Using the information given below, draft an Answer and Counterclaim for one of the Defendants you have sued on behalf of the Plaintiff.use the Case Number2024CP0700023.

There isa sample provided as a template.The first part of this pleading should be the Answer in which the Defendant responds to each numbered allegation in the Complaint and the second part will contain a Counterclaim which alleges all the parts of a Cause of Action back against the Plaintiff.

Hypothetical

Mary Martin is a property manager with the company "Real Estate 4 You", Inc. She is married to Joe Jackson, a local musician, and is the mother of two girls, Polly and Michelle, ages 4 and 6. Her business is very profitable and she makes approximately$240,000peryear.Joeisastayathomedadunlesshehasagig, whichis usuallytwiceaweek.TheMartins ownanicehomein Habershamand Mary drives a company car,a 2022Lexus whichsheuses for bothbusiness and personal trips.

Ralph Cramer is a driver for the Amazon Delivery Service Company. Ralph has been with Amazon for 10 years and is paid a good salary and receives benefits fromthecompany.Ralphisdivorcedfromhiswife,Sarahandhasjointcustodyof a young son Toby, age 5, and daughter Elly, age 2.

On October 29th 2022, Ralph was busy delivering Halloween presents around town.Hehadbeenatworksince6:30amasthisisaverybusytimefordelivery. He has been putting 12-14 hour days for the last 2 months. He stopped at the Johnson's home located at 1610 Ribaut Road at 6:15pm to drop off a massive package labeled "Gigantic Spider and Web". Usually Ralph puts on his hazard

lightswhenmakingadelivery,butwasrushedtogetoutofthetruckduetoheavy traffic and did not use the hazard lights. The sun had just gone down and it was dusk when he was making the delivery. Ralph is good friends with the Johnsons.

HepickedtheSpiderandWebupfromWal-marttobringtothemthatdayafter he finished with his other deliveries.

Mary was in a very big hurry that evening. She had been dealing with plumbing problems at two of her apartment complexes all day and wanted to get home so that Joe could go to his gig at Plum's that night. He was getting paid more than usualduetotheHalloweencrowds.Shealsohadtostopatthegrocerystore.She still had the real estate magnetic signs on the side of the car because she just left theapartmentcomplex.MarywasdrivingdownRibautwhenhercellphonerang. She looked down at the phone and saw it was the plumber. She reached for the phoneandlookedupjustintimetoseea giantboxgoflyingandthensheplowed into the Amazon delivery van. Mary's car spun out of control and came to a stop on the other side of the street when it hit a telephone pole.

Maryhas severebutnot lifethreateninginjuries. Shesuffers two brokenlegsand a broken arm, a bruised spleen and multiple bruises and lacerations. She had to undergo several operations to repair her broken bones. Ralph is also seriously hurt because Mary hit him as well as the box and Amazon van. It was fortunately a glancing blow. He suffered several injuries including a severe concussion, broken ribs and torn ligaments as well as several cuts that required a total of 55 stitches.TheGiganticSpiderandWebsetwasdestroyedandunfortunatelyitwas sold out in all stores. Mary's Lexus was totaled and the Amazon Van required expensive repairs which cost over $50,000.00. Mary was in the hospital for 10 days and missed Halloween with her husband and daughters. She and Joe also had to cancel their 10th anniversary trip to the Bahamas in early December. Joe also had to cancel all of his gigs for the next two months to take care of Jean and the girls.

Ralphwas releasedfromthehospital onHalloween,but hadto walkwitha cane, for six months. Hehadto paya nurseto comeinto change his bandages and also hadtopayforchildcarewhenhehadcustodyofhischildrenashewasunableto care for them alone for six weeks.

Marywasoutofworkforfourmonthsduetoherinjuriesand missedabig promotion because she could not attend the company's annual retreat.

Ralphwasoutofworkfor7weeksandwas restrictedtolightdutiesfor60days when he returned.

MaryhashiredyourlawfirmtopursueanactionagainstRalphandAmazon.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON

COUNTY OFBEAUFORT ) FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

) CIVIL ACTION NO: 2024-CP-07-00023

MARY MARTIN, ) )

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) ) COMPLAINT

RALPH CRAMER and AMAZON )

DELIVERY SERVICE COMPANY, )

)

Defendants, )

____________________________________)

Plaintiff, Mary Martin, by and through her undersigned counsel, complaining of the Defendants, Ralph Cramer and Amazon Delivery Service Company, respectfully alleges the following:

PARTIESANDJURISDICTION

1. Plaintiff, Mary Martin, is a citizen and resident of BeaufortCounty, South Carolina.

2. Defendant, Ralph Cramer, is a driver for Amazon Delivery Service Company, a citizen and resident of BeaufortCounty, South Carolina.

3. Defendant, Amazon Delivery Service Company, is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of South Carolina, with its principal place of business at2127 Boundary St, Beaufort County, South Carolina.

4. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties herein, and venue is proper in the Beaufort Court of Common Pleas.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

5. On October 29th, 2022, Ralph Cramer, while acting within the scope of his employment with Amazon Delivery Service Company, was operating a delivery van on Ribaut Road in Beaufort, South Carolina.

6. Mary Martin, while driving her company car, a 2022 Lexus, was also traveling on Ribaut Road on the same date and time.

7. Ralph Cramer failed to use hazard lights while making a delivery, despite the dusk conditions and heavy traffic, which created a hazardous situation for other drivers on the road.

8. Mary Martin, distracted by her cellphone, collided with the Amazon delivery van operated by Ralph Cramer, resulting in severe injuries to both parties and extensive damage to their vehicles.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

9. NEGLIGENCE: Ralph Cramer, in failing to use hazard lights and exercise due care while making a delivery, breached the duty of care owed to other drivers on the road, including Mary Martin, thereby causing the collision and resulting injuries and damages.

10. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR: Amazon Delivery Service Company is vicariously liable for the negligent actions of its employee, Ralph Cramer, committed within the scope of his employment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Mary Martin respectfully prays for judgment against Defendants Ralph Cramer and Amazon Delivery Service Company, jointly and severally, as follows:

a. Actual damages for injuries sustained;

b. Compensation for medical expenses and rehabilitation;

c. Damages for pain and suffering;

d. Punitive damages, if appropriate;

e. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law;

f. Costs and attorney fees; and

g. Any further relief deemed just and proper by the Court.

/s/ Katherine Smith_______

Katherine Smith, Esquire

123 Oak Street

Habersham, South Carolina 12345

Tel. No.: (555) 555-5555

SC Bar No.: XXXXXXX

Email address:

Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: Feb 12, 2024

Habersham, South Carolina

Below isa sample provided as a template.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

COUNTY OF BEAUFORT

William Harry Mallette, Jr.,

PLAINTIFF,

v.

David Smith, III,

DEFENDANT.

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Civil Action No. 2021-CP-07-01218

Answer and Counterclaim

(Jury Trial Demanded)

TO: STEPHEN G. VICARI, II, ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

The Defendant, David Smith, III, answering the Plaintiff's Complaint would allege and show as follows:

1. The Defendant denies each and every allegation not specifically admitted hereinafter and demands strict proof thereof.

FOR A FIRST DEFENSE

(Lack of Service)

2. The Defendant is informed and believes that Plaintiff failed to perfect service on Defendant pursuant to Rule 4 of the S.C.R.C.P., and therefore service was never perfected on Defendant, and accordingly, this action should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.

FOR A SECOND DEFENSE

3. The above paragraphs are re-alleged.

4. Upon information and belief the Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 1.

5. The Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 2.

6. Paragraphs 3 and 4 states a conclusion of law and, accordingly, an answer is not required. To the extent an allegation of fact is made, the Defendant denies it.

7. The Defendant admits so much of Paragraph 5 that alleges that on or about October 29, 2020, Defendant was operating a vehicle on Robert Smalls Parkway in Port Royal, South Carolina; but the remaining allegations of Paragraph 5 states a conclusion of law and, accordingly, an answer is not required. To the extent an allegation of fact is made, the Defendant denies it.

8. The Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 6.

9. The Defendant admits so much of Paragraph 7 that alleges that Plaintiff was operating his vehicle in Port Royal, South Carolina, but the Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 7.

10. The Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 8.

11. The Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters asserted in Paragraph 9 and therefore denies same.

12. The Defendant admits so much of Paragraph 10 that alleges that contact occurred between Plaintiff and Defendant vehicles, but the Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 10.

13. The Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraphs 11 and 12. Further answering, the Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the injuries, if any, that the Plaintiff sustained as asserted in Paragraphs 11 and 12 and therefore denies same.

14. The Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters asserted in Paragraph 13 and therefore denies same.

15. The Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraphs 14 and 15 Further answering, the Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the injuries and damages, if any, that the Plaintiff sustained as asserted in Paragraphs 14 and 15 and therefore denies same.

16. Paragraph 17 contains no allegations against the Defendant and therefore no answer is required. To the extent an allegation of fact is alleged, the Defendant denies same.

17. Paragraph 17 states a conclusion of law and, accordingly, an answer is not required. To the extent an allegation of fact is made, the Defendant denies it.

18. The Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraphs 18 and 19, including all subparts.

19. Paragraph 20 contains no allegations against the Defendant and therefore no answer is required. To the extent an allegation of fact is alleged, the Defendant denies same.

20. The Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraphs 21 and 22, including all subparts.

21. Paragraph 23 states a conclusion of law and, accordingly, an answer is not required. To the extent an allegation of fact is made, the Defendant denies it.

22. Paragraph 24 contains no allegations against the Defendant and therefore no answer is required. To the extent an allegation of fact is alleged, the Defendant denies same.

FOR A THIRD DEFENSE

(Comparative Negligence)

23. The above paragraphs are re-alleged.

24. Plaintiff was negligent, grossly negligent, reckless, careless, willful and wanton in the following manner:

a. In failing to keep proper lookout;

b. In failing to avoid the collision;

c. In operating the vehicle at a rate of speed which was excessive for the circumstances then prevailing;

d. In disregarding a traffic signal;

e. In failing to maintain proper control over the aforesaid vehicle;

f. In failing properly to equip said vehicle with adequate and safe brakes; and, if so properly equipped, in failing properly to utilize them;

g. In failing properly to equip said vehicle with adequate and safe steering mechanisms; and, if so properly equipped, in failing properly to utilize same;

h. In failing properly to equip said vehicle with adequate signaling device or horn; and, if so properly equipped, in failing properly to utilize same;

i. In failing properly to equip said vehicle with adequate and safe headlights; and, if so properly equipped, in failing properly to utilize same;

j. In failing to take any evasive action, by any means, to keep from striking the Defendant;

k. In failing properly to observe the road and traffic conditions;

l. In failing to yield to vehicles with the right of way;

m. In failing to exercise that degree of care a reasonable prudent person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances; and

n. Such other particulars as the evidence in discovery and trial may show.

25. The Defendant is informed and believes that the acts and omissions set forth above combined with and contributed to the Plaintiff's own injuries; the Defendant is further informed and believes that the liability of the Defendant, if any, should be reduced in proportion to the Plaintiff's own negligence, and if Plaintiff's negligence exceeded that of Defendant, he be barred from any recovery.

FOR A FOURTH DEFENSE

(Punitive Damages Cap)

26. The above paragraphs are re-alleged.

27. Defendant would show that any award of punitive damages is subject to the limitations set forth in South Carolina Code 15-32-530.

FOR A FOURTH DEFENSE AND BY WAY OF A COUNTERCLAIM

FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligence)

28. David Smith, III reiterates each and every allegation of his Answer as if stated herein verbatim.

29. That David Smith, III is informed and believes that William Harry Mallette, Jr., was negligent, careless, willful, wanton, reckless, or grossly negligent in at least one of the following particulars:

a. In failing to maintain a proper lookout;

b. Not controlling the automobile he was driving;

c. Failing to yield the right of way; and

d. Reckless driving.

Any and all of which were in violation of the laws of South Carolina.

30. That as a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of William Harry Mallette, Jr., David Smith, III, sustained physical injuries and was forced to incur medical expenses and repairs for the damage to the automobile he was driving.

31. That David Smith, III, is informed and believes he is entitled to recover actual and compensatory damages from William Harry Mallette, Jr.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant, having fully answered the Plaintiff's Complaint and asserted his Counterclaim, prays that this action be dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff and that judgment on the Counterclaim be entered against William Harry Mallette, Jr. for an amount of actual and punitive damages, costs, and for such other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper.

August 3, 2021 Beaufort, South Carolina

GRIFFITH, FREEMAN & LIIPFERT, LLC

s/ E. Mitchell Griffith By:____________________________

E. Mitchell Griffith (SC Bar #2287) 600 Monson Street PO Drawer 570 Beaufort, SC 29901 843-521-4242

William Thomas Bacon, IV McDougall Law Firm, LLC PO Box 1336 Beaufort, SC 29901 (843) 379-7000

ATTORNEYS FOR DAVID SMITH, III