Date: 08-19-2014

Case Style: Lanava Lansdale and Melinda Wood v. John Morgan

Case Number: CJ-2012-653

Judge: Tracy Schumacher

Court: District Court, Cleveland County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Stephen D. Bachman

Defendant's Attorney: Christine B. McInnes

Description: Lanava Lansdale and Melinda Wood v. John Morgan

COME NOW the Plaintiffs, Lanava Lansdale, individually, and Melinda Wood, individually, and for their cause of action against the Defendant, John Morgan, allege and states as follows:
1. That the Plaintiff, Lanava Lansdale, is a resident of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma; that the Plaintiff, Melinda Wood, is a resident of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma; that the Defendant, John Morgan, is a resident of Ada, Pontotoc County, State of Oklahoma. Further, the incident which gives rise to this litigation is a motor vehicle collision which occurred in Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma. The Plaintiffs assert that the Court has jurisdiction over the parties and of the subject matter and that venue is appropriate.
2. That on or about the 2Vt day of April, 2012, the Plaintiff, Lanava Lansdale, was operating her vehicle northbound on US 77 near Lexington in Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma. At that same time, the Plaintiff, Melinda Wood, was a passenger in the vehicle being operated by the Plaintiff, Lanava Lansdale. The Defendant, John Morgan, was operating his vehicle also northbound on US 77, and attempted to pass Plaintiffs’
vehicle on the left. When the Defendant attempted to re-enter the northbound lane, he did not allow for sufficient clearance and thereby caused a serious and significant collision to occur. As a result of this collision, the Plaintiffs, Lanava Lansdale and Melinda Wood, did both receive significant injuries. The collision was a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, John Morgan.
3. That the negligence of the Defendant, John Morgan, at said time and place, among other things, includes:
a. In failing to keep a reasonable and proper lookout;
b. In failing to allow for sufficient clearance at the time he re-entered the northbound lane;
c. In negligently attempting to pass the Plaintiffs’ vehicle without allowing for sufficient clearance; and
d. In negligently causing the collision in question.
4. As a result of the occurrence described herein, the Plaintiff, Lanava Lansdale, did suffer severe personal injuries causing the Plaintiff to seek medical treatment. The Plaintiff, Lanava Lansdale, has experienced physical pain and mental anguish and will, in all reasonable probability, continue to do so in the future by reason of the nature of the Plaintiff’s injuries. The Plaintiff, Lanava Lansdale, has been caused to incur medical charges, lost wages and expenses in the past and will continue to incur medical expenses, lost wages and expenses in the future for said injuries.
5. As a result of the occurrence described herein, the Plaintiff, Melinda Wood, did suffer severe personal injuries causing the Plaintiff to seek medical treatment. The Plaintiff, Melinda Wood, has experienced physical pain and mental anguish and will, in all reasonable probability, continue to do so in the future by reason of the nature of the Plaintiff’s injuries. The Plaintiff, Melinda Wood, has been caused to incur medical charges, lost wages and expenses in the past and will continue to incur medical expenses, lost wages and expenses in the future for said injuries.
6. By reason of the above and foregoing, the Plaintiffs, Lanava Lansdale, individually, and Melinda Wood, individually, each have been damaged in a sum in excess of TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00) and in excess of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($75,000.00) for said injuries.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, Lanava Lansdale, individually, and Melinda Wood, individually, each pray for a judgment against the Defendant, John Morgan, in an amount in excess of TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00) and in excess of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($75,000.00), attorney fees, costs of this action and for such and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: