Date: 06-06-2013

Case Style: Jose Pacheco v. Navarro Ovidio Lopez

Case Number: CJ-2012-451

Judge: Linda G. Morrissey

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Michael Eugene Carr, Patrick E. Carr, Guy A. Thiessen, A. Laurie Killer, Raymond S. Allred

Defendant's Attorney: Timothy F. Crow

Description: Jose Pacheco sued Navarro Ovidio Lopez on an auto negligence theory claiming:

1. This case arises out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on or about March 17, 2010, in the City of Tulsa, County of Tulsa and State of Oklahoma.

2. On or about said date, Defendant was driving westbound on Highway 51 just east of Memorial Drive when he to moved his vehicle into his adjacent lane of travel which was occupied by the Plaintiffs vehicle. This action caused Defendant to collide with Plaintiffs vehicle and forced it into a retaining wall.

3. At the time of the collision, Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol.

4. The collision was caused by the negligence of the Defendant as follows:

A. He was driving too fast for conditions;

B. Hewas careless;

C. He failed to maintain a proper lookout;

D. He was driving while under the influence of alcohol;

E. He failed to yield to Plaintiffs vehicle

F. He violated various Statutes of the State of Oklahoma; and

0. He was otherwise negligent as will be more fully set forth after discovery is completed.

5. As a result of the negligence and recklessness of the Defendant, Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages in excess of $75,000.00 as follows:

A. Past medical expenses

B. Future medical expenses;

C. Past pain and suffering

D. Future pain and suffering

E. Past lost wages;

F. Future lost wages;

G. Loss of earning capacity;

H. Punitive damages;

L. Permanent impairment

J. Disfigurement;

K. Other damages to be more fully set forth after discovery is completed.

6. The actions of Defendant were such that exemplar and punitive damages should be assessed in an amount in excess of $75,000.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant for the injuries and damages set forth above, costs of suit herein incurred, interest and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

1. The facts and allegations set forth in numbered Paragraph One of Plaintiff’s Petition are
admitted.

2. As to the facts and allegations set forth in numbered Paragraph Two of Plaintiff’s
Petition, Defendant admits driving westbound on Highway 51 in the area described, but denies the remainder of that paragraph, and either denies all further allegations in Plaintiff’s Petition or has insufficient information to admit or deny and denies them on that basis. Defendant specifically denies negligence/recklessness, and denies being under the influence of alcohol.

3.

This Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every material allegation contained in the Petition of the Plaintiff except that which may be heretofore admitted.
Defendant readopts and reallegcs the statements previously made herein.

DEFENSES AND AVOIDANCES

4.

For further answer and defense, this Defendant states that Plaintiffs occurrence was an unavoidable accident, casualty, and/or misfortune occurring without fault on the part of this Defendant.

5.

For further answer and defense, this Defendant states that he was confronted with a sudden emergency, not of his own making, and thereafter exercised his best judgment in making every reasonable attempt to avoid an accident.

6.

For further answer and defense, this Defendant states that if he was guilty of negligence, which he does not admit, but specifically denies, that the Plaintiff, JOSE PACHECO, was guilty of comparative negligence to such an extent as to bar him recovery under Oklahoma law of comparative negligence.

7.

For further answer and defense, should the Defendant be found negligent, which is not admitted but is expressly denied, this Defendant states that his negligence was not the direct cause of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damage.

8.

For further answer and defense, the Defendant would state that no recovery of damages should be allowed for any losses that the Plaintiff reasonably could have avoided and failed to do so.

9.

For further answer and defense, this Defendant states that the injuries complained of in Plaintiff’s Petition are the result of preexisting health problems that were neither caused nor aggravated by this Defendant and for which this Defendant is not liable.

10.

For further answer and defense, this Defendant states that the direct cause of Plaintiff’s occurrence was by the negligence of third parties over whom this Defendant had no control, and for those acts this Defendant is not responsible.

11.

For further answer and defense, this Defendant would state that the injuries complained of in Plaintiff’s Petition are 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.

12.

Inasmuch as Plaintiff prays for punitive damages, an award of such damages should be denied for the reason that such an award violates the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and Article 2, Section 6; Article 2, Section 7; and Article 5, Section 59 of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, as well as the Equal Protection Cause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the Articles of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma in that the awarding of disproportionate judgments against defendants who commit similar offenses resulting in similar injury, but who differ only in material wealth, constitutes an arbitrary and invidious discrimination prohibited by said equal protection of said Equal Protection Clause of the respective Constitutions set forth.

13.

For further answer and defense, this Defendant reserves the right to plead additional affirmative defenses and amend his Answer upon the completion of discovery.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant, NAVARRO OVIDIO LOPEZ, prays for judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiff, together with his costs of this action and such other and further relief as the Court deems is just and equitable.

Defendant offered to confess judgment in favor of Plaintiff pursuant to 12 O.S. 1101.1 in the amount of $50,000.00.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: