Date: 12-23-2013

Case Style: Autumn Purvis v. Solaray Corporation and Garrett Allen Knol

Case Number: CJ-2012=1661

Judge: Lori Walkley

Court: District Court, Cleveland County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Oleg Roytman

Defendant's Attorney: Keith P. Connell

Description: Autumn Purvis sued Solaray Corporation and Garrett Allen Knol on auto negligence theories claiming:

1. Plaintiff Autumn Purvis is a resident of Cleveland County, Oklahoma.

2. Defendant Solaray Corporation, (“Solaray”) is a Domestic for Profit Business Corporation that conducts business in and has substantial ties to Creek County, Oklahoma.

3. Defendant Garrett Allen Knol is a resident of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.

4. The accident that gave rise to this litigation occurred in Cleveland County, Oklahoma.

5. This Court has jurisdiction and venue is proper in Cleveland County, Oklahoma.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

6. Paragraphs 1-5 are incorporated herein by reference.

7. On or around August 15, 2011 a Defendant Garrett Mien Knol, while an employee of Defendant Solaray Inc., negligently failed to yield, striking the Plaintiffs vehicle.

8. This impact did considerable property damage to Plaintiff’s vehicle and caused Plaintiff to suffer extensive personal injuries for which she is entitled to compensation.

CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENCE

9. Paragraphs 1-8 are incorporated herein by reference.

10. Defendant Garrett Allen Knol while acting in the scope and course of his employment owed a duty to the Plaintiff, and all other drivers on the road, to operate his vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner, using ordinary care to prevent injury to other persons and to keep a lookout consistent with the safety of other vehicles.

11. By failing to operate his vehicle in such a way, and by acting recklessly with complete disregard for the health and well being of the Plaintiff and all other drivers on the road, Defendant’s statutory employee breached the duty owed to the Plaintiff.

12. These breaches by the Defendant Garrett Allen Knol, were the actual and proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries.

13. Defendant Solarays, is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its employee, Defendant Garrett Allen Knol, under the theory of respondeac superior.

14. As a result of Defendants negligence, the Plaintiff has suffered personal injury, including medical expenses, mental and physical pain and suffering, loss of wages, and other actual damages in excess of $75,000.00.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENT ENTRUSThIENT

15. Paragraphs 1-14 are incorporated herein by reference.

16. Defendant Solaray’s owned the vehicle that its employee and/or agent, was driving at the time of the accident.

17. Defendant Solaray’s allowed its employee and/or agent to operate the vehicle when the Defendant knew, or reasonably should have known, that its employee and/or agent was careless, reckless, and an incompetent driver.

18. Plaintiff incurred a loss as a result of this careless, reckless and incompetent behavior.

19. As a result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff has suffered personal injury, including medical expenses, mental and physical pain and suffering, loss of wages, and other actual damages in excess of $75,000.00.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

INTENTIONAL INFLICTiON OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

20. Paragraphs 119 are incorporated herein by reference.

21. As set forth above, Plaintiff has sustained injuries as a result of the breach of duties owed by the Defendants to
the Plaintiff.

22. This breach has led Plaintiff to sustain personal injuries, including, but not limited to, mental anguish.

23. As a result of Defendant’s breach, Plaintiff has suffered personal injury, including medical expenses, mental and physical pain and suffering, loss of wages, and other actual damages in excess of $75,000.00.

FOURTh CLAIM FOR RELEIF

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

24. Paragraphs 1-23 are incorporated herein by reference.

25. Defendant’s intentional, wanton and reckless conduct towards Plaintiff and others, was conducted with full knowledge in that Defendant knew, or should have known, of the severe adverse consequences of its actions upon Plaintiff and others.

26. Defendant’s conduct was directed specifically at acquiring substantial wealth for themselves at the expense of the rights of Plaintiffs and others, and their actions are contrary to acceptable norms of business and are in conttavention of public policy thus subjecting Defendant herein to the imposition of exemplary and punitive damages in excess of $75,000.00.

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff prays that this Court grant them the relief sought including, but not limited to, actual damages in excess of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), punitive damages in excess of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), with interest accruing from date of filing of suit, reasonable attorneys fees, and all other relief which is deemed appropriate by this Court.

Defendant appeared and answered as follows:

1. Defendants generally and specifically deny each and every material allegation contained in the Petition filed on behalf of the Plaintiff except for those which may be specifically admitted hereinafter.

2. Defendants admit Paragraphs 1,2,3,4, and 5 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

3. Defendants restate and incorporate Paragraphs 1-2 in response to Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

4. Defendants admit that there was a collision of automobiles at the approximate time and location contained in Paragraph 7 of the Plaintiff’s Petition. Defendants deny the remainder of Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demand strict proof thereof.

5. Defendants are without sufficient information, knowledge or belief to either admit or deny the allegations of injuries and damages contained in Paragraph 8 of the Plaintiff’s Petition; therefore, Defendants deny the same and demand strict proof thereof.

6. Defendants restate and incorporate Paragraphs 1-5 in response to Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs Petition.

7. Defendants admit Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs Petition.

8. Defendants deny Paragraphs 11, 12, 13, and 14 of Plaintiffs Petition and demand strict proof thereof.

9. Defendants restate and incorporate Paragraphs 1-8 in response to Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs Petition.

10. Defendants admit Paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs Petition.

11. Defendants deny Paragraphs 17, 18, and 19 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demand strict proof thereof.

12. Defendants restate and incorporate Paragraphs 1-11 in response to Paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs Petition.

13. Defendants deny Paragraphs 21, 22, and 23 of Plaintiff’s Petition and demand strict proof thereof.

14. Defendants restate and incorporate Paragraphs 1-13 in response to Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs Petition.

15. Defendants deny Paragraphs 25 and 26 of Plaintiffs Petition and demand strict proof thereof.

Affirmative Defenses

1. Defendants deny causation and the nature and extent of injuries and damages.

2. The accident was proximately caused or contributed to by the negligence of third parties.

3. The negligence of the Plaintiff was more than 50% the cause of this accident, thereby preventing Plaintiffs recovery herein against these Defendants. Alternatively, Defendants allege that the negligence of the Plaintiff was a cause of this accident, thereby reducing Plaintiffs recovery herein against these Defendants.

4. Plaintiff voluntarily assumed a risk of harm by virtue of Plaintiffs actions and conduct at the time of the accident, thereby preventing Plaintiffs recovery herein.

5. As to Defendants, the• accident was unavoidable and occurred without negligence on their part.

6. Defendant Knol was faced with a sudden emergency not of his own creation and used his best judgment to avoid a collision.

7. The injuries complained of in Plaintiffs Petition are the result of preexisting health problems that were neither caused nor aggravated by this accident and for which Defendants are not liable.

8. The injuries complained of in Plaintiffs Petition are the result of health care problems which developed subsequent to the date of the alleged accident, which were neither caused nor aggravated by these Defendants and for which these Defendants are not liable.

9. Defendant Knol’s stopped vehicle was not the cause of the accident.

10. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

11. Defendants state that Plaintiff’s claims seeking punitive or exemplary damages violate the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma in that:

(a) Consideration of any punitive or exemplary damages in this action (including but not limited to acts occurring outside of the State of Oklahoma or acts involving nonparties) would allow standardless discretion to the jury to improperly determine punishment, depriving these Defendants of fair notice of the consequences of their actions and would amount to a taking of property without due process;

(b) The admission of any evidence directly to the jury concerning these Defendants’ assets or net worth will create and undue risk of an improper verdict on each issue concerning liability, the measure of compensatory damages, whether to award punitive or exemplary damages, and the measure of punitive or exemplary damages.

(c) Punitive or exemplary 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” and not merely a “preponderance of the evidence”.

12. Defendants state that an award of punitive or exemplary damages, if allowed, would violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma in that punitive or exemplary damages would constitute an excessive fine upon these Defendants.

13. Defendants state that punitive or exemplary damages are punishment, a quasi-criminal sanction, for which these Defendants are not afforded the specific procedural safeguards prescribed by the Fourth, FifTh, and Sixth Amendments of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma.

14. The imposition of punitive damages without proper standards or proportion to the alleged actual damages violates the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and the Constitution of the State of Oldahoma.

15. Discovery in this case is just commencing, and Defendants reserve the right to amend their answer to assert additional affinnative defenses as they may be ascertained.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendants Solaray Corporation and Garrett Allen Knol pray that Plaintiff’s Petition be dismissed and Plaintiff take nothing thereby, and further, Defendants pray for costs of this action and for such other relief deemed to be fair and equitable by the Court.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: