Date: 12-31-2013

Case Style: Antonio Dominque Pruitt v. Wade Andre Smith and Carrie Lea Smith

Case Number: CJ-2012-5247

Judge: Daman H. Cantrell

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Guy A. Thiessen, Patrick E. Carr, A. Laurie Koller, Michael E. CArr and Raymond S. Allred

Defendant's Attorney: Michael G. McAtee and Christine B. McInnes

Description: Antonio Dominque Pruitt sued Wade Andre Smith and Carrie Lea Smith on an auto negligence theory claiming:

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

2. On or about said date, Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Defendant Wade Andrew Smith and owned by Defendant Carrie Lea Smith. Defendant Wade Andrew Smith was driving westbound on East 96th Street North when he collided into the rear of another vehicle and departed the roadway striking utility poles and causing his vehicle to overturn and the Plaintiff to be ejected.

3. The collision was caused by the negligence of the Defendant Wade Andrew Smith as follows:

A. He was driving under the influence drugs, inhalants, and/or alcohol;

B. He was driving while distracted;

C. He was driving too fast for conditions;

D. He failed to allow a safe distance between his vehicle and the vehicle he collided into;

E. He was careless;

F. He failed to maintain proper control of his vehicle;

G. He failed to maintain a proper lookout;

H. He violated various City ordinances and Statutes of the State of Oklahoma; and

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

4. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant Wade Andrew Smith was operating the vehicle with the knowledge, permission and consent of Defendant Carrie Lea Smith.

5. Defendant Carrie Lea Smith was negligent in entrusting Defendant Wade Andrew Smith with the use of her vehicle in that she knew or should have known that Defendant Wade Andrew Smith had a propensity for negligent driving, driving while distracted and/or was otherwise not competent to drive safely.

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

A. Past medical expenses;

B. Future medical expenses;

C. Past physical pain and suffering;

D. Future physical pain and suffering;

E. Past mental pain and suffering;

F. Future mental pain and suffering;

G. Past lost wages;

H. Future lost wages;

I. Loss of earning capacity

J. Permanent impairment;

K. Punitive damages

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

7. The actions of the Defendants were such that punitive damages should be assessed in an amount in excess of $75,000.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants 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.

Defendant Wade Smith appeared and answered, as follows:

1. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

2. The Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Plamtiffs’ Amended Petition

3. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and, 6 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and demands strict proof thereof

4. The Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition, and therefore, said allegations are denied and Defendant demands strict proof thereof.

5. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of P$i\tiffs’ Amended Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

6. The Defendant denies the Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

7. The incident complained of in the Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition was caused by the negligence of third parties over whom this Defendant had no control or supervision, and therefore, liability will not attach to this Defendant.

8. The incident complained of in the Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition was the direct result of the negligence of the Plaintiffs in a degree to either prohibit or lessen any recovery thereunder.

9. The injuries complained of by the Plaintiffs were not the proximate result of any actions of Defendant.

10. The incident complained of in the Plaintiffs’ Petition was the result of a sudden emergency and/or unavoidable casualty presented to this Defendant and, at all times pertinent thereto, this Defendant acted reasonably and prudently; and therefore, liability will not attach to this Defendant.

11. The Plaintiffs were not injured as severely as alleged as a result of the incident in this suit.

12. Plaintiffs voluntarily assumed the risk of a known danger and are not entitled to recover herein.

13. The Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

14. Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages are not warranted under the facts and circumstances of this case.

15. Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages violate the Constitutions of both the State of Oklahoma and the United States of America.

16. Any award of punitive damages based on the standard of proof that is less than “clear and convincing” would violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the due process clause of the Oklahoma Constitution.

17. Any award of punitive damages based on vague and undefined standards of liability would violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the due process clause of the Oklahoma Constitution.

18. The Defendant reserves the right to amend or abandon any or all of the allegations stated.

19. It is anticipated that additional affirmative defenses will become known through the discovery process; therefore, this Defendant reserves the right to plead them as they are discovered.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Wade Andrew Smith, prays that judgment be rendered in his favor, that he be awarded his costs and attorney fees, and any and all other relief the Court deems just and equitable.

Outcome: 1 On or about December 1, 2010, in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, iIintiffsAntorno Pruitt, Walter Permaul, and Alec Wise, were involved in a motor vehicle accident with, Wade Smith while traveling westbound on 96th Street North in Owasso, Tulsa Couny, State of Oklahoma.

2. As a result of the above mentioned accident, the Defendants’ Automobile Liability Insurance Company has tendered its available liability limit of $93,000.00 to all potential claimants.

3. The Court finds that the aggregate of all potential claims, parties, and lien holders exceeds this limit. The court finds that $93,000.00 automobile liability insurance limit shall be distributed as follows:

a. Alec Wise will receive $35,303.32 to be distributed as follows:

i. The amount of $35,303.32 payable to Alec Wise and the Law Offices of Chris Knight.

b. Antonio Dominque Pruitt will receive $7,696.68 to be distributed as follows:

i. The amount of $7,696.68 payable to Antonio Dominique Pruitt and CARR & CARR.

c. Walter Permaul will receive $50,000.00 to be distributed as follows:

i. The amount of $17,461.08 payable to Walter Permaul and Robinson Law Offices, P.C.;

ii. The amount of $1,033.50 made payable to Walter Permaul, Robinson Law Offices, P.C., and Surgery, Inc.;

iii. The amount of $340.50 made payable to Walter Permaul, Robinson Law Offices, P.C., and St. John Medical Owasso Hospital;

iv. The amount of $371.32 made payable to Walter Permaul, Robinson Law Offices, P.C., and St. John Medical Center;

v. The amount of $16,190.60 made payable to Walter Permaul, Robinson Law Offices, P.C., and Blue Cross Blue Shield; and

vi. The amount of $14,603.00 made payable to Walter Permaul, Robinson Law Offices, P.C., and Medical Reimbursement of America.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Defendant’s Insurance Company issue checks dispersing the applicable $93,000.00 minimum liability insurance policy limit as follows:

a. Alec Wise will receive $35,303.32 to be distributed as follows:

i. The amount of $35,303.32 payable to Alec Wise and the Law Offices of Chris Knight.

b. Antonio Dominque Pruitt will receive $7,696.68 to be distributed as follows:

ii. The amount of $7,696.68 payable to Antonio Dominique Pruitt and CARR & CARR.

c. Walter Permaul will receive $50,000.00 to be distributed as follows:

vii. The amount of$17,461 .08 payable to Walter Perniaui and Robinson Law Offices, P.C.;

viii. The amount of $1,033.50 made payable to Walter Permaul, Robinson Law Offices, P.C., and Surgery, Inc.;

ix. The amount of $340.50 made payable to Walter Permaul, Robinson Law Offices, P.C., and St. John Medical Owasso Hospital;

x. The amount of $371.32 made payable to Walter Permaul, Robinson Law Offices, P.C., and St. John Medical Center;

xi. The amount of $16,190.60 made payable to Walter Permaul, Robinson Law Offices, P.C., and Blue Cross Blue Shield; and

xii. The amount of $14,603.00 made payable to Walter Permaul, Robinson Law Offices, P.C., and Medical Reimbursement of America.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that all Plaintiffs are hereby barred from recovering any additional monies from AAA Insurance Company or its insureds, Wade and Carrie Smith, in connection with the automobile accident that occurred on December 1, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: