Date: 12-31-2013

Case Style: Ryan Gaul and Erica Tredwell v. Daniel Wilson

Case Number: CJ-2012-4976

Judge: Jefferson D. Sellers

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Chris Knight

Defendant's Attorney: Kurt Hoffman

Description: Ryan Gaul and Erica Tredwell sued Daniel Wilson on an auto negligence theory claiming:

I.

Erica Treadwell was driving her vehicle westbound on West Washington Street in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma on February 17, 2009, and was stopped in obedience to a traffic light behind other traffic ahead of her vehicle when the Defendant, Daniel Wilson, negligently drove his vehicle into the rear of Erica Treadwell’s vehicle. Erica Treadwell’s minor child, Morgan Treadwell, and Ryan Gaul were passengers in Erica Treadwell’s vehicle at the time of the collision.

II.

As a result of Defendants’ negligence, Erica Treadwell and Ryan Gaul were injured, were physically impaired, suffered pain of body and mind, and incurred expenses for medical care and treatment. Morgan Treadwell was injured, suffered pain of body, and medical expenses were incurred for her treatment.

III.

The claims asserted herein werepreviously the basis for a lawsuit filed in District Court of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma and assigned Case Number: CJ-2011-951. The case failed otherwise than on the merits when it was dismissed without prejudice on September 22, 2011. This action is timely filed within one year from that event pursuant to 12 0.S. § 100.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendant in an amount less than the amount required for diversity jurisdiction but in excess of $10,000.00, together with the costs of this action, interest at the statutory rate, and any and all other relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled.

Defendant, Daniel Wilson, appeared and answered, as follows:

1.

It is admitted that a collision occurred between the Plaintiff, ERICA TREADWELL, RYAN GAUL and MORGAN TREAD WELL, and the Defendant, DANIEL WILSON, February 17,2009. However, this Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the remaining facts and allegations set forth in Plaintiffs’ Petition and thus denies same. The Defendant, however, the Defendant admits fault in the operating of his motor vehicle.

2.

This Defendant denies generally and specifically each and every material alleg •oii— contained in the Petition of the Plaintiffs except that which may be heretofore admitted.

Defendant readopts and re-alleges the statements previously made herein.

DEFENSES

3.

For further answer and defense, this Defendant states that if he was guilty of negligence, that the Plaintiffs, ERICA TREAD WELL, in her individual capacity as well as her capacity as natural guardian of MORGAN TREAD WELL and RYAN GAUL may be guilty of comparative negligence to such an extent as to bar them recovery under Oklahoma law of comparative negligence.

4.

For further answer and defense, should the Defendant be found negligent, this Defendant states that his negligence may not the direct cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damage.

5.

For further answer and defense, this Defendant would state the Plaintiffs failed to use ordinary care with due regard to the existing conditions to prevent injury to themselves.

6.

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

7.

For further answer and defense, this Defendant states that the injuries complained of in Plaintiffs’ 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.

8.

For further answer and defense, this Defendant would state that the injuries complained of in Plaintiffs’ 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.

9.

For further answer and defense, this Defendant would state that the Plaintiffs may have assumed the risk of injury resulting from the negligence of this Defendant, if any, by voluntarily and unreasonably exposing themselves to injury with the knowledge and appreciation of the danger and risk involved.

10.

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, DANIEL WILSON, prays for judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiffs, together with his costs of this action and such other and further relief as the Court deems is just and equitable.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendant offered to allow Plaintiffs to take judgment in their favor pursuant to 12 O.S. 1101 in the amount of $2,500.00.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: