Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-02366 " " , , ~ ; , I ;, " ~ ~ " , , , ' .. 'I , '" " ,,/' .' " ,I I " " , .," I. ~ J , " i \ ...., I ...., I ~ ,I "',I ~i " , ~., , .' , 96-2366 94-5098 IN Rf: PAGE 2 CIVIL TERM CIVIL TERM PRETRIAL CONFERENCE Evidenc!' Clt tile l'I'10J will show that ofter till'! collision, IJotll lil'lvers sofelY stopped their velllcles 011 tllfl s Ide of the road Clnd exclHIfl9lHI J nfol'lIIo!'J Oil Imlll ttIP polict! arriVf)lj. Tile ploint:iff clClj.llls t1lot Ile suffered severe injuries tram tile colliSIon, loter cousin9 111111 to [lr)(ll~rgo :,ul~gery on 111.S neck for fusion of the C 4-5 alld C 5-6 vertebrae rill:' ex tent of the injuries nlld em/sat ion tllereof Is In sl'I'ious contpst, Thts is 0 Jury tl'io] esttllloted to tor.e fOUl' days to try even though it is Just For damClg~s, Each party has exalllined the wit~ess list of the other party and the list of exhJbits ond 110 obJectloll hCls been put to' tile court os to the witnesses listed, However, plaintlffs' primary treaters ore Texas doctors, During the course of at lpost one of their video deposJ hons fOI' Uta], defendont cla1.ms that the merJ.jcnl w.i tness used (} rl1 ffel'ent stOl1elOlrl; .i. e, the classic (within a reasonable degree of medical certainty) was not useel tJY tile Texas plwsi.cion, but I.otllel. lIe stoter! (witl1i.n,Cl reasonnble degree of medicol probohility. If defense counsel is moking on issue of tills, he shc)] 1 ['oise t/lis by motion to tle filed within one week of tOdoy's dote together with supporting brief, Defense counsei is reauested to promptly responrl so that the matter can be settled before trial, ConcurrentlY at tod(}Y's proceedIngs, we have signed nn , '. . , , /' . I.' . r . " r . %-2366 9/+-50'18 IN RE: PAGE 3 C I V Il TF.'RM CIVIL TFRM PRETfHAI CONfERENCE order consol1 doting Hli s cn5.e Hi tll tile wi fe' 5 clatlll for, consorUI.JliI ot %../366 Civll .Term Both parties ogrBe that ony deter~ination made by Social Security Administnlt:lon as to plc/intlff's 'disability is inadm15sibl~ at this triol, By the Court, Delano M, l.antz, ESQuil"e P,O, Box 1166 Harrisburg, Po, 17108 For the Plaintiff Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Ten East High Street Carlisle. Po. 17013 For the Defendants Prothonotary Court Administrator :mtf , >, , " ,is .~~ " ;" (0'.1 i , l ~ !' " ~ " ' , ,J \.~ ~ I ' . \)." ~ " K)~ I") " I '0 N) l', ~~ ~\ ~ ' , ~~ . , ~ .. I " MaN II.. WALJ.ACI III 'NU"ICl< ... PINII ,.''''/IT ',; e. ... .... I' . i .,'1 I, CHARLENE HOGAN 6303 Anthony Lane Sachse, TX 75048 Plaintiffs v. WATKINS MOTOR LINES, INC., 1144 West Griffin Road Lakeland, FL 33805; JACK JORDAN, Route 2, Box 24 Galivants Ferry, se 29544; and KENNETH ALLEN ROWE, Route 7, Box 2149, Conway, SC 29526 Defendants HA.....U.... .. "loa , CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO, ~~)' ,,23;.,(. C;tA-!JJt-/M TO THE PROTHONOTARY: PRAECIPE rOR WRIT or SUMMONS action, Please issue a writ of summons in the above-captioned Date: May 1, 1996 WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS: YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-Nk~ED PLAINTIFFS HAVE COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU, Date: May I , 1996 By , I~L/CE J:~t-'t) Delano M, La t 1.D. No. 2140 100 Pine Street P. O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 (717) 232-8000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 1.<1 ;',"""",,-, f' /,),#:.< A~~""-,,,. by '/:1/';: ? 4'&'oe{iYf " ., "I_iF\()'-I,--f ,1M:il~~#'~.m~HI.~ll~\.(';.liii;:h~'F,);h';\,-ri 'i' . \, -'iii, , \n j',:,." , , , , . , ..... en t.- " ',' -. Ii", t: " ~1J'> " )0' .' ,- l U_" (-I " lit "" II, y. r:,y. (', 'r J LI. t \'., i "L'. 1>, r- J U r...' >.'; " " I, " ~laintiff, Gerald W. Hogan was rear-ended by another tractor trailer unit which had two trailers and was operated by Defendant, Kenneth Allen Rowe, owned by Jack Jordan and leased to Watkins Motor Lines, Inc, 3. The action filed to No. 94-5096 Civil Term was filed in September 1994 by Plaintiff, Gerald W, Hogan. That action sought damages for the personal injuries and property damage suffered by him, 4, The action to No. 96-2366 Civil Term was instituted by Writ of Summons on May 1, 1996 and is intended to preserve and pursue, Plaintiff, Charlene Hogan's claim for loss of consortium, The complaint was filed in said action on March 14, 1997, 5. Since both actions arise from the same factual background and the second action merely adds Plaintiff, Charlene Hogan's claim for loss of consortium, the cases should be consolidated for trial pursuant to Rule 213 since they involve common questions of law or fact and arise from the same transaction or occurrence, 6. The above two matters were listed for trial and are on the May 19, 1997 trial list, The cases were called for trial at the call of the list on April 21, 1997. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this date a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served by first-class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Dated: APri~~" 1997 , ' " order to preserve and assert Plaintiff, Charlene Hogan's claim for loss of consortium. 6. At or about 2130 on May 2, 1994, the Plaintiff, Gerald W. Hogan, was hauling his custom-made trailer, with his 1987 Mercedes Benz tractor, in a northern direction on Interstate 81 in Penn Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 7. On the same date and time, the Defendant, Jack Jordan, was the owner of a 1992 tractor, which the Defendant, Kenneth Allen Rowe, was operating in the course and scope of his employment with the Defendant, Watkins Motor Lines, Inc. a, The Defendant, Kenneth Allen Rowe, rearended the tractor-trailer being driven by the Plaintiff. 9. The collision was caused by the negligence of the Defendant, Kenneth Allen Rowe, in the course and scope of his employment with the Defendants, Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., and Jack Jordan, in the following respects: (a) in failing to have the tractor-trailer he was operating under control; (b) in traveling at such a high rate of speed, that he could not get stopped before running into the rear of the Plaintiff's tractor-trailer; (c) in following too closely; and (d) in violating the assured clear distance ahead rule. 10, As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff, Gerald W, Hogan, sustained a whiplash injury, a brain - 2, .. . .' ,', COMMONWEALTH OF PENN5YI. VANIA 55: 'COUNTY OF CU~I\lEI{LAND ) '. Gerald W. l'logan, being .luly sworn ,\ccordlng to law, deposes and says that the averments in the within Complaint .Ire true ,Illd correct, to tht! best of signer'~ kl\owl\!dge, iniormali>.ln, and belit!f, d.t-WVIt/~-~~ G'~rald W, Hogan Sworn and subscribed to before me " t ';oi,,/! G. II' Lo..J.;v' this 'II. d,\y of, Awgttst, 1994. f7/J..~'d. '1); . '- ('Notary 'v;.: //'fl.l/q I ,'O:,\fH,l,1 SE,\L J~NlI fA Ll'f NC1,\HrPUDlIC C~RLiSlE DORa cu".nERl~NO COUNTY ~oy CO.ll"I\\II'N E"IRES JUNE 26, 199~ . ' . , 'f" CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this date a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served by first-class,mail, postage prepaid, upon the following; Thomas J, Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Dated; Ma.rch I; , 1997 '. , , " 'I; " ,. , ~ , , ~ . \ I , ~ ,- I ~! ,1 , " , ' ,';' '," , .' " , , '" \ I t" GERALD W. HOGAN, Plaintiff v, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 94-5098 CIVIL TERM WATKINS MOTOR LINES, INC., JACK JORDAN and KENNETH ALLEN ROWE, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GERALD W, HOGAN and CHARLENE HOGAN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERl~D COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaint iffs v, CIVIL ACTION - LAW WATKINS MOTOR LINES, INC., NO, 96-2366 - Civil Term .,/ Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED RULE TO SHOW CAUSE n.J. AND NOW, this _~ day of ~~~, 1997 upon consideration of Plaintiff, Gerald W. Hogan's Motion Requesting Damages For Delay, a rule is hereby issued on Defendants, Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., Jack Jordan and Kenneth Allen Rowe to show cause, if they have any, why delay damages should not be awarded to Plaintiff, Gerald W. Hogan, in the amount of $44,371.46. This Rule is returnable within ten days after service on Defendants. By the Court, - I ~/.1k..9'L tP. ~':i. I! ) ;J. ;.Q,.t ~ bl-t.'JL- ~ .~ P.l\.<t;."..-.t-~ "t'1:r-'" - .; A IYI, ". 1'1 e.....J,o,.t.......l c-..:t~ -pJJ .....,.At--.:..u.- i , I I. : I ! I, ~ I I " I . l " I I, ;, II ,'I , I 1 I / '/ 2, The collision at issue occurred on May 2, 1~94, The complaint of Plaintiff, Gerald W, Hogan, against Defendants docketed to No, ~4"509B was filed on September 9, 1994 and served on Watkins Motor Linea on September 13, 1994. 3. Defendants' highest verbal settlement offer before trial was $120,000. After the close of Court on Thursday, May 22, 1997, Defendants offered a structured settlement which was represented to have a value which would have exceeded the amount of the jury verdict. However, the offer was not made in writing as required by Rule 23B(b) and, further, even if it had been made in writing would only affect delay damages for the last day (May 23, 1997) , 4. At no time did Plaintiff cause any delay in the trial of this matter. All motions to compel discovery were filed against Defendants and no motions were filed against Plaintiff, The case went to trial the first time it was listed for trial. 5. Pursuant to Rule 238, delay damages are recoverable for the period beginning September 13, 1995, the date one year after the service of original process and through the date of the verdict which was rendered on Friday, May 23, 1997. The interest rate for computation of delay damages is the prime rate for the applicable years plus one percent in accordance with Rule 238 (a) (3), One of the purposes of the rule is "to prevent a Defendant fr0m being unjustly enriched by keeping interest that - 2 .. could be earned during the litigation process on what is essentially the Plaintiff's money.. Kirk v. Ravmark Industries. ~, 61 F', 3d 147, 170 (3d Cir. 1995). 6. The calculation of delay damages is set forth in the table below: pet'iod llinnber of Prime Rate Prime Rate Total Davs + l'Is 9/13/95 109 8.5% 9,5% $7.886.82 12/31/95 1/1/96 - 365 8.515 9.5% $26,410.00 12/31/96 1/1/97 - 143 8.25 9.2S $10,074.64 5/23/97 Grand $44,371.46 Total 7. Pursuant to the calculations set forth in Paragraph 6 above, Plaintiff, Gerald W. Hogan, requests the Court to award delay damages in the amount of $44,371.46. Plaintiff further requests the Court to add the delay damages to the amount of the verdict in favor of Plaintiff, Gerald W. Hogan, of $278,000 and to direct the Prothonotary to enter judgement in favor of Plaintiff, Gerald W. Hogan, and against Defendants in the total amount of $322,371.46 at the earliest time permitted under the provisions of Rule 238 (c) (3) , 8. The Court is further requested to direct the Prothonotary to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff, Charlene - 3 - fiLm C F:(F ....".., Il\t (r I' 0" :I"!" 'I, ,J ,lllt,16 (. i'\ ", 1;~ikj..oIl.'. "!~/\ , : '- as followsr Past Medical Exbenses - $35,0001 Trailer Damaqe - $8,000; and, All Oth~r Damaqes - $235,000. Charlene Hogan was awarded $2,000 for loss of consortium, 2, Gerald W, Hogan has filed a motion requesting damages for delay in the amount of $44,371,46, which is calculated based on the total jury award of $278,000, In his motion, Gerald W, Hogan requests the Court to direct the Prothonotary to enter judgment in favor of Gerald W. Hogan and against Defendants in the amount of $322,371.46, In the same motion, the Court is further requested to direct the Prothonotary to enter judgment in favor of Charlene Hogan and against Watkins Motor Lines in the amount of $2,000. 3. Defendants have filed an answer with new matter to Gerald W, Hogan's motion requesting damages for delay. In their answer, Defendants state that damages for delay should only be assessed in the amount of $38,785.19, which is calculated on $243,000. Defendants dispute that damages for delay should be assessed on the $35,000 awarded for Past Medical Expenses. In their answer with new matter, the Defendants request that the Court direct the Prothonotary to enter judgment in favor of Gerald W, Hogan and against Defendants in the total amount of $281,785.19, Defendants further state that damages for delay on the portion of the verdict attributable to past medical expenses in the amount of $35,000 should not be assessed pending a ruling on the Defendants' Motion for Judgment N.O.V. on the issue of . 2 - Gerald W, Hogan's entitlement to recover for past medical expenses, 4, Since there is no dispute with respect to Gerald W, Hogan's entitlement to recover at least $281,785,19, the parties agree that the Court should issue an Order awarding damages for delay in the amount of $38,785.19 and add it to that portion of the jury verdict in favor of Gerald W, Hogan for Trailer Damage and All Other Damages in the amount of $243,000, and direct the Prothonotary to enter judgment in favor of Gerald W, Hogan and against Defendants in the amount of $281,785,l9 on only that portion of the jury verdict in favor of Gerald W. Hogan for Trailer Damage and All Other Damages. 5. The parties agree that nothing contained in this Stipulation is intended to be a waiver of any defense or claim relating to the jury's award of Past Medical Expenses in the amount of $35,000, or is in any manner intended to effect the position taken by the Defendants in their Motion for Judgment N,O,V. The parties' agree that assessment of damages for delay on the $35,000 awarded for Past Medical Expenses will not occur until after the Court has ruled on the Defendants' pending Motion for Judgment N.O.V. 6. Since there is no dispute with respect to Charlene Hogan's entitlement to recover $2,000, the parties agree that the Court should issue an Order directing the Prothonotary to enter judgment in favor of Charlene Hogan and against Watkins Motor Lines in the amount of $2,000. - 3 . " , " ,,' >-, i:r: .1? l> L1.I.. Oft~ ~;' C' r )~ .;. [t I ~ . ;:, " o .:xl' '" IJJ :r.: .c: , , 2 . f'; L.' .,'d' 1,):.,;, ( J:,.:. ..... "~'.l ..,~'':' 'III) (J ;~.,; 'I.lr,) I-l<>' ~ \,: en , , ,.. C1' , '