All right, I'll help you in the least way I can . Please note that I am not a lawyer. Here's a correction of most of the typos:
"I DENT the claim of the Plaintiff as follows: Defendant denies they are indebted to plaintiff in this matter. He is without information as to any damages sustained to the plaintiff; thus, strict proof of the same is demanded. For defendant's defenses, he would state the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendant would also assert lack of jurisdiction over their person and improper venue and insufficiency of service of process. Defendant would aver that the plaintiff's own contributory and comparative negligence caused the accident in question; as such, plaintiff's claims are barred and/or should be reduced due to the percentage of the plaintiff's own negligence. Pending additional investigation and discovery, defendant avers that should it be shown that plaintiff sustained injury, then, in that event, the defendant avers that the conditions are totally, or, at least, in part, due to a preexisting or subsequent injury and/or health condition which did not have its origin in the accident in question. Consequently, the defendant should not be held responsible for the plaintiff's present physical condition."
First off, what age group is this lady? It appears she is not the defendant. Notice the supposed lawyer refers to the defendant as "he". If she's a minor, then she might have the insurance in her father's name? It may also explain why she changed her story. Or maybe I'm wrong!
I think it should be relatively clear what the lawyer is saying.
She's saying she shall, on behalf of the defendant, weaken your case as follows:
The defendant does not believe that he owes you.
You must present to the defendant proof of evidence of damages sustained, whereas you haven't done so.
You failed to state a specific claim, so that the court could make a ruling in favour or against it; and so the defendant could properly defend himself. (This could mean your claim has no estimate of monetary value.)
The defendant is also arguing that the court does not have jurisdiction over him. In other words, either the case was filed in the wrong court; or the insufficiency of service of process renders the court's judgment useless, since the court acquires no jurisdiction over the defendant.
You may have failed to serve the defendant a summons; or you failed to do so in a timely fashion; or the defendant did not receive a notice of summons; or you didn't follow the complete prodecure to serve the defendant. (Something like that, where at the end it was insufficient.)
Improper venue: The location (e.g., county, city) you chose to file the case is also incorrect.
You relatively and equally contributed to the accident. Therefore, your claims should be thrown out ; or at the very least, you should share responsibility for your part in negligence by the court reducing your claims (which implies reduction in monetary claim).
If you eventually submit proof of injury or any [new] claims are made of injury, the defendant asserts that your injury is completely or at least in part due to a previous or successive injury or health condition that you had sustained from another incident or independently, not the defendant's. As a result, the defendant does not owe you for your current physical condition.
If you look at the arguments, they are grasping for straws. It's also a norm to argue in all aspects, so as to convince the court to dismiss the case. However, that often doesn't work. You might want to check though, as it is clear that the defendant is not the girl. If the insurance is written in someone else's name, then you may have failed to follow all procedures.
You don't need a lawyer. However, if you are claiming a big sum and want enough to fix your car and then have some left for any injuries or loss in compensation (e.g., missing work), you might want to find a lawyer! Basically, if your case is good enough for superior court, rather than small claims, then hire a lawyer. Having a lawyer might also motivate the insurance to settle the case out of court. Again, I'm not a lawyer. The advice given is in the capacity of a layperson.
Facebook
Twitter