IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JUSTIN WILLIAM KING, )

)
Plaintiff. )
) Civil Action No. 11-CIV-012345
)
v. )
)
ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES, INC. )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________)

ANSWER

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW Anheuser Busch, defendant in the above cause, to file this answer to the original
petition of Justin King, plaintiff herein, and would respectfully show the Court as follows:

ANSWER TO COUNT I: NEGLIGENCE

1. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraphs 1 of the Complaint. Defendant admits

that plaintiff was and is a resident of Cook County, State of Illinois.
2. As to paragraph 2, Defendant admits that he is a corporation with is principal place of
business in Missouri and carries on business in Illinois.
3. As to paragraph 5, it is hereby admitted in part. The Defendant passed the motorcycle in
Paxton, Illinois as follows:
 a. Defendant is required to flash his lights to indicate he wishes to pass.
b. The Plaintiff is required to move over, if conditions allow.
c. Some of the Defendants cargo did fall off truck; however, Plaintiff could have
avoided a collision by reducing his speed or swerving a different direction.
d. Although the State of Illinois does not require protective headwear to be worn, it
is suggested that a DOT approved helmet is worn to protect oneself in case of a
collision.
e. Had the Plaintiff worn protective headgear, the damages he suffered may not have
been as severe.
4. With respect to paragraphs 6 through 9, the Defendant is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations.
5. The allegations in paragraphs 10 and 11 in the Complaint are denied. The plaintiff
caused himself injury while in the care of medical staff. The Plaintiff made the decision
to ignore the advice of his doctors and further worsened his injuries.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

6. Plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care in his own behalf with regard to the incident
alleged in plaintiff's complaint, in that, among other things, plaintiff failed to reduce
speed. Therefore, plaintiff's recovery, if any, from this defendant must be diminished in
proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to plaintiff.
a. By reducing his speed or swerving in a different direction, Plaintiff could have
avoided a collision.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

7. Any damage plaintiff sustained was due to, or contributed to by, the acts of plaintiff, in
that he assumed the risk in connection with the accident alleged to have given rise to the
injuries by failing to mitigate damages by wearing the proper protective gear.
 a. Although there is no helmet law in Illinois, wearing proper headgear would have
mitigated the damages the Plaintiff allegedly suffered. By choosing not to wear
protective headgear, Plaintiff assumed the risk of an accident happening.
b. Plaintiffs refusal to wear a helmet contributed to his injuries. Plaintiff assumed
the increased risk of injury by riding a motorcycle and by failing to wear proper
protective gear.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

8. Plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care for his own behalf by ignoring medical advice.
Plaintiff contributed to his own injuries by loosening the wires that held his jaw in place,
causing him further pain and requiring additional medical care. Therefore, Plaintiffs
recovery, if any, should be reduced to attribute to the amount of negligence the Plaintiff
was responsible for.

COUNTER-CLAIM

9. Answering the allegations contained in the complaint by way of counterclaim, defendant

alleges:

GENERAL ALLIGATIONS

10. Counterclaimant was driving Southbound on Interstate 57, going the same direction as
the Plaintiff, and in accordance with all traffic laws and procedures, at the same time
alleged in the Plaintiffs complaint.
11. Plaintiff was negligently riding a motorcycle, without a helmet, at the same time and
location as the Counterclaimant.
 12. Defendant has reason to believe that Plaintiff purposely swerved into the falling cargo
because he wanted to cause intentional harm or even death.
13. Plaintiffs negligence caused $50,000 in damage to Defendants vehicle and $5,000 in
damage to Defendants cargo.
14. Defendant has reason to believe that the plaintiff is and was mentally unstable, prior to
his accident, and is possibly delusional. While in the hospital, Plaintiff ignored medical
advice and loosened the wires in his jaw, causing himself further injury. As a result,
doctors had to reset the Plaintiffs jaw because it was not healing properly.
15. Defendant should not be held liable for the majority of the Plaintiffs injuries due to the
fact that the Plaintiff refused the advice of medical personnel and further injured himself.
16. Defendant believes that due to his recent suicide attempt, the Plaintiff should be under the
care of a psychiatrist and is not mentally stable enough to continue with court
proceedings. Additionally, Defendant believes that the Plaintiff was not in the mindset
during the day of the accident.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore defendant prays:

1. That the court enters judgment dismissing the complaint: The plaintiff suing for
$100,000,000.
2. That defendant has judgment against plaintiff Justin King in the amount of $55,000;
3. That defendant be awarded costs incurred herein; for the injuries caused during the initial
accident.
4. Damages in the amount of $55,000
5. That defendant be awarded such other and further relief as the court deems just.
Dated: March 4, 2015

John Smith
IL Attorney License # 54321
Law Office of John Doe
234 Main Street
Chicago, IL 60601

Attorney for Defendant