STATE OF SOUTHCAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS } CIANO.: 2015-CP-26-8908 COUNTY OF HORRY ) Jane Doe, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS vs. ) (lury Trial Demanded) 3 ) B Horry County, South Carolina and) a Horry County Police Department, ey ) 8 Defendants. ) 2 : P TO: SCOTT C, EVANS, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF = Defendants, above named, by and through their undersigned counsel, answering the Complaint, would respectfully show unto this Honorable Court as follows: FOR A FIRST DEFENSE, BY WAY OF ANSWER 1, Defendants deny any and all allegations contained in the Complaint not specifically admitted, qualified or explained herein. 2. Defendants are without sufficient information at this time so as to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of any and all allegations set forth in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint and therefore deny same and respectfully request strict proof thereof. 3, In response to Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, Defendants admit so much of the allegations set forth therein as allege that Horry County is a political subdivision of the State of South Caroli and the Horry County Police Department is a division of Horry County. Defendants are of the opinion and belief that the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint call for a legal conclusion and therefore do not require a response. However, to kethe extent said allegations may be construed to require a response from Defendants, any and all such allegations are denied and strict proof thereof requested. 4, Defendants admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 5. Inasmuch as Plaintiff is not identified in the Complaint, Defendants are without sufficient information at this time so as to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of any and all allegations set forth in Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the Complaint and therefore deny same and respectfully request strict proof thereof. 6. Defendants are of the opinion and belief that the allegations set forth in Paragraph. 10 of the Complaint do not require a response. However, to the extent said paragraph may be construed to require a response from Defendants, any and all allegations set forth therein are denied and strict proof thereof requested. 7. Inasmuch as Plaintiff is not identified in the Complaint, Defendants are without sufficient information at this time so as to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of any and all allegations set forth in Paragraphs 11 of the Complaint and therefore deny same and respectfully request strict proof thereof. 8. Inasmuch as Plaintiff is not identified in the Complaint, Defendants are without sufficient information at this time so as to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of any and all allegations set forth in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint and therefore deny same, including any and all subparts, and respectfully request strict proof thereof. 9, Inasmuch as Plaintiff is not identified in the Complaint, Defendants are without sufficient information at this time so as to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of any and all allegations set forth in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint and therefore deny same and respectfully request strict proof thereof.10, Defendants are of the opinion and belief that Paragraph 14 of the Complaint does not require a response, However, to the extent said paragraph may be construed to require a response from Defendants, any and all allegations set forth therein are denied and strict proof thereof requested. FOR A SECOND DEFENSE 11. Defendants are arms of the State of South Carolina, and are, therefore, entitled to sovereign immunity from suit pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and. doctrine of State Sovereign Immunity. FOR A THIRD DEFENSE 12, Defendants allege that the Plaintif's Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action and, therefore, Defendants are entitled to a dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. FOR A FOURTH DEFENSE 13. Defendants allege that any injuries or damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiff, which are denied, were due to and caused by the negligence of Plaintiff; that the negligence of Plaintiff combined and concurred with any acts or omissions of these Defendants, which are again denied, to produce any such injuries or damages; and that the negligence and recklessness of Plaintiff exceeded any negligence of recklessness of these Defendants. These Defendants therefore plead the comparative negligence and recklessness of Plaintiff as a bar to this action. FOR A FIFTH DEFENSE 14. Defendants allege that they are immune from civil tort liability pursuant to the Constitution of the State of South Carolina and § 15-78-10, Code of Laws of South Carolina (1976, as amended), et seq., commonly known as the South Carolina Tort Claims Act except to the limitedextent to which sovereign immunity has been waived pursuant thereto. Defendants therefore plead and incorporate herein each and every defense and limitation contained in the South Carolina Tort Claims Act as fully as if set forth herein verbatim. FOR A SIXTH DEFENSE 15, Defendants allege that the claims of Plaintiff are barred by the applicable statutes, of limitations which apply to the various claims of Plaintiff as alleged in the Complaint. FOR A SEVENTH DEFENSE 16. Defendants allege that any injuries sustained by Plaintiff as a result of this incident ‘were due to the acts of Plaintiff insofar as the incident complained of was voluntarily initiated by Plaintiff, FOR AN EIGHTH DEFENSE 17, Any acts alleged to have occurred on behalf of the Defendants were made using discretion of said Defendants in spite of their knowledge of reasonable, existing altematives, and Defendants are therefore entitled to discretionary immunity from this lawsuit. FOR A NINTH DEFENSE 18. Defendants further allege that if any injuries and/or damages were sustained by the Plaintiff, the said injuries and/or damages were caused by the greater negligence and/or willfiulness of the Plaintiff, which negligence and/or willfulness exceeds that of Defendants, if any, without which greater negligence and/or willfulness on the part of the Plaintiff, the said alleged injury and/or damage would not have occurred or sustained and for that reason, the Plaintiff is totally barred from recovery, Should it be determined that the Plaintiff's negligence does not outweigh any negligence on the part of Defendants, any award to the Plaintiff should be reduced in proportion to the amount of negligence on the Plaintiff's part.FORATI 'H DEFENSE 19, That any injuries or damages sustained by the Plaintiff, if any, were due to and caused by the negligence of other persons, firms or corporation over whom Defendants had no control, and Defendants therefore plead the sole negligence of others as a complete bar to this action. FOR AN ELEVENTH DEFENSE 20. Any injury or damage sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of the matters alleged in the Complaint could not be avoided and Defendants plead an unavoidable incident as a complete bar to this action. FOR A TWELFTH DEFENSE 21, Any injury or damage sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of the matters alleged in the Complaint were a proximate cause of one or more independent, efficient and intervening causes which Defendants plead as a complete bar to this action, FOR A THIRTEENTH DEFENSE 22, Defendants allege that an award of punitive damages in this case would violate the S*, 6” and 14" amendments to the United States Constitution and Article One, Section 3 of the South Carolina Constitution in that: a) The unfettered power to award punitive damages in any manner is wholly devoid of a meaningful standard and is inconsistent with due process guarantees; and b) _Evenif it could be argued that the standard governing the imposition of punitive damages exists, the standard is void for vagueness. FOR A FOURTEENTH DEFENSE 23. Defendants assert that at no time were their alleged actions, conduct, or omissions motivated by any evil motive or intent and/or reckless or callous indifference to the Plaintiff, and no 5punitive damages award is justified inthis action, Moreover, Defendants affirmatively assert that an award of punitive damages against Defendants would violate both the United States and South Carolina Constitutions, and as to any State Law claims, would be specifically prohibited by the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, at $.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-120. Consequently, punitive damages are not proper in this ease RI RVATION AN. N-WAIVER 24, Defendants reserve the right to assert, and do not waive, any additional or further defenses as may be revealed by additional information that may be acquired in discovery or otherwise WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Complaint of Plaintiff, Defendants pray that said Complaint be dismissed, with all taxable costs awarded to Defendants and any further relief this court deems reasonable and proper. MIOEL F. ARTHYRAY ‘Aiken, Bridges, Elljott, Tyler & Saleeby, P.A. PO Drawer 1931 Florence, SC 29503 Telephone: 843.669.8787 : 843.664.0097 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Florence, South Carolina February 18, 2016.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, 1, the undersigned employee of Aiken, Bridges, Elliott, Tyler & Saleeby, P.A.. do hereby certify that I have served the foregoing ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS by personally depositing same in a United States Postal Service mail box, postage prepaid, addressed to the following person(s) indicated below this 18th day of February, 2016: Scott C. Evans, Esquire 121 Screven Street Georgetown, SC 29440 ee Tony WD “3 L gual 2109)