UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JONATHAN L. OLSON

Plaintiff, § Civil Action No.:3 :20-CV-04060-RV-HTC

§

v. § 

§

SKANSKA USA CIVIL SOUTHEAST, §

INC. AND MTT EQUIPMENT §

SERVICE, LLP §

Defendant. § 

SKANSKA USA CIVIL SOUTHEAST, INC.’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE 

DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendant Skanska USA Civil Southeast, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant” or 

“Skanska”) by and through the undersigned counsel and pursuant to the applicable Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, hereby files its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.

Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 1. 

2.

Defendant admits that Plaintiff was an employee. Defendant denies the remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph 2. 

3.

Case 3:20-cv-04060-RV-HTC Document 8 Filed 05/27/20 Page 1 of 10
2

Paragraph 3 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Should answer 

be required, Defendant admits that venue is proper and for purposes of this litigation only that 

this Court has personal jurisdiction over Skanska. Defendant denies the remaining allegations. 

4.

Paragraph 4 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Should answer 

be required, it is denied. 

FACTS

5.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph for lack of information to justify 

a belief.

6.

Defendant admits that Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. Defendant denies the 

remaining allegations.

7.

Defendant admits that Defendant was Plaintiff’s direct employer. Defendant denies the 

remaining allegations. 

8.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph for lack of information to justify 

a belief.

9.

Case 3:20-cv-04060-RV-HTC Document 8 Filed 05/27/20 Page 2 of 10
3

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph for lack of information to justify 

a belief.

10.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph for lack of information to justify 

a belief.

11.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph for lack of information to justify 

a belief.

12.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph for lack of information to justify 

a belief.

13.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph for lack of information to justify 

a belief.

14.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph for lack of information to justify 

a belief.

15.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph for lack of information to justify 

a belief.

Case 3:20-cv-04060-RV-HTC Document 8 Filed 05/27/20 Page 3 of 10
4

16.

Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 16. 

17.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 17. 

18.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 18. 

19.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph for lack of information to justify 

a belief.

COUNT ONE-NEGLIGENCE-SKANSKA

20.

The allegations in Paragraph 20 incorporate the allegations made in Paragraphs 5-19. 

Defendant repeats and reiterates all of its defenses and answers made in Paragraphs 5-19. 

Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 20. 

21.

Defendant admits the Plaintiff was provided a safe place to work. Defendant denies the

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 21. 

22.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 22. 

Case 3:20-cv-04060-RV-HTC Document 8 Filed 05/27/20 Page 4 of 10
5

23.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 23. 

24.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 24. 

25.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 25. 

26.

Paragraph 26 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Should 

answer be required, it is denied. 

COUNT TWO-UNSEAWORTHINESS-SKANSKA

27.

The allegations in Paragraph 20 incorporate the allegations made in Paragraphs 5-26. 

Defendant repeats and reiterates all of its defenses and answers mad in Paragraphs 5-26. Defendant 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 27. 

28.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 28. 

29.

Paragraph 29 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Should 

answer be required, it is denied. 

COUNT THREE-MAINTENANCE AND CURE-SKANSKA

30.

Case 3:20-cv-04060-RV-HTC Document 8 Filed 05/27/20 Page 5 of 10
6

The allegations in Paragraph 20 incorporate the allegations made in Paragraphs 6-29. 

Defendant repeats and reiterates all of its defenses and answers mad in Paragraphs 6-29. Defendant 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 30. 

31.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 31.

32.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 32. 

33.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 33. 

34.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 34. 

35.

Paragraph 35 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Should 

answer be required, it is denied. 

DAMAGES

36.

The allegations in Paragraph 20 incorporate the allegations made in Paragraphs 6-35. 

Defendant repeats and reiterates all of its defenses and answers mad in Paragraphs 6-35. Defendant 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 36. 

37.

Paragraph 37 requires no response from Defendant, but to the extent a response is 

necessary, Defendant denies the allegations, including all allegations in the sub-sections, in 

Paragraph 37. 

38.

Case 3:20-cv-04060-RV-HTC Document 8 Filed 05/27/20 Page 6 of 10
7

Paragraph 38 requires no response from Defendant, but to the extent a response is 

necessary, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 38. 

39.

Paragraph 39 requires no response from Defendant, but to the extent a response is

necessary, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 39. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s lawsuit fails to state a claim and/or cause of action and/or right of action upon 

which relief can be granted. 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s alleged damages are not related to the alleged incident sued upon. 

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

In the alternative, Defendant pleads that if it is determined that the Plaintiff was working 

aboard a vessel at the time of his incident, which Defendant denies, such vessel was not 

unseaworthy nor was her crew negligent, and any such action or omission was not the proximate 

cause of Plaintiff’s injuries, illnesses and/or damages, and is no way connected with the injuries, 

illnesses and/or damages, and is no way connected with the injuries, illnesses and/or damages for 

which Plaintiff now seeks recovery. 

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The alleged incident and/or damages in question, if any, were not caused or contributed to 

by any negligence on the part of the Defendant or anyone for whom Defendant may be responsible 

but was caused solely and proximately by the negligence of Plaintiff and/or the neglect of other 

persons and/or parties and/r entities for whom Defendant cannot be held responsible. 

Case 3:20-cv-04060-RV-HTC Document 8 Filed 05/27/20 Page 7 of 10
8

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

In the alternative, and only to the extent that it is determined that the accident or illness in 

question occurred and damages were sustained, which is specifically denied, Defendant avers that 

Plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and/or comparative fault. 

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

If Plaintiff sustained illness or injury, it is no way caused or connected with Plaintiff’s 

duties aboard the Vessel nor while he was in the service of the vessel. 

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

To the extent that Plaintiff failed to fully mitigate his damages, Defendant avers that they 

are entitled to full credit and relief. 

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Plaintiff’s damages, if any, were caused by his voluntary assumption of a normal and 

accepted risk inherent in his employment. 

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Vessel and all its appurtenances were at all times strong, staunch, sturdy, wellmaintained, and reasonably fit for their intended purposes. 

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

In the alternative, if it is determined that the Vessel was unseaworthy and/or that her crew 

was negligent, which is denied, such was not the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and is in 

no way connected with said injuries. 

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Case 3:20-cv-04060-RV-HTC Document 8 Filed 05/27/20 Page 8 of 10
9

The incident and attendant circumstances allegedly causing the incident were open, 

obvious, and well-know to the Plaintiff. 

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant affirmatively asserts any and all defenses, terms, conditions, warranties, 

limitations, and/or duties contained in any potentially applicable contracts and insurance policies. 

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant avers that Plaintiff has reached maximum medical improvement. 

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant hereby asserts all rights of credit, setoff, indemnity and/or contribution to which 

it may be entitled by law. 

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff was never a seaman. Thus, he has no cause of action against Defendant pursuant 

to the Jones Act, for maintenance and cure, for any alleged damages associated with any obligation 

to pay maintenance and cure (including punitive damages and attorneys’ fees), and/or for any 

alleged unseaworthiness. Alternatively, Plaintiff is not entitled to maintenance for any period 

during which Plaintiff’s living expenses (maintenance) and medical costs (cure) were funded by a 

third party. Defendant avers that Plaintiff has no cause and/or right of action for punitive damages

under the Jones Act, general maritime law, or federal law. 

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant reserves the right to assert other and additional defenses to which it may be 

entitled upon completion of further investigation and discovery herein. 

Case 3:20-cv-04060-RV-HTC Document 8 Filed 05/27/20 Page 9 of 10
10

Respectfully submitted,

SCHOUEST, BAMDAS,

SOSHEA & BENMAIER, PLLC

/s/ Jonathan A. Tweedy_____________

Jonathan A. Tweedy (admitted pro hac)

Melissa A. Miller (pro hac pending)

365 Canal St., Ste. 2730

New Orleans, LA 70118

T: 504-561-0323

F: 504-528-9442

rcozad@sbsblaw.com

jtweedy@sbsblaw.com

mmiller@sbsblaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served 

upon all counsel of record pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on May 27, 2020.

/s/ Jonathan A. Tweedy

Jonathan A. Tweedy 

Case 3:20-cv-04060-RV-HTC Document 8 Filed 05/27/20 Page 10 of 10