Preview
FILED
7/31/2023 5:02 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Matthew Little DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-21-15846
MARIA SANCHEZ, INDIVIDUALLY § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
AND A/NfF FOR J .M., O.S. AND A.S., §
MINORS, AND JOSHUA SANCHEZ §
§
VS. § 162ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
TAMARA LAMEKIA GEORGE § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED ANSWER
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW Defendant, Tamara George ("Defendant"), and files this Amended
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 Plaintiffs’ Petition, and respectfully requests that Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs. 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 Plaintiffs 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
Plaintiffs. More specifically, Defendant would show that minor Plaintiffs incorrect of a seat belt
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED ANSWER PAGE l OF 5
and/or failure to wear a seat belt was the sole, or a pattial, proximate cause of the injuries and
damages alleged by Plaintiffs. Pursuant to Tex. CiV. Prac. & Rem. Code 33.003 (a), Defendant
intends to enter into evidence at trial that minor Plaintiffs incorrect and/or failure to wear a seat
belt contributed to the alleged injuries, and/or the severity of the alleged injuries, Plaintiffs claim
to have sustained.
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 Plaintiffs’ vehicle was an unavoidable accident without negligence of this
Defendant.
IV. PRE-EXISTING CONDITION
To the extent applicable, Defendant would further show Plaintiffs had medical conditions
which pre-existed this accident or arose following this accident and did not result from this
accident. Defendant is not responsible for Plaintiffs’ medical conditions and damages, if any,
attributable to Plaintiffs’ 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 Plaintiffs’ injuries. Further, Defendant disputes that Plaintiffs
sustained injury from the occurrence in question.
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED ANSWER PAGE 2 OF 5
VI. FAILURE T0 MITIGATE DAMAGES
Defendant would further Show that Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs, if any, that resulted from this accident and/or in failing to mitigate the
damages, if any, of Plaintiffs.
VII. LOSS OF EARNINGS
To the extent that the Plaintiffs are 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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs. Haygood v. De Escabedo, 356 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. 2011).
IX. REQUIRED INITIAL DISCLOSURES
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194.2, Plaintiffs are required to disclose,
within thirty (30) days of the filing of this Answer, the information or materials described in
Rule 194.2.
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED ANSWER PAGE 3 OF 5
X. TEXAS RULE OF EVIDENCE 609(1') REQUEST
Defendant requests that Plaintiffs, pursuant to Texas Rule of Evidence 609(f), give
Defendant sufficient advanced written notice of Plaintiffs’ intent to use evidence of a conviction
of a crime under Rule 609(t) against any party or witness in this case, with failure to do so
resulting in inadmissibility of the same.
XI. TEXAS RULE OF 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 Plaintiffs 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,
STEIL & ASSOCIATES
MELANIE M. CLARK
SBN: 24009666
2280 North Greenville Avenue,
Richardson, Texas 75082-4412
Telephone: 972-855-6400
Facsimile: 972-855-6418
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED ANSWER PAGE 4 OF 5
meclark@geico.com
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this the 3lst day of July, 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: scott@thelz'djifirm.com
I. Scott Lidji
The Lidji Firm
Meadow Park Tower
10440 N. Central Expressway, STE 1240
Dallas, Texas 75231
Attorney for Plaintiffs
44L,
MELA'N'IE M. CLARK
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED 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.
Dawn Savino on behalf of Melanie Clark
Bar No. 24009666
dsavino@geico.com
Envelope ID: 78059103
Filing Code Description: Amended Answer - Amended General Denial
Filing Description:
Status as of 8/1/2023 9:28 AM CST
Associated Case Party: JOSHUA SANCHEZ
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Legal Lidji lega|@thelidjifirm.com 7/31/2023 5:02:28 PM SENT
|. Scott Lidji scott@thelidjifirm.com 7/31/2023 5:02:28 PM SENT
K GracieEveritt gracie@thelidjifirm.com 7/31/2023 5:02:28 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: TAMARALAMEKIAGEORGE
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Melanie Clark meclark@geico.com 7/31/2023 5:02:28 PM SENT
Dawn Savino dsavino@geico.com 7/31/2023 5:02:28 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 7/31/2023 5:02 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Matthew Little DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-21-15846 MARIA SANCHEZ, INDIVIDUALLY § IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND A/NfF FOR J .M., O.S. AND A.S., § MINORS, AND JOSHUA SANCHEZ § § VS. § 162ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT § TAMARA LAMEKIA GEORGE § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT’S AMENDED ANSWER TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW Defendant, Tamara George ("Defendant"), and files this Amended 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 Plaintiffs’ Petition, and respectfully requests that Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs. 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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs. More specifically, Defendant would show that minor Plaintiffs incorrect of a seat belt DEFENDANT’S AMENDED ANSWER PAGE l OF 5 and/or failure to wear a seat belt was the sole, or a pattial, proximate cause of the injuries and damages alleged by Plaintiffs. Pursuant to Tex. CiV. Prac. & Rem. Code 33.003 (a), Defendant intends to enter into evidence at trial that minor Plaintiffs incorrect and/or failure to wear a seat belt contributed to the alleged injuries, and/or the severity of the alleged injuries, Plaintiffs claim to have sustained. 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 Plaintiffs’ vehicle was an unavoidable accident without negligence of this Defendant. IV. PRE-EXISTING CONDITION To the extent applicable, Defendant would further show Plaintiffs had medical conditions which pre-existed this accident or arose following this accident and did not result from this accident. Defendant is not responsible for Plaintiffs’ medical conditions and damages, if any, attributable to Plaintiffs’ 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 Plaintiffs’ injuries. Further, Defendant disputes that Plaintiffs sustained injury from the occurrence in question. DEFENDANT’S AMENDED ANSWER PAGE 2 OF 5 VI. FAILURE T0 MITIGATE DAMAGES Defendant would further Show that Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs, if any, that resulted from this accident and/or in failing to mitigate the damages, if any, of Plaintiffs. VII. LOSS OF EARNINGS To the extent that the Plaintiffs are 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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs. Haygood v. De Escabedo, 356 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. 2011). IX. REQUIRED INITIAL DISCLOSURES Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194.2, Plaintiffs are required to disclose, within thirty (30) days of the filing of this Answer, the information or materials described in Rule 194.2. DEFENDANT’S AMENDED ANSWER PAGE 3 OF 5 X. TEXAS RULE OF EVIDENCE 609(1') REQUEST Defendant requests that Plaintiffs, pursuant to Texas Rule of Evidence 609(f), give Defendant sufficient advanced written notice of Plaintiffs’ intent to use evidence of a conviction of a crime under Rule 609(t) against any party or witness in this case, with failure to do so resulting in inadmissibility of the same. XI. TEXAS RULE OF 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 Plaintiffs 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, STEIL & ASSOCIATES MELANIE M. CLARK SBN: 24009666 2280 North Greenville Avenue, Richardson, Texas 75082-4412 Telephone: 972-855-6400 Facsimile: 972-855-6418 DEFENDANT’S AMENDED ANSWER PAGE 4 OF 5 meclark@geico.com ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this the 3lst day of July, 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: scott@thelz'djifirm.com I. Scott Lidji The Lidji Firm Meadow Park Tower 10440 N. Central Expressway, STE 1240 Dallas, Texas 75231 Attorney for Plaintiffs 44L, MELA'N'IE M. CLARK DEFENDANT’S AMENDED 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. Dawn Savino on behalf of Melanie Clark Bar No. 24009666 dsavino@geico.com Envelope ID: 78059103 Filing Code Description: Amended Answer - Amended General Denial Filing Description: Status as of 8/1/2023 9:28 AM CST Associated Case Party: JOSHUA SANCHEZ Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Legal Lidji lega|@thelidjifirm.com 7/31/2023 5:02:28 PM SENT |. Scott Lidji scott@thelidjifirm.com 7/31/2023 5:02:28 PM SENT K GracieEveritt gracie@thelidjifirm.com 7/31/2023 5:02:28 PM SENT Associated Case Party: TAMARALAMEKIAGEORGE Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Melanie Clark meclark@geico.com 7/31/2023 5:02:28 PM SENT Dawn Savino dsavino@geico.com 7/31/2023 5:02:28 PM SENT