Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-02251 . 'l ~ ~. \? ~ ~ - . .. ";:) '.. , '=' ~ ~ I ~ '1 ~ , ~ ;... '~ / SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 1997-02231 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND DEITCH BARRY L ET AL VS. HOUSER JAMES ET AL R ThnMaa Klina . Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: TOULOUMES CONNIE HOUSER but WBS unable to locate Her in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of ADAMS COUNTY County, Pennsylvania. to serve the within COMPLAINT On May 12th. 1997 . this office wall in receipt of the attached return from ADAMS COUNTY County, Pennsylvania. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County Surcharge 6.00 .00 2.00 So answe~s: , ,/ ~- ~C,-./... ...~/ . :.~ ....-? r-~ ,_....- ~ 0"',"""'- R; Thomas K11ne, Sher1ff ..' ... 86.00 DAVID TAMANINI 05/12/1997 Sworn and subscribed to before me this / J l!>< day of rvv; 19 ':17 A. D. (.l,.'1" - ~. ;n;. pj'i' ~ ro ono ary SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 1997-02251 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND DEITCH BARRY L ET AL VS. HOUSER JAMES ET AL MICHAEL E. BARRICK . Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of being duly sworn according CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, who to law, says, the within COMPLAINT Upon SOWERS SCOTT defendant, at 2021:00 HOURS, on the -1Rt day of nay 192Z at 311 PINE ROAD nT. HOLLY SPRINGS.. PA 17065 County, Pennsylvania, by handing to SHIRLEY a true and attested copy of the COMPLAINT and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. was served the . CUMBERLAND SOWERS. MOTHER . Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit SUrcharglP 6.00 4.34 .00 2.00 So answers: ...... .d .;#.. I ~t;K~r-<: /2~' - ..r ..~..,~ I . R. Thomas IU1ne, Sher1:f:f elZ.~4 DAVID TAMANINI 05/12/1997 by -4 Sworn and subscribed to before me this I.) t::: day of 71th. " I 19 ?"} A. D. (", ..L< C. Ihdt,,,,, up!;' ~ I Prothonotarjr \ R F ;- 1\ 1- D ,'.. '; r~ ~'.: ,~ jl,', ., C ~ 'i l;::) ~ \".. ~ ~ <::l-- . ~ ~ -- ," (' ) '\ 1n j- L: ~ 1'_1:'"; ~ , . ..-...; . ',~ ~ rg},," ,-'. J ,;~ -e e ~ ~ , ~~! '=> (') . ;:. ~ ( " :'-1 ' (,'.' ., ~ ll-,; ,. ; '0 ; l' ;:-1 ~ ...i.. ..~ ~ ,. 1'- ,> ~... ... .-' . ~. . , -. . ... o e u: ... o ~ .... - ~ _.bCOC\l O~O- ~Ul fll/:: I"S< U;100. ~:!2dei .;J >o.'::l ~ ]I ! BARRY L. DEITCH, AND GAY DEITCH, H/W, PlaintiffS, vs, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. q7- ;).;).5'1 tMrJ T~ CIVIL ACTION - LAW JAMES HOUSER; DEMETRIOS TOULOUMES: individually and as agent for CONNIE HOUSER TOULOUMES and JAMES HOUSER; CONNIE HOUSER TOULOUMES,individually; SCOTT SOWERS;WILLIAM HOUSER, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are 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 NOTICE 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. COURT ADMINISTRATOR Cumberland County Courthouse, 4th floor Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 NOTICIA 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 notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita 0 en persona 0 por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas 0 sus objeciones alas 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 en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus propiedades 0 otros derechos importantes para usted. Touloumes at their request to prepare to move a mobile home owned in part or wholly by James Houser and Connie Houser Touloumes. The mobile home was at Rollo Court, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, PA. 6. The unit was to be moved off location by others, but needed to be prepared for transport. 7. The unit was to be the residence of the defendants Demetrios and Connie Touloumes, located on the land of James Houser 8. The plaintiff had been asked by James Touloumes, for himself, and on behalf of Connie Houser Touloumes, and on behalf of James Houser to assist in preparing the mobile home for the move off of the location. Connie Houser Touloumes also requested that Barry Deitch assist with the moving of the mobile home, for herself and for her husband, and James Houser. 9. A portion of the work was to raise the front end of the mobile home so that the tongue mount could be reattached for movement off the location. 10. The jacks used by the defendants and the plaintiff were provided by Demetrios Touloumes, and/or in the alternative one or more of the defendants. 11. Previously that day, the cinder blocks used as a foundation underneath the back end of the unit had been removed and the tires on the wheels were reinflated by the plaintiff and several of the defendants. 12. While working carefully and in the course of the activities requested by Demetrios Touloumes, his wife Connie 2 Houser Touloumes individually, and as an agents for their spouse, and, and as agents for James Houser, the plaintiff was seriously injured. 13. Before the proposed reattachment of the tongue mount at the front end, James Houser and Demetrios Touloumes placed objects in back of the rear tires of the unit intending to prevent backward rolling of the tires and the unit during the tongue mounting process. 14. On the same side of the unit with Barry Deitch was James Houser who was standing behind Barry Deitch while Deitch and/or other defendants on the opposite side were jacking up the unit high enough off the remaining front end foundation blocks for the tongue mount to be installed at the front end of the mobile home. 15. The ground level of the terrain sloped upward toward the front end, necessitating that that end be raised for reattachment. 16. At this time, on the opposite side of the unit from Deitch and James Houser; Demetrios Touloumes, William Houser, and Scott Sowers engaged in their activities. 17. William Houser and/or Scott Sowers and/or Demetrios Touloumes jacked their side off of the foundation blocks, to raise their side at about the same time that Deitch was operating his jack. 18. In the alternative, William Houser and/or Scott Sowers and/or Demetrios Touloumes jacked up their jacks to make 3 contact with the mobile home underbody as it sat on foundation support blocks. This was done either before or during the time Deitch was raising the height of the jack on his side to contact and then lift the unit high enough to become level and then to attach the tongue mount. 19. In the alternative, Demetrios Touloumes and/or James Houser and/or William Houser and/or Scott Sowers were not engaged in any activity at the time of the fall of the unit, failing to take protective and preventative steps while Deitch was jacking. 20. In the alternative, one or more of William Houser, Demetrios Touloumes, and Scott Sowers touched their side of the unit during or after Deitch's jacking, causing it to slide toward' and onto Deitch from any support that then existed. 21. As Deitch reached his point of stopping to jack, the mobile home slid towards him, while pivoting on the rear tires of the unit. No blocking had been placed in front of any wheels, and inadequate blocking had been placed behind the wheels by Demetrios Touloumes and James Houser. 22. When the unit slid as described above, it fell from it's supports, and caused severe and permanent bodily injury and scarring to Barry Deitch's arm. 23 . As a proximate result of the accident described above, the Plaintiff Barry Deitch sustained serious, painful and grievous physical injuries including psychological and physical injury with scarring to his arm. The aforesaid accident was caused solely and exclusively by the wrongful and liability-producing 4 conduct of the Defendants, and was due in no manner whatsoever to any act or failure to act on the part of the Plaintiff herein. 24. As a further result of the wrongful and liability- producing conduct of the Defendants herein, Plaintiff has been obliged to expend various and diverse sums of money for medicine and medical care and treatment in an effort to cure himself of the ills and injuries he has suffered and he will be obliged to do so in the future to his great detriment and loss. 25. As a further result of the wrongful and liability- producing conduct of the Defendants herein, Plaintiff has suffered depreciation of his earnings and earning capacity and will continue to suffer such loss and depreciation for an indefinite time into the future, to his great detriment and loss. 26. As a result of the wrongful and liability-producing conduct of the Defendants herein, Plaintiff has undergone great physical pain and mental anguish, as well as embarrassment and humiliation, and will continue to endure the same an indefinite time into the future, to his great detriment and loss. 27. As a further result of the wrongful and liability- producing conduct of the Defendants herein, Plaintiffs have been extremely inconvenienced and unable to attend to life's daily activities as well as having been deprived of life's pleasures and will continue to suffer same for an indefinite time into the future to their great detriment and loss. 28. As a result of the wrongful and liability-producing conduct of the Defendants, Gay Deitch has been deprived of the 5 services of her husband, and mental suffering as a result of his behavior after the accident. 29. Gay Deitch has performed various services for her husband in his recovery and rehabilitation, the value of which she seeks from the Defendants. COUNT I Barry L. Deitch and Gay Deitch vs. James Houser IN TRESPASS 30. Paragraphs 1 through 29 are incorporated herein by reference. 31. The aforesaid accident and resulting injury to Plaintiff was caused as a direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness and/or wanton misconduct of the Defendant which consisted of: (a). Failing to coordinate all jacking activities; (b). Failing to provide a proper blocking of the wheels and/or safe proper jacks for jacking, to prevent the sliding and/or pivoting of the unit and its fall onto Deitch's arm; (c). Failing to warn of instability of the unit while it was being jacked; (d). Causing the unit to fall as a result of his actions or inaction; 6 (e). Failing to discover and prevent the unsafe condition as described above, existing in the area where the Plaintiff was injured; (f). Failing to correct or remedy the unsafe condition above referenced during and before the jacking operation; (g). Failure to provide an adequate supervisory system or plan to coordinate and guide each worker; (h) Failing to provide proper jacks for jacking, to prevent the sliding and/or pivoting of the unit and its fall onto Deitch. (i) Failure to provide adequate supervision during the placement and use of the jacks. 32. It was the duty of the Defendant to exercise care to protect the Plaintiff by inspection and other affirmative acts, from the danger of foreseeable events and/or injury occurring from foreseeable uses of the equipment and the objects selected for blocking wheels. 33. It was the duty of the aforesaid Defendant to warn and guide the Plaintiff while he was jacking his side of the mobile home in a manner consistent with and in conformity with standards of safety. 34. It was the duty of the Defendant to have available sufficient personnel and equipment to properly inspect and maintain and keep the aforesaid area in a safe condition for Plaintiff, and 7 actions or inaction; (e). Failing to discover and prevent the unsafe condition as described above. existing in the area where the Plaintiff was injured; (g). Failing to correct or remedy the unsafe condition above referenced during and before the jacking operation; (h). Failure to provide an adequate supervisory system or plan to coordinate and guide each worker; (i) Failing to provide proper jacks for jacking, to prevent the sliding and/or pivoting of the unit and its fall onto Deitch. (jl Failure to provide adequate supervision during the placement and use of the jacks. 39. It was the duty of the Defendant to exercise care to protect the Plaintiff by inspection and other affirmative acts, from the danger of foreseeable events and/or injury occurring from foreseeable uses of the equipment and the objects selected for blocking wheels. 40. It was the duty of the aforesaid Defendant to warn and guide the Plaintiff while he was jacking his side of the mobile home in a manner consistent with and in conformity with standards of safety. 41. It was the duty of the Defendant to have available sufficient personnel and equipment to properly inspect and maintain 9 47. The aforesaid accident and resulting injury to Plaintiff was caused as a direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness and/or wanton misconduct of the defendants which consisted of: (a). Failing to coordinate all jacking activities; (b). Failing to provide a proper blocking of the wheels and/or safe proper jacks for jacking, to prevent the sliding and/or pivoting of the unit and its fall onto Deitch's arm; (c). Failing to warn of instability of the unit while it was being jacked; (d). Causing the unit to fall as a result of his actions or inaction; (e). Failing to discover and prevent the unsafe condition as described above, existing in the area where the Plaintiff was injured; (f). Failing to correct or remedy the unsafe condition above referenced during and before the jacking operation; (g). Failure to provide an adequate supervisory system or plan to coordinate and guide each worker; (h) Failing to provide a proper blocking of the wheels to prevent forward and backward rolling; (i) Failing to provide proper jacks for jacking, to prevent the sliding and/or pivoting of the unit and its fall onto 11 misconduct of the defendant which consisted of: (a). Failing to advise to coordinate his side's jacking activities to be coordinated; (b). Causing the sideways movement of the unit and its fall onto Deitch's arm; (c). Failing to warn of instability of the unit while it was being jacked, (d). Causing the unit to fall as a result of his actions or inaction; (e). Failing to advise to properly block the wheels so as to prevent forward or backward rolling during jacking of the front end; (f). Failing to discover and prevent the unsafe condition as described above, existing in the area where the Plaintiff was injured; (g). Failing to advise to correct or remedy the unsafe condition above referenced during and before the jacking operation; (h). Failure to advise to have an adequate supervisory system to coordinate and guide each worker; (i) Failing to provide a proper blocking of the wheels to prevent forward and backward rolling; (j) Failing to advise of the use of proper jacks for jacking, to prevent the sliding and/or pivoting of the unit and its fall onto Deitch. 13 ,>. <:'1 '- r- e:. ; .- ~: :".' .:-" lUr' oJ ) ~'i~ n. ~~, ffr n. ';--:i '- >." (;'. ~.i) ~ '\ ~ .,~ :,,~ UI',.' ~!l ;>- 'IuJ U:". ft.': ;'_jtL. I .- ~- "- ", r- ::J a Ci' a 0:>- ~:lE~ Cl::J F 0<l:f-~~ a~~~~ S '>-'ili ~ w w " 3 ~:I: :il U (I) ",it Za:~~ <l: W" x ;2:1: . -. >- 1'"' ?: ! c~ C": i~ (..4 :~j..~. i IlI~~ . .; , or.; '.' . p:., '-'- ~'_ i 6i:, -.~ ' ' In , C,! ,. Ult', '" ~ 0_" !if: ~ ;;"' C:2 .---- ta. r- ':i 0 c;'\ u 10. Denied. Aner reasonable investigation, Sowers is without knowledge or infonnation suffieient to form a bcliefas to the truth of the avemlenls that Demetrios Touloumes may have owned or supplied any of the jacks allegedly used in conjunction with the events described in the Complaint. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Sowers owned or supplied the jaeks described in the Complaint, and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 11.-29. Denied. The avennents of Paragraphs II through 29 of PlaintilTs' Complaint arc denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 30.-51. The avennents contained in Paragraphs 30 through 51 of Plain tilTs' Complaint concern a Defendant other than the answering Defendant, and therefore no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the avennents of Paragraphs 30 through 51 are denicd pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 52-57. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraphs 52 through 57 of Plain tilTs' Complaint are conclusions of law or fact to which no response is necessary; to the extent that a response is dccmed necessary, the avennents are denicd pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answcr. Sowers incorporates the averments of Paragraphs 63 through 69 of the New Mattcr eontained hereinaner. 58.-60. The avennents contained in Paragraphs 58 through 60 of Plaintiffs' Complaint concern a Defendant other than the answering Defendant, and therefore no response is required. 2 To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the avennents of Paragraphs 58 through 60 are dcnied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 61.-62. Denied. The avernlcnts of Paragraphs 61 through 62 constitute conclusions of law or faet to whieh no resp<Jnse is necessary; to the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the averments arc denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). By way offurthcr answer, Sowers incorporates the avennents of Paragraphs 63 through 69 of the New Matter conlaincd hereinafter. WHEREFORE, Dcfendant, Scott Sowcrs, demands judgment in his favor and against Plaintiffs and that PlaintilTs' Complaint be dismisscd with prejudice and costs of this aetion. NEW MATTER 63. The averments sct forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint fail to state of claim or eause of action against Sowers upon which relief may be granted. 64. If Plaintiffs sustained injury and damage as a result of the actions or inaetions of individuals or entities, as alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint, such aclions or inactions were of individuals or entities other than Sowers, his agents, servants, or employees and over whom Sowers neither exereiscd nor had the right or duty to exercise control and for whose actions or inactions Sowers is not responsible or othcrwise legally liable. 65. At all material times, Plaintiff, Barry L. Deitch (hereinafter "Deitch"), had a duty to exercise reasonable caution and reasonable care to avoid unnecessary haml or injury to himself in response to a condition which Deitch kncw or should have known was dangerous, and 3 under which circumstances Deitch had a duty to assure his own slIfety by the use of his own senses and reasonable conduct. 66. Any claim or cause of action set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint is baITed by operation ofthe contributory/comparative negligence of Plaintiffs as may be developed during discovery. 67. Any claim or cause of action as set forth in PlaintilTs' Complaint is baITed by operation of the PlaintilTs' assumption ofa known risk as may be developed during discovery. 68. As a volunteer, Sowers owed no duty to Plaintiffs. 69. Any claim or cause of action as set forth in PlaintilTs' Complaint is baITed by the applicable statute of limitations. including speeificlllly, but not limited to, any claim or cause of action which, by reason oflaek of speeificity of pi eliding, is not directly and specifically set forth in the language of Plaintiffs' Complaint, but which PlaintilTs seek to raise at a later time by further amendment, claiming to have preserved such claim or cause ofllction within Plaintiffs' Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Scott Sowers, demands judgment in his favor and against Plaintiffs and that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and costs of this action. 4 >- .:r f: ~ ... .... .:z :'J.-r UJ!:' '_)tJ' ft~ ')~ 0.: .- (-,~j ll..r.: "':';'. ~( ". :::.:!/) (Y, N ...!h UJL' , r "",' Lip! -' ~',,1w " :;:;J HlC..L.. j:.:' -, ~ ~ t- o c." averment is a conclusion of law and no response is required. 68. Paragraph 68 is denied. The averments of the complaint stand as stated. By way of further answer, the averment is a conclusion of law and no response is required. 69. Paragraph 69 is denied. The averments of the complaint stand as stated. By way of further answer, the averment is a conclusion of law and no response is required. Dated: q-/O-Q7 Respectfully Submitted, /l~. P.D.Box 6206 Harrisburg, PA 17112-6206 (717) 541-1805 Attorney I.D. No. 27775 averment is a conclusion of law and no response is required. 68. Paragraph 68 is denied. The averments of the complaint stand as stated. By way of further answer, the averment is a conclusion of law and no response is required. 69. Paragraph 69 is denied. The averments of the complaint stand as stated. By way of further answer, the averment is a conclusion of law and no response is required. Respectfully Submitted, Dated: Q-10-97 ~ P.O. Box 6206 Harrisburg, PA 17112-6206 (717) 541-1805 Attorney I.D. No. 27775 "- ro. '- r"'- ,,'-, ~;; .' ~;; .. h.... (~":' c;; ~. '\ II I.. ( .... "J. ~ ll_ -: I'... (?~; 0.J C~ , lL,' , .. ., , (;, , " ii:- I, , i- e.,; " r- ~, ~ U C' t.) ! j I I I I / I ",. 0' r to: '" ....- .' .. I '--'~. (....! ( ,. -::'t , L:.... . "-'- , 0:- , . ~n (-~ , l~) .. ...1,. ,- " L.:'. C' -- .- C - .. r- 0 U 0'