Date: 06-01-2015

Case Style: Lacey Lynn Whomble v. Barbara Kay Clayton, Zachary Kay Clayton and AVL Systems Design, LLC

Case Number: CJ-2014-3809

Judge: Rebecca B. Nightingale

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Scott Hjelm and Herb Elias

Defendant's Attorney: Andrea Medley for Barbara Kay Clayton

Mark Smiling for Zachary M. Dunnagan and AVL Systems Design, LLC

Description: Tulsa, OK - Lacey Lynn Whomble sued Barbara Kay Clayton, Zachary Kay Clayton and AVL Systems Design, LLC on auto negligence theories claiming:

1. The Plaintiff, Lacey Lynn Whomble, is a resident of the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
Oldahoma. The Defendant, Barbara Kay Clayton, is a resident of the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
Oklahoma. The Defendant, Zachary M. Dunnagan, is a resident of the City of Edmond, Oklahoma
County, Oklahoma and employed with Defendant AVL Systems Design, L.L.C. That Defendant
AVL Systems Design, L.L.C. was at all times relevant hereto a business operating out of the City
of Edmond, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. That at all times relevant hereto Defendant Zacharz M.
Dunnagan was employed and acting as an agent/employee of Defendant AVL Systems Desigh,
L.L.C.
2. That this Court has jurisdiction in the above entitled cause.
3. That on or about February 7, 2013, in Tulsa County, Plaintiff was operating her vehicle southbound on Riverside lawfully stopped at the East 34Eh Street intersection when her vehicle was struck successively twice from behind as a result of the negligent manner Defendants were operating their motor vehicles.
4. That the above mentioned collision was caused solely from the combined negligence of Defendants in that both failed to stop within an assured clear distance ahead, both failed to watch where they were going and both failed to operate their vehicles in a manner reasonable and proper. That the Defendant AVL Systems Design was negligent through the inattentive driving of their employee, Zachary M. Dunnagan.

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

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: