Edgar Monserratt v. Tesla Inc, et al Document 12

County Court in and for Broward County, Florida
Case No. CACE19000422
Filed February 12, 2019

Answer to Amended Complaint: Defendant Tesla Inc

BackBack to Edgar Monserratt v. Tesla Inc, et al

Tags No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.

  Formatted Text Tab Overlap Raw Text Right End
Page 1 Filing # 84793683 E-Filed 02/12/2019 01:34:43 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
EDGAR MONSERRATT, as Personal
Representative of THE ESTATE OF
EDGAR MONSERRATT MARTINEZ,
Deceased,
CASE NO.: CACE-19-Plaintiff,
V.
TESLA, INC. a/k/a TESLA FLORIDA,
INC., HALSTON LOYD, JAMES B. RILEY,
individually, JAMES B. RILEY, as the
Personal Representative of THE ESTATE
OF BARRETT RILEY, Deceased, and JR
CORPORATE SERVICES GROUP, LLC,
a Florida limited liability company,
Defendants.

DEFENDANT, TESLA, INC. d/b/a TESLA FLORIDA, INC.’S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendant, Tesla, Inc. d/b/a Tesla Florida, Inc. (“Tesla”) files its Answer to Plaintiff's, Edgar
Monserratt, as Personal Representative of The Estate of Edgar Monserratt Martinez, First Amended
Complaint and states:
ANSWER
1. Tesla admits it is a foreign (Delaware) corporation and authorized to do business
in the State of Florida. Tesla admits it has an authorized service facility in Broward County.
2. Tesla generally denies each and every remaining allegation in Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint and specifically denies it caused and/or contributed to the subject accident
and/or Plaintiff's alleged damages.
DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Tesla has not yet had the opportunity to complete its discovery or investigation of this
matter and, therefore, relies upon the following defenses which may prove applicable after
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 2/12/2019 1:34:42 PM. ****
Page 2 discovery or at trial:
1. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted as to Tesla.
2. Plaintiff's decedent, the driver of the subject vehicle, and the owners of the subject
vehicle, so carelessly and negligently conducted themselves and caused and contributed to the
incident or damages complained of, thus barring or proportionately reducing all claims for
damages against Tesla.
3. Tesla contends that this incident gives rise to an apportionment of damages, if any,
in relation to the degree of fault of the parties, persons, or entities, pursuant to the Florida
Supreme Court decision of Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993). In compliance with Nash
v. Wells Fargo Guard Services, Inc., 678 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1996), Tesla identifies the following

persons or entities as party and non-party tortfeasors in this case: (1) Edgar Monserratt; (2) Edgar
Monserratt Martinez; (3) Barrett Riley; (4) James B. Riley; (5) Jenny B. Riley; (6) JR Corporate
Services Group; and (7) Any other currently unidentified parties, persons, firms, or corporations
over whom Tesla had no control or duty to control, and for whose actions Tesla cannot be held
responsible or legally liable. Tesla reserves the right to amend this affirmative defense to identify
any additional individuals or entities responsible, in whole or in part, for Plaintiff's alleged damages
as they are revealed through investigation and discovery in this case.
4. The design, manufacture, and testing of the subject vehicle and its component
parts and systems conformed with state-of-the-art in the automotive industry at the time of
manufacture, were manufactured, designed, and tested to conform to the generally recognized
and applicable standards in existence at the time of manufacture, and were consistent with
the then industry custom.
5. The proximate cause of the incident giving rise to this action was the use of the
vehicle for a purpose, in a manner, or in an activity other than that which was reasonably
foreseeable, or it was used in a manner that was contrary to any express and adequate
Page 3 warning or instruction appearing on, attached to, or delivered with the vehicle which Edgar
Monserratt Martinez or his agents knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have
known.
6. Florida does not recognize a post-sale duty to warn and, therefore, Plaintiff's
post-sale duty to warn claims are not actionable under Florida law.
7. At the time and place referred to in Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, the
subject vehicle may have been subjected to abnormal use and/or misuse, and the incident and
alleged damages could have been avoided if the vehicle had not been subjected to such
abnormal use and misuse. Therefore, any alleged damages sustained by Plaintiff may have
been proximately caused by the abnormal use or misuse of the subject vehicle.
8. The acts or omissions, if any, of Tesla were not substantial factors in bringing
about Plaintiffs alleged damages and, therefore, were not a contributing cause thereof, but were
superseded by acts or omissions of others, which are independent, intervening, and proximate
causes of any such alleged damages.
9. The subject vehicle met or exceeded all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards at the time the vehicle was sold and originally placed into the stream of commerce.
10. Tesla affirmatively alleges that Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's decedent may have
failed to mitigate his damages.
11. Tesla is entitled to a set off, under Fla. Stat. § 768.31(5)(a), for all sums of
money by settlement or judgment, or otherwise entered into and received by Plaintiff from any
party or non-party to this action.
12. Tesla is entitled to a set-off from any recovery against it to the extent of any
insurance benefits paid or payable to or on behalf of Plaintiff.
13. Plaintiff's decedent and others whose conduct was imputable to Plaintiff and/or
Plaintiff's decedent at the time and place alleged in the First Amended Complaint knowingly,
Page 4 voluntarily and freely placed themselves in an unsafe and dangerous position, and therefore
assumed all resulting risks of injuries.
14. No additional or different warnings would have or could have prevented the alleged
incident, the injuries, loss and/or damages alleged by Plaintiff.
Tesla reserves the right to file, upon completion of its investigation and discovery, such
additional affirmative defenses as may be appropriate.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Tesla hereby demands a trial by jury for all triable issues.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 12, 2019 a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document was filed with the Clerk of Court using the Florida Courts e-Filing Portal which will send
an automatic e-mail message to all parties who have registered with the e-Filing Portal.
/s/ Robert J. Rudock
ROBERT J. RUDOCK
Florida Bar No.
WHITNEY V. CRUZ
Florida Bar No.
BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
Two Alhambra Plaza, Suite
Coral Gables, FL
Tel: (305) 995-
Fax: (305) 995-Robert.Rudock@bowmanandbrooke.com
Whitney.Cruz@bowmanandbrooke.com
Attorneys for Defendant, Tesla, Inc. d/b/a
Tesla Florida, Inc. and Halston Loyd
Space
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
 
PlainSite
Sign Up
Need Password Help?