Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-6023FRANCES MORRISON, Plaintiff Vo SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you mus~t take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 Richard E. Freeburn, Esquire FREEBURN & HAMILTON 4415 North Front Street Harrisburg PA 17110 (717) 671-1955 I.D. #30965 Date: 12/18/02 Attorney for Plaintiff FRANCES MORRISON, Plaintiff SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notification. Usted debe presentar ua apariencia esrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA OR LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 Richard E. Freeburn, Esquire FREEBURN & HAMILTON 4415 North Front Street Harrisburg PA 17110 (717) 671-1955 I.D. #30965 Date: 12/18/02 Attorney for Plaintiff FRANCES MORRISON, Plaintiff SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT AND NOW comes Plaintiff, Frances Morrison, by her attorneys, Freeburn & Hamilton, and files the following Complaint: 1. Plaintiff, Frances Morrison, is an adult individual who resides at 80 E. Main Street, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, Swift Transportation Company, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Arizona with offices and place of business at 522 GSB Building, One Belmont Avenue, Bala Cynwyd, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. 3. The facts and occurrences hereinafter related took place on or about September 10, 2002 at approximately 12:15 p.m. 4. At that time and place, Plaintiff was driving her 1988 Subaru station wagon westbound on Ritner Highway, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 5. At that time and place, Defendant's employee, Lynda Chavis Wilson, was driving a tractor trailer rig owned by Defendant westbound on Ritner Highway, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania ahead of Plaintiff. 6. Defendant's employee, Lynda Chavis Wilson, brought the 18- wheeler to a stop on the highway, and Plaintiff brought her automobile to a stop behind Defendant's tractor trailer rig. 7. Defendant's employee, Lynda Chavis Wilson, then put the 18- wheeler in reverse, and caused it to back up into Plaintiffs automobile. The rear portion of the Defendant's tractor trailer rig struck the front portion of Plaintiffs automobile and pushed Plaintiffs automobile backward on the highway. 8. The foregoing accident and all of the injuries and damages set forth hereinafter suffered by Plaintiff are the direct and proximate result of the negligent, careless, wanton and reckless manner in which Defendant's employee operated her motor vehicle as follows: In failing to observe plaintiffs vehicle on the highway In failing to operate her vehicle in accordance with existing traffic conditions and traffic controls; In permitting or allowing the rear portion of the her vehicle to strike and collide with the front portion of the vehicle operated by the plaintiff; In failing to exercise the high degree of care required of an operator of a tractor trailer rig; In failing to keep a reasonable look-out for other Vehicles lawfully on the road; In putting her vehicle in reverse when such movement could not be safely accomplished; Failure to give warning of the intent to back-up; In operating her vehicle so as to create a dangerous situation for other vehicles on the roadway; and In otherwise operating her vehicle in a careless, reckless and negligent manner and in a manner violating the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 9. The conduct of Defendant's employee, as set forth above, was in violation of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code, which is intended to protect persons lawfully on the highway such as Plaintiff from personal injury and property damage, and thus constitutes negligence per se. 10. At all times relevant hereto, Lynda Chavis Wilson was an employee of Defendant, acting within the course and scope of her employment and in furtherance of Defendant's business interests. 1 1. By reason of the aforesaid collision, Plaintiff, Frances Morrison, suffered painful injuries to her nerves, bones and soft tissues which include, but are not limited to, neck and shoulder injuries. 12. By reason of the aforesaid collision and injuries suffered by Plaintiff, Frances Morrison, she has suffered a heightened possibility that she will suffer other or additional injury in the future, and claim is made therefore. 13. The aforesaid collision and injuries suffered by Plaintiff, Frances Morrison, may have aggravated or been aggravated by an existing infirmity, condition or disease, resulting in a prolongation or worsening of the injuries and an enhanced risk of future harm to Plaintiff, and claim is made therefore. 14. By reason of the aforesaid collision and injuries suffered by Plaintiff, Frances Morrison, she has been forced to incur liability for reasonable and necessary medical tests, medical examinations, medical treatment, medications, hospitalizations and similar expenses in an effort to diagnose her injuries and to restore herself to health, and claim is made therefore. 15. Plaintiff has not fully recovered from her injuries and it is reasonably likely that she will incur similar expenses in the future, and claim is made therefore. 16. By reason of the aforesaid collision and injuries suffered by Plaintiff, Frances Morrison, she has suffered a loss of earnings and earning capacity and is entitled to recover the value of the time, earnings and employment benefits she has lost and which she might reasonably have earned in the pursuit of her ordinary calling, and claim is made therefore. 17. By reason of the aforesaid collision and injuries suffered by Plaintiff, Frances Morrison, she has suffered a loss or impairment of future earning capacity, and claim is made therefore. 18. By reason of the aforesaid collision and injuries suffered by Plaintiff, Frances Morrison, she has incurred incidental costs and expenses the exact amount of which cannot be ascertained at this time, and claim is made therefore. 19. As a result of the aforesaid collision and injuries suffered by Plaintiff, Frances Morrison, she has undergone and in the future will undergo great physical and mental pain and suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out her daily activities, loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and claim is made therefore. 20. As a result of the aforesaid collision and injuries suffered by Plaintiff, Frances Morrison, she has been subjected to severe humiliation, embarrassment, shame, worry and anger. 21. As a result of the aforesaid collision and injuries suffered by Plaintiff, Frances Morrison, she has been subjected to severe mental anguish, emotional distress, nervous shock, fright and horror. 22. As a result of the aforesaid collision and injuries suffered by Plaintiff, Frances Morrison, she will continue to endure great mental anguish, emotional distress, shame, worry and anger in the future. 23. By reason of the aforesaid collision and injuries suffered by Plaintiff, Frances Morrison, she has been deprived her enjoyment of the pleasures of life. 24. Plaintiff, Frances Morrison, continues to be plagued by persistent pain and limitation and, therefore, avers that her injuries may be of a permanent nature, causing residual problems for the remainder of her lifetime, and claim is made therefore. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Frances Morrison, demands judgment in her favor and against Defendant, Swift Transportation Company, Inc., in an amount in excess of THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND & 00/100 ($35,000.00) DOLLARS, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. Date: Respectfully Submitted, FREEBURN & HAMILTON n, Esquire I.D. No. 30965 4415 North Front Street Harrisburg PA 17110 (717) 671-1955 Counsel for Plaintiffs 6 VERIFICATION I hereby verify that the statements in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: FRANCES MORRISON FRANCES MORRISON, Plaintiff Vo SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 02-6023 CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE TO: Prothonotary Kindly reinstate Plaintiff s Complaint in this matter. By: Respectfully submitted, FREEBURN ~ HAMILTON d ~. Freeburn, Esquire I.D. No. 30965 4415 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 671-1955 Dated: 1 / 15/03 Attorney for Plaintiff John A. Staffer, Esquire Attorney I. D. No. 43812 GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Telephone: (717) 234-4161 Attorney for Defendant FRANCES MOKRISON, Plaintiff' Vo SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : NO. 02-6023 CI¥IL TERM : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT INCLUDING NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Swiit Transportation Company, Inc., by its attorneys, Goldberg, Katzman and Shipman, P.C., who file the following Answer and New Matter in response to the Plaintiffs Complaint: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments in this paragraph and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 2. It is admitted that Defendant Swirl Transportation Company is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Arizona. The principle place of business of Swif~ Transportation Company, Inc. is 2200 South 75~ Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85043. 12:15 p.m. It is admitted that an incident occurred on Septernber 10, 2002 at approximately 4. Admitted on information and belief. 5. Admitted. 6. It is admitted that Defendant's employee, Lynda Chavis Wilson, brought the 18- wheeler to a stop on the highway. Defendant is without informa.tion sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments that the Plaintiff brought her automobile to a stop behind the Defendant's tractor trailer rig, and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 7. It is admitted that the Defendants employee, Lynda Chavis Wilson, put the 18- wheeler in reverse and began backing up. It is also admitted that the rear of the tractor trailer made impact with the front of the Plaintiff's automobile. ARer reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averment that the Defendant's vehicle pushed the Plaintiff's automobile backward on the highway and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 8. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed to be required, it is denied that the Defendant's employee was negligent, careless, wanton and reckless and denied that the foregoing accident and all of the injuries and damages alleged by the Plaintiff were the direct and proximate result of any negligent, careless, wanton and reckless conduct of the Defendant's employee. By way of further answer, Defendant denies that its employee was negligent, careless, wanton and ao do reckless: in failing to observe Plaintiff's vehicle on the highway; in failing to operate her vehicle in accordance with existing traffic conditions and traffic controls; in permitting or allowing the rear portion of her vehicle to strike and collide with the front portion of the vehicle operated by the Plaintif~ in failing to exercise the high degree of care required of an operator of a tractor trailer rig; in failing to keep a reasonable lookout roi- other vehicles lawfully on the road; in putting her vehicle in reverse when such movement could not be safely accomplished; in failing to give warning of the intent to back up. in operating her vehicle so as to create a ~tangerous situation for other vehicles on the roadway; and in otherwise operating her vehicle in a careless, reckless and negligent manner and in a manner violating the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 9. The averments in this paragraph constitute concltlsions of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed to be required, it is denied that the conduct of the Defendant's employee, as alleged by the Plaintiff, was in violation of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code, which is intended to protect ]persons lawfully on the highway such as Plaintiff from personal injury and property damage, and thus constitutes negligence per se. 10. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclt~sions of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed to be required, it is admitted that at the time of the accident Lynda Chavis Wilson was employed by Defendant Swirl Transportation Co., Inc. and was operating the tractor trailer in the course and scope of her employment. 4 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments concerning the nature and extent of the Plaintiffs alleged injuries and/or their causal relation to the subject collision and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments concerning the nature and extent of the Plaintiff's alleged injuries and/or their causal relation to the subject collision and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 13. Denied. At, er reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments concerning the nature and extent of the Plaintiffs alleged injuries and/or their causal relation to the subject collision and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments concerning the nature and extent of the Plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages and/or their causal relation to this 5 accident and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments concerning the nature and extent of the Plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages ~md/or their causal relation to this accident and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments concerning the nature and extent of the Plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages ~nd/or their causal relation to this accident and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments concerning the nature and extent of the Plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages and/or their causal relation to this accident and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proc. f at time of trial if deemed material. 18. Denied. At~er reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments concerning the nature and extent of the Plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages and/or their causal relation to this accident and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 19. Denied. Alter reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments concerning the nature and extent of the Plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages and/or their causal relation to this accident and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without information su~cient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments concerning the nature and extent of the Plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages and/or their causal relation to this accident and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 21. Denied. A_~er reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments concerning the nature and extent of the Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages and/or their causal relation to this 7 accident and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments concerning the nature and extent of the Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages and/or their causal relation to this accident and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 23. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of'the averments concerning the nature and extent of the Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages and/or their causal relation to this accident and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof at time of trial if deemed material. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of'the averments concerning the nature and extent of the Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages and/or their causal relation to this accident and, therefore, denies the same and demands strict proc. fat time of trial if deemed material. WHEREFORE, Defendant Swirl Transportation Company, Inc. respectfully requests that the Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed and that judgment be entered in favor of Defendant Swirl Transportation Company, Inc. and against the Plaintiff NEW MATTER By way of additional answer and reply, Defendant Swirl Transportation Company, Inc. raises the following New Matters: 25. Some or all of the Plaintiffs claims are barred in 'whole or in part and/or are limited by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1701, et seq., and especially by § 1722 of that law. 26. In the event that it is determined that the Plaintiff' has or will be paid for some or all of the damages alleged in her Complaint, then further claims :for those damages are barred by the defense of payment. 27. Some or all of the Plaintiffs alleged injuries and/or medical conditions and/or limitations preexisted the date of the subject accident and were not caused or aggravated by the accident. 9 WHEREFORE, Defendant Swirl Transportation Company, Inc. respectfully requests that the Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed and that judgment be entered in favor of Defendant Swirl Transportation Company, Inc. and against the Plaintiff. By: Respectfully submitted, GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. Attorney I. D. No. 438'F2~ 320 Market Street P. O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Telephone: (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendant Swirl Transportation Company, Inc. DATE: 91029.1 10 VERIFICATION I, , hereby acknowledge that Swift Transportation Company, Inc. is the Defendant in this action and that I am authorized to make this verification on its behalf, that I have read the foregoing document; and that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. BY: SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. DATE: Oe0-]~-q~ 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a tree and correct copy of the foregoing document upon all parties or counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage prepaid on the ~ L/'q-t4 day of -~ ~0 v t_,D ~- ,~ , 2003, addressed to the following: Richard E. Freebum, Esquire Freeburn & Hamilton 4415 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 By Respectfully submitted, GOLDBERG, IC4TZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Telephone: (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendant Swift Transportation Company, Inc. FRANCES MORRISON, Plaintiff Vo SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 02-6023 CIVIL ACTION - LAW REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND NOW comes Plaintiff, Frances Morrison, by her attorneys, Freeburn & Hamilton, and files the following Reply to New Matter: 25. This paragraph contains no averments of fact, only conclusions of law, to which no reply is required. To the extent that a court determines that this paragraph contains any averments denied. 26. of fact, the same are specifically This paragraph contains no averments of fact, only conclusions of law, to which no reply is required. this paragraph contains any averments denied. 27. To the extent that a court determines that of fact, the same are specifically Plaintiff specifically denies that some or all of her alleged injuries and/or medical conditions and/or limitations pre-existed the date of the subject accident and were not caused or aggravated by the accident. By way of further reply, Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference thereto the averments contained in paragraph 13 of her Complaint. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss Defendant's New Matter and enter judgment in her favor and against Defendant, Swift Transportation Company, Inc., in an amount in excess of THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND & 00/100 ($35,000.00) DOLLARS, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. Date: 3/18/03 By: Respectfully Submitted, FREEBURN/h HAMILTON Ric/aard~ ~. l~reeburn, Esquire I.D. No. 30965 4415 North Front Street Harrisburg PA 17110 (717) 671-1955 Counsel for Plaintiff 2 VERIFICATION I hereby verify that the statements in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: ~//7/~ B FRANCES MORRISON CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to New Matter has been duly served on the following this 18th day of March, 2003, by placing the same in the U.S. First Class Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: John Statler, Esquire Goldberg Katzman & Shipman, PC PO Box 1268 Harrisburg PA 17108-1268 BY: ~~fr~n, Esquire Attorney I.D. #30965 FREEBURN & HAMILTON 4415 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 671-1955 Dated: 3/18/03 Attorney for Plaintiff FRANCES MORRISON, Plaintiff · Vo SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. Defendant · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 02-6023 CIVIL ACTION - LAW ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE I accept service of PlaintifFs Complaint on behalf of Swift Transportation Company, Inc., and certify that I am authorized to do so. GOLDBERG KATZMAN/k SHIPMAN, PC Date: '2~/2--I / O ~ PO Box 1268 Harrisburg PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICe'. I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Acceptance of Service has been duly served on the following this 26th day of March, 2003, by placing the same in the U.S. First Class Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: John A. Statler, Esquire Goldberg Katzman & Shipman, PC PO Box 1268 Harrisburg PA 17108-1268 BY: Georgian~e J. HesS, Assistant to Richard E. Freeburn, Esquire Attorney I.D. #30965 FREEBURN & HAMILTON 4415 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 671-1955 Dated: 3/26/03 Attorney for Plaintiff FRANCES MORRISON, Plaintiff SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 02-6023 CIVIL ACTION - LAW TO: Prothonotary PRAECIPE Kindly mark the above-captioned matter settled and discontinued. By: Respectfully submitted, FREEBURN & HAMIL~I'ON Richard E. 1}reeburn, Esqu)re I.D. No. 30965 4415 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 671-1955 Date: 6/11/03 Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I I~REBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon ail parties or counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage prepaid on the / ~ TIn day of x. JC..4A-~. ,2003, addressed to the following: Richard E. Freebum, Esquire Freeburn & Hamilton 4415 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 By Respectfully submitted, GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. John A. Stat¥~r~squire Attorney I. D. No. 43812 320 Market Street P.O, Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Telephone: (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendant Swii~ Transportation Company, Inc.