Date: 11-27-2012

Case Style: Dana Williams v. Dustin Bue Ruhland

Case Number: CJ-2011-7106

Judge: Linda G. Morrissey

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Kendall Baillie Jennings

Defendant's Attorney: Bob Latham and Brian L. Carter for Dustin Blue Ruhland and Signature Roofing Eagle Construction

Samuel P. Daniel for Signature Roofing Eagle Construction, Inc.

Description: Dana Williams sued Dustin Blue Ruhland and Signature Roofing Eagle Construction, Inc. on assault and battery theory, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress theories. Plaintiff alleged the following:

1. At all times relevant to this suit, Petitioner, Dustin Ruhland, (hereinafter “Ruhland”), resides in Tulsa County. All actions and events occurred in Tulsa County. Tulsa County District Court is the proper venue for this legal action and has proper jurisdiction over Respondent, Ruhiand,

2. At all times relevant to this action, Ruhland was a principal and agent of the company, Signature Roofing/Eagle Construction. Inc., a business organization formed under the laws of the state of Oklahoma and doing business in Tulsa, Oklahoma, (hereinafter, “Signature”). All actions and events occurred in Tulsa County. Tulsa County District
Court is the proper venue for this legal action and has proper jurisdiction over Respondent, Signature Roofing/Eagle Construction, Inc.

3. On or about November 10, 2011, Petitioner, Dana Williams, (Hereinafter “Williams”), was observing the house of Lindsey Ann Ruhland and Dustin Ruhland, cohabitants, from her car. At all times she was observing their house, Williams was parked on a public road. Williams was attempting to photograph Ruhland violating a court order stating Ruhiand was not to come in contact with mffior child, Cohn Jones, who is the son of Lindsey Ann Ruhland. Williams is a friend of the father of the minor child. In fact, Williams did photograph Ruhland at the family home when the minor child was at said location for monitored visitation with his mother.

4. Ruhland witnessed Williams photographing him at the family residence with the minor child. Ruhiand put his o minor son in his o company truck, which truck belongs to Signature, and attempted to keep Williams from leaving the street where the family home is located by placing his truck in front of Williams’ car. Williams managed to get away from Ruhland and was travelling eastbound on 91st street in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, when Williams observed Ruhiand approaching her vehicle in her rear view mirror. Williams tried to avoid Ruhland, but Ruhland was faster than her and caught up to her car. Ruhland was shouting at Williams from the side window of his car when the two cars were moving but Williams could not hear Ruhland. After that, Williams witnessed Ruhland’s car slow down and get behind her. Williams was in fear for her life because she was afraid Rubland would attempt to do her bodily harm. In fact, at that point, Ruhland intentionally rammed Williams’ car from behind again and again, causing Petitioner to spin out of control. Williams lost control of the car and landed in a ditch upside down. The repeated assaults by Ruhland caused great physical and emotional injury to Williams. Williams’ car was totaled as a result of the collision.

5. Respondents’ actions both directly and proximately caused damage to Petitioner and her vehicle.

6. Petitioner suffered actual damages because of Respondents’ actions. Furthermore, The battery, as described above, was willful, wanton, and malicious. As a result, Williams is entitled to an award of punitive damages.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ASSAULT AGAINST
BOTH RESPONDENTS RUHLAND AND SIGNATURE

7. Petitioner realleges and restates and incorporates by reference the preceding
allegations and further alleges and states as follows:

8. Respondents put Petitioner in fear of imminent bodily harm when Williams saw
Ruhland approaching her maliciously and recklessly in his company truck.

9. In fact, Williams was in fear of imminent bodily harm when she saw Ruhiand
approach her car in a reckless, wonton and malicious manner.

10. As a direct and proximate result of Respondents’ behavior, Williams was injured
physically and emotionally.

11. Petitioner suffered actual damages because of Respondents’ actions. Furthermore,
the assault, as described above, was willful, wanton, and malicious. As a result, Williams
is entitled to an award of punitive damages.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST BOTH
RESPONDENTS RUHLAND AND SIGNATURE

12. Petitioner realleges and restates and incorporates by reference the preceding
allegations and ifirther alleges and states as follows:

13. Respondents’ conduct of recklessly and wantonly ramming Williams’ car and
forcing her into a ditch was extreme and outrageous.

14, Respondents intentionally rammed Williams car and with full knowledge that his
actions would cause Williams extreme emotional distress.

15. As a result of Respondents’ actions, Williams did suffer extreme and severe
emotional distress.

16. As a direct and proximate result of Respondents’ outrageous behavior, Williams
suffered extreme and severe emotional distress.

17. Petitioner suffered actual damages because of Respondents’ actions. Furthermore,
the intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by Respondents as alleged above,
was willful, wanton, and malicious. As a result, Williams is entitled to an award of
punitive damages.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST BOTH
RESPONDENTS RUHLAND AND SIGNATURE

18. Petitioner realleges and restates and incorporates by reference the preceding allegations and further alleges and states as follows:

19. On or about November 10, 2011, Williams was operating her vehicle in a reasonable and proper fashion in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma.

20. The Respondents negligently operated his motor vehicle and caused a collision between Williams and Respondents’ vehicles. Ruhland was negligent in failing to travel at a prudent speed, failing to keep a proper lookout, and failing to stop within an assured clear distance. Ruhland’s negligence caused damage to Williams’ vehicle as well as serious physical injury to Williams when he struck Williams’ car from the rear and the side.

21. As a direct and proximate result of Ruhland’s negligent behavior, Williams suffered extreme and severe emotional distress.

22. Plaintiff suffered actual damages because of Respondents’ actions. Furthermore, Williams suffered anguish, fright, horror, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, and shame to such a degree that an ordinary, reasonable person would be unable to cope with.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE
AGAINST BOTH RESPONDENTS RUHLAND AND SIGNATURE

23. Petitioner realleges and restates and incorporates by reference the preceding allegations and further alleges and states as follows:

24. On or about November 10, 2011, Williams was operating her vehicle in a reasonable and proper fashion in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma.

25. The Ruhland negligently operated his motor vehicle and caused a collision between Williams and Ruhland’s vehicles. Ruhland was negligent in failing to travel at a prudent speed, failing to keep a proper lookout, and failing to stop within an assured clear distance. Ruhland’s negligence caused damage to Williams’ vehicle as well as serious physical injury to Williams when he struck Williams’ car from the rear and the side.

26. Respondent caused serious bodily injury to the Petitioner as a result of his behavior and forced Williams to seek medical treatment for her injuries. The Petitioner incurred medical expenses and suffered severe and significant injuries. Williams was forced to miss time from employment and suffered lost wages as well as loss of earning capacity.

27. As a direct and proximate result of Respondents’ negligent behavior, Williams
suffered actual damages and both physical and emotional injuries all in excess of
$10,000.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACT1ON FOR NEGLIGENT
ENTRUSTMENT AGAINST
RESPONDENT SIGNATURE

28. Petitioner realleges and restates and incorporates by reference the preceding
allegations and further alleges and states as follows:

29. At the time of the incident, a 2005, black, GMC truck, Oklahoma license plate
number 424 DRM, was owned by and in the custody and control of Signature.

30. At the time of the occurrence, Respondent Ruhland was incompetent to operate a
motor vehicle of any kind on Oklahoma roads and highways.

31. Because Ruhiand was both a principal and an agent of Signature, Signature either
knew or should have known of Ruhland’s incompetency.

32. At the time of the incident, Signature had entrusted the vehicle involved in the
incident to Ruhland, who was the driver of the company vehicle.

33. At the time of the incident, Ruhiand was negligent in failing to travel at a prudent
speed, failing to keep a proper lookout, and failing to stop within an assured clear
distance of Petitioner’s vehicle.

34. Ruhland’s negligence proximately caused a collision between his vehicle and
Petitioner’s vehicle.

35. Ruhland’s negligence actually caused a collision between his vehicle and Petitioner’s
vehicle.

36. As a result of Signature’s negligent entrustment of its company vehicle to Ruland, Petitioner suffered and still suffers physical and emotional damages, lost wages, has incurred medical bills, and has suffered the loss of her personal property.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Williams prays for judgment against Ruhiand and Signature for an amount in excess of $10,000 to compensate her for the damages suffered due to Respondents’ negligence and intentional tort actions. Williams car was totaled and she suffered physical injury, medical expenses, pain and suffering, both past and future, extreme emotional distress, loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity and prays for judgment to be rendered against Ruhland and Signature, and both of them, and for any other relief to which they might be justly entitled.

In addition, Respondents’ actions were willful, wanton, and malicious. As a result, Williams is entitled to an award of punitive damages from this Court and Petitioner prays for same.


Dustin Blue Ruhland and Signature Roofing / Eagle Construction answered as follow:

1. Defendants specifically deny each and every allegation ontained within Plaintiffs Petition except as specifically admitted herein.

2. Defendants specifically deny the allegations in Paragraph No’s 1 in part, 2 in part, 4,
5,6,7,8,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 and demand strict proof thereof.

3. Defendants are without knowledge as to the truth of the matters asserted in Paragraph No. 3 to the extent it calls for information not pertaining to these Defendants. Defendants deny the matters asserted in this Paragraph at this time and d proof thereof.

4. Pursuant to Paragraph 2, Defendant admits this Court has jurisdiction over

5. Defendants deny all allegations of negligence and wrongdoing of any kind within Plaintiff’s Petition and demand strict proof thereof.

6. Defendants deny all allegations of damages contained within Plaintiff’s Petition and demand strict proof thereof.

7. Defendants deny all claims for prejudgment and post-judgment interest and demand strict proof thereof.

8. Defendants deny the relief requested in the “WHEREFORE” paragraphs and demand strict proof thereof

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

9. Defendants would state Plaintiffs Petition should be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

10. Negligent Entrustment is an improper claim and not supported by the evidence.

11. Negligent Infliction is an improper claim under Oklahoma law and not supported by the evidence.

12. Defendants adopt and incorporate all affirmative defenses on their original answer.

13. Signature Roofing/Eagle Construction, Inc. are improper parties to this action.

14. Plaintiffs alleged injuries might have the result of pre-existing conditions, natural causes or causes unrelated to the accident and/or are the result of conditions developing after said accident for which Defendants are not responsible.

15. Defendants further allege that the damages andlor problems alleged in Plaintiffs Petition are the result of the Plaintiffs own contributory negligence, and are unrelated to any of the events that are the subject of this lawsuit.
The alleged accident in question is due to the negligence of the Plaintiff and therefore, no recovery is warranted and further investigation is necessary or in the alternative, the negligence of the Plaintiff was in such greater degree as to serve or reduce recovery herein based on the Oklahoma laws of contributory and/or comparative negligence.

16. Should Defendants be found negligent, which is not admitted but is expressly denied, Defendants state that such negligence was not the proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s alleged injury or damages.

17. The injuries and damages alleged by the Plaintiffs might have been of a natural, probable and proximate result of the physical condition, anatomy and physiology of the Plaintiff, and any injury or damage which the Plaintiff may have sustained was not the result of any acts or omissions on the part of Defendants; any injuries or damages sustained by the Plaintiff were the result of natural and normal occurrences over which Defendants had no control, and for which Defendants are not responsible.

18. Defendants state that any injuries, damages or losses sustained by the Plaintiff might have been solely and proximately caused by the negligence of third persons who were not agents, servants or employees of Defendants and over whom Defendants exercised no degree of authority or control.

19. Causation.

20. Denial of Negligence.

21. Unavoidable accident.

22. Punitive damages are unconstitutional under both the Oklahoma and Federal Constitutions and unwarranted based upon the evidence of this case.

AMENDMENTS TO ANSWER

23. Defendants specifically reserve the right to list additional defenses and/or affirmative defenses upon the completion of discovery.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered, the Defendants pray that Plaintiff take nothing by way of her Petition and that judgment be entered for the Defendants and against the Plaintiff, and each of them, together with the costs of this action and such other relief this Court deems fair and equitable.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: