Preview
Filing # 83569686 E-Filed 01/18/2019 11:44:54 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTHTEETH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO: 2018-CA-015498-XXXX-MB
ERROLL INNISS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL,
A division of FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF HIGHWAY SAFETY & MOTOR
VEHICLES, an Agency of the State of
Florida, and TROOPER RICKY LEE
MAYO,
Defendants.
/
DEFENDANT, THE FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMES NOW, Defendant, THE FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL (hereinafter
referred to as “FHP”), by and through their undersigned counsel and hereby files their
answer and affirmative defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, and
state:
JURISDICTION & GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes; otherwise, denied.
2. Without knowledge.
3. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes; otherwise, denied.
4. Denied.
5. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes; otherwise, denied.
6. Admitted.
CHEN. DAIRARECACU AAIINTY Cl CUADAND ANA FLED N41191INN10 414-A4-EA ANA
PILL. PALE BLAU VUUINE TT, EL, OHI. DUUN, ULL, UI Ure ttt iveErroll Inniss v. FHP & Ricky Lee Mayo
CASE NO: CASE NO: 2018-CA-015498-XXXX-MB
DEFENDANT, THE FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 2 of 7
t.
10.
14.
12.
13.
14.
Mote A nk A A Anan Nose tnnk TRAN NIA ee
1UiS @UMiued Wal On Api 10, ZU10, Velenuant IRUUPER RIUnT Leo
MAYO (hereinafter referred to as “MAYO”) was employed by Defendant
FHP and was the driver of a vehicle involved in a collision with Plaintiff;
otherwise, denied.
Admitted.
Denied.
Admitted that venue is proper in Palm Beach County; otherwise, denied.
Admitted.
Admitted.
Denied.
Denied.
COUNT!
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT, FHP
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
This Defendant reasserts each and every response to paragraphs 1-14 as
though fully set forth herein.
Admitted.
Admitted.
Denied.
Denied.
COUNT II
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT, MAYO
20-23. Paragraphs 20-23 do not contain allegations against FHP and
therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed
required, FHP denies the allegations in paragraphs 20 -23.Enroll Inniss v. FHP & Ricky Lee Mayo
CASE NO: CASE NO: 2018-CA-015498-XXXX-MB
DEFENDANT, THE FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 3 of 7
PLAINTIFF, CLARK’S(SIC) CLAIM FO! IGENT ENTRUSTMENT AGAINST
DEFENDANT, FHP
24. This Defendant reasserts each and every response to paragraphs 1-14 as
though fully set forth herein.
25. It is admitted that “auto” was assigned to MAYO to drive; otherwise,
denied.
26. Denied.
o7 Neaniad
Each and every allegation not admitted or uncontroverted is hereby denied.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
This Defendant demands judgment against the Plaintiff, together with taxable costs,
and further demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Piaintiffs claims are barred, reduced or
limited by the provisions and authority under Section 768.28, Florida Statute and
Defendant would assert entitlement to all rights, privileges and protections afforded
under this statute in this lawsuit.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Plaintiff's claim is barred by the tort
exemption provisions of the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Act, Sections 627.730 —
627.7405, Florida Statutes, in that the Plaintiff failed to meet the threshold provisions of
said act and, as such, these Defendants deny that the Plaintiff is entitled to recoverEnroll Inniss v. FHP & Ricky Lee Mayo
CASE NO: CASE NO: 2018-CA-015498-XXXX-MB
DEFENDANT, THE FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 4 of 7
TUINK aArrinssarnie Arecear.
TMIRD APFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: FPiaiiiulS ClaliilS aie bailed, OF subject to
reduction, based upon the comparative fault or negligence of the Plaintiff, ERROLL
INNISS, including, but not limited to: his failure to pay proper time and attention to the
traffic in front of him; striking the rear of the vehicle being operated by Defendant,
MAYO, which could have been avoided if he was vigilant and paid proper time and
attention to the traffic in front and around him; driving at a speed greater than was
reasonable and prudent under the conditions and in regard to the actual and potential
on the road in front of him and around him, and other anolicable
motor vehicle traffic statutes of Florida, all of which was the direct and proximate cause
of the collision, and of the injuries and damages claimed by the Plaintiff such that
Plaintiff's claims are subject to reduction based upon such comparative fault. As
discovery has just begun, Defendant, reserves the right to amend and supplement this
defense before trial.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Defendant specifically avers that Plaintiff
has been the recipient of, or in the alternative, is entitled to receive certain collateral
source benefits. As such, any recovery in this case shall be reduced by any collateral
source benefits paid or payable pursuant to Florida Statutes §768.76.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Defendant specifically avers that the
provisions of Section 768.71 through Section 768.81, Florida Statutes, apply to this
action, the provisions of which are incorporated herein by reference, and Defendants
are entitled to the privileges, benefits, protections and limitations provided therein.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Defendant specifically avers that anyEnroll Inniss v. FHP & Ricky Lee Mayo
CASE NO: CASE NO: 2018-CA-015498-XXXX-MB
DEFENDANT, THE FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 5 of 7
tant a
let
ale Wie Ualnages
TCOVEIy SHOUIG Oe TeGUCed OF DaiieG By PiaintiTs Tae tO im
alleged in one or more of the following ways:
(a) Failure to promptly obtain medical treatment;
(b) Failure to obtain proper medical treatment;
(c) Failure to follow medical advice;
(d) Failure to keep appointments.
SEVENTH AFFRIMATIVE DEFENSE: Defendant specifically avers that any
negligence of these Defendants, if anv was not the legal cause of anv iniuries allegediy
suffered by the Plaintiff.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Defendant specifically avers that the
Plaintiff's alleged injuries are the result of a preexisting condition and were not the result
of any alleged negligence of these Defendants.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Defendant specifically avers that the Plaintiff
did not suffer a permanent injury as a result of the incident described in the complaint.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Defendant specifically avers that the
Plaintiff's recovery for medical damages is limited to only those medical expenses for
which the Plaintiff has become liable. Cooperative Leasing, Inc. V. Johnson, 872 So.2d
956 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Defendant specifically avers that the
Plaintiff's past and future damages are reduced or offset by the amount of any
governmental or charitable benefits available, and further, that these Defendants are
entitled to an offset for any and all payments which have been made or will be made to
the Plaintiff as a result of the injuries and damages alleged in the Complaint.Enroll Inniss v. FHP & Ricky Lee Mayo
CASE NO: CASE NO: 2018-CA-015498-XXXX-MB
DEFENDANT, THE FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 6 of 7
Maer ArrimsaaArir Areriiar.
TWELIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Delendaiit iS Giulled tO @ Set-on OF any
contractual discount of medical bills or expenses, negotiated write off or medical bills or
expenses, or negotiated agreement to pay medical bills or other expenses in the future
pursuant to the law of collateral source setoffs and Goble v. Frohman, 848 So 2d 406
(Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Alternatively, Plaintiff is not entitled to claim bills, costs or expenses
incurred but waived or not actually incurred by the Plaintiff.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Defendant specifically avers any
neniinance that caricad ini
Megngenes wis CauCCU Hy
iac ta tha Pla
Mies wou ree
arising out of the facts alleged in the
Complaint were due to the acts and/or omissions of non-parties over whom this
Defendant has no dominion, custody or control. Since this litigation is in the early
stages of discovery, this Defendant specifically reserves the right to amend his
affirmative defenses to name any and all persons whose negligence caused Plaintiffs
injuries, but who are non-parties, as they are learned of or identified through discovery.
Further, Defendant seeks to place those individuals on the verdict form as non-parties
pursuant to Nash v. Wells Fargo Guard Services, 678 So.2d 1262. The negligence of
these persons should be compared in apportion with the negligence of the parties
herein, if any, at the time of trial and in accordance with the principles of contribution,
apportionment of fault and the Florida Statutes.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Defendant reserves the right to
amend their affirmative defenses and/or to raise additional affirmative defenses which
would serve to bar and/or limit any part of the Plaintiff's claims.
[Certificate of Service on Following Page]Erroll Inniss v. FHP & Ricky Lee Mayo
CASE NO: CASE NO: 2018-CA-015498-XXXX-MB
DEFENDANT, THE FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Page 7 of 7
arntininarr ar armanc
VERMFIVAIC UF OGRVILE
| HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnished by
electronic mail only via the E-Portal to: Brett M. Steinberg, Esq. of Steinberg Law, P.A.,
10 S.E. 1 Ave, Ste. C, Delray Beach, FL 33444 on this 18th day of January, 2019.
BOBO, CIOTOLI, WHITE & RUSSELL, P.A.
Counsel for FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL and
TROPPER RICKY LEE MAYO
11641 Kew Gardens Avenue
Suite 101
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
Tel, No: 561-684-6600
Fax No.: 561-622-6288
Primary: pleadingsnpb@bobolaw.com
Secondary: dunlap@bobolaw.com
/s/David C. Dunham, Esq.
By:
James L. White, III, Esa.
Florida Bar No.: 0325030
E-mail: white@bobolaw.com
David C. Dunham, Esquire
Florida Bar Number: 989990
E-mail: dunham@bobolaw.com
Preview
Filing # 83569686 E-Filed 01/18/2019 11:44:54 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTHTEETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO: 2018-CA-015498-XXXX-MB ERROLL INNISS, Plaintiff, vs. THE FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL, A division of FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY & MOTOR VEHICLES, an Agency of the State of Florida, and TROOPER RICKY LEE MAYO, Defendants. / DEFENDANT, THE FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL COMES NOW, Defendant, THE FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL (hereinafter referred to as “FHP”), by and through their undersigned counsel and hereby files their answer and affirmative defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, and state: JURISDICTION & GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes; otherwise, denied. 2. Without knowledge. 3. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes; otherwise, denied. 4. Denied. 5. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes; otherwise, denied. 6. Admitted. CHEN. DAIRARECACU AAIINTY Cl CUADAND ANA FLED N41191INN10 414-A4-EA ANA PILL. PALE BLAU VUUINE TT, EL, OHI. DUUN, ULL, UI Ure ttt iveErroll Inniss v. FHP & Ricky Lee Mayo CASE NO: CASE NO: 2018-CA-015498-XXXX-MB DEFENDANT, THE FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Page 2 of 7 t. 10. 14. 12. 13. 14. Mote A nk A A Anan Nose tnnk TRAN NIA ee 1UiS @UMiued Wal On Api 10, ZU10, Velenuant IRUUPER RIUnT Leo MAYO (hereinafter referred to as “MAYO”) was employed by Defendant FHP and was the driver of a vehicle involved in a collision with Plaintiff; otherwise, denied. Admitted. Denied. Admitted that venue is proper in Palm Beach County; otherwise, denied. Admitted. Admitted. Denied. Denied. COUNT! PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT, FHP 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. This Defendant reasserts each and every response to paragraphs 1-14 as though fully set forth herein. Admitted. Admitted. Denied. Denied. COUNT II PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT, MAYO 20-23. Paragraphs 20-23 do not contain allegations against FHP and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, FHP denies the allegations in paragraphs 20 -23.Enroll Inniss v. FHP & Ricky Lee Mayo CASE NO: CASE NO: 2018-CA-015498-XXXX-MB DEFENDANT, THE FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Page 3 of 7 PLAINTIFF, CLARK’S(SIC) CLAIM FO! IGENT ENTRUSTMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT, FHP 24. This Defendant reasserts each and every response to paragraphs 1-14 as though fully set forth herein. 25. It is admitted that “auto” was assigned to MAYO to drive; otherwise, denied. 26. Denied. o7 Neaniad Each and every allegation not admitted or uncontroverted is hereby denied. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL This Defendant demands judgment against the Plaintiff, together with taxable costs, and further demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Piaintiffs claims are barred, reduced or limited by the provisions and authority under Section 768.28, Florida Statute and Defendant would assert entitlement to all rights, privileges and protections afforded under this statute in this lawsuit. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Plaintiff's claim is barred by the tort exemption provisions of the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Act, Sections 627.730 — 627.7405, Florida Statutes, in that the Plaintiff failed to meet the threshold provisions of said act and, as such, these Defendants deny that the Plaintiff is entitled to recoverEnroll Inniss v. FHP & Ricky Lee Mayo CASE NO: CASE NO: 2018-CA-015498-XXXX-MB DEFENDANT, THE FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Page 4 of 7 TUINK aArrinssarnie Arecear. TMIRD APFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: FPiaiiiulS ClaliilS aie bailed, OF subject to reduction, based upon the comparative fault or negligence of the Plaintiff, ERROLL INNISS, including, but not limited to: his failure to pay proper time and attention to the traffic in front of him; striking the rear of the vehicle being operated by Defendant, MAYO, which could have been avoided if he was vigilant and paid proper time and attention to the traffic in front and around him; driving at a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent under the conditions and in regard to the actual and potential on the road in front of him and around him, and other anolicable motor vehicle traffic statutes of Florida, all of which was the direct and proximate cause of the collision, and of the injuries and damages claimed by the Plaintiff such that Plaintiff's claims are subject to reduction based upon such comparative fault. As discovery has just begun, Defendant, reserves the right to amend and supplement this defense before trial. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Defendant specifically avers that Plaintiff has been the recipient of, or in the alternative, is entitled to receive certain collateral source benefits. As such, any recovery in this case shall be reduced by any collateral source benefits paid or payable pursuant to Florida Statutes §768.76. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Defendant specifically avers that the provisions of Section 768.71 through Section 768.81, Florida Statutes, apply to this action, the provisions of which are incorporated herein by reference, and Defendants are entitled to the privileges, benefits, protections and limitations provided therein. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Defendant specifically avers that anyEnroll Inniss v. FHP & Ricky Lee Mayo CASE NO: CASE NO: 2018-CA-015498-XXXX-MB DEFENDANT, THE FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Page 5 of 7 tant a let ale Wie Ualnages TCOVEIy SHOUIG Oe TeGUCed OF DaiieG By PiaintiTs Tae tO im alleged in one or more of the following ways: (a) Failure to promptly obtain medical treatment; (b) Failure to obtain proper medical treatment; (c) Failure to follow medical advice; (d) Failure to keep appointments. SEVENTH AFFRIMATIVE DEFENSE: Defendant specifically avers that any negligence of these Defendants, if anv was not the legal cause of anv iniuries allegediy suffered by the Plaintiff. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Defendant specifically avers that the Plaintiff's alleged injuries are the result of a preexisting condition and were not the result of any alleged negligence of these Defendants. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Defendant specifically avers that the Plaintiff did not suffer a permanent injury as a result of the incident described in the complaint. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Defendant specifically avers that the Plaintiff's recovery for medical damages is limited to only those medical expenses for which the Plaintiff has become liable. Cooperative Leasing, Inc. V. Johnson, 872 So.2d 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Defendant specifically avers that the Plaintiff's past and future damages are reduced or offset by the amount of any governmental or charitable benefits available, and further, that these Defendants are entitled to an offset for any and all payments which have been made or will be made to the Plaintiff as a result of the injuries and damages alleged in the Complaint.Enroll Inniss v. FHP & Ricky Lee Mayo CASE NO: CASE NO: 2018-CA-015498-XXXX-MB DEFENDANT, THE FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Page 6 of 7 Maer ArrimsaaArir Areriiar. TWELIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Delendaiit iS Giulled tO @ Set-on OF any contractual discount of medical bills or expenses, negotiated write off or medical bills or expenses, or negotiated agreement to pay medical bills or other expenses in the future pursuant to the law of collateral source setoffs and Goble v. Frohman, 848 So 2d 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Alternatively, Plaintiff is not entitled to claim bills, costs or expenses incurred but waived or not actually incurred by the Plaintiff. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Defendant specifically avers any neniinance that caricad ini Megngenes wis CauCCU Hy iac ta tha Pla Mies wou ree arising out of the facts alleged in the Complaint were due to the acts and/or omissions of non-parties over whom this Defendant has no dominion, custody or control. Since this litigation is in the early stages of discovery, this Defendant specifically reserves the right to amend his affirmative defenses to name any and all persons whose negligence caused Plaintiffs injuries, but who are non-parties, as they are learned of or identified through discovery. Further, Defendant seeks to place those individuals on the verdict form as non-parties pursuant to Nash v. Wells Fargo Guard Services, 678 So.2d 1262. The negligence of these persons should be compared in apportion with the negligence of the parties herein, if any, at the time of trial and in accordance with the principles of contribution, apportionment of fault and the Florida Statutes. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Defendant reserves the right to amend their affirmative defenses and/or to raise additional affirmative defenses which would serve to bar and/or limit any part of the Plaintiff's claims. [Certificate of Service on Following Page]Erroll Inniss v. FHP & Ricky Lee Mayo CASE NO: CASE NO: 2018-CA-015498-XXXX-MB DEFENDANT, THE FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Page 7 of 7 arntininarr ar armanc VERMFIVAIC UF OGRVILE | HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnished by electronic mail only via the E-Portal to: Brett M. Steinberg, Esq. of Steinberg Law, P.A., 10 S.E. 1 Ave, Ste. C, Delray Beach, FL 33444 on this 18th day of January, 2019. BOBO, CIOTOLI, WHITE & RUSSELL, P.A. Counsel for FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL and TROPPER RICKY LEE MAYO 11641 Kew Gardens Avenue Suite 101 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Tel, No: 561-684-6600 Fax No.: 561-622-6288 Primary: pleadingsnpb@bobolaw.com Secondary: dunlap@bobolaw.com /s/David C. Dunham, Esq. By: James L. White, III, Esa. Florida Bar No.: 0325030 E-mail: white@bobolaw.com David C. Dunham, Esquire Florida Bar Number: 989990 E-mail: dunham@bobolaw.com