Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-03942 ~ ~ t It -...L ~ ~ II \l ~ ~ Lj ~ ~ -- CO C ~ I . ... ~ ., ('. .... t,::. ~ l~ \~~ ~~ C:l; u. l- ~ ~ l' y;' . . 0'" ~ ~ uJ' '" 'v-, ~-). . ... , ~'.l -, ....'-'" p ... ---" ,..:- r- -, :;j ~ r-- l" ~, -:;. "- 6 0 ....... ~ e; ('t<. ~ '. - \ .;;:) - '::::.)<< ~ UI 'tl .... III C 0 CUI U- :E'tl j Co:. ,.... , 0 III I . I . .....IllIllC I I .f,J......'O I . 1ll.lt,oC I it - 1 I e. ...................U . loll I 01ll'tl:E . I I ClI, P. . 1-0, C t..t .. "'"'0 = )' , , 0 o . . C Ill: ....' I ... 1 'tl U'tlUIll ,.JI .....1 O'l "'C J I fli- ~ I . >1 C tn ..J M. II .", . III 'tl ClI . , c' 1Il....0 ~ U! I ,.J UI o .101101 jf~ > OUlCllOC 01 -< NI I .It Ir.ClI.....cO ...d "'1 . 101 .c....tIl..... +'1 I ~ ClIU..... ... u' ~I . Ck:E...1ll <I < CI\ ~I . 0< Ilk . J;J~ , ...1 I 'tl ... <ClI8. ..... IIC :s ...... , , > >,..... 'tl 101 >1 . ~ , III Ill)C....O ....., I C :':I-oIllOU U. ] ,.... r-. ;- Ct- e i .~ , !": c:: , " '-' " " , . fC " c,;, , - f~' =-, (\..' ! - -.:.-. . f"... L. '-,,"" ',j II 3 .. ~ Iii filii !al I;' i j , ) . . SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 1997-03942 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LANGDON DAVID MARK VS. KEYSTONE FOODS CORPORATION ET R. Thomas Klin@ . Sheriff. who being duly sworn according to law. says. that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named def@ndant, to wit: KEYSTONE FOODS CORPORATION but was unable to locate deput1zed th@ sheriff of to serve the within WRIT OF Them 1n h1S bail1wick. He therefore MONTGOMERY SUMMONS COUNTY County. Pennsylvania. On Auaust 8th. 1997 . this off1ce was in receipt of the attach@d r@turn from MONTGOMERY COUNTY County. Pennsylvania. Sh@riff's Costs: So answ.rs: DockE'ting Out of County Surcharge MONTGOMERY COUNTY 18.00 9.00 2.00 33.00 5&2.00 MICHAEL SNOVER 08/08/1997 . ,,' ~../ Hi fho~as Kl1n@. ~her1ff Sworn and subscribed thllJ l5t~ day of 19 (17 A.D. Ill.. j ," l"'T-'t r notary' x:!;1\' . t ~ \ , LAW OfrlCE5 MICHAEL A, SNOVER. Eso 101 SOUTH THiRD ~rREE:T $tCONO f-lO<:>H [ASfON PE....NS~l .,"-N;'" 18042 . .... . ~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION - LAW DAVID MARK LANGDON ) No. 97-C-3942 ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) CIVIL ACTION ) KEYSTONE FOODS CORPORATION; TWIN ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ARCHES, LTD.. a/k/a R & A MILLER. ) INC., d/b/a MCDONALD'S OF WEST ) SHORE; and MCDONALD'S CORPORATION.) ) Defendants. ) 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 PAPER TO YOUR LAV\l'YER AT ONCE, IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAV\l'YER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE. GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP LAWYER REFERRAL SERV1CE 155 South 9th Street Easton, PA 18042 Telephone (610) 258-6333 pertinent hereto the said Defendant was a supplier of the chicken that was part of a chicken sandwich which the Plaintiff purchased for the purpose of human consumption and which was later discovered to contain foreign matter causing the Plaintiff's injuries and damages. J. The Defendant, Twin Arches, Ltd., a/k/a R & A Miller, Inc., d/b/a McDonald's of West Shore, is a corporation, partnership unincorporated association and/or other business entity, organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and/or registered to do business within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business located at Route 83 and Carlisle Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 170011. Said Defendant at all times relevant hereto carried on substantial and continuous business within CUmberland County. 4. The Defendant, McDonald's Corporation, is a corporation, partnership unincorporated association and/or other business entity, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland and/or registered to do buslness within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business located at Columbia Corporate Park, 8850 Stanford Blvd. Suite 2000, Columbia Maryland 21045. Said Defendant at all times relevant hereto carried on substantial and continuous business within CUmberland County. 5. The amount in controversy exceeds the amount established for compulsory arbitration by and for the Common Pleas of Northampton County. 6. On or about August 28, 1995, the Plaintiff, David Mark Langdon, was a business invitee of the Defendants, Twin Arches, Ltd., a/k/a R & A Miller, Inc., d/b/a McDonald's of West Shore, and McDonald's Corporation. He and a companion went into the Defendants' premises located near the Cedar Cliff Mall for the purpose of ordering something to eat. Plaintiff's companion purchased the meal and the Plaintiff began to eat it on the premises which consisted of a chicken filet sandwich. While consuming said chicken sandwich, the Plaintiff bit into a one inch bone which caused severe injury to his mouth and teeth. Plaintiff cried out when he bit into the sandwich, began bleeding from his mouth and then removed a tooth from his mouth that had been damaged as a direct result of this occurrence. The offending foreign material was returned to the possession of the Defendants at that point and notification to Defendants of the occurrence was made. The Plaintiff suffered severe injury as more particularly described below. f.l.iS:L~USE 0'_ AqION Br..ch of ..rruty David Mark Langdon vs. Keystone Foods Corporation; Twin Arches, Ltd., a/k/a R & A Miller, Inc., d/b/a McDonald's of West Shore; and McDonald's Corporation 7. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 6, inclusive, as though same were set forth fully and at length herein. 8. The Plaintiff was an intended consumer and/or was within the intended class of consumers with respect to consumption of the chicken sandwich in question and was the recipient of both express and implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose; namely, the chicken sandwich was warranted to be fit for human consumption without foreign matter or bones on which the Plaintiff might become injured during consumption or thereafter. 9. The Defendants, as sellers/suppliers of the chicken filet/chicken sandwich warranted both expressly and impliedly that same was fit for the particular purpose of human consumption; they further warranted that it was free of foreign material and that the chicken filet was free of bones. 10. The Defendants warranted that the chicken filet sandwich was of a quality comparable to that generally accepted in the fast food industry and fit for its ordinary purposes, free of foreign material and/or bones or any other condition which would pose a risk of physical harm to the Plaintiff. 11. The Defendants breached the express and implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and warranties of merchantability in that foreign matter and/or a bone was contained in the sandwich resulting in the Plaintiff's injuries more particularly described below. 12. The Plaintiff relied upon the Defendants warranties to his detriment in attempting to consume the sandwich in question. 13. As a direct and proximate result of the above described occurrence, the Plaintiff suffered serious bodily injuries including but not limited to bleeding gums, fracture and loss of Ii portion of the mesio-1ingua1 full porcelain jacket of tooth number 6, crack of the mesio-incisa1 portion of tooth number 8, fracture and loss on tooth number 9 of the entire distal half of the missing crown, fracture and loss of the mesio-incisal corner of tooth number 11, requiring new crowns for teeth numbers 6,8 and 9 as well as a new porcelain veneer facing for tooth number 11. . permanent inJury and deformity, f'tc.. by reason of which. Plaintlff was rendered sick. sore and dlsabled, all of Which has been to his great financial loss. 14. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described occurrence, the Plaintiff has suffered great mental anguish and physical pain to the date of the filing of this Complaint, all of which has been to his great financial loss. 15. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described occurrence, the Plaintiff will continue to suffer great mental anguish and physical pain into the future, all of which will be to his great financial loss. 16. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described occurrence, the Plaintiff has been required to expend large sums of money necessary for his treatment all of which has been to his great financial loss. 17. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described occurrence, the Plaintiff will have to expend large sums of money in the future due to the nature of the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff. IS. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described occurrence, the Plaintiff has been unable to pursue and enjoy the usual activities of life of an individual of the Plaintiff's age and has suffered a loss of enJoyment of life, loss of life expectancy, loss of happiness and loss of the pleasures of llfe up to the date of the filing of the Complaint, all of which has been to his great financial loss. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described occurrence, the Plaintiff will be unable to pursue and enjoy the usual activities of life of an individual of the Plaintiff I s age and she will suffer a loss of enjoyment of life, loss of life expectancy, loss of happiness and loss of the pleasures of life throughout the remainder of his life, all of which has been to his great financial loss. 20. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described occurrence, the Plaintiff has been unable to pursue his usual occupation for extended periods of time from the date of the accident upon which this cause of action is based and up to the date of the filing of this Complaint, and has suffered lost wages and other lost employment benefits up to the date of the filing of this Complaint, all of which has been to his great financial loss. 21. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described occurrence, the Plaintiff will be unable to pursue his usual occupation for extended periods of time into the future, and will suffer lost wages and other lost employments benefits into the future. all of which will be to his great financial loss. WHEREFORE. plaintiff demands a judgment against the oefendants for a SUIll in excess Of Fifty thousand b) In failing to properly filet said chicken product to ensure that there were no bones which might pose a danger of injury to a consumer; c) In failing to use due care in the inspection of said chicken product to ensure that there were no bones which might pose a danger of injury to a consumer; d) In selling and/or supplying the which contained bone(s) which posed a danger of injury to a consumer; e) In selling and/or supplying the which contained bone(s) which posed a danger of injury to a consumer; f) In failing to develop and employ adequate inspection procedures which would have prevented the bone/foreign material from being distributed down the chain of distribution and ultimately to the consumer; g) In selling and/or supplying said chicken product which the Defendants knew, or should have known, was unfit for human consumption; hI In selling and/or supplying said chicken product which the Defendants knew was unsafe for sale and distribution: i) In selling and/or supplying said chicken product which the Defendants knew, or should have known, was unsafe; j) In failing to warn the Plaintiff and/or impart other type of notice to the Plaintiff of the dangers of consuming said chicken product; k) In selling, supplying said chicken product which was not labeled as to handling, or as to danger; 1) In failing to remove the bone/foreign material prior to the chicken product's leaving each of the Defendants' respective control; m) In failing to instruct the buyer, sellers, and distributors as to the inspection, handling and sale of said chicken product; n) In having notice of the dangerous and hazardous conditions of the chicken product and in permitting the condition to exist in spite of such notice; 0) In failing to comply with known industry and governmental standards with respect to the preparation and inspection of chicken products and particularly with relation to making the chicken product free of foreign matter and/or bones; pI In failing to provide a >- \tl r ~ C"; -. .,":, N :' - ll'\ ? " , " C-_ " c: , ,': ,. :"'.~ ,- ....i:.! ('"\ '- , ..... ..-. C..: N " ~ or . t,L , " .... I,' . ..:.. I , v; - u~ .... :.;.J <.; <1' U ~ existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a store in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. The remaining allegations are denied. 4. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant McDonald's is a corporation. The remaining allegations are denied. 5. This paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. It is further noted that the lawsuit is pending in Cumberland County. 6. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the incident occurred on August 28, 1995 at Defendant's premises. It is also admitted that Plaintiff notified Defendant on this day of the alleged occurrence. The remaining allegations are denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Breach of Warranty David Mark Langdon vs. Keystone Foods Corporation; Twin Arches, Ltd., a/k/a R. & A, Miller. Inc., d/b/a McDonald's of West Shore; and McDonald's Corporation 7. Paragraphs 1 through 6 of the Defendant's Answer with New Matter are Incorporated herein as though fully set forth at length. 8. This paragraph states a legal concluSIon to which no responSe is required. To the e.teI'It that a responSlt is required. the allegatIOnS are denied. After reasonable investigation. answering Defendant IS WIthout knowledge or infotmation suffiCient to : form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded, 9. This paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations are denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 10. This paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations are denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 11. This paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations are denied, After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 12. This paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is requtred, the aUegations are denied, After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a b4t1ief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of Plaintiff's CompIalnt and the $8I"I1(l are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded 13. Denied. Afte, reasonable investigation. ansWBl'ing Defendant is without knowtedge or infOtlNltion sufficient to 'orm 8 belief as to the truth or veracity of the l allegations contained in paragraph 13 of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation. answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 1 e of P1aintiff's Complaint and the same are denied and strICt ploof thereof is demanded. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation. answering Defendant is without knowledge or information suffICient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the 4 allegations contained in paragraph 19 of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendant Twin Arches Ltd. a/k/a R. and A. Miller. Inc. d/b/a McDonald's of West Shore respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff together with the costs of the lawsuit. SECOND CAUSe OF ACTION Negligence David Mark Langdon vs. Keystone Foods Corporation; Twin Arches, Ltd.; alk/a R. & A. Miller, Inc., d/b/a McDonald's of Wast Shore; Bnd McDonald's Corporation 22. Paragraph 1 through 21 of Defendant's Answer with New Matter are incorporated herein as though fully set forth at length. 23. Denied. It is spaeificaDy denied that the Defendant was careless and/or negIlgent and that its carelessness Of negligence consisted of: !> a. Failing to inspect said chicken before selling it and/or distributing it; b. failing to proper filet said chicken product to ensure that it had no bones which might pose a danger of injury to a consumer; c. failing to use due care in the inspection of said chicken product to ensure that there were no bones which might pose a danger of injury to a consumer; d. selling and/or supplying the chicken which contained bone(s) which posed a danger of injury to a consumer; e. selling or supplying the chicken which contained bone(s) which posed a danger of injury to a consumer; f. failing to develop and employ adequate inspection procedures which would have prevented the bone/foreign materials from being distributed down the chain of distribution and ultimately to the consumer; g. selling and/or supplying said chicken product which the Defendant knew, or should have known, was unfit for human consumption; h. selling and/or supplying said chicken product which the Defendant knew was unsafe for sale and distribution; I. selling and/or supplying said chicken product which Defendant knew, or should have known, was unsafe; j. failing to warn the Plaintiff and/or impart other type of notice to the Plaintiff of the dangers of consuming said chicken product; k. selling lind/Of supplying said chicken product which wa. not labeled as to hllndling. Of as to danger; , I. failing to remove the bone/foreign material prior to the chicken product's leaving each of the Defendant's respective control; m. failing to instruct the buyers, sellers, and distributors as to the inspection, handling and sale of said chicken product; n. having notice of the dangerous and hazardous conditions of the chicken product and permitting the condition to exist in spite of such notice; 0, failing to comply with the known industry and governmental standards with respect to the preparation and inspection of chicken products and particularly with relation to making the chicken product free of foreign matter and/or bones; and, p, failing to produce a chicken product free of foreign matterlbone(s). On the contrary, at all times relevant, Defendant acted in a lawful, careful, safe and prudent manner and with due care as required by the circumstances. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. WHEREFORE. Defendant Twin Arches Ltd. aik/a R. and A. Miller, Inc, d/b/a McDonald's of West Shore respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff together with the costs of this lawsuit, BY WAY OF FURTHER DEFENSE: NEW MATTER 25, Paragraphs 1 through 24 01 Delendant's Answer with New Mattlt are incorpor~ted herein as though lully set lorth at length. . i ~ . ..' ti) li~ ,- ..~I~ ..... .- ,-', HI " w . , pr~ ." L.;r I!l i,';\ d Ii I . .1- t: I ~.. l._ r- <...; t.r . . . -- ,~~~ accordingly, the same are denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 3. The allegations of this paragraph is directed to Defendants other than Answering Defendant and accordingly, no responsive pleading is required. 4. The allegations of this paragraph is directed to Defendants other than Answering Defendant and accordingly, no responsive pleading is required. 5. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required and, accordingly, the same are denied. By way of further response, Keystone Foods Corporation submits that the compulsory arbitration limits applicable in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, as alleged in this paragraph are irrelevant inasmuch as this suit has been brought in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. 6. Denied. Keystone Foods Corporation denies the allegations set forth in this paragraph on the basis that they constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required and accordingly, the same are denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. To the extent that the allegations set forth in this paragraph are purely factual matter. then all such factual matter is denied by Keystone Foods Corporation on the basis that after reasonable investigation. Answering Oefendant lacks information sufficient to form a belief -2- .. r.. as to the truth of these allegations and, accordingly, the same are denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF WARRANTY 7. Keystone Foods Corporation incorporates by reference its response to paragraphs 1 through 7 above as if fully set forth at length herein. 8. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required and, accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 9. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required and, accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 10. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required and, accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 11. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required and, accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 12. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is , 3 . . ~ required and, accordingly, the same are denied and str1ct proof thereof is demanded at trial. 13. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required and, accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 14. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required and, accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 15. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required and, accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, 16. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required and, accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 17. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required and. accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 18. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required and, accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. -4- . ~ 19. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required and, accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 20. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required and, accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 21. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required and, accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORB, Defendant, Keystone Foods Corporation, demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff, together with such other relief as this Court shall deem appropriate. SECOND CAUSB OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE 22. Keystone Foods Corporation incorporates by reference its response to paragraphs 1 through 21 above as if fully set forth at length herein. 23. Denied. Answering Defendant, Keystone Foods Corporation, denies all allegations of negligence as set forth in this paragraph, together with its subparts tal through tp). To the contrary, at all times relevant to the material allegations set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint, Keystone Foods Corporation acted with reasonable care under the circumstances. .5' .. ~ 24. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further responsive pleading is required and, accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Keystone Foods Corporation, demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff, together with such other relief as this Court shall deem appropriate. NEW MATTER DIRECTED TO THE PLAINTIFF 25. Plaintiff's claims may be barred and/or limited by the applicable statute of limitations. 26. Plaintiff's claims may be barred and/or limited by Plaintiff's contributory negligence, 27. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 28. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages. 29. The damages and injuries allegedly sustained by Plaintiff as described in his Complaint were not proximately caused by Keystone Foods Corporation. 30. The damages and/or injuries allegedly sustained by Plaintiff as described in his Complaint were caused by the acts andlor omissions of individuals and/or entities over whom Keystone Foods Corporation had neither control nor right of control, 31. Plaintiff's causes of action are barred by his failure to give Defendant proper and timely notlce of such claims under 13 Pa.C.S.A., 52607. ,6. .. - 12. No warranties, express or implied, were extended to Plaintiff or any other party by Keystone Foods Corporation and, alternatively, to the extent that any may have been extended, they were not breached. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Keystone Foods Corporation, demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff, together with such other relief as this Court shall deem appropriate. ,J _~ ~ ~, ~..' DATE: ' MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN BY, TS- ;t'!:1/!- ESQ~ 100 Pine Street - 4th Fl. P.O. Box S03 Harrisburg, PA 1710S-0803 1.0. 52918 (717) 232-9323 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, ltEYSTONE FOODS CORPORATION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DA VID ~IARK LANGDON, ) PLAINTIFF ) VS. ) KEYSTONE FOODS CORPORATION, ) TWIN ARCHES L TO. alkJa R. AND A. ) MILLER, INC. d/b/a McDONALD'S OF ) WEST SHORE AND McDONALD'S ) CORPORATION, ) DEFENDANTS ) NO. 97-3942 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PI.AINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO NEW MAlTER OF DEFENDANT. KEYSTONE FOODS CORPORATION 25. The allegations contained in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of/aw to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed required, it is denied that Plaintifrs claims may be barred and/or limited by the applicable statute of limitations, 26. The allegations contained in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed required, it is denied that the Plaintifrs claims may be barred and/or limited by Plaintifrs own alleged contributory negligence. To the contrary, Plaintiff was not in the least bit comparatively negligent. 27. The allegations contained in this Paragraph cO'1stitute conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed required. it is denied that the Plaintiff has failed to state of cause of action upon which relief can be granted, 28. The allegations contained in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed required, it is denied that the Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages. 29, The allegations contained in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of/aw to which no answer is required, To the extmt that an answa- may be deemed required, it is denied that the injuries and damages sllSllinal by the Plaintiff W1:l\' l1Ul protimately caused by Keystone FQ(~s Clltpc.ll'ation. 30. The allegations containcd in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed required, it is denied that the damages and injuries Plaintiff sustained were caused by acts or omissions of individuals and/or entities over whom Keystone Foods had neither control nor right to control. The only exception to this denial. is that the Defendant is alleged to have been a joint tort feasor as alleged in the Plaintiffs Complaint incorporated herein by reference. 31. The allegations contained in this Paragraph constitute conclusions oflaw to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed required, it is denied that the Plaintiff is required to give the type of notice alleged in this Paragraph. Furthermore, it is denied that the Plaintiff failed to give proper and timely notice of the claims under 13 Pa.C.S.A. Section 2607. 12, The a1\egations contained in this Paragraph constitute conclusions oflaw to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed required, it is denied that no warranties, express or implied. were extended to the Plaintiff or any other party by Keystone Foods Corporation. It is further denied that the warranties extended were not breached. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference his Complaint to refute this allegation. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant for a sum in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits. WHEREFORE. Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant for a sum in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Do1\ars and in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits, RespectfullYrsubmitled. . . . ~\. >)re/ Michael A, no\Cf 1.0, No, 49786 101 South Third SII'ftI Sel'Otld Floor Eutoo. PA UI04l ftKme. 16tOI923.1~)1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DA VID MARK LANGDON, ) PLAINTIFF ) VS. ) KEYSTONE FOODS CORPORATION. ) TWIN ARCHES LTD. alkJa R. AND A. ) MILLER, INC. d/b/a McDONALD'S OF ) WEST SHORE AND McDONALD'S ) CORPORATION, ) DEFENDANTS ) NO, 1J7,3942 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO NEW MA TIER OF DEFENDANT. TWIN ARCHES, LTD. 25. This Paragraph incorporates the mere denials contained in the Answer. and therefore it does not constitutc proper New Maller, However, to the extent that an answer may be deemed required. cach and cvcry allegation of facts inconsistcnt with the Plaintiff's Complaint is denied. Strict proof of same is demanded. 26. The allegations contained in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To thc extent that an answer may be deemed required, it is denied that Plaintiff's injuries were caused by the acts and omissions of third parties over whom the Defendant had no control. The only exception to the abo\'e denial. is that the Defendant is alleged to hnc been a joint tort feasor as stated in the Plaintiff's Complaint incorporated herein by reference. 27, The allegations contained in this Paragr"ph ('onstllute ('onc:lusions of law to \\ hi('h no answer is reqUired. To the cxtent that an anS\\Cf may be dcemed required. It is dem.'\! that the Defendant had no notice that the ('hid.en product had an allegal bone or foreIgn material in II, 28. The allegations rontained in this Paragrarh ('onsl1tutc conclusions or law to \\hl\:h no answer is requim! To the cxtent that an answn may be deemed reqUII'N, It is denied that the PlaintitTs tnjunes WeT( caused by hiS own a1!e1ed rontnbulol)' andOl' tomparati\c negligencc, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DAVID MARK LANGDON, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiff, NO. 97.3942 CIVIL TERM v. KEYSTONE FOODS CORPORATION, TWIN ARCHES LTD. a/k/a R. AND A. MILLER, INC. d/b/a McDONALD'S OF WEST SHORE AND McDONALD'S CORPORATION, Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED REPLY OF DEFENDANT TWIN ARCHES LIMITED TO THE NEW MATTER OF KEYSTONE FOODS CORPORATION 25. Admitted. 26, Admitted, 27, Admitted. 28. Admitted. 29. This paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required. the factual allegations are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded, 30. This paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required, To the extent that a response is required. the factual allegations are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 31. This paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is reQUlFed. the factual allegations are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded, i... -1 y \:on c::- - ~ -.9 ~ I\: t\~ ~ ..u U i I . ::; L; ~q i:l ~ I ; ff ~ ! ! HL 4: ~ ! ~ ~"ii I ~ i .. ~- ~ I '" --.:. ~l... \ ,./) lri . .. . Request for Production of Documents as reflected in Exhibit A attached hereto. 6. Conclusion of law to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer may be deemed required, it is denied that the Plaintiff waived any right to object to specific questions. Notwithstanding, the Plaintiff has provided substantive answers. 7. Conclusion of law to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer may be deemed required, it is denied that the Plaintiff waived any right to object to specific questions. Notwithstanding, the Plaintiff has provided substantive answers. 8. Conclusion of law to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer may be deemed required, it is denied that the Plaintiff waived any right to object to specific questions. Notwithstanding, the Plaintiff has provided substantive answers. 9. Conclusion of law to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer may be deemed required, it is denied that the Plaintiff waived any right to object to specific questions. Notwithstanding, the Plaintiff has provided substantive answers. 10. Conclusion of law to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer may be deemed required. it 19 denied that the Plaintiff waived any right to object to specific questions. Notwithstanding, the Plaintiff has provided substantive answers. Furthermore. Pa.R.C.P. does not provide for sanctions to be entered such as is requested by the defendant unless there is a refusal to abide by an order compelling compliance. No order compelling compliance has been entered and therefore defendant's requested rellef requesting sanctions must be denied. Further, since the Plaintiff has now provided substantive answers, the defendants motion must be denied as moot. 11. Conclusion of law to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer may be deemed required, it is denied that the Plaintiff waived any right to object to specific questions. Notwithstanding, the Plaintiff has provided substantive answers. Furthermore, Pa.R.C.P. does not provide for sanctions to be entered such as is requested by the defendant unless there is a refusal to abide by an order compelling compliance. No order compelling compliance has been entered and therefore defendant's requested relief requesting sanctions must be denied. Further, since the Plaintiff has now provided substantive answers. the defendants motion must be denied as moot. 12. Conclusion of law to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer may be deemed required. it is denied that the Plaintiff waived any right to object to specific questions. Notwithstanding. the plaintiff has provided substantive answers. turthermore. Pa.R.c.p. does not provide for sanctions to be entered such ElIttil A SNOVER LAw OFFICE Pane Two " March 11,1997 Ms. Janice Knerr bites into the sandwich Mr. Langdon bit into a bone approximately one inch long. He stated that it had caused him pain and he had known that something had happened. As he spit out the bone, his teeth came with it. He had cut his gum which made him bleed. He went up to the front desk to an individual by the name of Lauren Liverenths. He took down the repon of the incident and refunded the price of the chicken burger. tl-Ir. Langdon goes on to state that he found three pans of his teeth, one of his front teeth was broken in half. and then there was a tooth next to it that was chipped off. There was also one in the back that was chipped. He had had three caps on his teeth, one of the teeth that broke was not a capped tooth. It had broken three caps and a tooth that was not capped. The following day he made an appointment and went in the afternoon. Mr. Langdon stated in his statement that it was very embarrassing not having any teeth. or at least not having the teeth which were broken off in this accident. Mr. Langdon funher stated that he developed headaches over the next couple of days, and had to take some pain medications. The headaches were quite bad. He still experienced pain \\ hen giving the statements when he drank things that were cold. The headaches had lasted for about two or three days afterward. Since this is a breach of warranty case, there can be no assessment of any kind of contributory negligence unless ~IcDonalds is going to try to argue that people should expect their burgers or chicken sandwiches to contain dangerous. foreign materials. Therefore. liability is assessed at 100. o. As to the damages. enclosed you will find a September II, 1995. repon from Dr. Dunn who states in confirmation what :-.tr. Langdon had stated in his statement that :-.tr. Langdon presented himself for a dental examination on August ~9, 1995. He had stated that he had been eating at ~IcDonalds the day before and had bit into a sizable bone in his chicken sandwich. He funher stated that with the bite he had fractured his teeth. Dr. Dunn had concluded that the patient's overall dental condllion was average, but that there was a badly broken dO\\'Tlthird molar, some minor beginning caries, and marginal gingival inflammation. It was evident that the patient had past regular dental care. As to the damage that was done as a result of this incident. we shall take one tooth at a time. Tooth :-':0. 6 had had a full porcelain jacket CTO\\'Tl on it. However, on this exam tooth No.6 was found to have a portion of the mesio-lingual fractured off of it. Tooth No.8, \\ hich also had had a full porcelain jacket cro\\'Tl, had as a result of this accident the mesio-incisal corner cracked. but not broken off of it. Tooth:-':o 9 \\ hich had had a full porcelain jacket cro\1'Tl before this accident, had the entire distal half oflhe cro\\n missil1\!. Tooth No. II had the mesio.incisal corner missinl!. All areas \\ere clean and - - non.stained at the ume of the exam. The findings were consistent \\ ith a recent traumatic inCident Radiographically. no root or bony fractures \\cre noted. In terms of the treatment ne..'\!ed by ~tr. Lanl1don, Dr Dunn stated that restoratively thc patient needs new cro\\ ns for teeth No 6, S. and 9 anJ a new porcelain veneer facing for tooth Nc> II. Full porcelain <'TO\\ ns for 6, S. and 9 are $50(\1)) Unit l'on:e!,lin \cncC'r f~ing lor No II is $~75(W) The total reconstructkm C,)sts theref('re \\ere S1."'~5 two It IS C ku thaI \Ir. Langdon coulJ not ;lfford h' p.!) for IhlS and \\ as \\ ,lllln~ on MdA'nalds Insurance \"'t~lpjn) to p.!) f"f Ihe restora!!\'n. Since Ihe} lu\ e ne\ cr d,mc S,). :\tr Lan,;dun h;lS ~en f,'reed t" h,... \\\th the en1brrassmg consequenc.:s of b, mg hiS teeth br\\ken up and dISpl.!}I.'