Date: 08-04-2012

Case Style: Jamie Morris v. David Richardson

Case Number: CJ-2010-263

Judge: Paul K. Woodward

Court: District Court, Garfield County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Christopher Landes, Devinney Law Firm, P.C., Ponca City, Oklahoma

Defendant's Attorney: Regena McNeil Walsh and Jerry Fraley, Beeler, Walsh & Walsh, P.L.L.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Description: Comes now the Plaintiff and for her cause of action against the Defendant alleges and states as follows:

1. That Plaintiff, Jamie S. Morris, hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’, is a resident of Garfield County, State of Oklahoma.

2. That Defendant, David Richardson, hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”, is a resident of Garfield County, State of Oklahoma.

3. The incident, i.e., collision, occurred in Garfield County, State of Oklahoma.

4. That on or about November 13, 2009, Plaintiff was traveling eastbound on Oklahoma Street and Defendant was traveling South on 1 1thi Street.

5. Defendant negligently operated his vehicle by running the stop sign causing Plaintiff to swerve right to avoid the collision and Plaintiff struck the curb.

6. Due to Plaintiff trying to avoid the collision, she swerved away from Defendant’s vehicle and struck the curb causing injury to her left shoulder and neck.

7. Defendant’s negligence is the direct cause of Plaintiff’s injuries.

8. Plaintiff has sustained permanent injury as a result of Defendant’s negligence.

9. Plaintiff has sustained past and present pain and suffering, and will continue to suffer as a result of her permanent injuries.

10. That as a direct result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff has incurred medical expenses and will incur additional medical expenses in the future all with general and special damages totaling a sum of $39,992.50.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for actual damages in an amount of $39,992.50, plus court costs, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest; costs and attorneys fees and what other further relief this Court deems just and proper.

ANSWER OF DAVID RICAHRDSON

COMES NOW Defendant, David Richardson, and for his Answer to Plaintiff's Petiton, alleges and states as follows:

1. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs Petition.

2. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs Petition.

3. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs Petition.

4. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs Petition.

5. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs Petition.

6. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

7. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs Petition. 8.

8. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs Petition.

9. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs Petition.

10. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs Petition.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Negligence of Plaintiff.

2. Discovery is just beginning and Defendant reserves the right to list additional Affirmative Defenses as they become known.

Outcome: Defendant's verdict.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: