On January 11, 2019 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Christopher Doerhoff,
and
Brightview Tree Care Services, Inc.,
for Other non-PI/PD/WD Tort Unlimited (35)
in the District Court of Santa Clara County.
Preview
the ordinary and usual risks and perils incident to such activity. In assuming such risks and
2 dangers, damages and injuries, any, occurred in the ordinary and normal course
said activities, and by reason thereof, plaintiff is barred from recovering from this answering
4 defendant.
AS A THIRD SEP ARA AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the
Complaint, this answering defendant alleges that the alleged causes action are barred by the
Limitations pursuant to California Code Civil Procedure §§338, 340 et seq.
AS A FOURTH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the
9 Complaint, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff himself had notice of any allegedly
dangerous condition the premises, and that any such allegedly dangerous condition was open
and obvious.
AS A SEP ARA AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the
Complaint, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff failed to use ordinary care and/or
14 caution and was himself negligent, careless and otherwise at fault in and about the matters
alleged in the Complaint and that said negligence, carelessness and fault on the part
proximately caused and contributed to the events and damages complained in the Complaint.
Furthermore, defendant alleges that said negligence, carelessness and/or fault on the part
plaintiff proximately contributed to the happening the incident and plaintiff's contributory
negligence either bars recovery or reduces any recovery against this answering defendant
20 proportionately.
AS A SIXTH SEP ARA AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the
22 Complaint, this answering defendant alleges that it should be found that there was negligence
23 as alleged in Complaint, which this defendant denies, such negligence or fault was that
plaintiff, and/or other persons, firms, corporations or entities, other than this answering
25 defendant, and comparatively reduces the percentage any liability on the part
26 answering defendant, it should be found that this defendant is liable. Further, the Court is
27 requested to instruct the jury to apportion fault for any injuries or losses, any there were, which
28 were caused by plaintiff and/or by persons, firms, corporations or entities other than this
Answer to Complaint
Document Filed Date
March 11, 2019
Case Filing Date
January 11, 2019
Category
Other non-PI/PD/WD Tort Unlimited (35)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
the ordinary and usual risks and perils incident to such activity. In assuming such risks and 2 dangers, damages and injuries, any, occurred in the ordinary and normal course said activities, and by reason thereof, plaintiff is barred from recovering from this answering 4 defendant. AS A THIRD SEP ARA AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint, this answering defendant alleges that the alleged causes action are barred by the Limitations pursuant to California Code Civil Procedure §§338, 340 et seq. AS A FOURTH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the 9 Complaint, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff himself had notice of any allegedly dangerous condition the premises, and that any such allegedly dangerous condition was open and obvious. AS A SEP ARA AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the Complaint, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff failed to use ordinary care and/or 14 caution and was himself negligent, careless and otherwise at fault in and about the matters alleged in the Complaint and that said negligence, carelessness and fault on the part proximately caused and contributed to the events and damages complained in the Complaint. Furthermore, defendant alleges that said negligence, carelessness and/or fault on the part plaintiff proximately contributed to the happening the incident and plaintiff's contributory negligence either bars recovery or reduces any recovery against this answering defendant 20 proportionately. AS A SIXTH SEP ARA AND DISTINCT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to the 22 Complaint, this answering defendant alleges that it should be found that there was negligence 23 as alleged in Complaint, which this defendant denies, such negligence or fault was that plaintiff, and/or other persons, firms, corporations or entities, other than this answering 25 defendant, and comparatively reduces the percentage any liability on the part 26 answering defendant, it should be found that this defendant is liable. Further, the Court is 27 requested to instruct the jury to apportion fault for any injuries or losses, any there were, which 28 were caused by plaintiff and/or by persons, firms, corporations or entities other than this Answer to Complaint