CJ-2026-788 - Christopher Walker v. Laura Conley

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: this isn’t just a fender bender. This is a generational collision—literally. A 77-year-old woman pulls out of her driveway, doesn’t see the car coming, and smacks into a 20-year-old man in a purple Dodge Challenger hard enough that he’s now suing her for life-altering injuries. And not just any injuries—spinal damage, bulging discs in his neck and back, pain that’s allegedly going to haunt him for the next 65 years, according to IRS life expectancy tables. Yes, you read that right: the court is being asked to consider actuarial data on how long this guy is expected to live… because of a scrape on 71st Street in Tulsa.

So who are these two? On one side, we’ve got Christopher Walker, an 18-year-old (at the time) driver of a sleek, head-turning 2020 Dodge Challenger—purple, Texas plates, probably the kind of car you buy when you want people to know you’re not messing around. He was cruising west on E. 71st Street, minding his business in the far-left lane, doing whatever young men in muscle cars do when they’re not getting rear-ended by grandmas emerging from driveways. On the other side: Laura Conley, 77, driving a 2010 Nissan Versa—the automotive equivalent of sensible shoes. She was leaving her driveway at 2333 E. 71st Street, trying to make a right turn onto the same road, and somehow failed to notice Christopher’s very visible, very fast-looking purple beast barreling toward her. According to the police report, she crossed two lanes of traffic before plowing into him in the third—the far-left lane. Let that sink in. She didn’t just nudge him; she drove across the entire width of westbound 71st Street and hit a car in the inside lane. Either she misjudged the distance spectacularly, or she was having the kind of day where parallel universes feel closer than usual.

The crash happened on April 18, 2024, around 1:10 p.m.—broad daylight, dry roads, no weather issues, no traffic signals, no obscured views. Just a regular Thursday in Tulsa. Christopher says he was driving straight, minding his lane, when suddenly—bam—a black Nissan Versa appears in front of him like a slow-motion obstacle course fail. The impact damaged the front passenger side of his Challenger, including the wheel. His car had to be towed. Hers? Not so much. The report says it wasn’t towed, meaning the damage was likely minor—certainly not “disabling.” But here’s the kicker: at the scene, Laura allegedly said, “I’m so sorry. I’m so sorry,” and admitted she didn’t see him. The investigating officer concluded she “unsafely turned from a driveway,” issued her a citation (No. 7835836, for the true crime nerds), and closed the books on the crash report with zero injuries listed. Zero. Not even “possible.” Not even “complaints of pain.” Just… nothing.

Fast forward, and now Christopher is filing a lawsuit claiming permanent, lasting injuries—specifically, injuries to his cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine, including protruding discs at C3/4, C4/5, C5/6, and L5-S1. That’s neck and lower back, for those of us who haven’t memorized spinal anatomy. He’s saying he’s in pain—past and future—and will continue to be for decades. He’s 20 now, and according to IRS life expectancy tables (yes, those exist, and yes, they’re Exhibit 61 in this case), he’s expected to live another 65 years. That’s not just a number—it’s a billing projection. The longer you live, the more future medical expenses you can claim. And while the filing doesn’t state a specific dollar amount (just “in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction,” which is $75,000), we know he’s already spent over $12,275 on medical care. The rest? “To be proven at trial.” Which means: strap in, folks, because this could get expensive.

So why are they in court? Legally, it’s a classic negligence claim—but with a laundry list of supporting arguments that read like a defensive driving final exam. Christopher’s lawyers are arguing that Laura failed to yield, failed to keep a proper lookout, drove carelessly, was inattentive, made an unsafe turn, was driving too fast for conditions (though the road was dry and clear?), was negligent per se (meaning she broke the law, so she’s automatically negligent), drove recklessly, and was grossly negligent. That last one is spicy. Gross negligence isn’t just “oops, I didn’t see you.” It’s “I was so careless, it borders on intentional harm.” They’re also citing a dozen different Oklahoma statutes and Tulsa ordinances—basically saying, “She broke all the rules.” Among them: failing to stop before entering the roadway from a driveway, failing to yield to oncoming traffic, violating the basic speed law, failing to give full attention to driving, and committing reckless driving. It’s like the legal version of throwing the kitchen sink, then the fridge, then the entire garage.

What does Christopher want? Money. A lot of it, though we don’t know exactly how much—yet. But here’s the context: $75,000 is the minimum for a federal diversity case, so we know it’s at least that. Could it be $200,000? $500,000? With a 65-year life expectancy and claims of permanent spinal injury, the sky might be the limit. Future surgeries, physical therapy, pain management, lost wages, emotional distress—all of it could be on the table. And while $50,000 might sound like a lot for a fender bender, when you’re talking about decades of medical care and chronic pain, it starts to look like chump change. But let’s not forget: the crash report says no injuries. None. The police didn’t even list him as having “no apparent injury”—they just left it blank. So how does “no injury” become “permanent spinal damage” in a matter of weeks? That’s the million-dollar question (literally).

Our take? Look, we’re not here to mock real pain. If this guy is genuinely suffering, that’s tragic. But come on—this case is wild. A 77-year-old woman makes a bad turn, says she’s sorry, gets a citation, and now she’s being sued for lifetime damages based on IRS life tables and spinal imaging? The fact that the collision report lists zero injuries but the lawsuit claims permanent, lasting harm raises eyebrows. And let’s be real: a 20-year-old man with a purple Dodge Challenger and a team of lawyers (The Rode Law Firm, which sounds like a Western-themed legal posse) going after a grandmother in a decade-old Nissan? It feels less like justice and more like legal jiu-jitsu.

The most absurd part? The life expectancy chart. We get it—future damages matter. But quoting IRS Publication 590-B in a car crash lawsuit? That’s next-level. It’s like bringing a spreadsheet to a fistfight. And yet, that’s modern civil litigation. Emotions, apologies, and muscle cars collide—and what’s left is a paper trail of citations, exhibits, and actuarial projections. We’re rooting for clarity. For honesty. For someone—anyone—to say, “Hey, maybe this wasn’t that serious.” But in the world of civil court, where every bump can become a billion-dollar narrative, the only thing we know for sure is this: in the battle of the Challenger versus the Versa, the real damage wasn’t to the cars. It was to the peace between two Tulsans who probably just needed to slow down—and look both ways.

Case Overview

Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court in and for Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Robert L. Rode, Nathan W. Solomon

The Rode Law Firm

Relief Sought

Plaintiffs

Christopher Walker individual
Rep: Robert L. Rode, OBA #14307, Nathan W. Solomon, OBA #35237, The Rode Law Firm

Defendants

Laura Conley individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Negligence	Plaintiff claims that Defendant was negligent in operating her vehicle, resulting in a collision between the two vehicles.

Petition Text

3,130 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA CHRISTOPHER WALKER, an individual, Plaintiff, v. LAURA CONLEY, an individual, Defendant. Case No.: Judge: Attorney Lien Claimed PETITION COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Christopher Walker (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and for his claims against the Defendant, Laura Conley, (hereinafter “Defendant”), states as follows: 1. On or about April 18, 2024, Plaintiff was driving his 2020 Dodge Challenger west in the far left, inside lane of three westbound lanes on E. 71st Street in Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma. See, p.3 of the Oklahoma Official Collision Report attached hereto as Marked Trial Exhibit 6. 2. On or about April 18, 2024, Defendant was driving a 2010 Nissan Versa south from a private driveway and was turning right in order to head west on E. 71st Street in Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma. 3. The front driver’s side of Defendant’s vehicle collided with the front passenger side of Plaintiff’s vehicle. 4. The collision occurred in the far left lane of westbound E. 71st Street. 5. Defendant pulled out from the driveway, crossed two westbound lanes before colliding with Plaintiff’s vehicle. 6. At the scene of the collision, Defendant told the investigating Tulsa police officer that she did not see Plaintiff’s vehicle. See, p.3 of the Oklahoma Official Collision Report attached hereto as Marked Trial Exhibit 6. 7. At the scene of the collision, Defendant was issued a citation # 7835836 for unsafely turning from a driveway. See, pp. 1, 3 of the Oklahoma Official Collision Report, attached hereto labeled as Exhibit 6. 8. At the scene, Defendant apologized to Plaintiff saying “I’m so sorry. I’m so sorry.” 9. At the time of the collision, around 1:10 p.m., it was daylight and the road was dry. See, p. 2 of the Oklahoma Official Collision Report, attached hereto labeled as Exhibit 6. 10. At the time of the collision there was nothing to prevent the Defendant from seeing Plaintiffs’ vehicle. See, Google images of location of collision attached hereto as Marked Trial Exhibit 10. 11. Defendant is at fault for causing the collision with Plaintiffs’ vehicle. 12. Defendant was negligent in the operation of her Nissan Versa in that: a. Defendant breached her duty to use ordinary care to prevent injury to others; b. Defendant failed to keep a proper lookout; c. Defendant drove carelessly; d. Defendant was inattentive; e. Defendant made an unsafe turn from a driveway; f. Defendant was driving too fast for conditions; g. Defendant was negligent per se; h. Defendant was driving recklessly; and i. Defendant was grossly negligent.¹ 13. Defendant was negligent per se in that she violated the following statutes and ordinances: ¹ 25 O.S. § 6 – Types of Negligence defined. Slight negligence consists in the want of great care and diligence; ordinary negligence in the want of ordinary care and diligence; and gross negligence in the want of slight care and diligence. a. 47 O.S. § 11-704: Emerging from Alley, Driveway, or Building: The driver of a vehicle within a business or residence district emerging from an alley, driveway or building shall stop such vehicle immediately prior to driving onto a sidewalk or onto the sidewalk area extending across any alleyway or driveway, and shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian as may be necessary to avoid collision, and upon entering the roadway shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching on said roadway. b. 47 O.S. § 11-801: Basic Rule – Maximum (Speed) Limits – Fines and Penalties: Any person driving a vehicle on a highway shall drive the same at a careful and prudent speed not greater than nor less than is reasonable and proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface and width of the highway and any other conditions then existing. No person shall drive any vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than will permit the driver to bring it to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead. c. 47 O.S. § 11-901: Reckless Driving: It shall be deemed reckless driving for any person to drive a motor vehicle in a careless or wanton manner without regard for the safety of persons or property or in violation of the conditions outlined in Section 11-801 of this title. d. 47 O.S. § 11-901b: Full Time and Attention to Driving: The operator of every vehicle, while driving, shall devote their full time and attention to such driving. e. Tulsa Revised Ordinance Title 37 § 636: Entering or leaving alleys, driveways or buildings: A. The driver of a vehicle emerging from an alley, driveway or building shall stop such vehicle immediately prior to driving onto a sidewalk or onto the sidewalk area extending across any such alley or driveway and before proceeding onto the street shall see that such street and sidewalk is sufficiently free from moving vehicles or pedestrians to permit such vehicle to enter the line of moving vehicles without collision, yielding the right-of-way to vehicles and pedestrians which are so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. B. The driver of a vehicle turning into an alley or driveway shall not make such turn until the street from which such turn is being made is sufficiently free from moving vehicles and pedestrians to permit such turn without a collision. The driver making such turn shall yield the right-of-way to all pedestrians and vehicles already in motion on the street so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. f. Tulsa Revised Ordinance Title 37 § 645: Inattentive driving: A. It shall be unlawful and an offense for any driver to fail to remain alert and give full attention to the safe operation of his vehicle while it is in motion. B. It shall be unlawful and an offense for any driver to engage in any activity while driving that interferes with the safe control of his vehicle. C. It shall be unlawful and an offense for any person to engage in any activity or to do any act which interferes with a driver's safe operation of a vehicle. f. Tulsa Revised Ordinance Title 37 § 647: Reckless driving: It shall be deemed reckless driving for any person to drive a vehicle in a careless or wanton manner without regard for the safety of persons or property or in violation of the conditions outlined in Section 618. 14. Defendant’s negligence is the sole and proximate cause of the collision. 15. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff’s Dodge Challenger suffered property damage, and Defendant’s insurer, American Mercury Insurance Company, paid Plaintiff’s property damage claim, and property damage claim is no longer at issue. 16. As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff was injured. 17. Defendant’s negligence was the sole and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s bodily injuries. 18. Plaintiff is 20 years of age (DOB: ##/##/2006) and according to life expectancy tables, he has a life expectancy of 65.0 more years. See, Life Expectancy Tables from IRS Publication 590-B (2023), attached hereto as Marked Trial Exhibit 61. 19. As a result of this collision, Plaintiff suffered personal injury to his body of a permanent and lasting nature, including but not limited to, injuries to his cervical, thoracic and lumbar spines, with a protruding disc injury at I.5-S1 and protruding cervical discs at C3/4, C4/5, and C5/6, suffered physical pain, past and future; mental anguish, past and future; and has been forced to incur medical expenses, past and future, all in a sum in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to section 1332 of title 28 of the United States Code. 20. Pursuant to 12 O.S. 3226(A)(2), Plaintiff provides initial disclosures as follows: a. Plaintiff has a life expectancy of 65 more years. b. Physical Pain and Suffering Past: To be proven at time of trial Future: To be proven at time of trial c. Mental Pain and Suffering Past: To be proven at time of trial Future: To be proven at time of trial d. The Nature and Extent of her Injuries To be proven at time of trial e. Whether the Injuries are Permanent To be proven at time of trial f. The Physical Impairment: To be proven at time of trial g. The Reasonable Expenses of the necessary Care, Treatment, and Services Past: an Amount in excess of $12,275.00 Future: To be proven at time of trial 21. Plaintiff agrees to make available for inspection and copying, at the office of Plaintiff's counsel, the documents or other evidentiary material, not privileged or protected from disclosure, on which the above computations are based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered at a mutually agreed time for Defendant and Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that he be granted judgment against Defendant for the total sum of Plaintiff's damages caused by or sustained as a result of Defendant's negligence in a sum in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to section 1332 of title 28 of the United States Code, plus such costs, prejudgment interest, and other relief this court deems equitable and just. Respectfully submitted, Robert L. Rode, OBA #14307 Nathan W. Solomon, OBA #35237 The Rode Law Firm 6136 East 32nd Place Tulsa, OK 74135 918-599-8880; Fax: 918-599-8863 Attorneys for the Plaintiff Crime Official Collision Report Type Crash Vehicles 2 Commercial 0 Pedestrians 0 Pedalcyclists 0 Injuries 0 Fatalities 0 Photos Taken No Location 2300 E 719T ST S Overview Date of Collision 04/18/2024 Day of Week THURSDAY Time of Collision 13:10 Date of Report 04/18/2024 Location Business County TULSA City Tulsa Latitude 36.06086 Longitude -95.95883 Unit 1 Occup 1 Last Name Conley First Name Laura MI I SI X Hit and Run Non Contact Address 5805 E 64th St. Phone # 5399028626 Country USA City Tulsa State OK Zip 74136 Age 77 Sex F DL Status Valid License (0) No Apparent Injury Injury Area Condition Apparently Normal Restraint Systems Airbag Shoulder and Lap Belt Used Not Deployed Ejected Not Ejected Esticated No Phone at Use No NO Test Status Test Not Given Alcohol Method Alcohol Method BAC Pending Drug Use Suspected NO Test Status Test Not Given Drug Method Drug Test Result Pending Citation # 7835836 Description Unsaferly Emerge from Driveway Owner Information Arrested NO Driver is Owner Driver Last Name First Name MI SI X Owner Address (Street, City, State, Zip) Vehicle Information Year Make Nissan Model Versa VIN 3N1BC1CP9AL402038 Color Black Plate # ESV990 Plate State OK Plate Exp 8/2024 Insurance Company American Mercury Insurance Phone # 6005033724 Policy # OKAP000006663 Passenger Car Special Function No Special Function Vehicle Removal Not towed Removal Location Removed By Controlling Circumstances None Visibility Obscurred By Driver Distracted By Unknown Not Distracted Traffic Control Device No Controls Failed To Yield + Private Drive Contributing Factor 1 Pre-Crash Action Entering Traffic Lane Surface Type Concrete Trafficway Two-Way - Not Divided Alignment Straight Grade Level Total Lanes 3 Legal Speed 45 Direction West Most Damaged Area Top Motor Vehicle In Transport Sequence of Events Motor Vehicle In Transport Point of Initial Contact Non-Collision Top Undercarriage Cargo Loss Not at Scene Unknown Unit 2 Occup 1 Last Name Walker First Name Christopher MI I SI X Hit and Run Non Contact Address 5711 S. Madison Av. Phone # 9188911944 Country USA City Tulsa State OK Zip 74105 Age 18 Sex M DL Status Valid License (0) No Apparent Injury Injury Area Condition Apparently Normal Restraint Systems Airbag Shoulder and Lap Belt Used Not Deployed Ejected Not Ejected Esticated No Phone at Use NO NO Test Status Test Not Given Alcohol Method Alcohol Method BAC Pending Drug Use Suspected NO Test Status Test Not Given Drug Method Drug Test Result Pending Owner Information Arrested Driver is Owner Driver Last Name First Name MI SI X Owner Address (Street, City, State, Zip) Vehicle Information Year Make Dodge Model Challenger VIN 2C3CDZJG0LH235102 Color Purple Plate # SB1941D Plate State TX Plate Exp 4/2024 Insurance Company Progressive Insurance Phone # 8007764737 Policy # 964381640 Passenger Car Special Function No Special Function Vehicle Removal Towed Due to Disabling Damage Removal Location Unknown Removed By Miklos Towing Controlling Circumstances None Visibility Obscurred By Driver Distracted By Not Applicable Not Distracted Traffic Control Device No Controls Contributing Factor 1 Unknown/No Improper Act = No Improper Action By Driver Contributing Factor 2 Pre-Crash Action Movements Essentially Straight Ahead Surface Type Concrete Trafficway Two-Way - Not Divided Alignment Straight Grade Level Total Lanes 3 Legal Speed 45 Direction West Most Damaged Area Top Motor Vehicle In Transport Sequence of Events Motor Vehicle In Transport Point of Initial Contact Non-Collision Top Undercarriage Cargo Loss Not at Scene Unknown Most Damaged Area Top Undercarriage All Areas Not at Scene No LV/CMV Data Entered. No Passenger Data Entered. No EMS Data Entered. No Trailer Data Entered. Weather Condition: Cloudy Light Condition: Daylight Road Surface Conditions: Dry Type of Intersection: Not an Intersection Relation to Junct: Non-Junction Interchange Related: No Railroad Crossing #: _____ Workers Present: Location of Work Zone Collision: Any Roadways/Lanes Blocked Original Collision Start Date: ____ Start Time: ____ Original Collision Cleared Date: ____ Cleared Time: ____ Lane(s) Blocked: Lane Blocked Date: ____ Block Time: ____ Lane Cleared Date: ____ Cleared Time: _____ No Property Damage Data Entered. Investigating Officer: Jonathan Grafton Agency: TULSA POLICE DEPARTMENT Badge: 02327 Troop/Division: TULSA POLICE DEPARTMENT Reviewing Officer: William Dalsing Agency: TULSA POLICE DEPARTMENT Badge: 01916 Troop/Division: TULSA POLICE DEPARTMENT Diagram Narrative Officer Summary: On 04-18-24 at about 1330 hours I was dispatched to a collision near 7100 S. Lewis Ave. Upon arrival I observed a purple Dodge Challenger and a black Nissan Versa stopped in the left lane of westbound 71st west of Lewis. I spoke to Laura Conley, the driver of the Nissan (Unit 1); and Christopher Walker, the driver of the Dodge (Unit 2). Unit 1 Summary: Conley said she was turning onto 71st from the driveway and didn’t see the other car. Damage to Unit 1 was to the left front corner. Unit 2 Summary: Walker said he was driving west in the left lane when the other car pulled out in front of him. Damage to Unit 2 was to the front right corner and wheel. Witnesses: No independent witnesses were located or came forward at the time of this report. Injuries: None reported. Area of Impact: Based on evidence at the scene (debris) I estimated the area of impact to be 250 feet west of the west edge of S. Lewis Ave. and 25 feet south of the north edge of E. 71st St. Officer Investigation: It was not very clear which driveway Conley emerged from; most likely is 2333 E. 71st. Unit 2 is bearing a Texas paper/temporary tag. Conclusion: Conley unsafely turned from a driveway and impacted unit 2. She was issued citation 7835836. 2333 E 71st St - Google Maps Google Maps 2333 E 71st St Imagery ©2026 Google, Imagery ©2026 Airbus, Maxar Technologies, Map data ©2026 100 ft https://www.google.com/maps/place/2333+E+71st+St.+OK+-+Tulsa,+OK+74136/@36.0608044,-95.9596566,264m/data=!3m11!4e13!4m6!3m5!1s0x87b693a32d61c3d0x28f2fb43151ae9b418m213d361197414d-95.9589623116... 2333 E 71st St Google Maps Imagery ©2026 Google, Imagery ©2026 Airbus, Map data © 2026 20 ft https://www.google.com/maps/place/2333+E+71st+St,+OKC,+OK,+74136/@36.061028,95.9587079,72m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x87b693a32db1ee3d0x281f2fb4351ae9b418m2!3d36.0611974!4d-95.9589623!16s... At this place Get app Patricia's 10.3 Google images of location of collision Appendix B. Life Expectancy Tables Table I (Single Life Expectancy) (For Use by Beneficiaries) <table> <tr> <th>Age</th> <th>Life Expectancy</th> <th>Age</th> <th>Life Expectancy</th> </tr> <tr><td>0</td><td>84.6</td><td>30</td><td>55.3</td></tr> <tr><td>1</td><td>83.7</td><td>31</td><td>54.4</td></tr> <tr><td>2</td><td>82.8</td><td>32</td><td>53.4</td></tr> <tr><td>3</td><td>81.8</td><td>33</td><td>52.5</td></tr> <tr><td>4</td><td>80.8</td><td>34</td><td>51.5</td></tr> <tr><td>5</td><td>79.8</td><td>35</td><td>50.5</td></tr> <tr><td>6</td><td>78.8</td><td>36</td><td>49.6</td></tr> <tr><td>7</td><td>77.9</td><td>37</td><td>48.6</td></tr> <tr><td>8</td><td>76.9</td><td>38</td><td>47.7</td></tr> <tr><td>9</td><td>75.9</td><td>39</td><td>46.7</td></tr> <tr><td>10</td><td>74.9</td><td>40</td><td>45.7</td></tr> <tr><td>11</td><td>73.9</td><td>41</td><td>44.8</td></tr> <tr><td>12</td><td>72.9</td><td>42</td><td>43.8</td></tr> <tr><td>13</td><td>71.9</td><td>43</td><td>42.9</td></tr> <tr><td>14</td><td>70.9</td><td>44</td><td>41.9</td></tr> <tr><td>15</td><td>69.9</td><td>45</td><td>41.0</td></tr> <tr><td>16</td><td>69.0</td><td>46</td><td>40.0</td></tr> <tr><td>17</td><td>68.0</td><td>47</td><td>39.0</td></tr> <tr><td>18</td><td>67.0</td><td>48</td><td>38.1</td></tr> <tr><td>19</td><td>66.0</td><td>49</td><td>37.1</td></tr> <tr><td>20</td><td>65.0</td><td>50</td><td>36.2</td></tr> <tr><td>21</td><td>64.1</td><td>51</td><td>35.3</td></tr> <tr><td>22</td><td>63.1</td><td>52</td><td>34.3</td></tr> <tr><td>23</td><td>62.1</td><td>53</td><td>33.4</td></tr> <tr><td>24</td><td>61.1</td><td>54</td><td>32.5</td></tr> <tr><td>25</td><td>60.2</td><td>55</td><td>31.6</td></tr> <tr><td>26</td><td>59.2</td><td>56</td><td>30.6</td></tr> <tr><td>27</td><td>58.2</td><td>57</td><td>29.8</td></tr> <tr><td>28</td><td>57.3</td><td>58</td><td>28.9</td></tr> <tr><td>29</td><td>56.3</td><td>59</td><td>28.0</td></tr> </table> EXHIBIT 61 Appendix B. (Continued) Table I (Single Life Expectancy) (For Use by Beneficiaries) <table> <tr> <th>Age</th> <th>Life Expectancy</th> <th>Age</th> <th>Life Expectancy</th> </tr> <tr> <td>60</td> <td>27.1</td> <td>91</td> <td>5.3</td> </tr> <tr> <td>61</td> <td>26.2</td> <td>92</td> <td>4.9</td> </tr> <tr> <td>62</td> <td>25.4</td> <td>93</td> <td>4.6</td> </tr> <tr> <td>63</td> <td>24.5</td> <td>94</td> <td>4.3</td> </tr> <tr> <td>64</td> <td>23.7</td> <td>95</td> <td>4.0</td> </tr> <tr> <td>65</td> <td>22.9</td> <td>96</td> <td>3.7</td> </tr> <tr> <td>66</td> <td>22.0</td> <td>97</td> <td>3.4</td> </tr> <tr> <td>67</td> <td>21.2</td> <td>98</td> <td>3.2</td> </tr> <tr> <td>68</td> <td>20.4</td> <td>99</td> <td>3.0</td> </tr> <tr> <td>69</td> <td>19.6</td> <td>100</td> <td>2.8</td> </tr> <tr> <td>70</td> <td>18.8</td> <td>101</td> <td>2.6</td> </tr> <tr> <td>71</td> <td>18.0</td> <td>102</td> <td>2.5</td> </tr> <tr> <td>72</td> <td>17.2</td> <td>103</td> <td>2.3</td> </tr> <tr> <td>73</td> <td>16.4</td> <td>104</td> <td>2.2</td> </tr> <tr> <td>74</td> <td>15.6</td> <td>105</td> <td>2.1</td> </tr> <tr> <td>75</td> <td>14.8</td> <td>106</td> <td>2.1</td> </tr> <tr> <td>76</td> <td>14.1</td> <td>107</td> <td>2.1</td> </tr> <tr> <td>77</td> <td>13.3</td> <td>108</td> <td>2.0</td> </tr> <tr> <td>78</td> <td>12.6</td> <td>109</td> <td>2.0</td> </tr> <tr> <td>79</td> <td>11.9</td> <td>110</td> <td>2.0</td> </tr> <tr> <td>80</td> <td>11.2</td> <td>111</td> <td>2.0</td> </tr> <tr> <td>81</td> <td>10.5</td> <td>112</td> <td>2.0</td> </tr> <tr> <td>82</td> <td>9.9</td> <td>113</td> <td>1.9</td> </tr> <tr> <td>83</td> <td>9.3</td> <td>114</td> <td>1.9</td> </tr> <tr> <td>84</td> <td>8.7</td> <td>115</td> <td>1.8</td> </tr> <tr> <td>85</td> <td>8.1</td> <td>116</td> <td>1.8</td> </tr> <tr> <td>86</td> <td>7.6</td> <td>117</td> <td>1.6</td> </tr> <tr> <td>87</td> <td>7.1</td> <td>118</td> <td>1.4</td> </tr> <tr> <td>88</td> <td>6.6</td> <td>119</td> <td>1.1</td> </tr> <tr> <td>89</td> <td>6.1</td> <td>120+</td> <td>1.0</td> </tr> <tr> <td>90</td> <td>5.7</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> </table>