Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-02028 MATTHEW AARON STETTER, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. . : NO. OcJ ~ C)O;;.q d;J : CIVIL ACTION - LAW RICKY EDWARD STRAUB and MICHELLE E. STRAUB, Defendants : 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 serve, 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 rnay proceed without you and a judgment rnay 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 TIDSPAPER TO YOUR LA WYERAT ONCE. IFYOU 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 (717) 249-3166 "'!~, - --""" A VISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/ A EN CORTE. Se usted desea defenderse de las dernandas que se prsentan rnas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tornar accion dentro de los proxirnos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificacion de esta Dernanda y Aviso radicando personalmente 0 por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en 1a Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se Ie advierte de que si usted falla de tomar accion como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fall por cualquier surna de dinero rec1amada en la dernanda 0 cualquier otra rec1amacion 0 remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin rnas aviso adicional. Used puede perder dinero 0 propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEV AR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO 0 NO PUEDE PAGARLE A UNO, LLAME 0 VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA PARA A VERlGUAR DONDE PUEDE ENCONTRAR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 "., ~,' ,- ,- ~ ' v. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ; NO. P1J _ c2o.,lP C;;J <} oUA- MATTHEW AARON STETTER, Plaintiff RICKY EDWARD STRAUB and MICHELLE E. STRAUB, Defendants : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, this J& day of ~(Y\eJ- , 2000 comes the Plaintiff, Matthew Aaron Stetter, by and through his attorney, Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire, and respectfully avers as follows: I. Plaintiff, Matthew Aaron Stetter is an adult individual who currently resides at 1029 Kathryn Avenue, Dauphin, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, 17018. 2. Defendant, Ricky Edward Straub, is an adult individual whose last known address was 1731 Toodle Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17013. 3. Defendant, Michelle E. Straub, is an adult individual whose last know address was 1731 Trindle Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17013. 4. The incidents herein after related took place on or about May 5, 1998 and thereafter. 5. On or about May 5, 1998 at approximately 6: 13 p.m., Plaintiff, Matthew Aaron Stetter, was operating a 1987 Toyota Pick Up Truck in a southerly direction on State Route 11 approaching the intersection of State Route II and East Columbia Road. "?\" "J' .,""_ ,',--',, 6. On or about May 5, 1998 at approximately 6: 13 p.m., Defendant, Ricky Straub, was operating a 1994 Jeep Cherokee and was facing east on East Columbia Road and was stopped at the stop sign intersecting State Route 11 in or about the same area as the Plaintiff, Matthew A. Stetter was traveling. 7. At the aforesaid time and place, the Plaintiff, Matthew A. Stetter, and at all times related herein, was lawfully operating his automobile and was in control of his automobile in the southbound lane of State Route II and used due care and caution in the operation and driving of said vehicle. 8. At said place and time, the Plaintiff, Matthew A. Stetter, was traveling south on State Route II and the Defendant, Ricky Straub, was traveling east on East Columbia Road and suddenly, without warning, Defendant Straub, pulled out from the stop sign at the intersection of East Columbia Road and State Route 11 directly into the path of the Plaintiff s oncoming vehicle. 9. At said place and tirne, Plaintiff Stetter did not have sufficient time or warning so as to avoid striking the Defendant's vehicle. 1 0 ~ At said place and time, Defendant Straub, carelessly and without any warning drove his vehicle directly into the oncorning path of Plaintiff Stetter. 11. ,Immediately prior to the time of impact, Plaintiff Stetter was operating his vehicle in a southerly direction on State Route 11 and was obeying the posted speed limit and otherwise exercising due care and control of his automobile. 2 ~>1, -",", ,,- 12. The violent collision that occurred at said place and time was due solely to the negligence, carelessness, recklessness and willful and wanton misconduct of the Defendant, Ricky Straub. 13. As a direct and proximate result of said collision, Plaintiff, Matthew A. Stetter, was violently jostled and thrown about inside his vehicle, whereby he sustained serious physical injuries, some permanent in nature, including but not limited to: a. acute cervical strain; b. chest wall tenderness; c. headache; d. muscle spasm of left trapezoid; e. pinched nerve at C5, C6; f. thoracic strain with left arm pain and weakness; g. muscle spasm; h. frequent recurring headaches; 1. pain and suffering; J. intermittent left arm numbness; k. chest pain; 1. humiliation and embarrassrnent; m. loss of life's pleasures; 3 ;:" , , ,~ ' n. various other ills and injuries; and claim is made therefore. 14. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff, Matthew A. Stetter, has undergone, and in the future will undergo great mental and physical pain and suffering, and has been, is currently, and in the future will be hindered in the pursuit of his daily activities and claim is made therefore. 15. As a direct result of the injuries suffered in the accident, Plaintiff, Matthew A. Stetter, suffered numerous injuries immediately following the accident, seriously impacting upon his ability to conduct his daily activities and enjoy life's pleasures and claim is made therefore. 16. As a direct result of the injuries suffered in the accident, Plaintiff, Matthew A. Stetter, was unable to perform his part tirne employment at Riverside Associates and was also not able to perform the same amount of overtime employment he previously performed for his full time position with Susquehanna Developmental Services and suffered substantial loss of earnings, and claim is made therefore. 17. As a direct result of the injuries suffered in the accident, Plaintiff, Matthew A. Stetter, is currently unable to work significant overtime and currently unable to perform his prior part time employment in addition to this full time employment and continues to suffer a loss of earnings each week and a claim is made therefore. 4 ",'i'll_ ", -" 18. As a direct result of the injuries suffered in the accident, Plaintiff, Matthew A. Stetter, may not be able to perform certain jobs in the future, resulting in loss of future earnings and claim is made therefore. 19. The collision and all of the injuries and damages herein related are the direct and/or proximate result of the careless, wanton and reckless manner in which the Defendant, Ricky Straub, operated his rnotor vehicle as follows: a. Failing to stop at a stop sign; b. Failing to yield to oncoming traffic; c. Failing to properly observe traffic and acting without due regard for the position of the Plaintiff, Matthew A. Stetter's vehicle; d. Failing to property observe traffic flow prior to pulling out from a stop sign into the path of oncoming traffic; e. Failing to keep alert and maintain a proper lookout for oncoming traffic; f. Failing to have his vehicle under such control as to be able to avoid the accident with the Plaintiff; g. Failing to change the direction of his vehicle in order to avoid the impact with Plaintiffs vehicle; h. In otherwise operating his vehicle in a manner endangering persons and property and with careless disregard for the rights or safety of others in 5 I I , violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which conduct constitutes negligence, gross negligence and/or willful and wanton misconduct. COUNT I MATTHEW A. STETTER V. RICKY STRAUB 20. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated by reference as if set forth in full here below. 21. The accident on May 5, 1998 was a direct and proxirnate result of the carelessness, recklessness and negligence of the Defendant, Ricky Straub, in the manner in which he failed to exercise due care and control of the automobile he was operating as set forth fully in paragraph 19 above. 22. The negligence ofthe Defendant, Ricky Straub, individually, was a direct and proximate result of the injury suffered by the Plaintiff, Matthew Stetter. 23. The accident of May 5, 1998 and the resulting injuries suffered by Matthew A. Stetter would not have occurred but for the negligence of Defendant, Ricky Straub. The negligence of the Defendant Ricky Straub was a substantial factor in causing the injuries to the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demand judgment against the Defendant Ricky Straub, individually in an amount in excess of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) exclusive of 6 '-ft!."" [,",,'"'--- '" interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional arnount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT II MATTHEW A. STETTER V. MICHELLE E. STRAUB 24. Paragraphs 1 through 23 are incorporated by reference as if set forth in full here below. 25. At all times related herein, the Defendant, Michelle E. Straub, was the owner of the Jeep Cherokee vehicle operated by Defendant, Ricky Straub. 26. Defendant, Michelle E. Straub, negligently entrusted the use of said vehicle to Defendant, Ricky Straub, on May 5, 1998. 27. Defendant, Michelle E. Straub, is responsible for any injuries and damages caused to Plaintiff, Matthew A. Stetter, by the negligence, careless, reckless and/or willful or wanton behavior of the Defendant, Ricky Straub in the accident of May 5, 1998 under the doctrine of negligent entrustment and the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 28. Defendant, Michelle E. Straub, is responsible for all the damages Plaintiff suffered as a direct and proximate result of this accident. 29. The accident on May 5, 1998 was a direct and proximate result of the carelessness, recklessness and negligence of the Defendant, Michelle Straub by her negligent entrustment of the use of her vehicle by Defendant, Ricky Straub, when she knew or should have known the careless, reckless and negligent manner in which Ricky Straub operates 7 ~'ii'I <, ~" . ~' , -, automobiles. 30. The negligence of Defendant, Michelle E. Straub and Defendant Ricky Straub, was a direct and proximate result of the injuries suffered by Plaintiff. 31. The accident on May 5, 1998 and the injuries Plaintiff, Matthew A. Stetter, suffered as a result thereof, would not have occurred but for the negligence of Defendants, Michelle E. Straub and Ricky Straub. 32. The negligence of Michelle Straub was a substantial factor in causing the injuries to Plaintiff, Matthew A. Stetter. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Matthew A. Stetter, demands judgment against the Defendant, Michelle Straub in an amount in excess of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. Respectfully Submitted, Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire 845 Sir Thomas Court, Suite llA Harrisburg, P A 17109 (717) 540-5100 Id. No. 36461 Dated: ~- 16 ~ o() 8 ", .." .~ i!i MATTHEW AARON STETTER, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. RICKY EDWARD STRAUB and MICHELLE E. STRAUB, Defendants : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VERIFICATION I, Matthew A. Stetter, verify that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct. I understand that false staternents herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~ - -------, Dated: ..3 - Itr C50 ! ';,,~ .",- , ,-- - ~ ' , ~ - SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR )" -.\ Cl'.SE NO: 2000-02028 P COMMONWEALTB OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND STETTER MATTHEW AARON VS STRAUB RICKY EDWARD ET AL BRIAN BARRICK , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pensylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon STRAUB RICKY EDWARD the DEFENDANT , at 0009:11 HOURS, on the 5th day of April , 2000 at 1731 TRINDLE ROAD C],RLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to RICKY STRAUB a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 18.00 3.10 .00 10.00 .00 31.10 ;;~~~" R. Thomas Kline me this /.bt::. day of 04/06/2000 JOANNE H. CLOUGH By: IrfJ;J fJt,kJ)-~ Deputy Sheriff Sworn and Subscribed to before (~f' . 'fJ.:l.iJv-o A . D . ~C~ . rotho;'otary I~ t,,,,, - > f, ; .-' -.. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR Cl'lSE NO: 2000-02028 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND STETTER MATTHEW AARON VS STRAUB RICKY EDWARD ET AL BRIAN BARRICK , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland county, Pensyl vania , who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon STRUAB MICHELLE E the DEFENDANT , at 0009:11 HOURS, on the 5th day of April , 2000 at 1731 TRINDLE ROAD Cl~RLISLE, PA 17013 RICKY STRAUB (HUSBAND) by handing to a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service l'.ffidavit Surcharge 6.00 .00 .00 10.00 .00 16.00 So Answers: ~~~t:~~ R. Thomas Kline Sworn and Subscribed to before 04/06/2000 JO-:y~ CW/&;;J?fI, ~ Deputy Sheriff ~ me this /.:Lr!::. day of I~.:J :l-Irv-i) A. D . ~ {2 Iu. tltl;.~ ~"4< ~' Prothonotar "1"'" ,~~ ~ ", -. MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN BY: Richard 1. Margolis, Esquire Identification No.: 40574 The Curtis Center, Fourth Floor Independence Square West Philadelphia, PA 19106-3304 (215) 931-5851 Attorney for Defendants, Michelle E. Stroub and Ricky Edward Stroub MATTHEW AARON STETTER COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY YS. RICKY EDWARD STRAUB AND MICHELLE E. STRAUB NO. 00-2028 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of defendants, Ricky Edward Straub and Michelle E. Straub, in the above-referenced matter. DATED: 0JJr!1J B.f: MARGQPS EDEL~T~ I, .~ //, !\ ',(-, i i ..." 'v~ I' RIClffARD J. MAR6OI!~S, ESQUIRE /-/' i / Attorney for Defendants Michelle E. Stroub and Ricky Edward Stroub M:\MDIR\59250\1654\ENTRY,APP Wffll. - '<~" , " -. I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance was served on counsel listed below this date by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire 845 Sir Thomas Court, Suite llA Harrisburg, PA 17109 D....' j)lj." '" , ,- '''~ ~..,"~ , --~~~~ - ~ ,- () ,:; < \"jf:-.' nll'" ;:;,~T c>~ '~L__ r::~ ;~. " J::C~ -:,,:"";(, , ;.~ S~;; """",,,", ~ " ,'~. ~"<,,' ~ "C (-:.1 (=-'" W -n :::;J'" -~) --:] ;:::J ;"'-.) Coo =2 "'1Iil " "''::'J .", ()l ;--"1, :;~ ~- ~_~rrrmm<.lL"~_"I""!1jJ,,,,,,,"1l~_Y!i?C~1-o.'f"'ffl'1,",.>'ll>iii1ll1;<l1ll"~~Wfl~!!I!INf"'~:flf!M-'JIiI';miffi'!\'I!~"'t~N\l~ MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN BY: Richard J. Margolis, Esquire Identification No.: 40574 The Curtis Center, Fourth Floor Independence Square West Philadelphia, PA 19106-3304 (215) 931-5851 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD TO THE ENCLOSED PLEADING WITIDN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WILL BE ENTEjRED AGAINST YOU. '<' ! 1,/\ ,I / /...16 j .,' /! 11f, ~'I ATTO i EYFO.WDEFENDANTS . ( lttorney for Defendants, Michelle E. Stroub and Ricky Edward Stroub MATTHEW AARON STETTER VS. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY RICKY EDWARD STRAUB AND MICHELLE E. STRAUB NO. 00-2028 ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS, RICKY EDWARD STRAUB AND MICHELLE E. STRAUB, TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER Answering defendants, by and through their counsel, Margolis Edelstein, do hereby answer plaintiff's Complaint and aver as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and the allegations are, therefore, denied. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. ")I11!:';Wj;~~" !illliW ,~ 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and the allegations are, therefore, denied. 6. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that answering defendant stopped at the stop sign on East Columbia Road at its intersection with State Route 11 in his 1994 Jeep Cherokee. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and the allegations are, therefore, denied. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and the allegations are, therefore, denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and the allegations are, therefore, denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions oflaw to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficientto form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and the allegations are, therefore, denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph 2 'Wl!r II and the allegations are, therefore, denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. II. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and the allegations are, therefore, denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions oflaw to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and the allegations are, therefore, denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and the allegations are, therefore, denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions oflaw to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and the allegations are, therefore, denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and the allegations are, therefore, denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions oflaw to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. 3 ,~~Il;,P, 11 ;1 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and the allegations are, therefore, denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and the allegations are, therefore, denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions oflaw to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and the allegations are, therefore, denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. 19. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions oflaw to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. By way of further answer, answering defendants respond to the following allegations as follows: a. Denied. It is specifically denied that answering defendant failed to stop at the stop sign. To the contrary, answering defendant stopped at the stop sign. By way of further answer, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. b. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions oflaw to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. 4 -~fI!1l, .~ ~~~ II c. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions oflaw to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. d. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions oflaw to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. e. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. f. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. g. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. h. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions oflaw to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. 20. Denied. Answering defendant incorporate by reference his answers to paragraphs 1 through 19 as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length. 21. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. By way of further answer, 5 !I'll""""...,.""" answering defendant incorporates by reference his answer to paragraph 19 as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length. 22. Denied. . The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. 23. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions oflaw to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. WHEREFORE, answering defendant prays that judgment be entered in his favor. 24. Denied. Answering defendant incorporates by reference her answers to paragraphs I through 23 as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length. 25. Admitted. 26. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions oflaw to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. 27. Denied, The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions oflaw to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. 28. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions oflaw to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response, 29. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions oflaw to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. 30. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions oflaw to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. 31. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. 6 ~~~ . ~~ ~ 32. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions oflaw to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no further response. WHEREFORE, answering defendant prays that judgment be entered in her favor. NEW MATTER 1. The answering defendants assert all of the defenses, limitations and exclusions available under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S.A. Section 1701 et. seq. and avers that the plaintiffs remedies are limited exclusively thereto and, therefore, the present action is barred. 2. If it is determined that defendants are liable on the plaintiffs cause of action, the defendants aver that plaintiff's recovery should be eliminated or reduced in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 7102. 3. It is further averred by answering defendants that the plaintiff in the present action violated the provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code and, therefore, said accident was solely caused by the negligence and carelessness of the plaintiff. MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN - BY: DATED: ~ /J-OO , RlCHA J. MARGOLIS, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Defendants M:\MDIR\5925011654IANSWER.CMP 7 ,"I"-"~I~~ WlllftJ,~~,,, ,,_~, II [. i' VERIFICATION The Undersigned, having read the attached pleading verifies that the within pleading is based on information furnished to all counsel, which information has been gathered by counsel in the course of this lawsuit. The language of the pleading is that of counsel and not of signer. Signer verifies that he/she has read the within pleading and that it is true and correct to the best of signer's knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents ofthe pleading are that of counsel, verifier has relied upon counsel in taking this verification. This verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification of authorities. Dated:~ \4.\ \:\:) ~~~~.)"0 ~~~~ MICHELLE E. STRAUB [STRAUB, Stetterv.] [59250-1654] - . . ''''''''_~l>-,. Ii , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer of Defendants to Plaintiff's Complaint with New Matter was served on counsel listed below this date by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire 845 Sir Thomas Court, Suite IIA Harrisburg, P A 17109 Dated: MAY 11, 2000 GOLIS, ESQUIRE ~ C' ,'~" ~.IlIHllI..r ._,-- ~. "." ,',-' ~_~!lIQQlH~~,!" "',~" ~ , .~ - .,', 0' '~~r' "h" '""*'~^'''' ,.. d <;::: -'(),~~ 'T;;;~! ~~:~\ ~:::~: :::.-:::CJ ~ff ~3 .J>c- """ -<- =< . . a c:> (:) .'1 ~-I :r n-i.:!] ,-- ;'88 (J j :~c) "'~ :r: "-)~" :;-;'0 om jJ ::0 -<: ::J: J;:uo -< U1 " :.1c ~ !!iiI"!ll~('iW"~~"\!!$1'~M~~~"l'!i~j:j~"Wt~~j~~JI!IfiM <, c, FIIlII MATTHEW AARON STETTER, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : NO. 00-2028 RICKY EDWARD STRAUB and MICHELLE E. STRAUB, Defendants : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF MATTHEW A. STETTER'S RESPONSE TO NEW MATTER AND NOW, this L day of May, 2000, comes the Plaintiff, Matthew A. Stetter, by and through his attorney, Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire, and respectfully files this response to Defendant's New Matter and in support thereof avers as follows: I. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required by the Pa.R.C.P. By way of further explanation, strict proof of any factual allegations set forth in this averment is required at time of trial. 2. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff's recovery against the Defendants in this action should be eliminated or reduced in any percentage in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. To the contrary, at all times herein related in Plaintiff's cause of action, Plaintiff exercised due care and caution and in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and was not comparatively or contributorily negligent in any manner. !'~, ~ , , -,~ I, , 3. Denied. It is specifically denied that at any time set forth in the present action that Plaintiff violated any provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code. To the contrary, it is averred that the accident was caused solely by the negligence and carelessness of the Defendant and the Defendant's violation of numerous provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment be entered in his favor and against Defendant and the damages be awarded. Respectfully Submitted, Joann arrison Clou 845 Sir Thomas Co Harrisburg, PA 17109 (717) 540-5100 Id. No. 36461 "IJI!~ -., -" ~ ',~ MATTHEW AARON STETTER, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 00-2028 RICKY EDWARD STRAUB and MICHELLE E. STRAUB, Defendants : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VERIFICATION I, Matthew A. Stetter, verify that the staternents rnade in the foregoing are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: ,5- IB~ o-cJ ::'~"", ' " <',"_ -1- ^", ,0 Received: 01131/01 1/31 I 1 15: 1 3; 1 215 922 1772 _:> REAGEA & ADLER 14:14 FAX 1 215 922 1772 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN PC,; ~003 BY: Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire IdeIltification No.: 36461 845 Sir Thomas Court, Suite llA Harrisburg, PA 17109 (71~') 763-1383 MATTHEW AARON STETTER VS. RICKY EDWARD STRAUB AND MICHELLE E. STRAUB Page 3 Attorney for Plaintiff COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 00-2028 ORDER TO SETTLE. DISCONTINUE AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly mark the above-captioned matter as settled, discontinued and ended, upon payment of your costs only. Dated' 'd ~ 1- Q ( I! . I' II !i !, , 1/ l! Ii .. ,i ,,: " ~ i I '1 M:\MDIR\S9J:5tJ\16S4\Otder.sde- ~}'fHI ,~1ll ... >~-~ BY: . p ~l " ~I!lIIP8lIlQ~~~ ~~~~~ ~.~ - >, ~,;,""~',..;",'"~~;" ~"".~, ~~''''''''' ","_. - ,,<~ ~' .... C' C:i (") -' c: " -? -" ~-- -oc,,' -" (tt fT~, l--:d ?;;~~' , ;L.C.- \.,C\ ~::~, ~t+.' v ->- :>.-..; ~- ~t:] T:? )>,C ,.:~-: ::> ::< C) ~~ . _,",_ ,,"~I!~~iII#n~iHimli'l!iff~Ii@~~Ift~~~j,tlll~J~t " _J~~