Date: 07-12-2013

Case Style: Ralph Lewis Bauer, Jr. v. Gary L. Harig

Case Number: CJ-2012-4688

Judge: Daman H. Cantrell

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Charles M. Fox and Trevan Vance Morrow

Defendant's Attorney: Rhonda G. Thomas

Description: Ralph Lewis Bauer, Jr. sued Gary L. Harig on an auto negligence theory claiming:

1. This is an action arising out of an auto collision;

2. At all times material hercto, Plaintiflis and was a citizen and resident of Osage County, Oklahoma;

3. At all times material hereto, Defendant is and was a citizen of Tulsa County, Oklahoma;

4. The negligent acts complained of herein including all acts, omissions or occurrences occurred in Tulsa County, Oklahoma;

5. Based upon the foregoing, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein and venue is proper in Tulsa County District Court;

STATEMENT OF OPERATIVE FACTS

6. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs I through 5 herein as set forth verbatim.

On September 8, 2010 PlaintifF was proceeding westbound on 15th street in the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma with unrestricted right of way, when Defendant failed to yield from a stop sign at the intersection of 15th street and Cheyenne Avenue causing an accident between Plaintiff and Defendant;

8. Defendant failed to yield from a stop sign in violation of the traffic code of the City of Tulsa and as a result Defendant was negligent per se;

9. As a result of the negligent acts of Defendant, Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged and Plaintiff was injured and has suffered damages as a result thereof

10. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence! gross negligence, Plaintiffs physical injuries require past and continued medical treatment, significant medical expenses and has caused past and permanent physical disability, physical and mental pain suffering, Plaintiff has sustained income loss and Plaintiff has sustained a property damage loss in the sum of $6,000.00.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF - NEGLIGENCE AND/OR GROSS NEGLIGENCE

11. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-11 herein as set forth verbatim;

12. Defendant owes Plaintiff and the public at large a duty of reasonable care while operating a motor vehicle. At the time of the collision described herein Defendant breached his duty of care by failing to operate his vehicle in a safe and proper manner by failing to yield from a stop sign. Such action and!or failures to act constitute negligence and negligence per se.

13. As a direct result of the foregoing, Plaintiff sustained property damage and other damages including but not limited to physical injuries requiring past and continued medical treatment, past and permanent physical disability, significant medical expenses, physical pain and suffering, emotional distress and loss of income. Such damages are in an amount in excess of $10,000.00.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff requests this Court grant judgment against Defendant on Plaintiffs claims for all actual and compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the amount required for Federal Diversity Jurisdiction, award Plaintiff for his property damage loss, award all costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter in favor of the Plaintiff including attorneys fees and all other and further relief this Court deems just and equitable.

Defendant appeared and answered as follows:


1. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every material allegation contained in the Petition filed on behalf of the Plaintiff except for those which may be specifically admitted hereinafter.

2. Defendant admits that there was a collision of automobiles at the approximate time and location alleged in Plaintiff’s Petition.

3. Defendant is without sufficient information, knowledge, or belief to either admit or deny the allegations of injuries and damages alleged in Plaintiff’s Petition, and therefore denies the same, and demands strict proof thereof.

ADDITIONAL RESPONSES/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

4. The Defendant denies the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injures and damages, any.

5. The Defendant specifically denies any and all allegations of gross negligence, including but not limited to “outrageous”, “malicious” and “reckless” conduct and denies engaging in any conduct that would entitle the Plaintiff to punitive damages.

6. Discovery in this case is just commencing, and Defendant reserves the right to amend his Answer to assert additional affirmative defenses as they may be ascertained.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant prays that Plaintiff’s Petition be dismissed and Plaintiff take nothing thereby; further Defendant prays for the costs of this action and for such relief as may be fair and equitable.

Defendant offered to confess judgment as follows:

COMES NOW Defendant, Gary L. Hang, by and through Rhonda Thomas, and offers judgment to be taken against Defendant, in the sum of SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS AND 00/100 ($60,000.00), said sum to include all interest, costs, attorneys fees, and attorney and medical liens, if any, relating only to Plaintiff’s claim for bodily injury pursuant to the provisions of 12 O.S. § 1101.

Outcome: The Plaintiff, Ralph Lewis Bauer, Jr., hereby dismisses all claims against the Defendant(s), Gary L. Hang, in the above styled and numbered action with prejudice to refiling.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: