Larry Carnes and Julie A. Carnes v. Justin Harden

Norman, Cleveland County, OK - Larry Carnes and Julie A. Carnes sued Justin Harden on a negligence theory claiming:



COME NOW, the Plaintiffs, Larry Canes and Julie Canes, and for their cause of action against the Defendant, Justin Harden, allege and state as follows:

1. Plaintiffs, Larry Canes and Julie Canes, are residents of Cleveland County, Oklahoma. The Defendant, Justin Harden, is a resident of Cleveland County, Oklahoma.

2. The Plaintiffs are and were at all times hereinafter stated the owners of rural property located in Cleveland County, Oklahoma.

3. The Defendant owns property adjoining the property of the Plaintiffs.

4. Between April25, 2012 and April 26,2012, Defendant or Defendant's agents, entered upon property owned by Plaintiffs and destroyed or damaged trees. By reason of unlawful acts of the Defendant, Plaintiffs have sustained damages in the amount of $25,515.00.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendant in the amount of $25,515.00, in addition to attorney fees and costs of this action.



Defendant Justin Harden, for his Answer to Plaintiffs' Petition, hereby generally and specifically denies each and every material allegation contained therein unless otherwise stated. For further answer and defense, Justin Harden states as follows:

1. Justin Harden admits he is a resident of Cleveland County, Oklahoma as set forth in paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs' Petition. Justin Harden is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs' Petition and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof.

2. Justin Harden is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs' Petition and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof.

3. Justin Harden admits he owns property located in Cleveland County, Oklahoma, as set forth in paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs' Petition, however Justin Harden is without sufficient information to either admit or deny whether Plaintiffs' are the proper owners of the property adjoining Justin Hardin and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof.

4. Justin Harden generally and specifically denies each and every material allegation contained in paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs' Petition and demands strict thereof.

For further answer and defense, Justin Harden states as follows:

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs' Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and Plaintiffs are therefore not entitled to recover herein.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs' damages, if any, were caused by a third party over whom this Defendant had no control and for those acts this Defendant is not responsible.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Waiver.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Estoppel.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Fraud.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Laches.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

License.

As discovery is ongoing, Defendant reserves the right to either add or withdraw affirmative defenses as discovery warrants.

WHEREFORE, having answered, Defendant Justin Harden respectfully requests Plaintiffs take nothing herein.



Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Justin Harden ("Harden”) for his Third-Party Petition for indemnity and/or contribution against Third-Party Defendant Jesse Stow ("Stow”) alleges and states as follows:

1. Plaintiffs, Larry Cames and Julie Carnes (jointly as "Plaintiffs”) filed a Petition against Justin Harden sounding in negligence arising from the alleged destruction and damage of trees on Plaintiffs' property on or about April 25, 2012 and April 26, 2012.

2. Harden hired Stow to clear trees and shrub on Harden's property on the aforementioned dates.

3. Harden instructed Stow to clear trees and shrub situated on his property, including any trees and shrubs up to the property line separating Plaintiffs' property and Harden's property.

4. Plaintiffs' allegations of tree destruction and damage on Plaintiffs' property are a direct result of Stow disregarding Harden's instructions by clearing trees and shrubs that were not on Harden's property.

5. Any liability assessed to Harden is a direct and proximate result of the actions of Stow's failure to follow Harden's instructions to Stow to only clear trees and shrubs on Harden's property.

6. Therefore, Third-Party Plaintiff Harden is entitled to indemnity and/or contribution from Third-Party Defendant Stow for any award made to Plaintiffs as a result of the incident at issue.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Justin Harden prays Plaintiffs take nothing against him by way of the allegations contained in the Petition, and further prays for contribution and/or indemnity from Third-Party Defendant Jesse Stow as to any award made in favor of Plaintiffs and against Harden, together with costs and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

09-19-2014 DISPCVDMWP 1 15609791 Sep 22 2014 11:21:14:327AM - $ 0.00

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Document Available (#1026657635)

09-22-2014 DWP - 15616543 Sep 23 2014 4:01:12:717PM - $ 0.00

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE / DEFENDANT/THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF JUSTIN HARDEN DISMISSES CLAIM AGAINST THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT JESSE STOW WITH PREJUDICE

Document Available (#1026654616)