HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-03217
~, ,.
-.
H__ ',n -', -
"I':"","~ -~ ~, -'-''-;'''-~ ,h~"'r.","",'J ,-~."~'c,,";,d:..,'~,;'~,,,,-,,; .',<, =0'''''"'''"'''' ,lj""
",
J
..
SHARON L. WIITER,
and her Husband,
WILLIAM E. WIITER,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
No. 00-3217 Civil Term
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED POINTS FOR CHARGE
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Sharon Witter, by and through her attorneys,
SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C., and respectfully submits the following
proposed Points for Charge:
-, > -~-' .,..., . .-." ~l--"'.~,..,' "
i.;;,J ~._ ,,", , , '~ " '. . '.", '__' , ,
~
.
!
Under the law and all of the evidence, you are directed to find a verdict in
favor of the Plaintiff, Sharon Witter, and against the Defendant, Michael Beers.
/
,,, ~>"'~-.~=~" ,',"'~";~" . "",'.' ,,,,-~,'-', ",1,,0.0".',""" - c_ ~ri"~ '~'""'"""'-~"~"~<"c..
<
~
2
ISSUES IN THE CASE AND FACTUAL CAUSE
The plaintiff claims that she was injured and sustained damage as a result of
the negligent conduct of the defendant. The plaintiff has the burden of proving her
claims.
The defendant denies the plaintiffs claims
Based upon the evidence presented at this trial, the only issues for you to
decide in accordance with the law as I will give it to you, are:
First: Was the defendant negligent?
Second: Was the defendant's conduct a factual cause in bringing about harrn
to the plaintiff?
')
" Conduct is a factual cause of harm when the harrn would not have occurred
absent the conduct. An act is a factual cause of an outcorne if, in the absence of the
act, the outcome would not have occurred.
In order for the conduct of a party to be a factual cause, the conduct must not
be fanciful or imaginary, but must have played a real role in causing the injury.
Therefore, in determining factual cause, you must decide whether the negligent
conduct of the defendant was more than an insignificant factor in bringing about
any harm to the plaintiff. Under Pennsylvania law, conduct can be found to be a
contributing factor if the action or ornission alleged to have caused the harm was an
actual, real factor, not a negligible, irnaginary, or fanciful factor, or a factor having
no connection or only an insignificant colltlection with the injury. However, factual
-" ~"~ ~.". '
,"',~ - "" ", ' .'.... .~,",' < ".'-i;',:",...... . '", .-.!.. >~"""~,,,",-<,,4'k '"""~,,,_ c, "'''' ~"'
.
,
cause does not rnean it is the only, prirnary, or even the most irnportant factor in
causing the injury. A cause may be found to be a factual cause as long as it
contributes to the injury in a way that is not minimal or insignificant.
To be a contributing factor, the defendant's conduct need not be the only
factor. The fact that sorne other cause concurs with the negligence of the defendant
in producing an injury does not relieve the defendant from liability as long as his
negligence is !!, factual cause of the injury.
The negligence of a defendant may be found to be a factual cause of a
plaintiff's harm even though it was relatively rninor. In effect, the test for factual
causation has been rnet when the conduct in question has such an effect in
producing the harrn as to lead reasonable persons to regard it as one of the
contributing causes that is neither insignificant nor inconsequential considering all
the circumstances.
Pa. SSJI 3.00 (Civ) (Modified).
'iIc-'
II" -" w.',"",,;~ -,"l"~,I"~_ ."-"" ";'''''''''''';;'''"'~''~''''';'~_,;';;''-i<',,!,'
,;"J.
.
'.
3
NEGLIGENCE-DEFINITION
The legal terrn "negligence," otherwise known as carelessness, is the absence
of ordinary care that a reasonably prudent person would use in the circumstances
presented here. Negligent conduct may consist either of an act or a failure to act by
the defendant when there is a duty to do so. In other words, negligence is the failure
to do something that a reasonably careful person would do, or doing sornething that
a reasonably careful person would not do, in light of all the surrounding
circumstances established by the evidence in this case. It is for you to determine
how a reasonably careful person would act in the circumstances of this case where
the first issue is whether Mr. Beers was negligent in the way he operated his boat on
July 25, 1998.
Pa. SSJI 3.01 (Civ) (Modified).
'--",-.-., -"i"~ .,'''e ",~",. -"'''7_ _,,~, "'___"'______,.=,'~'_~,,,"...., ,'"
.
4
ORDINARY CARE-DEFINITION
Ordinary care is the care a reasonably careful person would use under the
circumstances presented in this case. It is the duty of every person to use ordinary
care not only for his or her own safety and the protection of his or her property, but
also to avoid injury to others. What constitutes ordinary care varies according to the
particular circumstances and conditions existing then and there. The amount of
care required by the law must be in keeping with the degree of danger involved.
Pa. SSJI 3.02 (Civ).
. o__~, d~' ;"".,,"" _',. ;" "'_,"" ~'~ ,. ",~".,
" "'__'k',_ ..,,,, .,,- ,,",,=4, > ~ +_, , ~
.Q
FACTUAL CAUSE (Modified for use with 3.00 above)
The Plaintiff must prove to you that the Defendant's conduct caused the
Plaintiffs damages. This is referred to as "factual cause." The question is: "Was
the Defendant's conduct a factual cause in bringing about the Plaintiff's damages?"
Conduct is a factual cause of harrn when the harm would not have occurred
absent that conduct. An act is a factual cause of an outcorne if, in the absence of
the act, the outcome would not have occurred. Pa. SSJI 3.25 (Civ) (Modified).
~,-~
'"~ "-",~-,-.,." ";,~kJ~d h_,' .o",,,<,,,,,,,,~,.,',.->. '''.0,'''' ",ilt.,~,,~.'~~",~ '"'.
;"..
6
BURDEN OF PROOF
In civil cases such as this one, the plaintiff has the burden of proving those
contentions that entitle hirn or her to relief.
When a party has the burden of proof on a particular issue, the party's
contention on that issue must be established by a fair preponderance of the
evidence. The evidence establishes a contention by a fair preponderance of the
evidence if you are persuaded that it is rnore probably accurate and true than not.
To put it another way, think, if you will, of an ordinary balance scale, with a
pan on each side. Onto one side of the scale, place all of the evidence favorable to
the plaintiff; onto the other, place all of the evidence favorable to the defendant. If,
after considering the comparable weight of the evidence, you feel that the scales tip,
ever so slightly or to the slightest degree, in favor of the plaintiff, your verdict must
be for the plaintiff. If the scales tip in favor of the defendant, or are equally
balanced, your verdict must be for the defendant.
In this case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the following propositions:
that the defendant was negligent, and that the defendant's negligence was a factual
cause in bringing about the accident. If, after considering all of the evidence, you
feel persuaded that these propositions are rnore probably true than not true, your
verdict must be for the plaintiff. Otherwise, your verdict should be for the
defendant.
Pa. SSJI 5.50 (Civ) (Modified).
~""~~"" .- ."oW .<'~ .",'-0 "'f,",,' ". <,-,PC"_ "'""",,,,.,.~~,",,,,,,,',,,,,,"C',,< "'~'" ,.;,,:-,,,c_ ,~""'o' "',, '<'...
7
RECKLESS CONDUCT-DEFINED
Reckless conduct is intentional acting or failing to act with disregard of a risk
of harrn to others that is known or should be known to be highly probable and with
a conscious indifference to the consequences. Reckless conduct exists where the
Defendant acted or failed to act when existing danger is actually known and with an
awareness that harm is reasonably certain to result.
Pa. SSJI 3.17 (Civ) (Modified).
M'" J:;'- b.e-
.5'~/"~ ~
-1-'''-'- """'~ a-
V,,,=,l a..A^~
"w.'J
, ,
'.'<~"r ,
~"",,":',- ,',-"' '>11"'''' ;,.,,"~ ';,.,~d,;" W<_,,,),'" - ,"-,,' w
, "
8,
NEGLIGENCE PER SE-VIOLATION OF STATUTE
Under Federal Inland Navigation Rule 5,33 U.S.C. 13 2005 (1998):
Every vessel shall at all times rnaintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing
as well as by all means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and
conditions so as to make a full !lPpraisal of the situation and of the risk of
collision.
Federal Inland Navigation Rule 5,33 U.S,C. 82005 (1998).
This Federal statute dictates the duty of care required of someone in the same
situation as the Defendant. If you find that there was a violation of this Federal law,
you must find the Defendant negligent as a rnatter of law. However, before you
answer the question of the Defendant's liability, you rnust determine whether this
negligence was a factual cause of the plaintiff's injury.
Pa. SSJI 3.30 (Civ) (Modified).
. ' ~
,-,,'.X,.'"' ,'l, ,"""-"c--f"'_ '_" 1, '"n, ";'''^' ,-\~"""~-"","""'"'f,,,";>,,,' ,
..
9
NEGLIGENCE PER SE-VIOLATION OF STATUTE
A state law in effect at the tirne this harm occurred provided the following:
Under Maryland Code Annotated, Natural Resources Section 08.18.01.04 B
(1-8) (1998), it states:
A person may not operate or give permission to operate a vessel at a speed
which would be unsafe under the existing circurnstances and conditions. In
determining unsafe speed under the existing circumstances and conditions,
the following factors shall be taken into account:
(1) State of visibility;
(2) Traffic density;
(3) Maneuverability of the vessel in prevailing conditions;
(4) At night, the presence of background light intensity from shore
lights;
(5) Velocity of the wind;
(6) Sea and current conditions;
(7) Proximity of navigational hazards; and
(8) Draft of the vessel in relation to available depth of water.
This Maryland state law dictates the duty of care required of sorneone in the same
situation as the Defendant. If you find that there was a violation of this state law,
you must find the Defendant negligent as a matter of law. However, before you
answer the question of the Defendant's liability, you must deterrnine whether this
negligence was a factual cause of the plaintiff's injury.
Pa. SSJI 3.30 (Civ) (Modified).
,~
,~----
- ,~,,'" - --'" I ','_' c'i" ,,';' <,' :-,;~: ',,' ",,'" >,,~_, "" ".' ,<
..
10
NEGLIGENCE PER SE-VIOLATION OF STATUTE
A state law in effect at the time this harrn occurred provided the following:
Under Maryland Code Annotated, Natural Resources Section 08.18.01.05
(1998), it states:
A person nty not operate or give perrnission to operate any rnotorboat or any
vessel in a:
A. Reckless manner to endanger the life, lirnb, or property of any
person; or
B. Negligent rnanner to endanger the life, lirnb, or property of any
person.
This Maryland state law dictates the duty of care required of someone in the same
situation as the Defendant. If you find that there was a violation of this state law,
you must find the Defendant negligent as a rnatter of law. However, before you
answer the question of the Defendant's liability, you rnust determine whether this
negligence was a factual cause of the plaintiff's injury.
Pa. SSJI 3.30 (Civl (Modifiedl.
" To:!
.
11
You must determine the arnount of money damages that you believe will fairly
and adequately compensate the Plaintiff for all the physical injuries that she has
sustained as a result of the accident of July 25, 1998. The award should
compensate the Plaintiff for all econornic and non-economic darnages that she has
sustained in the past, as well as all darnages you find that she will sustain in the
future. Pa. SSJI (Civ.) 6.00 (Modified).
-'., lIiDiii",
12
The darnages recoverable by the Plaintiff in this case are:
a. The reasonable value of past rnedical expenses related to her injuries
caused by the Defendant;
/,<1 ."'....'--' ,,,..,."
b, The reas6t:tabI~~va1~e oJ-a1iy future rnedical expenses you deterrnine are
/,/ // //
~./ ~~ _r/
proba~ter~Q;;cU1>!rithe futU;~;
c. The amount of past lost earnings;
d. The arnount of lost earnings and lost earning capacity you determine
are probable to occur in the future;
e. An award for past physical pain and suffering, rnental anguish,
discornfort, inconvenience, and distress frorn July 25, 1998 until today;
f. An award for all physical pain and suffering, rnental anguish,
discomfort, inconvenience, and distress from today forward into the future that you
believe the Plaintiff will endure as a result of her injuries;
g. An award for past, present, and future loss of the ability of the Plaintiff
to enjoy the pleasures of life as a result of her injuries.
In the event that you find in favor of the plaintiff, you will add these surns of
damages together and return your verdict in a single, lump surn.
Pa. SSJI (Civ.) 6.01 (Modified).
- ~ ~
13
The Plaintiff is entitled to be compensated III the amount of all medical
expenses reasonably incurred for the diagnosis, treatment, and cure of her injuries
in the past. These unpaid expenses, as alleged by the plaintiff, arnount to
$17,059.49; an exhibit will be submitted to you, iternizing these costs, for your
consideration during deliberation. Pa SSJI (Civ.) 6.01A (Modified to include the
amount of unpaid medical bills).
----
~.t'-
-/-<' ~,
~r;ve.-N'Urr;'J
~
~*
r-t." j\.
I ~. ,.....Jloo-
~/I-' ~~ IM~ {'I
~"r I r,""1,r,~Y'
,;.J-,r'j.- I, ~
.;vA ../1 <.
'*~t
~../;:r
p...
J'",
"
~ r~~"V;
r'^"
.}1r""<
)-1''''
",;,-&}
t-
~fi) t/I
~\
?,Y""'{"
,,-,,-,tn-'\- Itc
",t'''1''
'\.I~"
0/1'
~"~
~t
~1'<J
J-~r.')
..J,;,.,Ao
~,,,",
.}-
kf'
, ("."1N^t'-"
,...V"1 I
-+1--
.N'1
It-'''
",,,,ji,,.
6tp.4'~
1
y....) ,
I
D;~
h';
~rJ'IJ,,1
~{vy'"
,,-.-
,\,~
,~I
Pa. SSJI (Civ.) 6.01B.
'"","""
.
14
,
-~
~~- ., <
,-,,~.
~. ", I
15
The Plaintiff is entitled to be compensated for the amount of earnings that she
has lost up to the tirne of trial as a result of her injuries. This arnount is the
difference between what the Plaintiff probably could have earned but for the harm
and less any sum that the Plaintiff actually earned in any employment. The Plaintiff
has presented an exhibit listing her past wage losses at trial totaling t ).
Pa. SSJI (Civ.) 6.0lC (Modified).
$;2.8) 1(,:;',0/
-,~ =,~".., . v ~'" '^~'" 'CO ""~~--' - ",,..,- ~'"' 'G" ':'iIiMiil,!'"
16
Pa. SSJI (Civ.) 6.0lD.
", ~ "" - , "
_.~
'J,,"
.
17
The Plaintiff, Sharon Witter, is entitled to be fairly and adequately
compensated for all physical pain, mental anguish, discomfort, inconvenience, and
distress that you find she has endured frorn the tirne of his accident until today.
Pa. SSJI (Civ.) 6.01E (Modified to include Plaintiff's name).
"~~ ~'"
.
18
The Plaintiff, Sharon Witter, is entitled to be fairly and adequately
cornpensated for all physical pain, rnental anguish, discomfort, inconvenience, and
distress that you believe she will endure in the future.
In deterrnining the amount of just cornpensation, you rnay consider as part of
the darnages from the Defendant's conduct, expert testirnony regarding the
probability that additional physical, emotional, and/or psychological effects from his
injuries will occur in the future. Pa. SSJI (Civ.) 6.01F (Modified).
19
The Plaintiff, Sharon Witter, is entitled to be fairly and adequately
compensated for past, present, and future loss of her ability to enjoy the pleasures
of life as a result of her injuries. Pa. SSJI (Civ.) 6.011 (Modified to include
Plaintiff's name).
" ,
, '.' ~"~ - ,~~
-
,
.
.
20
The Plaintiffs spouse, William Witter, is entitled to be cornpensated for the
loss of the injured party's services to him and the loss of companionship of his
spouse.
Pa. SSJI (Civ.) 6.01L (Modified to include, name of spouse).
, ,
~. "'" ..~
"
;,-
1 ,
.
.
.
.
21
6.21 (Civ)
DAMAGES-LIFE EXPECTANCY
If you find that the plaintiff's injuries will continue beyond today, you must
determine the life expectancy of the plaintiff.
According to statistics compiled by the United States Department of Health
and Human Services, the average life expectancy of all persons of the plaintiff's age
at the time of accident, sex, and race was 32.5 years. This figure is offered to you
only as a guide, and you are not bound to accept it if you believe that the plaintiff
would have lived longer or less than the average individual in her category. In
reaching this decision, you are to consider the plaintiff's health prior to the
accident, her manner of living, her personal habits, and other factors that rnay have
affected the duration of her life.
Pa. SSJI (Civ.) 6.21 (Modified).
"~
-'_"--,V, ,--- "","" ",__""",
,,'
~ =~ '')',
.
.
.
.
22
PUNITIVE DAMAGES-GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
A person's conduct is outrageous when he or she acts with a bad motive or
acts with reckless indifference to the interests of others.
If you find that the defendant's conduct was a factual cause of the harm the
plaintiff is alleged to have suffered and if you find that the conduct of the defendant
was outrageous, you rnay award punitive darnages, as well as any cornpensatory
damages, in order to punish the defendant for his outrageous conduct or reckless
indifference to the safety of others and to deter the defendant and others from com-
mitting similar acts.
Pa. SSJI (Civ.) 14.00 (Modified).
". .. ,-', ~ <,
~, -,
'" ~- , i
..
.
,
..
23
PUNITIVE DAMAGES-AMOUNT OF AWARD
If you decide that the plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive darnages, it is
your job to fix the amount of such damages. In doing so, you rnay consider any or
all of the following factors:
. the character of the defendant's act,
. the nature and extent of the harm to the plaintiff that the defendant
caused ; in this regard you may include the plaintiffs trouble and expense
in seeking to protect her interests in legal proceedings and in this suit, and
. the wealth of the defendant insofar as it is relevant in fixing an amount
that will punish him, and deter him and others frorn like conduct in the
future.
The amount you assess as punitive damages need not bear any relationship
to the amount you choose to award as compensatory darnages. It is not necessary
that you award compensatory damages to the plaintiff in order to assess punitive
damages against the defendant as long as you find in favor of the plaintiff and
against the defendant on the question of liability.
The amount of punitive darnages awarded must not be the result of passion or
prejudice against the defendant on the part of the jury. The sole purpose of punitive
damages is to punish the defendant's outrageous conduct, also terrned reckless
indifference to the safety or rights of others, and to deter the defendant and others
from similar acts.
Pa. SSJI (Civ.) 14.02 (Modified).
" "",'-
I ';"'~_' ,~; ,'j
',~~'"" i",=,", " " '-"<",,..,>,'". ."" _..
'.
~ "'
.
.
24
This is the Plaintiff's only day in Court; whatever damage you award based
upon the evidence, you rnust award in the verdict today. Whatever award you find
must include within it full and adequate cornpensation for all injuries of the
Plaintiffs darnages, whether past, present, or future suffered as a result of this
accident. Jamison v. DiNardo. Inc., 302 F.2d 27 (3d. Cir. 1962).
Respectfully subrnitted,
SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C.
Dated:dlj'3d j0..RJaf
By:
.- /cdd Pc
Todd D. Getgen
Attorney I.D. No. 807
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Attorney for Plaintiff
.-wI;L' ,'"'
It
~ ,
~ -
.
.
-1'" _1;
~
SHARON 1. WITTER and her
husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V ANlA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
vs.
00-3217 CIVIL
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
IN RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
Present at a pretrial conference held April 14, 2004, were Todd D. Getgen, Esquire,
attorney for the plaintiffs, and Guy H. Brooks, Esquire, attorney for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this case claims that she was injured in a motor boat accident. According
to the plaintiff, the defendant negligently drove the boat in which the plaintiff was riding into a
wave of a passing larger boat.
The amount of the medical bills in this case are not the subject of serious dispute and it is
hoped that the parties will be able to agree with respect to those bills. There is some
disagreement concerning vocational damages. . The defendant has retained a vocational expert
whose identity was disclosed to the plaintiff in the pretrial memorandum. The plaintiff has
objected to this late disclosure and the trial judge will be asked to rule on whether or not that
witness will be permitted to testify.
Also for the trial judge will be the pending cross-motions in limine of the parties. The
plaintiff claims that the defendant will not be competent to testify to the speed of the boat. The
defendant contends that there is no foundation for the testimony of other witnesses concerning
the speed of the boat.
I
I
.
,
~
!
i
ill
...
i!
..
.WII!........".,."'.~~~ ,.
,,,~"
~'''O'T'~' ~"""'''I
FilJ:D-O~HCI='
OF T\.Ir: PDIT,llol'!\!")TcP'I'
,l\.... 1 tV, '_"' ~'" U l' ,
Z!]O~ /l.\)R \ 1\ f\I') i \: \ I
CUiv;U~~::-'~:".,:' ,:
F2:!',11'\S'/LV/\Nl/\
11, ,,'
,~ ~
.'"
~^, - ~~,
~~~1""~".
~~ '
",.I!ln!l!QlI\!~IIl!,.~ _ ,
~,~,"
-
L' ___
'-'
, '"c. ~
, '~- ~-,~
-
..
This otherwise uncomplicated case should be of no more than three days' duration. The
parties will have the usual number of juror challenges.
April 14, 2004
Todd D. Getgen, Esquire
For the Plaintiffs
Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
For the Defendant
:rlm
.~
~ "
-
<"'.
. '.0
~'"
SHARON WITTER and her
Husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, P A
: NO. 00-3217
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: Judge: George E. Hoffer
v.
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
JURY INSTRUCTIONS
3.00 (Civ) ISSUES IN THE CASE
Personal Injury Claim (Contributory Negligence)
The plaintiff claims that (he) (she) was injured and sustained damage as a result
of the negligent conduct of the defendant. The plaintiff has the burden of proving (his)
(her) claims.
The defendant denies the plaintiff's claims [and asserts as an affirmative defense
that the plaintiff was himself negligent and that such negligence was a substantial factor
in bringing about plaintiff's injuries. The defendant has the burden of proving this
affirmative defense.]
Based upon the evidence presented at this trial, the only issue(s) for you to decide
in accordance with the law as I shall give it to you, (is) (are):
First: Was the defendant negligent?
Second: Was the defendant's conduct a substantial factor in bringing about harm
to the plaintiff?
[Third: Was the plaintiff (himself) (herself) negligent and was such negligence a
substantial factor in bringing about plaintiff's injury?]
~-
'^ ~ ~' ~~
SHARON L. WIITER,
and her Husband,
WILLIAM E. WIITER,
Plaintiffs
@ APi 121Pll111
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
,
v.
No. 00-3217 Civil Term
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFFS' PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM
I. A STATEMENT OF THE BASIC FACTS AS TO LIABILITY
The above-captioned case arises out of a rnotor boat accident that
occurred on July 25, 1998 on~hester River near the intersection of the
Chester River and the Chesapeake Bay. The accident happened at about 1:00
p.m. near 5918 Chester River, near Rock Hall, in Kent County, Maryland. Both
Federal and Maryland laws of safe boating apply in this case.
At the accident site, Defendant, Michael Beers, was operating a 1998 23-
foot, 7-inch Maxum runabout, serial number USKA30MDH798 westbound on
the Chester River. Other boats shared the waterway. At the time of the
accident, a larger vessel passed to the left of Michael Beers' runabout and
created a large wake consisting of a tall bow wave followed by troughs and
swells.
On July 25, 1998, Defendant, Michael Beers, drove his 23-foot runabout
boat at planing speed-20 to 25 miles per hour--into the bow wave of a passing
larger boat. The Defendant's operation of his runabout caused the bow of his
own boat to heave violently, propelling his passenger, Sharon Witter, into the
~,
I'"
~ii
air. Sharon Witter landed on the deck of the pitching runabout. The impact
caused Sharon Witter to suffer a burst fracture of her thoracic spine, requiring
immediate helicopter transport to a trauma center.
The investigating officer from the Natural Resources Police, Corporal
WiIliam Powell, noted that Michael Beers had failed to traverse properly large
swells created by a larger passing boat when the bow of Michael Beers'
runabout went up on a swell and launched Sharon Witter into the air.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant was negligent for failing to warn his
passengers of the impending impact and failing to operate the boat at an
appropriate speed. Plaintiff alleges that the boat was planing. Plaintiffs expert
will testify that such a speed constitutes recklessness.
II. A STATEMENT OF THE BASIC FACTS AS TO DAMAGES
Sharon Witter suffered an immediate burst fracture of her T12 vertebrae.
Sharon Witter stiIl has not regained all of her range-of-motion in her back and
cannot lift or bend as she ordinarIly could before the accident. It is undisputed
that Sharon Witter's burst fracture of the 12th thoracic vertebra and her
ongoing back injury was caused by the July 25, 1998 boat accident.
In an Independent Medical Examination, Bruce Goodman, M.D.,
rendered a guarded prognosis of Sharon Witter's recovery in view of the fact
that "individuals with this degree of cornpression involving vertebral bodies
have a proclivity toward early degenerative changes." Dr. Goodman agreed
with the findings of the Functional Capacity Evaluation performed at
HealthSouth, which classified Sharon Witter within the Light Work category
2
~
. '
, ,"<il.-
.'., ~ ~
.~.
':~
and determined Sharon Witter to suffer an 18% whole person irnpairment
rating. Since both assessments were performed in May 2002, the independent
medical examination and the functional capacity evaluation dernonstrated the
significant continued impact of the T12 burst fracture.
In a Vocational Evaluation Report, Paul A. Anderson, D.Ed., calculated
Sharon Witter's past loss of earnings to be $42,835.00 in his report of
September 17, 2002, Dr. Anderson also determined that the rounded average
of high and low calculated future loss of earning capacity is $108,000,
Consequently, Dr. Anderson concluded that Sharon Witter will incur
$150,835.00 in total loss earnings over her work-life expectancy.
Sharon Witter owes at least $16,522.49 in unpaid medical bills.
Sharon Witter has continued problerns with her back. Alan M. Levine,
M.D., has told Sharon Witter that if her problems persist or be corne worse over
time, Sharon Witter rnay be forced to undergo fusion surgery on the next
higher vertebra to stabilize her spine.
In surnmary, Sharon Witter has had the following damages:
A. PAST MEDICAL BILLS:
Plaintiff owes at least $16,522.49 in unpaid rnedical bills. This
amount already takes into consideration all payments by Erie Insurance
cornpany ($1,000) and all health insurance company write-offs and does
not include the out-of-pocket arnount of $1,537.00 paid by Sharon
Witter.
3
-,~
"~
~~--=",
FUTURE MEDICAL BILLS:
Unliquidated Amount.
B. PAST AND FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING:
Unliquidated Amount.
C. PAST AND FUTURE LOSS OF LIFE'S PLEASURES:
Unliquidated Amount.
D. PAST WAGE LOSS:
Plaintiff had past wage losses upon evaluation totaling
$54,800.00.
E. FUTURE WAGE LOSS:
Plaintiff is expected to suffer a minirnurn additional loss of future
earnings of $42,835.00 and an average anticipated loss of future earnings of
$108,000.00.
III. A STATEMENT AS TO THE PRINCIPAL ISSUES OF LIABILITY AND
DAMAGES .
Ordinary principals of negligence and damages apply. Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendant violated Maryland boat safety statutes and violated the
well-known "Rules-of-the-Road" for small boats.
Plaintiff's expert witness will testify that once a collision or impact with
the bow wave of the larger boat was irnminent, Michael Beers had a duty to: 1)
place the runabout in an attitude to encounter the bow wave head-on; 2)
throttle back and slow the runabout to a speed that was just a little more than
4
I~- ~
.~ .I.....c..."'~o
steering way; and 3) warn his passengers of the impending impact between the
runabout and the bow wave of the larger vessel.
Prior to the impact between the runabout and the bow wave of the larger
vessel, Michael Beers had a duty to alter his course to encounter the bow wave
head -on (90 degrees in the context of this case). Michael Beers stated that he
tried to hit the wake at an angle "between 90 and 75...maybe 90 to 45 angle."
Michael Beers did not meet the bow wave head-on at a 90-degree angle. The
angle of collision between the runabout and the bow wave added to the risk of
injury to Sharon Witter who was seated in the front left-hand side of the
runabout as that corner of the boat heaved rnore violently.
Prior to the impact between the runabout and the bow wave of the larger
vessel, Michael Beers had a duty to throttle back and slow his speed to steering
way. Michael Beers instead maintained the speed that he was traveling when
the runabout struck the bow wave and did not let off the throttle until after
irnpact. WillIam E. Witter was also a passenger in the right front of the
runabout and testified at a deposition that the runabout was "planing" at the
time of the collision between the runabout and the bow wave of the passing
boat. William Witter estirnated the speed of the boat to be between 20-25 miles
per hour.
Plaintiff's boat safety expert will explain the terrns "steering way" and
"planing" to the jury at trial. A boat like the runabout in question must be
moving at a speed of nearly 25 rniles per hour in order to "plane" or rise out of
the water onto the curved section of the hull. Planing is distinguished from
5
I~
--.":",
.~
Lo;'~j
slower speeds and, in particular, from the nautical term known as "steering
way" which is the speed at which a boat is barely moving forward in the water;
moving just fast enough through the water for the operator to be able to steer
the boat. Mr. Witter stated that Mr. Beers' particular boat planes at
approximately 20 or 25 miles per hour and recollected that that the boat was
indeed on-plane at the time of the accident. William Witter was the only
witness to give an estimate of the speed of the boat at deposition.
Michael Beers' failure to throttle back to steering way and, instead,
maintaining the speed of 20-25 miles per hour when striking the bow wave
would have caused the runabout to be planning at the moment of impact. A
bow wave would normally cause a boat's bow to pitch violently when the boat
was planing at the time of impact between the boat and the bow wave.
Plaintiffs expert will testify that maintaining planing speed constituted
recklessness on the part of Michael Beers because planing into a 2.5-foot wave
was far below the standard of ordinary care.
Under Maryland Code Annotated, Natural Resources!3 08.18.01.04 B (1-
8) (1998), it states:
A person may not operate or give permission to operate a vessel at a
speed which would be unsafe under the existing circurnstances and
conditions. In determining unsafe speed under the existing
circumstances and conditions, the following factors shall be taken into
account:
(1) State of visibility;
(2) Traffic density;
(3) Maneuverability of the vessel in prevailing conditions;
6
--~
.~
--" ,~
" .~
(4) At night, the presence of background light intensity from shore
lights;
(5) Velocity of the wind;
(6) Sea and current conditions;
(7) Proxirnity of navigational hazards; and
(8) Draft of the vessel in relation to available depth of water.
MD. CODE ANN., NAT. RES. ~ 08.18.01.04 B (1-8) (1998). Michael Beers
breached his duties of care and was negligent by operating the runabout at
such a speed and in a manner which was in violation of the boating "Rules of
the Road" as defined by the Maryland Code Annotated, ~ 08.18.01.04 B (2) and
(7).
Maryland Code Annotated, Natural Resources ~ 08.18.01.05 (1998),
states:
A person my not operate or give perrnission to operate any motorboat or
any vessel in a:
A. Reckless manner to endanger the life, limb, or property of any
person; or
B. Negligent manner to endanger the life, limb, or property of any
person.
MD. CODE ANN., NAT. RES. ~ 08.18.01.05 (1998). Michael Beers breached his
duties of care by operating his boat in a negligent manner so as to endanger
the life, lirnb, or property of Sharon Witter, which is a violation of Maryland
Code Annotated, ~ 08.18.01.05.
Prior to the irnpact between the runabout and the bow of the bow wave of
the larger vessel, Michael Beers had a duty to warn his passengers of the
7
~~ ~_..
- '-"
~ui
impending impact between the runabout and the bow wave of the larger vessel.
Michael Beers testified at deposition that did not warn his passengers of the
impending collision with the bow wave,
Michael Beers failed in one or more of his required and expected duties
to protect and insure his passengers' safety and was directly and solely
responsible for the injury to Sharon Witter. Once Michael Beers saw the
oncoming bow wave, established boating standards irnposed upon Mr. Beers
the duty to: (1) change course to avoid the bow wave if possible or navigate the
runabout to strike the bow wave at a 90 degrees angle; (2) throttle back and
slow the runabout's speed to steering way; and (3) warn his passengers of the
impending impact between the runabout and the bow wave. Michael Beers
failed to do any of these things; therefore, Michael Beers breached his duty of
care to Sharon Witter and is liable to Sharon Witter for any injures that she
sustained.
IV. A SUMMARY OF LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF
TESTIMONY. EXHIBITS. OR ANY OTHER MATTER. AND LEGAL
AUTHORITIES RELIED ON
A. Based on statements from Defense Counsel, Plaintiffs expect that
the Defendant will dispute that the medical bills are adrnissible at trial.
Plaintiff advises the Court that the rnedical bills rernain unpaid. The bills are
outstanding, are in collection, and are included as a part of the debt reported
in the Witter's bankruptcy. The Maryland University Hospital states that they
assume they wiIl not be paid due to the bankruptcy and say that they it has
"written off' the bill. However, rny understanding is that this simply means
8
-.---
" , , ~ ,,;
that the Hospital has stopped pursuing active collection activities. The
Hospital bill remains unpaid and outstanding and is included specifically in
the Plaintiffs' bankruptcy.
All outstanding medical bills should be permitted to be admitted at trial
(at least a total amount should be given to the jury). Any award, regardless of
amount, will be reported to the bankruptcy court for distribution to creditors or
the Plaintiffs as the bankruptcy court decides.
B. Plaintiffs will present an oral rnotion in limine at the pre-trial
conference to prohibit Defendant, Michael Beers, frorn testifying to the speed of
the runabout at trial. Plaintiffs' Brief on this issue is submitted to the Court at
the sarne time as this Memorandum.
C. Plaintiffs will present an oral rnotion in limine at the pre-trial
conference to prohibit Defendant frorn using any expert witnesses at trial in
this matter. The Defendant has not identified any expert witness in response
to Plaintiffs' interrogatories and, therefore, is prohibited from now producing "a
surprise witness at trial. Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5(b) (West 2004). Defense counsel
attended the call of the civil list on February 17, 2004 and did not object to the
listing of this case for trial and has not sought additional tirne to submit such
responses to discovery.
D. Plaintiffs will present an oral motion at the pre-trial conference for
leave to amend the Plaintiffs' Complaint to include a demand for punitive
damages and will request jury instructions on the definition of recklessness
and on punitive damages.
9
All ~
-
b.
~
~
V. THE IDENTITY OF WITNESSES TO BE CALLED
Sharon Witter, Plaintiff
75 North Second Street
West Fairview, PA 17025
Liability/Damages
Williarn Witter, Plaintiff
75 North Second Street
West Fairview, PA 17025
Liability /Damages
Michael Beers, Defendant
Liability /Damages
Marianne S. Smith Beers
Liability/Damages
Comrnander David S. Smith, Ph.D.
Smith Aquatic Safety Services
2273 S. Main Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Liability / Causation
Bruce Goodman, M.D.
1515 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Causation/Damages
Paul Anderson, D.Ed.
2418 North Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Damages (wage loss)
Medical Records Custodians
Authenticity of Medical Records
And Bills
Plaintiffs reserve the right to call additional witnesses upon notice to the
other party and rnay call witnesses listed by the other party in his Pre-Trial
Statement.
VI. A LIST OF EXHIBITS WITH BRIEF IDENTIFICATION OF EACH
A. MD. CODE ANN., NAT, RES. 9 08.18.01.04 B (1998).
B. MD. CODE ANN., NAT. RES. 9 08.18.01.05 (1998).
C. "Rules of the Road" for boating describing the duties owed by the
Defendant.
10
-",-
--,
~j
D. Definition of "steering way."
E. Definition of "planing."
F. Medical Records of Sharon Witter:
1. University of Maryland Trauma Unit
22 South Greene Street
Baltimore, MD 21201-1595
2. Alan Levine, M.D.
Sinai Hospital
(410) 601-4600
3. The Brace Shop, Inc.
3825 Greenspring Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21211
(Dr, Charles Harris)
4. Mechanicsburg Family Practice
122 S, Filbert Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
5. Dr. Leidy (chiropractor)
G. Medical Treatment Summary;
H. X-rays;
I. The pleadings;
J. Deposition transcripts of Sharon Witter, William Witter, Michael
Beers, and Marianne Beers;
K. All written discovery questions and responses;
1. The Vocational Evaluation Report and curriculum vitae of Paul A.
Anderson, D,Ed.;
M. The expert report and curriculum vitae of David S. Srnith, Ph.D.; and
N. The Independent Medical Examination report and curriculum vitae of
Bruce Goodman, M.D.
11
~"
<i'
.~
, "',,
~,i
O. A copy of the Watercraft Accident Report by Corporal William Powell.
P. Videotapes and transcripts of Plaintiffs medical witnesses, if
testirnony is taken by deposition prior to trial.
Q. Docurnents to show that the medical records and bills are self-
authenticating documents under Pennsylvania law.
Plaintiffs reserve the right to add any additional exhibits, provided that
reasonable notice is given to the other party. Plaintiffs rnay also use any
exhibits identified by the other party in his Pretrial Memorandum. Exhibits
would include poster-size blow-ups of all of the listed materials.
VII. THE CURRENT STATUS OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
Plaintiffs' dernand prior to the initiation of litigation was $265,095.00. At
a recent mediation, Plaintiff's expressed a willingness to resolve the claim for
$50,000; thereby making a significant cornpromise. Erie Insurance Cornpany
has offered $5,000 - which will not cover the clearly unpaid and outstanding
medical bills. The Plaintiffs are in personal bankruptcy. All above-listed
medical bills are included as a part of the bankruptcy. Any settlernent before
or at trial must be approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court (Middle
District of PAl. Plaintiffs are attempting to determine whether a jury award
must be presented to the Bankruptcy Court for distribution.
12
","',,0 . - t" J ' 1i
VIII: ADDITIONAL ISSUE: AVAILABILITY OF EXPERT
Plaintiff's boat safety expert, Cornrnander Smith, has advised that he is
available to testify on Wednesday, March 17,2004.
Respectfully Submitted,
SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C.
Date: tt! :) !).&r
I '
By:
7~.J1~&
Todd D. Getgy6'
Supreme Court 10 # 80719
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Attorney for Plaintiffs
13
-
- ~ '
;~ L ~','
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 8th day of April, 2004, I, Beth E. Steever, an ernployee of the
law firrn of Schrnidt, Ronca, & Kramer, P.C., hereby certify that I have served a true
and correct copy of the foregoing Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Ornnibus Pre-Trial
Motion by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid,
at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C.
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PAl 7108-4161
SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C.
BY:
!~t(~~
Beth E. Steever
;,,,c1
Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
LD, No. 49672
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SffiPMAN, P.c.
320 Market Street
P.O, Box 1268
Harrisburg, P A 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
Attorneys for Defendant
SHARON L. WITTER and her Husband,
WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA
: No. 00-3217
v.
: Civil Action - Law
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANT'S PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM
I. STATEMENT AS TO LIABILITY
This is a relatively uncomplicated case wherein the Plaintiffs, who were taking a recreational
boat ride with the Defendants, allege that Mrs. Witter, who was riding in the bow of the boat with
her husband, was injured when the boat crossed the wake from a much larger boat traveling in the
opposite direction. Mrs. Witter alleges that she was bounced from her seat to the hull of the boat.
Plaintiffs do not allege that Mr. Beers was driving improperly. However, Plaintiffs' hired expert
does allege that Mr. Beers was driving his boat improperly. Mr. Beers denies that he drove the boat
in any way that was negligent or improper.
II. STATEMENT AS TO DAMAGES
Plaintiffs are alleging approximately $20,000 in unpaid medical expenses. In fact, Plaintiffs
have stated that, but for the absence of medical coverage, there would not be a lawsuit and that the
-
'- -'~~~"
o
~-'
',",-
~:';-:i':~
lawsuit is principally about paying the unpaid medical bills in light of their bankruptcy. Via a med
pay policy, Erie has paid $1,000 toward these expenses. However, it appears from Plaintiffs' last
Pre-Trial Memorandum, they are now including in their damages lost wages from Mrs. Witter's
inability to clean residential houses or commercial buildings as she had in the past.
III. STATEMENT AS TO THE PRINCIPLE ISSUE OF LIABILITY DAMAGES
As stated above, the Plaintiffs take the position that Mr. Beers was driving the boat too fast
and at the wrong angle to adequately navigate wake that was coming from a larger boat several
hundred yards away, In support of this proposition, the Plaintiffs have obtained an expert. However,
the Plaintiffs are on record, through their depositions, as stating their belief that the Defendant did
nothing wrong. Further, Plaintiffs bear significant responsibility in that they are obliged to observe
the surrounding conditions as well as Mr. Beers. Their failure to hold on to the handrails and pay
attention constitutes comparative negligence which exceeds any negligence that might be attached
to Mr. Beers, particularly since the Witters were regular boaters (and friends) ofMr. Beers. In point
of fact, the Plaintiffs have stated that the only reason this case has been brought is because they had
no health insurance and this is the only vehicle by which medical providers can be reimbursed.
IV. LEGAL ISSUES
A. As to Plaintiffs' expert, it is Defendant's position that his report is speculative insofar
as it is based on uncertain and conflicting testimony ofthe parties who were on the boat.
B. As to Plaintiffs' testimony about speed, is he permitted to testify about a specific
speed of the boat inasmuch as he was not in a position to see the speedometer.
2
,
,"-', "~
C. As to the medical bills, there is presently no medical report connecting the medical
bills with the injury with the accident. It is anticipated that the Plaintiffs will seek a stipulation on
this issue. Defendant's response to this stipulation is dependent upon the nature ofthe stipulation.
D. Plaintiffs have filed a Brief seeking permission to amend their Complaint to include
punitive damages. Defendant will respond to this Brief prior to trial, but it is Defendant's position
that, in light of the expiration of the statute oflimitations and Plaintiffs' failure to plead punitive
damages prior to that time, it is far too late and the evidence is far too inadequate to support this
amendment.
V. IDENTITY OF WITNESSES TO BE CALLED
A. Michael Beers
B. Maryanne Beers
C. William Witter
D. Sharon Witter
E. Barbara Orstein (rebuttal to Plaintiffs' vocational testimony)
VI. LIST OF EXHIBITS
A. Deposition of William Witter
B. Deposition of Sharon Witter
3
, "',.
~' -
'.' -~"
")' ,c'
__." ' '- ~_n . ""y"-,,",:,,t,~~, " "
1:::;-"!
VII. CURRENT STATUS OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
This case was mediated unsuccessfully. No further negotiations have taken place since that
mediation.
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P,C.
Date: 4 )qloL(
Counsel for Defendant
4
--
",,',
" ~".' - ," " w
--'X'
,'",'"
". '
~"",,,,,' ;fl., .,',
_, ,.-""",dJ
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon
all counsel of record by depositing the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid,
at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on the QtlM.. day of -AfJM- 0 , 2004, addressed as
follows:
Todd D. Getgen, Esquire
Schmidt, Ronca & Kramer, p.e.
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, p.e.
BY~~
Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
I.D. No. 49672
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, P A 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
49005.1
~=------- ~,"<'~'<<~~,
~^' .". .
~ ' - ,.:" -, '. "',
, ,',
: '_Cv ,;; ,- "",,'i,''''J~,' '-
"
, "'"-::~I
00- 3;(l1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon
all counsel of record by depositing the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid,
at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on the 3 t Sf- day of fY~ , 2004, addressed as
follows:
Todd D. Getgen, Esquire
Schmidt, Ronca & Kramer, P.C.
209 State Street
Harrisburg,PA 17101
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, p.e.
B
Glenda J. Eberso e, Secretary for
Guy H. Brooks, squire
I.D. No. 49672
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
49005.1
~. .
.~. ~M',.' '<P"",",', ~".,_
"
f~~
.~!~ f':t3
flil
~::-:-
---f '_'_
~~!:~"':'
r-",-"
~'~=- ,~-,
,s,"<
>~ c:=
2:
::;!
,
,,-~,,',
" ?.
,-'.
.....,
=
=
--
~
:;i,
Nl-:d
r::;
~P3
-lf~
f~""
(3:0
..;)."'()
Brn
~
::0
.<
:?:
"'~
;;:0
w
-0
-0-
~
..c-
01
"~ ~ ^
~ ~
"
. ~; ,~<' -
..< ~~,0" ",",-",,<, ,_ , __ H~ - , ,
'~<'{i
,
,.
APR 1 2 2004 0/
Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
I.D. No. 49672
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.c.
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(717)234.4161
Attorneys for Defendant
SHARON L. WITTER and her Husband,
WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA
: No. 00-3217
v.
: Civil Action - Law
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANT'S PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM
I. STATEMENT AS TO LIABILITY
This is a relatively uncomplicated case wherein the Plaintiffs, who were taking a recreational
boat ride with the Defendants, allege that Mrs. Witter, who was riding in the bow of the boat with
her husband, was injured when the boat crossed the wake from a much larger boat traveling in the
opposite direction. Mrs. Witter alleges that she was bounced from her seat to the hull of the boat.
Plaintiffs do not allege that Mr. Beers was driving improperly. However, Plaintiffs' hired expert
does allege that Mr. Beers was driving his boat improperly. Mr. Beers denies that he drove the boat
in any way that was negligent or improper.
II. STATEMENT AS TO DAMAGES
Plaintiffs are alleging approximately $20,000 in unpaid medical expenses. In fact, Plaintiffs
have stated that, but for the absence of medical coverage, there would not be a lawsuit and that the
.',
<"
';,-< "-~"
,
"~q
,
"
lawsuit is principally about paying the unpaid medical bills in light of their bankruptcy. Via a med
pay policy, Erie has paid $1,000 toward these expenses. However, it appears from Plaintiffs' last
Pre-Trial Memorandum, they are now including in their damages lost wages from Mrs. Witter's
inability to clean residential houses or commercial buildings as she had in the past.
III. STATEMENT AS TO THE PRINCIPLE ISSUE OF LIABILITY DAMAGES
As stated above, the Plaintiffs take the position that Mr. Beers was driving the boat too fast
and at the wrong angle to adequately navigate wake that was coming from a larger boat several
hundred yards away. In support of this proposition, the Plaintiffs have obtained an expert. However,
the Plaintiffs are on record, through their depositions, as stating their belief that the Defendant did
nothing wrong. Further, Plaintiffs bear significant responsibility in that they are obliged to observe
the surrounding conditions as well as Mr. Beers. Their failure to hold on to the handrails and pay
attention constitutes comparative negligence which exceeds any negligence that might be attached
to Mr. Beers, particularly since the Witters were regular boaters (and friends) ofMr. Beers. In point
of fact, the Plaintiffs have stated that the only reason this case has been brought is because they had
no health insurance and this is the only vehicle by which medical providers can be reimbursed.
IV. LEGAL ISSUES
A. As to Plaintiffs' expert, it is Defendant's position that his report is speculative insofar
as it is based on uncertain and conflicting testimony ofthe parties who were on the boat.
B. As to Plaintiffs' testimony about speed, is he permitted to testify about a specific
speed of the boat inasmuch as he was not in a position to see the speedometer.
2
"~
1
" ~ ~ -, ',..
C. As to the medical bills, there is presently no medical report connecting the medical
bills with the injury with the accident. It is anticipated that the Plaintiffs will seek a stipulation on
this issue. Defendant's response to this stipulation is dependent upon the nature of the stipulation.
D. Plaintiffs have filed a Brief seeking permission to amend their Complaint to include
punitive damages. Defendant will respond to this Brief prior to trial, but it is Defendant's position
that, in light of the expiration of the statute oflimitations and Plaintiffs' failure to plead punitive
damages prior to that time, it is far too late and the evidence is far too inadequate to support this
amendment.
V. IDENTITY OF WITNESSES TO BE CALLED
A. Michael Beers
B. Maryanne Beers
C. William Witter
D. Sharon Witter
E. Barbara Orstein (rebuttal to Plaintiffs' vocational testimony)
VI. LIST OF EXHIBITS
A. Deposition of William Witter
B. Deposition of Sharon Witter
3
-" .
~ '
,.
':'0"
.c'....,:
,
VII. CURRENT STATUS OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
This case was mediated unsuccessfully. No further negotiations have taken place since that
mediation.
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C.
Date: li }q I aLl
Counsel for Defendant
4
,__ l'
I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1 HEREBY CERTIFY that 1 served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon
all counsel of record by depositing the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid,
at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on the QtlM.. day of ~, 2004, addressed as
follows:
Todd D. Getgen, Esquire
Schmidt, Ronca & Kramer, P.C.
209 State Street
Harrisburg, P A 17l 0 1
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C.
"'~~
Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
1.0. No. 49672
320 Market Street
P.O. Box l268
Harrisburg, PA l7108-1268
(717) 234-4161
49005.1
'>,
~, ,.~ ,""", <
'j"
'-';f.j
\
@
c-;,
MAR 3 1 2004 ~
SHARON WITTER and her
Husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASE
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs
: NO. 00-3217
v.
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: Judge: George E. Hoffer
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANTS' BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION IN LIMINE AND IN SUPPORT
OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE
I. SUMMARY
Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine indicates that it is anticipated that
"the Defendant will now come to trial and attempt to testifY he was traveling' slow' at the time of
impact or will try to testifY that his boat was not 'planning' at the time of the accident." Plaintiff
argues that Michael Beers (a) should not be permitted at trial to testifY that he was traveling slow
before the impact and (b) should not be permitted at trial to give an estimate of the speed of the boat.
Defendant Michael Beers responds to this Motion by arguing that he is a competent lay witness with
adequate experience, and is able to describe the speed of the at the time of the accident. Accordingly,
Michael Beers seeks to testifY in the trial of this matter that the boat was traveling slow
As part ofthis argument, Defendant Michael Beers has submitted a counter Motion in Limine
and respectfully argues that Plaintiff William Witter lacks proper foundation to estimate the speed of
the boat at the time of the accident and, as such, his timing regarding specific speeds is inadmissible.
-
,-".. ~-~,_ -~-" _~o"..~__~ ' _" " "~'-,4'. _",~ "0
\, ., , 1.
DEFENDANT MICHAEL BEERS' RESPONSE
TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE
Defendant Michael Beers is a competent witness who is able to describe the speed of
the boat at the time of the accident and should be permitted to testify accordingly.
(A) Michael Beers should be permitted to testify that he was traveling "slow" as he
encountered the wake.
In support of the contention that Michael Beers breached a duty when encountering the wake,
Plaintiff has produced an expert report authored by Dr. David Smith. Plaintiff has also cited as
authoritative a text entitled Boating Course. Dr. Smith's report states in part that when encountering
the wake "Michael Beers had a duty to. . . [t]hrottle back and slow the runabout to a speed that was
just a little more than steering way." See a copy of Dr. Smith's report attached hereto as Exhibit" A".
Similarly, Boating Course suggests that when encountering a bow wave the operator "ease off on the
throttle to just a little more than steering way." Boating Course. U.S. Squadrons, 1992 Ed., Page
SM 1-2.
It is significant to note that neither Dr. Smith nor Boating Course, nor any other statute,
regulation, or authority cited by Plaintiff suggests a speed range in terms of miles per hour to be
traveled when encountering a wake.! Therefore it does not appear that speed as expressed in terms
of miles per hour is an appropriate or necessary indicia when determining appropriate navigation of
!In fact a statute cited by Plaintiff, 33 U.S.C.A. 92006 which addresses safe speed does
not express limitations in terms of miles per hour but rather suggests factors which would
determine if speed was or was not "safe."
2
. -' ~ ~
'" '~ ,.~""_ ,~~..,.,,"__,,~ n~ ,.,,_
. '-,e>,-',-'"_
, -~].
"
a wake. Rather the more appropriate determination would be was the operator traveling at a speed
that was safe under the circumstances.
When asked of his speed when encountering the wake Michael Beers responded that it was
"slow" or "very slow." See Exhibit "A", pages 10-11. Accordingly, Michael Beers, like Plaintiffs'
authorities, does not express speed in terms of miles per hour, but rather opted to use the term slow.
"Slow" or "very slow" could certainly be determined to be a speed a little more than steering way.
Thus, Michael Beers description of his speed would appear appropriate.
In support of its position, Plaintiff cites cases involving motor vehicles. These cases are easily
distinguished and not applicable to the case at bar as they do not relate to a boating situation, but
instead, roads controlled by specific speed limits. Navigable waterways are not controlled by specific
speed limits.2
(B) Defendant Michael Beers should be permitted to give an estimate of the speed of
the boat at trial.
While being deposed, Defendant Michael Beers was asked, "About what speed were you
traveling when you passed the sailboats?" Beers responded, "I was going slow. The exact speed I
cannot tell you." Plaintiff's counsel later asked, "Do you have any idea of your speed when you first
encountered the wake?" Beers answered, "No, I do not. Just slow." See a copy of the deposition
transcript of Michael Beers, pages 10-11, attached hereto as Exhibit "B". From his testimony it is
clear that Michael Beers was reluctant to guess at the speed of the boat. This certainly is
~ote, for instance, that the watercraft report makes no mention of specific speeds as part
of the investigation. Only that the boat traversed the wake "safely."
3
--~ 0" ~" .'"".. -, .
'O'-',_..',__,,^, ~""'"'' .%' '-ut"'f~
'"
understandable given that he, like most deponents (and even some attorneys) was unclear to what
extent it was appropriate for him to guess.
The law of Pennsylvania allows a witness such as Michael Beers to testifY as to his opinion
of the speed of the boat. Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 701 provides:
"If a witness is not testifYing as an expert, the witness' testimony in the form of opinions or
interferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are rationally based on the perception
of the witness, helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination ofa
fact in issue, and not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope
of Rule 702."
If at trial a proper foundation is laid and his opinion is rationally based, it would be both
appropriate and useful to the jury to allow Michael Beers to give an approximate boat speed or
description of the boat speed on the day of the incident. If Plaintiffs are troubled by Mr. Beers'
deposition testimony, impeachment is the proper remedy, not exclusion.
DEFENDANT MICHAEL BEERS' MOTION IN LIMINE
(C) Plaintiff William Witter should not be allowed to estimate the speed ofthe boat at
trial.
Defendant believes that Plaintiffs' counsel will attempt to elicit testimony at trial from Plaintiff
William Witter that the runabout was traveling at 20 to 25 miles per hour at or near the time of
impact. This opinion should not be admitted because Plaintiff William Witter lacks the proper
foundation to give such an estimate.
4
."._,'. "'_'_'"J HiF'C.,' ..~., _,.,. "~'_"_' ,~.-"",-,
, "
At his deposition, Plaintiff William Witter testified that he believed the boat was traveling
"between 20 and 25" miles per hour." See Exhibit "B" However, he also testified that he was sitting
in the front (bow) of the boat, next to his wife. See Exhibit "B", pages 16-18. In this seat, Plaintiff
William Witter did not have the ability to view the boat's speedometer. Furthermore, the boat in
question was not his boat, nor did he have experience in operating this boat on the Chester river. In
rendering an opinion as to speed, a lay witness must establish that he has adequate prior experience
with moving vehicles. Radogna v. Hester, 388 A.2d 1088 (pa. Super. 1978). In this case, Plaintiff
William Witter is unable to do so, and accordingly his estimate that the boat was traveling between
20-25 miles per hour should be precluded from the trial of this matter.
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C.
BYGo~)ti" oj
Attorney I.D. #49672
320 Market Street
P. O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
Counsel for Defendant
Date: March 31,2004
108271.1
5
"
. ,-'~; 0 ,J: ';',",
'='''-~ ,,~,
.~ -"
d
, ,
SA
5
SMITH AQUATIC SAFETY
SERVICES
1010 Stroud Court. Charlevoix, M149720
Mr. Todd D. Getgen
c/o Schmidt, Ronca & Kramer
209 State St.
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Re: Sharon Witter
Dear Mr. Getgen:
The following is my preliminary report regarding the injury sustained while boating by Ms.
Sharon Witter. In preparing this report these sources were used as references:
1. Plantiff's Demand statement dated October 7,1999.
2. Maryland Department of Natural Resources Watercraft Accident Report.
3. Medical records of Sharon Witter from:
a. University of Maryland Trauma Unit;
b. Sinai Hospital (Alan M. Levine, M.D.);
c. Mechanicsburg Family Practice; and
d. Gary Leidy, D.C.
4. Sharon Witter's recorded statement.
5. Erie Insurance Company Investigation file.
6. Deposition transcript of Michael Beers.
7. Deposition transcript of Marianne Beers.
8. Deposition transcript of Sharon Wrtter
9. Deposition transcript of William Witter
10. Administrative Code of Maryland (COMAR), Section 08.18.01.03.
1
-
~ '~ ' ". " ,~l , --,
. _",c V
- ,-<"
...,--,-",;,:
, ,
11. COMAR 09.18.01.04 (Rules of the Road).
12. COMAR 08.18.01.05 (General Operation of Boats).
13. 33 U.S.C.A. 2005 (Lookouts).
14. Boating Skills and Seamanship, Ninth Ed., U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary.
15. Boating Course. U.S. Power Squadrons, 1992 Ed.
16. Chapman Piloting. Hearst Marine Books, 59th Ed.
17. Boating Safelv. Mosby Lifeline, 1997.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS:
1. On Saturday, July 25, 1998, Sharon Witter (DOB 06/14/49) was a passenger on board a
24 foot Maxam runabout being operated by Michael Beers (DOB 07/21/61) underway in
the Chester River near Rock Hall, Kent County, Maryland.
2. Also on board were William Witter, Sharon Witter's husband, and Marianne Beers, the
operator's wife. Sharon Witter was seated in the open bow on the port side, forward of
the windshield. William Witter was seated opposite his wife in the starboard bow.
3. The runabout was traveling Southwest.
4. Michael Beers, the operator of the runabout, saw a larger vessel on a course from the
Southwest, making a large wake. Michael Beers was aware of the larger boat and its
wake and saw the wake and bow wave from the larger vessel approaching offhis port
bow. The bow wave was estimated to be 2.5 to 3 feet high.
5. Michael Beers states in his deposition that he approached and struck the wake at an angle:
"...between 90 and 75 [degrees]. Maybe 90 to 45 [degree] angle."
6. Michael Beers maintained his speed throughout the incident until after the runabout struck
the bow wave of the larger vessel.
7. Michael Beers was operating the runabout at 20 to 25 miles per hour, according to
William Witter (the only witness at deposition to give an estimate to the speed of the
runabout).
2
, .-
I"
,,-,~, "~,~ ~,:J,:. "
"'-~--- '.;.,,"~- '-I
'1 '.
8. Michael Beers maintained his course and speed (20-25 MPH) and piloted the runabout
into the oncoming wake of the larger vessel at an attitude of what he describes as "90-45
degrees" in relationship to the wave (90 degrees being head-on).
9. Michael Beers gave no warning to his passengers of the impending impact between the
runabout and the wake of the larger vessel.
10. Sharon Witter was launched into the air by the collision between the runabout and the
wake of the larger vessel. The witnesses then believe the bow of the runabout dropped
into a trough behind the bow wave, thereby dropping out from under Sharon Witter, and
twisted to port.
11. Sharon Witter landed in the bow of the runabout, presumably while it was being
accelerated upward by the next swell following the trough.
12. Sharon Witter suffered a fracture of her spine when she landed in the moving bow of the
runabout.
n. STANDARDS OF CARE FOR A SMALL BOAT OPERATOR:
1. The operator of a small boat is "responsible for the lives of those on board and for any
damage resulting from negligent operation." Boating Safely. page 7. (Jointly authored by
the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary and the National Power Squadrons.)
2. "The primary responsibility of a skipper is the safety of his vessel and the people on board
. . .The skipper must see intelligently all that comes within his vision. . .And his vision
must extend. . .to foreseeing situations as well." Chapman Piloting. Hearst Marine
Books, 591h Ed., Page 257.
3. "The small boat owner/operator cannot escape the responsibi1ity he assumes when he
takes persons aboard with him. He is morally and legally responsible for the lives and
well-being of all aboard his craft. . .the vessel. . .must be operated in such a manner as to
ensure the safety ofall concerned. Boating Skills & Seamanship, Ninth Ed., U.S. Coast
Guard Auxiliary, page 3-18.
4. When running into a sea, the first thing to do is to slow down. Boating Skills &
Seamanship, Nmth Ed., U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary, page 3-20.
5. In its Boating Course text, under the section titled "Crossing a Wake," the U.S. Power
Squadrons give the following advice about navigating a wake from a large vessel:
Be particularly watchful of the bow wave. From a sma1l boat it is difficult to judge
3
'.'.
~. '
, -~, - ",- - .'.'., ,- ""
"'- ,-~
"
the size of this rapidly moving, steep fronted wave. . .If possible, change course to
get as far away as you can. Otherwise. head directlv (90 degrees in the context of
this case) into the wave and ease off on the throttle to iust a little more than
steering way. This lessens the shock. Warn passeng:ers that vou will go over a big
"hump."
Boating Course, U.S, Power Squadrons, 1992 Ed., Page SM 1-2.
6. COMAR 08.18.01.05, General Operation of Boats, states:
A person may not operate or give permission to operate any motorboat or any
vessel in a:
A. Reckless manner to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person;
or
B. Negligent manner to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person
m STANDARD OF CARE OF MICHAEL BEERS ON JULY 25. 1998.
Generally, Michael Beers had a duty to not operate the runabout in a negligent or reckless manner
so as to injure any of the passengers on the runabout on 1uly 25, 1998.
I. Under 33 U.S.C.A 2005, Michael Beers had a duty to maintain a lookout "in the
prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and
of the risk of collision."
2. Michael Beers had a duty to change course to try to avoid the wake of the larger boat.
3. Once a collision or impact with the bow wave of the larger boat was imminent, then
Michael Beers had a duty to:
a. Place the runabout in an attitude to encounter the bow wave head-on.
b. Throttle back and slow the runabout to a speed that was just a little more than
steering way.
c. Warn his passengers of the impending impact between the runabout and the bow
wave of the larger vessel.
IV. OPINIONS
1. Michael Beers kept a lookout and saw the oncoming larger vessel and saw the bow wave
of the larger vessel and identified the bow wave as a wave of about 2.5-3 feet high.
4
'-
,.
,"-, "
,..--. '1"- i ",C-"'-.,
,0
. , ':j
.i. '.
However, given Michael Beers' decision to maintain his cOurse and speed, it is my opinion
that Michael Beers' actions were below the standard of care setforthin 33 U.S.CA 2005
as Michael Beers failed to make a full appraisal of the danger and risk involved in colliding
at a high rate of speed with the bow wave of the larger vessel. Michael Beers' failure to
assess the risk to his passengers was below the standard of care for the safe operation of
the runabout and constitutes negligence.
2. Michael Beers made no attempt to avoid the bow wave of the larger vessel. Michael
Beers testified at deposition that he saw the larger vessel, but thought it was appropriate
to maintain his speed and continue a course forward, impacting with the wave at "90-45
degrees." Michael Beers' failure to make a course change qr to even consider making a
course change to get farther away from the bow wave of the larger vessel was below the
standard of dare required by an operator of a small boat in the same circumstances and
constitutes negligence.
3. Once the collision between the runabout and the bow wave was imminent, Michael Beers
maintained his course and speed. Prior to impact between the runabout and the bow wave
of the larger vessel, Michael Beers had a duty to alter his course to encounter the bow
wave head-on (90 degrees in the context of this case), a duty to throttle back and slow to
a speed just above steering way, and a duty to warn his passengers of the impending
impact between the runabout and the wake of the larger vessel. Michael Beers' actions
were below the standard of care for a small boat operator faced with an impact with a bow
wake about 2.5-3 feet high as follows:
a. Michael Beers failed to place the runabout in an attitude so that his course was
head-into the bow wave. Instead, Michael Beers maintained his course and struck
the wave so that the runabout was in a position other than head-on, as he describes
it, about "90-45 degrees."
b. Michael Beers failed to throttle back to a speed just over steering way. Instead,
Michael Beers maintained his estimated speed of20-25 miles per hour and struck
the wake. At this speed, the 24-foot runabout would have been planing. Michael
Beers failure to reduce his speed, thereby striking the wake at planing speed, is
clearly below the standard of ordinary care for safe operation of a small boat
constituting negligence. In fact, it is my opinion that maintaining planing speed
constitutes recklessness on the part of Michael Beers.
c. Michael Beers took no action to warn his passengers, i.e.,Sharon Witter, of the
impending impact with the bow wave. Michael Beers' failure to warn Sharon
Witter of the anticipated impact with the bow wave of the larger vessel violates the
standard of ordinary care for operators of small boats in the same situation and
constitutes negligence.
5
J'
..
,,'-.<-;,,- ,
";:;;,'c-, 1'";',, ,
"'
....
V. CONCLUSIONS:
. 1. Since there is specific evidence that Mr. Beers as operator of the 24' Maxum runabout
obvi9usly failed in one or more of his required and expected duties to protect and to insure his
passengers' safety, I believe he was directly and solely responsible for the injury to Ms. Witter.
This concludes my preliminary report. Please call if} may provide further information.
Sincerely,
David S. Smith, Ph.D.
Commander, USCG (RET)
6
, .
",
,-,,~ ",,,,~,,,,~~--,;"-,' "',' """',, .~~-
." "
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SHARON L. WITTER, and her
husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
NO. 00-3217
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Deposition of
MICHAEL E. BEERS
Taken by
. Plaintiffs
Date
March 27, 2001, 9:00 a.m.
Before
Patricia M. Brown
Reporter - Notary Public
Place
Schmidt, Ronca & Kramer, P.C.
209 State Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
APPEARANCES:
SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C.
BY: TODD D. GETGEN, ESQUIRE
For - Plaintiffs
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C.
BY: GUY H. BROOKS, ESQUIRE
For - Defendant
,
>
ALSO PRESENT:
Marianne S. Smith Beers
FIUUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, INe.
Harrisburg 717-236-0623 York 717-845M6418 PA 1-800-233M9327
pOf<--
',~-"
.,1,'"
,",,'. ,'- ,:' "'
00;;:[;",_,<__
'<j
., 2
r
1 I N D E X
2 WITNESS
3 Direct
4 MICHAEL E. BEERS
5 By Mr. Getgen 3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,........
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"'"'" 24
25
FILIUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, me.
Harrisburg 717-236-0623 York 717-845-6418 FA 1-800-233-9327
.'
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.-..
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"""' 24
25
_' eo,-'
~~ ,
-'~W
3
STIPULATION
It is hereby stipulated by and between
counsel for the respective parties that reading,
signing, sealing, certification and filing are
hereby waived; and all objections except as to the
form of the question are reserved to time of
trial.
MICHAEL E. BEERS, called as a witness, being
duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. GETGEN:
Q. Good afternoon, Michael. My name is Todd Getgen.
I am the attorney for Sharon Witter and William
Witter with whom you're familiar. Will you please
state your full name for the record?
A. Michael Eugene Beers.
Q. What's your address, Michael?
A. 448 Prowell Drive, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, 17011.
Q. How long have you lived at that address?
A. Approximately four years.
Q. Did you live at that address on July 25th, 1998?
A. Yes.
Q. What's your age, please?
A. Thirty-nine.
FIilUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, me.
Harrisburg 717-236-0623 York 717-845-6418 PA 1-800-233-9327
.',"--
"
r
.........
"'
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
, ,~
'...: ~ , ~
. "'
~~'"
1
Q.
2
A.
3
Q.
4
A.
5
Q.
6
A.
7
Q.
8
A.
9
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
4
Date of birth?
July 20th, 1961.
Your social security number?
061-56-5786.
Have you ever been a passenger in a boat before?
Yes.
How often?
Multiple.
Do you have any idea how many times?
No.
Have you ever been an operator of a boat before?
Of course.
How many times, if you know?
I don't know.
More than once?
Yes.
Have you ever been the owner of a boat before?
Yes.
How many boats have you owned in your life?
This will make my fifth one.
When did you buy your first boat?
19 -- probably '86, '85, somewhere in that area.
What type of boat was that?
The first one was a 15 foot.
Is it a motor boat?
FILIUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
Harrisburg 717-236-0623 York 717-845-6418 PA 1-800-233-9327
--
.'
r
r
--
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
L
<;'
l>'-,,'; ,
d~
1
A.
2
Q.
3
A.
4
Q.
5
6
A.
7
8
9
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
5
Yes.
Were all the boats that you owned motor boats?
Yes.
What about the second boat that you purchased?
When did you purchase that?
I can't give you exact times. Too many years gone
by. I would say within four years after that,
three to four years.
1989, 1990?
Approximately.
And what type of boat was that?
That was a 17-foot motor boat.
And what about the third boat?
Approximately three, four years after that, I
bought another one, 19-foot motor boat.
The fourth boat?
Would be the 23-foot motor boat.
That's the boat that was involved in the accident?
Yes.
You say you have a fifth boat?
Somewhere before that I had a jon boat with a
motor.
What's that?
It's a smaller river boat.
About what size is it?
FIUUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, INe.
Harrisburg 717-236-0623 York 717-845..0418 FA 1~800-233-9327
,-
,r "
r
r
.--
2
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.,.1
","
"-,,,'
~__IiI~~'
1
A.
3
4
Q.
5
A.
6
Q.
7
A.
8
Q.
9
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
6
I can't remember.
It's been too many years before
that. That wasn't one I bought. That's one I had
given to me.
Who gave it to you?
A family friend.
It wasn't the Witters?
No.
When did you purchase the 23-foot boat?
1997 or 1998.
I don't remember.
How often did you operate the 23-foot boat prior
to July 25th, 1998?
Approximately 15 to 20 times.
Is that all the same season? In other words, did
this happen all through the spring of 1998; or do
you think you operated it the year before as well?
I believe the year before as well. That was three
years ago.
I can't tell exactly because I've had
several boats.
The 23-foot boat, let's go back to that. On which
waterways have you operated that boat?
The Susquehanna River and the Chester River all
the way down through the bay, Saint Michaels area.
How many times before July 25th, '98, did you
operate the boat on the Chester River?
Unknown. I can't remember.
FILIUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, INe.
Harrisburg 717-236-0623 York 717-845-6418 PA 1-800-233-9327
," ~-
.' '.
r
r
..-..,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
"
.--,--
'-"-~T"_ ".- ~j ,,J '=.
7
Where is that boat registered?
Pennsylvania.
Has it ever been registered in any other state?
No.
Before July 25th, 1998, had you ever taken any
boat safety courses?
No.
What about since then?
Yes, we've taken one since then.
Where was that taken?
HACC.
Harrisburg Area Community College?
Yes, sir.
When did you take that course?
Two years ago approximately, maybe three.
Two
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
years ago I'd say.
About 1999?
That's approximate. Between '98, '99.
Do you remember what month?
(Shakes head from side to side.)
MR. BROOKS:
You need a to make a verbal
response.
THE WITNESS:
I'm sorry.
I don't know.
I
don't remember.
25 BY MR. GETGEN:
FILIUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, INe.
Harrisburg 717-236-0623 York 717-845-6418 PA,1-80o-233~9327
~.LI:::.::...
,. "
,....
".....
1""\
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
'.
"
,.,"" ,~<,', ..:;'~<~ ",,- ",' '--'~~:
1
Q.
2
3
A.
4
Q.
5
A.
6
7
Q.
8
A.
9
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
8
Was that course required by Pennsylvania at the
time?
No.
You just decided to take it?
It was required to operate a personal water craft
such as a jet bike style.
Jet skis?
Jet skis, which we may have one some day in the
future.
So you took the safety course because if you ever
wanted to ride a jet ski, you'd have that done?
Yes. That's a new law Pennsylvania just put in.
Do you own a jet ski?
No.
Can you tell me generally what did you learn at
the safety course?
Nothing I did not know.
Are you familiar with the Maryland safety rules
and regulations for boats?
I would say no.
You never read them?
Most likely I did over the years. We've been down
there approximately seven or eight years. I read
a lot.
You're not familiar enough that you could cite the
FIUUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, INe.
Harrisburg 717-236-0623 York 717-845.6418 FA 1-800-233-9327
,. , .~
( 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.,1
,'~ , " ~-' "..;' .'
.
":mI".;'
9
rules and regulations?
A. No.
Q. Are you familiar with any of the United States
inland navigation rules promulgated by the Coast
Guard?
A. Only told us through the class which I already
knew.
Read books, common courtesy, right-of-way.
Q.
You mentioned right-of-way.
What do you recall
about right-of-way?
A. Well, of course sailboats have the right-of-way.
Smaller boats give way to.
Common courtesy.
Q. You say common courtesy. What do you mean by
that?
A. You avoid everything if it's avoidable of course.
If there's any way, you stop, don't hit another
boat.
Q. Do you remember the events of July 25th, 1998?
A. I believe some.
Q. Can you describe for me what you recall happened
that day?
A. We were together in the boat as we have been
before.
They were going down the river.
We had
gone past some sailboats that were doing training
exercises, so we were going fairly slow.
We had
seen a larger boat coming towards us, and I took
FILms & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, INe.
Harrisburg n7-236-0623 York n7-845-6418 PA 1-800-233-9327
)# .~
( 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-
'_0'''';:''
. J
v_~' 'c,_ ,-. ,",,"__
'''"''Cj
10
the actions I thought necessary to go across the
wake of that boat.
Q. About what speed were you traveling when you
passed the sailboats?
A. I was going slow. The exact speed I cannot tell
you.
Q. Is there any speedometer or readout on the boat?
A. Yes, there was.
Q. You weren't looking at it though at the time?
A. No.
Q. What about after you passed the sailboats? Did
you alter your speed at all?
A. I may have gave a little bit of fuel, but not
much. I was going very slow yet because we seen a
larger boat coming towards us.
Q. Did you also see the wake of the larger boat?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What action did you take when you saw the boat and
the wake?
A. I kept the boat going at an angle to go over top
of the wake so it won't go sideways, as I normally
do. And just kept going through it as we normally
would go over the wake.
Q. When you say as you normally would go over the
wake, could you describe that for me since I don't
HUUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, INe.
Harrisburg 717-236-0623 York 717-845-6418 PA 1-800-233-9327
"
(
(
r
1
2
3
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
5
Q.
6
A.
7
8
9
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
11
know what's normal for you?
Just keep at one speed, fairly slow speed.
Keep
the boat moving, in motion; and you go over one
side and down the other.
At what angle were you trying to strike the wake?
I was going across it.
I was going against it as
far as sideways. I was trying to cut through it.
I can't tell you. It's a large river.
Were you trying to hit the wake at a 90-degree
angle?
Between 90 and 75. Maybe 90 to 45 angle.
Do you have any idea of your speed when you first
encountered the wake?
No, I do not.
Just slow.
Are these the same actions you take every time you
encounter a wake from a larger boat?
Yes, sir.
other than the actions you've described to me, are
there any other actions you took that day?
Just when we seen her fall, we stopped the boat,
of course.
Did you warn anyone on the boat about the larger
boat?
I believe everybody saw the larger boat coming
towards us.
That's not the first time they were
FILIUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, INe.
Harrisburg 717-236-0623 York 717-845-6418 PA 1-800-233-9327
.' I.
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
r
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
-,.,
24
25
,I ~' " " ~,,,
" ',",'.: -,' "" ,',- ~""",,;,;- "''';
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
8
Q.
9
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
12
in my boat.
Did you warn anyone about the wake?
I didn't think it was necessary.
They've rode it
before and are actually boaters themselves.
From your recollection, how long have William and
Sharon Witter been boating before?
I don't remember.
Long time.
How long have they been boating with you?
Approximately five, seven years.
But how many times were they on your boat in that
five-year period?
Unknown.
I mean, more than seven years because
they were on my first boat.
Any idea how often you boat usually each summer?
Whenever we get the chance. As much as possible.
You mentioned to me earlier that during all your
years of boating you learned the basic rules and
regulations, that you knew what was offered at the
safety course?
Essentially everything he gave us was common
sense. A lot was more or less for first time
boaters, how to use the bilge pump.
It was very
basic.
From your prior boating experience or knowledge,
who do you believe is responsible for the safety
FIUUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, lNe.
Harrisburg 717-236-0623 York 717-845-6418 PA 1-800-233-9327
-,' .,.
r
r-
'"
10
11
12
, ~:- . , '
.;." >
,~,!
." ""'_-L
[--",-,
Q.
13
of the passengers on the boat?
On my boat? On any boat?
On any boat.
MR. BROOKS: We're going to object to the
form of the question.
I'm not going to let him
1
2
A.
answer.
THE WITNESS:
I don't know how to answer
3
Q.
that. You say you don't want me to answer?
MR. BROOKS: No. We're objecting to the
form. It's an awfully broad question. That
encompasses a lot of different things. Can you be
more specific?
13 BY MR. GETGEN:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
5
6
7
8
9
Who is responsible for the safety of the
passengers of your boat when you were operating
it?
MR. BROOKS: Same objection because it's the
same question. That encompasses a lot of
different things.
MR. GETGEN:
It encompasses safety.
MR. BROOKS: When it comes to safety, it
encompasses a lot of different things like, by the
way, don't touch the plus and minus pole of the
battery together because it causes a short. We
have a fairly narrow incident here.
FILIUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
Harrisburg 717-236-0623 York 717-845-6418 PA 1-800-233-9327
~~
"
,..
r
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
"...Jc
~~i!'
14
BY MR. GETGEN:
Q.
If someone was going to accidentally possibly
touch the battery on the boat, the positive and
negative poles of the battery, whose duty would it
be on your boat to warn them not to?
MR. BROOKS: Objection. That has nothing to
do with this lawsuit. You want to try to keep it
to this lawsuit, please? I'm not going to let him
spec for you about every conceivable incident
about safety and duty on this, which is by the way
a legal question. Okay? If you want to keep it
to the event of this particular case, I don't have
a problem. Okay? So you've asked a broad
question. I'm asking you to narrow the question.
15 BY MR. GETGEN:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
On the Chester River on July 25th, 1998, after
you had passed the sailboats, after you had seen
the larger boat, after you had seen the wake of
the larger boat, whose responsibility was it for
the safety of Sharon Witter?
MR. BROOKS: I object to the form of this one
also. When you say safety of Sharon Witter, what
are you saying? I know what you're cryptically
trying to get to, and I'm not going to let you to
do it that way. Are you asking whether he
HUUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, me.
Harrisburg 717-236-0623 York 717~845-6418 PA 1-800-233-9327
,,'
..
(
1
2
3
4
5
7
10
11
12
,.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~.
24
25
~, '-,-' -,- , ',',,--, 1_' '"
15
believed he had responsibility for making sure she
doesn't fall in the middle of his boat? Is that
the question you're trying to ask?
MR. GETGEN:
No.
I asked my question.
MR. BROOKS:
He's not going to answer a
6
general question on safety and whether it's his
responsibility for her safety because it
8
encompasses too many things.
9
We have an agreed upon set of facts here.
There's no dispute about what happened here.
So
if you want to ask a specific question about the
facts in this case/ I don't have a problem with
it.
But what you're talking about here is way/
way too broad; and it doesn't confine it by simply
saying on the river on this particular day. We
know what happened.
MR. GETGEN:
I'm also permitted to ask him
questions regarding his past boating experience.
MR. BROOKS:
You haven't asked him that.
You
asked who was responsible for her general safety.
That's too broad a question because it encompasses
too many things.
MR. GETGEN:
Fine.
I'll narrow the question.
BY MR. GETGEN:
Q.
Same facts, Mr. Beers.
On July 25/ 1998/ on the
FILIUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, me.
Harrisburg 717-236-0623 York 717-845-6418 PA 1-800-233~9327
"
(
1
2
3
4
5
7
10
11
r
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
, ~ '
.-,'
~. '
"~ti
16
Chester River after you had passed the sailboats,
after you saw the larger boat, after you saw the
wake of the larger boat, who is responsible to
warn the passengers in your boat, including Sharon
Witter, of the wake?
6
MR. BROOKS: Objection. There's been
absolutely no foundation there was any
8
responsibility to warn anybody about anything.
9
That's the premise of your question. You never
heard him say that there was a responsibility to
warn anybody about the wake. You heard him say
that she is an experienced boater and she had been
in this boat many times.
MR. GETGEN: Are you finished testifying?
MR. BROOKS: No. What I'm saying is I'm not
going to let you create a legal scenario to try to
get him to answer for your legal case. This is a
discovery deposition. You're asking about duty
which is a legal theory. Okay? That's what I'm
trying to get you to ask, the facts.
If you want to ask him whether he's
responsible or believes he's responsible for her
falling in the boat, you can ask him that. But
you're not doing that. You're asking about duty.
25 BY MR. GETGEN:
FILms & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, me.
Harrisburg 717-236-0623 York 717-845-6418 PA 1-800-233-9327
j--
r
,-.
I""'.
.,
1
2
3
4
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
. .
e' ",,-,",', ",.
Q.
A.
6
Q.
7
8
9
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
17
I want to go back to the boat safety course that
you took. Did the instructor of the boat safety
course ever discuss who was responsible for the
safety of passengers in the boat?
No.
At the safety course, did the instructor ever
discuss who was responsible for maintaining a
proper lookout in the boat?
No, not to the best of my memory.
Did you ever give a statement to the insurance
carrier in this matter?
This was three years ago.
I would say most
likely. Would that be Erie Insurance you're
talking about?
Yes.
I believe so.
They talked to me over the phone.
Do you have any idea whether they recorded your
statement?
I believe they did.
It's been three years ago,
sir.
I want to go back to your past boating experience
to some extent.
You've crossed wakes of larger
boats in the past?
Yes, sir. And since then.
Did you ever intentionally seek out the waves or
FILIUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, INe.
Harrisburg 717-236-0623 York 717-845-6418 PA 1-800-233-9327
-
'.
"...
I""'-
'"
2
3
.
,.'
~~" d.';"~~ ~"
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
18
wakes of other boats to jump over?
No.
Did your boat ever become airborne when you
crossed the wake of another boat before?
Yes, sir.
MR. BROOKS: Wait until he finishes the
7 questions so she gets it all down and you have
1
A.
Q.
4
5
A.
6
8 time to listen to the rest of the question.
9 BY MR. GETGEN:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
What was the instance when your boat became
airborne?
The new boat has not been. The 23 footer has not
been. The smaller boats because of the lightness
of the boat, they have. When you're in cruising
speed on the boat, you hit a wake and the lighter
boat comes out of the water and comes down the
other side.
What is the cruising speed ordinarily?
Approximately 25 to 30 miles per hour.
What actions did you take in those instances that
your boat became airborne?
Just keep it straight and stay with the boat.
If
you let off the fuel, it's going to nose dive.
You say nose dive. What do you mean by that?
It would go into any other wakes or swells from
FILIUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, me.
Harrisburg 717-236-0623 York 717.845~6418 PA 1-800-233-9327
.W~__~
~, .,
r
r
,...,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
'. '
,'~ ,
.. " .'
"-~- I~
1
2
3
Q.
4
A.
5
6
7
Q.
8
9
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
19
that boat which would come over the front of the
boat.
What's the danger in that?
Getting water inside the boat, possibly sweeping
anybody over top/ out of the boat when the water
hits.
Have you ever had passengers in your boat when
your boat went airborne in the past?
Tell me what you mean by airborne.
The situation you just described when you were on
one of your smaller boats in cruising speed and
crossed the wake of another boat.
I do not believe we were ever out of the water
with other people, out of the water, besides my
wife and I.
Did you ever warn any passengers in the past that
you were about to strike a wake?
Possibly.
I cannot remember, sir.
What's your relationship to Sharon Witter?
Friends.
She used to be related to my wife's
mother.
Yes, used to be.
You say used to be.
Can you elaborate?
She was married to my wife's father. No. My
wife's father's brother.
I'm sorry.
I got a
little confused there.
FILlUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, lNe.
Harrisburg 717-236~0623 York 717-845-6418 PA 1-800-233-9327
',' '\
r
r
r"
2
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
.J
, ~'.'
i.""'"t''\
,~ -'-";, -, -
.
1
Q.
3
A.
4
Q.
5
6
A.
7
Q.
8
A.
9
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
20
So Sharon was married to your wife's father's
brother?
Yes.
And then Sharon divorced that man and married
William Witter?
Yes.
Do you have any relationship to William Witter?
Just friendship.
I'd like to go back to the accident. If you can
recall, do you know if it was the front of the
wake or if it was a swell which tossed the nose of
your boat into the air?
It was probably the wake that tossed the front.
You say probably. Do you remember one way or the
other?
No, sir.
In your past experience, if you went over a wake
and swells from a larger boat, would it be the
wake or the swell that tossed the nose of your
boat into the air?
I can't answer that. It could be either.
Have you ever been I guess we'll call it struck by
the wake of a larger boat in the past before July
25th, 1998?
Have I ever been struck?
FIUUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, INe.
Harrisburg 717-236-0623 York 717-845-6418 PA 1-806-233-9327
, .. j ~
r
r".
~
2
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>","
~-' '.
-,-~~, ", (f
1
Q.
A.
3
Q.
4
A.
5
Q.
6
7
8
A.
9
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
21
Have you ever crossed the wake of a larger boat?
Yes.
At about the same distance?
Yes.
Have you ever crossed the wake of a larger boat at
a slower speed than what you were traveling that
day?
I do not believe so.
Faster?
Possibly yes.
Possibly no.
Depends on the
situation.
Have you ever been stationary and been struck by
No.
I going to complete that sentence. Have you ever
been stationary and struck by the wake of a larger
vessel?
No.
Just wanted to make sure the whole question got on
the record.
I believed that's what you were saying.
I'm
sorry.
I have a tendency to talk fast.
That's okay.
Everybody has a tendency to
anticipate the question. You stated earlier to me
that you take your boats out -- excuse me -- that
FIUUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, me.
Harrisburg 717-236-0623 York 717-845-6418 PA 1~800-233-9327
i..~ ."
,...
,....
I"'..
1
2
3
4
5
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~ "
, ~~',
< "-'
~,~"","-'=L,..-~
A.
Q.
6
A.
Q.
8
9
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
22
you take your boat out as often as possible.
Is
this true since you've been boating that you go
out as often as you can?
Yes, sir.
I'm including back to '85 or '86.
Yes, sir.
When you boat, what's the time period throughout
the year that you ordinarily boat?
Between March to November.
Has that been the same from '85 to the present?
Depends on the weather.
If winter comes earlier, you have a shorter
season?
Yes, sir.
If spring comes late, you have a shorter season?
Yes.
Back to July 25th, '98. My recollection is that
you told me that you tried to maintain the speed
that you had as you went over the wake?
Yes, sir.
You did not let off the throttle?
Not until I seen her fall.
It's also my recollection that your attorney has
characterized this and you just did as well, that
Sharon Witter fell on the boat.
Is that your
FIUUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, INe.
Harrisburg 717-236-0623 York 717-845-6418 PA 1-800-233-9327
.....
'k" '
^ 'C
" .;,
" .' -, ,'~ ~,
..' II.
23
,...
1
recollection, that she fell on the boat?
2
MR. BROOKS: Why don't you define fall?
3
MR. GETGEN: It's his word.
4
MR. BROOKS: Actually, it may have been my
5
word since you were quoting me.
6
MR. GETGEN: Well, he just said it about 30
7
seconds ago.
8
MR. BROOKS: We should probably define it as
9 distinguished from a fall in a grocery store or
10 something like this.
11 BY MR. GETGEN:
12
How would you characterize what happened to
Q.
r
13
Sharon Witter on the boat?
She was riding on the front of the bow of the boat
14
A.
15
as she normally does. She was in the front which
is her favorite spot. We went over the swell.
16
The boat went up. When it came down, it shifted.
17
At that time, she lost her hand grip on the side
18
rail and fell in the center of the boat.
19
Which direction did the bow of the boat shift?
20
Q.
To the best of my recollection, it would have been
21
A.
to the left.
22
Were you able to observe Sharon Witter throughout
23
Q.
the entire crossing of the wake until she was
24
r--.
injured?
25
FILIUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, INe.
Harrisburg 717-236.0623 York 717-845-6418 PA 1-800-233-9327
.' ...
I'"
I"'.
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
,
'~':;, .'." "
'I"
" ~
'. ",',"
24
She was in front of the boat in my vision, so yes.
Were you looking directly at her?
No.
When the boat went up, the front of the wake,
where was Sharon Witter?
In front of me to the left.
Where was she? Was she seated or standing?
She was seated.
Was she gripping the handrail?
Yes.
What was Sharon Witter's position as the boat came
back down off the wake?
The same position she was in when she was on the
seat from what I can remember.
What about as the bottom of the boat touched the
water again?
I believe that she was still in the same position.
When did she come out of her seat?
When the boat went up I believe is when she lost
her hand grip. I can't remember exactly. Like I
said, I was not looking directly at her.
What position was the boat in when she came off of
her seat?
I believe it had gone up, partially down. I don't
remember, sir.
HUUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, me.
Harrisburg 717-236-0623 York 717-845-6418 PA 1-800-233-9327
~ ,
.~~ .-
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,..-.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
",
24
25
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
..
I,
, l ~
^'~,,,," ".
25
Do you think the front of the boat was in the air
or on the water when she lost her grip and came
out of her seat?
The front of the boat was probably partially in
the air.
And when she landed on the floor, where was the
boat?
That I cannot tell you.
It happened in a split
second.
It was just so fast.
Do you still own the 23-foot boat?
Yes, sir.
Can you describe it to me?
It's a 23-foot motor boat.
What color is it?
More of a reddish burgundy color.
Is it two tone, or is it a solid color?
I believe it's multi-tone.
It's got several
colors.
The burgundy of course is the large
color.
How many seats are on the boat?
It seats 12.
Where were the seats on the boat?
It's considered an open bow, the whole way around
the boat.
Have you ever seen a copy of the water craft
FILIUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, INe.
Harrisburg 717-236-0623 York 717-845-6418 PA 1-800-233-9327
~, *"
r
~
.......,
2
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~' - -,
~"
...- ~" ""-~"';',
1
A.
3
Q.
4
5
A.
6
Q.
7
A.
8
Q.
9
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
26
accident report in this case?
I don't remember.
Do you recall speaking to the police down on the
Chester River on the day of the accident?
No, I do not.
Do you recall talking to a Corporal William Poll?
No, I do not.
Do you remember where you took your boat after the
accident?
I do not remember the name of the beach or the
place that we came in at, no.
Do you remember the specific location of the
accident on the Chester River?
I know the general area, yes. The specific, no.
Do you recall being near Rock Hall?
No.
The name of the town?
No.
Do you recall which direction on the river you
were traveling at the time of the accident?
I was going downstream. The direction off the top
of my head I do not know.
Did you look at any documents or any other
materials in preparation for this deposition
today?
FIUUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, INe.
Harrisburg 717-236-0623 York 717-845-6418 PA 1-800-233-9327
'"
....J -~ ,"',-
,....
r"
".....
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
" ,-' ,-,
~".' -, ,;-,'-
","',-'
al,'
1
A.
2
Q.
3
4
A.
5
Q.
6
A.
7
8
9
27
No.
Did you have a discussion with your attorney in
preparation for the deposition today?
Yes.
How long of a time period did that take?
Approximately one hour. Maybe two. One hour.
(Discussion held off the record.)
MR. GETGEN:
That's it.
(The deposition concluded at 9:45 a.m.)
FILIUS & McLUCAS REPORTING SERVICE, me.
Harrisburg 717-236-0623 York n7-845-6418 PA 1-800-233-9327
, ~~i.ii~
#12
SHARON L. WITTER and her
Husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
00-3217 CIVIL TERM
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
AND NOW, this 25th day of February, 2004, before Edgar
B. Bayley, judge, present for the plaintiff was Todd D. Getgen,
Esquire, and for the defendant, Guy H. Brooks, Esquire. Upon a
motion by Guy H. Brooks, Esquire, for a continuance to the May term
of court, the motion is granted. Defense counsel should relist the
case today for trial during the May term.
By tf::)1
~~/~~\~
Edgar B. Bayley, J.
Todd G. Getgen, Esquire
Schmidt, Ronca & Kramer, P.C.
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
For the Plaintiffs
Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C.
320 Market Street
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
For the Defendant
pcb
~III"""""'~~' "~-~ii~i!lili'">!!ffilrniitjfl~i~" "~"Li-
"""""'''''''1''''''
IlirIjr"~~"""'~UiiIIIIili',i","....
,-,
(~:
S~
<-
:~
.....,
C?
72
~
);:;:".',
;"0
.
N
~~
'-0
'-,;)
.r.
~m!l
..
I
I
!
o
-n
.-1
::c '-1
ITl-.'.'
-0 F.1
::.uC1
C) 1
-~{5::.)
;-::;:d
;t~;;
~~'"
2:.;.
~<
Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
J.D. No. 49672
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C.
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, P A 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
Attorneys for Defendant
SHARON L. WITTER and her Husband,
WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA
: No. 00-3217
v.
: Civil Action - Law
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANT'S PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM
I. STATEMENT AS TO LIABILITY
This is a relatively uncomplicated case wherein the Plaintiffs, who were taking a recreational
boat ride with the Defendants, allege that Mrs. Witter was injured when the boat crossed the wake
from another boat throwing her from the bow of the boat to the hull of the boat. Plaintiffs' allege
that Mr. Beers was driving the boat improperly. Mr. Beers denies that he drove the boat in any way
that was negligent.
II. STATEMENT AS TO DAMAGES
Plaintiffs are alleging approximately $20,000 in medical expenses. Via a med pay policy,
Erie has paid $1,000 toward these expenses. At the time of this accident, the Plaintiffs had no health
insurance which would cover the balance of the outstanding bills.
, - . . , >~ - C_""",__ "'<" ~" ",- :,;, ~, -x-." I
III. STATEMENT AS TO THE PRINCIPLE ISSUE OF LIABILITY DAMAGES
As stated above, the Plaintiffs take the position that Mr. Beers was driving the boat too fast
and at the wrong angle to adequately navigate wake that was coming from a larger boat several
hundred yards away. In support of this proposition, the Plaintiffs have obtained an expert to support
this proposition. However, the Plaintiffs are on record, through their depositions, as stating their
belief that the Defendant did nothing wrong. In point of fact, the Plaintiffs have stated that the only
reason this case has been brought is because they had no health insurance and this is the only vehicle
by which medical providers can be reimbursed.
IV. LEGAL ISSUES
A. As to Plaintiffs' expert, it is Defendant's position that his report is speculative insofar
as it is based on uncertain and conflicting testimony of the parties who were on the boat.
B. As to the medical bills. There is presently no medical report connecting the medical
bills with the injury with the accident. It is anticipated that the Plaintiffs will seek a stipulation on
this issue. Defendant's response to this stipulation is dependent upon the nature of the stipulation.
V. IDENTITY OF WITNESSES TO BE CALLED
A. Michael Beers
B. Maryanne Beers
C. William Witter
D. Sharon Witter
2
,-I
,~ ~-':""'" ' "" -- 'j ',' ^
'-;;../;:,. ",.-,)' "' '+;"",,,,,"~, ""'~;,,,,, ' " _ ~-~, ;,.[';""j
VI. LIST OF EXHIBITS
A. Deposition of William Witter
B. Deposition of Sharon Witter
VII. CURRENT STATUS OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
This case was mediated unsuccessfully. No further negotiations have taken place since that
mediation.
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C.
By
Guy H. rooKs, Esquire
Attorney LD. #49672
320 Market Street
P. O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
Date:c9 Iter loLl
Counsel for Defendant
3
l" 0'," Woo,
'-~" '",-- ~ ~- ,
-" ;';"<1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon
all counsel of record by depositing the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid,
at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on the / q % day of ~ 2004, addressed as
follows:
Todd D. Getgen, Esquire
Schmidt, Ronca & Kramer, P.C.
209 State Street
Harrisburg,PA 17101
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C.
By
Brooks, Esquire
LD. o. 49672
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
49005.1
~ 1IIIRIIiII........"
-
~.
;--,,,",,:1
SHARON L. WrITER,
and her Husband,
WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
No. 00-3217 Civil Term
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFFS' PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM
I. A STATEMENT OF .THE BASIC FACTS AS TO LIABILITY
The above-captioned case arises out of a motor boat accident that
occurred on July 25, 1998 on the Chester River near the intersection of the
Chester River and the Chesapeake Bay. The accident happened at about 1:00
p.m. near 5918 Chester River, near Rock Hall, in Kent County, Maryland. Both
Federal and Maryland laws of safe boating apply in this case.
At the accident site, Defendant, Michael Beers, was operating a 1998 23-
foot, 7-inch Maxum runabout, serial number USKA30MDH798 westbound on
the Chester River. Other boats shared the waterway. At the time of the
accident, a larger vessel passed to the left of Michael Beers' runabout and
created a large wake consisting of a tall bow wave followed by troughs and
swells.
On July 25, 1998, Defendant, Michael Beers, drove his 23-foot runabout
boat at planing speed-20 to 25 miles per hour--into the bow wave of a passing
larger boat. The Defendant's operation of his runabout caused the bow of his
own boat to heave violently, propelling his passenger, Sharon Witter, into the
~-----olil
"'-' ' .........~,~
air. Sharon Witter landed on the deck of the pitching runabout. The impact
caused Sharon Witter to suffer a burst fracture of her thoracic spine, requiring
immediate helicopter transport to a trauma center.
The investigating officer from the Natural Resources Police, Corporal
William Powell, noted that Michael Beers had failed to traverse properly large
swells created by a larger passing boat when the bow of Michael Beers'
runabout went up on a swell and launched Sharon Witter into the air.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant was negligent for failing to warn his
passengers of the impending impact and failing to operate the boat at an
appropriate speed. Plaintiff alleges that the boat was planing. Plaintiffs expert
will testify that such a speed constitutes recklessness.
II. A STATEMENT OF THE BASIC. FACTS AS TO DAMAGES
Sharon Witter suffered an immediate burst fracture of her T12 vertebrae.
Sharon Witter still has not regained all of her range-of-motion in her back and
cannot lift or bend as she ordinarily could before the accident. It is undisputed
that Sharon Witter's burst fracture of the 12th thoracic vertebra and her
ongoing back injury was caused by the July 25, 1998 boat accident.
In an Independent Medical Examination, Bruce Goodman, M.D.,
rendered a guarded prognosis of Sharon Witter's recovery in view of the fact
that "individuals with this degree of compression involving vertebral bodies
have a proclivity toward early degenerative changes." Dr. Goodman agreed
with the findings of the Functional Capacity Evaluation performed at
HealthSouth, which classified Sharon Witter within the Light Work category
2
-
~rlllli
'~~Aj
and determined Sharon Witter to suffer an 18% whole person impairment
rating. Since both assessments were performed in May 2002, the independent
medical examination and the functional capacity evaluation demonstrated the
significant continued impact of the T12 burst fracture.
In a Vocational Evaluation Report, Paul A. Anderson, D.Ed., calculated
Sharon Witter's past loss of earnings to be $42,835.00 in his report of
September 17, 2002. Dr. Anderson also determined that the rounded average
of high and low calculated future loss of earning capacity is $108,000.
Consequently, Dr. Anderson concluded that Sharon Witter will incur
$150,835.00 in total loss earnings over her work-life expectancy.
Sharon Witter owes at least $16,522.49 in unpaid medical bills.
Sharon Witter has continued problems with her back. Alan M. Levine,
M.D., has told Sharon Witter that if her problems persist or become worse over
time, Sharon Witter may be forced to undergo fusion surgery on the next
higher vertebra to stabilize her spine.
In summary, Sharon Witter has had the following damages:
A. PAST MEDICAL BILLS:
Plaintiff owes at least $16,522.49 in unpaid medical bills. This
amount already takes into consideration all payments by Erie Insurance
company ($1,000) and all health insurance company write-offs and does
not include the out-of-pocket amount of $1,537.00 paid by Sharon
Witter.
3
~-
~ I ~ -..w..,,,,,,'
FUTURE MEDICAL BILLS:
Unliquidated Amount.
B. PAST AND FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING:
Unliquidated Amount.
C. PAST AND FUTURE LOSS OF LIFE'S PLEASURES:
Unliquidated Amount.
D. PAST WAGE LOSS:
Plaintiff had past wage losses upon evaluation totaling
$54,800.00.
E. FUTURE WAGE LOSS:
Plaintiff is expected to suffer a minimum additional loss of future
earnings of $42,835.00 and an average anticipated loss of future earnings of
$108,000.00.
III. A STATEMENT AS TO THE PRINCIPAL ISSUES OF LIABILITY AND
DAMAGES
Ordinary principals of negligence and damages apply. Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendant violated Maryland boat safety statutes and violated the
well-known "Ru1es-of-the-Road" for small boats.
Plaintiffs expert witness will testify that once a collision or impact with
the bow wave of the larger boat was imminent, Michael Beers had a duty to: 1)
place the runabout in an attitude to encounter the bow wave head-on; 2)
throttle back and slow the runabout to a speed that was just a little more than
4
Mllliiiii>ilillllll
~-....,^ <~ d
steering way; and 3) warn his passengers of the impending impact between the
runabout and the bow wave of the larger vessel.
Prior to the impact between the runabout and the bow wave of the larger
vessel, Michael Beers had a duty to alter his course to encounter the bow wave
head-on (90 degrees in the context of this case). Michael Beers stated that he
tried to hit the wake at an angle "between 90 and 75...maybe 90 to 45 angle."
Michael Beers did not meet the bow wave head-on at a 90-degree angle. The
angle of collision between the runabout and the bow wave added to the risk of
injury to Sharon Witter who was seated in the front left-hand side of the
runabout as that corner of the boat heaved more violently.
Prior to the impact between the runabout and the bow wave of the larger
vessel, Michael Beers had a duty to throttle back and slow his speed to steering
way. Michael Beers instead maintained the speed that he was traveling when
the runabout struck the bow wave and did not let off the throttle until after
impact. William E. Witter was also a passenger in the right front of the
runabout and testified at a deposition that the runabout was "planing" at the
time of the collision between the runabout and the bow wave of the passing
boat. William Witter estimated the speed of the boat to be between 20-25 miles
per hour.
Plaintiff's boat safety expert will explain the terms "steering way" and
"planing" to the jury at trial. A boat like the runabout in question must be
moving at a speed of nearly 25 miles per hour in order to "plane" or rise out of
the water onto the curved section of the hull. Planing is distinguished from
5
--...
-
llilL.tij
slower speeds and, in particular, from the nautical term known as "steering
way" which is the speed at which a boat is barely moving forward in the water;
moving just fast enough through the water for the operator to be able to steer
the boat. Mr. Witter stated that Mr. Beers' particular boat planes at
approximately 20 or 25 miles per hour and recollected that that the boat was
indeed on-plane at the time of the accident. William Witter was the only
witness to give an estimate of the speed of the boat at deposition.
Michael Beers' failure to throttle back to steering way and, instead,
maintaining the speed of 20-25 miles per hour when striking the bow wave
would have caused the runabout to be planning at the moment of impact. A
bow wave would normally cause a boat's bow to pitch violently when the boat
was planing at the time of impact between the boat and the bow wave.
Plaintiff's expert will testify that maintaining planing speed constituted
recklessness on the part of Michael Beers because planing into a 2.5-foot wave
was far below the standard of ordinary care.
Under Maryland Code Annotated, Natural Resources!3 08.18.01.04 B (1-
8) (1998), it states:
A person may not operate or give permission to operate a vessel at a
speed which would be unsafe under the existing circumstances and
conditions. In determining unsafe speed under the existing
circumstances and conditions, the following factors shall be taken into
account:
(1) State of visibility;
(2) Traffic density;
(3) Maneuverability of the vessel in prevailing conditions;
6
,-, -,&
"' -~
"
~"
<'..l:c."":~:
(4) At night, the presence of background light intensity from shore
lights;
(5) Velocity of the wind;
(6) Sea and current conditions;
(7) Proximity of navigational hazards; and
(8) Draft of the vessel in relation to available depth of water.
MD. CODE ANN., NAT. RES.!'l 08.18.01.04 B (1-8) (1998). Michael Beers
breached his duties of care and was negligent by operating the runabout at
such a speed and in a manner which was in violation of the boating "Rules of
the Road" as defined by the Maryland Code Annotated,!'l 08.18.01.04 B (2) and
(7).
Maryland Code Annotated, Natural Resources !'l 08.18.01.05 (1998),
states:
A person my not operate or give permission to operate any motorboat or
any vessel in a:
A. Reckless manner to endanger the life, limb, or property of any
person; or
B. Negligent manner to endanger the life, limb, or property of any
person.
MD. CODE ANN., NAT. RES.!'l 08.18.01.05 (1998). Michael Beers breached his
duties of care by operating his boat in a negligent manner so as to endanger
the life, limb, or property of Sharon Witter, which is a violation of Maryland
Code Annotated, !'l 08.18.01.05.
Prior to the impact between the runabout and the bow of the bow wave of
the larger vessel, Michael Beers had a duty to warn his passengers of the
7
~-
-
~ ,
" '
~,~j
impending impact between the runabout and the bow wave of the larger vessel.
Michael Beers testified at deposition that did not warn his passengers of the
impending collision with the bow wave.
Michael Beers failed in one or more of his required and expected duties
to protect and insure his passengers' safety and was directly and solely
responsible for the injury to Sharon Witter. Once Michael Beers saw the
oncoming bow wave, established boating standards imposed upon Mr. Beers
the duty to: (1) change course to avoid the bow wave if possible or navigate the
runabout to strike the bow wave at a 90 degrees angle; (2) throttle back and
slow the runabout's speed to steering way; and (3) warn his passengers of the
impending impact between the runabout and the bow wave. Michael Beers
failed to do any of these things; therefore, Michael Beers breached his duty of
care to Sharon Witter and is liable to Sharon Witter for any injures that she
sustained.
IV. A SUMMARY OF LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF
TESTIMONY, EXHIBITS, OR ANY OTHER MATTER, AND LEGAL
AUTHORITIES RELIED ON
A. Based on statements from Defense Counsel, Plaintiffs expect that
the Defendant will dispute that the medical bills are admissible at trial.
Plaintiff advises the Court that the medical bills remain unpaid. The bills are
outstanding, are in collection, and are included as a part of the debt reported
in the Witter's bankruptcy. The Maryland University Hospital states that they
assume they will not be paid due to the bankruptcy and say that they it has
"written off' the bill. However, my understanding is that this simply means
8
.&:IiIlii&_
",..:..,_,.L-_;,~
that the Hospital has stopped pursuing active collection activities. The
Hospital bill remains unpaid and outstanding and is included specifically in
the Plaintiffs' bankruptcy.
All outstanding medical bills should be permitted to be admitted at trial
(at least a total amount should be given to the jury). Any award, regardless of
amount, will be reported to the bankruptcy court for distribution to creditors or
the Plaintiffs as the bankruptcy court decides.
B. Plaintiffs will present an oral motion in limine at the pre-trial
conference to prohibit Defendant, Michael Beers, from testifying to the speed of
the runabout at trial. Plaintiffs' Brief on this issue is submitted to the Court at
the same time as this Memorandum.
C. Plaintiffs will present an oral motion in limine at the pre-trial
conference to prohibit Defendant from using any expert witnesses at trial in
this matter. The Defendant has not identified any expert witness in response
to Plaintiffs' interrogatories and, therefore, is prohibited from now producing a
surprise witness at trial. Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5(b) (West 2004). Defense counsel
attended the call of the civil list on February 17, 2004 and did not object to the
listing of this case for trial and has not sought additional time to submit such
responses to discovery.
D. Plaintiffs will present an oral motion at the pre-trial conference for
leave to amend the Plaintiffs' Complaint to include a demand for punitive
damages and will request jury instructions on the definition of recklessness
and on punitive damages.
9
",' ....
-'
~"
, .
'"'~!
V. THE IDENTITY OF WITNESSES TO BE CALLED
Sharon Witter, Plaintiff
75 North Second Street
West Fairview, PA 17025
Liability/Damages
William Witter, Plaintiff
75 North Second Street
West Fairview, PA 17025
Liability/Damages
Michael Beers, Defendant
Liability/Damages
Marianne S. Smith Beers
Liability/Damages
Commander David S. Smith, Ph.D.
Smith Aquatic Safety Services
2273 S. Main Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Liability/Causation
Bruce Goodman, M.D.
1515 North Front Street
Harrisburg,PA 17102
Causation/Damages
Paul Anderson, D.Ed.
2418 North Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Damages (wage loss)
Medical Records Custodians
Authenticity of Medical Records
And Bills
Plaintiffs reserve the right to call additional witnesses upon notice to the
other party and may call witnesses listed by the other party in his Pre-Trial
Statement.
VI. A LIST OF EXHIBITS WITH BRIEF IDENTIFICATION OF EACH
A. MD. CODE ANN., NAT. RES. !3 08.18.01.04 B (1998).
B. MD. CODE ANN., NAT. RES. !3 08.18.01.05 (1998).
C. "Rules of the Road" for boating describing the duties owed by the
Defendant.
10
~-~.~ ~ ~
"
"
1~~1-::
D. Definition of "steering way."
E. Definition of "planing."
F. Medical Records of Sharon Witter:
1. University of Maryland Trauma Unit
22 South Greene Street
Baltimore, MD 21201-1595
2. Alan Levine, M.D.
Sinai Hospital
(410) 601A600
3. The Brace Shop, Inc.
3825 Greenspring Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21211
(Dr. Charles Harris)
4. Mechanicsburg Family Practice
122 S. Filbert Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
5. Dr. Leidy (chiropractor)
G. Medical Treatment Summary;
H. X-rays;
1. The pleadings;
J. Deposition transcripts of Sharon Witter, William Witter, Michael
Beers, and Marianne Beers;
K. All written discovery questions and responses;
L. The Vocational Evaluation Report and curriculum vitae of Paul A.
Anderson, D.Ed.;
M. The expert report and curriculum vitae of David S. Smith, Ph.D.; and
N. The Independent Medical Examination report and curriculum vitae of
Bruce Goodman, M.D.
11
~-
" j
1-
"
..l 1d
O. A copy of the Watercraft Accident Report by Corporal William Powell.
P. Videotapes and transcripts of Plaintiffs medical witnesses, if
testimony is taken by deposition prior to trial.
Q. Documents to show that the medical records and bills are self-
authenticating documents under Pennsylvania law.
Plaintiffs reserve the right to add any additional exhibits, provided that
reasonable notice is given to the other party. Plaintiffs may also use any
exhibits identified by the other party in his Pretrial Memorandum. Exhibits
would include poster-size blow-ups of all of the listed materials.
VII. THE CURRENT STATUS OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
Plaintiffs' demand prior to the initiation of litigation was $265,095.00. At
a recent mediation, Plaintiff's expressed a willingness to resolve the claim for
$50,000; thereby making a significant compromise. Erie Insurance Company
has offered $5,000 - which will not cover the clearly unpaid and outstanding
medical bills. The Plaintiffs are in personal bankruptcy. All above-listed
medical bills are included as a part of the bankruptcy. Any settlement before
or at trial must be approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court (Middle
District of PAl. Plaintiffs are attempting to determine whether a jury award
must be presented to the Bankruptcy Court for distribution.
12
~-
, 'o~'~"
!l~
VIII: ADDITIONAL ISSUE: AVAILABILITY OF EXPERT
Plaintiffs boat safety expert, Commander Smith, has advised that he is
available to testify on Wednesday, March 17, 2004.
Respectfully Submitted,
SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C.
Date: (j1,l.D!.;)..tI6i
By:
/~Pd+-
Todd D. Getgen -
Supreme Court ID # 80719
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Attorney for Plaintiffs
13
~~...-..d
. L
...~..
SHARON L. WITTER and her
Husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs
v.
No. 00-3217
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 20th day of February, 2004, I, Shawn T. Peterson, hereby certify
that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document via hand
delivery to:
Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C.
320 Market Street
Harrisburg, PA 17108-4161
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER P.C.
~~
By:
Shawn T. Peterson
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
,~
, '\-~"
..
"' "J
,I-:, 'd
SHARON L. WITTER and her
Husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
No. 1"'.>0 - .3~/7
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
n~LlT~
/
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
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 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 LOCAL
HELP.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
2 liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-3166
800-990-9108
.
~~ -.
-
~,I L "'1
SHARON L. WITTER and her
Husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
:
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
dv - 3.2/7 ~ 7.i.u--
:
.
.
:
v.
: No.
.
.
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
.
.
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
AND NOW COME the Plaintiffs, Sharon and William Witter,
husband and wife, by and through their attorneys, and
respectfully aver as follows:
1. Plaintiff Sharon L. witter is an adult individual
who ~esides at 75 North Second street, West Fairview,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. Plaintiff William E. witter is an adult individual
who resides at 75 North Second street, West Fairview,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3. Defendant, Michael E. Beers, is an adult
individual who resides at 448 Prowell Drive, Camp Hill,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
4. The events which give rise to the Plaintiffs
causes-of-action took place on Saturday, July 25, 1998 at
about 1:00 p.m. near 5918 Chester River, near Rock Hall, in
Kent County, Maryland. This date, time, and location shall
hereinafter be referred to as "the scene."
5. At the scene, Defendant, Michael E. Beers, was
operating a 1998 23 foot, 7-inch Maxum runabout, serial
number USKA30MDH798 westbound on the Chester River.
~
-
.
L', __ ~
'-~~~->
6. At the scene, Plaintiff Sharon L. witter was a
passenger in the bow of the boat being operated by Michael
E. Beers.
7. At the scene, Plaintiff william E. Witter and
Marriane Beers, the Defendant's wife, were also passengers
on the runabout.
8. At the scene, Defendant, Michael E. Beers, was
conversing with william E. witter and was not observing his
direction of travel.
9. At the scene, Defendant, Michael E. Beers, piloted
the runabout at such a speed and in such a manner that the
runabout struck the wake and swells of a larger boat; the
impacts with the wake and swells pitched the bow of the
runabout violently.
10. As a result of the runabout's impact with the wake
and swells of the larger boat, Plaintiff Sharon L. witter
was thrown into the air and then landed inside the runabout,
causing her to suffer an immediate burst fracture of her T12
vertebrae and other injuries.
COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
Sharon L. witter v. Michael E. Beers
11. Paragraphs 1 - 10 are incorporated herein by
reference.
12. At the scene, Defendant, Michael E. Beers, had a
duty of care to operate the runabout in accordance with all
applicable laws and regulations and in a reasonable manner
under the circumstances.
2
"
,
,",
.,--
- ,
13. At the scene, Defendant, Michael E. Beers,
breached his duties of care and was negligent as follows:
a. Failing to keep an appropriate lookout as
required by Rule 5 of the United states Department of
Transportation Navigation RUles, Inland;
b. Colliding with the wake and swells of a
larger boat at such a speed and in such a manner so as
to cause injuries to Sharon L. Witter;
c. Operating the runabout at such a speed and in
a manner which was in violation of the boating "Rules
of the Road" as defined by the Maryland Administrative
Code 08.18.01.04;
d. Failing to observe the approaching larger
vessel and failing to react in a reasonable manner to
avoid the wake and swells of the larger passing boat;
e. Failing to place the runabout in an
appropriate attitude and to reduce its speed so as to
minimize the effect of the wake and swells of the
larger passing boat and, consequently to prevent injury
to Sharon Witter;
f. Failing to warn Sharon L. witter of the
impending impact of the wake and swells;
g. Failing reasonably to instruct Sharon L.
witter on how to protect herself from injury prior to
the Defendant's operation of the runabout;
h. Operating his boat in a negligent manner so
as to endanger the life, limb, or property of Sharon L.
witter which is a violation of Maryland Administrative
Code, section 08.18.01.05.
14. The above-mentioned boat accident was caused by
the negligence of the Defendant and Plaintiff Sharon Witter
did not cause or contribute to the accident or her injuries
in any manner.
15. Plaintiff Sharon L. witter has suffered injuries--
that have not resolved and may be permanent in nature--to
her back and spine that were caused by the trauma she
3
"'
IfllIi!".llIi!i,:tIIIM.N~
"
-
"~~ ....~-~',-
suffered in the accident caused by the negligence of the
Defendant, Michael E. Beers.
16. Plaintiff Sharon L. witter has been obliged to
expend sums and incur expenses for medical treatment as a
result of her injuries caused by the negligence of the
Defendant, Michael E. Beers.
17. Plaintiff Sharon L. witter is likely to incur
expenses and to expend sums in the future for necessary
medical care as a result of her injuries caused by the
negligence of the Defendant, Michael E. Beers.
18. Plaintiff Sharon L. witter has missed work and, as
a result, incurred a loss of income due to her injuries
caused by the negligence of the Defendant, Michael E. Beers;
therefore, Plaintiff Sharon L. witter makes a claim for lost
wages.
19. Plaintiff Sharon L. witter believes and therefore
avers that she may incur a loss of earning capacity due to
the injuries caused by the negligence of the Defendant,
Michael E. Beers.
20. Plaintiff Sharon L. witter has experienced in the
past and will continue to experience in the future great
pain and suffering as a result of her injuries caused by the
negligence of the Defendant, Michael E. Beers.
21. Plaintiff Sharon L. witter has suffered a
permanent diminution of her ability to enjoy life and life's
pleasures as a result of her injuries, pain, and suffering
caused by the negligence of the Defendant, Michael E. Beers.
4
~'~i;
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sharon L. witter demands judgment
against the Defendant, Michael E. Beers, in an amount in
excess of the amount requiring compulsory arbitration,
together with interest and costs.
COUNT II
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
William E. witter v. Michael E. Beers
22. Paragraphs 1 - 21 are incorporated herein by
reference.
23. Plaintiff William E. witter has suffered from the
loss of service and companionship of his wife, Sharon L.
Witter, as a result of Plaintiff Sharon L. witter's injuries
and pain and suffering caused by the negligence of the
Defendant, Michael E. Beers.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff William E. witter demands judgment
against the Defendant, Michael E. Beers, in an amount in
excess of the amount required for compulsory arbitration,
together with interest and costs.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMIDT, RONCA, & KRAMER, P.C.
Dated:
5/Z2-/ZCJO (J
I (
By ~Pv&~
Todd D. Getgen
Attorney I.D. No. 80719
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Attorney for Plaintiffs
5
" "'~ -~';~i'
VERIFICATION BASED UPON PERSONAL
KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY COUNSEL
I, the undersigned, verify that I am a Plaintiff in the
foregoing action and that the foregoing document is based
upon the information which has been gathered by my counsel in
preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the foregoing
document is that of counsel and is not mine. I have read the
foregoing document and to the extent that it is based upon
information which I have given to my counsel it is true and
correct to the. best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
To the extent.that tne contents of the foregoing document are
that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this
Verification.
I understand th~t intentional false statements herein
are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. ~ 4904
relating to unsworn falsifications made to authorities.
Dated:5-I'~ -00
(;)~(~
WILLIAM E. WITTER
Date$' ~l~r~()
" -t~
."_~..,;",.,_"'~iiIIlW
-
~Ui!:l!ll'
'~~~''i!l<I!1~,"1i,''-"-,'f,llIi$Il
'r
'.-,""'_....itl-".w~
..,,~" " ~ ~
~
~ 0 ~ ~
Fl III ~ t.~
~ 0 () G
-Q I '
CY:tJ~
ft.q..
}
"6?
..0
~
-....t
I
.III'~
(')
r-
~
~:g f'>
;~;i,J"
('}'-1:1':.>
..r.....
~~::-
~~::;
z
-,
-<
-
,~
cj
c:)
-7l
~
~~
T!
~rJ~
"'1~;)
. "
:~"'~~ ~q
<"-m
~
)>
~
[-"',)
.;:-
\'.?
_J,J~
':?
r.:-
(,.)
8
. , ~~' ." k' ,_, ~~" _=_,,__ ',_' , ''"' ~,',1
Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
rD. No. 49672
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C.
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, P A 17108-1268
(717)234-4161
Attorneys for Defendant
SHARON L. WITTER and her Husband,
WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA
: No. 00-3217
v.
: Civil Action - Law
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE TO PLEAD
To: Plaintiffs and their counsel,
Todd D. Getgen, Esquire
Schmidt, Ronca & Kramer, P.C.
209 State Street
Harrisburg, P A 1710 1
You are hereby notified to plead to the within New Matter of Defendant within twenty (20)
days of receipt hereof
Date: 7 /2;'/(/0
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C.
By rH.d2,~ fpr
I.D. No. 49672
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
Attorneys for Defendant
- - ~'^ <-'0.-,,,",,,,,,,,,,',' "',,"
Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
1D. No. 49672
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, p.e.
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(717) 234-4]61
Attorneys for Defendant
SHARON L. WITTER and her Husband,
WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA
: No. 00-3217
v.
: Civil Action - Law
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ANSWER AND NEW MATTER
Defendant, Michael Eugene Beers, by and through his counsel, Guy H. Brooks and Goldberg,
Katzman & Shipman, P.C., file the following Answer with New Matter averring as follows:
1,2,4,8,9, 10, (Count I) 11-21, (Count II) 22-23. Pursuant to Pa. RC.P. 1029(e), as
amended effective September 1, 1994, except as hereinafter set forth, all averments not deemed
admitted under the provisions of said rule are hereby denied generally. Those averments offact which
must be denied specifically pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) are further answered below.
3. Admitted.
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted.
7. Admitted.
NEW MATTER
24. Paragraphs 1-23 of Defendant's Answer are incorporated herein as iffully set forth.
,
-'. ~' ,,~, .~
,~~_ O~
,- '~~'P', . ",'~."~"','
,",'
25. Pursuant to amended Pa.R.C.P. 1030, New Matter, the Defendant incorporates the
affirmative defenses of assumption of risk, comparative negligence and contributory negligence.
26. Plaintiffs claims are, or maybe, barred by the Statute of Limitations.
27. Plaintiffs claims are, or maybe, barred by waiver.
28. Plaintiffs claims are, or maybe, barred by consent.
29. Plaintiffs claims are, or maybe, barred by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence
Statute.
30. The damages claimed are caused, if at all, by the conduct of third persons over whom
the answering Defendant had no control. Therefore the claims as to the answering Defendant is
barred.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Michael E. Beers demands judgment in his favor and against the
Plaintiffs.
Respectfully submitted,
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C.
Date: '7 (29/()J
By: C ~ tCc..fil {vr
Guy H. Broo s, EsqUIre
Attorney I.D. No. 49672
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
Attorneys for Defendant
2
~""""" ., M"~"Y -,"'= .~'~_", > '.''''_''-'C_,.,'
". "",,-~-:.;"'~-'
",
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document upon all counsel of record by depositing the same in the United States Mail, first class,
') 0 f1-,
postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on the 0"-0
dayof -;0/7
.2000,
addressed as follows:
Todd D. Getgen, Esquire
Schmidt, Ronca & Kramer, P.C.
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C.
By L ~ Itc-?A f; /'
Guy H. Br ks, EsqUire
LD. No. 49672
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
49005.1
c
,--"'
'*>j
,
SHARON L. WITTER and her
Husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
No. 00-3217
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER
24. Paragraph 24 of Defendant's New Matter simply
incorporates the admissions and denials of Defendant's Answer
which sets forth no new facts, therefore no responsive pleading
is required.
25. The defenses enumerated in paragraph 25 of Defendant's
New Matter need not be pleaded by the specific language of
Pa.R.C.P. 1030, therefore no responsive pleading is required and
paragraph 25 is deemed denied by operation of Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d).
26. Paragraph 26 of Defendant's New Matter fails to allege
any new facts to which a responsive pleading is required.
Because no responsive pleading is required, paragraph 26 is
deemed denied by operation of Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d).
27. Paragraph 27 of Defendant's New Matter fails to allege
any new facts to which a responsive pleading is required.
Because no responsive pleading is required, paragraph 27 is
deemed denied by operation of Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d).
-- ~io'ihi!;i"
28. Paragraph 28 of Defendant's New Matter fails to allege
any new facts to which a responsive pleading is required.
Because no responsive pleading is required, paragraph 28 is
deemed denied by operation of Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d).
29. Paragraph 29 of Defendant's New Matter fails to allege
any new facts to which a responsive pleading is required.
Because no responsive pleading is required, paragraph 29 is
deemed denied by operation of Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d).
30. Paragraph 30 of Defendant's New Matter fails to allege
any new facts to which a responsive pleading is required.
Because no responsive pleading is required, paragraph 30 is
deemed denied by operation of Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d).
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMIDT, RONCA, & KRAMER, P.C.
By ~J)~ -
Todd D. Getgen
Attorney I.D. No. 80719
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Dated:
O'3/()8'/Z 00 0
.
......-
~
~ ~~~,
. ,
SHARON L. WITTER and her
Husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
: No. 00-3217
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this ~~ of August, 2000, I, Matthew C. Shults, hereby
certify that I have served a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's
Reply to Defendant's New Matter, by depositing a copy of the same in
the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
addressed to:
Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C.
320 Market Street
Strawberry Square
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-4161
Respectfully submitted,
P.c.
BY:
Matthew C. Shu ts, Paralegal
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
-'4~~\J!j!llli.Il!~~ ~.'"'-~~.~~
(Skt~I".:il'A1:~~ll;;!iiii!l~~i8Y.iii.._~ "" ~, ~JlI!lJ~~"",-",,_,",,'L" "..
. ,
'i!:)
C
;g::
"'O(j)
mr.:p
Z-".-,
21-
(f)J2C'
-<4"
,<:0
~O
-0
)>c:
~
~~, ~~
~-I
.
o
o
",..
c.=
G?
I
\.D
a>
....,
.-1
~1.~-:!J
,~
~~
.,b -1'1
~,,~C)
":'~rn
Q
?O
-<
-0
:J1:
'..f.'
=:>
,,0
...
.'
Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
I.D. No. 49672
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C.
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
Attorneys for Defendant
"'^~-~"~._~""k' ,~~, ~,,,,-,,""-^~-"'~""~"" '-,,'<l
SHARON L. WITTER and her Husband,
WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
v.
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA
: No. 00-3217
: Civil Action - Law
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Please attach the enclosed Verification to Defendant's Answer and New Matter in reference
to the above matter. Thank you.
Date:
49691.1
~ III/CO
By:
Respectfully submitted,
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C.
A JlQJ
Guy H. Brooks, sqUire
Attorney J.D. No. 49672
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
Attorneys for Defendant
, ".." ~, "',,, ,J', ,~ -,-, ~~".d"'O-,,- c_,'- ',l"-_''''''"o__,~'''_''-+
"-"" ,-~-^ :,:c.i
VERIFICATION
1, Michael Eugene Beers, hereby acknowledge that I am a Defendant in this action and that
I have read the foregoing document and that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge, information and belief
I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.
Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date: 7/CJO / CO
~~~Qa~
Michael Eugene Beers
, '", " '-" ,,-~ ,-",--"",'",,'"'~';; '"~- ,t.,,,-,."s -,^ '"J'"" ,;"",''k''.~';.,; ,'"",~ ,'; ,,"-W",,", , ":,,_-"'_^'j
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document upon all counsel of record by depositing the same in the United States Mail, first class,
postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on the
JlCWl
dayof 4w;rJof ,2000,
addressed as follows:
Todd D. Getgen, Esquire
Schmidt, Ronca & Kramer, P.C.
209 State Street
Harrisburg, P A 17101
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C.
ax "'.;{ !j~l
ID. No. 49672
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
49005.1
\"'
", ~ ~
~ "
"
,
() (::;J (J
c 0 n
Z" J:~
"'DCD c= -"
mfT; ~') .'0
Z:-CI
;-~S= --2
(J).." <I
-<.'c. Co)
t<CJ > ';,.2 -'T""j
),>("'-0, *'-.r ('5
z...._'
:r.:2 I.D ~"t::;' ,'11
V
Z :::> '>
=< ::D
-.l -<
-,-
,
.' '
"- >~ ~ jjj:i:' ,'1
SHARON L. WITTER and her
Husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
No. 00-3217
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 21st day of September, 2000, I, Shawn T. Peterson,
hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of
Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents Addressed to
Defendant (Set I), by depositing a copy of the same in the United
States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, pennsylvania, addressed
to:
Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C.
320 Market Street
Strawberry Square
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-4161
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C.
BY:
hawn T. Peterson, Paralegal
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
-....
"-,,
'~"'T,!lImffi'~,l"'W_
SHARON L. WITTER and her
Husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
No. 00-3217
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 21st day of September, 2000, I, Shawn T. Peterson,
hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of
Plaintiffs' Interrogatories Addressed to Defendant (Set I), by
depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage
prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C.
320 Market Street
Strawberry Square
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-4161
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C.
BY:
~~
Shawn T. Peterson, Paralegal
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
"k,j,'o,"
"'-"~ "-~~",">Jll",~~Ji~k<t..i"~~~IifiIIiiIIIIIJ,;,,,~
~, '
I.
.
L,.,.,~, '
, --~ *,~ -, , ' ,." ,""
~ ,-~"~.~ ~~]j.:i4lii;bd
.iLilllli:l .< lJI
"
~,
,<
":1
ii
"
II
Ii
II
'1
I
g g 0
-n
~ -~
~ ~l;;:D
-oC,O -0 \ "r
gtG ~-;;;Q
~fi N
Zki;?-- I" CJo
tf): ,,~,
25 -0 ;%~,
k:: :JC
~8
-;;:;c - ~
-r.-
~ ;;:- :0
<1' '-<
, ~
,.,1 ,,"
~-~ II'MiilCf,!
SHARON L. WITTER and her
Husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
No. 00-3217
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this~ay of September, 2000, I, Todd D. Getgen, hereby certify
that I have served a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' First Supplemental Response
to Request for Production of Documents by depositing a copy of the same in the
United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C.
320 Market Street
Strawberry Square
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-4161
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER P.C.
By:
--/. ~
tJ7:;td ~
Todd D. Getgen, E quire
Supreme Ct. LD. #80719
209 State Street
Harris burg, PA 1710 1
(717) 232-6300
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
T -~~~~~*""",,""';'~lOdli~:IliJjt~i
..
:Jjliir""
~.. M"":
I
~'_tJj~~"""" -=".,~ ~,~,'-'"i~...","", -~~""'~~
o
c.:
s:
-om
Zmr,.c:
~.
t5 5;~
~~
<"" _.
~()
;';0
c
~
c='
o
c:>
;:-,
--<
l
c..,~-,
"'-'.
c~
"
',,;-n
l:-:J~~:
{j?2
...."'..
(Sin
,;:--!
:D
-<
:0-
-~
CD
:n
(lO
Jlaw-i
.
.
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Please list the following case:
(Check one)
x) for JURY trial at the next term of civil court.
for trial without a jury.
...n_n_n__h~hnJnnn_nnu_nnnnn__h~n__nnn____.~~_Uhn...n_____~hnnn__n_.n_n__n~hn__n..n_.n_________.n____n______..__nu____...._______
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated in full)
SHARON'L. WITTER and her husband,
WILLIAM E. WITTER,
(check one)
Assumpsit
Plaintiffs
Trespass
(x)
Trespass (Motor Vehicle)
{;y,S~S5 C 1300..+ At.0\cteV\t)
(other)
(Plaintiff)
vs.
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
The trial list will be called on 2/11 /03
Defendant
and
Trials commence on
3/10/03
(Defendant)
Pretrials will be held on 2/19/03
(Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials.)
vs.
(The party iisting this case for trial shall provide
forthwith a copy of the praecipe to all counsel,
pursuant to local Rule 214-1.)
No.
00
Civil
3217
, 19
Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: T~d~_,!?=-_~~!:~_~n,
Schmidt, Ronca & Kramer,P.C., 209 State St., Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300 Attorney I.D.i80719
Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known:
Guy H. Brooks, Esq., Goldberg, Katzman
& Shipman, P.C., 320-E
Market Street, P.O. Box 1268, Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268.
This case is ready for trial.
Signed: -7~ .J2-#-'----~___
P. t N me Todd D. Getgen
nn a :
Date:
1/6/03
Sharon L Witter and William
Attorney for:
E:-'Wilte.:t;1>TiuntJ. t IS.-
"'~--
'. "
,,,",," ~ -~~'*lI1r.k';,
. '
SHARON L. WITTER and her
Husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
No. 00-3217
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 6th day of January, 2003, I, Todd D. Getgen, hereby certify
that I have served a true and correct copy of Praecipe for Listing Case For Trial by
depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C.
320 Market Street
Strawberry Square
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-4161
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER P.C.
By:
~~ I)-d~-
Todd D. Getgen, Esquire
Supreme Ct. LD. #80719
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Dated: 01/06/03
Attomeys for Plaintiffs
~~Il!Nj;ili:tl!ii'llJf.il!f,jj~~~~Illi'il-i,"",,("~~'''''''''. -d~"~",,~,",,,~~ili!il1k:to!iJ!i ".~ fA.-.eililliillli.l;"~ ''1~ .~~
..
..
~]bW~Il!ll&.l!illa~IIIIii~~
-_-A1
,~..
.
0 <=> 0
C W "Tl
~' '-
-c.'tJ} ::;::~
fTlrri :-:;:!: -~
Z:t:-: h
ze- "
(D_~r' ....., CJ
-<~: '. --:(:>
r;.: c.~: -'0 ~~
Y":C' ~
zc5 ~
>c ::..::>
7 ~l
,-- :;:I 55
-<
-< eJ1 -<
'>l~_O
~
~ilt!lIt,~'
SHARON L. WITTER and her
Husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
No. 00-3217
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW CASE FROM CIVIL TRIAL LIST
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly withdraw the above-captioned case from the civil trial list for the
March 10,2003 civil trial term. Both parties have agreed to mediation.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C.
Date: oj/(J.r>>1
By: ~~~6-
Attorney LD. No. 80719
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Attorney for the Plaintiffs
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C.
Date: I \~ 91 t3
By:
;iJ-y/]J
Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
Attorney LD. No. 49672
320 Market Street
P. O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
Attorney for the Defendant
'.-,. ,'"""~""
,f'__
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 30th day of January, 2003, I, Todd D. Getgen, hereby certify
that I have served a true and correct copy of Praecipe to Withdraw Case from Civil
Trial List by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid,
at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C.
320 Market Street
Strawberry Square
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-4161
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER P.C.
By:
/odP/ :0~
Todd D. Getgen, Esqre
Supreme Ct. I.D. #80719
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Dated: 01/30/03
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
-l!illlii!IlilW.~l",jmil;!II,gj~~~-l;:Hi!i;i6l-~j~~"",'t&"rll~jJi-"""'_!ll~ f'
.'-""'"""_iillliIIIlii'~
.._~~" '''~~1tlI
..,,\>I.'--jJ -']'-.
~
s;::
-0 OJ
~g:
:;?:C
~~':
'<: c;
...... ,-)
z-
-0
>c
~
o
w
'-
"1~
:.:t:
.~
II
,
Ii
H
I;]
"
'i
,
w
o
~'<1
:::.!
i~~:Fi
i-,IT,
--tCJ
~~~
'-'
-;
J?
:3!.
.."
::I:
~
o
(,,)
8.
.
, .
~~_ '~~w_~;...~
Sharon L. Witter and Her Husband, William E.
Witter
v
Michael Eugene Beers
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 00-3217 CNIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, February 14, 2003, counsel having failed to call the above case for
trial, the case is stricken from the March 10, 2003 trial term. Counsel is directed to relist the case
when ready.
hOdd D. Getgen, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
/Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
For the Defend!lIlt
Court Administrator
ld
By the Court,
>L~~
1Y1 R~5
O~.Jq'03
,I
;'1
>j
,:!
:1
i!:1
II
t1
mn.....'_
'''''''''0''
'"n
"I
nC
\,)\
'''! ~.
,," ."' .:('i:
U~)J-_I,,,{' ",J'
";"~-!':'AH'{
;1":' rr- :~i j q
Vv", --' ""
'." \.?-C;
(r~~ .,,". ';\ i".o
,. ' '" , _' ; ,\':\)1:\\",.'(
C1 J11li--",-" ':1) ',.J~.., l ~
V IV '~;r:i\H~Sy0il"J\l\A
/tI'!f ,_, 'I'..o~,.,.,~",.,....,."tJ"!m'fI~JSlIY~""'l$!RlI!/"'l:I!Hi;<l'!"!i_",ml''i;ll''''~''"",,",,'~"~;i~')1",'-"'"",~"""'r,~~@l~~~WMl~lI!'(!I:t
~ ~~~
... -.
_4
~
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
'1'0 THE PROTHONJTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Please list the following case:
(Check one)
x
for JURY trial at the next term of civil court.
for trial without a JULy.
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated in full)
(check one)
SHARON L. WITTER and her
husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
(X) Civil Action - Law
Appeal from Arbitration
(other)
(Plaintiff)
vs.
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
The trial lis t will be called on 2/ I 7 / 0 4
and
Trials comrence on March 15, 2004
(Defendant)
Pretrials will be held on 2/25/04
(Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials.)
vs.
(The party listing this case for trial shall
provide forthwith a copy of the praecipe to
all counsel, pursuant to local Rule 214.1.)
No.00-3217 Civil
19
Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe:
Todd D. Getgen, Schmidt, Ronca & Kramer, P.C., 209 State Street, Harrisburg, PA
17101
Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: Guy H. Brooks, Goldberg,
Katzman & Shipman, P. O. Box 1268, Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
-c lr::Hk
Signed: L~
Print Narre: Todd D. Getgen
Attorney I.D. No. 80719
Attorney for: Plaintiffs
This case is ready for trial.
Date: December 22, 2003
~~
I~~,_I
,P~,'-,
.
CERTInCATEOFSER~CE
AND NOW, this 22nd day of December, 2003, I, Todd D. Getgen, hereby certify
that I have served a true and correct copy of Praecipe for Listing Case for Trial by
depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C.
320 Market Street
Strawberry Square
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-4161
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER P.C.
By: /~~~
Todd D. Getgen, EJ qUIre
Supreme Ct. I.D. #80719
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Dated: 12/22/03 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
-",
, .....-.. -~
i#
T~ lli:~i11 ""='~l'&I,,;.pJJ.Ji;,~~~~1im:~~1IIIdiI
~ 1I'!IiI'"~
llll/iIllliiiI'.......
~_u JI.....
.
(") "" 0
=
= -n
'.- u.>
:;::::, <::::' -I
"T] C) {"Ti :C:-n
ITl '-i' ('") rnr=:
~'7 -om
"'..~, ;
/:, N i'S6
Cj) ~::: w
r:~c:; ~-:i
-u -~ -n
"~::"~ t , -"- <::40
CJ f-3 5rT1
.;"":' ~~ .C-l
~",.
-' ::0
-< c;> -<
""
-
=' ,~~&,,,j
SHARON L. WITIER,
and her Husband,
WILLIAM E. WITIER,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
No. 00-3217 Civil Term
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Plaintiffs request that the Defendants admit to the following:
1. Copies of Sharon Witter's medical records listed 0 the Plaintiffs'
pre-trial memorandum are authentic (a copy was produced in discovery).
2. Copies of Sharon Witter's medical records listed 0 the Plaintiffs'
pre-trial memorandum are admissible (a copy was produced in discovery).
3. Copies of Sharon Witter's medical bills listed in the Plaintiffs' pre-
trial memorandum are authentic (a copy was produced in discovery).
4. Copies of Sharon Witter's medical bills listed in the Plaintiffs' pre-
trial memorandum are admissible at trial (a copy was produced in discovery).
5. A copy of the Watercraft Accident Report is authentic (a copy was
produced in discovery).
6. A copy of the Watercraft Accident Report is admissible at trial (a
copy was produced in discovery).
7. The language of MD. CODE ANN., NAT. RES. B 08.18.01.04 B
(1998) is authentic.
8. The language of MD. CODE ANN., NAT. RES. B 08.18.01.04 B
(1998) is admissible at trial.
hIlI~
9. The language of MD. CODE ANN., NAT. RES. 8 08.18.01.05 (1998)
is authentic.
10. The language of MD. CODE ANN., NAT. RES. 8 08.18.01.05 (1998)
is admissible at trial.
11. The amount of Sharon Witter's unpaid and outstanding medical
bills is $16,522.49. (See attached chart).
12. Sharon Witter has paid out-of-pocket medical expenses in the
amount of $1,537.00. (See attached chart).
13. The various x-ray films are authentic and admissible at trial.
14. Michael Beers cannot estimate the speed of the runabout in miles
per hour or knots.
15.. Michael Beers is not competent to testify at trial as to the speed of
the runabout.
16. Reproductions of the diagrams from the Watercraft Accident Report
are authentic (a copy was produced in discovery).
17. Reproductions of the diagrams from the Watercraft Accident Report
are admissible at trial (a copy was produced in discovery).
18. The language of the boating "Rules of the Road" (Defendant's
duties) as listed in Plaintiffs pre-trial memorandum is admissible at trial.
2
~i
19. An exhibit listing the boating "Rules of the Road" (Defendant's
duties) is admissible at trial.
Respectfully Submitted,
SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C.
Date: C/~;j;60(
By:
-- ~
I~P ~
Todd D. Getgen
Supreme Court ID # 80719
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Attorney for Plaintiffs
3
. '
.~~
_"0
@ ~
otJ
~6
~
p.., g
c.t:
~
~
CIl g
--- -
~'"
~
>>
,D CIl[
"0---
'ca ~
p..,
>> -,
,D ~
.-0 .~
.~ -
"'U
p.,
-
@'Z
o~
~i:Q
0\
"<t
N
0\
t-
.,f
-
y;
0\
"<t
N
0\
t-
"<to
-
y;
~
.~
>
8
p.,
'"
~
...
At:.
::E 1il
"""'a
o <ll
CU
.~ -
'" '"
1il U
>.", ,.-...
'S"iS'S
;:J::E;:J
o
o
o
o
00
o
o
o
o
00
y;
'"
<ll
1;1
.~
U
o
'"
..(
'"
~
~
~
,g
CIl
o
o
o
o
'"
~
-
N
y;
o
'"
~
-
N
y;
S
<ll,.-...
--
'" '"
>'.t::
CIlo..
..c: '"
_ 0
<a II:
<ll bJJ
II: ~
<ll,D
- '"
g.~
!e;
o
o
o
o
o
o
00
N
y;
o
o
o
00
N
y;
g.
..c:
CIl
<ll
g
...
~
<ll
R
'"
<ll
1;1
.~
U
o
'"
'"
<
C"-'"
'3 <ll
u.S
~ ~
'to ~
~ ...
.~ A
CIl '-'
o
o
o
(")
0\
y;
o
o
N
N
"<t
y;
o
o
N
'"
<').
-
y;
J _
o
o
o
o
\C
~
o
-
y;
o
o
o
\C
0,
-
y;
o
o
o
00
00
y;
o
'"
~
-
\C
y;
o
00
-.i
\C
\C
N'
y;
u
.~
-
E
0..
8
:El
U
>>
"0
.~
<ll
...:i
:..:::
0\
"<t
N
N
'"
-.5
-
y;
o
\C
r-:
o
-
y;
o
o
o
\C
q
-
y;
o
o
o
00
00
y;
o
o
~
(")
"',
-
y;
0\
t-
-0
o
-
<0
N
y;
;'
-
"
.," "
~.- j'- ~..-':
SHARON L. WITTER and her
Husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs
v.
No. 00-3217
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 20th day of February, 2004, I, Shawn T. Peterson, hereby certify
that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document via hand
delivery to:
Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C.
320 Market Street
Harrisburg, PA 17108-4161
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER P.C.
By.-G4r
hawn T. Peterson
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
JI..
~'lriiIii~~~~f\~"'A"-";;;ifi,~~~""'-'~~~lill1HillillMIIlL
- ~~..,;;:/-"~r~"";"""'IiI!J'5lilt" -'-"''--,*,,__~_iililIlI:!IIIIIiI
o
~;
"-"t---:, \_'; "
! -', ~ r "
"/ .
~;:,
r-"
=
C.:;l>
-"""'
....,
r<
OJ
N
o
~~
);:i _
!-:.- <. J
~(':::
.-/
:;:1
-<
'-:
. .
S':
()
-n
.--\
::C-n
rnr=:
rfl
"]0
ob
.:c1_,
:r=--ri
~~B
<~rn
u
~
~
:<
-
-
en
o
-"
.',
,,-,,':
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONYrARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Please list the following case:
(Check one)
(~
for JURY trial at the next tenn of civil court.
for trial without a jury.
----~-----------------~--------~-~-------
c:APTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated ill full)
(check one)
(~ Civil Action - Law
J life r..
Appeal from Arbit:r:ation
(othe:r:)
(Plaintiff)
vs.
The trial list will be called on
and
Trials commence on
(Defendant)
pretrials will be held on
(Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials. )
vs.
Det1b?
(The party listing this case for trial shall
provide forthwith a copy of the praecipe to
all counsel, pursuant to local, Rule 214.1.)
No.
06
Civil
3 ;;;;,( ?
19
Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe:
GU; U.Rt7?7/(S
Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known:
~'7;d c/ v.. be"o/-e h..
Date:
o~/2 ') /:< Coy
I I
Signed: ~ & i;3yc-z71' J//
Print Narre: G---ut 8((./;::;(/10
Attorney for: ~Nk;t5
This case is ready for trial.
'~"'ID!IlllllpQ'
r--'ldlH~1!1j
~'!lil~j';f~~j,,,,-OW'~........,,,'\,;;,BI~.m_-lli-~ 'i!t.!l;.lIm
-
'"'111
.,j,~'-'-~ ~.
~.~
-.,1
""I
(") r--> 0
=
C:. = -11
;;: ...- .--\
~f!~~ ..., ::L.-n
g rile
~~.: -om
N :ul:?
U1 06
~c~,' ~-ri
-0 - -n
-p '--1 :;:Jl: 9(")
Zc ;Srn
."._ I
P"c: ~ ~
Z ~
::;J c::> -<
, -
.
-.
,
~~~ -
-
i - I .l~'
>>
SHARON L. WITTER and her
Husband WILLIAM E. WITTER,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs
NO. 2000-3217
v.
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Judge: George E. Hoffer
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA
TO: Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C.
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA
Plaintiffs Sharon L. Witter and William E. Witter intend to serve subpoenas
identical to the ones that are attached to this Notice. You have twenty (20) days from the
date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned any
objections to the subpoenas. If no objection is made, the subpoenas may be served.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER P.C.
By:
~/6 ~ ~
Dated: March 1,2004
Todd D. Getgen, Es ire
Supreme Ct. LD. # 0719
209 State Street
Harrisburg,PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Attorney for Plaintiffs
-
~
~ .
,
,.
~~:;
.
SHARON L. WITTER and her
Husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
No. 00-3217
.
.
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
:
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY
PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
TO: Dept. of Natural Resources
DNR Law Enforcement Records Center
580 Taylor Avenue, E-3
Annapolis, MD 21401
Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the
Court to produce the following documents or things at the law offices of SCHMIDT,
RONCA & KRAMER, P.C., 209 State Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101:
1. A CERTIFIED co.py ofthe Watercraft Accident Report # 98-018498
ofSbaron Witter for date of accident 7/25/98.
You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things
requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party
making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance
the reasonable costs of preparing the copies or producing the things sought.
If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within
twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court
order compelling you to comply with it.
This subpoena was issued at the request of the following person:
Todd D. Getgen, Esquire
Schmidt, Ronca & Kramer, PC
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
I.D. # 80719
Attorney for Plaintiffs
BY THE COURT:
Date: ~~ I. ~OO V
(Seal of the Court)
IsJ~kf<. -tfT"~
Prothonotary I Clerk, lvil DiVlS10n
~~/)t;~,fJft
( . eputy
-
~, ~1lti1
.
SHARON L. WITTER and her
Husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
No. 00-3217
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY
PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
TO: Alan M. Levine, M.D.
Division Head, Cancer Institute
2401 W. Belvedere Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21215
Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the
Court to produce the following documents or things at the law offices of SCHMIDT,
RONCA & KRAMER, P.C., 209 State Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101:
1. A CERTIFIED copy of all medical records and biDs relating to
Sharon Witter, SSN: 167-40-1752, DOB: 6/14/1949.
You may deliver or mail1egibIe copies of the documents or produce things
requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party
making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance
the reasonable costs of preparing the copies or producing the things sought.
If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within
twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court
order compelling you to comply with it.
This subpoena was issued at the request of the following person:
Todd D. Getgen, Esquire
Schmidt, Ronca & Kramer, PC
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
J.D. # 80719
Attorney for Plaintiffs
BY THE COURT:
Dare:~a~J Mboy
(Seal of the Court)
irICUJdA-R, ~f)
Prothonotary/ cfer Civil Division
L IJJ;/;A:j /fir-
' Deputy
",.,....,......~~
~-
,
,., ~-~~;
SHARON L. WITTER and her
Husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
No. 00-3217
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
: CML ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY
PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
TO: University of Maryland Medical Center
Correspondence Unit
22 S. Green Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the
Court to produce the following documents or things at the law offices of SCHMIDT,
RONCA & KRAMER, P.C., 209 State Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101:
1. A CERTIFIED copy of the hospital record and aU hospital biDs
relating to Sharon Witter, SSN: 167-40-1752, DOB: 6/14/1949
(MR# 126-6464)
You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things
requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party
making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance
the reasonable costs of preparing the copies or producing the things sought.
If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within
twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court
order compelling you to comply with it.
This subpoena was issued at the request of the following person:
Todd D. Getgen, Esquire
Schmidt, Ronca & Kramer, PC
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
I.D. # 80719
Attomey for Plaintiffs
BY THE COURT:
Date: #1~ t, :JryJ{
(Seal of the Court)
1"5:1 nAlub.AI/~
Prothonotary / Cler ,Civil Division
~'J/A ~f14
Deputy
,--.
-
~
.."'"
.
SHARON L. WITTER and her
Husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs
:
v.
No. 00-3217
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 18t day of March, 2004, I, Shawn T. Peterson, hereby certify
that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document by depositing a
copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C.
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-4161
SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C.
BY:
~~.
Shawn T. Peterson, Paralegal
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 1710 1
(717) 232-6300
_~~k"""_Aliil>lii<_,j;)ElIi_l<t_","",;m-J;,t;,i''-';'T"!';;':'",,;fu:'j'''>I!iiIiI_>f;f1,.~,jJ!l',I;.!~,,"J!bIol:4llii~iiIIliilliIiilliillM~.illl~l!"ilii~Uj~,I#Jl@~~'''''-'~-~~' -, "-~
.~~-=~,"""'" 1~lliI1llli!l;atiillitrJ
lIiIIlIAif,
(") .......
c:: = (")
c,."7,)
;;;~ x-- .,
[]~ r'~"-; :z: -I
,-,-"" .
::":1 'nl:D
r-
(j) I ""D m
N _;J 0
".-.,", C) 1
~,~- ---;(J
,'1.-': .~ " ;1; :; i
_2~ ; :J~
'j..:;: C; 2~lq
(:._--- r:-:>
~~ -<
-" p..,) :~O
, CO -<
J
I
I
J
I
-
i, ~ '"
fOOl'
,," '
.\-
#12
SHARON L. WITTER and her
Husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
00-3217 CIVIL TERM
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
AND NOW, this 25th day of February, 2004, before Edgar
B. Bayley, judge, present for the plaintiff was Todd D. Getgen,
Esquire, and for the defendant, Guy H. Brooks, Esquire. Upon a
motion by Guy H. Brooks, Esquire, for a continuance to the May term
of court, the motion is granted. Defense counsel should relist the
case today for trial during the May term.
By
the (:.eUft',
(/ /r/-:;r .
~.,~~/.~?y\t \".
. '
Edgar B. Bayley, J.
Todd G. Getgen, Esquire
Schmidt, Ronca & Kramer, P.C.
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
For the Plaintiffs
Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C.
320 Market Street
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
For the Defendant
pcb
.-,
'iltl~~~1i.,lli:i.""lli&!"lii("''''u!<;'~''1'';~'"'''''i\1,1!lllli;~~~'jj:dt'~V!,!ihE1?iJtjtif.~J!j~.l.~GiW.llt -~4"~~~~
.. ,~ ~, ^ "
~
T~"~
". ,,,e
~" -
-,~ -
.
~
o
~
~;?;~
i-
G~ 'i~,
;c"-
{,,-.J
-;'C'::
~:S
-<
.- -.....
"---
',,"
-,~
i'
\
"',
=
~
2
.':""'"",
:.=D
o
.,
---I
--r
i:'i'1~
"'Dill
:~DY
~~O
._[-1:,~;
~~~
I
1'--'
:t::>'"
~-
<.D
(.....
:-,
);....
::;c:
.~.;...,
.::;-
I
"'
~"-'
~ ~=i,
SHARON L. WITTER and her
Husband WILLIAM E. WITTER,
PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
Plaintiffs
NO. 00-3217
v.
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Judge: George E. Hoffer
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE
OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant
to Rule 4009.22, Plaintiff certifies that:
(1) A Notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena
attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty (20) days
prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served;
(2) a copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, IS
attached to this certificate;
(3) no objection to the subpoena has been received; and
(4) the subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is
attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER P.C.
By:
/~~~
Todd D. Getge , Esquire
Supreme Ct. I.D. #80719
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Dated: March 12 2004
. J
SHARON L. WITTER and her
Husband WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
v.
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
'-,",'
. ' ' -'", ~- ~,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2000-3217
Judge: George E. Hoffer
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA
TO: Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C.
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
-r', .-
NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA
Plaintiffs Sharon L. Witter and William E. Witter intend to serve subpoenas
~-,'
l:'.::-;"
~~
I
f'V
i;?
f'.'
co
identical to the ones that are attached to this Notice. You have twenty (20) days from the
date listed below in which to fIle of record and serve upon the undersigned any
objections to the subpoenas. If no objection is made, the subpoenas may be served.
By:
Dated: March 1, 2004
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER P.C.
"/cr;
Todd D. Getgen, Es ire
Supreme Ct. I.D. # 0719
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(71 7) 232-6300
Attorney for Plaintiffs
~ ~,
.~ ,< .
0"'- o.__~ '. ,.-_~
SHARON L. WITTER and her
Husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
.
.
v.
No. 00-3217
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
: CML ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY
PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
TO: Dept. of Natural Resources
DNR Law Enforcement Records Center
580 Taylor Avenue, E-3
Annapolis, MD 21401
Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the
Court to produce the following documents or things at the law offices of SCHMIDT,
RONCA & KRAMER, P.C., 209 State Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101:
1. A CERTIFIED CODY of the Watercraft Accident ReDOrt" 98-018498
of Sharon Witter for date of accident 7/25/98.
You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things
requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party
making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance
the reasonable costs of preparing the copies or producing the things sought.
If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within
twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court
order compelling you to comply with it.
This subpoena was issued at the request of the following person;
Todd D. Getgen, Esquire
Schmidt, Ronca & Kramer, PC
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
LD. # 80719
Attorney for Plaintiffs
BY THE COURT:
Date: ,f)jtvull. i)OOV
(Seal of the Court)
, '
Prothonotary/Clerk, ivil Division
.Al~lut$;~~
f . eputy
~~
-
" . I~
. .
SHARON L. WITTER and her
Husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
No. 00-3217
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
CML ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY
PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
TO: Alan M. Levine, M.D.
Division Head, Cancer Institute
2401 W. Belvedere Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21215
Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the
Court to produce the following documents or things at the law offices of SCHMIDT,
RONCA & KRAMER, P.C., 209 State Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101:
1. A CERTIFIED copy of all medical records and bills relating to
Sharon Witter, SSN: 167-40-1752, DOH: 6/14/1949.
You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things
requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party
making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance
the reasonable costs of preparing the copies or producing the things sought.
If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within
twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court
order compelling you to comply with it.
This subpoena was issued at the request of the following person:
Todd D. Getgen, Esquire
Schmidt, Ronca & Kramer, PC
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
LD. # 80719
Attorney for Plaintiffs
BY THE COURT:
Date: 11; tU2d I. 6200 Y
(Seal of the Court)
~ I Cmir4 1<. :lr;j
Prothonotary / der Civil Division
J1ku~ J'J;tJ;;J l/Jr
, Deputy
-. -
__t
--.
~
. .
SHARON L. WITTER and her
Husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
No. 00-3217
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
: CML ACTION - LAW
.
.
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY
PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
TO: University of Maryland Medical Center
Correspondence Unit
22 S. Green Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the
Court to produce the following documents or things at the law offices of SCHMIDT,
RONCA & KRAMER, P.C., 209 State Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101:
1. A CERTIFIED copy of the hospital record and all hospital bills
relating to Sharon Witter, SSN: 167-40-1752, DOS: 6/14/1949
(MRIt 126-6464)
You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things
requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party
making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance
the reasonable costs of preparing the copies or producing the things sought.
If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within
twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court
order compelling you to comply with it.
This subpoena was issued at the request of the following person:
Todd D. Getgen, Esquire
Schmidt, Ronca & Kramer, PC
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
I.D. # 80719
Attorney for Plaintiffs
BY THE COURT:
Date: $;aJIJJ: /, :))'//
(Seal of the Court)
/'1 OU~~{t :lC'Wi
Prothonotary / ClerJl, Civil Division
hL~ ~!)tr,
, Depllty
~- -. .;'
. .
SHARON L. WITTER and her
Husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs
v.
No. 00-3217
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
CML ACTION. LAW
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 1st day of March, 2004, I, Shawn T. Peterson, hereby certify
that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document by depositing a
copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C.
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-4161
SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C.
BY:
f\~/
Shawn T. Peterson, Paralegal
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
~ --
-
- !l#~~"".
. ' . ..
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 12th day of March, 2004, I, Carmen Arroyo, hereby certify that
I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document by depositing a copy
of same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
addressed to:
Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C.
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-4161
';':-,c"b-"",'
llIH_"'lli!J~~Q~iill.Im~JL~loJiffi"i-".olImj~~{'-"-.I_>l'i_li!i~~_Wi.~","':~~~tI:IlJ!!~~(~--'-
.""'IiitilWliIil'"'""'"---
, .
0 ""
= 0
C CJ ,"
:f-: .r-
::.: ---\
" I '~"; --r
rr: ,,',- ::C'-" r.lp
, ;;u
Z ~ -oLE]
(rJ -::11.....1
-< <..n Q l.~
~~~ .".c
-u ~}~
:1:
'r:y
:z ::;..~
_nl _0::- ~
-< a
.,
~, N
"- ~
I
. ~
^-.
,~-""""',"" - .-~ ,,, >.
"' ,,"'-' , .
-".'~ - .'.~
'-;'J]
SHARON WITTER and her
Husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, P A
Plaintiffs
: NO. 00-3217
v.
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: Judge: George E. Hoffer
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANT MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS' MOTION IN LIMINE
AND NOW, comes Defendant, Michael Eugene Beers, by his attorneys,
Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, who state:
1. Defendant Michael Beers believes Plaintiff William Witter will attempt to
testify that the boat was traveling between 20-25 miles per hour at or near the time of the
accident
2. Plaintiff William Witter was seated in the front (bow) of the boat at the time
of the accident.
3. Plaintiff William Witter did not view the speedometer at or near the time
of the accident.
4. Plaintiff William Witter had no experience at the time of the accident in
operating the boat on the Chester River.
5. In rendering an opinion as to speed, a lay witness must establish that he has
adequate prior experience with moving vehicles. Radogna v. Hester, 388 A.2d 1088 (pa.
Super. 1978).
-
"",,",,,"
,'-' '",-
.-~' ~k
. .
6. Plaintiff is unable to establish that he has the requisite experience or that he
was able to view the speedometer at the time of the accident.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Michael Beers respectfully requests that this
Honorable Court exclude testimony by William Witter regarding the speed of the boat
at or near the time of the accident.
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN &SHIPMAN,P.C.
Date: March 31, 2004
108273.1
2
~~
_ ^ _ ",.
= ~i "~~"'li~llid>JiillF' ;..~~~. "~'_IIiIIIiiIIr'
.m
~ - < , 1->,
, .~ -
..,.:..;-.......\" ~ ~l~
,~~
-,,-, ~.'~'"-
. ~"",'"'
.'-
0 .....,
c:: <::> ~
-= =
~rD ..,..
~E" ~ if{::n
;;0 .-
w ~g
~" -
i,_C'
"- J
;p: ~ 5'!::j:{
z"-'
;>;0 06
c: 2.
2: .c- Om
-1 :;:,!
-<. :1J
en -<
~ ,""
"C'."';.' '
_-c-"_;,, "'>;;"" ,'_,__-",_,,',_:c'
,
Guy H. Brooks, Esquire
I.D. No. 49672
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C.
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
Attorneys for Defendant
SHARON L. WITTER and her Husband,
WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA
: No. 00-3217
v.
: Civil Action - Law
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFFS' REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
1. Admitted as to authenticity not admissibility.
2. Admitted as to authenticity not admissibility.
3. Admitted as to authenticity not admissibility.
4. Admitted as to authenticity not admissibility.
5. Admitted as to authenticity.
6. Denied as to admissibility inasmuch as its specific use has not been established.
7. Admitted as to authenticity.
8. Denied as to admissibility inasmuch as its specific use has not been established.
9. Admitted as to authenticity.
10. Denied as to admissibility inasmuch as its specific use has not been established.
11. Denied inasmuch as the figures are subject to cross-examination.
12. Denied inasmuch as the figures are subject to cross-examination.
. ""
.- ~>-'.-- -
. ~,,-- .
J!lili~
13. Admitted as to authenticity, denied as to admissibility inasmuch as those records
are subject to cross-examination.
14. Denied. To the contrary, such estimates can and will be made.
15. Denied. He is the experienced pilot of the craft involved in the accident.
16. Admitted as to authenticity.
17. Admitted.
18. Denied as to admissibility until the use of the Rules has been established.
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C.
By
Guy H rooks, Esquire
Attorney 1.0. #49672
320 Market Street
P. O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
-JtG
Date:.3!31 Jd-I
Counsel for Defendant
2
<'_"_d," .
, . <,,' ,~ ;;
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing document upon
all counsel of record by depositing the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid,
at Harrisburg, Peunsylvania, on the ~ day of fnIJA.I'~ ,2004, addressed as
follows:
Todd D. Getgen, Esquire
Schmidt, Ronca & Kramer, P.C.
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C.
Glenda J. Ebersole,
Guy H. Brooks, Es
J.D. No. 49672
320 Market Street
P.O. Box.l268
Harrisburg, P A 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
49005.1
-
IiiIIlIIiIl _I
~~li;-'
"..^ "..<
~
'"'" , """"""'.'
-.','.
(")
C
~-;,:
\:1 IT'
S:2f-Ti
~-~::
-<' ._;-
~C}
~~;
___J
"'<
,
"",
"oc
_ _~ w_'I'
.....,
=
=
.s:-
:x
;:<:Jl;:.
::u
(,.,)
o
"
:r
rn.::::!J
r-
-om
:lJ?
0"
::yJ<;]?,
O::n
C70
Orn
~:--t
:B
.<
-0
_.
~
.r::-
U1
~~~o~'-.-~.~ ~. ~,_;
..
SHARON L. WITTER and her
husband, WILLIAM E. WITTER,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
vs.
00-3217 CIVIL
MICHAEL EUGENE BEERS,
Defendant
VERDICT
QUESTION 1: Was the defendant, Michael Eugene Beers, negligent?
Yes 2.
No ~
If your answer is no, the plaintiffs cannot recover and you should return to the courtroom. If
your answer is yes, proceed to question 2.
QUESTION 2: Was the negligence of the defendant, Michael Eugene Beers, a factual
cause in bringing about the injury to the plaintiff, Sharon L. Witter?
Yes No
If your answer is no, the plaintiffs cannot recover and you should return to the courtroom. If
your answer is yes, proceed to question 3.
QUESTION 3: State the amount of damages which you award the plaintiff, Sharon L.
Witter.
Lost Wages: $
Medical Expenses: $
Pain and Suffering: $
TOTAL: $
~ ", ] <
~"l
QUESTION 4: What amount do you award William E. Witter on account of his claim
for loss of consortium?
$
Date:!;t 44f ~ -1 tW/
F_"f/J:~!ufjf;.d
, J :'~" :, ~L-.-.;.. l_, , !"N
~~
jJr;tb{V5 ~
~- ~~~~~~-1th::
.5)31 0<1
... H/\....... < . .~.. .'. _ ...>. .....
~~""Y~
. :7"~~
-
"
~~
CASE NO.: ---.lJ , +-kr
.'51" .-011 L w; fkr ...../, J .. J/;tr "" e. LJ, VS
DOCKET NO.: 00 - 3;;;111
''''JI8MU,,~..''ft)_1i$ Il' ~1;!I'or #
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
67
7:J
46
61
76
.e6
"1"62
58
85
47
-49
84
77
". 71
:;2
69
79
82
53
68
t:il
56
55
57
59
50
51
72
83
--""""",,~.-*,":
COURTROOM NO.: t.{ v-
f\Il iekuJ eUSerLe L3eecr
DATE: may _"1_ ;).1'JtJ'/
Random No.
....,.-v ~ ::""","'Wj
Name
-"-~~
KROH, ERIeS
!11...
f'z-
is
h~ll'UCI1ER, LAK~I' D
~4r l\W ~ T , CI ~^5rErJCE It
-1538662001
-1387502159
-1264598241
-1239210380
-961898856
-787814882
-722682234
-582416199
-257082150
-254275256
-239469979
-186138174
-113847869
-81172665
56475787
89244353
122486357
131133820
196074189
261661166
442703908
558437106
7818654?n
886065879
1302178013
1738509907
1800493851
1961313728
2117581424
2126357514
Monday, May 03, 2004 Page 1 of 1
SANTOS, JOHN A
SHRAWDER, LAURIE
RABOLD, WILLIAM G
SA1vJ3, IvuLnL-wL ',V.
LjJ\lU::;LIJ Y, 15RULIJ A.
HOOVER, HILARY B.
WEAVER, LINDA A
YINGER, MARK D.
FORBES, KARLA I'd .6. 3
PillMAN, BASIL E JR
KENNEDY, JOSEPH
';OUNG, CLARE ~ n 1
VULENILH, dIEO];?QR-li P.3
AtlTCN, F QIA]>TlO PI'< :r.lle$
RAMELL, TERESA A
HANEKAMP, KATHERINE
SALISBURY, EDGAR H., JR
SWOREN, RICHELLE M.
IvlclL, tVlAKlHA A pLf
PI
Af
HAND. TON II
DIVEN, WILHELMINA C.
BISHOP, JOHN
POLILLO, JAMES
MYERS, SHARON K.
ELLIS, JOHN S
WERT, JOHN H III
LININGER, DEANNA C
800-.+1'~ {jeL'..iolevt+-