Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 12-12-2013
Case Style: Jamie Matos and Lakeitta Frye v. Tara Beeann Bennett
Case Number: CJ-2012-4461
Judge: Carlos Chappelle
Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Eric Duaine Janzen and Douglas R. Scott
Description: Jamie Matos and Lakeitta Frye sued Tara Beeann Bennett on an auto negligence theory claiming:
1. The Plaintiff, Jaime Matos, is a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
2. The Plaintiff, Lakeitta Frye, is a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
3. The Defendant, Tara Deeann Bennett, is a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
4. The accident and injuries that are the subject of this dispute occurred in Tulsa County,
Oklahoma.
5. This Court has jurisdiction and venue is proper in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
6. Paragraphs 1-5 are incorporated herein by reference.
7. On or around August 28, 2010, Mr. Matos was driving northbound on South Peoria
Avenue with Mrs. Frye in the front passenger seat.
8. At this time, an EMSA unit was traveling in emergency status with lights and siren, eastbound on East 2l Street towards St. John’s Emergency Room. As the EMSA unit approached South Peoria Avenue, it came to a complete stop at a red light and cleared the intersection. After clearing the intersection, the EMSA unit proceeded forward in the inside line.
9. At this time, Mrs. Bennett was also traveling southbound on South Peoria Avenue. Mrs. Bennett had a green light at the intersection of South 21St Street, but failed to recognize and yield to the EMSA unit and swerved in an attempt to avoid a collision. Her attempt was a failure however, as the EMSA unit directly impacted Mrs. Bennet’s passenger side door.
10. Following the impact, Mrs. Bennet’s car continued forward and collided into Mr. Matos’ vehicle.
11. The collision resulted in substantial damage to the Plaintiff Matos’ vehicle.
12. The force exerted on Plaintiffs from this collision resulted in serious injuries to their persons.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Ncplipence A2ainst Tara Deeann Bennett
13. Paragraphs 1-12 are incorporated herein by reference.
14. Mrs. Bennett owed a duty to the Plaintiffs, and all other drivers on thc road, to operate the vehicle under her control in a safe and reasonable manner, using ordinary care to prevent injury to other persons and to keep a lookout consistent with the safety of other vehicles.
15. By failing to operate the vehicle in such a way, and by acting recklessly with complete disregard for the health and well-being of the Plaintiffs, Jaime Matos and Lakeitta Frye, and all other drivers on the road, the Defendant breached the duty she owed to the Plaintiffs.
16. This breach by the Defendant was the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiff Matos’ and Plaintiff Frye’s injuries.
17. As a result of Defendants negligence, the Plaintiffs have suffered property damage, personal injuries, including medical expenses, mental and physical pains and sufferings, and other actual damages in excess of $75,000.00.
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs pray that this Court grant them the relief sought including, but not limited to, actual damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000), with interest accruing from date of filing of suit, punitive damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000), reasonable attorneys fees, and all other relief deemed appropriate by this Court.
Defendant appeared and answered, as follows:
1. Defendant is without sufficient information or belief to either admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore denies the same with strict proof demanded.
2 Defendant is without sufficient information or belief to either admit or ciy the allegations in paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore denies the same krith strictiwoof demanded
3. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.
4. Defendant admits that the accident occurred in Tulsa County. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs’ Petition with strict proof demanded.
5. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.
6. Defendant incorporates her responses to paragraphs 1-5 in response to paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.
7. Defendant is without sufficient information or belief to either admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, and therefore denies the same with strict proof demanded.
8. Defendant admits that an EMSA unit was traveling eastbound on East 21st Street on the date in question. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs’ Petition with strict proof demanded.
9. Defendant admits that Defendant was traveling southbound on South Peoria Avenue on the date in question. Defendant admits that Defendant had a green light at the intersection of South 21st Street. Defendant admits that the EMSA unit impacted the passenger side of Defendant’s vehicle. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs’ Petition with strict proof demanded.
10. Defendant admits that a collision between Defendant’s vehicle and Plaintiffs’ vehicle occurred on the date in question. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs’ Petition with strict proof demanded.
11. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.
12. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.
13. Defendant incorporates her responses to paragraphs 1-12 in response to paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs’ Petition
14. Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs’ Petition contains only a legal conclusion, and has no factual allegations that require a response from Defendant. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs’ Petition with strict proof demanded.
15. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.
16. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.
17. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
18. Plaintiffs’ Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
19. Statute of Limitations.
20. Contributory and/or comparative negligence of Plaintiffs.
21. Negligence of Daniel Sisco.
22. Negligence of EMSA.
23. Negligence of non-parties.
24. Unavoidable accident.
25. Sudden emergency.
26. Some or all of the damages claimed by Plaintiffs were not caused by the event described in Plaintiffs’ Petition, but some other event, accident, or condition.
27. Defendant disputes the nature and extent of Plaintiffs’ damages.
28. Defendant disputes the reasonableness and necessity of Plaintiffs’ medical treatment.
29. Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages.
30. Punitive damages are unconstitutional.
31. Payment.
32. Release.
33. Accord and satisfaction.
Defendant reserves the right to amend or supplement her Answer, including affirmative defenses, as discovery progresses.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Tara Deeann Bennett respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ prayer and enter judgment in favor of Defendant against Plaintiffs’ claims and further grant Defendant her costs, reasonable attorney fees and any such other relief the Court deems her entitled.
Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: