Legal Definitions - special traverse

Special Traverse

To fully understand a "special traverse," it's helpful to first grasp the more general legal concept of a "traverse."

• A traverse in law refers to a formal denial of a factual allegation made by an opposing party in a legal document, such as a complaint or an answer. When a party "traverses" an allegation, they are essentially stating, "I deny that this specific fact is true."

• A special traverse is a more specific and nuanced type of denial. It occurs when a party not only denies an opponent's factual allegation but also introduces new, affirmative facts that are inconsistent with, and effectively explain away or contradict, the opponent's original claim. In essence, it's a denial coupled with an alternative explanation or justification that presents a different set of circumstances.

  The purpose of a special traverse is to present a complete picture to the court, showing not just that the opponent's facts are wrong, but *why* they are wrong, by offering a contradictory set of facts that, if true, would defeat the opponent's claim.

Here are some examples to illustrate a special traverse:

• Example 1: Contract Dispute

  Imagine a scenario where a plaintiff sues a defendant, alleging that the defendant failed to deliver 500 custom-made parts as per a contract. The plaintiff's complaint states, "Defendant failed to deliver 500 custom parts on June 15th, causing significant delay."

  A special traverse by the defendant might state: "Defendant denies failing to deliver 500 custom parts on June 15th, and further asserts that defendant completed the parts by June 10th and attempted delivery on June 12th, but the plaintiff's facility was closed for unexpected maintenance, preventing acceptance of the shipment."

  How this illustrates the term: Here, the defendant doesn't just issue a simple denial ("We deny we failed to deliver"). Instead, they deny the plaintiff's specific allegation of non-delivery on the specified date and then introduce new facts (completion by June 10th, attempted delivery on June 12th, plaintiff's facility closure) that are inconsistent with the plaintiff's claim and provide an alternative explanation for why the parts weren't received by the plaintiff on June 15th.

• Example 2: Property Trespass

  Consider a case where a property owner (plaintiff) sues a utility company (defendant) for trespass, alleging that the company's workers entered and dug trenches on a specific portion of the plaintiff's land without permission to install new fiber optic cables.

  A special traverse by the utility company might state: "Defendant denies trespassing on plaintiff's land, and further asserts that defendant possesses a valid, recorded utility easement granted by the previous owner of plaintiff's property, which permits the installation and maintenance of utility lines across the specified portion of the land."

  How this illustrates the term: The utility company doesn't merely say, "We deny we trespassed." They deny the trespass and then introduce new, affirmative facts (the existence of a valid, recorded easement) that directly contradict the plaintiff's claim of unauthorized entry and provide a legal justification for their actions on the land.