|
ANSWER & DEMANDS Defendant, Borough of Mendham, by way of Answer to the Complaint filed herein says: 1. It denies each and every allegation set forth in plaintiffs Complaint. FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE The claims of the plaintiff are barred by operation of N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 et. seq., the Worker's Compensation Act. SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE The accident and injuries allegedly sustained were caused and/or contributed to by the negligence of the plaintiff jointly, severally and in the alternative and, accordingly, plaintiffs claim is barred or should be diminished by the application of the Comparative Negligence Statute. THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE The claim of the plaintiff is barred by virtue of the Statute of Limitations. FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE The Complaint fails to set forth a cause of action as against these defendants. FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE Plaintiffs Complaint is barred by application of the Entire Controversy Doctrine. SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE These defendants are entitled to a set-off and/or a reduction of any damage award pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:15-97 et. seq. in that the alleged accident occurred on or after December 18, 1987. SEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE Any and all claims of the plaintiff are barred by reason of lack of jurisdiction over the defendants due to insufficiency of service of process. EIGHTH SEPARATE DEFENSE The acts and/or injuries alleged in the Complaint were caused or contributed to by third parties over whom these defendants had no control. NINTH SEPARATE DEFENSE These defendants breached no duty due and owing to the plaintiff. TENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE Plaintiffs claim is barred or should be diminished by virtue of the terms and provisions of N.J.S.A. 59:2-1, et. seq. ELEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE The claim of the plaintiff is barred or should be diminished by virtue of N.J.S.A. 59:3-1, et. seq. TWELFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE The claim of the plaintiff is barred or should be diminished by virtue of N.J.S.A. 59:4-1, et. seq. THIRTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE The claim of the plaintiff is barred or should be diminished by virtue of N.J.S.A. 59:5-1, et seq. FOURTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE The claim of the plaintiff is barred or should be diminished by virtue of N.J.S.A. 59:6-1, et seq. FIFTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE The claim of the plaintiff is barred or should be diminished by virtue of N.J.S.A. 59:7-1, et seq. SIXTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE The claim of the plaintiff is barred or should be diminished by virtue of N.J.S.A. 59:8-1. et seq. SEVENTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE The claim of the plaintiff is barred or should be diminished by virtue of N.J.S.A. 59:9-1, et seq. EIGHTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE The incident complained of in the Complaint was completely unavoidable on behalf of these defendants and, therefore, plaintiffs are barred from recovery as to it. NINETEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE This defendant denies that it was negligent, breached any duty allegedly owed plaintiffs, or that it deviated from any accepted standard applicable to it. TWENTIETH SEPARATE DEFENSE Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate, minimize or avoid any damages that it allegedly sustained and any recovery against these defendants must be reduced by that amount. TWENTY-FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE These defendants deny the applicability of the punitive damage theories under the facts of this litigation and, in any event, denies that it is so liable under said theories. TWENTY-SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE Unless specifically admitted above, these defendants deny each and every material allegation of the plaintiffs Complaint and demands strict proof thereof. TWENTY-THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE Plaintiffs Complaint herein does not state any facts that justify the imposition of vicarious liability upon these defendants. TWENTY-FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE The contracts the plaintiff is seeking to enforce as alleged in the plaintiffs Complaint are unlawful contracts under the laws of the State of Alabama, as they seek to obtain terms and conditions of insurance more favorable than the terms of the written policies, which are authorized, approved, and limited by the terms of Alabama law. TWENTY-FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE Any award of punitive damages against these defendants in this action would violate the constitutional safeguards provided to these defendants under, separately and severally, Article I, Section 10[1] and/or the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. TWENTY-SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE The imposition of punitive damages against these defendants would constitute grossly excessive punishment in violation of these defendants rights under the due process laws of the United States Constitution based on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in B.M.W. of North America. Inc. v. Gore, llGS.Ct. 1589(1996). TWENTY-SEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE The imposition of punitive damages in this case would be in denial of these defendants right to equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 1, 6 and 22 of the Alabama Constitution in that the imposition would treat these defendants differently from other defendants, criminal or otherwise, which are charged for similar or identical culpability. TWENTY-EIGHTH SEPARATE DEFENSE These defendants specifically reserves and reasserts its rights to plead other defenses as discovery proceeds. TWENTY-NINTH SEPARATE DEFENSE Plaintiffs claim is limited by the doctrine of avoidable consequences. THIRTIETH SEPARATE DEFENSE Plaintiffs claim is barred as against public - policy in this state. THIRTY FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE Plaintiff has failed to prove malicious intent on the part of the individual defendants sufficient to defeat a claim of qualified immunity. THIRTY SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE There exists no civil cause of action for violation of the Open Public Records Act. THIRTY THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE There exists no civil cause of action for "common law civil right to fair access to public information" held by a public entity. THIRTY FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE The defendant has committed no violation of the Law Against Discrimination. THIRTY FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE The defendant has committed no violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. THIRTY SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE The plaintiff lacks standing to assert a claim under either the Law Against Discrimination or the Americans with Disabilities Act. THIRTY SEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE The defendant has not violated any of plaintiffs civil rights. THIRTY EIGHTH SEPARATE DEFENSE Plaintiffs claims are barred in their entirety by the applicable Statute of Limitations. DEMAND FOR DAMAGES Plaintiff is hereby required and requested to furnish the undersigned within five (5) days with a written statement of the amount of damages claimed in this action. |