Date: 06-23-2013

Case Style: William C. Boston v. John Bradford

Case Number: CJ-2013-2491

Judge: Barbara G. Swinton

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: William C. Boston, III

Defendant's Attorney: Frances J. Armstrong and Tim Cain

Description: William C. Boston, as Guardian Ad Litem for and on behalf of Tatiana Rodrigeuz, a minor, Yolanda D. Henderson, Individually and as parent and next friend of Nyshae L. Dumas, a minor, and Lamont Eugene Hood, individually and as parent and next friend of Lamaasha Hood, a minor, sued John Bradford on a negligence theory claiming:

1. The parties agree that this Court has jurisdiction and venue over this acion.

2. Plaintiff William C. Boston, III, is the Guardian Ad Litem appointed by the court to act for and on behalf of Tatiana Rodriguez, a minor, who is in the custody of the Oklah ma Department of Human Services.

3. Plaintiff Yolanda D. Henderson is the parent and next friend of Nysh ae L. Dumas, a minor.

4. Plaintiff Lamont Eugene Hood is the parent and next friend of Lamasha Rood, a minor.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

5. The incident giving rise to this action occurred on or about the April 8,2010, at or near the 5400 block of Douglas near Linda in Spencer, Oklahoma County, State of Oklah ma. As a result of said incident, the minor children have disputed claims for damages against the Jefendant who denies liability for the alleged injuries and damages suffered by said minors, md by way of compromise, has offered to settle this matter for agreed total amounts.

6. The Plaintiffs have investigated the facts surrounding and pertaining to the incident herein and the parties involved herein, and believe and allege that said proposals of the above named parties to be in the best interest of said minors, fully understanding that ifthe compromises] ierein proposed are approved by this Court and consummated, Plaintiffs and the minor children will be forever barred and prevented from seeking further recovery of compensation from the Defendant, even though the injuries sustained might worsen, or be in the future, more serious than now believcd.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

For their second cause of action against the Defendant, Plaintiffs William C. Boston, III, as Guardian Ad Litem for and on behalf of Tatiana Rodriguez, a minor, Yolanda D. Henderson, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend ofNyshae L. Dumas, a minor, and Lamor t Eugene Hood, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Lamasha Hood, a minor, state and alLege as follows:

1. Plaintiffs adopt by reference the allegations contained in the First Cause of Action and ffirther states that as a result ofthe injuries sustained by said minors, it was necessary to seek medical treatment and care, and said minors have incurred and will incur in the future medial expenses, and further, Plaintiffs have lost and will lose services of said minors.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, William C. Boston, III, as Guardian Ad Litem ft•r and on behalf of Tatiana Rodriguez, a minor, Yolanda D. Henderson, Individually and as Parent nd Next Friend of Nyshae L. Dumas, a minor, and Lamont Eugene Hood, Individually and as Parent Lnd Next Friend of Lamasha Hood, a minor, pray for judgment against the Defendant, John Bradford in the First and Second Causes of Action for the amounts agreed to in this matter.

Defendant John Bradford appeared and answered as follows:

I.

The Defendant, John Bradford, denies generally and specifically each and every material allegation contained in Plaintiffs’ Petition.

II.

Without admission of liability, the Defendant John Bradford has offered to pay each Plaintiff an agreed amount, said amounts not to be deemed as admissions of liability on the part of said Defendant, but that said payments are merely paid in compromise of disputed claims in order to avoid litigation.

III.

Said payments to be paid by or on behalf of the Defendant are conditioned upon the authority and Order of this Court approving the settlements between the parties, and the Court approving an Order dismissing with prejudice the claims of the Plaintiffs.

Outcome: NOW on this 22nd day of May, 2013, this matter comes on before the undersigned Judge upon the Joint Application for Court Approval of Settlement and for Court Order and Dismissal With Prejudice submitted by Plaintiff and Defendant. The Joint Application seeks the Courtts approval of a settlement agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and Defendant, and requests the Court to dismiss with prejudice the claims of the Plaintiff The Court, after having reviewed stipulations included in the parties’ Joint Application, after hearing sworn testimony of the Plaintiff, and being frilly advised in the premises finds as follows:

1. Plaintiff, Lamont Eugene Hood, is the Parent and Next Friend of Lamasha Hood, a minor.

2. The motor vehicle accident giving rise to this action occurred on or about the April 8, 2010, at or near the 5400 block of Douglas near Linda in Spencer, Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. At the time of the accident, Plaintiffs minor child, Lamasha Hood, was a passenger in an school bus and suffered injuries as a result of the accident.

3. At the time of the accident, John Bradford had automobile liability insurance coverage through State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company pursuant to Policy No. 1201-364-36.

4. Plaintift Lamont Eugene Hood, Individually and as the Parent and Next Friend of Lamasha Hood, a minor, has entered into a settlement agreement with the Defendant, the terms of which are as follows:

a. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, on behalf of its insured, John Bradford, will pay the Plaintiff, Lamont Eugene Hood, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Lamasha Hood, a minor, the total sum of Two Thousand Four Hundred Twenty-five and 00/100 U’ollars ($2,425.00) in consideration for Plaintiffs full and final release and indemnity agreement to forever release and indemnify Defendant and Defendant’s insurance carrier, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, from any and all claims that may exist, now or in the future, arising out of the accident of April 8, 2010, and contingent upon this Court ordering the Plaintiffs claims to be dismissed with prejudice.

5. The settlement agreement referred to in the above paragraphs is fair and just and is entered into by the Plaintiff, Lamont Eugene Hood, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Lamasha Hood, a minor, ofhis own free will and after being fhlly aware of the circumstances.

6. The Plaintiff, Lamont Eugene Hood, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Lamasha Hood, a minor, has a right to a jury trial and said minor has a right to await reaching the age ofmaj ority, and up to one year thereafter, before bringing this action, and by entering into this settlement agreement has affirmatively agreed to waive said rights against said Defendant.

7. The Plaintiff, Lamont Eugene Hood, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Lamasha Hood, a minor, is aware that the money which is being paid to him is paid to him in his capacity Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Lamasha Hood, a minor, and that he must distribute the money to claimants entitled to share in the proceeds as determined and ordered by this Court.

8. The compromise of this disputed claim is in no way to be construed as an admission of liability by the Defendant to the Plaintiff

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Joint Application for Court Approval of Settlement and for Court Order of Dismissal With Prejudice of the above-entitled cause, and each claim thereof, submitted and filed by Plaintiff and Defendant should be, and the same is hereby, granted, and as this Court approves the terms of the settlementagreement as set out herein further, this Court dismisses with prejudice the claims ofthe Plaintiff against the Defendant and hereby authorizes the Plaintiff; Lamont Eugene Hood, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Lamasha Hood, a minor, to enter into and execute any settlement documents or releases necessary to complete the settlement.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: