Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-03212 I I Page 3: I ^ r 2 Q ( 3 ^ \ 4 about, \' 3 Ih.t it., 6 Q I 7 ^' S Q C 9 ^. ~ Q I I assistan 2 ^ I '3 IwO yea II Q' :3 assistan '6 ^ I ~ my pret S Q 9 ^' Xl Q I h '85 to 12 ^: iJ accid<ll 1,4 Q L5 ^ Page 3 I Q Your mother had obtained Ihese support orders I 2 against you? 2 3 ^ But my mother never W<llt 10 get it. 3 4 Q Well, is that who" 4 3 ^ That's who Ihey say. 3 6 Q Jlave you discussed this with your mother? 6 , 7 ^ My mother and I have been to Dauphin County ,7 Q , S domestic relations five times, I am on fust name basis S asslsllll 9 with Mary In Ihe domestic relations office because I call 9 ^ I 10 her on an avernge once a weele, what is going on, where is \0 Q II the paperwork. I am not supposed to have anything out \I ^ 12 standing, Everything is paid up, And yet the IRS keeps 12 Q I 13 teHing me that lowe, But yet there WIIS never ony order p A 14 entered agoinst me. \4 Q IS Q Well, how would you describe your relationship . S A 16 with your mother ot Ihe present time? 6 May 3 17 ^ When we leave here, he's going to go sleep, I am 7 Q 18 going 10 my mother's, My kids are going 10 log, They're 8 husbar 19 going to bring in firewood for my mother. 9 A 20 Q So I take it then .. 0 Q 21 ^ My mother and I are on the best of lenns. We I SUPPOl 22 can'l understand why Dauphin County says.. the paper sa~2 A 23 that I owe it when we never received anything, her or I. 3 down 24 Q Well, let me .. are you telling me your mother 4 Q 23 never initiated any support order against you? S your c HUGHES, ALBRIGHT, FOLTZ & NAT GHI 717-232-5644/393-51 17-23:1 , ELEANOR ZINN OCTOBER 14, 1996 Multi-Page'" Page 30 I that verify this? 2 ^ I had a W.2 for that one day. 3 Q Which one day WIIS that? 4 A At Heartland. 3 Q When did you work one day there? 6 ^ Right the day after the accidenl. 7 Q Okay. The day after the accident you worked at 8 Heartland? 9 A One day, I could not be on my feel like that. 10 Q What WIIS the job there at Heartland? II ^ Hold the bag open, stuff with pOlpourri, hand it 12 to the person. She twists and tics. They put a ribbon on 13 it and it went. Il was just stuffing bags, I figured it 14 would pay the bills, U Q You say you do have a W.2? 16 ^ For that one day, yes. 17 Q Is this at home that you have that, your W.2? 18 ^ I think. We have moved since thai so I might 19 have even tossed it. 20 Q Do you have your tax rcturns for the last five 21 years? 22 ^ No. 23 Q You do not? 24 ^ We haven't even f~led taxes because of a 23 different problems that has nothing do with this. Page 31 I Q Okoy, Well. 'a you bave nol moo 0 lax 2 relUm" 3 ^ Since '93. 4 Mil zlNN: 'u, 3 TIlE WllllESS: They owe u', 'a lam not womal 6 about It. 7 BYMR. woo 8 Q Iju'l wanllo understand, So in 1993 you fila1 9 a tax return and !bat', the Ia,t one? 10 ^ I think it', '93, '94, I am not ,ure, I eon't II lell you. My two oldest daushtcr' lival witb my mother 12 because they had a 'table life being tbcro with her, They IJ did nol want 10 leaie my mother', bou,e, They wanted their 14 alx ond half acres of mountain ground 10 play on, My mom 13 leu my kids do wbalcVer they want. I bave rules, You 16 follow them. And they won't. 17 Q I am a Unle bit losl. Whal docs thi, bave 10 IS do with your filing tal mums? 19 A The fiUng ta.es bas 10 do with It because 20 according 10 Perry County and Dauphin County, tllC)' entered a 21 child aupport osaln51 me, I never saw ony papers from 22 either court stating !bat I nmlal .. I never got an 23 Invitation 10 come 10 court for custody p.pcrs - or not for 24 custody papers, bUI for support bearings. 2S The only support bearing, I went 10 Daupbin Page 30 - Page 33 1 County, cvcrylbing was Splil, My mother and I came 10 2 ~round an a8J'lClllenllo long as my husband kept full eomplele 3 malieal coverage and the extra coveragc on Heidi and 4 Melissa, they could ,tay tbcro, tbcro would be no money paid S oullo Heidi and Melissa unlen askal for it or nccdalll, 6 Because \\~ bad our own sep'rBte bousehold, The kids didn'l 7 gcl along with my busband, 'a tbc). ,..)td with my mom, 8 Q Okay. 9 A We didn'lliIe taxes because according 10 the 10 IRS. they're going 10 take e',cry penny of our Ine.mestaxos II because I, qUale, o\\~ money for hack ebild support when 12 then: was no order given 10 me. 13 Q Okay. So then tllC IeIson thai )'OU didn'lliIe 14 ta. returns Is because you hod becn nOlifialthot they were I S going 10 .. thai Is the IRS.. 16 A Was going 10 take II, 17 Q Lei me finlsb, We ean'l both talk 01 one time, 18 So we'll s..rt II. If J undastand you 19 eorreclly, then you are leUing me thai you bave nollilal 20 ta. r<turns for the pall sevaal )tlIrs because IRS bad 21 advlsal you thai any refund thot you would be entitled 10 22 would nol be paid 10 you, bUI would rather go 10 pay lame 23 boeklupport orders? 24 ^ Supposal back support olda whleb I never saw, 2S rishl. Q ^ Q A Q ^ '. >: - r: - o. ;.- i-: .. :~ (', ;"l:"i lU ., t:_)~~ t l~" To 1'- t' r')~ ~~": ...: - ~..- 0 :~.S~ L~ ." -.JU I ;>. dHLl L.;.. ~2 110- r-'- - ~j L.!. r- 0 ($\ U . ;... I I I I I ,I -- .::0 (1.: " ,. ._, I'.' ~~ :: tilt.' C.... r-' '. "..- c,~' ' , J; (.:' CJ1.. "....; , ':-\:: , .. oj l~' ~ ,~ r. .:... ) L-',. r-- <..1 (,) 0' ~ LU Z Cl LU ~ X ..J --- ~ < oJ ~ ." w LU 7- () ~ Z g LU < ~ x' ~ '" G\ o '" G\ o f- E: ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ,~~ "';; ~- ::! ~ I ~ ~ :J;Z lD- o Z ;::. ~ ll'l UJ h: a:: o ll. - 0 "I,)' U ., ~ j ~ ~ '" 01 ~ < J: ~ i.. <> Ui ,i ~-. ..J '-{ ,'JJ I " ~ ]/1 Hoffer ELEANOR ZINN and KENNETH ZINN, Plaint! ffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMRFIU AND COUNTY, PFNNSYL V^NI^ V, ROBERT HAROLD WINEBERG, De f enrlon t (lVII MrJON - I ^W %-3217 CIVIl rERM IN.RL._PRETRIALC ON FERENC E A pretrial conference was held before the Honorable George E, Hoffer, Judge, on Wednesday, Oc tober 22. 1997, In this auto occident case, David L, Lutz, Esquire, represents the plaint! ff; and Richard H, Wix, Esquire, represents the defendant, This is an auto accident occuring in a mini-market parking lot in which the plaintiff's car wos stationary at the time the defendant's car backed into her at the gas pump, Plaintiff claims soft tissue injury of a continuing nature and still undergoes Chiropractic treatments, The attorneys estimate the case to take one and a half days to try with with four Challenges each, The medical depositions on behalf of the plaintiff are already taken, and defendant's medical video is already taken, Each party has examined the witness list and exhibit list of the other side and neither side raises any evidentiary problems. . . 10 Ho t fel' ELEANOR ZINN and KENNETH ZINN, P1aintt Us IN ThE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Of' CUMRfR1Afld COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ([VII ACTION - lAW 90-3717 C IVI! TFI1M V. ROBERT HAROI,D WINERFRG. De f f!IHlon t IN TRESPASS (M, V,) IN RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE In this vehicle occident case, I,awrence F. Barone. Esquire, appears on IJehalf of trial counsel. David Lutz, Esquire, for the plaintiff; Girard E. Rickards. Esquire. appears on behalf of Richard H. Wix. Esquire, on behalf of the defendant, Plaintiff was in her cor at 0 gasoline station when she claims the defendant negligently backed into her car at or near the gasoline pumps, causing her the whiplash type of soft tissue injury, She has been treating with 0 chiropractor and has also consulted a neurologist for her cloims of dizziness resulting from the occident. This is 0 Jury trial estimated to take one and 0 half days to try with four challenges each. Neither party raises any objection with witnesses on the other side, nor the exhibits presented. If plaintiff is moving forward with a claim for lost wages. she is directed to exchange Income tax information with ELEANOR ZINN AND KENNETH ZINN, Plaintiffs v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 9(;- .J..o I.l. ~,;J u.... ROBERT HAROLD WINEBERG, Detendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiffs, Eleanor Zinn and her husband, Kenneth Zinn, are adult individuals residing in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, Robert H. Wineberg is an adult individual residing at 774 Maple Street, Brockway, Jefferson County, Pennsylvania. 3. The facts and occurrences hereinafter related took place on or about March 5, 1995, at approximately 11:49 a.m. in the parking lot of a Uni-Mart convenience store located at 801 West Lisburn Road, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. At that time and place, Plaintiff, Eleanor Zinn was occupying a 1981 Chevrolet Chevette. 