Date: 09-07-2012

Case Style: Lisa Grant Miller v. Lakeisha Kay Hooks

Case Number: CJ-2012-1140

Judge: Mark Barcus

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Donald E. Smolen, Sr.

Defendant's Attorney: Maurie G. Woods and Lane R. Neal

Description: Lisa Grant Miller sued Lakeisha Kay Hooks on an auto negligence theory claiming:

COME NOW the Plaintiffs, LISA GRANT-MILLER, individually, and as parent and next friend of CHRISTOPHER SHARKEY, a minor, and for her causes of action against the Defendant, LAKEISHA KAY HOOKS, allege and state as follows:

1. That the Plaintiff is a resident of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma; and that Defendant, LAKEISHA KAY HOOKS, is a resident of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma That the citip1aint alleged herein occurred in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, and that this Court has junsdiction over the parties and the subject matter herein.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

2. On June 30, 2010, on North Denver Avenue, at its intersection with West Pine Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma, the Defendant, LAKEISHA KAY HOOKS,negligently drove her vehicle into the vehicle in which the Plaintiff, LISA GRANT-MILLER, was a passenger.

3. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, LAKEISHA KAY HOOKS, Plaintiff, LISA GRANT-MILLER, was injured and her injuries are permanent, painful and progressive. When injured, Plaintiff, LISA GRANT-MILLER, was 34 years of age with a life expectancy of 43.0 more years according to the U. S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2003.

4. As a result of the injuries, Plaintiff LISA GRANT-MILLER, has and will incur medical expenses and has and will suffer pain of mind and body.

WHEREFORE, Plaintift LISA GRAJ’4T-MILLER, prays for judgment against the Defendant, LAKEISHA KAY HOOKS, in an amount in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code together with the costs of this action.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

1. COMES NOW the Plaintiff, LISA GRANT-MILLER, as parent and next friend of CHRISTOPHER SHARKEY, a minor, and for the SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION, hereby readopts and re-alleges the allegations contained within paragraphs 1-4 of the FiRST CAUSE OF ACTION as if fully re-stated herein, and further states and alleges as follows:

2. That the minor child of the Plaintiff, CHRISTOPHER SHARKEY, was a passenger in the automobile also occupied as a passenger by his mother, LISA GRANT-MILLER.

3. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, LAKEISHA KAY HOOKS, minor Plaintiff, CHRISTOPHER SHARKEY, was injured and his injuries are permanent, painful and progressive. When injured, minor Plaintiff; CHRISTOPHER SHAJ{KEY, was 9 years of age with a life expectancy of 60.5 more years according to the U. S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2003,

4. As a result of the injuries, minor Plaintiff, ChRISTOPHER SHARKEY, has and will incur medical expenses and has and will suffer pain of mind and body.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, LISA GRANT-MilLER, as parent and next friend of CHRISTOPHER SHARKEY, a minor, prays forjudgment against the Defendant, LAKEISHA KAY HOOKS, in the amount of $57,500.00 together with the costs of this action,

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

1. COMES NOW the Plaintiff, LISA GRANT-MILLER, as parent and next friend of CHRISTOPHER SHARKEY, a minor, and for the THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION hereby restates and re-alleges the allegations contained within paragraphs 1-4 of the FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION and paragraphs 1-4 of the SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION as if fully re-stated herein, and farther states and alleges as follows:

2. That as a result of the negligence of the Defendant, LAKEISHA KAY HOOKS, Plaintiffs minor child, CHRISTOPHER SHARKEY, was injured. As a result of the injuries, Plaintiff, LISA GRANT-MILLER, has and will incur medical expenses on behalf of said minor child and has and will suffer both emotional and mental pain and anguish.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, LISA GRANT-MILLER, prays for judgment against the Defendant, LAKEISHA KAY HOOKS, in the amount of$10,000.00 together with the costs of this action.

Defendant answered claiming:

1. The Defendant lacks sufficient evidence with regards to whether or not the Plaintiffs are residents of Tulsa County as alleged in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore, said allegation is denied. However, Defendant admits the remaining portion of Paragraph I of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

ANSWER TO FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

2. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the First Cause of Action of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

ANSWER TO SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

4. The Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Second Cause of Action of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

5. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Second Cause of Action of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and demands strict proof thereof.

6. The Defendant lacks sufficient evidence to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Second Cause of Action of the Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore, said allegations are denied and Defendant demands strict proof thereof

ANSWER TO THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

7. Paragraph 1 of the Third Cause of Action of the Plaintiffs’ Petition, as a recital Paragraph, requires no response. To the extent a response is needed, the Defendant reasserts her responses to Paragraph 1 of the Plaintiffs’ Petition including her responses to Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Plaintiffs’ First and Second Causes of Action.

8. The Defendant denies Paragraph 2 of the Third Cause of Action of the Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

9. The injuries complained of by the Plaintiffs were not the proximate result of any actions of Defendant.

10. The incident complained of in the Plaintiffs’ Petition was the result of a sudden emergency and/or unavoidable casualty presented to this Defendant and, at all times pertinent thereto, this Defendant acted reasonably and prudently; and therefore, liability will not attach to this Defendant.

8. The Plaintiffs sustained no injury or were not injured as severely as alleged as a result of the incident in this suit.


3. Paragraph I of the Second Cause of Action of the Plaintiffs’ Petition, as a recital Paragraph, requires no response. To the extent a response is needed, the Defendant restates er responses to Paragraphs 1 and Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the SecEhdCaiise of Action of the Plaintiffs’ Petition.

10. The Plaintiffs’ Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

11. The Defendant reserves the right to amend or abandon any or all of the allegations stated.

12. It is anticipated that additional affirmative defenses will become known through the discovery process; therefore, this Defendant reserves the right to plead them as they are discovered.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Lakeisha Kay Hooks, prays that judgment be rendered in her favor, that she be awarded her costs and attorney fees, and any and all other relief the Court deems just and equitable.

Outcome: COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Lisa Grant-Miller, individually, and as parent and next friend of Christopher Sharkey, a minor, and hereby dismisses the Defendant, Lakeisha Kay Hooks, in the above styled and numbered cause with prejudice toward the bringing of any further action.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: