Date: 09-07-2012

Case Style: Heather Laxton v. Seth Logan Evans

Case Number: CJ-2012-2063

Judge: Linda G. Morrisey

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: James C. Linger

Defendant's Attorney: R. Scott Williams

Description: Heather Laxton sued Seth Logan Evans on an auto negligence (car wreck) theory claiming:

1. Plaintiff Heather Laxton (hereinafter sometimes referred to as Plaintiff Laxton) is a resident of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. The Defendant, Seth Logan Evans (hereinafter sometimes referred to as Defendant Evans), is a resident of Claremore, Rogers County, State of Oklahoma The instant case involves an accident which occurred in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, and, therefore, this Court has junsdietion and venue over the parties and the ease at bar.

2. On April 26, 2010, Plaintiff Laxton’s vehicle was westbound on East 51St Street in the left lane when Plaintiff Laxton stopped to turn left. Defendant Evans was westbound on East 51st Street when he failed to maintain a proper speed and lookout for the position of the traffic near him, resulting in Defendant Evans failing to timely stop his vehicle and crashing into the rear of Plaintiff Laxton’s vehicle.

3. That the direct and proximate cause of said collision was the negligence and want of proper care by the Defendant Evans, resulting in damages and injury to the Plaintiff Laxton as hereinafter set forth:


COUNT I

Plaintiff Laxton realleges and restates each and every material allegation as contained in the facts common to all counts, and alleges and states in addition thereto as follows, to-wit:

4. That as the direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence of the aforesaid Defendant Evans, Plaintiff Laxton sustained painful and severe temporary and permanent injuries and damages, including pain and suffering, and Plaintiff Laxton has been damaged in a sum in excess of $10,000.00.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff Laxton demands a jury trial, prays for a judgment against the Defendant Evans on the first Count in excess of $10,000.00, for interest thereon, for costs herein expended, and such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT II

Plaintiff Laxton realleges and restates each and every material allegation as contained in the facts common to all Counts and Count I hereinabove, and alleges and states in addition thereto as follows, to-wit:

5. That as a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence of the Defendant Evans, Plaintiff Laxton required medical care and treatment to be expended, and the reasonable present and necessary medical expenses and the anticipated costs of future necessary medical expenses are in excess of $10,000.00 for Plaintiff Laxton’s injuries sustained in said collision as caused by the aforesaid negligence of Defendant Evans.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff Laxton demands a Jury Trial, prays for a judgment against Defendant Evans on Count II in a sum in excess of $10,000.00, for interest thereon, for costs herein expended, and such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and just.

Defendants answered claiming:

1 The Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 1.

2. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 2.

3. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 3.

4. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 4.

5. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 5.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

6. Should the Defendant be found negligent, which is not admitted but is specifically denied, the defendant states that any negligence was not the cause of the Plaintiffs alleged damages, if any.

7. The Defendant state the damages, if any, were solely and proximately caused by the contributory negligence of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is barred from recove under Oklahoma law.

8. Plaintiffs comparable negligence bars any recovery from the Defendant.

9. The negligence of a third party is the proximate cause of the Plaintiffs alleged damages.

10. The damage alleged by the Plaintiffs is pre-existing damage and not related to the events which are the subject of this lawsuit.

11. The Plaintiff s claims for punitive damages violate this Defendant’s protections as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma.

12. The investigation and discovery of this Defendant is not complete, and it therefore reserve the right to amend her Answer to allege any additional defenses, affirmative defenses, cross claims, counter claims or third party claims which such investigation and discovery may reveal.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Plaintiffs Petition, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Court dismiss this action, or in the alternative, judgment be entered in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff, together with any other relief this Court deems proper under the law.

Outcome: COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Heather Laxton, and hereby dismisses the above entitled cause with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: