJAS

The Defendant, JORGE ANTONIO CALLEJAS, appears by and through his attorney of record, Kurt K. Hoffman and for his Answer to Plaintiff’s Petition alleges and states as follows:

1. It is admitted that a collision occurred between the Plaintiff, MARY JO TANNEHILL and the Defendant, JORGE ANTONIO CALLEJAS, on August 10, 2011. However, this Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the remaining facts and allegations set forth in Plaintiffs Petition and thus denies same except the Defendant, admits fault for the collision.

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

3. This Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every material allegation contained in the Petition of the Plaintiff except that which maybe heretofore admitted. Defendant readopts and re-alleges the statements previously made herein.

AVOIDANCES AND/OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

4. For further answer and defense, should the Defendant be found negligent this Defendant states that his negligence was not the direct cause of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damage.

5. For further 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

6. 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.

7. For further answer and defense, this Defendant states that the injuries complained of in Plaintiff’s 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.

8. 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.

9. For further answer and defense, this Defendant reserves the right to plead additional affirmative defenses and amend his Answer upon the completion of discovery.

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

Outcome: The Plaintiff, MARY JO TANNEHILL, appears and dismisses this cause with prejudice to the right of bringing any other future action.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: