Demar v. Chicago White Sox, Ltd., The et al

Filing 36

ANSWER to amended complaint and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint by Superior Air-Ground Ambulance Service, Inc.(Heil, Summer)

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 1 of 34

26847.00D6S8/ccp

Document #: 705075

Firm Id. 412

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
ROBERT DEMAR,
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Plaintiff,

v.

05 C 5093

THE CHICAGO WHITE SOX, LTD., CHISOX CORPORATION, a corporation, AT YOUR SERVICE, INC., a corporation, AT YOUR SERVICE, L.L.C., SDI SECURTY, INC., a corporation,

Judge Der- Yeghiayan

Magistrate Judge Levin

SUPERIOR AIR-GROUN AMULANCE SERVICE, INC., a corporation, and OTHER UNNOWN
DEFENDANTS.
Defendants.

DEFENDANT SUPERIOR AIR-GROUND AMBULANCE SERVICE. INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOW COMES the Defendant, SUPERIOR AIR-GROUN AMULANCE SERVICE,

INC. ("SUPERIOR"), by it attorneys, JEFFREY H. LIPE, SUMR E. HElL and BRIGITTE
C. WEYLS of

WILLIAMS MONTGOMERY & JOHN LTD., and in Answer to Plaintiffs First

Amended Complaint at Law, states as follows:

INTRODUCTION
1.

Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants pursuant to Title III of the

Americans with Disabilities At of 1990,42 US.c. § 12181, et. seq. ("ADA"), for Defendants'

violations of

the ADA, and Ilinois state law for Defendants' assault, battery, and false
Plaintiff.

imprisonment of

Dockets.Justia.co

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 2 of 34

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, admits that Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint purports

to raise causes of action under Title III of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Ilinois
common law theories such as assault, battery and false imprisonment. Defendant, SUPERIOR,

denies that Plaintiff has adequately stated a cause of action against it under any of the theories
described in Paragraph 1 and further denies that it committed any of the wrongful acts alleged.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2.

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 US.C. §§ 1331 and

1343(a)(4).

ANSWER:
3.

Defendant, SUPERIOR, admits the allegations of

Paragraph 2.

Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 US.C. § 1391.

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, admits that venue is proper in the Northern District of

Ilinois, but denies any allegations of wrongful conduct.

PARTIES
4.
Plaintiff

ROBERT DEMAR (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "DEMAR") is a

citizen of the United States and a resident of the City of Chicago, State of Ilinois. Plaintiff is an
individual with a physical impairment that substantially interferes with one or more of

his major

life activities, including walking. At all relevant times, Plaintiff

was protected under 42 US.C.

§12181, et. seq.

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, is without knowledge or information suffcient to form a
the allegations of

belief as to the truth of

Paragraph 4.

5.

On and before September 7,2003, THE CHICAGO WHITE SOX, LTD., was a

general partner with CHISOX CORPORATION (hereinafter collectively referred to as "SOX").

On and before September 7,2003, the SOX leased, operated, managed, maintained and

2

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 3 of 34

controlled the premises known as US Cellular Field, which is located at 333 West 35th Street,
City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of

Ilinois (hereinafter also referred to as the "ballpark").

During major league baseball games and other public events, US Cellular Field is a place of
public accommodation under the ADA and Defendants are thus prohibited from discriminating
on the basis of

disability. See 42 US.C. 1218(a); 42 US.C. 12181(7); 28 C.F.R. Pt. 36, App. B

at 585; Title III Technical Assistance Manual III-1.2000(d)(1994 Supp.)(Add.5); and 42 US.C.
121 82(b )(1 )(E).

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, is without knowledge or information suffcient to form a
whether SOX was a general partner with CHISOX CORPORATION and

belief as to the truth of

further, whether SOX leased, operated, managed, maintained and controlled US Cellular Field on
September 7, 2003. As to the remaining allegations of Paragraph 5, Defendant, SUPERIOR,
admits that US Cellular Field is a place of

public accommodation under the ADA, but denies that

Plaintiff has adequately stated a cause of action against it under any of the theories described in
Paragraph 5 and further denies that it committed any wrongful conduct, as detailed in its answers
to specific allegations below.
6.

On and before September 7,2003, AT YOUR SERVICE, INC. and AT YOUR

SERVICE, L.L.C. (hereinafter collectively referred to as "AT YOUR SERVICE"), entered into
an agreement with Defendants, the SOX, whereby it became an employee, servant and/or agent
of

the SOX, to provide planning and staffng for baseball games at US Cellular Field, including

but not limited to security and crowd control services.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, is without knowledge or information suffcient to form a
the allegations of

belief as to the truth of

Paragraph 6.

3

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 4 of 34

7.

On and before September 7,203, SDI SECURTY, INC. (hereinafter referred to

as "SDI") entered into an agreement with Defendants, the SOX, whereby it became an employee,
servant and/or agent of

the SOX, to provide security services at US Cellular Field.

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, is without knowledge or information suffcient to form a
the allegations of

belief as to the truth of

Paragraph 7.

8.

On and before September 7, 2003, SUPERIOR AIR-GROUN AMULANCE

SERVICE, INC., (hereinafter referred to as "SUPERIOR") was a provider of emergency medical
services and transportation, with an ambulance on-site at US Cellular Field.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, admits that on and before September 7,2003, it provided

"stand-by" emergency medical services and transportation, with an ambulance on-site at US
Cellular Field, but denies all remaining allegations of

Paragraph 8 inconsistent therewith.

9.

On and before September 7, 2003, OTHER UNNOWN DEFENDANTS

(hereinafter referred to as "UNNOWN DEFENDANT", "security personnel", or "ambulance
personnel") were acting in the scope of

their employment, as security personnel and/or

ambulance personnel, with actual and apparent authority of the named Defendants, whose names
and identities are presently unknown to Plaintiff.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph 9 as this Paragraph is

not directed against this Defendant. To the extent that any of the allegations of Paragraph 9
could be construed against Defendant, SUPERIOR, these allegations are expressly denied.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
10.

On and before September 7,2003, Defendant, the SOX, leased, operated,

managed, maintained and controlled the premises known as US Cellular Field, which is located
at 333 West 35th Street, in the City of Chicago, county of Cook, State of

Ilinois.

4

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 5 of 34

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, is without knowledge or information suffcient to form a

belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 10.
11.

On and before September 7,2003, the SOX controlled, permitted, planned and

coordinated a baseball game at US Cellular Field.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, is without knowledge or information suffcient to form a

belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 1 1.
12.

On September 7,2003, Defendant, AT YOUR SERVICE, controlled, trained,

planned, monitored and coordinated security and crowd control services and personnel for the
baseball game.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, is without knowledge or information suffcient to form a
the allegations of

belief as to the truth of

Paragraph 12.

13.

On September 7,2003, Defendant, SDI, controlled, trained, planned, monitored

and coordinated security and crowd control services and personnel for the baseball game.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, is without knowledge or information suffcient to form a

belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 13.
14.

On September 7,2003, Defendant, SUPERIOR, placed an ambulance at US

Cellular Field and offered its medical and emergency transport services to the general public.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, admits that it placed an ambulance at US Cellular Field

on September 7, 2003, but denies that it offered its medical and emergency services to the
general public.
15.
On September 7,2003, Plaintiff

was a patron at the aforementioned baseball game

at US Cellular Field.

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, admits the allegations of

Paragraph 15.

5

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 6 of 34

16.

At all times relevant, Plaintiff

was a business invitee of

the SOx.

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, is without knowledge or information suffcient to form a

belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 16..
17.
At all times relevant, and in particular on September 7,2003, Plaintiff

was under

a disability as defined by the ADA, in that he suffered, and continues to suffer, from severe polio and post-polio induced paralysis in his abdomen, lower back and right leg, and is substantially
limited in his ability to ambulate, stand upright and erect, and walk.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, is without knowledge or information suffcient to form a
the allegations of

belief as to the truth of

Paragraph 17.

18.

On September 7,2003, at or near the end of

the aforementioned baseball game,
US Cellular Field.

Plaintiff, DEMAR, was sitting in a seat in the stands of

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, is without knowledge or information suffcient to form a

belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 18.
19.
On September 7,2003, at or near the end of

the aforementioned baseball game,

Plaintiff witnessed large crowds of people exiting the field, creating a long lines of patrons who
were slowly exiting from the seating area of

US Cellular Field.

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, is without knowledge or information suffcient to form a

belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 19.
20.

At all times relevant, Plaintiff was aware that the restroom facilities and elevators

at US Cellular Field are not adequate to quickly accommodate the large crowds that gather at or
near the end of baseball games at US Cellular Field. From past experience, Plaintiff

believed

that the crowds would dissipate and disburse within minutes, thereby allowing Plaintiff to use the

6

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 7 of 34

restroom and elevator facilities without Plaintiff being required, under his disability, to walk or
stand upright and erect for long periods of time.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, is without knowledge or information suffcient to form a
the allegations of

belief as to the truth of

Paragraph 20.

21.
while Plaintiff

On September 7,2003, at or near the end of

the aforementioned baseball game,

was sitting in a seat in the stands of

US Cellular Field, he was approached by

UNNOWN DEFENDANTS, at least six (6) security personnel employed by the SOX, AT
YOUR SERVICE, and/or SDI as aforementioned (hereinafter referred to as "Defendants'

security personnel" or "security personnel"), who then and there identified themselves as
security demanded that Plaintiff immediately leave his seat and exit the facility.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, is without knowledge or information suffcient to form a

belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 21.
22.

At said time and place, Plaintiff was exercising all due care and caution for his

safety and security.

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, is without knowledge or information suffcient to form a
the allegations of

belief as to the truth of

Paragraph 22.

23.

Plaintiff advised said security personnel that he was under a disability, that he had

substantial diffculty walking and standing upright and erect, and that he had no desire to remain
at US Cellular Field but that he needed to wait a short time for the crowds in the restroom and

elevator facilities to dissipate. plaintiff explained to said security personnel that he would exit

US Cellular Field immediately after using the restroom facility. Plaintiff s statements to
Defendants' security personnel constituted actual notice to Defendants of

his disability and

request for reasonable accommodation as a result thereof.

7

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 8 of 34

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, is without knowledge or information suffcient to form a

belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 23.
24.
At the time of

Plaintiffs initial contact and conversation with Defendants'

security personnel, less than ten (10 minutes) had passed since the baseball game had ended.
Plaintiff was not the last baseball fan in the park, and Plaintiff

was not unreasonably extending

his visit to US Cellular Field for reasons unrelated to his disability.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, is without knowledge or information suffcient to form a
the allegations of

belief as to the truth of

Paragraph 24.

25.

At said time and place, on September 7, 2003, Defendants' security personnel

without Plaintiffs authorization or consent, took possession of

Plaintiffs walking cane and
DEMAR's repeated demands that it

refused to immediately return it to Plaintiff, despite Plaintiff

be immediately returned, and despite DEMAR's explanation to said security personnel that he
required his walking cane for assistance in walking, as a result of his disability.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, is without knowledge or information suffcient to form a
the allegations of

belief as to the truth of

Paragraph 25.

26.

At said time and place, on September 7, 2003, Defendants' security personnel

without Plaintiff s authorization or consent, surrounded, physically restrained, physically lifted
and physically transported Plaintiff

DEMAR's body by force from his seat at US Cellular Field.

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, is without knowledge or information suffcient to form a
the allegations of

belief as to the truth of

Paragraph 26.

27.

At said time and place, on September 7, 2003, Defendants' security personnel,

without Plaintiff s authorization or consent, physically removed the disabled Plaintiff to the

8

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 9 of 34

Ground Level, where they brought him to a waiting ambulance operated by Defendant
SUPERIOR.

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, is without knowledge or information suffcient to form a

belief as to the truth of whether Defendants' security personnel physically removed Plaintiff,

without Plaintiff s authorization, to the Ground LeveL.
remaining allegations of

Defendant, SUPERIOR, admits the

Paragraph 27.

28.

Upon information and belief, on September 7, 2003, Defendants' security

personnel then and there directed the employees, medical personnel, driver and/or agents of
Defendant SUPERIOR to transport the Plaintiff

to a medical facility known as Mercy Hospital,

located at 2525 S. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Ilinois 60616.
ANSWER:
29.
Defendant, SUPERIOR, admits the allegations of

Paragraph 28.

At all relevant times, on September 7,2003, Plaintiff

DEMAR had no need or

want of medical attention, treatment or care, but in fact repeatedly stated to Defendants'
employees, personnel and agents that he was perfectly healthy except for his disability.
ANSWER:
30.
Defendant, SUPERIOR, denies the allegations of

Paragraph 29.

At all relevant times, on September 7,2003, Plaintiff

DEMAR never requested

medical attention, treatment or care, but in fact repeatedly stated to Defendants' employees,

personnel and agents that he specifically did not consent to unauthorized and unnecessary
medical attention, treatment or care.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, admits that on September 7, 2003, Plaintiff DEMAR did

not verbally request medical attention, treatment or care. Defendant, SUPERIOR, denies that on September 7, 2003, the Plaintiff repeatedly stated to SUPERIOR'S personnel and agents that he

9

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 10 of 34

specifically did not consent to medical attention, treatment or care and Defendant, SUPERIOR,
denies any allegations of wrongful conduct.
31.

On September 7,2003, Defendant SUPERIOR, by and/or through its agents
DEMAR by ambulance from US

and/or employees, ambulance personnel, transported Plaintiff

Cellular Field to Mercy HospitaL.

ANSWER:
32.

Defendant, SUPERIOR, admits the allegations of

Paragraph 31.

At all relevant times, on September 7,2003, Defendant SUPERIOR, by and/or

through its agents and/or employees, carried, transported, moved, handled and otherwise and

physical contact with the Plaintiff s body, despite the fact that Plaintiff never consented, and
expressly refused to consent, to any contact by Defendant SUPERIOR, or its agents and/or
employees.

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, admits that on September 7, 2003, by and through its

agents and/or employees, that it transported the Plaintiff. Defendant, SUPERIOR, denies that on
September 7, 2003, the Plaintiff expressly refused to consent to any contact by Defendant,

SUPERIOR, or its agents and/or employees and denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph
32. 33.
On September 7, 2003, Plaintiff

DEMAR refused to be examined or treated by

doctors and staff at Mercy Hospital, and was not examined or treated.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, is without knowledge or information suffcient to form a

belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 33.
34.
actions, Plaintiff On September 7, 2003, as a result of

Defendants' aforementioned collective

was stranded nearly two (2) miles from US Cellular Field, where his vehicle

remained parked.

10

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 11 of 34

ANSWER:
35.

Defendant, SUPERIOR, denies the allegations of

Paragraph 34.

On September 7, 2003, Plaintiff was forced to fend for himself in his return to US

Cellular Field, where he was able to retrieve his vehicle and, finally, return home.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, is without knowledge or information suffcient to form a
the allegations of

belief as to the truth of

Paragraph 35.

36.

Thereafter, Plaintiff

DEMAR received an ambulance bill from Defendant

SUPERIOR for $441.38. Upon receipt of said invoice, Plaintiff contacted SUPERIOR
repeatedly and demanded that they cease and desist in their attempts to collect for the
unreasonable, unlawful and unnecessary transport by SUPERIOR of the Plaintiff

that resulted in

a violation of

Plaintiffs federal and state rights, and in Plaintiff

being stranded nearly two (2)

miles from his vehicle and without need or want of medical attention or care.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, admits that it issued an invoice to Plaintiff DEMAR, in

the amount of $415.50, for emergency medical services rendered on September 7, 2003.

Defendant, SUPERIOR, further admits that after issuing said invoice to Plaintiff DEMAR, that
Defendant, SUPERIOR, was contacted by Plaintiff

DEMAR. Defendant, SUPERIOR, denies all

other allegations of

Paragraph 38.

37.

Upon information and belief, Defendant SUPERIOR ignored Plaintiff s letters

and demands, and has reported said amount to the national credit bureaus as being delinquent.

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff s good credit and reputation have been damaged.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, denies that it ignored Plaintiff s letter, but admits that it

reported Plaintiff DEMAR to a credit bureau as being delinquent on payment for emergency
medical services rendered to Plaintiff on September 7, 2003. Defendant, SUPERIOR, is without

11

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 12 of 34

knowledge or information suffcient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
of

Paragraph 37.

38.

Defendant, the SOX, through its representative, responded to Plaintiff s

allegations in writing, stated merely that Plaintiff s allegations were "exaggerated" and
"inaccurate," but never denying that the incidents complained of herein occurred in substance
and in fact.

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, is without knowledge or information suffcient to form a
the allegations of

belief as to the truth of

Paragraph 38.

39.

As a result of

Defendants' discriminatory and tortuous conduct, and their
DEMAR was forced to hire an attorney and

unwillingness to comply with the ADA, the Plaintiff

fie the instant lawsuit to deter the same conduct by the Defendants in the future, and to insure
that no other individuals with disabilities are required to endure the severe embarrassment,
emotional distress and discriminatory treatment that he endured.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, denies any allegations of wrongful conduct and further,
Paragraph 39.

denies the remaining allegations of

COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE ADA (Robert DeMar v. The Chicaiw White Sox. Ltd. and CHISOX Corporation)
40.
Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 39 of

this Complaint as

paragraphs 1 through 39 of

this Count I, as though fully set forth herein.

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph 40 in Count I of

Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint, as this Paragraph is not directed against this Defendant. To

the extent that any of the allegations of Paragraph 40 in Count I could be construed against
Defendant, SUPERIOR, these allegations are expressly denied.

12

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 13 of 34

41.

As previously set forth, Plaintiff

bases his claim in part on Title III of

the

Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 US.C. § 12181, et. seq., and its implementing
regulations.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph 41 in Count I of

Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint, as this Paragraph is not directed against this Defendant. To

the extent that any of the allegations of Paragraph 41 in Count I could be construed against
Defendant, SUPERIOR, these allegations are expressly denied.
42.

The Plaintiff is an individual who is keenly interested in and intends to attend

another baseball game as US Cellular Field. However, in order to obtain full use and enjoyment
of the SOX's public accommodations, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants' discriminatory
conduct to prevent further harm.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph 42 in Count I of

Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint, as this Paragraph is not directed against this Defendant. To

the extent that any of the allegations of Paragraph 42 in Count I could be construed against
Defendant, SUPERIOR, these allegations are expressly denied.
43.

US Cellular Field, which includes establishments located within the ballpark, is a
public

service, program, or activity within the meaning of 42 US.C. § 12132 and is a place of

accommodation within the meaning of42 US.C. § 12181(7) because its operations affect
commerce, and the ballpark is a facility that includes a stadium, restaurants, bars, beverage and
merchandise concession, clubs amusements, and media facilities, 42 US.C. §§ 12132,

12181(7)(b),(C), (E), 12182; 28 C.F.R. §§ 36.104.

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph 43 in Count I of

Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint, as this Paragraph is not directed against this Defendant. To

13

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 14 of 34

the extent that any of the allegations of Paragraph 43 in Count I could be construed against
Defendant, SUPERIOR, these allegations are expressly denied.
44.
At all relevant times, Defendant, the SOX, had actual notice of

Plaintiffs

disability.

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph 44 in Count I of

Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint, as this Paragraph is not directed against this Defendant. To

the extent that any of the allegations of Paragraph 44 in Count I could be construed against
Defendant, SUPERIOR, these allegations are expressly denied.
45.

At all relevant times, the Plaintiff advised Defendants, the SOX, that due to his

disability he requested to remain seated for a matter of minute while waiting for the restroom

facilities to become available. Plaintiff s statements to Defendants constituted a request for
reasonable accommodation under the ADA.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph 45 in Count I of

Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint, as this Paragraph is not directed against this Defendant. To

the extent that any of the allegations of Paragraph 45 in Count I could be construed against
Defendant, SUPERIOR, these allegations are expressly denied.
46.
Plaintiff

Plaintiff requested accommodation was reasonable and necessary to ensure that
Defendants' places of

would receive full and equal enjoyment of

public
the ballgame.

accommodation, to wit: access to the restroom facilities at the conclusion of

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph 46 in Count I of

Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint, as this Paragraph is not directed against this Defendant. To

the extent that any of the allegations of Paragraph 46 in Count I could be construed against
Defendant, SUPERIOR, these allegations are expressly denied.

14

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 15 of 34

47.

Through their conduct described herein, Defendants, the SOX, discriminated

against the Plaintiff on the basis of his disability, depriving him of the full and equal enjoyment
of

the services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations in the Defendants' places
public accommodation. Accordingly, Defendants' actions and omissions violated 42 US.C. §

of

1218(a) and 42 US.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(I).

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph 47 in Count I of

Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint, as this Paragraph is not directed against this Defendant. To

the extent that any of the allegations of Paragraph 47 in Count I could be construed against
Defendant, SUPERIOR, these allegations are expressly denied.
48.

Through their conduct described herein, Defendants, the SOX, failed to make

reasonable accommodations in policies, practices, and procedures, when such modifications

were necessary to insure Defendants' services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and
accommodations were available to the Plaintiff in the most integrated setting possible.
Accordingly, Defendants the SOX violated 42 US.C. § 12182(b)(2)(a)(ii) and 42 US.C. § 12182

(b)(l)(B).
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph 48 in Count I of

Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint, as this Paragraph is not directed against this Defendant. To

the extent that any of the allegations of Paragraph 48 in Count I could be construed against
Defendant, SUPERIOR, these allegations are expressly denied.
49.

Defendants, the SOX, also violated Plaintiff s rights when they failed to remove

architectural barriers in existing facilities or offer services in alternative settings, such as but not

limited to providing adequate seating in a "waiting area" inside, outside or adjacent to the

15

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 16 of 34

restroom area for use by disabled persons such as Plaintiff, when it was readily achievable to do
so. 28 C.F.R.36.304; 28 C.F.R. 36.305(b)(3).

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph 49 in Count II of

Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint, as this Paragraph is not directed against this Defendant. To

the extent that any of the allegations of Paragraph 49 in Count II could be construed against
Defendant, SUPERIOR, these allegations are expressly denied.
50.
Additionally, upon receiving actual notice of

Plaintiffs disability and requested

accommodation, at least four (4) of

Defendants' security personnel surrounded the 72 year-old

Plaintiff in order to coerce, intimidate, threaten or interfere with the Plaintiff s exercise or
enjoyment of

his right to reasonable accommodation under the ADA, and to coerce the Plaintiff

to abandon his request for reasonable accommodation under the ADA and exit the facility

immediately. The SOX Defendants' conduct was unlawful, in that it constituted retaliation,
coercion and intimidation of the Plaintiff

due to Plaintiffs objection to Defendants'

discriminatory practice and refusal to accommodate him. 42 US.C. § 12203(b); 28 C.F.R.

§36.206.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph 50 in Count II of

Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint, as this Paragraph is not directed against this Defendant. To

the extent that any of the allegations of Paragraph 50 in Count II could be construed against
Defendant, SUPERIOR, these allegations are expressly denied.
51.

Defendants, the SOX's, unlawful conduct and/or failures to act violated, and
the ADA, to be free from
the goods, services,

continue to violate, Plaintiffs federal statutory rights, under Title III of

discrimination on the basis of disability, "in the full and equal enjoyment of

facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by

16

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 17 of 34

any person who owns, leases (or leases to) or operates a place of

public accommodation." 42

US.C. § 12182, et. seq.

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph 51 in Count II of

Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint, as this Paragraph is not directed against this Defendant. To

the extent that any of the allegations of Paragraph 51 in Count II could be construed against
Defendant, SUPERIOR, these allegations are expressly denied.
52.
result of Accordingly, the Plaintiff

ROBERT DEMAR, sustained damages as a direct

Defendants' , the SOX's, actions, omissions, practices, policies and procedures,

described above, which violated the ADA.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph 52 in Count II of

Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint, as this Paragraph is not directed against this Defendant. To

the extent that any of the allegations of Paragraph 52 in Count II could be construed against
Defendant, SUPERIOR, these allegations are expressly denied.

COUNT II: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Robert DeMar v. The Chicaiw White Sox. Ltd. and CHISOX Corporation)
53.

The Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 52 of this Complaint as
this Count II, as though fully set forth herein.

paragraphs 1 through 52 of

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph 53 in Count II of

Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint, as this Paragraph is not directed against this Defendant. To

the extent that any of the allegations of Paragraph 53 in Count II could be construed against
Defendant, SUPERIOR, these allegations are expressly denied.
54.

The Plaintiff reasonably expects to use the SOX's services, activities, facilities,

privileges, advantages and public accommodations in the future, thus there is a real threat of
future injury if the Defendants' discriminatory policies, practices, and procedures do not
17

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 18 of 34

immediately end. The threat is particularly great due to the fact that that SOX sponsor baseball

games that are appealing to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, since the Plaintiff intends to attend
baseball games at US Cellular Field in the future, it is necessary that the SOX's discriminatory
practices end immediately to prevent further harm to the Plaintiff.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph 54 in Count II of

Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint, as this Paragraph is not directed against this Defendant. To

the extent that any of the allegations of Paragraph 54 in Count II could be construed against
Defendant, SUPERIOR, these allegations are expressly denied.
55.
As a result of the SOX's barriers, practices, policies and procedures, Plaintiff

has
his

suffered, and will continue to suffer irreparable injury due to the Defendants' denial of

statutory rights. There are reasonable grounds to believe that Defendants will continue to engage

in the acts and practices prohibited by the ADA. Consequently, injunctive relief is necessary to
insure that Defendants comply with the law.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph 55 in Count II of

Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint, as this Paragraph is not directed against this Defendant. To

the extent that any of the allegations of Paragraph 55 in Count II could be construed against
Defendant, SUPERIOR, these allegations are expressly denied.
56.

Unless injunctive relief is granted, Plaintiff will continue to suffer immediate and

irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph 56 in Count II of

Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint, as this Paragraph is not directed against this Defendant. To

the extent that any of the allegations of Paragraph 56 in Count II could be construed against
Defendant, SUPERIOR, these allegations are expressly denied.

18

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 19 of 34

57.

In order to enforce his rights under the law, Plaintiff was forced to retain counsel

and thus he is entitled to recovery attorney's fees, costs and expenses.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph 57 in Count II of

Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint, as this Paragraph is not directed against this Defendant. To

the extent that any of the allegations of Paragraph 57 in Count II could be construed against
Defendant, SUPERIOR, these allegations are expressly denied.

PENDENT STATE LAW CLAIMS

COUNT III: ASSAULT AND BATTERY (Robert DeMar v. AII Defendants)
58.

The plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 57 of this Complaint as
this Count III, as though fully set forth herein.

paragraphs 1 through 57 of

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, re-alleges and incorporates its answers to Paragraphs 1

through 57, as contained in Counts I and II, as its answers to Counts 1 through 58 in Count III of
Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint at Law, as though fully set forth herein.
59.
The aforementioned actions of

Defendants' employees and/or agents constituted

an assault in that said employees and/or agents intentionally and unlawfully threatened physical
injury, and/or caused Plaintiff

to fear imminent physical injury, coupled with the apparent

present ability of said employees and/or agents to effectuate said injury.
ANSWER:
60.
Defendant, SUPERIOR, denies the allegations of

Paragraph 59.

The aforementioned actions of

Defendants' agents and/or employees against

Plaintiff constituted a battery in that said employees and/or agents intended to cause harmful
and/or offensive contact with Plaintiff

without Plaintiffs consent, and that a harmful and/or

offensive contact resulted.
19

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 20 of 34

ANSWER:
61.

Defendant, SUPERIOR, denies the allegations of

Paragraph 60.

The aforementioned actions of

Defendants' agents and/or employees against

Plaintiff constituted affrmative acts intended to threaten and cause unpermitted contact to the
Plaintiff.

ANSWER:
62.

Defendant, SUPERIOR, denies the allegations of

Paragraph 61.

Defendants, through their agents and/or employees, had a duty to refrain from

committing an unlawful assault and battery upon Plaintiff.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, admits only those duties imposed by Ilinois law and
Paragraph 62 inconsistent therewith.

denies all allegations of

63.

Defendants, through their agents and/or employees breached their duty to Plaintiff

by committing said assault and battery upon Plaintiff.
ANSWER:
64.
Defendant, SUPERIOR, denies the allegations of

Paragraph 63.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' foregoing acts and/or

omissions, Plaintiff suffered personal and pecuniary damages, and was prevented from engaging
in his ordinary affairs and duties.
ANSWER:
Defendant, SUPERIOR, denies the allegations of

Paragraph 64 and further denies

that the Plaintiff was injured in the manner or to the extent alleged.
65.

Defendants are responsible for Plaintiff s damages and injuries caused by their

employees and/or agents due to the fact that said wrongful actions were committed with actual or
apparent authority of

Defendants.
Defendant, SUPERIOR, denies the allegations of

ANSWER:

Paragraph 65.

20

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 21 of 34

COUNT IV: FALSE IMPRISONMENT (Robert DeMar v. AII Defendants)
66.

The Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 65 of this Complaint as

paragraphs 1 through 65 of

this Court iv, as though fully set forth herein.

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, re-alleges and incorporates its answers to Paragraphs 1

through 65, as contained in Counts i through Ill, as its answers to Counts 1 through 66 in Count
iv of

Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint at Law, as though fully set forth herein.
67.

At all times relevant, on September 7, 2003, the Defendants, by and through their
force, restrained,

agents and/or employees, unlawfully, physically and under the threat of

detained and confined the Plaintiff.
ANSWER:
68.
Defendant, SUPERIOR, denies the allegations of

Paragraph 67.

At all times relevant, on September 7, 2003, the Plaintiff did not strike or initiate

any contact with Defendants' employees and/or agents.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, admits that Plaintiff did not strike its agents. Defendant

is without knowledge or information suffcient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
allegations of

Paragraph 68.

69.

At all times relevant, on September 7, 2003, the Plaintiff offered no resistance to

the unlawful actions by Defendants' employees and/or agents.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, denies that it committed any unlawful action. Defendant

is without knowledge or information suffcient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
allegations of

Paragraph 69.

70.

At all times relevant, on September 7, 2003, the Plaintiff never consented to any

of the foregoing acts.

21

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 22 of 34

ANSWER:
71.

Defendant, SUPERIOR, denies the allegations of

Paragraph 70.

At all times relevant, on September 7, 2003, the Defendants, by and through their

agents and/or employees, did not have reasonable cause to detain the Plaintiff in the manner set
forth herein.

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, denies that it detained plaintiff on September 7, 2003.
the allegations of

Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to the remainder of

Paragraph 71

as these remaining allegations are not directed against this Defendant. To the extent that any of
remaining allegations of

Paragraph 71 could be construed against Defendant, SUPERIOR, these

allegations are expressly denied.
72.

At all times relevant, on September 7, 2003, the Defendants' agents and/or

employees were acting within the scope of their employment by Defendants, and were acting
with the authority vested upon them by Defendants.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, is without knowledge or information suffcient to form a

belief as to the truth of whether on September 7, 2003, the agents and/or employees of
Defendants, THE CHICAGO WHITE SOX, LTD., CHISOX CORPORATION, AT YOUR

SERVICE, INC., AT YOUR SERVICE, L.L.C., SDI SECURTY, INC. and OTHER
UNNOWN DEFENDANTS, were acting within the scope of their employment and were
acting with the authority vested upon them by Defendants. Defendant, SUPERIOR, admits that

its agents were acting within the scope of their employment when they provided transport, care

and treatment to the plaintiff and performing acts necessary to same. Defendant denies all
remaining allegations of

Paragraph 72.

22

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 23 of 34

73.

At all times relevant, on September 7, 2003, the Defendants' agents and/or
the business of

employees were acting in furtherance of

Defendants.

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, admits that its employees were acting in furtherance of

its business while providing transport, care and treatment to the Plaintiff and performing acts
necessary to same. Defendant denies all remaining allegations of

Paragraph 73.

74.

As a direct and proximate result of

the false imprisonment by Defendants' agents

and/or employees, the Plaintiff

was injured and will continue to incur suffering and emotional

distress.

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, denies the allegations of

Paragraph 74.

COUNT V: NEGLIGENCE (Robert DeMar v. The Chicaiw White Sox. Ltd.. CHISOX Corporation. At Your Service. Inc.. At Your Service. L.L.c.. and SDI Security)
75.

The Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 74 of this Complaint as
this Count V, as though fully set forth herein.

paragraphs 1 through 74 of

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph in Count V of

Plaintiffs

First Amended Complaint, as this Paragraph is not directed against this Defendant. To the extent
that any of the allegations of

Paragraph 75 in Count V could be construed against Defendant,

SUPERIOR, these allegations are expressly denied.
76.

At all times relevant, Defendants had a duty to the public, generally, and the

Plaintiff, specifically, to exercise reasonable and proper care in the selection, retention,
discipline, evaluation, supervision and termination of their employees and personneL.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph 76 in Count V of

Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint, as this Paragraph is not directed against this Defendant. To

23

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 24 of 34

the extent that any of the allegations of Paragraph 76 in Count V could be construed against
Defendant, SUPERIOR, these allegations are expressly denied.
77.

At all times relevant, Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care for the

safety of patrons at the aforesaid baseball game.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph 77 in Count V of

Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint, as this Paragraph is not directed against this Defendant. To

the extent that any of the allegations of Paragraph 77 in Count V could be construed against
Defendant, SUPERIOR, these allegations are expressly denied.
78.

At all times relevant, Defendants breached the foregoing duty and was negligent

in one or more of the following respects, in that they:
1.

negligently, carelessly, improperly and unreasonably allowed their employees involved in the acts recited herein to continue in their duties as employees when they knew or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known, that the persons they employed had a propensity to engage in violent behavior;

2.

negligently, carelessly, improperly and unreasonably failed to properly train Defendants' partners, agents and/or employees in crowd safety and control policies and procedures;
negligently, carelessly, improperly and unreasonably failed to properly supervise the persons they employed; negligently, carelessly, improperly, and unreasonably failed to properly evaluate the persons they employed; negligently, carelessly, improperly and unreasonably failed to stop and/or halt the acts taken against the Plaintiff by the persons they employed;

3.

4.

5.

6.

negligently, carelessly, improperly and unreasonably permitted their employees to confront, detain and remove the Plaintiff when they knew or should have known it would not be done properly;
negligently, carelessly, improperly and unreasonably failed to implement adequate response plans and procedures for occurrences and/or patrons having unwanted contact with Defendants' personnel; and

7.

24

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 25 of 34

8.

negligently, carelessly, improperly and unreasonably failed to control, monitor and prevent their employees, partners, and/or agents from causing bodily harm, injury and distress to the Plaintiff.
Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph 78, including sub-

ANSWER:

paragraphs (1) through (8) contained therein, in Count V of

Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint,
the allegations

as this Paragraph is not directed against this Defendant. To the extent that any of

of

Paragraph 78 in Count V could be construed against Defendant, SUPERIOR, these allegations

are expressly denied.

79.

As a direct and proximate result of one ore more of the foregoing acts or
was injured and will continue to incur suffering and

omissions by Defendants, the Plaintiff

emotional distress.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph 79 in Count V of

Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint, as this Paragraph is not directed against this Defendant. To
the extent that any of the allegations of

Paragraph 79 in Count V could be construed against

Defendant, SUPERIOR, these allegations are expressly denied.

COUNT VI: NEGLIGENCE (Robert DeMar v. Superior Air-Ground Ambulance Services. Inc. )
80.

The Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 79 of this Complaint as
this Count VI, as though fully set forth herein.

paragraphs 1 through 79 of

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, re-alleges and incorporates its answers to Paragraphs 1

through 79, as contained in Counts I through V, as its answers to Counts 1 through 80 in Count
VI of

Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint at Law, as though fully set forth herein.
81.

At all times relevant, Defendant had a duty to the public, generally, and the

Plaintiff, specifically, to exercise reasonable and proper care in the selection, retention,
discipline, evaluation, supervision and termination of their employees and personneL.
25

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 26 of 34

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, admits only those duties imposed by Ilinois law and
Paragraph 81 inconsistent therewith.

denies all allegations of

82.
safety and security of

At all times relevant, Defendant had a duty to exercise reasonable care for the
persons who presented and/or arrive at Defendant's ambulance for medical

treatment.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, admits only those duties imposed by Ilinois law and
Paragraph 82 inconsistent therewith.

denies all allegations of

83.

At all times relevant, Defendant breached the foregoing duty and was negligent in

one or more of the following respects, in that they:
1.

negligently, carelessly, improperly and unreasonably allowed their employees involved in the acts recited herein to continue in their duties as employees when they knew or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known, that the persons they employed had a propensity to engage in violent behavior;

2.

negligently, carelessly, improperly and unreasonably failed to properly train Defendants' partners, agents and/or employees in crowd safety and control policies and procedures;
negligently, carelessly, improperly and unreasonably failed to properly supervise the persons they employed; negligently, carelessly, improperly, and unreasonably failed to properly evaluate the persons they employed; negligently, carelessly, improperly and unreasonably failed to stop and/or halt the acts taken against the Plaintiff by the persons they employed;

3.

4.

5.

6.

negligently, carelessly, improperly and unreasonably permitted their employees to forcibly restrain and remove the Plaintiff to Mercy Hospital;
negligently, carelessly, improperly and unreasonably failed to implement adequate response plans and procedures for occurrences and/or persons having unwanted contact with Defendants' personnel; and

7.

8.

negligently, carelessly, improperly and unreasonably failed to control, monitor and prevent their employees, partners, and/or agents from causing bodily harm, injury and distress to the Plaintiff.
26

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 27 of 34

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, denies the legal conclusions and allegations of

Paragraph

83, including the allegations of sub-paragraphs (1) through (8) contained therein.

84.

As a direct and proximate result of one ore more of the foregoing acts or

omissions by Defendant, the Plaintiff was injured and will continue to incur suffering and
emotional distress.
ANSWER:
84.
Defendant, SUPERIOR, denies the legal conclusions and allegations of

Paragraph

COUNT VII: NEGLIGENCE (Robert DeMar v. Unknown Defendants - Individuals)
85.

Thee Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 84 of this Complaint as
this Count VII, as though fully set forth herein.

paragraphs 1 through 85 of

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, re-alleges and incorporates its answers to Paragraphs 1

through 84, as contained in Counts I through VI, as its answers to Counts 1 through 85 in Count
VII of

Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint at Law, as though fully set forth herein.
86.

At all times relevant, the Unknown Defendants had a duty to public, generally,

and the Plaintiff, specifically, to exercise reasonable and appropriate care and precaution
commensurate with their positions, respectively, as a security personnel and ambulance
personneL.

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph 86 in Count VII of

Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint, as this Paragraph is not directed against this Defendant. To

the extent that any of the allegations of Paragraph 86 in Count VII could be construed against
Defendant, SUPERIOR, these allegations are expressly denied.

27

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 28 of 34

87.

At all times relevant, the Unknown Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable

care for the safety of patrons at the aforesaid baseball game and directly outside US Cellular
Field.

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph 87 in Count VII of

Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint, as this Paragraph is not directed against this Defendant. To

the extent that any of the allegations of Paragraph 87 in Count VII could be construed against
Defendant, SUPERIOR, these allegations are expressly denied.
88.

At all times relevant, the Unknown Defendants breached the foregoing duty and

were negligent in one or more of the following respects, in that they:
1.

negligently, carelessly, improperly and unreasonably failed to use proper care by grabbing, pushing, lifting, carrying, dragging, and detaining the plaintiff;
using unreasonable force by detaining the plaintiff;

2.
3.

they improperly and unreasonably detained the plaintiff thereby restraining his freedom;
they unreasonably failed to stop other security personnel of

4.

Defendants from

hitting, grabbing, pushing, lifting, carrying, and dragging the plaintiff;
5.
they unreasonably failed to stop other security personnel of

Defendants from

unreasonably detaining the plaintiff;
6.

the security personnel defendants directed or allowed the false imprisonment of plaintiff Defendants the SOX, AT YOUR by agents and/or employees of
SERVICE, and/or SDI;

7.

the security personnel defendants directed or allowed the false imprisonment of plaintiff by Defendant SUPERIOR; AN
the ambulance personnel defendants unreasonably failed to request, obtain or require the consent of Plaintiff prior to restraining Plaintiff and transporting Plaintiff to Mercy Hospital against his will and without medical justification.
Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph 88, including sub-

8.

ANSWER:

paragraphs (1) through (8) contained therein, in Count VII of Plaintiffs First Amended
28

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 29 of 34

Complaint, as this Paragraph is not directed against this Defendant. To the extent that any of

the

allegations of Paragraph 88 in Count VII could be construed against Defendant, SUPERIOR,
these allegations are expressly denied.

89.

As a direct and proximate result of one or more of the foregoing acts or omission

by Defendants, the Plaintiff was injured and will continue to incur suffering and emotional
distress.

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, makes no response to Paragraph 89 in Count VII of

Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint, as this Paragraph is not directed against this Defendant. To

the extent that any of the allegations of Paragraph 89 in Count VII could be construed against
Defendant, SUPERIOR, these allegations are expressly denied.

COUNT VIII: NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (Robert DeMar v. All Defendants)
90.

The Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 89 of this Complaint as
this Count VIII, as though fully set forth herein.

paragraphs 1 through 89 of

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, re-alleges and incorporates its answers to Paragraphs 1

through 89, as contained in Counts I through VII, as its answers to Counts 1 through 90 in Count
VIII of

Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint at Law, as though fully set forth herein.
91.

As a direct and proximate result of one ore more of the foregoing acts or omission

by Defendants, the Plaintiff experienced a direct impact to his body.
ANSWER:
Defendant, SUPERIOR, denies the legal conclusions and allegations of

Paragraph

91 and further denies that the Plaintiff DEMAR was injured in the manner or to the extent
alleged.

29

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 30 of 34

92.

As a direct and proximate result of one or more of the foregoing acts or omission

by Defendants, the Plaintiff was injured and will continue to incur suffering and emotional
distress.

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, denies the legal conclusions and allegations of

Paragraph

92 and further denies that the Plaintiff DEMAR was injured in the manner or to the extent
alleged.

COUNT IX: RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (Robert DeMar v. All Defendants)
93.

The Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 92 of this Complaint as

paragraphs 1 through 92 of

this Count ix, as though fully set forth herein.

ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, re-alleges and incorporates its answers to Paragraphs 1

through 92, as contained in Counts i through VIIi, as its answers to Counts 1 through 93 in
Count ix of

Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint at Law, as though fully set forth herein.
94.
At all times relevant, each of

the Defendants was vicariously liable for the actions

of the agents and employees they employed, including unknown security guards and unknown
paramedics and ambulance drivers, respectively.
ANSWER:

Defendant, SUPERIOR, denies any wrongful conduct and denies that it is

vicariously liable in respondeat superior for any alleged wrongful conduct.

30

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 31 of 34

AFFIRMA TIVE DEFENSES
Defendant, SUPERIOR, pleading in the alternative and without prejudice to its prior

denials, sets forth the following affrmative defenses:
I.

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

As a first, separate and affrmative defense to the allegations of the Complaint, it is
alleged that the Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.

II.

CONTRIBUTORY WILLFUL AND WANTON CONDUCT

As a second, separate and affrmative defense to the allegations contained in the

Complaint, the Plaintiff, ROBERT DEMAR, was guilty of contributory willful and wanton
conduct at the time and place aforesaid, thereby causing and contributing to the injuries alleged,

when he intentionally and recklessly refused to verbally communicate with the agents and/or
employees of

Defendant, SUPERIOR, and intentionally and recklessly refused to answer any and

all questions posed by Defendant, SUPERIOR'S, agents and/or employees at the time and place
aforesaid.

III.

FAILURE TO MITIGATE

As a third, separate and affrmative defense to the allegations contained in the Complaint,

the Plaintiff, ROBERT DEMAR, failed to mitigate his damages at the time and place aforesaid,
thereby causing and contributing to the injuries alleged, when he failed to provide information to
the paramedics, treating physicians and nurses at Mercy Hospital concerning his medical

condition on September 7, 2003 and voluntarily left Mercy Hospital on September 7, 2003 and
proceeded to walk back, on his own, to US Cellular Field prior to being discharged from Mercy
HospitaL.

31

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 32 of 34

iv.

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES SYSTEMS ACT ("EMS ACT")

As a fourth, separate and affrmative defense to the allegations contained in the
Complaint, it is alleged that the provisions of 2 1 0 ILCS 50/3.150, commonly referred to as the
EMS Act, bar Plaintiffs claims under the theories of negligence and negligent infliction of

emotional distress. The EMS Act excuses licensed emergency medical service providers and
emergency medical personnel from negligent acts or omissions committed during the normal

course of conducting their duties, in good faith, during an emergency, non-emergency or a
department approved training course, without regard to whether those services are emergency
medical services or non-emergency medical services.
V.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

As a fifth, separate and affrmative defense to the allegations contained in the Complaint,

the Plaintiff, ROBERT DEMAR, was guilty of contributory negligence at the time and place
aforesaid, thereby causing and contributing to the injuries alleged, when he refused to verbally
communicate with the agents and/or employees of Defendant, SUPERIOR, and refused to

answer any and all questions posed by Defendant, SUPERIOR'S, agents and/or employees at the
time and place aforesaid.
VI.

CONSENT

As a sixth, separate and affrmative defense to the allegations contained in the Complaint,

the Plaintiff, ROBERT DEMAR, consented to the treatment rendered to him on September 7,
2003 by the agents and/or employees of

Defendant, SUPERIOR.

32

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 33 of 34

JURY DEMAND
Defendant, Superior Air-Ground Ambulance Service, Inc., pursuant to Rule 38(b) hereby
demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted this 4TH day of

November, 2005.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

SUPERIOR AIR-GROUN AMULANCE SERVICE, INC
BY: Is/Summer E. HeiL Attorney

Jeffrey H. Lipe Summer E. Heil Brigitte C. Brady WILLIAMS MONTGOMERY & JOHN LTD. Attorneys for Superior Air-Ground Ambulance 20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2100
Chicago,IL 60606-3094

312-443-3216
Fax: [phone]

33

Case 1:05-cv-05093

Document 36

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 34 of 34

CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE OF DEFENDANT SUPERIOR AIR-GROUND AMBULANCE SERVICE. INC.'S

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AT LAW
I hereby certify that on February 21, 2006, I electronically fied the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/CF system which will send notification of such fiing to all
counsel

listed on the attached service list.

I hereby certify that on February 21, 2006, I served said Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint at Law by placing same in the US. Mail at 20 North Wacker Drive,
Chicago, Ilinois 60606 before the hour of 5: 00 p.m.

Is/Summer E. HeiL Attorney

Jeffrey H. Lipe (06185734) Summer E. Heil (6226177) Brigitte C. Brady (6278696) Williams Montgomery & John Ltd. 20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2100 Chicago, Ilinois 60606 [phone]
SERVICE LIST

ATTORNYS FOR PLAITIFF
Matthew T. Martell Law Offce of Matthew T. Martell 7557 West 63rd Street Summit, IL 60501 [phone]
Fax: [phone]

ATTORNYS FOR CHICAGO WHITE SOX
Robert T. Shannon James C. Vlahakis Chad Kason Hinshaw & Culbertson 222 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60601 312-704-3000
Fax: [phone]

34