Date: 08-15-2013

Case Style: Timothy E. McCormick v. Tyler Wade Doerr

Case Number: CJ-2012-201

Judge: Daman H. Cantrell

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Timothy E. McCormick, pro se

Defendant's Attorney: William T. Mckee for Texoma Pizza, L.P.

and Gene Robinson for Tyler Wade Doerr

Description: Timothy E. McCormick sued Tyler Wade Doerr and Texoma Pizza, L.P. on an auto negligence theory claiming:


I.

The actions, errors and omission giving rise to Plaintiffs claim against the Defendant occurred in Tulsa County, Oklahoma and resulted in injuries and Damages occurring in Tulsa County, Oklahoma Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction and venue over the parties hereto and the cause herein.

II

On or about November 14, 2011, Plaintiff was driving his vehicle through the intersection at 61st Street and Sheridan Road in Tulsa when Defendant’s vehicle went through a red light severely damaging Plaintiff’s vehicle and causing him injuries. This accident was caused solely through the negligence of the Defendant.

III.

As a consequence of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff has sustained damages for which he seeks monetary relief from the Defendant in a sum in excess of TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00). Such damages include, but are not limited to, the following:

a) physical damage to Plaintiff’s vehicle,

b) diminution of value of Plaintiffs vehicle,

c) cost of a replacement vehicle,

d) incidental and consequential damages arising from the accident, and

e) injuries to Plaintiff, including pain and suffering, medical expenses and loss of income,

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant TYLER WADE DOERR for an amount in excess of TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00), and for attorneys fees, costs and for such other and further relief to which the Court deems Plaintiff to be entitled.

Defendants appeared and answered as follows:

1. Defendant admits jurisdiction and venue. The remaining allegations of paragraph one are denied in the form stated. form stated.

2. Defendant admits the motor vehicle accident, but denies the remaining allegations of paragraph two.

3. The allegations of paragraph three are denied and strict proof demanded.

FIRST DEFENSE

4. Defendant pleads contributory negligence of Plaintiff.

SECOND DEFENSE

5. Defendant pleads negligence of third parties over whom this Defendant had no control.

THIRD DEFENSE

6. Defendant pleads lack of causation.

FOURTH DEFENSE

7. Plaintiffs Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

8. Defendant reserves leave to amend his answer upon completion and during the course of discovery to set forth additional applicable affirmative defenses. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant, Tyler Wade Doerr, prays that Plaintiff take nothing by way of its Petition and that Defendant have his costs, attorney fees, and any additional relief the Court deems just and proper for the defense of this litigation.

Texoma Pizza, L.P. appeared and answered as follows:

I.

Defendant Texoma admits this Court has jurisdiction and venue over the parties hereto and the causes herein. Defendant Texoma denies all other allegations contained in paragraph I of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

II.

Defendant Texoma denies the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s Sebond Amended Petition and demands strict proof thereof

III.

Defendant Texoma denies that Defendant Doerr was an agent, servant and ernploy of Domino’s. Defendant Texoma admits that Defendant Doeff was an employee of Texoma and that he was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Defendant Texoma is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph III of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof thereof.

IV.

Defendant Texoma denies the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs Second Amended Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Defendant Texoma denies that it committed any act of negligence which caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged damages.

2. Plaintiff’s injury and damages, if any, may be from the result of pre-existing conditions, natural causes or causes not related to the automobile accident in question.

3. Defendant Texoma pleads sudden emergency.

4. Defendant Texoma pleads unavoidable accident.

5. Plaintiffs complaint of damages may be reduced or barred by the doctrine of failure to mitigate.

6. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendant Texoma upon which relief may be granted.

7. Should Defendant Texoma be found to have acted in a negligent manner, which is not admitted, but is expressly denied; Texoma states that Plaintiff Timothy E. McCormick was also negligent and that his negligence exceeded that of Defendant Texoma herein so as to bar recovery.

8. Plaintiffs injuries were caused by the negligent actions/inactions of a third party over which this Defendant has no control.

9. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Statue of Limitations.

10. Plaintiffs damages maybe limited by 47 O.S. § 7-116.'

11. Defendant Texoma reserves the right to amend or modify its Answer upon completion of discovery.

WHEREFORE, PREMISIS CONSIDERED, the Defendant Texoma Pizza, LP prays that it be dismissed from this cause of action with the costs and attorney’s fees expended herein and for any and all other relief as the court may deem just and proper.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: Digested and reported by Colletta McNew