Case 1:20-cv-02142-TWP-TAB Document 24 Filed 10/09/20 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 72
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`MARY BUSSING,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TYSON FOODS, INC. and
`WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Case No. 1:20-cv-2142-TWP-TAB
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`DEFENDANT WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE
`DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP (“Walmart”), by counsel, for its answers and
`
`
`
`affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages, states as follows:
`
`Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff, Mary Bussing, is a citizen of the State of Indiana, residing in Indianapolis,
`
`Indiana in Marion County.
`
`ANSWER: Based on information and belief, Defendant Walmart admits the material
`allegations of rhetorical paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Tyson Foods, Inc. (“Tyson”) is incorporated under the laws of the State
`
`of Delaware, with its Corporate Office located at 2200 W. Don Tyson Parkway, Springdale,
`
`Arkansas making it a citizen of Arkansas.
`
`ANSWER: The material allegations of rhetorical paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s
`
`Complaint are not directed at this Defendant, and, therefore, no response is required.
`
`
`Defendant Tyson was a corporation doing business and selling/producing products
`
`3.
`
`in the State of Indiana.
`
`ANSWER: The material allegations of rhetorical paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s
`Complaint are not directed at this Defendant, and, therefore, no response is required.
`
`{Firm/30028/00018/02736485.DOCX }
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02142-TWP-TAB Document 24 Filed 10/09/20 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 73
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Defendant Wal-Mart Stores East, LP (“Walmart”) is incorporated under the laws
`
`of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 708 SW 8th Street, Bentonville,
`
`Arkansas, making it a citizen of Arkansas.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant Walmart admits the material allegations of rhetorical
`
`paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`
`Defendant Walmart did business in Indiana operating a Walmart Neighborhood
`
`5.
`
`Market (Facility #5804) located at 5835 W. 10th Street, Indianapolis, IN 46224 (hereinafter
`
`“Neighborhood Market”).
`
`ANSWER: Defendant Walmart admits the material allegations of rhetorical
`paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. However, Defendant Walmart denies any liability to
`Plaintiff for the incident, injuries and damages alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`
`Defendant Tyson sold its products at Defendant Walmart’s Neighborhood Market.
`
`6.
`
`ANSWER: In response to the material allegations of rhetorical paragraph 6 of
`Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant Walmart admits that Tyson products were sold at Walmart
`Neighborhood Market #5804. However, Defendant Walmart denies any liability to Plaintiff
`for the incident, injuries and damages alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`7.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 in that there is complete
`
`diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest
`
`and costs.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant Walmart admits the material allegations of rhetorical
`paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. However, Defendant Walmart denies any liability to
`Plaintiff for the incident, injuries and damages alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`
`Summary of Facts
`
`8.
`
`On September 12, 2018, Plaintiff, Mary Bussing, purchased Tyson ground beef
`
`(hereinafter “the Food”) from the Walmart Neighborhood Market.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant Walmart is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
`the truth of the material allegations of rhetorical paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. To
`
`{Firm/30028/00018/02736485.DOCX }
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02142-TWP-TAB Document 24 Filed 10/09/20 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 74
`
`the extent further response is contemplated, Defendant Walmart denies any liability to
`Plaintiff for the incident, injuries and damages alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`9.
`
`On September 13, 2018, Plaintiff, Mary Bussing prepared the Food she had
`
`purchased the day before.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant Walmart is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
`the truth of the material allegations of rhetorical paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. To
`the extent further response is contemplated, Defendant Walmart denies any liability to
`Plaintiff for the incident, injuries and damages alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`10.
`
`On September 15, 2018, following consumption of the food, Mary Bussing began
`
`having health issues and was admitted into the hospital the following day and remained there for
`
`six (6) days for medical treatment.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant Walmart is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
`the truth of the material allegations of rhetorical paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. To
`the extent further response is contemplated, Defendant Walmart denies any liability to
`Plaintiff for the incident, injuries and damages alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`11.
`
`As a direct result of the Food manufactured/produced by Tyson and sold by Wal-
`
`Mart Plaintiff was diagnosed with sepsis secondary to colitis secondary to enterohemorrhagic
`
`Escherichia coli (“E-coli”).
`
`ANSWER: Defendant Walmart is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
`the truth of the material allegations of rhetorical paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. To
`the extent further response is contemplated, Defendant Walmart denies the material
`allegations of rhetorical paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and further denies any
`liability to Plaintiff for the incident, injuries and damages alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`
`Count I – Strict Liability of Tyson Foods, Inc.
`
`12.
`
`The Plaintiff reasserts, realleges, and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through
`
`eleven (11) herein by reference.
`
`ANSWER: In response to rhetorical paragraph 12 of Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint,
`Defendant Walmart incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, its responses to
`rhetorical paragraphs 1 through 11, inclusive, and all other preceding paragraphs of
`Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`
`{Firm/30028/00018/02736485.DOCX }
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02142-TWP-TAB Document 24 Filed 10/09/20 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 75
`
`13.
`
`Defendant Tyson’s Food contained E-coli at the time it was sold.
`
`ANSWER: The material allegations of rhetorical paragraph 13 of Count I of
`Plaintiff’s Complaint are not directed at this Defendant, and, therefore, no response is
`required from this Defendant. To the extent further response is contemplated, Defendant
`Walmart denies any liability to Plaintiff for the incident, injuries and damages alleged in
`Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`14.
`
`Defendant Tyson sold the Food in a defective condition unfit for consumption to
`
`its customer, Plaintiff, Mary Bussing.
`
`ANSWER: The material allegations of rhetorical paragraph 14 of Count I of
`Plaintiff’s Complaint constitute legal conclusions and are not directed at this Defendant.
`Therefore, no response is required from this Defendant. To the extent further response is
`contemplated, Defendant Walmart denies any liability to Plaintiff for the incident, injuries
`and damages alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`15.
`
`Defendant Tyson’s Food reached the consumer without substantial alteration from
`
`the time of production to the time it was sold.
`
`ANSWER: The material allegations of rhetorical paragraph 15 of Count I of
`Plaintiff’s Complaint constitute legal conclusions and are not directed at this Defendant.
`Therefore, no response is required from this Defendant. To the extent further response is
`contemplated, Defendant Walmart denies any liability to Plaintiff for the incident, injuries
`and damages alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff, Mary Bussing, was in the class of persons that defendant Tyson should
`
`reasonably have foreseen as being subject to harm caused by the contaminated Food, and the Food
`
`was expected to and did reach the plaintiff, Mary Bussing.
`
`ANSWER: The material allegations of rhetorical paragraph 16 of Count I of
`Plaintiff’s Complaint constitute legal conclusions and are not directed at this Defendant.
`Therefore, no response is required from this Defendant. To the extent further response is
`contemplated, Defendant Walmart denies any liability to Plaintiff for the incident, injuries
`and damages alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`17.
`
`Defendant Tyson is in the business of producing and selling meat and other food
`
`products, and was the producer/manufacturer of the Food.
`
`ANSWER: The material allegations of rhetorical paragraph 17 of Count I of
`Plaintiff’s Complaint are not directed at this Defendant, and, therefore, no response is
`
`{Firm/30028/00018/02736485.DOCX }
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02142-TWP-TAB Document 24 Filed 10/09/20 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 76
`
`required from this Defendant. To the extent further response is contemplated, Defendant
`Walmart denies any liability to Plaintiff for the incident, injuries and damages alleged in
`Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`18.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the contaminated Food sold by defendant,
`
`Tyson, plaintiff, Mary Bussing, developed enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli, sustained severe
`
`injuries, incurred medical expenses, lost wages, endured pain and suffering, and will continue to
`
`incur such losses in the future.
`
`ANSWER: The material allegations of rhetorical paragraph 18 of Count I of
`Plaintiff’s Complaint constitute legal conclusions and are not directed at this Defendant.
`Therefore, no response is required from this Defendant. To the extent further response is
`contemplated, Defendant Walmart denies any liability to Plaintiff for the incident, injuries
`and damages alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`
`Count II – Negligence of Defendant Tyson
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff reasserts and realleges the information contained in rhetorical paragraphs
`
`one (1) through eighteen (18) and reincorporates them herein by reference.
`
`ANSWER: In response to rhetorical paragraph 19 of Count II of Plaintiff’s
`Complaint, Defendant Walmart incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, its
`responses to rhetorical paragraphs 1 through 18, inclusive, and all other preceding
`paragraphs of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`20.
`
`Defendant Tyson, through its agents and employees, was careless and negligent in
`
`failing to ensure proper food safety practices were followed, with said negligence including, but
`
`not limited to, the following:
`
`a. Failure to use reasonable care in handing its food products;
`
`b. Selling food contaminated with E-coli;
`
`c. Failing to use reasonable care in preparing its food products;
`
`d. Failure to use reasonable care in packaging its food products; and
`
`e. Failure to use reasonable care to inspect its food products to ensure that said
`
`food products were fit and safe for consumption.
`
`{Firm/30028/00018/02736485.DOCX }
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02142-TWP-TAB Document 24 Filed 10/09/20 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 77
`
`including
`ANSWER: The material allegations of rhetorical paragraph 20,
`subparagraphs (a) – (e), inclusive, of Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint constitute legal
`conclusions and are not directed at this Defendant. Therefore, no response is required from
`this Defendant. To the extent further response is contemplated, Defendant Walmart denies
`any liability to Plaintiff for the incident, injuries and damages alleged in Plaintiff’s
`Complaint.
`
`21.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of defendant Tyson, plaintiff,
`
`Mary Bussing, sustained severe and permanent injuries, incurred medical expenses, lost wages,
`
`endures pain and suffering, and will continue to incur such losses in the future.
`
`ANSWER: The material allegations of rhetorical paragraph 21 of Count II of
`Plaintiff’s Complaint constitute legal conclusions and are not directed at this Defendant.
`Therefore, no response is required from this Defendant. To the extent further response is
`contemplated, Defendant Walmart denies any liability to Plaintiff for the incident, injuries
`and damages alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`
`Count III – Negligence and Liability of Defendant Walmart
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff reasserts and realleges rhetorical paragraphs one (1) through twenty-one
`
`(21) and reincorporates them herein by reference.
`
`ANSWER: In response to rhetorical paragraph 22 of Count III of Plaintiff’s
`Complaint, Defendant Walmart incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, its
`responses to rhetorical paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, and all other preceding
`paragraphs of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`23.
`
`Defendant Walmart sold contaminated food to customers, including Mary Bussing,
`
`at the Neighborhood Market.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant Walmart denies the material allegations of rhetorical
`paragraph 23 of Count III of Plaintiff’s Complaint and further denies any liability to
`Plaintiff for the incident, injuries and damages alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`24.
`
`Defendant Walmart, through its agents and employees, was careless and negligent
`
`in failing to ensure proper food safety practices were followed, with said negligence including, but
`
`not limited to, the following:
`
`{Firm/30028/00018/02736485.DOCX }
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02142-TWP-TAB Document 24 Filed 10/09/20 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 78
`
`a. Failure to use reasonable care in handing its food products sold at the
`
`Neighborhood Market;
`
`b. Selling food contaminated with E-coli;
`
`c. Failing to use reasonable care in the sale of food products;
`
`d. Failure to use reasonable care in refrigeration and preservation of its food
`
`products; and
`
`e. Failure to use reasonable care to inspect its food products to ensure that said
`
`food products were fit and safe for sale and consumption.
`
`ANSWER: The material allegations of rhetorical paragraph 24, including
`subparagraphs (a) – (e), inclusive, of Count III of Plaintiff’s Complaint constitute legal
`conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent further response is contemplated,
`Defendant Walmart denies the material allegations of rhetorical paragraph 24, including the
`allegations contained in subparagraphs (a) – (e), inclusive, of Count III of Plaintiff’s
`Complaint and further denies any liability to Plaintiff for the incident, injuries and damages
`alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`25.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant Walmart, plaintiff,
`
`Mary Bussing, sustained severe and permanent injuries, incurred medical expenses, lost wages,
`
`endured pain and suffering and will continue to incur such losses in the future.
`
`ANSWER: The material allegations of rhetorical paragraph 25 of Count III of
`Plaintiff’s Complaint constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
`extent further response is contemplated, Defendant Walmart denies the material allegations
`of rhetorical paragraph 25 of Count III of Plaintiff’s Complaint and further denies any
`liability to Plaintiff for the incident, injuries and damages alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, by counsel, respectfully requests
`
`
`
`that the Court enter judgment in its favor and against the Plaintiffs on this Count and all claims,
`
`allegations and counts of Plaintiff against this Defendant in Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages, for
`
`its costs in this action, and for all other relief just and proper in the premises.
`
`
`
`{Firm/30028/00018/02736485.DOCX }
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02142-TWP-TAB Document 24 Filed 10/09/20 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 79
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`
`
`Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, by counsel, for its affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s
`
`Complaint for Damages in this cause of action, states as follows:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Any paragraph not specifically admitted or denied herein is hereby denied.
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages fails to state a claim against this Defendant upon
`
`relief can be granted.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Mary Bussing is barred from recovery because the contributory fault of
`
`Plaintiff exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the total fault for all persons or entities whose fault
`
`proximately contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages.
`
`4.
`
`If it is determined that Defendants Wal-Mart Stores East, LP and/or Tyson Foods, Inc.
`
`was/were negligent in a manner which either caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged damages and
`
`that the negligence of Plaintiff does not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the total fault of all persons or
`
`entities whose fault proximately contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged damages, then such damages should
`
`be reduced by an amount proportional to the negligence of Plaintiff.
`
`5.
`
`The incident, injuries and damages alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages were
`
`caused solely or contributed to by the acts, omissions, and conduct of Plaintiff Mary Bussing.
`
`6.
`
`The product at issue as alleged by Plaintiff Mary Bussing was changed, altered or
`
`modified to a condition different than in which it was when it left the care, custody, and control of the
`
`manufacturer and/or retailer, for which this Defendant is not liable.
`
`7.
`
`The product allegedly at issue was neither unreasonably dangerous nor defective
`
`given the state of knowledge about such products, and therefore, any claims of strict liability are
`
`barred as against this Defendant.
`
`{Firm/30028/00018/02736485.DOCX }
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02142-TWP-TAB Document 24 Filed 10/09/20 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 80
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff Mary Bussing had a duty to preserve the evidence and failed to timely place
`
`Defendant on notice of the subject occurrence within a reasonable time. Plaintiff Mary Bussing failed
`
`to properly preserve all component remains of the alleged product, and thereby prejudiced the
`
`Defendant in its ability to make appropriate investigation in order to prepare any and all defenses on
`
`its behalf.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff Mary Bussing voluntarily assumed and/or incurred the risk of the activities
`
`alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and the resultant damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff were
`
`proximately caused or contributed to by such voluntary assumption of risk.
`
`10.
`
`The product at issue was manufactured and produced in full compliance with any and
`
`all applicable government regulations and/or specifications.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`The product was fit for the particular purpose for which it was intended.
`
`Plaintiff may have failed to mitigate her damages, if any.
`
`Plaintiff may have already been compensated for her damages by other sources and
`
`this Defendant would be entitled to credit or set of for any such sums in accordance with the
`
`Indiana Collateral Source Rule.
`
`14.
`
`Defendant reserves the right to supplement these affirmative defenses as discovery
`
`and investigation continue.
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, by counsel, respectfully requests
`
`that the Court enter judgment in its favor and against the Plaintiff on all counts and allegations of
`
`Plaintiff against this Defendant in Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages, for its costs in this action,
`
`and for all other relief just and proper in the premises.
`
`
`
`
`
`{Firm/30028/00018/02736485.DOCX }
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02142-TWP-TAB Document 24 Filed 10/09/20 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 81
`
`REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY
`
`
`
`Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, by counsel, pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby respectfully requests a trial by jury as to all issues triable by jury.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`CRUSER, MITCHELL, NOVITZ, SANCHEZ,
`GASTON & ZIMET, LLP
`
`
`/s/ Keith A. Gaston, Esq.
`Keith A. Gaston, Esq., #7069-49
`Bruce D. Jones, Esq., #28624-29
`Bradley M. Owen, Esq., #32711-32
`Rachel O. Webster, Esq., #34251-49
`
`
`
`Counsel for Defendant,
`Wal-Mart Stores East, LP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3077 E. 98th Street, Suite 280
`Indianapolis, IN 46280
`(317) 816-0300
`(317) 816-1604 (fax)
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`I hereby certify that on the 9th day of October 2020, a copy of the foregoing was filed
`
`electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to the following parties by operation of the Court’s
`electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system:
`
`Christopher G. Stevenson, Esq.
`WILSON KEHOE WININGHAM LLC
`2859 N. Meridian Street
`Indianapolis, IN 46208
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Keith A. Gaston, Esq.
`
`
`
`
`
`{Firm/30028/00018/02736485.DOCX }
`
`
`10
`
`