Date: 03-07-2013

Case Style: Trudy Rivard v. Robert L. Taylor

Case Number: CJ-2012-664

Judge: Barbar G. Swinton

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: George R. Hanks

Defendant's Attorney: Wesley G. Smith

Description: Trudy Rivard sued Robert L. Taylor on an auto negligence theory claiming to have been injured and/or damaged in a car wreck caused by Taylor that occurred in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.

The specifics of the claims made by the Plaintiff are not available.


1.

The Defendant admits an automobile accident occurred between the parties as alleged in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Petition. The Defendant denies he was negligent as alleged in Paragraph I of Plaintiff’s Petition. The Defendant is without sufficient information and/or knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’ s Petition and demands strict proof thereof

2.

The Defendant is without sufficient information and/or knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs Petition and demands strict proof thereof

3.

The Defendant specifically denies those allegations and claims contained in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs Petition and demand strict proof thereof.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

COMES NOW Defendant, ROBERT L. TAYLOR, and states the following affirmative defenses to the Petition filed by Plaintiff herein:

4.

The Petition fails to state a claim against Defendant upon which relief can be granted.

5.

The Plaintiff was negligent, and such negligence on the part of Plaintiff proximately caused or contributed to the accident and Plaintiffs damage, if any, and such negligence on the part of the Plaintiff was greater than the negligence of the Defendant and Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to recover.

6.

The Defendant was confronted with a sudden emergency not brought about by his own negligence, and in reacting to that emergency, the Defendant acted as a reasonable and prudent person would have acted under such circumstances.

7.

The accident was an unavoidable accident, casualty and misfortune that occurred without negligence on the part of the Defendant.

8.

The accident was proximately caused by the negligence of a third party over whom this Defendant had no control, and for those acts this Defendant is not responsible.

9.

Whether the Plaintiff suffers from any pre-existing or post-arising medical condition will be developed during discovery and Defendant herein reserves all defenses in that regard.

10.

Whether the Plaintiff has acted to mitigate her damages will be developed during discovery and Defendant herein reserves all defenses in that regard.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered, Defendant prays that Plaintiff takes nothing by way of her Petition herein and that Defendant be dismissed with costs and attorney fees and any other relief this Court may deem equitable and just.

The Pre-Trial Order provided in part:

2. GENERAL STATEMENT OF FACTS:

A. What: Automobile Accident

B. Where: @2420 S.W. 29th Street, Oklahoma City, OK

C. When: January 11, 2012

D. Who: Parties

3 PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:

Grounds for Recovery Applicable Statute (Ordinance, Common Law Rule) Negligence Common Law; 47 O.S. 11-801(A); 47O.S. 11-310(a)

Damages or Relief Sought Amount

Permanent Temporary $(in excess of) 10,000.00

Describe: Sprain and strain neck; shoulders; head; upper back.

B. Pain and Suffering: Past Future $(in excess of) 10,000.00

C. Medical and Hospital Expense: Past @$2,822.00

D. Property: $7,787.10 — Ford Taurus Automobile

________________ Applicable Statute. (Ordinance, Common Law Rule) 23 O.S. 12, 13 and 14; Laubach v. Morgan 588 P.2d 1071 (Okia. 1978)

Common Law

Common Law

23 O.S. 61 and 97; Shebster, Inc. v. Ford, 361 P.2d 200 (Okia. 1961); Missouri-Kansas RR, Co. v. Edwards 361 P.2d 459 (OkIa. 1961)

5. Pre-existing condition or injury Common Law

6. Post-arising condition or injury Common Law

7. Cause v. condition/no proximate Common Law cause

8. Failure to mitigate damages

9. General denial of liability and damages

10. Assumption of the risk Common Law

5. DEFENDANTS’S CLAIMS FOR RELIEF: None

4. DEFENTANT’S CONTENTIONS:

No. Grounds for Defense

1. Contributory negligence

2. Sudden Emergency

3. Unavoidable accident

4. Excessive damages Common Law Common Law

5. Pre-existing condition or injury Common Law

6. Post-arising condition or injury Common Law

7. Cause v. condition/no proximate Common Law cause

8. Failure to mitigate damages

9. General denial of liability and damages

10. Assumption of the risk Common Law Common Law Common Law

Outcome: STUART: JURY TRIAL CONTINUES AFTER NIGHTS RECESS. TESTIMONY CONTINUES, DEFENSE CALLS WITNESSES. CROSS EXAMINATION. DEFENDANT REST. COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY. CLOSING ARGUMENTS. JURY RETIRES TO DELIBERATE AND RETURNS WITH VERDICT AND FINDS FOR THE DEFENDANT SIGNED BY FOREPERSON. JURY DISCHARGED. CLERK DIRECTED TO FILE AND RECORD VERDICT ACCORDINGLY. KIM LEWIN COURT REPORTER.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: