Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-01110 .: , <: ;> POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: :MICHAEL A. BOOMSMA, ESQUIRE I.D. # 56062 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY' P.O. BOX 10248 LANCASTER, PA 17605-0248 (717) 291-4532 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, his wife, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CillvIBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiffs, NO. 200-1110- CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants. ORDER AND NOW, this 3l>~daYOf~ Defendants, Canndonda1e Corporation, Profile Design, Inc. f7d/b/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. may join Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd., tJd/b/a Alico, as an Additional Defendant is extended to the expiration of sixty (60) days after the date of this Order. '{\\y C~() _9-00 RLED-OfF1CE OF ~F PPOT.-lONOTA.RY 00 OCT -2 AH 8: 21 CUM8ERLAi--lD COUt\fTY PENNSYlVANIA <.~ l c '< ..-: POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: MICHAEL A. BOOMSMA, ESQUIRE LD. # 56062 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY P.O. BOX 10248 LANCASTER, P A 17605-0248 (717) 291-4532 MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants. <. ( ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUJ\1BERLAND COUNTY (") 0 NO. 200-1110- CIVIL TE~ ~ -0 co fT1 rnfTi -u CIVIL ACTION - LAW 2C ~;;~ [<0 ~8 )>c ~ o -n -l t.E~ --,rn "5c;:> 6..... -1'--' -:- -1'; .--,-, 0- :z:0 0(<'1 "'=' ~ -< "'" --0 :z ~ I;:"' ," PETITION OF DEFENDANTS, CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. AND GALLOP CYCLE CORP TO FILE I.ATE JOINDER C.OMPI.ATNT Defendants, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc., Profile For Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp., by and through their counsel, Post & Schell, P.C., file this Petition for Leave to Join Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd. t/dlb/a Alico, as an Additional Defendant pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 2253 and in support thereof aver the following: 1. This is a negligence, products liability and breach of warranty action arising out of an injury allegedly suffered by Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, while riding a Cannondale bicycle on July 31, 1998. 2. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on or about May 25,2000 and same was served upon Defendants approximately June 8, 2000. Defendant Cannondale filed its Answer on or about July ;: ( i 11, 2000 with Defendants Profile Design, Inc., Profile For Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. filing their Answer July 17, 2000. 3. In pertinent part, Plaintiffs allege under theories of strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty, Defendants are responsible to Plaintiff for his injuries resulting from the handlebars failing on his 1996 Cannondale bicycle. Specifically, Plaintiff maintains that the "T" assembly (also known as the "stem") was defectively and/or negligently manufactured and/or designed which led to the handlebar failure and Plaintiff s subsequent injuries. 4. Defendants believe and therefore aver that Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd., tldIb/a Alico, a Taiwanese Corporation, having a principal place of business at 470 Chang Shui Rd., Sec. 4, Pituo Hsiang, Changhua, Taiwan, manufactured the stem assembly on Plaintiff's bike. 5. If Plaintiffs are entitled to recovery, said recovery being specifically denied herein, it is solely and partially as a result of the acts or omissions of Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd., tldIb/a Alico, which is alone liable to Plaintiffs, or jointly and . severally liable with Defendants, or liable over to Plaintiffs or liable to Defendants for contribution and/or indemnity. 6. The pennissible period in which to join Additional Defendant without leave of court expired on or about July 31, 2000. 7. Defendants had difficulty in correctly identifYing the proposed Additional Defendant, identifying the manufacturer of the bicycle stem and securing a correct address for this Taiwanese- based company. 8. Moreover, because Taiwan is not a signatory to the Hague Convention, it does not recognize certified mail service of process procedures and as such, must be served personally. -2- i ~ T 9. One time per year, representatives from this Taiwanese company travel to the United States to participate in an industry trade show. This year the trade show is being held in Las Vegas, Nevada from September 23rd through 30th. lO. It is anticipated representatives from this company will be at this trade show from September 23rd through September 27th and only available during this time for service of a Joinder Complaint. Defendants will attempt to serve Additional Defendant with the Joinder Complaint. Attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy ofthe Joinder Complaint. 11. Because time is of the essence, Defendants filed their Joinder Complaint contemporaneous with the Petition for Late Joinder for the above-stated reasons and in the hopes that this Honorable Court will grant the within Petition. 12. If joined, proposed Additional Defendant would have any and all defenses available to it as the Defendants in this action, including, but not limited to, those defenses enumerated in Pa.R.Civ.P. 1030. 13. This case is not on a trial list and, in fact, the parties are still in the process of exchanging written discovery. 14. No depositions of any parties or fact witnesses have been held, or for that matter, scheduled. 15. None of the parties currently named in this lawsuit oppose the joinder of Additional Defendant. 16. The proposed Additional Defendant will not be prejudiced by being joined in this action at this time. 17. A copy ofthe Joinder Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". -3- " , WHEREFORE, Defendants Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc., Profile For Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. request that this Court enter an Order granting leave to Defendants to file a Late Joinder Complaint against Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd., t/d/b/a Alico. POST & SCHELL, P.C. By: MA -4- CO~~y .. POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: MICHAEL A. BOOMSMA, ESQUIRE LD. # 56062 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY P.O. BOX 10248 LANCASTER, P A 17605-0248 (71 7) 291-4532 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, his wife, COURTOFCO~ONPLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiffs, NO. 200-1110- CML TERM v. CIVIL ACTION . LAW CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants. v. YIR CHENG MANUFACTURlNG COMPANY, LTD. t/dlb/a ALICO Third.Party Defendant. .TOTNTlF.R COMPI,AINT flFJ)~FF,l:'ffiANTS, CANNONTMI,R CORPORATTON, PRom,R DEST(;'N, INC, PROm.R FOR I'l'EEJ), INe. and (;.AT.T.OP CYCLE CORP. DTRRCTRD TO VTH , CHF.N(;' MANllFACTTJRIN(;. COM1>ANV, I.Tn tldlbla AUrO' - I I NOTTCR You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claim 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 defense or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case rnayproceed 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 TIllS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HA VB A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE TIlE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (800) 990-9108 (717) 249-3166 POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: MICHAEL A. BOOMSMA, ESQUIRE LD. # 56062 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY P.O. BOX 10248 LANCASTER, PA 17605-0248 (717) 291-4532 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, his wife, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiffs, NO. 200-1110- CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants. v. YIH CHENG MANUFACTURlNG COMPANY, LTD. t/dIb!aALICO Third-Party Defendant. .IOINnF-R COMPI ,A TNT OF "OF-FENnANTS, CA NNON[lA I ,F- CORPORATION, FROFIl ,F- OF-SIGN, INC, PROFIT ,F-FOR SPF-IW, INC. and GA 1,1 ,OP CYCI,F- CORP. OTRF-CTF-O TO AOmTI()NAJ, OF-PENnANT, VlH CHFNG MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTO tldlh/ll ALICO I. Plaintiffs' Complaint is attached hereto, incorporated by reference and made a part of this pleading. (See Exhibit "A".) 2. The Answer and New Matter of Defendant Cannondale Corporation, as well as Defendants Profile Design, Inc. f!dIb!a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp., are hereby , attached hereto, incorporated by reference and made a part ofthis pleading. (See Exhibits "B" and "C", respectively.) 3. It is believed and, therefore, averred that Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd. is a Taiwanese corporation whose principal offices and manufacturing facilities are located at 470. Chang Shui Rd., SecA, Pituo Hsiang, Changhua, Taiwan. 4. It is believed and, therefore, averred that Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd., designed, produced manufactured and distributed products, including the "T" assembly referenced in Plaintiffs' Complaint which are/were delivered, sold and ~tilized in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 5. It is believed and, therefore, averred that Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company,- Ltd., regularly conducts business in Pennsylvania and causes products it manufactured, designed and/or distributed to be sold, supplied and/or used in Pennsylvani". Further, the marketing activities of Additional Defendant, including its business arrangements with other commercial entities and its act of directly and indirectly placing its products into the stream of commerce with the Irnowledge and intention that same will ultimately be sold, distributed and/or used in Pennsylvania, constitutes regular and frequent contact with, and purposeful availment to, the laws and jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Further, the conduct of Additional Defendant inside and outside Pennsylvania caused harm in Pennsylvania and, therefore, Additional Defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts of Pennsylvania. 6. It is believed and, therefore, averred that the "T" assembly which allegedly led to plaintiffs incident (also known as the "stem"), was designed, produced, manufactured, sold and/or distributed by Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd. -2- rOlJNTI D..efendants, rannondale rorporation, Profile Design, Inc. f/dfb[a Profile for Speed, Yric. and Gallop Cycle rorp. v Yih rhene Manl1factl1ring..C.om~,.Ltd. Strict I,il'hility 7. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 6 ofthe within Joinder Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 8. The "T" assembly/stem was designed, manufactured, assembled, distributed, sold and supplied by Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd. in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous for its intended and foreseeable uses, and if Plaintiff suffered injuries as alleged, said defect caused Plaintiff s injuries. ' 9. The above described "T" assembly/stem was designed, manufactured, distributed, sold and supplied by Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd., with the intention and expectation that it would reach a class of users and consumers such as Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci and i:Je used by said consumers in the fashion plaintiff was using it at the time if the alleged incident. 10. Additional Defendant's product was in substantially the same condition at the time of the incident as it was when it left Additional Defendant's possession and control and it was being used at the time of the incident in the exact manner intended by Additional Defendant. 11. If the incident occurred as alleged by plaintiff did in fact occur, then same resulted because Additional Defendant's product was defective and unreasonably dangerous for its intended and foreseeable use for the fOllowing reasons: a. the "T" assembly/stem of the handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle were defectively designed with respect to their materials, configuration and strength; -3- b. the "T" assembly/stem was defectively designed or manufactured resulting in a flaw, defect, or weakness of the handlebars causing the handlebars to fail under normal and foreseeable use; c. the "T" assembly/stem contained a manufacturing defect and impurities in same; d. the "T" assembly/stem were manufactured in such a manner as to not be able to endure the stresses and forces involved in the operation of the bicycle. 12. If it is adjudicated that Defendants, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc. fi'd/b/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp., are liable in whole or in part to Plaintiffs, said liability being specifically denied, then Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Inc., is solely liable to Plaintiff or liable over to Defendants, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc. fi'd/b/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. for contribution and/or indemnity. 13. Under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd., is required to defend and indemnify Defendants, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc. fi'd/b/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. against any and all allegations made by Plaintiffs in their Complaint. 14. Under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd., has a duty to indemnifY and/or contribute to any costs, fees and/or awards sustained by or entered against Defendants, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc. fi'd/b/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp., as a result of the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs. -4- WHEREFORE, Defendants, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc. fldlb/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp., request this Honorable Court to enter judgment in their favor and against all other parties. COTJNT TT Oefenrlants, CannonrlaJe Corporation, Profile Oesign, Tnc. f/rI/h/a Profile for Speerl, Tnc. anrl Gal!llp Cycle Corp v Vih Cheng Manufacturing Company, T ,trl Ne.glige.n.c.e 15. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 14 ofthe within Joinder Complaint are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 16. Ifit is determined that the incii:lenfoccurred as alleged by Plaintiff, then Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd., was negligent and careless with respect to the design, manufacture and supply ofthe "T" assembly/stem at issue. 17. Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd. ' s negligence and carelessness consisted ofthe following: a. the "T" assembly/stem ofthe handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle were negligently designed with respect to their materials, configuration and strength; b. the "T" assembly/stem was not adequately inspected or tested; c. the "T" assembly/stem was negligently manufactured. d. the "T" assembly/stem was negligently designed or manufactured resulting in a flaw, defect, or weakness ofthe handlebars causing the handlebars to fail; 18. If it is established that the incident did in fact occur as alleged by Plaintiff, the Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Inc., is solely liable to Plaintiff, jointly -5- and severally liable to Plaintiff or liable over to Defendants, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc. f/dIb/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. for contribution or indemnity. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc. fi'dIb/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp., request this Honorable Court to enter judgment in their favor and against all other parties. COlTNT TII Defenrlants, Cannonrlale Corporation, Profile Design, Tnc. f/rllb/a Profile for Speerl, Tne. anrl Gallop Cycle Corp. v. Vih Chene Manllfac1l1rine Company, Ltrl. Breach of Warranty 21. The allegations contained in paragraphs I through 20 ofthe within Joinder Complaint are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 22. Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd., expressly and impliedly warranted that the aforesaid "T" assembly/stem was safe and fit for the purpose for which it was intended and it was of merchantable quality. 23. If the incident for which suit is brought occurred as alleged by Plaintiff, Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd., breached its express and implied warranties that the aforesaid "T" assembly/stem was safe and fit for the purpose for which it was intended and was of merchantable quality for the reasons set forth in Counts I and II. 24. If Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, suffered the injuries and damages as alleged, same were caused by the Additional Defendant's breach of its express and implied warranties and Additional Defendant is directly liable to Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci for any injuries and damages suffered, or liable over to Original Defendants for contribution and/or indemnity. -6- 26. Under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd., is required to defend and indemnifY Defendants, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc. f/dlb/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. against any and all allegations made by Plaintiffs in their Complaint. 27, Under the laws ofthe Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd., has a duty to indemnifY and/or contribute to any costs, fees and/or awards sustained by or entered against Defendants, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc. f/d/b/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp., as a result of the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc. fld/b/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp., request this Honorable Court to enter judginent in their favor and against all other parties. POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: el A. Bo a, Esquire 1.. # 56061 . Attorney for endants Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc. fld/b/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. 1857 William Penn Way P.O. Box 10248 Lancaster, PA 17605-0248 (717) 291-4532 -7- '1 (~ MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, His Wife, Plaintiffs v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2000 - 1110 CIViL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS 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 attomey and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are wamed 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 2 Uberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 (800) 990-9108 NOTICIA Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paquinas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plaza al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita 0 en persona 0 por abogado y archivar en la corte enforma escrita sus defensas 0 sus objeciones alas demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin J6iffffA~ r:Z/ZIZJ'd G09JJGZ~J~JG O~ 209S ~82 SJ2 S3Jln~3S WI~IJ 8I~ ~~ ~0:" 00, 80 Nnr " previo aviso 0 notificacion y por cualquier queja 0 alivio que "es pediclo en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus propiedades 0 otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO INMEDIATAMENTE. 81 NO TIENE ABOGADO 0 81 NO TIENE EL DlNERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR -TAL SERVIClO, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIREccrON SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 (800) 990-9108 TUCKER ARENSBERG & SWARTZ By: tephe M. Greecher, Jr. Attorney I. D. No. 36803 111 North Front Street P. O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS DATED: 5I..;J,>'/O(j 2.8710.1 2 >:2/>:e"d GI09n62L."tL."t6 0.1 2109S \;;8Z S"tZ S3:)!n<'J3S Wltn:) 8l1::f<'J=l .:.1O:n 1010. 810 Nnr . MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, His Wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2000 - 1110 CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT Parties 1. Plaintiffs are Mali< S. Colucci and Melissa C. Colucci, His Wife: adult individuals residing at 1 Country Club' Place West, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011. 2. Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, is a corporation with offices located at 172 Friendship Road, Bedford, Bedford County, Pennsylvania 15522-6600. 3. Defendant, Profile Design, Inc., is a corporation with offices located at 156 North Jefferson Street, Suite #302, Chicago, IL 60661-1136. 4. Defendant, Profile for Speed, Inc., is a corporation with offices located at 156 North Jefferson Street, Suite #302, Chicago, IL 60661-1136. 5. Defendant, Gallop Cycle Corp., is a corporation with its offices looated at 2677 EI Presidio Street, Carson, California 90810. 6. It is believed and therefore averred that Profile Design, Inc. represents the current name of Profile for Speed, Inc. and is the same entity as Profile for Speed, Inc. ~G/170'd 609tt6G~t~t6 01 G09S ~8G stG S3Jln~3S WI~ 8I~ ~~ ~0:tt 00, 80 Nnf 7. (n the alternative, it is believed and therefore averred that Profile Design, Inc. , is a successor corporation to Profile for Speed, Inc., and is therefore liable .for and responsible for the obligations and liabilities of Profile for Speed, Inc. 8. Profile Design, Inc. is a successor corporation to Profile for Speed, Inc., as a result of a merger, by acquisition of assets with the express or implicit assumption of liabilities, by means of a transaction amounting to a de facto merger, by means of a transaction in which Profile Design, Inc. is a continuation of Profile for Speed, Inc., or by means of a transaction in which Profile Design, Inc. acquired the assets of Profile for Speed, Inc. and continued the business of and manufacture of the products of Profile for Speed, Inc. 9. Gallop Cycle Corp. is the same entity as Profile Design, Inc. or Profile for Speed, (nc. in that Gallop Cycle Corp. represents the current name of Profile for Speed, Inc. or Profile Design, lnc, 10. (n the alternative, Gallop Cycle Corp. is a successor corporation to Profile Design, lnc, or Profile for Speed, Inc. and, as such, is liable and responsible for the obligations and liabilities of Profile Design, Inc. or Profile for Speed, Inc, 11. Gallop Cycle Corp. is a successor corporation to Profile Design, Inc. or Profile for Speed, Inc., as a result of a merger, by acquisition of assets with the express or implicit assumption of liabilities~ as a result of a transaction amounting to a de facto merger, as a result of a transaction in which Gallop Cycle Corp. is merely a continuation of Profile Design, Inc. or Profile for Speed, Inc., or-by means of a transaction in which Gallop Cycle Corp. acquired the assets of Profile Design, Inc. or Profile for Speed, Inc. 2. Sc/S0'd 609,,6c~,~,6 01 C09S SSc.stc S3~I~3S WI~I~ 81~ ~~ ~0:,,'00, 80 Nnr > . and continued the business of and manufacture of the products of Profile Design, Inc, or Profile for Speed, Inc. 12. In the alternative, Gallop Cycle Corp. is a corporation independent of Profile Design. Inc. and Profile for Speed. Inc.. and is liable for the claims made by Plaintiffs herein. 13. Hereinafter, Cannondale Corporation is referred to as "Cannondale." 14. Hereinafter, Profile Design, Inc. and Profile for Speed, Inc. shall be referred to as "Profile" and all' allegations made with respect to Profile shall be deemed to apply to Profile Design, Inc. and Profile for Speed, Inc., individually and collectively. 15. Hereinafter, Gallop Cycle Corp, shall be referred to as "Gallop," 16, Defendant Cannondale regularly conducts business in Pennsylvania and has a place of business located in Pennsylvania and is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of Pennsylvania. 17. The Profile defendants regularly conduct business in Pennsylvania, cause products manufactured and designed and sold by the Profile defendants to be shipped into and sold in Pennsylvania and the conduct of the Profile defendants inside or outside Pennsylvania caused harm in Pennsylvania and, therefore, the Profile defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of Pennsylvania. 18. Defendant Gallop, as the successor to the Profile defendants, is liable and responsible for the obligations and liabilities of those of the Profile defendants and is thereby subject to jurisdiction of the courts of Pennsylvania and Defendant Gallop causes products manufactured at'!d designed and sold by Defendant Gallop to be 3 ~90'd 5091,6c~,~16 01 c09S SSe s1c S3JlncGS'WI~I~ 8I~ ~~ 80:" 00, 80. Nnr < shipped into and sold in Pennsytvania and the conduct of Defendant Gaflop inside or outside Pennsylvania caused harm in Pennsylvania and, therefore, the Defendant Gallop is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of Pennsylvania. Facts 19. In June 1996, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, purchased a Cannondale bicycle from the Runners' RoostBike & Sport in Sunbury, Pennsylvania. 2.0. The Cannondate bicycle purchased by Mr. Colucci carried Serial No. HA B 007361577 BON60 engraved in the underside of the bottom bracket. 21. The bicycle is a road bike. 22. Said bicycle was manufactured, designed, assembled, supplied, sold, and placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Cannondale, 23. At the time of delivery of the bicycle to Runners' Roost, the handtebars of said !bicycle had been installed by Cannondale in the "T" assemby in which the handlebars are mounted, With the "T" assembly then inserted into the stem of the bike by the Runners' Roost. 24. In the alternative, the handlebars were placed in the ''1'' assembly by the Profile Defendants or Defendant Gallop. 25. The handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle purchased by Plaintiff, Marl< S. Colucci, were manufactured, designed, supplied, sold, put into the stream of commerce by the Profile defendants or Defendant Gallop. 2.6. The above described Cannondale bicycle and the handlebars of the Cannondale bicycle, in all aspects material hereto, were in substantially'the same 4 f:Z/2.0'd 609116c~1~16 01 cess s8c S1C S3~In~3S WI~~ 81~ ~~ 80:11 00, 80.Nnr , condition or had not been substantially changed from the time they were put into the stream of commerce until they came into the possession of Plaintiff, Mark S', Colucci, and until the time of the incident involving the Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. Alternatively, any changes were foreseeable to defendants. 27. On or about July 31, 1998, between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m., Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, was riding his Cannon dale bicycle along Trindle Road in Camp HiII, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 28. At that time, without warning and for no apparent reason, the handlebars of the Cannondale bicycle broke and, as a result, Mr. Colucci fell from the bike, suffering personal injuries, including a fracture to his right elbow with significant road burn. 29. After his fall, Mr, Colucci lay in a ditch for a period of time until he gathered himself. A passerby eventually came 10 assist Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. 30. Plaintiff, Mark S, Colucci, put his bike in the pickup truck of the passerby and the passerby gave Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, a ride to his home in Camp Hill, Cumberland County', Pennsylvania. 31. After arriving home, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, was taken immediately to Holy Spirit Hospital by his wife, Plaintiff, Melissa C. Colucci. 32. At the Holy Spirit Hospital, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci's wounds were cleaned in a painful process and his arm was x-rayed and a fracture to Mr. Colucci's right elbow was diagnosed. Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, was frtted with a sling and then referred to the Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania for followup. 5 >:2/99' d G09HGc~1~16 01 c09S SSe S1GS3~lfl~3S wr~~ 8lCS ~=l 813:H 00,'.80. Nflr 33. As a result of his injuries, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, went under a course of medical treatment and physical therapy. 34. Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, has been diagnosed with a rapidly progressive arthritic right elbow as a resutt of the injuries he suffered in this incident. . 35. Plaintiff, Mark S, Colucci, has a loss of the range of motion in his right elbow that is permanent. 36. . Plaintiff, Mark. S. Colucci has suffered a restriction and is limited in his activities as a result of the injuries that he has suffered. 37. Plaintiff, Mark S, Colucci, may need surgery in the future with respect to the injuries that he has suffered. Dama!'les 38, As a result of the tortious conduct of Defendants and the breaches of warranty of Defendants as set forth herein, Plaintiff, Mark S, Colucci, has suffered serious and significant injuries some of which are permanent and damages for which he makes a.clairn herein. 39. The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff, Mark S, Colucci, include: a. Fractured right elbow; b. Rapidly progressive arthritis of the right elbow; c. Permanent restriction of the range of motion of the right elbow; d, Significant road burn, bruises, and abrasions; e. Severe pain and suffering, past and future; f. Medical or related expenses, past and future; 6 ~2/6t;}.d G09rrGZ~1~t6 O~ C09S ~8c S1Z S3~In~3SWI~ 8I~ ~~ 80:,1 00, 80 Nor g. Future surgery; h. Disfigurement; i. Mental anguish, embarrassment, and humiliation, past and future; and j. A loss of life's pleasures, past and future. 40. As a result of the breaches of warranty by Defendants, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, has incurred damages to his bicycle and claims damages for breach of warranty and for the expense to repair the bicycle, COUNT I . Mark S. Colucci v. Cannondale Corporation Strict Liability 41. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 40 of the within Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 42. The Cannon dale bicycle was designed, manufactured, assembled, distributed, sold, and supplied by Defendant Cannondale in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous for its intended and foreseeable uses, and said defects caused Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, to suffer severe and permanent injuries described herein. 43, The above described bicycle was designed, manufactured, distributed, sold and supplied by Defendant Cannondale and placed in the stream of commerce with the intention and expectation that it would reach a class of users and consumers such as Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. 7 ~2/9T "d 609!!62~1~16 01 209S S82 S12 S3~InM3S WI~~ 81~ ~~ 80:11 00, 80 Nnr ) 44. Defendant Cannondale designed, manufactured, distributed, sold and supplied the Cannondale bicycle at issue in this case, intending it to be used and operated by individuals such as Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. 45. Defendant Cannondale is strictly liable in tort for designing, manufacturing, distributing, selling and supplying an unreasonably dangerous and defective bicycle in the following manner: a. The handlebars breaking on the Cannon dale bicycle during normal use as described herein was a malfunction of the Cannondale bicycle, which malfunction would not occur in the absence of a defect; b. The handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle were defectively designed regarding their configuration, materials, and strength; c. The handlebars and the "Tn assembly of the handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle were defectively designed with respect to their materials, configuration, and strength; d. The assembly of the handlebars in the "T" assembly was defective, resulting in a flaw, defect, or weakness of the handlebars; e. The handlebars contained a manufacturing defect and impurities in the handlebars; f. The handlebars were manufactured in such a manner as to not be able to endure the stresses and forces involved in the operation of the bicycle; and 8 '>:c/n'd 609116c~1~16 01 c09S S8C S1C S3~In~3S WI~I~ 81~ ~~ 60'"" 00, 80 Nnr g. The bicycle did not have adequate warnings or instructions regarding the potential breaking of the handlebars, adjustment or maintenance of the handlebars, or limitations on use of the bicycle regarding the handlebars. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Mark S,Colucci, demands judgment against Defendant Cannon dale Corporation in an amount in excess of the limits for mandatory arbitration plus interest, delay damages and costs of suit. COUNT II Plaintiff. Mark S. Colucci. v, CannondaJe Corporation Neqliqence 46. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 45 of the within Complaint are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 47. Defendant Cannondale was negligent and careless with respect to the design, manufacture, and supplying of. the Cannondale bicycle at issue in this case which lead to the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. 48. Defendant Cannondale's negligence and carelessness consists of the following: a. The handlebars breaking on the Cannondate bicycle as described herein was a malfunction of the Cannondale bicycle, which malfunction did not occur in the absence of negligence; b. The handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle were negligently designed regarding their configuration. materials, and strength; 9 >:2/21 'd 609n6c~1~16 01 C09S SSe 51<=: 53~In~5 ww~ m~ ~.:l-60~H 00, 80 Nnr c. The handlebars and the 'T' assembly of the handlebars on the Cannon dale bicycle were negligently designed with respect to their materials, configuration, and strength; d. The assembly of the handlebars in the "T" assembly was negligent; e. The bicycle handlebars, their components and/or their assembly were not adequately inspected or tested; and f. The bicycle did not have adequate warnings or instructions regarding' the potential breaking of the handlebars,. adjustment or maintenance of the handlebars, or limitations on use of the bicycle regarding the handlebars. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, demands judgment against Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, in an amount in excess of the limits for mandatory arbitration plus interest, delay damages and costs of suit. COUNT III Plaintiff. Mark S. Colucci Y. Defendant. Cannondale Corooration Breach ofWarrantv 49, The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 48 of the within Complaint are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 50, Defendant Cannondale expressly and impliedly warranted that the aforesaid Cannondale bicycle was safe and fit for the purpose for which it was intended and was of merchantable quality. 10 .>:2/5;:1 'd 609116c~1~16 01 c095 SSC S1C S3~ln~3S WI~~ 81~ ~~ 60:11 00, B0 Nnr -, 51, Defendant Cannon dale breached its express and implied warranties that the aforesaid bicycle was safe and fit for the purpose for which it was intended and was of merchantable quality for the reasons set forth in Counts 1 and II. 52, The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff, Mark S" Colucci, were caused by the breaches of warranty of Defendant Cannondale for which injuries and damages Defendant Cannondale is liable to Plaintiff, Mark S, Colucci. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, demands judgment against Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, in art amount in excess of the limits for mandatory arbitration plus interest, delay damages and COsts of suit. COUNT IV Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci v. Defendants, Profile Desi!:m, Inc. Profile for Speed, Inc.. and Gallop Cvcle Com, 53, The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 52 of the within Complaint are incorporated herein as if fully set forth, 54. The handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle purchased by Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, were manufactured, designed, sold andfor distributed by the Profile Defendants and/or Defendant Gallop, or in the alternative, the handlebars and the "T" assembly were manufactured, assembled, sold, andfor distributed by Profile Defendants and/or the Gallop Defendant. 55. The above described components of the Cannonda\e bicycle were designed, manufactured, distributed, sold and supplied by the Profile Defendants and/or Defendant Gallop and placed into the stream of commerce with the intention and 11 I:'2-/p! 'd 609r162~1~16 01 C09S SSe s1c S3~r0~35 WI~IJ 8I~ ~~ 60:11 00, 80 Nnr expectation that said components would become part of a bicycle such as a Cannondale bicycle and reach a class of consumers such as Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. 56. The Profile Defendants and/or Defendant Gallop designed, manufactured, distributed, sold, and supplied the bicycle components, intending those bicycle components to be incorporated into bicycles to be used and operated by individuals such as Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. 57.. The above described bicycle components were designed, manufactured, assembled, distributed, sold. and supplied in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous for their intende~ and foreseeable uses, and said defects caused Mark S. Colucci to suffer the severe and permanent injuries described herein. 58. The Profile Defendants and Defendant Gallop are strictly liable in tort to Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, for designing, manufacturing, assembling, distributing, selling, and supplying unreasonably dangerous bicycle components in the following manner; a. The handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle malfunctioned in that the handlebars broke during normal use and such a malfunction would not occur in the absence of a defect; b. The handlebars and the "T" assembly on the Cannondale bicycle malfunctioned in that the handlebars broke during normal use and such a malfunction would not occur in the absence of a defect; c. The handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle were defectively designed regarding .their configuration, materials, and strength; 12. F:2/~! 'd 609!!6e~1~16 Oi C09S sse s1c S3~In~35 WI~~ 9I~ ~~ 60:11 00, 80 Nor d, The handlebars and the "T" assembly of the handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle were defectively designed with respect tQ their materials, configuration, and strength; e, The assembly of the handlebars in the "T" assembly was defective, resulting in a flaw, defect, or weakness of the handlebars; f. The handlebars contained a manufacturing defect and impurities in the handlebars; g. The handlebars were manufactured in such a manner as to not be able to endure the stresses and forces involved in the operation of the bicYCle; . h. The bicycle components were sold without adequate warnings or instructions regarding the potentia! breaking of the handlebars, adjustment or maintenance of the handlebars, or limitations on use 9f the bicycle regarding the handlebars, WHEREFORE, Plaintiff; Mark S. Colucci, demands judgment against Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, in an amount in excess of the limits for mandatory arbitration plus interest, delay damages and costs of suit. COUNT V Plaintiff. Mark S. Colucci v. Defendants. Profile Desicm. Inc. Profile for Speed. Inc.. and Gallop Cvcle COrD. 59. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 58 of the within Complaint are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 1.3 ':V9t'd 609116c~1~16 01 ,C09S SSe s1c 53~ln~5 WI~I~ 8I~ ~~ 01:11 00, S0 Nnr \ .. . 60, Defendants Profile and Gallop were negligent and careless with respect to the design, manufacture, and supplying of the Cannondale bicycle components at .issue in this case, which lead to the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. 61. The negligence and carelessness of Defendants Profile and Gallop consist of the following: a. The handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle malfunctioned in that the handlebars broke during normal use and such a malfunction would not occur in the absence of negligence; b. The handlebars and the "T" assembly on the Cannondale bicycle malfunctioned in that the handlebars broke during normal use and such a malfunction would not occur in the absence of negligence; c. The handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle were negligently designed regarding their configuration, materials, and strength; d. The handlebars and the "r' assembly of the handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle were negligently designed with respect to their materials, configuration, and strength; e. The assembly of the handlebars in the "T" assembly was negligent, resulting in a flaw, defect, or weakness of the handlebars; f. The handlebars were negligently manufactt,lred, resulting in a manufacturing defect and impurities in the handlebars; 14 C";:t/) T *.-1 ~~g!1h7-~1L16 01 ce9S r8c S1C 53~In~35 WI~~ 8I~ ~~ 01:11 00, 80 Nnr .' g. The handlebars were negligently manufactured so as to not be able to endure the stresses and forces involved in the operation .of the bicyc[e; h. The handlebars, their components and/or their assembly were not adequately inspected or tested; and i. The bicycle components were supplied without adequate warnings or instructions regarding the potential breaking of the handlebars, adjustmerit or maintenance of the handlebars, or limitations on use of the bicycle regarding the handlebars. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, demands judgment against Defendants, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp., in an amount in excess of the limits for mandatory arbitration plus interest, delay damages and costs of suit COUNT VI Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci v. Defendants. Profile Design. Inc.. Profile for Speed. Inc. and Gallo!) Cvcle Coro. 62, The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 61 of the within Complaint are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 63. The Profile Defendants and/or Defendant Gallop expressly and impliedly warranted that the handlebars and/or that the handlebar assembly and "T" assembly were safe and fit for the purpose for which they were intended and were of merchantable quality. 15 r;:'7/!:lT .....l <;"'Cln<;?/.V.t<; nJ ?",g<;; ~8c S1? 53~ln~35 WI~I~ !JJ~ ~~ 01:n 00, 80 Nnr 64. The Profile Defendants and Defendant Gallop breached the express and implied warranties that the aforesaid bicylce components were safe and fit for the purposes for which they were intended and were of merchantable quality for the reasons set forth in Counts IV and V. 65. The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff, Mark S, Colucci, were caused by the breaches of warranty of the Profile Defendants and Defendant Gallop for which injuries and damages the Profile Defendants and Defendant Gallop are liable to Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, demands judgment against Defendants, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. in an amount in excess of the limits for mandatory arbitration plus interest, delay damages and costs of suit. COUNT VII Plaintiff. Melissa C. Colucci v. Defendants, Cannondale Corporation. . Profile Desiqn. Inc.. Profile for Sneed. Inc. and Gallop Cycle. Inc. Loss of consortium 66. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 65 of the within Complaint are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 67. As a result of the tortious conduct of Defendants and the breaches of warranty by Defendants, all as set forth herein, Plaintiff, Melissa C. Colucci, has been and will be deprived of the assistance, society, companionship, contributions, and consortium of her husband, Marl< S. Colucci, to her great detriment and financial loss. 16 ~?/h.t ..-1 ,;~qn,;7.).v.!'; n L c!3gS SZ8C S1G 53~In""35 WI~I~ 9l~ ""~ 01: n 00, 80 Nnr .. . WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Melissa C. Colucci, demands judgment in an amount in excess of the limits for mandatory arbitration plus interest, delay damages and costs of suit. Respectfully submitted, ' tephe M. Greecher, Jr. Attorney's J.D. No. 36803 111 North Front Street P. O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-412.1 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS ____ / .-r-/ QATE: -S j,}.>-'5( (/0 28679.1 17 r'--;;1",I":l':l'"..J C~OTTC7JTJTC nl 7~OC ~7 C,7 o~~Tn~~5 WI~J~ 91~ ~~ 01:11 00, 80 Nnr VERI FICA nON I, the undersigned Plaintiff, acknowledge that the facts stated in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, 28329.1 _-::0 "".,.-=-....J C~OTTC~JTJTC n} ?~~C ~~~ Ct? ~~~T~~3S Wr~iJ 9r~ ~~ 0!:!! 00. 80 Nnr VERIFICATION I, the undersigned Plaintiff, acknowledge that the facts stated in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C,SA Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~-6t.:;~ {J t2t-<..OA' MELISSA C, COLUCCI, Plaintiff 28712.1 C"'7/';:1";>"..J ""'''TT'''').VT.<; nl "l?\qc: >RZ <;tG 53~1f'l~35 WI~I~ 8Il:i ~~ non 00,80 Nnr "'* >;2:"38~d 1~10.L ** CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ';;<5 tt. day of MAY, 2000, I, JACQUELYN A. ZETILEMOYER, Secretal)l to STEPHEN M. GREECHER, JR., ESQUIRE, for the firm, TucRer Arensberg & Swartz, attomeys for Plaintiffs, hereby certify that I have this day served the within Complaint by depositing a true and correct copy of the same, in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to: Stephen E. Gedutdig, Esquire' Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 North Front Street . P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 COUNSEL FOR CANNONDALE CORP. PROFILE DESIGN, INC. 156 North Jefferson, Suite #302 Chicago, IL 60661-1136 28945.1 >:U>:c"d PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. 156 North Jefferson, Suite #302 Chicago,IL 60661-1136 GALLOP CYCLE CORP. 2677 EI Presidio street Carson, CA 90810 ~1r-€<r q.~,~~) Jacquelyn 'A.. Zettlemoyer . 609116c~1~16 01 2:09S SSe s1c S3~In~35 WI~IJ 8I~ ~~ 11:11 00, 80 Nnr .- 'J Stephen E. GedUldig, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 43530 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 (717) 237.7100 E-Mail: seq@tthlaw.com - ---- Attorneys for Defendant: CANNONOALE CORPORATION MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, his wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. Civil Action -- Law NO. 2000-1110 Civil CANNON DALE CORPORATION; PROFILE DESIGN, INC.;' PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC.; and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO, P~a~nt~ffs and the~r counse~ Defendant, Prof~le Des~gn, Inc. and ~ts counsel Defendant, Profile for Speed, Inc. and its counse~ .. Defendant, Gallop Cycle Corp. and i. ts counsel YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. i THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 7/r 1(06 :97827.2 By: STEPHEN E. GEbULDIG, . ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 4jS30 Attorneys for Defendant, CANNONDALE CORPORATION . Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Attorney 1.0. No. 43530 THOMAS. THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 (717) 237-7100 E-Mail: seq@tthlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant CANNONDALE CORPORATION MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, his wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. Civil Action -- Law NO. 2000-1110 Civil CANNON DALE CORPORATION; PROFILE DESIGN, INC.;' PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC.; and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, CANNONDALE CORPORATION, TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Defendant, Cannondale Corporation (~Answering DefendantH), by and through its undersigned counsel, Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire, of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, and files the following Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint: 1. i Denied pursuant to Pa, R.C.P. 1029(e). : 2. Admitted. 6. No response required of Answering Defendant. No resp9nse .required of An$wering Defendant. '., : No response required .c.f Answering Defeii<;l?nt. .' '.~' No response requiFed pf Answering Defendant. .-.-;., ..-'" : .. " ....;.':>~ \.: 3. 4. 5. .:' 7. No response required of Answering Defendant. 8 . No response required of Answering Defendant. 9. No response required of Answering Defendant. 10. No response required of Answering Defendant. U. No response required of Answering Defendant. 12. No response required of .Answering Defendant. 13. No response is required as this does not contain an averment of fact. 14. required this does contain - No response is as not an averment of fact. 15. No response is required as this does not contain an averment of fact. 16. Admitted. 17. No response is required of Answering Defendant. 18. No response is required of Answering Defendant. FAc::TS 19. Denied pursuant to Pa.. R,C.P. 1029(e) . 20. Denied plirsuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (el . 21- Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) . 22. Denied pursuant to Pa. R,C.P. 1029 (e). 23. Denied pursuant to pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 24. Den.ied pursuant to Pi;. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 25. Denied pursuant to Pa, R.C.P. 1029 (e) . , ?o~~:.". 2 38. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P, 1029 (e) . 39 a.-j. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P, 1029(e). 40. Denied a! legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C,P. 1029(e) . WHEREFORE, Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, respectfully requests that Pla,intiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and judgment'.entered in its fa'toJ;i, j; COUNT I Mark S. Colucci v. Cannondale Corporation Strict Liability 41. No response is required as this is a paragraph of incorporation. 42. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (..e) . 43. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 44. Denied a~ legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa,. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 45 a.-g. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P, 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Defendant, Canhondale Corporation, respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be di.smissed in its entirety and judgment entered in its fa'voL ',. CPUNT n: Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci v, Cannondale Corporation Negligence 46. No response is required as this is a paragraph. of incorporatio:n. 4 . 47. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 48 a.-f. Denied as legal conclusions and~ursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) WHEREFORE, Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and judgment entered in its favor. COUNT III Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci v. Cannondale Corporation Breach of Warranty j" . '. 5 COUNT IV Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci v. Defendants, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. 53-58. No response is required of Answering Defendant. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismiss~d in its enti~ety and judgment entered in its favor. COtniT V Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci v. Defendants, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. 59-61. No response is required of Answering Defendant. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and judgment entered .in it~ favor. ,.-t,:',. .. COUNT VI Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci v. Defendants, Profile Design, Inc., Profiie .for. Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycie CorP.' 62-65. No xesponse is required of Answering Defendant. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and judgment 'en.tered in its fa'<:or. :~.'.:", .,"'f,. :::~< <. 'J~i, . ,:~~", . ',~! ,',' COUNT VII Plaintiff, Melissa C. Colucci v. Defendants, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. Loss of Consortium 66. No response is required as this is a paragraph of incorporation. 67. Denied aQ legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C,P. 1029 (e) . WHEREFORE, Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, respectfully requests that P1aintiffs~ Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and judgment entered in its favor. NEW MATTER 68. Paragraphs 1 through 67, above, are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 69. -Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, asserts'that this action may be barred by the doctrines of res' judicata and/or collateral estoppel, which are asserted herein. i. 70. Any and all damages, injuries and losses allegedly sustained by Plaintiff~ Mark S, Colucci, may be due to the negligence and carelessnes;, of Pl,a,intiff, Mark S, Col,'\1ccif;. and such CO~(h.!ct Serves t~,iEi,9u;C~, e;>r ,b;~r his recovery, pursuant, to the . , '-~.<~~~~:' ,- . '~,:'. :,.' 10'/:,:~:" ""$"" ..' e...., . :.-:~-- ;;.~ , terms of the Pennsylvania Camparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa.C.S. s7102. 71. Any damages, lasses and/ar injuries allegedly sustained by Plaintiff, Mark S. Calucci, may have been caused in whale ar in part by the canduct af Plaintiff, Mark S. Calucci, in: (a) Misusing the praduct. (b) Failing to. read and fallaw instructians, natices and warning accampanying the praduct. (c) Failing to. uSe the praduct far the purpase far which it was designed and intended. (d) Madifying the praduct in a manner unautharized by the manufacturer, which madificatian~ resulted in substantial changes to. the praduct. (e) Altering the praduct in a manner unautharized by the manufacturer, which alteration resulted in a substantial ch3Qge to. the praduct. 72. At all times herein I(lentianed, any praducts sald by Defendant, Cannondale Corparatian were sate and free fram any defects. , 73. At the time any praduct sald by Defendant, Cannandale ,Co~poratio.!l, . left 'i~:care,' custady and contral, it was free fram , i. defects and was accampaniedby,instructians ane!' f'larnings which rendered the praductsate far its intended use as well as any reasanably fareseea,b.le use.. 74. Plaintiff ,Marls'S'; Calucci, may haveassume.Q,'the >:;is;Jso", at ~,~': ~:::t "", hi-$ ,own injury. .,;, " :i. '" 8 -i'i:4... . 75. No product allegedly sold by Defendan.t, Cannondale Corporation was the proximate cause of any injuries and/or damages sustained by the Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. 76. Any damages or i~turies allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, were proximately caused by' individuals and entities other than Defendant, CannondaleCorporation, including, but not limited to Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, and others. 77. Plaintiff~ fa~l to plead a cause of action for a breach of warranty. 78. In thealt_e_rnative, Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, breached no warranty. 79. In the further' alternative, no warranty or breach thereof, denied as aforesaid, caused Plaintiff's alleged-injuries and damages. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and judgment, entered in its favor. i. Respectfully submitted, 7 {clf;b :97827.1 ""'''''By: T,HOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP STEPH~" A,ttorney' I, D. N,Q'.' 4,3'530 .;.... . .,', :Attorrieys fO,r 6efer;d,~i:i;i:i' j"tiANNONDALE GO~O:AATi~i'i'" ,";:,,,..:.fi:;:::' -/-.. '!~ - " ,- . VERIFICATION I, David Campbell, hereby verify that the averments made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A, 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. G" ?[? - Dv i. _::.~--;t" " ' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served by depositing the same in the United States Mail, post~. prepaid, at Harrisburg, . Pennsyl vania, on the I r V'-- day of July, 2000, on all counsel of record as follows: Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., Esquire TUCKER, ARENSBERG & SWARTZ Post Office BOK 889 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-0889 Attorneys for P~a~nt~ff Michael A. Boomsma, Esquire POST & SCHELL 237 North Prince Street Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17603 Attorneys for Defendants, Prof~~e Des~gn, Inc., Prof~~e for Speed, Inc. and Ga~~op Cycle Corp. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP i .:~-;:.:.~: '~". , POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: MICHAEL A. BOOMSMA, ESQUIRE LD. # 56062 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY P.O. BOX 10248 LANCASTER, P A 17605-0248 (717) 291-4532 MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants. C' '." (':-, r";::'<l ,-......:.:.......- h., ..~I. ""-" ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS PROFILE DESIGN, INC. fld/b/a PROFILE FOR SPEED AND GALLOP CYCLE CORP, COURT OF C01vf:MON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 200-1110- CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE TO PI ,F.A n TO: Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., Esquire TUCKER ARENSBERG & SWARTZ Attorney for Plaintiffs YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to plead to the within Answer and New Matter within twenty (20) days of service thereof or a default may be entered against you. ~I!.. I i , I ".f"-~ " ': " \ POST & SCHELL, P.e. BY: MICHAEL A. BOOMSMA, ESQUIRE LD. # 56062 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY P.O. BOX 10248 LANCASTER, PA 17605-0248 (717) 291-4532 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS PROFILE DESIGN, INC. fld/b/a PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. AND GALLOP CYCLE CORP. MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, his wife, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiffs, NO, 200-1110- CIVIL TERM v. (') CIVIL ACTION - LAW ~ -,:::1.... 2~:~( ~L '-" C) ,~ '::-;:; CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., " F3 .-, '--, n, . ': '.~; Defendants, ~;c: JURY TRIAL DEMANImD t,,) =< ~ ..: c. ~ '~', ~~ -:;.: ANSWRR AND N'f,W MATTER OF J>EFENJ)4NTS, PROFTLR DESTGN, TNC. f/d!h/" PROFILIi; FOR flP{i;Rn and GALLOP CVrLR Conp. TO PI ,A TNTIFFS' COMPI ,A TNT Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. fld/b/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp., by and through its counsel, Post & ScheU, P.C" hereby files answers to Plaintiffs' Complaint in accordance with the numbered paragraphs thereof: 1. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraphs and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 2. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the .. ~, corresponding paragraphs and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 3. Admitted with qualification. Profile Design, Inc. is an Illinois corporation formerly doing business as Profile for Speed. 4. Denied. Profile for Speed was an umegisteredlunfiled fictitious name of Profile Design, Inc. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted with quaiification. Profile Design, Inc, formerly did business .as Profile for Speed, an umegisteredlunfiled fictitious name. 7. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is denied Profile Design, Inc. is a successor corporation to Profile for Speed. It is admitted Profile Design, Inc. is liable for and responsible for the obligations of Profile for Speed. 8. Denied. Profile Design, Inc. is not a successor corporation to Profile for Speed, Rather, Profile Design, Inc. formerly did business as Profile for Speed, an unregisteredlunfiled fictitious name. 9. Denied, Gallop Cycle Corp. is a separate and distinct entity from Profile Design, Inc, f/d/b/a Profile for Speed. 10. Denied. It is denied that Gallop Cycle Corp. is a successor corporation to Profile Design, Inc, f/d/b/a Profile for Speed and, as such, is liable and responsible for the obligations and liabilities of Profile Design, Inc. fi'd/b/a Profile for Speed. To the contrary, Gallop Cycle Corp. is a separate entity, -2- ."\ 11. Denied. Gallop Cycle Corp. is a separate and distinct entity from Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed. 12. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Gallop Cycle Corp. is a corporation independent from Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed. It is denied, however, that it is liable for the claims made by Plaintiffs herein. Strict proof thererof is demanded at the time oftrial. 13. No responsive pleading is required. 14. No responsive pleading is required. 15, No responsive pleading is required. 16. The averments contained in paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs' Compiaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 17. The averments contained in paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. 18. Denied. Defendant Gallop Cycle Corp, is not a successor to the Profile Defendants and is not responsible for the obligations and liabilities of the Profile Defendants. As for the balance of the averments, same are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. FACTS 19. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time oftrial, ifrelevant. -3- 20. After reasonable investigation, E?swering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time oftrial, if relevant. 21. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 22. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time oftrial, if relevant. 23, After reasonabie investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. By way of further response, answering defendants believe Plaintiffs are referring to the bicylce's stem when referencing a "T" assembly which may have been found and/or a component part of a Cannonclaie bicycle allegediy purchased by plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. 24. Denied. It is denied that the handiebars were placed in the "T" assembly by the Profile Defendants or Defendant Gallop. Strict proofis demanded at the time of tria!. -4- 25. Admitted in part, denied in part. If the bicycle in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, distributed and otherwise piaced in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc, fld/b/a Profile for Speed. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. 26, After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowiedge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity ofthe averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, ifrelevant. 27. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied, Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if reievant. 28. After reasonabie investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 29. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 30. After reasonable investigation, 'answering defendants lack information or knowledg~ sufficient to form a belief as to the trUth or falsity of the averments contained in the -5- , corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 31. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a Delief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proofis demanded at the time of trial, ifreievant. 32. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial , if relevant. 33. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or faisity ofthe averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of triai, if relevant. 34. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of tria!, if relevant, 35. After reasonabie investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict preofis demanded at the time of tria!, if relevant, -6- , 36. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a beiief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 37. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proofis demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. OAMAQRS 38. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowiedge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or faisity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time oftrial, if relevant. 39. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph including subparts (a) through (j) and the same are therefore denied. Strict proofis demanded at the time oftria!, if relevant. 40. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of tria!, if relevant. COTlNTT Mark S. Colncci v. Cannondale Corporation -7- . Strict T ,iahility 41 -45. The averments contained in these paragraphs are directed to a party other than answering defendants, therefore, no response is required. COTTNT H flaintiff, Mark S Colncci v. Cannondale Corporation Ner;Jir;ence 46-48. The averments contained in these paragraphs are directed to a party other than answerings defendants, therefore, no response is required. COTJNT HT Plaintiff, M:::Irk S. ~olncd v. nf':fP.~cJ3nt, Cannnnrl31e Corporation Rreach of Warranty 49-52. The averments contained in these paragraphs are directed to a party other than answering defendants, therefore, no response is required. COTTNT TV PlaintiffM:::Irk S. CoIned v. hp:ffmrlants, ProfilE': 'flp:5;ien, Tn~. Profile for Speed, Tnc., and Gallop Cycle Corp. 53. No responsive pleading is required. 54. Admitted in part, denied in part. Ifthe bicycle in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc. fi'dIb/a Profile for Speed. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. As to the balance of the averments referencing a "T" assembly, after reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack -8- information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averments and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 55. Admitted in part, denied in part. Ifthe bicycie in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed with the expectation that the handlebars would become part of a bicycle such as a Cannondale and reach consumers such as Plaintiff. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. As to the balance of the averments, including any reference to other component parts, after reasoIlabie investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proofis demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 56. Admitted in part, denied in part. If the bicycle in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc, Vd/b/a Profile for Speed. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. As to the balance of the averments, including any reference to other component parts, after reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proofis demanded at the time of trial, if relevant, 57. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 57 ofPiaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which nl) responsive pleading is required, By way of further response, ifthe bicycle in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, -9- '! distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc., f7d/b/a Profile for Speed not in a defective condition or unreasonably dangerous for their intended, foreseeable use, It is denied Defendant Galiop has any connection with Profile handlebars. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time oftlia!. 58, The averments contained in paragraph 58 of Plaintiffs , Complaint including subparts (a) through (h), are conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, if the bicycie in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc, f7d/b/a Profile for Speed. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp., request this Honorabie Court enter judgment in their favor and against all other parties. (COTTNT V Plaintiff, Mark S. (Colucci v. Defendants, Profil~ DesirJ1. Tnc. Profile for Speed, Tnc., and Gallop (Cycle (Corp. 59. No responsive pleading is required. 60. The averments contained in paragraph 60 ofPiaintiffs' Compiaint are conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, if the bicycie in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc, -10- , fi'd/b/a Profile for Speed. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. 61. The averments contained in paragraph 61 including subparts (a) through (i) of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, if the bicycle in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc, fi'd/b/a Profile for Speed. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. fi'd/b/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp., request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all other parties. COUNT VT Plaintiff, Marl> S Coln"cj v. Defendants, Profil" Jlesizn, Tn"., Profile for Speed, Tn". and ~allop r<yde Corp. 62. No responsive pleading is required. 63, The averments contained in paragraph 63 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, if the bicycle in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc, Vd/b/a Profile for Speed. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. As to any other component parts and "Tn assembly, after reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or -11- . falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, ifrelevant. 64. The averments contained in paragraph 64 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required, By way of further response, if the bicycle in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, fnc, Vd/b/a Profile for Speed. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. As to any other component parts and "T" assembly, after reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 65. The averments contained in paragraph 65 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp., request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against ali other parties. COTJNT VTT -12- EI~intiff, Mp.:Ii!\~~ C. ColllC'.d v. nefp.nrlant~~ C~nnnnfbllp.: rorpor~tion, ProfiT" O".ign, In" , ProfiT" for Sp"",d, Tn". and Ganop Cy"'" Corp. T IO~~ of Cnn~ortinm 66. The averments contained in paragraph 66 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conciusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. 67. The averments contained in paragraph 67 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Sp~ed and Gallop'Cycle Corp., request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all other parties. NRWMATTRR 68. Plaintiff was comparatively negligent. 69. Plaintiff misused the product and his actions with regard to said misuse were not reasonably foreseeable. 70, Plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. , 71. Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed and GaUop Cycle Corp. are not strictly liable to Plaintiffs. 72. Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed and GaUop Cycle Corp. breached no duty of care to Plaintiffs. 73. Any damages were the result of third party actions and/or the actions of Plaintiff. 74. Plaintiff assumed the risk of using the bicycle in question. -13- 75. To the extent it is established that any product designed and/or distributed by Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. fi'dlb/a Profile for Speed and Gal10p Cycle Corp. was involved in the incident complained of by Plaintiffthen, upon information and belief, said product was fit for its irilended purpose at the time it left Answering Defendants' care, custody and controL 76. Plaintiffs' claims are barred to the extent it is established that Plaintiffs have failed to timely file and serve sufficient process against Answering Defendants within the statutorily prescribed period for limitations on negligence and products liabiiity actions. 77. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited to the extent it is established that Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages. 78. Plaintiffs' claims are barred to the extent it is established that the involved product was not properly maintained and/or instalied and that said improper maintenance and/or instal1ation created the condition which caused the incident complained of by Plaintiff. 79, Plaintiffs' claims are barred to the extent that the subject product was misused and/or abused after it left the care, custody or control of Answering Defendants. 80. Plaintiffs' claims against Answering Defendant are barred to the extent it is established that the subject product underwent material and/or substantial changes from the condition it was in when it al1egedly left Answering Defendants' possession, custody and control. 81. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the doctrines of accord and satisfaction, release and/or set-off to the extent it is established that Plaintiffs' have entered into -14- " . any agreements or releases relating to any damages allegedly suffered by the Plaintiffs in the incident in question. 82. Answering Defendants expressly reserve and preserve those defenses which need not be specifically pled under the Pennsyivania Ruies of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp., request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all other parties. POST & SCHELL, MA BY: -15- < VERIFICATION l, Michael A. Boomsma, Esquire, hereby state that I am the attorney for Defendants, Profile Design, lnc, f/d/b/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp., in this action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing document(s) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S., Section 4904, relating to the unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE:~O() " .... "., .. CRRTTFICATF, OF SRRVTCR I, Michael A. Boomsma, Esquire, attorney for Defendants, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gaiiop Cycle Corp. hereby state that the foregoing document was sent by first- class mail, postage prepaid on the date set forth to the foliowing: Stephen M. Greecher, Ir. TUCKER ARENSBERG & SW AR TZ 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, Pa 17108-0889 Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, P A 17108-0999 Dated: -z I (Lif 00 "-'''-' ....-.. U-. I" ,.........., ,,,,..... .......... "'-.............. ...... ............--..........."-'-' ,'-' .................' .''-'-'''-'~,- Re: Colucci v. Profile Design, Inc. VRRTFTCATJON I HEREBY VERIFY that the statements made by Defendant, Cannondale Corporation and are contained in the within .Joinder Complaint ofDefendant<, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Tor, Profile for Speed, Tor. and Gallop Cycle Corp. Dirpcted tn Vih Chene M"nllfgetllrine Comp~td. tldlbb. Alien are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements contained herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa C.s. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, 1 certify that I am a duly authorized representative of Cannondale Corporation and as such, am authorized to make this Verification on its behalf, BY: /) ,J (;;/~ -~N. David Campbell CannondaleCorporation DATED: 9-17 - 2000 \. T . VRRIFICATION I, Michaei A. Boomsma, Esquire, hereby state that I am the attorney for Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. f/dIb/a Profile for Speed and Gaiiop Cycle Corp., in this action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing ,Ioinder Complaint ofDef"ndants, Cannondale Cm:poration, Profile Desien, Inc, Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop C:yde Corp Directed to YilLChene MannfJldJ1rine Company, I ,td. t/dfh/a Alico are true and correct to the best of my knowiedge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements theJein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S., Section 4904, relating to the unsworn falsification to authorities, DATE:~ '2-21l OD II. , > . CERTIFTCATF, OF SERVICE I, Michael A. Boomsma, Esquire, attorney for Defendants, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. hereby state that the foregoing document was sent by first-class mail, postage prepaid on the date set forth to the following: Stephen M. Greecher, Jf. TUCKER ARENSBERG & SWARTZ 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 889 , Harrisburg, Pa 17108-0889 Dated: C{(?U (CO Micliae ~ .- . . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michael A. Boomsma, Esquire, attorney for Defendants, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp, hereby state that the foregoing document was sent by first-class mail, postage prepaid on the date set forth to the following: Stephen M. Greecher, Jr. TUCKER ARENSBERG & SWARTZ III North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 00 POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: MICHAEL A. BOOMSMA, ESQUIRE LD. # 56062 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY P.O. BOX 10248 LANCASTER, P A 17605-0248 (717) 291-4532 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS MARK S. COLUCCI and :MELISSA C, COLUCCI, his wife, COURT OF COM:MON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiffs, NO. 200-1110- CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants, v. Ylli CHENG MANUF ACTURlNG COMPANY, LTD. t/dIb/aALICO Third-Party Defendant. PRAF,CIPF, TO SlJRS'TlTlJTF, VF,RIFlCATION TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly substitute the attached Verifications of Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. f7d1b/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycie Corp., for the Verification of Michael A. Boomsma, Esquire to the Joinder Complaint of Defendants, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. Directed to Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd. t/d/b/a AIico which was filed in the above-captioned matter. BY: SEP 19 '00 14:03 FR POST RND SCHELL 717 291 1609 TO 13107470085 P.04/04 Rc: Colucci v. Profile Design, Inc:. VF.RTFT(;ATTON I HEREBY VERIFY that the statements made by Defendant, Profile Design, Inc. fi'd/b/a Profile for Speed and are contained in the within Joinder f:nmplaint nfOp.fp.nrllmts. Can.nondale Corporation, l'rofile Design,..lD-c; Prnfile fnr Speed, In" and r."lIo.~ Cor.p. Direded.to Yih Cheng Mam1facturing.c.o.D1PJl11lY. Ltd. r/dlhfa AI;"n are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements contained herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa, c.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. I certify that I am a duly authorized representative of Profile Design, Inc. fi'd/b/a Profile for Speed and as such, am authorized to make this Verification on its behalf. BY: cf ------ DATED: "".}! {9../-rl Steve Tang Profile Design, Inc. fld/b/a Profile for Speed ** TOTRL PRGE.04 ** 5EP 19 '00 14:03 FR POST RND SCHELL 717 291 1609 TO 13107470085 P.03/04 Re: Colucci v. Profile Design. Inc, Vii: RIFIC A TION I HEREBY VERIFY that the statements made by Defendant, Gallop Cycle Coxp., and are contained in the within .loinder Complaint of Qefendants...C.al1ll.onclale Corporation, Profile Design,.IIU:, Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop C:y:~e Co'll' Ilitected to Yih Cheng Ml!nllfacturing..C.lllI1p.any,Ltd tl.-llh/~ Alic" are true and correct to the best of my Imowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements contained herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. I certify that I am a duly authorized representative of Gallop Corp. and as such, am authorized to make this Verification on its behalf. BY: ~ DATED: -51( "( !. (J0 Ernest Lai Gallop Cycle Coxp. CF.RTTFTCATF. OF SF.RVICF. I, Sandra Morales, an employee of the law offices of Post & Schell, P.C., do hereby certifY that on the date set forth below, I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following person(s) at the following addressees) by sending same in the United States mail, first- class, postage prepaid: Stephen M, Greecher, Jr. TUCKER ARENSBERG & SWARTZ 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, P A 17108-0889 Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd. 470. Chang Shui Rd. Sec. 4, Pituo Hsiang Changhua, Taiwan cS~~ SANDRA MORALES Dated: /0/2/00 f ( -2- (') ~ uG.J mf1: Z:r! -7"- (j)",:,,- ~6 ~C) ::;6 >c:: ~ =< c::> Ci C) C) -l I W 'V ::r. '& "" r'-' C) -_'1'1 .-, -,. ;(1F ~~~''i'1 ~':)O ,::) L ,_'1(,..) ---,-"1, ."- ,., r..:;?(~ bcn > ~ " __J IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Civil Action - Law ~oco- /nD Go..:Lj~ MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C, COLUCCI, His Wife One Country Club Place West Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011, CANNONDALE CORPORATION 172 Friendship Road Bedford, Bedford County, Pennsylvania 15522-6600 PROFILE DESIGN, INC. 156 North Jefferson, Suite #302 Chicago, Illinois 60661-1136; Plaintiffs PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. 156 North Jefferson, Suite #302 Chicago, Illinois 60661-1136; GALLOP CYCLE CORP. 2677 El Presidio Street Carson, California 90810; Versus JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiff(s) Address (es) and Defendant(s) and Acidress (es) PRAEC:IPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please issue Writs of ,Surrunons in the, abpve-captioned action on behalf of Plaintiffs, Mark S. Colucci and Melissa C. Colucci, His Wife. (8) Attorney (1) Sheriff. (10) Writs of Surrunons shall be issued and Stephen M. Greecher, Jr. TUCKER ARENSBERG & SWARTZ 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 889_ Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717 234-4121 igna Supreme Court 1. D. #36803 Date: WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS: YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFFS HAVE COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU, IV (1M~ .J [).~ 'p othonotary Date: jp~~ .:J/p, ::J (')0(') '--.?y~,.,.-'>o P J P 7pc-Y.>/24'Y. J Deputy ~~ ....... t .....() ....... c2 --.. :t ~ !11 h C> ~ q ~ ~~ J:~ o 0 f;: CJ (::; _;:.; --T'J -n ~q~ d _"-.1 G;~~_.' {~ ~c; $~ i~~~ r::? z: :;;::n .... rr'l .""1 ::J ,- ..:r-: ::--:;:::; 9"'1 ~~ =< 9 G 8 -...~ Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Attorney I.D. No, 43530 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 (717) 237-7100 E-Mail: seolaJ.tthlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant: CANNON DALE CORPORATION MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, his wife, Plaintiffs v. CANNON DALE CORPORATION; PROFILE DESIGN, INC.; PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC,; and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Civil Action -- Law NO, 2000-1110 Civil JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire, and Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, as attorneys for Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, in the above-captioned matter, reserving our right to answer or otherwise plead to Plaintiffs' Complaint. f if( /co :89262.1 I By: Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP STEPHEN E. GEDULDIG, ESQU E Attorney I.D. No, 43530 Attorneys for Defendant, CANNONDALE CORPORATION _. > CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, 1'l::;,tyV Pennsylvania, on the LJ day of March, 2000, on all counsel of record as follows: Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., Esquire TUCKER, ARENSBERG & SWARTZ Post Office Box 889 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-0889 Attorneys for Plaintiff THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Rosa B. Ku y . '-"'00. 0 C> 0 C 0 'T1 ~ :2-n ""- ~ "Om :J:.~ r<1rn :;;0 n1- Z::o :::,Fn zr;::: c' 09 en ,~ -<7 _...0 r::o -u -:e::n ~~ ::;:: r.;.~(=:; z~) 6m -=0 '-:? Pc: -~ ~ ~ ~ Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Attorney I.D, No, 43530 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 Nortn front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania .17108 (717) 237.7100 E.Mail: seq@tthlaw.com Att9rneys for Defendant CANNONOALE CORPORATION MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, his wife, Plaintiffs v. CANNONDALE CORPORATION; PROFILE DESIGN, INC,; PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC.; and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Civil Action -- Law NO. 2000-1110 Civil JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE AND RULE TO FILE A COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue a Rule on Plaintiffs to file a Complaint in the above case within twenty (20) days after service of the Rule or suffer a judgment of non pros. ~pGbo :93371, ' By: NOW, I1J:ll1-i l ;;1.7 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP S" PHEN E. GEDULDIG, '" QUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 43530 Attorneys for Defendant, CANNONDALE CORPORATION RULE , 2000, RULE IS ISSUED AS ABOVE. /~/ fL,7(A';1! ~ ~iothonotary (") c ~ \,J- C 0 ~n <- = :--::1 -oO~ -0 nlr-.; ::0 " :-:".-! Z:T.' ,'- "" :T; Z,- ~)::( (:"3":1'... .-..J '. r'e " ~-, :'.J .> ,. :::~ '.' :~.~ ::!} "':;;:C:J ~~,~(""") ~::~ r:? ~iTl :..:J -> :=, 0":"', -, =< " . Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Attorney 1.0. No. 43530 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 (717) 237-7100 E.Mail: seq@tthlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant: CANNONDALE CORPORATION MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, his wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. Civil Action -- Law NO. 2000-1110 Civil CANNONDALE CORPORATION; PROFILE DESIGN, INC.; PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC.; and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please file of record the "ttached ,Certificate of Service which served the Rule to File a Complaint upon Plaintiffs issued by the Prothonotary of Cuml:>erland County on April 27, 2000, with regard to the above-captioned matter. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP r/u:(oZ:> :93371.2 By: s:r~____../ ~ --k! ST~HE-;; E~ ~E-DU~D;G,7S~UIRE Attorney I.D. No. 43530 Attorneys for Defendant, CANNONDALE CORPORATION .. Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Attomey 1.0. No. 43530 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 (717) 237.7100 E.Mail: seq@tthlaw.com -Attorneys for Defendant: CANNONDALE CORPORATION MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, his wife, Plaintiffs v. CANNON DALE CORPORATION; PROFILE DESIGN, INC.; PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC.; and GALLOP CYCLE CORP" Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Civil Action -- Law NO. 2000-1110 Civil JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE AND RULE TO FILE A COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: C) . ~ :..~ - ,.., - - ~.,- " .-, . ~.:~ '- ~~ r" C , -' - .., ~7 ,-, , . ~ > ~ ."V -, (.0 :::::: -, -< -< Please issue a Rule on Plaintiffs to file a Complaint in the above case within twenty (20) days after service of the Rule or suffer a judgment of non pros. :933~,f b ,hy; By:_ NOW, {)f'n" ( :2.7 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP S. PHEN E. GEDOLDIG, . QUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 43530 Attorneys for Defendant, CANNONDALE CORPORATION RULE , 2000, RULE IS ISSUED AS ABOVE. IJ/ (?/?7;-~ ) 2. 4 'Prothonotary CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT document was served by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on the <9. ~~day of April, 2000, on all counsel of record as follows: Stephen M. Greeche.r, Jr., Esquire TUCKER, ARENS BERG & SWARTZ Post Office Box 889 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania l7108~0889 Attorneys for Plaintiff THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP :89203.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE SERVING THE EXECUTED RULE TO FILE A COMPLAINT EXECUTED BY THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY PROTHONOTARY ON APRIL 27, 2000 was served by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on the ~ day of April, 2000, on all counsel of records as follows: Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., Esquire TUCKER, ARENSBERG & SWARTZ Post Office Box 889 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-0889 Attorneys for Plaintiff THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Rosa B. :89203.1 ~ o c -"'- .-,~ :::7:. tg z':.: :;k. .< ...;::-~., '-- ~ , , >~'l ,-, , , ... ::; , ~ ,-~, '-~'._, -,- -,-, ~t' ....J :2 ---__"'f ~ SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2000-01110 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND COLUCCI MARK S ET AL VS CANNONDALE CORPORATION 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 f to wit; CANNONDALE CORPORATION but was unable to locate Them in his bailiwick. He therefore // deputized the sheriff of BEDFORD County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS On May 4th , 2000 ,this office was in receipt of the attached return from BEDFORD Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County Surcharge Dep. Bedford Co 18.00 ,9,00 10.00 25.75 .00 62.75 05/04/2000 TUCKER ARENS BERG So R. T oinas Kl ine Sheriff of cumberland county Sworn and subscribed to before me this ,f~ day Of~ d~" A.D. C'~L C2. Yn,N:.-,~ , Prothonotary: ""'''_oJ_ -~ "Ih The Court of Common PIGas~o;f Cumberland Cou,niy, Pennsylvania Mark S. Colucci VS, CannondaleCorporation, et. al. Serve: Cannondale Corporation No, 20-1110 Civil Now, 3/1/00 _, , 2000 , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, P A,do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Bedford County to execute this Wri~ this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. ,~, t Sheriff of Cumberland County, P A Affidavi.t of Service ' Now, March 7 , 20~ at 2: 15 o'clock P M, served the within Writ of Summons upon Cannondale Corporation 172 Friendship Rd., Bedford, PA 15522 at by handing to Kenni Harklerode-HR/Safety Admin. Asst. copy of the original Writ of SUmInons a and made known to , Him the contents thereof. So answers, j;~ L ).:JI Sheriff of Bedtord County, PA Sworn al1.dSUbSCribefjryfore me this I Sf- day of fN COSTS SERVICE MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT $18.00 3.25 4.50 $ , 20 eX.) ~!!;J- v1'fiJ>~'/)I' 1-0) M./TfIf' (JUJ::;U ) ~ 7V-Jp- $ 25.75 PAID miV ~ ~ N,')1c.ry Pubr~ 6ed:..;"'ood T'8p.~ t'i5~fe:'j Co~-n'!';:-. v-:... . A~l Ca&:.t.-~a c..;:;.;.::;; fs~ zs. :rOO2 J .-, .' MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, His Wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2000 -1110 CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS 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 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 (800) 990-9108 NOTICIA Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paquinas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demand a y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita 0 en persona 0 por abogado y archivar en la corte enforma escrita sus defensas 0 sus objeciones alas demand as en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, fa corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin .-, previo aviso 0 notificacion y por cualquier queja 0 alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus propiedades 0 otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO 0 SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DON DE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 (800) 990-9108 TUCKER ARENSBERG & SWARTZ By: tephe M. Greecher, Jr. Attorney I. D. No. 36803 111 North Front Street P. O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS DATED: 5/;;s/otJ 28710.1 2 .-. MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, His Wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2000 -1110 CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT Parties 1. Plaintiffs are Mark S. Colucci and Melissa C. Colucci, His Wife, adult individuals residing at 1 Country Club Place West, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011. 2. Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, is a corporation with offices located at 172 Friendship Road, Bedford, Bedford County, Pennsylvania 15522-6600. 3. Defendant, Profile Design, Inc., is a corporation with offices located at 156 North Jefferson Street, Suite #302, Chicago, IL 60661-1136. 4. Defendant, Profile for Speed, Inc., is a corporation with offices located at 156 North Jefferson Street, Suite #302, Chicago, IL 60661-1136. 5. Defendant, Gallop Cycle Corp., is a corporation with its offices located at 2677 EI Presidio Street, Carson, California 90810. 6. It is believed and therefore averred that Profile Design, Inc. represents the current name of Profile for Speed, Inc. and is the same entity as Profile for Speed, Inc. ." 7. In the alternative, it is believed and therefore averred that Profile Design, Inc. , is a successor corporation to Profile for Speed, Inc., and is therefore liable for and responsible for the obligations and liabilities of Profile for Speed, Inc. 8. Profile Design, Inc. is a successor corporation to Profile for Speed, Inc., as a result of a merger, by acquisition of assets with the express or implicit assumption of liabilities, by means of a transaction amounting to a de facto merger, by means of a transaction in which Profile Design, Inc. is a continuation of Profile for Speed, Inc., or by means of a transaction in which Profile Design, Inc, acquired the assets of Profile for Speed, Inc. and continued the business of and manufacture of the products of Profile for Speed, Inc. 9. Gallop Cycle Corp. is the same entity as Profile Design, Inc. or Profile for Speed, Inc. in that Gallop Cycle Corp. represents the current name of Profile for Speed, Inc. or Profile Design, Inc. 10. In the alternative, Gallop Cycle Corp. is a successor corporation to Profile Design, Inc. or Profile for Speed, Inc. and, as such, is liable and responsible for the obligations and liabilities of Profile Design, Inc. or Profile for Speed, Inc. 11. Gallop Cycle Corp. is a successor corporation to Profile Design, Inc. or Profile for Speed, Inc., as a result of a merger, by acquisition of assets with the express or implicit assumption of liabilities, as a result of a transaction amounting to a de facto merger, as a result of a transaction in which Gallop Cycle Corp. is merely a continuation of Profile Design, Inc. or Profile for Speed, Inc., or by means of a transaction in which Gallop Cycle Corp. acquired the assets of Profile Design, Inc. or Profile for Speed, Inc. 2 : and continued the business of and manufacture of the products of Profile Design, Inc. or Profile for Speed, Inc. 12. In the alternative, Gallop Cycle Corp. is a corporation independent of Profile Design, Inc. and Profile for Speed, Inc., and is liable for the claims made by Plaintiffs herein. 13. Hereinafter, Cannondale Corporation is referred to as "Cannondale." 14. Hereinafter, Profile Design, Inc. and Profile for Speed, Inc. shall be referred to as "Profile" and all allegations made with respect to Profile shall be deemed to apply to Profile Design, Inc. and Profile for Speed, Inc., individually and collectively. 15. Hereinafter, Gallop Cycle Corp. shall be referred to as "Gallop." 16. Defendant Cannondale regularly conducts business in Pennsylvania and has a place of business located in Pennsylvania and is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of Pennsylvania. 17. The Profile defendants regularly conduct business in Pennsylvania, cause products manufactured and designed and sold by the Profile defendants to be shipped into and sold in Pennsylvania and the conduct of the Profile defendants inside or outside Pennsylvania caused harm in Pennsylvania and, therefore, the Profile defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of Pennsylvania. 18. Defendant Gallop, as the successor to the Profile defendants, is liable and responsible for the obligations and liabilities of those of the Profile defendants and is thereby subject to jurisdiction of the courts of Pennsylvania and Defendant Gallop causes products manufactured and designed and sold by Defendant Gallop to be 3 shipped into and sold in Pennsylvania and the conduct of Defendant Gallop inside or outside Pennsylvania caused harm in Pennsylvania and, therefore, the Defendant Gallop is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of Pennsylvania. Facts 19. In June 1996, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, purchased a Cannondale bicycle from the Runners' Roost Bike & Sport in Sunbury, Pennsylvania. 20. The Cannondale bicycle purchased by Mr. Colucci carried Serial No. HA B 00736 1577 BON60 engraved in the underside of the bottom bracket. 21. The bicycle is a road bike. 22. Said bicycle was manufactured, designed, assembled, supplied, sold, and placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Cannon dale. 23. At the time of delivery of the bicycle to Runners' Roost, the handlebars of said bicycle had been installed by Cannondale in the 'T' assemby in which the handlebars are mounted, with the "T" assembly then inserted into the stem of the bike by the Runners' Roost. 24. In the alternative, the handlebars were placed in the ''T'' assembly by the Profile Defendants or Defendant Gallop. 25. The handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle purchased by Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, were manufactured, designed, supplied, sold, put into the stream of commerce by the Profile defendants or Defendant Gallop. 26. The above described Cannondale bicycle and the handlebars of the Canl10ndale bicycle, in all aspects material hereto, were in substantially the same 4 , condition or had not been substantially changed from the time they were put into the stream of commerce until they came into the possession of Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, and until the time of the incident involving the Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. Alternatively, any changes were foreseeable to defendants. 27. On or about July 31, 1998, between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m., Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, was riding his Cannondale bicycle along Trindle Road in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 28. At that time, without warning and for no apparent reason, the handlebars of the Cannondale bicycle broke and, as a result, Mr. Colucci fell from the bike, suffering personal injuries, including a fracture to his right elbow with significant road burn. 29. After his fall, Mr. Colucci lay in a ditch for a period of time until he gathered himself. A passerby eventually came to assist Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. 30. Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, put his bike in the pickup truck of the passerby and the passerby gave Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, a ride to his home in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 31. After arriving home, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, was taken immediately to Holy Spirit Hospital by his wife, Plaintiff, Melissa C. Colucci. 32. At the Holy Spirit Hospital, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci's wounds were cleaned in a painful process and his arm was x-rayed and a fracture to Mr. Colucci's right elbow was diagnosed. Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, was fitted with a sling and then referred to the Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania for followup. 5 . 33. As a result of his injuries, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, went under a course of medical treatment and physical therapy. 34. Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, has been diagnosed with a rapidly progressive arthritic right elbow as a result of the injuries he suffered in this incident. 35. Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, has a loss of the range of motion in his right elbow that is permanent. 36. Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci has suffered a restriction and is limited in his activities as a result of the injuries that he has suffered. 37. Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, may need surgery in the future with respect to the injuries that he has suffered. DamaQes 38. As a result of the tortious conduct of Defendants and the breaches of warranty of Defendants as set forth herein, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, has suffered serious and significant injuries some of which are permanent and damages for which he makes a claim herein. 39. The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, include: a. Fractured right elbow; b. Rapidly progressive arthritis of the right elbow; c. Permanent restriction of the range of motion of the right elbow; d. Significant road burn, bruises, and abrasions; e. Severe pain and suffering, past and future; f. Medical or related expenses, past and future; 6 g. Future surgery; h. Disfigurement; i. Mental anguish, embarrassment, and humiliation, past and future; and j. A loss of life's pleasures, past and future. 40. As a result of the breaches of warranty by Defendants, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, has incurred damages to his bicycle and claims damages for breach of warranty and for the expense to repair the bicycle. COUNT I Mark S. Colucci v. Cannondale Corporation Strict Liabilitv 41. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 40 of the within Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 42. The Cannondale bicycle was designed, manufactured, assembled, distributed, sold, and supplied by Defendant Cannondale in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous for its intended and foreseeable uses, and said defects caused Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, to suffer severe and permanent injuries described herein, 43. The above described bicycle was designed, manufactured, distributed, sold and supplied by Defendant Cannondale and placed in the stream of commerce with the intention and expectation that it would reach a class of users and consumers such as Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. 7 44. Defendant Cannondale designed, manufactured, distributed, sold and supplied the Cannondale bicycle at issue in this case, intending it to be used and operated by individuals such as Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. 45. Defendant Cannondale is strictly liable in tort for designing, manufacturing, distributing, selling and supplying an unreasonably dangerous and defective bicycle in the following manner: a. The handlebars breaking on the Cannondale bicycle during normal use as described herein was a malfunction of the Cannondale bicycle, which malfunction would not occur in the absence of a defect; b. The handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle were defectively designed regarding their configuration, materials, and strength; c. The handlebars and the "T" assembly of the handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle were defectively designed with respect to their materials, configuration, and strength; d. The assembly of the handlebars in the "T" assembly was defective, resulting in a flaw, defect, or weakness of the handlebars; e. The handlebars contained a manufacturing defect and impurities in the handlebars; f. The handlebars were manufactured in such a manner as to not be able to endure the stresses and forces involved in the operation of the bicycle; and 8 g.The bicycle did not have adequate warnings or instructions regarding the potential breaking of the handlebars, adjustment or maintenance of the handlebars, or limitations on use of the bicycle regarding the handlebars. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, demands judgment against Defendant Cannondale Corporation in an amount in excess of the limits for mandatory arbitration plus interest, delay damages and costs of suit. COUNT II Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, v. Cannondale Corporation Necdiqence 46. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 45 of the within Complaint are incorporated herein as if fully set forth, 47. Defendant Cannondale was negligent and careless with respect to the design, manufacture, and supplying of the Cannon dale bicycle at issue in this case which lead to the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. 48. Defendant Cannondale's negligence and carelessness consists of the following: a. The handlebars breaking on the Cannondale bicycle as described herein was a malfunction of the Cannondale bicycle, which malfunction did not occur in the absence of negligence; b. The handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle were negligently designed regarding their configuration, materials, and strength; 9 c. The handlebars and the "T" assembly of the handlebars on the Cannon dale bicycle were negligently designed with respect to their materials, configuration, and strength; d. The assembly of the handlebars in the "Tn assembly was negligent; e. The bicycle handlebars, their components and/or their assembly were not adequately inspected or tested; and f. The bicycle did not have adequate warnings or instructions regarding the potential breaking of the handlebars, adjustment or maintenance of the handlebars, or limitations on use of the bicycle regarding the handlebars. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, demands judgment against Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, in an amount in excess of the limits for mandatory arbitration plus interest, delay damages and costs of suit. COUNT III Plaintiff. Mark S. Colucci v. Defendant. Cannondale COrDoration Breach of Warranty 49. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 48 of the within Complaint are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 50. Defendant Cannondale expressly and impliedly warranted that the aforesaid Cannon dale bicycle was safe and fit for the purpose for which it was intended and was of merchantable quality. 10 . 51. Defendant Cannondale breached its express and implied warranties that the aforesaid bicycle was safe and fit for the purpose for which it was intended and was of merchantable quality for the reasons set forth in Counts I and II. 52. The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, were caused by the breaches of warranty of Defendant Cannondale for which injuries and damages Defendant Cannondale is liable to Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, demands judgment against Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, in an amount in excess of the limits for mandatory arbitration plus interest, delay damages and cOsts of suit. COUNT IV Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci v. Defendants. Profile Desian. Inc. Profile for SDeed. Inc,. and GalloD Cvcle CorD. 53. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 52 of the within Complaint are incorporated herein as iffully set forth. 54. The handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle purchased by Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, were manufactured, designed, sold and/or distributed by the Profile Defendants and/or Defendant Gallop, or in the alternative, the handlebars and the nT' assembly were manufactured, assembled, sold, and/or distributed by Profile Defendants and/or the Gallop Defendant. 55. The above described components of the Cannondale bicycle were designed, manufactured, distributed, sold and supplied by the Profile Defendants and/or Defendant Gallop and placed into the stream of commerce with the intention and 11 expectation that said components would become part of a bicycle such as a Cannon dale bicycle and reach a class of consumers such as Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. 56. The Profile Defendants and/or Defendant Gallop designed, manufactured, distributed, sold, and supplied the bicycle components, intending those bicycle components to be incorporated into bicycles to be used and operated by individuals such as Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. 57. The above described bicycle components were designed, manufactured, assembled, distributed, sold and supplied in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous for their intended and foreseeable uses, and said defects caused Mark S. Colucci to suffer the severe and permanent injuries described herein. 58. The Profile Defendants and Defendant Gallop are strictly liable in tort to Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, for designing, manufacturing, assembling, distributing, selling, and supplying unreasonably dangerous bicycle components in the following manner: a. The handlebars on the Cannon dale bicycle malfunctioned in that the handlebars broke during normal use and such a malfunction would not occur in the absence of a defect; b. The handlebars and the "T" assembly on the Cannondale bicycle malfunctioned in that the handlebars broke during normal use and such a malfunction would not occur in the absence of a defect; c. The handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle were defectively designed regarding their configuration, materials, and strength; 12 d. The handlebars and the "T" assembly of the handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle were defectively designed with respect to their materials, configuration, and strength; e. The assembly of the handlebars in the "T" assembly was defective, resulting in a flaw, defect, or weakness of the handlebars; f. The handlebars contained a manufacturing defect and impurities in the handlebars; g. The handlebars were manufactured in such a manner as to not be able to endure the stresses and forces involved in the operation of the bicycle; , h. The bicycle components were sold without adequate warnings or instructions regarding the potential breaking of the handlebars, adjustment or maintenance of the handlebars, or limitations on use of the bicycle regarding the handlebars. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, demands judgment against Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, in an amount in excess of the limits for mandatory arbitration plus interest, delay damages and costs of suit. COUNT V Plaintiff. Mark S. Colucci v. Defendants, Profile Desion. Inc. Profile for Speed. Inc.. and Gallop Cvcle Corp. 59. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 58 of the within Complaint are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 13 60. Defendants Profile and Gallop were negligent and careless with respect to the design, manufacture, and supplying of the Cannondale bicycle components at issue in this case, which lead to the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. 61. The negligence and carelessness of Defendants Profile and Gallop consist of the following: a. The handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle malfunctioned in that the handlebars broke during normal use and such a malfunction would not occur in the absence of negligence; b. The handlebars and the "T" assembly on the Cannondale bicycle malfunctioned in that the handlebars broke during normal use and such a malfunction would not occur in the absence of negligence; c. The handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle were negligently designed regarding their configuration, materials, and strength; d. The handlebars and the "T" assembly of the handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle were negligently designed with respect to their materials, configuration, and strength; e. The assembly of the handlebars in the "T" assembly was negligent, resulting in a flaw, defect, or weakness of the handlebars; f. The handlebars were negligently manufactured, resulting in a manufacturing defect and impurities in the handlebars; 14 g. The handlebars were negligently manufactured so as to not be able to endure the stresses and forces involved in the operation of the bicycle; h. The handlebars, their components and/or their assembly were not adequately inspected or tested; and i. The bicycle components were supplied without adequate warnings or instructions regarding the potential breaking of the handlebars, adjustment or maintenance of the handlebars, or limitations on use of the bicycle regarding the handlebars. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, demands judgment against Defendants, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp., in an amount in excess of the limits for mandatory arbitration plus interest, delay damages and costs of suit. COUNT VI Plaintiff, MCII'k_~, Colucci v. Defendants. Profile Desicm. Inc., Profile for SDeed. Inc. and GalloD Cvcle CorD. 62. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 61 of the within Complaint are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 63. The Profile Defendants and/or Defendant Gallop expressly and impliedly warranted that the handlebars and/or that the handlebar assembly and "T" assembly were safe and fit for the purpose for which they were intended and were of merchantable quality. 15 64. The Profile Defendants and Defendant Gallop breached the express and implied warranties that the aforesaid bicylce components were safe and fit for the purposes for which they were intended and were of merchantable quality for the reasons set forth in Counts IV and V. 65. The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, were caused by the breaches of warranty of the Profile Defendants and Defendant Gallop for which injuries and damages the Profile Defendants and Defendant Gallop are liable to Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, demands judgment against Defendants, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. in an 'amount in excess of the limits for mandatory arbitration plus interest, delay damages and costs of suit. COUNT VII Plaintiff. Melissa C. Colucci v. Defendants. Cannondale CorDoration, Profile Desian. Inc.. Profile for SDeed. Inc. and GalloD Cvcle, Inc, Loss of Consortium 66. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 65 of the within Complaint are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 67. As a result of the tortious conduct of Defendants and the breaches of warranty by Defendants, all as set forth herein, Plaintiff, Melissa C. Colucci, has been and will be deprived of the assistance, society, companionship, contributions, and consortium of her husband, Mark S. Colucci, to her great detriment and financial loss. 16 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Melissa C. Colucci, demands judgment in an amount in excess of the limits for mandatory arbitration plus interest, delay damages and costs of suit. Respectfully submitted, tephe M. Greecher, Jr. Attorney's LD. No. 36803 111 North Front Street P. O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS DATE:,~/$lJo 28679.1 17 \ VERIFICATION I, the undersigned Plaintiff, acknowledge that the facts stated in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C,S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 28329,1 '. ' VERIFICATION I, the undersigned Plaintiff, acknowledge that the facts stated in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. J-!a:;j:4 (/ dtA-CtA' MELISSA C. COLUCCI, Plaintiff 28712.1 . . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this d:2.S tI:.. day of MAY, 2000, I, JACQUELYN A. ZETTLEMOYER, Secretary to STEPHEN M. GREECHER, JR., ESQUIRE, for the firm, Tucker Arensberg & Swartz, attorneys for Plaintiffs, hereby certify that I have this day served the within Complaint by depositing a true and correct copy of the same, in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to: Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 COUNSEL FOR CANNONDALE CORP. PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. 156 North Jefferson, Suite #302 Chicago, IL 60661-1136 GALLOP CYCLE CORP. 2677 EI Presidio Street Carson, CA 90810 PROFILE DESIGN, INC. 156 North Jefferson, Suite #302 Chicago, IL 60661-1136 ~Q.~~~) Jacquelyn A. Zettlemoyer u 28945,1 c . l CJ c; -o~ mffi :z ::0 zr; ~,... \20 ?fg :>c; ~ o o ~ - ~ "'" --< N C1' o -n -l -"1- . ffi;Q .'tom ""uO 8~ cie.-n ~o ......'f"fl S ~ -0 ::JJ: '* N N POST & SCHELL, P;e. BY: :MICHAEL A. BOOMSMA, ESQUIRE J.D. # 56062 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY P.O. BOX 10248 LANCASTER, P A 17605-0248 (717) 291-4532 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS PROFILE DESIGN, INC. d/b/a PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. AND GALLOP CYCLE CORP. MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, his wife, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Piaintiffs, NO. 200-1110- CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants. RNTRY OF APPRARANCR TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance on behalf of Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. d/b/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Galiop Cycle Corp., in the above-captioned matter. POST & SCHELL, P.e. BY: CRRTTFTCA TF, OF SRRVTCE !, Michael A. Boomsm~ Esquire, attorney for Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. d/b/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. hereby state that the foregoing document was sent by first- class mail, postage prepaid on the date set forth to the following: Stephen M. Greecher, Jr. TUCKER A.RENSBERG & SWARTZ III North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, Pa 17108-0889 Stephen E. Gedu1dig, Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 Dated: 6l "2.''-\ 00 , squire -2- () c::: () C 0 -n z ::i uW c: .,.., nil",", -- , 7-;' ~.; ~:::3 ~~~ N U.l ~ -~ c:) r;:::C :?:: ~--:. :';-i ~o - -)C) --0 :5 ~~:,I.11 =>>c ~ ~ .:-'"1 .......,. co:> ~ Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Attorney 1.0. No. 43530 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 (717) 237.7100 E.Mail: seq@tthlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant CANNONDALE CORPORATION, MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, his wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v, Civil Action -- Law NO. 2000-1110 Civi~ CANNONDALE CORPORATION; PROFILE DESIGN, INC,; PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC.; and GALLOP CYCLE CORP" Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Plaintiffs and their counsel Defendant, Profile Design, Inc. and its counsel Defendant, Profile for Speed, Inc. and its counsel Defendant, Gallop Cycle Corp. and its counsel YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: STEPHEN E. GEDULDIG, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D, No. 43530 Attorneys for Defendant, CANNONDALE CORPORATION Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 43530 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 (717) 237-7100 E-Mail: seq@tthlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant: CANNONOALE CORPORATION MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, his wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. Civil Action -- Law NO. 2000-1110 Civil CANNONDALE CORPORATION; PROFILE DESIGN, INC.; PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC.; and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, CANNONDALE CORPORATION, TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Defendant, Cannondale Corporation ("Answering Defendant"), by and through its undersigned counsel, Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire, of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, and files the following Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint: l. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 2. Admitted. 3. No response required of Answering Defendant. 4. No response required of Answering Defendant. 5 . No response required of Answering Defendant. 6. No response required of Answering Defendant. 7. No response required of Answering Defendant. 8. No response required of Answering Defendant. 9. No response required of Answering Defendant. 10. No response required of .Answering Defendant. II. No response required of Answering Defendant. 12. No response required of Answering Defendant. 13 . No response is required as this does not contain an averment of fact. 14. No response is required as this does not contain an averment of fact. 15. No response is required as this does not contain an averment of fact. 16. Admitted. 17. No response is required of Answering Defendant. 18. No response is required of Answering Defendant. FACTS 19. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) 20. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) 2I. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) . 22. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 23. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 24. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) . 25. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) . 2 26. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 27. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 28. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 29. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 30. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 31. Deni.ed pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 32. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 33. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) . 34. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) . 35. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 36. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 37. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) . DAMAGES 38. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 39 a.-j. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 40. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . WHEREFORE, Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and judgment entered in its favor. 3 COUNT I Mark S. Colucci v. Cannondale Corporation Strict Liability 41. No response is required as this is a paragraph of incorporation. 42. 1029 (e) . 43. 1029 (e) . Denied aB legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 44. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 45 a.-g. R.C.P. 1029 (e) Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and judgment entered in its favor. COUNT II Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci v. Cannondale Corporation Negligence 46. No response is required as this is a paragraph of incorporation. 4 47. Denied as l~gal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 ee) . 48 a.-f. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) WHEREFORE, Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and judgment entered in its favor. COUNT III Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci v. Cannondale Corporation Breach of Warranty 49. No response is required as this is a paragraph of incorporation. 50. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 51. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 52. Denied.as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . WHEREFORE, Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and judgment entered in .its favor. 5 COUNT IV Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci v. Defendants, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. 53-58. No response is required of Answering Defendant. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and judgment entered in its favor. COUNT V Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci v. Defendants, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. 59-61. No response is required of Answering Defendant. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, respectfully requests that Pla,intiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and judgment entered in its favor. COUNT VI Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci v. Defendants, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. 62-65. No response is required of Answering Defendant. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and judgment entered in its favor. 6 COUNT VII Plaintiff, Melissa C. Colucci v. Defendants, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. Loss of Consortium 66. No response is required as this is a paragraph of incorporation. 67. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) . WHEREFORE, Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and judgment entered in its favor. NEW MATTER 68. Paragraphs 1 through 67, above, are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 69. Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, asserts that this action may be barred by the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel, which are asserted herein. 70. Any and all damages, injuries and losses allegedly sustained by Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, may be due to the negligence and carelessness of Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, and such conduct serves to reduce or bar his recovery pursuant to the 7 terms of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa.C.S. ~7102. 71. Any damages, losses and/or injuries allegedly sustained by Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, may have been caused in whole or in part by the conduct of Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, in: (a) Misusing the product. (b) Failing to read and follow instructions, notices and warning accompanying the product. (c) Failing to use the product for the purpose for which it was designed and intended. (d) Modifying the product in a manner unauthorized by the manufacturer, which modifications resulted in substantial chan~es to the product. (e) Altering the product in a manner unauthorized by the manufacturer, which alteration resulted in a substantial change to the product. 72. At all times herein mentioned, any products sold by Defendant, Cannondale Corporation were safe and free from any defects. 73. At the time any product sold by Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, left its care, custody and control, it was free from defects and was accompanied by instructions and warnings which rendered the product safe for its intended use as well as any reasonably foreseeable use. 74. Plaintiff,OMark S. Colucci, may have assumed the risk of his own injury. 8 75. No product allegedly sold by Defendant, Cannondale Corporation was the proximate cause of any injuries and/or damages sustained by the Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. 76. Any damages or injuries allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, were proximately caused by individuals and entities other than Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, including, but not limited to Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, and others. 77. Plaintiffs fail to plead a cause of action for a breach of warranty. 78. In the alternative, Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, breached no warranty. 79. In the further alternative, no warranty or breach thereof, denied as aforesaid, caused Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and judgment entered in its favor. Respectfully submitted, :9:L( (( ~b THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: ~ STEPHD&!E. GEDULDIG, ESQUIR Attorney I.D. No. 43530 Attorneys for Defendant, CANNONDALE CORPORATION 9 VERIFICATION I, David Campbell, hereby verify that the averments made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. {;, ?.f( - DV ""1JPbe{r~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served by depositing the same in the United States Mail, post~. prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsyl vania, on the I r V'-J day of July, 2000, on all counsel of record as follows: Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., Esquire TUCKER, ARENSBERG & SWARTZ Post Office Box 889 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-0889 Attorneys for Plaintiff Michael A. Boomsma, Esquire POST & SCHELL 237 North Prince Street Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17603 Attorneys for Defendants, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Rosa B. Ku]p, Secretary :89203.1 ("") -:) ~~ ~~,! ~o ;;,;:(") :i;~ -< o = Q - ! :::i ,,-_-01 p..:.. ","!r:1 ;~}(? :: -; (j. -,--i 6~ -..("') On1 ~ ~ '-- ,..:; (....) -, :..,) ':;) fv POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: MICHAEL A. BOOMSMA, ESQUIRE LD. # 56062 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY P.O. BOX 10248 LANCASTER, P A 17605-0248 (717) 291-4532 MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants. ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS PROFILE DESIGN, INC. fi'd/b/a PROFILE FOR SPEED AND GALLOP CYCLE CORP. COURT OF CO:M:MON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 200-1110- CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTTeR TO PLRAO TO: Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., Esquire TUCKER ARENSBERG & SWARTZ Attorney for Plaintiffs YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to plead to the within Answer and New Matter within twenty (20) days of service thereof or a default may be entered against you. POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: MICHAEL A. BOOMSMA, ESQUIRE LD. # 56062 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY P.O. BOX 10248 LANCASTER, PA 17605-0248 (717) 291-4532 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS PROFILE DESIGN, INC. :t7d/b/a PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. AND GALLOP CYCLE CORP. MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, his wife, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiffs, NO. 200-1110- CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWF.R A NO NF.W M A TTF,R OF ORFF.NOA NTS, PROFIT ,R ORSTGN, TNC. f/dlbla PROFIT.R FOR SPRRO amI GAl ,I ,OP CVel,R CORP. TO PI ,A INTIFFS' COMPI ,A INT Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. fi'dIb/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp., by and through its counsel, Post & Schell, P.C., hereby files answers to Plaintiffs' Complaint in accordance with the numbered paragraphs thereof: 1. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraphs and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 2. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraphs and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 3. Admitted with qualification. Profile Design, Inc. is an Illinois corporation formerly doing business as Profile for Speed. 4. Denied. Profile for Speed was an unregistered/unfiled fictitious name of Profile Design, Inc. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted with qualification. Profile Design, Inc. formerly did business as Profile for Speed, an unregistered/unfiled fictitious name. 7. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is denied Profile Design, Inc. is a successor corporation to Profile for Speed. It is admitted Profile Design, Inc. is liable for and responsible for the obligations of Profile for Speed. 8. Denied. Profile Design, Inc. is not a successor corporation to Profile for Speed. Rather, Profile Design, Inc. formerly did business as Profile for Speed, an unregistered/unfiled fictitious name. 9. Denied. Gallop Cycle Corp. is a separate and distinct entity from Profile Design, Inc. fi'dIb/a Profile for Speed. lO. Denied. It is denied that Gallop Cycle Corp. is a successor corporation to Profile Design, Inc. fi'dIb/a Profile for Speed and, as such, is liable and responsible for the obligations and liabilities of Profile Design, Inc. fi'dIb/a Profile for Speed. To the contrary, Gallop Cycle Corp. is a separate entity. -2- 11. Denied. Gallop Cycle Corp. is a separate and distinct entity from Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed. 12. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Gallop Cycle Corp. is a corporation independent from Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed. It is denied, however, that it is liable for the claims made by Plaintiffs herein. Strict proof thererof is demanded at the time of trial. 13. No responsive pleading is reqnired. 14. No responsive pleading is required. 15. No responsive pleading is required. 16. The averments contained in paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 17. The averments contained inparagraph 17 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. 18. Denied. Defendant Gallop Cycle Corp. is not a successor to the Profile Defendants and is not responsible for the obligations and liabilities of the Profile Defendants. As for the balance of the averments, same are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. FACTS 1 9. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the avennents contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. -3- 20. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time oftria1, if relevant. 21. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity ofthe averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proofis demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 22. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 23. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. By way of further response, answering defendants believe Plaintiffs are referring to the bicylce's stem when referencing a "T" assembly which may have been found and/or a component part of a Carmondale bicycle allegedly purchased by plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. 24. Denied. It is denied that the handlebars were placed in the "T" assembly by the Profile Defendants or Defendant Gallop. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. -4- 25. Admitted in part, denied in part. If the bicycle in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc, fi'dlb/a Profile for Speed. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. 26. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or lmowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, ifrelevant. 27. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or lmowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 28. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or lmowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 29. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or lmowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 30. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or lmowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the -5- corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 31. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 32. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 33. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 34. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 35. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. -6- 36. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 37. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. OAMAGES 38. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 39. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph including subparts (a) through G) and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 40. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity ofthe averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proofis demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. COUNTl M~rk s. Colnc~i v. rannonrl~le Corporation -7- Strict I,iability 41 -45. The averments contained in these paragraphs are directed to a party other than answering defendants, therefore, no response is required. COIJNT IT Plaintiff, Mark S. Colnc,,; v. Cannondale Corporation Negligence 46-48. The averments contained in these paragraphs are directed to a party other than answerings defendants, therefore, no response is required. COTTNT TII Plaintiff, Mark S. Coln"ci v. D..fendant, Cannondale Corporation Breacb of Warranty 49-52. The averments contained in these paragraphs are directed to a party other than answering defendants, therefore, no response is required. COIJNT TV :eIJlintiff Mark S. Colucci v. Defendant<, ProfiJe.D.esign, Inc. Profile for Speeil, Inc., and Gallop Cycle Corp. 53. No responsive pleading is required. 54. Admitted in part, denied in part. If the bicycle in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. As to the balance of the averments referencing a "T" assembly, after reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack -8- information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averments and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of tria!, if relevant. 55. Admitted in part, denied in part. If the bicycle in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed with the expectation that the handlebars would become part of a bicycle such as a Cannondale and reach consumers such as Plaintiff. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. As to the balance of the averments, including any reference to other component parts, after reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 56. Admitted in part, denied in part. If the bicycle in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc, Vd/b/a Profile for Speed. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. As to the balance ofthe averments, including any reference to other component parts, after reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 57. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 57 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, if the bicycle in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, -9- distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc., Vd/b/a Profile for Speed not in a defective condition or unreasonably dangerous for their intended, foreseeable use. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 58. The averments contained in paragraph 58 of Plaintiffs' Complaint including subparts (a) through (h), are conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, if the bicycle in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc, Vd/b/a Profile for Speed. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. f7d/b/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp., request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all other parties. COlTNT V Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci v. Defendant", Profile Design, Tnc. Profile for Speed, Tnc., and Gallop Cycle Corp. 59. No responsive pleading is required. 60. The averments contained in paragraph 60 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, if the bicycle in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc, -10- Vd/b/a Profile for Speed. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. 61. The averments contained in paragraph 61 including subparts (a) through (i) of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, if the bicycle in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc, Vd/b/a Profile for Speed. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp., request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all other parties. COUNT VI ~intiff, Mark S. Col""", v. nefendants, Profile nesiEJ1, Tnc., Profile for Speed, Tnr. and Ganop~e Corp. 62. No responsive pleading is required. 63. The averments contained in paragraph 63 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, if the bicycle in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc, Vd/b/a Profile for Speed. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. As to any other component parts and "T" assembly, after reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or -11- falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 64. The averments contained in paragraph 64 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, if the bicycle in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc, fi'c1Jb/a Profile for Speed. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. As to any other component parts and "T" assembly, after reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 65. The averments contained in paragraph 65 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. fi'c1Jb/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp., request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all other parties. C;OTJNT VTT -12- Plaintiff, Melissa C. Colucci v. Defendants, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Desjgll, Inc, Profile fO):.5peed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. Loss of Consortium 66. The averments contained in paragraph 66 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. 67. The averments contained in paragraph 67 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp., request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all other parties. NRW M ATTRR 68. Plaintiff was comparatively negligent. 69. Plaintiffrnisused the product and his actions with regard to said misuse were not reasonably foreseeable. 70. Plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 71. Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp. are not strictly liable to Plaintiffs. 72. Defendants, Profile Design, mc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp. breached no duty of care to Plaintiffs. 73. Any damages were the result ofthird party actions andlor the actions of Plaintiff. 74. Plaintiff assumed the risk of using the bicycle in question. -13- 75. To the extent it is established that any product designed and/or distributed by Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp. was involved in the incident complained of by Plaintiffthen, upon information and belief, said product was fit for its intended purpose at the time it left Answering Defendants' care, custody and control. 76. Plaintiffs' claims are barred to the extent it is established that Plaintiffs have failed to timely file and serve sufficient process against Answering Defendants within the statutorily prescribed period for limitations on negligence and products liability actions. 77. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited to the extent it is established that Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages. 78. Plaintiffs' claims are barred to the extent it is established that the involved product was not properly maintained and/or installed and that said improper maintenance and/or installation created the condition which caused the incident complained of by Plaintiff. 79. Plaintiffs' claims are barred to the extent that the subject product was misused and/or abused after it left the care, custody or control of Answering Defendants. 80. Plaintiffs' claims against Answering Defendant are barred to the extent it is established that the subject product underwent material and/or substantial changes from the condition it was in when it allegedly left Answering Defendants' possession, custody and control. 81. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the doctrines of accord and satisfaction, release and/or set-off to the extent it is established that Plaintiffs' have entered into -14- any agreements or releases relating to any damages allegedly suffered by the Plaintiffs in the incident in question. 82. Answering Defendants expressly reserve and preserve those defenses which need not be specifically pled under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. f7d/b/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp., request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all other parties. POST & SCHELL, BY: -15- VERIFICATION I, Michael A. Boomsma, Esquire, hereby state that I am the attorney for Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp., in this action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing document(s) are true and correct to the best of my lmowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S., Section 4904, relating to the unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE: -r I, c..-l ) Ou / t , CRRTTFlCATR OF SRRVlCR I, Michael A. Boomsma, Esquire, attorney for Defendants, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. hereby state that the foregoing document was sent by first- class mail, postage prepaid on the date set forth to the following: Stephen M. Greecher, Jr. TUCKER ARENSBERG & SWARTZ 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, Pa 17108-0889 Stephen E. Gedu1dig, Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, P A 17108-0999 Micliae Dated: -z I (LI! 00 I (") C 7 ;:g ~r; ;2: :T.J ~0i GO ::2:....... Z~-< >c: :z: :<! . o o ~ ;= (") ""11 .~ -,-' ~i~~~ --"0 0.(.:) r')~ =":::..~ C) . "'1 -. ~ -.l " ~. w .", ';:l MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, His Wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2000 - 1110 CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT CANNON DALE CORPORATION 68. Paragraphs 1 through 67 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 69. The allegations of paragraph 69 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. 70. The allegations of paragraph 70 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations are deemed to be factual, they are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further response, the allegations of the Complaint are incorporated herein. 71. The allegations of paragraph 72 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations are deemed to be factual, they are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 72. Denied, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further response, the allegations of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 73. The allegations of paragraph 73 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations are deemed to be factual, they are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further response, the allegations of the Complaint are incorporated herein. 74. The allegations of paragraph 74 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations are deemed to be factual, they are denied pursuant to PaR.C.P. 1029(e). By way offurther response, the allegations of the Complaint are incorporated herein. 75. The allegations of paragraph 75 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations are deemed to be factual, they are denied pursuant to PaRC.P. 1029(e). By way of further response, the allegations of the Complaint are incorporated herein. 76. The allegations of paragraph 76 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. By way of further response, it is denied that the injuries sustained by Plaintiff Mark S. Colucci were proximately caused by Mark S. Colucci. Further, to the extent that individuals or entities other than Cannondale Corporation caused Mark S. Colucci's injuries, such as the conduct of Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp., as set forth in the Complaint, such conduct does not bar, limit or reduce Plaintiffs' recovery against Defendant Cannondale Corporation. 77. The allegations of paragraph 77 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. 78. The allegations of paragraph 75 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations are deemed to be factual, they are 2 denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way offurther response, the allegations of the Complaint are incorporated herein. 79. The allegations of paragraph 79 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations are deemed to be factual, they are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further response, the allegations of the Complaint are incorporated herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the New Matter of Defendant Cannondale Corporation be dismissed, and a judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs as requested in the Complaint. Respectfully submitted, By: en M. e er, Jr. Attorney 1.0. #36803 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 Attorney for Plaintiffs Dated: August 11, 2000 30913.1 3 VERIFICATION I, the undersigned Plaintiff, aCknowledge that the facts stated in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. I . COLUCCI, Plaintiff 28712.1 VERIFICATION I, the undersigned Plaintiff, acknowledge that the facts stated in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. VI LoP- (2 G; k('c' - MELISSA C. COLUCCI, Plaintiff 287121 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this II IL day of AUGUST, 2000, I, JACQUELYN A. ZETTLEMOYER, Secretary to STEPHEN M. GREECHER, JR., ESQUIRE, for the firm, Tucker Arensberg & Swartz, attorneys for Plaintiffs, hereby certify that I have this day served the within document by depositing a true and correct copy of the same, in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to: Michael A. Boomsma, Esquire Post & Schell, P.C. 1857 William Penn Way P.O. Box 10248 Lancaster, PA 17605-0248 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS a,~ Ja~lemOyer 30915.1 (") -~ OC,lJ ~fH Z::L. C/O s;: -<..". ~O ~(") --0 J>c: ~ o = ~ ~ G? o -n .....{ ~F.p -;:,m ~~:;CJ I~--' I ,,",0 6:8 z:O ,__ rn ~ :s!. ::X :a N MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, His Wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2000 - 1110 CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. AND GALLOP CYCLE CORP. 68. The allegations of paragraph 68 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations are deemed to be factual, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 69. Denied, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 70. The allegations of paragraph 70 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. 71. The allegations of paragraph 71 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. By way of further answer, Profile Design, Inc. f/dlbla Profile for .speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp., are strictly liable to Plaintiffs as set forth in the Complaint. 72. The allegations of paragraph 72 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. By way of further response, Profile Design, Inc. f/d/b/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. breached the duty of care owed to Plaintiffs as set forth in the Complaint. 73. Denied. It is denied that the actions of Plaintiffs caused their damages. As to the actions of third parties, it is acknowledged that actions of third parties such as those of Cannondale Corporation, as set forth in the Complaint, caused the Plaintiffs' damages, however, any actions of any third party do not relieve Defendants, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. from liability for all of Plaintiffs' damages, as set forth in the Complaint. 74. The allegations of paragraph 74 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations are deemed to be factual, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 75. Denied, pursuant to PaRC.P. 1029(e). 2 76. The allegations of paragraph 76 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. By way offurther answer, Defendants, Profile Design, Inc, Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp., have been properly served within the prescribed period of time. 77. The allegations of paragraph 77 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs have not failed to mitigate damages. 78. The allegations of paragraph 78 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. By way of further answer, the bicycle was properly maintained by Plaintiffs, and further, if it is shown that the product was not properly maintained or installed, it is denied that the Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp., would be barred thereby under the facts of this case. 79. The allegations of paragraph 79 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations are deemed to be factual, it is denied that the product was misused or abused. By way of further answer, the misuse or abuse of the product, which is denied, would not bar Plaintiffs' claims under the facts of this case. 3 80. The allegations of paragraph 74 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations are deemed to be factual, they are denied pursuant to PaRC.P. 1029(e). 81. The allegations of paragraph 74 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations are deemed to be factual, they are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.1029(e). 82. No response is required. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the New Matter of Defendants Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. be dismissed, and a judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs as requested in the Complaint. Respectfully submitted, RTZ Dated: August 11, 2000 30910.1 Ste hen M. Gr ec er, Jr. Attorney I.D. #36803 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 Attorney for Plaintiffs 4 VERIFICATION I, the undersigned Piaintiff, acknowledge that the facts stated in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.SA Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 28712.1 , VERIFICATION I, the undersigned Plaintiff, acknowledge that the facts stated in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, infonnation and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.SA Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. . LJ Ik'Jr;. (? Cdlt.-Cc..' 'NrELlSSA C. COLUCCI, Plaintiff 28712.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this II iJ.. day of AUGUST, 2000, I, JACQUELYN A. ZETTLEMOYER, Secretary to STEPHEN M. GREECHER, JR., ESQUIRE, for the firm, Tucker Arensberg & Swartz, attorneys for Plaintiffs, hereby certify that 1 have this day served the within document by depositing a true and correct copy of the same, in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to: Michael A. Boomsma, Esquire Post & Schell, P.C. 1857 William Penn Way P.O. Box 10248 Lancaster, PA 17605-0248 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS ~a.,~ Jacquel A. Zettlemoyer . 30915.1 (") = 0 c = -q ;;:: :-.... ::.~~p} -0 CD c:: rnr-.t '" Z:J.] -;,~tTI zr- :1.)0 W}:; .c- :::~(~) -< ~ r::U -U :r::f-l < ~O "'" QO .--0 ~ 8m >c: ~ :z J'V =< -< , \ ) , \ i POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: MICHAEL A. BOOMSMA, ESQUIRE I.D. # 56062 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY P.O. BOX 10248 LANCASTER, P A 17605-0248 (717) 291-4532 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS PROFILE DESIGN, INC. d/b/a PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP. MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, his wife, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiffs, NO. 200-1110- CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants. PRARCYPF, TO SlJRSTTTlTTF, VRRIFlCATIONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly substitute the attached Verifications of Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. fi'd/b/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp., for the Verification of Michael A. Boomsma, Esquire to the Answer and New Matter which was filed in the above-captioned matter. POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: Mic a A. Boomsma, Atto y for Defend Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp. Re: Colucci v. Profile Design, Inc. VRRTFTC.ATTON I HEREBY VERIFY that the statements made by Defendant, Gallop Cycle Corp., and are contained in the within Answer and New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements contained herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. I certify that I am a duly authorized representative of Gallop Corp. and as such, am authorized to make this Verification on its behalf. BY: ~, Ernest Lai Gallop Cycle Corp. DATED: ~oV Re: Colucci v. Profile Design, Inc. V Ii: RTF TeA T T OJ~: I HEREBY VERIFY that the statements made by Defendant, Profile Design, Inc. fld/b/a Profile for Speed and are contained in the within Answer and New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements contained herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. I certify that I am a duly authorized representative of Profile Design, Inc. fld/b/a Profile for Speed and as such, am authorized to make this Verification on its behalf. BY: DATED ~tdl" tev Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed -17- CRRTTFTCATF. OF SRRVICR I, Sandra Morales, an employee of the law offices of Post & Schell, P.C., do hereby certify that on the date set forth below, I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following person(s) at the following address( es) by sending same in the United States mail, first- class, postage prepaid: Dated: <;( III / f) 0 J ' Stephen M. Greecher, Jr. TUCKER ARENSBERG & SWARTZ 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, Pa 17108-0889 Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, P A 171 08-0999 cf~ kJJ (Mrs.) Sandra Morales -2- (") 0 0 c <=> '.1'1 :s:: """ .-! -OW = ~i;TI n"1r;1 ""' Z.::r:J ".-'i"" Zr.;.. (..n ;Q? (,01".2: ~iS =:.~J ;< "'"' i!5 :ti ~8 ::!!: :::;>,0 I.D Qro )>c ~ ~ '=> <.To -< POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: MICHAEL A. BOOMSMA, ESQUIRE J.D. # 56062 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY P.O. BOX 10248 LANCASTER, PA 17605-0248 (717) 291-4532 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CANNONDALE CORPORATION MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, his wife, COURT OF COlMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiffs, NO. 200-1110- CIVIL TERIv.I v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants. TO THE PROTHONOTARY: PRARCIPR FOR WITHDRAWAl. OF APPRARANCF, Please withdraw my appearance for Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, in the above-captioned matter. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP. By: \ Stephen E. Gedu1dig, Es Attorney I.D. 43530 RNTRY OF APPF,ARANCR Please enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, in the above-captioned matter. BY: (") 0 0 c 0 -,1 S; := .:::. '"Dm c (,1:;] mr-n G":> Z:7...i- '" :,~~ Zt;;: co."... '" ~.<.. ...:.jb. C; "-0 ~+t :< ~o ~ ~(') -0 ~ ()m >c ~ :z 0 =< fov ~ "'-' c r . POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: MICHAEL A. BOOMSMA, ESQUIRE LD. # 56062 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY P.O. BOX 10248 LANCASTER, P A 17605-0248 (717) 291-4532 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, his wife, COURT OF COJ'vI:MON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiffs, NO. 200-1110- CNIL TERM v. CML ACTION - LAW CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants. v. YlH CHENG MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD. t/dlb/aALICO Third-Party Defendant. J,OlNDRR COMPI,AINT OF nRFRNDANTS, CANNONDAI ,F, CORPORATION, PROFIT ,R D.ESLGN, INC, PROFIT,R FOR spREn, INC. and GAU,Op CVa,R CORP. nTRRCTRD TO vrrr CHF,NG MANTIFACTTTRING COMPANY, T,Tn. tLdlhla AUeO NOTTCR v ou have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claim set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after tlris Complaint and Notice are served by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defense 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 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, P A 17013 (800) 990-9108 (717) 249-3166 ~ ( ,. T POST & SCHELL, P.c. BY: MICHAEL A. BOOMSMA, ESQUIRE LD. # 56062 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY P.O. BOX 10248 LANCASTER, P A 17605-0248 (717) 291-4532 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, his wife, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiffs, NO. 200-1110- CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants. v. YIH CHENG MANUF ACTURlNG COMPANY, LTD. t/dIb/aALICO Third.Party Defendant. .TOTNnRR COMPT ,A TNT OF DF,FRNDA NTS, CA NNONnA T ,F, CORPOR A TTO& :eROFTLR DRSIGN, INC, PROFIT,V FOR SPRRD, INC. and GAJ.T,OP CYCI,F CORP. DIRRCTVD TO ADDITIONAl, DEFRNDANT, VIR CRF,NG MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD. tldlbla AUCQ 1. Plaintiffs' Complaint is attached hereto, incorporated by reference and made a part of this pleading. (See Exhibit "A".) 2. The Answer and New Matter of Defendant Cannondale Corporation, as well as Defendants Profile Design, Inc. fi'dIb/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp., are hereby <: ,. attached hereto, incorporated by reference and made a part ofthis pleading. (See Exhibits "B" and "C", respectively.) 3. It is believed and, therefore, averred that Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd. is a Taiwanese corporation whose principal offices and manufacturing facilities are located at 470. Chang Shui Rd., SecA, Pituo Hsiang, Changhua, Taiwan. 4. It is believed and, therefore, averred that Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd., designed, produced manufactured and distributed products, including the "T" assembly referenced in Plaintiffs' Complaint which are/were delivered, sold and utilized in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 5. It is believed and, therefore, averred that Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd., regularly conducts business in Pennsylvania and causes products it manufactured, designed and/or distributed to be sold, supplied and/or used in Pennsylvania. Further, the marketing activities of Additional Defendant, including its business arrangements with other commercial entities and its act of directly and indirectly placing its products into the stream of commerce with the lmowledge and intention that same will ultimately be sold, distributed and/or used in Pennsylvania, constitutes regular and frequent contact with, and purposeful availment to, the laws and jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Further, the conduct of Additional Defendant inside and outside Pennsylvania caused harm in Pennsylvania and, therefore, Additional Defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts of Pennsylvania. 6. It is believed and, therefore, averred that the "T" assembly which allegedly led to plaintiffs incident (also lmown as the "stem''), was designed, produced, manufactured, sold and/or distributed by Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd. -2- <: ( COIJNT T D..efenillmts, Cannondale Corpm:ation, Profile De"ien, Ine f/dlbbi Profile for Speed, Tne. and Gallop Cycle Corp. v. Yih Cheng ManJ1factllring Company, I,td. Strict T ,iahility 7. The allegations contained in paragraphs I through 6 of the within Joinder Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 8. The "T" assembly/stem was designed, manufactured, assembled, distributed, sold and supplied by Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd. in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous for its intended and foreseeable uses, and if Plaintiff suffered injuries as alleged, said defect caused Plaintiff s injuries. 9. The above described "T" assembly/stem was designed, manufactured, distributed, sold and supplied by Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd., with the intention and expectation that it would reach a class of users and consumers such as Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci and be used by said consumers in the fashion plaintiff was using it at the time if the alleged incident. 10. Additional Defendant's product was in substantially the same condition at the time of the incident as it was when it left Additional Defendant's possession and control and it was being used at the time of the incident in the exact marmer intended by Additional Defendant. 11. If the incident occurred as alleged by plaintiff did in fact occur, then same resulted because Additional Defendant's product was defective and unreasonably dangerous for its intended and foreseeable use for the following reasons: a. the "T" assembly/stem of the handlebars on the Carmondale bicycle were defectively designed with respect to their materials, configuration and strength; -3- "- , b. the "T" assembly/stem was defectively designed or manufactured resulting in a flaw, defect, or weakness of the handlebars causing the handlebars to fail under normal and foreseeable use; c. the "T" assembly/stem contained a manufacturing defect and impurities in same; d. the "T" assembly/stem were manufactured in such a manner as to not be able to endure the stresses and forces involved in the operation of the bicycle. 12. If it is adjudicated that Defendants, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc. fYdIb/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp., are liable in whole or in part to Plaintiffs, said liability being specifically denied, then Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Inc., is solely liable to Plaintiff or liable over to Defendants, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc. fYdIb/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. for contribution andlor indemnity. 13. Under the laws ofthe Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd., is required to defend and indemnify Defendants, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc. fYdIb/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. against any and all allegations made by Plaintiffs in their Complaint. 14. Under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd., has a duty to indemnify andlor contribute to any costs, fees andlor awards sustained by or entered against Defendants, Carmondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc. f/dIb/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp., as a result of the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs. -4- , l. ,. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp., request this Honorable Court to enter judgment in their favor and against all other parties. COTTNT IT Defendants, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Tnc. f/d/b/a Profile for Speed, Tnc. and C:allop Cycle Corp. v. Vih Chene Manufae.turing..Company,.Ltd. ~gligen.c.e 15. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 14 of the within Joinder Complaint are incorporated herein as iffully set forth. 16. If it is detennined that the incident occurred as alleged by Plaintiff, then Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd., was negligent and careless with respect to the design, manufacture and supply of the "T" assembly/stem at issue. 17. Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd.'s negligence and carelessness consisted ofthe following: a. the "T" assembly/stem of the handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle were negligently designed with respect to their materials, configuration and strength; b. the "T" assembly/stem was not adequately inspected or tested; c. the "T" assembly/stem was negligently manufactured. d. the "T" assembly/stem was negligently designed or manufactured resulting in a flaw, defect, or wealmess of the handlebars causing the handlebars to fail; 18. If it is established that the incident did in fact occur as alleged by Plaintiff, the Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Inc., is solely liable to Plaintiff, jointly -5- ( and severally liable to Plaintiff or liable over to Defendants, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. for contribution or indemnity. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp., request this Honorable Court to enter judgment in their favor and against all other parties. COTTNT HT Defendants, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Desi!?", Tnc. f/dlb/a Profile for Speed, Tnc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. v. Vih Chen~ Manufacturing Company, T ,td. BrPJlch of Warranty 21. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 20 of the within Joinder Complaint are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 22. Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd., expressly and impliedly warranted that the aforesaid "T" assembly/stem was safe and fit for the purpose for which it was intended and it was of merchantable quality. 23. If the incident for which suit is brought occurred as alleged by Plaintiff, Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd., breached its express and implied warranties that the aforesaid "T" assembly/stem was safe and fit for the purpose for which it was intended and was of merchantable quality for the reasons set forth in Counts I and II. 24. If Plaintiff, Mark:: S. Colucci, suffered the injuries and damages as alleged, same were caused by the Additional Defendant's breach of its express and implied warranties and Additional Defendant is directly liable to Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci for any injuries and damages suffered, or liable over to Original Defendants for contribution and/or indemnity. -6- .. 26. Under the laws ofthe Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd., is required to defend and indemnifY Defendants, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc. fi'd/b/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. against any and all allegations made by Plaintiffs in their Complaint. 27. Under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd., has a duty to indemnify and/or contribute to any costs, fees and/or awards sustained by or entered against Defendants, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc. f/d/b/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp., as a result of the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc. fi'd/b/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp., request this Honorable Court to enter judgment in their favor and against all other parties. POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: l.\1. a, Esquire 1.. # 56062 Attorney for endants Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc. fi'd/b/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. 1857 William Penn Way P.O. Box 10248 Lancaster, P A 17605-0248 (717) 291-4532 -7- .'1 , r\ "0. } MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, His Wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2000 -1110 CIVil TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS 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 wamed 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 AS80CIA TION 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 (800) 990-9108 NOTICIA Le han demand ado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paquinas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita 0 en persona 0 por abogado y archivar en la corte enforma escrita sus defensas 0 sus objeciones alas demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin Wm!!lili1i 11Y!,!!!I!i.: >:i:/2:0'd 609TT62:~T~l6 01 i:09S >:82: STi: S3~In~3S WI~I~ 9I~ ~~ ~0:TT 00. 80 Nnr ) previa aviso 0 notificacion y par cualquier queja 0 alivio que "es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus propiedades 0 otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO lNMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO 0 SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. CUMBERLAND COUN1Y BAR ASSOCIATION 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 (800) 990-9108 TUCKER ARENSBERG & SWARTZ By: tephe M. Greecher, Jr. Attorney I. D. No. 36803 111 North Front Street P. O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 AlTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS DATED: 5/.Js"/iJ(} 287\0.1 2 >:2/>:0'd 609!!62L!L!6 O~ 209S >:82 S!2 53~In~35 WI~l~ 8I~ ~~ L0:!! 00. 80 Nnr --, -. i .'-"', ) MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, His Wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2000 - 1110 CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT Parties 1. Plaintiffs are Mark S. Colucci and Melissa C. Colucci, His Wife, adult individuals residing at 1 Country Club Place West, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011. 2. Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, is a corporation with offices located at 172 Friendship Road, Bedford, Bedford County, Pennsylvania 15522-6600. 3. Defendant, Profile Design, Inc., is a corporation with offices located at 156 North Jefferson Street, Suite #302, Chicago, IL 60661-1136. 4. Defendant. Profile for Speed, Inc., is a corporation with offices located at 156 North Jefferson Street, Suite #302, Chicago, IL 60661-1136. 5. Defendant, Gallop Cycle Corp., is a corporation with its offices located at 2677 EI Presidio Street, Carson, California 90810. 6. It is believed and therefore averred that Profile Design, Inc. represents the current name of Profile for Speed, Inc. and is the same entity as Profile for Speed, Inc. >:G/170'd 609,,6c~,~,6 Oi C09S ~8c s,c S3Jln~3S WI~lJ 8I~ ~~ ~0:" 00,.80 Nnr ) 7. (n the alternative, it is believed and therefore averred that Profile Design, Inc. , is a successor corporation to Profile for Speed, Inc., and is therefore liable for and responsible for the obligations and liabilities of Profile for Speed, Inc. 8. Profile Design, Inc, is a successor corporation to Profile for Speed, Inc., as a result of a merger, by acquisition of assets with the express or implicit assumption of liabilities, by means of a transaction amounting to a de facto merger, by means of a transaction in which Profile Design, Jnc. is a continuation of Profile for Speed, Inc., or by means of a transaction in which Profile Design, Inc. acquired the assets of Profile for Speed, Inc. and continued the business of and manufacture of the products of Profile for Speed, Inc. 9. Gallop Cycle Corp. is the same entity as Profile Design, Inc. or Profile for Speed, Inc. in that Gallop Cycle Corp. represents the current name of Profile for Speed, Inc. or Profile Design, Inc. 10. In the alternative, Gallop Cycle Corp. is a successor corporation to Profile Design, Inc. or Profile for Speed, Inc. and, as such, is liable and responsible for the obligations and liabilities of Profile Design, Inc. or Profile for Speed, Inc. 11. Gallop Cycle Corp. is a successor corporation to Profile Design, Inc. or Profile for Speed, Inc., as a result of a merger, by acquisition of assets with the express or implicit assumption of liabilities, as a result of a transaction amounting to a de facto merger, as a result of a transaction in which Gallop Cycle Corp. is merely a continuation of Profile Design, Inc. or Profile for Speed, Inc., or by means of a transaction in which Gallop Cycle Corp. acquired the assets of Profile Design, Inc. or Profile for Speed, Inc. 2 ~VS\j'd 6\j9,,6c~,~,6 01 C\j9S ~8cStc S3Jln~3S WI~lJ 8I~ ~~ ~\j:,,'\j\j, 813 Nnt ) . and continued the business of and manufacture of the products of Profile Design, Inc. or Profile for Speed, Inc. 12. In the alternative, Gallop Cycle Corp. is a corporation independent of Profile Design, Inc. and Profile for Speed, Inc., and is liable for the claims made by Plaintiffs herein. 13. Hereinafter, Cannondale Corporation is referred to as "Cannondale." 14. Hereinafter, Profile Design, Inc. and Profile for Speed, Inc. shall be referred to as "Profile" and all allegations made with respect to Profile shall be deemed to apply to Profile Design, Inc. and Profile for Speed, Inc., individually and collectively. 15. Hereinafter, Gallop Cycle Corp. shall be referred to as "Gallop." 16. Defendant Cannondale regularly conducts business in Pennsylvania and has a place of business located in Pennsylvania and is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of Pennsylvania. 17. The Profile defendants regularly conduct business in Pennsylvania, cause products manufactured and designed and sold by the Profile defendants to be shipped into and sold in Pennsylvania and the conduct of the Profile defendants inside or outside Pennsylvania caused harm in Pennsylvania and, therefore, the Profile defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of Pennsylvania. 18. Defendant Gallop, as the successor to the Profile defendants, ;s liable and responsible for the obligations and liabilities of those of the Profile defendants and is thereby subject to jurisdiction of the courts of Pennsylvania and Defendant GallOp causes products manufactured and designed and sold by Defendant Gallop to be 3 ':2:/90'd 609n62:l.!<.,6 OJ. 2:09S ':82: S,2: S3::JT~SWH:ll:) !:lIt! a:l 80:n 00. 80 Nn.r , J -) shipped into and sold in Pennsylvania and the conduct of Defendant Gallop inside or outside Pennsylvania caused harm in Pennsylvania and, therefore, the Defendant Gallop is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of Pennsylvania. Facts 19. In June 1996, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, purchased a Cannondale bicycle from the Runners' Roost Bike & Sport in Sunbury, Pennsylvania. 20. The Cannondale bicycle purchased by Mr. Colucci carried Serial No. HA B 007361577 BON60 engraved in the underside ofthe bottom bracket. 21. The bicycle is a road bike. 22. Said bicycle was manufactured, designed, assembled, supplied, sold, and placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Cannondale. 23. At the time of delivery of the bicycle to Runners' Roost, the handlebars of said bicycle had been installed by Cannondale in the "1" assemby in which the handlebars are mounted, with the "T" assembly then inserted into the stem of the bike by the Runners' Roost. 24. In the altemative, the handlebars were placed in the "'"(" assembly by the Profile Defendants or Defendant Gallop. 25. The handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle purchased by Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, were manufactured, designed, suppl1ed, sold, put into the stream of commerce by the Profile defendants or Oefendant Gallop. 26. The above described Cannondale bicycle and the handlebars of the Cannondale bicycle, in all aspects material hereto, were in substantially the same 4 >::VL,I2I'd 61219,,6c<.,L,,601 GI2I9S >::8c S'G S3Jln~3S WI~lJ 8I~ ~~ 8121:" 121121. 8121Nnf ) . condition or had not been substantially changed from the time they were put into the stream of commerce until they came into the possession of Plaintiff, Mark S'. Colucci, and until the time of the incident involving the Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. Alternatively, any changes were foreseeable to defendants. 27. On or about July 31, 1998, between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m., Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, was riding his Cannondale bicycle along Trindle Road in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 28. At that time, without warning and for no apparent reason, the handlebars ofthe Cannon dale bicycle broke and, as a result. Mr. Colucci fell from the bike, suffering personal injuries, including a fracture to his right elbow with significant road burn. 29. After his fall, Mr. Colucci lay in a ditch for a period of time until he gathered himself. A passerby eventually came to assist Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. 30. Plaintiff. Mark S. Colucci, put his bike in the pickup truck of the passerby and the passerby gave Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, a ride to his home in Camp Hill, Cumberland County. Pennsylvania. 31. After arriving home, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, was taken immediately to Holy Spirit Hospital by his wife, Plaintiff, Melissa C. Colucci. 32. At the Holy Spirit Hospital, Plaintiff. Mark S. Colucci's wounds were cleaned in a painful process and his ann was x-rayed and a fracture to Mr. Colucci's right elbow was diagnosed. Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, was fitted with a sling and then referred to the Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania for followup. 5 >:c/80'd 609,,6~,~,6 OL C09S >:8CS,C .S3Jln~3S WI~lJ 8I~ ~~ 80.:" 00.80. Nnr ) \! ....,.. , . , 33. As a result of his injuries, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, went under a course of medical treatment and physical therapy. 34. Plaintiff. Mark S. Colucci, has been diagnosed with a rapidly progressive arthritic right elbow as a result of the injuries he suffered in this incident. 35. Plaintiff. Mark S. Colucci. has a loss of the range of motion in his right elbow that is permanent. 36. Plaintiff. Mark S. Colucci has suffered a restriction and is limited in his activities as a result of the injuries that he has suffered. 37. Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, may need surgery in the future with respect to the injuries that he has suffered. DamaQes 38. As a result of the tortious conduct of Defendants and the breaches of warranty of Defendants as set forth herein, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. has suffered serious and significant injuries some of which are permanent and damages for which he makes a claim herein. 39. The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, include: a. Fractured right elbow; b. Rapidly progressive arthritis of the right elbow; c. Permanent restriction of the range of motion of the right elbow; d. Significant road burn, bruises, and abrasions; e. Severe pain and suffering, past and future; f. Medical or related expenses, past and future; 6 SZZ/G0'd GI2I9!t6Z~!~r6 01 ZI2I9S ~8Z Stz S3~In~3SWI~l~ 8I~ ~~ 8121:!t 121121. 80Nnr 'I ,. g. Future surgery; h. Disfigurement; i. Mental anguish, embarrassment, and humiliation, past and future; and j. A loss of life's pleasures, past and future. 40. As a result of the breaches of warranty by Defendants, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, has incurred damages to his bicycle and claims damages for breach of warranty and for the expense to repair the bicycle. COUNT I Mark S. Colucci v. Cannondale Corporation Strict Liabilitv 41. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 40 of the within Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 42. The Cannondale bicycle was designed, manufactured, assembled, distributed, sold, and supplied by Defendant Cannondale in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous for its intended and foreseeable uses, and said defects caused Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, to suffer severe and permanent injuries described herein. 43. The above described bicycle was designed, manufactured, distributed, sold and supplied by Defendant Cannondale and placed in the stream of commerce with the intention and expectation that it would reach a class of users and consumers such as Plaintiff. Marl< S. Colucci. 7 IT/fin'd 609,,6~~,~!6 01 ~09S ~~ S,~ S3~ln~3S WI~I~ 91~ ~~ 80:" 00. 80 Nnr '\ , , 44. Defendant Cannondale designed, manufactured, distributed, sold and supplied the Cannondale bicycle at issue in this case, intending it to be used and operated by individuals such as Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. 45. Defendant Cannondale is strictly liable in tort for designing, manufacturing, distributing, selling and supplying an unreasonably dangerous and defective bicycle in the following manner: a. The handlebars breaking on the Cannondale bicycle during normal use as described herein was a malfunction of the Cannondale bicycle, which malfunction would not occur in the absence of a defect; b. The handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle were defectively designed regarding their configuration, materials, and strength; c. The handlebars and the "T" assembly of the handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle were defectively designed with respect to their materials, configuration, and strength; d. The assembly of the handlebars in the "T" assembly was defective, resulting in a flaw, defect, or weakness of the handlebars; e. The handlebars contained a manufacturing defect and impurities in the handlebars; f. The handlebars were manufactured in such a manner as to not be able to endure the stresses and forces involved in the operation of the bicycle; and S;:c/H'd 8 609H6c<."I<."l6 D.L C09S >:Bc S"lC S3JI()~3S WII:flJ 81~ ~.:! 60:H 00.. 80 Nnr ) g. The bicycle did not have adequate warnings or instructions regarding the potential breaking of the handlebars, adjustment or maintenance of the handlebars, or limitations on use of the bicycle regarding the handlebars. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Mark S.Colucci, demands judgment against Defendant Cannondale Corporation in an amount in excess of the limits for mandatory arbitration plus interest, delay damages and costs of suit. COUNT II Plaintiff. Mark S. Colucci. v. Cannondale Corporation . Neqliqence 46. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 45 of the within Complaint are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 47. Defendant Cannondale was negligent and careless with respect to the design, manufacture, and supplying of the Cannondale bicycle at issue in this case which lead to the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. 48. Defendant Cannondale's negligence and carelessness consists of the following: a. The handlebars breaking on the Cannondale bicycle as described herein was a malfunction of the Cannondale bicycle, which malfunction did not occur in the absence of negligence; b. The handlebars on the Cannon dale bicycle were negligently designed regarding their configuration, materials, and strength; 9 >:e:/e:rd 609n6e:l;tl,,6 D1 e:09S me: SE S3Jj()~3S WH,lJ E1H, ~::;. 60:n 00, 80 Nnr ) c. The handlebars and the ''T' assembly of the handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle were negligently designed with respect to their materials, configuration, and strength; d. The assembly of the handlebars in the ''T' assembly was negligent; e. The bicycle handlebars, their components and/or their assembly were not adequately inspected or tested; and f. The bicycle did not have adequate warnings or instructions regarding the potential breaking of the handlebars,. adjustment or maintenance of the handlebars, or limrtations on use of the bicycle regarding the handlebars. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, demands judgment against Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, in an amount in excess of the limits for mandatory arbitration plus interest, delay damages and costs of suit. COUNT III Plaintiff, Mark So Colucci Yo Defendant. Cannon dale Corooration Breach of Warranty 49. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 48 of the within Complaint are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 50. Defendant Cannondale expressly and impliedly warranted that the aforesaid Cannondale bicycle was safe and fit for the purpose for which it was intended and was of merchantable quality. 10 >:C:/D'd 609H6C:l;t<.16 01 C:09S>:8C: SlC: S3:Jlr"l<':l3S WICll:J 8ICl <':I" 60:H 00, 80 Nnr ~. , 51. Defendant Cannondale breached its express and implied warranties that the aforesaid bicycle was safe and fit for the purpose for which it was intended and was of merchantable quality for the reasons set forth in Counts I and II. 52. The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, were caused by the breaches of warranty of Defendant Cannondale for which injuries and damages Defendant Cannondale is liable to Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, demands judgment against Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, in an amount in excess of the limits for mandatory arbitration plus interest, delay damages and costs of suit. COUNT IV Plaintiff. Mark S. Colucci v. Defendants. Profile DesiQn. Inc. Profile for Speed. Inc.. and Gallop Cvcle Corp. 53. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 52 of the within Complaint are incorporated herein as iffully set forth. 54. The handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle purchased by Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, were manufactured, designed, sold andfor distributed by the Profile Defendants andfor Defendant Gallop, or in the alternative, the handlebars and the "T" assembly were manufactured, assembled, sold, andfor distributed by Profile Defendants andfor the Gallop Defendant. 55. The above described components of the Cannondale bicycle were designed, manufactured, distributed, sold and supplied by the Profile Defendants andfor Defendant Gallop and placed into the stream of commerce with the intention and 11 >:2./17! . d 609!!624!4!6 Ol 2095 ~B2 5!2 53~ln~3S WI~l~ 8I~ ~~ 60:!! 00. 80 Nnr " ,'oj expectation that said components would become part of a bicycle such as a Cannondale bicycle and reach a class of consumers such as Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. 56. The Profile Defendants and/or Defendant Gallop designed, manufactured, distributed, sold, and supplied the bicycle components, intending those bicycle components to be incorporated into bicycles to be used and operated by individuals such as Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. 57. The above described bicycle components were designed, manufactured, assembled, distributed, sold and supplied in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous for their intended and foreseeable uses, and said defects caused Mark S. Colucci to suffer the severe and permanent injuries described herein. 58. The Profile Defendants and Defendant Gallop are strictly liable in tort to Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, for designing, manufacturing, assembling, distributing, selling, and supplying unreasonably dangerous bicycle components in the following manner: a. The handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle malfunctioned in that the handlebars broke during normal use and such a malfunction would not occur in the absence of a defect; b. The handlebars and the 'T' assembly on the Cannondale bicycle malfunctioned in that the handlebars broke during normal use and such a malfunction would not occur in the absence of a defect; c. The handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle were defectively designed regarding .their configuration, materials, and strength; 12 f:~/S! . d 509!!5~6!6!5 01 ~09S E8~ S!~ S3Jln~3S WI~lJ ~I~ ~~ 50:!! 00, 80 Nnr ') . d. The handlebars and the "T" assembly of the handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle were defectively designed with respect to their materials, configuration, and strength; e. The assembly of the handlebars in the "T" assembly was defective, resulting in a flaw, defect, or weakness of the handlebars; f. The handlebars contained a manufacturing defect and impurities in the handlebars; g. The handlebars were manufactured in such a manner as to not be able to endure the stresses and forces involved in the operation of the bicycle; . h. The bicycle components were sold without adequate warnings or instructions regarding the potential breaking of the handlebars, adjustment or maintenance of the handlebars, or limitations on use 9f the bicycle regarding the handlebars. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff; Mark S. Colucci, demands judgment against Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, in an amount in excess of the limits for mandatory arbitration plus interest, delay damages and costs of suit. COUNT V Plaintiff. Mark S. Colucci v. Defendants. Profile DesiQn. Inc. Profile for Speed. loe.. and Gallop Cvcle Corp. 59. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 58 of the within Complaint are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 13 >::e:/S,'d 60sn6e:1, 1:1, 1:6 D1 e:0SS >::8e: S1:e: S3Jlntl3S WICjlJ 8ICj t1=l 01:: n 00, 80 Nnr " . \.) 60. Defendants Profile and Gallop were negligent and careless with respect to the design, manufacture, and supplying of the Cannondale bicycle components at issue in this case, which lead to the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. 61. The negligence and carelessness of Defendants Profile and Gallop consist of the following: a. The handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle malfunctioned in that the handlebars broke during normal use and such a malfunction would not occur in the absence of negligence; b. The handlebars and the "1''' assembly on the Cannondale bicycle malfunctioned in that the handrebars broke during normal use and such a malfunction would not occur in the absence of negligence; c. The handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle were negligently designed regarding their configuration, materials, and strength; d. The handlebars and the 'T' assembly of the handlebars on the Cannondale bicycle were negligently designed with respect to their materials, configuration, and strength; e. The assembly of the handlebars in the "1''' assembly was negligent, resulting in a flaw, defect, or weakness of the handlebars; f. The handlebars were negligently manufactured, resulting in a manufacturing defect and impurities in the handlebars; C'::=:,/).t ",...l 14 h~giibZLtLt6 01 Z09S [8Z Stz S3Jln~3S WI~lJ 8I~ ~~ 0t:tt 00, 80 Nnr " g. The handlebars were negligently manufactured so as to not be able to endure the stresses and forces involved in the operation of the bicycle; h. The handlebars. their components and/or their assembly were not adequately inspected or tested; and i. The bicycle components were supplied without adequate warnings or instructions regarding the potential breaking of the handlebars, adjustment or maintenance of the handlebars, or limitations on use of the bicycle regarding the handlebars. WHEREFORE. Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, demands judgment against Defendants, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed. Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp.. in an amount in excess of the limits for mandatory arbitration plus interest, delay damages and costs of suit. COUNT VI Plaintiff. Mark So Colucci v. Defendants. Profile Desiqn. Inc.. Profile for Speed. Inc. and Gallop Cvcle Corp. 62. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 61 of the within Complaint are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 63. The Profile Defendants and/or Defendant Gallop expressly and impliedly warranted that the handlebars and/or that the handlebar assembly and "T" assembly were safe and fit for the purpose fur which they were intended and were of merchantable quality. 15 C"//.oT -..-/ <<ClQTTI';7).V.TI'; nJ 7l'l9~ f:Sc. ~!c S3~1()CJ3S WIJj"l~ 81Jj &1 0!:H 00, 80 Nnr " 64. The Profile Defendants and Defendant Gallop breached the express and implied warranties that the aforesaid bicylce components were safe and fit for the purposes for which they were intended and were of merchantable quality for the reasons set forth in Counts IV and V. 65. The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, were caused by the breaches of warranty of the Profile Defendants and Defendant Gallop for which injuries and damages the Profile Defendants and Defendant Gallop are liable to Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, demands judgment against Defendants, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Gorp. in an amount in excess of the limits for mandatory arbitration plus interest, delay damages and costs of suit. COUNT VII Plaintiff. Melissa C. Colucci v. Defendants. Cannondale Corporation. Profile Desi9n. Inc.. Profile for Speed. Inc. and Gallop Cvcle, Inc. Loss of Consortium 66. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 65 of the within Complaint are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 67. As a resurt of the tortious conduct of Defendants and the breaches of warranty by Defendants, all as set forth herein, Plaintiff, Melissa C. Colucci, has been and will be deprived of the assistance, society, companionship, contributions, and consortium of her husband, Mark S. Colucci, to her great detriment and financial loss. 16 !:'7/f=.,T ",...j ,:;",gn':;?').v,t,:; 01 209~ >:82 ~t2 S3Jln~3S WH:rlJ 811::1 a,j 0t:H 00, 80 Nnr " . WHEREFORE. Plaintiff, Melissa C, Colucci, demands judgment in an amount in excess of the limits for mandatory arbitration plus interest. delay damages and costs of suit. Respectfully submitted. tephe M. Greecher, Jr. Attorney's 1.0. No. 36803 111 North Front Street P. O. Box 889 Harrisburg. PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS ..-- / .-r/ DA TE:S /01->-':> ( rJ(J 28879.1 17 (""7...."''::>.....J C~OTTC7JT)TC nl ?~qC ~~~ CT? ~~~rn~3S WI~i~ 9I~ ~~ 0!:~! 00, 80 Nnr , , VERIFICA nON I, the undersigned Plaintiff, acknowledge that the facts stated in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, infonnation and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.SA Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 26329.1 .....?.-T"':>'.J ~~aTT~~~r~r~ n} ?~ ~~? C!? q~~T0~3S Wr8i~ ~r8 ~~ 0t:tt 00, 80 Nnr VERIFICATION I, the undersigned Plaintiff, acknowledge that the facts stated in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. J.J a)~ (! alA-C:'~' MELISSA C. COLUCCI, Plaintiff 28712.1 C"'';:7/:;;17"-J ""'OTT"").VT" nl ""'0" >:82 <;;t2 S3:JI(),"3S WICll:J 9ICl ,":J H:H 00. 80 Nnr ~* ~c'38~d l~LOL ** CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this .;;<5"it. day of MAY, 2000, I, JACQUELYN A. ZEITLEMOYER, Secretary to STEPHEN M. GREECHER, JR., ESQUIRE, for the firm, Tucker Arensberg & Swartz, attorneys for Plaintiffs, hereby certify that I have this day served the within Complaint by depositing a true and correct copy of the same, in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to: Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 COUNSEL FOR CANNONDALE CORP. PROFILE DESIGN, INC. 156 North Jefferson, Suite #302 Chicago, IL 60661-1136 ZS94S.! >:c/>:c'd PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. 156 North Jefferson, Suite #302 Chicago,IL 60661-1136 GALLOP CYCLE CORP. 2677 El Presidio street Carson, CA 90810 C)p...cr~r- Q .~,,/)",<-<*") Jacquelyn "A. Zettlemoyer ' 509TT5cLTLT5 01 C09S >:8c STc S3Jln~3S WI~lJ 81~ ~~ TT:TT 00, 80 Nnr "\ n . Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Attorney l.O. No. 43530 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg, PennsyJvania 17108 (717) 237.7100 E.Mail: seq@tthlaw.com Attorneys for.Defendant CANNONDALE CORPORATION MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, his wife, PIa inti ffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, BENNSYLVANIA v. Civil Action-- Law NO. 2000-1110 Civil CANNONDALE CORPORATJON; PROFILE DESIGN, INC.; PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC.; and GALLOP CYCLE CQRP., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Plaintiffs and their counsel Defendant, Profile Design, Inc. and its counsel Defendant, Profile for Speed, Inc. and its counsel .. Defendant, Gallop Cycle Corp. and its counsel YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. . THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 7/r f(OO :97827.2 By: STEPHEN E. GEDULDIG, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 43530 Attorneys for Defendant, CANNONDALE CORPORATION I!~I~~ ~. .. Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Attorney I.D, No. 43530 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 (717) 237.7100 E.Mail: seq@tthlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant: CANNONOALE CORPORATION MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, his wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. Civil Action -- Law NO. 2000-1110 Civil CANNON DALE CORPORATION; PROFILE DESIGN, INC.; PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC.; and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, CANNONDALE CORPORATION, TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Defendant, Cannondale Corporation ("Answering Defendant"), by and through its undersigned counsel, Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire, of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, and fi~es the following Apswer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint: I. i Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 2. Admitted. 6. No response required of Answering Defendant. No response .required of An,,!wering Defendant. No response required of Answering Defendant. No response required .of Answering Defendant. ..," 3. 4 . 5 . averment of fact. 14. No response is averment of fact. 15. No response is averment of fact. required as this does not contain an required as this does not contain an 16. Admitted. 17. No response is required of Answering Defendant. 18. No response is required of Answering Defendant. FACTS 19. Denied .pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 20. Denied parsuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 21. Deniec;i pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 22. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. lO29(e). 23. Denied pursuant to Pa. R..C.P. 1029Le) . 24. Denied pursuant to PEl. R.C.I;'. 1029(e). 25. Denied pursuant to Pa. R..C.P. 1029 (e) . " 2 26. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) . 27. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) . 28. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 29. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 30. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (el . 31. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 32~ Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) . 33. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 34. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 35. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) . 36. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 37. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . DAMAGES 38. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant ~o Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 39 a.-j. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 40. Denied a~ legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . WHEREFORE, Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and judgment'entered in its favo~. 3 COUNT I Mark S. Co1ucci v. Cannondale Corporation Strict Liability 41. No response is required as this is a paragraph of incorporation. 42. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029{e) . 43. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 44. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 45 a.-g. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Defendant, Canhondale Corporation, respectfully requests that PlaiIltiffs' Complaint be di.smissed in its entirety and judgment entered in its. favor. ,. COUNT II Plaintiff, MQrk S. Colucci v. Cannondale Corporation Neg1igence 46. No response is required as this is a paragraph of incorporatiQIl. 4 ", 47. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 48 a.-f. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Defendant, Cannonda1e Corporation, respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and judgment entered in its favor. COUNT III Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci v. Cannondale Corporation Breach of Warranty 49. No response is required as this is a paragraph of incorporation. 50. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 51. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 52. Denied as legal conclusions and, pursuant to Pa, R.C.P. 1029 (e) . . WHEREFORE, Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and ~judgment #,ntered in its .favor. 5 " COUNT IV Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci v. Defendants, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. 53-58. No response is required of Answering Defendant. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and judgment entered in its favor. COUNT V P~aintiff, Mark S. Co~ucci v. Defendants, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Ga~lop Cycle Corp. 59-61. No response is required of Answering Defendant. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and judgment entered .in its favor. ......-. .j,.... COUNT VI P~aintiff, Mark S. Colucci v. Defendants, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. 62-65. No Jiesponse is tequ.ired of Answering Defendant... WHEREFORE, Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, respectfully requests that Plainti;f;fs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and j udgmen t . entered in. its. favpr ~ 0"';. 6 COUNT VII Plaintiff, Melissa C. Colucci v. Defendants, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. Loss of Consortium 66. No response is required as this is a paragraph of incorporation. 67. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . WHEREFORE, Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its. entirety and judgment entered in its favor. NEW Ml\.TTER 68. Paragraphs 1 through 67, above, are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 69. "Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, asserts.that this action may be barred by the doctrines of res. Judicata and/or collateral estoppel, which are asserted herein. i 70. Any and all damages, injuries and losses allegedly sustained by Plaintiff( Mark S. Colucci, may be due to the negligence and carelessness of Plaintiff, Mark. S. CoJ,l,l.cci.,.... and . . -- '. ., such condqct serv~s t'2~ ];~duc:=or bar. his recovery pursuant to the ;.rt ..~1' '.......: ."". 7 , terms of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa.C.S. s7102. 71. Any damages, losses and/or injuries allegedly sustained by Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, may have been caused in whole or in part by the conduct of Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, in: (a) Misusing the product. (b) Failing to read and follow instructions, notices and warning accompanying the product. (c) Failing to U.se the product for the purpose for which it was designed and intended. (d) Modifying the product in a manner unauthorized by the manufacturer, which modifications resulted in substantial changes to the product. (e) Altering the product in a manner unauthorized by the manufacturer, which alteration resulted in a substantial change to the product. ;,. 72. At all times herein mentioned, any products sold by Defendant, Cannondale Corporation were safe and tree from any defects. 73. At the time' any product sold by Defendant, Cannondale .Corporation, 'lefti~ care, custody and control, it was free from i defects. and was accompanied by. instructions and,. warnings which rendered the product sate for its intended use_as w~ll as any reasonably foreseeable u~e. 74. Plaintiff; Mark S; Colucci, may have assurriedthe risk..of """, ".,"[' , his .own injury. 8 -~... 75. No product allegedly sold by Defendant, Cannondale Corporation was the proximate cause of any injuries and/or damages sustained by the Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. 76. Any damages or injuries allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, were proximately caused by individuals and entities other than Defendant, Cannondale ,Corporation, including, but not limited to Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci, and others. 77. Plaintiffs fail to plead a cause of action for a breach of warranty. 78. In the alternative, Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, breached no warranty. 79. In the further' alternative, no warranty or breach thereof, denied as aforesaid, caused Plaintiff's alleged"injuries and damages. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and judgment entered. in its favor. i, Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS &' HAFER, LLP 7 (({ ~b :97827h . '~;-By: <('~ L~ STEPH~. ~ut-;;;G~' ESQUIRi Attorney I.D. No~ 43530 'Attorneys for Defenct".nt;, ,CANNONDALE CORPORATION" -..-.'ff.::.' 9 VERIFICATION I, David Campbell, hereby verify that the averments made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 6~'2e-DV i, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served by depositing the same in the United States Mail, posta~. prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on the 111V~day of July, 2000, on all counsel of record as follows: Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., Esquire TUCKER, ARENSBERG & SWARTZ Post Office Box 889 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-0889 Attorneys for Plaintiff Michael A. Boomsma, Esquire POST & SCHELL 237 North Prince Street Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17603 Attorneys for Defendants, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP .. .....'~ ".,. "...,.....:'.:(,.11 ~~ ',...N ," ~~... \~';..:,;;: .,- L. .~~ m . POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: MICHAEL A. BOOMSMA, ESQUIRE LD. # 56062 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY P.O. BOX 10248 LANCASTER, P A 17605-0248 (717) 291-4532 ATTORNEYS FOR DEPENDANTS PROFILE DESIGN, INC. fldIb/a PROFILE FOR SPEED AND GALLOP CYCLE CORP. MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C.... COLUCCI, his wife, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiffs, NO. 200-1110- CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW -'!' ~, CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PRQFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., , .' it Defendants. NOTICF. TO PI ,F. A n TO: Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., Esquire TUCKER ARENS BERG & SWARTZ Attorney for Plaintiffs YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to plead to the within Answer and New Matter within twenty (20) days of service thereof or a default may be entered against you. , i . , ; , i!!III!IIW!flffi ~ .~ . J POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: MICHAEL A. BOOMSMA, ESQUIRE LD. # 56062 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY P.O. BOX 10248 LANCASTER, P A 17605-0248 (717) 291-4532 MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants. j ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS PROFILE DESIGN, INC. fi'dlb/a PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. AND GALLOP CYCLE CORP. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 200-1110- CIVIL TERM (") CIVIL ACTION - LAW ~ ;:g ~~." _ f, ~~::. r:~ ;....~ -:;.~ ~j~; JURY TRIAL DEMANriED N =< c'::; Cl = s.~ , fG .-J _ ~ ,~:.:o -(1 '. ,~~) .~ -', Lv ..:;. ~.n :,,:~-.i ~.:.J -< A NSWRR A NO ~WIVf A TTRR OF ORFF,NOA NTS, PROFIT ,F, ORSTGN, TNC f/rlfh/ll PROFH,F, FOR SPF,RO an!tGAT.T,OP CYCT.R CORP. TO PT ,A TNTTFFS' COMPI ,A TNT. Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. fi'dlb/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp., by and through its counsel, Post & Schell, P.C" hereby files answers to Plaintiffs' Complaint in accordance with the numbered paragraphs thereof: 1. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraphs and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 2. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the , corresponding paragraphs and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time oftrial, if relevant. 3. Admitted with qualification. Profile Design, Inc. is an Illinois corporation formerly doing business as Profile for Speed. 4. Denied. Profile for Speed was an unregistered/unfiled fictitious name of Profile Design, Inc. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted with qualification. Profile Design, Inc. formerly did business as Profile for Speed, an unregisteredlunfiled fictitious name. 7. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is denied Profile Design, Inc. is a successor corporation to Profile for Speed. It is admitted Profile Design, Inc. is liable for and responsible for the obligations of Profile for Speed. 8. Denied. Profile Design, Inc. is not a successor corporation to Profile for Speed. Rather, Profile Design, Inc. formerly did business as Profile for Speed, an unregisteredlunfiled fictitious name. 9. Denied. Gallop Cycle Corp. is a separate and distinct entity from Profile Design, Inc. fld/b/a Profile for Speed. 10. Denied. It is denied that Gallop Cycle Corp. is a successor corporation to Profile Design, Inc. fld/b/a Profile for Speed and, as such, is liable and responsible for the obligations and liabilities of Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed. To the contrary, Gallop Cycle Corp. is a separate entity. -2- " . 11. Denied. Gallop Cycle Corp. is a separate and distinct entity from Profile Design, Inc. f/d/b/a Profile for Speed. 12. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Gallop Cycle Corp. is a corporation independent from Profile Design, Inc. fld/bfa Profile for Speed. It is denied, however, that it is liable for the claims made by Plaintiffs herein. Strict proofthererofis demanded at the time of trial. 13. No responsive pleading is required. 14. No responsive pleading is required. 15. No responsive pleading is required. 16. The averments contained in paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 17. The averments contained in paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. 18. Denied. Defendant Gallop Cycle Corp. is not a successor to the Profile Defendants and is not responsible for the obligations and liabilities ofthe Profile Defendants. As for the balance of the averments, same are conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. FACTS 19. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. -3- 20. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 21. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 22. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 23. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. By way offurther response, answering defendants believe Plaintiffs are referring to the bicylce's stem when referencing a "T" assembly which may have been found and/or a component part of a Cannondale bicycle allegedly purchased by plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci. 24. Denied. It is denied that the handlebars were placed in the "T" assembly by the Profile Defendants or Defendant Gallop. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. -4- 25. Admitted in part, denied in part. Ifthe bicycle in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc, Vd/b/a Profile for Speed. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. 26. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 27. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 28. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 29. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 30. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledg~ sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the -5- corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, ifrelevant. 31. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 32. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity ofthe averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 33. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity ofthe averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 34. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity ofthe averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time oftrial, if relevant. 35. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. -6- 36. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 37. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proofis demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. DAMAGES 38. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 39. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph including subparts (a) through G) and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 40. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proofis demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. COTJNTT Mark S. Coined v. Cannondale Corporation -7- Strict Liahility 41 -45. The averments contained in these paragraphs are directed to a party other than answering defendants, therefore, no response is required. COTJNT H flaintiff, Mark S. C:f1hl~('~J y. Ca1)n~_nd3h~ Corporation Ne~li~ence 46-48. The averments contained in these paragraphs are directed to a party other than answerings defendants, therefore, no response is required. COTJNT HI Plaintiff, Mark S. Colncd v. nefendant,l:;ljnnondale Corporation Rreach of Warranty 49-52. The averments contained in these paragraphs are directed to a party other than answering defendants, therefore, no response is required. COTJNTTV Plaintiff Mark S. Coin cd v. nefend'lnts, Profile nesi~n, Tnc. Profile for Speed, Tnc., and Gallop Cycle Corp. 53. No responsive pleading is required. 54. Admitted in part, denied in part. Ifthe bicycle in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. As to the balance of the averments referencing a "T" assembly, after reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack -8- information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averments and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 55. Admitted in part, denied in part. Ifthe bicycle in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed with the expectation that the handlebars would become part of a bicycle such as a Cannondale and reach consumers such as Plaintiff. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. As to the balance of the averments, including any reference to other component parts, after reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, ifrelevant. 56. Admitted in part, denied in part. Ifthe bicycle in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc, f7d/b/a Profile for Speed. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. As to the balance of the averments, including any reference to other component parts, after reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 57. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 57 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, if the bicycle in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, -9- ;! <; distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc., Vd/b/a Profile for Speed not in a defective condition or unreasonably dangerous for their intended, foreseeable use. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. Strict proofthereof is demanded at time of trial. 58. The averments contained in paragraph 58 of Plaintiffs' Complaint including subparts (a) through (h), are conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, ifthe bicycle in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc, Vd/b/a Profile for Speed. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp., request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all other parties. COTJNT V Plaintiff, Mark S. Colncci v. Oeflmdllnts, Profilenesi~n, Tnc. Profile for Speed, Inc., and Gallop Cycle Corp. 59. No responsive pleading is required. 60. The averments contained in paragraph 60 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, if the bicycle in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc, -10- , Vd/b/a Profile for Speed. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. 61. The averments contained in paragraph 61 including subparts (a) through (i) of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, if the bicycle in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc, Vd/b/a Profile for Speed. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. f)'d/b/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp., request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all other parties. COTJNY VI Plaintiff, Mark S. Colucci v Defendants, Profile Desien, Tnc., Profile for Speed, Tnc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. 62. No responsive pleading is required. 63. The averments contained in paragraph 63 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, if the bicycle in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc, Vd/b/a Profile for Speed. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. As to any other component parts and "T" assembly, after reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or -11- falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 64. The averments contained in paragraph 64 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, if the bicycle in question was equipped with Profile handlebars, then same were designed, distributed and otherwise placed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Profile Design, Inc, Vd/b/a Profile for Speed. It is denied Defendant Gallop has any connection with Profile handlebars. As to any other component parts and "T" assembly, after reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph and the same are therefore denied. Strict proofis demanded at the time of trial, if relevant. 65. The averments contained in paragraph 65 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp., request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all other parties. COUNT VIT . -12- PJ::rintiff, Melissa C. CollIC":d v. Op.fp.nrlants, C3nnonnale Corpor3tion, Profile Design, Tnc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. r ,o~s of Consortium 66. The averments contained in paragraph 66 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 67. The averments contained in paragraph 67 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp., request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all other parties. NRWMATTF.R 68. Plaintiff was comparatively negligent. 69. Plaintiff misused the product and his actions with regard to said misuse were not reasonably foreseeable. 70. Plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 71. Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp. are not strictly liable to Plaintiffs. 72. Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp. breached no duty of care to Plaintiffs. 73. Any damages were the result of third party actions and/or the actions of Plaintiff. 74. Plaintiff assumed the risk of using the bicycle in question. -13- ,....~ 75. To the extent it is established that any product designed and/or distributed by Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. f)'d/b/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp. was involved in the incident complained of by Plaintiff then, upon information and belief, said product was fit for its intended purpose at the time it left Answering Defendants' care, custody and control. 76. Plaintiffs' claims are barred to the extent it is established that Plaintiffs have failed to timely file and serve sufficient process against Answering Defendants within the statutorily prescribed period for limitations on negligence and products liability actions. 77. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited to the extent it is established that Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages. 78. Plaintiffs' claims are barred to the extent it is established that the involved product was not properly maintained and/or installed and that said improper maintenance and/or installation created the condition which caused the incident complained of by Plaintiff. 79. Plaintiffs' claims are barred to the extent that the subject product was misused and/or abused after it left the care, custody or control of Answering Defendants. 80. Plaintiffs' claims against Answering Defendant are barred to the extent it is established that the subject product underwent material and/or substantial changes from the condition it was in when it allegedly left Answering Defendants' possession, custody and control. 81. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the doctrines of accord and satisfaction, release and/or set-off to the extent it is established that Plaintiffs' have entered into -14- " any agreements or releases relating to any damages allegedly suffered by the Plaintiffs in the incident in question. 82. Answering Defendants expressly reserve and preserve those defenses which need not be specifically pled under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp., request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all other parties. POST & SCHELL, BY: -15- . VRRIFTCATTON I, Michael A. Boomsma, Esquire, hereby state that I am the attorney for Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. f/d/b/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp., in this action and verifY that the statements made in the foregoing document(s) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S., Section 4904, relating to the unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE: -r f ( <-I J Ou J { . (:RRTIFICA TR OF SRRVICR I, Michael A. Boomsma, Esquire, attorney for Defendants, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. hereby state that the foregoing document was sent by first- class mail, postage prepaid on the date set forth to the following: Stephen M. Greecher, Jr. TUCKER ARENSBERG & SWARTZ III North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, Pa 17108-0889 Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 Micliae Dated: t / 14.[ 00 I SEP 19 '00 14:04 FR POST AND SCHELL 717 291 1609 TO 12037484012 P.02/02 " Re: Colucci v. Profile Design. Inc. VRR TFTC A TION I HEREBY VERIFY that the statements made by Defendant, Cannondale Corporation and are contained in the within .loinder Complaint of Defendant.., CaDDondlll.. Corporation, Profile Design. In". Prom.. for Sp..ed, Tn". and Gallop Cycle Corp. Directed tll Vih Chene MlInllfa"tllrin~ Company,L.td. t/dibl" Ali"o are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements contained herein are subj ect to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. I certif'y that I am a duly authorized representative of Cannondale Corporation and as such, am authorized to make this Verification on its behalf. BY: -!hi U~ David Campbell . Cannondale Corporation DATED: 9-Jlf - 2000 , . , -J' VF,RTFTCATTON I, Michael A. Boomsma, EsqUire, hereby state that I am the attorney for Defendants, Profile Design, Inc. f/d/b/a Profile for Speed and Gallop Cycle Corp., in this action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing .Toinder (Complaint of Defendants, Cannondale Cnrpnration, Profile Design, Tnc, Profile for Speed, Inc. and G.allnp.Cyde Corp. Directed to Vih Cheng Mannfacturinr; Company, Ltd. t/d!h/a Alico are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S., Section 4904, relating to the unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE:-=:Llzz> l OD , ~ < >_..t"- CRRTIFICA TF. OF SRRVn-:R I, Michael A. Boomsma, Esquire, attorney for Defendants, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp. hereby state that the foregoing document was sent by first-class mail, postage prepaid on the date set forth to the following: Stephen M. Greecher, JI. TUCKER ARENSBERG & SWARTZ III North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, Pa 17108-0889 Dated: ct(-z<J (00 ~ . ~ w(t ril'-' ;?::-L ..-:~ rd (f);::r-:- -<.L ~CJ ~O ,-0 ?C- Z ~ .-J -~ )> ~ POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: MICHAEL A. BOOMSMA, ESQUIRE J.D. # 56062 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY P.O. BOX 10248 LANCASTER, PA 17605-0248 (717) 291-4532 MARK S. COUJ~CI and MELISSA e. COLUCCI, his wife, ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS PROFILE DESIGN, INe. f)'d/b/a PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiffs, NO. 2000-1110- CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INe. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants, v. YIH CHENG MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD. t/d/b/a ALICO Third-Party Defendant. A FFInA VIT OF SERVICE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: SS: COUNTY OF LANCASTER: Sandra Morales, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that a full and complete copy of Defendants' Joinder Complaint was served on Tbrd-Party Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd. t/d/b/a Alico personally by Steven Hansen, Esquire on September 25, 2000. Supporting documents are attached hereto, made part hereof, and marked Exhibit "A" cr~~j~c:1 SANDRA MORALES SWORN TO AND SUBSCRlBED BEFORE ME THIS /!ftoAY OF (j)O-/-o bu 2000. IbLIffJ ~ ~ INOTAR P LIC , NOTARIAL SEAL BETTY J. FUCK. Nota<y Pub"c l.ancastar,l.ancaster County, PA My Commission 8cpi... Man:h 24, 211113 POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: MICHAEL A. BOOMSMA, ESQUIRE LD. # 56062 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY P.O. BOX 10248 LANCASTER, P A 17605-0248 (717) 291-4532 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS PROFILE DESIGN, INC. Vd/b/a PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP. MARK. S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, his wife, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiffs, NO. 200-1110- CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants. RETURN OF SERVICE PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 405 I Steven Hansen. Esquire, being duly sworn according to law, depose and say that at ~ (Time) on ~ (Date) I personally handed to ;J"<> \;t "'VIi '{.e 1\ (Name of person receiving process), Asto..'v.. W\ll\.k. . ?,z,-'fo '{V'>, 5'(0" { (Description of such person), at 'Ul1 CO-lot-- Sctl'\oI.!!. "Ave-, Lw" ~~ N V ?)"j WI (Place), a copy of the Joinder Complaint issued in the above entitled action. ~ (Signature) STEVEN HANSEN, ESQUIRE SWORN TO ~ SUBS,fR,IBED before me this.:JeA. day Uid- of /, 2000 _.-~ ,,~::-:::,-:,:,,:;-'-}JMEE RUCKER .;~ ,.' Commlssionlf i242982c:.:z: ~ ' ,NolO!){ PuP'.ic - Calilcmio :E ;z .., 'j.os M. gel, ~~~" ~ ( i.~ ~~~~~~ (") 0 C) C C [-J vA ::::> 2ff'I Co ~. -., .-'-,. ~ '~n %r:- CI') ;:~;: C,) ;'._J -<~ ;:;,:'~~~ r-c:-, :::! ~- ~: .');! J 21..-:: -;......."') :;sC ~..'.l ;'srry C ~":::'I ~ - ~ (..j -<: POST & SCHELL, P.c. BY: MICHAEL A. BOOMSMA, ESQUIRE LD. # 56062 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY P.O. BOX 10248 LANCASTER, P A 17605-0248 (717) 291-4532 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS PROFILE DESIGN, INC. Vd/b/a PROFILE FUR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP. MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, his wife, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiffs, NO. 2000-1110- CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants, v. YIH CHENG MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD. t/d/b/a ALICO Third-Party Defendant. ANSWER OF DEFRNDANT, CANNONnA T ,E TO PI,ATNTTFFS' REQ-IIEST FOR ADMlSSTONS 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted with clarification or reservation. Cannnodale manufactured the frame of the bike. The other component parts of same were manufactured by other entities. These component parts together with the frame were assembled and distributed as a Cannondale bicycle. 3. Admitted with reservation or clarification. The bicycle in question was placed in the stream of commerce by Cannondale Corporation, but was not sold directly to Plaintiff. 4. Admitted with reservation or clarification. Presumably, the bicycle in question was distributed by Cannondale Corporation in the sense it was placed in the stream of commerce. 5. Denied with reservation or clarification. After making reasonable inquiry through an expert preliminary inspection of the bicycle in Plaintiff's possession, the make and model of the stem on the subject bicycle is unknown. Therefore, until the stem is removed and inspected, answering Defendant cannot state whether the stem on Plaintiff's bicycle was an original equipment component part when it left answering Defendant's possession. Likewise, when the bicycle left answering Defendant's possession with the original equipment component in question, it is possible it was removed and/or otherwise replaced by the consumer level distributor of the bicycle or any previous or present owner of same. Both the stem and handlebars are separate, interchangeable components. 6. Admitted with reservation or clarification. On the bicycle in question, the stem is a component part. By way of further answer, in the bicycle industry, the component part in question is simply known as a "stem" or "gooseneck." Both the stem and handlebars are separate, interchangeable components. 7. Admitted. 8. Denied with reservation or clarification. After making reasonable inquiry through an expert preliminary inspection of the bicycle in Plaintiffs possession, the make and model of the stem on the subject bicycle is unknown. Therefore, until the stem is removed and inspected, answering Defendant cannot state whether the stem on Plaintiff's bicycle was an original equipment component part when it left answering Defendant's possession. It is believed when Plaintiff's bicycle left answering Defendant's possession, it included a stem manufactured -2- by Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd. However, when the bicycle left answering Defendant's possession with the original equipment component in question, it is possible it was removed and/or otherwise replaced by the consumer level distributor ofthe bicycle or any previous or present owner of same. 9. Admitted with reservation or clarification. After making reasonable inquiry through an expert preliminary inspection ofthe bicycle in Plaintiffs possession, the make and model ofthe stem on the subject bicycle is unknown. Therefore, until the stem is removed and inspected, answering Defendant cannot state whether the stem on Plaintiffs bicycle was an original equipment component part when it left answering Defendant's possession. It is believed when Plaintiff's bicycle left answering Defendant's possession, it included a stem manufactured by Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd. However, when the bicycle left answering Defendant's possession with the original equipment component in question, it is possible it was removed and/or otherwise replaced by the consumer level distributor of the bicycle or any previous or present owner of same. 10. Admitted with reservation or clarification. After making reasonable inquiry through an expert preliminary inspection ofthe bicycle in Plaintiff s possession, the make and model of the stem on the subject bicycle is unknown. Therefore, until the stem is removed and inspected, answering Defendant cannot state whether the stem on Plaintiffs bicycle was an original equipment component part when it left answering Defendant's possession. It is believed when Plaintiff's bicycle left answering Defendant's possession, it included a stem manufactured by Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd. However, when the bicycle left answering Defendant's possession with the original equipment component in question, it is -3- possible it was removed and/or otherwise replaced by the consumer level distributor of the bicycle or any previous or present owner of same. II. Denied. This admission implies all bicyles sold by answering Defendant include as a component part a stem manufactured by Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd. It is denied all bicycles sold by answering Defendant include as a component part a stem manufactured by Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd. 12. Denied with reservation or clarification. After making reasonable inquiry through an expert preliminary inspection of the bicycle in Plaintiffs possession, the make and model of the stem on the subject bicycle is unknown. Therefore, until the stem is removed and inspected, answering Defendant cannot state whether the stem on Plaintiff's bicycle was an original equipment component part when it left answering Defendant's possession. It is believed when Plaintiff's bicycle left answering Defendant's possession, it included a stem manufactured by Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd. However, when the bicycle left answering Defendant's possession with the original equipment component in question, it is possible it was removed and/or otherwise replaced by the consumer level distributor of the bicycle or any previous or present owner of same. 13. Denied with reservation or clarification. After making reasonable inquiry through an expert preliminary inspection of the bicycle in Plaintiff's possession, the make and model of the stem on the subject bicycle is unknown. Therefore, until the stem is removed and inspected, answering Defendant cannot state whether the stem on Plaintiffs bicycle was an original equipment component part when it left answering Defendant's possession. It is believed when Plaintiff's bicycle left answering Defendant's possession, it included a stem manufactured by -4- Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd. However, when the bicycle left answering Defendant's possession with the original equipment component in question, it is possible it was removed and/or otherwise replaced by the consumer level distributor of the bicycle or any previous or present owner of same. 14. Denied with reservation or clarification. After making reasonable inquiry through an expert preliminary inspection of the bicycle in Plaintiff's possession, the make and model of the stem on the subject bicycle is unknown. Therefore, until the stem is removed and inspected, answering Defendant cannot state whether the stem on Plaintiff's bicycle was an original equipment component part when it left answering Defendant's possession. It is believed when Plaintiff's bicycle left answering Defendant's possession, it included a stem manufactured by Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd. However, when the bicycle left answering Defendant's possession with the original equipment component in question, it is possible it was removed and/or otherwise replaced by the consumer level distributor of the bicycle or any previous or present owner of same. POST & SCHELL, P.c. BY: -5- f'Efl01 '01 11:0S FR POST AND SCHELL 717 291 1609 TO 12037484012 P. 13/14 Rc: Colucci v. Profile Design. Inc. Y.E.RlFICA T ION I HEREBY VERIFY that the statements made by Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, in the within Request for Admissions are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 1 understand that any false statements contained herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. I certify that I am a duly authorized representative of Cannondale Corporation and as such, am authorized to make this Verification on its behalf. DATED: /f6. J I ~I David Campbell Cannondale Corp BY: c:;RRTIFICATR OF SRRVICR I, Sandra Morales, an employee of the law offices of Post & Schell, P.C., do hereby certifY that on the date set forth below, I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following person(s) at the following address(es) by sending same in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid: Dated: a /1/ O( / I Stephen M. Greecher, Jr. TUCKER ARENSBERG & SWARTZ 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 Howard Wishnoff, Esquire Mintzer, Sarowitz, Zeris & Ledva 1528 Walnut St 22nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 (YtCncf;uz ~ SANDRA MORALES -' ~ ""-;. v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2000 - 1110 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, His Wife, Plaintiffs CANNON DALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. YIH CHENG MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD. tfd!b/a ALlCO, Third-Party Defendant PROPOSED ORDER AND NOW, this ~NrJ. day of AA:I'/e~fJt. 2001, upon consideration of the Motion for a Settlement Conference, a Settlement Conference is hereby scheduled for 7J,s /'. /9'. 2001, atE:jd o'c1ock~.M., before the Honorable JudgeC.... .'M F~'V/e. ~ days. before the Settlement Conference, each party shall submit a Confidential Memorandum to the judge with respect to the above case. 44378.1 Edw-A/Z.dE. ~,. JIJ J. ./ I I' i'O ! ---...... r '- ~ MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, His Wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2000 - 1110 CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. YIH CHENG MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD. tld/b/a ALlCO, Third-Party Defendant MOTION FOR A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND NOW come the Plaintiffs, Mark S. Colucci and Melissa C. Colucci, his wife, by and through their attorney, Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., Tucker, Arensberg & Swartz, and files the following Motion: 1. . The above case arises out of a incident that occurred on July 31, 1998. At that time, Mark Colucci was riding his Cannon dale bicycle on Trindle Road, in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, at which time the handlebars broke causing Mr. Colucci to fall to the ground, suffering personal injuries, which injuries included a fractured right elbow which has now become arthritic. 2. The parties have engaged in written discovery and have had the bicycle handlebars and related components thoroughly examined. 3. Plaintiff has made a settlement demand in this matter to which there has not yet been a response. At this point in the case, it would be useful to have the Court schedule a Settlement Conference before a member of the Court. '- ~.... c 4. It is believed that the Settlement Conference would substantially aid in bringing this matter to a resolution. 5. While Plaintiffs are making this motion, Defendants, Cannondale, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp., and Additional Defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd. tJd/b/a Alico, do not oppose this request for a Settlement Conference. 6. It is respectfully suggested that prior to the Settlement Conference, at a time to be determined by the Court, each party submit a confidential memorandum to the Court outlining that party's position with respect to this case. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that an Order be entered scheduling a Settlement Conference in this case. Respectfully submitted, Ste en M. Gr cher, Jr. Attorney's 1.0. o. 36803 111 North Front Street P. O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108.0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS DATE: (tJ /.' <' !.r/ 44378.1 <T I ~ ./ 2 " '- , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ':<St:l... day of OCTOBER, 2001, I, JACQUELYN A. ZETTLEMOYER, Secretary to STEPHEN M. GREECHER, JR., ESQUIRE, for the firm, Tucker Arensberg & Swartz, attorneys for Plaintiffs, hereby certify that I have this day served the within document by depositing a true and correct copy of the same, in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to: Michaei A. Boomsma, Esquire Post & Schell, P.C. 1857 William Penn Way P. o. Box 10248 Lancaster, PA 17605-0248 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS, CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC. tld/b/a PROFILE FOR SPEED and GALLOP CYCLE CORP. Howard Wishnoff, Esquire Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris & Ledva 1528 Walnut Street, 22"d Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 ATTORNEYS FOR THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT, YiH CHENG MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD. tld/b/a ALlCO ~~o.~ JacquelyiYA. Zettlemoyer 28945.1 " ~ '.-.- . ~ (") 0 c; c ..,., ~ Q "tJ GJ r> L:::;-n n1rTl --i ;"';"'" Z::..t: N -'-, . 2'-' -.-,"..,..' ~, <D (fl ~'7 ) ,.L, 20 --0 :.;_l~:: ~o :;:t: ,_.!') :JJ :'-:;..0 -0 W orn J>c ~ ~ 0 ," '< POST & SCHELL, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAw 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY P.O. Box 10248 LANCASTER, PA 17605-0248 (7 J 7) 2:9 r -4532 FACSIMIl-E:: (717) 29 I ~ 1609 1800 ,JOHN F, KENNE.DY BLVD. ~HlLADELPHIA, PA I SlI 03-7480 (215) 587-1000 FAA: (2 r 5) 587-1444 CNG ( DOMINION TOWER 625 l.tBERTY AVE, SUITE 2800 PrrTSSURGH, PA r 5222-31 10 (412) 577-2.972 F.AX: (412) 577-2973 240 GRANDVlEW AV~UE CAMP HIL.L.. PA I 70 I I (717)731-1970 FAX; (17) 731-1985 12.45 S. CEDAR CREST BOULEVARD SUITE 300 ALLENTOWN, PA 18 I 0.:3 (6 I 0) 43.3-0 r 93 FAX: (61 0) 433-3972 ADAMS Pl..ACE.. SUm::: .3 70 I WHITE HORSE ROAD VOORHEES,NJ 08043 (8561 627-8900 FAX: (856l 627.4451 November 19, 2001 MICHAEL A. BOOMSMA (717)391.4421 M800MSMA.@POs'TSeHe:,-..,eoH Hon. Edward E. Guido Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Re: Colucci v. Cannondale Corporation, et 1Il Cumberland Cty CCP, No. 2000-1110 Dear Judge Guido: Presently, the above-referenced matter is scheduled for a settlement conference before your Honor on December 19, 2001 at 3:30 p.m. I unavailable that day due to my required attendance at a CLE seminar in Philadelphia that entire day. Because of the unique facts of this case, I would like to personally attend the settlement conference before your Honor. Accordingly, I am respectfully requesting the settlement conference be rescheduled. Currently, I am available many other dates in the month of December as well as January. I await further direction from your Honor. Respectfully yours, <( e~ . Boo_, MAB/sm cc: Stephen M. Greecher, Ir., Esquire Howard Wishnoff, Esquire ' , POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: MICHAEL A. BOOMSMA, ESQUIRE I.D. # 56062 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY P.O. BOX 10248 LANCASTER, P A 17605-0248 (717) 291-4532 MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, his wife, Plai..."1.tiffs, v. CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants, v. YIH CHENG MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD. tJd/b/a ALICO Third-Party Defendant. ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS PROFILE DESIGN, INC. Vd/b/a PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP. COURT OF CO:MM:ON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 2000-1110- CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW ORDRR ~ AND NOW, this ]6 dayof,J~ ,2001, the settlement conference currently scheduled for Wednesday, December 19, 2001 at 3:30 p.m. is rescheduled for Friday, February 8, 2002 at 1 :30 p.m. ATTEST: I Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., Esquire Michael A. Boomsma, Esquire Howard Wishnoff, Esquire B Edward E. Guido, J.. ~ !-7::0f?1x5 (") c::> ~~ c s:: Cl "~~ -om ,.." .J~-~F ~~rl " , ".,r--r:. &;s;: .'-:'~ c.,.;, --'-"-,.-1 2/ 10 ~e --0 ""0 ::L: <~}o :z: ' (::1\1 -0 'f! J>c "" z .:..n :Xl =< <D -< " . . POST & SCHELL, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT Lo.w -~ 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY P.O. Box 10248 LANCASTER, PA J 7605-0248 (717) 291-4532 F"ACS1MILE: (71 7) 29 I ~] 609 ! 800 ....tOl:lN F. KENNEDY BLVD. PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-7460 (215) 567.1000 FAX: <2IS} 587-1444 CNG I DOMINION TOWER 625 UBERTY AVE, SUITE 2800 plTJ"SaURGH, PA 15222-31 10 (41 2l 577-2972 FAX: (412l 577-297.:3 240 GRANOVIEW AVENUE CAMP HILL-, PA I 70 I I (717) 731-1970 FAX: (717) 731-1985 1245 S._CEDAR CREST BOULEVARD SUITE 300 ALLENTOWN. PA I 8 I 03 (610) 433-0 I 93 FAX: (610) 433-3972 ADAMS PLACE - SUITE .3 70 I WHITE HORSE ROAD VOORHEES,NJ 08043 (8S6l627-8900 FAX: <8S6l 627-4451 November 29,2001 MICHAEL A. BOOMSMA {717l 391-4421 MBOOMSMA@PosTScHELL.COM Hon. Edward E. Guido Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Re: Colucci v. Cannondale Corporation, et al Cumberland County CCP, No. 2000-1110 Dear Judge Guido: Thank you very much for granting my request for a continuance of the settlement conference currently scheduled for December 19,2001 at 3:30 p.m., but rescheduled for Friday, February 8, 2002 at I :30 p.m. Enclosed, please find an Order to that effect. Again, thank you for this accommodation. Respectfully yours, {A.[5, Michael A. Boomsma - MAB/sm cc: Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., Esquire Howard Wishnoff, Esquire LAW OFFICES JAN 2 It 21l1l2<f MINTZER SAROWITZ ZERIS LEDV A & MEYERS C/. A LIMITED LfABIL1TYPARTNERSHIP .JAY E.. MINTZER .ot LAWRENCE S. SAROWlTZ-u JAl'tIES N. ZERIS .."" STEPHEN LEDVA,JR." ADDISON J. MEYERS *-* DANIEL J. McCARTHY.... KIMBERLY A. JUBAl\'Y1K" LA WHENCE M. KELLY" JEFFREY C. SOTLAND" RICHARD A. GASH ..... KEVIN L. KELLY 000 JONATHAN M. FIELD '*' PHH..LIP B. Sn. VERMAN ,.". JOSEPH M. DASHE ... HENRY J. ACHIRON(>O HOWARD WISHNOFFtt DAVID s. COHEN '" 22ND FLOOR 1528VVALNUTSTREET PHILADELPIllA, PA 19102-3614 (215) 735-7200 FAX (215) 735-1714 NEW JERSEY OFFICE WOODCREST PAVILION 10 MELROSE AVENUE, SUITE 120 CHERRY HILL, NJ 08003 (856)-616-0700 Fax (856) 616-0716 NEW YORK OFFICE 39 BROADWAY SUITE 950 NEwYORK,NYI0006 (212) 968-8300 FAX (212) 968--9840 FLORIDA OFFICE 2600 DOUGt-AS ROAD DOUGLASCENttR, SUITE 1102 CORAL GABLES, FL 33134 (305) 774-9966 FAX (305) 774-7743 MEl>mERPA& NJ BAR ONLY .. MEMBERPA,NJ&NYBARONI..Y .u MEMBERPA&NYBAAONt.y .... MEMBE:R.Fl.A.BARONLY o MEJ>,ffiERPA,NJ&.FLABARONLY 00 MEMBER NY BAR ONt Y 00 MEMBERNV&NJBAAONl..Y t LLM. TAXATION tt MEMBER !'A BAR om y ttt MEMBER NY, OR &: AZ BAR Email: PBS@defensecQunsel.com January 21,2002 The Honorable Edward Guido COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, P A 17013 scon D. KIRSCHBAUM u,"," CHRISTOPHER J. CARLSON '" STEVEN N. CHERRY'" KEVIN B. STEINBE~G'" BENJAMIN J. TARTAGLIA, III" LISA R. HARRIS "......... MICHAEL C. CORCORAN" JOSHUA HARVEY tt TIM:OTHY P. MULLlN " DA VII> Y. HOM <><<- NAOI\U A. 7Jl\.fi\.:lERMAN **,," PETERA. FRUCCHlONE 00 ERIKA L OMUNDSON ttt .MICHAEL R. BERMANN ...""" ROBERTW.SHAW,ID" MAY\'A S. GOTLm 00 l'ASQUALE R. CALCAGNO 00 STEVE N N. SOLOMON <><> MEREDITHR. KRAIN ... RYAN L. LEONARD " BRYAN V. ARNER tt OUR FILE NO: 0220.0013 RE: MARK S. COLUCCI AND MELISSSAC. COLUCCI, illS WIFE vs. YIH CHENG MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD., T/DfB/A ALICO No. 200-1 I lO-CNIL TERM Dear Judge Guido: Pursuant to Your Honor's Order dated November 2, 2002, enclosed please fmd a Confidential Settlement Memorandum submitted on behalf of additional defendant, Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company, Ltd. tfd/b/a ALICO. The settlement conference has been rescheduled to take place before Your Honor on Friday, February 8, 2002 at I :30 p.m. PBS/rvp Enclosure - ../ MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERlS, LEDV A & MEYERS BY: PHILLIP B. SILVERMAN, ESQUIRE Identification No.: 02201 22nd Floor 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZL&M File No. 0220.0013 Attorney for Additional Defendant, YIH CHENG MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD., T/DfB/A ALICO MARK S. COLUCCI AND MELISSSA C. COLUCCI, HIS WIFE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUJ\1BERLAND COUNTY vs. No. 200-1110-CIVIL TERM CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP. vs. YIR CHENG MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD., T/DfB/A ALICO, Additional Defendant CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT MEMORANDUM OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT, YIH CHENG MANUFACTURING COMPANY. LTD. tfd!b/a ALICO I. LIABILITY Plaintiff's injury arises out of a bicycle accident which occurred on July 31, 1998. At that time, plaintiff asserts that he was caused to fall when the handle bar of his bicycle broke without waming. Plaintiff denies misusing the product or making any modifications to the handle bar and denies any knowledge of any type of defect prior to the incident. For the purposes of the settlement conference only, additional defendant will not argue that plaintiff was comparatively ~ ~~ negligent. Investigation ofthis incident has revealed that additional defendant manufactured the stem piece which secured the handle bar to the bicycle. The handle bar itself was manufactured by defendant, Pr?file. These components have been examined by experts for all parties. The -"-~ examination revealed that'the handle bar failed at the point where it joined the stem piece. Additional defendant reasonably believes that the failure ofthe handle bar was due to the improper design or manufacture ofthe handle bar, rather than any defect of the stem which it manufactured. It is conceded that Profile's expert has. concluded that the stem was, in fact, defective. The opinions of plaintiff's experts are unknown at this time. For purposes of this settlement conference only, counsel for additional defendant and counsel for defendant Profile have agreed among themselves to an apportionment ofliability. Additional defendant will be responsible for 60% of any settlement with the remaining defendants to pay the balance. II. DAMAGES Plaintiff was seen in the Emergency Room at Holy Spirit Hospital where he was treated for abrasions and elbow pain. X-rays revealed a fracture of the right proximal radial head. Plaintiff had his abrasions cleaned and a sling was provided for his right arm. He then came under the care of an orthopedic surgeon who recommended exercises to maintain a full range of motion. Roughly six weeks after the accident, plaintiff began a course of physical therapy directed towards full use of the affected limb. This consisted of 9 visits over a three week period. Within 10 weeks of the accident, plaintiff had resumed his previous level of activity, participating in a 100 mile bicycle race. No medications were ever prescribed to treat plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff made no complaints of interference with his work-related activities and is not , making a claim for either lost wages nor for loss of earning capacity. Plaintiff further claims that there is evidence that this injury has led to an arthritic condition in the affected elbow which is permanent and which may progress with time. However, additional defendant has not had the opportunity to have plaintiff independently examined or to have his medical records reviewed. For the purposes ofthis settlement conference, additional defendant therefore disputes plaintiff s claims of permanent injury and further disputes the claim of any progressive condition which might be related to the injuries suffered in this accident. Additional defendant is not aware of the exact amount of medical expenses incurred by plaintiff as the result of this injuries, as plaintiff has supplied only a portion ofthe bills for his medical treatment. Plaintiff has made a written demand in the amount of$75,000. To date, no offers have been extended by defendants or by additional defendant. MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDV A & MEYERS BY: PHILLIP . S YERMAN, ESQUIRE Attorney or Additional Defendant, YIH CHENG MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD., T!D!B/A ALICO , v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2000 - 1110 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, His Wife, Plaintiffs CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. YIH CHENG MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD. t1d/b/a All CO, Third-Party Defendant PLAINTIFFS' CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 1. Facts ReClardinCl the Incident: On the evening of July 31, 1998, between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m., Plaintiff Mark Colucci, was riding his Cannondale bicycle along Trindle Road in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. Without warning and for no apparent reason, the handlebars of the Cannondale bicycle broke. As a result, Mr. Colucci fell from the bike and suffered personal injuries, including a fractured right elbow and significant road burn. After his fall, Mr. Colucci lay in a ditch for a period of time until he gathered himself. A passerby eventually assisted Mr. Colucci. Mr. Colucci put his bike in the pickup truck of the passerby and the passerby gave Plaintiff Mark Colucci a ride to his home in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. When he arrived home, Plaintiff Melissa Colucci immediately took her husband, Mark Colucci, to the Holy Spirit Hospital for treatment. At the Holy Spirit Hospital, Mr. Colucci's wounds were cleaned, his right arm was x-rayed, and a right elbow fracture was diagnosed. Mr. Colucci was fitted with a sling, and then referred to Dr. John Frankeny, II, M.D., of the Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania for follow-up care. 2. Liabilitv: Liability in this case is clear. Mr. Colucci was using his bike as it was intended to be used. The handlebars on the bicycle broke, causing Mr. Colucci to fall to the ground and suffer the injuries at issue in this case. The facts of this case fit clearly within the malfunction theory of product liability. At the time of this accident, the bicycle was only two years old. Cannondale Corporation, as the manufacturer and supplier of the bicycle, is clearly liable to the Coluccis. Additionally, the suppliers and manufacturers of the handlebars and the stem into which the handlebars fit are liable to the Coluccis. The handlebars were manufactured and supplied by Profile Design, Inc. and the stem was manufactured and supplied by Yih Cheng Manufacturing Company. The bicycle and handlebars have been thoroughly examined by representatives of all the parties. Expert reports have not been produced. Plaintiffs' counsel, however, has been informed by the experts who examined the bicycle on behalf of Plaintiffs that a burr was found on the stem where the handlebars failed and there was an area of thinness in the metal of the handlebars themselves. All of the Defendants in this case bear Iiability--Cannondale, as the manufacturer and supplier of the bicycle; Profile Design, Inc. and Yih Cheng as the manufacturers and suppliers of the component parts. 3. DamaQes: The medical records in this case reveal that, as a result of the bicycle accident, Mr. Colucci suffered serious personal injuries that included a right radial head fracture to his elbow, rapidly progressive arthritis of the right elbow, permanent restriction of the range of motion of -2- the right elbow, permanent restriction in the extension of his arm, aching pain, and significant road burn, bruises, and abrasions. Dr. John Frankeny initially examined Mr. Colucci on August 3, 1998, and August 18, 1998. Mr. Colucci complained of pain and Dr. Frankeny noted limitations of range of motion and extension of the elbow. In addition to home exercises, Dr. Frankeny prescribed a course of physical therapy from September 17, 1998 through October 19, 1998 at the Joyner Sports Medicine Institute. By November 19,1998, The physical therapy records and Dr. Frankeny's notes indicate that, despite Mr. Colucci's consistent efforts to improve himself, he was lacking 10 degrees offull extension in his right elbow. The medical records in this case further reveal that Mr. Colucci developed arthritis and a permanent restriction in the extension of his right arm. Mr. Colucci developed arthritis because his elbow fracture involved a joint. Dr. Frankeny has stated that Mr. Colucci has a "rapidly progressive arthritic elbow." Mr. Colucci is at increased risk for further development of arthritis and associated loss of range of motion, as well as increased pain and further decrease in function. In fact, at some time in the future, Mr. Colucci may well require surgical salvage to improve the range of motion in his elbow. See Dr. Frankeny's reports dated March 23, 1999, and May 26, 1999, attached hereto. In addition to the physical injuries that he suffered, Mr. Colucci has suffered a limitation in his activities, including home maintenance. Mr. Colucci, an avid bike rider, had to forego bike riding for a period of time. Presently, Mr. Colucci's arm still causes him pain when he is riding. Also, various movements of his elbow can bring on pain. In his job, Mr. Colucci does a lot of driving, and the driving aggravates his elbow symptoms. Mr. Colucci's medical expenses to date are approximately $2,670.15. In summary, Mr. Colucci has endured severe pain, limitations in his activities, permanent lack of extension in his right arm, and degenerative arthritis in his right elbow. Additionally, in - 3- the future, Mr. Colucci is at increased risk for further development of arthritis and associated loss of range of motion, increased pain, further decrease in function, and surgical salvage to improve the range of motion in his elbow. 4. Conclusion: Due to the clear liability in this case and the nature of Mr. Colucci's injuries, Plaintiffs believe that this case should settle. Plaintiffs made a settlement demand on April 23, 1999, for $80,000.00. Defendants have not yet responded to this offer. Respectfully submitted, Step en . Greecher, Jr. Attorney I. D. #36803 111 North Front Street P. O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS Dated: ;'/""5/10;)- I 46908.1 -4- I,AVID M. .lmi'iER, M.D., f.^.C.S. ~ .nrC!(~M.rtffOJ((..f(J'). l\.Ont..l\ll\..l)"\\"'U~. M.ll. W"J.1A~1 W. Dr:~1lITlI, M.D.. r.^.c.s. .'nIlN R. rRANKf.N'r' U. N.O.. r.A.c.:'i. RI(11ARD II. HAI,1.0Ut 1'1.D. .fMltS R. IlN1SlIER, rt.o.. r.A.c.s. 10It'1 QREGORY A. tl^NK.~. n.n. AtEX^NOr.R KAI.f,NM~. tV1. ROT5f.RT R. tciANf.OA. D,o. RONAI.f) W. I.Irrt~. r1.n., r.^.CO;. .IASt," .1. I.ITTON. 1'1.Il. srr.Vr:rl B. WOl.f, n.n. TlIm1N,.r. ytl('IIA.rl.l1. o R T II 0 P E DIe INSTITUTE OF PENNSYLVANIA TF.r.F.l'fIONF.: (717) 7(j1-:;:;;';O . (1100) A.~"'.1I020 . F^X: (717) 7.~7.7197 March 23, 1999 Stephen M. Gr.eecher, ,Ir.. Swartz Tucker Arensberg & 111 North Front Street P.O. 80x 889 Harri~hrllg, P/\ l710R-ORR9 RE: Mark S. Colucci 164 52 2894 Dear Mr. Gn:~eche.r: Mr. Co.11.1cc.i., .:3.8 you m;;]y know, Rt.1sl:t=l.i.necl an injury to his riqht'. p,ll)r)w on 7/31/98. He apparent.ly was riding his bicycle and the handle l1.=l't"S came ()rr and he fell injuring the rigllt elbow. He had sustained a nOJ1(1jsplt=l.ced t.'adi.,l head fracture. He underwent the 1tF:ual treatment for this prohlem which war; short term immobilization followed by exercises. He continued to lack Ellll range of motion of that elbow on follow up visits. He was ther~[ore sent to physical therapy and was found on 11/19/98 to be 'lacking approximately 10 degrees of full extension He returned to see.mp. in February complaining of lack of full extension of his elbow and snap, 'crackle and pop. In addition, he had a new aching type pain. ' His x-rays at that point revealed an arthritic change that was not apparent on his initial x-rays. A CT scan-was obtained 'to rule out free bodies or other loose fragments within his joint. His CT scan was negative. Mr. Colucci's current restrictions are determi~ed solely by his symptoms. He is allowed to use his elbow from an orthopedicstand..point ad lib. However, he is lacking approxini.;i(ely 20 degrees, ciffi.tii::'$~.E~il1,6h:,and has an aching vain. L.::A.c)~ of =ull c~H:~~!:H..0n ....,ill 1 imit: g6me"':b":mt.1i:r~t.te:icl\iri.g 2nd push ins activities somewhat A:gain, he haa no orthopedlc"i'1>si:Hctlons on hlS activities, other than;~hat his symptoms dictate. , ,..;. Mr. Colucci.'s .initial "x~f:rays showed no significant ravidence 9[ ;}rthritic change, His follow up of'-rays approximately 7 months later do ~"ow arthrit ic change. I would state that this rapidly progressive arthritic elbow is a result QL_bisbicycle injury. I can not state with certainty wh<lt his prognosis is at this point in time. I would need to reevaluat'. his elbow In approximately a year to give you a better estimation .,of fut!-l.n~ impai t-meIlts and restrictions. "~'~~,"~;~ ntIl1ft'Jl'tll1C.5U~~U~;' ^DDRF.sS ^"L CORRESPONDENCE: TO: 875 POI.'L~R..c;..IIURCJf,.RO^D. CAMP JltLL. r^ 17011 <;'~~1!:..!.!!!:-!.- OFrl~~ nhRRIS5URO orner; n^RRI~!5URa ornce ;-"(, ntRSlfey orrr<:~~__.. __~ _.__C~.~~..~I.!.!.!:_q~!ICt,_ .V1To T1UN"I1I.f. rm. -- ~~ornwr.RC; AV!':. - 1!i"'~ N. TIIIRO ST.. STr; .,90^' fO W. CllocotATf: AVf.. C::.rr tfi.... R7~ rorl Art ('"llImnl ~T' RE, COLUCCI, MARK S. PAGE 2 March 23, 1999 Please, let me know if I can be of further assistance to you. JRF/barn ;F;J- II, M.D. ,"', " , C," ,,-,,:' ..- . Jr.:;i;I;W;~ii> ' ....,. .~--y: lJOVJD 1'l..somm.1Ul.. M.C.& 'RIaWlDJ. DCt\L,. M.D. HOI!llllI'It~I'L'" WJZ.UA>f W. CIlM1ITtl. I'Ll>.. ~^c.,s. .JOf1N It l'lW!KI!m"n.l'I.D.. ~....CS. ~K.a&e8,l'tD. RIClWOD fl. fW,I.ClCIt M.D. -=1l.l'W'<llfI!Il.M.D,,~.A.c.,s. ...----....... -.- ,~Ip. .~~-- IW.I!lWI. M.P. _ll.l<\I'llID.'l.P,o, IlQl'lAIb w. urrr.lll.D. M.c"s. Jl\!lON.d,tlfroN',l'l.tl. S11Ml>!Jl. \\'CILl'.M,D. Tf1OMI\SJ. m:J1A. M.D, O~TI-IOPHDIC .tN:n-I'I'U'J'B ~ .~., .~._ O"PBNNSYr..V~. TELPIlHOi'lB, (7l7) 761-5530 . (800) 834-W20 . I'M: (717) 737-7197 May 26, 1999 Swart~ TUoker ArenSberg & 111 Nort~ Front Street P.O. Box 889 ~arrisbrug, PA 17108-0889 Rl':' COr,UCCI, MARK S. 164 52 2894 Pe~r Mr. Greecher: A~ you }QlOw/ I h~vl!! been asked to anewer a:eve~al qQ.estions concerning Mark col~ooi's prognosis. It is diffio~lt to say with certainty what will happen to his elbow. Mr. Coluooi ~ad no arthritis in his elbow prior to his inj~ of l~St year when his handle bars fell off from ~is oycle. He fraot~red his left radial head and has had a progressive deorease in the range of motion of his arm. His x~rays have correspondingly sho~ an inoreased amount of arthritis from the time of the injUry until my last eval~ation in Maroh of 1999. Based on those findings I oonolude the following to a reasonable degree of medioal oertainty. He has developed arthritis in his elbow as a result of this fall and assooiated radial head fraoture. He is at inCreased risk for f~rtner development of arthrit1s and its associa~ed loss of range of mo~ion inoreased pain and decreased function. In some point in the fu~~re his elbow may require aome aart of salvage surgery to improve range of motion by removal of bone spurs. If you need any further information please, let me ~ow. S1noerely, John R. FranJ<eny II, M. D . JRF/bam _____C1ft'1l1OfT.tllc$tlI'Q~L-'T'P. I\ODMSS .AL'!.. coRResrorm~Cc. TO: 875 roPtAR. CHQRCM' nOAp, CM1P ffil.L. rA 17011 (!AMP ffll.L OPVIC'e nAIUlISB'llRG onftCE ~ ~[u.. O~CB tmRSH~ Ortfflc'e MM'" mLL o"""OE 3'0)18 'n\.tTiPLn RD. 450 f"OWeR5 ^VB. 1RiOffif' U\\CH Rb., ~-rn. i~ 1Q we;i1' ChClCO ~ I\ve.. sm. 103 815 PO~R CflURCl1 RD, TUCKER. ARENSBER.G & SWAR. TZ ~";;' 4l- "," -",. -=- - , / ."- - FES " - 2002 CELEBRA TINe A CENTURY OF SERVICE January 31, 2002 The Honorable Edward E. Guido Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013-3387 Re: Colucci VS. Cannon dale Corporation, et al. C.C.P. CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO.: 200--1110 CIVIL TERM Dear Judge Guido: Enclosed is Plaintiffs' Confidential Memorandum in Support of Settlement Conference with regard to the above-captioned case. The settlement conference is scheduled before you on Friday, February 8,2002, at 1:30 p.m. Sincerely, SMGJr/rm Enclosure 111 NORTH FRONT STREET PO BOX 8_89. HAHRISBURG, PA 1710&-0889 717-234-4121 800-257-4121 FAX 717-232-6802 Pittsburgh . Pittsburgh Airport Area . Lewistown E-mail: tapc@tuckerlaw.com www.tuckerlaw.com FEE 04 ' 02 17: 10 FR POST AND SCHELL 717 291 1609 TO 2406462 P.03/06 FE& 5 - 2002 POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: MJrCHAEL A. BOOMSMA I.D. #:56062 18YI WiLLIAM PENN WAY P.O. BOX 10248 LANCAS1ER, PA 17605-0248 717-291-4532 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS PROFILE DESIGN, mc., f1d1b/a1 PROFILE FOR SPEED, lNC., and GALLOP CYCLE CORPORATiON Plaintiffs, COURT OF COMl'vION PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 2000-1110 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COT.UCCT hill wife v. CANNONDALE CORI'ORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC.) PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC., aml QALuJP CYCLE CORPORATION Defendants, v. YIH CHENG MANUFACTURiNG COMPANr, LTD., tfdJb/aALICO Third-Party Defendants DEFENDANTS. CANNONDALE CORP... PROFILE DESIGN. INC. AND GALLOP CYCLE CORP.'S CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM AND NOW come the Defendants, Profile Design, Inc., Profile for Speed, Inc., and Gallop Cycle Corporation (hereinafter "Profile") through their attorney, Michael A. Boomsma, Post & Schell, P.C. in response to your Honor's order of December 19, 2001 and in preparatioIl for the settlement conference on February 8, 2002 at I :30 p.m., provides the following <1" Defendants' confidential statement on their position in the case. FEE 04 '02 17:10 FR POST AND SCHELL 717 291 1609 TO 2406462 P.04/06 BACKGROUND This is a negligence. products liability and breach of warranty action arising from a bicycle accident which occurred on July 31, 1998. Plaintiff alleges his injury, a fractured right elbow, occurred when the handlebar on his SR800 Cannondale bike broke resulting in Plaintiff lm:ing control of his bike and falling to the ground. Plaintiff alleges, and Defendant Profile acknowledges it manufactured the handlcbnr on Plaintiff's bike. In turn, Defendant Profile joined Third-Party Defendant, Yih Cheng Manutacmnng Company -- the manufacturer of the stem assembly on Plaintiff's bike. As a point ofrefcrence, the stem, which clamps around the handle1:ar. connects the handlebar to the frame ofthe bike. Profile ha.~ accepted Cannondale's tender of defense. Likewise, the Pronle d",f"'ndal1l~ ilud Gallop Corp. are inter-related. Plaintiff purchased a bicycle manufactured in part and assembled m part by Cannondal..,. The subject handlebar was manufactured by Defendant Profile Design. Plaintiff alleges thaI the handlebar in question siInply snapped while he was riding down the road causing him to full ~o th.. ground. A passerby eventUally took him home. After arriving home. Plaintiff's wif", luuk.1 irn 1.<.1 Holy Spirit Hospital. X-rays taken confirmed a fractured elbow whieh resulted in Plaintiff having to wear a sling for a few weeks. Plaintiff was reterred tor further treatment with Dr. FJankeny at Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania. STRENGTHS OF DEFRNnANTS' CASE Prur.le's expert is David A. Mitchell. Mitchell, a metallurgical engineer, is no stranger to bikes. He trained the mechanics for the U.S. OlymplC Cycling Team and also served as a consultant for designing bikes for the Olympic athletes. Mitchell is a nationally recognized -2- FEE 04 '02 17:10 FR POST AND SCHELL 717 291 1609 TO 2406462 P.0S/06 cxpert in b cycle engineering and metaUurgy and has testified as an expert in those fields in both federal and state court countless times. According to Mitchell, Profile's handlebar contained no manufacturing or design flaws. lRatr er, the stem made by Yih Cheng, contained a manufacturing flaw which scored the stem and kd to its premature failure. Pictures of the stem clearly show a burr on the inside of the stem such that when it was clamped down around the handlebar, scored or cut into the aluminum 'landlebar which caused it to break exactly where the burr was located. Preliminarily, Mitchell opined that it does not look like Plaintiff in any way, misused or neglected his bike. Profile acknowledges that Plaintiff suffered a broken right elbow. However, this ;njury coul:1 not have heen too ~eriou.~ or impacted Plaintiff's lifestyle too much. Plaintiff's arm wa:; il1 it slilll;; fur s""ve,al weeks. Despite that, according to Plaintiff's medical reconis, he went on a hundr"d mile bike ride about two months after the accident. If Plaintiff was able to engage in that strenuous an activity, how injured could he have been. It does not appear there is much, if any, wage Joss claim and no impaired earning capacity claim. The only damages appear to be I'~in ~nrl ~1. fferine ~nd a consortium claim_ WEAKNFSSES OF DEFENDANT'S CASE If the case goes to trial it will be a "battle" of the experts which would do none of the named Defendants any good. Because of the potential of fmgerpointing between the defend~nt5. th.. rl..fP.nrl~nl~q could simply stipulate to negligence and try the case strictly on da/IJa~cs. From a damages standpoint, Dr. Frankeny of the Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania who treated Plaintiff for his broken right elbow, stated that plaintiff would have -3- FEE 04 '02 17:10 FR POST AND SCHELL 717 291 1609 TO 2406462 P.06/06 permanent loss of fuH extension m hIS nght =_ Functionally, however, this would not impair him since ris range of mati on was within adequate functional limits. However, in May 1999. Dr. Frankeny opined that plaintiff fUllS the risk of developing early arthritj~ in the Alhow <<ud further loss ofranf;e of motion . Fortunately, since plaintiff is a sales raprese:t1tntive and ""count mallag"", it do",~ llot appear ihese p[o~lelUS wuuh.\ imp"....t upun his jub uuti",s. Likewise, this diagnosis doesn't sound much different from age-related limitations and compllcatIons experienced by the general population. SETTLEMENT VALUE III light ofthe injury and diagnosis, Profile feels a reasonable settlement would be in the $~:O,OOO to $25,000 range. By prior agreement with Yih Cheng's counsel, should the case settle, Yih Cheng will contribute 60% and Profile the remaining 40%. Respectfully Submitted, POST & SCHELL, P.C. By: squire Atto or Defen , Profile Design, Inc., f/dIb/aJ Profile For Speed, Inc., and Gallop Cycle Cnrpnrn,tinn DATE: ,J'-I/OL -4- ** TOTAL PAGE.06 ** FEE 04 '02 17:09 FR POST RND SCHELL 717 291 1609 TO 2406462 P.01/06 ~ A TTO'" N'6T.ll AT I ^W ThiS telaCQpled matenal and me infOlmatlon contained In It Is Intended only for the use of Ulf;l ]rll;l.lvfth.J~ [,'II" I:!IIlUly tr,) whidt il i~ addressed and may contain information that is privileged, eonfldeoflal and exempt from disclosure. If the reader of thiS message Is nQt 'fhQ fntQndod racip.i6!nt or sn ~mplov~/'Z( f.U' :;I{]Anf r-p._o;:pnn~ff1IR 101" dt!li~n'ng the messaae to the intended reciDfent you are hereby notified that Sr y dissemInation, distribution or copying of this communication ~ strictly prohibited. 1f you have received this communication in error, please notify us Immediately by telephone and return the original message to us by mail. Thank you. FII.RNAMF,: CLIENT NO: FILE NO: COLUCCI V. CANNONDALE 55 79235 DATE: FEBRUARY 4. 2002 FAX COVER SHEET NAME Hon. Edward E. Guido COMPANY Cumberland County Courthouse PHON" No. FROM: Michael A. Boomsma 717-391-4421 TOTAL PAGES (INCLUDING COVTIR 011""'"): /0 DESCRIPTION: Defts' Confidenbal Memorandum CUMMI!;I'fl s: Bob Podvl. hi UK: weill of any prGblcmo in t"eC&lvlng this tr.:tn~,~C'Olonl plaaEQ CSII1 O\,U' Qffieo at 717-291-4532. 1857 W llrAM PENN WA.Y P.o. BO:K 10248 LANCA5TEIt. PA 176DS-0.248 717.291.4532. WWW.PQS.P..il;:HELL.CCM A PENNS","VANIA PROi'SS510NAL COI!PQRATION FEE 04 '02 17:09 FR POST AND SCHELL 717 291 1609 TO 2406462 P.02/06 . PtiST:\ SCHJ:.""1L- ATTnIllN'I':"'S.A.T .AW Mlcnael A. tsOOmsma Direct DI." 717-391-4421 Fox Number:;: 717M291 1e09 MBoomsma@lPcslScheff.ccm File #: 55/79235 Febru~,tI,2002 Hon. Ed lVard E. Guido Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013-3387 RE: Colucci v. Cannondale Corporation, et al !;nmberland Conntv CCP. NO. 2000-1110 Civil Term PEl","",S'I'\.V...NI... Dear Judge Guido: Enclosed please fmd Defendant, Cannondale Corporation, Profile Design, Inc. Vd/b/a Profile for Speed, Inc. and Gallop Cycle Corp.'g Confidential Memorandum pursuant to your Order of December 19, 2001 in the above-referenced matter. F'IIIL.o,ptLNIIA Prrr:DURQIoI 1-I.tl.~';I~I"r. l...r.N'~TER Very~? Mi~ A. Boom="- Aw NTOWN NEVw' JERSEY VOCRHE:ES MAI3\sm Enclosure 1B57 WI!..LIAM P~Nl\I WAY P.o. Bolt 10248 LANCASTE.R. PA 17605-024$ 717..291.4532 WWW.POST.SCHELL..COM A PENNSVlVAJIlIA PROFESSIONAl. COR:pO~TION -->- MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDV A & MEYERS BY: PHILLIP B. SILVERMAN, ESQUIRE Identification No.: 02201 22nd Floor 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 735-7200 MSZL&M File No. 0220.0013 Attorney for Defendants, Ylli CHENG MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD., T!DfB/AALICO MARK S. COLUCCI AND MELISSA C. COLUCCI, HIS WIFE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY vs. No. 200-1110-CNIL TERM Ylli CHENG MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD., T/DfB/A ALICO WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: ~ Kindly withdraw my appearance on behalf of efendants, YIH CHENG MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD., T!DfB/A ICO, in he within action. -' WARD WISHNOFF, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendants, YIH CHENG MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD., T/DfB/A ALICO ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of defendants, YIH CHENG COMPANY, LTD., T!DfB/A ALICO, in the within - , BY: PHILLIP B. S , ESQUIRE Attorney for efendants, YIH CHENG MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD., T!DfBlA ALICO .1' o c ;;:: -om 92g} zs:;: ~-:.:-' r::o '< ~G )i:8 ~ "!"<? o N '- "'" :z: N '"" o .... :...-:1 ,~",:D . ",- "-:-;11'1 ::::')0, ,'~t _ ::;-::,(..) ::i:=8 ~(~ o.,tl -l ~ "" :;1:: \.0 \" "_- ~ s MARK S. COLUCCI and MELISSA C. COLUCCI, His Wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2000 - 1110 CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CANNONDALE CORPORATION, PROFILE DESIGN, INC., PROFILE FOR SPEED, INC. and GALLOP CYCLE CORP., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. YIH CHENG MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD. tJd/b/a All CO, Third-Party Defendant PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above matter discontinued and ended with prejudice. P M. G eecn r, r. Attorney's 1.0. No. 36803 111 North Front Street P. O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS DATE:;; 1,9..9/0')- 50219.1 -, 0 0 0 r- ,,-, '" ~ '--- .J -01:0 c:::: ~1~ iTi rn r z::c \ -~m "&1:p: ~~6 ~~.,:,. ~c -0 --.C-;t __')-n ~o :z '2:0 -0 'i2 all' >c "-' ~ .:::> ~ :<