HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-03371
""""'="f_~~ .~~-~~
-
-I.',
11."",.
o
o
CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER
PENNSYL VANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C)
To the Prothonotary ofthe Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed:
SUPERIOR COURT OF PA
The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and
correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required
by PA R.A.P, 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the
proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter:
GARRY E. BOYD, SR
v.
BENJAMIN OCKER
v.
RYAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER
KIMBERLY A. RUDY
NO. 00-3371 CIVIL TERM
1176 MDA 2003
The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No. 1 to 26, and
attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and
identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the
number of pages comprising the document.
The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 10/17/03 ,
An additional COpy ofthis certificate is enclosed. Please sil!n and date COPY. thereby
acknowledl!inl! receipt of this record.
Signature & Title
Date
"'J1'1
!1M
~ _ .I iJ Jill! ~ _
,
, ,:;-'-,
"', .;t, -.-, ~, ",,<',~ (' 1i.
:,"'\
o
o
Among the Records and Proceedings enrolled in the court of Common Pleas in and for the
county of
to No,
CUMeFR:lAND
1176 MDA 2003
00-3371 CIVIL
in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Term, 19 is contained the following:
COPY OF
COMPLETE
DOCKET ENTRY
GARRY E. BOYD, SR.
v.
BENJAMIN OCKER
v.
RYAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER
KIMBERLY A. RUDY
SEE ATTACHED CERTIFIED DOCKET ENTRIES.
-
"-".11~"",-
PYS510
2000-03371
I __
.~
"' '~w_-
BOYD
Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office
~Ci vil Case Print ^
GARRY E SJM:T AL (vs) OCKER BENAJMIN~
1
Page
Reference No. . :
Case Type.....: COMPLAINT
Judgment. . . . . . . 00
Judge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E
Disposed Desc, :
------------ Case Comments -------------
Filed. . , , , , , , :
Time.....,... :
Execution Date
Jury Trial, , . .
Disposed Date,
Higher Crt 1,:
Higher Crt 2,:
********************************************************************************
General Index Attorney Info
BOYD GARRY E SR PLAINTIFF SADLOCK RICHARD A
1512 NEWVILLE ROAD
CARLISLE PA 17013
BOYD JOAN L
1512 NEWVILLE ROAD
CARLISLE PA 17013
OCKER BENJAMIN G
31 STONE LEDGE ROAD
NEWVILLE PA 17241
SPENCER EVAN
SPENCER ROBERT
RUDY KIMBERLY A
6/01/2000
3:32
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
PLAINTIFF
SADLOCK RICHARD A
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
Y
Y
Y
Judgment Index
BOYD GARRY E SR
BOYD JOAN L
SPENCER EVAN
RUDY KIMBERLY A
BOYD GARRY E SR
BOYD JOAN L
SPENCER EVAN
Amount
Date
7/14/2003
7/14/2003
7/14/2003
7/14/2003
7/14/2003
7/14/2003
7/14/2003
Desc
PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
DISCONTINUED
********************************************************************************
* Date Entries *
********************************************************************************
6/01/2000
6/20/2000
6/21/2000
6/21/2000
6/29/2000
8/18/2000
9/12/2000
9/18/2000
9/20/2000
9/27/2000
10/18/2000
FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
COMPLAINT - CIVIL ACTION
SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED
Litiqant.: OCKER BENJAMIN G
SERVED : 6/08/00 COMPL
Costs,...: $36,06 pd By: ANGINO & ROVNER 06/09/2000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN G OCKERS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT - DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY
OBJECTIONS TO PLFFS COMPLIANT - BY CHARLES E HADDICK JR ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 8/17/00 - IN RE PRELININARY OBJECTIONS -
ARE DISMISSED - BY THE COURT EDGAR B BAYLEY J COPIES MAILED 8/18/00
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDNAT BENJAMIN G OCKER TO PLAINTIFFS
COMPLAINT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOINDER COMPLAINT OF DEFENDNAT BENJAMIN G OCKER AGAINST ADDITIONAL
DEFENDANTS EVAN SPENCER ROBERT SPENCER AND KIMBERLY A RUDY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS EVAN SPENCER AND ROBERT SPENCER TO
DEFENDANT'S COMPLAINT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDNAT BENJAMIN OCKER - BY
RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ ATTY FOR PLFFS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE JOINDER COMPLAINT - BY LORI ADAMCHIK
.
~",.-.."""",,,,,,;~,,,,,,,.--""'-"~
PYS510
2000-03371
.
""" k.
-. ".,,~"'-,,~,'-
..
_. .." -
BOYD
Cumberlan~ ~ounty Prothonotary's Office
GARRY E S~E~l:~l(~:~eo~:~:tBENAJMIN~
2
Page
Reference No. . :
Case Type.....: COMPLAINT
Judgment. . . . . . . 00
Judge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E
Disposed Desc, :
------------ Case Comments -------------
11/22/2000
1/16/2001
2/05/2001
3/29/2001
3/29/2001
4/09/2001
5/02/2001
5/02/2001
5/14/2001
11/09/2001
12/07/2001
12/12/2001
1/23/2002
3/11/2002
4/17/2002
5/06/2002
5/09/2002
Filed,..,....:
Time",.,.". :
Execution Date
Jury Trial, . . .
Disposed Date,
Higher Crt 1,:
Higher Crt 2.:
6/01/2000
3:32
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
KARISS ESQ COUNSEL FOR DEFT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE JOINDER COMPLAINT - CHARLES HADDICK JR ATTY
FOR BENJAMIN G OCKER
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE JOINDER COMPLAINT - BY CHARLES E HADDICK JR
ESQ FOR DEFT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE - FOR JOINDER COMPLAINT - BY KARL E ROMINGER
ESQ FOR KIMBERLY A RUDY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT
BENJAMIN G COKER - BY RICHARD A SAD LOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
--------------------------------------,-----------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT - PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT BENJAMIN G OCKER - BY RICHARD
A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE ,OF ADDAMS & RUNDLE AND ENTER
THE APPEARANCE OF THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL J HANFT FOR THE
ADDITIONAL DEFTS - BY WILLIAM A ADDAMS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT - DEFENDANTS CROSS MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - BY LORI ADAMCIK KARISS ESQ FOR DEFT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CROSS MOTION OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN G OCKER FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
- BY LORI ADAMCIK KARISS ESQ FOR DEFT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO CROSS-MOTION OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN G OCKER
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 11/9/01 - IN RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OF PLFFS AND CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFT BENJAMIN
OCKER - PLFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED - THE MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFT OCKER IS GRANTED AND THE ACTION IS
DISMISSED AS TO HIM - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED
11/9/01
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT ON, 11/9/01 ORDER - BY RICHARD A
SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFFS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO # 1968 MDA 2001
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 1/22/02 - IN RE OPINION PURSUANT TO PA R A
P 1925 THE REASONS FOR OUR DECISION ARE FULLY SET FORTH IN THE
OPINION FILED IN THE CAMPANION CASE DOCKETED AT 2000-3477 CIVIL -
COPY ATTACHED - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED
1/23/02
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER DATED 3/5/02 - THE APPEAL HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM THE 11/9/01
ORDER GRANTING THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OF BENJAMIN G. OCKER
AND DISMISSING THE UNDERLYING ACTION AS TO HIM. ACCORDINGLY THE
APPEAL IS ERE BY QUASHED . - P WHITTAKER - CHIEF CLERK SUERIOR
COURT OF PA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER DATED 4/11/02 FROM SUPERIOR COURT OF PA - THIS APPEAL HAS
BEEN TAKEN FROM THE 11/9/01 ORDER GRANTING THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
MOTION OF BENJAMIN G. OCKER AND DISMISSING THE UNDERLYING ACTION
AS TO HIM. A FINAL ORDER IS ANY ORDER THAT DISPOSES OF ALL CLAIMS
AND ALL PARTIES, ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL IS HEREBY QUASHED - PER
CURIAM - CERTIFIED BY PATRICIA A WHITTAKER - CHIEF CLERK OF
SUPERIOR COURT OF PA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL PURSUANT TO PARAP 1312 STATEMENT
OF JURISDICTION BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ATTY FOR PLFFS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER DATED 5/9/02 IN RE PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL
PURSUANT TO PA,R.A.P.1312 BY THE COURT, EDWARD E GUIDO, J
.
PYS510
2000-03371
_."'=~ "~-~-- .hi,
BOYD
~""umberlan~ ~ounty Prothonotar~
W Clvll Case Prlnt ..."
GARRY E SR ET AL (vs) OCKER BENAJMIN G
3
Office
Page
,
Filed, , , , , , , , :
Time""",., :
Execution Date
Jury Trial. . , ,
Disposed Date,
Higher Crt 1,:
Higher Crt 2,:
Reference No, . :
Case Type"..,: COMPLAINT
Judgment.." ,. .00
JVdge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E
Dlsposed Desc, :
------------ Case Comments -------------
3/31/2003
5/23/2003
5/27/2003
5/28/2003
5/23/2003
6/02/2003
6/09/2003
6/13/2003
6/26/2003
7/09/2003
PAGE ro.
1 - 2
7/14/2003
3
4 - 5
7/14/2003
7/18/2003
6 - 11
7/18/2003
6/01/2000
3:32
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
COPIES MAILED 5/9/02
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 3/26/03 - IN RE NONJURY TRIAL SCHEDULED -
BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES ALL OF HTE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTERS ARE
CONSO/LIDATED FOR TRAIL A NONJURY TRIAL IS SCHEDULED IN THIS MATTER
ON 5 23/03 AT 8;30 AM - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES
MAILED
STIPULATION OF FACTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 5/23/03 - IN RE STIPULATION OF PARTIES - WE
FIND THAT THE DEFT KIMBERLY RUDY AND ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER
WERE NEGLIGENT AND THAT THE NEGLIGENCE OF EACH WAS A SUBSTANTIAL
FACTOR IN CAUSING THE INJURIES TO THE PLFFS WE APPORTION CAUSAL
NEGLIGENCE 25 PERCENT TO DEFT KIMBERLY RUDY AND 75 PERCENT TO DEFT
EVAN SPENCER
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STIPULATION OF COUNSEL - BY WILLAIM A ADDAMS ESQ AND RICHARD A
SADLOCK ESQ AND KARL E ROMINGER ESQ
STIPULATION-OF-FACTS-=-BY-WILLIAM-A-ADDAMS-ESQ-KARL-E-ROMONGER-ESQ-
AND RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ AND KARL E ROMINGER ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
POST TRIAL MOTION OF ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER TO MOLD VERDICT
- BY WILLIAM A ADDAMS ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO POST-TRIAL MOTION OF ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN
SPENCER - BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFFS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 6/12/03 - A RULE IS ISSUED UPON ALL PARTIES
TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE POST TRIAL MOTION OF ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN
SPENCER SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED ~ RULE RETURNABLE 10 DAYS AFTER
SERVICE - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED 6/13/03
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER - DATED 6/20/03 - IN RE POST- TRIAL MOTION OF EVAN SPENCER -
ARGUMENT ON THE POST-TRIA MOTION OF ADD I TONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER IS
SCHEDULED FOR 7/7/03 AT 8:45 AM - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J
COPIES MAILED '
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 7/7/03 - IN RE POST-TRIAL MOTIONS OF
ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER AND PLFFS REPLY - THE PLFF AUTHORIZED
TO ENTER JUDGMENT ON THE VERDICTS - UPON ENTER OF THE JUDGMENT THE
PROTHONOTARY IS DIRECTED TO MARK THE ACTION AGAINST ADDITIONAL
DEFT EVAN SPENCER SETTLED DISCONTINUED AND RELEASED THE TERMS OF A
JOINT TORTFEASOR RELEASE PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED - BY THE COURT EDWARD
E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT ENTERED
PLEASE ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFT BENJAMIN G OCKER AND
AGAINST PLFFS GARRY F BOYD SR AND JAON L BOYD PURSUANT TO THE
11/9/01 ORDER OF THE HON EDWARD E GUIDO
PLEASE ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLFFS GARRY E BOYD SR AND JOAN L
BOYD AND AGAINST THE ADDL DEFTS EVAN SPENCER AND KIMBERLY A RUDY
AND ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF ADDL DEFT ROBERT SPENCER AGAINST
PLFFS GARRY E BOYD SR AND JOAN L BOYD PURSUANT TO THE 5/23/03
ORDER AND THE TERMS SET FORTH IN THE 7/7/03 ORDER OF THE HON
EDWARD E GUIDO AND MARK THE ACTION AGAINST ADDL DEFT EVAN SPENCER
"SETTLED DISCONTNUED AND RELEASED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF
A JOINT TORTFESSOR PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED" - RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ
ATTY FOR PLFFS '
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE MAILED TO DEFENDANTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PROOF OF SERVICE FOR NOTICE OF APPEAL - BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ
FOR PLFF
NOTICE-OF-APPEAL-TO-SUPERIOR-COURT-FROM-ORDER-oN-ii!9!Oi-=-BY------
RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFFS
PAGE rD.
12 - 14
15
16 - 18
19
20 - 26
File'd, , , , , . , , :
Time."""., :
Execution Date
Jury Trial, , , ,
Disposed Date,
Higher Crt 1,:
Higher Crt 2,:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO # 1176 MDA 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER - DATED 5/6/03 - IN RE APPEAL OF PLFFS- THE PLFFS HAVING
FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL THE APPELLANTS ARE DIRECTED TO FILE OF
RECORD WITHIN 14 DAYS HEREOF AND SERVE UPON THE UNDERSIGNED A
CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON THE APPEAL - BY
THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED 7/30/03
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S CONCISE STATMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL -
BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFFS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AMENDED ORDER - DATED 8/8/03 - IN RE APPEAL OF PLFFS - APPELLANTS
ARE DIRECTED TO FILE OF RECORD WITHIN 14 DAYS HEREOF AND SERVE
UPON THE UNDERSIGNED STATEMENT OF THE MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON
APPEAL - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED
-------------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE OPINION PURSUANT TO PA RAP 1925 - DATED 10/10/03 -
PLAINTIFFS ARE SEEKING REVIEW OF OUR ORDER GRANT~NG DEFENDANT
BENJAMIN OCKER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - THE REASONS FOR OUR
DECISION TO GRANT THE MOTION ARE FULLY SET FORTH IN OUR OPINION
GRANTING A SIMILAR MOTION IN THE COMPANION CASE OF ARMSTRONG V
OCKER ET AL FILED AT 2000 CIVIL 3488 - A COPY OF THAT OPINION AND
ORDER ARE ATTACHED HERETO - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J - COPIES MAILED
10/13/03
..~
~mberlan9 ~ounty prothonotarO"",," Office
"" Cl vll Case Prlnt ,~
2000-03371 BOYD GARRY E SR ET AL (vs) OCKER BENAJMIN G
PYS510
Reference No.,:
Case Type",..:
Judgment, . , , , ,
Judge Assigned:
Disposed Desc, :
------------ Case Comments -------------
COMPLAINT
,00
GUIDO EDWARD E
7/28/2003
7/29/2003
8/08/2003
8/11/2003
10/10/2003
- LAST ENTRY
.Jk>,"e,,-
Page
4
6/01/2000
3:32
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
********************************************************************************
* Escrow Information *
* Fees & Debits Beq Bal Pvmts/Adl End Bal *
********************************~********~**************************************
COMPLAINT
TAX ON CMPLT
SETTLEMENT
JCP FEE
APPEAL
JDMT!DEFAULT
JDMTI.DEFAULT
JDMT/DEFAULT
SETTLEMENT
APPEAL
35,00
,50
5.00
5.00
30,00
9,00
9,00
9,00
5,00
30,00
35,00
,50
5.00
5.00
30.00
9.00
9,00
9,00
5,00
30,00
.00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
13 7.50
137,50
,00
********************************************************************************
* End of Case Information *
********************************************************************************
TRUE COPY FAOM Rt!CORO
1Il1'estimony whsroof, I here UIIW sat my MIld
and t ,seal of sale . at Carllste, PI. ?
Ihl oR d.JJ7)
.
IT
~1
~ ~
n-
--'''':;'" '--f"-l,
o
o
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland
} ss:
1, Curtis R. Long , Prothonotary
of the Court of Common Pleas in and for said
County, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a
full, true and correct copy of the whole record of the
case therein stated, wherein
Garry E. Boyd, Sr.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have
this 20th
Plaintiff, and Beniamin Ocxker v.
Ryan Spencer, Robert Spencer,
Kimberly A. Rudy
Defendant _, as the same remains of record
before the said Court at No, 00 - 3 3 71 of
Civil Term, AD, 19_,
hereunto set my hand and affixed the s I of said Court
day of October A, D" r;w03 ,
Prothonotary
I, Georg3 E. Hoffer President Judge of the Ni nrh
Judicial District, composed of the County of Cumberland, do certify that
Curt is R. Long , by whom the annexed record, certificate and
attestation were made and given, and who, in his own proper handwriting, thereunto subscribed his name
and affixed the seal of the Court of Common Pleas of said County, was, atthetime of so doing, and now is
Prothonotary in and for said County of in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, duly commissioned and qualified to all of whose acts as such full faith
and credit are and ought to be given as well in Courts of judicature as elsewhere, and that the said record,
certificate and attestation are in due form of law and made by the er ffi e<
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland
} ss:
Pre dent Judge
I, Curti,. R 1.0119 ' Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas in
and for the said County, do certify that the Honorable r,pnrgp F. Hnffpr, P ,1
by whom the foregoing attestation was made, and who has thereunto subscribed his name, was, at the time
of making thereof, and still is President Judge ofthe Court of Common Pleas, Orphan' Court and Court of
Quarter Sessions of the Peace in and for said County, duly Commissioned and qualified; to all whose acts
as such full faith and credit are and ought to be given, as well in Courts of judicature as elsewhere,
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto
!ieb nlY hand and affixed the seal said C9,.IJ,r1 this
l. tn ay of Octobe A,D,4'4U3 ,
Prothonotary
i'~1lJI' I.Ji.
'!U_itHllj~: Un 'lWLW\ dUrlllh!Jfn,Uliaunl 't~if
"..,'
-
l. JIl[ ~,.
o
o
tn n :;> 0 'Tl Z Z
::l 0 0 " ~ " "
~ "' 3 '" 0
" ~ r 3
~ "'
"
Q. ~
., ~
::l ~
Q. :::
:!! -=
" -
Q. ... <
'!l
'" - "
~ ~
"'
I:) c:
"'
::c
~
~ n -I -I
<3 0 " "
;; ::c ~ ~
0 I:) 3 3
= '" n
0
!! I 0 '" '"
c: I I
':" 5' ::l
~
,.. '<
{
"
o
.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARRY E, BOYD, SR. and
JOAN L, BOYD, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v,
BENJAMIN G, OCKER,
Defendant
NO, 00-3371 Civil Term
v,
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER,
and KIMBERLY A. RUDY,
Additional Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE TO ENTER JUDGMENT
Please enter judgment in favor of Defendant Benjamin G, Ocker and against Plaintiffs
,.(
j
Garry E, Boyd, Sr, and Joan L. Boyd pursuant to the November 9,2001, Order of The Honorable
Edward E, Guido,
Please enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Garry E, Boyd, Sr. and Joan L. Boyd and
/ j
against the Additional Defendants Evan Spencer and Kimberly A. Rudy and enter judgment in
,/
favor of Additional Defendant Robert Spencer against Plaintiff/Garry E, Boyd, Sr. and Joan L.
Boyd pursuant to the May 23, 2003, Order and the terms set forth in the July 7, 2003, Order of
the Honorale Edward E. Guido, and mark the action against Additional Defendant
Evan 'SpeI1cer,"settled" DiscOntinued and Released in Accordance With the Tenns
of a Joint Tortfessor PrevioUSly Executed." *
ANGINO &
chard A, Sadl
LD, No, 47281
4503 N, Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-6791
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Date: July 142003
214528.1\RAS\MLB
* In accordance with telephone conversation
with atty Richard Sadlock, Esq. 7-14-03 JHS
i
<.""-,
.
.
.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Marcy L. Brymesser, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P,C" do hereby
certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of PRAECIPE TO ENTER
JUDGMENT on the following via postage prepaid, first class United States mail, requested
addressed as follows:
Charles E, Haddick, Jr., Esquire
Marshall & Haddick, P ,C,
20 South 36th Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Karl E, Rominger, Esquire
Rominger & Bayley
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Willianl A. Addams, Esquire
Hanft & Knight, P,C,
19 Brookwood Avenue, Suite 106
Carlisle, P A 17013
'if!l!A~OM0L--'-
M y L. B ymesser
Date: July 142003
214528.llRASIMLB
J.
h:'"
,,'-", lltiiillr'-
-rt""""..i
.,,--~, ,'-~ -~
" ~.' " <~",..
~"':,-.', ~'""Wit.l<~-
o
c$ sf-;
. ~-~
-,;:'),t;
,',", ~'" "'-' '"
~f
() --.)
c
","'
--
~
~
-.l
-
~
,z.
C\;-'
~
~
)j
~
-.J
~
vi
" -~,
-'<
_I :.'.,'" ".,,, ,,,. ,?, H.,,','
,. ....., . . ;;""'"
t~
~
...........
('~
d~
\ " .
I ~~
0-. :----J
_ I
2:: ~
()
C
s:
-00:;
9i~r'.
Z~'.
~~~
~C,
:r; r--.
Zi-'
~G.
:-'::~1
-~
o
W
t.-
c:::
,-
.
~
"
<;f;
::J
~~"',~l
:?~\7
._~~'} ~--?i
;--~(~
S.?i rn
-::,..
"""0
"<
-rJ
~-""F'"
.-
r:-:
,"
CO
""
.
.
GARRY E, BOYD, SR. and
JOAN L. BOYD, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
o
C
--u~:,
[11(1
Z.:L
Zl:
SQ:~:
c:: '-
?C:'
';2:1-.'
5~_
...:":..-.
-.>,
.........:-
Cl Q,
u:>
t: %\ pg
\- .,p,\3
.t:"" C>,{:~
..,..' -f,
.]~ 41
C].o
..cS-::: f\l
':::',
--r~-
" ::2.
,0
-<J
;:;;:
~
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
v,
BENJAMIN G, OCKER,
Defendant
NO. 00-3371 Civil Term
v,
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER,
and KIMBERLY A, RUDY,
Additional Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
AND NOW, this / Y-4 day of r tJl. ~
, 2003, judgment is
entered in favor of Defendant Benjamin G, Ocker pursuant to the November 9, 2001, Order of
The Honorable Edward E, Guido and against Plaintiffs Garry E, Boyd, Sr. and Joan L. Boyd,
J- {;v('-J
/
entered in favor of Plaintiffs Garry E, Boyd, Sr. and Joan L Boyd and against the Additional
AND NOW, this
/l{+t
day of
, 2003, judgment is
Defendants Evan Spencer and Kimberly A. Rudy and in favor of Additional Defendant Robert
Spencer against Plaintiffs Garry E, Boyd, Sr, and Joan L. Boyd pursuant to the May 23, 2001
Order,
~
~
214528,llRASIMLB
3
,.) ,
.,. 0- ._;~'_" _-
....
.
.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARRY E, BOYD, SR. and
JOAN L. BOYD, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v,
BENJAMIN G. OCKER,
Defendant
NO, 00-3371 Civil Term
v.
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER,
and KIMBERLY A, RUDY,
Additional Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 hereby certify that on this 17th day of July, 2003, a true and correct copy of the NOTICE
OF APPEAL was served upon the following persons and in the manner indicated below, which
service satisfies the requirements of P A.R.A.P, 121:
Service bv First Class United States Mail, postal!e prepaid:
Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire William A. Addams, Esquire
LD, No, 55666 l.D, No, 06265
Marshall & Haddick, P,C, Hanft & Knight, P,C,
20 South 36th Street 19 Brookwood Avenue, Suite 106
Camp Hill, PA 17011 Carlisle, PA 17013
(717)731-4800 (717)249-5373
Counsel for Defendant Benjamin G, Ocker Counsel for Additional Defendants
Evan Spencer and Robert Spencer
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
l.D. No, 81924
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 241-6070
Counsel for Additional Defendant Kimberly A. Rudy
214528.llRASIMLB
It
...
.'
."
.
.
Personal Service:
The Honorable Edward E, Guido
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
Rick Pierce, Court Administrator
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, P A 17013
NOTE:Appeal from Order following Argument before the Court En Banc-
no court report or transcript involved,
Richard J\., a lock, Esquire
LD, No, 47281
4503 N, Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-6791
Counsel for Plaintiffs
239659,[ IRASIMLB
-'!!"~-
5'
,
,....,'.. '.
.,,~.,. -"" . ~ ,.
'--[~r
- ,__~ ,m
",.,U,
,- "
-- ~~-
.m..iIII.t~kl:ilIlIiilDli.'-
~
\ail
''*''
...
'-'-';
"","",""'" '
f0
.~" ~ ,;;<'- - ,-, -
-,---~,,'"
o
"."
(")
~
-05:'
%1\(
(f},j "
;;<., ~'
c--:::=
~\~
-:"l
-<
'"
CJ
(,;.)
,-
r':::
,-
..'.. ",", .. ..,.,....
o
....
. .
co
o
"T1
,-\
=:~~ :L::
., I-~"
_._,rT)
- - ~ i..'""J
;j\.~)
C -I'
::-'1"'1
-.--'..)
-.:_-;'rn
:_)
"0
:..J
1:-
,,,.)
'5.J
-<
,
.,."
..
.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARRY E, BOYD, SR. and
JOAN L. BOYD, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v,
NO, 00.3371 Civil Term
BENJAMIN G, OCKER,
Defendant
v,
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER,
and KIMBERLY A. RUDY,
Additional Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice is hereby given that Plaintiffs Garry E. Boyd, Sr. and Joan L. Boyd hereby appeal
to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from the Order entered in this matter on November 9,
2001. This Order has been reduced to judgment and entered in the docket, as evidenced by the
attached copy of the docket entry,
Ri hard A. Sadt c , Esquire
LD, No, 47281
4503 N, Front Street
Harrisburg, P A 1711 0
(717) 238-6791
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Date: July 17, 2003
214528.1IRASIMLB
(p
~
.
, ' .~ ~~~-'~t
PYS510
2000-03371
'"
~~'-~ "~ .-'~-~"
BOYD
Cumberland County
^Civil Case
GARRY E Br' ET AL (vs)
1
prot~onotarY's~"",:ffice
Inqulry g
OCKER BENAJMIN G
Filed, . . . . . . . :
Time......... :
Execution Date
Jury Trial. , . .
Disposed Date.
Higher Crt 1.:
Higher Crt 2.:
Page
Reference No. . :
Case Type.....: COMPLAINT
Judgment...... .00
Judge Assigned:
Disposed Desc. :
------------ Case Comments -------------
6/01/2000
3:32
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
1968 MDA2001
********************************************************************************
General Index Attorney Info
BOYD GARRY,E SR
1512 NEWVILLE ROAD
CARLISLE PA 17013
BOYD JOAN L
1512 NEWVILLE ROAD
CARLISLE PA 17013
OCKER BENJAMIN G
31 STONE LEDGE ROAD
NEWVILLE PA 17241
SPENCER EvAN
SPENCER ROBERT
RUDY KIMBERLY A
Judgment Index
BOYD GARRY E SR
BOYD JOAN L
SPENCER EVAN
RUDY KIMBERLY A
BOYD GARRY E SR
BOYD JOAN L
SPENCER EVAN
PLAINTIFF
SADLOCK RICHARD A
PLAINTIFF
SADLOCK RICHARD A
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
Y
Y
Y
Amount
Date
7/14/2003
7/14/2003
7/14/2003
7/14/2003
7/14/2003
7/14/2003
7/14;2003
Desc
PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
DISCONTINUED
********************************************************************************
* Date Entries *
********************************************************************************
6/01/2000
6/20/2000
6/21/2000
6/21/2000
6/29/2000
8/18/2000
9/12/2000
9/18/2000
9/20/2000
9/27/2000
10/18/2000
11/22/2000
- - - - - - - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
COMPLAINT - CIVIL ACTION
SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED
Litigant.: OCKER BENJAMIN G
SERVED : 6/08/00 COMPL
Costs....: $36.06 Pd,By: ANGINO & ROVNER 06/09/2000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN G OCKERS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT - DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY
OBJECTIONS TO PLFFS COMPLIANT - BY CHARLES E HADDICK JR ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 8/17/00 - IN RE PRELININARY OBJECTIONS -
ARE DISMISSED - BY THE COURT EDGAR B BAYLEY J COPIES MAILED 8/18/00
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDNAT BENJAMIN G OCKER TO PLAINTIFFS
COMPLAINT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOINDER COMPLAINT OF DEFENDNAT BENJAMIN G OCKER AGAINST ADDITIONAL
DEFENDANTS EVAN SPENCER ROBERT SPENCER AND KIMBERLY A RUDY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS EVAN SPENCER AND ROBERT SPENCER TO
DEFENDANT'S COMPLAINT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDNAT BENJAMIN OCKER - BY
RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ ATTY FOR PLFFS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE JOINDER COMPLAINT - BY LORI ADAMCHIK
KARISS ESQ COUNSEL FOR DEFT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE JOINDER COMPLAINT - CHARLES HADDICK JR ATTY
7
,
_~'"'~ ~.4 ~,,"~'_~ ..~
PYS510
2000-03371
"
.,.
~,.
_'h,~_,\,_
BOYD
Cumberland County prot~onotary'S~" ffice
OCivil Case Inqulry g
GARRY E SR ET AL (vs) OCKER BENAJMIN G
2
Page
Reference No. . :
Case Type.....: COMPLAINT
Judgment. . . . . . . 00
Judge Assigned:
Disposed Desc. :
------------ Case Comments -------------
1/16/2001
2/05/2001
3/29/2001
3/29/2001
4/09/2001
5/02/2001
5/02/2001
5/14/2001
11/09/2001
12/07/2001
12/12/2001
1/23/2002
3/11/2002
4/17/2002
5/06/2002
5/09/2002
3/31/2003
Filed. , , , , . . . :
Time......... :
Execution Date
Jury Trial. . . .
D~sposed Date.
Hlgher Crt 1.:
Higher Crt 2.:
6/01/2000
3:32
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
1968 MDA2001
FOR BENJAMIN G OCKER
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE JOINDER COMPLAINT - BY CHARLES E HADDICK JR
ESQ FOR DEFT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE - FOR JOINDER COMPLAINT - BY KARL E ROMINGER
ESQ FOR KIMBERLY A RUDY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT
BENJAMIN G COKER - BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT - PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT BENJAMIN G OCKER - BY RICHARD
A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE OF ADDAMS & RUNDLE AND ENTER
THE APPEARANCE OF THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL J HANFT FOR THE
ADDITIONAL DEFTS - BY WILLIAM A ADDAMS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT - DEFENDANTS CROSS MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - BY LORI ADAMCIK KARISS ESQ FOR DEFT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CROSS MOTION OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN G OCKER FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
- BY LORI ADAMCIK KARISS ESQ FOR DEFT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO CROSS-MOTION OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN G OCKER
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 11/9/01 - IN RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OF PLFFS AND CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFT BENJAMIN
OCKER - PLFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED - THE MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFT OCKER IS GRANTED AND THE ACTION IS
DISMISSED AS TO HIM - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED
11/9/01
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT ON 11/9/01 ORDER - BY RICHARD A
SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFFS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO # 1968 MDA 2001
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 1/22/02 - IN RE OPINION PURSUANT TO PA R A
P 1925 THE REASONS FOR OUR bECISION ARE FULLY SET FORTH IN THE
OPINION FILED IN THE CAMPANION CASE DOCKETED AT 2000-3477 CIVIL -
COPY ATTACHED - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED
1/23/02
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER DATED 3/5/02 - THE APPEAL HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM THE 11/9/01
ORDER GRANTING THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OF BENJAMIN G. OCKER
AND DISMISSING THE UNDERLYING ACTION AS TO HIM. ACCORDINGLY THE
APPEAL IS EREBY QUASHED . - P WHITTAKER - CHIEF CLERK SUERIOR
COURT OF PA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER DATED 4/11/02 FROM SUPERIOR COURT OF PA - THIS APPEAL HAS
BEEN TAKEN FROM THE 11/9/01 ORDER GRANTING THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
MOTION OF BENJAMIN G. OCKER AND DISMISSING THE UNDERLYING ACTION
AS TO HIM. A FINAL ORDER IS ANY ORDER THAT DISPOSES OF ALL CLAIMS
AND ALL PARTIES. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL IS HEREBY QUASHED - PER
CURIAM - CERTIFIED BY PATRICIA A WHITTAKER - CHIEF CLERK OF
SUPERIOR COURT OF PA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL PURSUANT TO PARAP 1312 STATEMENT
OF JURISDICTION BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ATTY FOR PLFFS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER DATED 5/9/02 IN RE PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL
PURSUANT TO PA.R.A.P.1312 BY THE COURT, EDWARD E GUIDO, J
COPIES MAILED 5/9/02
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 3/26/03 - IN RE NONJURY TRIAL SCHEDULED -
8
.
~ ~,~.
....... ..
PYS510
2000-03371
""
""'-
~><:
BOYD
Cumberland County
fl\Ci vil Case
GARRY E sY ET AL (vs)
3
prot~onotarY's~""""ffice
I nqUJ.ry V
OCKER BENAJMIN G
Page
Reference No. . :
Case Type.....: COMPLAINT
Judgment...... .00
Judge Assigned:
Disposed Desc. :
------------ Case Comments -------------
5/23/2003
5/27/2003
5/28/2003
5/23/2003
6/02/2003
6/09/2003
6/13/2003
6/26/2003
7/09/2003
7/14/2003
7/14/2003
Filed......,.:
Time......". :
Execution Date
Jury Trial. . . .
D~sposed Date.
Hlgher Crt 1.:
Higher Crt 2.:
BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES ALL OF HTE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTERS ARE
CONSOLIDATED FOR TRAIL A NONJURY TRIAL IS SCHEDULED IN THIS MATTER
ON 5/23/03 AT 8;30 AM - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES
MAILED
6/01/2000
3:32
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
1968 MbA2001
STIPULATION OF FACTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 5/23/03 - IN RE STIPULATION OF PARTIES - WE
FIND THAT THE DEFT KIMBERLY RUDY AND ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER
WERE NEGLIGENT AND THAT THE NEGLIGENCE OF EACH WAS A SUBSTANTIAL
FACTOR IN CAUSING THE INJURIES TO THE PLFFS WE APPORTION CAUSAL
NEGLIGENCE 25 PERCENT TO DEFT KIMBERLY RUDY AND 75 PERCENT TO DEFT
EVAN SPENCER
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STIPULATION OF COUNSEL - BY WILLAIM A ADDAMS ESQ AND RICHARD A
SADLOCK ESQ AND KARL E ROMINGER ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STIPULATION OF FACTS - BY WILLIAM A ADDAMS ESQ KARL E ROMONGER ESQ
AND RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ AND KARL E ROMINGER ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
POST TRIAL MOTION OF ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER TO MOLD VERDICT
- BY WILLIAM A ADDAMS ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO POST-TRIAL MOTION OF ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN
SPENCER - BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFFS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 6/12/03 - A RULE IS ISSUED UPON ALL PARTIES
TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE POST TRIAL MOTION OF ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN
SPENCER SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED - RULE RETURNABLE 10 DAYS AFTER
SERVICE - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED 6/13/03
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER - DATED 6/20/03 - IN RE POST- TRIAL MOTION OF EVAN SPENCER -
ARGUMENT ON THE POST-TRIA MOTION OF ADDITONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER IS
SCHEDULED FOR 7/7/03 AT 8:45 AM - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J
COPIES MAILED '
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 7/7/03 - IN RE POST-TRIAL MOTIONS OF
ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER AND PLFFS REPLY - THE PLFF AUTHORIZED
TO ENTER JUDGMENT ON THE VERDICTS - UPON ENTER OF THE JUDGMENT THE
PROTHONOTARY IS DIRECTED TO MARK THE ACTION AGAINST ADDITIONAL
DEFT EVAN SPENCER SETTLED DISCONTINUED AND RELEASED THE TERMS OF A
JOINT TORTFEASOR RELEASE PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED - BY THE COURT EDWARD
E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT ENTERED
PLEASE ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFT BENJAMIN G OCKER AND
AGAINST PLFFS GARRY F BOYD SR AND JAON L BOYD PURSUANT TO THE
11/9/01 ORDER OF THE HON EDWARD E GUIDO
PLEASE ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLFFS GARRY E BOYD SR AND JOAN L
BOYD AND AGAINST THE ADDL DEFTS EVAN SPENCER AND KIMBERLY A RUDY
AND ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF ADDL DEFT ROBERT SPENCER AGAINST
PLFFS GARRY E BOYD SR AND JOAN L BOYD PURSUANT TO THE 5/23/03
ORDER AND THE TERMS SET FORTH IN THE 7/7/03 ORDER OF THE HON
EDWARD E GUIDO AND MARK THE ACTION AGAINST ADDL DEFT EVAN SPENCER
"SETTLED DISCONTNUED AND RELEASED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF
A JOINT TORTFESSOR PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED" - RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ
ATTY FOR PLFFS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE MAILED TO DEFENDANTS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
********************************************************************************
* Escrow Information *
* Fees & Debits Beq Bal Pvmts/Adi End Bal *
********************************~***************~*******************************
COMPLAINT
TAX ON CMPLT
35.00
.50
35.00
.50
.00
.00
q
Cumberland County prbt~onotaryls~ffice
C)Ci vi! Case Inqulry g
GARRY E SR ET AL (vs) OCKER BENAJMIN G
PYS510
2000-03371
BOYD
Reference No.. :
Case Type.....: COMPLAINT
Judgment. . . . . . .00
JVdge Assigned:
Dlsposed Desc. :
------------ Case Comments -------------
SETTLEMENT
JCP FEE
APPEAL
JDMT!DEFAULT
JDMT ! DEFAULT
JDMT!DEFAULT
SETTLEMENT
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
30.00 30.00
9.00 9.00
9.00 9.00
9.00 9.00
5.00 5,00
------------------------
107.50 107.50
Filed. . . . . . . . :
Time......... :
Execution Date
Jury Trial. . . .
Disposed Date.
Higher Crt 1.:
Higher Crt 2.:
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
_"00",,',
Page
4
6/01/2000
3:32
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
1968 MDA2001
********************************************************************************
* End of Case Information *
********************************************************************************
TRUE COPY I'ROM RecoRD
'. T astllOOny wbsroof. IIIer8 lintEl set my haml
i iile5"'.,.aJ 01 Sl " at CaI1IS1a]' ?..,
" '*' (,L t" ,rrl
i ,,~ .
d-?-L .
-~
--XJVU
)b
'. , .
o
o
RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT
-------------------
-------------------
Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office
Carlisle, Pa 17013
Rece~pt Date
Recelpt Time
Receipt No,
7/15/2003
15:17:38
140061
BOYD GARRY E SR ET AL (VS) OCKER BENAJMIN G
Case Number 2000-03371
Received of
PD ATTY RICHARD SADLOCK
JHS
Total Check... +
Total Cash.... +
Change........ -
Receipt total, ~
32.00
.00
,00
32.00
Check No. 57427/57428
------------------------ Distribution Of Payment ----------------------------
Transaction Description Payment Amount
JDMTjDEFAULT
JDMT!DEFAULT
JDMT!DEFAULT
SETTLEMENT
9.00
9.00
9,00
5,00
CUMBERLAND CO GENERAL FUND
CUMBERLAND CO GENERAL FUND
CUMBERLAND CO GENERAL FUND
CUMBERLAND CO GENERAL FUND
32,00
11
..
:t""
ti~~I!Ut!W'J.1i).e~,*\/l1i~~l!!;Wf%1J!jl~.:;&t&'b:l,""~",,"-tNf~,,,;\~~'''l,~l!!I;I!(l;Mj .!IJlllilli!li~llj':\1'~~' ~"" ~-='~,~.
~~ jj' '......'"""'l!ll...~ill.~~. ~~lll11.. "~- j
ij~'!\
t, ,!
,'~'
" ,:""IUJII!IIII
>~< ,__..I..f'1; ," :.>,I.;ji
0,'
, ,
t" I
(J -lQ.
~ ~ tv () C) 0
0 C W 'Tl
5~ S::.: ::-j
. -cu
8 Gr:, 1= .;~
.:.-::: ~.; . ,111
"- 7~r- :\'....
CIl v",?)" CO ,'[
~ :cJ -<:, ~:,J ~.~
~ S": ~"I.'J
~ -n
~ tS f- ~:~~ _v ~.~~~
r r-J- /~ Ie- ',-
-.--1 ~J
H;::' (,) -<
,
~c;l
- , .,~~.~~
.
,~.
. . '0'
11:38 A.M.
.
Appeal Docket Sheet
16 -2 "'~, -,,~
Docket Number:-Pr- - ,M9A 005 -
Page 1 of3
July 23, 2003
~~qr ~
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
~
Garry E.~and Joan L, Boyd, Sr" Appellant
v,
Benjamin G, Ocker
v,
Evan Spencer, Robert Spencer, and Kimberly A Ruby
Initiating Document: Notice of Appeal
Case Status: Active
Case Processing Status: July 22, 2003
Journai Number:
Case Category: Civil
Awaiting Original Record
Consolidated Docket Nos,:
CaseType:
Related Docket Nos,:
Civil Action Law
Next Event Type: Docketing Statement Received
Next Eve"t Type: Original Record Received
1174MDA2003
1175 MDA 2003
SCHEDULED EVENT
Next Event Due Date_~(;)o~.-,.
Next Event Due Date, ip emo~~?18(j'i~
Same Issue(s)
Same Issue{s)
7/23/2003
3023
Id.
Appeal Docket Sheet
Docket Number: 1176 MDA 2003
Page 2 of 3
July 23, 2003
"_~'=', A ='^"~~~ "
~ ,
11 :38 A.M,
d" . :il.i"~
o
o
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
'*
Appellant
ProSe:
IFP Status:
Appellee
Pro Se:
IFP Status:
Appellee
Pro Se:
IFP Status:
Appellee
Pro Se:
IFP Status:
7/23/2003
COUNSEL INFORMATION
Boyd Sr., Garry E. and Joan L.
Appoint Counsel Status:
,"
ii,
No
Appellant Attorney Information:
Attorney: Sad lock, Richard Alan
Bar No,: 47281 Law Firm: Angino & Rovner, P,C,
Address: Angino & Rovner, P,C.
4503 N, Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Phone No,: (717)238-6791 Fax No.: (717)238-5610
Receive Mail: Yes
E-Mail Address:rsadlock@angino-rovner.com
Receive E-Mail: No
Ocker, Benjamin G,
Appoint Counsel Status:
"
I ~ ,
"
Appellee Attorney Information:
Attorney: Haddick, Charles E,
Bar No,: 55666 Law Firm: Marshall, Smith & Haddick, P,C,
Address: Marshall & Haddick PC
20 S 36th Avenue
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Phone No,: (717)731-4800 Fax No,: (717)731-4803
Receive Mail: Yes
E-Mail Address:
Receive E-Mail: No
Spenc~r, Evan &Robert
Appoint Counsel Status:
Appellee Attorney Information:
Attorney: Addams, William A.
Bar No,: 06265 Law Firm: Hanft & Knight, P,C,
Address: Hanft & Knight PC
19 Brookwood Ave Ste 106
Carlisle, PA 17013-9142
Phone No,: (717)249-5373 Fax No,: (717)249-0457
Receive Mail: Yes
E-Mail Address:
Receive E-Mail: No
Rudy, Kimberly A.
Appoint Counsel Status:
3023
/3
~,
, ,
~~",,",~,
i ,.
1 :38 A,M,
o
o
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal Docket Sheet
Docket Number: 1176 MDA2003
Page 3 of3
July 23, 2003
...
Appellee Attorney Information:
Attorney: Rominger, Karl Ernst
Bar No,: 81924 Law Firm:
Address: 155 5 Hanover 5t
Carlisle, PA 17013
Phone No,: (717)241-6070 Fax No.: (717)241-6878
Receive Mail: Yes
E-Mail Address:
Receive E-Mail: No
ii
FEE INFORMATION
File Date
7/23/03
Fee Name
Notice of Appeal
Fee Amt
Paid
Amount
Receipt Number
ii
"
"
,'1
Ii
TRIAL COURT/AGENCY INFORMATION
Court Below: Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas
County: Cumberland
Date of Order Appealed From: July 14, 2003
Date Documents Received: July 22, 2003
Order Type: Judgment Entered
Division: Civil
Judicial District: 9
Date Notice of Appeal Filed: July 18, 2003
OTN:
Judge:
Guido, Edward E.
Judge
Lower Court Docket No,: 00-3371
ORIGINAL RECORD CONTENTS
Original Record Item
Filed Date
Content/Description
Date of Remand of Record:
BRIEFS
Filed Date
DOCKET ENTRIES
Docket Entry/Document Name Party Type
Notice of Appeal Filed
Filed By
July 22, 2003
Appellant
Boyd Sr., Garry E. and Joan L
July 23, 2003
Docketing Statement Exited (Civil)
Middle District Filing Office
7/23/2003
3023
1+
""""_,,,i~l!1l!l!'iJlj~~,ijI(iliil!j~ffilM;;;~'~'-~1i;;''''lilJ;0,"*~~~~~~Mo'!SltrillJi4j'"'"" "" ~
lii
,ti~
,- ~
\~.f
~q;
"
~~~.~"--~""',
C)
C)
C-
<'--~
"Uti'
t;p rr-,
"'-~,
<:(
(Ij .d~-::
;::Sf"
~-
~C
$~.!
2
-.;
-<
-
"-
..
(
/.:J
LV-
,
=
'-
e-
N
OJ
,~
'..J
-,.,
:2
';:!lfY
~-:) 1TI
.ON
,) 'r:
0"(')
--,-'f
o::ri
'>('5
om
-:-1
$
-<
"""
4::
-
-
B
-I, ~ _
c
GARRY E, BOYD, SR, and
JOAN L. BOYD, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
vs,
BENJAMIN G, OCKER,
Defendant
vs,
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT
SPENCER, and KIMBERLY A.
RUDY,
Additional Defendants
'c.' ~ _ _'
"..-.- ;,,, I "'" , ",J; -.-.,'
.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V ANlA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
00-3371 CIVIL
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
IN RE: APPEAL OF PLAINTIFFS
ORDER
AND NOW, May 6, 2003, in accordance with Rule 1925 of the Rules of Appellate
Procedure, the plaintiffs having filed a notice of appeal, the appellants are directed to file of
record, within fourteen (14) days hereof and serve upon the undersigned a concise statement of
the matters complained of on the appeal,
,,-Richard A. Sadlock, Esquire
F or the Plaintiffs
vCharles E, Haddick, Jr., Esquire
For the Defendant
vWilliam Addams, Esquire
For the Additional Defendants Spencer
.,tKarl Rominger, Esquire
For the Additional Defendant Rudy
,'"",,-.
Edward E, Guido, 1.
')
L;f'f.~
, RKS
07 -30 -03
~L'!:r,;_,:j
'1
J
.
"
!j
!:i
.
,
:1
I
i
;1
II
!J
,
'I
I
,I
"
il
I,
i!
~1
II
,I
~ 1
,
q
I.
~,j
11
i~
il
11
I!
:1
II
"
i1
fl
ii
II
II
r
II
II
II
!I
"
:!
~i
i'
,I
d
!i
:~
I)
-
.
.'
'.
,
L
~~.
o
"'_'r","Ilf!l!I,~-
FIlED'{)FFICE
OF THe !)t)n,!~nt\!i'TADY
""-. ' ',L ,.-,' '_'C -\..JlrlJl
03 JUt 29 MiII::13
CUI",:P;,;,;! ':'-1) 1'I1'U1"TY
'/ W'l...t .:'.{"'" ~I....' v...... 1 v.
PEJ\INSYLVAi'liiA
'.1
0"
1"l'!~t
~j
.,<
""",. ~
!!iIIl!ll@ffl;7!l1lrn~'_~"'~~I!l_""~l'1"""~ .,
"r'__~~
_,,~..w~rr ,,-~n~._~_-,''-'
" ,-,~, ' -,' ~
c<.-_-.,_.,
...,
.
.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARRY E. BOYD, SR. and
JOAN 1. BOYD, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v,
BENJAMIN G, OCKER,
Defendant
NO, 00-3371 Civil Term
v,
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER,
and KIMBERLY A. RUDY,
Additional Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFFS' CONCISE STATEMENT
OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL
Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, Angino & Rovner, P,C, have filed a Notice of Appeal of the
Trial Court's grant of Defendant Benjamin Ocker's Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to
your Court's Order, Plaintiffs submit the following issues will be raised on appeal:
1. Did the Trial Court err in granting Defendant Benjamin Ocker's Motion for
Summary Judgment and by ruling that for dram shop/social host liability the fact that the
provider of alcohol was an adult was immaterial and that to be liable, the provider must be at
least 21 years old?
2, In a dram shop/social host case, should liability of the provider of alcohol be
premised on his legal status as an adult and not his age?
These issues have been preserved for appeal.
~
, ard A. S
81
4503 N, Front Street
Harrisburg, P A 1711 0
(717) 238-6791
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Date: August 7, 2003
264236.1\RASIMLB
IV>
~
.
.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1, Marcy L. Brymesser, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P,C" do hereby
certify that 1 am this day serving a true and correct copy of PLAINTIFFS' CONCISE
STATEMENT on the following via postage prepaid, first class United States mail, requested
addressed as follows:
Charles E, Haddick, Jr., Esquire
Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote
20 South 36th Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Karl E, Rominger, Esquire
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
William A. Addams, Esquire
Law Office of Michael J, Hanft
19 Brookwood Avenue, Suite 106
Carlisle, P A 17013
Marc' L ess
Date: August 7, 2003
264236,1 IRASIMLB
Ii
Ii
17
",'
>--l:IliJit..-~ ., ~.;.;" .. ,~,i-{ ',__ ~,---
HUL .__~ _.
..
;..o;.JIIlj'" . ',..Iilll.DtilU
(:J
~0J
_0
.
',"" ,'.,C,A ",ij",.", '"
-~ ~
- "......-
o
'~.""""" "'" c', ,"," 'c,,, '
(")
C
<~
-065
O)G:
zri'-'
gn
!;.- l_ .~
"'"
=,-
~l:~,
>r.
~.
2:
-~.\
-c
"'"
o
{>J
:p:,.
{73
I
CD
o
'1
::-J
,,"Ii
,
~T
~/~ ;~)
'-,J~~
-'_.~ -n
':.'(.:s
;"-::::-rn
, ,
~::-I
)>
Xl
-<
N
:-.)
,t:""
,
c
~ -
~'-
o
o
GARRY E. BOYD, SR. and
JOAN L. BOYD, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
00-3371 CIVIL
BENJAMIN G, OCKER,
Defendant
vs,
WRY TRIAL DEMANDED
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT
SPENCER, and KIMBERLY A.
RUDY,
Additional Defendants
IN RE: APPEAL OF PLAINTIFFS
AMENDED ORDER
AND NOW, August 8, 2003, in accordance with Rule 1925 of the Rules of Appellate
Procedure, the plaintiffs having filed a notice of appeal, the appellants are directed to file of
record, within fourteen (14) days hereof and serve upon the undersigned a concise statement of
the matters complained of on the appeal.
Edward E, Guido, J,
Richard A, Sadlock, Esquire
For the Plaintiffs
Charles E, Haddick, Jr" Esquire
For the Defendant
~
f- /1- 03
0-,
William Addams, Esquire
For the Additional Defendants Spencer
Karl Rominger, Esquire
For the Additional Defendant Rudy
10
'"
.
t,..
,~ ~
o
-"' -- i ~,"~~_.jI1lIII!lII!I!Ii ~,
~"~lMI~
1
-,-,- --~.
"-
FilED-OFFICE
OF ~::r'\T'-~:~r\~OTr\RY
03 ~,ur; I I Al1 9: 2 !
CU!Vi~j'::';-Lj\-. ,)JUNTV
PEi'-JNSYLVANiA rf; ~
~tJ,
~,
.~.." ,~ .""!",~~~~i~~""~;;W",~re\lt"~~~~i@M~
-, '"
, '
~,i.
9
a
\;I
GARRY E, BOYD, SR. and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
JOAN L. BOYD : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V,
BENJAMIN G, OCKER
: NO, 2000-3371 CNIL TERM
v,
EVAN SPENCER,
ROBERT SPENCER, and
KIMBERLY A. RUDY : CNIL ACTION - LAW
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. RA.P. 1925
Guido, J., October 10 , 2003
Plaintiffs are seeking review of our order granting Defendant Benjamin Ocker's
Motion for Summary Judgment. The reasons for our decision to grant the motion are
fully set forth in our opinion granting a similar motion in the companion case of
Armstrong v, Ocker, et al filed at 2000 Civil 3488, A copy ofthat opinion and order are
attached hereto.
l/)ft6(~3>
DATE:
Edward E, Guido, J,
AUchard A. Sadlock, Esquire
vCharles E, Haddick, Jr., Esquire
-
) L;t 1-
RK3
10 -/3-cB
.ACari E, Rominger, Esquire
~illiam A. Addams, Esquire
:sld
/q
.1
,,' - ".~~
"<(([It
k?~
0 0 0
c w "
~ ::::;>
-un:- c') .JJ
n: r,--. -l
-/ -\-; r--"
-o.'-.~ ;::, III
L. a ~:?
cn "
-< c~
~ \:::' --'-r
S; ,~.~~~
<-?\. r--f~,.
~;t~ N ;:.1l"'n
:?~ :::> ']:0-;
"-h
=2 ~
(I-) -<
.0
rf'I\
'0""
"' ....,
", "', y..
.~~m '
"..,..,..'",..",c
~".~!~~_-~O,~_~__
~....,,""'''' - '.....,~~l4Ir:~~~~.
,_, ~,,_ J~ ,
,",",_I.~_,= '_',,",'~ ~~
-'
~, 0-"~.",.,.""_-....""""",,,,-o....J'.wJ'!),!l.ui;31Ilo~"'."
;."'-,"
. '
o
o
COpy
r-
WALTER ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v,
BENJAMIN OCKER,
Defendant
: NO, 2000-3488 CNIL
v,
EVAN SPENCER AND : CNIL ACTION - LAW
ROBERT SPENCER,
Additional Defendants
IN RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OF PLAINTIFF AND CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN OCKER
BEFORE HOFFER., P.J., OLER. GUIDO. JJ.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this q~ day of NOVEMBER, 2001, for the reasons set forth
in the attached opinion, plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The
Motion for Summary Judgment of defendant Ocker is GRANTED and the action is
dismissed as to him,
Edward E, Guido, 1.
Richard A Sadlock, Esquire
Mr. Marlin Rudy
Charles E. Haddick, Jr" Esquire
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
William A, Addams, Esquire
'1 J' r' 'jM c.E..d- 000 :Jl'isr.Of"/>//ON
Ailms'TKilr!= u v, ,_n~
Jb
--"",."",,;--~
~"""~'_".'_"'"",""'~""''''fi'~''''''''_
-"---,.~.""..
^~~~ ,- ~
. I ,."". "~-~.~
-~., ~ ~
~, ~~,. ~ ,,~ d'l fti!-IWI.""'~.~~"'b.
~,~'" ,
o
o
WALTER ARMSTRONG, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v,
BENJAMIN OCKER,
Defendant
: NO, 2000-3488 CIVIL TERM
v,
EVAN SPENCER and
ROBERT SPENCER,
f-\d.ditioIlal D-:Jendal1ts
IN RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OF PLAINTIFF AND CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN OCKER
,
J
BEFORE HOFFER PJ" OLER GUIDO. IJ,
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
The above plaintiff sustained serious injuries in a motor vehicle accident
involving a car driven by additional defendant Evan Spencer. Currently before us are the
motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiff and the cross motion for summary
judgment filed by defendant Benjamin Ocker.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1035,2 provides, in relevant part, as
follows:
Rule 1035.2 Motion
After the relevant pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to
unreasonably delay trial, any party may move for summary judgment
in whole or in part as a matter oflaw
-
';;:--" '
,6j-
dl
""r-'==.................. - i<lIll>:_~". ....._~~ _~" . ~ "o,~,~_
.
"= 1-. ~. ~ ~~~ ~ _ ~"~ ~ ~"...JII"~~.~" J~
~"~........."""~...."""" "" ~. """\I!""........<-~. .~r.."~"~"-'.....'"
11I.lU"'''- ~""<MJ.o",IM'!'",
NQ, 2000-3488 CNIL ~
o
(1) whenever there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a
necessary element of the cause of action or defense which could be
established by additional discovery or expert report, or
(2) if, after the completion of discovery relevant to the motion,
including the production of expert reports, an adverse party who
will bear the burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence
of facts essential to the cause of action or defense which in a jury
trial would require the issues to be submitted to a jury,
Pa. R,C.P, 1035,2, In determining whether to grant a motion for summary judgment we
must view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Ertel v, Patriot
News Co., 544 Pa. 93, 674 A.2d 1038 (1966), Summary judgment may only be granted
in cases that are clear and free from doubt. J.H. Ex Rei. Hoffman v, Pellak, 764 A.2d 64
(Pa.Super, 2000),
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The incident giving rise to this cause of action was an automobile accident that
occurred on the evening of July 10,1999, Additional defendant Evan Spencer
(hereinafter "Evan") lost control of the car he was driving and collided with the vehicle
occupied by the plaintiff,
Shortly before the accident, Evan had consumed alcohol at a party hosted by
defendant Ocker (hereinafter "Benjamin"), Both Evan and Benjamin, as well as several
other party guests, were under the age of twenty-one (21),1 The party featured a keg of
beer provided by the mother of one of the minor guests,
Gordon and Donna Ocker (hereinafter the "Ockers") are the parents ofBenjamin2
Even though Benjamin was twenty (20) years old, he was still living with them.
I Benjamin was twenty (20) years old at the time, , , , '
2 Although not a party to these proceedings, Benjamin's parents were sued by plamtIff m a separate actIOn,
Evan Spencer was also joined as an additional defendant in that case,
2
J,J.
. '---,'n;;;"!4;",,'"~
~.aI4lIiHl"~-""""'''''
~M "".__~,~~~." ~ .~.~ I ~. "~..... ~
-~~~-,~~...."" "';"'"MiltJIIIt'""..d ...kO_",~"~j".~.~ ~"_'" ~.' ~,""b"~''ll.itIMi ,=,,~...jl'1\"-1'fl'-'~'Iit"I!"
NO, 2000-3488 CNIL ~
o
However, he was free to come and go as he pleased and they treated him as an adult, He
was fully emancipated,
The Ockers were on vacation in South Carolina at the time of the party, They
were not aware that a keg party was planned in their absence, Inpoint of fact, they
specifically prohibited any parties and forbade the consumption of alcohol in: their home
while they were gone,
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs case against Benjamin is based upon the social host theory ofIiability3
Since it is undisputed that Benjamin provided alcohol to additional defendant Evan, a
minor, plaintiff contends that he is entitled to summary judgment. Benj amin argues that
he is immune from liability under the social host doctrine because he was under twenty-
one (21) at the time he furnished the alcohol. Therefore, he contends that he is entitled to
summary judgment.
In Klein v, Raysinger, 504 Pa, 141,470 A.2d 507 (1983) the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania recognized that "in the case of an ordinary able bodied man it is the
consumption of alcohol, rather than the furnishing ofthe alcohol, which is the proximate
cause of any subsequent occurrence," 470 A.2d 510, Consequently, it held that "there
can be no liability on the part of a social host who serves alcoholic beverages to his or her
adult guests," Id, at 511 (emphasis added), However, in a case decided the same day,
the Supreme Court held that social host liability could be imposed upon an adult who
3 "The social host doctrine is a general phrase used to designate a claim in negligence against a person (the
host) who provides alcoholic beverages to another (the guest), without remuneration, where the guest then
sustains injuries, or causes injury to a third person as a result ofms intoxicated condition, The theory is
that the host should be liable for the injuries as he is the person who furnished the intoxicating beverages,"
Karpes v, Heller, 536 Pa, 551, 640 A,2d 888, FNl (1994),
3
;)3
Iok:' .",-" ,. d_"'''''~~'~_''''''"'''"''' ._l!....'~""._,"
"',,'-'
-
UlillIiIIl~"~
_.,.""=~~ "'.' '_" ~".,_~"~<'~ ~ I
",", --~ I ... i
"~, tlI.
, ~'-"""",",,.~,-' .."'-........'"'_~ilr"if~-~- "~~,~ iilliiillllll~Il!<_"II.....~i."";
NO, 2000-3488 CNIL ~
o
provides alcohol to a person under twenty-one (21), Congini by Congini v, Portersville
Valve Company, 504 Pa, 157,70 A.2d 515 (1983),
Plaintiff contends that Benj amin' s status as an emancipated adult should be
sufficient to impose liability under the Congini rationale. He points to the case of
Maxwell v,Keas, 433 Pa,Super, 70, 639 A2d 1215 (1994) to support his position that, as
all adult, benjamin should be held responsible for the consequences of his actions,4
Plaintiff misinterprets the law of this Commonwealth with regard to the
imposition of social host liability, The focus of the inquiry is not the status of the actors
as minor and adult, Rather, the inquiry is limited to the age of the actors. Plaintiff s
confusion is understandable given the frequent use of the terms "minor" and "adult" by
the various courts which have addressed the issue, However, after a careful review of
Congini, and the cases that follow, we are satisfied that the application of the social host
doctrine is based solely upon the ages ofthe parties,
Kapres v. Heller, 536 Pa. 551, 640 A.2d 888 (1994) would appear to be
controlling, In that case the Supreme Court refused to apply the social host doctrine to a
minor who furnished alcohol to another minor, Plaintiff argues that Kapres is not
applicable because the age of the defendant is not of record in that case, We disagree,
While the Supreme Court opinion in Kapres does not reveal the age of the
defendant, the Superior Court opinion does, The lower appellate clearly articulated the
issue to be decided as to whether "the holding in Congini v, Portersvi/le Valve Co, , , ,
which imposed social host liability on adults who furnish alcohol to persons under the
4 The Maxwell case formed the basis of a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Benjamin's parents in a
companion case, Armstrong v, Ocker et aI., 20f9 Civil 2000, We granted the motion, holding that the
parents had no duty to control the activities of their son, an emancipated adult
4
~+
~-,- <,"".;~,--"""",,, .,~",,,-.,,'
~
~~l:-
- ","',,~
~'".
1 ,. ~'~. .
~ ; -:-- 'l'~r"'~'~
"II
~~""I. "_""
~"_""'illl"'IIbli,",'''''''L'_ ~~- ~ -' '=~;_jl_.,
NO, 2000-3488 CIVIL ORM
o
,
'\
\:!
'(
age of21, should be extended to impose liability on persons between 18 and 21 years of
age who provide liquor to persons between 18 and 21 years of age," Kapres v, Heller,
612 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa,Super. 1992),
Furthermore, in a later case, the Superior Court specifically held that "for the
purposes of imposing social host liability a person remains a minor until he reaches age
21," Goldberg v, Delta Tau Delta, 613 A.2d 1250, 1252, (Pa.Super. 1992), appeal denied
534 Pa, 639, 626 A.2d 1158 (1993), As the Goldberg Court went on to state:
Although we find appellant's arguments persuasive, this Court is not
prepared to extend social host liability to persons under the age of 21,
The Congini case, which is the seminal case in pennsylvania
establishing a cause of action by a minor against an adult social host,
specifically limited social host liability to one who is lawfully entitled
to possess and consume alcohol and furnishes it to one who is not so
entitled,
Id, at 1253,
Also instructive is the case of Sperando v, Commonwealth Dept of
Transportation, 630 A.2d 532 (Pa, Commonwealth 1993), In that case the
Commonwealth Court framed the issue as follows:
Whether the trial court erred in holding that a person under the age of
twenty-one is immune from social host liability when he has served
alcoholic beverages to a minor, thereby enabling the minor to become
intoxicated and injure a third person.
Id, at 533, The Sperando Court refused to follow the Superior Court decisions in Kapres
and Goldberg, supra, Rather, it held that "persons under the age of21 may be held liable
as social hosts for the consequences of furnishing other persons under the age of twenty-
one with alcohol", Id, The Supreme Court reversed Sperando in a briefper curiam
\
\
)
opinion which cited its decision in Kapres, supra, See Sperando v, Commonwealth Dept,
of Transportation, 537 Pa. 352, 643 A.2d 1079 (1994),
5
Jo
,"-,,,;,',"",q'~,=,,,,,,~~-"-,
,,_,c
-
li~ ""..._,........,;,.,.,\Qjo "":. "~'iiII.ll.ll.lil!
t _.."", ""
"~.~,~......~".
"" ,,~- .'Iilll ""'_'~"""__~~'~"""""""~'IIi6I...l,'""' ,-"- '~_~'i~
,
J),~_ _" ~ I
-- .,""~. "
)
NO, 2000-3488 CIVIL A
o
, ~- '
Plaintiffs argument that an "adult" between the ages of 18 and 21 should be held
responsible for his actions is very persuasive, However, we cannot ignore the
unambiguous holdings in the above decisions; i,e, a person under the age of twenty-one is
immune from liability under the social host doctrine, Therefore, we are constrained to
deny plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and to grant that of defendant Ocker,
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 9TH day of NOVEMBER, 2001, for the reasons set forth in the
attached opinion, plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, The Motion for
Summary Judgment ,of defendant Ocker is GRANTED and the action is dismissed as to
him,
\
)
By the Court,
/s/ Edward E. Guido
Edward E, Guido, J,
Richard A. Sadlock, Esquire
Charles E, Haddick, Jr" Esquire
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
William A. Addams, Esquire
Marlin Rudy
:sld
6
...... ,,,"',,--,-~,,,,,,'.'
~.."
d.~
^><~- '-~i(1,~:'>E:?i:g.~~~
1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARRY E. BOYD, SR. and
JOAN L. BOYD, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
V.
BENJAMiN G. OCKER,
Defendant
V.
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER,
and KIMBERLY A. RUDY,
Additional Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 00-3371 Civil Term
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 17th day of July, 2003, a true and correct copy of the NOTICE
OF APPEAL was served upon the following persons and in the manner indicated below, which
service satisfies the requirements of PA.R.A.P. 121:
Service by First Class United States Mail~ postage prepaid:
Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire
I.D. No. 55666
Marshall & Haddick, P.C.
20 South 36th Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 731-4800
Counsel for Defendant Benjamin G. Ocker
William A. Addams, Esquire
I.D. No. 06265
Har~fi & Knight, P.C.
19 13rookwood Avenue, Suite 106
Carlisle, PA 17013
(71'7) 249-5373
Cotmsel for Additional Defendants
Evan Spencer and Robert Spencer
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
I.D. No. 81924
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 241-6070
Counsel for Additional Defendant Kimberly A. Rudy
214528. I\RAS\MLB
Personal Service:
The Honorable Edward E. Guido
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
Rick Pierce, Court Administrator
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
NOTE:Appeal from Order following Argument before the Court En Banc -
no court report or transcript involved.
Richard A.~Sadlock, Esquire
I.D. No. 47281
4503 N. Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-6791
Counsel for Plaintiffs
239659.1LRAS\MLB
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARRY E. BOYD, SR. and
JOAN L. BOYD, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
BENJAMIN O. OCKER,
Defendant
V.
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER,
and KIMBERLY A. RUDY,
Additional Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 00-3371 Civil Term
JURY TRIAl_, DEMANDED
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice is hereby given that Plaintiffs Garry E. Boyd, Sr. and Joan L. Boyd hereby appeal
to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from the Order entered in this matter on November 9,
2001. This Order has been reduced to judgment and entered in the docket, as evidenced by the
attached copy of the docket entry.
I.D. No. 47281
4503 N. Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-6;791
Counsel fox' Plaintiffs
Date: July 17, 2003
PYS510
2000-03371 BOYD GARRY E SR ET AL
Reference No..:
Case Tvoe ..... : COMPLAINT
Judgmeh% ....... 00
Judge Assigned:
Disposed Desc.:
............ Case Comments .............
Cumberland County Prothonotar-f's Office Civil Case Inquiry '
(rs) OCKER BENA~4IN G
Filed ........ :
Time ......... :
Execution Date
Jury Trial...
Disposed Date
Higher Crt 1.
Higher Crt 2.
Page 1
6/Ol/2OOO
3:32
o/oo/oooo
o/oo/oooo
1968 MDA2001
Attorney Info
PLAINTIFF SADLOCK RICHARD A
SADLOCK RICHARD A
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT Y
DEFENDANT Y
DEFENDANT Y
PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
DISCONTINUED
General Index
BOYD GARRY ESR
1512 NEWVILLE ROAD
CARLISLE PA 17013
BOYD JOAN L
1512 NEWVILLE ROAD
CARLISLE PA 17013
OCKER BENJAMIN G
31 STONE LEDGE ROAD
NEWVILLE PA 17241
SPENCER EVAN
SPENCER ROBERT
RUDY KIMBERLY A
Judgment Index
BOYD GARRY ESR
BOYD JOAN L
SPENCER EVAN
RUDY KIMBERLY A
BOYD GARRY E SR
BOYD JOAN L
SPENCER EVAN
Amount Date De s c
7,<14/~2003
7/.14/.2003
7/.14/,2003
7/~14/,2003
7/.14/,2003
7/,14/,2003
7/14/2003
* Date Entries *
6/01/2000
6/20/2000
6/21/2000
6/21/2000
6/29/2000
8/18/2000
9/12/2000
9/18/2000
9/20/2000
9/27/2000
lO/18/2ooo
11/22/2ooo
............. FIRST ENTRY ..............
COMPLAINT - CIVIL ACTION
Litigant.: OCKER BENJAMIN G
SERVED : ~/08/00 COMPL
Costs .... : $36.06 Pd By: ANGINO & ROVNER 06/09/2000
BENJAMIN G OCKERS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT
OBJECTIONS TO PLFFS COMPLIANT - BY CHA3~LES E HADDICK JR ESQ
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 8/17/00 - IN RE PRELININARY OBJECTIONS,-
ARE DISMISSED - BY THE COURT EDGAR B BAYLEY J COPIES MAILED 8/18/00
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDNAT BENJAMIN G OCKER TO PLAINTIFFS
COMPLAINT
JOINDER COMPLAINT OF DEFENDNAT BENJAMIN G OCKER AGAINST ADDITIONAL
DEFENDANTS EVAN SPENCER ROBERT SPENCER AND KIMBERLY A RUDY
ANSWER OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS EVAN SPENCER AND ROBERT SPENCER TO
DEFENDANT'S COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDNAT BENJAMIN OCKER - BY
RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ ATTY FOR PLFFS
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE JOINDER COMPLAINT - BY LORI ADAMCHIK
KARISS ESQ COUNSEL FOR DEFT
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE JOINDER COMPLAINT - CHARLES HADDICK JR ATTY
7
PYS510
2000-03371 BOYD GARRY ESR ET AL
Reference No..:
Case TvDe ..... : COMPLAINT
Judgmeh% ..... ~ .00
Judge Assignea:
Disposed Desc.:
............ Case Comments .............
FOR BENJA~4IN G OCKER
Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Civil Case Inquiry '
(rs) OCKER BENAJMIN G
Filed ........ :
Time ......... :
Execution Date
Jury Trial ....
Disposed Date.
Higher Crt 1.:
Higher Crt 2.:
1/16/2001
2/05/200i
3/29/2001
3/29/2001
4/09/2001
5/02/2001
5/02/2001
5/14/2001
11/09/2001
12/07/2001
12/12/2001
1/23/2002
3/11/2002
4/i7/2oo2
5/06/2002
5/09/2002
3/31/2003
Page 2
6/oi/2ooo
3:32
o/oo/oooo
o/oo/oooo
1968 MDA2001
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE JOINDER COMPLAINT - BY CHARLES E HADDICK JR
ESQ FOR DEFT
ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE - FOR JOINDER COMPLAINT - BY KARL E ROMINGER
ESQ FOR KIMBERLY A RUDY
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT
BENJAMIN G COKER - BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY J73DGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT BENJAMIN G OCKER - BY RICHARD
A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAR3~NCE OF ADDAMS & RUNDLE AND ENTER
THE APPEARANCE OF THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL J FUkNFT FOR THE
ADDITIONAL DEFTS - BY WILLIAM A ADDAMS
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT - DEFENDANTS CROSS MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - BY LORI ADANCIK KARISS ESQ FOR DEFT
CROSS MOTION OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN G O_KER FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
- BY LORI ADAMCIK KARISS ESQ FOR DEFT
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO CROSS-MOTION OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN G OCKER
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ
...................................................................
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 11/9/01 IN RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OF PLFFS AND CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFT BENJAMIN
OCKER - PLFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED - THE MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFT OCKER IS GRANTED AND THE ACTION IS
DISMISSED AS TO HIM - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED
ii/9/Oi
SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO # 1968 MDA 2001
P 1925 THE REASONS FOR OUR DECISION ARE FULLY SET FORTH IN THE
OPINION FILED IN THE CAMPANION CASE DOCKETED AT 2000-3477 CIVIL -
COPY ATTACHED - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED
1/23/02
ORDER GRANTING THE SUMM~RY JUDGMENT MOTION OF BENJANIN G. OCKER
AND DISMISSING THE UNDERLYING ACTION AS TO HIM. ACCORDINGLY THE
APPEAL IS EREBY QUASHED P WHITTAKER - CHIEF CLERK SUERIOR
COURT OF PA
....
BEEN TAKEN FROM THE 11/9/01 ORDER GRANTING THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
MOTION OF BENJAMIN G. OCKER AND DISMISSING THE UNDERLYING ACTION
AS TO HIM. A FINAL ORDER IS ANY ORDER THAT DISPOSES OF ALL CLAIMS
AND ALL PARTIES. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL IS HEREBY QUASHED - PER
CURIAM - CERTIFIED BY PATRICIA A WHITTAKER - CHIEF CLERK OF
SUPERIOR COURT OF PA
OF JURISDICTION BY RICFIARD A SADLOCK ATTY FOR PLFFS
ORDER DATED 5/9/02 IN RE PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL
PURSUANT TO PA.R.A.P.1312 BY THE COURT, EDWARD E GUIDO, J
COPIES MAILED 5/9/02
28 - - - - - - -
Page 3
PYS510 Cumberland County Prothonotar¥'s Office Civil Case Inquiry ·
2000-03371 BOYD GARRY ESR ET AL (rs) OCKER BENAJMIN G
Reference No..: Filed ........ : 6/01/2000
Case T%zDe ..... : COMPLAINT Time ......... : 3:32
Ju~gmeh% ..... ~ .00 Execution Date 0/00/0000
Juage Assignea: Jury Trial ....
Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date 0/00/0000
............ Case Comments ............. Higher Crt 1.: 1968 MDA2001
Higher Crt 2.:
BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES ALL OF HTE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTERS ARE
CONSOLIDATED FOR TP~AIL A NONJURY TRIAL IS SCHEDULED IN THIS MATTER
ON 5/23/03 AT 8;30 AM - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES
MAILED
5/23/2003 STIPULATION OF FACTS
5/27/2003 ~6~-~-~O~5-]-6~6-~2~2~-Z-~-~'-~5~O~..~.5~-~F-~i~-]-~-
FIND THAT THE DEFT KIMBERLY RUDY AND ~DDITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER
WERE NEGLIGENT AND THAT THE NEGLIGENCE OF EACH WAS A SUBSTANTIAL
FACTOR IN CAUSING THE INJURIES TO THE PLFFS WE APPORTION CAUSAL
NEGLIGENCE 25 PERCENT TO DEFT KIMBERLY RUDY AIqD 75 PERCENT TO DEFT
EVAN SPENCER
5/28/2003 STIPULATION OF COUNSEL - BY WILLAIM A ;kDDAMS ESQ AND RICHARD A
SADLOCK ESQ AND KARL E ROMINGER ESQ
5/23/2003 STIPULATION OF FACTS - BY WILLIAM A ADDAMS ESQ KARL E ROMONGER ESQ
AND RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ AND KARL E ROMINGER ESQ
6/02/2003 POST TRIAL MOTION OF ~%DDITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER TO MOLD VERDICT
- BY WILLIAM A ADDAMS ESQ
SPENCER - BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFFS
TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE POST TRIAL MOTION OF ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAM
SPENCER SHOULD NOT BE GRkNTED RULE RETURNABLE 10 DAYS AFTER
SERVICE - BY THE COURT EDWARD ~ GUIDO J COPIES MAILED 6/13/03
ARGUMENT ON THE ,PQST-TRIA MOTION OF ADDITONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER IS
SCHEDULED FOR 7/7/03 AT 8:45 AM - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J
COPIES MAILED '
7/09/2003 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 7/7/03 - IN RE POST-TRIAL MOTIONS OF
ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER AND PLFFS REPLY - THE PLFF AUTHORIZED
TO ENTER JUDGMENT ON THE VERDICTS - UPON ENTER OF THE JUDGMENT THE
PROTHONOTARY IS DIRECTED TO MARK THE ACTION AGAINST ADDITIONAL
DEFT EVAN SPENCER SETTLED DISCONTINUED AND RELEASED THE TERMS OF A
JOINT TORTFEASOR RELEASE PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED - BY THE COURT EDWARD
E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED
7/14/2003 PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT ENTERED
PLEASE ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFT BENJAMIN G OCKER AND
AGAINST PLFFS GARRY F BOYD SR AND JAON L BOYD PURSUANT TO THE
11/9/01 ORDER OF THE HON EDWARD E GUIDO
PLEASE ENTER J~3DGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLFFS GARRY E BOYD SR AND JOAN L
BOYD AMD AGAINST THE ADDL DEFTS EVAN SPENCER AND KIMBERLY A RUDY
AND ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF ADDL DEFT ROBERT SPENCER AGAINST
PLFFS GARRY E BOYD SR AMD JOAN L BOYD ~URSUANT TO THE 5/23/03
ORDER AND THE TERMS SET FORTH IN THE 7/7/03 ORDER OF THE HON
EDWARD E GUIDO AND MARK THE ACTION AGAINST ADDL DEFT EVAN SPENCER
"SETTLED DISCONTNUED AND RELEASED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF
A JOINT TOETFESSOR PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED" - RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ
ATTY FOR PLFFS
7/14/2003 NOTICE MAILED TO DEFENDANTS
.............. LAST ENTRY ..............
* Escrow Information *
* Fees & Debits Beg Bal Pymts/Adj End Bal *
COMPLAINT 35.00 35.00 .00
TAX ON CMPLT .50 .50 .00
PYS510
2000-03371
BOYD GARRY E SR ET AL
Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office
Civil Case Inquiry ~
(rs) OCKER BENAJMIN G
Reference No..:
Case Tv~e ..... : COMPLAINT
Judgmeh% ....... 00
Judge Assigned:
Disposed Desc.:
............ Case Comments .............
SETTLEMENT 5.00 5.00
JCP FEE 5.00 5.00
APPEAL 30.00 30.00
JDMT~DEFAULT 9.00 9.00
JDMTZDEFAULT 9.00 9.00
JDMT/DEFAULT 9.00 9.00
SETTLEMENT 5.00 5.00
107.50 107.50
Filed ........ :
Time ......... :
Execution Date
Jury Trial ....
Disposed Date
Higher Crt 1.:
Higner Crt 2.:
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
.00
Page 4
6/Ol/2OOO
3:32
o/oo/oooo
o/oo/oooo
1968 MDA2001
* End of Case Information *
unto ~ my ~
RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT
Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office
Carlisle, Pa 17013
Receipt Date
Receipt Time
Receipt No.
7/15/2003
15:17:38
140061
BOYD GARRY ESR ET AL
Case Number 2000-03371
Received of PD ATTY RICHARD SADLOCK
(VS) OCKER BENAJMIN G
JHS
Total Check... + 32.00
Total Cash .... + .00
Change ........ - .00
Receipt total. = 32.00
Check No.
57427/57428
........................ Distribution Of Payment ............................
Transaction Description Payment Amount
JDMT~DEFAULT 9.00 CUMBERLAND CO GENEP~AL FUND
JDMT~DEFAULT 9.00 CUMBERLAND CO GENERAL FUND
JDMT/DEFAULT 9.00 CUMBERLAND CO GENERAL FUND
SETTLEMENT 5.00 CUMBERLAND CO GENERAL FUND
32.00
11:38 A.M.
Appeal Docket Sheet
Docket Number:
Page 1 of 3
July 23, 2003
Superior Court of PennSylvania
Garry E. and Joan L. Boyd, Sr., Appellant
V.
Benjamin G. Ocker
V.
Evan Spencer, Robert Spencer, and Kimberly A. Ruby
Initiating Document: Notice of Appeal
Case Status: Active
Case Processing Status: July 22, 2003
Journal Number:
Case Category: Civil
Awaiting Orgna Record
CaseType: Civil Action Law
Consolidated Docket Nos.:
Related Docket Nos.:
1174 MDA 2003~ Same Issue(s)
1175 MDA 2003~ Same Issue(s)
Next Event Type: Docketing Statement Received
Next Event Type: Original Record Received
SCHEDULED EVENT
Next Event Due Date:
Next Ew~nt Due Date!
7/23/2003
GARRY E. BOYD, SR. and
JOAN L. BOYD
V.
BENJAMIN G. OCKER
V.
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COLrNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2000-3371 CIVIL TEller/
EVAN SPENCER, :
ROBERT SPENCER, and :
KIMBERLy A. RUDY : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
:
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. iR.A.P. 1925
Guido, J., October lO ,2003
Plaintiffs are seeking review of our order granting Defendant Benjamin Ocker's
Motion for Summary Judgment. The reasons for our decisic,n to grant the motion are
fully set forth in our opinion granting a similar motion in the companion case of
Armstrong v. Ocker, et al filed at 2000 Civil 3488. A copy c, fthat opinion and order are
attached hereto.
DATE:
,,~ichard A. Sadlock, Esquire
[-'C~harles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire
~,,~arl E. Rominger, Esquire
~illiam A. Addams, Esquire
Edward E. Guido, J.
/O
:sld
WALTER ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff
V.
BENJAMIN OCKER,
Defendant
V.
EVAN SPENCER AND
ROBERT SPENCER,
Additional Defendants
COPY
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2000-3488 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OF PLAINTIFF AND CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN OCKER
BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., OLER, GUIDO, JJ.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ~'1 day of NOVEMBER, 2001, for the reasons set forth
in the attached opinion, plaintifgs Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Thc
Motion for Summary Judgment of defendant Ocker is GRANTED and the action is
dismissed as to him.
Richard A. Sadlock, Esquire
Mr. Marlin Rudy
Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
Edward E. Guido, J.
William A. Addams, Esquire
WALTER ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff
V.
BENJAMIN OCKER,
Defendant
V.
EVAN SPENCER and
ROBERT SPENCER,
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 2000-3488 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OF PLAINTIFF AND CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARy JUDGMENT
OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN OCKER
BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., OLER, GUIDO, JJ.
OPINION AND ORDER OF COUI~
The above plaintiff sustained serious injuries in a motor vehicle accident
involving a car driven by additional defendant Evan Spencer. Currently before us are the
motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiff and the cross motion for summary
judgment filed by defendant Benjamin Ocker.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1035.2 provides, in relevant part, as
follows:
Rule 1035.2 Motion
After the relevant pleadings are closed, but xvithin such time as not to
unreasonably delay trial, any party may move for summary judgment
in whole or in part as a matter of law
N.O. 2000-3488 CIVIL TERM
(I) ~vhenever there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a
necessary element of the cause of action or defense which could be
established by additional discovery or expert report, or
(2)
if, after the completion of discovery relevant to the motion,
including the production of expert reports, an adverse party who
will bear the burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence
of facts essential to the cause of action or defense which in a jury
trial would require the issues to be subnfitted to a jury.
Pa. R.C.P. 1035.2. In determining whether to grant a motion fbr summary judgment we
must view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Ertel v. Patriot
News Co., 544 Pa. 93,674 A.2d 1038 (1966). Summary judgment may only be granted
in cases that are clear and free from doubt. 2H. Ex Rel. Hoffman v. Pellak, 764 A.2d 64
(Pa. Super. 2000).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The incident giving rise to this cause of action was an automobile accident that
occurred on the evening of July 10, 1999. Additional defendartt Evan Spencer
(hereinafter "Evan") lost control of the car he was driving and collided with the vehicle
occnpied by the plaintiff.
Shortly before the accident, Evan had consumed alcohol at a party hosted by
defendant Ocker (hereinafter "Benjamin"). Both Evan and Benjamin, as well as several
other party guests, were under the age of twenty-one (21).~ The party featured a keg of
beer provided by the mother of one of the minor guests.
Gordon and Donna Ocker (hereinafter the "Ockers") are: the parents of Benjamin.2
Even though Benjamin was twenty (20) years old, he was still living with them.
Benjamin was twenty (20) years old at the time.
Although not a party to these proceedings, Benjamin's parents were sued by plaintiff in a separate action.
Evan Spencer was also joined as an additional defendant in that case.
2
NO. 2000-3488 CIVIL TERM
However, he was free to come and go as he pleased and they treated him as an adult. He
was fully emancipated.
The Ockers were on vacation in South Carolina at the time of the party. They
were not aware that a keg party was planned in their absence. In point of fact, they
specifically prohibited any parties and forbade the consumption of alcohol in their home
while they were gone.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff's case against Benjamin is based upon the social host theory of liability.3
Since it is undisputed that Benjamin provided alcohol to additional defendant Evan, a
minor, plaintiff contends that he is entitled to summary judgment. Benjamin argues that
he is immune from liability under the social host doctrine because he was under twenty-
one (21) at the time he furnished the alcohol. Therefore, he contends that he is entitled to
summary judgment.
InKlein v. Raysinger, 504 Pa. 141,470 A.2d 507 (19821) the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania recognized that "in the case of an ordinary able bodied man it is the
consumption of alcohol, rather than the furnishing of the alcohol, which is the proximate
cause of any subsequent occurrence." 470 A.2d 510. Consequently, it held that "there
can be no liability on the part of a social host who serves alcoholic beverages to his or her
adult guests." Id. at 511 (emphasis added). However, in a case decided the same day,
the Supreme Court held that social host liability could be imposed upon an adult who
3 "The social host doctrine is a general phrase used to designate a claim in negligence against a person (the
host) who provides alcoholic beverages to another (the guest), without remuneration, where the guest then
sustains injuries, or causes injury to a third person as a result of his intoxicated condition. The theory is
that the host should be liable for the injuries as he is the person who furnished the intoxicating beverages."
Karpes v. Heller, 536 Pa. 551,640 A.2d 888, FN1 (I 994).
3
NO. 2000-3488 CIVIL TERM
provides alcohol to a person under twenty-one (21). Congini by Congini v. Portersville
Valve Company, 504 Pa. 157, 70 A.2d 515 (1983).
Plaintiff contends that Benjamin's status as an emancipated adult should be
sufficient to impose liability under the Congini rationale. He points to the case of
Maxwell v. Keas, 433 Pa. Super. 70, 639 A.2d 1215 (1994) to support his position that, as
au adult, i:,enjaamn should be held responsible for the consequences of his actionsfi
Plaintiff misinterprets the law of this Commonwealth with regard to the
imposition of social host liability. The focus of the inquiry is not the status of the actors
as minor and adult. Rather, the inquiry is limited to the age of the actors. Plaintiff's
confusion is understandable given the frequent use of the terms "minor" and "adult" by
the various courts which have addressed the issue. However, :ffier a careful review of
Congini, and the cases that follow, we are satisfied that the application of the social host
doctrine is based solely upon the ages of the parties.
Kapres v. Heller, 536 Pa. 551,640 A.2d 888 (1994) would appear to be
controlling. In that case the Supreme Court refused to apply tire social host doctrine to a
minor who furnished alcohol to another minor. Plaintiff argues that Kapres is not
applicable because the age of the defendant is not of record in ~that case. We disagree.
While the Supreme Court opinion in Kapres does not reveal the age of the
defendant, the Superior Court opinion does. The lower appellale clearly articulated the
issue to be decided as to whether "the holding in Congini v. Portersville Valve Co ....
which imposed social host liability on adults who furnish alcoh.ol to persons under the
4 The Maxwell case formed the basis of a Motion for Summary Judgment fii[ed by Benjamin's parents in a
compamon case. Armstrong v. Ocker et al., 2029 Civil 2000. We granted the motion, holding that the
parents had no duty to control the activities of their son, an emancipated adult.
4
NO. 2000-3488 CIVIL TERM
age of 21, should be extended to impose liability on persons between 18 and 21 years of
age who provide liquor to persons between 18 and 21 years of age." Kapres v. Heller,
612 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa. Super. 1992).
Furthermore, in a later case, the Superior Court specifically held that "for the
purposes of imposing social host liability a person remains a minor until he reaches age
2i .' Goldberg v. Delta Tau Delta, 613 A.2d 1250, 1252, (Fa. Super. 1992), appeal denied
534 Pa. 639, 626 A.2d 1158 (1993). As the Goldberg Court went on to state:
Although we find appellant's arguments persuasive, this Court is not
prepared to extend social host liability to persons under the age of 21~
The Congini case, which is the seminal cas,: in Pennsylvania
establishing a cause of action by a minor against an adult social host,
specifically limited social host liability to one who is lawfully entitled
to possess and consume alcohol and f~mishes it to one who is not so
entitled.
Id. at 1253.
Also instructive is the case of Sperando v. Commonwealth Dept of
Transportation, 630 A.2d 532 (Pa. Cormnonwealth 1993). In that case the
Commonwealth Court framed the issue as follows:
Whether the trial court erred in holding that a person under the age of
twenty-one is immune from social host liability when he has served
alcoholic beverages to a minor, thereby enabling the minor to become
intoxicated and injure a third person.
Id. at 533. The Sperando Court refused to follow the Superior Court decisions in Kapres
and Goldberg, supra. Rather, it held that "persons under the age of 21 may be held liable
as social hosts for the consequences of furnishing other persons, under the age of twenty-
one with alcohol". Id. The Supreme Court reversed Sperando in a brief per buriam
opinion which cited its decision in Kapres, supra. See Sperando v. Commonwealth Dept.
of Transportation, 537 Pa. 352, 643 A.2d 1079 (1994).
NO. 2000-3488 CIVIL TERM
Plaintiff's argument that an "adult" between the ages of 18 and 2 t should be held
responsible for his actions is very persuasive. However, we ca~anot ignore the
unambiguous holdings in the above decisions; i.e. a person under the age of twenty-one is
immune from liability under the social host doctrine. Therefore, we are constrained to
deny plaintiff's motion for stmunary judgment and to grant tha'I of defendant Ocker.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 9TM day of NOVEMBER, 2001, for the reasons set forth in the
attached opinion, plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The Motion for
Summary Judgment of defendant Ocker is GRANTED and the action is dismissed as to
him.
By the Court,
Richard A. Sadlock, Esquire
Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
William A. Addams, Esquire
Marlin Rudy
:sld
/s/Edward E. Guido
Edward E. Guido, J.
6