Courtney Lusk v. Do Hong

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA COURTNEY LUSK, Plaintiff, v. DO HONG, Defendant. Case No.: CJ - 2026 - 1478 PETITION COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Courtney Lusk, by and through her attorney of record, Charles T. Battle of THE BATTLE LAW FIRM, PLLC and for her cause of action against the Defendant, Do Hong and hereby states the following: I. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Courtney Lusk ("Plaintiff or "Ms. Lusk"), is an individual and a resident of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. 2. Defendant, Do Hong ("Defendant"), is an individual, who upon information and belief, resides in Denton, TX. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. All damages arising from the cause of actions were sustained in Oklahoma County. 4. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the Parties. 5. Oklahoma County is the proper venue pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, § 141. III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 6. On or about May 17, 2025, Ms. Lusk was operating a vehicle on the inside lane of West Memorial Road, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma and was traveling eastbound. 7. Approximately 125 feet west of N. May Avenue, Defendant pulled out of a private drive onto eastbound West Memorial Road and tried to cross through several lanes of traffic to get to the inside lane. 8. Due to the improper turn, his failure to yield, improperly crossing through several lanes; and his failure to devote full time and attention; Defendant caused the vehicles that he and Lusk were operating to collide violently. 9. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff was injured. 10. Also, after the collisions occurred, a law enforcement officer employed by the Oklahoma City Police Department named Bryan Austin ("Officer Austin") conducted an investigation. 11. Thereafter, Officer Austin drafted an "Official Oklahoma Traffic Collision Report" ("Accident Report"). 12. The Accident Report indicated that Defendant operated his vehicle in an unsafe manner by making an improper turn, making unsafe lane crossings, and failing to yield from a private driveway. 13. The Accident Report concluded that Defendant's conduct was the cause of the accident. 14. The Accident Report also concluded that Ms. Lusk took no improper action in operating her vehicle. 15. Defendant was negligent and his actions were the cause of the damages and injuries to Plaintiff. 16. As a direct result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff was injured and she is seeking judgment against Defendant for property damage, physical pain and suffering (past and future) mental pain and suffering (past and future), permanent injury, medical expenses (past and future), emotional distress (past and future). 17. Plaintiff did nothing to contribute to this collision and she is fault free. 18. Defendant failed to devote full time and attention while operating his vehicle, failed to yield, made an improper turn, and/or made unsafe lane changes Therefore, Defendant is negligent per se. IV. CAUSES OF ACTION A. NEGLIGENCE 19. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every material allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 18, supra, as fully set forth herein. 20. Defendant was negligent in causing the collisions when Defendant failed to devote full time and attention; improper turn; crossing through several lanes; and his failure to yield which caused the collision to occur. 21. Defendant had a duty to operate his motor vehicle in a safe manner as a reasonably prudent person would in similar circumstances. 22. Defendant breached his duty when he negligently caused the collision to occur. 23. As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Ms. Lusk sustained severe bodily injuries and emotional distress. 24. Defendant’s negligence was the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damages. 25. Defendant negligently, intentionally, and/or willfully operated the vehicle in a manner that was a foreseeable risk of harm. Because Defendant failed to exercise such duty, he negligently injured Plaintiff. 26. Defendant's breach of said duty was the actual and proximate cause of the damages sustained by Plaintiff. B. NEGLIGENCE PER SE 27. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every material allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 26, supra, as fully set forth herein. 28. Defendant violated several traffic statutes promulgated by the State of Oklahoma and the City of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 29. The aforementioned statutes provide for civil fines and/or imprisonment. 30. Violations of the aforementioned statutes resulted in and caused harm for which the statutes were designed to prevent, and the violation of the statutes by Defendant resulted in Plaintiff incurring damages. C. PUNITIVE DAMAGES 31. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every material allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 30, supra, as fully set forth herein. 32. There is clear and convincing evidence that Defendant's conduct was in reckless disregard of Plaintiff's rights and Defendant was either aware or did not care that there was a substantial and unnecessary risk that his conduct would cause serious injury to others. 33. Defendant acted in a reckless disregard to the well-being of others, including Plaintiff because Defendant was aware or did not care that there was a substantial unnecessary risk that his conduct would cause serious injury to others. 34. Furthermore, Defendant’s conduct was unreasonable under the circumstances, and there was a high probability that his conduct would cause serious harm to others. V. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for actual and punitive damages in an amount greater than $10,000.00 against Defendant for each of the Plaintiff's claims to be determined at trial, interest allowed by law, costs of suit including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and for other such relief this Court deems just. Respectfully Submitted, Charles T. Battle, OBA #22486 THE BATTLE LAW FIRM, PLLC 1415 NW 43rd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Telephone: (405) 420-0082 Facsimile:(405) 416-5492 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF COURTNEY LUSK JURY TRIAL DEMANDED! ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED!