Date: 07-16-2012

Case Style: Janice S. Steidley v. Tyler W. Stewart

Case Number: CJ-2012-667

Judge: Linda G. Morrissey

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Tracy W. Robinett, Robinett & Murphy, Tulsa, Oklahoma

Defendant's Attorney: Amy E. Bradley-Waters, Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green, L.L.P., Tulsa, Oklahoma

Description: Janice S. Steidley sued Tyler W. Stewart on an auto negligence theory claiming to have been injured in a car wreck caused by Stewart.

Plaintiff; Janice S. Steidley (“Steidley�), for her cause of action against Defendant, Tyler W. Stewart (“Stewart�), states:

1. Steidley is an individual residing in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

2. Stewart is an individual residing, upon information and belief, in Usage County, Oklahoma.

3. The negligent act in question took place in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

4. On or about September 13, 2011, Steidley was in the northbound lane of*outh Yale Avenue in Tulsa, Oklahoma waiting behind a line of cars stopped at a traffic light at South Yale Avenue and East 66th Street.

5. While at a complete stop, Steidley was violently rear-ended by Stewart (the “Accident�).

6. Stewart admitted to the responding Tulsa Police officer that as he was driving northbound on South Yale Avenue, he looked down at his phone, did not see that traffic was stopped in front of him, and was not able to stop before his vehicle collided with Steidley’s vehicle.

7. Stewart was issued a traffic citation for failure to stop.

8. Stewart’s negligent operation of his vehicle caused the Accident.

9. As a result of Stewart’s negligence, Steidley sustained serious injuries.

10. Steidley has also suffered, and will continue to suffer, great pain of body and mind.

11. Steidley has also incurred, and will continue to incur, medical expenses, loss of income, and inconvenience.

12. Stewart acted with reckless disregard for Steidley’ s rights.

13. As a result of Stewart’s negligence, Steidley is entitled to judgment against Stewart in excess of$10,000.00, and an award of punitive damages to deter Stewart from engaging in such reckless conduct in the future.

WHEREFORE, P1aintiff Janice S. Steidley, prays forjudgment against the Defendant, Tyler W. Stewart, in an amount in excess of $75,000.00 for actual damages, punitive damages to be determined by the jury, and any such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

ANSWER

COMES NOW Defendant Tyler W. Stewart (“Stewart�), by and through his counsel of record, Amy Bradley-Waters of the law firm Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green, and for his Answer to Plaintiffs Petition For Negligence, alleges and states as follows:

I. Stewart generally and specifically denies each and every material allegation contained in Plaintiffs Petition For Negligence.

2. Based upon information and belief, Stewart admits the allegations contained in Paragraph I of Plaintiffs Petition For Negligence. E’.


3, Stewart admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiff'ss Petition for Negligence.

4. Stewart admits that the automobile accident took place in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

5. Stewart denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs Petition For Negligence.

6. Stewart denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs Petition For Negligence and demands strict proof thereof.

7. Stewart denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs Petition For Negligence and demands strict proof thereof 8. Stewart denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs Petition For Negligence and demands strict proof thereof.

9. Stewart admits he was issued a citation. Stewart denies the remainder of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs Petition For Negligence.

10. Stewart denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s Petition For Negligence,

11. Stewart denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Petition For Negligence and demands strict proof thereof

12. Stewart denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs Petition For Negligence and demands strict proof thereof.

13. Stewart denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Petition For Negligence and demands strict proof thereof

14. Stewart denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs Petition For Negligence and demands strict proof thereof.

15. Stewart denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs Petition For Negligence and demands strict proof thereof

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Stewart.

2. Should Stewart be found guilty of negligence, which is not admitted but is expressly denied, Stewart states that his negligence was not the cause of Plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages, if any.

3. Stewart states that any injuries, damages, or losses sustained by Plaintiff were solely and proximately caused by the contributory negligence of Plaintiff, and as such, Plaintiff is barred from recovery as against Stewart by virtue of the Oklahoma law of contributory negligence.

4. Plaintiffs comparative negligence bars any action against Stewart.

5. Should Stewart be found guilty of negligence, which is not admitted but expressly denied, Stewart states that his negligence merely established a condition. Stewart further states that this condition was not the cause of Plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages, if any. Stewart states that Plaintiff had the last clear chance to avoid the accident and that Plaintiff’s negligence in failing to do so was the cause of Plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages, if any.

6. For further defense, Stewart alleges and states that any injuries and damages complained of in Plaintiffs Petition For Negligence are the natural, probable and proximate result of the physical condition, anatomy, and physiology of the Plaintiff, and any injuries or damages which the Plaintiff may have sustained were not the result of any acts or omissions on the part of Stewart; that any injuries or damages sustained by the Plaintiff was the result of natural and normal occurrences within the body of the Plaintiff over which Stewart had no control, and for which Stewart is not responsible.

7. Stewart further alleges that the damages and/or problems alleged by the Plaintiff in her Petition For Negligence are the result of a preexisting condition of the Plaintiff and are unrelated to the automobile accident which is the subject of this lawsuit.

8. Stewart would state that any injuries, damages, or losses sustained by Plaintiff were solely and proximately caused by the intentional acts and/or negligence of third persons who were not agents, servants, or employees of Stewart and over whom Stewart exercised no degree of authority or control.

9. Stewart denies the nature and extent of the Plaintiffs alleged injuries.

10. Stewart would assert that the Plaintiffs medical treatment and expenses for injuries she alleges were sustained in the accident were not reasonable or necessary.

11. For further answer or defense, Stewart states that the facts of this case do not warrant a punitive damage instruction.

12. For further answer or defense, Stewart states that Plaintiffs claims for punitive damages should be stricken on the following grounds.

A. Consideration of any punitive damages in this civil action would violate the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution in that:

i. Consideration of punitive damages in this action would allow standardless discretion to the jury to determine punishment, depriving Stewart of prior notice of the consequences of its alleged actions.

ii. The admission of any evidence directly to the jury concerning Stewart’s assets or net worth will create an undue risk of an improper verdict on each issue concerning liability, the measure of compensatory damages, whether to award punitive damages, and the measure of punitive damages.

iii. Punitive damages by their very nature constitute punishment and are a quasi-criminal sanction for which the burden of proof should not be less than “beyond a reasonable doubt’ -- not merely “clear and convincing evidence� or a “preponderance of the evidence.�

B. An award of punitive damages, if allowed, would violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution in that punitive damages would constitute an excessive fine upon Stewart.

C. Punitive damages are punishment, a quasi-criminal sanction, for which this Plaintiff is not afforded the specific procedural safeguards prescribed by the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the United States Constitution and the Oklahoma Constitution.

13. In the alternative, Stewart asserts the applicability of any punitive damages cap statute including 23 O.S. §9.1.

14. For further Answer or defense, Stewart asserts that any award of punitive or exemplary damages against him is barred to the extent that it is inconsistent with the standards and limitations set forth in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 134 L. Ed. 2d 809 116 S.Ct. 1589 (1996), and Slate Farm MutualAutomobile Insurance Company v. Campbell, 123 S.Ct. 1513 (2003).

15. If there are any material allegations which Stewart has not denied which adversely affect his rights, it is here and now denied the same.

16. Stewart specifically reserves the right to amend this Answer to include additional affirmative defenses upon the completion of discovery.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Petition For Negligence of the Plaintiff on file herein, Stewart respectfully requests that this Court dismiss this action, or in the alternative, that judgment be rendered in his favor together with costs, attorney’s fees and such other relief to which he may be entitled.

Outcome:

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: