Date: 01-06-2013

Case Style: Linda Tearl v. Samuel Kritzberg

Case Number: CJ-2012-1382

Judge: Lori Walkley

Court: District Court, Cleveland County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Elizabeth Sark Larrick and Noble McIntyre

Defendant's Attorney: Tracy Zahl

Description: Linda Tearl sued Samuel Kritzberg on an auto negligence theory claiming:

1. Plaintiff Linda Tearl is a resident of Moore, Cleveland County, Oklahoma.

2. Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle collision on June 18, 2011 in Moore, Cleveland County, Oklahoma.

3. Defendant Samuel Kritzberg is a resident of Moore, Cleveland County, Oklahoma.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. Jurisdiction and venue is proper in that the damages resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle were sustained in Cleveland County, Oklahoma.

III. CAUSE OF ACTION - NEGLIGENCE

Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-4 above and ftirther urges the following:

5. On or about June 18, 2011, Plaintiff Linda Tearl was traveling northbound on Telephone Rd and proceeding through the intersection of Telephone Rd. and S.W. 4th Street with a green traffic signal in Moore, Cleveland County, Oklahoma.

6. At the same time, Defendant Samuel Kritzberg was travelling westbound on S.W. 4th Street and disregarded the red traffic signal and collided with the passenger side of Plaintiffs vehicle in Cleveland County, Oklahoma.

7. Defendant, in violation of applicable traffic laws 47 O.S. 11-201, failed to obey the official traffic-control device.

8. As a result of the negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff Linda Tearl suffered injuries.

9. The accident was not a proximate result of any act or omission of Plaintiff Linda Tearl, but attributable wholly to the conduct of the Defendant named herein. The Defendant is jointly and severally liable for the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff Linda Tearl, as herein alleged.

10. The foregoing acts and/or omissions of Defendant, taken individually and/or jointly, were a direct and proximate cause of the damages sustained by Plaintiff Linda Tearl. These damages include, but are not limited to, the following: severe physical pain and suffering, severe emotional distress, past and future medical and related expenses, lost wages.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff Linda Tearl hereby prays for judgment against Defendant Samuel Kritzberg 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 attorney fees, costs and interest and such other damages as the Court deems appropriate.

Defendant appeared and answered as follows:

1. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every material allegation contained in the Petition filed on behalf of the Plaintiff except for those which may be specifically admitted hereinafter.

2. Defendant admits that there was a collision of automobiles at the approximate time and location alleged in Plaintiff’s Petition.

3. Defendant is without sufficient information, knowledge, or belief to either admit or deny the allegations of injuries and damages alleged in Plaintiff’s Petition, and therefore denies the same, and demands strict proof thereof.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

4. The Defendant denies the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injures and damages, if any.

5. The injuries complained of in Plaintiff’s Petition are the result of pre-existing health problems that were neither caused nor aggravated by this accident and for which Defendant is not liable.

6. The injuries complained of in Plaintiff’s petition are 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.

7. Reasonableness and necessity of medical treatment.

8. Discovery in this case is just commencing, and Defendant reserves the right to amend his answer to assert additional affirmative defenses as they may be ascertained.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant prays that Plaintiff’s Petition be dismissed and Plaintiff take nothing thereby; further Defendant prays for the costs of this action and for such relief as may be fair and equitable.

Outcome: The Plaintiff, Linda Tearl, hereby dismisses all claims against the Defendant, Samuel Kritzberg, in the above styled and numbered action with prejudice to re-filing.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: