IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KRISTIN PEREZ HAINES : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

RODNEY GENE LEE and : NO. 02-cv-4432

NORTHSTAR TRUCKING SERVICES, INC. :

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendants, Rodney Gene Lee and Northstar Trucking Services, Inc., by and through 

their attorneys, Rawle & Henderson LLP, hereby answers plaintiff's Amended Complaint as 

follows:

1. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge upon which to form a belief 

as to truth of the averments contained in paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint. Therefore, 

said averments are denied.

2. Admitted.

Admitted.

4. Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendants admit only that there is diversity among the 

parties and that jurisdiction is proper in this Honorable Court. By way of further response, 

defendants have insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to the 

truth of the remaining averments contained in paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint, and 

therefore, said averments are denied.

5. Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendants admit only that jurisdiction is proper in this 

Honorable Court. The remaining averments of paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint are 

denied.

6. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as 

to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint. Therefore, 

said averments are denied. 

7. Admitted.

8. Admitted.

Case 2:02-cv-04432-BWK Document 9 Filed 09/25/2002 Page 1 of 7
0706983.01

2

9. Admitted.

Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to 

form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint. 

Therefore, said averments are denied.

11. Denied. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 11 of the Amended 

Complaint.

12. Denied. Defendants deny that the alleged injuries or damages sustained by plaintiff were

related to the accident on August 3, 2000. By way of further response, defendants are without 

sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in 

paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint. Therefore, said averments are denied.

13. (a) - (i) Defendants deny any negligence and carelessness. By way of further response, 

the averments contained in paragraph 13 of the Amended Complaint and its subparts are 

conclusions of law to which no responsive pleadings are required. To the extent a response is 

required, defendants deny the remaining averments contained in paragraph 13 of the Amended 

Complaint and its subparts.

14. Defendants specifically deny any negligence and/or recklessness. By way of further 

response, to the extent that the averments contained in paragraph 14 of the Amended Complaint 

are conclusions of law, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, defendants 

deny the remaining averments contained in paragraph 14 of the Amended Complaint.

15. Defendants deny that plaintiff sustained the alleged injuries and damages as a result of 

the accident on August 3, 2000. By way of further response, defendants are without sufficient 

information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 

15. Therefore, said averments are denied.

16. Defendants deny that plaintiff sustained the alleged injuries and damages as a result of 

the accident on August 3, 2000. By way of further response, defendants are without sufficient 

Case 2:02-cv-04432-BWK Document 9 Filed 09/25/2002 Page 2 of 7
0706983.01

3

information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 

16. Therefore, said averments are denied.

17. Defendants deny that plaintiff sustained the alleged injuries and damages as a result of 

the accident on August 3, 2000. By way of further response, defendants are without sufficient 

information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 

17. Therefore, said averments are denied.

18. Defendants deny that plaintiff sustained the alleged injuries and damages as a result of 

the accident on August 3, 2000. By way of further response, defendants are without sufficient 

information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 

18. Therefore, said averments are denied.

19. Defendants deny that plaintiff sustained the alleged injuries and damages as a 

result of the accident on August 3, 2000. By way of further response, defendants are without 

sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in 

paragraph 19. Therefore, said averments are denied.

20. WHEREFORE, defendants Rodney Gene Lee and Northstar Trucking Services, Inc. 

demands judgment in their favor and against plaintiff.

COUNT II

1. Defendants incorporate their answers to paragraphs 1 through 20 of the Amended 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

2. (a)-(c) Denied. Defendants deny any negligence and carelessness. The averments 

contained in paragraph 21 of the Amended Complaint and its subparts are conclusions of law to 

which no response is required. By way of further response, defendants deny the remaining 

averments contained in paragraph 21 of the Amended Complaint and its subparts.

3. WHEREFORE, defendants Rodney Gene Lee and Northstar Trucking Services, Inc. 

demands judgment in their favor and against plaintiff.

Case 2:02-cv-04432-BWK Document 9 Filed 09/25/2002 Page 3 of 7
0706983.01

4

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

No conduct on the part of defendants contributed to plaintiff’s alleged injuries and 

damages.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The acts and conditions complained of by plaintiff, if in fact they occurred or existed, are 

the result of the conduct of third parties over whom defendants had no control, and therefore, 

defendant denies liability for same.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants breached no duty of care to plaintiff.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims are either barred, or should be reduced, as a result of the plaintiff’s own 

contributory or comparative negligence, and/or by plaintiffs’ assumption of the risk.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff failed to mitigate their injuries and damages, if any.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The injuries and damages complained of by plaintiff pre-existed, or were sustained after, 

the incident which is the subject matter of the Amended Complaint.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages, if any, were the result of an unavoidable accident, 

sudden emergency, or act of God.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Case 2:02-cv-04432-BWK Document 9 Filed 09/25/2002 Page 4 of 7
0706983.01

5

Defendants claims any and all defenses available pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Financial 

Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C. S.A. § 1701 et seq.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Service of process was improper and/or insufficient.

Case 2:02-cv-04432-BWK Document 9 Filed 09/25/2002 Page 5 of 7
0706983.01

6

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

WHEREFORE, defendants Rodney Gene Lee and Northstar Trucking Services, Inc. 

demand judgment in their favor and against plaintiff.

RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP

By:________________________________

Timothy J. Abeel

Dawn L. Jennings, Esquire

Identification Nos. 23104/68939

The Widener Building

One South Penn Square

Philadelphia, PA 19107

215-575-4200

Attorneys for Defendants,

Rodney Gene Lee and Northstar 

Trucking Services, Inc.

Case 2:02-cv-04432-BWK Document 9 Filed 09/25/2002 Page 6 of 7
0706983.01

7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on today’s date I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

Answer with Affirmative Defenses by first-class mail, postage prepaid, upon all attorneys of 

record, addressed as follows:

Gregg R. Durlofsky, Esquire

111 West Germantown Pike

Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462

Attorneys for Plaintiff

RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP

By:________________________________

Timothy J. Abeel

Dawn L. Jennings

Identification No. 23104/68939

The Widener Building

One South Penn Square

Philadelphia, PA 19107

215-575-4200

Attorneys for Defendant,

Rodney Gene Lee and

Northstar Trucking Services, Inc.

DATED:

Case 2:02-cv-04432-BWK Document 9 Filed 09/25/2002 Page 7 of 7