\! h' the puhhc rhcre must ha\C ~I."ll some type ofmed-pay (O\cra~e that shou!.l ha\e p.;ud f,'r these ,kntalrllls .:-.:',; ,,~/,:~'r~.;;.~;.- I .1": . . .~.'':;':'''''':''-''::':- lJ c OF: Did, did you have any prior fillings in these teeth? OL: No, the, the tooth I had were capped. I had 3 caps on there, one of the tooth that broke was a real, and it broke that. OF: So it broke the cap? OL: It broke 3 caps and my real tooth. Which alt, yea, it chipped off a part of my real tooth. OF: Ok. Did you seek any medical attention? OL: Ah, the follo....in day, alt, well, that afternoon. I ah made a dentist appointment for the follo\\ing day. 29th. And ah went down to see them at 4, 4 p.m. in the afternoon. And ah I gave some x-rays and check me out and ah, that was about it. Ah, they didn't actually say anything else. OF: Ok. So he did take x-rays and, ah did he tell you what his recommendations were, or? OL: Ah, he said he couldn't do anything until you'd confirmed that, well the insurance company was gonna pay for the damage. OF: Ok. well, all right. Well, we'll talk about that. Ahum, so at the present time, ah, you're just waiting to hear what everyone's doing? OL: Yea. OF: All right. Ah, OL: I'm in a certain amount of discomfort, which ah I'd like ta hurry up and get sorted out. It's also very embarrassin, ha\in no teeth. OF. I understand that. Ah, ok, did you have to take any pain medication or anything like that? OL: Ah, well only, only for like headache which I developed the next couple a days Two or three days I had headache beyond my eyes. I'm not sure whether that was anything to do with it, but it was quite bad I just took S\lme Tylenol, that like killed the pain The pains not to bad now, unless I'm like drinkin something really cold . OF: Ok. And you don't have any headaches now? OL: Not now, no It just, the headaches were like 2 or 3 days afterwards OF Ok So, Onid, ahum. can you think of any other facts about the accident, you, you gave the ~rt immediately Y ou've seen the dentist and alt, you did, other than. so the teeth were capped OL. Yea, I'd. well, I think, I think you call em caps Or. yea, it's just, my real teeth are undcmuth OF Ok Ol lil.e. there's something over the top DF \' c:\. that's dl'finitely call~ a cap m. Ri~ht 0"- II . : li: I ~... c . ~1;; ! Ii .... c 0 11'.1 ~ ~ ",I : r := - ...~ O-r- U : I '- w ... i ~~p '- :::: J ;'" - ...:: 'j ~ ~ ... ... >- f~9 ~,..~ C;~;: .- I . z . . . ~ ~ . - w ... z ~ . :;: . ; ~ > . - " w . Q ~ " . ~ w ... ;; . - ~ . - . ~ .. . , .. . .. . 1; . '" . . .. ; . . oX 1_; , " :: I~ ~ c . ~ ~~ lf7 'i ~ i~ 1, . : .hi . . . .. is .. it -c ~ C> '\'- : ~ -I ! d ~~- ; t~ ~.~ 'ii:, ~ li-: (I . . 1~~IS4-i ::j I I I I I I --;I ;l ~ ~ ..'" r: ;::- ;:.. '>, I".:t- . " c:., ~ >- .r f-J- ~ ~.(~ >-.~ <....- ~ '--' ....,..... C" \...i ~~ _, ~ l' ~ ~ ~ ~ *= ~ .s:, 8 ~~~~~'~l~,~r~ ~-:~tl~_~-CCl i ~~\ \' t\~~ ~ ~<~~~ ,...; ~'~ ~ ' \;~~ ~",It -~ c '- ~~.. ~.i ~ ,I" 11 ~. .~,~ ' "- ~ ! ~ ~\ ~ ~l ,;.~ ~ ~ .... ~ ~ t\: ~ k \: '~ ~ ,C C /- 2 ~ ~ l: I ~ "", .. ~. ~" ~ ~ "'i" . '" L~'.t:;' "" : ~~,~, ~~ - '~t ~. -'.:.\ V' ~ _\000.. . . ......' ~Il.l~~"- 1_ .c ~'>-. -3 '.. ~ ''I . i ~~......~ ~ ,....! ....... . ".dl".I\-, - -!:-~, :'~~~f\~R~, ~ ''<~_I;;'~ ~~ ~ : ~ ~ :;; i~ ~ ~ '-- ~{~,~ ~ I ~ ,i"" "':~~ ~~ i - .::-~;. o 4 I'~ I ~ ~ ~ I~ ,~'~ ~ .~ I '\ ~\~ ; f~ ~ -:j r ~:l'\1 I t) 1-- '~0.. ,-\ !~ I~ & '-:) ';,1--' If \:';!' ,( 1'1 I " ~~ Ii: d I l <- .. "',' ~ ; I 1\( I, ~ :<C tr ~ l~ !-1 I . I ,- ~ '. ;. ,-- I~ "'" z " ~ . . ~ o . 0 . . . . a 0 . ::I 0 g z . j g 0 .. 15 0 ~ 1= . . . " i I ; , ' Capital City Mall Dental Center Capital Mall Drive Camp Hill. PA 17011 Phone 763-9553 September 21, 1995 .. Dr. Daniel F. Dunn Jr., D.M,D. 3576 Capital Mall Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 Re: Mr. David Langdon Claim #: 2100U057415 Dear Sir( s l : Mr. David Langdon presented for dental examination on August 29, 1995. He stated that he had been eating at McDona1ds' the day before, August 28, 1995, and had bitten into a sizeable bone in his chicken sandwich. He further stated that with the bite he had fractured his teeth, Clinical and radiographic examination was done. The patients overall dental condition was average. A badly broken down third .. . molar, some minor beginning caries, and marginal gingival inflammation. Past regular dental care is evident from his previous restorative work. The patient has no permanent lateral incisors in the maxillary arch. Teeth numbers 6,8,9, and 11 were recontoured and restored to give a more normal four incisor profile. Teeth #'5 6,8, and 9 had full porcelain jacket crowns and tooth #11 had a porcelain veneer facing. At this exam, tooth #6 was found to have a portion of the mesio-1ingual fractured off. Tooth #8 has the mesio-incisal corner cracked but not off. Tooth #9 has the entire distal half of the crown missing. And tooth #11 has the mesio-incisal corner missing. All areas were clean and non-stained at the time of exam, The finding is consistent with a recent troumatic incident. Radiographically no root or bony fractures are noted. Restoratively the patient needs new crowns for teeth numbers 6,8, and 9 and a new porcelain veneer facing for tooth number 11. Full porcelain crowns for 6,8, and 9 are $SOO/unit; porcelain veneer facing tor #ll is $275.00. total reconstruction costs are $l77S.00. If I can be of any further assistance in this matter, please contact me. ~~~~ . ~ ". ,...., r. "",.J.. O.M.O. (v) England. 101(e) Paintcr (Self Employcd); 10\(1) 4/1/65; lO\(g) N/A. Visitor; 101(h) N/A. 101(i) English Schools. 102(a)-(e) NiA. 103. Dental bills. Sec documents attached to Plaintiffs Response to Request for Production. 10.t The facts alleged in the complaint are accurate. true and correct. On or about August 28. 1995. the Plaintiff was a business invitee of the Defendants. Plaintiff and a companion went into the McDonald's located near the Cedar Cliff Mall for the purpose of ordering something to eat. PlaintilTs companion purchased the meal and the Plaintiff began to eat it on the premises which consisted of a chicken filet sandwich. While consuming said chicken sandwich. the Plaintiff bit into a one inch bone which caused severe injury to his mouth and teeth. Plaintiff cried out when he bit into the sandwich. began bleeding from his mouth and then removed a tooth from his mouth that had been damaged as a direct result of this occurrence. The offending foreign material was returned to the possession of the emplo}ccs on duty at that point and notification of the incident to employees on duty was made. The Plaintiff suffered severe injury as more particularly in the dental records and repons attached to the Plaintilis response to request forproductioo of documents Plaintiff resen es the "l!ht to supplement this response as disco\ m.- re\(~als atldllional mt('lt1tlatlon Il)~ II Myself. ~l Roo HilI. 21Q Herman t\\enue.lenmYM. PA PO.H ,Witnessed b} sIght an.! heann,. 3) Lauren Leverentl, Manager of McDonald's, 2286 W. Harrisburg Pike, Middleton, PA (Witness by hearing; Also filled out accident repon at the time of the incident. 106. David Langdon: Statement for the insurance company; Statement to Ron Hill for the insurance company. 107. The defendant should be in possession ofa copy ofan incident repon which was filled out by the manager on duty. See previous answers. Plaintiff not in possession of such a document. 108(a)-(g) N/A. 109. NfA. 110. See previous answers. Also. see documents attached to PlaintilTs response to Request for Production of Documents. III. See#IIO. 112. Myself; Ron Hill; Lauren Leverent2. Manager of McDonald's. 2286 W. Harrisburg Pike, Middleton. PA; representatives of the defendants. medical(dental) witnesses identified in the medical and dental records attached to PlaintilT s response to Request for Production of Oocumenls; Plaintiffreserves the right to call all witness identified by the defendant through disco\'ery. Plaintiff funher reserves the right to supplement this response seasonably before trial. I D. See medical dental recl\NS and h."J'l.'l'tS attadu.'l1to PlaintiO's Res(llJnse to Request for Pnll.!ucl1on of o...\o:umemts F unher e'po:rt witnesses to be ".Iemutlcd alll.l reports Pf\" h.l<'ll as lbey are cOOsen 10 testi!} :l.t \h( tune Mtnal 114. All documents attached to Plaintiffs Response to Request for Production of Documcnts, all documents exchanged through discovery, broken teeth. Plaintiff will supplement seasonably before trial. PlaintiffreseTVes the right to supplement seasonably before trial. 115. To bc provided ifsamc is chosen to be utilized. 116. The manager acknowledged that the incident happened. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement as discovery proceeds. 2. Penonallnjury 201. See medical/dental records attached to Plaintiffs response to Request for Production of Documents; Discomfort, embarrassment. pain. including from hot and cold, headaches. 202(a)-(d). N/A. 203(a)-(e). See medical'dental records and reports attached to Plaintiffs response to Request for Production of Documents. 204. NI A. Plaintiff is not making any claim for lost earnings and. therefore, Plaintiff objects to any inquiry concerning earnings as being irrelevant. 205. See #204. 206. (a) Socializing; (b) From the time of the incident; (c) Peter LangOOn (brother), Apartment A. 100 2nd S~, Lake\\ood, NJ. 08701. t . 'f:-=ft./:;.,';;;:!II tr~,..; ~ --. co&i............;, ;.\~i'FO .... ;ryllClIIN JEA!:r~,-ri '.COUIU P_AUAW' PlW>..'_1N ADMuw.n.' 'c'~:~-=rl'IJ3.~ = - YIIII . . .. 100 PIE B11'&T · '41lt Fl.llM .. . '1IIC'f' COfII': Of' 'IIlI OlUOlNAl .... AI ,.;;... ... .. . P.O. 8Q)( 801! ." '.' :-'1If111UtllON HI... 1I:f3.~~,** t71"lU'<<l3@1MR 18198 ..n~~I\.~ ....,_.,~-;~,...~ . .. . . t . -<,-';,' ~}("::-',- ~':Si2%~J,:;- ,... """ :~:-;-'~AM; ......,,:"".~,.-~,:fU,~::;U';,. ~1WtII1'i ..u:"DA:;;::~{ IElMCI IIIll10f 011 A .AlDGMDIf," , MAVII'N'lIllIIlAllAlNff'lOU'"' ' "" I'l Al"fOftNIY .. "-~. '''' "-,-,,~":' "_'._ ;.''''.:::.'~;r' :"~':~':.J'" '- .L". ',' :." '-'~.--:":"'-~- '~'~;Ji:~r~~~:t:~i~~~~" ,'" ~Jj1Jf1=~= 1C1OPN:STl&To4tHFUlOA t:~r' ,", '. "JUD"-~ " " H...~J~B _~~ 171l>>ClBOO \YiAR 18 ~::,' '~':"_.'f, ... ... . . 2. Moving Defendant, Keystone Foods Corporation, is a supplier of frozen chicken patties to various retail restaurants, including McDonald's franchises. 3. On October 9, 1997, Moving Defendant filed an Answer with New Matter, denying the allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint. 4. On November 26, 1997, Moving Defendant served Interrogatories and a Request for production of Documents upon counsel for Plaintiff. (See, Defendant's November 26, 1997 correspondence to Plaintiff's counsel, with Interrogatories and a Request for Production of Documents, attached hereto, incorporated herein and marked Exhibit "AU). 5. To date, Plaintiff has virtually ignored Defendant's discovery requests. 6. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure Nos. 4006 and and 4009.12 require the party upon whom Interrogatories and a Request for production of Documents have been served to respond or otherwise object to the discovery requests within 30 days after the service of the requests. 7. Ninety (90) days have passed since Defendant's discovery requests were served upon the Plaintiff. Plaintiff is therefore in violation of Pa. R.C.P. 4006 and 4009.12. 8. Plaintiff is now precluded from objecting to any of Defendant's discovery requests since the objections were not raised within 30 days after service. 9. Plaintiff is sixty (fOI days delinquent in providing answers to discovery without seeking an extension of time within IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DAVID MARK LANGDON, PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. NO. 97-3942 CIVIL TERM KEYSTONE FOODS CORPORATION, TWIN ARCHES LTD. a/k/a R. and A. MILLER, INC. d/b/a McDONALD'S OF WEST SHORE and McDONALD'S CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED INTERROGATORIES OF DEFENDANT. KEYSTONE FOODS CORPORATION DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF , MA1Ut LANGDON Definitions. -- The following definitions are applicable to these standard interrogatories: "Document" means any written, printed, typed, or other graphic matter of any kind or nature, however produced or reproduced, including photographs, microfilms, phonographs, video and audio tapes, punch cards, magnetic tapes, discs, data cells, drums, and other data compilations from which information can be obtained. "Identify" or "Identity" means when used in reference to (1) A natural person, his or her: (a) Full name; and (b) Present or last known residence and employment address (including street name and number, city or town, and state or county); (2) A document: (a) Its description (e.g., letter, memorandum, report, etc.), title, and date; (b) Its subject matter; (c) Its author's identity; (d) Its addressee's identity; (e) Its present location; and (f) Its custodian's identity; ()) An oral communication: (a) Its date; (b) The place where it occurred; le) Its substance; (d) The identity of the person who made the CQmmunication; (e) The identity of each person to whom such communication was made; and (fl The identity of each person who was present when such communication wa. made; (4) A corporate ent ity: (e) Each exclusion, if any, in the policy which is applicable to any claim thereunder and any reasons, if any, why you or the carrier claim the exclusion is applicable. 103. Expenses. .. [,ist and describe all expenses and losses that you have incurred because of the incident. 104. Factual basis for claims and defenses, _. State with particularity the factual basis for each claim or defense you are asserting in this case. 105. Wi tnesses. -- (a) Identify each person who (1) Was a witness to the incident through sight or hearing and/or (2) Has knowledge of facts concerning the happening of the incident or conditions or circumstances at the scene of the incident prior to, at the time of, or after the incident. (hI With respect to each person so identified, state that person's exact location and activity at the time of the incident. 106. Statements. .- If you know of anyone that has given any statement (as defined by the Rules of Civil Procedure) concerning this action or its subject matter, state: (a) Th~ identity of such person; (b) When, where, by whom, and to whom each statement was made, and whether it was reduced to writing or otherwise recorded; and (c) The identity of any person who has custody of any such statement that was reduced to writing or otherwise recorded. 107. Reports of incident. .. Identify the documents (except reports of experts subject to Pa.R.C.P. No. 4003,5) which describe the incident or the cause thereof. 108, Licensure. .. If you were required by law or regulation to be licensed for the activity in which you were engaged at the time of the incident, state: (al The type of license required; ~4 - with the witness and the substance of the facts to which the witness is expected to testify. 113. Expert witnesses. call as a witness at each expert state: Identify each expert you intend to the trial of this matter, and for (a) The subject matter about which the expert is expected to testify; and (b) The substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion. (You may file as your answer to this interrogatory the report of the expert or have the interrogatory answered by our expert. ) 114. Trial exhibits. -- Identify all exhibits that you intend to use at the trial of this matter and state whether they will be used during the liability or damages portions of the trial. 115. Books, n~gazines, etc. -- If you intend to use any book, magazine, or other such writing at trial state: (al The name of the writing; (b) The author of the writing; (c) The publisher of the writing; (d) The date of publication of the writing; and (e) The identity of the custodian of the writing. 116, Admissions. -- If you intend to use any admission Is) of a party at trial, identify such admission Is) . 2. Personal injury. 201. Injuries and diseases alleged. -. Identify all injuries 01 diseases that you allege you suffered as a result of th.' incident. 202. Frior ot. subsequent injuries or diseases. . - If, either ptlOt to or subsequent to the incident, you suffered any injury Or disease in those portions of the body claimed by you to have been affected by the incident. state: (a) The injury or disease you Buffered; .., 2. All medical bills, reports, records, and x-rays, relating to the injury allegedly sustained in the occurrence described in the Complaint, as well as all medical bills, records, and reports relating to prior or subsequent injuries to the same parts of the body claimed by Plaintiff to have been injured in the occurrence described in the Complaint. 3. All employee reports, records, tax returns. attendance records, and wage statements relating to the claim of loss of income as a result of the occurrence in Plaintiff's Complaint. 4. Copies of all statements, memoranda, summaries of other writings, documents, diagrams and pictures obtained from your investigation. your insurance company's investigation. or your attorney's investigation into the incident involved. (You need not supply any attonh'Y's "work product" or other material which is specifically accept.,d as privileged by the above Rules) . 5. All documents in your possession, custody or control prepared in anticipation of litigation or trial of this case, except those documents which disclose the mental impressions of your attorney or yoU!' attorney's conclusions, opinions, memoranda, notes or summaries, legal research or legal theories, and except those documents prepared in anticipation of litigation by your represt'ntativ,'s to the extent that they would disclose the representatives' "',",ntal impression, conclusions or opinions respecting the value or met-it. of the claim or defense. 6. To thp eXl"lI! that you have not already provided the same in respolHl" to ph'ViGUS requests het-ein. all statements obtained h{)llI ,my wiUl"ssell or llIemoranda of conversations with witnesses or l'ecordlnqn of wi tnesses' statements memoranda, or recordings made by palties to this lawsuit of their representative. 7. To the extE-1l1 Ilot already provided in response to previous requests herein, all statements made by any party to this action, including written statements signed or otherwise adopted 01' approved by the person making it or stenographic, mechanical, elecll'ical, or other recording or transcription thereof, which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement and contempol'aneously recorded. as allowed by Pennsylvania Rules at Civil Procedure No. 4003.4. 8. To the extent that you have not already provided the same, copies of all p"'ol'ds, documents and memoranda, which have any bearing UpOIl tlw "'.ltters alleged against the requesting party or upon the n'SIX)ll"ii: I ity of the requesting party for the matters alleged ,,'pi:,,;! the requesting party. 9. To the .~xt"w not already provided, all reports of those experts who an' to be called by you as witnesses at trial, which repOrll' m",j" 01 ",>cured by you in connection with your invest igat ion 01 th., mIl. ters relat ing to this lawsuit. 10. To t h.' "Xl,'ll' not already provided, copies of all experts' repel!S Ill...k .1 secured by you in connection w1th your investigation oj HI<' ""tters n~latillq to this lawsuit. 11. To th.~ ','xtt'llt Ilot aheady provlded, all photographs, diagrams, m,l!,S, ,:Ill v.'yo. pl.lns and mod~ls of the site of the incident in quP'" l"1l t !H' ,UfO ill y<)\ll poa8~lI.ion. \ t . '7r"' '_~"~< ~,' ~~ ~-~;'i~(, '~-. ,::._,~~:_~~~~:;:> --' ",',,-- .n',_ ,,'." __~. .. ;--:~-'" -" -',,:~~; ~:;;'::~;-~>:2-,~i,~-_",. '-"."'"~,;" ':,',.--.- ~~~; h~~~~:;-':~~'~;i~~'~ :""'NII:,=YOU ':"u;BiRJ.~m~11Jft .: "'!:--~,-:.:f,~3 .. . . Pennsylvania Rule of Civil procedure 4006 further provides, in pertinent part: "(a) (I) Answers to interrogatories shall be in writing and verified. (2) the answering party shall serve a copy of the answers within thirty days after service. It Pennsylvania Rule of civil Procedure 4009.1 provides, in pertinent part: "PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS. GENERAL PROVISIONS. Any party may serve a request upon a party pursuant to Rules 4009.11 and 4009.12 . . to produce and permit for inspection any designa- ted documents (including writings. drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, electronically created data, and other compilations of data from which information can be obtained). . . ." Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4009.12 provides: "(a) The party upon whom the request is served shall within thirty days after the service of the request (I) serve an answer to each numbered paragraph in the request.. " Where, as here, the party upon whom discovery lequests have been served is imposed with an obligation to respond in a timely fashion, he must do so or risk violating a clearly established rule of law. Defendant, Keystone Foods Corporation, propounded Interrogatories and a Request for Production of Documents on November 26 1997. To date, those requests remained unanswered. While it is true that the parties may agree to alter the 30-day timefram<'! set forth within the foregoing proC'edux'al rules within which a party may respond to discover}' B€'Ived. nQ such aqree!!wnt was made between these r,nti.~s. ~S~e. generally. p.,-l. R.C.P. 4002\. !1,o;nce, Plaint iff h.\s rigked vioL.t ion ot, .md in fact IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DAVID MARK LANGDON, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiff , NO. 97.3942 CIVIL TERM v. KEYSTONE FOODS CORPORATION, TWIN ARCHES LTD. a/k/a R. AND A. MILLER, INC. d/b/a McDONALD'S OF WEST SHORE AND McDONALD'S CORPORATION, Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this .!}.!5<J.- day of a~ , 1998, I, Michael B. Scheib, Esquire. a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS & CALKINS, Esquires hereby certify that I have, this date, served a copy of the Response to Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents of Defendants Twin Arches Ltd. a/k/a R. and A. Miller, Inc. d/b/a McDonald's of West Shore by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Michael A. Snover, Esquire 101 South Third Street Easton, PA 18042 Sharon O'Donnell, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 100 Pine Street, 4th Floor P.O. Box 803 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803 3 "- '- -. " "." I C'.: .. ~ 1,.5 ~Ii , .. 1- <- Mhl '-'- , ~~al ,.. - I!. I . ~