Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 11-05-2013
Case Style: Jorge Maravilla v. Hillary Morris and Sean Hellard
Case Number: CJ-2012-1420
Judge: Linda G. Morrissey
Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Attorney: Bret A. Unterschuetz
Defendant's Attorney: Gerald Pignato
Description: Jorge Maravilla and Gloria Maraville sued Hillary Morris and Sean Hellard on auto negligence theories claiming:
1. That on or about December 12, 2011 at approximately East Admiral and North Harvard Streets in Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, Defendant Hillary Morr is negligently operated a motor vehicle by failing to maintain a proper distance and running into the back of Plaintiff Jorge Maravilla’s vehicle, which had the right of way. Said negligence caused collision between the vehicles.
2. That Plaintiff Gloria Maravilla was a passenger in the Jorge Maravilla vehicle.
3. That as a result, Plaintiffs Jorge Maravilla and Gloria Maravilla were injured, were prevented from transacting their business, suffered great pain of body and mind, and incurred expenses for medical treatment.
4. That as a result, PlaintiffJorge Maravilla sustained property damage to his 1995 Honda Civic in the amount of $1662.20.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully prays judgment against the Defendant in an amount exceeding 28 U.S.C. 1332 ,together with interest, costs and reasonable attorney fees, and any such additional relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Defendant Hillary Morris appeared and answered as follows:
1. Upon information and belief, Morris admits that an automobile accident o&curred on or about December 12, 2011, as alleged in numerical paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs’ Petition. However, Morris denies she was negligent and/or caused the accident.
2. Upon information and belief, Morris admits the allegation contained in numerical paragraph 2 in Plaintiffs’ Petition.
3. Morris does not have sufficient information at this time to either admit or deny the allegations contained in numerical paragraph 3 in Plaintiffs’ Petition.
4. Morris does not have sufficient information at this time to either admit or deny the allegation contained in numerical 4 in Plaintiffs’ Petition.
AFFIRMATIVE/OTHER DEFENSES
1. Plaintiffs, individually and collectively, have failed to state a claim against Defendants, individually and/or collectively, upon which relief can be granted.
2. The conditions and/or injuries of which Plaintiffs complain constitute preexisting conditions and/or conditions sustained prior to the alleged incident, which were neither caused, nor aggravated by these Defendants, and for which these Defendants are not liable.
3. Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages were caused, in whole or in part, by the negligence of a third party or parties over whom these Defendants had no control, and for whose acts these Defendants are not responsible.
4. If it is shown that these Defendants, or any person acting on these Defendants’ behalf, were negligent, which negligence is specifically denied, the negligence of Plaintiffs exceeded any such negligence, thereby barring Plaintiffs from recovery.
5. Plaintiffs assumed the risk of any injury.
6. Plaintiffs’ injuries or damages, if any, were the result of an unavoidable accident or sudden emergency.
7. Any damages which Plaintiffs may have suffered were the result of superceding and/or intervening causes for which these Defendants cannot be held responsible.
8. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their alleged damages.
9. Plaintiffs’ medical treatment was unreasonable, unnecessary, and unrelated to the subject accident.
10. Plaintiffs’ injuries constitute aggravations of pre-existing conditions.
11. These Defendants reserve the right to list additional Affirmative Defenses and/or assert additional claims as discovery progresses, and as additional information becomes known and available.
WHEREFORE, having fully answered, this Defendant, Hillary Morris, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in her favor and that she be awarded all costs expended in defense of this matter, and such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Plaintiff moved for a default judgment against Gloria Maravilla.
Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: