Mark Barcus District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma">
Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 10-21-2013
Case Style: Janet Lynn Wesley v. Elizabeth A. Fisher Harper
Case Number: CJ-2012-1194
Judge: Mark Barcus
Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Attorney: Scott Douglas Hjelm and Herbert E. Elias
Defendant's Attorney: Melissa Minton Schmidt for Elizabeth A. Fisher-Harper and Dale Fisher
Adam Christensen and J. Clay Chistensen for Compsources Oklahoma
Dan S. Folluo for Hanover America
Description: Janet Lynn Wesley sued Elizabeth A. Fisher Harper and Hanover America on auto negligence theories claiming:
1, The Plaintiff, Janet Lynn Wesley, is a resident of the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma. The Defendant, Elizabeth Fisher-Harper, is a resident of the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
2. That this Court has jurisdiction in the above entitled cause.
3. That on or about May 13, 201 0, in Tulsa County, Plaintiff was operating her vehicle westbound on 3Pt Street when Defendant, northbound on Jamestown Avenue, pulled out from a stop sign in front of Plaintiff resulting in a collision.
4. That the above mentioned collision was caused solely from the neg1igenof the Defendant in that she failed to yield for traffic, failed to watch where she was going ancIiledto: operate her vehicle in a manner reasonable and proper.
5. As a direct result of the Defendant’s negligence, the Plaintiff was injured and incurred medical bills in treating her injuries.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the Defendant for a sum exceeding Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), costs ofthis action, and for such other and further relief to which she may be deemed entitled.
Defendant appeared and answered as follows:
1. The Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every material allegation in Plaintiff’s Petition except those allegations specifically admitted herein.
2. The Defendant admits that jurisdiction and venue are proper in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
3. The Defendant admits that an automobile accident occurred between the parties on our about 05-13-10 in Tulsa, County, State of Oklahoma.
4 The Defendant denies all allegations of negligence and demand strict proof thereof.
5. The Defendant denies all allegations of damages and demands strict proof thereof. The Defendant further afrertathat Plaintiffs’ damages are the result of conditions causes which áre unrelated to the subject accident.
6. The Defendant reserves the right to amend his Answer upon completion of discovery.
WHEREFORE, having fully answered, the Defendant prays that Plaintiffs take nothing by way of their Petition against her and prays that judgment be entered in her favor and against the Plaintiffs and for such further and equitable relief this Court deems just and proper.
Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: