Date: 07-12-2013

Case Style: Lynda Jackson v. Oklahoma City Public Schools

Case Number: CJ-2011-7516

Judge: Thomas E. Prince

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Tom Cummings

Defendant's Attorney: F. Andrew Fugitt and Stephanie J. Mather

Description: Lynda Jackson and Aaron Williams, individually and as Parents and Next Friends of Hakeem Williams, a minor, sued the v. Oklahoma City Public Schools and Independent School District No. I-89 on an assault and battery theory claiming:

1. On the 4Th day of May, 2011, in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, the minor Plaintiff, Hakeem Williams, while a student, was physically assaulted and battered by Nathaniel Johnson Holimon, a teacher at Jackson Middle School, an Oklahoma City Public School.

2. At all times material hereto, Nathaniel Johnson Holimon was an agent, employee and/or servant ofDefendant Oklahoma City Public Schools and/or Independent School District No. 89, and was acting in the course and scope of said employment thereby rendering Defendants liable for the actions of Nathaniel Johnson Hollmon under the doctrine of respondeat superior liability.

3. The Oklahoma City Public Schools and/or Independent School District No. 89 is an State of Oklahoma. agency of the 4. The Oklahoma City Public Schools and/or Independent School District No. 89 is the agency responsible for hiring, training and supervising teachers in the public school system such as Nathaniel Johnson Hollmon.

5. The Defendants were negligent in their hiring, training and/or supervision of Nathaniel Johnson Hollmon, and such negligence directly and proximately resulted in physical injuries and infliction of emotional distress to the Plaintiffs’ minor son, therefore rendering Defendants liable for the Plaintiffs’ damages and entitling Plaintiffs to damages from Defendants in an amount in excess of that amount required for federal jurisdiction under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1332.

6. Valid notice of the Plaintiffs’ claim was given to Defendants in compliance with the Governmental Tort Claims Act, 51 U.S. §151, et. seq., and all requirements of that Act have been complied with by the Plaintiffs such that this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties hereto.

7. This claim is deemed to have been denied because Defendants failed to approve the claim in its entirety within ninety (90) days of receiving notice of the claim.

8. This Petition has been filed within one hundred eighty (180) days after denial of this claim.

9. Plaintiffs have complied with all other provisions of the Governmental Tort Claims Act setting forth requirements for maintaining a legal action against Defendant.

10. In accordance with the provisions of 12 U.S. §2008(A)(2), the PlaintilTh’ damages are in excess of that required for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants for an amount in excess of $10,000, as set forth above, for their costs, for applicable interest thereon, and for all other such relief as the Court shall seem equitable and proper.

Defendant appeared and answered as follows:

1. Each and every allegation of the Petition which is not specifically admitted is denied.

2. District denies the allegation in Paragraph 1 of the Petition.

3. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Petition, District admits that Nathanial Johnson Holloman was an employee of District. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Petition are denied.

4. The allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Petition are denied. District is an independent school district and body corporate under Oklahoma law.

5. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Petition, District admits that it is responsible for hiring, training and supervising teachers to the extent required by law.

6. District denies the allegation in Paragraph 5 of the Petition.

7. District admits the allegations in Paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Petition.

8. District denies the allegation in Paragraph 10 of the Petition.

9. Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief does not aver facts to which a response is necessary.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Plaintiffs’ Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

2. District is exempt from liability under one or more exemptions to liability under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act, including, but not limited to, 51 O.S. § 155(4), (5), and (18).

3. District’s liability is several from that of any other person or entity.

4. Plaintiffs’ own negligence was the sole cause of their injuries.

5. Plaintiffs were comparatively negligent, and their comparative negligence is in sufficient percentage to reduce or bar any recovery herein.

6. Plaintiffs’ injuries were causedby acts or omissions ofthird parties over whom District had neither control nor a duty to control.

7. Plaintiffs’ injuries were caused, in whole or in part, by pre-existing or postdeveloping medical conditions for which District is not responsible.

8. Any damages of Plaintiffs were caused by intervening or supervening causes for which District had no control.

9. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages.

10. District cannot be liable for any intentional torts of its employees under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act.

11. District expressly reserves its right to further plead or amend its Answer, including the assertion of additional affinnative defenses, as they become known through discovery.

Wherefore, District requests that Plaintiffs take nothing by their Petition and that their claims be dismissed together with costs and attorney fees incurred.

Defendant moved for summary judgment.

Outcome: Sustained.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: