Date: 11-09-2013

Case Style: Melissa Brown v. Roberto Lozano

Case Number: CJ-2012-5493

Judge: Carlos Chappelle

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Lynn R. Anderson and Logan Jones

Defendant's Attorney: Stephen Carey Wilkerson

Description: Melissa Brown sued Roberto Lozano on an auto negligence theory claiming:

1. That the Plaintiff is a resident of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. That Defendant is a resident of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. That the automobile accident giving rise to this action occuffed in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, thus making jurisdiction of this Court just and proper.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

2. That on January 22, 2012, the Plaintiff was operating a vehicle that was traveling in an easterly direction on the off ramp of the South Yale exit from east bound 1-44. The Defendant was traveling in an easterly direction on the off ramp of the South Yale exit from eastbound 1-44 and did fail to yield to Plaintiff and did carelessly, recklessly and negligently collide with the rear end of Plaintiffs vehicle 3. That by failing to yield Defendant did commit negligence per Se.

4. That as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence and negligence per Se, the Plaintiff suffered serious bodily injuries, has endured and continues to endure both physical and mental pain and suffering, has incurred lost wages in the past and will incur loss of earning capacity in the future, has incurred and continues to incur medical expenses, has lost the enjoyment of life, and has suffered further damages all of which will be more particularly proven at trial and which entitle the Plaintiff to collect a sum in the excess amount of $74,999.99 from the Defendant.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

5. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-incorporates all allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 4.

6. That this collision and Plaintiffs resulting injuries were directly and solely caused by the negligence of the Defendant, including, but not limited to, his gross negligence in
operating his vehicle recklessly and without regard for Ms. Brown’s vehicle and the safety of its occupants in violation of the Oklahoma Highway Safety Code, more specifically Title 47 § 11-
901 — Reckless Driving:

A. It shall be deemed reckless driving for any person to drive a motor vehicle in a careless or wanton manner without regard for the safety of persons or
property...

7. That the negligence for which Defendant is liable caused Plaintiff to sustain
personal injuries, past and future medical related expenses, past and future physical pain and
suffering, impairment, disability, and loss of enjoyment of her normal activities.

8. That Defendant’s conduct further justifies an award of punitive damage as a result
of his gross negligence as aforesaid, and more particularly for leaving the scene of this personal
injury collision in violation of Oklahoma Highway Safety Code Title 47 § 10-102(A) — “Accidents Involving Non-Fatal Injury”.

A. The driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in a nonfatal injury to any person shall immediately stop such vehicle at the scene of such accident or as close thereto as possible but shall then forthwith return to and in every event shall remain at the scene of the accident until he has fulfilled the requirements of Section 10-104 of this title...

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Plaintiff prays that this Court award her damages
in the excess amount of $74,999.99 together with punitive damages in the excess amount of $10,000.00 from the Defendant, including attorney’s fees, costs, interest, and any such further relief.

Defendant appeared and answered as follows:

1. This Defendant admits Paragraphs 1 Plaintiff’s Amended Petition, other than the fact that the accident giving rise to this accident occurred in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, since this Defendant denies he was involved in the accident and he has no idea where the accident occurred.

2. This Defendant generally and specifically denies, Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of Plaintiff’s Amended Petition.
3. This Defendant is not possessed of sufficient information at this time to admit or deny that the Plaintiff has alleged circumstances commensurate with the facts of this case, and therefore, denies that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim for which relief may be granted.

4. This Defendant specifically denies that his acts or omissions proximately caused the damages complained of.

5 Pleading in the alternative, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff was guilty of aç a d omissions solely or partly causing the complained of damages That said acts or omissions, solely or contributing with acts or omissions of third parties, precludes Plaintiff’s recovery herein against this Defendant.

6. Pleading in the alternative, Defendant alleges that any wrong on his behalf was not the proximate cause of damage and that the proximate cause of damage, if any, was the acts of third persons or circumstances not within the control of this Defendant.

7. This Defendant moves to strike and objects to any request for punitive damages since same are violative of the due process and other pertinent clauses of the Constitutions of the State of Oklahoma and the United States of America, and further, that under the cause of action alleged, punitive damages are not proper.

8. This Defendant, as mentioned above, generally and specifically denies he was involved in the accident in question and, therefore, he is not a proper party Defendant to this lawsuit.

9. Defendant is unable at this time, prior to discovery having been completed, to delineate other possible defenses to Plaintiff’s claims other than as contained within this Answer, and therefore, reserves the right to add other defenses which may be discovered prior to pretrial order herein.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Defendant, Roberto Lozano, prays Plaintiff take nothing by way of her Petition and for any further relief the Court deems equitable and proper.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: