Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 09-20-2013
Case Style: Amanda Catherine Gann v. Virginia Carlene Melton
Case Number: CJ-2012-110
Judge: Lori Walkley
Court: District Court, Cleveland County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Attorney: Richard Gann and Richard A. Mildren
Defendant's Attorney: Richard A. Bruce
Description: Amanda Catherine Gann sued Virginia Carlene Melton on an auto negligence theory claiming:
1. The Plaintiff at relevant times was and is
a resident of Cleveland County,
Oklahoma.
2. The Defendant at relevant times was a resident and citizen of Cleveland County, Oklahoma.
3. On February 24, 2010, the Plaintiff was operating her motor vehicle heading westbound on east Lindsey Street approaching the intersection of East Lindsey with 12th Avenue Southeast. As the Plaintiff, driving her vehicle in the inside lane of westbound traffic entered the intersection, the Defendant negligently failed to yield the right of way to the Plaintiff and oncoming traffic and negligently collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle. At the time of said collision, the Defendant was attempting to execute a left turn in order to head northbound on l2” Avenue Southeast.
4. As a result of the negligence and want of care of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has suffered pain of body and mind, has incurred expensive and painful medical treatment and is entitled to judgment against the Defendant in a sum greater than Seventy Five Thousand Dollars
($75,000.00).
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant in a sum greater than Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of interest, costs and attorneys fees.
Defendant appeared and answered as follows:
1. The Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny those claims and allegations contained in Paragraphs 4 of Plaintiff’s Petition and therefore demands strict proof thereof.
2. The Defendant admits those claims of residency in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Plaintiff’s Petition.
3. The Defendant admits that an automobile accident took place between the parties on the date as set forth in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Petition. The Defendant denies those remaining claims and allegations contained in paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Petition and therefore demands strict proof thereof.
For further answer and defense the Defendant states as follows:
First Affirmative Defense
The negligence if any of the parties and any relevant non-parties will be developed during discovery and the Defendant specifically reserves the right to plead defenses as to contributory and comparative negligence at the time of pretrial.
Second Affirmative Defense
Whether Plaintiff has acted to mitigate their damages will be developed during discovery and the Defendant specifically reserves the right to plead that defense at the time of pretrial.
Third Affirmative Defense
Whether any portion of the Plaintiff’s claims have been barred by the statute of limitations or by the doctrines of wavier, release and accord-and-satisfaction will be developed during discovery and Defendant specifically reserves the right to plead those affirmative defenses at the time of pretrial.
Fourth Affirmative Defense
Whether the Plaintiff suffers from any preexisting or post-arising medical condition will be developed during discovery and the Defendant specifically reserves the right to plead those defenses at the time of pretrial.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED Defendant prays that the action against him/her/them be dismissed and he be awarded costs such as the court may determine is just.
Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: