HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-05057
~
)
~
\:
lI:C
~
~
- I
.
.
.'3
... .
I
1
,
....,
<:3'
~
I
1
I
1
i
,
,
l
I
.
.
\
,,^,
~
\
j
.~
fl
I
~
,
~
<1
"
SAlOIS, GUIDO. ~
SllUFF" "
"ASLAND
:.."'.....-
('......, '"
6. The intersection of Lambs Gap Road and Locust Lane is
controlled by a stop sign placed along Locust Lane.
7. At said time and place, Defendant Shau-Dong Wong was
operating a 1988 Dodge Van owned by Defendant Gin-Yong, Jnc,
along Locust Lane, He was attempting to access Lambs Gap Road
from the stop sign on Locust Lane,
8, At said time and place, Willard H, Weaver was operating
a 1994 Lexus owned by Plaintiffs in the northbound lane of Lambs
!
Gap Road,
9, At said time and place, Defendant Shau-Dong Wong caused
a violent collision by driving his vehicle into the side of
Plaintiffs' vehicle, which was being operated by the aforesaid
Willard H, Weaver.
10. Plaintiffs' damages as hereinafter set forth were the
H direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant Shau-
.
"
~
~
Dong Wong then and there occurring,
11.
Defendant
Jnc,
Gin-Yong,
responsible
for
the
is
negligent actions of its employee, agent and servant Shau-Dong
Wong, then and there occurring,
12, Defendant Shau-Dong Wong was negligent generally and in
;;
l
; ~
the following p4rticulars:
a. Operating his vehicle in a reckless manner';
b, Failing to yield the right-of-way;
c, Failing to maintain a proper look-out,
d, Failing to have hia vehicle under propt!'r
control,
~
'.!
2
e. Failing to stop before colliding with
Plaintiffs' vehicle;
f. Failing to take action to avoid the collision
with Plaintiffs' vehicle;
g. Failing to stop at the stop sign; and
h, Failing to comply with the provisions of the
Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code relating to the
operation of motor vehicles, specifically as it relates
to the aforesaid acts of negligence,
13, As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of
Defendant Shau-Dong Wong while acting in the scope of his
employment or agency for Defendant Gin-Yong, Inc., the Plaintiffs
were damaged as follows:
a. Property damage to their vehicle: $14,879,04
b,
Towing expense:
$
70,00
c,
Vehicle rental:
TOTAL:
S 1.205,68
$16,154,72
I
il
U"
Ii jointly and severally in the amount of Sixteen Thousand One
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants,
Hundred Fifty-Four and 72/100 ($16,154,72) Dollars, plus interest
and costs. Said amount requires the submission of this claim for
~ compulsory arbitration under the Local Rules of this Court,
! Respectfully submitted,
II
i;
g
SAlOiS. GUIDO. ;
~ II
SHUff" ~ a.'
U.\SUND i Dated: 'I,' .,.,
)~
,
;;
i
Edward E, Guido, Esquire
Supreme Court I,D, .21206
26 West High Street
Carlille, PA 17013
(717) 243-6222
Attorney for Plaintiffs
;!/o" Ho'" s..... fi
\'.-i.-.k.'" ~
3
1"\
+,
-l
~ ~: \>-
,*,0 !';~~~
f; ." /4 ~: :<~o
" '" i~
If ..
N ."i ~ ~ .- .
.., ' :;t ~: : 0
u. . .
,:=; , ..
.'J :- 0 ri~~ cO <"
,\ (J) ~\ rl
. , -
t:' n. o' '.; :): ~ . I IT' M
i U,l .r() Q I.., - :t
(j) c,.. . .). #
, . ~
,-'.J :1 o ' 1t-~
v1 t_' tit ~
~~
Q
Z
j ..,
~ ~
e ~~~~~
IE "><!ij~~
o Qi6~E
,., Q .- ,...
... _OXIil-
:5 ~o.: '!i3~
~ iJ-IO
ti ~DIli:
- ~
Q
-
~
.
S\IIlIS.I;\'loo.
sun.' &;
MASl.AND
1'Wlltp_
Cwhll.w PA
6. The intersection of Lambs Gap Road and Locust Lane is
controlled by a stop sign placed along Locust Lane.
7. At said time and place, Defendant Shau-Dong Wong was
operating a 1988 Dodge Van owned by Defendant Gin-Yong, lnc,
along Locust Lane. He was attempting to access Lambs Gap Road
from the stop sign on Locust Lane,
8, At said time and place, Willard H. Weaver was operating
a 1994 Lexus owned by Plaintiffs in the northbound lane of Lambs
Gap Road.
9. At said time and place, Defendant Shau-Dong Wong caused
a violent cOllision by driving his vehicle into the side of
Plaintiffs' vehicle, which was being operated by the aforesaid
Willard H. Weaver.
10. Plaintiffs' damages as hereinafter set forth were the
direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant Shau-
Dong Wong then and there occurring,
11. Defendant Gin-Yang, lnc, is responsible for the
negligent actions of its employee, agent and servant Shau-Dong
Wong, then and there occurring.
12. Defendant Shau-Dong Wong was negligent generally and in
the tollowing particulars:
a.
Operating his l/t,hicle in a ,,'c1dess manr"!;
b,
Failing to yield the right ot .way;
Failing to maintain a proper look-out;
c,
d, Fai ling t.o have his vehicle under pro~r
control;
,
.
..... '"
ir; Co::'
;. . ,
, - .-
,"\' " .
<J.: ....." j
\"': \..i.o.
.\....
() ~: i '1
C , .....c.; ,
t'.-:" --
~ .,!
,,- .... J..
. ,~. .
, , )
'.. .;-~
'"
10. To the extent thai the averments of par.t~r;tph 10 of Plaintiffs' complaint
are not le~al conclusions .I/Id requin.' n'sponsc, the same are denied and, if relevant,
strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
II. To the extent that the avennenls of parJ~mph II of Plaintiffs' complaint
are notle~1 conclusions and require responsc, the same are denied and, if relevant,
strict proof thereof is dem.lI1ded at trial; by way of further response, it is specifically
denied that Defendant Shau-llon~ Won~ was the employee, a~ent or servant of
Defendant Gin-Yol\.~ Inc.
12. To the extent that the avennents of pamgrnph 12 of rJaintiffs' l"mplaint
are not legal conclusions and require responsc, the same are denied and, if relevant,
strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
1 ~t To the extent that the avennents of paragmph 1:~ of rJaintiffs' complaint
are not legal conclusions and require response, the same .Ire denied and, if relevant,
strict proof thereof is demanded at trial; by way of further response, after reasonable
investigation, Defendants are unable to determine the dama~es incurred to Maintiffs'
vehicle and, if relevant, strict proof is demanded at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that rJaintiffs' Complaint be
dismissed and costs taxed a~inst l'Iaintiff.
NEW MArnR
14. f'amgrnphs 1 through 13 of 11efendants' Answer are incorporated herein
as if set forth.
15, Defendants believe and therefore aver that the collision between 1988 the
llodge van driven by Shau-Dong WOI\.~ and the 1994 Lexus owned by Maintiffs' which
occurred on OI:tober 20, 1995 was cau!cd by the negligence of Maintiffs or the
operator of their vehicle, Willard II. Weaver, due to negll~ence generally and in
particular negll'(ence in the:
a. Qpcmtion of the said vehicle in a reckless manner,
b. failure kl nuintain a proper ;tOO adequate lookout;
c. failure to have the whide un.:kr proper \-'Otltrol;
d. litilure to exerci.~ tl~ I.Isl dedr d1.lIll'C to aVOId the said l-ollislOn;
(', failure 10 5t\.1' L"ti.,,",' n""llI.tll\'ot \\1th 11efendant\ vdlil:le;
_tis ,",",
, .
"l- II .<
tJ
IIIJ !
!~ ;
(bl
'I .-- -
III 13 I
,Ii I
. .
.