Preview
CAUSE NO.
MARIA RODRIGUEZ IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff
vs. 284th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TERI BUCHANAN AND PAUL
BUCHANAN MONTGOMERY COUNTY,
Defendants TEXAS
DEFENDANTS' ORIGINAL ANSWER AND JURY DEMAND
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COME TERI BUCHANAN AND PAUL BUCHANAN Defendants in the
above styled and numbered cause, and in answer to Plaintiff's Original Petition filed herein
would show unto the Court the following:
GENERAL DENIAL
Pursuant to Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants TERI
BUCHANAN AND PAUL BUCHANAN deny each and every, all and singular, material
allegations contained in Plaintiff's pleadings filed herein, and demand strict proof thereof, as
required by the laws of this State.
Defendants TERI BUCHANAN AND PAUL BUCHANAN, specifically deny
breached any duty of care owing to Plaintiff, in that acted at all times with the care a
reasonably prudent person would have used in the circumstances and situation confronting
Due Diligence. For further answering, if same be necessary, Defendants assert that
Plaintiff's claim is barred by limitations. More specifically, Defendants assert that Section
16.003 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code bars Plaintiff's claim in that the Plaintiff
failed to use due diligence to serve Defendants with citation within the two year limitation period
provided by the statute. Plaintiff's lack of due diligence in procuring service upon Defendants
have caused the statute of limitations to run.
DEFENDANTS' ORIGINAL ANSWER AND JURY DEMAND
4. Unavoidable Accident. Defendants contend that the accident which is the basis of this
suit was unavoidable.
5. New, Independent Cause. Further answering, Defendants would show that the accident
in question was proximately caused by the act or omission of a separate and independent agency,
not reasonably foreseeable, that destroyed the causal connection, if any, between the act or
omission inquired about and the occurrence in question and thereby becomes the immediate
cause of such occurrence.
6. Defendants deny that Plaintiff sustained damages in any sum or sums at all.
7. Defendants deny that Plaintiff sustained any injury, damage or loss, if any, by reason of
any act or omission on the part of Defendants, or any agent, servant or employee of Defendants.
8. Defendants assert that any injury claimed by the Plaintiff are or was due to illness, injury,
disease, or accident which occurred either before or after the alleged incident made the basis of
this suit, such conditions are not related to or caused by the incident made the basis of this suit.
9. Plaintiff's medical treatment, or a portion thereof, was not reasonable or necessary under
the circumstances. Additionally, Plaintiff's medical expenses and bills, or a portion thereof, were
not reasonable or necessary under the circumstances.
10. C.P.R.C. §41.0105. Defendants invoke §41.0105 of the Texas Civil Practices and
Remedies Code and requests that, to the extent Plaintiff seek recovery of medical or healthcare
expenses, the evidence to prove such loss be limited to the amount actually paid by or on behalf
of Plaintiff, as opposed to the amount charged. see Haygood v. De Escobedo, 356 S.W.3d 390
(Tex. 2011).
T.R.C.P. 193.7 NOTICE
11. Defendants hereby give actual notice to all parties herein that any and all documents
produced during discovery may be used by Defendants against Plaintiff and/or any other party at
any pre-trial proceeding and/or trial of this matter without the necessity of authenticating the
document. This notice is given pursuant to Rule 193.7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
-2-
DEFENDANTS' ORIGINAL ANSWER AND JURY DEMAND
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
12. Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants, TERI BUCHANAN AND
PAUL BUCHANAN, hereby demand a trial by jury in the above-entitled action.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the above-named Defendants, TERI
BUCHANAN AND PAUL BUCHANAN, ask the Court to enter judgment that Plaintiff takes
nothing, dismiss Plaintiff's suit with prejudice, assess costs against Plaintiff and award these
Defendants any and all other relief to which these Defendants are entitled.
Respectfully Submitted,
BRETOI, LUTZ & STELE
_______________________________
TED E. DRAVIS, JR.
Texas Bar No. 06113500
13620 N FM 620, Building B, Suite 125
Austin, TX 78717
(512) 231-4701 Telephone
(512) 231-4704 Facsimile
AustinLegal@MercuryInsurance.com
Attorney for Defendants, TERI BUCHANAN AND
PAUL BUCHANAN
-3-
DEFENDANTS' ORIGINAL ANSWER AND JURY DEMAND
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that a duplicate original or true and correct copy of the foregoing
document to which this certificate is attached was served on all pro se parties and/or attorneys of
record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on November 18, 2021.
Via E-Service
Jesus G. Davila
Christopher J. Davila
THE DAVILA LAW FIRM
6611 North Main Street
Houston, TX 77009
Attorney for Plaintiff
Ted E. Dravis, Jr.
-4-
DEFENDANTS' ORIGINAL ANSWER AND JURY DEMAND
Preview
CAUSE NO. MARIA RODRIGUEZ IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff vs. 284th JUDICIAL DISTRICT TERI BUCHANAN AND PAUL BUCHANAN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Defendants TEXAS DEFENDANTS' ORIGINAL ANSWER AND JURY DEMAND TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COME TERI BUCHANAN AND PAUL BUCHANAN Defendants in the above styled and numbered cause, and in answer to Plaintiff's Original Petition filed herein would show unto the Court the following: GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant to Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants TERI BUCHANAN AND PAUL BUCHANAN deny each and every, all and singular, material allegations contained in Plaintiff's pleadings filed herein, and demand strict proof thereof, as required by the laws of this State. Defendants TERI BUCHANAN AND PAUL BUCHANAN, specifically deny breached any duty of care owing to Plaintiff, in that acted at all times with the care a reasonably prudent person would have used in the circumstances and situation confronting Due Diligence. For further answering, if same be necessary, Defendants assert that Plaintiff's claim is barred by limitations. More specifically, Defendants assert that Section 16.003 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code bars Plaintiff's claim in that the Plaintiff failed to use due diligence to serve Defendants with citation within the two year limitation period provided by the statute. Plaintiff's lack of due diligence in procuring service upon Defendants have caused the statute of limitations to run. DEFENDANTS' ORIGINAL ANSWER AND JURY DEMAND 4. Unavoidable Accident. Defendants contend that the accident which is the basis of this suit was unavoidable. 5. New, Independent Cause. Further answering, Defendants would show that the accident in question was proximately caused by the act or omission of a separate and independent agency, not reasonably foreseeable, that destroyed the causal connection, if any, between the act or omission inquired about and the occurrence in question and thereby becomes the immediate cause of such occurrence. 6. Defendants deny that Plaintiff sustained damages in any sum or sums at all. 7. Defendants deny that Plaintiff sustained any injury, damage or loss, if any, by reason of any act or omission on the part of Defendants, or any agent, servant or employee of Defendants. 8. Defendants assert that any injury claimed by the Plaintiff are or was due to illness, injury, disease, or accident which occurred either before or after the alleged incident made the basis of this suit, such conditions are not related to or caused by the incident made the basis of this suit. 9. Plaintiff's medical treatment, or a portion thereof, was not reasonable or necessary under the circumstances. Additionally, Plaintiff's medical expenses and bills, or a portion thereof, were not reasonable or necessary under the circumstances. 10. C.P.R.C. §41.0105. Defendants invoke §41.0105 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code and requests that, to the extent Plaintiff seek recovery of medical or healthcare expenses, the evidence to prove such loss be limited to the amount actually paid by or on behalf of Plaintiff, as opposed to the amount charged. see Haygood v. De Escobedo, 356 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. 2011). T.R.C.P. 193.7 NOTICE 11. Defendants hereby give actual notice to all parties herein that any and all documents produced during discovery may be used by Defendants against Plaintiff and/or any other party at any pre-trial proceeding and/or trial of this matter without the necessity of authenticating the document. This notice is given pursuant to Rule 193.7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. -2- DEFENDANTS' ORIGINAL ANSWER AND JURY DEMAND JURY TRIAL DEMAND 12. Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants, TERI BUCHANAN AND PAUL BUCHANAN, hereby demand a trial by jury in the above-entitled action. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the above-named Defendants, TERI BUCHANAN AND PAUL BUCHANAN, ask the Court to enter judgment that Plaintiff takes nothing, dismiss Plaintiff's suit with prejudice, assess costs against Plaintiff and award these Defendants any and all other relief to which these Defendants are entitled. Respectfully Submitted, BRETOI, LUTZ & STELE _______________________________ TED E. DRAVIS, JR. Texas Bar No. 06113500 13620 N FM 620, Building B, Suite 125 Austin, TX 78717 (512) 231-4701 Telephone (512) 231-4704 Facsimile AustinLegal@MercuryInsurance.com Attorney for Defendants, TERI BUCHANAN AND PAUL BUCHANAN -3- DEFENDANTS' ORIGINAL ANSWER AND JURY DEMAND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that a duplicate original or true and correct copy of the foregoing document to which this certificate is attached was served on all pro se parties and/or attorneys of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on November 18, 2021. Via E-Service Jesus G. Davila Christopher J. Davila THE DAVILA LAW FIRM 6611 North Main Street Houston, TX 77009 Attorney for Plaintiff Ted E. Dravis, Jr. -4- DEFENDANTS' ORIGINAL ANSWER AND JURY DEMAND