Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-06106 ,. , . . c;a... " d It 1 t!. ~ -J - ~ \ , ) ('/ I i i ! , I I I I I o < ~- .:"1 ~ {t~ c<: ,;.": . ' N -:::""'04!' t1j~-:-: C):..~;. ( )"l.:: 0" ()~~ It.~\ ~ [~ ,'l:,"j 'I_r' at': .,- N ':'.~ ;.!J b~' - I ,~_ ':"-ic. r._-,:iO: ~'-\" ;1"_' L' ~ tJ u-'. C' "1U- ['.' ;~ ... l',~ r- a u <J' THOIIA8 IUU.IIIU, and LIKDA IUU.IIIU, hi. wife a81a Ro.e Garden Blvd. Neohanioaburq, PA 17055 Plaintiffa, IN THIl COURT OJ' CONKON PLUS CUKBERLAHD COUllTY, PIlNlfSYLVANIA v. T-J'AL CORPORATION, a5 Riveraide Drive pine Brook, NJ 07058 Defendant NO. y1t. t:/ of., {~~;J~-.. and J. C. PDlJfIlY, 1&35 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE YOU HAVIl 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 appearance personally or by an attorney and file in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgement may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Petition 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 HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT ADMINISTRATOR Fourth Floor Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone (717) 240-6200 CUMBERLAND COUNTY LEGAL SERVICES, INC. 8 Irvine Row Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone (717) 766-8475 THONAII IlALIIlU, aneS LINDA IlALIMAX, hi. wite 2812 Ro.e aarden Blvd. Meahanie.burq, PA 17055 plaintifts, IN THE COURT or CONHOIl PLEAS CUKBERLAHD COUNTY, PENIlSYLVANIA v. T-rAL CORPORATION, 25 River.ide Drive pine Breok, NJ 07058 Detendant and (PID~ c- " 7~.~ NO. q~" t,vi. ( : . . . . : . . . JURY TRIAL DEMANDED . . . . CIVIL ACTION - LAW . J. C. PDlNBY, 1635 Market street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Detendant COMPLAINT AND HOW, comes the plaintiffs, Thomas Malinak and Linda Malinak, his wife, by their attorneys, Zeigler ~ zimmerman, P.C., and states: 1. The plaintiffs, Thomas Malinak and Linda Malinak, his wife, are adult individuals residing at 2812 Rose Garden Boulevard, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055. 2. The Defendant, T-Fal corporation ("T-Fal"), is incorporated in the state of New Jersey with a principal business addre88 of 25 Riverside Drive, pine Brook, New Jersey 07058, and at all times relevant hereto, was authorized to, and did conduct business within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 3. The Defendant, J. C. Penney, is incorporated in the state of Delaware with a principal business address of 1635 Market street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, and at all times relevant hereto, was authorized to, and did, conduct business within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 4. At all relevant times, T-Fal was in the business of designing, supplying, distributing, manUfacturing and/or selling aluminum frying pans. 5. At all relevant times, J.C. Penney was in the business of supplying, distributing, and/or selling aluminum frying pans. 6. On April 8, 1995, the Malinaks while heating grease in a ten (lO") inch aluminum frying pan manufactured by T-Fal and distributed by J.C. Penney, suffered injury to their property when the pan suddenly and without warning ruptured causing the pan and hot grease to spill reSUlting in a kitchen fire and damages as set forth herein. 7. The resulting kitchen fire caused extensive property damage to the home of the Malinaks and resulted in a large amount of time and money invested by the Malin~ks in cleaning, repairing, and replacing the damaged property in order to return it to it's pre-damaged condition. 8. As a direct result of the negligence and carelessness of T-Fal, the Malinaks have suffered damage to their property and loss of employment time and money. a. Carelessly and negligently distributing, supplying, manufacturing, and/or sslling the aluminum frying pan in a dangerous condition so as to cause injury to the Malinak's property; b. carelessly and negligently creating and allowing a dangerous condition ~o exist by failing to insure that the pan would not rupture when heated; c. Carelessly and negligently allowing a dangerous condition to exist by failing to properly inspect and test the frying pan prior to sale and distribution; d. Failing to exercise the requisite degree of care and caution in the distribution, manufacturing, supply and/or sale of the frying pan; e. Failing to give sufficient warnings of the dangers of the frying pan T-Fal knew or should have known might exist from heating the pan; and f. Failing to insure that the frying pan was designed, manufactured and assembled without defects in a manner which would prevent the ultimate user and/or consumer of said frying pan from sustaining injuries during the use or oper.ation thereof. 4 21. The aluminum frying pan was, at all times relevant, expected by T-Fal to reach and did in fact reach, the ultimate users and/or consumers, including the Malinaks, without substantial change in the condition which it was sold, supplied, and/or distributed by T-Fal. 22. T-Fal Corporation is strictly liable to the Malinaks as follows: 23. Ma1!naks. nUBrORI, the Plaintiffs demand judgment against T-Fal in an amount in excess of $10,000.00. For designing, manufacturing, distributing, supplying, and/or selling a product or products that were in a defective condition and were unreasonably dangerous for that intended use; and For failure to give adequate and complete warnings of the known and knowable dangers involved in the intended use of the product. Based on the foregoing, T-Fal is strictly liable to the b. a. Ii eoUNT III THOKAS MALINAK v. J.e. PIIlIlIlY (Negligence) 24. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 23 above. 25. J.C. Penney was negligent in failing to provided a safe product in the following respects: a. Carelessly and negligently distributing, supplying, and/or selling the aluminum frying pan in a dangerous condition so as to cause injury to the Malinak's property; b. Carelessly and negligently creating and allowing a dangerous condition to exist by failing to insure that the pan would not rupture when heated; c. Carelessly and negligently allowing a dangerous condition to exist by failing to properly inspect and test the frying pan prior to sale and distribution; d. Failing to exercise the requisite degree of care and caution in the distribution, supply and/or sale of the frying pan; 7 e. Failing to give sufficient warnings of the dangers of the frying pan J.c. Penney knew or should have known might exist from heating the pan; and f. Failing to insure that the frying pan was designed, manufactured and assembled without defects in a manner which would prevent the ultimate user and/or consumer of said frying pan from sustaining injuries during the use or operation thereof. 26. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of the J.C. Penney, the Malinaks have suffered property damage and loss of employment time and money. 27. The negligence and carelessness of J.C. Penney was a direct and substantial factor in the damages suffered by the Malinaks. WHDlrORI, the Plaintiffs demand jUdgment against J. C. Penney, in an amount in excess of $10,000.00. eoUllT IV THOKAS MALINAK v. J. e. PlllNEY (strict Liability) 28. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 27 above. 8 29. J.C. Penney was, at all times relevant hereto, and presently is engaged in the business of selling, distributing, and/or supplying aluminum frying pans, including the subject which forms the basis of this action. 30. At the time J.e. Penney sold, distributed and/or supplied the subject frying pan, the subject frying pan was in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous to the purchasers and the ultimately users and/or consumers thereof, including the Malinaks. 31. The aluminum frying pan was, at all times relevant, expected by J. C. Penney to reach and did in fact reach, the ultimate users and/or consumers, including the Malinaks, without substantial change in the condition which it was sold, supplied, and/or distributed by J.C. Penney. 32. J. C. Penney, is strictly liable to the Malinaks as follows: a. For designing, manufacturing, distributing, supplying, and/or selling a product or products that were in a defective condition and were unreasonably dangerous for that intended use; and b. For failure to give adequate and complete warnings of the known and knowable dangers involved in the intended use of the product. 9 \ ~ fi: a. ~ V) -c: - 1-' ., \ ~ " ( ~) {.-f. ~( - "^ - . ~ .,--. . :.E \ . .. .~ ". 9'- ( \.:j ~ C~j ":- ~ @" r- .') l .' u~ I ," ~ \. tC~! ! =," .. - ~.. ~~ c- t..1 ~ ;4: ,:_"" \0 .-' \\ ~ ~ U" ...l , 'Ot:.. '- r.:, r-; t. '. , lU' (J. r'-j ,-. /.] .' . d: , :, cO: ('. ~j~l- ".J; ( ..- f !.. ~ \"/ ) (; '" . !l'HI!AIFF'S RETURN - 5UMto-,IONS 'COMPLAINT I (/J ;i;fiJlG 1"(1 ~'lj48 I ""'''00'' OW, 00 /t$k/:o/ COIJt~T"'" I I.JUHT % -- 6/tJej flO. 1. /;k/t/{j.), 0~ I 1...7:;;/ [] Defendant __-.1/J12:? g-oerc;;-dant Company reRM, ,~) J Ii 71'{1 ';a' ,/ << 7;fj '/./ .~, '. . SERVED AND MAD 0 I<NOVlN To_81}&( _j/zili: (!. by handin~ttru: and t,testcd It.~) jJ, the wil'lin/lmmo:ls/, 'lmpJain', ,sslled in the ab~c cnptioned m~tter on _;;f~tJl/~7i1i;i:---,):: ~ ~9 -ii/7 - ,;,:t /It )L. o/cloc.f., _LM., E.S:T'!D,S'.T. at _ILL _J_J.!.''12./~\L___.n,/-l,___-I.L-._._ ., 1:?,_ _. . _ ,111 the A;nty ol,Plllladelphla, State of Pennsylvania, to Ij~f.dft: Ic:lll?/J1.C-:._ ( Ilky.-:L~ AtL-j2til/ o (l) the aforesaid clefendant, per:;anally; o (2) an adult member of the family of said defendant, with whom said delendant resides, who stated that his/her relationship to said ,! fendant is that of__ o (3) on adult pUlson in charge ,f defendant's residen," th'J cHid adult pcroon having relused, upon re- quest, to give his/her name and rdalionship to said defen' ant; o ~managcriclerk of the place o[ lodging in which said defen lant resider.; [tY(5) agent or person ior the time being in charge of dekildant's off C~ or usual place o[ business. [] (6) the _____.______.___ and officer 01 s", I defcn,'anl Company; ."uHrI IU AtHl DEe '1\0 till': SUBSt:KI~t:' ~.. ~d~, So Ancwcrs, ~A.D. 19 pt. ~' . "I"".'" puWU' Nolana! Seal p bile Jedflllo B;11Ier. Jr.. ~t~i~ C~llnlY PI11\;Jdelpt1I" Ptl1lade P J~lltJ 4. \998 My COOln\lS3I!JIl Ellplles ,.. If<,OOCl3llOn~- t,4urntJur, Pcnn:.;r,.JlW JOHN D. GREEN, Slleri" ,j' ~ I, B, (cfllfJ). -7j!Jffj_'#t j- / fl,-1'Ii-v\/ ( ;/f !.',l,l'r,..,.lJ.U; "aluminum frying pans" in any manner whatsoever and particularly as alleged in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint. T-Fal does admit that it places handles on aluminum frying pans, is involved in trimming frying pans, and that it distributes, inter alia, aluminum frying pans through a dealer network. 5. The allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint are directed to a party other than T-Fal and, therefore, no response is required of T-Fal. 6. Denied. T-Fal specifically denies that it manufactured the aluminum frying pan identified by Plaintiffs as being involved in the transactions and events surrounding this litigation. T-Fal admits that it places handles on frying pans, is involved in trimming frying pans and that it may have supplied the subject aluminum frying pan to J. C. Penney. T-Fal also specifically denies that the pan "suddenly and without warning ruptured" in any manner whatsoever and particularly as alleged in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint. 7. Denied. 8. Denied. 9. Denied. 10. Denied. 11. Denied. 12. D,mied. 13. Denied. -2- 36. Denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant, T-Fal Corporation, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice together with any and all other reasonable costs associated with this lawsuit as well as any other relief this Honorable Court deems appropri~te. DEFENDANT'S. T-FAL CORPORATION. NEW MATTER 37. The incident complained of in Plaintiffs' Complaint and the alleged injuries and/or damages were solely the result of the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of Plaintiffs and/or others over whom T-Fal had no control. Such negligence and/or carelessness and/or recklessness on the part of Plaintiffs and/or others over whom T-Fal had no control precludes any recovery by Plaintiffs. 38. Plaintiffs recovery, if any, should be reduced and diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to the Plaintiffs or barred in its entirety in accordance with this Commonwealth's Comparative Negligence Act. 39. The conduct of Plaintiffs was the proximate cause of all injuries and/or damages alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint. 40. The subject aluminum frying pan was reasonably fit, suitable, and safe for its intended purpose, contained adequate warnings or instructions, and was not designed in a defective manner. -6- 41. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim against the Defendant, T-Fal Corporation, upon which any relief can be granted. 42. The conduct of parties and/or persons and/or entities other than T-Fal was the superseding, intervening cause of Plaintiffs' purported injuries and/or damages. Any claimed conduct on the part of T-Fal was not the proximate cause of the alleged injuries. 43. The claimed injuries and/or damages, if any, proximately resulted from the misuse, abuse or unintended and unforeseeable use of the aluminum frying pan and consequently no claimed conduct on the part of T-Fal was a proximate cause of the claimed injuries and/or damages. 44. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by all applicable statutes of limitations. 45. The subject aluminum frying pan was reasonably fit, suitable and safe for its intended use. 46. Plaintiffs assumed the risk for their own conduct and are barred from the recovery or damages therefore. 47. No warranties, either express and/or implied, existed at the time of the incident giving rise to this lawsuit between T-Fal and Plaintiffs. 48. In the event it is determined that any warranties existed, T-Fal specifically denies breach of said warranties. -7- \ BY: WHEREFORE, Defendant, T-Fal Corporation, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice together with any and all other reasonable cooto associated with this lawsuit as well as any other relief thio Honorable Court deems appropriate. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN AND GOGGIN ES J. COM 1 pine Str P.O. Box 803 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803 (717) 231-3762 1.0. No. 59062 Attorneys for Defendant, T-Fal Corporation DATE: 1'2-z,-~1o -9- CERTIPICATE OP SERVICE I, Susan M. Williams, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this 27th day of December, 1996 served a copy of the foregoing document via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid as follows: Paul L. Zeigler, Bsquire ZEIGLER & ZIMMERMAN, P.C. 355 North 21st Street Suite 304 P.O. Box lOBO Camp Hill, PA 17011-3707 George B. Faller, Esquire MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS AND OTTO 10 E. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 ~~ll~ j{A\ _ 1(. I.JLL/tltVilt.j) SUSAN M. WILLIAMS ~ exl '- (-; r.. i? . <l i~ .. ~.,. ,. ....... -' ['-;:" ~ --:7-..1 ~. (-.' (':) ". 1 , iJ.:l C"', , <-' , 'J too>' (0.. ..:h~ {:-. t..:O ,.. "'~ ~\ (.> ~, (.> 40. Denied. It is denied that the subject aluminum frying pan was reasonably fit, suitable and safe for its intended purpose, contained adequate warnings or instructions and was not designed in a defective manner. 41. The averment of Paragraph 41 calls for a legal conclusion anQ, therefore, no answer is required. 42. Denied. It is denied that the conduct of anyone other than T-Fal was the superseding, intervening cause of Plaintiffs' injuries and/or damages. It is further denied that conduct on the part of T-Fal was not the proximate cause of the injuries and/or damages. 43. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiffs misused, abused or performed unintended and unforeseeable use of the aluminum frying pan in question and it is further denied that anyone other than T-Fal was a proximate cause of the claimed injuries and/or damages. 44. The averments of Paragraph 44 call for a legal conclusion and, therefore, no answer is required. 45. Denied. It is specifically denied that the aluminum frying pan was reasonably fit, suitable and safe for its intended use. 46. The averments of Paragraph 46 call for a legal conclusion and, therefore, no answer is required. 2 47. Denied. It is specifically denied that no warranties existed at the time that the incident in question occurred. 48. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant, T- Fal, did not breach warranties to the Plaintiffs. 49. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant, T- Fal's breaches were not the proximate cause of Plaintiffs' injuries and/or damages. 50. The averments of Paragraphs 50 call for a legal conclusion and, therefore, no answer is required. 51. The averments of Paragraphs 51 call for a legal conclusion and, therefore, no answer is required. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Thomas Malinak and Linda Malinak, his wife, request this Honorable Court to grant judgment against Defendant, T-Fal, as well as any other relief this Honorable Court deems appropriate. ZEro P.c. By: ZEIGLER, ESQUIRE o. 09603 355 N. 21st Street, suite 304 P. O. Box 1080 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-1484 DATE: q ~~ 1l'{,\1 3 ">- "I .- Cr; :H ",';" '.1" >-. ,.~ LlJf;: } :: <"1-: . " , .:: rr~' ... .~ l~~, ; ~) I ~!J (,. ~ , 1.1 i~l,l " ".l.. j' ,.- ,- .~ 0 t;:r U ...ltlLfJ\OATARLIl\LMt)l;Il.91'1.1.....AHII'. CMlit4,llIIW9tOl.,OlPM IIl\1Md OI~lO)I'UPM lOOOJ'" THOMAS MALINAK, and LINDA MALINAK. his wife Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 96-6106 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION-LAW T -F AL CORPORATION and J.C. PENNEY, Defendants JURY TRIAL OF TWELVE DEMANDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND CROSSCUIM OF DEFENDANT J.C. PENNEY CO.. INC. (incorrectlv cautioned as J.C. PENNEY) TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPUINT TO: THOMAS MALINAK and LINDA MALINAK, Plaintiffs, and their attorney, PAUL L. ZEIGLER, ESQUIRE T-FAL CORPORATION, Defendant. and its attorney. JAMES J. COMIT ALE, ESQUIRE YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER AND CROSSCLAIM WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. 1-2. Admitted based on information received. 3. Admitted with the exception that the correct name of the answering Defendant is J.C. Penney Co., Inc. 4. Admitted based on information received. 5. Admitted. 6-8. After reasonable investigation. the answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph. The averments are therefore deemed denied and proofis demanded. 9. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e), 10. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph. The averments are therefore deemed denied and proofis demanded. ] I. Denied pursuant to Pa. R,C.P. 1029(e). 12-13. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph. The averments are therefore deemed denied and proof is demanded. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE Thomas Malinak v. T-Fal Corporation 14. The IIvennents of paragraphs I through 13 of this Answer are incorporated herein by reference. 15-17. The avennents of these paragraphs refer to a party other than the answering Defendant and therefore no response is required, WHEREFORE, answering Defendant demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. COUNT 11- STRICT LIABILITY Thomas Malinak v. T-Fal COlllOration 18. The avennents of paragraphs I through 17 of this Answer are incorporated h:rein by reference. 19-23. The avennents ofthese paragraphs refer to a party other than the answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. WHEREFORE, answering Defendant demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE Thomas Malinak v. J.C. Penney 24. The avennents of paragraphs 1 through 23 of this Answer are incorporated herein by reference. 25-27. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. I029(e). WHEREFORE. answering Defendant demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. COUNT IV - STRICT LIABILITY Thomas Malinak v, I.C. Penney 28. The avennents of paragraphs I through 27 of this Answer are incorporated herein by reference. 29-31. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without knowledge or infonnation sufficient to fonn B belief as to the truth or falsity of the avennents contained in this paragraph. The avennents are therefore deemed denied and proof is demanded. 32-33. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C,P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering Defendant demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plairatiffs' Complaint with prejudice. COUNT V. BREACH OF WARRANTY Thomas Malinak v. T.Fa! Corporation 34. The avennents of paragraphs 1 through 34 of this Answer are incorporated herein by reference. 35-36. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. I029(e). WHEREFORE, answering Defendant demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. NEW MA TIER 37. The avennents of paragraphs I through 36 of this Answer are incorporated herein by reference. 38. The incident complained of in Plaintiffs' Complaint and the alleged injuries end/or damages were solely the result of the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of Plaintiffs and/or others over whom Defendant I.C. Penney Co.. Inc. had no control. Such negligence and/or carelessness and/or recklessness on the part of Plaintiffs and/or others over whom Defendant J.C. Penney Co., Inc. had no control precludes any recovery by Plaintiffs. 39. Plaintiffs' recovery, if any. should be reduced and diminished in proportion to the amount of tault attributable to the Plaintiffs or barred in its entirety in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 40. The conduct of Plaintiffs was the proximate cause of all injuries and/or damages alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint. 41, The subject aluminum flying pan was reasonably lit, suitable, and safe for its intended purpose, contained adequate warnings or instructions, and was not designed in a defective manner. 42. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim against Defendant J.C. Penney Co., Inc. upon which any relief may be granted, 43. The conduct of parties and/or persons and/or entities other than Defendant J.C. Penney Co., Inc. was the superseding. intervening cause of Plaintiffs' purported injuries and/or damages. Any claimed conduct on the part of Defendant lC. Penney Co., Inc. was not the proximate cause of the alleged injuries. 44. The claimed injuries and/or damages. if any. proximately resulted from the misuse, abuse or unintended and unforeseeable use of the aluminum frying pan and consequently no claimed conduct on the part of Defendant lC. Penney Co., Inc. was a proximate cause of the claimed injuries and/or damages. 45. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by all applicable statutes of limitations. 46. Plaintiffs assumed the risk for their own conduct and are barred from the recovery or damages therefor. 47. No warranties, either express and/or implied, existed at the time of the incident giving rise to this lawsuit between Defendant I.C. Penney Co" Inc. and Plaintiffs. 48. In the event it is determined that any warranties existed, Defendant J.C. Penney Co., Inc. specifically denies breach of said warranties. 49. In the event that it is determined that any warranties were breached, said breach was not the proximate cause of Plaintiffs' alleged injuries and/or damagea. 50. Defendant lC. Penney Co.. Inc. reserves the right to raise any additional affirmative defenses which need not be pleaded and are not waived by virtue of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030, as amended, effective September I, 1994. WHEREFORE, Defendant lC. Penney Co" Inc, demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. ">- CJ h: c;. ;:~ (~ .-; U\( ), .- <..J' :..: -~ ~-~ Co- ;:.! t~ .. C'. ,'V1 I.. - r.':7 C' itl.~~ C::J .'.t) W ',J :..:.. . . 1- u.. :.::; ,e. r- 0 0' U 41. For the reasons set forth in the PlaintJ.ffs' Complaint, the allegations in Paragraph 41 are denied in that the subject aluminum frying pan was neither fit, suitable, nor safe for its intended purpose; by way of further answer, it was designed in a defective manner. 42. Thf.! allegations of Paragraph 42 call for a legal conclusion and, therefore, no answer is required. 43. The allegations of Paragraph 43 call for a legal conclusion and, therefore, no answer is required. 44. The allegations of Paragraph 44 are denied; by way of further answer, the allegations call for a legal conclusion and, therefore, no answer is required. 45. The allegations of Paragraph 45 call for a legal conclusion and, therefore, no answer is required. 46. The allegations of Paragraph 46 call for a legal conclusion and, therefore, no answer is required. 47. Denied. It is specifically denied that warranties did not existed and proof of the same is demanded. 48. The allegations in Paragraph 48 are denied and proof of the same is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations of Plaintiffs' complaint are incorporated by reference hereto. 2 '>. '::1 [.; n' .> i~ ~- t'.J("~ c" dt: ~ l-'. t,_ , ,... i;.:.; 'I.. e," ;,.: ,'~-; , , <::) C:"1c' "" .1~.; tIll. -.1. _., -;-'ii'ij C..: . . ::-:. ~.J(.L " -, " C7\ ::5 0 .:.r, U .