Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 12-11-2013
Case Style: Andrew Johnson Jonely, Special Administrator and Estate of Shari Lynn Jonley, deceased, v. Candas Lindsey
Case Number: CJ-2012-3671
Judge: Daman H. Cantrell
Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Call Kent Morlan at 918-582-6422 if you need a personal injury lawyer in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Defendant's Attorney: William Vanburkleo
Description:
Call Kent Morlan at 888-354-4529 if you need a personal injury lawyer in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Andrew Johnson Jonely, Special Administrator and Estate of Shari Lynn Jonley, deceased, sued Candas Lindsey on an auto negligence theory claiming:
1. On or about July 22, 2010, Plaintiff was smick by a vehicle driven by the Defendant, Candas iĂ dsey, while walking on private properly located in Tulsa County State of Oklahoma,
2. The defendant is a resident of the City of Tulsa, County of Tulsa, StAte of Oklahoma.
3. The accident described above was caused by the negligence and/or negligence per se of the Defendant in the operation of her motor vehicle.
4. As a direct aid proximate result of the Defendant’s conduct, Shari L. Jonely sustained permanent, irreversible severe bodily injurieà , medical expenses, physical and mental pain and suffering.
5. That as a result of the above-referenced acts, the Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount in excess of $75,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that th Coprt enter judgment against the Defendant to a amount in excess of $75,000.00 plus costs, interest, and any other relief that Court deems equitable and just.
Defendant appeared and answered as follows:
1.
Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every material allegation ctained in the Petition filed on behalf of the Plaintiff except for those which may be specifically admitted hereinafter.
2.
Defendant admits the allegations contained within numbered Paragraph 2 of the
Plaintiff’s Petition.
3.
Defendant admits that there was a collision between the automobile operated by Defendant and Shari Lynn Jonely at the approximate time and location alleged in Plaintiff’s Petition.
4.
Defendant denies the allegations of negligence contained within numbered Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of Plaintiff’s Petition.
5.
Defendant is without sufficient information, knowledge or belief to either admit or deny the remaining allegations within the Plaintiff’s Petition and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof thereof.
ADDITIONAL RESPONSES
6.
The negligence of Shari Lynn Jonely was more than fifty percent (50%) the cause of this accident, thereby preventing Plaintiff’s recovery herein against this Defendant. Alternatively, Defendant alleges that the negligence of the Plaintiff was a cause of this accident, thereby reducing Plaintiff’s recovery herein against this Defendant.
7.
As to Defendant, the accident was unavoidable and occurred without negligence on her part.
8.
Defendant states that Shari Lynn Jonely failed to use ordinary care with due regard to the existing conditions to prevent injury to herself.
9.
Defendant states that Shari Lynn Jonely failed to keep a proper lookout.
10.
Defendant states that no recovery of damages should be allowed for any losses that Shari Lynn Jonely reasonably could have avoided and failed to do so.
11.
Defendant denies the nature and extent of Shari Lynn Jonely’s injuries and damages, if any.
12.
Defendant states that the injuries complained of in Plaintiff’s Petition may be the result of preexisting health problems that were neither caused nor aggravated by this Defendant and for which this Defendant is not liable.
13.
Defendant states that the injuries complained olin Plaintiff’s Petition may be the result of health care problems which developed subsequent to the date of the alleged accident, which were neither caused nor aggravated by this Defendant and for which this Defendant is not liable.
14.
Reasonableness and necessity of medical treatment.
15.
Defendant reserves the right to plead additional defenses and amend her Answer upon the completion of discovery.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant, Candas Lindsey, prays for judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiff, together with her costs of this action and such other and further relief as the Court deems is just and equitable.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: