DOCUMENT 78

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
8/8/2018 4:31 PM
02-CV-2018-901407.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA
JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA

ERIC L. WILLIAMS, JR., *

*
Plaintiff, *
*
vs. * Civil Action No.: 02-CV-2018-901407.00
*
THE CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF *
MOBILE, et al., *
*
Defendants. *

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

COME NOW Defendants McGill-Toolen Catholic High School, Bill Griffin, Michelle

Haas, Caleb Ross, Earnest Hill, and Carl Jackson, by and through their counsel, and file this

Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, stating as follows:

Unnumbered Paragraphs

The allegations of the first five unnumbered paragraphs in Plaintiff's Complaint do not

appear to be directed at these Defendants, so no response is required. To the extent a response is

deemed to be required, these Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form

a belief as to the truth of and therefore deny the allegations.

As to the allegations in the remaining numbered paragraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint,

these Defendants state as follows:

Second Amended Complaint for Damages

1. These Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a

belief as to the truth of and therefore deny the allegations.

2. These Defendants admit that McGill-Toolen Catholic High School (hereinafter

"McGill") is an Alabama nonprofit corporation, and that McGill employed Bill Griffin, Michelle

Haas, Caleb Ross, Earnest Hill, and Carl Jackson at all times relevant to Plaintiff's Complaint.

{04528481.1} 1
 DOCUMENT 78

These Defendants further admit that, at all times relevant to Plaintiff's Complaint, Encore

Rehabilitation, Inc. was an independent contractor providing athletic trainer services to McGill,

and that Encore employed Defendant Drew Garner. Otherwise, these Defendants deny the

remaining allegations of this paragraph, and demand strict proof thereof.

4. [sic.]1 These Defendants admit that, at all times relevant to Plaintiff's Complaint,

Griffin served as the Athletic Director of McGill. Otherwise, these Defendants deny the

remaining allegations of this paragraph, and demand strict proof thereof.

5. These Defendants admit that, at all times relevant to Plaintiff's Complaint, Haas

served as the Principal of McGill. Otherwise, these Defendants deny the remaining allegations

of this paragraph, and demand strict proof thereof.

6. These Defendants admit that, at all times relevant to Plaintiff's Complaint, Ross

served as the Head Football Coach of McGill. Otherwise, these Defendants deny the remaining

allegations of this paragraph, and demand strict proof thereof.

7. These Defendants admit that, at all times relevant to Plaintiff's Complaint, Hill

served as the Head Defensive Football Coach of McGill. Otherwise, these Defendants deny the

remaining allegations of this paragraph, and demand strict proof thereof.

8. These Defendants admit that, at all times relevant to Plaintiff's Complaint,

Jackson served as the Assistant Varsity Football Coach of McGill. Otherwise, these Defendants

deny the remaining allegations of this paragraph, and demand strict proof thereof.

9. These Defendants admit that, at all times relevant to Plaintiff's Complaint, Encore

Rehabilitation, Inc. was an independent contractor providing athletic trainer services to McGill,

1
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint omits a paragraph numbered 3. In an effort to maintain consistency
between the pleadings, these Defendants have numbered their Answer to match Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint.

{04528481.1} 2
 DOCUMENT 78

and that Encore employed Defendant Drew Garner. Otherwise, these Defendants deny the

remaining allegations of this paragraph, and demand strict proof thereof.

10. These Defendants admit that Encore Rehabilitation, Inc. was an independent

contractor providing athletic trainer services to McGill, and that Encore employed Defendant

Drew Garner. As to the remaining allegations of this paragraph, these Defendants are without

sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of and therefore deny the

allegations.

11. The allegations of this paragraph do not appear to be directed at these Defendants,

so no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required, these Defendants

are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of and therefore

deny the allegations.

Facts

12. Admitted upon information and belief.

12. [sic.]2 Admitted.

13. These Defendants admit that athletic coaches employed by McGill received

training on the risks of concussions as required by the Alabama High School Athletic

Association. Otherwise, these Defendants deny the remaining allegations of this paragraph, and

demand strict proof thereof.

14. These Defendants admit that athletic coaches employed by McGill received

training on the risks of concussions as required by the Alabama High School Athletic

Association. Otherwise, these Defendants deny the remaining allegations of this paragraph, and

demand strict proof thereof.

2
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint contains two paragraphs numbered 12. In an effort to maintain consistency
between the pleadings, these Defendants have numbered their Answer to match Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint.

{04528481.1} 3
 DOCUMENT 78

15. These Defendants admit that athletic coaches employed by McGill received

training on the risks of concussions as required by the Alabama High School Athletic

Association, and that McGill is a member of the Alabama High School Athletic Association, and

is therefore subject to its rules and regulations. These Defendants deny that they failed to adhere

to any applicable rules and regulations of the Alabama High School Athletic Association.

16. These Defendants admit that athletic coaches employed by McGill received

training on the risks of concussions as required by the Alabama High School Athletic

Association. Otherwise, these Defendants deny the remaining allegations of this paragraph, and

demand strict proof thereof.

17. Defendant Jackson admits that, on or about May 7, 2015, Plaintiff participated in

tackling drills as a part of the McGill football team. The remaining Defendants deny that they

directly witnessed, directly supervised, or have personal knowledge of any tackling drills

occurring on May 7, 2015, and therefore deny any material allegations directed at them.

18. Defendant Jackson denies the allegations of this paragraph, and demands strict

proof thereof. The remaining Defendants deny that they directly witnessed, directly supervised,

or have personal knowledge of any tackling drills occurring on May 7, 2015, and therefore deny

any material allegations directed at them.

19. Defendant Jackson denies the allegations of this paragraph, and demands strict

proof thereof. The remaining Defendants deny that they directly witnessed, directly supervised,

or have personal knowledge of any tackling drills occurring on May 7, 2015, and therefore deny

any material allegations directed at them.

20. Defendant Jackson denies the allegations of this paragraph, and demands strict

proof thereof. These allegations are not directed at the remaining Defendants, so no response is

{04528481.1} 4
 DOCUMENT 78

required from them, but they lack personal knowledge about these allegations and deny any

material allegation directed at them.

21. Defendant Jackson denies being aware of any of Plaintiff's alleged symptoms on

May 7, 2015 which would require the Plaintiff to be sent to a medical doctor. These allegations

are not directed at the remaining Defendants, so no response is required from them, but they lack

personal knowledge about these allegations and deny any material allegation directed at them.

22. Defendant Jackson admits that, on May 11, 2015, Jackson sent Plaintiff to see the

athletic trainer during the McGill football team practice. The remaining Defendants deny any

personal knowledge of these allegations, and therefore deny any material allegations directed at

them related to May 11, 2015.

23. These Defendants admit that Encore Rehabilitation, Inc. was an independent

contractor providing athletic trainer services athletic trainer services to McGill, and that Encore

employed Defendant Drew Garner. Otherwise, these Defendants deny the remaining allegations

of this paragraph, and demand strict proof thereof.

24. These allegations are not directed at these Defendants, so no response is required

from them, but they deny having personal knowledge about these allegations and deny any

material allegations directed at them.

25. These allegations are not directed at these Defendants, so no response is required

from them, but they deny having personal knowledge about these allegations and deny any

material allegations directed at them.

26. These Defendants admit that Plaintiff participated in McGill football practice after

May 7, 2015. However, these Defendants deny being aware of any of Plaintiff's alleged

symptoms on May 7, 2015.

{04528481.1} 5
 DOCUMENT 78

27. These Defendants admit that they received no written clearance from a licensed

physician for Plaintiff to return to play. However, these Defendants deny being aware of any of

Plaintiff's alleged symptoms on May 7, 2015 which would require any such written clearance.

28. Defendant Jackson admits that Plaintiff participated in a tackling drill on May 11,

2015. The remaining Defendants deny any personal knowledge of these allegations, and

therefore deny any material allegations directed at them related to May 11, 2015.

29. Denied.

30. These Defendants deny they were aware of any deterioration of Plaintiff's medical

condition up to the May 11, 2015 practice. These Defendants admit that Plaintiff received

emergency medical care on May 11, 2015.

31. These Defendants admit that Plaintiff was taken to the hospital and received

emergency medical care on May 11, 2015, but deny that any alleged injury or condition suffered

by Plaintiff was the result of any act or omission of these Defendants.

32. Denied.

33. Denied.

Count One (Negligence and/or Wantonness)

34. These Defendants incorporate, as though fully set forth herein, each and every

response to the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint.

35. Denied.

36. Denied.

37. a.-h. Denied, including all subparts.

38. Denied.

39. Denied.

{04528481.1} 6
 DOCUMENT 78

Count Two (Per Se Negligence and Wantonness)

40. These Defendants incorporate, as though fully set forth herein, each and every

response to the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint.

41. Denied.

42. Denied.

Count Three (Negligent Supervision/Hiring/Training)

43. These Defendants incorporate, as though fully set forth herein, each and every

response to the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint.

44. McGill employed Ross as the Head Football Coach of McGill. McGill employed

Jackson as the Assistant Varsity Football Coach of McGill. McGill employed Hill as the Head

Defensive Football Coach of McGill. McGill contracted with Encore Rehabilitation, Inc. to

provide athletic trainer services to McGill. Otherwise, these Defendants deny the remaining

allegations of this paragraph, and demand strict proof thereof.

45. These Defendants admit that athletic coaches employed by McGill received

training on the risks of concussions as required by the Alabama High School Athletic

Association. Otherwise, these Defendants deny the remaining allegations of this paragraph, and

demand strict proof thereof.

46. Denied.

47. Denied.

In response to the prayer for relief found after Count Three, these Defendants demand

that this Court reject Plaintiff's prayer and instead dismiss Plaintiff's claims and enter judgment

in favor of these Defendants.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

{04528481.1} 7
 DOCUMENT 78

1. Each paragraph of the Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon

which relief can be granted.

2. This action and each and every claim stated therein are barred by the doctrine of

laches as to these Defendants.

3. This action and each and every claim stated therein are barred by the applicable

statute of limitations as to these Defendants.

4. Any alleged injuries or damages suffered by Plaintiff were caused in whole or in

part by the Plaintiff’s culpable conduct, including contributory negligence and/or assumption of

the risk.

5. These Defendants plead consent, waiver, and release.

6. The negligence, fault, or carelessness of other persons or entities, for whose

actions these Defendants are neither responsible nor liable, was the sole, intervening or

superseding cause of Plaintiff’s damages, and therefore, any recovery by Plaintiff against these

Defendants is barred.

7. The negligence, fault, or carelessness of Plaintiff caused or contributed to

Plaintiff’s alleged damages and, therefore, any recovery by Plaintiff against these Defendants is

barred.

8. Plaintiff failed to mitigate damages and, therefore, any recovery by Plaintiff

should not include any loss which could have been prevented by reasonable care and diligence

exercised by him after the alleged losses referred to in Plaintiff’s Complaint occurred.

9. These Defendants state that any injuries or damages allegedly sustained by

Plaintiff were the direct and unavoidable consequences of Plaintiff’s pre-existing medical

{04528481.1} 8
 DOCUMENT 78

condition and the appropriate medical care necessitated thereby, and were not caused or

contributed to by any negligence or fault by these Defendants.

10. Plaintiff’s alleged damages are the result of pre-existing ailments, disabilities

and/or defects and, therefore, any recovery by Plaintiff should not include compensation for any

physical ailments, defects or disabilities that may have existed prior to the occurrence referred to

in Plaintiff’s Complaint when such were not caused or contributed to by reason of the occurrence

11. In that there was a total absence of any causal connection between any actions of

these Defendants and the injuries and damages alleged by the Plaintiff, Plaintiff cannot recover.

12. There was no fault on the part of these Defendants, and the alleged injury of

Plaintiff’s resulted from the negligence of third parties for whom these Defendants are not

responsible.

13. Any injuries or damages allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff resulted solely from

acts or omissions attributed to the persons other than these Defendants. Such acts or omissions

on the part of others constitute an independent and proximate cause of any such injury or

damage.

14. Plaintiff's alleged injuries were caused solely, or in the alternative, proximately by

acts, wrongs, omissions, and/or negligence of third parties for whose acts or omissions these

Defendants are not liable or responsible. In the alternative, the injuries claimed by Plaintiff were

due solely to causes other than any negligence or fault, none of which are admitted and each of

which is specifically denied on the part of these Defendants.

15. The Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to set forth a claim for punitive damages upon

which relief may be granted.

16. To the extent Plaintiff seeks claim mental anguish damages:

{04528481.1} 9
 DOCUMENT 78

(a). The procedures by which damages for mental anguish are awarded to plaintiff
violates the due process rights secured to these Defendants by the laws and
Constitutions of the United States and of the State of Alabama in that these
procedures deprive these Defendants of Defendant’s property without due process
of law by failing to provide the jury with adequate standards or guidelines by
which to render such an award.

(b). The procedures by which damages for mental anguish are awarded to Plaintiff
violate the due process rights secured to these Defendants by the laws and
Constitutions of the United States and of the State of Alabama in that these
procedures deprive these Defendants of Defendant’s property without due process
of law by allowing the jury unbridled discretion to determine the amount of the
award in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

(c). The procedures by which damages for mental anguish are awarded violate the
rights secured to these Defendants under the laws and Constitutions of the United
States and of the State of Alabama by depriving these Defendants of Defendant’s
property without due process of law because no reasonable standard or guideline
is given to the jury to insure that the award is reasonable and further there is no
meaningful standard for judicial review of the award post-verdict to insure that
the award does not exceed constitutional limitations.

(d). The procedures by which damages for mental anguish are awarded violate rights
secured to these Defendants under the laws and Constitutions of the United States
and of the State of Alabama by depriving these Defendants of property without
due process of law in that no reasonable criteria, guideline, or standard is
provided to the jury in order that the jury may determine from the evidence what
quality or quantity of evidence is necessary to justify an award of damages for
mental anguish.

(e). These Defendants will be deprived of Defendant’s rights secured by the laws and
Constitutions of the United States and the State of Alabama because an award of
mental anguish in this case is unconstitutional.

(f). The procedures by which damages for mental anguish are awarded deprive these
Defendants of rights secured to these Defendants by the laws and Constitutions of
the United States and the State of Alabama in that the same deprive these
Defendants of Defendant’s property without due process of law by not providing
an objective standard by which the jury may measure an award or an objective
standard by which the judge may review the jury’s award to determine if it is
reasonable, just, and proper.

(g). The procedure by which damages for mental anguish are awarded deprives these
Defendants of rights secured to these Defendants by the laws and Constitutions of
the United States and the State of Alabama in that the same deprives these
Defendants of Defendant’s property without due process of law by allowing juries

{04528481.1} 10
 DOCUMENT 78

to return awards of compensatory damages for mental anguish which are

speculative, based on conjecture, and without substantial evidence to support the
same.

(h). The process by which juries are allowed to award damages for mental anguish
violates the elementary notions of fairness dictated by the laws and Constitutions
of the United States and the State of Alabama in that it does not provide these
Defendants with fair notice of what conduct will subject these Defendants to
liability nor the severity of the damages that the state may impose through the jury
system; therefore, these Defendants is deprived of Defendant’s property without
due process of law in contravention of the rights secured to these Defendants by
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as other
federal and state laws.

(i). The process by which juries are allowed to award damages for mental anguish
violates the due process rights secured to these Defendants by the laws and
Constitutions of the United States and the State of Alabama in that this process
deprives these Defendants of Defendant’s property without due process of law by
failing to give these Defendants notice of the range of damages which might be
returned because juries are given unbridled discretion to determine the amount of
the award and thereby render such an award in an arbitrary and capricious
manner.

(j). The process by which juries are allowed to award damages for mental anguish
violates the elementary notions of fairness dictated by the laws and Constitutions
of the United States and the State of Alabama in that it does not provide these
Defendants with fair notice of the amount of the award which may be rendered by
a jury and there is no guarantee that the mental anguish award will be reasonably
related to other awards in similar circumstances.

(k). These Defendants are deprived of Defendant’s property without due process of
law in contravention of the rights secured to these Defendants by the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as other federal and state
laws, in that these Defendants is not provided with adequate notice of the extent
of damages which may be awarded for mental anguish because juries are
returning mental anguish damage awards which are in violation of the laws and
Constitutions of the United States and the State of Alabama.

17. These Defendants deny that they are guilty of any conduct which warrants the

issue of punitive damages being submitted to a jury.

{04528481.1} 11
 DOCUMENT 78

18. Any award of punitive damages to Plaintiff in this case would be in violation of

the constitutional safeguards provided to these Defendants under the Constitution of the State of

Alabama.

19. Punitive damages cannot be sustained because of the lack of clarity in Alabama's

standards for awarding punitive damages.

20. Any claim for punitive damages, on its face and/or as applied in this case, is in

violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; of the right to counsel

provided by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; of the right to trial by

jury of the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; of the proportionality

principles contained in the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; the Due

Process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; and Article

1, Sections 1, 2, 6, 11, 13, 15, 27, and 35 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, and is

improper under the common law and public policies of the State of Alabama and under

applicable court rules and statutes for the following reasons, jointly and separately:

(a) There are no standards provided by Alabama law for the imposition of punitive
damages, and therefore, These Defendants have not been put on notice and given
the opportunity to anticipate punitive liability and/or the potential size of the
award and to modify or conform its conduct accordingly;

(b) The procedures to be followed would permit an award of punitive damages

against these Defendants upon the satisfaction of a burden or persuasion (standard
of proof) less than that applicable to the imposition of criminal sanctions for equal
culpability;

(c) The procedures to be followed could permit the award of multiple punitive
damages for the same act or omission;

(d) There are no provisions or standards for clear and consistent appellate review of
any award of punitive damages against these Defendants under present Alabama
law;

{04528481.1} 12
 DOCUMENT 78

(e) The standards of conduct upon which punitive damages are sought against these
Defendants are vague and ambiguous;

(f) The procedures used by courts under Alabama law and the guidelines given by
the jurors, jointly and separately, are vague and ambiguous and, thus,
impermissibly allow jurors broad, unlimited and undefined power to make
determinations on their notions of what the law should be instead of what it is;

(g) The procedures under which punitive damages are awarded and the instructions
used under Alabama law, jointly and separately, are vague and ambiguous and,
thus, fail to eliminate the effects of, and to guard against, impermissible juror
passion.

(h) Present Alabama law does not provide for sufficiently objective and specific
standards to be used by the jury in its deliberations on whether to award punitive
damages and, if so awarded, on the amount to be awarded;

(i) Present Alabama law does not provide a meaningful opportunity for challenging
the rational basis for, and any excessiveness of, any award of punitive damages;

(j) Present Alabama law does not provide for adequate and independent review by
the trial court and the appellate court of the imposition of punitive damages by a
jury or of the amount of any punitive damages awarded by a jury;

(k) Present Alabama procedures fail to provide a constitutionally reasonable limit on

the amount of any punitive damage award against Defendants;

(l) Present Alabama procedures may permit the admission of evidence relative to
punitive damages in the same proceeding during which liability is determined;

(m) Present Alabama procedures permit the imposition of joint and several judgments
against multiple co-defendants for different acts or degrees of wrongdoing or
culpability; and

(n) An award of punitive damages would compensate Plaintiff for elements of

damage not otherwise recognized by Alabama law.

21. Plaintiff's claims for the recovery of punitive damages are in contravention of

these Defendants' rights under each of the following constitutional provisions:

(a) Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, as an impermissible burden

on interstate commerce;

(b) The Contracts Clause of Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution;

{04528481.1} 13
 DOCUMENT 78

(c) The Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution;

(d) The Equal Protection under the laws afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution;

(e) The constitutional prohibition against vague and overbroad laws;

(f) The prohibition against ex post facto law in Article 1, Section 22 of the Alabama
Constitution;

(g) The Contracts Clause of Article 1, Section 22 of the Constitution of Alabama; and

(h) The Due Process Clause of Article 1 Section 6 and/or 13 of the Constitution of
Alabama.

22. An award of punitive damages in the circumstances of this case would clearly

violate these Defendants' due process rights as embraced by the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution, and by the due process clause of Article 1,

Section 6 and/or 13 of the Alabama Constitution, jointly and separately, as such award would

constitute a deprivation of property without due process of law for the following reasons as

separately stated herein:

(a) There is no rational relationship between the punitive damage awards in Alabama
and the wrongfulness of these Defendants' conduct and/or the compensatory
damages awarded.

(b) No rational relationship exists between the extent of punitive damages and
legitimate interests to be advanced by the State of Alabama.

(c) An award of punitive damages in this case would be penal in nature and thus,
would be violative of these Defendants' constitutional rights under the United
States Constitution and/or the Alabama Constitution unless these Defendants is
granted the procedural safeguards afforded criminal defendants, including but not
limited to constitutional safeguards against self-incrimination and a heightened
standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

(d) The award of punitive damages on the basis of vicarious liability of the conduct of
others violates these Defendants’ constitutional rights.

{04528481.1} 14
 DOCUMENT 78

23. The imposition of punitive damages in this case would be in denial of these

Defendants’ right to equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to

the United States Constitution and Article 1, Sections 1, 6, and 22 of the Alabama Constitution.

Specifically, defendants are treated differently from criminal defendants who are charged for

similar or identical culpability. Alternatively, the absence of adequate and objective standards

for guiding in the assessment of punitive damages fails to insure the equality of treatment

between and among similarly situated civil defendants.

24. With respect to Plaintiff's demand for punitive damages, these Defendants

specifically incorporate by reference any and all standards or limitations regarding the

determination and/or enforceability of punitive damage awards, set forth in the United States

Supreme Court’s decision in BMW of North America v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996), and State

Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003).

25. To the extent that Plaintiff's demand for punitive damages may result in multiple

punitive damage awards to be assessed for the same act or omission against these Defendants,

this award contravenes these Defendants’ right to due process under the due process clause of

Article 1, section 13 of the Alabama Constitution. In addition, such award would infringe upon

these Defendants’ rights against double jeopardy insured by the Fifth Amendment of the United

States Constitution and/or Article 1, Section 9 of the Alabama Constitution.

26. The procedures pursuant to which punitive damages are awarded subject these

Defendants to punishment for the conduct of others through vicarious liability or through non

apportionment of damages among joint tortfeasors, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I § 1 and 6 of the Alabama

Constitution.

{04528481.1} 15
 DOCUMENT 78

27. The procedures pursuant to which punitive damages are awarded expose these

Defendants to the risk of undefinable, unlimited liability unrelated to actual loss, if any, caused

by its conduct, creating a chilling effect on these Defendants' exercise of their right to a judicial

resolution of this dispute.

28. “[T]he Due Process Clause forbids a State to use a punitive damages award to

punish a defendant for injury that it inflicts upon nonparties or those whom they directly

represent, i.e., injury that it inflicts upon those who are, essentially, strangers to the litigation.”

Philip Morris v. Williams, 127 S. Ct. 1057, 1063 (2007).

29. “[T]he Due Process Clause prohibits a State from punishing an individual without

first providing that individual with ‘an opportunity to present every available defense.’” Id.

(quoting Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 66 (1972)).

30. The Due Process Clause prohibits punishment of a defendant based on an injury

to a nonparty victim because such punishment “would add a near standardless dimension to the

punitive damages equation.” Id. Such punishment would be based on speculation and, thus,

magnifies the fundamental due process concerns of “arbitrariness, uncertainty and lack of

notice.” Id. (citing State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 416, 418 (2003)).

31. These Defendants claim the benefits and limitations as to punitive damages in

Sections 6-11-20 to -29 of the Code of Alabama (1987, 1999, et al.) including, but not limited to,

the specificity and proof requirements in § 6-11-20, and the limitations and exceptions in § 6-11-

21.

32. To the extent Plaintiff claims punitive damages, these Defendants have not acted

toward the Plaintiff with wantonness and, accordingly, Plaintiff is not entitled to claim or recover

punitive damages from these Defendants. Any claim for punitive damages is subject to and

{04528481.1} 16
 DOCUMENT 78

limited by the provisions of Sections 6-11-21, -22 and -30 of the Code of Alabama (1975), as

amended.

33. These Defendants aver that the Plaintiff's claims for medical expenses, or for any

expenses which have been paid by third parties, are not being prosecuted by the real party in

interest, pursuant to Ala. R. Civ. P. 17, and thus the Plaintiff's claims for such expenses should

be dismissed or otherwise barred.

34. These Defendants aver that the public policy of the State of Alabama as set forth

in Code of Alabama (1975) §6-11-21 establishes a maximum limit on punitive damages

recoverable, if any, by Plaintiff and that Plaintiff cannot recover more than that limit under the

public policy of this state.

35. These Defendants herein hereby give notice that they intend to rely upon such

other defenses that may become available or apparent during the course of discovery and thus

reserve its rights to amend their Answer to assert any such defenses.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ F. Grey Redditt, Jr.

F. GREY REDDITT, JR. (RED005)
MARK L. REDDITT (RED006)
H. FINN COX, JR. (COX035)
Attorneys for Defendants McGill-Toolen Catholic
High School, Bill Griffin, Michelle Haas, Caleb
Ross, Earnest Hill, and Carl Jackson

{04528481.1} 17
 DOCUMENT 78

OF COUNSEL:

MAYNARD COOPER & GALE, PC

11 North Water Street, Suite 24290
Mobile, AL 36602-5024
Telephone: (251) 432-0001
Facsimile: (251) 432-0007
Email: gredditt@maynardcooper.com
mredditt@maynardcooper.com
fcox@maynardcooper.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 8, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk
of Court using the AlaFile system, which will provide notice of such filing to all counsel of
record.

/s/ F. Grey Redditt, Jr.

F. GREY REDDITT, JR.

{04528481.1} 18