STATE OF CONFUSION )                        DISTRESS COURT

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss

                   )

 John W. Ivance Jr. (Jack)

        Plaintiff

     vs.                                    ANSWER

Farrell's Ice Cream Parlour (Fun House)

        Defendant

Comes now the Defendant with tears big as watermelons and with great trepidation and travail, and for its answer and various and sundry defenses herein, alleges:
                            I.
That except as otherwise admitted, qualified or commented upon, Defendant denies each and every matter and thing in Plaintiff's complaint determined.
                            II.
Admits Paragraph I. and II.
                            III.
That Defendant has no knowledge as to the chronological age of Plaintiff's counsel and puts Plaintiff to his proof thereof, but Defendant specifically denies that Plaintiff's counsel has attained maturity.
                            IV.
Admits that Plaintiff should at all times wear support stockings.
                            V.
Defendant has the following affirmative defenses:
(a) The negligence of Plaintiff was the sole and proximate cause of all injuries allegedly suffered by Plaintiff, if any. Such acts of negligence committed by Plaintiff are (i) failure to maintain a proper lookout at all times, (ii) focusing suchn lookout, if any, on certain feminine customers properly on the premises at the time the alleged incident took place, (iii) Plaintiff permitted himself to become wedged between the table and the wall behind him, thereby deliberately inviting the circumstances that he has alleged to occur.
(b) That Plaintiff assumed the risk of the alleged incident by entering Defendant's place of business in that such events are a recognized hazard of dining at Farrell's.
(c) That any humiliation and ridicule suffered by Plaintiff were the result of pre-existing conditions and totally unrelated to the event in controversy.
(d) The adhesive conditions alleged to have existed in Plaintiff's automobile were aggravated and increased by the Un-American activities of the Plaintiff and would have not existed in an American-built automobile.
                            VI.
Plaintiff has failed to mitigate damage in that the alleged difficulties with strange and assorted animals would have been solved by regular and periodic bathing.
                            VII.
Plaintiff's allegation that he was required to miss work must fail without an allegation that he was missed at work, and without proof of "the usual functions of his employment."
                            VII.
That the entire alleged incident is a hoax and fabrication, and never, in fact, occurred.
                            IX.
That there are no sauces and syrups in a cup of black coffee of the type which normally makes up the entire order placed by Plaintiff and/or his counsel.
                            X.
That the damages sought by Plaintiff are excessive in view of all of the circumstances, and that the other relief has no basis in law.
WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that the Plaintiff take nothing by his alleged cause of action and that his complaint be dismissed, that Defendant be awarded it attorneys fees and costs herein, that in the unlikely event of a favorable decision for Plaintiff, Defendant be permitted to mitigate damages by paying the entire value of Plaintiff's suit prior to the accident rather than the excessive $2.50 cleaning bill claimed by Plaintiff.
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT