HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-03488
"J
"- i>
o
b
CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMItTAL OF RECORDS UNDER
PENNSYL VANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C)
To the Prothonotary ofthe ApelIate 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
byPA 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;
WALTER ARMSTRONG
v.
BENJAMIN OCKER
v.
RYAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER
KIMBERLY A. RUDY
NO. 00-3488 CIVIL TERM
1175 MDA 2003
The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No.1 to 27, 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 AppelIate Court is 10/17/03 .
An additional copv of this certificate is enclosed. Please sil!n and date cOPV, therebv
acknowledl!inl! receipt of this record.
Date
Signatnre & Title
,
L'
L_
- 1 :
j
, _0"
o
o
Among the Records and Proceedings enrolled in the court of Common Pleas in and for the
to No.
CUMBERLAND
11/4 MDA lUU3
00-3488 CIVIL
in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
county of
Term, 19 is contained the following:
COpy OF
COMPLETE
DOCKET ENTRY
WALTER ARMSTRONG
v.
BENJAMIN OCKER
v.
RYAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER,
KIMBERLY A. RUDY
SEE ATTACHED CERTIFIED DOCKET ENTRIES.
.
PYS510
2000-03488
. ~~ ~ ~._","",-
j I
-'. . ..
cumbe~.qn~ ~ounty prothonotary's~..... fice
~ Clvll Case Print ~
ARMSTRONG WALTER (vs) OCKER BENJAMIN
Page
1
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.:
6/08/2000
1:25
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
/175 lvU)A las~
********************************************************************************
General Index Attorney Info
ARMSTRONG WALTER PLAINTIFF SADLOCK RICHARD A
142 SOUTH HANOVER STREET
CARLISLE PA 17013
OCKER BENJAMIN
31 STONE LEDGE ROAD
NEWVILLE PA 17241
SPENCER EVAN
SPENCER ROBERT
RUDY KIMBERLY A
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT Y SADLOCK RICHARD A
DEFENDANT Y HADDICK CHARLES E JR
DEFENDANT Y HADDICK CHARLES E JR
Amount Date Desc
7/.14/.2003 PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
71.141.2003 PRAECIPE JUDGMENMT
71.141.2003 PRAECIPE JUDGMENMT
71.141.2003 PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
7/14/2003 DISCONTINUED
Judgment Index
ARMSTRONG WALTER
SPENCER EVAN
RUDY KIMBERLY A
ARMSTRONG WALTER
SPENCER EVAN
********************************************************************************
* Date Entries *
********************************************************************************
6/08/2000
7/07/2000
7/27/2000
9/12/2000
9/12/2000
9/20/2000
9/22/2000
9/22/2000
9/22/2000
10/04/2000
- - - - - - - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
COMPLAINT - CIVIL ACTION
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT AND FORWARD TO SHERIFF BY RICHARD A
SADLOCK ESQ
SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED
Litigant.: OCKER BENJAMIN
SERVED : 7/26/00 COMPL NEWVILLE PA
Costs....: $35.44 Pd By: RICHARD A. SADLOCK 07/27/2000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOINDER COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN G OCKER AGAINST ADDITIONAL
DEFENDANTS EVAN SPENCER AND ROBERT SPENCER AND KIMBERLY RUDY - BY
CHARLES E HADDICK JR ESQ ATTY FOR DEFT OCKER
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN G OCKER TO PLAINTIFFS
COMPLAINT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS EVAN SPENCER AND ROBERT SPENCER TO
DEFENDANTS COMPLAINT
SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED
Litigant.: SPENCER EVAN
SERVED : 9/21/00 NEWVILLE PA JOIN ADDL DEFTS
Costs....: $36.06 Pd By: MARSHALL & HADDICK 09/22/2000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED
Litigant.: SPENCER ROBERT
SERVED : 9/21/00 NEWVILLE PA JOIN ADDL DEFT
Costs. ...: $16.00 Pd By: MARSHALL & HADDICK 09/22/2000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED
Litigant.: RUDY KIMBERLY A
SERVED : 9/21/00 COMPL JOINING ADDL DEFT NEWVILLE PA
Costs....: $16.00 Pd By: MARSHALL & HADDICK 09/22/2000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN OCKER BY
PYS510
2000-03488
.,~ ~~
"~;
Cumbe~an~ ~ounty prothonotaryls~.. . fice
U Clvll Case Prlnt V
ARMSTRONG WALTER (VS) OCKER BENJAMIN
Page
2
Reference No..:
Case Type.....: COMPLAINT
Judgment. . . . . . .00
Judge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E
Disposed Desc.:
------------ Case Comments -------------
10/18/2000
11/22/2000
1/16/2001
3/29/2001
3/29/2001
4/09/2001
5/02/2001
5/02/2001
5/14/2001
6/07/2001
11/09/2001
12/07/2001
12/12/2001
1/23/2002
3/11/2002
4/17/2002
5/06/2002
Filed. . . . . . . . :
Time. . . ..... . :
Execution Date
Jury Trial. . . .
Disposed Date.
Higher Crt 1.:
Higher Crt 2.:
6/08/2000
1:25
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
,
RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ ATTY FOR PLFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE JOINDER COMPLAINT - BY LORI ADAMCIK KARISS
ESQ ATTY FOR DEFT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE JOINDER COMPLAINT - CHARLES E HADDICK JR
ATTY FOR DEFT BENJAMIN G OCKER
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE JOINDER COMPLAINT - BY CHARLES E HADDICK JR
ESQ FOR DEFT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT - PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY AGAINST DEFENDANT BENJAMIN G OCKER - BY RICHARD A SADLOCK
ESQ FOR PLFF
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT BENJAMIN
G OCKER - BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE OF ADDAMS & RUNDLE ADN ENTER
THE APPEARANCE OF THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL J HANFT FOR THE
ADDITIONAL DEFTS - BY WILLIAM A ADDAMS ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT - DEFENDANTS CROSS-MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - LORI ADAMCIK KARISS ESQ FOR DEFT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CROSS-MOTION OF DEFT BENJAMIN G OCKER FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - BY
LORI ADAMCIK KARISS ESQ FOR DEFT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO CROSS-MOTION OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN G OCKER
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ
----------------------------------------------------~--------------
CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE
4009;22 - BY CHARLES HADDICK ESQ FOR DEFT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT - DATED 11/9/01 - IN RE MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF PLFF AND CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
DEFT BENJAMIN OCKER - FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE ATTACHED
OPINION PLFF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED THAT MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFT OCKER IS GRANTED ADN 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 ORDER OF COURT DATED 11/9/01
- BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
-~--------------------------------------------------~--------------
SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO # 1969 MDA 2001
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 1/22/02 - AND OPINION PURSUANT TO PA RAP
1925 - AS OF PLFFS APPEAL IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER THE REASON
FOR OUR DECISION IS FULLY SET FORTH IN OUR ORDER AND OPINION OF
11/9/01 - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J
-~---------------------~-------------------------------------------
ORDER DATED 3/5/02 - 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. ACCORDINGLY THIS
APPEAL IS QUASHED PATRICIA WHITTAKER CHIEF CLERK OF SUPERIOR
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 PLFF
k'.......~i "'-'" ,I
,.,
"
oj
~'mberland County prothonotar~ Office
~ Civil Case Print
2000-03488 ARMSTRONG WALTER (vs) OCKER BENJAMIN
PYS510
Page
3
Reference No,.: Filed........:
Case Type,....: COMPLAINT Time.........:
Judgment...... .00 Execution Date
Judge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E Jury Trlal
Disposed Desc.: Dispose~ Date:
------------ Case Comments ------------- Higher Crt 1.:
-----------------------------------------~~~~::_~:~-~~~---------
5/09/2002 ORDER DATED 5/9/02 IN RE PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL ---
PURSUANT TO PA.R.A..P. 1312 BY THE COURT, EDWARD E GUIDD J
COPIES MAILED 5/9/02
3/31/2003 ORDER-OP-COURT-=-DATED-3!26!03-=-IN-RE-NONJURY-TRIAL-SCHEDULED-=---
BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES ALL OF THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTERS
ARE CONSOLIDATED FOR TRIAL 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 FILED BY THE
PARTIES - WE FIND THAT THE bEFT KIMBERLY RUDY AND ADDITIONAL DEFT
EVAN SPENCER WERE NEGLIGENT AND THAT THE NEGLIGENCE OF EACH WAS A
SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR IN CAUSING NEGLIGENCE 25 PERCENT OF DEFT
KIMBERLY RUDY AND 75 PERCENT TO DEFT EVAN SPENCER - BY THE COURT
EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED
5/23/2003
5/27/2003
5/28/2003
5/23/2003
6/02/2003
6/09/2003
6/13/2003
PAGE NJ.
1 - 2 6/19/2003
MISSIK; 6/26/2003
MISSIK; 7/09/2003
3 - 4
7/14/2003
5
7/14/2003
6/08/2000
1:25
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
STIPULATION OF COUNSEL - BY WILLIAM A ADAMS ESQ RICHARD A SADLOCK
ESQ AND KARL E ROMINGER
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STIPULATION OF FACTS WILLIAM A ADDAMS ESQ RICHARD A SADLOCK AND
KARL E ROMINGER ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
POST TRIAL MOTION OF ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER TO MOLD THE
VERDICT - BY WILLIAM A ADDAMS ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO POST TRIAL MOTION OF ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN
SPENCER - BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 6/12/03 - A RULE IS ISSUED UPON ALL PARTIES
TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE POST TRIAL MOTION TO ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN
SPENCER SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED - RULE RETURNABLE 10 DAYS AFTER
SERVICE - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO POST- TRIAL MOTION OF
ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER - BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
----------------------------------~--------------------------------
ORDER - DATED 6/20/03 - IN RE POST-TRIAL MOTION OF EVAN SPENCER -
ARGUMENT ON THE POST-TRIAL MOTION OF ADDITIONAL 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 MOTION OF
ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER AND PLFFS REPLY - IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THE THE PLFF IS AUTHORIZED TO ENTER JUDGMENT ON THE
VERDICTS - UPON ENTRY OF JUDGMENTS THE PROTHONOTARY IS DIRECTED TO
MARK THE ACTION AGAINST ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER SETTLED
DISCONTINUE AND RELEASED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 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 PLFF WALTER ARMSTRONG PURSUANT TO THE 11/9/01 ORDER OF
THE HON EDWARD E GUIDO
PLEASE ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLFF WALTER ARMSTRONG AND
AGAINST THE ADDL DEFTS EVAN SPENCER AND KIMBERLY A RUDY AND ENTER
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF ADDL DEFT ROBERT SPENCER AGAINST PLFF WALTER
ARMSTRONG 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 DISCONTINUED AND RELEASED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF A JOINT TORTFESSOR PREVIOUSLY
EXECUTED." - RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ - ATTY FOR PLFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE MAILED TO DEFENDANTS
PAGE I'D.
6 - 10
11-12
13 - 15
16
1!J - 18
19
20 - 27
"""""' ~
~'umberland County prothonota~ Office
V Civil Case Print
2000-03488 ARMSTRONG WALTER (vs) OCKER BENJAMIN
PYS510
Page
4
Reference No.. :
Case Type.. . . .: COMPLAINT
Judgment...... .00
Judge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E
Disposed Desc. :
------------ Case Comments -------------
7/18/2003
7/18/2003
7/28/2003
7/29/2003
8/08/2003
8/11/2003
10/10/2003
6/08/2000
1:25
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
Filed. . . . . . . . :
Time......... :
Execution Date
Jury Trial. . . .
Dtsposed Date.
Hlgher Crt 1.:
Higher Crt 2.:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT OF PA FROM ORDER DATED 11/9/01
- BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PROOF OF SERVICE - BY FOR NOTICE OF APPEAL - BY RICHARD A SADLOCK
ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO # 1175 MDA 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER DATED 5/6/03 - IN RE: APPEAL OF PLAINTIFF - IN ACCORDANCE
WITH RULE 1925 OF THNE RLES OF APELLANE PROCEDURE - THE PLFF
HAVING FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL THE APPELLANT IS DIRECTED TO FILE
OF RECORD WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS HEREOF AND SERVE UPON THE
UNDERSIGNED A CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINEDD OF ON
APPEAL - BY THE COURT - EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL -
BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AMENDED ORDER - DATED 8/8/03 - IN RE APPEAL OF PLFF - APPELLANT IS
DIRECTED TO FILE OF RECORD WITHIN 14 DAYS HEREOF AND SERVE UPON
THE UNDERSIGNED A CONCISE STATEMENT OF 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 - PLAINTIFF
IS SEEKING REVIEW OF OUR ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT BENJAMIN OCKER'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - THE REA80NS FOR OUR DECISION TO
GRANT THE MOTION ARE FULLY SET FORTH IN THE OPINION ACCOMPANYING
OUR ORDER OF 11/9/01 - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J - COPIES MAILED
10/13/03
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
********************************************************************************
* Escrow Information *
* Fees & Debits BeG Bal Pvmts/Adl End Bal *
********************************~********~**************************************
COMPLAINT
TAX ON CMPLT
SETTLEMENT
JCP FEE
APPEAL
JDMT!DEFAULT
JDMT!.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
137.50
.00
137.50
********************************************************************************
* End of Case Information *
********************************************************************************
1'AlJE copy FROM REOOAD
I<t TeStimony wIlereol, I here ulltl'l set my ItaIId
. ..1 t of .Courl at _CarliSle, ~_)
inl ...~ ~
^ .
ProII
,J~m~~
'fj ~'tl--~' >~J'r'HhR
c
o
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland
} ss:
I. 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
Walter Armstronq
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF. I have
this 20th
Plaintiff, and Beniamin Ocxker v.
Rvan Soencer. Robert Spencer.
Kimberlv A. Rudy
Defendant _, as the same remains of record
before the said Court at No. 00-3488 of
Ci vi 1 Term, A.D. 19_.
hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of ~Iliq Court
day of October A. D~'fIJ~.
I, George E. Hoffer President Judge of the Ninth
Judicial District, cOn:'posed of the County of Cumberland, do certify that
Curt~s R. Lonq , 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. at the time of so doing, and now is
Prothonotary in and for said County of Cumberland 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 pr 1C .
Prothonotary
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland
} ss:
I, ClIrt i" R _ Lnng . Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas in
and for the said County, do certify that the Honorable George E. Hoffer. P. J .
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 of the 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
set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court this
20th ay of October A.D. ~l)~.
Prothonotary
__'fl!'ilij-.j.J\lIfiUHM'l L:~~~~li.. ". jilF!HiilijwNfd.iLJ
n.!ll-~ Eln"-'-'~."H-' "1 ""-~ ~- 'jtj~lriTlL 1 ~
lllf 0 r r JIB' :lLln
r IlilililiJIL
:.
.....
,
A
'WI
"' (') :;> 0 'Tl Z Z
" 0 0 " ~ ? ?
~ ~ 3 0- 0
" ~ 3
~ ~ r
"
0- t'l
'" ~
" t'l
0- s:
:!1 "<:I
" -
0- ... <
"l
'" - "
t'l ~
~
0 c:
~
ill
t'l
"C n -I -I
" 0
0 " "
5' ill ~ ~
0 0 3 3
0 -0 (')
0
.. I 0 -0 -0
'1 c: I I
:; "
~
,... '<
~,~- .
..'" ,~.~ _~~'_""_e, ~ ^___
"<,, ~"~o<,,__"', < _., _,.., ",'_
'"-~ ., " .~
^ ~, -~.. ".,
~- "
,
.".
!_n_X
- - -- -,
',- "
-.' ." '----,.L..,,''''',~:.--,- ~;-~ - ,""_i-c.._,_" i'_" ~. 'S_'j"
, .
...
o
o
WALTER ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
MARLIN L. RUDY and
KIMBERLY A. RUDY, husband and wife,
and GORDON OCKER and
DONNA OCKER, husband and wife,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 00-2029 Civil
v.
EVAN SPENCER and ROBERT SPENCER,
Additional Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
WALTER ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
BENJAMIN OCKER,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER,
and KIMBERLY A. RUDY,
Additional Defendants
. NO.(9~~34g8CivilTe~~
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO POST-TRIAL
MOTION OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT EVAN SPENCER
Plaintiff incorporates herein the Response filed on June 6, 2003, and recorded by the
Prothonotary on June 9, 2003.
By way of further response, Plaintiff denies that Additional Defendant is entitled to any
reliefrequested as the Motion is unclear. Additional Defendant does not clearly indicate whether
the verdict should be molded to the amount referenced in the Order or molded by the amount
listed in the Motion.
Richar . S
LD. No. 47281
4503 N. Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-6791
Counsel for Plaintiff
Date: June 18, 2003
262294.1 IRASIMLB
I
, c, . "" ~<
c'-._,;~" /.'<,--' ',~;,,,""'"- ",,"0,_,.<_,_,",",-<';_' '_c. - ~-~-;i
...
o
o
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 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO
POST-TRIAL MOTION OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT EVAN SPENCER on the
following via postage prepaid, first class United States mail, requested addressed as follows:
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
William A. Addams, Esquire
Hanft & Knight
19 Brookwood Avenue, Suite 106
Carlisle, P A 17013
Honorable Edward E. Guido
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, P A 17013
~Oj)~DA/lOA..--
Marcy L. Bess
Date: June 18,2003
262294.1 IRASIMLB
J
,~
',"'J '"
""
~ ~ =
"-"'-"'''''mtI\L'i,,,-'"''':Ln:r.....~~
N I,,<^~_~,
o
"- .....
'(I'
o
~.
.
0 C:-j- 0
C ' ,
y~ "
5: c_
vL c=
[Pt', , -p
,-
Z,( ir:
co u) ::;-_1
-< (:)
si~ ") .,
, -r't
;:::. ~~ -. ~::.2
:;..-:; ~? ,t,
=) :,T:J
U] -<
... 0
0
0/ ,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
W ALTER ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
BENJAMIN OCKER,
Defendant
NO. 00-3488 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 Plaintiff
.J
Walter Armstrong pursuant to the November 9,2001, Order of The Honorable Edward E. Guido.
Please enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Walter Armstrong and against the Additional
i if
Defendants Evan Spencer and Kimberly A. Rudy and enter judgment in favor of Additional
v'
Defendant Robert Spencer against Plaintiff Walter Armstrong pursuant to the May 23, 2003,
Order and the terms set forth in the July 7, 2003, Order of The Honorable Edward E. Guido. and mark
action against Additional Defendant Evan
Spencer "Settled, Discontinued and
Released in Accordance With the Te:rrns
of a Joint Tortfessor Previously
Executed. " *
chard A. S
I.D. No. 47281
4503 N. Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-6791
Date: July 142003 Counsel for Plaintiff
* In accordance with telephone conversation
with atty Richard Sadlock, Esq. 7-14-03 JHS
214896.1IRAS\MLB
j
,
o
o
.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Marcy 1. Brymesser, an employee of the law finn 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, fust 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, P A 17013
William A. Addams, Esquire
Hanft & Knight, P.C.
19 Brookwood Avenue, Suite 106
Carlisle, P A 17013
'i!!J!MI~r;JA Pc
M y 1. Brymes er
Date: July 14 2003
261525.11RASIMLB
Lf
\
I.
s-;'
,c. -~
ll__~"""'''~--''-rM~;mM ,-~ ."~~
c
-~--=
~-_o_ .;<-
,-~-"
.
-J -
~~ ~0
f
'" <..J"! elf
~ ---..)
1::\ ~
\} k
"(i' \..N ~
W
0J <?'\ --.)
J'
S'
"'-J'
\
.......
I...M
\
C>
~
o
c:
0""
-of7.;
f"Il!"f;
Z"r
Zr-'
(J) ':1--
-<::~,
r:r---
:<'--
,J>~
Z'-)
-(1
:Pee
L
:<
-
. l
C)
C..)
,
c:
j""
o
.-q
. L; r-=
-~.ifT1
-'...j
~=-i (~J
'-'-(1
"~~2 ~~
~m
-<
-""r-':i
3::
~l
N
(.}11
~,,?
o
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
~
,,-,
tT'
o
.n
--.l
".':.--n
!"nl..=:=
_,_,1-:-1
~ ~.~T!.
',~5~~
>~i"n
'::-":\
?r;
:z
BENJAMIN G. OCKER,
Defendant
31<61\
NO. OO-~l Civil Term
o
C
<:~
-oi~i:';
nlrT~
Z:.T.
:21:.
~~>~
c....-
s--,
z'~
:s~
:.2:;
-.
-"-
o
w
S:::
c_
f-~
v.
.\CC"
-0
._~
~
v.
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER,
and KIMBERLY A. RUDY,
Additional Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
AND NOW, this
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
-----
/~-t day of -J /.t ly
, 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 Plaintiff Walter Armstrong.
AND NOW, this
J tf it day of
~
J UL1
, 2003, judgment is
entered in favor of Plaintiff Walter Armstrong and against the Additional Defendants Evan
Spencer and Kimberly A. Rudy and in favor of Additional Defendant Robert Spencer against
Plaintiff Walter Armstrong pursuant to the May 23, 200 I Order.
(t~ r;/, .
Curt Long, Prothonotary a ~
261525.llRASIMLB
a
II
,I
1\
I.
.
o
o
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
W ALTER ARMSTRONG, CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Plaintiff
v.
BENJAMIN OCKER, NO. 00-3488 Civil Term
Defendant
v.
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER, and
KIMBERLY A. RUDY,
Additional Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice is hereby given that Plaintiff Walter Armstrong hereby appeals 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.
---~ ,.....,.
Date: July 17, 2003
214528.11RASIMLB
(p
i
PYS510
2000-03488
""
J~-"o_.__,
CUmbe~.. . a~d.County ProthonotarY's~fice
VC~v~l Case Inquiry \J
ARMSTRONG WALTER (vs) OCKER BENJAMIN
Page
1
Reference No. . :
Case Type.....: COMPLAINT
Judgment...... .00
Judge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E
Disposed Desc. :
------------ Case Comments -------------
Filed. . . . . . . . :
Time. . . . . . . . . :
Execution Date
Jury Trial. . . .
Dtsposed Date.
H~gher Crt 1.:
Higher Crt 2.:
6/08/2000
1: 25
0/00/0000
0/0010000
1969 MbA2001
********************************************************************************
General Index Attorney Info
ARMSTRONG WALTER PLAINTIFF SADLOCK RICHARD A
142 SOUTH HANOVER STREET
CARLISLE PA 17013
OCKER BENJAMIN DEFENDANT
31 STONE LEDGE ROAD
NEWVILLE PA 17241
SPENCER EVAN
SPENCER ROBERT
RUDY KIMBERLY A
Judgment Index
ARMSTRONG WALTER
SPENCER EVAN
RUDY KIMBERLY A
ARMSTRONG WALTER
SPENCER EVAN
DEFENDANT Y SADLOCK RICHARD A
DEFENDANT Y HADDICK CHARLES E JR
DEFENDANT Y HADDICK CHARLES E JR
Amount Date Desc
7/.14/.2003 PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
7/14/2003 PRAECIPE JUDGMENMT
7/14/2003 PRAECIPE JUDGMENMT
7/14/2003 PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
7;14;2003 DISCONTINUED
********************************************************************************
* Date Entries *
********************************************************************************
6/08/2000
7/07/2000
7/27/2000
9/12/2000
9/12/2000
9/20/2000
9/22/2000
9/22/2000
9/22/2000
10/04/2000
10/18/2000
- - - - - - - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
COMPLAINT - CIVIL ACTION
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT AND FORWARD TO SHERIFF BY RICHARD A
SADLOCK ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED
Litiqant.: OCKER BENJAMIN
SERVED : 7/26/00 COMPL NEWVILLE PA
Costs....: $~5.44 Pd By: RICHARD A. SADLOCK 07/27/2000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOINDER COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN G OCKER AGAINST ADDITIONAL
DEFENDANTS EVAN SPENCER AND ROBERT SPENCER AND KIMBERLY RUDY - BY
CHARLES E HADDICK JR ESQ ATTY FOR DEFT OCKER
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN G OCKER TO PLAINTIFFS
COMPLAINT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS EVAN SPENCER AND ROBERT SPENCER TO
DEFENDANTS COMPLAINT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED
Litigant.: SPEN~ER EVAN
SERVED : 9/21/00 NEWVILLE PA JOIN ADDL DEFTS
Costs....: $36.06 Pd By: MARSHALL & HADDICK 09/22/2000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED
Litiqant.: SPENCER ROBERT
SERVED : 9/21/00 NEWVILLE PA JOIN ADDL DEFT
Costs....: $16.00 pd By: MARSHALL & HADDICK 09/22/2000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED
Litigant.: RUDY KIMBERLY A
SERVED : 9/21/00 COMPL JOINING ADDL DEFT NEWVILLE PA
Costs....: $16.00 pd By: MARSHALL & HADDICK 09/22/2000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN OCKER BY
RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ ATTY FOR PLFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE JOINDER COMPLAINT - BY LORI ADAMCIK KARISS
7
.
cumbe~. a~d,County Prbt~onotarY's~fice
WC~ v~l Case Inqu~ry ...,
2000-03488 ARMSTRONG WALTER (vs) OCKER BENJAMIN
Reference No. . :
Case Type.....: COMPLAINT
Judgment.. . . . . . .00
Judge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E
Disposed Desc. :
------------ Case Comments -------------
i
I:
PYS510
11/22/2000
1/16/2001
3/29/2001
3/29/2001
4/09/2001
5/02/2001
5/02/2001
5/14/2001
6/07/2001
11/09/2001
12/07/2001
12/12/2001
1/23/2002
3/11/2002
4/17/2002
5/06/2002
5/09/2002
~~
.........""""......
"""""''''-..iiOJ
. k'
u"'
Page
2
Filed. . . . . . . . :
Time......... :
Execution Date
Jury Trial. . . .
Disposed Date.
Higher Crt 1.:
Higher Crt 2.:
6/08/2000
1: 25
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
1969 MDA2001
ESQ ATTY FOR DEFT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE JOINDER COMPLAINT - CHARLES E HADDICK JR
ATTY FOR DEFT BENJAMIN G OCKER
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE JOINDER COMPLAINT - BY CHARLES E HADDICK JR
ESQ FOR DEFT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT - PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY AGAINST DEFENDANT BENJAMIN G OCKER - BY RICHARD A SADLOCK
ESQ FOR PLFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT BENJAMIN
G OCKER - BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
--------------~----------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE OF ADDAMS & RUNDLE ADN ENTER
THE APPEARANCE OF THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL J HANFT FOR THE
ADDITIONAL DEFTS ~ BY WILLIAM A ADDAMS ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT - DEFENDANTS CROSS-MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - LORI ADAMCIK KARISS ESQ FOR DEFT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CROSS-MOTION OF DEFT BENJAMIN G OCKER FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - BY
LORI ADAMCIK KARISS ESQ FOR DEFT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO CROSS-MOTION OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN G OCKER
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE
4009.22 - BY CHARLES HADDICK ESQ FOR DEFT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT - DATED 11/9/01 - IN RE MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF PLFF AND CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
DEFT BENJAMIN OCKER - FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE ATTACHED
OPINION PLFF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED THAT MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFT OCKER IS GRANTED ADN THE ACTION IS
DISM~SSED AS TO HIM - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED
11/9/01
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT ON ORDER OF COURT DATED 11/9/01
- BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO # 1969 MDA 2001
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 1/22/02 - AND OPINION PURSUANT TOPA RAP
1925 - AS OF PLFFS APPEAL IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER THE REASON
FO~ OUR DECISION IS FULLY SET FORTH IN OUR ORDER AND OPINION OF
11/9/01 - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER DATED 3/5/02 - 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. ACCORDINGLY THIS
APPEAL IS QUASHED PATRICIA WHITTAKER CHIEF CLERK OF SUPERIOR
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 PLFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER DATED 5/9/02 IN RE PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL
PURSUANT TO PA.R.A..P. 1312 BY THE COURT, EDWARD E GUIDD J
s
PYS510 CUmb~. a~d,County Prot~onotary'~fice
. gClvll Case Inqulry V
2000-03488 ARMSTRONG WALTER (vs) OCKER BENJAMIN
Reference No. . :
Case Type.....: COMPLAINT
Judgment..:.... .00
Judge Asslgned: GUIDO EDWARD E
Disposed 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
6/19/2003
6/26/2003
7/09/2003
7/14/2003
7/14/2003
il
~"
, ~~~-
~.
~ I. i
-
Page
3
Filed. . . . . . . . :
Time......... :
Execution Date
Jury Trial. . . .
Disposed Date.
Higher Crt 1.:
Higher Crt 2.:
6/08/2000
1:25
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
1969 MDA2001
COPIES MAILED 5/9/02
ORDER-OF-COURT-=-DATED-3/26!03-=-IN-RE-NONJURY-TRIAL-SCHEDULED-=---
BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES ALL OF THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTERS
ARE CONSOLIDATED FOR TRIAL 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 FILED BY THE
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 NEGLIGENCE 25 PERCENT OF DEFT
KIMBERLY RUDY AND 75 PERCENT TO DEFT EVAN SPENCER - BY THE COURT
EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STIPULATION OF COUNSEL - BY WILLIAM A ADAMS ESQ RICHARD A SADLOCK
ESQ AND KARL E ROMINGER
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STIPULATION OF FACTS WILLIAM A ADDAMS ESQ RICHARD A SADLOCK AND
KARL E ROMINGER ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
POST TRIAL MOTION OF ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER TO MOLD THE
VERDICT - BY WILLIAM A ADDAMS ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO POST TRIAL MOTION OF ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN
~~~~~~~-=-~~-~~~~~-~-~~~~~~-~~~-~~~-~~~~------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 6/12/03 - A RULE IS ISSUED UPON ALL PARTIES
TO SHOW CUASE WHY THE POST TRIAL MOTION TO ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN
SPENCER SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED RULE RETURNABLE 10 DAYS AFTER
SERVICE - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO POST- TRIAL MOTION OF
~DITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER - BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER - DATED 6/20/03 - IN RE POST-TRIAL MOTION OF EVAN SPENCER -
ARGUMENT ON THE POST-TRIAL MOTION OF ADDITIONAL EVAN SPENCER IS
SCHEDULED FOR 7/7/03 AT 8:45 AM BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J
~OPIES MAILED
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 7/7/03 - IN RE POST TRIAL MOTION OF
ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER AND PLFFS REPLY - IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THE THE PLFF IS AUTHORIZED TO ENTER JUDGMENT ON THE
VERDICTS - UPON ENTRY OF JUDGMENTS THE PROTHONOTARY IS DIRECTED TO
MARK THE ACTION AGAINST ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER SETTLED
DISCONTINUE AND RELEASED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JOINT TORTFEASOR
RELEASE PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES
MAILED
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENMT ENTERED
PLEASE ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFT BENJAMIN G OCKER AND
AGAINST PLFF WALTER ARMSTRONG PURSUANT TO THE 11/9/01 ORDER OF THE
HON EDARD E GUIDO
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT ENTERED
PLEASE ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFT BENJAMIN G OCKER AND
AGAINST PLFF WALTER ARMSTRONG PURSUANT TO THE 11/9/01 ORDER OF
THE HON EDWARD E GUIDO
PLEASE ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLFF WALTER ARMSTRONG AND
AGAINST THE ADDL DEFTS EVAN SPENCER AND KIMBERLY A RUDY AND ENTER
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF ADDL DEFT ROBERT SPENCER AGAINST PLFF WALTER
ARMSTRONG PURSUANT TO THE 5/23/03 ORDER AND THE TERMS SET FORTH IN
THE 7/7/03 ORDER OF THE RON EDWARD E GUIDO AND MARK THE ACTION
AGAINST ADDL DEFT EVAN SPENCER "SETTLED DISCONTINUED AND RELEASED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF A JOINT TORTFESSOR PREVIOUSLY
EXECUTED." - RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ - ATTY FOR PLFF
q
-
~ .1 ~I
~~ '~,
PYS510
Cumb~..... and County Prothonotary'~.. fice
UCi vil Case Inquiry V
ARMSTRONG WALTER (vs) OCKER BENJAMIN
Page
4
. ,
2000-03488
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.:
6/08/2000
1:25
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
1969 MDA2001
-------------------------------------------------------------------
7/14/2003 NOTICE MAILED TO DEFENDANTS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
********************************************************************************
* Escrow Information *
* Fees & Debits Beq Bal Pvmts/Adi End Bal *
********************************************************************************
COMPLAINT
TAX ON CMPLT
SETTLEMENT
JCP FEE
APPEAL
JDMT !. DE FAULT
JDMT!DEFAULT
JDMT!DEFAULT
SETTLEMENT
35.00 35.00
.50 .50
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
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
------------
.00
********************************************************************************
* End of Case Information *
********************************************************************************
TRUE (,OPV 'ROMRecoRO
Jsllmony wI'lereo1. I \\ere unto set.fWf \\aNI
, /hem $W at CarliSle, ~ IItl /:J
fjU ~~_
o!Y() .
!t) .
~
,
. ~~'-<,"-"-l;;&;tJ~1lli~'~0!2&1oiF.5;~~Jl!~i#'b'ffi@.~:#.lf",,'~'''''"''''i:!,,',4-;,-"-,~",,,,,,,_c 'h~~"~~.lllI ", )'1'
--...,.
f -':
\ii,~~~lJ
LAj!il>.dU; ~~Ijldj ~..
pP~
~1..
CI1 ()
~ ()
~;:r)
~pe.
J
_ 0__' ~
",'~,,' ,.
-
..c:.
()
-
-()
-....J
-~ ,.",
o
()
c:
<'
~a:;
2~c
en..
-,,"n_
~J~~:
::Cj
-<:
,"'., ~ -." '^, ,...".",^- ',"'" .~ ~.~~....
"""""
~~:
. .
I
c::::'
c..._:'
o
-n
2::
i"-
,-;:n
,.-
-!--58
-~ (-S
:~c~~
. ,
:.-:,
'r"':
=u
-<
OJ
::~
-.',1--
~.J
J,,)
o~
,
h-t ',- '^"_.~
o
o
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
W ALTER ARMSTRONG, CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Plaintiff
v.
BENJAMIN OCKER, NO. 00-3488 Civil Term
Defendant
v.
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER, and
KIMBERLY A RUDY,
Additional Defendants 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 P AR.AP. 121:
Service hv First Class United States Mail. postaee prepaid:
Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire William A. Addams, Esquire
LD. No. 55666 LD. No. 06265
Marshall & Haddick, P.C. Hanft & Knight, P.C.
20 South 36th Street 19 Brookwood Avenue, Suite 106
Camp Hill, P A 17011 Carlisle, P A 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
LD. No. 81924
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 241-6070
Counsel for Additional Defendant Kimberly A Rudy
214528.1\RASIMLB
1\
JJ;
o
o
Personal Service:
The Honorable Edward E. Guido
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, P A 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.
,c
dA.
J.D. No. 47281
4503 N. Front Street
Harrisburg, P A 1711 0
(717) 238-6791
239666.1 IRASIMLB
I d.. I
L
;,="-"--
J)'!!".!!L..L,_l' D-'
-~',,- M'lil._
< "~illllIl!I!l" '-' -
~\
Y
~.;.; ---. ,"-" , -." "j ~'"
'0 "..
'0
.
o
,_.
"""Ii
'. 0 0 0
C c.) ,1
~.;:.
"\Cl C' c= ;J]
"'<('1'i'.iI n-; L ,.
~
<- r'il
Z . ,_'-1
U; 0') T'
f~ ()
~":J -1-,
.,' "
> -- , (')
/.~.
::t; '--- ~-? ~:~~ en
~~i. .", ~
-( (D '<
I.: .UL IUUI.__,. ..M.__
-",-~-="'''-"' "
-~-
}*'f!
11:38)\,.M. \.
.
Appeal Docket Sheet
Docket Number: w1M~~~~~2u;t?=-C
Page 1 of3
July 23, 2003
-=~3-iIJ-]
. - --ill
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
-
Walter Armstrong
v.
Benjamin Ocker
v.
Evan Spencer, Robert Spencer, and Kemberly A. Rudy
Initiating Document: Notice of Appeai
Case Status: Active
Case Proc_e_ssing Status: July 22, 2003
Journal Number:
Case Category:
Civil
- Awaiting Original Record
CaseType:
CjvH Actjon Law
Consolidated Docket Nos.:
Next Event Type: Docketing Statement Received
Next Event Type: Original Record Received
Related Docket Nos.:
1174 MDA2003
1176 MDA2003
SCHEDULED EVENT
Next Event Due Date: August 6, 2003
. Next Event Due Da~.l~mber 2, 20m:;;
Same Issue(s)
Same Issue(s)
7/23/2003
3023
13
Appeal Docket Sheet
Docket Number: 1175 MDA 2003
Page 2 of3
July 23,2003
,- ~ ~~ -~
11:38.A.M. '\,
, ,
'~eZ.,
o
o
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
'*
Appellant
ProSe:
IFP Status:
Appellee
Pro Se:
IFP Status:
Appellee
Pro Se:
IFP Status:
Appellee
ProSe:
IFP Status:
7/23/2003
COUNSEL INFORMATION
Armstrong, Walter
Appoint Counsel Status:
No
Appellant Attorney Information:
Attorney: Sadlock, 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:
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
Spencer, 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
It
"JlIi'''''-
,J_L ,
11:38.A.M. -.
o
o
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal Docket Sheet
Docket Number: 1175 MDA 2003
Page 3 of 3
July 23, 2003
-
Appellee Attorney Information:
Attorney: Rominger, Karl Ernst
Bar No.: 81924
Address: 155 S Hanover St
Carlisle, PA 17013
Phone No.: (717)241-6070
Receive Mail: Yes
E-Mail Address:
Receive E-Mail: No
Law Firm:
Fax No.: (717)241-6878
FEE INFORMATION
Fee Date
7/23/03
Fee Name
Notice of Appeal
TRIAL COURT/AGSNCY INFORMATION
Fee Amt
Paid
Amount
Receipt Number
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.: 00-3488
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
Armstrong, Walter
July 23, 2003
Docketing Statement Exited (Civil)
Middle District Filing Office
7/23/2003
3023
IS'
!iii
~~r''''''''''''''.~'''''''-'>'~~~~~l$ii~'t~.,;Thit:;'W'V~''''Khi!~H<I.'''''1l;''''''ol;''j~''&'4~~\i;I!j!ll4lil11i1WlllillUlillli ,~ ~ ~". "'~-~:iiI\r"_ ""~-
t.!>"',
~
~~ ~, - allJj
o
o
c
$;:
""(10-'
ffin"':,
Z'-";
:z:f'
(f) 1':';-
<:#"::-
r:::...;s..;
"'- .
p~
Z"-,
~U
""'C
Z
=<
~,o ':1
~
C~J
,'"
o
'"
.~~,:rf
-'"Jm
~bd
:~:~6
~f'.: ::ri
~:;? (')
Om
"'~l
~
-<
,S:
1'''.)
CD
::~
::E:
h_O ,,- "'-'_C'__' ",'.-/ _~_. __~
o
o
WALTER ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff
vs.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
00-3488 CIVIL
BENJAMIN G. OCKER,
Defendant
vs.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT
SPENCER, and KlMBERL Y A.
RUDY,
Additional Defendants
IN RE: APPEAL OF PLAINTIFF
ORDER
AND NOW, May 6, 2003, in accordance with Rille 1925 of the Rules of Appellate
Procedure, the plaintiff having filed a notice of appeal, the appellant is 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, 1.
Aichard A. Sadlock, Esquire
For the Plaintiffs
~arles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire
For the Defendant
2'illiam Addams, Esquire
For the Additional Defendants Spencer
> ~~;-
D7~3D -(B
.....!-arl Rominger, Esquire
For the Additional Defendant Rudy
I~
"'~. '
I
I
:1
,I
"
!
I
,
I
:t,
'-~
'j:
ii'
;1
r,
\!
i\
I;'
11
;':1
!:!
"
',j
:'1
'(
,I
'I
~j
I
'j
:1
;'1
.
..-
, _.,,_ "'''--. C', _,,' "'0'
e'o,_',
. 'I" .M~ - "'
fiLED-OFFiCE
OF, 1"'~ '''~I~-' "~" ',""n i'v
~ .i,t~ ;';<; )~~!U;,'r.....JI.-\f"'\l
03 JI JI '1 Q "1 I ,. 'I ~I
.... , \,." c...... Hf, l' .h..,
C' '''''-,,' i:i' ,', I' 1"""UI\i'[Y
UIVlbt::, ~l...J'\1 ,Ii....' j..J ~
PENNSYLVANIA
o
t~>
~
J
"1~""~,~",,,!,!,,",~","'~.~~~-~'>>-!I~~~~I!lfllIlI!lI!!!llT'_"~ .
}m~W"_""___ ..
_ ~ -' --j ',-"
"
>
o
.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
W AL TERARMSTRONG, CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Plaintiff
v.
BENJAMIN OCKER, NO. 00-3488 Civil Term
Defendant
v.
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER, and
KIMBERLY A. RUDY,
Additional Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFFS' CONCISE STATEMENT
OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL
Plaintiff, by his 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, Plaintiff submits 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.
Date: August 7, 2003
~~
Richard A.
J.D. No. 47281
4503 N. Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-6791
Counsel for Plaintiff
e
264237.1IRAS\MLB
/7
\
o
0'.'
.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1, Marcy 1. 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 PLAINTIFF'S 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, P A 17011
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
William A. Addams, Esquire
Law Office of Michael 1. Hanft
19 Brookwood Avenue, Suite 106
Carlisle, P A 17013
i!JaA,\~o~
Mar y 1. Besse -
Date: August 7, 2003
264237.1\RAS\MLB
/~
'. ,-
" ~b'--~~~~'~"Lijlwn~
o
"'..~ :'1:,"" '-"-,,_,,.c '. _",..'
o
.~
l~
"r _
- ....~'"
.'
0 c:; 0
C ",,J Tl
$: :;;~ :..:;.1
"Un..:;
m !.~ ~~") ."n ~
~
~ iT;
Z r'
(f) '- CD il-:=:
-< ' .-c:S:j
~L
~c '-c., ~-~~~
."j"
~-~C) f"..,) i'5m
:;I>c::_
--;." ;~
::<l ,:',,)
f0 "<
.'
'.. 1'- " <. --_ _ _~,
. ",,;"
o
o
WALTER ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff
vs.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
00-3488 CIVIL
BENJAMIN G. OCKER,
Defendant
vs.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT
SPENCER, and KlMBERL Y A.
RUDY,
Additional Defendants
IN RE: APPEAL OF PLAINTIFF
AMENDED ORDER
AND NOW, August 8, 2003, in accordance with Rille 1925 ofthe Rules of Appellate
Procedure, the plaintiff having filed a notice of appeal, the appellant is 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
Karl Rominger, Esquire
For the Additional Defendant Rudy
.~~
?/J-03
9-,
William Addams, Esquire
For the Additional Defendants Spencer
'1
-
f'l '<0
CD
-
~,"_O ~,"~"~W" ~.""
r ""'
. ~>-"-,f.--",_ ,_".' <~, .~. _ __, =N""'""_"-"...,",
'"
tiLED-OfFICE
0:: ';'L.-r~ ;:'i.~~-' T' !'.....-\"...1T~R"
, ,1-. . '-" '! ,'-"-'.'!h. I
D3 WG I
Fl"j' 9: "I
r.l _ _(..
Ci lHk"',i.... ,.., "i'v
v;v",~"',1 ,~j., -;~j '...i'._:~j,~1 t
PENNSYLVANIA
r"~l
'",J
_~ ,~".""",.II!'t_,\iIlJ~~I!ll'!:~M,ll_~,~'iil')lJ"J]lj!;~~'i""%?!i~_~_"!""~~~~~
0"
! "
o 0
WALTER ARMSTRONG : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
V.
BENJAMIN OCKER
: NO. 2000-3488 CIVIL TERM
V.
EVAN SPENCER, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ROBERT SPENCER, and
KIMBERLY A. RUDY
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925
Guido, J., October 10 ,2003
Plaintiff is 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 the opinion accompanying our order of November 9,2001.
It>!ttJ (()?
DATE:
vfuchard A. Sadlock, Esquire
v-tharles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire
/ Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
IWilliam A. Addams, Esquire
:sld
Edward E. Guido, J.
r~
;> ,11G'.~.A-
Rl\~
IO-/3-CB
(:)
C
2'"
-c.1D~i
rl\f ["\
~~J.'
zc
~~:-:
~R
>'c:
z
~
-<
.-..,",-~ &..
c:::> 0
W "'1/
o ~":~j
~ j"':~';:~
: ..~~~
:J1: \.,<1;"5
~ ()In
--I
-::,:. SJ
.j.- -<
c{O
..!
,.i
'I
~
"""..,J~II'~t
,"'"
?1I!II'lIII\Ull!F~,
'1
"d" ,~ ,_, _~
()
C
'~S<
-0[:':;
rniT:
z~:.~~.
0: .~L
~.
~~
~~ ~~:~
?~
o
'_,"A
C)
(,;,)
c?
,:)-
"-.1
~ .~.'~
o
,\'1
'~n
o
. :::~~~\~
~~iI0~
--~-~~?l
:::.:
~}
"'u
_<<c
-""
';~~
.::.J
~~~
",~i~~ _" .j;"!l!lIllf~~I~lIil'~~~1G:!llIl~"''"~'1JjI:{lf''''if'%'''f'fSlW~F)It';Gjj:iI!i~;J!"c'11I~~li""'~~~~~~
I.
,l I
~, ~
~-giir'
o
o
COpy
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 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ROBERT SPENCER,
Additional Defendants
IN RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OF PLAINTIFF AND CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN OCKER
AND NOW, this
BEFORE HOFFER. P.J., OLER, GUIDO, JJ.
ORDER OF COURT
('\ .
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, J.
Richard A. Sadlock, Esquire
Mr. Marlin Rudy
Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
William A. Addams, Esquire
. f." j" r' 'IQ"1.s;~,d. 000 3'Ii/lop,/'/;oIJ
AIUn!. IUJrI= '-, VI
dvl
-
1,1
'-",,-,
c
o
7;i::.r, !
0)
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,
A.ddition.cJ'Defendants
IN RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OF PLAINTIFF AND CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN OCKER
BEFORE HOFFER. PJ.. OLER. GUIDO. JJ.
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
The above plaintiff sustained serious iJ1juries 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 fOT 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
J~
,-
.'
"
'''J , .~= ~ ,
,
NO, 2000-3488 CNIL 'OM
0.',
.,.,
(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. JR. 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 coIlided 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
:1~
~
J.,
'J 0-_'
""".l,
NO. 2000-3488 CIVIL CfM
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 ofthe 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.
mSCUSSION
Plaintiffs case against Benjamin is based upon the social host theory ofliability"
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.
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 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
J "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 i'1iury 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.2d888, FN1 (1994).
3
J~
,-,,1.1
~J,"
NO. 2000-3488 CIVIL OM
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 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
all adult, Eienjalllin shouid 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 ofthe actors. Plaintiffs
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 foIlow, 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 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.
Whiie 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. Portersville 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 al., 2029 Civi12000. We granted the motion, holding that the
parents had nO dnty to control the activities of their son, an emancipated adult.
4
J5
, _ _"_,O'~__
. -""
NO. 2000-3488 CIVIL()Th1
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
2i." Goldberg v. Delta Tau Delta, 613 A.2d 1250, 1252, (Fa. Super. 1992), appeal denied
534 Pa. 639, 626 A.2d 1158 (1993). Asthe 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.
fd. 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.
fd. 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". ld. The Supreme Court reversed Sperando in a brief per 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
Jb
'""
1-
." ~
.
I-I
"., .
NO. 2000-3488 CML ~
o
Plaintiff's 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
immllli.e from liability under the social host doctrine. Therefore, we are constrained to
deny plaintiff's motion for sunnnary 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
Sunnnary 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
()7
."
.w&J.--
,,~~
,,'A';'~'k
J. A20042/04
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P.65.37
BONNY RIDER,
Appellant
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
BENJAMIN G. OCKER
~. D-D/ '8~1 J. ~
v.
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER
AND KIMBERLY A. RUBY
Appellees
No. 1174 MDA 2003
Appeal from the Judgment Entered July 14, 2003
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
Civil, No. 00-3372
WALTER ARMSTRONG,
Appellant
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
iiDb- ~tf~~ ~ {
BENJAMIN G. OCKER
v.
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER
AND KIMBERLYA. RUBY
Appellees
No. 1175 MDA 2003
Appeal from the Judgment Entered July 14, 2003
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
Civil, No. 00-3488
..
. .
..,...1.""
~ ,
1,1'"
..:'" \
J. A20042/04
GARRY E. AND JOAN L. BOYD, SR.,
Appellant
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
BENJAMIN G. OCKER
v.
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER
AND KIMBERLY A. RUBY
Appellees
No. 1176 MDA 2003
Appeal from the Judgment Entered July 14, 2003
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
Civil, No. 00-3371
BEFORE: DEL SOLE, P.J., KELLY and CAVANAUGH, JJ.*
MEMORANDUM:
FILED: August 26, 2004
One minor does not owe a duty to another minor regarding the
furnishing or consumption of alcohol. Kapres v. Heller, 640 A.2d 888, 891
CPa. 1994). Appellants seek to challenge the continuing validity of this
limitation to the doctrine of social host liability. Since we are without
authority to grant the relief sought by appellant, we affirm.
The lower court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of
appellee-Benjamin Ocker based upon his being under twenty-one years of
age at the time he had a party at his parents' house, provided beer to others
under the age of twenty-one, and did not stop one of them, Evan Spencer,
*This decision was reached prior to the death of Judge Cavanaugh.
2
.
',,-_~_, .,. ,,_-.fT ,.-:>",~""'f
CoLe ~
,
---'
.,."" - ...
J. A20042j04
from operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The lower court
determined that based upon the ages of Ocker and Spencer, i.e., both under
the age of twenty-one, Ocker was not liable to third persons as a social host
for acts committed by Spencer while he was under the influence of alcohol
provided by Ocker.
Our standard of review in an appeal from the granting of summary
judgment is whether the lower court committed an error of law or engaged
in a clear abuse of discretion. Gerrow v. Shincor Silicones, Inc., 756 A.2d
697, 700 CPa. Super. 2000). We examine the record in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party and determine whether the moving party
has established that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.
The facts, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party are that the four appellants were the driver, Garry E. Boyd, and three
passengers, Joan L Boyd, Bonny Rider, and Walter Armstrong, in a motor
vehicle which was in a collision with the vehicle operated by appellee-Evan
Spencer. They each suffered severe injuries. At the time of the accident
Spencer was 17 years old. He had been to a party hosted by his friend,
appellee-Benjamin Ocker, who was twenty years old. Ocker provided a keg
of beer and served it to his guests, including Spencer.
Appellants argue that Ocker should be considered an adult, and,
therefore, subject to liability as a social host who furnished alcohol to a
3
_,~ _ ,J9![ ,: .. ~_o Xl ,'0' _,Co "',~~_
.- .
J. A20042j04
minor. See Congini v. Portersville Valve Co., 470 A.2d 515 (Pa. 1983).
However, this argument must be rejected in light of the Supreme Court's
holding in Kapres, supra, which declined to impose social host liability upon
an individual who was twenty years old for furnishing alcohol to another
person, also under twenty-one years old. Because both the person serving
alcohol and the person drinking it are conSidered under the law to be
incompetent to handle alcohol, the court held that the principle of social host
liability was inapplicable. Id. at 891. See also Sperando v.
Commonwealth DOT, 643 A.2d 1079 (Pa. 1994).
We are obliged to follow the law as articulated by the Supreme Court
in Kapres and Sperando. It is the duty and obligation of the Superior Court
to follow the decisional law of the Supreme Court. Commonwealth v.
Shaffer, 734 ~.2d 840, 845 n.6 CPa. 1999). A fundamental precept of our
judicial system is that a lower court may not disregard the standards
articulated by a higher court. Commonwealth v. Randolph, 718 A.2d
1242, 1245 CPa. 1998); Flannery v. Stump, 786 A.2d 255, 259 n.l CPa.
Super. 2001). As an intermediate appellate court, the Superior Court does
not enunciate new precepts of law or expand existing legal doctrines, since
that province is reserved to the Supreme Court. Mountain Properties, Inc.
v. Tyler Hill Realty Corp., 767 A.2d 1096,1100 CPa. Super. 2001).
Given the clarity of the Supreme Court's holdings in Kapres and
Sperando, we conclude that the lower court did not commit an error of law
4
,
........- ...
J. A20042j04
-
. ,',." ,_ I
~"o'
I ~ ._
or an abuse of discretion in granting summary judgment in favor of
appellees.
Judgment affirmed.
Date:--AUG 26 2004
5
.. ",""".~L
.~.-. .~ .'- .", ~ ~<
.''._ . "~.c:,". '1IlWIri1~ ."~"'. "='"
,,",,",,"., ~il; ~. ~-'-~i!;!Bill'Iliil!IIMllIl':;&"Jf;Bj~'->f,,',,-~~'~""Ji:iilifDll1tinlli .,,,..iIIiIi
, " ...ell'" ",' ..;' ".~.~,-' -, - -'~"'; "j;.,;,,--.;-;>.,,-.,
'.., - ......
r1
r[t
u .
t E 5'
! ~
[;d
~'
~f
is
~
~
tI1'
~
~
-r~
y
.jj.k,Jji~iJ) ~nl,,"lJ!l!l.~;rt!l!V,!IA [Jl .I~"'.,.. .,,,. ."., .. ...
, .~
III
~" "
_ , . .' ., - . ~. . L ' .,.,',,, .' -. j, "'""""'V"_
MISSING
CASE #
O()-3 'f?P
A tel frJ ISs/iv,
WALTER ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff
V.
MARLIN L. RUDY and
KIMBERLY A. RUDY, husband and wife,
and GORDON OCKER and
DONNA OCKER, husband and wife,
Defendants
EVAN SPENCER and ROBERT SPENCER,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 00-2029 Civil
Additional Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
WALTER ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff
V.
BENJAMIN OCKER,
Defendant
V.
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER,
and KIMBERLY A. RUDY,
Additional Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 00-3488 Civil Tema ;.,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO POST~TRIAL
MOTION OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT EVAN SPENCER
Plaintiff incorporates herein the Response filed on June 6, 2003, and recorded by the
Prothonotary on June 9, 2003.
By way of further response, Plaintiff denies that Additional Defendant is entitled to any
relief requested as the Motion is unclear. Additional Defendant does not clearly indicate whether
the verdict should be molded to the amount referenced in the Order or molded by the amount
listed in the Motion.
Date: June 18, 2003
I.D. No. 47281
4503 N. Fnmt Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-6791
Counsel for Plaintiff
262294.1~ASLMLB
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 tree and correct copy of SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO
POST-TRIAL MOTION OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT EVAN SPENCER on the
following via postage prepaid, first class United States mail, requested addressed as follows:
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
William A. Addams, Esquire
Hanft & Knight
19 Brookwood Avenue, Suite 106
Carlisle, PA 17013
Honorable Edward E. Guido
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
Date: June 18,2003
Marc3$' L. Br~ess~/ -
262294.1~SWiLB
1N THE COURT OF COMMON ]?LEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
WALTER ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff
BENJAMIN OCKER,
Defendant
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER, and
KIMBERLY A. RUDY,
Additional Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 00-3488 Civil Term
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE TO ENTER JUDGMENT
Please enter judgment in favor of Defendant Benjamin G. Ocker and against Plaintiff
Walter Armstrong pursuant to the November 9, 2001, Order of The Honorable Edward E. Guido.
Please enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Walter Armstrong and against the Additional
Defendants Evan Spencer and Kimberly A. Rudy and enter .judgment in favor of Additional
¢
Defendant Robert Spencer against Plaintiff Walter Armstrong: pursuant to the May 23, 2003,
Order and the terms set forth in the July 7, 2003, Order of The Honorable Edward E. Guido. and mark
action against Additional Defendant Evan
Spencer "Settled, Discontinued and ANGINO &
Released in Accordance With the Terms ~
of a Joint Tortfessor Previously
Executed." *
/,.,~o~u ex. o~lre I.D. No. 47~,81
4503 N. Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-6'791
Date: July 14 2003 Counsel for Plaintiff
· In accordance with telephone conversation
with arty Richard Sadlock, Esq. 7-14-03 JHS
214896. I\RAS\MLB
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 tree 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
William A. Addams, Esquire
Hanfi & Knight, P.C.
19 Brookwood Avenue, Suite 106
Carlisle, PA 17013
Date: July 14 2003
Mar~y L. Bl~es~.~/ - '
261525.1 ~RAS~MLB
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARRY E. BOYD, SR. and
JOAN L. BOYD, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
BENJAMIN G. OCKER,
Defendant
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER,
and KIMBERLY A. RUDY,
Additional Defendants
CiVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 00-'2.T~gl Civil Term
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
AND NOW, this /q4~ day of ~ fl' ~'¥ , 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 Plaintiff Waiter Armstrong.
AND NOW, this [ x//t day of t , 2003, judgment is
entered in favor of Plaintiff Walter Armstrong and against the Additional Defendants Evan
Spencer and Kimberly A. Rudy and in favor of Additional Defendant Robert Spencer against
Plaintiff Walter Armstrong pursuant to the May 23,2001 Order.
~urt Long, Prothonotary /3~ 3
261525.1~°,AS\MLB
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
WALTER ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff
V.
BENJAMIN OCKER,
Defendant
V.
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER, and
KIMBERLY A. RUDY,
Additional Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 00-3488 Civil Term
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice is hereby given that Plaintiff Walter Armstrong hereby appeals 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
docketen~y.
Date: July 17, 2003
t. Sadlock
I.D.
4503 N. Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-6791
Counsel for Plaintiff
PYS510
Cumberland ~ounty Prothonotary's Office
Civil Case Inquiry
2000-03488 ARMSTRONG WALTER (rs) OCKER BENJAMIN
Reference No..:
Case Tv-De ..... : COMPLAINT
Ju~gmeh% ....... 00
Judge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E
Disposed Desc.:
............ Case Comments .............
Filed ........ :
Time ......... :
Execution Date
Jury Tr%al ....
Disposed Date.
Higher Crt 1.:
Higher Crt 2.:
Page 1
6/o8/2ooo
1:25
o/o0/oooo
o/oo/oooo
1969 MDA2001
General Index Attorney Info
PLAINTIFF
SADLOCK RICHARD A
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
Y SADLOCK RICHARD A
Y HADDICK CHARLES E JR
Y HADDICK CHARLES E JR
Amount Date Desc
7~14~2oo3
7[14~2003
7[14~2003
7~14~2003
71/14/2003
PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
PRAECIPE JUDGMEN%4T
PHAECIPE JUDGMENMT
PHAECIPE JUDGMENT
DISCONTINUED
ARMSTRONG WALTER
142 SOUTH HANOVER STREET
CARLISLE PA 17013
OCKER BENJAMIN
31 STONE LEDGE ROAD
NEWVILLE PA 17241
SPENCER EVAN
SPENCER ROBERT
RUDY KIMBERLY A
Judgment Index
ARMSTRONG WALTER
SPENCER EVAN
RUDY KIMBERLY A
ARMSTRONG WALTER
SPENCER EVAN
10/04/2000
lO/18/2ooo
* Date Entries .
............. FIRST ENTRY ..............
6/08/2000 COMPLAINT - CIVIL ACTION
S~UDLOCK ESQ
....................................................................
7/27/2000 SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED
Litigant.: OCKE~ BENJAMIN
SERVED : 7/26/00 COMPL NEWVILLE PA .
Costs .... : $35.44 Pd By: RICED A. S~)LOCK 07/27/2000
.........................................................
~/~/~ooo ~OIND~ COM~INT O~ D~FZND~T B~N~mI~ S OC~R ASAINST
D~TS ~V~ SP~NC~ ~ ROBERT SP~NC~ ~D KIMBZem~ ~UDY - mY
C~RLES E ~DICK JR ESQ ATTY FOR DEFT OC~R
9/12/2000 ..........................................
~s~ ~ITH N~ ~TT~R O~ D~F~ND~T
COMP~INT
.............................................
~/~o/~ooo ~S~R o~ ~DIT~ON~L D~ND~TS ~V~ SP~NC~
DEFEND~TS COMP~INT
Litigant.: SPENCER EV~
SERVED : 9/21/00 NEVILLE PA JOIN ADDL DEFTS
Costs .... : $36.06 Pd By: ~RS~LL & ~,DICK 09/22/2000
....................................
9/22/2000 SHERIFF'S RETU~ FILED ...............................
Liticant.: SPENCER ROBERT
~ERVED : 9/21/00 NEVILLE PA JOIN ~DL DEFT
costs .... : $16.00 Pd By: ~RS~LL & ~DICK 09/22/2000
Litigant.: R~Y KIMBERLY A
SERVED : 9/21/00 COMPL JOINING ~DL DEFT NEWVILLE PA
Costs .... : $16.00 Pd By: ~RS~LL & ~DICK 09/22/2000
.................................................
P~NT~F~,S e~pm~ TO N~ ~TT~R O~ DZ~T B~-8Sk~-~9
~IC~D A S~OCK ~S~ ATT~ ~OR PLFF
.......................................................
P~CI~ TO ~INSTAT~ JOINDZR CO~NT - BY LO~
7
PYS510
2000-034~8 ARMSTRONG WALTER (rs) OCKER BENJAMIN
Reference No..:
Case TvDe ..... : COMPLAINT
Ju~gmeh% ....... 00
Judge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E
Disposed Desc.:
............ Case Comments .............
Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office
Civil Case Inquiry
ESQ ATTY FOR DEFT
Filed ........ :
Time ......... :
Execution Date
Jury Trial ....
Disposed Date.
Higher Crt 1.:
Higher Crt 2.:
11/22/2000
1/16/2001
3/29/2ooi
3/29/2001
4/09/2001
5/02/2001
5/02/2001
5/14/2001
6/07/2001
11/09/2001
12/07/2001
12/12/2001
1/23/2002
3/11/2002
4/17/2002
5/06/2002
5/09/2002
Page 2
6/08/2000
1:25
o/00/0ooo
o/oo/oooo
1969 MDA2001
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE JOINDER COMPLAINT - CHARLES E HADDICK JR
ATTY FOR DEFT BENJAMIN G OCKER
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT - PLAIN~-~8~8~-~8~ .....
SUMMARY AGAINST DEFENDANT BENJAMIN G OCKER - BY RICHARD A SADLOCK
ESQ FOR PLFF
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMM~Ry JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT BENJAMIN
G OCKER - BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
PRAECIPE FOR WITHDP~AWAL OF APPEARANCE 'OF
THE APPEARANCE OF THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL J HANFT FOR THE
ADDITIONAL DEFTS - BY WILLIAM A ADDAMS ESQ
..............................................
P~ECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT - DEFENS~-8[8~Z~8~$~---
FOR SUM~RY ~UDSMENT - LORI ADAMCIK ~ISS ESQ FOR DEFT
............................................
CROSS-MOTION OF DEFT BENJAMIN G OCKER FOR-SUM~{~-3f6~f~-i-~ ....
LORI ADAMCIK KARISS ESQ FOR DEFT
...................................................................
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO CROSS-MOTION OE DEFENDANT BENJAMIN G OCKER
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ
4009.22 - BY CHARLES HADDICK ESQ FOR D}~FT
8~8~-~B-8~6~-A~-&86~-~-~6-ff2ii25~-~-~-~-~A~A~-F8~ ......
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF PLFF AND CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
DEFT BENJAMIN OCKER - FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE ATTACHED
OPINION PLFF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED THAT MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFT OCKER IS GRANTED ADN THE ACTION IS
DISMISSED AS TO HIM - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED
11/9/Ol
.................................................
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT ON ORDER OF
- BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
...................................
SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF
- ~ ~ P~FF~ APPEAL IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER THE RE~SON
FOR OUR DECISION IS FULLY 8ET FORTH IN OUR ORDER AND OPINION
11/9/01 - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO j
~~ ~&~ a~ Tu ~±~. ACCORDINGLY THIS
APPEAL IS QUASHED PATRICIA WHITTAKER CHIEF CLERK OF SUPERIOR
COURT OF PA
8~B~-B~£-~2~2~-~[~8~-$8-~i.~-8~-~-~-~-~£-~ ....
· DERLYING ACTION
AS TO HIM. A FINAL ORDER IS ANY ORDER THAT DISPOSES OF ALL CLAIMS
AMD ALL PARTIES. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL IS HEREBY QUASHED PER
CURIAM - CERTIFIED BY PATRICIA A WHITTAKER CHIEF CLERK OF SUPERIOR
COURT OF PA
...................................................................
PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL PURSUANT TO PARAP 1312 STATEMENT
OF JURISDICTION BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ATTY FOR PLFF
...........................................
ORDER DATED 5/9/02 IN RE PETITION FOR PERMI~$~-~-~[£ .........
PURSUANT TO PA.R.A..P. 1312 BY THE COirRT, EDWARD E GUIDD J
PYSS10
Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office
Civil Case Inquiry
2000-034~8 ARMSTRONG WALTER (rs) OCKER BENJAMIN
Reference No..:
Case Type ..... : COMPLAINT
Judgment ....... 00
Judge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E
Disposed Desc.:
............ Case Comments .............
COPIES MAILED 5/9/02
Page 3
Filed ........ : 6/08/2000
Time ......... : 1:25
Execution Date 0/00/0000
Jury Trial ....
DisDosed Date. 0/00/0000
Higher Crt 1.: 1969 MDA2001
Higher Crt 2.:
3/31/2003
5/23/2003
5/27/2003
5/28/2003
5/23/2003
6/02/2003
6/09/2003
6/13/2003
6/19/2003
6/26/2003
7/09/2003
7/14/2003
7/14/2003
ARE CONSOLIDATED FOR TRIAL 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
PARTIES - WE FIND THAT THE DEFT KIMBERLY RUDY D/qD ADDITIONAL DEFT
EVAN SPENCER WERE NEGLIGENT AND THAT THE NEGLIGENCE OF EACH WAS A
SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR IN CAUSING NEGLIGENCE 25 PERCENT OF DEFT
KIMBERLY RD-DY AND 75 PERCENT TO DEFT EVAN SPENCER - BY THE COURT
EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED
......
VERDICT - BY WILLIAM A ADDAMS ESQ
SPENCER - BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 6/12/03 - A RULE IS
TO SHOW CUASE WHY THE POST TRIAL MOTION TO ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN
SPENCER SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED RULE RET[/RNABLE 10 DAYS AFTER
SERVICE - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED
PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO POST- TRIAL MOTION OF
ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER - BY RICH/~D A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
S~EU~DO~o~H~.~Q~-~IAL MOTION OF ADDITIONAL EVAN SPENCER IS
COPIES MAILED / / 8:45 AM BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J
..............................
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 7/7/03 - IN RE POST TRIAL MOTION OF
ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER AND PLFFS REPLY - IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THE THE PLFF IS AUTHORIZED TO ENTER JUDGMENT ON THE
VERDICTS - UPON ENTRY OF JUDGMENTS THE PROTHONOTARY IS DIRECTED TO
MARK THE ACTION AGAINST ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER SETTLED
DISCONTINUE AND RELEASED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JOINT TORTFEASGR
RELEASE PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES
MAILED
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ~q~ J~/~&~q~-~%~B ...............
PLEASE ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFT BENJAMIN G OCKER AND
AGAINST PLFF WALTER ARMSTRONG PURSUANT TO THE 11/9/01 ORDER OF THE
HON EDARD E GUIDO
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT ~B ................
PLEASE ENTER JTJDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFT BENJAMIN G OCKER AND
AGAINST PLFF WALTER ARMSTRONG PURSUANT TO THE 11/9/01 ORDER OF
THE HON EDWARD E GUIDO
PLEASE ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLFF WALTER ARMSTRONG AND
AGAINST THE ADDL DEFTS EVAN SPENCER AND KIMBERLY A RUDY AND ENTER
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF ADDL D~FT.ROBERT SPENCER AGAINST PLFF WALTER
ORDER THE TERMS SET FORTH IN
W~RD E GUIDO D/qD MARK THE ACTION
~AINST ADDL DEFT EVAN SPENCER 'SETTLED DISCONTINUED AND RELEASED
ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF A JOINT TORTFESSOR PREVIOUSLY
EXECUTED." - RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ - ATTY FOR PLFF
PYS510
Cumberland County Prothonotary,s Office
, . Civil Case Inquiry
2000-034~8 ARMSTRONG WALTER (yE) OCKER BENJAMIN
Reference No..:
Case T~De ..... : COMPLAINT
Ju~gmeh% ....... 00
Judge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E
Disposed Desc.:
Filed ........ :
Time ......... :
Execution Date
Page 4
6/08/20o0
1:25
0/o0/00oo
Jury Trial ....
Disposed Date. 0/00/0000
............ Case Comments ............. Higher Crt 1.: 1969 MDA2001
Higher Crt 2.:
7/14/2003 NOTICE ................................................................... MAILED TO DEFENDANTS
.............. LAST ENTRY' - ............
Escrow Information
* Fees & Debits Beg Bal Pvmts/Ad' End Bal ~
35
00 35 00
50 50
00 5 00
00 5 00
30 00
9 00
9.00
9.00
5.00
5
5
30 00
9 00
9 00
9 00
5.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
COMPLAINT
TAX ON CMPLT
SETTLEMENT
JCP FEE
APPEAL
JDMT~DEFAULT
JDMTZDEFAULT
JDMT/DEFAULT
SETTLEMENT
107.50 107.50
* End of Case Information
TRUE (.,OPY FROM RECOR~
' '~imony wl~, I here unte set my ~
IN THE cOURT OF coMMOlq pLEAS
OF cuMBERLAND coUNTY, pElqNSYLYAN1A
CI¥IL ACTION - LAW
WALTER ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff
v. NO. 00-3488 civil Term
BENJAMIN ocKER'Defendant
-v-2'- ~,,~BERT SPENCER, and
EVAN SPENCbt~,
KiMBERLY A. RUDY, , JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Additional Defendants
~IC_~E correct copy of the No~ICE
I hereby certify that on this 17th day of July, 20013, a true and
OF APPEAL was served upon the following persons and in the manner indicated below, vhich
service satisfies the requirements of pA.R.A.P. 121:
William A Addams, Esquire
First Class United States Mail osta e ~ .
~ I.D. No. 06265
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
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
I.D. No. 81924
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 241-6070
Counsel for Additional Defendant Kimberly
Hanft 8* Knight, P.C.
19 Brookwood Avenue, Suite
Carlisle, PA 17013
(/17) 249-5373
Counsel for Additional Defe~
Evan Spencer and Robert
A. Rudy
tO6
tdants
~ancer
214525.I\KAs\MLB
1t:38 A.M.
Appeal Docket Sheet
Docket Number:
Page 1 of 3
July 23, 2003
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Walter Armstrong
V.
Benjamin Ocker
V.
Evan Spencer, Robert Spencer, and Kemberly A. Rudy
Initiating Document: Notice of Appeal
Case Status: Active
Case Processing Status: July 22, 2003
Journal Number:
Case Category: Civil
Awaiting Original Record
CaseType: Civil Action Law
Consolidated Docket Nos.:
Related Docket Nos.:
1174 MDA 200:3 Same Issue(s)
1176 MDA 2003 Same Issue(s)
Next Event Type: Docketing Statement Received
Next Event Type: Original Record Received
SCHEDULED EVENT
Next Event Due Date: August 6, 2003
7/23/2003 3023
11:38 A.M.
Appeal Docket Sheet
Docket Number: 1175 MDA 2003
Parle 2 of 3
July 23, 2003
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appellant
Pro Se:
IFP Status:
COUNSEL INFORMATION
Armstrong, Walter
Appoint Counsel Status:
No
Appellant Attorney Information:
Attorney: Sadlock, 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 Malt: Yes
E-Mail Address: rsadlock@angino-rovner.com
Receive E-Maih No
Appellee
Pro Se:
IFP Status:
Ocker, Benjamin G.
Appoint Counsel Status:
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
Fax No.: (717)731-4803
Phone No.: (717)731-4800
Receive Mail: Yes
E-Mail Address:
Receive E-Maih No
Appellee
Pro Se:
IFP Status:
Spencer, Evan & Robed
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
Fax No.: (717)249-0457
Phone No.: (717)249-5373
Receive Mail: Yes
E-Mail Address:
Receive E-Maih No
Appellee
Pro Se:
IFP Status:
7/23/2003
Rudy, Kimberly A.
Appoint Counsel Status:
3023
11:38.A.M.
Appeal Docket Sheet
Docket Number: 1175 MDA 2003
Pa.cle 3 of 3
July 23, 2003
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appellee Attorney Information:
Attorney: Rominger, Karl Ernst
Bar No.: 81924 Law Firm:
Address: 155 $ Hanover St
Carlisle, PA 17013
Phone No.: (717)241-6070 Fax No.: (717)241-6878
Receive Mail: Yes
E-Mail Address:
Receive E-Mail: No i
FEE INFORMATION
Paid
Fee Date Fee Name Fee Amt Amount Receipt Numl ~er
7123103 Notice of Appeal
Court Below:
County: Cumberland
Date of Order Appealed From:
Date Documents Received:
Order Type: Judgment Entered
Judge:
TRIAL COURT/AGENCY INFORMATION
Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas
July 14, 2003
July 22, 2003
Guido, Edward E.
Judge
Division: Civil
Judicial District: 9
Date Notice of Appeal Filed: July 18, 2003
OTN:
Lower Court Docket No.: 00-3488
Original Record Item
ORIGINAL RECORD CONTENTS
Filed Date
Content/Description
Date of Remand of Record:
BRIEFS
DOCKET ENTRIES
Filed Date Docket Entry/Document Name Party Type Filed By
July 22, 2003 Notice of Appeal Filed
Appellant Armstrong, Walter
July 23, 2003 Docketing Statement Exited (Civil)
Middle District Filing Office
7/23/2003 3023
WALTER ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff
VS.
BENJAMIN G. OCKER,
Defendant
VS.
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT
SPENCER, and KIMBERLY A.
RUDY,
Additional Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
00-3488 CIVIL
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
IN RE: APPEAL OF PLAINTIFF
ORDER
AND NOW, May 6, 2003, in accordance with Rule 192:5 of the Rules of Appellate
Procedure, the plaintiff having filed a notice of appeal, the appellant is 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.
.,,'~ichard A. Sadlock, Esquire
For the Plaintiffs
Edward E. Guido, J.
,...Gharles E. Haddick, Jr,, Esquire
For the Defendant
...~ arl Rominger, Esquire
For the Additional Defendant Rudy
..~_ illiam Addams, Esquire
· For the Additional Defendants Spencer
09-30
VINVAq,LSNN';3d
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
WALTER ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff
BENJAMIN OCKER,
Defendant
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER, and
KIMBERLY A. RUDY,
Additional Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 00-3488 Civil Term
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFFS' CONCISE STATEMENT
OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL
Plaintiff, by his 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, Plaintiff submits the following issues will be raised on appeal:
1. Did the Trial Court err in granting Defendartt 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.
Date: August 7, 2003
I.D. No. 47281
4503 N. Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-6791
Counsel for Plaintiff
264237.1 ~,AS\MLB
WALTER ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff
VS.
BENJAMIN G. OCKER,
Defendant
VS.
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT
SPENCER, and KIMBERLY A.
RUDY,
Additional Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
00-3488 CIVIL
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
IN RE: APPEAL OF PLAINTIFF
AMENDED ORDER
AND NOW, August 8, 2003, in accordance with Rule 1925 of the Rules of Appellate
Procedure, the plaintiff having filed a notice of appeal, e appellant ~s &rected 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
For the Plaintiffs
Edward E. Guido, J.
Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire
For the Defendant
Karl Rominger, Esquire
For the Additional Defendant Rudy
William Addams, Esquire
For the Additional Defendants Spencer
WALTER ARMSTRONG
V.
BENJAMIN OCKER
V.
EVAN SPENCER,
ROBERT SPENCER, and
KIMBERLY A. RUDY
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 2000-3488 CIVIL TEPdVI
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925
Guido, J., October ~ ,2003
Plaintiff is 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 the opinion accompanying our order of November 9, 2001.
DATE:
Edward E. Guido, J.
t/'~Richard A. Sadlock, Esquire
v/Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
William A. Addams, Esquire
:sld
10-13
WALTER ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff
V.
BENJAMIN OCKER,
Defendant
V.
EVAN SPENCER AND
ROBERT SPENCER,
COPY
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2000-3488 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
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 ~(1~ day of NOVEMBER, 2001, for the reasons set forth
in the attached opinion, plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judg~ncnt is DENIED. The
Motion for Summary Judgment of de£endant 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. Guide, 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 SLrMMARY JUDGMENT
OF PLAINTIFF AND CROSS MOTION FOR SUIV[MARY JUDGMENT
OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN OCKER
BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., OLER, GUll)O, JJ.
OPINION AND ORDER OF CO~_.T
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 of law
NO. 2000-3488 CIVIL TERM
(1) ~vhenever there is no genuine issue of ~my 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
thai would require the issues to be subtnitted 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 judg~aent may only be granted
in cases that are clear and free from doubt. J.H. 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 defenda~at 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
°ther 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 adddtional defendant ha that case.
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 (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 of the alcohol, which is the proximate
cause of any subsequent occurrence." 470 A.2d 510. Conseqttently, 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 r,egligence 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, FNI (1994).
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 Benjarrfin's status as an emanci!pated 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
an aduk, beujmnin should be held responsible for the consequences of his actions.4
Plaintiffmisinterprets 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 inquky 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 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 tlhe social host doctrine to a
minor who furnished alcohol to another minor. Plaintiffargues 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 appell.ate 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 alcohol to persons under the
The ~az'~ell case formed the barns of a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Benjamin's parents in a
comparaon case. Armstrong v. Ocker et al., 2029 Civil 2000. We granted the motion, holding thai 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. t-feller,
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, (l~a. Super. 1992), appeal denied
534 Pa. 639, 626 A.2d 1158 (1993). As the GoIdberg Court went on to state:
Although we find appellant's arguments persuasive, this Court is nor
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 of 21 may be held liable
as social hosts for the consequences of furnishing other person:s under the age of twenty~
one with alcohol". Id. The Supreme Court reversed Sperando in a brief per ~uriam
(?pinion which cited its decision in Kapres, supra. See Sperando v. Commonwealth Dept.
of Transportation, 537 Pa. 352, 643 A.2d 1079 (1994).
5
NO. 2000-3488 CIVIL TERM
Plaintiff's argument that an "adult" between the ages of 18 and 21 should be held
responsible for his actions is very persuasive. However, we carmot 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 summary judgment and to grant that 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.
J. A20042/04
NON-PRECEDENTTAL DECTSI'ON
BONNY RIDER,
Appellant
V.
BENJAMIN G. OCKER
V,
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER
AND KIMBERLY A. RUBY
Appellees
- SEE SUPERTOR COURT ?.O.P.65.37
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 1174 MDA 2003
Appeal from the 3udgment Entered July :14, 2003
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
Civil, No. 00-3372
WALTER ARMSTRONG,
Appellant
BENJAMIN G. OCKER
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER
AND KIMBERLY A. RUBY
Appellees
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PEN NSYLVANIA
No. 1175 MDA 2003
Appeal from the 3udgment Entered July 14, 2003
In the Court of Common Plea§ of Cumberland County,
Civil, No. 00-3488
J. A20042/04
GARRY E. AND JOAN L. BOYD, SR.,
Appellant
V,
BENJAMIN G. OCKER
V.
;
.,
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER ·
AND K[NBERLYA. RUBY '
:
Appellees
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
: No. 1176 NDA 2003
Appeal from the Judgment Entered July 14, 2003
~n the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
Civil, No. 00-3371
BEFORE: DEL SOLE, p.j., KELLY and CAVANAUGH, jj.,
MEMORANDUN:
FILED: August 26, 2004
One minor does not owe a duty to another minor regarding the
furnishing or consumption of alcohol· Kap~.e$ v. l;eller, 640 A.2d 888, 891
(Pa. Z994). Appellants seek to challenge the continuing validity of this
limitation to the doctrine of social host liability. Since we are without
authority to grant the relief sought by appellant, we affirm.
The lower court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of
apPellee-Benjamin Ocker based upon his being under twenty-one years of
age at the time he had a party at his parents' house, provided beer to others
under the age of twenty-one, and did not stop one of them, Evan Spencer,
*This decision was reached prior to the death of Judge Cavanaugh.
2
3. A20042/04
from operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The lower court
determined that based upon the ages of Ocker and Spencer, La., both under
the age of twenty-one, Ocker was not liable to third persons as a social host
for acts committed by Spencer while he was under the influence of alcohol
provided by Ocker.
Our standard of review in an appeal from the granting of summary
judgment is whether the lower court committed an error of law or engaged
in a clear abuse of discretion. Gerrow v. Shincor Silicones, ~nc., 756 A.2d
697, 700 (Pa. Super. 2000). We examine the record in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party and determine whether the moving party
has established that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ~'d.
The facts, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party are that the four appellants were the driver,. Garry E. Boyd, and three
passengers, 3oan L. Boyd, Bonny Rider, and Walter Armstrong, in a motor
vehicle which was in a collision with the vehicle operated by apPellee-Evan
Spencer. They each suffered severe injuries. At the time of the accident
Spencer was 17 years old. He had been to a party hosted by his friend,
apPellee-Benjamin Ocker, who was twenty years old. Ocker provided a keg
of beer and served it to his guests, including Spencer.
Appellants argue that Ocker should be considered an adult, and,
therefore, subject to liability as a social host who furnished alcohol to a
3
J. A20042/04
minor. See Congini v. Portersville Valve Co., 470 A.2d 515 (Pa. 1983).
However, this argument must be rejected in light of the Supreme Court's
holding in Kapres, supra, which declined to impose social host liability upon
an individual who was twenty years old for furnishing alcohol to another
person, also under twenty-one years old. Because both the person serving
alcohol and the person drinking it are considered under the law to be
incompetent to handle alcohol, the court held thal.~ the principle of social host
liability was inapplicable. Id. at 891. See also Sperando v.
Commonwealth DOT, 643 A.2d 1079 (Pa. 1994).
We are obliged to follow the Jaw as articulated by the Supreme Court
in Kapres and Sperando. [t is the duty and obligation of the Superior Court
to fOllOW the decisional law of the Supreme Court. Commonwealth v.
Shaffer, 734 A.2d 840, 845 n.6 (Pa. 1999). A fundamental precept of our
judicial system is that a lower court may not disregard the standards
articulated by a higher court. Commonwealth v. Randolph, 718 A.2d
1242, 1245 ('Pa. 1998); Flannery v. Stump, 786 A.2d 255, 259 n.1 ('Pa.
Super. 2001). As an intermediate appellate court, the Superior Court does
not enunciate new precepts of law or expand existing legal doctrines, since
that province is reserved to the Supreme Court. I~ountain Properties, ~nc.
v. Tyler Hill Realty Corp., 767 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Pa. Super. 2001).
Given the clarity of the Supreme Court's ho~dings in Kapres and
Sperando, we conclude that the lower court did not commit an error of/aw
4
J. A20042/04
or an abuse of discretion in granting summary judgment in favor of
appellees.
]udgment affirmed.
5