UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VILETTO BOSNIAK & ROSS

BY: Charles W. Sweeney, III, Esquire Attorney for Defendants

I.D.# 62339

1515 Market Street, Suite 1802

Philadelphia, PA 19102

(215) 564-3042

TRINA HERRING : CIVIL ACTION

OSCAR HERRING

:

VS.

:

MICHAEL McCREA

GANNETT FLEMMING, INC. : NO. 02 CV 4391

DEFENDANTS ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

AND CROSS CLAIM TO PLAINTIFFS  COMPLAINT

1. The allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph constitute

conclusions of law for which no responsive pleading is required, and

they are therefore denied.

2-3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant lacks

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the

averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are

therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 

4. Admitted.

Case 2:02-cv-04391-BWK Document 3 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 1 of 10
5. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Gannett

Fleming is a corporation and has a place of business in the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. However, Gannett Fleming also has

offices in Hamington, New Jersey, Princeton, New Jersey and South

Plainfield, New Jersey. 

6. The allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph constitute

conclusions of law for which no responsive pleading is required, and

they are therefore denied.

COUNT I

1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant lacks

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the

averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are

therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 

2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant lacks

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the

averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are

therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 

3. The allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph constitute

conclusions of law for which no responsive pleading is required, and

they are therefore denied.

Case 2:02-cv-04391-BWK Document 3 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 2 of 10
4-8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant lacks

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the

averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are

therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 

WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand judgment in their favor.

COUNT II

1. Answers to Count I are incorporated herein by reference.

2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant lacks

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the

averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are

therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 

3-4. The allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph constitute

conclusions of law for which no responsive pleading is required, and

they are therefore denied.

5-9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant lacks

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the

averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are

therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 

WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand judgment in their favor. 

Case 2:02-cv-04391-BWK Document 3 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 3 of 10
COUNT III

1. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference answers set forth in

Counts I and II. 

2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant lacks

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the

averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are

therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 

3. The allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph constitute

conclusions of law for which no responsive pleading is required, and

they are therefore denied.

4-8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant lacks

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the

averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are

therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 

WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand judgment in their favor.

COUNT IV

1. Answering Defendant hereby incorporates by reference answers to

Counts I through III as though fully set forth at length herein.

2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant lacks

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the

averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are

therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 

Case 2:02-cv-04391-BWK Document 3 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 4 of 10
3. The allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph constitute

conclusions of law for which no responsive pleading is required, and

they are therefore denied.

4-8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant lacks

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the

averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are

therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 

WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand judgment in their favor.

COUNT V

1. Answering Defendants hereby incorporates by reference answers to

Counts I through IV as though fully set forth at length herein.

2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant lacks

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the

averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are

therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 

3. The allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph constitute

conclusions of law for which no responsive pleading is required, and

they are therefore denied.

4-8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant lacks

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the

averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are

therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 

Case 2:02-cv-04391-BWK Document 3 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 5 of 10
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand judgment in their favor.

COUNT VI

1. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate by reference answers to

Counts I through V as though fully set forth at length herein.

2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant lacks

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the

averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are

therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 

3. The allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph constitute

conclusions of law for which no responsive pleading is required, and

they are therefore denied.

4. The allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph constitute

conclusions of law for which no responsive pleading is required, and

they are therefore denied.

5-9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant lacks

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the

averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are

therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 

WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand judgment in their favor.

Case 2:02-cv-04391-BWK Document 3 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 6 of 10
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his/her damages.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

If plaintiff sustained the injuries and damages as alleged in his/her Complaint,

then same were caused by other entities or parties over which answering defendant

had no control.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff s claims are barred, in whole and/or in part, by the appropriate Statute

of Limitations.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff voluntarily adopted a dangerous and hazardous method or manner of

performing the actions that he/she was then undertaking when there was available to

him/her a safe method and he/she thereby assumed the risk of injury in performing

his/her actions.

Case 2:02-cv-04391-BWK Document 3 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 7 of 10
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff s claims are barred, or must be reduced, as a result of plaintiff s own

negligence, which was the proximate cause of the incident described in plaintiff s

Complaint, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A.

Section 7102.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

This Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the within action.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

If plaintiff sustained the injuries and damages as alleged in his/her Complaint,

then same were not proximately caused by any action or failure to act on behalf of

answering defendant.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

This action is barred or otherwise limited by the provisions of the New Jersey

Comparative Negligence Law, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.1, et seq. 

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff s claims may be barred and/or limited to their election of the New

Jersey verbal threshold. 

Case 2:02-cv-04391-BWK Document 3 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 8 of 10
CROSS CLAIM PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 13(g) 

ADDRESSED TO TRINA HERRING

If the facts as alleged by Plaintiffs pertaining to the accident in this case are

true and correct and established at trial, and any liability is found against answering

Defendants, any and all such liability being specifically denied, Answering Defendant

avers that Plaintiff, Trina Herring is alone liable to Plaintiff, Oscar Herring, jointly

and/or severally liable with answering Defendant, and/or liable over to answering

Defendant for a contribution and/or indemnity. 

WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand judgment in their favor for

contribution and/or indemnity and against Plaintiff, Trina Herring.

VILETTO BOSNIAK & ROSS

BY: 

Charles W. Sweeney III

Attorney for Defendants 

Case 2:02-cv-04391-BWK Document 3 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 9 of 10
LAW OFFICES OF

VILETTO BOSNIAK & ROSS *

1515 Market Street - Suite 1802

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102-1905

 

Staff Counsel of The Hartford Insurance Group

 

(215) 564-3042

FAX (215) 564-0109

Harold E. Viletto Racheal DeCicco Bogina 

Mark R. Bosniak Jeffrey M. Pollock

Alan H. Ross Steven M. Levin

Theresa Martin LoStracco Mark J. Kogan

Charles W. Sweeney III Michael R. Byron 

* Not a Partnership or Professional Corporation

 Also a Member of New Jersey Bar

August 12, 2002 

Michael S. Ringold, Esq.

Plaza 1000 at Main Street

Suite 206

Voorhees, NJ 08043

RE: Herring v. McCrea, et al

 

Dear Mr. Ringold:

Enclosed please find a copy of Defendants  Answer with Affirmative Defenses and Cross

Claim to Plaintiff s Complaint, the original of which is being filed with the Court with reference to

the above captioned matter.

Please abide by all the applicable time limitations within which to respond.

Very truly yours, 

Charles W. Sweeney, III

CWS/hmc

Enclosure

Case 2:02-cv-04391-BWK Document 3 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 10 of 10