How do I draft an answer to a duty of care claim?

Hi, my name is Randy and I’m happy to assist you today.

I understand you’re working on responding to a duty of care allegation in your lawsuit answer. I can share some general information about how these types of claims typically work.

The statement “At all times hereto, defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, and all drivers on the road, to operate his vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner” is establishing what’s called duty of care — the first element in any negligence claim.

In vehicle accident cases, this simply means that, as a driver, you have a legal responsibility to drive safely and reasonably. It’s a well-established principle in tort law that applies to all drivers.

When drafting your Answer, you usually respond to each numbered paragraph by either:

1. Admitting,
2. Denying, or
3. Stating that you lack sufficient knowledge to form a belief about the allegation.

For a duty of care claim, you have a few strategic options:

1. Admit the General Duty

Most defense attorneys admit that drivers owe a general duty of care since it’s a basic legal concept.

• Example: “Defendant admits that, as a driver, he owed a duty to operate his vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner as required by law.”

This avoids unnecessary argument about a universally accepted legal duty.

2. Admit in Part, Deny in Part

You can acknowledge the general duty while preserving your defense:

“Defendant admits that, as a general matter, drivers owe a duty to operate vehicles in a safe and reasonable manner, but denies any breach of such duty or liability to Plaintiff.”

3. Deny

You could deny the allegation outright, but this is rarely effective and can make your defense appear unreasonable, since the existence of a duty of care is a settled point of law.

The real dispute in most car accident cases isn’t whether a duty existed — it’s whether you breached that duty, whether the breach caused the accident, and what damages resulted.

Successful defenses typically focus on:

• Showing you acted reasonably,
• Demonstrating the plaintiff’s contributory negligence, or
• Disputing causation and damages.

In most jurisdictions, when you admit an allegation, you don’t need to explain it.

• A simple statement such as “Paragraph 2 is admitted,” or “Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 2,” is standard and sufficient.

Adding explanations to admissions can sometimes cause confusion or unintentionally limit what you’re admitting.

You only need brief clarifications in limited cases:

• Partial admissions: “Defendant admits that drivers owe a general duty of care under applicable law.”
• Qualified admissions: When clarifying the scope of an admission.
• Complex factual paragraphs: When a paragraph mixes true and disputed facts.

It’s great that you explained your denials — that helps show your defense is reasonable. Keep your admissions simple and your denials explained.

Your instinct is exactly right.

I don’t mind reading it at all. Please send it over.

Your explanation is actually very good — it’s clear, factual, and contains important details that support your defense.

Here’s my feedback:

What works well:

• Logical timeline.
• Specific, relevant details (white line violation, vehicle positions).
• Factual, not emotional.

Potential concerns:

• This level of detail is usually placed in a “General Denial” or “Affirmative Defense” section, not within your paragraph responses.
• By providing a very detailed narrative early on, you’re locking yourself into that version of events. Make sure every fact is accurate and supported by evidence.
• Many attorneys prefer to keep the initial Answer brief to avoid giving the plaintiff’s attorney a roadmap of your defense.

A safer approach might be:

• “Defendant denies that he was negligent or caused the accident described in the Complaint. The accident was caused by Plaintiff’s improper lane change and violation of traffic laws.”
• That keeps it concise while preserving your full defense for later filings.
• That said, if all your facts are accurate and consistent with evidence, your current version isn’t wrong — it’s just more detailed than necessary at this stage.

You’re very welcome.

Yes — definitely keep that to yourself and your lawyer until the proper time for disclosure or discovery.

No need to reveal evidence early; save it for when it’s strategically appropriate.