M ORE L AW
LEXAPEDIA
Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto

Information
About MoreLaw
Contact MoreLaw

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 12-08-2012

Case Style: Robert L. Sanchez v. Timothy Romandel Campbell

Case Number: CJ-2011-1199

Judge: Patricia G. Parrish

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Larry Cassil

Defendant's Attorney: Wesley G. Smith

Description: Robert L. Sanchez sued Timothy Romandel Campbell on an auto negligence theory claiming:

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, ROBERT S. SANCHEZ, for his amended cause of action against the Defendant, TIMOTHY CAMPBELL, JR., alleges that on the day of January, 2010, at approximately 7:30 a.m. in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the Plaintiff, ROBERT L. SANCHEZ, was operating his motor vehicle, a 1993 Ford Crown Victoria, traveling south on 1-35 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, when the Defendant, CAMPBELL, JR., operating a motor vehicle, came into Plaintiff, SANCHEZ’S lane, colliding with the left front of the Plaintiff’s motor vehicle.

Plaintiff alleges that the damage to his motor vehicle is so extensive that it is beyond economical repair and that the, Plaintiff, has sustained personal injury.

Plaintiff alleges that his injuries are a direct result of the negligence of the Defendant.

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant was negligent in the following particulars:

(a) The Defendant, CAMPBELL, JR., drove his motor vehicle from a lane left of Plaintiff, directly into the path of and into the left front of the Plaintiffs motor vehicle, knocking Plaintiffs vehicle into the railing on the west side of 1-3 5, in violation of the statutes of the State of Oklahoma and the ordinances of the City of Oklahoma City.

(b) The Plaintiff, SANCHEZ, alleges that as a direct result of the negligence of the Defendant, he has sustained medical expenses, loss of work and personal injury to his person and that he has been damaged in an amount exceeding $10,000.00 exclusive of attorney fees and court costs.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant for an amount exceeding $10,000.00 exclusive of attorney fees and court costs, together with other relief deemed appropriate herein by this trial Court.

Defendant appeared and answered as follows:

1.

The Defendant admits an automobile accident occurred between the parties in Oklahoma County as alleged in the first Paragraph of Plaintiff’s Petition. The Defendant is without sufficient information andlor knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in the first Paragraph of Plaintiffs Petition and demands strict proof thereof

2.

The Defendant is without sufficient information andJor knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in the second, third, fourth and fifth Paragraphs of Plaintiff’s Petition and demands strict proof thereof

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

COMES NOW Defendant, TIMOTHY ROMANDEL CAMPBELL, and states the following affirmative defenses to the Second Amended Petition filed by Plaintiff herein:

3.

The Petition fails to state a claim against Defendant upon which relief can be granted.

4.

The Plaintiff may have been negligent, and such negligence on the part of Plaintiff proximately caused or contributed to the accident and Plaintiff’s damage, if any, and such negligence on the part of the Plaintiff was greater than the negligence of the Defendant and Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to recover.

5.

The Defendant may have been confronted with a sudden emergency not brought about by his own negligence, and in reacting to that emergency, the Defendant acted as a reasonable and pmdent person would have acted under such circumstances.

6.

The accident may have been an unavoidable accident, casualty and misfortune that occurred without negligence on the part of the Defendant.

7.

The accident may have been proximately caused by the negligence of a third party over whom this Defendant had no control, and for those acts this Defendant is not responsible.

8.

Whether the Plaintiff suffers from any pre-existing or post-arising medical condition will be developed during discovery and Defendant herein reserves all defenses in that regard.

9.

Whether the Plaintiff has acted to mitigate his damages will be developed during discovery and Defendant herein reserves all defenses in that regard.

proximately caused or contributed to the accident and Plaintiff’s damage, if any, and such negligence on the part of the Plaintiff was greater than the negligence of the Defendant and Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to recover.

5.

The Defendant may have been confronted with a sudden emergency not brought about by his own negligence, and in reacting to that emergency, the Defendant acted as a reasonable and pmdent person would have acted under such circumstances.

6.

The accident may have been an unavoidable accident, casualty and misfortune that occurred without negligence on the part of the Defendant.

7.

The accident may have been proximately caused by the negligence of a third party over whom this Defendant had no control, and for those acts this Defendant is not responsible.

8.

Whether the Plaintiff suffers from any pre-existing or post-arising medical condition will be developed during discovery and Defendant herein reserves all defenses in that regard.

9.

Whether the Plaintiff has acted to mitigate his damages will be developed during discovery and Defendant herein reserves all defenses in that regard.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered, Defendant prays that Plaintiff takes nothing by way of his Second Amended Petition herein and that Defendant be dismissed with costs and attorney fees and any other relief this Court may deem equitable and just.

Outcome: PRINCE: ENT: CASE COMES ON FOR JURY TRIAL. PLAINTIFF APPEARS WITH ATTORNEY LARRY CASSIL. DEFENDANT APPEARS WITH ATTORNEY WESLEY SMITH. BOTH PARTIES ANNOUCE READY. 25 JURORS SWORN TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. 18 CALLED TO THE BOX. COURT CALLED TO THE BOX. VOIR DIRE CONDUCTED BY PLAINTIFF AND PASSED FOR CAUSE. VOIR DIRE CONDUCTED BY DEFENDANT AND PASSED FOR CAUSE. PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES, ALL CHALLENGES CALLED. 12 JURORS SWORN TO TRY CASE. COURT'S INSTRUCTION # 1.OPENING STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT. PLAINTIFF CALLS WITNESS. TESTIMONY HEARD, CROSS EXAMINATION. EXHIBITS OFFERED. PLAINTIFF REST. DEFENDANT CALLS WITNESS, WITNESS SWORN, TESTIMONY HEARD, CROSS EXAMINATION WAIVED. DEFENDANT CALLS WITNESS BY VIDEO DEPOSTION. PLAINTIFF REST. NO REBUTTLE. COURT'S INSRUCTIONS TO THE JURY. CLOSING ARGUMENTS BY PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT. JURY RETIRES TO DELIBERATE AND RETURNS WITH VERDICT AND FINDS ISSUES IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT, TIMOTHY CAMPBELL. SIGNED BY JURY FOREPERSON. CLERK DIRECTED TO FILE AND RECORD VERDICT ACCORDINGLY. MARLENA BROWN HOLCOMB, COURT REPORTER.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



 
 
Home | Add Attorney | Add Expert | Add Court Reporter | Sign In
Find-A-Lawyer By City | Find-A-Lawyer By State and City | Articles | Recent Lawyer Listings
Verdict Corrections | Link Errors | Advertising | Editor | Privacy Statement
© 1996-2019 MoreLaw, Inc. - All rights reserved.