Preview
FILED
2/17/2023 3:14 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Jenifer Trujillo DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-21-16487
CHRISTOPHER WEBB, ANTHONY § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
PATTERSON AND DEMETAR §
MATHIS
§
§
V. § 44TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
MICHAEL BARNETT § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, Michael Barnett, and file this Defendant’s First Amended Original
Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition and would respectfully show the Court as follows:
RULE 193.7
I.
Pursuant to Rule 193.7 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Defendant hereby gives
notice to the Plaintiffs that Defendant intends to use all documents exchanged and produced
between the parties (including, but not limited to, correspondence, pleadings, records, and
discovery responses) during the trial of this matter as authenticated.
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
II.
Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraph VI. of Plaintiffs’ Original Petition
wherein Plaintiff, Christopher Webb, alleges:
“past and future reasonable and necessary medical expenses”
Rule 56 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE requires that when an item of special
damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to state
the name of each health care provider and/or physician who treated him for injuries allegedly
DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 1
10000.1 179
suffered as a result of the incident made the basis of this suit, and the amount paid to or owed to
such health care providers and/or physicians. Further, Plaintiff should be required to state the
amount of medical expenses she anticipates incurring in the future. Should Plaintiff fail and/or
refuse to so amend her petition, the above-referenced allegations should be automatically stricken
in their entirety and all relief supported by the same automatically denied.
III.
Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraph VI. of Plaintiffs’ Original Petition
wherein Plaintiff, Christopher Webb, alleges:
“past and future, pain, suffering and mental anguish”
Rule 56 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE requires that when an item of special
damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to plead
facts sufficient to put Defendant on notice of what pain, suffering and mental anguish Plaintiff is
claiming, including the kind, character, nature, and extent of such claims. Further, Plaintiff should
be required to state what pain, suffering and mental anguish the Plaintiff anticipates suffering in
the future. Should Plaintiff fail and/or refuse to so amend his petition, the above-referenced
allegations should be automatically stricken in their entirety and all relief supported by the same
automatically denied.
IV.
Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraph VI. of Plaintiffs’ Original Petition
wherein Plaintiff, Christopher Webb, alleges:
“past and future impairment”
Rule 56 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE requires that when an item of special
damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to plead
facts sufficient to put Defendant on notice of what impairment Plaintiff is claiming, including the
DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 2
10000.1 179
kind, character, nature, and extent of such claims. Further, Plaintiff should be required to state
what impairment the Plaintiff anticipates suffering in the fiiture. Should Plaintiff fail and/or refuse
to so amend his petition, the above-referenced allegations should be automatically stricken in their
entirety and all relief supported by the same automatically denied.
V.
Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraph VI. of Plaintiffs’ Original Petition
wherein Plaintiff, Christopher Webb, alleges:
’
“damage to the vehicle and the diminished value thereof
Rule 56 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure requires that when items of special damages
are claimed, they shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to plead his
damages for each element with specificity. Should Plaintiff fail and/or refuse to so amend his
Petition, the above-referenced allegations should be automatically stricken in their entirety and all
relief supported by the same automatically denied.
VI.
Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraph VII. of Plaintiffs’ Original Petition
wherein Plaintiff, Anthony Patterson, alleges:
“past and future reasonable and necessary medical expenses”
Rule 56 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE requires that when an item of special
damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to state
the name of each health care provider and/or physician who treated him for injuries allegedly
suffered as a result of the incident made the basis of this suit, and the amount paid to or owed to
such health care providers and/or physicians. Further, Plaintiff should be required to state the
amount of medical expenses she anticipates incurring in the future. Should Plaintiff fail and/or
DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 3
10000.1 179
refuse to so amend her petition, the above-referenced allegations should be automatically stricken
in their entirety and all relief supported by the same automatically denied.
VII.
Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraph VII. of Plaintiffs’ Original Petition
wherein Plaintiff, Anthony Patterson, alleges:
“past and future, pain, suffering and mental anguish”
Rule 56 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE requires that when an item of special
damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to plead
facts sufficient to put Defendant on notice of what pain, suffering and mental anguish Plaintiff is
claiming, including the kind, character, nature, and extent of such claims. Further, Plaintiff should
be required to state what pain, suffering and mental anguish the Plaintiff anticipates suffering in
the future. Should Plaintiff fail and/or refuse to so amend his petition, the above-referenced
allegations should be automatically stricken in their entirety and all relief supported by the same
automatically denied.
VIII.
Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraph VII. of Plaintiffs’ Original Petition
wherein Plaintiff, Anthony Patterson, alleges:
“past and future impairment”
Rule 56 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE requires that when an item of special
damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to plead
facts sufficient to put Defendant on notice of what impairment Plaintiff is claiming, including the
kind, character, nature, and extent of such claims. Further, Plaintiff should be required to state
what impairment the Plaintiff anticipates suffering in the future. Should Plaintiff fail and/or refuse
DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 4
10000.1 179
to so amend his petition, the above-referenced allegations should be automatically stricken in their
entirety and all relief supported by the same automatically denied.
IX.
Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraph VIII. of Plaintiffs’ Original Petition
wherein Plaintiff, Demetar Mathis, alleges:
“past and future reasonable and necessary medical expenses”
Rule 56 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE requires that when an item of special
damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to state
the name of each health care provider and/or physician who treated him for injuries allegedly
suffered as a result of the incident made the basis of this suit, and the amount paid to or owed to
such health care providers and/or physicians. Further, Plaintiff should be required to state the
amount of medical expenses she anticipates incurring in the future. Should Plaintiff fail and/or
refuse to so amend her petition, the above-referenced allegations should be automatically stricken
in their entirety and all relief supported by the same automatically denied.
X.
Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraph VIII. of Plaintiffs’ Original Petition
wherein Plaintiff, Demetar Mathis, alleges:
“past and future, pain, suffering and mental anguish”
Rule 56 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE requires that when an item of special
damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to plead
facts sufficient to put Defendant on notice of what pain, suffering and mental anguish Plaintiff is
claiming, including the kind, character, nature, and extent of such claims. Further, Plaintiff should
be required to state what pain, suffering and mental anguish the Plaintiff anticipates suffering in
the future. Should Plaintiff fail and/or refuse to so amend his petition, the above-referenced
DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 5
10000.1 179
allegations should be automatically stricken in their entirety and all relief supported by the same
automatically denied.
XI.
Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraph VIII. of Plaintiffs’ Original Petition
wherein Plaintiff, Demetar Mathis, alleges:
“past and future impairment”
Rule 56 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE requires that when an item of special
damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to plead
facts sufficient to put Defendant on notice of what impairment Plaintiff is claiming, including the
kind, character, nature, and extent of such claims. Further, Plaintiff should be required to state
what impairment the Plaintiff anticipates suffering in the future. Should Plaintiff fail and/or refuse
to so amend her petition, the above-referenced allegations should be automatically stricken in their
entirety and all relief supported by the same automatically denied.
AF FIRMATIVE DEFENSES
XII.
Defendant further specifically invokes § 41.0105 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE, which
provides that recovery of medical or health care expenses incurred are limited to the amount
actually paid or incurred by or on behalf of Plaintiffs.
XIII.
Defendant further alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims for pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest are limited by the dates and amounts set forth in TEX. FIN. CODE ANN. § 304 (2015).
XIV.
Defendant specifically denies that he has committed any act or omission which would
justify Plaintiffs claims for gross negligence or exemplary or punitive damages. Defendant alleges
DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 6
10000.1 179
that Plaintiff‘s claims for exemplary or punitive damages are in Violation of Defendant‘s rights
under the 5th, 8th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section
3 and l9 of the Texas Constitution, in that such claims as made are arbitrary, unreasonable,
excessive, and in Violation of this Defendant's right to due process of law and equal protection of
the law. Further, Plaintiff‘s claims for exemplary or punitive damages should be proved beyond a
reasonable doubt under the 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution, or in the alternative,
should be proved by clear and convincing evidence, as opposed to a mere preponderance of the
evidence.
XV.
In the unlikely event that Defendant is found liable for exemplary damages, Defendant
affirmatively alleges that any such liability he may have is limited as set forth in Section 41.007,
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
XVI.
Answering further, and in the alternative, Defendant would show that Plaintiff’s alleged
injuries, if any, are the result of the acts or omissions of persons not under Defendant's control,
which acts or omissions were the sole proximate cause of the occurrence made the basis of
Plaintiff’s claims.
XVH.
This Defendant would show that if evidence surfaced in this case that the Plaintiff
continues to complain of symptoms from this accident then in this event, this Defendant would
show that there might very well be evidence to illustrate and demonstrate that the Plaintiff has
failed to take care of the claimed injuries as a person using ordinary care would have done under
the same or similar circumstances and such failure to mitigate should be taken into consideration
DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 7
10000.1 179
and while this Defendant should not be assessed any monetary damages, he certainly should not
be assessed any damages for failure of the Plaintiff to mitigate.
XVIII.
Answering further, if same be necessary, this Defendant would show that the matters
complained of by the Plaintiff herein were as to this Defendant wholly and completely
unavoidable, and without any negligence on the part of this Defendant. In this connection,
Defendant would show that the occurrence in question was the result of events and/or conditions
wholly beyond the scope and control of this Defendant, and for which he is not responsible.
XIX.
For further answer, if same be necessary, Defendant affirmatively pleads that Defendant
was confronted with an unexpected and sudden emergency and acted in a reasonable and prudent
manner as a result thereof.
XX.
Answering further, and in the alternative, Defendant would show that Plaintiff’s injuries
and damages, if any, were proximately caused by a superseding and/or intervening act which
disrupted the chain of causation and was beyond the control of this Defendant.
XXI.
Defendant would further show that any injuries, damages or liabilities complained of by
the Plaintiff herein are the result in whole or in part of a pre-existing condition and disability and
are not the result of any act or omission on the part of this Defendant.
XXII.
By way of further answer, Defendant affirmatively pleads that the Plaintiff was
contributorily negligent in this case, which negligence solely and proximately caused the incident
in question.
DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 8
10000.1 179
XXIII.
GENERAL DENIAL
Defendant, Michael Barnett, denies all and singular the material allegations of fact
contained in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition and demand strict proof thereof by a preponderance of
the evidence, pursuant to Rule 92 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
JURY DEMAND
XXIV.
Defendant respectfully demands a trial by jury with respect to any and all issues of fact.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that, upon trial hereof, Plaintiffs
take nothing, Defendant go hence Without delay and recover his costs, and for such other and
further relief, at law or in equity, to which Defendant may be justly entitled.
DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 9
10000.1 179
Respectfully submitted,
THE LECRONE LAW FIRM, PC
Wall Street Plaza
123 North Crockett Street, Suite 200
Sherman, TX 75090
TEL: 903.813.1900
FAX: 903.813.1944
By: /s/ Mam. «reague
MARK A. TEAGUE
State Bar No. 24003039
JOHN W. BREEZE
State Bar No. 00796248
HILLARY LUCKETT CLARK
State Bar No. 24077714
ALEXANDRIA K. CARPENTER
State Bar No. 24101596
RHONDA D. HOLCOMB
State Bar No. 24099024
BLAISE S. WILCOTT
State Bar No. 24086481
SELENE DOMINGUEZ PENA
State Bar No. 24106929
MEGAN E. ANDRUS
State Bar No. 24129548
ESERVICE@LECR0NELAW.C0M
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on the 17th day of February, 2023, the foregoing instrument was
forwarded to the following counsel of record:
Ms. Ayesha Rafi
Mr. Kyle DeBose
RAEI DEBOSE, PLLC
8330 LBJ Freeway, Suite 820
Dallas, TX 75243
/s/ Mark fl. Teague
MARK A. TEAGUE
DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 10
10000.1 179
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Bethany Phelps on behalf of Mark Teague
Bar No. 24003039
bethany@lecronelaw.com
Envelope ID: 72887642
Status as of 2/20/2023 8:16 AM CST
Associated Case Party: CHRISTOPHER WEBB
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Ayesha Rafi 24060455 arafi@rafidebose.com 2/17/2023 3:14:54 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: MICHAEL BARNETT
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Mark A.Teague eservice@lecronelaw.com 2/17/2023 3:14:54 PM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Kyle DeBose kdebose@rafidebose.com 2/17/2023 3:14:54 PM SENT
Mayra Guandique mayra@rafidebose.com 2/17/2023 3:14:54 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 2/17/2023 3:14 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Jenifer Trujillo DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-21-16487 CHRISTOPHER WEBB, ANTHONY § IN THE DISTRICT COURT PATTERSON AND DEMETAR § MATHIS § § V. § 44TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT § MICHAEL BARNETT § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Michael Barnett, and file this Defendant’s First Amended Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition and would respectfully show the Court as follows: RULE 193.7 I. Pursuant to Rule 193.7 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Defendant hereby gives notice to the Plaintiffs that Defendant intends to use all documents exchanged and produced between the parties (including, but not limited to, correspondence, pleadings, records, and discovery responses) during the trial of this matter as authenticated. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS II. Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraph VI. of Plaintiffs’ Original Petition wherein Plaintiff, Christopher Webb, alleges: “past and future reasonable and necessary medical expenses” Rule 56 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE requires that when an item of special damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to state the name of each health care provider and/or physician who treated him for injuries allegedly DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 1 10000.1 179 suffered as a result of the incident made the basis of this suit, and the amount paid to or owed to such health care providers and/or physicians. Further, Plaintiff should be required to state the amount of medical expenses she anticipates incurring in the future. Should Plaintiff fail and/or refuse to so amend her petition, the above-referenced allegations should be automatically stricken in their entirety and all relief supported by the same automatically denied. III. Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraph VI. of Plaintiffs’ Original Petition wherein Plaintiff, Christopher Webb, alleges: “past and future, pain, suffering and mental anguish” Rule 56 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE requires that when an item of special damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to plead facts sufficient to put Defendant on notice of what pain, suffering and mental anguish Plaintiff is claiming, including the kind, character, nature, and extent of such claims. Further, Plaintiff should be required to state what pain, suffering and mental anguish the Plaintiff anticipates suffering in the future. Should Plaintiff fail and/or refuse to so amend his petition, the above-referenced allegations should be automatically stricken in their entirety and all relief supported by the same automatically denied. IV. Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraph VI. of Plaintiffs’ Original Petition wherein Plaintiff, Christopher Webb, alleges: “past and future impairment” Rule 56 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE requires that when an item of special damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to plead facts sufficient to put Defendant on notice of what impairment Plaintiff is claiming, including the DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 2 10000.1 179 kind, character, nature, and extent of such claims. Further, Plaintiff should be required to state what impairment the Plaintiff anticipates suffering in the fiiture. Should Plaintiff fail and/or refuse to so amend his petition, the above-referenced allegations should be automatically stricken in their entirety and all relief supported by the same automatically denied. V. Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraph VI. of Plaintiffs’ Original Petition wherein Plaintiff, Christopher Webb, alleges: ’ “damage to the vehicle and the diminished value thereof Rule 56 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure requires that when items of special damages are claimed, they shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to plead his damages for each element with specificity. Should Plaintiff fail and/or refuse to so amend his Petition, the above-referenced allegations should be automatically stricken in their entirety and all relief supported by the same automatically denied. VI. Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraph VII. of Plaintiffs’ Original Petition wherein Plaintiff, Anthony Patterson, alleges: “past and future reasonable and necessary medical expenses” Rule 56 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE requires that when an item of special damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to state the name of each health care provider and/or physician who treated him for injuries allegedly suffered as a result of the incident made the basis of this suit, and the amount paid to or owed to such health care providers and/or physicians. Further, Plaintiff should be required to state the amount of medical expenses she anticipates incurring in the future. Should Plaintiff fail and/or DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 3 10000.1 179 refuse to so amend her petition, the above-referenced allegations should be automatically stricken in their entirety and all relief supported by the same automatically denied. VII. Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraph VII. of Plaintiffs’ Original Petition wherein Plaintiff, Anthony Patterson, alleges: “past and future, pain, suffering and mental anguish” Rule 56 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE requires that when an item of special damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to plead facts sufficient to put Defendant on notice of what pain, suffering and mental anguish Plaintiff is claiming, including the kind, character, nature, and extent of such claims. Further, Plaintiff should be required to state what pain, suffering and mental anguish the Plaintiff anticipates suffering in the future. Should Plaintiff fail and/or refuse to so amend his petition, the above-referenced allegations should be automatically stricken in their entirety and all relief supported by the same automatically denied. VIII. Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraph VII. of Plaintiffs’ Original Petition wherein Plaintiff, Anthony Patterson, alleges: “past and future impairment” Rule 56 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE requires that when an item of special damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to plead facts sufficient to put Defendant on notice of what impairment Plaintiff is claiming, including the kind, character, nature, and extent of such claims. Further, Plaintiff should be required to state what impairment the Plaintiff anticipates suffering in the future. Should Plaintiff fail and/or refuse DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 4 10000.1 179 to so amend his petition, the above-referenced allegations should be automatically stricken in their entirety and all relief supported by the same automatically denied. IX. Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraph VIII. of Plaintiffs’ Original Petition wherein Plaintiff, Demetar Mathis, alleges: “past and future reasonable and necessary medical expenses” Rule 56 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE requires that when an item of special damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to state the name of each health care provider and/or physician who treated him for injuries allegedly suffered as a result of the incident made the basis of this suit, and the amount paid to or owed to such health care providers and/or physicians. Further, Plaintiff should be required to state the amount of medical expenses she anticipates incurring in the future. Should Plaintiff fail and/or refuse to so amend her petition, the above-referenced allegations should be automatically stricken in their entirety and all relief supported by the same automatically denied. X. Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraph VIII. of Plaintiffs’ Original Petition wherein Plaintiff, Demetar Mathis, alleges: “past and future, pain, suffering and mental anguish” Rule 56 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE requires that when an item of special damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to plead facts sufficient to put Defendant on notice of what pain, suffering and mental anguish Plaintiff is claiming, including the kind, character, nature, and extent of such claims. Further, Plaintiff should be required to state what pain, suffering and mental anguish the Plaintiff anticipates suffering in the future. Should Plaintiff fail and/or refuse to so amend his petition, the above-referenced DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 5 10000.1 179 allegations should be automatically stricken in their entirety and all relief supported by the same automatically denied. XI. Defendant specially objects and excepts to Paragraph VIII. of Plaintiffs’ Original Petition wherein Plaintiff, Demetar Mathis, alleges: “past and future impairment” Rule 56 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE requires that when an item of special damages is claimed, it shall be specifically stated. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to plead facts sufficient to put Defendant on notice of what impairment Plaintiff is claiming, including the kind, character, nature, and extent of such claims. Further, Plaintiff should be required to state what impairment the Plaintiff anticipates suffering in the future. Should Plaintiff fail and/or refuse to so amend her petition, the above-referenced allegations should be automatically stricken in their entirety and all relief supported by the same automatically denied. AF FIRMATIVE DEFENSES XII. Defendant further specifically invokes § 41.0105 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE, which provides that recovery of medical or health care expenses incurred are limited to the amount actually paid or incurred by or on behalf of Plaintiffs. XIII. Defendant further alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest are limited by the dates and amounts set forth in TEX. FIN. CODE ANN. § 304 (2015). XIV. Defendant specifically denies that he has committed any act or omission which would justify Plaintiffs claims for gross negligence or exemplary or punitive damages. Defendant alleges DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 6 10000.1 179 that Plaintiff‘s claims for exemplary or punitive damages are in Violation of Defendant‘s rights under the 5th, 8th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 3 and l9 of the Texas Constitution, in that such claims as made are arbitrary, unreasonable, excessive, and in Violation of this Defendant's right to due process of law and equal protection of the law. Further, Plaintiff‘s claims for exemplary or punitive damages should be proved beyond a reasonable doubt under the 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution, or in the alternative, should be proved by clear and convincing evidence, as opposed to a mere preponderance of the evidence. XV. In the unlikely event that Defendant is found liable for exemplary damages, Defendant affirmatively alleges that any such liability he may have is limited as set forth in Section 41.007, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. XVI. Answering further, and in the alternative, Defendant would show that Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, if any, are the result of the acts or omissions of persons not under Defendant's control, which acts or omissions were the sole proximate cause of the occurrence made the basis of Plaintiff’s claims. XVH. This Defendant would show that if evidence surfaced in this case that the Plaintiff continues to complain of symptoms from this accident then in this event, this Defendant would show that there might very well be evidence to illustrate and demonstrate that the Plaintiff has failed to take care of the claimed injuries as a person using ordinary care would have done under the same or similar circumstances and such failure to mitigate should be taken into consideration DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 7 10000.1 179 and while this Defendant should not be assessed any monetary damages, he certainly should not be assessed any damages for failure of the Plaintiff to mitigate. XVIII. Answering further, if same be necessary, this Defendant would show that the matters complained of by the Plaintiff herein were as to this Defendant wholly and completely unavoidable, and without any negligence on the part of this Defendant. In this connection, Defendant would show that the occurrence in question was the result of events and/or conditions wholly beyond the scope and control of this Defendant, and for which he is not responsible. XIX. For further answer, if same be necessary, Defendant affirmatively pleads that Defendant was confronted with an unexpected and sudden emergency and acted in a reasonable and prudent manner as a result thereof. XX. Answering further, and in the alternative, Defendant would show that Plaintiff’s injuries and damages, if any, were proximately caused by a superseding and/or intervening act which disrupted the chain of causation and was beyond the control of this Defendant. XXI. Defendant would further show that any injuries, damages or liabilities complained of by the Plaintiff herein are the result in whole or in part of a pre-existing condition and disability and are not the result of any act or omission on the part of this Defendant. XXII. By way of further answer, Defendant affirmatively pleads that the Plaintiff was contributorily negligent in this case, which negligence solely and proximately caused the incident in question. DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 8 10000.1 179 XXIII. GENERAL DENIAL Defendant, Michael Barnett, denies all and singular the material allegations of fact contained in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition and demand strict proof thereof by a preponderance of the evidence, pursuant to Rule 92 of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. JURY DEMAND XXIV. Defendant respectfully demands a trial by jury with respect to any and all issues of fact. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that, upon trial hereof, Plaintiffs take nothing, Defendant go hence Without delay and recover his costs, and for such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which Defendant may be justly entitled. DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 9 10000.1 179 Respectfully submitted, THE LECRONE LAW FIRM, PC Wall Street Plaza 123 North Crockett Street, Suite 200 Sherman, TX 75090 TEL: 903.813.1900 FAX: 903.813.1944 By: /s/ Mam. «reague MARK A. TEAGUE State Bar No. 24003039 JOHN W. BREEZE State Bar No. 00796248 HILLARY LUCKETT CLARK State Bar No. 24077714 ALEXANDRIA K. CARPENTER State Bar No. 24101596 RHONDA D. HOLCOMB State Bar No. 24099024 BLAISE S. WILCOTT State Bar No. 24086481 SELENE DOMINGUEZ PENA State Bar No. 24106929 MEGAN E. ANDRUS State Bar No. 24129548 ESERVICE@LECR0NELAW.C0M ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 17th day of February, 2023, the foregoing instrument was forwarded to the following counsel of record: Ms. Ayesha Rafi Mr. Kyle DeBose RAEI DEBOSE, PLLC 8330 LBJ Freeway, Suite 820 Dallas, TX 75243 /s/ Mark fl. Teague MARK A. TEAGUE DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 10 10000.1 179 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Bethany Phelps on behalf of Mark Teague Bar No. 24003039 bethany@lecronelaw.com Envelope ID: 72887642 Status as of 2/20/2023 8:16 AM CST Associated Case Party: CHRISTOPHER WEBB Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Ayesha Rafi 24060455 arafi@rafidebose.com 2/17/2023 3:14:54 PM SENT Associated Case Party: MICHAEL BARNETT Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Mark A.Teague eservice@lecronelaw.com 2/17/2023 3:14:54 PM SENT Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Kyle DeBose kdebose@rafidebose.com 2/17/2023 3:14:54 PM SENT Mayra Guandique mayra@rafidebose.com 2/17/2023 3:14:54 PM SENT