Date: 04-17-2013

Case Style: Raymond Davidson v. Lazell Siggers

Case Number: CJ-2013-265

Judge: Linda G. Morrissey

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Douglas R. Elliott

Defendant's Attorney:

Description: 1. That the Plaintiff, at the time of the subject accident, was a resident of the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. That Defendant Lazell Siggers is a resident of the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. That the automobile accident giving rise to this action occurred in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, thus making jurisdiction of this Court just and proper

2. That on November 19, 2012, the Plaintiff; Raymond Davidson, was walking:along East Pine Street in Tulsa when the Defendant, Lazell Siggers, passed a Tulsa Transit busat: high rate of speed when he carelessly, recklessly and negligently struck the Plaintiff and did not stop after running over the Plaintiff, That Defendant Lazell Siggers’ actions and omissions comprise common law negligence.

3. That as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Lazell Siggers’ common law negligence and negligence per se, Plaintiff Raymond Davidson has suffered serious bodily injuries, has endured and continues to endure both physical and mental pain and suffering, has incurred and continues to incur medical expenses, has lost the enjoyment of life, and has suffered further damages, including disfigurement and permanent injury, lost wages and lost earning capacity, all of which will be more particularly proven at trial, and entitle the Plaintiff to collect a sum in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code from the Defendant, Lazell Siggers.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff prays that this Court award him damages in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code from the defendant, Lazell Siggers, including attorney’s fees, costs, interest, and any such further relief that this Court deems just and proper.

Outcome: Dismissed without prejudice per Rule 9(A)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: