FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LAMAR M. HAUPT and : HON. MARY A. McLAUGHLIN 

CAROL M. HAUPT, : 

 Plaintiffs, : 

 : CIVIL ACTION NO. 02CV2717 

 v. : 

 : 

THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER : 

COMPANY, : 

 Defendant. : 

ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

OF DEFENDANT, THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY

 Defendant, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, hereby 

responds to the Complaint of Plaintiffs, and in support thereof avers as follows: 

 1 – 2. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is 

without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of 

the averments in paragraphs 1-2 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint; hence, the averments 

are denied. 

 3. Admitted. 

 4. The averments in paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint are 

conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a 

response is required, the averments are denied. 

 5-7. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is 

without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of 

the averments in paragraphs 5-7 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint; hence, the averments 

are denied. 

 8. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that as of 

July 20, 2000 that Henry Thomas was employed by the Goodyear Tire & 

Case 2:02-cv-02717-MAM Document 4 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 1 of 4
Rubber Company. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is 

without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

Plaintiffs’ averment that Mr. Thomas was acting within the course and scope of

his employment at the time; hence, this averment is denied. 

 9–11. Denied. 

12. The averments in paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint are 

conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a 

response may be required, the averments are denied.

 13. Denied.

 WHEREFORE, Defendant, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company,

demands judgment in its favor. 

FIRST DEFENSE

Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. 

SECOND DEFENSE

If Plaintiffs have suffered damages as alleged, which is denied, 

then Plaintiffs damages were caused by Plaintiffs’ failure to exercise reasonable 

care under the circumstances, and their claims are entirely barred or reduced 

by the applicable comparative negligence statute. 

THIRD DEFENSE

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable statute of

limitations. 

2

Case 2:02-cv-02717-MAM Document 4 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 2 of 4
FOURTH DEFENSE

If Plaintiffs have suffered damages as alleged, which is denied, 

then Plaintiffs assumed the risk of such damages and their claims are entirely 

barred.

FIFTH DEFENSE

If Plaintiffs have suffered damages as alleged, which is denied, 

then the damages were caused and/or contributed to by the acts and/or 

omissions of others over whom Answering Defendant had no control and for 

whose acts it my not be held responsible. 

SIXTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiffs 

lack standing to bring the present action under the applicable law. 

SEVENTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the 

conduct of Plaintiffs caused the accident in question. 

EIGHTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiffs 

were negligent per se in the operation of their motor vehicle. 

NINTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because their 

injuries do not consist of significant and permanent losses of important bodily

functions such that they may bring the present action under the applicable law. 

3

Case 2:02-cv-02717-MAM Document 4 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 3 of 4
4

TENTH DEFENSE

 Plaintiffs’ claims in the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania are barred, in whole or in part, or must be 

transferred to a United States District Court within the State of Florida, 

pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens. 28 U.S.C.A. §1404 (a). 

 WHEREFORE, Defendant, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, 

demands judgment in its favor. 

By: _____________________________ 

Peter J. Deeb, Esquire 

Atty. I.D. No. 42281 

FREY, PETRAKIS, DEEB, BLUM 

BRIGGS & MITTS, P.C. 

1601 Market Street, Sixth Floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

(215) 563-0500 

Attorney for Defendant, The Goodyear 

Tire & Rubber Company 

Case 2:02-cv-02717-MAM Document 4 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 4 of 4