Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-01519 Young J. Choi and Mi K. Choi, his wife IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Vs. No. 2000-1519 Civil Term Crown Equipment Corporation CIVIL ACTION - LAW COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MIDDLE DISTRICT COURT Please acknowledge receipt of this case by signing and dating this document. Date: 4(27fO () RECORD RECEIVED: ""'-. ~ 'Y>>~'- (signature & title) 'O:::pu;.'( - ~ - ClAo.V'q'" RECEIVED HARRISBUFlG, PA MARY . 'ANDREA, CLERK Per 1'-' YOUNG l CHOI and MI K. CHOI, his wife, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Plaintiffs NO. CO - / tt'f (!Wl'C ~~ v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by an 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 or 1-800-990-9108) 207393.lIDSWILES 'f . . r -""'!'!'" YOUNG 1. CHOI and MI K. CHOI, his wife, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Plaintiffs NO. v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICIA Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted guiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas signuientes, 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 en forma escrita sus defensas 0 sus objeciones alas demandas en contra de su pesona Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso 0 notificacion y por cualguier gueja 0 alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus propiededes 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 TELEFOND A LA OFICINA CUY A DlRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, P A 17013 (717/249-3166 or 1-800-990-9108) 207393.IIDSW\LES 1 ~ ~," -...,~I"" , ,'- Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 6-0. J 5/9 ~ I.u-- YOUNG J. CHOI and MI K. CHOI, his wife, v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiffs Young J. Choi and Mi K. Choi are adult individuals, husband and wife, who reside together in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation is an Ohio corporation that is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, selling and distributing fork lift and standing lift trucks. 3. Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation is registered to conduct business within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and it regularly sells, markets, advertises, and provides parts for its lift trucks in the Commonwealth of Peunsylvania, including Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. The facts and occurrences hereinafter related took place on or about March 22, 1999, at approximately 5:30 p.m., at Excel Logistic, Inc.'s distribution facility located in New Kingston, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 5. At said time and place, Plaintiff Young 1. Choi was employed as a lift operator by Excel Logistics, Inc. 20739J.IIDSWILES ORIGINAL " , ~ 7' '"'" ff II 6. At said time and place, Plaintiff Young J. Choi was operating a standing lift manllfactured by Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation, and was in the process of lowering a pallet of product, when the hydraulic system ofthe forklift exploded. 7. Oil or hydraulic fluid and broken pieces were showered onto Plaintiff Young J. Choi's face and body, and he was thrown from the forklift, whereupon he was struck by falling products and a piece of metaL 8. Plaintiff Young J. Choi was taken by ambulance to the emergency room of the Holy Spirit HospitaL 9. Plaintiff Young J. Choi was ultimately diagnosed as having sustained injuries in the accident that include a fracture/dislocation of the left tibia and fibula, for which he underwent open reduction internal fixation surgery, a left shoulder i~ury and left shoulder rotator cuff syndrome. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE YOUNG J. CHOI V. CROWN EOUlPMENT CORPORATION 10. Paragraphs 1 through 9 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 11. Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation is liable to Plaintiff Young J. Choi for the injuries alleged herein, which were a direct and proximate result of its negligence as set forth in paragraphs 12 through 21 below. 12. Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation designed and/or manufactured the standing 207393.lIDSWILES 2 ;.1 " Ii II ,: , lift which Plaintiff Young J. Choi was operating at the time of the accident in such a fashion that the hydraulic system was able to, and did, burst while the lift was being used in a normal and intended fashion. 13. Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation failed to provide adequate warnings or to otherwise advise customers and users of the standing lift of the danger presented by a hydraulic system that could burst while the forklift was being used in a normal and intended fashion. 14.Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation failed to equip the standing lift with a seat belt, harness, or similar restraining device. 15.Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation failed to retrofit the standing lift involved in the accident, or to advise customers to retro fit such lift with seat belts, a harness, or similar restraining device. 16. Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation failed to properly inspect the standing lift involved in the accident so as to have discovered, prior to sale, distribution or use, the danger or defect presented by the hydraulic system which burst while the forklift was being used in a normal and intended fashion. 17. Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation distributed and sold the standing lift involved in the accident despite the fact that it was equipped with a hydraulic system that was able to, and did, explode while the lift was being used in a normal and intended fashion. 18. Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation designed and/or manufactured the standing lift involved in the accident in such a fashion that, when the hydraulic system failed, it was able to shower oil or hydraulic fluid and parts upon the operator. 207393.lIDSW\LES 3 i']' '" II 19. Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation designed and/or manufactured the standing lift involved in the accident in such a fashion that, when the hydraulic system failed, it permitted the load that was being borne to drop. 20. Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation designed and manufactured the standing lift involved in the accident in such a fashion that, when the hydraulic system failed, the operator could be thrown from the lift. 21. Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation failed to provide adequate instructions as the maintenance, inspection and upkeep of the standing lift so as to ensure that its hydraulic system would not explode while it was being used in a normal and intended fashion. 22. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation's negligence as set forth above, Plaintiff Young J. Choi suffered injuries that include, but are not limited to, a fracture/dislocation of the left tibia and fibula, for which he underwent open reduction internal fixation surgery, a left shoulder injury and left shoulder rotator cuff syndrome. 23. As a direct result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Young J. Choi has incurred, and will in the future incur, medical and rehabilitation expenses, and claim is made therefor. 24. As a direct result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Young J. Choi has been, and in the future will be, subject to humiliation and ridicule as a result of his disability and the scarring resulting from his injuries, and claim is made therefor. 25. As a direct result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Young J. Choi has undergone, and 207393.1\DSW\LES 4 '1"- '. - ff in the future will undergo, great mental and physical pain and suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out his daily activities, and a loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and claim is made therefor. 26. As a direct result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Young J. Choi has sustained a loss of earnings by reason of not being able to fulfill his employment, and claim is made therefor. 27. As a direct result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Young J. Choi has sustained a loss of earning power and earning capacity, and claim is made therefor. WHEREFORE, PlaintiffY oung J. Choi demands judgment against Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT II - STRICT LIABILITY YOUNG J. CHOI V. CROWN EOUlPMENT CORPORATION 28. Paragraphs I through 9 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 29. Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation is strictly liable to Plaintiff Young J. Choi under Section 402(a) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts for the damages alleged herein which were proximately caused by a Crown standing lift truck which was defective for the following reasons: a) The standing lift was designed and/or manufactured in such a fashion that the hydraulic system was able to, and did, explode while the lift was being used in a normal and intended fashion. 207393.1\DSW\LES 5 I n .. ff 'I b) The standing lift did not have adequate warnings to advise customers and users of the lift of the danger presented by a hydraulic system that could burst while the forklift was being used in a normal and intended fashion. c) The standing lift was designed and/or manufactured in such a fashion that it did not have a seat belt, harness, or similar restraining device. d) The standing lift was designed and/or manufactured in such a fashion that the hydraulic system was able to fail while the lift was being used in a normal and intended fashion. e) The standing lift involved in the accident was designed and/or manufactured in such a fashion that, when the hydraulic system failed, it was able to shower oil or hydraulic fluid and parts upon the operator. f) The standing lift involved in the accident was designed and/or manufactured in such a fashion that, when the hydraulic system failed, it permitted the load that was being borne to drop. g) The standing lift was designed and/or manufactured in such a fashion that, when the hydraulic system failed or burst, the operator could be thrown from the lift. h) The standing lift involved in the accident malfunctioned in the absence of a reasonable secondary cause while it was being used in its intended fashion. 30. As a direct and proximate result of the defective nature of Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation's product as set forth above, Plaintiff Young J. Choi suffered injuries that include, but are not limited to, a fracture/dislocation of the left tibia and fibula, for which he 207393.1\DSW\LES 6 1" ,- '" Ii" ff Ii .' underwent open reduction internal fixation surgery, a left shoulder injury and left shoulder rotator cuff syndrome. 31. As a direct result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Young J. Choi has incurred, and will in the future incur, medical and rehabilitation expenses, and claim is made therefor. 32. As a direct result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Young J. Choi has been, and in the future will be, subject to humiliation and ridicule as a result of his disability and the scarring resulting from his injuries, and claim is made therefor. 33. As a direct result ofthe aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Young J. Choi has undergone, and in the future will undergo, great mental and physical pain and suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out his daily activities, and a loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and claim is made therefor. 34. As a direct result of the aforesaid injuries, PlaintiffY oung J. Choi has sustained a loss of earnings by reason of not being able to fulfill his employment, and claim is made therefor. 35. As a direct result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Young J. Choi has sustained a loss of earning power 3lld earning capacity, and claim is made therefor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Young J. Choi demands judgment against Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. 207393.1 \DSW\LES 7 . . I"' 1 ff Ii COUNT III MI K. CHOI V. CROWN EOUlPMENT CORPORATION 36. Paragraphs 1 through 9 and Counts I and II of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 37. Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation is liable to Plaintiff Mi K. Choi for the injuries set forth below. 38. As a direct and proximate result of Young J. Choi's injuries as set forth above, Plaintiff Mi K. Choi has been deprived of the assistance, companionship, consortium and society of her husband, all of which has been, and in the future will be, to her great damage and loss, and claim is made therefor. WHEREFORE, PlaintiffMi K. Choi demands judgment against Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Date: J / /3 /0 () /)/uJc / David S. Wisneski, Esquire LD. No. 58796 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg,PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 Counsel for Plaintiffs 207393.1\DSW\LES 8 ., c. < , r"~ VERIFICATION We, Young J. Choi and Mi K. Choi, verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true 3lld correct to the best of our knowledge, information, and belief. We understand that this verification is made subject to the provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. 94904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 03-/0-00 ht:h. Young J. Choi ... Date: 0 J - {O - 00 c/1A. ~. Mi K. C oi n~ ~I /', ,lit, I! II II Ii il i !'I " YOUNG J. CHOI and MI K. CHOI, his wife, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Plaintiffs NO. 00-1519 CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 16th day of March, 2000, a true and correct copy of the Complaint was mailed to Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation via certified mail, return receipt requested, at 44 South Washington Street, New Bremen, OH 45869. A copy of the certified mail receipt No. Z 495 303 002 is attached hereto. ~ ~ f. Jt-,., IA /JO 0/1 Lois E. Stauffer . '""'^, ~~~ RETURN OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 20th day of March, 2000 the Complaint was served upon Defendant Crown Equipment Company, via certified mail, return receipt requested at the above- noted address. A copy of the signed return receipt No. Z 495 303 002 is attached hereto. Vilu~ t - ~tJ/7 Lois E. Stauffer Sworn to and subscribed before me this d- 't/C.c day of ~...-cJJ....- ,2000. ~#JJ14f'A N tary Public ' MY ,~, . Notarial Seal Kimberly J. Houser, Notary Public Lower Alle~ Twp., Cumberland County My Commission Expires Oct. 2, 2000 I~' ~~ . " <;; SENDER: "C 0; ~ '" ~ e ~ "" ~ c o "C ~ li 0. E o u I also wish to receive the follow- ing services (for an extra fee): o Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b. o Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this card to you. o Attach this form to the front of the mailplece, or on the back if space does not permi!. o Write "Return Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece below the article number. o The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date delivered. 3. Article Addressed to: _ 4a. Article Number ." .z Lj?S-303 DO';;? CXOWVl EC(Y., pMotf {bl'por~~ 4b. Service Type L{ 1./ Sou-tViWa.ShiYJ/;fOl1 Slf"eil 0 Registered ...Bcertified I fUe.w fbroYl07 OH 1./ sf?u, qO Express Mail o Insured J etum Receipt lor Merchandise 0 COD 1. 0 Addressee's Address 2. 0 Restricted Delivery 7. Date of Deliv~ ~CJ6- 8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested and fee is paid) ~,~~. , .,._..a:,~;r.".....:! ...... ~r 102595-99-8-0223 Domestic Return Receipt Z 495 303 002 1 POSlage I Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted OeKI/et'f Fee on m Return Receipt Showing 10 Whom & Dale Delivered .~ Re\um Reteipt Showing laWhorn, <( Date, & Addressee's Address o o '" '" E ,f U) 0. $ TOTAL Postage & Fees PostmAi1< or Date 0"e.ru1nr CofU.{J/OJIu 0;3- / (:;- dOOO i P"""" - in ~r I i ai u " ~ Ul Q. u; u ~ a: E ~ li a: Ol c 'w ~ .2 ~ o :>. '" c ~ "" I- -: ,"... CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.c., hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICEIRETURN OF SERVICE was served upon the following persons by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid on March 24, 2000, as follows: Crown Equipment Company 44 South Washington Street New Bremen, OR 45869 ~M~ t. ~Vl Lois E. Stauffer 207393.1\DSW\LES . . YOUNG J. CHOI and MI K. CHOI, His Wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 00-1519 CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Young J. Choi and Mi K. Choi c/o David S. Wisneski, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg,PA 17110 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. By: S ep n M. ree r, Attorney's 1.0. No. 36803 111 North Front Street P. O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT DATE: d? '~c1 27218.1 l/jt'(C, ..- -, -" YOUNG J. CHOI and MI K. CHOI, His Wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 00-1519 CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER 1. Admitted, except that after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment that Plaintiffs are husband and wife, proof of which is hereby demanded. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 4, proof of which is hereby demanded. 5. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 5, proof of which is hereby demanded. 6. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 6, proof of which is hereby demanded. 7. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 7, proof of which is hereby demanded. ~ -_..~,-''"; " ^- 8. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 8, proof of which is hereby demanded. 9. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 9, proof of which is hereby demanded. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE YOUNG J. CHOI v. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION 10. The answers to Paragraphs 1 through 9 of this Answer with New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 11. The allegations in Paragraph 11 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). 12. It is admitted that Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, designs and manufactures standing lifts. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 12 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 13. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that the standing lift alleged to have been involved in the incident at issue in this case was designed and manufactured by Crown Equipment Corporation, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations of Paragraph 13 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). It is further denied that the hydraulic system could burst while the forklift was being used in a normal and intended fashion. -2- ~ 1 , ' " . ~ I ' -~ 14. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that the standing lift alleged to have been involved in the incident at issue in this case was designed and manufactured by Crown Equipment Corporation, and proof there of is demanded. However, it is admitted that Crown Equipment Corporation does not equip its standing lifts with seatbelts, harnesses, or like devices. It is specifically denied that the failure to equip a standing lift with a seatbelt, harness or like device is negligence. 15. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that the standing lift alleged to have been involved in the incident at issue in this case was designed and manufactured by Crown Equipment Corporation, and proof thereof is demanded. However, it is denied that Crown Equipment Corporation had a duty to retro fit standing lifts designed and manufactured by it as set forth in Paragraph 15 and did not retro fit its standing lifts. It is specifically denied that any failure to retro fit a standing lift with seatbelts, a harness or a like device is negligence. 16. After reasonable investigation. Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that the standing lift alleged to have been involved in the incident at issue in this case was designed and manufactured by Crown Equipment Corporation, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations in Paragraph 16 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). -3- 1- .-1 17. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that the standing lift alleged to have been involved in the incident at issue in this case was designed and manufactured by Crown Equipment Corporation, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations in Paragraph 17 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 18. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that the standing lift alleged to have been involved in the incident at issue in this case was designed and manufactured by Crown Equipment Corporation, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further Answer, the allegations in Paragraph 18 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 19. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that the standing lift alleged to have been involved in the incident at issue in this case was designed and manufactured by Crown Equipment Corporation, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations in Paragraph 19 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 20. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that the standing lift alleged to have been involved in the incident at issue in this case was designed and manufactured by Crown Equipment Corporation, and proof -4- :'j , , "I; thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations in Paragraph 20 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 21. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that the standing lift alleged to have been involved in the incident at issue in this case was designed and manufactured by Crown Equipment Corporation, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further Answer, the allegations in Paragraph 21 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 22. The allegations that Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, was negligent are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations are deemed factual, they are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding the injuries suffered by Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, proof of which are hereby demanded. 23. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is liable for any injuries or damages sustained by Plaintiff, Young J. Choi. 24. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, it is specifically -5- " . , denied that Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is liable for any injuries or damages sustained by Plaintiff, Young J. Choi. 25. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is liable for any injuries or damages sustained by Plaintiff, Young J. Choi. 26. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is liable for any injuries or damages sustained by Plaintiff, Young J. Choi. 27. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is liable for any injuries or damages sustained by Plaintiff, Young J. Choi. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor. COUNT II - STRICT LIABILITY YOUNG J. CHOI v. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION 28. Paragraphs 1 through 9 of this Answer with New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. -6- !'. 29. The allegations of Paragraph 29 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. With respect to the subparagraphs of Paragraph 29, after reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, does not have sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that a standing lift designed and manufactured by Crown Equipment Corporation was involved in the alleged incident, and proof thereof is demanded. To the extent the allegations are deemed to be factual, they are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). (a) Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). (b) Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). Further, it is specifically denied that the hydraulic system could burst while the forklift was being used in a normal and intended fashion. (c) Standing lifts designed and manufactured by Crown Equipment are not equipped with a seatbelt, harness, or like restraining device, and the failure to so equip the standing lifts does not render the standing lift defective. (d) Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). (e) Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). (f) Denied pursuant to PaR.C.P. 1029(e). (g) Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). (h) Denied pursuant to PaR.C.P. 1029(e). 30. The allegations of Paragraph 30 that Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation's product was defective state a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that said allegations are deemed factual, they are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). After reasonable investigation, Defendant Crown -7- ~ - I~ -, Equipment Corporation is without knowledge or information as to the truth of the averments regarding the injuries suffered by Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, and proof thereof is demanded. 31. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is liable for the alleged injuries or damages suffered by Plaintiff, Young J. Choi. 32. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the ~ r r " I' Ii Iii I' i; I: I Ii Ii il 'I I: ! I I: I Ii I " I I , I I I I I I i , I i I I , I I " , "1 averments, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is liable for the alleged injuries or damages suffered by Plaintiff, Young J. Choi. 33. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is liable for the alleged injuries or damages suffered by Plaintiff, Young J. Choi. 34. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is liable for the alleged injuries or damages suffered by Plaintiff, Young J. Choi. -8- , 35. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is liable for the alleged injuries or damages suffered by Plaintiff, Young J. Choi. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, requests that judgment be entered in its favor. COUNT III MI K. CHOI v. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION 36. The answers to Paragraphs 1 through 9 and the answers to the paragraphs of Counts I and II are incorporated herein by reference. 37. Denied. The allegations are Paragraph 37 state a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations are deemed factual, they are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) and for the reasons set forth in the answers to the allegations of the Complaint and in the New Matter. 38. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 38. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is liable for the alleged injuries or damages suffered by Plaintiff, Mi K. Choi. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, requests that judgment be entered in its favor. -9- 1-"_~, ~ NEW MATTER 39. The responses contained in Paragraphs 1 through 38 of Defendant's Answer are incorporated herein by reference. 40. The averments set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint fail to state a cause of action. 41. While Defendant does not admit that Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, was injured by any product sold or supplied by Defendant, and so demands strict proof of injury, Defendant avers that any product which it may have sold or supplied was free of defect at the time it left the possession and control of Defendant. 42. While Defendant does not admit that Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, was injured by any product sold and supplied by Defendant and so demands strict proof of injury, Defendant avers that any products which it may have sold or supplied were sold and supplied with proper and adequate warnings, labels, instructions and features so that such products were safe for their intended use. 43. While Defendant does not admit that Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, was injured by any product sold and supplied by Defendant and so demands strict proof of injury, in the event that it is established that a defect existed in any product which may have been sold or supplied by Defendant, the existence of any defect being denied, then said defect or defective condition was caused by improper maintenance or usage of said product after it left the possession and control of Defendant. 44. While Defendant does not admit that Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, was injured by any product sold and supplied by Defendant and so demands strict proof of injury, in the event it is established that a defect existed in any product which may have been -10- - sold or supplied by Defendant, the existence of any defect being denied, then said defect was caused by a material change, alteration, abuse or misuse of the product by persons not subject to the control of Defendant. 45. While Defendant does not admit that Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, was injured by any product sold and supplied by Defendant and so demands strict proof of injury, any products which may have been sold or supplied by Defendant were free from defects. 46. Defendant was not negligent. 47. While Defendant does not admit that Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, was injured by any product sold and supplied by Defendant and so demands strict proof of injury, if it is determined that Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, has sustained any injury and damages, then the same were not proximately caused by any action or failure to act of Defendant, but by the actions or failure to act of others not under the control of Defendant, including Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, and constitute a superseding cause. 48. While Defendant does not admit that Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, was injured by any product sold and supplied by Defendant, and so demands strict proof of injury, any product sold or supplied by Defendant was sold and supplied in conformity and pursuant to contract and customer specifications and, therefore, Defendant is not responsible to Plaintiffs or any other party upon principles of strict tort liability, Restatement of Torts (Second), Sections 402(a) or 402(b), or negligence for the manufacture, sale, supply, warnings, packaging or labeling of said product. 49. While Defendant does not admit that Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, was injured by any product sold and supplied by Defendant, and so demands strict proof of injury, -11- '1" '--'I - any products which may have been sold or supplied by Defendant complied with any applicable safety and health laws. 50. The manufacture, design, sale, supply, warning, packaging and labeling of Defendant's product conformed to what was technologically, medically and scientifically known and practicably feasible at the time. 51. Any acts or omissions of Defendant alleged to constitute negligence, which negligence is denied, were not substantial causes or factors of the subject incident and/or did not result in the injuries and/or losses alleged by the Plaintiff, Young J. Choi. 52. While Defendant does not admit that Plaintiff, Young J. Cho, was injured by any product sold and supplied by Defendant and so demands strict proof of injury, in the event that it is established that a defect existed in any product which may have been sold or supplied by Defendant, said defect was not a substantial cause or factor of the subject incident and/or did not result in the injuries and/or losses alleged by the Plaintiffs. 53. If Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, sustained the injuries alleged, said injuries may have been the result of the acts and/or omissions of Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, and/or other persons and/or entities over whom Defendant exercised no control. 54. The acts or omissions of other individuals and/or entities may have constituted intervening superseding causes of the damages and/or injuries alleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiff, Young J. Choi. Furthermore, Defendant had no control over such acts or omissions and such acts or omissions were not due or caused by the fault, lack of care, negligence, or breach of any duty by Defendant. -12- ., 55. The incident, injuries and/or damages alleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiffs were not proximately caused by Defendant. 56. The Plaintiffs' claim may be barred by the Doctrine of Assumption of Risk. 57. The Plaintiffs' claim may be barred by the Doctrine of Contributory Negligence. 58. The Plaintiffs' claim may be barred or reduced by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa.C.SA S7201, et seq. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against Plaintiff. TUCKER ARENS BERG & SWARTZ By: ~~~~: ~~tf tep n M. ch 11r. Attorney's I.D. No. 36803 111 North Front Street P. O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT -13- '\ " 03/29/00 WED 14:54 FAX 717 232 6802 T A & S - HbK, PA I4J 016 VERIFICATION I, the undersigned, John E. Tate ,for CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant in the within action, do hereby certify that I am authorized to execute documents on hehalf of Crown Equipment Corporation, and I acknowledge that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that this verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 94904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION By: Dated: March 29, 2000 zn15.1 . . ~ - . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this IO-M day of ~ 2000, I, JACQUELYN A. ZETTLEMOYER, Secretary to STEPHEN M. GREECHER, JR., ESQUIRE, for the firm of Tucker Arensberg & Swartz, attorneys for Defendant, hereby certify that I have this day served the within Answer to Complaint with New Matter by depositing a true and correct copy of the same, in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to: David S. Wisneski, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS ~Q.~ Jacquely A. Zettlemoyer 27221.1 ,~ "~ ~ ~ 11 I! YOUNG J. CHOI and MI K. CHOI, his wife, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, P A Plaintiffs NO. 00-1519 CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Young J. Choi and Mi K. Choi, his wife, by and through their attorneys, Angino & Rovner, P.C., and hereby enter the following reply to the New Matter of Defendant: 39. Paragraphs I through 38 of Defendant's Answer, to the extent that they do not admit the facts and allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs' Complaint, are denied pursuant to Pa. RC.P. 1029 (e). 40. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 41. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 42. Denied pursuant to Pa. RC.P. 1029 (e). 43. Denied pursuant to Pa. RC.P. 1029 (e). 44. Denied pursuant to Pa. RC.P. 1029 (e). 45. Denied pursuant to Pl:!. RC.P. 1029 (e). 46. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 47. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 48. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 207393.1\DSW\LES ORIGINAL 'r. ! ~ ~ ~ I ..,.",.. -- , 49. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). . 50. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 51. Denied pursuant to Pa. RC.P. 1029 (e). 52. Denied pursuant to Pa. RC.P. 1029 (e). 53. Denied pursuant to Pa. RC.P. 1029 (e). 54. Denied pursuant to Pa. RC.P. 1029 (e). 55. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 56. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 57. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 58. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully respect that the New Matter of Defendant be dismissed, 3lld that judgment be entered in favor of the Plaintiffs. Respectfully submitted, ~ / David S. WIsneski, Esquire - LD. No. 58796 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 Counsel for Plaintiffs '\ Date: April 13, 2000 207393.1\DSW\LES I:' - , - " CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER was served upon the following persons by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid on April 13, 2000, as follows: Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., Esquire TUCKER, ARENSBURG & SWARTZ III North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, P A 17108-0889 Counsel for Defendant Crown Equipment Company ~~ [. ~ Lois E. Stauffer 207393.1 \DSW\LES " ? , I : - ~r r '1 ( r YOUNG J. CHOI and MI K. CHOI, His Wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 00-1519 CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please file the enclosed Notice of Removal in the above-captioned action. Date: r;;9~J 27813 tep I.D. No. 36803 111 North F rant Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ., , "I { 'I" . , UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA YOUNG J. CHOI and MI K. CHOI, His Wife, Plaintiffs llL icQ~if~o. 1_ ',.. 1 i' . \ ,( , COC.' \ .........."...1 It. .:' t - FILED' HARRISBURG, PA v. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant APR 1 9 2000 NOTICE OF REMOVAL rk i CLERK MARY E. D'A Per To the Honorable judges of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania: Removing party, Crown Equipment Corporation, by this undersigned attorney, respectfully shows this Court: 1. Removing party is the defendant in the above-entitled action. 2. On March 15, 2000, the above-entitled action was commenced against removing party in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas and is now pending therein. 3. On March 20, 2000, removing party was served with a Complaint in the above-entitled action at 44 South Washington Street, New Bremen, Ohio 45867 by certified mail. 4. On April 10, 2000, removing party filed an Answer and New Matter in Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas. On April 13, 2000, Plaintiffs filed a Reply " I, to removing party's New Matter. No further proceedings have been had herein in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas. 5. The amount in controversy in the above-entitled action, exclusive of interest and costs exceeds $75,000, for each Plaintiff.. 6. Plaintiffs are citizens and residents of the State of Pennsylvania, and defendant is incorporated in the State of Ohio with its principal place of business in the State of Ohio and thereby, a citizen of the State of Ohio. 7. The above-entitled action is a civil action for negligence and strict liability. The above-entitled action is subject to removal based upon diversity of citizenship as it wholly involves citizens of different states, in that at the time of commencement of this action in Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania and since that time, plaintiffs were and still are citizens and residents of the County of Cumberland, State of Pennsylvania; and defendant was and still is a corporation, duly incorporated and authorized to do business in the State of Ohio with its principal place of business in the State of Ohio. The amount in controversy for each plaintiff, exclusive of interest and costs, is in excess of $75,000, based on the allegations of injuries and damages in Plaintiffs' Complaint, a copy of which is attached hereto and included in Exhibit A. 8. This Court has original jurisdiction of the above-entitled action pursuant to 28 U.S. C. Section 1332, and since defendant is not a citizen or resident of the State of Pennsylvania, wherein the above-entitled action is pending, removal of the action to this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a). r'~ I" -" f 9. Copies of Plaintiffs' Complaint, Defendant's Answer and New Matter and Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant's New Matter served on and by removing party in the above-entitled action are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 10. This notice is filed with the Court within 30 days after service on removing party of the Complaint in the above-entitled action. WHEREFORE, removing party requests that the above-entitled action be removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania to this Court. Date: I/If/lo 27801 . reec er, Jr. I.D. No. 36803 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ....~, .......,........ ..........~,................ a.A. .........0 ......0 ............ ..:......;.. ,,~, .....LI......:...... r.. I 'I 'Ittd .1-;f(J - t'O . CiAA" ~~ ~ .~ " YOUNG J. CHOI and MI K. CHOI, his wife, IN THE COUR T OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Plaintiffs NO. v. CIVIL ACTIO~ - LAW CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant JURY TR1.AL DEMANDED COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiffs Young J. Choi and Mi K. Choi are adult individuals, husband and wife, who reside together in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation is an Ohio corporation that is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, selling and distributing fork lift and' standing lift trucks. , \' 3. Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation is registered to conduct business within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and it regularly sells~ marlcets, advertises, and provides parts for its lift trucks in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 4. The facts and occurrences hereinafter related took place on or about March 22,1999, at approximately 5:30 p.m., at Excel Logistic, Inc.'s distribution facility located in New Kingston. Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 5. At said time and place, Plaintiff Young J. Choi was employed as a lift operator by Excel Logistics, Inc. 207393.I\OSWILES 03/20/00 MON 16:56 [TX/RX N,O 68001 ~002 ,'1', ~~, -~, ~~ ....~~. ~-._" ~.~ ~-~ --~ ~--~ , Ii -.......,.~, .........~..~ """"....... 6. At said time and place. Plaintiff Young J. Choi Was operating a standing lift manufactured by Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation, and was in the process oflowering a pallet of product, when the hydraulic system of the forklift exploded. 7. Oil or hydraulic fluid and broken pieces were showered onto Plaintiff Young J. Choi's face and body, and he was thrown from the forklift. whereupon he was struck by falling products and a piece of metal. 8. Plaintiff Young J. Choi was taken by ambulance to the emergency room of the Holy Spirit Hospital. 9. Plaintiff Young J. Choi was ultimately diagnosed as having sustained injuries in the accident that include a fracture/dislocation of the left tibia and fibula, for which he underwent open reduction internal fixation surgery. a left shoulder injury alld left shoulder rotator cuff syndrome. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE YOUNG J. CROI V. CROWN EOUlPMENT CORPORATION 10. Paragraphs 1 through 9 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. II. Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation is liable to Plaintiff Young J, Choi for the injuries alleged herein, whieh were a direct and proximate result of its negligence as set forth in' paragraphs 12 through 21 below. 12. Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation designed and/or manufactured the standing 207393.11DSWILES 2 03/20/00 MON 16: 56 [TX/RX NO 6800] ~ 003 :'I'~'-- 1-- " , ......, .......,....... ....~~.~....~... ~........ ...~..- ...-... ~...-... . I \ -"<-".' ~....~...... .........~ " lift which Plaintiff Young J. Choi was operating at the time of the accident in such a fashion that the hydraulic system was able to, and did, burst while the lift was being used in a normal and intended fashion. 13. Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation failed to provide adequate warnings or to otherwise advise customers and users of the standing lift of the danger pres<:>nted by a hydraulic system that could burst while th<:> forklift was being used in a normal and intended fashion. l4.Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation failed to equip the standing lift with a seat belt, harness, or similar restraining device. IS.Defendant.Crowo. Equipment Corporation failed to retrofit the standing lift involved in the accident. or to advise customers to retro fit such lift with sea t belts, a harness, or similar restraining device. 16. Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation failed to properly inspect the standing lift involved in the accident so as to have discovered, prior to sale, distdbution or use, the danger or defect presented by the hydraulic system which burst while the forklift was being used in a normal and intended fashion. 17. Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation distributed and sold the standing lift involved in the accident despite the fact that it was equipped with a hydraulic system that was able to, and did, explode while the lift was being used in a normal and intended fashion. 18. Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation designed and/or manufactured the standing lift involved in the accident in such a fashion that, !"hen the hydraulic system failed, it was able to shower oil or hydraulic fluid and parts upon the operator. 2D7393.1\DSW\U!S 3 03/20/00 liON 16:56 [TX/RX NO 6800] ~004 ~ \...i\Ull!' ~\.in.1....i ~"''''oj UJ/~U/UU nu~ LO;D~ rAA ~L~ O~~ ~OuU , ~ I, ,I " !'~~.",......"'! 19. Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation designed and/or manufactured the standing lift involved in the accident in such a fashion that, when the hydraulic system failed, it permitted the load that was being borne to drop. 20. Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation designed an,1 manufaetured the standing lift involved in the accident in such a fashion that, when the hydraul ic system failed, the operator could be thrown from the lift. 21. Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation failed to provide adequate instructions as the maintenance, inspection and upkeep of the standing lift so as to ensure that its hydraulic system would not explode while it was being used in a nonnal and intended fashion. 22. As a direct and prolCimate result of Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation's negligence as set forth above, Plaintiff Young J. Choi suffered injuries that include, but are not limited to, a fracture/dislocation of the left tibia and fibula, for which he underwent open reduction internal fixation surgery, a left shoulder injury and left shoulder rotator cuff syndrome. 23. As a direct result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Young J.Choi has incurred, and will in the future incur, medical arid rehabilitation expenses, and clwm is made therefor. 24. As a direct result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Young J. Choi has been. and in the future will be, subject to humiliation and ridicule as a result of! ds disability and the scaning resulting from his injuries, and claim is made therefor. 25. As a direct result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Young J. Choi has undergone, and 207393.IIDSWILES 4 03/20/00 MON 16: 56 [TX/RX NO 68001 141 005 I' ...,,;\......,,1.. ......:.........~~...... ~............ "oJl LVI UU JU...................CI ....dA ""'..LCI "'''-CI ....u....... , ": , 1 ! i. in the future will undergo, great mental and physical pain and suflering, great inconvenience in carrying out his daily activities, and a loss oflife's pleasures and mjoyment, and claim is made therefor. 26. As a direct result of the aforesaid injuries, PlaintiffYoUIlg J. Choi has sustained a loss of earnings by reason of not being able to fulfill his employment, and claim is made therefor. 27. As a direct result of the aforesaid injuries, PlaintiffYoUIlg J. Choi has sustained a loss of earning power and earning capacity, and claim is made therefor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Young J. Choi demands judgment against Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation in an lIfIlount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT II - STRICT LIABILITY YOUNG J. CHOI V. CROWN EOUlPMENT CORPORATION 28. Para.graphs 1 through 9 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 29. Defendant Crown EquipmentCorporation is strictly lial,le to Plaintiff Young J. Choi under Section 402(a) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts for the damages alleged herein which were proximately caused by a Crown standing lift truck which WItS defective for the following reasons: a) The standing lift was designed and/or manufactured in such a fashion that the hydraulic system was able to, and did, explode w~ile the lift was being used in a normal and intended fashion. 20n93.1IDSW\LES 5 03/20/00 MON 16:56 (TX/RX NO 68001 141006 . 'I b) The standing lift did not have adequate warnings to advise customers and users of the lift of the danger presented by a hydraulic system that could burst while the forklift was being used in a normal and intended fashion. c) The standing lift was designed and/or manufacturel! in such a fashion that it did not have a seat belt. harness, or similar restraining device. d) The standing lift was designed and/or manufactured in such a fashion that the hydraulic system was able to fail while the lift was being used in a normal and intended fashion. e) The standing lift involved in the accident was designed and/or manufactured in such a fashion that, when the hydraulic system failed, it was able t~ shower oil or hydraulic fluid and parts upon the operator. f) The standing lift involved in the accident was designed and/or manufactured in such a fashion that, when the hydraulic system failed, it permitted the load that was being borne to drop. g) The sUinding lift was designed and/or manufactured in such a fashion that, when the hydraulic system failed or burst, the operator could be thrown from the lift. h) The standing lift involved in the accident malfunctioned in the absence of a reasonable second8ry cause while it was being used in its intended fashion. 30. AI; a direct and proximate result of the defcctive nature of Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation's product as set forth above, Plaintiff Young J. Choi suffered injuries that include, but are not lirnited to, a fracture/disloc~tion of the left tibia and fibula, for which he 207393.1IDSWILES . 6 03/20/00 MON 16: 56 [TX/RX NO 6800 J ~ 007 !~ _" .,".e_ '".. . underwent open reduction internal fixation surgery, a left shoulder injury and left shoulder rotator cuff syndrome. 31. As a direct result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Young J. Choi has incurred, and will in the future incur, medical and rehabilitation expenses, and claim is made therefor. 32. As. a direct result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Young J. Choi has been, and in the future will be, subject to humiliation and ridicule as a result of his disability and the scarring resulting from his injuries, and claim is made therefor. 33. As a direct result of the aforesaid injuries, PlaintiffYourlg J. Choi has undergone, and in the future will undergo, great mental and physical pain and suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out his daily activities, and a loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and claim is made therefor. 34. As a direct result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Young J. Choi has sustained a loss of earnings by reason of not being able to fulfill his employment, and claim is made therefor. 35. As. a direct result of the aforesaid in,juries, Plaintiff Young J. Choi has sustained a loss of earning power and earning capacity, and claim is made therefor. WHEREFORE, PlaintiffY oung J. Choi demands judgment against Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five lhousand ($25,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. 207393.IIDSWILES 7 03/20/00 MON 16: 56 [TX/RX NO 6800] @J008 -,.,...,. " ~ I' , "'I::;l ....~" . " J COUNT III MI K. CHOI V. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION 36. Paragraphs 1 through 9 and Counts I and II of this Complaint are incorporated herein . by reference. 37. Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation is liablQ 10 Plaintiff Mi K. Choi for IhQ injuries set forth below. 38. AI; a direct and proximate result of Young J. Choi's injuric's as set forth above, Plaintiff Mi K. Choi has been deprived of the assistance, companionship, consortium and society of her husband, all of which has been, and in the future will be, to her great damage and loss, and claim is made therefor. WHEREFORE, PlaintiffMi K. Choi demands judgment against Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. Date: ') I ,.~ /60 ANGINa & ROVNER, P .C. t)..!!!..)"" David S. Wisne.~ld, Esquire I.D. No. 58796 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg,PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 'Counsel fot Plai ntiffs .,/ 207393.1\DSWILES 8 03/20/00 MON 16: 56 [TX/RX NO 6800) ~009 i ;I'~! U..>It:.,U/VV . ~ ' I, I II. I: il , , " -,' jl.l......... ............ J..'r:l...<3o. os........ ......-.0 .......v... ......l'Io......lI... .................... ~.......... , ,. VERIFICATION We, Young J. Choi and Mi K. Choi, verifY that the faets set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information, and belief. We understand that this 1.1 Iii verification is made subject to the provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. 94904, rdating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 03 'Ie - 00 hreL- YoungJ. Choi Date: 0 "J - Ie - 00 ~7/A W~-^ MiK.C oi 03/20/00 MaN 16:56 ITX/RX NO 68001 IaiOl0 I. . I ,~ YOUNG J. CHOI and MI K. CHOI, His Wife, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Plaintiffs NO. 00-1519 CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Young J. Choi and Mi K. Choi clo David S. Wisneski, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. By: S ep n M. ree r, . Attorney's 1.0. No. 36803 111 North Front Street P. O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT DATE: d?~tJ 27218.1 ! !ft'l(, ~ - " - YOUNG J. CHOI and MI K. CHOI, His Wife, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Plaintiffs NO. 00-1519 CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER 1. Admitted, except that after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment that Plaintiffs are husband and wife, proof of which is hereby demanded. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 4, . proof of which is hereby demanded. 5. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 5, proof of which is hereby demanded. 6. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 6, proof of which is hereby demanded. 7. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 7, proof of which is hereby demanded. " ~I ,,' 8. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 8, proof of which is hereby demanded. 9. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 9, proof of which is hereby demanded. COUNTI-NEGUGENCE YOUNG J. CHOI v. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION 10. The answers to Paragraphs 1 through 9 of this Answer with New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 11. The allegations in Paragraph 11 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). 12. It is admitted that Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, designs and manufactures standing lifts. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 12 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 13. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that the standing lift alleged to have been involved in the incident at issue in this case was designed and manufactured by Crown Equipment Corporation, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations of Paragraph 13 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). It is further denied that the hydraulic system could burst while the forklift was being used in a normal and intended fashion. -2- i<~' 14. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that the standing lift alleged to have been involved in the incident at issue in this case was designed and manufactured by Crown Equipment Corporation, and proof there of is demanded. However, it is admitted that Crown Equipment Corporation does not equip its standing lifts with seatbelts, harnesses, or like devices. It is specifically denied that the failure to equip a standing lift with a seatbelt, harness or like device is negligence. 15. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that the standing lift alleged to have been involved in the incident at issue in this case was designed and manufactured by Crown Equipment Corporation, and proof thereof is demanded. However, it is denied that Crown Equipment Corporation had a duty to retro fit standing lifts designed and manufactured by it as set forth in Paragraph 15 and did not retro fit its standing lifts. It is specifically denied that any failure to retro fit a standing lift with seatbelts, a harness or a like device is negligence. 16. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that the standing lift alleged to have been involved in the incident at issue in this case was designed and manufactured by Crown Equipment Corporation, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations in Paragraph 16 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). -3- I: ., 17. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that the standing lift alleged to have been involved in the incident at issue in this case was designed and manufactured by Crown Equipment Corporation, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations in Paragraph 17 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 18. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that the standing lift alleged to have been involved in the incident at issue in this case was designed and manufactured by Crown Equipment Corporation, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further Answer, the allegations in Paragraph 18 are denied pursuant to PaR.C.P. 1029(e). 19. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that the standing lift alleged to have been involved in the incident at issue in this case was designed and manufactured by Crown Equipment Corporation, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations in Paragraph 19 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 20. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that the standing lift alleged to have been involved in the incident at issue in this case was designed and manufactured by Crown Equipment Corporation, and proof -4- thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations in Paragraph 20 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 21. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that the standing lift alleged to have been involved in the incident at issue in this case was designed and manufactured by Crown Equipment Corporation, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further Answer, the allegations in Paragraph 21 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 22. The allegations that Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, was negligent are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations are deemed factual, they are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding the injuries suffered by Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, proof of which are hereby demanded. 23. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is liable for any injuries or damages sustained by Plaintiff, Young J. Choi. 24. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, it is specifically -5- 1:-_ .., .- ", ,~-, -. , denied that Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is liable for any injuries or damages sustained by Plaintiff, Young J. Choi. 25. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is liable for any injuries or damages sustained by Plaintiff, Young J. Choi. 26. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is liable for any injuries or damages sustained by Plaintiff, Young J. Choi. 27. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is liable for any injuries or damages sustained by Plaintiff, Young J. Choi. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor. COUNT (( - STRICT LIABILITY YOUNG J. CHOI v. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION 28. Paragraphs 1 through 9 of this Answer with New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. -6- ~" " " ~, I ,,~, '" . . 29. The allegations of Paragraph 29 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. With respect to the subparagraphs of Paragraph 29, after reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, does not have sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that a standing lift designed and manufactured by Crown Equipment Corporation was involved in the alleged incident, and proof thereof is demanded. To the extent the allegations are deemed to be factual, they are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). (a) Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). (b) Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). Further, it is specifically denied that the hydraulic system could burst while the forklift was being used in a normal and intended fashion. (c) Standing lifts designed and manufactured by Crown Equipment are not equipped with a seatbelt, harness, or like restraining device, and the failure to so equip the standing lifts does not render the standing lift defective. (d) Denied pursuantto Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). (e) Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). (f) Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). (g) Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). (h) Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 30. The allegations of Paragraph 30 that Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation's product was defective state a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that said allegations are deemed factual, they are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). After reasonable investigation, Defendant Crown -7- . , '1-,....,. . , Equipment Corporation is without knowledge or information as to the truth of the averments regarding the injuries suffered by Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, and proof thereof is demanded. 31. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is liable for the alleged injuries or damages suffered by Plaintiff, Young J. Choi. 32. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is liable for the alleged injuries or damages suffered by Plaintiff, Young J. Choi. 33. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is liable for the alleged injuries or damages suffered by Plaintiff, Young J. Choi. 34. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is liable for the alleged injuries or damages suffered by Plaintiff, Young J. Choi. -8- , ,.-. 35. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is liable for the alleged injuries or damages suffered by Plaintiff, Young J. Choi. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, requests that judgment be entered in its favor. COUNT III MI K. CHOI v. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION 36. The answers to Paragraphs 1 through 9 and the answers to the paragraphs of Counts I and II are incorporated herein by reference. 37. Denied. The allegations are Paragraph 37 state a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations are deemed factual, they are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) and for the reasons set forth in the answers to the allegations of the Complaint and in the New Matter. 38. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 38. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, is liable for the alleged injuries or damages suffered by Plaintiff, Mi K. Choi. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, requests that judgment be entered in its favor. -9- L _ NEW MA ITER 39. The responses contained in Paragraphs 1 through 38 of Defendant's Answer are incorporated herein by reference. 40. The averments set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint fail to state a cause of action. 41. While Defendant does not admit that Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, was injured by any product sold or supplied by Defendant, and so demands strict proof of injury, Defendant avers that any product which it may have sold or supplied was free of defect at the time it left the possession and control of Defendant. 42. While Defendant does not admit that Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, was injured by any product sold and supplied by Defendant and so demands strict proof of injury, Defendant avers that any products which it may have sold or supplied were sold and supplied with proper and adequate warnings, labels, instructions and features so that such products were safe for their intended use. 43. While Defendant does not admit that Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, was injured by any product sold and supplied by Defendant and so demands strict proof of injury, in the event that it is established that a defect existed in any product which may have been sold or supplied by Defendant, the existence of any defect being denied, then said defect or defective condition was caused by improper maintenance or usage of said product after it left the possession and control of Defendant. 44. While Defendant does not admit that Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, was injured by any product sold and supplied by Defendant and so demands strict proof of injury, in the event it is established that a defect existed in any product which may have been -10- ~f'_ . sold or supplied by Defendant, the existence of any defect being denied, then said defect was caused by a material change, alteration, abuse or misuse of the product by persons not subject to the control of Defendant. 45. While Defendant does not admit that Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, was injured by any product sold and supplied by Defendant and so demands strict proof of injury, any products which may have been sold or supplied by Defendant were free from defects. 46. Defendant was not negligent. 47. While Defendant does not admit that Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, was injured by any product sold and supplied by Defendant and so demands strict proof of injury, if it is determined that Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, has sustained any injury and damages, then the same were not proximately caused by any action or failure to act of Defendant, but by the actions or failure to act of others not under the control of Defendant, including Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, and constitute a superseding cause. 48. While Defendant does not admit that Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, was injured by any product sold and supplied by Defendant, and so demands strict proof of injury, any product sold or supplied by Defendant was sold and supplied in conformity and pursuant to contract and customer specifications and, therefore, Defendant is not responsible to Plaintiffs or any other party upon principles of strict tort liability, Restatement of Torts (Second), Sections 402(a) or 402(b), or negligence for the manufacture, sale, supply, warnings, packaging or labeling of said product. 49. While Defendant does not admit that Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, was injured by any product sold and supplied by Defendant, and so demands strict proof of injury, -11- -'r ' any products which may have been sold or supplied by Defendant complied with any applicable safety and health laws. 50. The manufacture, design, sale, supply, warning, packaging and labeling of Defendant's product conformed to what was technologically, medically and scientifically known and practicably feasible at the time. 51. Any acts or omissions of Defendant alleged to constitute negligence, which negligence is denied, were not substantial causes or factors of the subject incident and/or did not result in the injuries and/or losses alleged by the Plaintiff, Young J. Choi. 52. While Defendant does not admit that Plaintiff, Young J. Cho, was injured by any product sold and supplied by Defendant and so demands strict proof of injury, in the event that it is established that a defect existed in any product which may have been sold or supplied by Defendant, said defect was not a substantial cause or factor of the subject incident and/or did not result in the injuries and/or losses alleged by the Plaintiffs. 53. If Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, sustained the injuries alleged, said injuries may have been the result of the acts and/or omissions of Plaintiff, Young J. Choi, and/or other persons and/or entities over whom Defendant exercised no control. 54. The acts or omissions of other individuals and/or entities may have constituted intervening superseding causes of the damages and/or injuries alleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiff, Young J. Choi. Furthermore, Defendant had no control over such acts or omissions and such acts or omissions were not due or caused by the fault, lack of care, negligence, or breach of any duty by Defendant. -12- :,-, 55. The incident, injuries and/or damages alleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiffs were not proximately caused by Defendant. 56. The Plaintiffs' claim may be barred by the Doctrine of Assumption of Risk. 57. The Plaintiffs' claim may be barred by the Doctrine of Contributory Negligence. 58. The Plaintiffs' claim may be barred or reduced by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. S7201, et seq. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Crown Equipment Corporation, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against Plaintiff. TUCKER ARENSBERG & SWARTZ By: DATE: 27206.1 ~~~ tep n M. ch, r. Attorney's 1.0. No. 36803 111 North Front Street P. O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT -13- , uoJt ..€I, Vu "............... u.... I;"AA. I.L./ "'..,,, QOV", L ^ ~ ~ - nuk. rA ~016 VERI FICA TION I, the undersigned, John E. Tate ,for CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant in the within action, do hereby certify that I am authorized to execute documents on hehalf of Crown Equipment Corporation, and I acknowledge that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that this verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. g4904. relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION By: Dated: March 29, 2000 27215.1 "j ,r' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this fOil day of ~ 2000, I, JACQUELYN A. ZElTLEMOYER, Secretary to STEPHEN M. GREECHER, JR., ESQUIRE, for the firm of Tucker Arensberg & Swartz, attorneys for Defendant, hereby certify that I have this day served the within Answer to Complaint with New Matter by depositing a true and correct copy of the same, in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to: David S. Wisneski, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 AlTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS Qc~().~ Jacquely A. Zettlemoyer 27221.1 ~W'\- I ' 1 ' I': " H::."'l\..fc \, '. ,~; I 4/1~ ~~'~'\;"'l YOUNG J. CHOI and MI K. CHOI, his wife, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, P A Plaintiffs NO. 00-1519 CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION. LAW CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Young J. Choi and Mi K. Choi, his wife, by and through their attorneys, Angino & Rovner, P.c., and hereby enter the following reply to the New Matter of Defendant: 39. Paragraphs 1 through 38 of Defendant's Answer, to the extent that they do not admit the facts and allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs' Complaint, are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 40. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 41. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 42. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 43. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 44. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 45. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 46. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 47. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 48. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.c.P. 1029 (e). 207393.1\DSW\LES II' ~i f ~ I I "f~ 49. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 50. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 51. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 52. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 53. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.c.P. 1029 (e). 54. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 55. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 56. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 57. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 58. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully respect that the New Matter of Defendant be dismissed, and that judgment be entered in favor of the Plaintiffs. Respectfully subrnitted, ANZJlZ2 /' David S. WIsneski, Esquire - LD. No. 58796 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 Counsel for Plaintiffs Date: April 13, 2000 207393.I\DSW\LES ',~ . II , ~ I It,) .~r' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P .c., hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER was served upon the following persons by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid on April 13, 2000, as follows: Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., Esquire TUCKER, ARENSBURG & SWARTZ III North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 Counsel for Defendant Crown Equipment Company ~~t~ Lois E. Stauffer . 207393.1 \DSW\LES tI ( . ,~.~~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this Jq iA day of APRIL, 2000, I, JACQUELYN A. ZETTLEMOYER, Secretary to STEPHEN M. GREECHER, JR., ESQUIRE, for the firm, Tucker Arensberg & Swartz, attorneys for Defendant, 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: David S. Wisneski, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS ~(j~ Jacquely A. Zettlemoyer 27221.1 ':'~~ ~--I 011 ,. ., ~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this / q tA day of APRIL, 2000, I, JACQUELYN A. ZETTLEMOYER, Secretary to STEPHEN M. GREECHER, JR., ESQUIRE, for the firm, Tucker Arensberg & Swartz, attorneys for Defendant, 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: David S. Wisneski, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS Ja~m~~~ 27221.1 'I ~ ~~