On August 23, 2021 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Dalby, Barbara,
and
Crosson, Mikeal,
Hunt Oil Company,
for MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT
in the District Court of Dallas County.
Preview
FILED
9/13/2021 1:17 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS 00., TEXAS
CAROLYN SELLERS DEPUTY
Cause N0. DC-21-11344
BARBARA DALBY, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
§
Plaintiff, §
V. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
HUNT OIL COMPANY AND MIKEAL §
CROSSON, §
§ 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Defendants.
HUNT OIL COMPANY’S ORIGINAL ANSWER
TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW HUNT OIL COMPANY (hereinafter “Defendant” or “HOC”), a
defendant in this cause, and files this Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Petition, and in support
thereof would show unto the Court as follows:
General Denial
1. HOC generally denies each and every allegation contained in Plaintiff’ s
Original Petition and demands strict proof thereof.
2. HOC reserves the right to amend this pleading to set forth more fully its
defenses to the claims and allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Original Petition.
Affirmative Defenses
3. Plaintiff’ s Original Petition fails to state a claim against HOC upon which
relief can be granted.
4. HOC denies that it, or anyone for Whom it may be responsible, was guilty of
any negligence, gross negligence, want 0f due care, or other legal fault constituting a
proximate cause of the alleged damages sustained.
5. HOC asselts that the incident in question and Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and
damages were caused by intervening and superseding causes.
6. HOC asserts the affirmative defense of new and independent cause. The
incident in question was caused by the act or omission of a separate and independent
agency that was not reasonably foreseeable.
7. HOC asserts its rights under Chapters 32 and 33 of the Texas Civil Practices
and Remedies Code, including the reduction of liability based on the comparative
responsibility of Plaintiff, other parties in this case, and any responsible third parties.
8. Plaintiff has failed to allege conduct warranting imposition of exemplary or
punitive damages under applicable law. No act or omission by HOC was malicious, willful,
wanton, reckless or grossly negligent and, therefore, any award of punitive damages is
impermissible.
9. HOC asserts that Plaintiffs request for exemplary damages is limited by
Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. An award of any amount of
punitive or exemplary damages against HOC is prohibited by the Texas Constitution and
due process rights guaranteed to HOC under the Texas Constitution. An award of any
amount of punitive or exemplary damages against HOC is prohibited under the U.S.
Constitution in that substantive due process prohibits an award of such damages against
HOC. Such an award would not be justified in that HOC has not acted in such a manner
-2-
that could allow exemplary damages under the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.
HOC did not commit any criminal act relating to this case. Any award of exemplary
damages would Violate HOC’s substantive due process rights as guaranteed by the U.S.
Constitution.
10. HOC asserts that any bills or expenses sought to be recovered for the alleged
damages are only recoverable pursuant to the framework contained in Section 41.0105 of
the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code.
11. HOC asserts that pre-judgment and post-judgment interest is limited by
Chapter 304 of the Texas Finance Code.
12. HOC further pleads that Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages.
13. Plaintiff’ s recovery of medical expenses should be limited to the expenses
actually paid or incurred.
l4. HOC pleads the defense set forth in Section 18.091 of the Texas Civil
Practice and Remedies Code, requiring Plaintiff to prove her loss of earnings and/or loss
of earning capacity in the form which represents her net loss after reduction for income tax
payments or unpaid tax liability on said loss of earnings claim pursuant to any federal
income tax law. Additionally, HOC requests the Court to instruct the jury as to Whether the
recovery for compensatory damages sought by Plaintiff, if any, is subject to federal and
state income taxes.
Jury Demand
15. HOC demands trial by jury on all issues so triable and tenders the appropriate
fee.
Notice That Documents Will Be Used
16. Pursuant to Rule 193.7 of the Texas Rules 0f Civil Procedure, HOC hereby
gives notice that all documents produced by Plaintiff will be used at any pretrial proceeding
or at the trial of this case.
Prayer
HOC prays that Plaintiff take nothing by this action, that all her claims be dismissed
with prejudice, that all costs be assessed against Plaintiff, and for such other and further
relief, general and special, at law and in equity, to which HOC may be justly entitled.
Dated: September l3, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
KEAN MILLER LLP
By: /s/ Scott 1. gum
Scott L. Zimmer #24008331
Megan Reinkemeyer #24094209
711 Louisiana Street, Suite 1800
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (713) 844-3000
Fax: (713) 844-3030
scott.zimmer@keanmiller.com
mgan.reinkemeyer@keanmiller.com
ATTORNEYS FOR HUNT OIL COMPANY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 13th day of September, 2021, the foregoing was served
by electronic filing service on all counsel of record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure.
/S/ 5M1, W
COUNSEL
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.
Phyllis Tiner on behalf of Scott Louis Zimmer
Bar No. 24008331
phyllis.tiner@keanmiller.com
Envelope ID: 57186129
Status as of 9/14/2021 11:09 AM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
DARYL DERRYBERRY dld@dzwlaw.com 9/13/2021 1:17:07 PM SENT
Megan Reinkemeyer megan.reinkemeyer@keanmiller.com 9/13/2021 1:17:07 PM SENT
Sandra Mireles sandra.mireles@keanmi||er.com 9/13/2021 1:17:07 PM SENT
Phyllis Tiner phyllis.tiner@keanmiller.com 9/13/2021 1:17:07 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: HUNT OIL COMPANY
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Scott L.Zimmer scott.zimmer@keanmiller.com 9/13/2021 1:17:07 PM SENT
Document Filed Date
September 13, 2021
Case Filing Date
August 23, 2021
Category
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
FILED 9/13/2021 1:17 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS 00., TEXAS CAROLYN SELLERS DEPUTY Cause N0. DC-21-11344 BARBARA DALBY, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § Plaintiff, § V. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS § HUNT OIL COMPANY AND MIKEAL § CROSSON, § § 116TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Defendants. HUNT OIL COMPANY’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW HUNT OIL COMPANY (hereinafter “Defendant” or “HOC”), a defendant in this cause, and files this Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Petition, and in support thereof would show unto the Court as follows: General Denial 1. HOC generally denies each and every allegation contained in Plaintiff’ s Original Petition and demands strict proof thereof. 2. HOC reserves the right to amend this pleading to set forth more fully its defenses to the claims and allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Original Petition. Affirmative Defenses 3. Plaintiff’ s Original Petition fails to state a claim against HOC upon which relief can be granted. 4. HOC denies that it, or anyone for Whom it may be responsible, was guilty of any negligence, gross negligence, want 0f due care, or other legal fault constituting a proximate cause of the alleged damages sustained. 5. HOC asselts that the incident in question and Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages were caused by intervening and superseding causes. 6. HOC asserts the affirmative defense of new and independent cause. The incident in question was caused by the act or omission of a separate and independent agency that was not reasonably foreseeable. 7. HOC asserts its rights under Chapters 32 and 33 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, including the reduction of liability based on the comparative responsibility of Plaintiff, other parties in this case, and any responsible third parties. 8. Plaintiff has failed to allege conduct warranting imposition of exemplary or punitive damages under applicable law. No act or omission by HOC was malicious, willful, wanton, reckless or grossly negligent and, therefore, any award of punitive damages is impermissible. 9. HOC asserts that Plaintiffs request for exemplary damages is limited by Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. An award of any amount of punitive or exemplary damages against HOC is prohibited by the Texas Constitution and due process rights guaranteed to HOC under the Texas Constitution. An award of any amount of punitive or exemplary damages against HOC is prohibited under the U.S. Constitution in that substantive due process prohibits an award of such damages against HOC. Such an award would not be justified in that HOC has not acted in such a manner -2- that could allow exemplary damages under the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution. HOC did not commit any criminal act relating to this case. Any award of exemplary damages would Violate HOC’s substantive due process rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. 10. HOC asserts that any bills or expenses sought to be recovered for the alleged damages are only recoverable pursuant to the framework contained in Section 41.0105 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. 11. HOC asserts that pre-judgment and post-judgment interest is limited by Chapter 304 of the Texas Finance Code. 12. HOC further pleads that Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages. 13. Plaintiff’ s recovery of medical expenses should be limited to the expenses actually paid or incurred. l4. HOC pleads the defense set forth in Section 18.091 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, requiring Plaintiff to prove her loss of earnings and/or loss of earning capacity in the form which represents her net loss after reduction for income tax payments or unpaid tax liability on said loss of earnings claim pursuant to any federal income tax law. Additionally, HOC requests the Court to instruct the jury as to Whether the recovery for compensatory damages sought by Plaintiff, if any, is subject to federal and state income taxes. Jury Demand 15. HOC demands trial by jury on all issues so triable and tenders the appropriate fee. Notice That Documents Will Be Used 16. Pursuant to Rule 193.7 of the Texas Rules 0f Civil Procedure, HOC hereby gives notice that all documents produced by Plaintiff will be used at any pretrial proceeding or at the trial of this case. Prayer HOC prays that Plaintiff take nothing by this action, that all her claims be dismissed with prejudice, that all costs be assessed against Plaintiff, and for such other and further relief, general and special, at law and in equity, to which HOC may be justly entitled. Dated: September l3, 2021 Respectfully submitted, KEAN MILLER LLP By: /s/ Scott 1. gum Scott L. Zimmer #24008331 Megan Reinkemeyer #24094209 711 Louisiana Street, Suite 1800 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 844-3000 Fax: (713) 844-3030 scott.zimmer@keanmiller.com mgan.reinkemeyer@keanmiller.com ATTORNEYS FOR HUNT OIL COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 13th day of September, 2021, the foregoing was served by electronic filing service on all counsel of record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. /S/ 5M1, W COUNSEL 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. Phyllis Tiner on behalf of Scott Louis Zimmer Bar No. 24008331 phyllis.tiner@keanmiller.com Envelope ID: 57186129 Status as of 9/14/2021 11:09 AM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status DARYL DERRYBERRY dld@dzwlaw.com 9/13/2021 1:17:07 PM SENT Megan Reinkemeyer megan.reinkemeyer@keanmiller.com 9/13/2021 1:17:07 PM SENT Sandra Mireles sandra.mireles@keanmi||er.com 9/13/2021 1:17:07 PM SENT Phyllis Tiner phyllis.tiner@keanmiller.com 9/13/2021 1:17:07 PM SENT Associated Case Party: HUNT OIL COMPANY Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Scott L.Zimmer scott.zimmer@keanmiller.com 9/13/2021 1:17:07 PM SENT