The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About96-02184 . NOS. I & 2 PATRICIA A. CAMPBELL. Plaintill" IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERl.AND COUNTY. PENNSYl. VANIA vs. 96-1542 CIVIl. ROISSY DEVELOPMENT CORP.. : INC.. DENNIS SHOWAKER lId/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN CONSTRlJ('TlON. Defcndants CIVIL ACTION -l.A W HEMPT BROS.. INC.. Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA vs. 96-2 I 84 CIVIL ROISSY DEVELOPMENT CORP.. : INC.. DENNIS SIIOWAKER. lId/b/a NORTlI MOliN rAIN CONSTRUCTION. Dcfendants CIVIL ACTION - LA W IN RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE Prescnl at a prctrial confcrence held February 24. 1999. were Joseph L. llitchings. Esquire. attorney for plaintiff Hempt Brns.. Inc.: Karl R. lIildabrand. Esquire. aUorney defendant Dennis Showaker; ami David A. Kreidcr. Esquirc, attorney for defendant Roissy Development Corp.. Inc. The ease at 96-1542 has becn selllcd. The rcmaining claim. in which lIempt Bros. is the pIaintin~ is lilr damage to a twenty.yem.old ecm~nt mixcr truck. Thc claim is below thc level set for arbitration ami an ord<:r has been entered. of ewn date hcrcwith. rcferring this mailer to arbitration. Inlhc l11eanlime. Mr. Ilitchings asked thatlhis mel110rundum rcllcctthatlIempt . . . Bros. will. in the future. ~ represented by Dllvid Del.uce. Esquire. Februury 24. 1999 ;J Joseph L. lIitchings. Esquire Dllvid W. Del.ucc. Esquire For Hempt Bros.. Inc. David A. Kreider. Esquire For Roissy Developmcnt Corp. Karl R. Hildabrand. Esquire For Dennis Showakcr :rlm " LA'IV OFFlCIS JOHNSON, DUFFIE, S'fEWART (I WEIDNER ,I... , ToIephone (711) 7.lAS40 T.Ic........ (717) 761.JOlJ j HEMPT BROS.. INC. 206 Creek Roed Cemp HIli, PA 17011 Plelntiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA NO. f{, -21 J4- (/u~'- e JLL CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. ROISSY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. 109- 7 Eest MIln Street Shlremlnstown, PA 17011 DENNIS SHOWAKER t/d/b/l NORTH MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION 429 Ponderosl ROld ClrUsll. PA 17013 JAMES MILLER 649 Blrnstlble ROld Clrllsle, PA 17013 Defendsnts PRAECIPE TO ISSUE WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Olte: :12'1~~ I, I I ~ , I I ~ (~ I PlelSe issue I Writ of Summons upon each of the Defendants. Rolssy Development Corporltion, Inc.. Dennis Showaker l/d/b/a North Mountain Construction, and James Miller, In the ebove-caplloned action. 'c. avid W. eLuc Attorney 1.0. No. 41687 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne. PA 17043.0109 Telsphone (717) 761.4540 Attorneys for Plaintiff I. i' ,it.. " - I ,~~ ...... c:-i o,),J -. ....., """" '""" .... ~ " '" ~...J "'"' \' . . -. ~ ( e:2f '.,"1 ~ ~ ,. ....., ~~ . , -J -. ~. <::" . t,' ..... 1.::1 , ' -l~ . -, , " , , I ~ - ) __'1 ;-:1 ,": ) jin I . '; ...~ ., '1" ~ ' " ,-', ., .' I, .1 , ." ,:,': "" 1.'1 ..< Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland Hernpt Bros., I nc. 205 Creek Road Camp Hill PA 17011 v. Roissy Development Corporation, 109-7 E. Main St. Shiremanstown PA 17011 Dennis Showaker t/d/b/a Nort.h Mountain Construction 429 ponderosa Road Carlisle PA 17013 J ames Miller 549 Barnstable Road Carlisle PA 17013 Inc. COUrt or Common Pleu 96-2184 Civil Term ------------------------------------- No. 19____ In __... __ .~! Y..!~__~_c:~_~c:~ _=__~_~!__~________ Roissy Development Corporation, Inc., Dennis Showaker t/d/b/a To _..t:l.R!'.tQ_J\:19.Yll.t!tJ.tI_S,p.l.l!l.t:r.Y!Y.U.Rl.l..Ond James Miller: You art hereby notiried that Hempt Bros., Inc. .------------------------------------------------.----------------------------------------------- the PIaintirrs ha vecommenced an action in __...______.!:I_I!'!'!'l9nl!._:_.c;;t'!t~_ACJ~j!?..!n_:._~~!.... against you which you are required to derend or . default judgment may be entered apInst you. (SEAL) L"wr,n"e" ".1 k.... . ' ._____n_...._ --""-4~"- ....~. ....."'................. Proij , By _____p-M:...~ .. ~'_' .. .~_~'. , . . 'r 1 ., . , <.1' ' ''', ' " " 1 "'1_' ,,;\, """i'," ,.,-,.;.'11,,"> '. . I!" ",--,, '....1 :,\.''' I II . \ ......".1 "'<1'1: ,!,,'H!~I.N , :.. '. '. (,I,(,:,.,.,;.'J ,_ , "\""1" "P':_"A,\:':j:,\.tIJ;I.',l" , \'-'f J','H \ '-"~"l \\t V, 'J- ,',,~ \r,,_, ,) , . ,t.- ,_""\,,,11,,1 ,.\.' '_ .."".""1 '.1,:;\'>1,''',' Date ____.____~p!..!.l__?~!_u___... 19__~~ . ~ T~~I n :J: n 11' .... III :I: . "'. ",.0 -""::l 0 C1l < .... ;:I 0. () "'. a ~ ;:l 0... "'. 10".1(1)......... fJ) '0 (1\ ~ ~II~ .... C1l 11'0'- en 11' I I '1 a -.... '< '" :to J I (lj 0 o:J ... 0 , 0 C1l 0 '1 ClO 11' I ... Z::l C1l 0 ... II ~;$ ~ I",. I "'.O::l < en '0 I 0'1 ",. C1l . n ~g ~JI ';:I ;:Irten.... - "'. I, , , ;:r 0 < , I (lj Ul~ .... "'. I , ;:Ix;:r ::l .... 't'" I 0. 0 0 C1l () i(lj S' , r:: .: ::l . >-l I': , ~::l (lj 11' C1l I ...,.. a ,.. ;:I (lj C1l n I ;:I ",. '10 r I I ~'::l - .a , , ' ",I ., ,I, I I I I I I " ~ i , j i , / I I I ,I . , , I}) I.I! iI, 11 I " , I , I : , , I , I , , I I , II , , ." Ii;', I' !'j I !ll 11 ,'J \'I'.'.!.. 'i' P:1i I "hi i,1 !': I:t' /;1', !', \'" i ' , ~ ,I .,1 1,'!I':! r'\!j Iii , .' I " I,I, 'FI r ! " E.... j III I! i! " i ~ j 'Of .,' ',j! II) 'dJ.. I J' ,II '1111: j, I, II" Ii, .i" ,;-11 ;.1' '"I L" Ii ,'1\ ,l'i' hj /1 j~ U: i 'J / I I r I. i /, l' ,1.r. l'ii ,I! !-',\1J:lj"' /; '11' Iii " 'I , , i' , I! :1 , , iT I. ii' , . I I " _I r~ , II It'l 'f ',)rl' I , I , , I" 1\1, L', I I , , I , , I , , , I , I , 1 I , , , " .. , ., I " " ,.'j, :-, . ,:1 , I Ii ,,.I " )', ',"';1 " , ,I ::;;;;r. ". 7. ~- -<:~. - . " , ., Ii , ',II il1; Ii L I ','1. " ~:'/~~h/ 11,1 'I ,".ll',:!.- " ~ q~ \'~a~O )~I~,' - , ,. 'I' I , i" n , 'JI " , , I, " ... : :"1 ,II l;i I. \ ' [ I ~ I ' I. .1, , I I , , , f'l ! I . I icf " I i , " , . , .' " I, , I '. p' I " II' '.. ,'" \ ! i'. \)'. I'r.,;' ill';' i!!,'!,f'. j 1 , " , 1 'II 0,11,1 ,. 'Ll L"I,j ;H~ .~ '1(,- y~~ Q~ ~. M-p:r:; ;1" 111;r!' " 'i I J""\I)I 'I' II' " ,! I' I, 1'1/, I:! 1",:1 '1111", I l\:' i 11:1['\II~I' ''''1,; I' ,I, I'll! 1"1 t,'-' jl'j,!, { '.'~:11U.' 1 J: f I'" i t ii q'" 1)1 'Jil';\ " ....1\ ., t1,j Y ".ll, ',\',,1 11 P,E:jll,.(UI r'; (If'II1.1'. 'IN (,I'MN~:. .,. , ':il ,.:.1';" \14"ld 111,,' .' ",r, r"; , I:.h~ll-~:lQt " , ", f /,1_1.' ';qnl' ';:'1';1' ~I ?;..~~-<<. _ ~-cct r..' "'~I (I . lilll'.\llt'~'I'lj ,)! 1\0, l~: '.oJ 1\ I. '4'-:.'."NI'.H ',I " 'I " ," \ :;1 " ,}, i., I' t II f ". ,., ,'. 'j.11 " I'IJ " ,'''' ' II d" -'iI " I f,q " " ' , , ' ......11 '1'..".,,1 , '~I i j" tl i: ',,; '" ~-', I ,. In' ~ I' ;;"i:.['\. ",'I;fri .1., II! I, I fl' , II ': ~ " r r I i II, " hi ,I. P " fl,. ,~: .1, ,',1,1, " "11I10EI\I.,ltH'. ,:,"J:'II(f1";'r:Lf I', " I', '. iI ~ I I r , ! ' r ~ J; I ,111.1',11,1\1,'1:.1,.' , I" " " (.fi- 'i'11';r1 .-" !' !,' "J ",, ", I, ;llI1\'I,~(lLt;1 thl,.~~-"'i'lJ.t l'l! II !'II ", hi "ii,' ?M:.;~J<~ I ; I I,". :111;' ( I f ( ,I 1,j ., , ~d~ ~ f~ t~ 'Ie" CMv- C. ~,~- " , , " "., I '. " " " , . , "1, , 'I " , " " , " '.' " -' ,., '~"'\, \.'~'I,J ,.- tj;.iil ~J' ~ 'Nil.. I l~"1 0 13:0rt....'" ;l; , I ",. ",. 0.......:;:) 0 ~ 0 < i-'::I C. 0 '"', ;) .., I ~ iiI- ",. ~..qn ........ en '0 '" i-' I'D r1' a.. en rt I Il> 0;0;....... '< N CillO I:Il ... , 10 r Olliffi' 0; co , rt rtZ:;:) 0 ... , I;$ lC~ I",. II "'.0:;:) < III 10 00;",.(1) . n ~ 141 I :l ::IrtlJl..... - "', :T 0 < o~ '. i I' III Ul1il H "'. I ::I3::T ::I i-' , 't" C. 0 0 11l 0 I 101 S' C t: :;:) . o-j It: ~::Illlrt 11l I I rt;><' a ,. ::I III (1) n I r ::I"', 0; 0 r , I ~'::l' .a , , I I , I , , I VI,NV ^ -u S ~Hl3d 'J'IC:;'-I\!\I') . ,. 96. Nd 60 21 sz'" ;'.il . ,I do/no ~~i..Il. .I1i.L .0 3:1I~JO " i o o o . " , , I l , , , , , - , ~/ ~~ ~~ '€- .. i:; .. ~]o 'r i~~ ~ ~ .r. ''';j .. '6 ~t!'i1 '" .- w .., - ~~~ ~~ 51 " .. ~.~ I- ~ ~ ~ '" ~ rfj )( Z ' . . ~ ! 'i> '" r .. ~ t ~8 d ~~" ~ liS ;;. ,.; 6: .. ~ w ;; ..~ ,... ~~f i::j"S r ~ - ~ : ~~ a:: ~ ~r. - ~ ~~~~ o It "f- .. ~ ~ (; ~ J ! oJ. ^ .. Co I,;; X ~~ 0( rf! . < '" r '" ~ 15'" i ~ ~~.~ ~~ ~: ~ ~ ~/ .., or. Q ~ .~ .. r~~ '''; 7- -. ! ~!.. .. ___ 0_- . ~,,-l ~ J .. - -. -.--.-.---.- ~~ .. ~~ . ii " r~ . :l ~ >! ~ ~7.~ .,;, ~ 9 >- ~ ~~~, ~ .... r- .~ ~ ~ lJ: :;.: - .. ~. - :!: ~ J'; x ;L. . ~1Cl"'~ I ~~" ~rJ 'iil ~ ~ 0( g ~ i:j~8 - > ~ . i .. ~ ;j ~ ... ~;6 I ~S?~ oj f ~ ~ .. ~ _ 'r. ~ ;: ~ ~fj o It Z ~ i ~....~ ... r 0 ~ ~ ,. ..." iG' I ~n51 r. I- Q.. ~)( I -< 'r. . ., e I w" " ~ t ~~~~ ~ ~: d. ~ .J J. ., 'r. I ., ~!.. '.J I 7- U".l .., -' .. 'I' ':1' , , ,,' "," ............ - ..... or -....... CO_" '-"'0_. CIVIL ACTIO. - LA" HEMPT BROS., INC. v. ROISSl( DEVELoPMENT CORP., INC., : DENNIS SHOWAKER, t/d/b/a NORTH HOt/N'rAIN CONSTRUCTION, and JAMES HILLER, No. 96-2184 - Civil Term . . . . Detendants . . PRAF,CIPI: .,.... .nt., tho .-....c. ot Dov'. A. """d.., ....,,,, ot ......, "'VOlth, "'idot · Wt'Oht, .. .ttol..y. ot "cold .. ....,t ot ..t.n...t Ro,..y ....'O...nt Cocp., Inc. in tho ..... action. Date '7/2/" !9t,., Ii MAN, ASHWORTH, KREIDER' WRIGHT / ..' /' ~'?7. ~4~/?4 av A. Kre er, Attorney. tor Detendant Rois.y DeveloP..nt Corp., Inc. 222 East Orange St., P.o. Box 1522 Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 397-7000 COurt 1.0. 38022 - By: I ,\ :. .:,_r i,'t! . . " i " .. C!RTI.ICAT~ OF SRRVICE I hereby certify that I have this day .erved a true an4 correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe upon the person .et forth below and in the manner indicated: Service by first class mail: David W. DeLuce, Esquire JOhnson, DUffie, Stewart , Wiedner 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Thomas A. Lang, Esquire Peters , Wasilefski 2931 N. Front street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Date '7!n, I 'n ASHWORTH, J(REIDER , WRIGHT ~ By: P.O. Box 1522 " , " ,'i.'," I, " " ...........1,) , ' 004775-Q021110<IubcrI4. IY961DWDIMItIH474 HEMPT BROS.. INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff NO. 96.2184 CIVIL TERM vs. CIVIL ACTION. LAW ROISSY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. INC., DENNIS SHOWAKER t/d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION. and JAMES MILLER, Defandants NOTICE TO DEFEND To the Defendllnts: You have been sued In court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth In the following pages. you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served. by entering a written eppearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defense or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that If you fall to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notlca for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVI Ii LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, 00 TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET fORTH IILOW TO P1ND OUT WHERE YOU CAN OET LEGAL HELP. Court Administrator Cumberland County Court House 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle. Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: (717) 240.6200 " ., , i , ," - 00477,.oo:zIIIOclob.r 14. 1996/DWDIMH117474 5. On April 26, 1994, Defendent Roissy was the general contractor with regerd to the construction project being conducted et 15 Rendell Drive, Enole. Cumberlend County, Pennsylvania. 6. Pursuent to a purchese order from Defendant Roissy to Plaintiff Hempt, on or ebout April 26, 1994. Hempt instructed en employee to deliver a load of concrete to a construction end excavation site located at 15 Rendell Drive, Enole, Cumberland County, Pennsyvlenie. 7. Pursuentto this purchase order, on April 26, 1994, an employee of Hempt drova a 1974 Mac trlaxle cement mixer truck ("mixer truck") owned by Hempt onto Defendant Roissy's work site at 15 Rendell Drive, Enola, Cumberland County. Pennsylvania. e. On April 26, 1994, Defendanl. Roissy had the ca/e, custody and/or control of the construction and excavation being conducted at 5 Randell Drive, Enola, Cumberland County. Pennsylvania. 9. Based upon information and belief. on April 26, 1994, Defendants Showaker and Miller were assisting, directing, and were responsible for and/or otherwise involved in the excavetion and construction being conducted et 5 Randell Drive, Enola, Cumberlanrl County, P/lnnsylvania. ,. !, i I, \ i I I I I r ~ \ ' , I I I . t f I \ , 10. Based upon information and belief, on April 26, 1994, Defendants Showaker and/or Miller were agents, servants, employees or subcontractors of Defendant Roissy. 11. Upon arriving at the construction projecl located at 5 Randell Drive, Eno/a, Cumberland County, Pennsylvanie, Plaintiff Hempt's employee who was driving the mixer truck was directed by egents, servents, employees and/or representatives of the Defendants to a spaclfic location near the excDvation site. 12. Following tho directions, instructions and raquests of Defendents' agents, IIrvants, employees and/or representetives, Plaintiff Hempt's employee drove the mixer truck to thelocltlon on the excavation site determined by Defendants through its agents. servants, employees and/or representativla. 13. Upon stopping the mixer truck, Hempt's employee exited the cab of the mixer truck and began walking to the rear of the mixer truck to begin the process of pouring concrete. ........ i 004775-00211/01:1011..14, 1~96/DWDIMH/l7474 14. Shortly after Hempt's employae exited It!r! mixer truck, and without any notice or warning to Hampt's employee, the ground in the Immediete area of the axcavatlon site naar the rear of the mixer truck begIn to collapse. 15. Upon realizing the ground near the excavalion site began to collapse, Hempt's employee quickly 'ttempted to get back in the cab of the mixer truck to try to drive It away. 16. Immediately upon the employee enter in!) the cab of the mixer truck, the ground nBar the excav'tion site collapsed end lhe mixer truck tumbled ovor and into the excavated area etthe construction site which wes under the care, custody and control of lhe Defendants. 17. As a result of lhe aforesaid accident, Hornpt's mixer truck was sevarely damaged. 18. The damage to the mixer truck was solely caused by the negligent, carel~ss and reckless conduct of the Defendants all operating In furtherance of Defendant's business and within the course and scope of their employment or agency relationship. 19. Solely as a result of Defendants' negligence, carelessness and reckless conduct, Hempt's mixer truck was severely damaged and the cost to repair totals $47.541.00. 20. Plaintiff Hempt believes that the fair market value of this 1974 MAC trlaxle cement mixer truck at or naar the time of the aforesaid accident is $10,500.00. 21 . Solely as a result of Defendants' negligent, careless and reckless conduct, Plaintiff Hempt had to have the mixer truck removed from the excavation site and towed to Plaintiff's yard in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania at a cost of $5,537.50. COUNT I Hempl Bros., Inc. v. Rolssy Developmenl Co/por.,lon, Inc. 22. Paragraphs 1 through 21 above are inCOrporated herein by reference as though set forth at length herein. 004775.oo:111/001ob.,14. 199~/DWD/M1II57474 24. As a direct and proximate result of th" negligence. carelessness. and reckleuness of Defendant through its agents. servants, employees and/or representetives, Plaintiff has suffered damages as alleged above and a claim is hareby made tharefor.. WHEREFORE, Plelntiff. Hempt Bros.. Inc.. t'","ands judgment against Defendant. Rolssy Development Corporation. Inc., in the amount of .16,037.50 together with Interest and costs. and such further relief lIS the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. COUNT II Hempt Bros., Inc. v. Dennis Show.ker tldlbl. North Mount.ln Construction 25. Paragraphs 1 through 24 are incorporated herein by raferance as though set forth at length hllrein. 26. The negligence, carelessness and recklessness of oefflndant Roissy, through its agents, servants, employees and/or representatives who are acting within the course end scope of their employment with Defendant Roissy consisted of the following: A. By providing a work area which was unsafe. B. By inviting. requesting 01 otherwise directing Pleintiff's employee to drive the mixer truck to an area which was unsafe. C. By failing to make the premises safe for the intended and oxpected use by Defendant's business invitees/licensees. O. By breaching its duty of care owed to Plelntiff regarding the construction end excavation area over which Defendant had the care, custody end/or control. E. By exposing Plaintiff to a work area that was Inherently d.ng.tou.. 004775.oo1I1IOclob",14, 1996IDWDIMHII7474 F. By failing to take the necessary precautions required and/or necessary as a result of thl! nature of Defendants' work to prevent the accident. . G. By negligently selecting workers, independent contractors. agents and/or subcontractors which Defendant knew or should have known were unable to perform the work In a safe manner. H. By failing to test or adequately lest the soil and/or rock in the excavated area for stability. I. By failing to take all steps necessary to protect the excaveted erea from daterioration or collapse. J. By failing to ensure the integrity and stability of the excavated area. i i I I. i \ i I I , , \:1 , K. By failing to keep equipment. including the mixer truck from being in close proximity to the excavated area. L. By failing to employ proper excavation techniques which ara cus~omarlly relied upon in the industry. 't" .,1 il . " I,ll r 'i M. By failing to stabilize and shore the walls of the excavation site. N. By directing. instructing or othorwise requesting Plaintiff'a employee to drive and park the mixer truck in close proximity to tha excavated ar.. wh.n Oef.ndant knew ' or should have known that it was unsafe to do so. " ' O. By failing to warn the Plaintiff of the danger associated with driving and perklnl.. cement truck in closa proximity to the excavated are.. P. By failing to test the area where the Defendant instructed P1.lntlff to *"".... iI " the mixer truck. 004715.oo1IIIOcIUl>a,14. 1996/DWDIMH157474 B. By inviting, requesting or otherwise directing Plaintiff's employee to drive the mixer truck to an IIr811 which WIIS unsefe. C. By falling to maka the pramlSI!S safe for the Intendad and expected usa by Defendant's businoss invitees/licensees. D. By breaching its duty of care owed to Plainti" regarding the construction and excavation area ovor which Defendant hed the care, custody III,d/or control. E. By exposing Plainti" to a work area that was inherently dangerous. F. By falling to take the necessary precautions required and/or necessary es II result of the nature of Defendants' work to prevent the accidllnt. G. By negligently selecting workers, independent contractors, agents lind/or subcontractors which Defandant knew or should have known were unable to perform the work in a safe manner. H. By failing to test or adequately test the soil lind/or roclt in the excaveted area for stebility. I. By failing to take all steps necessary to protect the excavated .rea from deterioration or collapse. J. By failing to ensure the Integrity and stability of the excavated .r... K. By failing to keep equipment. including the mixer truck from being In clo.. proximity to the excavated are8. L. By failing to employ proper excllvation technique. which.,e cUlt~lIy rllled upon in the industry. " ". ,', j , .'~.'''''',' \~l~ 004775-002.1/0.......14. 1996/11WD/MH/57474 VERIFICA TION I, George Hempt. President of Hempt Bros.. Inc., verify thllt the stlltements made in the foregoing Compllllnt ere true end correct to the best of mv knowledge. Information and belief. I understand thllt false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 1 B Pa.C.S. 14904 relating to unsworn flllsification to lIuthoritles. oate:_@c.f- / (" 19 ~ (, ,,'I ,,' . , I" v " I,,', , " , ! d d. I' '" I' ,;1\:' " , 00477S-OCnII/O<Iabo, 17. 19\16/DWDIMH/~7474 CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE I, Devid W. DeLuce, olthelew lirm 01 Johnson. Duffle. Stewart & Weidner, IIttorneys for Hempt Bros., Inc.. do hereby certl'v thet I served a true and correct copy of the attached Complaint by United Statu Mell. IIrst class, postage prepaid. upon the Counsel and Individuals listed below: David A. Kreider, Esquire Wegman, Ashworth. Kreider & Wright 222 East Orange Street P.O. Box 1522 Lancaster, PA 17608.1522 Dennis Showaker North Mountain Construction 429 Ponderosa Road Carlisle. PA 17013 James Miller 549 Barnstable Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: 10 //7 /9~ I { 0a4Jd~ David W. D Luce - ~ 1\ I, [, .. . I' : I. I I" j .' 'Q Ir ie. l- \, :;.J -< "," ~ ~ a m; - ." - '1.1 :; ;~ :x ~~ W ~ ~ ?5 C~ ~ I 1'1' I, I. ;' I: 1"1 I' I ~ C:) ;- ~~ c:; ~ ".; .. '-i", .3 (' , .'% ~ ":'1 "-- J...~ . . )".1 (' f: ".., .: ;~1 11 c"" '- re" >- , " <) F- c.... ii:!... <,;. lL. -, U .r. -' (.; ) 1._: III L5 0 .., g CIl CIl 0 :l I- 9 w ~ I w . ~ x , In 0 . ~ , ,.. I- 0 Z J , Z '" ~ ~ . 0 III 0 ,.. . . ,.. ~ " ... S . Z I Z '" . l- e Z ~ ~ ~ " a; ~ _ .{ z 6 ~ = . . I\J J ffi '" . ~ ~ . ~ . , I ~ .I' HEMPT BROS., INC., Plaintiff v.. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 96-2184 il' I' ~ ROISSY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC., DENNIS SHOWAKER, t/d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION AND JAMES MILLER, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED u.... UI) II" MATT" or D.rallD~ D...X8 IBO.AKla. t/d/b/a 1I0aTH KOUIITAXII COII.TaVCTIOII 1. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. 2. 3. 4. 5. Admitted. Admitted in part and denied in part. It i. admitted 6. that Hempt employee Patricia A. Campbell delivered a load of concrete to the construction and excavation site at the stated addre.. on April 26, 1994. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments set forth in paragraph 6 and the averments are there foro denied. 7. Admitted in part and denied in part. It i. admitted that Hempt employee Patricia A. campbell delivered a load of concrete to the construction and excavation .ite at the .tated addre.. on April 26, 1994. Defendant is without knowledge or information .ufficient to form a belief a. to the truth of the re.ainin9 aver..nt. .et. forth in paragraph 7 and t.he averment.s are t.herefore denied. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied. The averments of paragraph 9 are apecifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 10. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that. on t.he date in que.tion, Defendant Showaker had been hired by Defendant. Roi.ay Development corporation, Inc. to provide labor at the hourly rate of $10 per hour to assist in the pouring of footers under the direct.ion of Roiesy Development Corporation, Inc. On the dat.e in que.tion Defendant Showaker was not acting on behalf of North Mountain Con.truction but was simply acting as an individual laborer. It ia believed, and therefore averred, that Defendant Miller va. an unpaid volunteer. The remaining averments of paragraph 10 are .pecifically denied and proof thereof is demanded et trial. 11. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant i. without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief aa to the trut.h of the averments set forth in paragraph 13. It ia further averred that Defendant Roissy Development Corporation, Inc., acting through its agent and employee Mark DePaul, had a diacua.ion with the Hempt employee, patricia Campbell, which Defendant Shovaker was unable to hear. Once Ca.pbell atarted to back up her tt'uck, it is admitted that Defendant Shovaker at.t.e.pt.ed to asaiat her in backing. It is specifically denied t.hat. Def.ndant. -2- I r, I I Showaker had any direction or control over the initial decision as to where the vehicle should be positioned. 12. Denied. The averments ot paragraph 12 are specifically denied and proot thereof is demanded. On the contrary, the averments ot paragraph 11 hereot are incorporated herein by reterence. It is believed, and therefore averred, that the location and positioning of the vehicle was determined between the Plaintitt'. employee, patricia Campbell, and Defendant Roissy Development corporation, Inc. 13. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that atter stopping her truck, Plaintiff's employee, patricia Campbell, exited the cab and walked to the rear of the vehicle. Campbell stcod there in conversation with Defendant Showaker and Defendant Miller for approximately 5-10 minutes. The remaining averments ot paragraph 13 are specifically denied and proot thereot is demanded at trial. 14. Denied. The averments ot paragraph 14 are specitically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. On the contrary, Campbell stood talking to Defendant Showaker and Detendant Miller for approximately 5-10 minute. atter parking her truck. At that time, Defendant Showaker noticed some light gravel talling on the footers which had not yet been inspected and suggested that Plaintiff pull her truck torward. Plaintitt then pulled her truck approximately five teet forward until which tl.. some of the ground began to give way. The remaining avenent. of -3- paragraph 14 are .pecifically denied and proof thereof i. demanded at trial. 15. Denied. The averments of paragraph 15 are .pecifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. On the contrary, the averments of paragraph 14 her~of are incorporated herein by reference. 16. Denied. The averments of paragraph 16 are .pecifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 17. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that as a result of the accident, the vehicle operated by Patricia Campbell wa. damaged. Defendant Showaker is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the ownerShip of .aid vehicle or to the extent of the damage thereto and the averments are therefore denied. 18. Denied. The averments of paragraph 18 are .pecifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 19. Denied. The averm6nts of paragraph 19 are .pecifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 20. Denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief a. to the truth of the averment. regarding what Plaintiff "believe." and the averment. are therefore denied. 21. Denied. The averment. af peragraph 21 are .pecifi~ally denied and proof thereof i. de.anded at trial. 22-24. No answer required. -4- ~, 25. The averments ot para9raphs 1-24 hereof are incorporated herein by reference. 26. Denied. The averments of para9raph 26 and lub- para9raph. Ca) - (t) are specifically denied and proof thereof i. dellanded at trial. 27. Denied. The averments of para9raph 27 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 28-30. No answer required. ... ICATTBR 31. Plaintiff's claim is barred, in whole or in part, by the ne9ligence at its agent, servant and employee, Patricia A. campbell, in the happening of the incident alleged in the followin9 particularl: Ca) She failed to get out of her truck and carefully inlpect the area over which she would be backin9 her truck prior to doing so; Cb) she failed to exercise reasonable care, in the positionin9 of her vehicle excavation; caution and Ikill adjac~nt to an Cc) Ihe failed to exercise reasonable care in the lIovin9 of her vehicle forward adjacent to an excavation sitel Cd) she failed to follow proper procedure and unload a portion of her cargo in an area away froll the excavation before drivin9 her vehicle adjacent to the sxcavation; Ce) she failed to follow proper procedure. in the delivery of the product in question; Cf) Ihe failed to use reasonable care in the manner in which Ihe inspected, drove, parked and positioned her vehicle at the time of the incident in que.tion; -5- .', VERIFICATION I, Dennie Bhowaker, t/d/b/a North Mountain Construction, hereby certify that the facts set forth in the foregoing An.ver and lIev Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.B.A. 54904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: Id/~I/9~ 'j / ~.,~ Denn s Showa er , , I;,' Ill, .', \' ' ,', ' , , , , . " ~- " HZMPT BROS., INC., Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . . va. NO. 96-2184 ROISSY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, : INC., DENNIS SHOWAKER, tldlbla NORTH MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION AND JAMES MILLER, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENTRY o. APP~.~C. TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf ot Detendant Denni. Showaker, t/d/b/a North Mountain Construction, only in the above matter. METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS , ER8 / BV:J/2~~ J- ~~ ._~ __ _/? ~ R. H~~ant= laQu1re - I. D. #30102 3211 North Front street P. O. Box 5300 Harrieburg, PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Attorney. tor Defendant Dennis Shovaker Date; OctOber~, 1996 , . ,.l., 'f'" It ". .....I> r " ,I " l!' ,J ., " I ,\' i~ ,/, -I 004n'.002IIIN"".mborI2. 1~61DWDIMHln494 HEMPT BROS.. INC.. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA NO. 96-2184 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION. LAW , Plaintiff vs. ROISSY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. INC.. DENNIS SHOWAKER tldlbla NORTH MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION, and JAMES MILLER, Defendant! .1 PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO NEW MA TTER OF DEFENDANT DENNIS SHOWAKER tJd/b/. NORTH MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION '. 31. Danled. The averments of paragraph 31 and subparagraphs (a) - (h) are specifically denied and proof thereof Is demanded at trial. " , .. ',. 32. Denied. On the contrary. Plaintiff has taken reasonable steps to mitigate It. demege.. ',I 33. Denied. This is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleadings Is required. To the extent a response may be required. Plaintiff has timaly filed the claim. set forth In its Compllint. '~ II 34. No response necassary. Respectfully .ubmitted, JOH . DUFFI S W .'1' avid W DILuc AttornlY 1.0. No. 41117 301 Mlrk.t StrMt P.O. BOll 109 Lemoyn.. PA 17043-0101, Telephone (717) 711.4840. Attorney for Hlmpt "01., Inc. ",' ," , ' (, .I , , , , , " 004715.oo1ll1Nov,mb" 12. IIl96IDWDIMHI58494 ," VERIFICA TIQJt/ I. George Hempt, President of Hempt Bros.. Inc.. verify that the statements made In the foregoing Answer are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, Information and belief. I understend that false statements herein ere mede subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.e.s. 14904 relating to unsworn falsification to authoritlea. Date: /1 ~S-/9~ r , sidant , , " , iu.,..;.....~;~r ... ~ C"'l 1.0 r") C' c." -II ;;:~ ;;~ ::'.l ;Rc c-" t!.I..;' .,:: !:f~r:.' - ." "Ii.:. (rj, . I)) "-'1' '< . ;;1 . c:;.t 7) ~C t.: '~l (~( w ;"~r ,-(' :'':t , ~. .. ,~ ~~ :~ .- ~ , , ., " , " 'I, ., , " 'j'; ~ '.. t', " I II': ; "' t,:' '. II.. , 1.1 , (. '.' " I I, I).. I '. '. . .. . . .. . ~ w '" III III ~ ~ ~ ~ :0: j V1 g i ~ ~ ~ X . ~ 0 en ~ I en f5 a ~ 0 ~ t ~ [l :!E ( '" . " 0: W " N t;j :r 8 rl o Q is ~ z ~ " . V1 Z Z . a. d . , . V1 ii . . r \ .. . A . . , ~ , ' , I NOTICIA Le han de.andado a usted en la corte. si u.ted quiere detender.e de e.tae de.snds. expue.ts. en la. psg ins. .iquientes, usted tiene visnte (20) diss de plazo al partir de la techa de la de.anda y la notiticacion. Ust.d deb. presentsr uns apariancis e.crita 0 en persona 0 par aboqado y archivsr en la corte en forma e.crita sus detensas 0 sus objeciones alas demandas en contra de su per.ona. Sea avisado que si ustsd no se datinende, la corte tomara m.did.s y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previa aviso 0 notificacion y por cualquier queja 0 alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demands. U.ted puede perder din~ro 0 .us propiedades 0 otros derecho. importante. para usted. LLEVE E5TA DEMANDA A UN ABODAQO IMHEDIATAMENTE. 51 NO TIENE ABODGADO 0 51 NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL 5ERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME FOR TELEFONO A LA OFFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRIT~ ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONE SE PUEDE CONSEQUIR A5ISTENCIA LEGAL. .. i I I II ~ ~ CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE COURT ADMINISTRATOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE CARLISLE, Pennsylvania 17013 I I ! f -0- .. .. HEMPT BROS., INC., Plaintiff IN THE COURT or COMMON PLEAS or CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 96-2184 vs. ROISSY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC., DENNIS SHOWAKER, t/d/b/a NO~TH MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION AND JAMES MILLER, Defendants vs. PATRICIA A. CAMPBELL, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Additional Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ADDITIONAL D...KDANT COKPLkXBT 1. On or about October 17, 1996, Plaintiff in the above- captioned matter filed a Complaint for damage to its vehicle and related harm in an accident on April 26, 1994. Attached hereto, marked as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference is a copy of said Complaint. 2. Defendant Dennis Showaker, t/d/b/a North Mountain Construction has filed an Answer and New Matter to eaid Complaint. A copy of 8aid Answer and New Matter is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. 3. Additional Defendant Patricia A. Campbell i. an adult individual residing at 95 Paradise Park, New 8100.field, Perry County, Pennsylvania 17068. , " ~ . ~ . 4. pur.uant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(b), Defendant Dennis Showaker, t/d/b/a North Mountain Construction herein joins Patricia A. Campbell as an Additional Dotendant on the cause of action asserted in Plaintiff's complaint and asserts that yaid Additional Defendant is solely liable on the Plaintiff'. cause of action, is liable over to said Defendant on Plaintiff's cause of action, or i. jointly or severally liable witb said Defendant on the Plaintiff's cause ot action, with any liability on the part of Dennis Showaker, t/d/b/a North Mountain Construction being specifically denied. 5. Additional Defendant Patricia A. Campbell was careless and negligent in the happening of the incident alleged in the following particulars: (a) She failed to get out of her truck and carefully inspect the area over which she would be driving her truck prior to doing so; (b) she failed to exercise reasonable care, caution and skill in the positioning of her vehicle adjacent to an excavation; (c) she failed to exercise reasonable care in the moving of her vehicle forward adjacent to an excavation site; (d) she failed to follow proper procedure and unload a portion of her cargo in an area away from the excavation before driving her vehicle adjacent to the excavation; (e) she failed to follow proper procedures in the delivery of the product in question; (f) she failed to use reasonable care in the manner in which she inspected, drove, parked and positioned her vehicle at the time of the incident in question; -2- A ' . .. (9) ahe failed to comply with the procedures, instructions and directives of her employer in the operation of her vehicle in the vicinity of an excavation site; and Ihe failed to exercise that degree of care, caution and Ikill reaeonable requir~d under the circumstances. The accident alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint was (h) 6. caused, either directly, proximately and/or substantially by the aforesaid negligence of the Additional Defendant. .....'0.., Defendant Dennis Showaker, t/d/b/a North Hountain Construction herein joins Patricia A. Campbell as an Additional Defendant and alleges that said Additional Defendant il Bolely liable on the Plaintiff's cause of action, 1s liable over to Defendant herein on the Plaintiff's cause of action, or is jointly or severally liable on the Plaintiff's cause of action with any liability on the part of Defendant Dennis Showaker, t/d/b/a North Mountain Construction being specifically denied. METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS , IRB , , , I " , ) / (. c. // /"' // By..... ,: t '-. ~ '. c. ''-.. r; '(1(- fL..-.'--" __c_~,-I' ~ Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire I. D. #30102 3211 North Front Street P. O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Attorneys for Defendant Dennis Showaker I" , ( D~~e: November ~ 1996 " ' -3- . . . . 4 ~ \ , '" \,",', 'I' , " , " 11,111\ 'i' i' , ;11'" , I , , " "" I,"~ ,'1, \ '. ""......._.,..,.'~._,' 111ll," . I' '. , " '0 d 'I. , . 00477HI01IIIOclolb4rI4.1996/DWDIMH/I1474 . HEMPT BROS., INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff NO. 96-2184 CIVIL TERM va. CIVIL ACTION. LAW ROISSY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. INC" DENNIS SHOWAKER tldlbla NORTH MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION, and JAMES MILLER. Defendants NOTICE TO DEFEND To the Oefendants: -' . \ I I ,; You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend egeinst the claims sat forth In the following pages, you must teke ection within twenty (20) deys after this complaint end notice ere served, by entering e written appearance personally or by attorney and filing In writing with the court your defense or objections to the claims set forth egainst you. You are warned that if you fall to do so the case may proceed without you and e Judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plelntlff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT Of4CE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, 00 TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH IELOWTO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN OET LEGAL HELP. Court Administrator Cumberland County Court House 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle. Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: (717) 240.6200 I ., .1 r ! , ''; " 00477S-OOlII/0<IobcrI4. 19'16/DWDIM/IIIH74 . HEMPT BROS., INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 96.2184 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACl'ION - LAW Plaintiff VI. ROISSY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC., DENNIS SHOWAKER tldlbla NORTH MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION, and JAMES MILLER, Defendants COMPLAINT AND NOW, this J7-t1, day of October, 1996, comes the Plaintiff, Hempt Bros., Inc., by and through its undersigned attorneys, Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Wediner, and flies this Complaint against Defendants, Roissy Developmenl Corporation, Inc., Dennis Showaker t/d/b/a North Mountain Construction and James Miller, end avers as follows: 1. The Plaintiff, Hempt Bros., Inc. ("Hempt"), is a Pennsylvania corporation with a principal office located at 205 Creek Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011. 2. The Defendant, Roissy Development Corporation, Inc. ("Roissy"" Is a Pannsylvanla corporation with an office located 109.7 East MainStreat, Shlremanstown, Cumberllnd County, Pennsylvania 17011. 3. The Defendant, Dennis Showaker t/d/b/a North Mountain Construction ("Showaka'"I.11 In adult individual trading and doing business as North Mountain Construction locltld It 428 Pondlrota . Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 4. The Defendant, James Miller ("Miller"), Is en adult IndlV\dUII Commonwealth of Pennsylvania residing at 549 Barnstabll ROld, Clrtlsll. Ponnsylvania 17013. Ind ,.lId.nt of."" , Cumbtrt.nd County, , ,I, 004775-OO:II/O:Lob,,14.1996/DWD/MIIIS7474 6. On April 26, 1994, Defendant Roissy was the general contractor with regard to tha construction project baing conducted et 5 Randell Drive, Enole, Cumberlend County, Pennsylvania. 6. Pursuant to a purchase order from Defendant Roissy to Plaintiff Hempt, on or about April 26, 1994, Hempt instructed an employee to deliver a load of concrete to a construction and excavation sita loceted et 6 Randell Drive, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsyvlania. 7. Pursuant to this purchase order, on April 26, 1994, an employee of Hempt drove a 1974 Mac triaxle cement mixer truck ("mixer truck") owned by Hempt onto Defendant Rolssy's work sita at 6 Randell Drive, Enola, Cumberland County. Pennsylvania. 8. On April 26, 1994, Defendant Roissy had the care, custody and/or control of tha construction and excavation being conducted at 5 Randell Drive, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 9. Based upon information and belief, on April 26, 1994, Defendants Showakar and Miller were assisting, diracting, and were responsible for and/or ctherwisa involved in the excavation and construction being conducted at 5 Randell Drive. Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 10. Based upon information and belief. on April 26, 1994, Defendants Showaker and/or Miller were agents, servants, employees or subcontractors of Defendant Roissy. 11. Upon arriving at the construction project loceted at 6 Randell Drive, Enoll, Cumberllnd County. Pennsylvania, Plaintiff Hempt's employae who was driving the mixer tluck we. directed by egants, servants, employees and/or representetives of the Defendants to e specific loe.tJon n.er the excavation site. 12. Following the directions, instructions end raquests of Oefendlnl.' eoenu, ..rventl, employees and/or representatives, Plaintiff Hempt's employee drove the mixer truck to the lOcation 'on the'. excavation site determined by Defendants through its agents, servant., employeellend/or IIpr,..met""., , ., 13. Upon stopping the mixer truck, Hempt's employae exited the ceb of' the mixlt truck~ ", ''''.' began walking to the rear of th9 mixer truck to begin the process of pou/inp concrete. " " I.,I,!/, d, 00477S..xnI.,OcIolM,14. 19961DWn/MII/~7414 . 14. Shortly after Hempt's employee exited the mixer truck, end without any notice or werning to Hempt's employee, the ground in the Immediete eree of the excavation site neer the reer of the mixer truck begen to collapse. 15. Upon realizing the ground neer the excavetlon site begen to collepse, Hempt's employee quickly attempted to get beck in the ceb of the mixer truck to try to drive It away, 16. Immedletely upon the employee enlering lhe ceb of the mixer truck, the ground near the excavation site collapsed end the mixer truck tumbled over and Into tha excavated era a at the construction site which was under the care, custody end control of tha Defendants. 17. As e result of the aforesaid eccident, Hcmpt's mixer truck was severely demaged. 18. The demage to the mixer truck was solely caused by the negligent, cereless and reckless conduct of the Defendonts ell operating In furtharance of Defendant's business end within the course and scope of their employment or egency relationship. 19. Solely liS a rasult of Defendants' negligence, carelessness and reckless conduct. Hempt's mixer truck was severely damaged and the cost to repair totels $47.541.00. 20. Plaintiff Hempt believes that the fair market value of this 1974 Mac triexla cement mixer truck at or near the time of the aforesaid accident is $10.500.00. 21. Solely as a result of Defendants' negligent, careless and reckless conduct, Plaintiff Hempt had to have the mixer truck removed from the excavation site end towed to Plaintiff', yerd In Cemp Hili, Pennsylvania at a cost of $5.537.50. COUNT' Hempt Bros.. Inc. v. Rolssy Development Corpor.tlon, Inc. 22. Paragraphs 1 through 21 above are incorporatad harein by referance IS though ,et forth.t length herein. ,-....-.....--- OO477!.ootII/Oo;",I", 14. 1996IDWDIMIII17474 23. The negligence, cerelessness and racklessness of Defendant ROlssy, through its agents, servants, employees and/or representatives who were acting within the course and scope of thalr employment with Defandent Roissy consisted of the following: A. By providing a work area which was unsafe. B. By Inviting, requesting or otherwise directing Plelntlff's employee to drive the mixer truck to en erea which was unsafe. C. By failing to make the premises safe for the intended and expacted use by Defandant's business Invitees/llcensees. O. By breaching its duty of care owed to Pleintiff regarding the construction end excavation area over which Defendant had tha cara, custody and/or control. E. By expOSing Plaintiff to a work area that was Inherently dangerous. F. By failing to take the necessary precautions required and/or necessary as a result of the nature of Defendants' work to prevant the accident. G. By negligently selecting workers, Independent contractor., agenta and/Or subcontractors which Defendant knew or should have known were unabl. to perform the work in a safe manner. H. By falling to test or adequately test tha soli and/or rock In. the excavat.d.,aa,OI, stbbllity. I. By failing to take ell steps necessary to prbt.ct deterioration or COllapse. "1 ' " I ','. ' 'he' _wtacl ...' fr~ I'':i: I .',', ,.:1.... ,',", , J. By falling to ensure the Integrity and stability of tha .xc."..teI .,... .-.1> 00477S.002IIIOc......14.1996/DWDIMHIH474 K. L. By felling to keep equipment, Including the mixer truck from being In close proximity to the excevated eree. By felling to employ proper excavation techniques which IIrll customarily relllld upon In the Industry. M. By felling to stebllize end shore the wells of the excllvatlon site. N. By directing, instructing or otherwise requesting Plaintiff's employee to drive IInd park the mixer truck In close proximity to thllllxcevllted Ire II when Defendent knew or should have known that It was unsefe to do so. o. By failing to warn the Plaintiff of the denger associated with driving IInd perking the cement truck in close proximity to the excllveted eree. P. By failing to test the area whare the Defendant instructed P1l1lntiff to drive and Plrk the mixer truck. a. By directing Plaintiff's employee to drive IInd locate the mixer truck onto lIround and/or rock that tha Defendant knew or should have known would noteuppOlt the , , weight of the truck. R. By failing to use reasonabla care in selecting a locetion It the IXClvttlon ,-"trom ' which the concrete wes to ba poured. . ::;1 . ", I' I .,t.'~'" ',' ~ " "I-II ",":"i 1'")1 By falling to use reasonable care to evold dlmllll to PIeIntlW, ".,..... " ,",.' >'I,:(jr, ~'1! fl ' I . \'/' I 1,-" ;\i~Jr'./k~:'\;-:' "" :,j'tl\t,:!,i,,!.~Hj"~I!;JI'\'h', 'I ''', ".', 1"";""',b'L,?'.)Jj'!.,' '\' ,0.1..\'_'.,",' 'I" 1.-' By feillng to teke all necessllry IInd re.sonable pI8CllUllonl. ~1 " , '_' ,:,__'\:,11;\\,0,1\ ground give way. .:' ",,';11~\~'i 'I ' ' ; " ','Iit,il\.i,/; ','.,,'''1;)11. ~. ";',-('\'\1 . ,. ,;:,'" ': i:':,t~l~. " . "'I'I...1!,'i 1'" '," 1.--1'""" I ',I, (~ I,,t:'t.,.~, ~! ,I I' t ".:/. :/~'i::: ft\~' -, I , "::,,:;Ii;:'~j. ';" ': I i l'\ 'i' I~~fllll, ",'!',I':'I.1\,"'\",.I' , 1"""';""".'1:;":/\' <' .'11,\./1"'''.,-'"....1: . I ',"\\~ 1,'/ i' 1, '/<;IIIi"\'I'j I, ') ,';~~' s. T. 004n5.oot.IIOcloblrI4. 19961OWD1iI1I1I51474 .~."" F. By failing to take the necessary precautions required and/or necessary as a result of the nature of Defendants' Work to prevent the eccident. G. By negligently selecting workers, Independent contractors, agents and/or subcontractors which Defendant knew or should have known were unable to perform the Work In a safe manner. H. By feiling to test or adequately test the soil and/or rock In the excavated area for stability. I. By falling to take all steps necessary to protect the excavated area from deterioration or collapsa. J. By failing to ensure the integrity and stability of the excavated area. K. By failing to keep equipment, including the mixer truck from being In close pro)(lmlty to the excavated araa. l. By failing to employ proper axcavation teChniques which ere cuatomarily r.llld Ullon in the industry. M. By failing to stabilize and shora the walls of the I)(cevetlon altl. N. By directing, Instructing or otharwlse requesting P1.lntlff'l ImPloyel to drlw.' I. " park the mixer truck In close proximity to the e)(Clvatld ar'l when o.rlridMt ....," ',.' ,'; or should have known that it was unsafe to do 10. . , " ') I'):"":j! , ,":"['!\ By failing to warn the Plaintiff of the danger a"ocllted wltl\ cltMno.... ~~" ";'rW ' i '1;'1\\ '_' ':.1_1.':; 11:'1\1 ;1,4 I cemant truck in close proximity to the IXC'Vlt.d .r.... " ' "",:\',:",1:',;"","1,,;/,(,1..;., . "",':- ;';;\li'V".I' ". . ',.'i":Ii:i,\;;;';~);'(1.:,:~\~1 By failing to test the area where the Oefend.nt ,....Cruoted.........' ',' , ',' ,,' '_/J;'!?I~{j;Ji the mixer truck. , " ':':;1:." /~l-:rj , '! ::.:i!.::;'~!t'-q, "'.'I"..,L/1..1, Hli"-i\" , " "'l:/;i~j!~~-:" iiii.J ",-.,.", o. P. 00477S-ooHIIOo:lobul., 1996/DWDlMllIm7. a. By directing Plel"tiff's employee to drive end locate tha mixer truck onto ground andlor rock that the Defendant knew or should have known would not support the weight of the truck. R. By failing to use reasonable cere In selecting a location at tha axcavation site from which the concrete was to be poured. s. By failing to use reasonable care 10 avoid damage to Plaintiff's vehicle. T. By failing to take all necessary and reasonabla precautions to avoid having tha ground give way. . 27. As a direct end proximate result of the nagligence, carelessness, end recklessness of Defandant through its egents, servants, employees and/or reprasentatives, Plaintiff h8ll suffered damages as alleged abova and a claim is hereby made therefore. " . ',1 I :1 :'.~ ~1 I " WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Hempt Bros., Inc., demands judgment against Defendant, DennlsShowlker t/d/b/a North Mountain Construction, in the amount of $16,037.50 together with Interest and Qost., Ind such further relief as tha Court deems appropriate under tha circumstances. COUNT 111 Hempt 8ro$., Inc. v. J.mN Miller 28. Paragraphs 1 through 27 are incorporated herein by reference I' though I" forth IIUength herein. .. 29. The negligence, carelessness and recklessness of Defendant RoI."V, ttw~ '*'....." '. " '. ,I servants, employees and/or rapresentatives who are acting within the OOUl.. Ind 10011*', Of'''' ",' , ,". ..,....1;.", employment with Defendant Roissy consisted of the following: A. L" ;f,.:"i!~:. "'1\' ."',,,. \~U . .i ~Jh _;i),i it ~,);,:~:f; ,~\(,I<jt ""'., ';Lil)I! !iafi' By providing a work area which was unsafe. -,-~~ 00477S.oo111/01:.ob" 14. 199ft/OWO/MII/57474 J. .. B. By Inviting, requesting or othorwlse directing Plaintiff's employee to drive the mixer truck to an are... which was unsafe. C. By failing to make the premises safe for the Intended end expected use by Defendant's business Invlteeslllcensees. :i D. By breaching Its duty of care owed to Plaintiff regarding the construction and excevation area over which Defendant hed the care, custody and/or control. E. By exposing Plaintiff to a work area that was Inharantly dangerous. F. By failing to take the necessary precautions required andlor necessary IS a rasult of the nature 01 Defendants' work to prevent the accident. G. By negligently selecting workers, Independent contrectora, ag.ntl end/or subcontractors which Defendant knew or should hava known were unable to perform the work in a safe manner. ~. By failing to test or adequately test the soil and/or rock In the .xolvat.d .r.. 'Ot , ,-' " '1 stebility. I. K. . i , , ~.' ,', I,: , ,', " , .,' I\':t By felling to take all steps necessary to protect the .xoeVltect .... fI.',\ .":i, deterioration or collapse. " ' ' : :',"//:'~t ~I~; I h \, \\l~!'li{/I it , ,\' "":...~''':''i:'fi':)J, .WI I , , .' I' "/1, ~\,l ~l \( . By felling to ensure the integrity and stability of tl'l. eX08\o$IN'~ .ll,.,:'!'N'I'ii.:tlU1i~(W;\' I ,(" ~ 'J~; ,.':\\1,';: 1\ . .:', "'\J:~ ' By failing to keep equipment, including the mixer truck from being In oloM to tha excavated erea. L. By failing to employ proper excavation techniques which era customerlly "elled upon, in tha industry. " ; !~ "0'1 ~ .1 004nS.()()II1I Io.:lob" 11, 1996/DWDlMlIIl7474 WHEREFORE. Plaintiff. Hempt Bros.. Inc., demands judgment against Delendant, Jamas Miller. in thllllmount 01 $16.037.50 together with Interest and costs. and such lurther rellaf as the Court deems Ilppropriate undor the circumstances. David . De uce Attorney 1.0. No. 41687 Joseph L. Hitchings Attorney 1.0. No. 65551 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne. PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Hempt Bros., Inc. . ,I '.' " , " CERTIFICA TE OF SERJl1CE I, David W. DaLuce, of the law firm of Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, attornavs for Hempt BrOI.. Inc., do hereby certify thet I served e true and corract copy of the altached Complaint bV United States Mell, first cless, postage prepeld, upon the Counsel end Individuals listed below: David A. Kreider, Esquire Wegmen, Ashworth, Kreider & Wright 222 EdS! Orange Street P.O. Box 1522 l.ancaster, PA 17608-1522 Dennis Showaker North Mounteln Cons.ructlon 429 Ponderosa Road Cerllsle, PA 17013 James Miller 549 Barnstable Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: ID //7/9(1; I ( ,. HEMPT BROS., INC., Plaintiff I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 96-2184 . . va. . . . . ROISSY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC., DENNIS SHOWAXER, t/d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION AND JAMES MILLER, DefenQants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IIOTICI '1'0: Hempt Bros., Inc., Plaintiff c/o David W. Deluce, Esquire Johnson, DUffie, Stewart , Weidner 301 Market street, P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Roi.sy Development Corp., Inc., Defendant c/o David A. Kreider, Esquire Wagman, Ashworth, Kreider , Wright 222 East Orange street, P.O. Box 1522 Lancaster, PA 17608 -'~ You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed Answer and New Matter of Defendant, Dennis Showaker, t/d/b/a North Mountain Construction, within twenty (20) days from service hereot. METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS , V~Q. /~~../ tf!t ~.~~'a~d, Esquire Attorney 1.0. No. 30102 3211 North Front street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PI. 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 DB ~ . , Date: 10 (Z-f (1'1" . ,J ....A , remaining aVlllrments set forth in paragraph 7 and the averments are therefore denied. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied. The averments of paragraph 9 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 10. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that on the date in question, Defendant Showaker had been hired by Defendant Roissy Development Corporation, Inc. to provide labor at the hourly rate of $10 per hour to assist in the pouring of footers -.... under the direction of Roissy Development corporation, rnc. On the date in question Defendant Showaker was not acting on behalf of North Mountain Construction but was simply acting as an individual laborer. It is believed, and therefore averred, that Defendant Miller was an unpaid volunteer. The remaining averments of paragraph 10 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 11. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 13. It is further averred that Defendant Roissy Development Corporation, Inc., acting through its agent arid employee Mark DePaul, had a discussion with the Hempt employee, Patricia Campbell, which Defendant Showaker was unable to hear. Once Campbell etarted to back up her truck, it is admitted that Defendant Showaker attempted to assist her in backing. It is specifically denied that Defendant -2- . Showaker had any direction or control over the initial decision as to where the vehicle should be positioned. 12. Denied. The averments of paragraph 12 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded. On the contrary, the averments of paragraph 11 hereof are incorporated herein by reference. It is believed, and therefore averred, that the location and positioning of the vehicle was determined between the Plaintiff's employee, Patricia Campbell, and Defendant Roissy Development corporation, Inc. 13. Admitted in part and denied in part. ~-.. It -is admitted that after stopping her truck, Plaintiff's employee, Patricia Campbell, exited the cab and walked to the rear of the vehicle. Campbell stood there in conversation with Defendant Showaker and Defendant Miller for approximately 5-10 minutes. The remaining averments of paragraph 13 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 14. Denied. The averments of paragraph 14 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. On the contrary, Campbell stood talking to Defendant Showaker anCl DefenClant Miller for approximately 5-10 minutes after parking hlr truck. At that time, Defendant Showaker noticeCl some light gravIl falling on the footers which haCl not yet been insplcted and suggesteCl that Plaintiff pull her truck forward. Plaintiff thin pulled her truck approximately five feet forward until Which ti.. some of the ground began to give way. The remaining aVlraenta of -3- . .. paragraph 14 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 15. Denied. The averments of paragraph 15 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. On the contrary, the averments of paragraph 14 hereof are incorporated herein by reference. 16. Denied. The averments of paragraph 16 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 17. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted .-- that as a result of the accident, the vehicle operated by Patricia Campbell was damaged. Defendant Showaker is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the ownership of said vehicle or to the extent of the damage thereto and the averment. are therefore denied. 18. Denied. The averments of paragraph 18 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 19. Denied. The averments of paragraph 19 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 20. Denied. Defendant is without knowledqe or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth ot the averments regarding what Plaintiff "believes" and the av.raent. are therefore denied. 21. Denied. The averments of paragraph 21 at_, specifically denied and proof thereof is d..anded at trial. 22-24. No answer required. -4- . , Ij ',.1' , -I, " \ , , , ',' . 25. The averments of paragraphs 1-24 hereof are incorporated herein by reference. 26. Denied. The averments of paragraph 26 and sub- paragraphs (a) - (t) are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 27. Denied. The averments of paragraph 27 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 28-30. No answer required. - ..... NO KATTIlR 31. Plaintiff's claim is barred, in whole or in part, by the negligence of its agent, servant and employee, Patricia A. Campbell, in the happening of the incident alleged in the following particulars: (a) She failed to get out of her truck and carefully inspect the area over which she would be backing her truck prior to doing so; (b) she failed to exercise reasonable care, in the positioning of her vehicle excavation; caution and skill adjacent to an (c) she failed to exercise reasonable care in the moving of her vehicle forward adjacent to an excavation site; (d) she tailed to follow proper procedure and unload a portion of her cargo in an area away froll the excavation before driving her vehicle adjacent to the exoavationl (e) she failed to follow pI'oper procedures in the. delivery Of the product in question; (f) she failed to use reasonable care in the .anner in whioh she inspected, drove, parked and positioned her vehiole at the time of the incident in que.tion; -5- . ..A ' { ., I'~ , .:1, ,. . . .' '- . CBRTIPICATB OP .BaVIC. I, Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire of the law firm Metzger, Wickersham, KnaUBB , Erb, hereby certify that I served a true and exact copy of JUl..er alld .e. Hatter with reference to the foregoing a<:tion by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, this ZV day of October 1996, on the following: David A. Kreider, Esquire Wagman, Ashworth, Kreider & Wright 222 East Orange street, P.O. Box 1522 Lancaster, PA 17608 (717) 397-7000 Attorney tor Defendant Roissy Development corp., Inc;" James Miller 549 Barnstable Road Carlisle, PA 17013 David W. DeLuce, Esquire Joseph L. Hitchings, Esquire Johnson, DUffie, stewart & Weidner 301 Market street, P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 Attorneys tor Hempt Bros., Inc. METZGER, WICKERSHAM, JQfAUSS , BRB ~a~'A~ ~ '< Karl R. H obrand, Esquire . ~ ..- ,. " ~ .. . VERIFICATION I. Dennie Showaker, t/d/b/a North Mountain Conetruction, hereby certify that the tacts set torth in the toregoing Additional Defendant coaplaiDt are true and correct to the beet ot my knowledge, information and belief, and that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.B.A. 54904 relating to unsworn taleitication to authorities. Date : 1(;0~ (j]~~ tl j~~ Dennis show~;,~ t/d/b/a North Mountain Conetruction , , ", . . . '. . C"TI.ICAT. O. ...VIC. I, Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire or the law rirm Metzger, Wiokersham, Knauss , Erb, hereby certiry that I served a true and exaot copy ot AdditioDal DereDdaDt coaplaiDt with reterence to the toregoing action by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, this ~ day or November 1996, on the rollowing: f ! Thomas A. Lang, Esquire Peters' Wasiletski, P.C. 2931 N. Front street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-7555 Attcrney for Plaintiff Patricia A. Campbell David A. Kreider, Esquire Wagman, Ashworth, Kreider , Wright 222 East orange street, P.O. Box 1522 Lancaster, PA 17608 (717) 397-7000 Attorney ror Defendant Roissy Development Corp., Ino. James Miller 549 Barnstable Road CarliSle, PA 17013 David W. DeLuce, Esquire Joseph L. Hitchings, Esquire Johnson, Durrie, stewart , Weidner 301 Market street P.O. Box 109 Le.oyne, PA 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Hempt Bros., Ino. METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS . III ) ..-- / ,/-). /. 2 ',.. .'. . .~il<i': t: (. '- .A.._~i'",(~,"'-' ..---<1 -- C ~ . ~"iiirl R. Hildabrand, ..quir. ' ; I." , . ""I !~! ,,,,' 1')\ ,AI} ~!'I):'-~lJe~ , I' ,j:'",)\, . 'II ' t"ir,l:,'~ 'I ","\'1:\,1 ",\"(\1, . ..' ~ ~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY , PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW HEMPT BROTHERS, INC. Plaintiff. No. 96. 2184 v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ROISSY DEVELOPMENT CORP.. INC. DENNIS SHOW AKER d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION and JAMES MILLER Defendants. PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of Flanagan, Benner & Stengel on behalf of defendant, James Miller. for the abuve-captioned aClion. All papers may be served at 150 East Chestnut Street. Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. FLANAGAJ'l. BENNER & STENGEL // //1 ,;,;h /~#~'/ J. Michael Flanagan Attorneys for defendant James Miller I.D. No. 23149 150 East Chestnut Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 397-9444 By: t,. ,",' ,,' , , . " ",Il ",' I .. , , - " I, ,:, I' ." I II I ~ " (') 1_') () , ";':", 'n .- I ~rj", ;',:; .oT1 Ci)' ,,;:.: \-: ~ "'i'tJ r"',) .." -:;-~ ;: "h ~:.,. , - lll. " 'l.'..l' . j ;i', t..\. ...,) ):IJ :i.;r" :;~ "..(') , t~'\(. ,,) ('lrn ):', . .. .~~ :" '" J" ~< , , " , , I ", ", Ql ("J IX " 4J 0 III' .., 0 , U) ,., fl, U) 0 ~ .. 51 , w w, , J ~ E , lC ( . .J U) 0 ( l. .. .. 0 i Z ( z ,., ~ ~ . 0 III .. . . " .. U) w ... ~ . ,IX ~ r . z W 0 ~ 0 z w " .. 0 a. U.. a. so(z g s = . '" , a: ,ry m W . Cl it t . ( r ~ - ~- ''"' i' I.... ~ ,: i till (''I \',', l.' . fl, I ',I lI" I L',' (- I ~., .', "~I ~~ ~~ B~ Ih ~ "' ill ~ ~U! d '" >- "~ ~~ w <> ~ .~ ~~ W ..; 1- ~ "' - II ~ '::. < .,., f ~~ 'r. ;I< Z ... If to :'i :il:< g ~ In ~ "' ,....... ~ Ih ~i C' < IoU:; ~ z.: " ~ 'n ~- I ~~ i c It ~ :: ~ i~ t;: C IoU --- r, t- Q. ~ >< < 'r.' < f(f'- w 0 ~ I.l. _L_ ~~ N .. ~ " i~l~ " " '" -- ,~ Z . - - _ ! ;,J '" - "- .... .f ...._.ft i I. UI COB! or COIIIIO. nlU 0' CUJUIUL&IID COUll'l'Y, ....IYLVAlla CIVIL aCTIO. - La. . H!IIPT BROTHERS, INC. v. No. 96-2184 ROISSY DEVELOPMENT CORP., INC., DENNIS SHOWUER, t/d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION, and JAMES MILLER, Defendants To: Hellpt Brothere, Inc. c/o David W. DeLuce, Esquire Johnson, DUffie, Stewart' Weidner 301 Market street P. O. Box 109 Lalloyne, PA 17043-0109 NOTICE YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPOMSI TO THI ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HDIO' OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. D.t.. /jz/(r'? ;/AG';.\' ASHWORTH, , BY: /()pI~ Dav A. e e or Defendant Ro ..y , .' . I' 222 E. Orang. 8treet, P.O. 1OX'~..a , Lanoa.ter, PA 11101-1123 .'. ' "I (717) 397-7000 ',,' S.Ct.ID. NO.1 3.022 WRIGII'f , . " "'I " . , I. U. COB! 01' COIIlIa .LIU 01' CUU-.I,UD COUll'l'Y, ....IYLVAIIlA CIVIL aCTIO. - La. HEKPT BROTHERS, INC. v. No. 96-2184 ROISSY DEVELOPMENT CORP., INC., DENNIS SHOWAKER, t/d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION, and JAMES MILLER, Defendants To: Defendant Showaker c/o Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire Metzger, wickershall, Knau.s , Erb 3211 North Front street P. O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 Defendant Miller c/o J. Michael Flanagan, Esquire Flanagan, Benner , Stengel 150 Eaat Chestnut Street Lancaater, PA 17602 NOTICE YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WIUTTIN RESPONSI TO THI INCLOSED NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 2252(d) WITHIN TWIHTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BI IHTIRED AGAINST YOU. Date: ~~/f? ~ // DD . WlUaarr BY: A. , 01' Defendent RQia.y 222 E. Orange 8treet, P.O.. IoKl,a. ' Lancaster, PA 17101-1522 (717) 397-7000 S.Ct.ID. No.1 31022 I..', I. .,.. con! or COIIIlOIr 'LDa 0' CUJUIDLNID COUll'l'Y, .....YLVAlla CIVIL ACTIO. - LaW HZMPT BROTHERS, INC. v. No. 96-2184 ROISSY DEVELOPMENT CORP., INC., DENNIS SHOMAKER, t/d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION, and JAMES MILLER, Defendants n~PENnANT ROISSY'S ANSWER. NEW MATTER ANO 2252(d) NEW MATTER 1. Denied. After reasonable inve.tigation, Rois.y ia without knowledge or information sufficient to fora a belief a. to the truth of the aver.ent. in this paragraph. 2 . AclJli t ted . 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Roissy ia without knowledge or inforllation sufficient to form a belief a. to the truth of the aver.ents in this paragraph. 4. Denied. After. reasonable investigation, Roissy ia without knowledge or information suffioient to fora a belief as to the truth of the averments in this paragraph. 5. AclJlitted. 6. Admitted in part; denied in part. It i. a~itted that Rois.y placed an order with Plaintiff for concrete. After reasonable investigation, Roi..y i. without knovl~. or inforaation sufficient to form a belief a. to the truth of the remaining averllent. in this paragraph. , . \. , I, , " 7. Adllitted in part; denied in part. It i. ..1tt.. ..., , ", '. I, :-ii',' Ro1..y placed an order with Plaintiff for concrete and that a delivery wa. .ade by Plaintiff to Roissy'. work .ite on the date in que.tion. After reasonable inve.tigation, Ro1s.y ie without knowledge or inforaation sufficient to form a belief a. to the truth of the re.aining averments in this paragraph. 8. Denied. On the date in question, the excavation wa. complete, and Hempt Brothers, a. a subcontractor hired to pour cellent, had care, custody and/or control of the construction .ite in regard to all matter. involving the pouring of cement. 9. Adaitted in part; denied in part. The excavation was co.pleted by the date in question, and neither Mr. Showaker nor Mr. Miller had any involve.ent in the excavation. Mr. Showaker was involved in the con.truction project as an independent contractor. After reasonable investigation, Roissy is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments in this paragraph. 10. Admitted in part; denied in part. On the date in qqestion, Mr. Showaker was a subcontractor of Roissy. Neither Hr. Showaker nor Mr. Miller were agents, employee. or servants of Roissy, and Mr. Miller was not a subcontractor of Roissy. 11. Adllitted in part; denied in part. Marc DePaul, the President of Roi..y and the only ellployee, agent, servant or repre.entative of Roi.sy at the construction .ite on the day in question, informed th~ driver of the truck upon her arriving at , I , I ~ 1 , c " d 2 the oon.truction .ite to position the truck at the rear of the exoavation .ite. The re.aining aver.ent. in this paragraph are specifically denied. 12. Denied. Roi..y believes and therefore averu that the driver of the truck, a. the expert in the driving of a ce.ent truck and the pouring of ce.ent, drove the truck to a location determined by her. 13. Denied. Atter reasonable investigation, Rois.y i. , . without knowledge or information sufficiont to form a belief a. to the truth of the averments in this paragraph. 14. Denied. After rea.onable inve.tigation, Roie.y i. without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief a. to the truth of the averments in thi. paragraph. 15. Denied. After reasonable inve.tigation, Roi.sy i. without knowledge or information .ufficient to forll a belief as to the truth of the averments in this paraqraph. 16. Denied. After reasonable inv..tigation, Roi.sy i. without knowledge or infor.ation .ufficient to fo~ a beliet as to the truth of the averment. in this paragraph. Purtberaor., a. a subcontractor hired to pour cement, He.pt Brother. had care, custody and/or control of the construotion .ite in regard to all matter. involvinq the pouring of cellent. 17. Denied. After reasonable investiqation, Roi..y i. without knowledge or inforaation suffioient to to~ . belief a. 3 " ' to the truth of the av.rm.nt. in this paragraph. 11. Deni.d. Roi..y wa. not n.glig.nt, r.ckle.. or car.l.... The av.r.ent. in this paragraph ar. al.o denied for rea.on. ..t forth in paragraph 10. 19. Deni.d. Roi..y wa. not n.glig.nt, r.ckle.. or car.l.... After rea.onable inve.tigation, Roi..y i. without knowl.dg. or information .uffici.nt to for. a b.li.f a. to the truth of the re.aining aver.ent. in thi. paragraph. 20. Deni.d. Aft.r rea.onable inv..tigation, Roi..y i. without knowledge or information .uffici.nt to form a beli.f a. to the truth of the av.rment. in this paragraph. 21. Denied. Roi..y wa. not n.glig.nt, r.ckl... or car.l.... After rea.onabl. inve.tigation, Roi..y i. without knowl.dg. or inforaation .uffici.nt to form a beli.f a. to the truth of the remaining averment. in this paragraph. COUNT I HEMPT RRns.. INC. v. ROISSY DEV~TnpM~NT CORPORA~ION. IN~. 22. paragraph. 1 through 21 are r.alleg.d and incorporated h.r.in. 23. Denied. Roi..y, through it. ag.nt., ..rvant., e.ploy... and/or repr...ntative., was not negli9.nt, r.okl... or car.l.... Roi..y allo denies the .p.cifio alle9ation. of neglig.nc., carele..ne.. and r.ckle..n... a. all.ted in .ubparagraph. A through T. 4 , ' I'.,' , , 24. Denied. Rois.y, through it. agents, ..rvants, ..ploy.es and/or repre.entatives wa. not negligent, reckl.s. or oar.l.... Aft.r reasonable inve.tigation, Rois.y is without knowledge or information .ufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the rellaining averments in this paragraph. WHEREFORE, Roi.sy requests that jUdCJllent be entered in its favor and against plaintiff, plus costs and attorney fees a. peraitted by law. COUNT IX HRMPT ARas.. INC. Va DENNIS SHOWAKER. tJd/bJa NORTH MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTIO~ 25. Paragraph. 1 through 24 are realleged and incorporat.d herein. 26. Thi. paragraph i. directed to a Defendant other than Rois.y and no re.pon.e by Roi.sy is required. 27. This paragraph is directed to a Defendant other than Roi..y and no response by Roissy is required. COUNT III HI!MPT 'AROB.." INC.. v.. 3AII1P.,g IIIT.T." 28. Paragraph. 1 through 27 are realleged and incorporated herein. \, 29. Thi. paragraph i. dir.cted to a Def.ndant otb.r than. Roissy and no respon.e by Rois.y is required. 30. This paragraph i. direct.d to a D.fendant other Roi..y and no respon.e by Roissy i. required. 5 I" ,~ \' ~. I" ! \' "I, \\111111 , ND MA.TTU 31. Para9raph. 1 through 30 are realleged and incorporated herein. 32. Any lo.. or damage .uffered by Plaintiff 1. a result of the acts or omi..ions of third partie. over whom Roisoy had no control. 33. If it i. determined that Mr. Showaker or Mr. Miller I \ were employees, agents, or repre.entatives of Roi.sy on the date 1n que.tion, which relationships are specifically denied, the alleged actions of Mr. Showaker or Mr. Miller or both exceeded or was outside the .cope of authority, actual or implied, given to them by Robsy. 34. Plaintiff'. claim i. barred by the doctrine of assumption of the ri.k. 35. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 36. SOlie or all of the claims a..erted by Plaintiff are barred by the .tatute of limitation.. 37. Plaintiff'. claim is barred, in whole or in part, by the negligenoe of the driver of the truck in cau.ing the incident. 38. Plaintiff's claim is barred, in whole or in part, by its own negligence in cau.ing the incident. 39. Plaintiff failed to mitigate its da"ge. " 6 " , , 'i ,- WHEREFORE, Roi..y request. that judqaent be entered in it. favor and again.t plaintiff, plus cost. and attorney fee. as peraitted by law. NEW MATT2R PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 2252(d) ~ISSY Va SHOWAX~R 40. Mr. Showaker is .olely liable on Plaintiff's cause of aotion, or if it i. deter.ined that Roissy is liable to Plaintiff a. alleged, Mr. Showaker i. liable over to Roissy on Plaintiff's cau.e of action, or i. jointly or severally liable with Roissy on Plaintiff's cause of action. WHEREFORE, Rot..y requests Mr. Showaker be held alone liable to Plaintiff, or, in the alternative, be held liable over to Roissy, or in the alternative, be held jointly or severally liable with Roi..y on Plaintiff's cause of action. NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 2252(d) ROISSY v. MILLER 41. Mr. Miller is .olely l~able on Plaintiff's cause of action, or if it i. determined that Rois.y is liable to Plaintiff as alleged, Mr. Miller is liable over to Roissy on Plaintiff's cause of action, or i. jointly or severally liable with Roissy on Plaintiff's cau.e of action. WHEREFORE, Roi..y requests Mr. Miller be held alone liable to Plaintiff, or, in the alternative, be held liable over to Roi..y, or in the alternative, be held jointly or severally 7 liable with Roi..y on Plaintiff'. cau.e of action. BYI or , wal:GHT Box 1522 I No. : 38022 " ,1"1 " ',' '-I, " , , " " , ' )\",1 " ,'.,'.;.;,1 1,1 , ' 'i' . , , " " . ., " \":1.,, I "I , accordance with Rule 1029(e) and proof is demanded, 7. It is admined that a Hempt truck arrived at the construction site at 5 Randell Drive, Enola, Pennsylvania. however the balance of the allegations of paragraph 7 are not known to answering defendant and accordingly are deemed denit:d pursuant to Pa,R.Civ,P, 1029(e). 8. Answering defendant does not have adequate knowledge to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 8 and accordingly proof is demanded, 9. Denied. James Miller did not order concrete, 10, Paragraph 10 sets forth a conclusion of law III which no response is required. 11. Denied. James Miller did not order concrete. 12, Denied as to James Miller who did not direct the driver of the Hempt Bros. concrete truck, 13. Answering defendant dues not have precise knowledge of the conduct of the plaintiff and accordingly pursuant to Pa,R.Civ.P, 1029(e) said allegations are deemed denied and proof is demanded. 14. Answering defendant does not have precise knowledge of the conduct of the plaintiff and accordingly pursuant to Pa,R,Civ.P, 1029(e) said allegations are deemed denied and proof is demanded, l:'i. Answering defendant does not have precise knowledge of the conduct of the plaintiff and accordingly pursuant to Pa,R.Civ.P, 1029(e) said allegations are deemed denied and proof " is demanded, 16, Answering defendant does not have precise knowledge of the condw:t ofthl.,laiIlIIff. ", , ., and accordingly pursuant to Pa,R.Civ,P, 1029(e) said allegations are deemed denied 1tId~. - 2- - " is demanded, However. it is acknowledged that the cement truck fell into an excavated area. 17. Answering delendant does not have adequate knowledge or information 10 admit the allegations of paragraph 17 and accordingly said allegations are deemed denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). 18, Answering delendant does not have adequate knowledge or information to admit the allegations of paragraph 18 and accordingly said allegations are deemed denied pursuant to Pa.R,Civ.P. 1029(e), 19. Answering delendant docs not have adequate knowledge or information to admit the allegations of paragraph 19 and accordingly said allegations arc deemed denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ,P, 1029(e), 20, Answering defendant does not have adequate knowledge or information to admit the allegations of paragraph 20 and accordingly said allegations are deemed denied pursuant 10 Pa,R.Civ.P, 1029(e), 21. Answering defendant does not have adequate knowledge or information to admit the allegations of paragraph 21 and accordingly said allegations are deemed denied pursuant to Pa.R,Civ.P. 1029(e), COUNT I HEMPf BROS.. INC. V. ROISS\' DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. 22. . 24, The allegations of paragraphs 22 through 24 are directed to a party other than answering defendant and accordingly no response is required of answering defendant. .3. (! ,-, ,-, .' ,,-,' \ " Iii, -J ,;.,f4, " P'I .J , , I ;i'l to" , , , '!.. If) .-'-' ,. '1 '1'\ ~~} . ~;, l'~ ~ , ,~) I , e--- :'(} .. ,.- .. -, .- :-.. ...'t I: ~ fl. ..:.; u/" .. (). . _I "I~ , ., :". l ~ ~ , , 1.'.: .. , , :j L~ ;,.} l'" . I 1 "" " I ,j '- I. , 1 '.' , i i2 · (1).1 0 lL.~= ~ ( ~ " -lwj~ ~ ~ > ! ~ ~ i ~ ~ n IE ~pp Q. ( (j) negligently selecting workers/ independent contractors / and/or subcontractors which Defendant knew or should have known were unable to perform the work in a safe manner; (k) in knowing or having reason to know that its workers/ independent contractors or subcontractors were not competent or qualified to perform the work in question in a safe manner; (1) in failing to comply with all applicable codes, regulations and standards regarding excavations; (m) in failing to perform and/or utilize proper and/or adequate sloping, benching and/or shoring of the excavated area; (n) in failing to determine the type of soil and/or rock in the excavated area; (0) in failing to test and/or adequately test the soil and/or rock in the excavated area for stability; (p) in failing test the area; to test and/or adequately walls in the excavated (q) in failing to test and/or adequately test for cracks in the excavated area; (r) in failing to detect crumbling and/or falling soil in the excavated area; (s) in fail ing to adequately measure excavated area; measure and/or the depth of the, (t) in failing to protect the excavated area from deterioration; 4 ., (u) in failing to ensure the integrity/ stability of the excavated area; (v) in failing to persons from proximity to the keep equipment/ being in close excavated area; (w) in failing to consult with qualified experts regarding the proper excavation techniques to utilize; (x) , to employ proper techniques which are relied upon in the in failing excavation customarily industry; (y) in failing to properly follow drawings, blueprints and/or plans for the excavation; (z) in failing to stabilize the walls of the excavation; (aa) in failing to shore up the walls of the excavation; (bb) in failing to step excavate the walls of the excavated area; '(cc) in failing to slope the walls of the excavated area; (dd) in directing, instructing or otherwise requesting Additional Defendant to drive and park the cement truck in close proximity to the excavated ar.ea when Defendant knew or should have known that it was unsafe to do so; (ee) in failing to war.n the Additional Defendant of the danger associated with driving and parking the cement truck in close proximity to the excavated area; " (ff) in failing to test the area where the Defendant told Additional Defendant to drive and park the cement truck; and, " , , ','I' 5 .. I,,' , " r".' (gg) in failing to properly compact the soil in the excavated area. I, r, , WHEREFORE, Additional Defendant demands that judgment be entered in her favor and against Defendant Showaker. HIE MATTER OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) DIRECTED TO DEPENDANTS 9. Additional Defendant incorporates her answers and averments to paragraphs 1 through 8 above by reference thereto as though set forth herein at length. 10. To the extent that it is determined that Additional Defendant is liable to Plaintiff to any extent, which liability is specifically denied, then in that event, it is specifically averred that Defendants are solely liable to the Plaintiff, liable over to Additional Defendant, or are jointly or severely liable to the Plaintiff, with any liability on the part o~ Additional Defendant being specifically denied. 11. Additional Defendant herein asserts a claim for contribution and/or indemnity from Defendants. WHEREFORE, Additional Defendant requests that judgment be entered in her favor and against Defendants. PETERS & WASILEFSKI DATE: ~t'. ~ /ff~ Attorney for Additional Defendant, Patricia A. Campbell 6 - " I' ~ , i" I if I r: I ~ ' I II I , " l ,. 'i." \ .., , , -n II :J .~' I , '. n ., , " -:.", ,l.-J , " , r : ~ :(',"1 ., , Oil , "l:U ,,' , .!, : 1:/~ "-. I :~ - :_;~~ :":J I,) -, , , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW By: " g'/ " ' l,l /1./'" ' J. Michael Flanagan , Allorneys for defendant James Miller I.D. No, 23149 150 East Chestnut Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 397-9444 HEMPT BROS., INC. Plaintiff, No, 96 - 2184 v, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ROISSY DEVELOPMENT CORP., INC, DENNIS SHOWAKER d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION and JAMES MILLER Defendants. v. PATRICIA A. CAMPBELL Additional Defendant REPLY OF JAMES MILLER TO NEW MATTER OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT PATRICIA A, CAMPBELL 9. - 11. Under Rule 2255(b), additional defendant Patricia A, Campbell's New Maller as to original defendant James Miller is invalid, By way of attempt to respond if necess31)'. said allegations are conclusions of law to which no response is required, FLANAGAN, ijENNER & STENGEL " / - , .. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the fOl'egoing document has been served by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: David W, DeLuce, Esquire 301 Market Street p, O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Attorneys for plaintiff Karl R, Hildabrand, Esquire Metzger Wickersham Knauss & Et'b 3211 North Market Street P. O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 Atlllrneys for Showaker David A. Kreider, Esquire Wagman Ashwonh Kreider & Wright 222 East Orange Street p, 0, Box 1522 Lancaster, PA 17608-1522 Allorneys for Roissy Thomas A. Lang, Esquire Peters & Wasilefski 2931 North Front Street Harrisburg, P A 17110 Allorneys for Campbell DATE: k', 9- 9~ FLANAOA~. B~~N~R &. ST~OEL ,', /~l/': . !. ,~/ { . J. lchael Flanagan, Es re Allorneys for defendant James Miller 1.0. No, 23149 By: " .' ' ,', ", ' , '., -- ,I. I;' ,\ ",' , , (r -. l:': ",' e"; " if t;! '.'1" I. ~ ..-. ,) ~l~ ..... L....,. 1:" j , - " en ,(ll , \ I.~ , [):;" l.~ .Ji\j " , lJ,.. \ LJ " ,/) ,l U (jOt 'J ~ '" g III ~ III '" 0 ;] w Q z J ~ E :.: j ~ 0 . . 0 I ~ I- (f') i III ~ LO ~ > . . II) III l.i. 0 ~ IX Z I al 1 hi II '" . 1 '" ~ ~Il 0 ~ U I- Il: - <( d ~ = . . I\J , " . . . . . I 0: W Cl N t;j :[ I I , . C.RTzpzca'l 0' S.RVICI I, Xarl R. Hildabrand, Esquire of the law firm Metzger, Wickersham, KnaUBS , Erb, hereby certify that I served a true and exact copy of Reply of D.fen4ant 8bo.aker to .e. .atter Pursuant to 'a.R.C.'. 2252(4) of Defen4ant Roi..y with reference to the foregoing action by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, this (J> day of December 1996, on the following: Thomas A. Lang, Esquire Peters' Wasilefski, P.C. 2931 N. Front street HarriSburg, PA 17110 (717) 238~7555 Attorney for Plaintiff Patricia A. Campbell David A. Kreider, Esquire wagman, Ashworth, Kreider , Wright 222 East orange street, P.O. Box 1522 Lancaster, PA 17608 (717) 397-7000 Attorney for Defendant Roissy Development Corp., Ino. J. MiChael Flanagan, Esquire Flanagan, Benner , stengel 150 East Chestnut street Lanca.ter, PA 17602 (717) 397-9444 Attorney for Defendant James Miller David W. DeLuce, Esquire Jo.eph L. HitChings, Esquire Johnson, Duffie, stewart' Weidner 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 11043-0109 (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Hempt Bros., Inc. METZGER, WICKERSHAM, XMAU.. . ... %~R.-~ - - 'If'" - ~ Hlld~;ancf:- laqulre :", ' -3- ~ -' ("; ; ~.l. ~ ..~ " "'.J f , '..t ~i ., ::: " . ":.1, ~~ ,". ::.1 c;n ;.) " I;; !" - Ii' 1-: "i~ " I,' ! L-.;' co, .0 , -..; tJ' ,~) . . CD It W 0 &4 0 l') Ul 0 Ul " Q ::> " ~ " E ~ . >- ~ III g .. .J . . >- >- 1'1 .. , i .. 0 III ~ III . . >- >- ... ~ Ul Ul w , a: z I Z W . ~ d w 0 Il " " 2 · u .. ,j ~ .. . OJ :> . 1'1 m 15 Ul it Cl . N .. I;j :[ ~ . . - . . caRTX.ICAT. O. BBRVIC. I, Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire of the law firm Metzger, Wickerahall, Rnaus. , Erb, hereby certify that I served a true and exact copy of ..ply of Defendant Bhovaker to .ev Natter Purauant to .a...C.'. 2252(4) of DefeDdant Killer with reference to the foregoing action by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, this /? day of December 1996, on the following: Thomas A. Lang, Esquire Peters' Wasilefski, P.C. 2931 N. Front street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-7555 Attorney for Plaintiff Patricia A. Campbell David A. Kreider, Esquire Wagman, Ashworth, Kreider & Wright 222 East Orange street, P.O. Box 1522 Lanoaster, PA 17608 (717) 397-7000 Attorney for Defendant Roissy Development Corp., Inc. J. Michael Flanagan, Esquire Flanagan, Benner & Stengel 150 East Chestnut Street Lanoaster, PA 17602 (717) 397-9444 Attorney for Defendant James Miller David W. DeLuce, Esquire Joaeph L. Hitchings, Esquire Johnaon, Duffie, Stewart' Weidner 301 Market street P.O. Pox 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Hempt Bros., Inc. METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS '-~ ~ ? C4",L....--e( R. H dabrand, Esquire , ERB ~ , -3- HaPT BROS., INC., Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 96-2184 v.. ROISSY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC., DENNIS SHOWAKER, t/d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION AND JAMES MILLER, Defendants VS. . . PATRICIA A. CAMPBELL, Additional Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED RI'LY 01' DIWIKDANT DIKNI8 8BOWalIR, T/D/B/a 10RTH KOUlTAI. COll8TRUCTIOI TO In MATTIR 0' ADDITIONAL DBrIKDAIIT CAIIPBILL 7. The averments of Additional Defendant Complaint in paragraphs 1 through 6 are incorporated herein by reference. 8. Denied. The averments of paragraph 8 and subparagraph. (a)-(gg) are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 9. The averments of paragraphs 1-6 of Additiunftl Defendant Complaint and paragraphs 7 and 8 hereof are incorporated herein by reference. 10. Paragraph 10 states a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. To an extent that an answer is deemed necessary, it i. specifically denied that Defendant Showaker, t/d/b/a North Mountain Construction, is in any way respon.ible to Plaintiff or to the Additional Defendant. .-J\. ' , ;~, ',II .llt -,' 11. Paragraph 11 atate. a conclusion of law to whioh no answer i. required. to an extent that an answer i. deemed neoessary, it is specifically denied that Defendant Showaker, t/d/b/a North Mountain construction, is in any way responsible to Plaintiff or to the Additional Defendant. METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS , ERB 4[;\ '. ') / BY c~ '-<~-<-'-.;:?~~.::-T Kar ~. Hildabrand, Esquire I. D. #30102 3211 North Front street P. O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Attorney for Defendant Dennis Showaker, t/d/b/a North Mountain con.truotion Date: Deoellber dJ, 1996 '\ "1 , , , , , -2- VERIF'ICATIOt{ I, Denni. Showaker, t/d/b/a North Mountain Construction, hereby certHy that the facts set forth in the foregoing .eply of Defea4aDt DeDni. 8hovaker, t/d/b/a Morth MouataiD coaBtruotioD, to .ev Matter of A4ditioDal nefeD4aat campbell are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. S4904' relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. (jJ. PilL. L Denn~ ShowIDr, t/d/b/a North Mountain con.truction ' Da,te, I /~/t5',/'?t;. >, I.", " , ,I I, , , , , ' '.1 I, " l, " , 'I,; -3~ :1' ".1' I. ' t \ I I'!, ClaTX.ICATI 0' SlaVICI I, Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire of the law firm Metzger, Wickeraham, Knauss , Erb, hereby certify that I served a true and exact copy of .eply of Defendant Denni. Shovater, t/d/b/a .orth Mountain Con8truotion, to .ev .atter of Additional Defendant Caapbell with reference to the foregoing action by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, this 2. 'f day of December 1996, on the following: Thomas A. Lang, Esquire Peters & Wasilefski, P.C, 2931 N. Front street HarriSburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-7555 Attorney for Plaintiff Patricia A. Campbell David A. Kreider, Esquire Wagman, Ashworth, Kreider & Wright 222 East Orange street, P,Q. Box 1522 Lancaster, PA 17608 (717) 397-7000 Attorney for Defendant Roisey Development Corp., Inc. J. Michael Flanagan, Esquire Flanagan, Benner , Stengel 150 East Chestnut street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 397-9444 Attorney for Defendant James Miller David W. DeLuce, Esquire Joseph L. Hitchings, Esquire Johnson, DUffie, stewart' Weidner 301 Market street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Hempt Bros., Inc. METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS' b' ", / ,. .. .', /' ~/ " 4"/ ., --" - _ , ' c, . __.-,- <. _ ~,____<::."" ' . Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire ERB -----..c:::. ~4- '*- V~RTFICATION , , ' I , , , I. I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Roi..Y'a An.wer to Showaker'. 2252 (d) New Matter which are within the personal knowledge of the undersigned, are true and correct, and aa to facts based on the information of others, the undersigned, after diligent inquiry, believes them to be true. I understand that false statements therein are made subject , ; to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. S 4904 relating to unsworn fal.ification to authorities. , ~ \./. ~--L. ~. Marc W. DePau ", " :' - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Roissy's Answer to Showaker's New Matter upon the person set forth below and in the manner indicated: First class lIail, postage prepaid: David W. DeLuce, Esquire Johnson, Duffie, stewart' Weidner 301 Market street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss' Erb 3211 North Front street P. O. Box 5300 Harri.burg, PA 17110-0300 ~. Michael Flanagan, Esquire Flanagan, Benner , stengel 150 East Chestnut street Lancaster, PA 17602 Thomas A. Lang, Esquire Peters , Wasilefski 2931 North Front Street HarriSburg, PA 17110 Datel / - f. 9 7 BY: Dav A. Defsndant Roi..y corporation 222 E. Orange street, P.O. Lancaster, PA 17601-1522 (717) 397-7000 S.Ct.ID. No.: 31022 , , 110M "I, - I I I ~ I' (") \J.'I " (~ -..J "I \, t_ ,-J -of,'; ...,., ,,]2 rnt' ~.: r "'9 r:-:( r ':. , (", CJ 3;5- \' ~..(. ' ';:Q r-- ".,., -" " 'w'. .( -. '1"1'1 " , ~ ,) \ ..... .,:~ r:- ~~ -- j ~ .! I ~ I, , , " " . '" I; .-' VI!RtPICATION I verify that the statellents made in the foregoing Roisay's Answer to Miller's 2252(d) New Matter which are within the personal knowledge of the underaigned, are true and correct, and as to facts based on the information of others, the undersigned, after diligent inquiry, believes thell to be true. I understand that talse atatements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. S 4904 relating to unSW01.'n falaification to authorities. ~V~~~. Hero W. Depau , , ,', II!; ,'I' " ......., '. , , n .n '" c -I 11 ~':, ~,- ,J -ql :1 " .\ ;JJ qJI1 '. r"'J. )1) I" ~/1, I;:) :~ .,' " f." , -j -" -~) --, "'-; , ~. - :1:: I,. ., .' ')I'H " :.w~ ; ~) ,I " r.... 'i; ". .- .... .' f ,/ " " .'., 'I , !, " i1..1, "1 /:i . claim ha. been rai.ed, laid allegation is a conclusion of law to whioh no responsive pleading i. required. Furthermore, Roissy denies any right of contribution and/indemnity to Campbell. WHER~FORE, Roi..y request. that Ms. Campbell's request for indellnification or contribution be denied. ! r f / I" , I \, Date: ~~u IDER , WRIGHT BY: ~ Dav A. K for Defendant Roissy Development Corporation 222 E, Orange street, P.O. Box 1522 Lanca.ter, PA 17608-1522 (717) 397-7000 S.Ct.ID. No.: 38022 , ': . VI:RIJ'YCATION I verify that the statement. made in the foregoing Roi..y An.wer to CallpbeU'. 2252 (d) New Matter which are within the per.onal knowledge of the undersign&d, are true and correct, and a. to fact. ba.ed on the information of others, the undersigned, after diligent inquiry, believes thell to be true. I understand that talse statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. S 4904 relating to unsworn fal.ification to authoritie.. r;~ ~ ~--.t'-/~. Marc W. DePau I I I I , I [' I I i' " '("1 -..'" 0 (' -.J to': 'n ,~~\:- "- "J ;,1 ';n C!:}J ," "2 .,~. ~-.;. ';', - V:l LJj .=.:> ~.," r: ~ '. -TJ "Jr. , ,:g 'J;~,( :,1 1~ ~.! ~.) , , '. ,.- ,. :1.} .... ~-..... ') ~. " " 'j I " I \ I , ' I I I 1 I ,I \' I " " , ~ , I \ I;' I" ," I, , \ I I' I ,,, i' 1i II t' I' I; " 34, Denied. The averments of paragraph 34 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading Is required. 35. D.n/ed. The averments of paragraph 35 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading hs required. 36, Denied. The averments of paragraph 36 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading Is required, 37, Denied. The averments of paragraph 37 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading Is required. 38, Denl.d. The averments of paragraph 38 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading Is required, 39, Denied. The avermants of paragraph 39 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading Is required, WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Hempt Bros,. Inc.. demands judgment against Defendant. Roissy Development Corporation, Inc,. In the amount of $16,037,50. together with Interest. costs and such further relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances, Respectfully submitted. :101455 JOHNSON. DUFFIE. STEWART & WEIDNER Bn~j~. ~ '~. Hltchln s _.' . VERIFICA TION I, George Hempt, President of Hempt Bros" Inc" do verify that the statements made In the foregoing Reply to New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, Information and belief, I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 16 Pa.C,S. ~904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: /0/13 J <"I -) pt " , , ' , , " , , !'II " , " ., 'I " , " l:i'l 'i. " " _I, , , " '" :'1 I , 'I"~ , I CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICI; AND NOW, this , J t' day of October, 1997, the undersigned does hereby certify that he did this date serve a copy of the foregoing Reply to New Matler upon the other parties of record by causing same to be deposited in the United States Mall, first class postage prepaid, at lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: J, Michael Flanagan, Esquire Flanagan, Benner & Stengel 150 East Chestnut Street lancaster, PA 17602 David A, Kreider, Esquire Wagman, Ashworth, Kreider & Wright 222 East Orange Street lancaster, PA 17608.1522 Karl R Hlldabrand, Esquire Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb 3211 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Thomas A lang, Esquire Peters & Wasllefskl 2931 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER . (") \.!.., ( ) r~ '"" , I ("7l .,." 'J " J r" .~. -j 1 , " ! ('1 " I l , " , -, , , , " " ,;,. " ~ I -") I ~ . , ", ". " " ,.: ",'" ""'I:/~llljlliM'" '/ , ' , ~tr' 1/ 'f1 ,1'/1' ,; ': jl I IJ'I",4', I ,I 1., "', / I"'," t~ ' ,.!" ',,', '1,,,,,,,,,I"I'I,,;.',Wl I " , /1 , '" ~r~. l'<ioiIltMt ~"'.;i\]Y."""ij';;,..."'.'J'fi.;I"/'.'.I"" "-i) IJ~J;.,. ,lfW, I, ''It ~11"(,~:iJ In~~'I.'PNI;' ;,ii' I. ~j!.. !~-\iI(JoI I ;~"'\"I "...." I ~ "J.' 1\" I. .'.- , 'It" 'I'. If!: --,'~,:'; ...., ('l)_\i/'1 : ',;;,?;.'~'CI"\'ii;':,'-'" ;" ',_ , ' , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW II, HEMPT BROS., INC, Plaintiff, No. 96 - 2184 v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ROISSY DEVELOPMENT CORP., INC. DENNIS SHOW AKER d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION and JAMES MILLER Defendants. ," v, ", PATRICIA A, CAMPBELL Additional Defendant ORDER AND NOW, this ~ day of --d..c."l.-, 1997, it is hereby Ordered that the above-styled action is discontinued as to James V. Miller in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 229(b). J. cc: David W. DeLuce, Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiff David A. Kreider, Esquire Attorneys for Roissy Development . _. bJ.' Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire i-- Attorneys for Showaker ur>~ 1/41 J. Michael Flanagan, Esquire ,dl ,,,w' Auorneys for James V, Miller Thomas A. Lang, Esquire Attorneys for Campbell 'j '-".......,l.. I' . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW HEMPT BROS., INC. Plaintiff. No. 96 - 2184 v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ROISSY DEVELOPMENT CORP., INC. DENNIS SHOW AKER d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION and JAMES MILLER Defendants, v. PATRICIA A. CAMPBELL, Additional Defendant PRAECIPE TO STIPULATE TO DISCONTINUANCE Pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 229(b), the undersigned, representing all parties in this action. agree to the discontinuance of this action against James V, Miller, Defendant. Dated: ~/if1 By: Dated: ~o;; 7 J. Mihael F1ana an, Esqu' Attorneys for defendant James MUII:t. 1.0. No. 23149 I~O East Chestnut Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 397-9444 By~2Iil~ Attorneys for plaintiff 1.0. No. 41687 301 West Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 761.4~40 " ' . . J . ..' ,WA N ASHWORTH KREIDER & WRIGHT Dated: /~/J 7 By: fo, David A. Kreider, Esquire Attorneys for defendant Roissy l.O. No. 38022 222 E, Orange Street Lancaster, PA 17608-1522 (717) 397-700 Dated: 1~/11/'i'" METZGER WICKERSHAM KNAUSS & ERB By:4?cLc:i.<''' ~ .......--0 Karl R. Hildabrand. Esquire Attorneys for defendant Showmaker l.D. No. 30102 3211 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-8187 Dated: /~.f If? PETERS & W ASILEFSKI ~ By: Thomas A. Lanl Attorneys itlo C 11 . No. 52670 2931 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 11110 (717) 238-7.5.5.5 ilefllldua . . '.. ... . I I I"~ I 1\ I, Ii' , ' , , 1'>-)1 "-' j') ~d 'II ." , , I , " " ,) " } " " ) " ) , 'I '.,j -, " , ' Q \0 (') !... 0) " ~.. ... I "'tll.., ....... .-'} f1) I' en, r - ~:tl rl <::> J<J ~~} ~I ' .!!.':J [".l. ~' ., 'I ~ "T} >;r. :':1 ..!(1) .~, (0, ;:Jlrl j..( : .. :I~ 0, ~, ;.J :'<! :11 -.I .... 'I HEMPT BROTHERS, INC., Plaintiff #6 : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. ROISSY DEVELOPMENT CORP., INC., DENNIS SHOWAKER t/d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION, Defendants IN RE: CASE STRICKEN : 96-2184 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 1998, upon agreement of the parties, the captioned case is stricken from the list. The Prothonotary's Office is directed to list these cases for trial during the term commencing in March. By the Court, Joseph L. Hitchings, Esquire JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 For the Plaintiff David A. Kreider, Esquire WAGMAN, ASHWORTH, KREIDER' WRIGHT 222 East Orange Street P.O. Box 1522 Lancaster, PA 17608 Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS , ERB, P.C. 3211 North Front Street P.O. Box 5300 HarriSburg, PA 17110-0300 For Defendant Showaker Court Administrator's Office :lkt ('DP,(.S walt .M~IL"O tCl'I'1.q~ ~ L.1'.'l " ( .. -., ('- I,'" " ", " t'i:.f n'....t ," " " '>II '1 , '. (;/.';, I', " " " " " ! I " '''.f ", , , " " ';10 I' " , , , , " 'I I , , , , I, , , " Ii" , ,.1 , , , I , " " 1111 , , , , 'L,\IIII , " ( I, " "J , '"I" , , , , , ," , , , , \, ~l ," ,'i", ',J' 11'.'1' , , , " PATRICIA A. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA vs. 96-1542 CIVIL ROISSY DEVELOPMENT CORP" : INC., DENNIS SHOW AKER t/d/bIa NORTH MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION, Defendants CIVIL ACTION. LAW HEMPT BROS.,INC., Plaintiff vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA 96-2184 CIVIL / ROISSY DEVELOPMENT CORP" : INC., DENNIS SHOW AKER, t/d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION, Defendants CIVIL ACTION. LAW ORDER AND NOW, this Z '1 . day of February, 1999, it appearing that the action at 96.1542 has been settled and the amount of the claim at 96.2184 is not above the limits set for compulsory arbitration, it is directed that the matter in which Hempt Bros., Inc. is the plaintiff be referred to arbitration. BY THE COllRT. 44 ~H. ..iff..... ~ ,oft, CERTIF/CA TE OF SERVICE AND NO~ this 14th day of September, 1999, the undersigned does hereby certify that he did this date serve a copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Discontinue upon the other parties of record by causing same to be deposited In the United States Mall, first class postage prepaid, at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: David A Kreider, Esquire Wagman, Ashworth, Kreider & Wright 222 East Orange Street Lancaster, PA 17608-1522 Karl R Hlldabrand, Esquif'e Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb 3211 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Thomas A, Lang, Esquire Peters & Wasllefskl 2931 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 I , I " , ,,' .' ! i , I " " , r,(i