Date: 09-04-2012

Case Style: Daniel Roytman v. Stephon Hawthorne

Case Number: CJ-2014-458

Judge: Mary Fitzgerald

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Defendant's Attorney: Ryan Deligans and Lane Neal

Description: COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Daniel Roytman, by and through his attorney of record, Donald E. Smolen, II., of Smolen, Smolen & Roytman, PLLC, and for his cause
of action against the Defendant Stephon Hawthorne, state as follows:
PARTIESJURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff Daniel Roytman is a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
2 Based on information and belief, Defendant Stephon Hawthorne is a resident çfJ
Tulsa County, Oklahoma
3. The accident that is the subject of this dispute occurred in Tulsa County
Oklahoma.
4. This Court has jurisdiction and venue is proper in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
5. Paragraphs 1-4 are incorporated herein by reference.
6. On or around October 18, 2013, Defendant was operating his motor vehicle in Tulsa County, Oklahoma when he negligently struck Plaintiff’s parked motor vehicle and then drove away from the scene of the accident.
7. The force exerted on Plaintiffs vehicle caused severe injury to Plaintiffs vehicle.
CAUSES OF ACTION
I. Negligence
8. Paragraphs 1-7 are incorporated herein by reference.
9. The Defendant owed a duty to the Plaintiff and all other drivers on the road, to operate the vehicle under his control in a safe and reasonable manner, using ordinary care to prevent injury to other persons and to keep a lookout consistent with the safety of other vehicles.
10. By failing to operate the motor vehicle in such a way, and by acting recklessly with complete disregard for the health and well being of the Plaintiff and all other drivers on the road, the Defendant breached its duty owed to the Plaintiff.
11. In addition to the ordinary duty of care, Defendant was also under the duty to comply with Oklahoma state statutes regarding accidents involving damage to motor vehicles.
12. Defendant’s act of striking Plaintiff’s vehicle and then driving away from the scene of the accident is in direct violation of Oklahoma law. More specifically, said action by Defendant is in violation of 47 O.S. §10-103.’
13. Defendant’s breach of his duties was the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiffs damages.
14. As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages and pursuant to 47 O.S. §10-103, Defendant’s unlawful conduct subjects him to liability for damages in an amount equal to three times the value of the damages that Plaintiffs motor vehicle sustained as a result of the accident.
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff prays that this Court grant him the relief sought including, but not limited to, actual damages in an amount equal to three times the value of the damages to his motor vehicle caused by the accident, along with all other collateral damages in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), with interest accruing from date of filing of suit, reasonable attorneys fees and costs, and all other relief deemed appropriate by this Court.

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

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: