SHEMIRE BRUCE ET AL VS TIMOTHY FULLER ET AL, 2020-024322-CA-01, Doc-127-Answer-and-Affirmative-Defense (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Mar. 1, 2022) (2024)

`

`COUNT I —- SHEMIRE BRUCE’S CLAIM
`FOR NEGLIGENCE AGAINST TIMOTHY FULLER
`
`Defendant re-alleges and re-avers Paragraph 1-11] as if fully set forth herein and
`
`would further state:
`
`12.
`13.
`
`Admitted.
`Admitted to the general duty owned in accordance with Florida Law but denied as
`to any inference of negligence.
`
`14.
`
`Denied.
`
`15.
`Denied.
`WHEREFORE,the Defendant demands judgmentin his favor, with costs assessed
`against the Plaintiff, and demandsa trial by jury onall issues so triable as a matter of right.
`
`COUNTII - SHEMIRE BRUCE’S CLAIM
`FOR NEGLIGENCE AGAINST AMASONINC.
`
`Defendant re-alleges and re-avers Paragraph 1-15 asif fully set forth herein and
`
`would further state:
`
`16.
`
`Admitted.
`
`17.|Admitted.
`
`18.
`
`Denied as phrased.
`
`19,
`Denied.
`WHEREFORE, the Defendant demands judgment in his favor, with costs assessed
`against the Plaintiff, and demandsa trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matterofright.
`COUNTIl - TAVARIAS BRUCE’S CLAIM
`FOR NEGLIGENCE AGAINST TIMOTHY FULLEReSeeee.aeseeom"
`
`Defendant re-alleges and re-avers Paragraph 1-19 asif fully set forth herein and
`
`would further state:
`
`20.
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`Admitted.
`Admitted to the general duty owned in accordance with Florida Law but denied as
`to any inference of negligence.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`

`

`WHEREFORE,the Defendant demands judgment in his favor, with costs assessed
`against the Plaintiff, and demandsa trial by jury onall issues so triable as a matter ofright.
`COUNTIV —- TAVARIAS BRUCE’S CLAIM
`FOR NEGLIGENCE AGAINST AMASONINC.eeeeeWhOoaeGOmo
`
`Defendantre-alleges and re-avers Paragraph | through 23 asif fully set forth herein and
`
`would furtherstate:
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Denied.
`
`27.
`Denied.
`the Defendant demands judgment in his favor, with costs assessed
`WHEREFORE,
`against the Plaintiff, and demandsa trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter ofright.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`The Defendant states that at
`the time and place of the incident described in the
`Complaint, the Plaintiff Tavarias Bruce was careless and negligentand suddenly stopped her
`vehicle, and, therefore, the Tavarias Bruce, cannot recover herein against the Defendants; in the
`alternative, the negligence of Tavarias Bruce, contributed substantially to the alleged injury and
`damage and any recovery by the Shemire Bruce must be reduced proportionately to said
`negligence and carelessness.
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`The Defendantstates that the Plaintiffs were recipients of benefits from collateral sources
`paid or payable which entitles the Defendants to a set off or reduction in the amount of any
`verdict and/or judgment which may be entered against the Defendants in this cause. Plaintiff
`received benefits through his health insurance due to medical treatmentreceived.
`
`

`

`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`The Defendant maintainsthat the Plaintiffs claimed injuries and damages were solely the
`result of negligence on the part of other persons or parties not underthe care, custody, or control
`of the Defendant including but not limited to individuals not currently named as parties in this
`litigation. As such the Plaintiffs are barred from recovery as against Defendants;
`in the
`alternative, the Defendant maintains that it is responsible only for its pro-rata share of fault, if
`any, as may be found to exist between any and
`all entities
`and/ or individuals, whether
`presently named as Defendants orparties in this litigation or third party.
`
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`The Plaintiffs’ claims for bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering, disability,
`disfigurement, mental anguish,
`loss of capacity for
`the enjoyment of life, expense of
`hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, and aggravation of pre-existing
`condition incurred as a result of the subject accident are exaggerated, unnecessary and
`
`unreasonable.
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiffs’ claims for loss of earnings and loss of ability to earn money are
`exaggerated and unreasonable.Plaintiff has not lost any earnings and his capacity to work was in
`no way diminished asa result of the subject accident.
`
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`injury and
`the allegations of the Complaint regarding liability,
`While denying all
`damages allegedly sustained by the Plaintiffs, to the extent that Plaintiffs may be able to prove
`any negligenceor fault on thepart of Defendant, said negligence was not the proximate cause of
`any of the damagesat issue. Plaintiff did not allege facts that state that the defendants’ were
`negligent in any way. As such, there can be no legal or proximate causation of the alleged
`injuries Plaintiff suffered.
`
`

`

`SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`The Plaintiffs claims for bodily injury, pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement,
`mental anguish, aggravation of a pre-existing condition, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of
`life, expenses ofhospitalization, medical treatment and therapy, loss of wages, and loss ofability
`to earn in the future, and all of the elements of damages allowed under Florida Law incurred as a
`result of the alleged occurrence preexisted the alleged accident.
`
`NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`Defendant submits that under Florida law, a person who has been injured bythe alleged
`negligence of another has an affirmative duty to pursue reasonable and reasonably available
`means of mitigating any adverse effects of the injury. To the extent that Plaintiffs failed to
`mitigate damages, Defendantis entitled to a reduction of liability by all amounts of damages
`which could have been prevented had reasonable efforts to mitigate been made by Plaintiffs.
`
`ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`Plaintiff's damages are barred pursuantto Fla. Stat. §768.36 as a plaintiff may not recover
`any damagesfor loss or injury to his person or property because at the time the plaintiff was
`injured, he was under the influence of any alcoholic beverage ‘or drug to the extent that his
`normal faculties were impaired, or he had a blood or breath alcohollevel of 0.08 percent or
`higher; and as a result of the influence of such alcoholic beverage or drug, he was more than 50
`percent at fault for his own harm.
`
`TWEVLTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`The Plaintiffs failed to use reasonable care at the time of the alleged accident in that he
`failed to use available and fully operational seatbelts,
`thereby producing or contributing
`substantially to producing atleast a portion of her alleged damages.
`
`
`RESERVATION OF DEFENSES
`Defendants expressly reserves the right to amend and/or add additional defenses and
`affirmative defenses as discovery and investigation continues.
`
`

`

`GENERAL DENIAL
`Defendants hereby deniesall allegations of Plaintiffs Complaint which are not responded
`to above and expressly reserves the right to amend its responses to same as discovery and
`
`investigation continues.
`
`WHEREFORE,the Defendant, AMASON INC., demaids judgment in its favor, with
`costs assessed against the Plaintiff, and demandsa trial by jury onall issues so triable as a matter
`
`of right.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`WE HEREBYCERTIFYthata true and correct copy of the foregoing was delivered by
`Florida E-Portal and/or Electronic Mail on this 1‘t day of March, 2022 to the following: Daniel
`Drazen, Esq., The Injury Firm, 1608 E. Commercial Blvd. Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33334 at
`eservice2(@flinjuryfirm.com
`
`HIGHTOWER, STRATTON, NOVIGROD & KANTOR
`- 330 Clematis Street, Suite 201
`West Palm Beach,Florida 33401
`(561) 833-2022 - Telephone
`(561) 833-2140 - Facsimile
`
`<K—By:
`
`
`Joseph A. Cafafo, Esq.
`Florida Bar No.: 90942
`Primary: jcafaro@hightowerlaw.net
`Secondary: galavarado@hightowerlaw.net
`
`