5. As Ms. Zinn was traveling north in the Uni-Mart parking lot, Defendant wineberg, operating a 1995 Chevrolet Van, backed his vehicle from a parking space in front of the Un i-Mart building directly into the driver's side of Mrs. Zinn's vehicle. 6. The toregoing accident and all the injuries and damages set torth herein sustained by Plaintiffs, Eleanor Zinn and Keith Zinn are the direct and proximate result of the negligent, 1 careless, wanton and reckless manner in which Defendant Wineberg, operated his motor vehicle as follows: a. Backing his vehicle while failing to look where he was going. b. Failure to keep a proper and adequate lookout for other motor vehicles in the Uni-Mart parking lot. c. Failure to keep a proper and adequate control over his motor vehicle. d. Operating his motor vehicle in a careless and reckless manner while in the Un i-Mart parking lot. Claim I Eleanor Zinn v. Robert Harold Winebera 7. Paragraphs 1 through 6 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 8. Mrs. Zinn sustained painful and severe injuries which include, but are not limited to a cervical strain, cervical brachial syndrome, lumbar intervertebral disc syndrome with a herniation of a L-S disc, myofacial pain syndrome, radicular pain of the upper extremities, muscle spasms, left wrist sprain, headaches and dizziness, right leg, buttock and calf pain, and mid- back pain. 9. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, Mrs. Zinn has undergone and in the future may undergo continuing physical and mental sUffering, inconvenience in carrying out her daily activities, loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and claim is made therefore. 2 10. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Mrs. Zinn has been, and in the future may be subject to humiliation and embarrassment, and claim is made theretore. 11. Mrs. Zinn continues to be plagued by persistent pain and limitation and there tore avers that her injud.es may be ot a permanent nature, causing her residual problems for the remainder of her lifetime. 12. As a result of the aforesaid accident and result in disability, Mrs. Zinn has sustained uncomplicated work los3, loss of earning capacity, and uncompensated medical bills and claim is made therefore. Claim II Kenneth Zinn v. Robert Harold Wineberq 13. paragraphs 1 through 6 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 14. As a result of the aforementioned injuries sustained by his wife, plaintiff Eleanor Zinn, plaintiff Kenneth Zinn has been and may in the future be deprived of the care, companionship, consortium, and society of his wife, all of which will be to his great detriment, and claim is made therefor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Eleanor and Kenneth Zinn demand judgment against Detendant Robert Harold Wineberg in an amount in excess ot Twenty-tive Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) exclusive ot interest and 3 /" ..., ..J v., ~ ~v '<I I .:J' .... '/1 t .:r ,- ~ ~ M ;--: ~ ~;>~ i)' ", N) . ~' - 21- I -- ~ - ""-' ~, o. ~ -.)1 'V) ~l ,.'.'!;J "-- ....., r..., \t) . ,.. '-r; \,,- I," . (" .... 101, I .J<J '~ ' l'f'> l:~ - ... ~' " ",) Ie. ~ ,'10... -~ , . b 0,-<- . U1 ,',1 ~ a> u <J ~ - ~ , ',- I" , i :.., ~ , "',', I I'! . l '~ . ,. ~ G\ u.J 8 7- '" Cl G\ 0 ~ ~ ;:: ~ f- X UJ <. w -- ~ I '" ~ ~ ~ i;; <. ~ ~ ~ . ~ " UJ ~ ~ ~ r.j '" ~I u.J 70 :l ~ . 0 . . \j ~ 70 , ~ g ~ w - E ;l, .. ~ 0 ~ "- I,)' u u.J ., j ~ ~ " ~ " >- x ~ a: ;::: ~ i . . , . , . remaining averments of Paragraph 5. Therefore, the remaining averments of Paragraph 5 are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 6. The averments of Paragraph 6 constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, each and every averment of Paragraph 6 is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 7. Paragraphs 1 through 6 of the Defendant's Answer with New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 8. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 8. Therefore, each and every averment of Paragraph 8 is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 9. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 9. Therefore, each and every averment of Paragraph 9 is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 10. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 10. Therefore, each and every averment of 2 Paragraph 10 is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 11. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 11. Therefore, each and every averment of Paragraph 11 is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 12. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 12. Therefore, each and every averment of Paragraph 12 is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 13. Paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Defendant's Answer with New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 14. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 14. Therefore, each and every averment of Paragraph 14 is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Robert Harold Wineberg, respectfully requests Your Honorable Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. 3 NEW MATTER 15. The collision referred to in the Plaintiffs' Complaint was caused by the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of Plaintiff Eleanor zinn in that she: a. Failed to keep a proper and adequate lookout for other motor vehicles in the UniMart parking lot; b. Drove her vehicle into the Defendant's vehicle; c. Failed to keep proper and adequate control over her motor vehicle; d. Failed to take proper evasive action to avoid the collision; e. Failed to warn the Defendant of an impending collision; f. Operated her motor vehicle in a careless and reckless manner while in the UniMart parking lot. 16. The Plaintiffs' claims are barred, or should be reduced in accordance with the Pennsylvania comparative Negligence Act. 17. The Plaintiffs' claims for non-pecuniary damages may be barred pursuant to the limited tort option of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act. 18. The Plaintiffs' claims for medical expenses and wage loss may be barred pursuant to S 1722 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act. 4 ~i.., , \-, --- i:-. C:". . II J ~ J , .'j', f':< l. ' '1', J l",J f 1 J.j" I 0._.1 {,'l' L , "j i . I . U J U ; -~, II G\ G1 o '" G\ o uJ~ ~ 8 ~~8< ~ .... ~;Z .on~~ ~~ "<' VI:<. ~ '" ;; <<l- o::~~~I~~ ~ :z ~ 7- ~: v ~ w 7- ~::l Z 0 '" i:' - ~ ... 0 - ~ 0 LU<~~ ~ ~ ,,~ , ~ ~ 01 '- ~ :::: < J: 0::: LU Z Cl . . >- Cl ':>- ~~ l:; t-,. 6; :-j..r (-, ~ ' _n' '8'" ,- n=~~ .~: ; '-. ~\, In i1 '" , .', w~.\ ..< E'. , -.ILl .'~. .-', ,. .0- i ::.=.;j -..; ,.-, 1'-. r- ::J 0 0' U C. " , .'J 0..;,...., .., ..- ! " . '.. i -,' ""- If) iT: (": ., " ,.. ,,-} lll~,! <. 1...-: p,?, " I.,; &.: I ~j Ot: ~ c::, . .,) GJrr '..... ''-', :' j.:~5 ff!1' . ~ lJ..J , ) ~ 0.. f.: l.L.. ,', ll, r- ::~ 0 en (J ......,..-, -- . PLAINTIFFS' POINT FOR CHARGE NO, 2 In civil cases such as this one, the plaintiff has the burden of proving those contentions which entitle her to relief. When a party has the burden of proof on a particular issue, her contention on that issue must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence. The evidence establishes a contention by a fair preponderance of the evidence if you are persuaded that it is more probably accurate and true than not. To put it another way, think, if you will, of an ordinary balance scale, with a pan on each side. Onto one side of the scale, place all of the evidence favorable to the plaintiff; onto ~ the other, place all of the evidence favorable to the defendant. If, after considering the comparable weight of the evidence you feel that tne scales tip, ever so slightly or to the slightest degree, in favor of the plaintiff, your verdict must be for the plaintiff. If the scales tip in favor of the defendant, or are equally balanced, your verdict must be for the defendant. In this case, Mrs. Zinn has the burden of proving that Mr. Wineberg was negligent and that his negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about the accident. If, after considering all of the evidence, you feel persuaded that these propositions are more probably true than not true, your verdict must be for Mrs. Zinno Otherwise, your verdict should be for the Defendant. Pa. SSJI (Civ.) ~5.50 - Burden of Proof.