Date: 04-20-2013

Case Style: Carol Longacre v. Jeremy Gormley

Case Number: CJ-2012-2652

Judge: Linda G. Morrissey

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Ian Michael Shahan

Defendant's Attorney: Meredith D. Lindaman and Mark W. Mcguire

Description: 1. Plaintiff is an individual residing in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

2. Defendant resides in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

3 All acts complamed of herein occurred m Tulsa County, Oklahoma

4. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties hereto, as well as subjeo± matter jurisdiction.

5. On or about May 21, 2010 an automobile accident occurred involving the vehicles driven by Plaintiff and Defendant. Upon information and belief, Defendant was traveling at a high rate of speed in excess of the legal limit on the Broken Arrow Expressway in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Defendant also failed to keep a proper lookout and negligently collided his vehicle with the back end of Plaintiff’s vehicle while traveling at an unsafe speed.

6. The accident described in paragraph five (5) was proximately caused by the negligence of Defendant.

7. Defendant’s negligence proximately caused extensive physical injuries and pain and suffering to Plaintiff.

8. Plaintiff is entitled to recover compensation from Defendant for damages.

9. The damages sought by Plaintiff, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), which is in excess of the federal jurisdictional limits.

10. The actions of Defendant represent gross negligence in reckless disregard for public safety thereby warranting the imposition of punitive damages.

11. As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff has suffered damages for medical treatment, permanent injury, mental anguish, physical pain, inconvenience, trauma, suffering, loss of wages, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium, punitive damages, and other damages in an amount to be determined by the jury, but in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, respectfully prays that judgment be entered against Defendant as prayed for above, together with such special and punitive damages as provided by law, as well as recovery of costs incurred including attorneys’ fees as allowed by law and for such other and Iuirther relief as Plaintiff has shown herself entitled.

Defendant appeared and answered as follows:

I.

This Defendant denies, both generally and specifically, each and every material afIgation contained therein and demands strict proof thereof, except that which may be hereinafter adtted

II.

This Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to allow the formation of a belief or opinion as to the truth of the matters asserted in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Plaintiff’s Petition and therefore denies the same, demanding strict proof thereof.

III.

This Defendant specifically denies those allegations contained in Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of Plaintiffs Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

IV.

The Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against this Defendant upon which relief can be granted.

V.

For further answer and defense, this Defendant states that Plaintiff may have been guilty of contributory/comparative negligence to such an extent as to bar his recovery under the Oklahoma law of contributory/comparative negligence.

VI.

This Defendant would specifically deny that the alleged injuries and damages claimed by Plaintiff are the direct and proximate result of this motor vehicle accident and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial.

VII.

This Defendant would state that any injuries, damages or losses sustained by Plaintiff may have been solely and proximately caused by the negligence of third persons, not parties to this action, who are not agents, employees or servants of this Defendant, and over whom this Defendant exercised no degree of authority or control.

VIII.

The Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages is unconstitutional and violates the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and of Article 2, Section 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution for the following reasons: (a) the standards under which such claims are submitted are so vague as to be effectively meaningless and threaten a deprivation of property for the benefit of society without the protection of fundamentally fair procedures; (b) the highly penal nature of punitive damages threatens the possibility of excessive punishment and almost limitless liability without the benefit of fundamentally fair procedures or any statutory limitations; (c) the introduction of evidence of this Defendant’s financial worth is so prejudicial as to impose liability and punishment in a maimer bearing no relation to the extent of any injury allegedly inflicted or to any benefit to this Defendant from any alleged wrongdoing and, therefore, any verdict would be the result of bias and prejudice in a fundamentally unfair manner.

IX.

Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages constitutes an unconstitutional excessive fine under Article 2, Section 9 of the Oklahoma Constitution because such highly penal sanctions may be imposed for the benefit of society under standards so vague and effectively meaningless as to threaten unlimited punishment bearing no relation to the extent of any injury allegedly inflicted at the unbridled discretion of the jury.

X.

This Defendant hereby pleads any and all affirmative defenses available to him under the Oklahoma Pleading Code, now or which may hereinafter be applicable.

XI.

This Defendant specifically reserves the right to plead additional defenses, delete or modify defenses plead, upon the completion of discovery or as facts warrant.

WHEREFORE, having answered, this Defendant requestsjudgment in his favor and against Plaintiff, for his costs and attorney’s fees incurred, and any other and further relief that the Court deems just and equitable.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: