COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MIDDLESEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT WOLFE STYKE, Plaintiff, v. MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY and RUSSELL J. NOVELLO, Civil Action No. MICV2010-03849 Defendants. ANSWER OF DEFENDANT MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Defendant Massachusetts Institute of Technology ("MIT") hereby answers the Complaint of Wolfe Styke ("Complaint" and "Plaintiff') as follows: "THE PARTIES" 1. MIT lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 1, and on that basis denies them. 2. MIT admits the allegations in Paragraph 2. 3. MIT lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 3, and on that basis denies them. "THE FACTS" 4. With respect to the first two sentences of Paragraph 4, MIT admits that on or about October 23,2007, Plaintiff was enrolled as a student at MIT and was assigned a room in a dormitory. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 4 state conclusions oflaw and therefore
require no response. To the extent a response is required, and except as expressly admitted herein, MIT denies the allegations in Paragraph 4. 5. With respect to the first sentence of Paragraph 5, MIT states that the phrase "at all material times" is undefined and vague, and admits only that Russell Novello was an employee of MIT on or about October 23,2007. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 5 state conclusions oflaw and therefore require no response. To the extent a response is required, and except as expressly admitted herein, MIT denies the allegations in Paragraph 5. 6. The allegations in Paragraph 6 state conclusions of law and therefore require no response. To the extent a response is required, MIT denies the allegations in Paragraph 6. 7. The allegations in Paragraph 7 state conclusions of law and therefore require no response. To the extent a response is required, MIT denies the allegations in Paragraph 7. 8. The allegations in Paragraph 8 state conclusions oflaw and therefore require no response. To the extent a response is required, MIT denies the allegations in Paragraph 8. 9. The allegations in Paragraph 9 state conclusions of law and therefore require no response. To the extent a response is required, MIT denies the allegations in Paragraph 9. "CAUSES OF ACTION" "First Cause of Action" 10. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 10, MIT states only that Plaintiff allegations in Paragraph 10. 2
"Second Cause of Action" 11. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 11, MIT states only that Plaintiff allegations in Paragraph 11. "DEMANDS FOR RELIEF" 12. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 12, MIT states only that Plaintiff allegations in Paragraph 12, and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief. 13. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 13, MIT states only that Plaintiff allegations in Paragraph 13, and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief. "JURY CLAIM" 14. With respect to the allegations in Paragraph 14, MIT states only that Plaintiff allegations in Paragraph 14, and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of charitable immunity as set forth in G.L. c. 231, 85K, and MIT's liability to Plaintiff, if any, is limited to $20,000. L1BAl21S6218.1 3
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of contributory negligence as set forth in G.L. c. 231, 85. In the alternative, MIT is entitled to a reduction in damages in proportion to Plaintiff s negligence or fault, as provided by G.L. c. 231, 85. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any injury, loss or damage alleged in the Complaint resulted in whole or in part from an intervening cause andlor causes, and any actions on the part of MIT were not the proximate andlor competent producing cause of such alleged injuries, losses, or damages. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The damages alleged by Plaintiff, which MIT denies, resulted solely from the acts or omissions of third parties not under the control of MIT, for whose conduct MIT is not responsible, and with whom MIT has no legal relation. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff has failed to join necessary andlor indispensable parties. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Complaint is barred in whole or in part by the applicable statutes of limitations andlor the doctrines of estoppel, waiver, unclean hands, andlor laches. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Under the doctrines of contribution and indemnification, persons or entities other than MIT are wholly or in part responsible for whatever damages, if any, are alleged in the Complaint. 4
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MIT hereby gives notice that it intends to rely upon such other and further defenses as may become available and apparent during discovery proceedings in this case and hereby reserves the right to amend this Answer and assert such defenses. Respectfully submitted, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY By its attorneys, Dated: March 15,2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. Feeherry (BBO# 160860) Chad. Higgins (BBO# 668924) Yvonne W. Chan (BBO# 669223) Goodwin Procter LLP 53 State Street Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Tel.: 617.570.1000 Fax: 617.523.1231 E-Mail: afeeherry@goodwinprocter.com chiggins@goodwinprocter.com ychan@goodwinprocter.com I, Yvonne W. Chan, hereby certify that on March 15,2011, a true copy of the foregoing document was served by first class mail upon counsel of record in this action. 5