Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-00256SEM,4NOFF, ORMSBY& GREENBERG, LLP BY: HAROLD SEMANOFF, ESQUIRE Identification No. 25366 Suite 200 • Jenkins Court 610 Old York Road Jenkintown, PA 19046 (215) 887-2058 EDWIN VALLEJO 4044 Neilson Street Philadelphia, PA 19124 V. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 55 UTLEY DRIVE CAMP HILL, PA 17011 and COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA C/O ATTORNEY GENERAL 21 SOUTH 12TH STREET, THIRD FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. aZ470 - c2S'/ . C.t". C1 4 PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Kindly issue a Summons against both Defendants in the captioned Civil Action and forward the same to the Sheriff of Cumberland County for service. DATED: l /1,;L 166 SEMANOFF, O SBY & GR ENBERG, LLP BY: N HAROLD S NOF , SQUI ATTORNE S FOR PLAINTIFF WRIT OF SUMMONS TO DEFENDANTS PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF EDWIN VALLEJO HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. DATE: J=::) 12. Q in06 Cq ?' ? v ? oC mrp ?a n w ?o ?-c Tn - V SEMANOFF, ORMSBY & GREENBERG, LLP BY: HAROLD SEMANOFF, ESQUIRE Identification No. 25366 Suite 200 • Jenkins Court 610 Old York Road Jenkintown, PA 19046 (215) 887-2058 EDWIN VALLEJO V. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CIVIL ACTION NO. 200-256 STIPULATION OF COUNSEL ?/ tk AND NOW, this / day of I?pQI? 2000, it is hereby stipulated and agreed among Harold Semanoff, Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiff, and Steven C. Gould, Esquire, Attorney for Defendant, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, that this action may be discontinued, with prejudice, as to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 229(b), and that this Stipulation may be filed of record and the Prothonotary may be directed to mark the docket "settled, discontinued and ended, with prejudice" as to the Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and that the said defendant should be removed from the caption of this case. The parties hereby further stipulate and agree that the dismissal of this matter with respect to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania shall in no way prejudice the plaintiff s rights to proceed against the Commonwealth agency - Defendant, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. ORMSBY& GREENBERG, LLP BY: Plaintiff, DA' B . STEVEN C. GOULD, E QUIRE Attorney for Defendant, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections DATED: "i J5- 0 C-) cn O C-_ T+C7) L ? ???L17 - •z Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 151 Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Steven C. Gould Deputy Attorney General Direct Dial 717-783-8035 EDWIN VALLEJO, Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF : CIVIL ACTION - LAW CORRECTIONS and COMMONWEALTH : OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendants : NO. 2000-256 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendants, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in the above-captioned action. Respectfully submitted, D. MICHAEL FISHER Attorney General By: EVEN C. GOULD Deputy Attorney General DATED: JANUARY 27, 2000 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing ENTRY OF APPEARANCE upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: HAROLD SEMANOFF, ESQUIRE JENKINS COURT, SUITE 200 610 OLD YORK ROAD JENKINTOWN, PA 19046 By: ' a? - SSTETh'Fvt . OULD ID #80156 Deputy Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 151" Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-783-8035 - Direct Dial DATED: JANUARY 27, 2000 c> C:7 i ?J C's9 ?C t-„ Jo CS} Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15`s Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Steven C. Gould Deputy Attorney General Direct Dial 717-783-8035 EDWIN VALLEJO, Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF : CIVIL ACTION - LAW CORRECTIONS and COMMONWEALTH : OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendants : NO. 2000-256 RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO: PLAINTIFF, EDWIN VALLEJO clo HAROLD SEMANOFF, ESQUIRE JENKINS COURT, SUITE 200 610 OLD YORK ROAD JENKINTOWN, PA 19046 (Attorney for the Plaintifl) A Rule is hereby entered upon you to file a Complaint in the above matter against the Defendants, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, within twenty (20) days of service hereof or suffer a judgment of non pros. BY: S / dz,,-Z'-? ? ?. ?; , rothonotary Cl/ Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15' Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Steven C. Gould Deputy Attorney General Direct Dial 717-783-8035 EDWIN VALLEJO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF : CIVIL ACTION - LAW CORRECTIONS and COMMONWEALTH : OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendants : NO. 2000-256 PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT Please issue a Rule upon Plaintiff, Edwin Vallejo, to file a Complaint against the Defendants, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania within twenty (20) days of service thereof or suffer judgment of non pros. Respectfully submitted, D. MICHAEL FISHER Attorney General By: STEVEN C. GOULD Deputy Attorney General DATED: JANUARY 27, 2000 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: HAROLD SEMANOFF, ESQUIRE JENKINS COURT, SUITE 200 610 OLD YORK ROAD JENKINTOWN, PA 19046 By: '??/ TEVEN C. GOULD #80156 Deputy Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15fi' Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-783-8035 - Direct Dial DATED: JANUARY 27, 2000 c. CID 'l ?' 4 T f yy w Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15`h Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Steven C. Gould Deputy Attorney General Direct Dial 717-783-8035 EDWIN VALLEJO, Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF : CIVIL ACTION - LAW CORRECTIONS and COMMONWEALTH : OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendants : NO. 2000-256 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 3, 2000, I served the Executed Rule to File Complaint upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS. EDWIN VALLEJO c% HAROLD SEMANOFF, ESQUIRE JENKINS COURT, SUITE 200 610 OLD YORK ROAD JENKINTOWN, PA 19046 By: STEVEN C. GOULD ID #80156 Deputy Attorney General c - - - uo ' 4 I W SEMANOFF, ORMSBY & GREENBERG, LLP BY: HAROLD SEMANOFF, ESQUIRE Identification No. 25366 Suite 200 • Jenkins Court 610 Old York Road Jenkintown, PA 19046 (215) 887-2058 EDWIN VALLEJO 4044 Neilson Street Philadelphia, PA 19124 V. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, Pa 17011 and COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA c/o Attorney General 21 South 12th Street, Third Floor Philadelphia, Pa 19107 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CIVIL TERM NO. 2000-256 CIVIL ACTION - COMPLAINT NOTICE 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 appearance personally or by attorney and filing 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 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 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 BAR ASSOCIATION Lawyer Referral and Information Service 2 Liberty Place Carlisle, PA 17013 1-717-249-3166 1-800-990-9108 AVISO Le ban demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en Ins paginas siguientes, usted tiene veinte (20) dias de plazo al partir Ue la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Hace falta asentar una comparencia escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, Is corte tomara medidas y puede continuar la demanda en contra suya sin previo aviso o notificacion. Ademas, la corte puede decidir a favor del demandante y requiere que usted cumpla con todas las provisions de esta demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades u otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO. VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. ASOCIACION DE LICENCIADOS DE CUMBERLAND CO. Servicio De Referencia E Informacion Legal 2 Liberty Place Carlisle, PA 17013 1-717-249-3166 1-800-990-9108 SEMANOFF, ORMSBY & GREENBERG, LLP BY: HAROLD SEMANOFF, ESQUIRE Identification No. 25366 Suite 200 • Jenkins Court 610 Old York Road Jenkintown, PA 19046 (215) 887-2058 EDWIN VALLEJO 4044 Neilson Street Philadelphia, PA 19124 V. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, Pa 17011 and COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA c/o Attorney General 21 South 12"' Street, Third Floor Philadelphia, Pa 19107 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CIVIL TERM NO. 2000-256 CIVIL ACTION - COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff Edwin Vallejo is an adult individual currently residing at the above captioned address who at all times relevant hereto was an innate at Houtzdale Prison located in Houtzdale, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania maintains a principal place of business at the above captioned address and at all times relevant hereto has operated and maintained the penal system in the Commonwealth including Houtzdale Prison and in connection with the same has been responsible for assuring the safety and health of the inmates, including Plaintiff herein. 3. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has acted through its duly authorized agency, Defendant Department of Corrections, its officers, agents and/or employees acting within the course and scope of their agency and/or employment and authority with respect to the operation of Houtzdale Prison. 4. Defendant Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Dept. of Corrections") is upon information and belief a Commonwealth Agency with its principal place of business at the above captioned address and which at all times relevant hereto was charged with the responsibility for the maintenance and operation of Houtzdale Prison and for caring for the safety and health of the inmates, including Plaintiff herein. 5. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Dept. of Corrections has acted through its duly authorized officers, agents and/or employees acting within the course and scope of their agency and/or employment and authority with respect to the operation of Houtzdale Prison. 6. On or about January 16, 1998., Plaintiff Edwin Vallejo was working in the prison commissary as part of his assigned duties. 7. At the same time, other inmates were directed by Defendant's employees to wash, wax and polish the floor of the commissary. 8. As a result of Defendants' negligence as more particularly set forth below, Plaintiff was suddenly and without warning caused to slip, trip, stumble and fall and to sustain severe and adverse physical injuries, as more particularly set forth below, by reason of the wet and or excessively polished floor, which created a hazardous and dangerous condition to pedestrians, including Plaintiff. 9. Following the aforesaid occurrence, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with proper and adequate medical care and attention, as more particularly set forth below, as a result of which Plaintiff's injuries failed to properly heal and have resulted in a permanent impairment of his bodily functions. -2- 10. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants have had under their care, direction and responsibility, the supervision, inspection, control and maintenance and repair of the floors within the commissary at Houtzdale Prison and the supervision of its employees who in turn are charged with the duty to properly supervise and control inmates working under their direction and control. 11. It was the duty of Defendants to properly inspect, repair and maintain the floors of the commissary for the protection of pedestrians walking thereon, including Plaintiff. 12. Plaintiff Edwin Vallejo avers that the aforesaid dangerous condition of the floor existed for a sufficient length of time prior to the aforesaid occurrence for the Defendants to have had actual and/or constructive knowledge or notice of the dangerous condition. 13. Defendants had a duty to warn Plaintiff of the dangerous condition of the floor and to otherwise inspect, maintain, rectify, clean, clear and/or otherwise correct the aforesaid dangerous condition, but had negligently failed to properly do so. 14. As a sole result of the aforementioned accident caused by the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of Defendants as set forth below, Plaintiff Edwin Vallejo sustained serious, painful and permanent injuries including, but not limited to, to a fractured fibula and torn ligaments in his leg and foot, together with a severe shock to his nerves and nervous system, excruciating and agonizing aches, pains and mental anguish which injuries are permanent in nature. 15. As a further result of this incident, Plaintiff Edwin Vallejo has been and continues to be obligated to receive medical attention and care and to expend various sums of money and incur diverse medical expenses because of the severe injuries which he has suffered, and she will be obliged to continue to make medical, hospital and surgical expenditures for an indefinite time in the future, all to his great and continuing detriment and loss, which reasonable and necessary medical expenses are, or expected to exceed $1,500.00. -3- 16. As a further result of the incident, Plaintiff Edwin Vallejo has, may and will probably in the future continue to suffer great pain, and he has been and probably will in the future be hindered and prevented from attending to his usual daily duties, labors, and household chores, all to his great and continuing detriment and loss. 17. As a further result of the incident, Plaintiff Edwin Vallejo has suffered an injury which is in full or in part constitutes a permanent loss of a bodily function. COUNT ONE PLAINTIFF v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS 18. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above as fully as though the same were set forth at length herein. 19. The carelessness and negligence of Defendant consisted, inter alia, of the following: (a) Allowing the floors to be washed at a time when Defendant knew or should have known that pedestrians including Plaintiff would be required to walk on the same; (b) Allowing the floors to be waxed and or polished and buffed at time when Defendant knew or should have known that pedestrians including Plaintiff would be required to walk on the same; (c) Allowing the floors to be waxed, polished or buffed in such a manner as to render them excessively slippery thereby creating a danger to pedestrians including Plaintiff who would be required to walk on the same; (d) Failing to warn or otherwise notify Plaintiff Edwin Vallejo and others similarly situated of the said defective or otherwise dangerous condition; (e) Creating a dangerous condition of the aforesaid floor and failing to provide adequate walking conditions; (fj Disregarding the rights, safety and position of Plaintiff Edwin Vallejo and others similarly situated; -4- (g) Failing to properly maintain the said premises in the condition that would protect and safeguard persons such as the Plaintiff and others lawfully walking thereon; (h) Failing to correct or otherwise remedy the otherwise dangerous condition; (i) Failing to provide adequate warning signs; 0) Failing to properly inspect the aforesaid areas so that they were safe for passage; (k) Failing to properly maintain and manage the said premises and floors so that it would be safe for pedestrians thereon; (1) Failing to warn Plaintiff of the dangerous condition of the floor in question; (m) Improperly performing the cleaning and/or maintenance of the floor at the subject location; (n) Failing to supervise the cleaning, polishing and maintenance and repair of the floor; (o) Failing to insure that Plaintiff received adequate medical care and attention for the injuries sustained as a result of Defendants' negligence; and (p) Failing to exercise due care under the circumstances. 20. Defendant breached its duty owed to Plaintiff by its negligent conduct, as more particularly stated above. 21. As a direct result of the aforesaid acts and omissions, Plaintiff Edwin Vallejo has sustained multiple injuries and damages, as more particularly stated above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Edwin Vallejo claims damages of Defendant Pennsylvania Department of Corrections for an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) along with interest and costs as provided by law. -5- COUNT TWO PLAINTIFF Y. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 22. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above as fully as though the same were set forth at length herein. 23. At all times relevant hereto Defendant has operated and maintained Houtzdale Prison and in connection with the same has been responsible for assuring the safety and health of the inmates, including Plaintiff herein. 24. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has acted through its duly authorized agency, Defendant Department of Corrections, its officers, agents and/or employees acting within the course and scope of their agency and/or employment and authority with respect to the operation of Houtzdale Prison. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Edwin Vallejo claims damages of Defendant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) along with interest and costs as provided by law. DATED: 2 Ito lob SEMANOFF, ORMSBY & LLP -6- VERIFICATION HAROLD SEMANOFF, ESQUIRE, hereby verifies that he is counsel for Plaintiff herein; that he is authorized to make this verification; that the averments of fact contained in the foregoing Civil Action Complaint are true and correct based upon information and belief, and that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED: !1, 1 10100 r J 4 W -G i A r SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2000-00256 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND VALLEJO EDWIN VS PA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: COMMONWEALTH OF PA C/O but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of PHILADELPHIA serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS County, Pennsylvania, to on February 25th , 2000 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from PHILADELPHIA Sheriff's Costs: So answer Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 R. T omas Kline DEP. PHILA CO 116.00 Sheriff of Cumberland County nn 1 J .J V V 02/25/2000 SEMANOFF, ORMSBY & Sworn and subscribed to before me this Zl.f day of 7/2?,ulJ alo- 7 A. D. C 2;? (2. a11, Prothonotaryr ATTORNEY GENERAL CASE NO: 2000-00256 P SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND VALLEJO EDWIN VS PA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS ET AL HAROLD WEARY , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pensylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRE the DEFENDANT , at 0014:25 HOURS, on the 19th day of January , 2000 at 55 UTLEY DRIVE CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to JENNIFER SCHADE (CLERK TYPIST II a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service 9.30 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 25.30 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this o) 1-4,1- day of lk ? oZyU n A. D. -446-4- P othonotary So Answers: yeig6roo-Ae R. Thomas Kline 02/25/2000 SEMANOFF, ORMSBY & GREENBURG By: 1 Deputy Sh riff In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Edwin Vallejo VS. PA Department of Corr. Serve: Commonwealth of PA, c/o No. 2000-256 Civil Attorney General Now, 1 / 1 a / 0 0 20 00, I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Philadelphia County to execute this Writ, this I deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. ?00040404ew&Z if Sheriff of Cumb land County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, within upon at by handing to a copy of the original and made known to the contents thereof. So answers, Sheriff of County, PA COSTS Sworn and subscribed before SERVICE $ me this day of 120 MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT 20 , at o'clock M. served the ti ?k w 0 SHERIFF'S RETURN - SUMMONS/COMPLAINT T((?+ VERSUS COMMON PLEAS NO. COUNTY COURT NO. 7 ( TERM SERVED AND MADE KNOWN TO Company by handing a tru nd attested copy of the within Summons/Complaint, issued in the above captioned matter on OZ , at/ - a/o'clock, M., E.S.T./P R T atin the County of Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania, to ? (1) the aforesaid defendant, personally; ? (2) an adult member of the family of said defendant, with whom said defendant resides, who stated that his/her relationship to said defendant is that of ? (3) an adult person in charge of defendant's residence; the said adult person having refused, upon re- quest, to give his/her name and relationship to said defendant; ? (4) the manager/clerk of the place of lodging in which said defendant resides; (5) (6) agent or person for the time being in charge of defendant's office or usual place of business. the and officer of said defendant Company; So Answers, JOHN D. GREEN, Sheriff By: Deputy Sheriff 12-38 (Rev. 12W) SEMANOFF, ORMSBY, GREENBERG & TORCHM, LLC BY: HAROLD SEMANOFF, ESQUIRE Identification No. 25366 Suite 200 • Jenkins Court 610 Old York Road Jenkintown, PA 19046 (215) 887-2058 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EDWIN VALLEJO 4044 Neilson Street Philadelphia, PA 19124 CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CIVIL TERM NO. 2000-256 V. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, Pa 17011 CIVIL ACTION - AMENDED COMPLAINT NOTICE 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 appearance personally or by attorney and filing 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 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 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 BAR ASSOCIATION Lawyer Referral and Information Service 2 Liberty Place Carlisle, PA 17013 1-717-249-3166 1-800-990-9108 AVISO Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en ]as paginas siguientes, usted tiene veinte (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Hace falta asentar una comparencia escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a Ins demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede continuar la demanda en contra suya sin previo aviso o notificacion. Ademas, la corte puede decidir a favor del demandante y requiere que usted cumpla con todas las provisioner de esta demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades u otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO. VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. ASOCIACION DE LICENCIADOS DE CUMBERLAND CO. Servicio De Referencia E Informacion Legal 2 Liberty Place Carlisle, PA 17013 1-717-249-3166 1-800-990-9108 SEMANOFF, ORMSBY, GREENBERG & TORCHM, LLC BY: HAROLD SEMANOFF, ESQUIRE Identification No. 25366 Suite 200 • Jenkins Court 610 Old York Road Jenkintown, PA 19046 (215) 887-2058 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EDWIN VALLEJO 4044 Neilson Street Philadelphia, PA 19124 CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CIVIL TERM NO. 2000-256 V. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, Pa 17011 CIVIL ACTION - AMENDED COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff Edwin Vallejo is an adult individual currently residing at the above captioned address who at all times relevant hereto was an inmate at Houtzdale Prison located in Houtzdale, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Dept. of Corrections") is upon information and belief a Commonwealth Agency with its principal place of business at the above captioned address and which at all times relevant hereto was charged with the responsibility for the maintenance and operation of Houtzdale Prison and for caring for the safety and health of the inmates, including Plaintiff herein. 3. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Dept. of Corrections has acted through its duly authorized officers, agents and/or employees acting within the course and scope of their agency and/or employment and authority with respect to the operation of Houtzdale Prison. 4. On or about January 16, 1998, Plaintiff Edwin Vallejo was working in the prison commissary as part of his assigned duties. 5. At the same time, other inmates and/or Defendant's employees were directed by Defendant's employees to wash, wax and polish the floor of the commissary. 6. As a result of Defendant's negligence as more particularly set forth below, Plaintiff was suddenly and without warning caused to slip, trip, stumble and fall and to sustain severe and adverse physical injuries, as more particularly set forth below, by reason of the wet and or excessively waxed and polished floor, which created a hazardous and dangerous condition to pedestrians, including Plaintiff. 7. At. all times relevant hereto, Defendant has had under its care, direction and responsibility, the supervision, inspection, control and maintenance and repair of the floors within the commissary at Houtzdale Prison and the supervision of its employees who in turn are charged with the duty to properly supervise and control inmates working under their direction and control. 8. It was the duty of Defendant to properly inspect, repair and maintain the floors of the commissary for the protection of pedestrians walking thereon, including Plaintiff. 9. Plaintiff Edwin Vallejo avers that the aforesaid dangerous condition of and/or on the floor existed for a sufficient length of time prior to the aforesaid occurrence for the Defendant to have had actual and/or constructive knowledge or notice of the dangerous condition. 10. Defendant had a duty to warn Plaintiff of the dangerous condition of and/or on the floor and to otherwise inspect, maintain, rectify, clean, clear and/or otherwise correct the aforesaid dangerous condition, but negligently failed to properly do so. 11. As a sole result of the aforementioned accident caused by the negligence and carelessness of Defendant as set forth below, Plaintiff Edwin Vallejo sustained serious, painful and permanent injuries including, but not limited to, to a fractured fibula and torn ligaments in -2- his leg and foot, together with a severe shock to his nerves and nervous system, excruciating and agonizing aches, pains and mental anguish which injuries are permanent in nature. 12. As a further result of this incident, Plaintiff Edwin Vallejo has and/or may continue to be obligated to receive medical attention and care and to expend various sums of money and incur diverse medical expenses because of the severe injuries which he has suffered, and he will be obliged to continue to make medical, hospital and surgical expenditures for an indefinite time in the future, all to his great and continuing detriment and loss, which reasonable and necessary medical expenses are, or expected to exceed $1,500.00. 13. As a further result of the incident, Plaintiff Edwin Vallejo has, may and will probably in the future continue to suffer great pain, and he has been and probably will in the future be hindered and prevented from attending to his usual daily duties, labors, and household chores, all to his great and continuing detriment and loss. 14. As a further result of the incident, Plaintiff Edwin Vallejo has suffered an injury which is in full or in part constitutes a permanent loss of a bodily function. 15. The carelessness and negligence of Defendant consisted of the following: (a) Causing the floors to be washed at a time when Defendant knew or should have known that pedestrians including Plaintiff would be required to walk on the same; (b) Causing the floors to be waxed and/or polished and buffed at time when Defendant knew or should have known that pedestrians including Plaintiff would be required to walk on the same; (c) Causing the floors to be waxed, polished and/or buffed in such a manner as to render them excessively slippery thereby creating a danger to pedestrians including Plaintiff who would be required to walk on the same; (d) Failing to provide adequate warning signs with regard to the condition of and/or on the floor, or to otherwise notify Plaintiff Edwin Vallejo and others similarly situated of the aforesaid condition of and/or on the floor; -3- (e) Creating the aforesaid dangerous condition of and/or on the floor and failing to provide adequate and safe walking conditions; (f) Failing to properly maintain the aforesaid floor in a condition that would protect and safeguard persons such as the Plaintiff and others lawfully walking thereon; (g) Failing to correct or remedy the aforesaid condition of and/or on the floor; (h) Failing to properly inspect the aforesaid floor in order to assure that it was safe for passage; (i) Failing to warn Plaintiff of the aforesaid condition of and/or on the aforesaid floor; 0) Improperly performing the cleaning and/or maintenance of or on the floor at the subject location; and (k) Failing to supervise the cleaning, polishing and maintenance and repairs of or on the aforesaid floor. 16. Defendant breached its duty owed to Plaintiff by its negligent conduct, as more particularly stated above. 17. As a direct result of the aforesaid acts and omissions, Plaintiff Edwin Vallejo has sustained multiple injuries and damages, as more particularly stated above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Edwin Vallejo claims damages of Defendant Pennsylvania -4- Department of Corrections for an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) along with interest and costs as provided by law. DATED: /o 131 ° z -5- SEMANOFF, ORMSBY,GREENBERG & TORCHM, LLC VERIFICATION HAROLD SEMANOFF, ESQUIRE, hereby verifies that he is counsel for Plaintiff herein; that he is authorized to make this verification; that the averments of fact contained in the foregoing Civil Action Amended Complaint are true and correct based upon information and belief; and that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. DATED: 10 1 3' 6 v SEMANOFF, ORMSBY, GREENBERG & TORCHL4, LLC BY: HAROLD SEMANOFF, ESQUIRE Identification No. 25366 Suite 200 • Jenkins Court 610 Old York Road Jenkintown, PA 19046 (215) 887-0200 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EDWIN VALLEJO V. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL TERM NO.: 2000-256 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the date indicated below service of a true and correct copy of the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint to Defendant, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, was made upon all counsel of record and/or unrepresented parties by regular First Class Mail, postage prepaid. Steven C. Gould, Esquire Deputy Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15` Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 SEMANOFF, ORMSBY, GREENBERG & TO CH 4 r r C BY DATED: 10 14 2, ? ?- ? N o -rt to- ' i fil ['-i ; ?.-: n ? %, ? -._,a . T W YC CJ -< I Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Steven C. Gould Senior Deputy Attorney General Direct Dial 717-783-8035 EDWIN VALLEJO, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2000-256 NOTICE TO PLEAD TO PLAINTIFF: YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED to respond to the within New Matter within twenty (20) days of the date of service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, GERALD J.PAPPERT STEVEN C. GOULD, ID #80156 Senior Deputy Attorney General DATED: December 29, 2003 Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15" Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Steven C. Gould Senior Deputy Attorney General Direct Dial 717-783-8035 EDWIN VALLEJO, V. Plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2000-256 ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF THE COMMONWEALTH DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections, (hereinafter, "Commonwealth Defendant"), by and through the Office of Attorney General, and files the following Answer and New Matter to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint: Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that Plaintiff was an inmate at Houtzdale Prison located in Houtzdale, Pennsylvania. As to the remaining averments, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, paragraph 1 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 2. It is admitted only that the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is a Commonwealth Agency with only those legal duties prescribed by applicable state law and regulation for the Houtzdale Correctional facility. 10, By way of further answer, the Commonwealth Defendant affirmatively states that the principal place of business is located at 2520 Lisburn Road, P.O. Box 598, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17001. By way of further answer, paragraph 2 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 3. Denied. The allegations set forth in paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that portions of paragraph 3 could be construed as factual allegations, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, paragraph 3 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 4. Admitted. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, paragraph 5 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 6. Denied. The allegations set forth in paragraph 6 of Plaintiff s Amended Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that portions of paragraph 6 could be construed as factual allegations, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded at the time of trial. In further answer, it is specifically denied that the Commonwealth Defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiff s alleged cause of action or that the Commonwealth Defendant was a cause, cause and effect or proximate cause of Plaintiff's alleged injuries or Plaintiffs alleged cause of action. 2 to After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of averments regarding Plaintiff s knowledge and/or notice, and therefore, said averments are specifically denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. As to the remaining allegations, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, paragraph 6 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 7. Denied. The allegations set forth in paragraph 7 of Plaintiff s Amended Complaint, constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that portions of paragraph 7 could be construed as factual allegations, it is admitted only that the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, and its employees, had only those legal duties prescribed by applicable state law and regulation. By way of further answer, paragraph 7 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 8. Denied. The allegations set forth in paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, the Commonwealth Defendant affirmatively states that the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections has only those legal duties prescribed by applicable state law and regulation. By way of further answer, paragraph 8 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 9. Denied. The allegations set forth in paragraph 9 of Plaintiff s Amended Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. If a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, it is specifically denied that the Commonwealth Defendant either knew or had reason to know of the alleged dangerous condition. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that the Commonwealth Defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiff s alleged cause of action or that the Commonwealth Defendant was a cause, cause and effect or proximate cause of Plaintiff s alleged injuries or Plaintiff s alleged cause of action. By way of further answer, paragraph 9 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 10. Denied. The allegations set forth in paragraph 10 of Plaintiff s Amended Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that portions of paragraph 10 could be construed as factual allegations, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded at the time of trial. In further answer, it is specifically denied that the Commonwealth Defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiff s alleged cause of action or that the Commonwealth Defendant was a cause, cause and effect or proximate cause of Plaintiff s alleged injuries or Plaintiff s alleged cause of action. By way of further answer, paragraph 10 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 11. Denied. The allegations set forth in paragraph 11 of Plaintiff s Amended Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the i extent that portions of paragraph 11 could be construed as factual allegations, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded at the time of trial. In further answer, it is specifically denied that the Commonwealth Defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiff's alleged cause of action or that the Commonwealth Defendant was a cause, cause and effect or proximate cause of Plaintiff's alleged injuries or Plaintiffs alleged cause of action. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments regarding Plaintiff s alleged injuries, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, paragraph 11 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments regarding Plaintiff s alleged damages, injuries and/or losses, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, paragraph 12 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments regarding Plaintiffs alleged damages, injuries and/or losses, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, paragraph 13 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments regarding Plaintiff s alleged damages, injuries and/or losses, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, paragraph 14 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 15. Denied. The allegations set forth in paragraph 15 of Plaintiff s Amended Complaint, including subparagraphs "(a)" through "(k)", constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that portions of paragraph 15 including subparagraphs "(a)" through "(k)", could be construed as factual allegations, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded at the time of trial. In further answer, it is specifically denied that the Commonwealth Defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiff s alleged cause of action or that the Commonwealth Defendant was a cause, cause and effect or proximate cause of Plaintiffs alleged injuries or Plaintiff s alleged cause of action. By way of further response: (a)-(k). Denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 16. Denied. The allegations set forth in paragraph 16 of Plaintiff s Amended Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the I extent that portions of paragraph 16 could be construed as factual allegations, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded at the time of trial. In further answer, it is specifically denied that the Commonwealth Defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiff's alleged cause of action or that the Commonwealth Defendant was a cause, cause and effect or proximate cause of Plaintiff s alleged injuries or Plaintiff s alleged cause of action. By way of further answer, paragraph 16 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) 17. Denied. The allegations set forth in paragraph 17 of Plaintiff s Amended Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that portions of paragraph 17 could be construed as factual allegations, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded at the time of trial. In further answer, it is specifically denied that the Commonwealth Defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiff s alleged cause of action or that the Commonwealth Defendant was a cause, cause and effect or proximate cause of Plaintiff s alleged injuries or Plaintiff s alleged cause of action. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments regarding Plaintiff s alleged damages, injuries and/or losses, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, paragraph 17 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against the Plaintiff. NEW MATTER DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF ,J 18. The present action is controlled by the provisions of 1 Pa. C.S. §2310 and Act No. 1980-142, set forth in 42 Pa. C.S. §§8501, et seq., which Acts are incorporated herein and pled by reference. The Commonwealth Defendant asserts all the defenses contained therein. 19. Liability on the part of the Commonwealth Defendant is specifically denied. 20. The Commonwealth Defendant is specifically entitled to the defenses set forth in 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8524, which section is incorporated herein and pled by reference. 21. The Commonwealth Defendant invokes any and all common law defenses available to it pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. §8524. 22. The Commonwealth Defendant is immune from suit, and therefore Plaintiffs action is barred. 23. The Commonwealth Defendant is immune from suit pursuant to 1 Pa. C.S. §2310, and this action is not within any of the exceptions to immunity as set forth in 42 Pa. C.S. §8522, and therefore this action is barred. 24. There is no cause of action based upon a failure to inspect or improper inspection in that sovereign immunity has not been waived for such claims. 25. The Commonwealth Defendant did not have notice, written or otherwise, of the allegedly dangerous condition, or in the alternative, if said notice was received, it was not received in sufficient time prior to the alleged accident for the Commonwealth Defendant to have corrected or to have warned Plaintiff of the allegedly dangerous condition. 26. Plaintiff's alleged dangerous condition(s) does not "derive, originate from, or have as its source Commonwealth realty, and therefore, the Commonwealth Defendant is immune suit. 27. The Commonwealth Defendant maintains that it cannot be sued for discretionary functions, and therefore Plaintiff's cause of action are barred. 28. The Commonwealth Defendant avers that recovery cannot be had against it for the exercise of authorized discretion. 29. If the accident occurred as alleged, then the condition complained of did not cause the accident or the damages, injuries and/or losses complained of. 30. At all times material to the happening of the events set forth in Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, the Commonwealth Defendant avers that the area in question was in a reasonably safe condition for use by a reasonably prudent person. 31. Should liability be found on the part of the Commonwealth Defendant, the amounts and types of damages recoverable in the present action are limited and controlled by 42 Pa. C.S. §8528. 32. The Judicial Code at 42 Pa. C.S. §5522(a), which section is incorporated herein and pled by reference, provides that the Commonwealth and the Attorney General must have received written notice of intent to sue within six (6) months from the date the cause of action accrues. In the absence of such notice, this action is barred. 33. The Commonwealth Defendant avers that if negligence is found to exist on its part, said negligence was not the proximate cause of Plaintiffs alleged damages, injuries and/or losses injuries. 34. If the accident occurred as alleged, then the condition complained of did not create a reasonably foreseeable risk of the accident or the injuries complained of. 35. If Plaintiff sustained injuries as alleged, which injuries are specifically denied, then the injuries were caused by the failure of the said Plaintiff to exercise reasonable care under ` the circumstances, and Plaintiff s claims are entirely barred or reduced under the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Statute, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §7102. 36. The causal negligence of the Plaintiff was greater than any alleged negligence on the part of the Commonwealth Defendant, and Plaintiff recovery is therefore barred, or, in the alternative, must be diminished in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 37. Plaintiff was contributorily negligent and/or failed to mitigate the claimed damages, thereby limiting and/or barring any recovery. 38. The Plaintiff was contributorily negligent in that he: (a). Failed to use due care; and (b). Failing to keep a proper lookout. 39. Plaintiff s claim are barred by the Doctrine of Assumption of the Risk. 40. The Commonwealth Defendants are immune from claims grounded upon negligent supervision or employment. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against the Plaintiff. Respectfully submitted, GERALD J.PAPPERT Acting Attorney General By: STEVEN C. GOULD,11#80156 Senior Deputy Attorney General DATED: December 29, 2003 10 VERIFICATION I, Steven C. Gould, Esquire, hereby verify that I am counsel for the Commonwealth Defendant in the foregoing action, and also verify that the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that I am subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities for any false statements knowingly made herein. STEVEN C. GOULD ID #86156 Senior Deputy Attorney General Dated: December 29, 2003 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving the Answer and New Matter of the Commonwealth Defendant's to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS. HAROLD SEMANOFF, ESQUIRE JENKINS COURT, SUITE 200 610 OLD YORK ROAD JENKINTOWN, PA 19046 By: `?,/ STE N C. GOULD ID #80156 Senior Deputy Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15`h Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-783-8035 - Direct Dial DATED: December 29, 2003 q _r -I 47 4kk SEMANOFF, ORMSBY, GREENBERG & TORCHL4, LLC BY: HAROLD SEMANOFF, ESQUIRE Identification No. 25366 Suite 200 • Jenkins Court 610 Old York Road Jenkintown, PA 19046 (215) 887-0200 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EDWIN VALLEJO V. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CIVIL ACTION NO. 200-256 PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys, SEMANOFF, ORMSBY, GREENBERG & TORCHIA, LLC, hereby replies to Defendant's New Matter of as follows: 18-29. Denied as conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading, and, accordingly, strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. By way of further answer and without limitation, Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in his Amended Complaint as fully as though the same were set forth at length herein. 30. Denied. It is specifically denied that the area in question was in a reasonably safe condition at the time of Plaintiff s injuries. To the contrary the floor was wet and or excessively waxed and polished, which created a hazardous and dangerous condition to pedestrians, including Plaintiff as more particularly set forth in Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, the allegations of which are incorporated by reference herein. a 31-34. Denied as conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading, and, accordingly, strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. By way of further answer and without limitation at all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff has acted in a reasonable fashion to reduce and/or mitigate her damages resulting from Defendants negligence. 35-37. Denied as conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading, and, accordingly, strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. By way of further answer and without limitation at all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff has acted in a safe and prudent fashion, was not comparatively negligent and acted in a reasonable manner to mitigate his damages. 38. Denied as conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading, and, accordingly, strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. By way of further answer and without limitation at all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff has acted in a safe and prudent fashion and did not fail to use due care or keep a proper lookout as alleged. 39. Denied as conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading, and, accordingly, strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. By way of further answer and without limitation at no time relevant hereto did Plaintiff assume the risk of Defendant's negligence. 40. Denied as conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading, and, accordingly, strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. -2- A WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests your Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor as more particularly set forth in the Complaint filed in the above matter. SEMANOFF, ORMSBY, GREENBERG & TORCHIA, LLC BY DATED; Al vloq -3- A VERIFICATION HAROLD SEMANOFF, ESQUIRE, hereby verifies that he is counsel for Plaintiff herein; that he is authorized to make this verification; that he has greater personal knowledge of the procedural facts set forth in the foregoing than does Plaintiff, that the averments or denials of facts contained in the foregoing Plaintiffs Reply to New Matter are true and correct based upon information and belief; and that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. B DATED: 2 lo`f SEMANOFF, ORMSBY, GREENBERG & TORCHL4, LLC SEMANOFF, ORMSBY, GREENBERG & TORCHL4, LLC BY: HAROLD SEMANOFF, ESQUIRE Identification No. 25366 Suite 200 • Jenkins Court 610 Old York Road Jenkintown, PA 19046 (215) 887-0200 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EDWIN VALLEJO V. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL TERM NO.: 2000-256 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the date indicated below service of a true and correct copy of the Plaintiff's Reply to New Matter, was made upon all counsel of record and/or unrepresented parties by regular First Class Mail, postage prepaid. Steven C. Gould, Esquire Deputy Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 SEMANOFF, ORMSBY, GREENBERG & TORCHL4, LLC. BY: DATED: 2 /</0 I w f `- G? i ® o w "rn G4 N d SEMANOFF ORMSBY GREENBERG & TORCHIA, LLC BY: HAROLD SEMANOFF, ESQUIRE Identification No. 25366 2617 Huntingdon Pike Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 (215) 887-0200 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EDWIN VALLEJO V. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL TERM NO.: 2000-256 STATEMENT OF INTENTION TO PROCEED TO THE COURT: Plaintiff intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. DATED: to //a/c SEMANOFF ORMSBY GREENBERG & TOR CHIA, LLc SEMANOFF ORMSBY GREENBERG & TORCHIA, LLC BY: HAROLD SEMANOFF, ESQUIRE Identification No. 25366 2617 Huntingdon Pike Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 (215) 887-0200 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EDWIN VALLEJO COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL TERM V. NO.: 2000-256 PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS : CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the date indicated below service of a true and correct copy of the Plaintiff's Statement of Intention to Proceed was made upon all counsel of record and/or unrepresented parties by regular First Class Mail, postage prepaid. Steven C. Gould, Esquire Deputy Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT SEMANOFF ORMSBY GREENBERG & TOR CHIA, LLC BY DATED: fb ti z.10"1 ? ? f ?.' am r ? c ") 4 C,v? e ? il'"! _