Preview
Filing # 56298359 E-Filed 05/11/2017 11:35:27 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
RONALD VOHS,
Plaintiff, CASE NO.: CACE-17-007673
DIVISION: 05
vs.
JOSIMAR’S CLEANING SERVICES CORP.,
USA BR GENERAL SERVICES CORP.,
INDUSTRIAL CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
SERVICES INC., AND COMCAST
CORPORATION,
Defendants.
i
DEFENDANT INDUSTRIAL CABLE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES INC.’S
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendant, INDUSTRIAL CABLE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES INC. (hereinafter
referred to as “ICCS”), hereby files its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's
Complaint, and states as follows:
1, Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only.
2. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only.
3. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only.
4. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant JOSIMAR’S
CLEANING SERVICES CORP. and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this
allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied.
5. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant USA BR
GENERAL SERVICES CORP. and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this
allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied.
6. Admitted.
*4* FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 5/11/2017 11:35:26 AM.****7. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant COMCAST
CORPORATION and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this allegation
requires a response from ICCS, it is denied.
8. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only; otherwise denied. Further state that the
alleged subject incident did not occur at or near 11656 SW 111 Street, Davie, Broward County,
Florida. Upon information and belief, the subject incident allegedly occurred at or near 11656
11th Street, Davie, Broward County, Florida.
9. Admitted that a director, employee, servant, agent, and/or contractor of Defendant
JOSIMAR’S CLEANING was dispatched to a location at or near 11656 SW 1Ithe Street,
Davie, Broward County, Florida to perform cable work ordered by COMCAST; admitted that
ICCS contracted with USA BR to perform the work ordered by COMCAST; Denied that the
ordered work was done at or near 11656 SW 11th Street, Davie, Broward County; otherwise
denied.
10. Denied.
11. Denied.
COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE OF JOSIMAR’S CLEANING SERVICES CORP.
ICCS reasserts its responses to Paragraphs | through 11 as if set forth in full here.
12. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant JOSIMAR’S
CLEANING SERVICES CORP. and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this
allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied.
13. This allegation including all subparts seeks an admission or denial from Co-
Defendant JOSIMAR’S CLEANING SERVICES CORP. and no response is required from
ICCS. To the extent that this allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied.14. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant JOSIMAR’S
CLEANING SERVICES CORP. and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this
allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied.
15. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant JOSIMAR’S
CLEANING SERVICES CORP. and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this
allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied.
16. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant JOSIMAR’S
CLEANING SERVICES CORP. and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this
allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied.
COUNT I — NEGLIGENCE OF USA BR GENERAL SERVICES CORP.
ICCS reasserts its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 11 as if set forth in full here.
17. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant USA BR
GENERAL SERVICES CORP. and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this
allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied.
18. This allegation, including all subparts, seeks an admission or denial from Co-
Defendant USA BR GENERAL SERVICES CORP. and no response is required from ICCS. To
the extent that this allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied.
19. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant USA BR
GENERAL SERVICES CORP. and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this
allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied.
20. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant USA BR
GENERAL SERVICES CORP. and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this
allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied.21. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant USA BR
GENERAL SERVICES CORP. and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this
allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied.
COUNT Ill - NEGLIGENCE OF INDUSTRIAL CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES INC.
ICCS reasserts its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 11 as if set forth in full here.
22. ICCS admits that it owed a duty of care to that is prescribed by Florida law and
denies any allegation that is not consistent with Florida law.
23. Denied, including all subparts.
24. Denied.
25. Denied.
26. Denied.
COUNT IV — NEGLIGENCE OF COMCAST CORPORATION
ICCS reasserts its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 11 as if set forth in full here.
27. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant COMCAST
CORPORATION and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this allegation
requires a response from ICCS, it is denied.
28. This allegation, including all subparts, seeks an admission or denial from Co-
Defendant COMCAST CORPORATION and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent
that this allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied.
29. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant COMCAST
CORPORATION and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this allegation
requires a response from ICCS, it is denied30. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant COMCAST
CORPORATION and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this allegation
requires a response from ICCS, it is denied.
31. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant COMCAST
CORPORATION and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this allegation
requires a response from ICCS, it is denied.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Further answering Plaintiff's Complaint, ICCS states the following as its separate,
additional and affirmative defenses:
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff's injuries, and/or physical conditions, and/or decline in function were entirely
pre-existing, and not causally related to the alleged hazardous condition.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
ICCS is entitled to the benefits and protections of Section 768.81, Florida Statutes, such
that ICCS’s liability must be limited to its percentage of fault only, and not on the basis of joint
and several liability.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The losses, injuries and damages alleged were the result, in whole or in part, of the
contributing fault of third parties or entities, not parties herein, over whom ICCS exercised no
control and with respect to whom the ICCS is not vicariously or otherwise responsible. ICCS
demands an apportionment with respect to the fault of such non-parties under Fabre v. Marin. At
this time, ICCS is not presently aware of the identity of any other non-parties, but reserves the
tight to amend this affirmative defense in accordance with future discovery.FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
ICCS is entitled to a set off with respect to any and all collateral sources of payments or
benefits, paid or payable to the Plaintiff, with respect to the Plaintiffs medical related expenses
and lost wages.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
ICCS had neither actual nor constructive knowledge of any alleged hazardous conditions.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The losses, injuries and damages alleged were the result, in whole or in part, of the
comparative negligence of the Plaintiff. To the degree that the jury finds the Plaintiff to have
been at fault himself, any damages must be reduced proportionately.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this / day of May, 2017 a true copy of the foregoing
was sent via Eservice to Yeemee Chan, Esq., Steinger, Iscoe & Greene, P.A., 2400 E.
Commercial Blvd., Suite 900, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 @ ychan@injurylawyers.com and
COA 4477-~
Connolly C. McArthur, Esquire
FBN: 111244
FUDGE & McARTHUR, P.A.
650 16th Street North
St. Petersburg, FL 33705
Phone: 727-490-3100/Fax: 727-490-3101
com
Secondary: Cmearthur@fudgemcarthur.com
Attorneys for Defendant Industrial Cable
Communications Services, Inc.
ganselmo@injurylawyers.com.
Preview
Filing # 56298359 E-Filed 05/11/2017 11:35:27 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA RONALD VOHS, Plaintiff, CASE NO.: CACE-17-007673 DIVISION: 05 vs. JOSIMAR’S CLEANING SERVICES CORP., USA BR GENERAL SERVICES CORP., INDUSTRIAL CABLE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES INC., AND COMCAST CORPORATION, Defendants. i DEFENDANT INDUSTRIAL CABLE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES INC.’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendant, INDUSTRIAL CABLE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES INC. (hereinafter referred to as “ICCS”), hereby files its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint, and states as follows: 1, Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only. 2. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only. 3. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only. 4. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant JOSIMAR’S CLEANING SERVICES CORP. and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied. 5. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant USA BR GENERAL SERVICES CORP. and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied. 6. Admitted. *4* FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 5/11/2017 11:35:26 AM.****7. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant COMCAST CORPORATION and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied. 8. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only; otherwise denied. Further state that the alleged subject incident did not occur at or near 11656 SW 111 Street, Davie, Broward County, Florida. Upon information and belief, the subject incident allegedly occurred at or near 11656 11th Street, Davie, Broward County, Florida. 9. Admitted that a director, employee, servant, agent, and/or contractor of Defendant JOSIMAR’S CLEANING was dispatched to a location at or near 11656 SW 1Ithe Street, Davie, Broward County, Florida to perform cable work ordered by COMCAST; admitted that ICCS contracted with USA BR to perform the work ordered by COMCAST; Denied that the ordered work was done at or near 11656 SW 11th Street, Davie, Broward County; otherwise denied. 10. Denied. 11. Denied. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE OF JOSIMAR’S CLEANING SERVICES CORP. ICCS reasserts its responses to Paragraphs | through 11 as if set forth in full here. 12. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant JOSIMAR’S CLEANING SERVICES CORP. and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied. 13. This allegation including all subparts seeks an admission or denial from Co- Defendant JOSIMAR’S CLEANING SERVICES CORP. and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied.14. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant JOSIMAR’S CLEANING SERVICES CORP. and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied. 15. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant JOSIMAR’S CLEANING SERVICES CORP. and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied. 16. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant JOSIMAR’S CLEANING SERVICES CORP. and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied. COUNT I — NEGLIGENCE OF USA BR GENERAL SERVICES CORP. ICCS reasserts its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 11 as if set forth in full here. 17. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant USA BR GENERAL SERVICES CORP. and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied. 18. This allegation, including all subparts, seeks an admission or denial from Co- Defendant USA BR GENERAL SERVICES CORP. and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied. 19. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant USA BR GENERAL SERVICES CORP. and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied. 20. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant USA BR GENERAL SERVICES CORP. and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied.21. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant USA BR GENERAL SERVICES CORP. and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied. COUNT Ill - NEGLIGENCE OF INDUSTRIAL CABLE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES INC. ICCS reasserts its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 11 as if set forth in full here. 22. ICCS admits that it owed a duty of care to that is prescribed by Florida law and denies any allegation that is not consistent with Florida law. 23. Denied, including all subparts. 24. Denied. 25. Denied. 26. Denied. COUNT IV — NEGLIGENCE OF COMCAST CORPORATION ICCS reasserts its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 11 as if set forth in full here. 27. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant COMCAST CORPORATION and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied. 28. This allegation, including all subparts, seeks an admission or denial from Co- Defendant COMCAST CORPORATION and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied. 29. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant COMCAST CORPORATION and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied30. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant COMCAST CORPORATION and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied. 31. This allegation seeks an admission or denial from Co-Defendant COMCAST CORPORATION and no response is required from ICCS. To the extent that this allegation requires a response from ICCS, it is denied. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Further answering Plaintiff's Complaint, ICCS states the following as its separate, additional and affirmative defenses: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's injuries, and/or physical conditions, and/or decline in function were entirely pre-existing, and not causally related to the alleged hazardous condition. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ICCS is entitled to the benefits and protections of Section 768.81, Florida Statutes, such that ICCS’s liability must be limited to its percentage of fault only, and not on the basis of joint and several liability. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The losses, injuries and damages alleged were the result, in whole or in part, of the contributing fault of third parties or entities, not parties herein, over whom ICCS exercised no control and with respect to whom the ICCS is not vicariously or otherwise responsible. ICCS demands an apportionment with respect to the fault of such non-parties under Fabre v. Marin. At this time, ICCS is not presently aware of the identity of any other non-parties, but reserves the tight to amend this affirmative defense in accordance with future discovery.FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ICCS is entitled to a set off with respect to any and all collateral sources of payments or benefits, paid or payable to the Plaintiff, with respect to the Plaintiffs medical related expenses and lost wages. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ICCS had neither actual nor constructive knowledge of any alleged hazardous conditions. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The losses, injuries and damages alleged were the result, in whole or in part, of the comparative negligence of the Plaintiff. To the degree that the jury finds the Plaintiff to have been at fault himself, any damages must be reduced proportionately. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this / day of May, 2017 a true copy of the foregoing was sent via Eservice to Yeemee Chan, Esq., Steinger, Iscoe & Greene, P.A., 2400 E. Commercial Blvd., Suite 900, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 @ ychan@injurylawyers.com and COA 4477-~ Connolly C. McArthur, Esquire FBN: 111244 FUDGE & McARTHUR, P.A. 650 16th Street North St. Petersburg, FL 33705 Phone: 727-490-3100/Fax: 727-490-3101 com Secondary: Cmearthur@fudgemcarthur.com Attorneys for Defendant Industrial Cable Communications Services, Inc. ganselmo@injurylawyers.com.