arrow left
arrow right
  • JOSHUA RAY CANTRILL et al vs KRISTOPHER SCOTT FERRIS et al document preview
  • JOSHUA RAY CANTRILL et al vs KRISTOPHER SCOTT FERRIS et al document preview
  • JOSHUA RAY CANTRILL et al vs KRISTOPHER SCOTT FERRIS et al document preview
  • JOSHUA RAY CANTRILL et al vs KRISTOPHER SCOTT FERRIS et al document preview
  • JOSHUA RAY CANTRILL et al vs KRISTOPHER SCOTT FERRIS et al document preview
  • JOSHUA RAY CANTRILL et al vs KRISTOPHER SCOTT FERRIS et al document preview
  • JOSHUA RAY CANTRILL et al vs KRISTOPHER SCOTT FERRIS et al document preview
  • JOSHUA RAY CANTRILL et al vs KRISTOPHER SCOTT FERRIS et al document preview
						
                                

Preview

Electronically Filed 09/05/2013 04:27:19 PM ET IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MANATEE COUNTY FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION JOSHUA RAY CANTRILL, Case No.: 2013-CA-4462 Plaintiff, Vv. KRISTOPHER SCOTT FERRIS, RACHEL M. WEBER, Defendants. / ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendant, KRISTOPHER SCOTT FERRIS by and through undersigned counsel, files his Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint fited by Plaintiff, JOSHUA RAY CANTRILL, as follows: COUNT I = Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only. Otherwise, denied. Admitted. eo N Without knowledge, therefore denied. 4, Without knowledge, therefore denied. 5, Without knowledge, therefore denied. COUNT I 6.-10. These paragraphs do not seek relief from Defendant, KRISTOPHER SCOTT FERRIS, therefore, no response is necessary. However, if any of the allegations are in any way construed against this Defendant, KRISTOPHER SCOTT FERRIS they are specifically denied. E-Filed with MCCC - 2013CA004462AX- 9/5/2013 4:27 PM - PG 1 of 4All allegations not specifically responded to above are denied. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendant, KRISTOPHER SCOTT FERRIS having specifically answered each paragraph of the Complaint, now alleges, as separate and affirmative defenses, the following: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The subject accident, and Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages, were caused solely, or partially, by the negligence of Plaintiff. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The subject accident, and Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages, were caused solely, or partially, by the negligence of third-parties, whose identities may be revealed through discovery, and over whom Defendant had neither dominion nor control. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages were caused solely, or partially, by Plaintiffs failure to use an available and fully-operational seatbelt. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The subject accident, and Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages, were the result of a sudden, unexpected, and unforeseeable occurrence, over which Defendant had no control. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The subject accident, and Plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages, were the result ofa sudden, unexpected, and unforeseeable mechanical failure in Defendant's automobile. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff has not sustained a threshold or permanent injury, as defined by Florida's No Fault Law, and is therefore not entitled to recover any non-economic damages in this matter. E-Filed with MCCC - 2013CA004462AX- 9/5/2013 4:27 PM - PG 2 of 4SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any recovery by Plaintiff must be reduced to the extent that Plaintiff failed to mitigate his alleged damages. / EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any recovery by Plaintiff must be reduced by the amount of any PIP benefits paid or payabie to Plaintiff. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any recovery by Plaintiff must be reduced by the amount of any collateral source benefits paid or payable to Plaintiff. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any recovery by Plaintiff must be reduced by the amount of any payments made to Plaintiff by any parties, third-parties, or other entities, for the injuries and damages allegedly sustained in the Subject accident. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant, KRISTOPHER SCOTT FERRIS is entitled to an apportionment of damages in relation to the degree of fault of all persons/parties pursuant to Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla.1993). DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendant, KRISTOPHER SCOTT FERRIS demands a trial by jury of ali issues so triable. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | HEREBY CERTIFY a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been provided by electronic mail to Counsel for Plaintiff, mailrob@salterhealy.com and servicerob@salterhealy.com ROBERT J. HEALY, JR., ESQUIRE, SALTER, HEALY, LLC, PO BOX 10807, ST. PETERSBURG, FL 33733-0807 on this_2+1)_ day of September 2013. E-Filed with MCCC - 2013CA004462AX- 9/5/2013 4:27 PM - PG 3 of 4DICKINSON & GIBBONS, P.A. By: Cott of > JEFFREY D. PEAIRS Gateway Professional Center 401 North Cattlemen Road, Suite 300 Sarasota, FL 34232-6438 jpeairs@dglawyers.com spayonk@dglawyers.com Florida Bar No. 0875260 (941) 366-4680 (941) 365-2923 Facsimile Counsel for Defendant, FERRIS E-Filed with MCCC - 2013CA004462AX- 9/5/2013 4:27 PM - PG 4 of 4