Date: 04-06-2016

Case Style: Angelica Baggs v. Mary Ramey

Case Number: CJ-2014-2567

Judge: Linda G. Morrissey

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Jon Williford

Defendant's Attorney: Kurt Hoffman

Description: Tulsa, OK - Angelica Baggs sued Mary Ramey on an auto negligence theory claiming:

1. Plaintiff is a resident of Glenpool, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

2. Upon information and belief, Defendant is a resident of Mounds, Creek County,
State of Oklahoma.

3. The accident giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma, making jurisdiction and venue of this Court both just and proper.

FACTS

4. Plaintiff expressly incorporates by reference the allegations made in paragraphs one through three above as though fully stated herein, and further pleads and alleges as follows:

5. On or about September 15, 2010, at approximately 7:32 AM, Plaintiff was a passenger in her personal vehicle, a 2007 Acura TSX, eastbound on Interstate Highway 44.

6. By way of information, this particular stretch of roadway is a densely traveled busy interstate highway system with four lanes of travel dedicated to eastbound travelers.

7. Plaintiff was a passenger in a personal vehicle in the inside lane. At the same time, Defendant drove her personal vehicle, a 2008 Chrysler 3LX, in the inside lane directly behind Plaintiff.

8. Defendant, while traveling at highway speeds, attempted to slow down in the lane in which Plaintiff traveled.

9. As traffic slowed due to congested morning traffic, Plaintiff slowed her vehicle.

10. Defendant crashed her front bumper into the rear bumper of Plaintiff's vehicle, causing extensive damage to both vehicles.

11. Upon notice of an incident, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol dispatched Officer Jason Weilert, badge number 809, to the scene to investigate. Officer Weilert investigated the scene and interviewed both drivers. After completing a thorough, in-person investigation, Officer Weilert codified the findings, which were approved by supervising officer V.W., badge number 160, into Official Oklahoma Traffic Collision Report Number B01600-10.

12. In his report, Officer Weilert places liability exclusively on Defendant when he cited Defendant with citation code 19: Unsafe Speed: For Traffic Conditions.

13. Officer Weilert found Plaintiff to be a fault-free driver when he assigned citation code 98: No Improper Action by Driver.

Please see attached Exhibit A, Official Oklahoma Traffic Collision Report Number
B01600-JO.

14. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff has sustained injuries and required extensive medical treatment from numerous providers in Oklahoma.

15. Plaintiff s Counsel has attempted to resolve this matter without filing a lawsuit to avoid unnecessary litigation. To date, settlement negotiations in an effort to resolve this matter without litigation remain unsuccessful.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:

Negligence per se - Reckless Driving

16. Plaintiff expressly incorporates by reference the allegations made in paragraphs one through fifteen above as though fully stated herein, and further pleads and alleges as follows:

17. Oklahoma statutory law expressly provides, "It shall be deemed reckless driving for any person to drive a motor vehicle in a careless or wanton manner without regard for the safety of persons or property . . ." 47 O.S. § 11-901 (2001).

18. By failing to slow down and provide sufficient distance to avoid a collision, Defendant did drive in a careless or wanton manner without regard for the safety of persons.

19. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's reckless driving, Plaintiff has suffered physical injuries,
loss of enjoyment of life, pain and suffering, mental anguish, medical bills, and other financial losses that will be more particularly proven at trial.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:

Negligence Per Se

20. Plaintiff expressly incorporates by reference the allegations made in paragraphs one through nineteen above as though fully stated herein, and further pleads and alleges as follows:

21. Oklahoma statutory law expressly provides, in relevant part,

The operator of every vehicle, while driving, shall devote their time and full attention to such driving.

No law enforcement officer shall issue a citation under this section unless the law enforcement officer observes that the operator of the vehicle is involved in an accident or observes the operator of the vehicle driving in such a manner that poses an articulable danger to other persons on the roadway that is not otherwise specified in statute.

47 O.S. § l l-90l (b) (2003).

22. Defendant, by failing to accurately judge the space between her vehicle and Plaintiff s vehicle, did not devote her full time and attention to such driving.

23. As a direct result, Defendant crashed her vehicle into Plaintiff s vehicle, causing
injury.

24. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent driving, Plaintiff has suffered physical injuries, loss of enjoyment of life, pain and suffering, mental anguish, medical bills, and other financial losses that will be more particularly proven at trial.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:

Negligence

25. Plaintiff expressly incorporates by reference the allegations made in paragraphs one through twenty-four
above as though fully stated herein, and further pleads and alleges as follows:

26. As the operator of a motor vehicle traveling on a densely traveled interstate, Defendant owed a duty to maintain a proper speed and maintain a proper lookout for other drivers.

27. By failing to slow her vehicle in a proper amount of time and failing to properly assess the distance between his vehicle and Plaintiff s vehicle, Defendant breached her duty owed to other motorists and pedestrians.

28. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's driving, Plaintiff has suffered physical injuries, loss of enjoyment of life, pain and suffering, mental anguish, medical bills, and other financial losses.

Outcome: Settled for an undisclosed sum and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: