Date: 03-04-2016

Case Style: Stephen B. Trattner v. Juanilla Patricia Likowski

Case Number: CJ-2014-961

Judge: Don Andrews

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Jon Gores and Bob Wagner

Defendant's Attorney: Sam Caporal

Description: Oklahoma City, OK - Stephen B. Trattner sued Juanilla Patricia Likowski on an auto negligence theory claiming:

1. Plaintiff is a resident of Norman, Cleveland County, Oklahoma ; Defendant is a resident of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.

2. The amount in controversy exceeds Ten Thousand ($10,(100) dollars exclusive of interest, costs and attorney fees.

3. On or about June 28, 2013 at the intersection of SE 29th Street and South Lindsay, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, Defendant, Juar illa Patricia Likowski, negligently operated a 1988 VOLVO 740 GLE, causing the same to strike the motorcycle operated by Plaintiff, STEPHEN B. TRATTNER.

4. Plaintiff was approaching the above referenced intersection by driving East on SE 29th street, while Defendant was approaching the intersection driving North on Lindsay Street.

5. The intersection was controlled in that stop signs were in plac, on Lindsay Street in both the North and South directions, while there were no stop sigm in the West and East directions on SE 29th street.

6. As Plaintiff was entering the intersection on his motorcycle d civing East, Defendant proceeded to negligently pull out from the stop sign and turn West onto SE 29th street.

7. Despite Plaintiff engaging in defensive driving techniques by aHempting to maneuver out of Defendant's way, there was no avoiding the collision.

8. Other statutes and laws mandate that when approaching an intersection all traffic signs must be obeyed and the vehicle with a traffic sign must follow the signage directions and yield to lanes who are not directed to stop.

9. Defendant failed to yield to Plaintiff who was in an unrestricted !me.

10. Defendant, in violating city and state laws that exist to prevent just such a harm as that suffered here, is guilty of negligence per se.
11. Defendant's negligence and negligence per se, were the proximate and actual cause of the collision and other damages suffered by Plaintiff.

12. That as a result of Defendant's negligence and negligence per se, Plaintiff sustained serious personal injuries; was prevented from transacting his business; has and will suffer pain of mind and body; has and will suffer loss of income; has ar d will incur medical expenses; has been disabled; has and will suffer a continuing loss of q1llllity of and enjoyment of life.

13. Plaintiff s 2009 Buel XB12 motorcycle was damaged to such a aegree it was determined that it would cost more to repair it than its market value, it was ther efore a total loss less and except the modest salvage value of certain parts.
14. Defendant owed a duty of care to this Plaintiff and all other dr ivers, which was violated in the negligent operation of her automobile.

15. In addition to negligence and negligence per se, Defendant is guilty of wanton and reckless driving, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, which justifies the award of punitive or exemplary damages against Defendant.

16. Following the exchange of information at the scene of the ace ,dent it was learned that Defendant failed to have valid liability insurance in force at the time of the accident, in the event Defendant does not make adequate arrangements to be economically responsible for the damages she caused, Plaintiff seeks judgment and other reh ef to which he may be entitled through entry of judgment and any additional relief that may be available through the Department of Public Safety.

Outcome: ANDREWS: COMES ON FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING. PLAINTIFF APPEARS WITH COUNSEL, DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL FTA. WITNESS SWORN, TETIMONY HEARD ON DAMAGES. PLAINTIFF AWARDED JUDGMENT FOR DAMAGES AGAINST DEFENDANT IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $13,706.50 WHICH INCLUDES AN AMOUNT FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE OF $3,200 AND LOST WAGES OF $1,200. ISSUE OF ATTORNEY FEES AND COURT COST RESERVED BY SEPARATE APPLICATION

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: