Preview
FILED
1/18/2023 10:39 AM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Marissa Gomez DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC—22- 1 6412
THOMAS L. BESHEARS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
VS. § 95TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
NIA S. FORTE § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW Defendant, Nia Forte ("Defendant"), and files this Original Answer, and
would respectfully show as follows:
I-
As is authorized by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 92, Defendant generally denies each
and every allegation contained in Plaintiff s Petition, and respectfully requests that Plaintiff be
required to prove same by a preponderance of the evidence as is required by the Constitution and
laws of the State of Texas.
II. COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE-RESPONSIBILITY
Defendant would further show that the negligence of the Plaintiff and/or one or more Co-
Defendants and/or one or more third parties was/were the sole, or a partial, proximate cause of
the accident and the injuries and damages alleged by Plaintiff. Pursuant to Texas Civil Practice &
Remedies Code Chapter 33, Defendant invokes the doctrine of comparative responsibility and
would show that Defendant is entitled to an issue submitted to the jury on the comparative
responsibility of Plaintiff and/or any Co-Defendant and/or third party who/which caused,
contributed, or was responsible for this accident and the injuries and damages alleged by
Plaintiff.
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE l OF 5
III. SUDDEN EMERGENCY/UNAVOIDABLE ACCIDENT
To the extent applicable, Defendant would further show that Defendant was confronted
by an emergency arising suddenly and unexpectedly which was not proximately caused by any
negligence on Defendant’s part and which, to a reasonable person, requires immediate action
without time for deliberation and that Defendant acted as a person of ordinary prudence would
have acted under the same or similar circumstances. Defendant would further show that the
collision with Plaintiff’s vehicle was an unavoidable accident without negligence of this
Defendant.
IV. PRE-EXISTING CONDITION
To the extent applicable, Defendant would further show Plaintiff had a medical condition
which pre-existed this accident or arose following this accident and did not result from this
accident. Defendant is not responsible for Plaintiffs medical condition and damages, if any,
attributable to Plaintiff’s pre-existing or subsequent condition not caused by this accident.
V. PROXIMATE CAUSE
To the extent applicable, Defendant would further show that Defendant’s acts or
omissions and/or the accident made the basis of this lawsuit were not the proximate cause of the
occurrence in question and/or Plaintiff’s injuries. Further, Defendant disputes that Plaintiff
sustained injury from the occurrence in question.
VI. FAILURE TO MITIGATE DAMAGES
Defendant would further show that Plaintiff failed to act as a person of ordinary prudence
would have done under the same or similar circumstances in caring for and treating the injuries
of Plaintiff, if any, that resulted from this accident and/or in failing to mitigate the damages, if
any, of Plaintiff.
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 2 OF 5
VII. LOSS 0F EARNINGS
To the extent that the Plaintiff is seeking a recovery for loss of earnings, lost wages, loss
of earning capacity and/or loss of contribution of pecuniary value, Defendant would further show
that evidence of this alleged loss must be presented by the Plaintiff in the form of a net loss after
reduction for income tax payments or unpaid tax liability to any federal income tax law, as
required by Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 18.091.
VIII. PAID OR INCURRED MEDICAL EXPENSES LIMITATION
Defendant further specifically contends, in accordance with Texas Civil Practice &
Remedies Code § 41.0105, that recovery by Plaintiff of past medical or health care expenses, if
any, that were incurred as a result of the accident identified in Plaintiffs Petition, and the
relevant evidence of past medical and healthcare expenses, if any, that were incurred as a result
of the accident identified in Plaintiffs Petition, is limited to amount(s) actually paid or incurred
by, or on behalf of, the Plaintiff. Haygood v. De Escabedo, 356 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. 2011).
IX. REQUIRED INITIAL DISCLOSURES
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194.2, Plaintiff is required to disclose, within
thirty (30) days of the filing of this Answer, the information or materials described in Rule 194.2.
X. TEXAS RULE OF EVIDENCE 609(1) REQUEST
Defendant requests that Plaintiff, pursuant to Texas Rule of Evidence 609(f), give
Defendant sufficient advanced written notice of Plaintiff’s intent to use evidence of a conviction
of a crime under Rule 609(f) against any party or witness in this case, with failure to do so
resulting in inadmissibility of the same.
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 3 OF 5
XI. TEXAS RULE 0F CIVIL PROCEDURE 193.7 NOTICE
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.7, Defendant may enter into evidence at
the trial or at any other proceeding during the pendency of this matter all documents produced to
Defendant in response to discovery requests.
XII. JURY DEMAND
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 216, Defendant demands a jury trial. The
appropriate jury fee has been or will be paid to the Clerk of the Court within thirty (30) days in
advance of the trial setting.
XIII. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that Plaintiff take nothing
by way of this suit, and that this Defendant have such other and further relief, both general and
special, at law or in equity, to which this Defendant may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
BRITT A. HADLEY & ASSOCLATES
/s/ William Schultz
WILLIAM SCHULTZ
SBN: 00794609
8505 Freeport Parkway, STE 375
Irving, Texas 75063
Telephone: 682-271-6850
Facsimile: 214-277-0518
wschultz@geico.com
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 4 OF 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this the 18th day of January, 2023, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing instrument has been sent to all counsel of record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure:
VIA E—service: gabriel@riveroslawfirm.com
Gabriel A. Riveros
The Riveros Law Firm, PLLC
1925 E. Belt Line Road, Ste 420,
Carrollton, TX 75006
Attorney for Plaintiff
/s/ William Schultz
WILLIAM SCHULTZ
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 5 OF 5
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.
Dianne Davis on behalf of William Schultz
Bar No. 794609
diadavis@geico.com
Envelope ID: 71889359
Status as of 1/18/2023 12:42 PM CST
Associated Case Party: THOMASL.BESHEARS
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
GABRIEL ARIVEROS GABRIEL@RIVEROSLAWF|RMCOM 1/18/2023 10:39:06 AM SENT
Associated Case Party: NIASFORTE
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Melissa Webb mwebb@geico.com 1/18/2023 10:39:06 AM SENT
William Schultz wschultz@geico.com 1/18/2023 10:39:06 AM SENT
Dianne Davis diadavis@geico.com 1/18/2023 10:39:06 AM SENT
Preview
FILED 1/18/2023 10:39 AM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Marissa Gomez DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC—22- 1 6412 THOMAS L. BESHEARS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § VS. § 95TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT § NIA S. FORTE § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS § DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW Defendant, Nia Forte ("Defendant"), and files this Original Answer, and would respectfully show as follows: I- As is authorized by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 92, Defendant generally denies each and every allegation contained in Plaintiff s Petition, and respectfully requests that Plaintiff be required to prove same by a preponderance of the evidence as is required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas. II. COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE-RESPONSIBILITY Defendant would further show that the negligence of the Plaintiff and/or one or more Co- Defendants and/or one or more third parties was/were the sole, or a partial, proximate cause of the accident and the injuries and damages alleged by Plaintiff. Pursuant to Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 33, Defendant invokes the doctrine of comparative responsibility and would show that Defendant is entitled to an issue submitted to the jury on the comparative responsibility of Plaintiff and/or any Co-Defendant and/or third party who/which caused, contributed, or was responsible for this accident and the injuries and damages alleged by Plaintiff. DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE l OF 5 III. SUDDEN EMERGENCY/UNAVOIDABLE ACCIDENT To the extent applicable, Defendant would further show that Defendant was confronted by an emergency arising suddenly and unexpectedly which was not proximately caused by any negligence on Defendant’s part and which, to a reasonable person, requires immediate action without time for deliberation and that Defendant acted as a person of ordinary prudence would have acted under the same or similar circumstances. Defendant would further show that the collision with Plaintiff’s vehicle was an unavoidable accident without negligence of this Defendant. IV. PRE-EXISTING CONDITION To the extent applicable, Defendant would further show Plaintiff had a medical condition which pre-existed this accident or arose following this accident and did not result from this accident. Defendant is not responsible for Plaintiffs medical condition and damages, if any, attributable to Plaintiff’s pre-existing or subsequent condition not caused by this accident. V. PROXIMATE CAUSE To the extent applicable, Defendant would further show that Defendant’s acts or omissions and/or the accident made the basis of this lawsuit were not the proximate cause of the occurrence in question and/or Plaintiff’s injuries. Further, Defendant disputes that Plaintiff sustained injury from the occurrence in question. VI. FAILURE TO MITIGATE DAMAGES Defendant would further show that Plaintiff failed to act as a person of ordinary prudence would have done under the same or similar circumstances in caring for and treating the injuries of Plaintiff, if any, that resulted from this accident and/or in failing to mitigate the damages, if any, of Plaintiff. DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 2 OF 5 VII. LOSS 0F EARNINGS To the extent that the Plaintiff is seeking a recovery for loss of earnings, lost wages, loss of earning capacity and/or loss of contribution of pecuniary value, Defendant would further show that evidence of this alleged loss must be presented by the Plaintiff in the form of a net loss after reduction for income tax payments or unpaid tax liability to any federal income tax law, as required by Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 18.091. VIII. PAID OR INCURRED MEDICAL EXPENSES LIMITATION Defendant further specifically contends, in accordance with Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 41.0105, that recovery by Plaintiff of past medical or health care expenses, if any, that were incurred as a result of the accident identified in Plaintiffs Petition, and the relevant evidence of past medical and healthcare expenses, if any, that were incurred as a result of the accident identified in Plaintiffs Petition, is limited to amount(s) actually paid or incurred by, or on behalf of, the Plaintiff. Haygood v. De Escabedo, 356 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. 2011). IX. REQUIRED INITIAL DISCLOSURES Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194.2, Plaintiff is required to disclose, within thirty (30) days of the filing of this Answer, the information or materials described in Rule 194.2. X. TEXAS RULE OF EVIDENCE 609(1) REQUEST Defendant requests that Plaintiff, pursuant to Texas Rule of Evidence 609(f), give Defendant sufficient advanced written notice of Plaintiff’s intent to use evidence of a conviction of a crime under Rule 609(f) against any party or witness in this case, with failure to do so resulting in inadmissibility of the same. DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 3 OF 5 XI. TEXAS RULE 0F CIVIL PROCEDURE 193.7 NOTICE Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.7, Defendant may enter into evidence at the trial or at any other proceeding during the pendency of this matter all documents produced to Defendant in response to discovery requests. XII. JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 216, Defendant demands a jury trial. The appropriate jury fee has been or will be paid to the Clerk of the Court within thirty (30) days in advance of the trial setting. XIII. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that Plaintiff take nothing by way of this suit, and that this Defendant have such other and further relief, both general and special, at law or in equity, to which this Defendant may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, BRITT A. HADLEY & ASSOCLATES /s/ William Schultz WILLIAM SCHULTZ SBN: 00794609 8505 Freeport Parkway, STE 375 Irving, Texas 75063 Telephone: 682-271-6850 Facsimile: 214-277-0518 wschultz@geico.com ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 4 OF 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this the 18th day of January, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been sent to all counsel of record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure: VIA E—service: gabriel@riveroslawfirm.com Gabriel A. Riveros The Riveros Law Firm, PLLC 1925 E. Belt Line Road, Ste 420, Carrollton, TX 75006 Attorney for Plaintiff /s/ William Schultz WILLIAM SCHULTZ DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 5 OF 5 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. Dianne Davis on behalf of William Schultz Bar No. 794609 diadavis@geico.com Envelope ID: 71889359 Status as of 1/18/2023 12:42 PM CST Associated Case Party: THOMASL.BESHEARS Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status GABRIEL ARIVEROS GABRIEL@RIVEROSLAWF|RMCOM 1/18/2023 10:39:06 AM SENT Associated Case Party: NIASFORTE Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Melissa Webb mwebb@geico.com 1/18/2023 10:39:06 AM SENT William Schultz wschultz@geico.com 1/18/2023 10:39:06 AM SENT Dianne Davis diadavis@geico.com 1/18/2023 10:39:06 AM SENT