Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 10-21-2013

Case Style: Christopher L. Smith v. Darin K. Smith & Associates, Inc.

Case Number: CJ-2012-828

Judge: Daman H. Cantrell

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Kent R. Webb

Defendant's Attorney: Robert J. James

Description: Christopher L. Smith sued Darin K. Smith & Associates, Inc. on a negligence theory claiming:

1. On or about January 13, 2011, in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, Plaintiff was the victim of a shooting by Terence Moses.

2. At all times relevant hereto, Terence Moses was acting in the scope of his employment as a security guard for Signal 88 Franchise Group, Inc., d/b/a Signal 88 Security of Tulsa.

3. That the shooting of Plaintiff by Terence Moses was negligent and not within acceptable security practices and standards.

4. That as a result of the incident, Defendant is liable for Plaintiff’s bodily injury, medical bills, and pain and suffering, in excess of $10,000.00.

Defendant appeared and answered as follows:

The Defendant Signal 88 Franchise Group, Inc. (“Signal 88”) submits the following for its Answer to Plaintiffs Petition. All allegations in Plaintiffs Petition are denied unless specifically admitted herein.

1. Signal 88 denies Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff's Petition.

2. Signal 88 denies Paragraph 2 of Plaintiff's Petition.

3. Signal 88 denies Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's Petition.

4. Signal 88 denies Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff's Petition.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Upon best knowledge, information, and belief, the following affirmative defenses are asserted to have or are likely to have evidentiary support upon a reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery.

1. Plaintiffs Petition fails, in whole or in part, to state a claim for which relief may be granted against Signal 88.

2. Injuries alleged by Plaintiff were caused by acts or which Signal 88 had no control, by the sole negligence or fault of Plaintiff, by instrumentalities over which Plaintiff had control, andlor by the negligence or fault of others over whom Signal 88 had no control and for whom Signal 88 is not liable, or in the alternative, by the comparative negligence of the Plaintiff and/or others, and the amount of Plaintiff’s damages, if any, must be reduced by the percentage of such negligence.

3. Injuries and/or damages alleged by Plaintiff may have been proximately caused by supervening and/or intervening acts or circumstances.

4. Plaintiff may have failed to mitigate damages.

5. Signal 88 complied with all applicable statutes and ordinances.

6. This Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Signal 88.

7, Plaintiffs Petition should be stricken for violation of with 12 0.8. §2008(A)(2).

8. Signal 88 reserves the right to amend this Answer and affirmative defenses and to file counterclaims, cross-daims or third party petitions pending completion of discovery in this matter or final resolution of this matter. Having fully answered, the Defendant, Signal 88 Franchise Group, Inc. prays Plaintiff take nothing by way of his Petition and that Defendant receive its costs, expenses, and attorney fees associated with the defense of this action, together with all other relief the court deems just and equitable.

Outcome: COMES NOW, Plaintiff Christopher L. Smith. and dismisses this case, and all claims asserted herein, WITH PREJUDICE to the refihing of same. All parties will bear their own attorney fees and costs.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: