Answer to Complaint Justin King Case Civil Litigation Unit 5
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
Justin King - Plaintiff v Anheuser Busch - Defendant * * * * * CASE NO. Answer to Complaint COMES NOW, Anheuser Busch, the Defendant, and hereby answers the Plaintiff’s Complaint as follows: PARTIES
1. As to paragraph 1, it is hereby admitted in part. Defendant resides in said county. As for the other allegations, Defendant does not have sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on that basis, denies the allegations.
2. As to paragraph 2 and 3, it is hereby admitted in part. One of Anheuser Busch’s trucks was driven in Ford County, Paxton, Illinois, which passed a motorcycle driven by the Plaintiff.
3. As to paragraph 4, it is hereby admitted in part. The Defendant passed the motorcycle in Paxton, Illinois as follows:
a. Defendant must flash lights to indicate he wishes to pass.
b. The Plaintiff is required to move over if conditions allow.
c. Part of Defendant’s shipment did fall off truck, however, Plaintiff, could have slowed down, or swerved a different direction.
d. Had the Plaintiff worn protective headgear as required by the State of Missouri, this accident may not have been as sever. Affirmative Defenses
4. The Plaintiff assumed the risk when he decided to not wear protective headgear while operating his motorcycle.
5. According to the State of Missouri, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 302.020.3 (1959), it is unlawful to operate a motorcycle without proper headgear.
a. Plaintiff was not wearing protective headgear, therefore, he assumed the risk of an accident happening.
6. Assumption of Risk and Contributory Negligence are both factors in this case. Motion to Dismiss Case Wherefore, the Defendant demands the Court to dismiss this case on the
Justin King - Plaintiff v Anheuser Busch - Defendant * * * * * CASE NO. Answer to Complaint COMES NOW, Anheuser Busch, the Defendant, and hereby answers the Plaintiff’s Complaint as follows: PARTIES
1. As to paragraph 1, it is hereby admitted in part. Defendant resides in said county. As for the other allegations, Defendant does not have sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on that basis, denies the allegations.
2. As to paragraph 2 and 3, it is hereby admitted in part. One of Anheuser Busch’s trucks was driven in Ford County, Paxton, Illinois, which passed a motorcycle driven by the Plaintiff.
3. As to paragraph 4, it is hereby admitted in part. The Defendant passed the motorcycle in Paxton, Illinois as follows:
a. Defendant must flash lights to indicate he wishes to pass.
b. The Plaintiff is required to move over if conditions allow.
c. Part of Defendant’s shipment did fall off truck, however, Plaintiff, could have slowed down, or swerved a different direction.
d. Had the Plaintiff worn protective headgear as required by the State of Missouri, this accident may not have been as sever. Affirmative Defenses
4. The Plaintiff assumed the risk when he decided to not wear protective headgear while operating his motorcycle.
5. According to the State of Missouri, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 302.020.3 (1959), it is unlawful to operate a motorcycle without proper headgear.
a. Plaintiff was not wearing protective headgear, therefore, he assumed the risk of an accident happening.
6. Assumption of Risk and Contributory Negligence are both factors in this case. Motion to Dismiss Case Wherefore, the Defendant demands the Court to dismiss this case on the