HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-01509
\
J
I
I ~
I
'1
~
.4
~
"-. .
1
\-
J
c:;:r-.
~
: ~ ..)
- II"
. .....:1
Q--
~
r--
4. At the above-referenced time, Plaintiff Pamela K. Deibler
was operating a 1988 Toyota Camry Station Wagon that was owned by
her husband, Plaintiff Jeffrey K. Deibler.
5. At the above-referenced time, Defendant Spurgeon Darbrow
was operating a 1991 Chevrolet Truck, which he is believed, and
therefore averred, to be the owner.
6. At or around the above-referenced time, the automobile
driven by Plaintiff Pamela K. Deibler was approaching the traffic
signal at the intersection of Route 15 and the Cumberland County
Parkway.
7. At or around the above-referenced time, the automobile
driven by Defendant Spurgeon Dubrow was immediately behind the
automobile driven by Plaintiff Pamela K. Deibler, and also
approaching the traffic signal at. the intersection of Route 15 and
the Cumberland County Parkway.
8. At or around the above-referenced time, the traffic signal
at the intersection of Route 15 and the Cumberland County Parkway
turned red.
9. At or around the above-referenced time, the automobile
driven by Plaintiff Pamela K. Deibler came to a complete stop at
the red traffic signal.
10. At or around the above-referenced time, the automobile
driven by Defendant Spurgeon Dubrow failed to stop at the red
2
traffic signal, thereby colliding with the rear of Plaintiff Pamela
K. Deibler's stopped automobile.
11. The negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of
Defendant Spurgeon Dubrow consisted of the following:
(a) Failing to brake and stop his vehicle prior to
impacting with the rear of Plaintiff Pamela K. Deibler's vehicle in
violation of 75 Pa C.S.A. Sec. 4502{b);
(b) Failing to obey the instructions of an applicable
official traffic control device in violation of 75 Pa C.S.A. Sec.
3111;
(c) Failing to be attentive to the traffic conditions
there and then existing;
(d) Failing to have his vehicle under proper and
adequate control;
(e) Failing to drive in a safe and reasonable manner;
(f) Being inattentive; and,
(g) Moving hia vehicle in an unsafe manner in violation
of 75 Pa C.S.A. Sec. 3333.
12. The aforesaid negligence of Defendant Spurgeon Dubrow,
was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff Jeffrey K. Deibler's
property damage to his 1988 Toyota Camry Station Wagon.
13. As a result of the aforesaid negligence, Plaintiff
Jeffrey K. Dubrow suffered damage to his 1988 Toyota Camry Station
3
-r
'.'
~ ;--.
...
vi ~
--
-' ~ ~
, , V;::1
" \'0
U! ,,..,
@ ( - V) ~
I "
I a
(. :) 0 t:' ...j
" <J ~
( v, v,
,
. C l..? :q 1:\
L.. l.4
1>4.~ ~ ~Cl
b)..
0
= ...
Co) -
~ .. "
J III Z
j III " ~
a: ,.
~ .. .. .J
< III >- -
III
.tl III III Z ill
> .. z ...
'"
~ z " W N
'" .. 0.. ;:::
0 III
~ ~ " -
" a: r::
N ::>
al
III
a:
C'-) a:
"
J:
i'i; Q;) ,
I~ .....,
'1 ,'.-:1i
::r: '1i:
r: .... ,-J
&: In .s:
:. TI)
I I;
~" ::r: '::2
r!, ~ -d'l1
'T!~
h ~ d
0
0 ,...
~ I- 0(
~ '" z
0( '" 0( ~
.J Il: >
~ I- .J
0( f/l >-
<II ;,
~ '" z
otl >- I- :z ..
'" 0( Of
~ z' '"
~ l- ll. ;:
0 f/l
~ ~ " t
l- ll:
0( Of :)
III
<II
II!
II!
l"-l 0(
J:
- '.
7. Denied as stated. Answering party does not know who Spurgeon Dubrow is.
Defendant does admit that he was operating a motor vehicle on Winding Hill Road,
approaching the intersection with Route 1 5.
8. Admitted.
9. Denied as stated. To the contrary, the automobile driven by Pamela K. Deibler began
to enter the intersection as the light turned from green to yallow. That vehicle then
abruptly stopped, and then backed up on Winding Hill Road, heading toward the oncoming
vehicle driven by Defendant.
10. Denied as stated. If the allegation is that Defendant attempted to run the red light, it
is categorically denied. Defendant did attempt to stop for the red light, but his zone of
safety was reduced by the actions of Pamela K. Deibler who first started to enter the
intersection, then stopped and backed up. Defendant admits that his vehicle collidad with
the Deibler vehicle. Defendant has no knowledge of the actions of anyone named
Spurgeon Dubrow.
11. Denied as stated. Defendant has no knowledge of the actions of anyone named
Spurgeon Dubrow. Defendant himself denies that he was negligent. To the contrary,
Defendant made every effort to stop his vehicle in time to avoid a cllllision. but was not
able to do so because of the negligence of Pamela K. Deibler, who reduced his zone of
safety by performing an unsafe backing maneuver. Likewise. Defendant did obey the
applicable traffic signal. was attentive to the traffic conditions, made every effort to have
his vehicle under proper control while driving in a safe and reasonable manner while
obeying all applicable traffic laws.
12. Denied as stated. To the contrary, the accident was caused by the negligence of
Pamela K. Deibler, as explained more fully in new matter.
13. After reasonable investigation. Defendant lacks ~..owledge I.lr information sufficient to
enable him to form a response to the allegations ;,r paragraph 13. Such allegations are
therefore denied. and proof is demanded.
NEW MATTER
14. The Complaint fails to state a causa of action.
15. The accident described in the Complaint was due solely to the negligence of Pamela
K. Deibler. as a result of her starting to enter the intersection, then suddenly and without
warning stopping her vehicle and then backing it out of the intersection and into the path
of Defendant. and by her failing to maintain a proper lookout while backing her vehicle.
!
:~,I' ;:r; .r~;~,""=
(4,:,...:. ._,0",_
:'.:","'.1.. "; I
'- "
I,;" '., '.
rl
'....... '~
,-.;
-.. ~
..:: .......... ~
.11 f'- '~
(:, ~
I. I
,
~,' " 1) ~
., ~
I. ',j ~
- ,
'", "
~ \~ "..i.
.....' ~)
'=.J
-
" -I'
.,
,'-: ~:'
'-
c:.q;"
\'" (too ,
-'1
.,. ~
.
r- -
. -
""I 1
j ~
~l ~