Date: 12-13-2013

Case Style: Lori Walker v. Stephany A. Kinney

Case Number: CJ-2012-1909

Judge: Martha Rupp Carter

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Scott Robert Hall

Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Lori Walker sued Stephany A. Kinney on an auto negligence theory claiming:

1, On April 5, 2012, the Defendant negligently operated her vehicle while driving inside the Philtower Parking Garage in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and collided into the vehicle being driven by the Plaintiff.

2. At the time of the accident, the Defendant was texting, emailing, or otherwise utilizing her cellular telephone, contrary to the laws of the state of Oklahoma in operating a motor vehicle.

3. As a direct result of the Defendant’s negligence, the Plaintiff sustained property damage to her vehicle and will incur damages for loss of use, diminution of value, attorney’s fees,
costs, and interest.

4. Additionally, the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for punitive or exemplary damages in an amount in excess of $10,000.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Plaintiffprays forjudgment inher favor and against the Defendant in an amount in excess of $10,000 for both actual and punitive damages, plus costs, attorney’s fees, interest, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

Defendant, Stephany Kinney, appeared and answered as follows:

I. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every material pi4egation 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 appr&eimate
time and location alleged in Plaintiffs Petition.

3. Defendants 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 Plaintiffs injures and damages, if any.

5. The negligence of the plaintiff was more than fifty percent (50%) the cause of accident, thereby preventing Plaintiffs recovery herein against this defendant. Alte ativel Defendant alleges that the negligence of Plaintiff was a cause of this accident, thereb reducing Plaintiffs recovery herein against this defendant.

6. Plaintiff voluntarily assumed a risk of harm by virtue of Plaintiffs actions and
conduct at the time of the accident, thereby preventing Plaintiffs recovery herein.
As o Becendant, accident was unavoidable and occurred without negligence on her pail.

8. Defendant was faced with a sudden emergency not of her own creation and she used her best judgment to avoid a collision.

9. The Defendant specifically denies any and all allegations of gross negligence, including but not limited to “outrageous”, “malicious” and “reckless” conduct and denies engaging in any conduct that would entitle the Plaintiff to punitive damages.

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

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

COUNTER-CLAIM

The Defendant, Stephany Kinney, and for her cross-claim against the Plaintiff, alleges and states:

1. On April 5, 2012, the Plaintiff negligently operated her vehicle while driving inside the Philtower Parking Garage in Tulsa, Oklahoma and while operating her vehicle collided into the vehicle being driven by Defendant.

2. At the time of the collision, the Plaintiff was driving recklessly, negligently, without caution, and without the due care required by drivers of motor vehicles under Oklahoma law. The Defendant suffered injuries and other damages which entitle her to relief.

3. As a direct result of the Plaintiffs actions, the Defendant has incurred expenses, mental anguish, pain, suffering and other damages, including any punitive and exemplary damages, all of which entitles the Defendant to recover from the Plaintiff an amount in excess often thousand dollars, together with costs and other appropriate relief.

4. As a direct result of the Plaintiff’s actions, the Defendant suffered property damage which entitles the Defendant to recover from the Plaintiff in excess of ten thousand dollars, together with costs and appropriate relief.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, Stephany Kinney, prays the Court to award her a judgment against Plaintiff in an amount in excess of $10,000 to be determined by a jury, together with all attorneys fees, costs and any other appropriate relief.

Plaintiff answered to Defendant's counterclaim, as follows:

1. The Plaintiff denies, generally and specifically, each and every material allegation contained in the Defendant’s Counterclaim, and demands strict proof thereof; except that which is hereinafter admitted.

2. The Plaintiff specifically denies those allegations contained in ¶j 1, 2, 3, 4 of Defendant’s Counterclaim and demands strict proof thereof.

AFFIRMATiVE DEFENSES

3. The Plaintiff specifically denies that she was negligent inthe happening of the subject incident, and that, if this Plaintiff is later found to have been negligent, which is specificaIl’ denied, that such negligence was not the proximate cause of the subject incident and any injurieslJmages, or losses, sustained by the Defendant.

4. For further answer and defense, the Plaintiff states that the Defendant’s claimed damages, if any, are barred and/or limited by the Oklahoma Doctrine of Comparative Negligence.

5. Plaintiff denies that there is any basis for Defendant’s allegations of punitive damages, and alleges that an award of punitive damages for the subject circumstances would be in violation of the United States Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Plaintiff, Lori Walker, having fully answered the Counterclaim of Defendant on file herein prays that the Defendant take nothing by virtue of said Counterclaim and requests that she be dismisscd from this action, together with her attorney’s fees, costs, and interest, and such other relief that this Court deems just and proper.

The Pre-Trial Order approved by the Court provided, in part:

* * *

02. GENERAL STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Motor vehicle accident on April 5, 2012 inside the Philtower parking garage in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

03. PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:

A. List All Theories of Recovery and the Applicable Statutes, Ordinances, and Common Law Rules Relied Upon
Negligent Destruction of Property

B. List Damages or Relief Sought.

Property Damage $3,741.17

04. DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS:

List All Theories of Defense and the Applicable Statutes, Ordinances, and Common Law Rules Relied Upon

A. The Defendant denies the nature and extent of Plaintiffs damages, if any.

B. The negligence of the Plaintiff was more than fifty percent (50%) the cause of this accident, thereby preventing Plaintiffs recovery herein against this Defendant, Alternatively, Defendant alleges that the negligence of Plaintiff was a cause of this accident, thereby reducing Plaintiff’s recovery herein against this Defendant.

C. Plaintiff voluntarily assumed a risk of harm by virtue of Plaintiffs actions and conduct at the time of the accident, thereby preventing Plaintiff’s recovery herein.

D. As to Defendant, the accident was unavoidable and occurred without negligence on her part.

05. DEFENDANT’S CLAIMS FOR RELIEF:

List Any Claims of Relief Sought (by Cross-claim, Counterclaim, or Set-Off), and the Applicable Statutes, Ordinances, and Common Law Rules Relied Upon.

A. Negligent injury to property in an amount
to be determined at trial Not more $2000.

* * *

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: