Case Style: Wendell Graham v. Adam Robins a/k/a Adam B. J. Robins, a/k/a Adam Blake Jonathan Robbins, a/k/a Adam Blake Robins, a/k/a Adam Jonathan Robbins, Pamela Olson a/k/a Pamela J. Olson, Cathy Gruse a/k/a Catherine Cruse
Case Number: CJ-2013-987
Judge: Jefferson D. Sellers
Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Attorney: John Truckett
Defendant's Attorney: Erick Houghton and Richard Selman for Pamela Olson
Description: Tulsa, OK - Wendell Graham sued Adam Robins a/k/a Adam B. J. Robins, a/k/a Adam Blake Jonathan Robbins, a/k/a Adam Blake Robins, a/k/a Adam Jonathan Robbins, Pamela Olson a/k/a Pamela J. Olson, Cathy Gruse a/k/a Catherine Cruse on auto negligence theories claiming:
1. Plaintiff was at all material times a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
2. Defendant Robbins was at all material times upon information and belief a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma at all material times.
3. Defendant Olson was at all material times upon information and belief a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma at all material times.
4. Defendant Gruse was at all material times upon information and belief a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma at all material times.
5. Defendant John Doe, a business entity, is a business whose identity is unknown now, but may be revealed through the course of discovery. Defendant John Doe is an entity that transacts business/engages in commerce on a regular basis in Oklahoma, and the claims alleged here arise out of the Defendant John Doe's actions and/or inactions in Oklahoma.
6. Defendant Jane Doe, an individual, is a person residing in Oklahoma whose identity is unknown at this time, but may be revealed through the course of discovery.
7. This motor vehicle incident occurred in Tulsa County, OK on about 03/17/2011.
8. The incident occurred at about E. Hwy 64 and E. I-44.
9. As a result of the above this Court has jurisdiction over this matter.
10. Defendants failed to yield, directly causing this incident.
11. The Tulsa Police Department officer determined Defendant Olson was following too closely and rear-ended Plaintiff's vehicle, thus causing this wreck.
12. The Tulsa Police Department officer determined Defendant Robbins did not drive safely, therefore causing this wreck.
Plaintiff made no improper action. Defendants directly caused this crash.
At the time of this incident Plaintiff was driving properly. This wreck damaged the Defendants' vehicles.
This incident damaged the vehicle Plaintiff was in.
Defendants were inattentive and/or distracted at the time of and/or right before
Defendants were driving too fast for conditions.
Defendant made an improper action and/or omission while driving a motor
21. Defendants violated ordinance(s) and/or Oklahoma Statute(s) and/or law(s), etc.
22. The wreck was violent.
23. Defendants directly caused injuries and damages to Plaintiff.
24. Defendants failed to drive properly and/or reasonably.
25. On the date and time of the incident Defendants were operating a motor vehicle owned and/or controlled by Defendants Gruse, Jane Doe and/or John Doe.
26. At all material times Defendants were an agent, servant, and/or employee of Defendants Gruse, Jane Doe and/or John Doe.
27. At all material times Defendants were acting within the course and scope of employment and/or permission for Defendants Gruse, Jane Doe and/or John Doe.
28. Defendants Gruse, Jane Doe and/or John Doe is/are liable for any improper action and/or omission committed by Defendants during the operation of the motor vehicles, inclusive of the time and date of this incident.
29. Defendants were an authorized driver of Defendants Gruse, Jane Doe and/or John Doe's motor vehicle(s) at the time of the incident.
30. Defendants Gruse, Jane Doe and/or John Doe negligently and/or improperly entrusted Defendants with said motor vehicle(s).
31. Defendants Gruse, Jane Doe and/or John Doe negligently and/or improperly hired, retained, supervised, educated, and/or trained Defendants, directly causing this incident and injuries to Plaintiff.
32. Defendants were in a joint venture and/or in a dual capacity with Defendants Gruse, Jane Doe and/or John Doe at the time of this incident.
33. Defendants breached duties owed to Plaintiff.
34. Defendants were negligent, negligent per se and/or committed res ipsa because they violated and/or breached applicable statute(s), law(s), and/or ordinance(s), which directly caused injury to Plaintiff s person and property.
35. Defendants' actions and/or omissions were the unsafe I unlawful contributing factor that directly caused this crash.
36. Defendants had the responsibility to drive as reasonably prudent drivers at the date and time of this wreck.
37. Defendants violated that responsibility.
38. Defendants were negligent.
39. Defendants directly caused damages to Plaintiff.
40. As a direct result of the actions and/or omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff was injured and suffered at least the following damages (this is a non-exhaustive list):
A. physical pain and suffering, past and future;
B. mental pain and suffering, past and future;
C. permanent injuries of a severe nature;
D. physical impairment;
E. loss of earnings and/or wages and/or loss of earning capacity;
F. property damages;
G. diminished earning capacity;
H. medical costs for care, treatment, and service, past and future;
K. attorney's fees;
M. any and all other damages; etc.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to the United States Code, Title 28 § 1332, a jury trial, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorney's fees, costs, expenses, any all other relief which this Court deems just and proper.
ATTORNEY FEE CLAIMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED
PRE AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST
Outcome: Settled for an undisclosed sum and dismissed with prejudice.