HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-02083
s
~
1
u
IV') 1_"""7',
00 ; .t
R .. ~
'"
, ' I]"
" 1.1 II..
..3 , - <1l
0- <. , \~ ()(> ':r
~ 0 ;~ .::J ...
,} "'j d N)
'< , , , '. , w l() 1'1
~ II
" lJ) 1" , r.i
, '" :J
"
:z:
~. IN
2::: ,..._
s~i~j~
! cw: ~ ~ ~ ;::
~~;!q~~
... CIl !.. , ~
. z ~:j
Q- .~~
"'- I-
o -
"" :
.. <
'" :0:
:c
...........
--
,
,! 'I'
,"'.~~
..t<<.__::' .
;lWlIl ,. .IV..... '
, ,...~ '
~f~'>>...... ',~.
,""~ .'
"
"
,
,
, : f
i 'I'
, /:
,.- ,..
.#.
,
"
y
",\ ,
~,
\ ...
~'
I
I "
~; I
,
I
, "
.. I
, r
)
I "11
i :r
" I,
.1
Ii
il:
, I,
,
"
~.'1\1'"
, .
. ,
t,'"
,
'"
'"
." ~ '{9'
't
i.,t.
,
~
,
\ :"
-4" "
,t.....")-,.
"
..
.'
"
"0' .....
t'.: c.: , ,
, .. : l:
, , "
ut' ,.
(,.) ( " ..
II" .. i
''1',- , )
[" ,
" , ,)
, : ,
L, I ~
i ...
,
'..
~'.")
.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the
foregoing document upon the personCs) and in the manner indicated
below, which eervice satisfies the requirements of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of
same in the united states Hail, first-class postage prepaid,
addressed as follows:
Dennis R. Shaeffer. Esquire
Hepford, Swartz & Morgan
111 N. Front street
P.O. Box 889
Harrisburg. PA 17108-0889
McKissack & Hoffman, P.C.
, "
BY :"-...3 r-; G e....:Q
B. Craig BlZ;, Esquire -,-
105 North Front street
Suite 205
HarriSburg, PA 17101
Telephone: (717) 234-0103
Supreme Court I.D. No. 36818
Attorneys for Defendant
i
I
,I
I
DATED: SEP 2 :11996
" i
,
I
I
I
'~
-. ~ -'I'
il: L-,
-,
, "...;
~t~ t .
f',
.1_. t j
("jl
I' I
')' (.-~j t,
li, t;'1
,.~I, ' :
Lt.. , , .I.
f :
.' '"~ : "
......' t. .
z !
~
o ~ _;:;
:I i! "'-
"'",lti~
j~l~~~
III ~ ,a ~ ...
-< . ~ ~
.s~j~~a
~ :: 1--
.. .
.. =
::r:
.
~
. ~
, ,
I'.,
.
.
mccabe.cpt
4. At the aforementioned time Plaintiff, Warren K. McCabe, was
operating a 1991 Chevrolet Lumina in a westerly direction on Bast Main
Street. At the aforementioned time, Plaintiff, Theresa J. McCabe, was
seated in the front passenger seat.
5. At the aforementioned time, Defendant was operating a 1994
Dodge Caravan in a westerly direction on Bast Main Street.
6. At the aforementioned time, Plaintiffs were stopped in
traffic on the westbound lane of Bast Main Street when Defendant
failed to stop. As a result, Defendant's motor vehicle struck the
rear of Plaintiffs' motor vehicle and pushed Plaintiffs' motor vehicle
into the rear of the vehicle ahead of Plaintiffs.
7. The aforementioned accident results solely from the
negligence, carelessness and recklessness of Defendant and was not
due to any act or failure to act on the part of Plainti.ffs.
8. At the aforementioned time, Defendant operated his vehicle
in a negligent, careless and reckless manner. Said negligence,
carelessness and recklessness includes but is not limited to:
a) Failing to have his vehicle under proper and adequate
control at all times;
b) Failing to keep a reasonable look: out for other
vehicles lawfully on the roadway;
c) Failing to take any evasive action in order to avoid
the collision;
d) Failing to keep within a reasonable and clear distance
from Plaintiffs' motor vehicle;
- 2 -
mccabe.cpt
e) Failing to stop within an assured clear distance; and
f) Otherwise driving in a manner in violation of the
Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Law; 75 Pa.C.S.A. ~ 3310,
Following Too Closely, and 75 Pa.C.S.A. ~ 3361, Driving
Vehicle at Safe Speed.
COUNT I
There.a J. McCabe v. Donald Baum
INeerlierence)
9. The allegations contained in Paragraph5 1 through 8 hereof
are incorporated herein by reference thereto.
10. As a result of Defendant's negligence, carelessness and
recklessness, Plaintiff, Theresa J. McCabe, has suffered numerous
severe and permanent injuries and symptoms including, but not limited
to the following:
a) Right hand contusion and pain;
b) Right hand numbness;
c) Inability to move and use right hand and fingers;
d) Neck sprain/strain with pain;
e) Back sprain/strain with pain; and
f) An aggravation of a pre-existing cervical spine and
neck condition.
11. As a result of Defendant's negligence, carelessness and
recklessness, Plaintiff., Theresa McCabe, has incurred injuries which
are severe, permanent and disabling in nature.
12. As a result of her injuries and Defendant's negligence,
-3-
mccabe.cpt
carelessness and recklessness, Plaintif f, Theresa McCabe, has suf fered
and will continue to suffer in the future severe physical pain,
sutfering, mental anguish, humiliation and a loss of life's pleasures.
13. As a result of her injuries and Defendant's negligence,
carelessness and recklesBlless, Plaintiff, Theresa McCabe, has suffered
physical impairments which have and may hinder all or substantially
all of their material duties which constitute their usual and
customary daily activities.
14. As a result of her injuries and Defendant's negligence,
carelessness and recklessness, Plaintiff has suffered a severe and
permanent loss of earnings and impairment of their earning capacity.
15. To the extent permitted by applicable law, Plaintiffs'
claims herein for her lost earnings and earning capacity incurred as
the result of her injuries.
16. As a resul t of her injuries and Defendant's negligence,
carelessness and recklessness, Plaintiff, Theresa McCabe, has and will
be obligated to receive and undergo medical attention, care and
therapy and have incurred various expenses for medical treatment,
therapy and expenses relating thereto and would be obligated to
continue to expend such sums or incur such expenses for an indefinite
time in the future.
17. To the extent permitted by applicable law, Plaintiff Theresa
McCabe's claim herein for her past and future medical and therapy
expenses and all expenses related thereto incurred as a result of her
injuries.
-4-
mccabe.cpt
18. As a result of her injuries and Defendant's negligence,
carelessness and recklessness, Plaintiff, Theresa McCabe, has or may
hereinafter incur other financial expenses or losses for which she
claims herein to the extent permitted by applicable law.
WHBRBFORB, Plaintiff, Theresa McCabe, demands judgment against
Defendant, Donald Baum, in an amount in excess of the li.mits at
mandatory arbitration, plus interest and costs of the proceeding.
COUNT II
Warren k. McCabe. Plaintiff v. Donald Baum. De~
ILoss of Consortiw;l
19. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 18 hereof
are incorporated herein by reference.
20. During the aforementioned time, Plaintiff, Warren K. McCabe..
was and is the husband of Plaintiff, Theresa McCabe.
21. As a result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Theresa
McCabe, sustained injuries and damages as aforesaid.
22. By reason of the aforesaid Defendant's negligence, the
Plaintiff, Warren McCabe, has been deprived of the assistance,
society, services, and consortium of his said wife, Theresa McCabe,
all of which has been to great financial damage and loss.
23. As a result of Plaintiff Theresa McCabe's injuries and
damages and Defendant's negli.gence, carelessness and recklessness as
aforesaid, Plaintiff, Warren McCabe, incurred various expenses for the
medical treatment and therapy, and expenses related thereto for
Plaintiff Theresa McCabe's treatme~t.
-5-
...
,
"
'" ~
" '......:1..' t4t\ ,
, ,
, l'
~, " I
'. , I
"I' II ~' .
'~~ .
~, . ,
~ . 'i", I
" :1
i'" .'
r- ' r
". t-(,,~
"
. ,t I "
.J
. I
'.
;-, ,
.1
,
:- \
\
,
I I
"
'I
.,. .-.
II-
I (':
lUI " ,
,.> .- "j
tJ:
I
(:: ; :!
r:'., ,
~! I ( t]
I. L. ('.1...
I L.
I' I )
" <. I <..'J
.
automobile accident which occurred on April 18, 1994 at
approximately 5:17 P.M. at or about the intersection of east Main
street and Filbert street in Mechanicsburg Borough, Cumberland
County, pennsyl vania, Defendant admits only the an automobile
accident did occur at said location at said time. To the extent
that the averments in paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs' Complaint intend
to infer or aver anything over and above the date and time of the
accident, said averments are specifically denied. After reasonable
investigation Answering Defendants are of insufficient knowledge
and information to form a belief as to the truth of said averments.
strict proof, if relevant, is demanded upon the trial of the
matter.
4. Denied. After reasonable investigation Answering
Defendant is of insufficient knowledge and information to form a
belief as to the truth of the averments in paragraph 4 of
Plaintiffs' Complaint. strict proof, if relevant, is demanded upon
the trial of the matter.
5. Admitted.
6. Denied. It is denied that the Defendant failed to stop
the motor vohicle which he was operating resulting in said
automobile striking the rear of Plaintiffs' vehicle and pushing
Plaintiffs' motor vehicle into the rear of the vehicle ahead of
Plaintiffs. To the contrary, Defendant believes that PlaintiffS'
vehicle may have impacted the rear of a vehicle in front of
PlaintiffS and then, in an attempt to back away from said
collision, struck the Defendant's vehicle. The remaining averments
2
in paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied in that
Answering Defendant is of insufficient knowledge and information to
form a b~lief as to the truth of said averments. Strict proof, if
relevant, is demanded upon the trial of the matter.
7. The averments in paragraph 7 of Plaintifts' Complaint
constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading i.
required. To the extent that the averments in paragraph 7 do not
constitute conclusions of law and are fact specific, same are
denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant was in any
way negligent, careless and/or reckless with respect to the
accident. Answering Defendant hereby incorporates by reference the
averments in New Matter, paragraphs 25 through 33 hereinafter.
8. The averments in paragraph 8 constitute conclusions of
law to which no responsive pleading in required. To the extent
that the avermftnts in paragraph 8 do not constitute conclusions of
law and are fact specific, same are denied. Specifically, it i.
denied that the Defendant operated his vehicle in a negligent,
careless and reckless manner or that Defendant:
a) Failed to have his vehicle under proper and adequate
control at all times;
b) Failed to keep a reasonable lookout for other vehicle.
lawfully on the roadway;
c) Failed to take any evasive action in order to avoid the
collision;
d) Failed to keep within a reasonable and clear distance
from Plaintiffs' motor vehicle;
e) Failed to stop within an assured clear distance; or
f) Otherwise drove and/or operated the vehicle in a manner
in violation of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Law, 7~
3
Pa.C.S.A. 53310, Following Too Closely, and 75 Pa.C.S.A.
53361, Driving Vehicle at Safe Speed.
To the contrary the collision and the resulting injuries, if
any sustained by the Plaintiffs, were the direct result of
Plaintiff Warren McCabe's negligent and erratic operation of his
motor vshicle as more fully set forth in paragraph 6 hereinabove,
which allegations are specifically incorporated herein.
Strict
proof, if relevant, is demanded upon the trial of the matter.
COUNT J
TBBRIIA J. MoCABI V. DONALD BAUM I NIOLIO.HCI I
9. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8
hereof are incorporated herein by reference.
10. The averments in paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs' Complaint
constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is
required.
To the extent the averments in paragraph 10 of
Plaintiffs' Complaint do not constitute conclusions of law and are
fact specific, same are denied. After reasonable investigation
Answering Defendant is of insufficient knowledge and information to
form a belief as to the truth of said averments. Strict proof, if
relevant, is demanded upon the trial of the matter.
11. The averments in paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs' Complaint
constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading i.
required.
To tho extent the averments in paragraph 11 of
Plaintiffs' Complaint do not constitute conclusions of law and are
fact specific, same are denied. After reasonable inve.tigation
Answering Defendant is of insufficient knowledge and information to
form a belief as to the truth of said averments. Strict proof, if
4
relevant, is demanded upon the trial of the matter.
12. The avermftnts in paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs' Complaint
constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading i.
required. To the extent the averments in paragraph 12 of
Plaintiffs' Complaint do not constitute conclusions of law and are
fact specific, same are denied. After reasonable investigation
Answering Defendant is of insufficient knowledge and information to
form a belief as to the truth of said averments. strict proof, if
relevant, is demanded upon the trial of the matter.
13. The averments in paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs' Complaint
constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent the averments in paragraph 13 of
Plaintiffs' Complaint do not constitute conclusions of law and are
fact specific, same are denied. After reasonable investigation
Answering Defendant is of insufficient knowledge and information to
form a belief as to the truth of said averments. strict proof, if
relevant, is demanded upon the trial of the matter.
14. The averments in paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs' Complaint
constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent the averments in paragraph 14 of
Plaintiffs' complaint do not constitute conclusions of law and are
fact specific, same are denied. After reasonable investigation
Answering Defendant is of insufficient knowledge and information to
form a belief as to the truth of said averments. Strict proof, if
relevant, is demanded upon the trial of the matter.
15. The averments in paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs' Complaint
5
constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is
required.
16. The averments in paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs' Complaint
constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent the averments in paragraph 16 of
Plaintiffs' Complaint do not constitute conclusions of law and are
fact specific, same are denied. After reasonable investigation
Answering Defendant is of insufficient knowledge and information to
form a belief as to the truth of said averments. strict proof, if
relevant, is demanded upon the trial of the matter.
17. The averments in paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs' Complaint
constitute concluaions of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent the averments in paragraph 17 of
Plaintiffs' Complaint do not constitute conclusions of law and are
fact specific, same are denied. After reasonable investigation
Answering Defandant is of insufficient knowledge and information to
form a belief as to the truth of said averments. strict proof, if
relevant, is demanded upon the trial of the matter.
18. The averments in paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs' Complaint
constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent the averments in paragraph 18 of
Plaintiffs' Complaint do not constitute conclusions of law and are
fact specific, same are denied. After reasonable investigation
Answering Defendant is of insufficient knowledge and information to
form a belief as to the truth of said averments. strict proof, if
relevant, i. demanded upon the trial of the matter.
6
WHEREFORE, Defendant Donald Baum demands that judgment be
entered in his favor, that Plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed and
this Honorable Court order costs and such other equitable relief as
it deems appropriate.
COUNT II
WARRIIl I. lIoeDI v. DOIlALD DlPI (LOll or COIlIORTIUIII
19. The averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 18
hereinabove are incorporated herein by reference.
20. Denied.
After reasonable investigation Answering
Defendant is of insufficient knowledge and information to form a
belief as to the t~uth of the averments contained in paragraph 20
of Plaintiffs' Complaint. strict proof, if relevant, is demanded
upon the trial of the matter.
21. The averments in paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs' Complaint
constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent that said averments are fact specific and
do not constitute conclusions of law, same are denied.
strict
proof, if relevant, is demanded upon the trial of the matter.
22. The averments in paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs' complaint
constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent that said averments are fact specific and
do not constitute conclusions of law, same are denied.
Strict
proof, if relevant, is demanded upon the trial of the matter.
23. The averments in paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs' Complaint
constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent that said averments are fact specific and
do not. constitute conclusions of law, same are denied.
strict
7
prOOf, if relevant, is demanded upon the trial of the matter.
24. The averments in paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs' Complaint
constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent that said averments are fact specific and
do not constitute conclusions of law, same are denied. strict
proof, if relevant, is demanded upon the trial of the matter.
WHEREFORB, Defendant Donald Baum prays that this Honorable
Court enter judgment in his favor and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint
and award Defendant the costs and such other equitable relief as
this Court deems appropriate.
liD IlATTIlR
25. Answering Defendant incorporates all prior paragraphs as
if set forth more fully at length.
26. Plaintiffs' claims are
provisions of the Pennsylvania
specifically 42 Pa.C.S.A. S4102.
27. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or
provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle
Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S.A. S1701, ~ ~.
28. The Plaintiffs' alleged injuries were not proximately
caused by the actions or inactions of Defendant.
barred and/or limited by the
Comparative Negligence Act,
limi ted by
Financial
29. The chims of Plaintiffs are barred by the applicable
statute of Limitations.
30. The negligent act and/or omissions of other individuals
or entities constitutes an intervening or superseding cause of the
injuries allegedly sustained by the Plaintiffs.
8
~ co' ;~;
(":
i~ .. .'j .1':
~ I).;;
C. ;:;;: ):f..
~ u.. 1 ;.1
. .~.
" q. ,,' .,l
(' 1:,';
\'-
fI:l.\; ~.~ :iQ
l. Iu..
i~-. '-'
b "1 .. .
C, 0
...
0< I
<.:l
'"
0 ~
2 ~ ~.
~
~ <Ill ~ i ~ ~
,
n:! 6 .
, , ~
0'" .:: .i ;
~ ....
ill <( ::II 0 ~
j ~ - , ,
tIl ! 0; .t f
Q" . ~
.
'" ~ ~
s: - l-
.
.. .
'" .
:: :0:
"
, ,
. ,
.
.
.
IN THE COURT OF COM.\fON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
MCCABE
Vs.
No. 962083
BAUM
NOTICE OF RECORD DEPOSITION
TOI MICHAE~ PARK, BSQ
B. CRAIG BLACK (RBQUBSTOR)
PLEASB TAKE NOTICB THAT THB FOLLOWING RBCORD DBPOSITION WIL~ BB TAKBN AT
4940 DISSTON STa.BT, PHlLADB~PHIA, PA ON ~/~8/9i AT THB TIMB INDICATED.
DBPONBNT:
TIMII:
NATIONWIDB
BBRMUDIAN SPRING SCH DIST
HOLI SPIRIT HOSP
DR DOUGLAS SANDBRSON
DR JAMES HAMSHBR
DR STANLBY WBTMORE
DR DAVID ZIMMBRMAN
10:10 A.M.
10:15 A.M.
10:20 A.M.
10:25 A.M.
10:30 A.M.
10:35 A.M.
10:40 A.M.
Thore will be no interrogation of the deponent, and it is expected that
no attorneys will be present. If there is any objection raised by opposing
counsel, deponent will be notified. The price for the record is as
follows: first fifteen pages = $19.00 and each additional page = $.75
Thi. dep08ition i. for the purp08e of copying only. A copy of the above
notice was mailed on 5/9/97.
ATTORNBY FOR THB DBFBNDANT
By: Jacqueline Mumper
MBDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS, INC.
(215) 335-4907
Ene: Copy of 3ubpoe~a(G)
Counsel return card
1Q~89U
.,
,
{r. (') ~..
. tr: '.
j. .,
HI' I.',J
n .. ,.~
[~:.
olSi ,}~.
.1
t '" I .. ~
EL! t I :-. ' "
'Iul
r. IIi;, ~ :.1-
..
-
l.Ir ,... :.i
u m u
i5: ,,' '~
(".
- '.
I" \ .<
'(I'; ? (f'j
, . ~.~.
If';' 1'._ .1
(iJ,
",I!
.c\'. e ,.
f\.-' 11\,1
".J ",.1.-
1- ;.. '..l
~j ';;; u
~
<.:l
'"
~ ~
~ ~ '" '"
~~~~=
'" . ~
<....
j..~o
CIl ,! .;
c:;i"
~ :;
...
...
::
,I
'.
.....
..-
. .
if'
,
~,
!
~ ~
-
:;: !::
~ ~
,
i ~
l;i ~
~ ~
..
..
<
:c
.
,.(1
1,1
,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
,
AND NOW, this ~Ui day of -'.1~~
,1999, PAULA J.
BEITER, for the firm of TUCKER ARENSBERG & SWARTZ, allomeys for PlaintitTs,
hereby certify that I hove this day served the within document by depositing Il copy of the same
in the United States Mllit. postage prepaid, Ilt Harrisburg, Pennsylvanill, addressed as follows:
B. Craig Block. Esquire
Mckissock & HolTman
105 North Front Street
Suite 205
Harrisburg. PA 17101
Lindll Koch, Claim Specialist
State Farm Insurnnce Compnnies
lIS Limekiln Road
P.O. Box 257
New Cumberland. PA 17070.0257
,?k..... ,-J. /j~'.~J--
PA LA J. BEITfit
"
1,1' '
22811.1
~ _1' .j"::
~-t: L.-: -,.
~ ,(' N f..
.,
). , )
I..
I..','
.'- . ..:..
(.);
,1.. I
-.,.)
I:' I ,"
! ~
~ :liJj
_. I: '_
I
, CI )
L!l (j
.'