HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-03738
~
~
~.
.~
~
~
~
"7
.>
~
o
'"
-..1
'-
, -
:>
, ~
'-.J
00
~
t-
CV)
,
t"'"
C)-
,
~
~\
:
;
I
/
.
,
;
I
i
i
I
(0 (') ,,~
(J -lO. , -.I n
~ -<: ~~ "' , ."
~ ' '. ,-- '-J
1f:: Ir? ~~ - ,; :rl
,-
~ 6 VI, ,-, .......,., 8
tv ~ ;C")
~ C' , : ~':l
?: - . :'~:Q
&1 ;,,) .'r (J
0 ' ,rn
~" .~
;\CJi- :..) ......
... .n
r ---
:e
~
--". .-. .
-.;;.::-:=....~ ~._-...- ""
. _:.. ~.""
,..-
\ ,.
F" ~C\ f'\
IL::l.r\,J:PCr:
T!~' r'.......; ,..:., ~
, ,,' j-. ",.:)t'RY
. .........,,,
'l7 (:lI[; 20 ril ~: /2
~l" 1" '
i... ij'i,.:'''. ^,i ..:..\~) ('("'I'm'
.. -\l.~ . '- ......v.\:
')1'1,,1 '~VI'.I"i/\
.... ll\,..iL.'i'.z_,J
WIX, WENGER Iil WEIDNER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
4705 DUKE STREET
HARRISBURC, PENNSYLVANIA 17109-3099
C 7111652-845')
TElECOP1ER 17171 652-6290
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION
LESA D. WILSON, .
.
Plaintiff :
:
v. .
.
. File No. 97-3738
.
JERROD E. BALDWIN and .
.
CAROLYN R. BALDWIN, PRAECIPE AND RULE TO FILE
Defendants : x A COMPLAINT
. A BILL OF PARTICULARS
.
.
.
TO THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF SAID COURT:
Issue rule on Plaintiff to file a Complaint
in the above case within twenty days after service of the rule or
suffer a judgement of non pros.
DATE: 1~\4~,\'b Signature: -7AA'~ 74< W~
Print Name: {ichard H, wix
Attorney for: Defendants
Address: 4705 Duke Street
Harrisbura. PA 17109
Telephone No: 1717\ 652-8455
Supreme Court 10 No.: 07274
NON, j-lL"-
,---
/6
, 19 ;1: ~ULE ISSUED AS ::1BO~.
(' ~ vj'\..A.
Prothonotary
By:
L~\.L
I
Deputy
(NOTE: File in duplicate)
PROTHON.-1Z
"
"
(1 \::" 0
c: 0:> -,I
-c' '- ':;1
-1:" . 7::
I, , , .;;f2
;,{-n
\'! ()i ,0
- '_-~C~
-:', .)--;,
...."
" .:(=")
c , :.:? ,~,- rn
" \.~.I
" "
~ "'-' ,~
::XCI
fv -~
.
.
\
'6
, .
MINDY S, GOODMAN
ATTORNEV AT lAW
20HO lINGlESTOWN ROAD
IIARRISIIURtl. PA 17110
TElEPIIONE ('AX
(717) S4().H742 (717) S40-H743
"'.'.,~'. , ...... ,:.'.".;":':.<,.~rr;q.:<....,:.'.oi:..",''''i'''''~,", \.,,,,,,,,,,,:--.-- ..
r'
;'
-
.
.
l'
t
,
,
"':"'::;--7:,..,~ ~ -::-__ __ .~~' ..._ _._-:'~::;"~ '.
Plaintiffs vehicle approximately 40 feet, after which she was struck in the
rear a second time by the vehicle driven by Defendant. Jerrod E, Baldwin.
COUNT I
Plaintiff v, Defendant Jerrod E. Baldwin,
6. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 4
inclusive as though the same had been set forth in full,
7. On or about August 14, 1995, at approximately 1:00 p.m., Plaintiff
was operating her motor vehicle in a northerly direction on Route 34 in North
Middleton Township. Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, approximately one-half
from the Turkey Hill Market.
8. The vehicle driven by Jerrod E. Baldwin was traveling in the same
direction and in the same lane as Plaintiffs vehicle.
9, The vehicle driven by Defendant, Jerrod E. Baldwin, was a 1963
Chevrolet Corvair that was owned by his mother, Carolyn R. Baldwin.
10, At the time of the accident herein described, Plaintiff was lawfully
bringing her car to a stop behind a line of traffic that had stopped at a
construction site,
11, Defendant Jerrod E, Baldwin breached his duty of care to the
Plaintiff and the resulting accident was directly and proximately caused by the
2
~,
negligence and carelessness of Defendant, Jerrod E. Baldwin, which consisted
of the following:
a, operating the motor vehicle in a careless, reckless and
negligent manner;
b. operating the motor vehicle at an excessive rate of speed
under the circumstances;
c. not having the motor vehicle under the proper control so as
to stop said vehicle within the assured clear distance ahead (75 Pa, Cons,
Stat. ~ 3361);
d, operating the motor vehicle without due regard to the rights,
safety, and position of the Plaintiff;
e, failing to have the motor vehicle under the proper control so
as to prevent the vehicle from striking the Plaintiffs motor vehicle;
f. failing to keep a proper lookout;
g, failing to use due care under the circumstances;
h, failing to notice the motor vehicle of the Plaintiff;
i. upon noticing the motor vehicle of the Plaintiff, failing to
yield the right-of-way to the Plaintiffs vehicle;
j, failing to apply the brakes in sufficient time to avoid striking
Plaintiffs car;
3
k, failing to apply the brakes in sufficient time to avoid
impacting with Plaintiffs vehicle;
I. operating the motor vehicle in disregard of the rules of the
road, the ordinances of North Middleton Township, and the laws of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including but not limited to the Motor
Vehicle Code, 75 Pa, Cons, Stat. 99 3361 and 3362,
12, At all times hereto, Plaintiff acted with due care and was not
contributorily negligent.
13, As a result of Defendant Jerrod E. Baldwin's negligence, Plaintiff
suffered the following "serious injuries" that have substantially interfered with her
normal activities for an extended period of time, some or all of which may be
permanent:
a, Herniated nucleus pulposus centrally and the left side at 04-
5 that has caused central and leftward flattening of the spinal cord and a
reversal of the normal cervical lordosis at this level.
b, Narrowing of the foramen on the left at C3-4 related to
spondylosis, with degenerative change at C4-5,
c, Generalized reduced range of motion of the neck and pain
with movement.
d, Bilateral lower lumbar paravertebral muscle tightness,
4
e, Generalized reduced range of motion of the low back and
pain with movement.
f, Chronic neck, back and arm pain,
14. As a result of Defendant Jerrod E. Baldwin's negligence, Plaintiff
has suffered great bodily pain and agony, as well as mental anxiety and
nervousness, to her great detriment and loss, and Plaintiff probably will continue
to suffer great pain and agony in the future.
15, As a result of Defendant Jerrod E. Baldwin's negligence, Plaintiff
has sustained serious and permanent injury, for the treatment of which she has
incurred substantial medical bills and expenses and Plaintiff will likely incur
substantial medical bills and expenses in the future.
16. As a result of Defendant Jerrod E, Baldwin's negligence, Plaintiff
has suffered a loss of earnings and/or earning capacity.
17, As a result of Defendant Jerrod E. Baldwin's negligence, Plaintiff
has suffered a substantial interruption of her daily habits and pursuits to her great
and permanent detriment and loss,
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Jerrod E.
Baldwin in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits, exclusive of interest
and costs,
5
COUNT II
Plaintiff v, Defendant Carolyn R. Baldwin.
18, Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 17
inclusive as though the same had been set forth in full.
19, On or about August 14, 1995, Defendant Carolyn R. Baldwin was
the owner of a 1963 Chevrolet Corvair that was involved in the accident that is
the subject of this lawsuit.
20. Defendant Carolyn R. Baldwin breached her duty of care to the
Plaintiff in that she failed to properly inspect and maintain the vehicle in a
reasonably safe condition for travel in that the brakes were not properly
inspected and maintained and the resulting accident was directly and proximately
caused by the negligence and carelessness of Defendant, Carolyn R. Baldwin.
21, At all times hereto, Plaintiff acted with due care and was not
contributorily negligent.
22, As a result of Defendant Carolyn R. Baldwin's negligence, Plaintiff
suffered the following .serious injuries" that have substantially interfered with her
normal activities for an extended period of time, some or all of which may be
permanent:
(,
a, Herniated nucleus pulposus centrally and the left side at c4-
5 that has caused central and leftward flattening of the spinal cord and a
reversal of the normal cervical lordosis at this level.
b, Narrowing of the foramen on the left at C3-4 related to
spondylosis, with degenerative change at C4-5.
c, Generalized reduced range of motion of the neck and pain
with movement.
d. Bilateral lower lumbar paravertebral muscle tightness,
e, Generalized reduced range of motion of the low back and
pain with movement.
f. Chronic neck, back and arm pain,
23. As a result of Defendant Carolyn R. Baldwin's negligence, Plaintiff
has suffered great bodily pain and agony, as well as mental anxiety and
nervousness, to her great detriment and loss, and Plaintiff probably will continue
to suffer great pain and agony in the future.
24, As a result of Defendant Carolyn R. Baldwin's negligence, Plaintiff
has sustained serious and permanent injury, for the treatment of which she has
incurred substantial medical bills and expenses and Plaintiff will likely incur
substantial medical bills and expenses in the future,
25. As a result of Defendant Carolyn R. Baldwin's negligence, Plaintiff
has suffered a loss of earnings and/or earning capacity,
7
WIX, WENGER 8 WEIDNER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
4705 DUKE STREET
HARRISBURC, PENNSYLVANIA 17109-3099
17171652.8455
TELECOPIER t 7171 652-0290
...... '-"
....-
--
( , " 'j
i.,..i.) I I
"., ., .,.....
i. ,
.'
, ~
~)
" .;
,
,. j . q
,
" :.'1 ~
.j " "
", .-
v
CXl!fl)NWFALTH OF PD'lNSYLVANIA
a:llll-llY OF C\JMBERIAND
LESA D. 1'iI LSON ,. . ..
Plaintiff
.' .
.
. . .. .
... " .
File No. 97-3737 Civil Term
v.
JERROD E. BALDWIN and
CAROLYN R. BALDWIN,
Defendants
SUB~NA TO P!lCOU::E lXX:1..l"ENTS OR TH I t-K3S
FOR DISCX>VERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
TO: Rite Aid, Railroad Avenue, Shiremanstown, PA 17011
(Nane of Person or Entity)
Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to
produce the following doarnents or things: Your complete personnel file relating to
Lesa D. Wilson~ includjng but n~t limited to any Workers' Comp files, all
medical records and any other documents in your possession
at ~ix, Wenqer & Weidne~~705 Duke Street, Harrisburq. PA 17109
(Addres; )
You may deliver or mail legible copies of the docunents or produce things request-ed b)
this subpoena, together with the certificate of call)liance, to the party making thh
request at the address listed above. You have ~he right to seek in advance the reasonabl~
cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sou9ht.
I f you fai I to produce the docurents or th ;r.gs required by this subpoena within t\o-!enty
(20) cays after its serv~ce, the ;:>arty sf'rving this subpoena ooy seek a court :)rder
call) 0 11 ing you to a:rrp ly wit.'l it.
THIS SUS~NA WAS ISSUED AT 1liE REWEST OF 1liE F<X.LCln'ING PERSON:
NAME: Richard H. Wix, Esquire
ADORE~~f~'o~eBg~~ ~t~~~%ner
Harrisburq. PA 17109
TELEPHONE:-17171 652-8455
SUPREM: ~T 10 II 07774
A TIORNEY FOR:
DATE:-J.I/C- 11/, I cf!iX-
S a I of the Court
uty
(Eff. 1/97)
..-,.. ....
\. )~
,c." r.,~ \....
. .",.;~r '.~J':'r,..
,-. '.". ~,,:.':.~,;s.~
. .-:J,J",\.1
"""/',.;11
""["')
~il ';:, _:
., I!
~~l f ..,
j i j .j: 1.,~
.~
('J' ,
~ "
:~~::\;
"~'I"l
, ;~ '"
.\:y
WIX, WENGER Ii) WEIDNER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
4705 DUKE STREET
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17100-3000
c 11n Osa.6455
TELECOPIER. t 7171652-0200
the remaining of Paragraph 5. Therefore, the remaining averments
of Paragraph 5 are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at the time of trial.
6. Paragraphs 1 through 5 of the Defendants' Answer with New
Matter are incorporated herein by reference.
7. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without
sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
averments of Paragraph 7. Therefore, each and every averment of
Paragraph 7 is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at the time of trial.
S. Admitted that on or about August 14, 1995 at
approximately 1:00 p.m., Defendant Jerrod E. Baldwin was operating
a vehicle in a northerly direction on Route 34 in North Middleton
Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. After reasonable
investigation the Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form
a belief as to the truth of the remaining of Paragraph S.
Therefore, the remaining averments of Paragraph S are specifically
denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
9. Admitted.
10. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without
sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
averments of Paragraph 10. Therefore, each and every averment of
Paragraph 10 is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is
2
demanded at the time of trial.
11. The averments of Paragraph 11 constitute a conclusion of
law to which no response is required. To the extent that a
response is deemed required, each and every averment of Paragraph
11 is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at
the time of trial.
12. The averments of paragraph 12 constitute a conclusion of
law to which no response is required. To the extent that a
response is deemed required, each and every averment of Paragraph
12 is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at
th time of trial.
13. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without
sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
averments of Paragraph 13. Therefore, each and every averment of
Paragraph 13 is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at the time of trial.
14. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without
sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
averments of Paragraph 14. Therefore, each and every averment of
Paragraph 14 is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at the time of trial.
15. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without
sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
3
averments of Paragraph 15. Therefore, each and every averment of
Paragraph 15 is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at the time of trial.
16. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without
sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
averments of Paragraph 16. Therefore, each and every averment of
Paragraph 16 is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at the time of trial.
17. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without
sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
averments of Paragraph 17. Therefore, each and every averment of
Paragraph 17 is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at the time of trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Jerrod E. Baldwin, respectfully requests
Your Honorable Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint with
prejudice.
18. Paragraphs 1 through 17 of the Defendants' Answer with
New Matter are incorporated herein by reference.
19. Admitted.
20. The averments of Paragraph 20 constitute a conclusion of
law to which no response is required. To the extent that a
response is deemed required, each and every averment of Paragraph
20 is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at
4
the time of trial.
21. The averments of Paragraph 21 constitute a conclusion of
law to which no response is required. To the extent that a
response is deemed required, each and every averment of Paragraph
21 is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at
the time of trial.
22. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without
sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
averments of Paragraph 22. Therefore, each and every averment of
Paragraph 22 is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at the time of trial.
23. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without
sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
averments of Paragraph 23. Therefore, each and every averment of
Paragraph 23 is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at the time of trial.
24. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without
sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
averments of Paragraph 24. Therefore, each and every averment of
Paragraph 24 is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at the time of trial.
25. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without
sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
5
averments of Paragraph 25. Therefore, each and every averment of
Paragraph 25 is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at the time of trial.
26. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without
sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
averments of Paragraph 26. Therefore, each and every averment of
Paragraph 26 is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at the time of trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Carolyn R. Baldwin, respectfully
requests Your Honorable Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint
with prejudice.
NEW MATTER
27. Defendants believe and therefore aver that all times
relevant hereto, Plaintiff, Lesa D. Wilson, selected the limited
tort option under a policy of motor vehicle insurance issued under
the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act.
28. The Plaintiff's claims for wage loss and/or medical
expenses are barred, or should be reduced in accordance with S 1722
of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act.
29. The Plaintiff's claims for non-pecuniary damages are
barred by the limited tort option of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle
Financial Responsibility Act.
30. Immediately prior to the collision referred to in the
6
,.
LESA D. WILSON,
Plaintiff
:IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
:CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVMIIA
: NO. 97.3738 CIVIL TERM
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
JERROD E. BALDWIN and
CAROLYN R. BALDWIN,
Defendants
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER
27. Admitted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff admits that at all time
relevant hereto, Plaintiff, Lesa D. Wilson, had selected the limited tort option
under a policy of motor vehicle insurance issued under the Pennsylvania Motor
Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act. Ms, Wilson denies any implication that her
lawsuit is barred by virtue of selecting the limited tort option. To the contrary, as
a consequence of suffering serious injuries as set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint,
Plaintiff, Lesa D. Wilson, avers that she has a valid claim for economic and
noneconomic damages against Defendants.
28. The averments of Paragraph 28 constitute a conclusion of law to
which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed
required, Paragraph 28 is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded
at trial.
29. The averments of Paragraph 29 constitute a conclusion of law to
which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed