Date: 03-22-2013

Case Style: Angela Richardson v. Independent School District No. 1

Case Number: CJ-2012-439

Judge: Jefferson D. Sellers

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Donald E. Smolen, Sr. and Bryan L. Smith

Defendant's Attorney: Eric Wade and Cheryl A. Dixon

Description: Angela Richardson sued Independent School District No. 1 claiming:


COMES NOW the Plaintiff, ANGELIA R1CHARDSON, the mother and next friend of EMONIE CRAWL, a minor, and for her causes of action against the Defendant, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 OF TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, allege and
state as follows:

1. That the Plaintiff is a resident of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. That the complaint alleged herein occurred in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, and that this Court hasjurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter herein. That the Plaintiffs have complied with the Notice and Claim Provisions of the Governmental Tort Claims Act, Specifically, 51 O.S. Section 156 A (Supp. 1986), as evidenced by a copy of the Notice of said claim dated October 20, 2011, submitted by Plaintiff and marked as “Exhibit A” which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. That 90 days has passed since Plaintiff has issued Notice of Claim and said claim remains unresolved.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

2. On September 19,2011, on Interstate 444 near its intersection with Denver Avenue in Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, William Junior Connery negligently operated his bus causing a collision and resulting in serious personal injuries to the minor Plaintiff.

3. The Plaintiff is jnformcd and believes that at all times relative hereto and specifically at the time the accident occurred from which this cause of action arose said William Junior Coimery was not acting in an individual capacity and that said unidentified bus driver was the agent, servant, and employee of Defendant, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 OF TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, performing said acts for the Defendant, ThIDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 OF TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, within the scope and course of his agency, servitude, and employment; carrying on and furthering the business interests of the Defendant, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.1 OF TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA; and further, that the bus driven by said unidentified bus driver was owned and serviced by the Defendant, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 OF TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, and therefore, any negligence of said unidentified bus driver should be directly imputed to the Defendant, INDEPENDENT

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 OF TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA.

4. As a result ofthe negligence of said William Junior Connery, the employee ofthe Defendant, the minor Plaintiff was injured and her injuries are permanent, painfifi and progressive. When injured, EMONTE CRAWL, was 14 years of age with a life expectancy of 62.2 more years according to the U. S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2003.

5. As a result of said injuries, minor Plaintiff, EMONIE CRAWL, has and will incur medical expenses and has and will suffer pain of mind and body.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ANGELIA RICHARDSON, as parent and next friend of EMONIE CRAWL, a minor, prays forjudgment against the Defendant, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.1 OF TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, in an amount of $60,000.00, together with the costs of this action.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

1. COMES NOW the Plaintiff, ANGELIA RICHARDSON, and for her SECOND CAUSE OF
ACTION, hereby re-adopts and re-alleges the allegations contained within paragraphs 1-5 of the
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION as if fully re-stated herein, and further states and alleges as follows:

2. That as a result of the negligence of the Defendant servant, agent and employee, Plaintiffs minor child, EMONIE CRAWL, was injured. As a result of the injuries, Plaintiff, ANGELIA RICHARDSON, has and will incur medical expenses on behalf of said minor child and has and will suffer both emotional and mental pain and anguish.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ANGELIA RICHARDSON, prays for judgment against the Defendant, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 OF TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, in an amount of $60,000.00 together with the costs of this action.

Defendant appeared and answered as follows:


I The School District denies all allegations in the Petition that are not specially admitted hereafter.

2. The School District is without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs Petition regarding the county of Plaintiffs residence; therefore, the School District denies those allegations. The School District admits that the incident about which Plaintiff complains occurred in Tulsa County, Oklahoma and that this court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter, but the School District denies any inference that the Plaintiff has a meritorious cause of action against the School District. The School District admits that it received Plaintiffs purported tort notice dated
October 20, 2011, and that 90 days has passed since its receipt, but the School District denies
that Plaintiff complied with the Notice and Claim Provisions of the Governmental Tort Claims Act, OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 156(A).

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

3. In answer to paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs Petition, the School District admits that on September 19, 2011, there was a collision involving a School District bus operated by William Junior Connery II, in the area of Interstate 44 near the Denver Avenue intersection in Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, and that the minor Plaintiff, E.C., was a passenger on the bus at the time of the collision. The School District denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s Petition,

4. In answer to paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs Petition, the School District admits that on September 19, 2011, William Junior Coimery II, was operating a school bus owned and serviced by the School District as an employee of the School District. The School District denies the remaining allegations contained within paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Petition. The School District specifically denies that there was any other “unidentified bus driver” operating the bus at the time of the collision that is the subject of this action.

5. The School District denies the allegations contained in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Plaintiffs Petition.

6. In answer to Plaintiffs first prayer for relief contained in the final, unnumbered paragraph on page two of the Petition, the School District denies that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the School District. The School District further denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever, including, but not limited to that requested in Plaintiff’s first prayer for relief.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

7. In answer to paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action on page three of her Petition, the School District readopts and reincorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 5 of Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action.

8. The School District denies the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action on page three of the Petition.

9. In answer to Plaintiff’s second prayer for relief of her second cause of action contained in the final, unnumbered paragraph on page three of the Petition, the School District denies that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the School District. The School District further denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever, including, but not limited to that requested in Plaintiff’s second prayer for relief

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES1

Pleading further alternatively by way of affirmative defenses, the School District states:

10. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the School District upon which relief can be granted.

11. The School District is immune from liability to Plaintiff for any actions or injuries caused by persons other than employees of the School District acting within the scope of their employment. OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 153.

12. The School District is immune from liability based on acts or omissions of any employee of the School District acting outside the scope of their employment. OKLA. STAT. tit.
51, § 153.

13. To the extent damages claimed by the Plaintiff are covered by insurance, paid or reimbursed by any other party, no claim may be made against the School District for recovery of those damages, OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 155(27).

14. The School District is inmuine from any action based on acts or omissions performed in conformance with current recognized standards. OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 155(29).

15. The School District is immune from any action based on the perfonnance of or the failure to exercise or perform any act or service which is in the discretion of the School District or its employees, OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 155(5).

16. The School District is exempt from liability for any claim based on an act or omission of an employee in the placement of a child. OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 155(28).

17. Pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 154(G), liability of the School District “shall be several from that of any other person or entity,” and the School District “shall only be liable for that percentage of total damages as corresponds to its percentage of total negligence.”

18. The School District is immune from liability to Plaintiff pursuant to the exemptions from liability of the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act including, but not limited to, OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 155 (4), (5), (16), (28), and (29).

19. The injuries alleged in Plaintiffs Petition, if any, were the result of a supervening or superseding cause and were unforeseeable.

20. In accordance with OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 1 54(A)(2), the School District’s total liability to Plaintiff cannot exceed $125,000.

21. The School District is not liable because it did not cause Plaintiff’s injuries.

22. The School District acted appropriately at all relevant times and in conformance with all applicable laws regarding the allegations raised by the Plaintiff.

23. Plaintiff was comparatively or contributorily negligent.

24. Third party liability.

25. Assumption of the risk.

26. Unavoidable accident.

27. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her alleged damages, if any.

28. The School District reserves the right to amend its Answer through the close of discovery and submission of the pretrial order.

29. The School District demands TRIAL BY JURY.

WHEREFORE, the School District demands that judgment be entered in its favor and that it be granted all costs incurred in defense hereof, including reasonable attorney fees, and all other relief that the court deems just and appropriate.

Outcome: Now on this 6th day of February, 2013, this matter comes on for hearing before the undersigned Judge of the District Court. Plaintiffs, Angelia Richardson, individually, and as parent and next friend of E.C., a minor child (the “Plaintiffs”), appears in person and by her attorney, Bryan Smith of SMOLEN & SMITH. Defendant, Independent School District No. 1 of Tulsa County, Oklahoma (the “School District”), appears by its attorney, Cheryl A. Dixon of the firm ROSENSTEIN, FIST & RINGOLD. Trial by jury is waived by all parties.
The court, being fully advised in the premises and having listened to testimony of the witness(es), finds that a Settlement Agreement has been entered into between the parties to settle this matter for the total amount of Thirteen Thousand Dollars ($13,00O.00). The $13,000 recovered shall be divided as follows:

a. EMSA shall receive $1,127 00 for outstanding medical expenses;

b. St John Medical Center shall receive $1,798 00 for outstanding medical
expenses;

c. ER Physicians shall receive $188.50 for outstanding medical expenses;

d. Tulsa Radiology Associates shall receive $121.00 for outstanding medical expenses;

e. Crestwood Clinic shall receive $3.213.50 for outstanding medical expenses;

f. Smolen & Smith shall receive $5,200.00 for attorney’s fees and $411.45 for costs.

g. The minor plaintiff, E.C., shall receive the remaining sum or $940.55.
The court finds that the settlement amount and breakdown is reasonable and should be and the same is hereby approved.

The court makes no finding regarding the issue of liability of the School District, but finds that the Settlement Agreement is reasonable insofar as the injuries and damages of the Plaintiffs are concerned.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Plaintiffs should be and is hereby granted judgment against the School District in the total amount of $13,000.00.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the $13,000.00 recovered by Plaintiffs shall be
divided as follows:

a. EMSA shall receive $1,127.00 for outstanding medical expenses;

b. St. John Medical Center shall receive $1,798.00 for outstanding medical expenses;

c. ER Physicians shall receive $188.50 for outstanding medical expenses;

d. Tulsa Radiology Associates shall receive $121.00 for outstanding medical expenses;

e. Crestwood Clinic shall receive $3 .213.50 for outstanding medical expenses;

f. Smolen & Smith shall receive $5,200.00 for attorney’s fees and $411.45 for costs.

g. The minor plaintiff, E.C., shall receive the remaining sum or $940.55.
Done this 6th day of February, 2013.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: