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

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 06-09-2015

Case Style: Thomas Joe Miller v. Anthony Glenn Gearo

Case Number: CJ-2014-236

Judge: Paul K. Woodward

Court: District Court, Garfield County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: John Hogden

Defendant's Attorney: Dixie Craven and Paul Kolker

Description: Enid, OK - Thomas Joe Miller sued Anthony Glenn Gearo, Dean Travis Lavicky, Kenneth Schroeder and Stan's Asphalt & Construction, Inc. on auto negligence theories claiming:

1. Plaintiff is an individual currently residing in Drummond, Garfield County, Oklahoma.
2. Defendant, DEAN TRAVIS LAVICKY (“LAVICKY”), is an individual residing in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.
3. Defendant, ANTHONY GLENN GEARO (“GEARO”), is an individual residing in Enid, Garfield County, Oklahoma.
4. Defendant, KENNETH SCHROEDER (“SCHROEDER”), is an individual residing in Fairview, Major County, Oklahoma.
5. Defendant SIAN’S ASPHALT & CONSTRUCTION, INC. (“STAN’S ASPHALT”), is an Oklahoma Corporation with its principal place of business located in Enid, Garfield County, Oklahoma.
6. In the early morning hours of October 27, 2013, Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle collision which occurred on Longhorn Road near the intersection of Longhorn Road and 66th Street several miles east of Enid, Oklahoma.
7. GEARO was employed by SCHROEDER and acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. SCHROEDER is responsible for GEARO’s negligence under vicarious liability.
8. LAVICKY was employed by STAN’S ASPHALT and acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. STAN’S ASPHALT is responsible for LA VICKY’s negligence under vicarious liability.
9. GEARO was grossly negligent andlor reckless in that he abandoned a tractor trailer oed by SCHROEDER in the middle of Longhorn Road overnight with no warning signals to notifS’ oncoming traffic that a large tractor trailer had been left on the roadway overnight. GEARO’s conduct involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of harm to others. GEARO had actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but proceeded with conscious indifference to the safety and welfare of others. Due to the gross negligent and recklessness of GEARO, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of exemplary damages in excess of $75,000.00 designed to punish GEARO and deter the same or similar conduct by similarly situated parties in the fbture.
10. LAVICKY was grossly negligent andlor reckless in that he was servicing andlor repairing the tractor trailer in the middle of the roadway with no warning signals to notify oncoming traffic that a tractor trailer was located in the middle of the roadway. LAVICKY’s conduct involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of harm to others. LAVICKY had actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but proceeded with conscious indifference to the safety and welfare of others. Due to the gross negligent and recklessness of LAVICKY, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of exemplary damages in excess of $75,000.00 designed to punish LAVICKY and deter the same or similar conduct by similarly situated parties in the future.
11. SCHROEDER was negligent in hiring, supervising, and retaining GEARO. Such negligence placed the public at unreasonable risk of harm. Due to the gross negligence and recklessness of SCHROEDER, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of exemplary damages in excess of $75,000.00 designed to punish SCHROEDER and deter the same or similar conduct by similarly situated parties in the fhture.
12. STAN’S ASPHALT was negligent in hiring, supervising, and retaining LAVICKY. Such negligence placed the public at unreasonable risk of harm. Due to the gross negligence and recklessness of STANS’ ASPHALT, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of exemplary damages in excess of $75,000.00 designed to punish STAN’S ASPHALT and deter the same or similar conduct by similarly situated parties in the future.
13. As a direct result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff suffered severe, permanent, and irreversible physical injuries; he has been permanently disabled and disfigured; he has suffered, and will continue to suffer, mental and emotional pain and anguish; he has incurrcd, and will continue to incur, medical bills; he has lost, and will continue to lose, income; he has suffered an impaired ability to earn future earnings; he has suffered, and will continue to suffer, a reduction of his quality of life; and he has been damaged in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.
14. Plaintiff’s injuries were also the result of Defendants’ violation of various Oklahoma statutes and city ordinances in force and effect at the time of the collision giving risc to this lawsuit rendering them negligent per se for their conduct.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: