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: 01-07-2013

Case Style: Clifton Anthony States, II v. Jesse R. Lees

Case Number: CJ-2012-1816

Judge: Thomas E. Prince

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoam

Plaintiff's Attorney: Joe Carson

Defendant's Attorney: Richard A. Bruce, Bill Molinsky, Jr. and Naureen Hubbard

Description: Clifton Anthony States, II, Beyel; Tubbs, a minor, by and through her father and next friend, billy H. Tubbs, Jr. and Schina D. Roberts, a minor, by and through her mother and next friend Nakia R. Robers sued Jesse R. Lees on auto negligence theories claiming:

1. That the Plaintiffs, Clifton Anthony States, Beyel Tubbs, a minor, by and through her father and next fried, Billy H. Tubbs, Jr., and Schina D. Roberts, a minor, by and through her mother and next friend, Nakia R. Roberts, (hereinafter collectively “Plaintiffs”) are residents of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.

2. That the Defendant, Jesse R. Lees, is a resident of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.

3. That on or about the 27°’ day of December, 2011, in Midwest City, Oklahoma, Plaintiff, Clifton States, was driving a 1989 Black Ford Bronco at a stop westbound on SE 29th Street near Brett Drive when Defendant, Jesse R. Lees, driving a Ford Focus, pulled out from a private drive onto SE 2gth Street into the path of Clifton States, colliding with the rear of Clifton State’s vehicle.

4. Beyel Tubbs, was a passenger in a 1989 Black Ford Bronco driven by Clifton States in the incident herein. Plaintiff Beyel Tubbs was at all times relevant hereto an innocent passenger. Said collision resulted in Plaintiffs suffering injuries.

5. Schina Roberts, was a passenger in a 1989 Black Ford Bronco driven by Clifton States in the incident herein. Plaintiff Schina Roberts was at all times relevant hereto an innocent passenger. Said collision resulted in Plaintiffs suffering injuries.

6. It is Plaintiffs belief that at the time of this collision, Defendant Less was negligent in the operation of his vehicle which cause the incident complained of herein. Defendant Lees failed to devote full time and attention to his driving and failed to yield the right- of-way from a private drive, and changed lanes unsafely.

7. Prior to this collision, Plaintiffs, Clifton States, Beyel Tubbs, and Schina Roberts were in good health with normal life expectancies, but as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiffs, Clifton States, Beyel Tubbs, and Schina Roberts have sustained damages for which they are entitled to recover.

8. Pursuant to the provisions of 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(2), Plaintiffs submit this preliminary computation of damages south in this lawsuit. As this is an action for injuries suffered by adults as well as by a minor, Plaintiffs advise that all damages recoverable by law are sought, including those listed in OUJI 2d 4.1 — 4.4. Plaintiffs advise that their medical bills incurred to date are unknown at this time. At this point, Plaintiffs do not know the amount of future medical expenses. These items are among the elements for the jury to consider in fixing the amount of damages to award Plaintiff. Other than the amounts which Plaintiffs have specifically identified, and which are capable of being ascertained to some degree of certainty, Plaintiffs are unable to guess or speculate as to what amount of damages a jury might award. The elements for the jury to consider include the following:

A. Plaintiffs’ physical pain and suffering, past and future;

B. Plaintiffs’ mental pain and suffering, past and future;

C. Plaintiffs’ ages;

D. Plaintiffs’ physical condition immediately before and after the accident;

E. The nature and extent of Plaintiffs’ injuries;

F. Whether the injuries are permanent;

G. The physical impairment;

H. The disfigurement;

I. Loss of [earnings/time]

J. Impairment of earning capacity;

K. The reasonable expenses of the necessary medical care, treatment, and services, past and future;

L. The impairment of earning capacity of Plaintiffs, Beyel Tubbs, and Schina Roberts, after reaching the age of eighteen years;

M. Any future loss of earnings or impairment of earning capacity of Plaintiffs, Beyel Tubbs, and Schina Roberts, from now until they reaches the age of eighteen years;

N. Any loss of past household and similar services which Plaintiff Beyel Tubbs would have given Plaintiff Billy Tubbs, Jr.;

0. Any loss of past household and similar services which Plaintiff Schina Roberts would have given Plaintiff; Nakia Roberts;

P. My loss of household and similar services which Plaintiff, Beyel Tubbs, would have given Plaintiff; Billy Tubbs, Jr., between now and the time she reaches the age of eighteen years.

Q. Any loss of household and similar services which Plaintiff; Schina Roberts, would have given Plaintiff; Nakia Roberts, between now and the time she reaches the age of eighteen years.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendant in an amount potentially in excess of $75,000.00 for compensatory damages, together with attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs of this action, and for such other relief which this Court deems just and proper.

Defendant Jesse R. Lees appeared, answered and counter-claimed:

1. The Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny those claims and allegations contained in Paragraphs 4, 5, 7, and 8 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and therefore demands strict proof thereof.

2. The Defendant admits those claims of residency in Paragraphs land 2 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.

3. The Defendant admits that an automobile accident took place between the parties on the date as set forth in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’ Petition. The Defendant denies those remaining claims and allegations contained in paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and therefore demands strict proof thereof.

4. The Defendant specifically denies those allegations and claims contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof.

For further answer and defense the Defendant states as follows:

First Affirmative Defense

The negligence if any of the parties and any relevant non-parties will be developed during discovery and the Defendant specifically reserves the right to plead defenses as to contributory and comparative negligence at the time of pretrial. Second Affirmative Defense Whether Plaintiff(s) has acted to mitigate their damages will be developed during discovery and the Defendant specifically reserves the right to plead that defense at the time of pretrial.

Third Affirmative Defense

Whether any portion of the Plathtiffs’ claims has been barred by the statute of limitations or by the doctrines of wavier, release and accord-and-satisfaction will be developed during discovery and Defendant specifically reserves the right to plead those affirmative defenses at the time of pretrial.

Fourth Affirmative Defense

Whether the Plaintiff(s) suffers from any preexisting or post-arising medical condition will be developed during discovery and the Defendant specifically reserves the right to plead those defenses at the time of pretrial.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED Defendant prays that the action against him/her/them be dismissed and he be awarded costs such as the court may determine is just.

COUNTER-CLAIM AGAINST PLAJNTIFF CLIFTON ANTHONY STATES. II

COMES NOW the Defendant Jesse R. Lees and asserts a counter-claim against Plaintiff Clifton Anthony States, II. In support hereof, Defendant Jesse R. Lees states as follows:

1. That the Defendant adopts all claims of residency contained in Plaintiffs’ Petition.

2. That an automobile collision took place between the parties on the date and location stated in Plaintiffs’ Petition.

3. That Plaintiff Clifton Antony States, II, was negligent in the operation of his vehicle at the time of this collision which caused, contributed, and/or in some degree was negligently responsible for the incident complained of in Plaintiff’s Petition.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Jesse R. Lees prays that Clifton Anthony States, II, indemnify and/or contribute to any damages that may be awarded by the Court against Defendant Jesse R. Lees for the alleged injuries sustained by Plaintiffs Beyel Tubbs, a minor, by and through her Father and next friend, Billy H. Tubbs, Jr., and Schina D. Roberts, a minor, by and through her mother and next friend, Nakia R. Roberts. Further, Defendant prays this Honorable Court to award costs, attorney’s fees, and other such relief to which the Court deems Defendant is entitled.


Plaintiff Clifton Anthony States, II answered the counter-claim against him as follows:

1. Admitted;

2. Admitted;

3. Denied.

First Affirmative Defense

Jesse K Lees is negligent and solely responsible for the wreck at issues in this matter.

Second Affirmative Defense

Counter-Claim Defendant, Clifton Anthony States II, reserves the right to plead defenses as to contributory and comparative negligence at the time of pretrial.

Third Affirmative Defense

Jesse R. Lees has failed to mitigate his damages.

Fourth Affirmative Deft nse

Jesse R. Lees claims are barred by the statute of limitations or by the doctrines of wavier, release and accord-and-satisfaction.

Fifth Affirmative Defense

Defendant, Jesse R. Lees suffers from pre-existing or post-arising medical conditions that will be developed during discovery.

Sixth Affirmative Defense

Defendant, Jesse R. Lees, fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED Counter-Claim Defendant, Clifton Anthony States II prays that the action against him be dismissed and he be awarded costs such as the Court may determine is just.

Outcome: NOW, ON THIS DAY OF 21st day of December, 2012, this matter comes on for consideration of the parties’ Joint Application for Court Approval of Settlement, and Order for Deposit. The Plaintiffs appear in person and with counsel of record, Joe Carson, and the Defendant appears through counsel of record, Richard A. Bruce. The Court, having reviewed the stipulations and considering the evidence presented on the record, finds as follows:

1. On or about December 27, 2011, at SE 29th Street, Midwest City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, the minor child, Beyel Tubbs was injured in an automobile accident.

2. That Billy H. Tubbs, Jr. is the biological Parent and Next Friend of the minor child.

3. As a result of the accident, the minor Plaintiff required medical attention, and the minor Plaintiffs parent and next friend incurred certain expenses for the care of the minor Plaintiff.

4. Non-Party USAA Casualty Insurance Company issued a policy of insurance covering this loss.

5. The parties have reached a compromise settlement whereby the Plaintiffs agree to release and discharge Defendant Jesse R. Lees and USAA Casualty Insurance Company from any and all claims arising from the accident, in exchange for the total payment to the Plaintiffs in the amount of Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars (6,250.00).

6. The settlement proceeds shall be distributed as follows: Gross Settlement Amount 6,250.00

Attorney Costs $490.71

Attorney Fees $2,083.33

Chiropractic Physicians Center $1,337.50

To Beyel Tubbs $500.00


7. $1838.46 shalll be placed in a trust account at Weokie Credit Union pursuant to 12 O.S. 1991, § 83 for the use and benefit of the minor child.

8. Plaintiffs shall pay all medical bills and liens not otherwise listed above and shall be charged with discharging all rights of subrogation or indemnification asserted by any third party. The parties agree that the payment made in accordance with this compromise settlement shall not be construed as an admission of liability on the part of the Defendant, but rather is paid in compromise of a disputed claim in order to avoid further litigation.

9. The parties enter into this agreement of their own free will and they believe the agreement to be just and fair.

10. The Parent and Next Friend of the a minor, is aware that by asking the Court to approve this settlement that he\she\they waive(s) the minor’s right to trial by jury. He\She\They is\are aware that the minor, has until one year beyond their eighteenth birthday to bring suit against Defendant as to the claims against him\her\it. He\She\They freely, knowingly, and voluntarily asks the Court to approve his waiver of these rights on behalf of the minor child.

11. The Court finds that this settlement is in the best interest of the minor child and the Parent and Next Friend agrees with the Court’s ruling in this regard.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the Order Approving Settlement and Order for Deposit filed by the parties to this action should be and the same is hereby granted, and this Court approves the terms of the settlement agreement as set out herein.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the claims of Plaintiffs are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the Probate Division of this Court retain jurisdiction over the settlement funds pursuant to 12 O.S. § 83, until the minor reaches their 18th birthday.

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.