Filing # 194966244 E-Filed 03/27/2024 04:57:55 PM
`
`ACCEPTED: DUVAL COUNTY, JODY PHILLIPS, CLERK, 03/27/2024 10:37:27 PM
`
`
`
`ACCEPTED: DUVAL COUNTY, JODY PHILLIPS, CLERK, 03/27/2024 10:37:27 PM
`
`
`
`a.
`
`UPS admits it complies with applicable federal, state, and local laws and
`
`regulations. UPS denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 9(a).
`
`b.
`
`UPS admits it complies with applicable federal, state, and local laws and
`
`regulations. UPS denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 9(b).
`
`S
`
`UPS admits it complies with applicable federal, state, and local laws and
`
`regulations. UPS denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 9(c).
`
`d.
`
`UPS admits it complies with applicable federal, state, and local laws and
`
`regulations. UPS denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 9(d).
`
`e.
`
`UPS admits it complies with applicable federal, state, and local laws and
`
`regulations. UPS denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 9(e).
`
`10.
`
`Admit UPS was ownedor maintained exclusive control of the packagecar.
`
`Otherwise denied.
`
`THECRASH
`
`+H:
`
`12.
`
`13
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admit Ms. Carpenter operated the package car northbound on SR 51.
`
`UPS deniesall allegations of negligence. UPS is without knowledge and
`
`therefore denies the remaining allegations in paragraphthirteen (13).
`
`14.
`
`Denied.
`
`18.
`
`Denied.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGES
`
`16.
`
`UPS deniesall allegations of negligence. UPS is without knowledge and
`
`therefore denies the remaining allegations in paragraph sixteen (16).
`
`COUNT|
`NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT TRUCK DRIVER
`
`Count | (paragraphs 18-19)is directed to the package cardriver, Ms. Carpenter, and
`
`
`
`therefore, no responseis required from UPSfor these paragraphs (18-19). To the extent there
`
`are any allegations against UPS in these paragraphs, UPS deniesoris without knowledge and
`
`therefore denies the allegations.
`
`COUNT II
`NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT UPS
`
`UPS realleges its response to paragraphs 1-19 asif fully restated.
`
`20.
`
`UPSdeniesall factual allegations in this paragraph but admits it has the same
`
`duty as others underthe law in Florida.
`
`21:
`
`Denied.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Cc.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`22.
`
`UPSdeniesall allegations of negligence. UPSis witdeniesowledge, and
`
`therefore denies, the remaining allegations of paragraph twenty-two (22).
`
`COUNTIil
`STRICT LIABILITY AGAINST DEFENDANT UPS
`
`UPS realleges its response to paragraphs 1-19 asif fully restated.
`
`23,
`
`Admit at the time of the accident the package car driver had UPS’s permission to
`
`operate the package car. Otherwise, denied.
`
`24.
`
`UPSdeniesall allegations of negligence. UPS admits its motor vehicle was used
`
`by Ms. Carpenter with its permission and consent while Ms. Carpenter wasin the
`
`course and scope of her employment. Otherwise, denied.
`
`COUNTIV
`VICARIOUS LIABILITY AGAINST DEFENDANT UPS
`
`UPSrealleges its response to paragraphs 1-19 asif fully restated.
`
`
`
`25.
`
`Admit at the time of the accident the package car driver was UPS’s employee
`
`acting within the course and scope of employment. Otherwise, denied.
`
`26.
`
`UPSdeniesall allegations of negligence.
`
`GENERAL DENIAL
`
`Defendant specifically denies all allegations contained in the Plaintiffs Complaint which
`
`were not specifically admitted.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Defendantstates the alleged injuries sustained by the Plaintiff were caused or contributed to
`
`by the acts or negligence of the Plaintiff, thus barring the claim in whole or in part and, that by
`
`pleading comparative negligence, Defendant does not admit anyliability on its part.
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Defendantstates Plaintiff had for his use at the time ofthis collision a fully functional and
`
`operational seat belt and the Plaintiff failed to wear his seatbelt, so that his failure was the sole
`
`cause,or a contributing cause,of the alleged injuries and/or damages sustained by him.
`
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Defendantstates Plaintiff has not suffered a permanentinjury as a result of the collision and,
`
`therefore, the threshold requirements of Section 627.737, Florida Statutes have not been met and
`
`the Plaintiff is barred from recovery.
`
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Defendantis entitled to set-off pursuant to Sections 768.76 and 627.737, Florida Statutes
`
`which includesall payments madeor payable by andall collateral sources where expenses,bills or
`
`other obligations incurred as a result of the alleged accident.
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Defendantstates that damages against them are only available to the extent permitted by
`
`
`
`Section 768.81, Florida Statutes.
`
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Defendantstates Plaintiff failed to mitigate his alleged damages.
`
`SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`To the extentPlaintiff ‘s alleged loss of wages was caused or exacerbated by the COVID-19
`
`pandemic and resultant shut down orders promulgated by his employer or any governmententity,
`
`said alleged loss of wages should be barred or reduced.
`
`EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`To the extent Plaintiff's alleged inability to attend to his usualdaily activities and duties was
`
`caused or exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and resultant shut down orders promulgated by
`
`his employer or any governmententity, said alleged loss of wages should be barred or reduced.
`
`NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Any damages awardedto Plaintiff must be reduced by the amountof anycollateral sources,
`
`including but not limited to insurance, social security, Federal and State COVID-19 relief payments,
`
`that the Court finds was,orwill be with reasonable certainty, replaced or indemnified; such that the
`
`answering Defendants’
`
`liability to Plaintiff, which is expressly denied, must be reduced
`
`correspondingly.
`
`TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`UPSpleads the applicable portions of Laws of Florida Ch. 2023-15.
`
`ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`UPS pleads Duval County is not a legally proper venue, nor a convenient venueforthis
`
`case.
`
`TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`UPS pleads CountII fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted given their
`
`admissions that Ms. Carpenter had permission to drive the vehicle and was an employeeacting
`
`
`
`within the course and scope of her employment, and thereby are vicariously responsible for the
`
`negligence(if any) of Ms. Carpenter. See Dewit v. UPS Ground Freight, No. 1:16Cv26-MW/CAS,
`
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167963 (N.D. Fla. June 16, 2017).
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Defendant demandsa trial by jury of all issues so triable as a matterof right.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`| HEREBY CERTIFYthat a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been filed using the
`
`Court's E-Portal service and on this day has been used as a meansof service upon: Stefano D.
`
`Portigliatti, Esquire SDP@CokerLaw.com, MJH@CokerLaw.com, SDPDivision@CokerLaw.com,
`th
`Coker Law, P.A., 136 East Bay Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202, on this QT day ofMarch, 2024.
`
`CARR ALLISON
`305 South Gadsden Street
`Tallahassee, FL 32301
`T: (850) 222-2107
`F: (850) 222-8475
`E1: cbarkas@carrallison.com
`E2: kweaver@carrallison.com
`E3: bakopyan@carrallison.com
`E4: asdavis@carrallison.com
`
`Christopher akae
`
`S. Kyle Weaver
`Betty K. Akopyan
`
`°
`
`«
`°
`
`FBN 449202
`
`FBN 1002666
`FBN 466530
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
