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

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 06-06-2013

Case Style: Jay Cross v. Virginia P. Keuneman

Case Number: CJ-2011-7614

Judge: Carlos Chappelle

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Nikolas A. Rankin

Defendant's Attorney: Andrea L. Medley

Description: Jay Cross sued Virginia P. Keuneman on an auto negligence theory claiming to have been injured and/or damaged in a car wreck in Tulsa County, Oklahoma caused by Kueneman.

1. Plaintiff is and was a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, at all times material to the events described herein.

2. Defendant was a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, at all times material to the events described herein.

3. The automobile accident that is the subject of this matter occurred in TulsaE
County, Oklahoma.

4. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter hereof and venue is proper in Tulsa County

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE

5. Paragraphs I through 4 above are repeated and incorporated as if hilly set out herein.

6. That on the 6th day of November, 2010 Plaintiff was operating his motor vehicle at approximately South Mingo Road and East 37th Street in Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma. At that time and place, Defendant Kueneman, in the operation of her vehicle, violated her duty to operate her motor vehicle in a reasonable manner when she suddenly and without warning negligently struck the Plaintiff’s vehicle with her vehicle.

7. The Defendant’s actions were negligent and were the direct and proximate cause of the collision with the Plaintiffs vehicle. Plaintiff was without fault in the accident and at all times acted with due care.

8. The negligent acts and omissions of Defendant caused injuries to Plaintiff Defendant’s negligent acts and omissions are the direct and proximate cause of the injuries and damages suffered by the Plaintiff.

9. Plaintiff has incurred expenses for medical services for the treatment of his injuries, and will continue to incur such expenses. Plaintiff’s injuries have caused
him pain and suffering as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence and he will continue to so suffer.

10. Plaintiff has lost wages as a result of injuries suffered in the subject
collision. Defendant’s negligent conduct is the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s wage loss.

11. Each and every of Plaintiffs above listed damages are a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, together with the statutory interest
thereon, for the costs of this action accrued and accruing and for such other relief that his Court deems just and proper.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF CITY OF TULSA

MUNICIPAL STATUTES CHAPTER 37 645(A)

12. Paragraphs 1 through 11 above are repeated and incorporated as if fully set
out herein.

13. On the 6th day of November, 2010 Plaintiff was operating his motor vehicle at approximately South Mingo Road and East 37th Street in Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, when Defendant, in the operation of her vehicle, violated Chapter 37 § 645(A) of the Tulsa Municipal Code. Said violation was the direct and proximate cause of the collision with Plaintiffs vehicle.

14. The Defendant’s actions constitute negligence per se.

15. The Defendant’s actions constitute negligence per se and are the direct and proximate cause of all injuries and damages suffered by the Plaintiff.

16. Each and every of Plaintiff’s above listed damages are a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant,

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant for actual damages in an amount in excess of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00) together with statutory interest thereon, for the costs of this action accrued and accruing, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Defendant appeared and answered as follows:

1.

The facts and allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Plaintiffs Petition are admitted.

2.

It is admitted that a collision occurred between the Plaintiff, JAY CROSS, and the
Defendant VIRGINIA KUENEMAN, as set forth in Paragraphs 6 and 7 of Plaintiffs Petition.
Defendant will admit fault for the accident. Defendant is without sufficient information to either
admit or deny if Plaintiff had any fault in the accident, and therefore denies this allegation in
Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs Petition.

3.

The facts and allegations set forth in Paragraphs 8,9, 10 and 11 of Plaintiffs Petition are denied.

4.

The facts and allegations set forth in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Plaintiffs Petition are admitted,

5.

The facts and allegations set forth in Paragraphs 15 and 16 of Plaintiffs Petition are denied.

6.

As there are no allegations set forth in Paragraphs 5 and 12 of Plaintiffs Petition, no response to those paragraphs are necessary. However, if it is deemed necessary to respond to any allegation in those paragraphs, those allegations are denied.

7.

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.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND AVOIDANCES

8.

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 Plaintiffs alleged injuries and damage.

9.

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.
10.
For further answer and defense, this Defendant states that the injuries complained of in Plaintiffs Petition may be the result of preexisting health problems that were neither caused nor aggravated by this Defendant and for which this Defendant is not liable.

11.

For further answer and defense, this Defendant would state that the injuries complained of in Plaintiffs Petition may be 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.

12.

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

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant, VIRGINIA K1JENEMAN, prays for judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiff, together with her costs of this action and such other and father relief as the Court deems is just and equitable.

Defendant offered to allow the Plaintiff to take judgment pursuant to 12 O.S. 1101.1 in the amount of $5,918.00.


The Pre-Trial Order for this case provided in part, as follows:

At issue is a motor vehicle collision that occurred at approximately 9:20 a.m. on November 6, 2010 at South Mingo Road and East 37th Street in Tulsa, Oklahoma. At the time of the collision, the Plaintiff was stopped on Mingo Road waiting for traffic to clear to allow him to turn west onto 37th Street when the Defendant failed to stop her vehicle and collided with the rear of Plaintiffs vehicle. Defendant admits fault for this collision and only damages are at issue.

Defendant’s Statement of Facts:

On November 6, 2010 the parties were involved in a motor vehicle accident in Tulsa,
Oklahoma. Defendant Penny Kueneman has admitted fault for the accident.

3. Plaintiff’s Contentions:
Defendant admits liability for this collision and only damages are at issue. Plaintiff contends that he sustained injuries, incurred medical expenses and lost wages as a result of the subject collision.
A. List All Theories of REcovery and the Applicable Statutes, Ordinances, and Common Law Rules Relied Upn.

a. Negligence Common Law

b. Negligence Per Se Tulsa Municipal Code
Title 37 § 645A

B. List Damages or Relief Sought.

a. Personal injury past, present and thture Subject to Proof

b. Past Medical Expense $5,474.50

c. Future Medical Expense Subject to Proof

d. Past Physical Pain Subject to Proof

e. Future Physical Pain Subject to Proof

f. Physical Impairment Subject to Proof

g. Pain and suffering Subject to Proof

h. Past Mental Suffering Subject to Proof

i. Future Mental Suffering Subject to Proof

j. Permanent Injuries Subject to Proof

k. WageLoss $257.28

1. All other damages recoverable pursuant Subject to Proof
to Oklahoma law.

4. Defendant’s Contentions:

List All Theories of Defense and the Applicable Statutes, Ordinances, and Common
Law Rules Relied Upon.

a. General denial of damages

b. Medical treatment not reasonable and/or necessary

c. Pre-existing and/or post-arising condition

d. No permanent injuries

e. Denial of causation

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice for at least $5,918.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: Editor's Note: It should be noted that the offer to confess judgment was not much more than the medical expenses incurred by the Plaintiff as a result of Defendant's negligence.



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: