Source: https://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=CJ-2011-6132&s=OK&d=57975
Timestamp: 2019-06-24 13:12:57
Document Index: 569455267

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 100', '§ 11', '§ 32', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 32']

Re: Tina Marie Olson v. Arvest Bank of Duncan, Oklahoma
Case Style: Tina Marie Olson v. Arvest Bank of Duncan, Oklahoma
Case Number: CJ-2011-6132
Plaintiff's Attorney: David W. Van Meter
Defendant's Attorney: Nathan E. Clark
Description: COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Tina Marie Olson, and with her Petition against the Defendants alleges and states as follows:
1. On the 7th day of July, 2006, Plaintiff, Tina Marie Olson, was stopped at the intersection of Linda Lane, in the westbound lane of 5.2. 29th St. in Del City, Oklahoma, when her vehicle was rear-ended by the Arvest Bank vehicle driven by Mr. Scantlin, who was also traveling west on S.E. 29th St., causing property damage and personal injuries.
2. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter as the acts complained of herein occurred in Oklahoma County.
3. Petition was originally filed on June 30, 2008, within the statute of limitations, service was made and discovery proceeded. The lawsuit was subsequently Dismissed Without Prejudice on September 1, 2010. Plaintiff re-files her Petition timely within one year of the Dismissal pursuant to 1 2 O.S. Â§ 100.
4. The Defendant was negligent in following too closely (0.5. 47 Â§ 11-310 and Oklahoma City Municipal Code Article V Â§ 32-1 97), in failing to keep a proper lookout, in failing to maintain a safe speed given the traffic conditions (O.S. 47 Â§ 11- 801), in failing to use the brakes or steering mechanism to avoid the collision, and in failing to devote full time and attention (0.5. 47 Â§ 11-901(b) and Oklahoma City Municipal Code Article I Â§ 32-10).
5. The Defendantâ€™s violations of Oklahoma Statutes and violation of the Oklahoma City Municipal Codes, referenced in paragraph 3 above, directly caused the damages and injuries that the Plaintiffs sustained. This constitutes negligence per se.
6. At all relevant times, Defendant Matthew John Scantlin was an employee of Defendant Arvest Bank and was acting within the course and scope of his employment when this collision occurred.
7. The Defendant Arvest Bank is responsible for the acts and/or omissions of its employee at all relevant times concerning the subject injuries.
8. As a result of the Defendantâ€™s negligence, the Plaintiff has incurred property damage, medical expenses and sustained pain and suffering, entitling her to actual damages in excess of $10,000.00 from the Defendant.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant in excess of $10,000.00 and for costs, interests, attorneyâ€™s fees, and any other relief to which she may be entitled.
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS
ARVEST BANK OF DUNCAN, OKLAHOMA, AND MATTHEW SCANTLIN
COME NOW, Defendants Arvest Bank of Duncan, Oklahoma (â€œArvestâ€�) and Matthew John Scantlin (â€œScantlinâ€�) collectively (â€œThe Arvest Defendantsâ€�), and hereby respond to the Petition of Plaintiff as follows:
1. The Arvest Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs Petition as stated.
2. The Arvest Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs Petition.
3. The Arvest Defendants object to Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs Petition in that Plaintiff makes procedural averments requiring a legal conclusion as opposed to factual averments requiring an admission or denial as required under the Oklahoma Pleading Code. To the extent a response is necessary, The Arvest Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs Petition as stated.
4. The Arvest Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs Petition as stated.
5. The Arvest Defendants deny the allegations of ParagraphS of Plaintiffs Petition as stated.
6. The Arvest Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs Petition.
7. The Arvest Defendants object to Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs Petition in that Plaintiff makes procedural averments requiring a legal conclusion as opposed to factual averments requiring an admission or denial as required under the Oklahoma Pleading Code. To the extent a response is necessary, The Arvest Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph
7 of Plaintiffs Petition as stated.
8. The Arvest Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs Petition
1. Defendants deny that they breached a duty owed to Plaintiff.
2. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs comparative negligence exceeded that of the Defendants, and Plaintiffs claims are therefore barred by the doctrine of comparative fault.
3. Defendants contend that this collision occurred as a result of an unavoidable accident and that no liability can be attributed to these Defendants.
4. The negligence of these Defendants, if any, was a mere condition and not a proximate cause of the accident.
5. The proximate cause of the accident was the actions of a third party over whom these Defendants have no control or for which they cannot liable.
6. The injuries complained of by Plaintiff were either fully or partially the result of a pre-existing condition, so no recovery can be had from these Defendants.
7. Defendants deny Plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of attorney fees.
8. If there are any materials allegations which these Defendants have not denied and which adversely affect their rights, these Defendants here and now deny the same.
9. These answering Defendantsâ€™ investigation and discovery has not been completed, and therefore, these Defendants reserve the right to amend their answers to allege additional defense, affirmative or otherwise, counterclaims or third-party claims which such investigation and discovery may reveal.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendants Arvest Bank of Duncan, Oklahoma and Matthew JoIm Scantlin move this Court for a dismissal of the action and for any and all other relief which this Court deems just and equitable.
Outcome: CASE COMES ON FOR JURY TRIAL. PLAINTIFF APPEARS WITH COUNSEL DAVID W. VANMETER AND ALAN MASSIE. NATHAN E. CLARK AND CARL MORRISON APPEARS WITH DEFENDANT. BOTH SIDES ANNOUNCE READY. TWENTY FIVE JURORS SWORN TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. NINETEEN CALLED TO THE BOX. VOIR DIRE CONDUCTED. JUROR #11 EXCUSED FOR CAUSE BY THE JUDGE. JUROR CALLED AND ANSWERS QUESTIONS. PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT PASS JURY FOR CAUSE. PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES. ALL CHALLENGES CALLED. THIRTEEN JURORS SWORN TO TRY CASE. COURT INSTRUCTION #1. OPENING STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT. WITNESS SWORN, TESTIMONY HEARD, EXHIBITS OFFERED. COURT ADMONISHES JURY AND RECESSES UNTIL 10/30/2012 @ 9:00 AM. COURT REPORTER KAREN TWYFORD.
DAY 2 :10/30/2012
ENT; JURY TRIAL CONTINUES AFTER NIGHTS RECESS. ALL PARTIES PRESENT AND READY. JURORS RETURN TO BOX. WITNESSES SWORN, TESTIMONY HEARD, EXHIBITS OFFERED. PLAINITFF'S REST.JUROR #8 EXCUSED FROM JURY DUTY BY THE JUDGE. DEFENDANT CALLS WITNESSES. CROSS EXAMINATION. DEFENDANT REST.DEMURRER OVERRULED.COURT ADMONISHES JURY AND RECESSES UNTIL 10/31/2012 @ 9:00 AM. COURT REPORTER KAREN TWYFORD.
DAY 3: 10/31/2012
ENT; JURY TRIAL CONTINUES AFTER NIGHTS RECESS. ALL PARTIES PRESENT AND READY. JURORS RETURN TO BOX. COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY. CLOSING ARGUMENTS BY PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT. JURY RETIRES TO DELIBERATE AND RETURNS WITH VERDICT AND FINDS: PLAINTIFF'S CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE 2%. DEFENDANT NEGLIGENCE 98%. THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY THE PLAINTIFF IS THE SUM OF $125,000.00. JURY DISCHARGED, CLERK DIRECTED TO FILE AND RECORD VERDICT ACCORDINGLY. COURT REPORTER KAREN TWYFORD