The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-0026 ORIG!~",," IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03 -:J1a (!.;u;l~~~ CNIL ACTION - LAW ALVIN LONGMIRE and DIANNA LONGMIRE, his wife, 43 North 19th Street Harrisburg, PA 17103 Plaintiffs & Address TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, Sr., a/k/a TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, a/k/a TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI 7 Spruce Circle, Shiremanstown, P A 17011 and TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, Jr., a/k/a TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, a/k/a TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI 7 Spruce Circle, Shiremanstown, P A 17011 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED versus Defendants & Addresses PRAECIPE FOR A WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue a writ of summons in the above-captioned action. ~ Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to David S. Wisneski, Esquire Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP 2040 Ling1estown Road Suite 303 Harrisburg, P A 1711 0 (717) 541-9205 Name/Address/Telephone No. of Attorney ( ) Attorney and (X) Sheriff OJ U jDOfffidmrt Signature of Attorney LD. No. 58796 Dated: January 2, 2003 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03 - C2&, C ,'u ~ l'--r U!-Vy\ CIVIL ACTION - LAW ALVIN LONGMIRE and DIANNA LONGMIRE, his wife, 43 North 19th Street Harrisburg, PA 17103 TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, Sr., a/k!a TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, a/k!a TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI 7 Spruce Circle, Shiremanstown, P A 17011 and TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, Jr., a/k!a TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, a/k!a TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI 7 Spruce Circle, Shiremanstown, P A 17011 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiffs & Address versus Defendants & Addresses WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS: YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFFS HAVE COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOu. Dated:~ ~ A j .3 .;( C>6 3 I e4A~. /) ~ Prothonotary '-l,y a"4d P 7f-f./l~~ Deputy ):J(:J~ #- \ ~ ';: ~ C1 {t~ ~ --c., (') 0 ~ w -o.,~ ( r:rii' .-::: /:," 71~~ (n'" J--:-' ;"-' :-:_.~: -'. ~}~ .-' :-~ ,. ---.,.. -- E jJ :'-'.) "', !,"1 ::.~ "......--- SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2003-00026 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LONGMIRE ALVIN ET AL VS RUTKOWSKI TIMOTHY SR ET AL VALERIE WEARY , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon RUTKOWSKI TIMOTHY SR AKA TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI the DEFENDANT , at 1919:00 HOURS, on the 6th day of January ,2003 at 7 SPRUCE CIRCLE SHIREMANSTOWN, PA 17011 by handing to GERTRUDE RUTKOWSKI, WIFE OF DEFENDANT a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereaf. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 18.00 8.97 .00 10.00 .00 36.97 So Answer:r ~ ~ R. Thomas Kline 01/07/2003 NAVITSKY OLSON & WISNESKI Sworn and Subscribed to before By: V:j'~ M Deputy Sherif~ me this /3~ day of \ Y./AH~') "Z~:~ A.D. ~t'g () 1l'U.I/'^-1&P) r thonotary SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2003-00026 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LONGMIRE ALVIN ET AL VS RUTKOWSKI TIMOTHY SR ET AL VALERIE WEARY , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according ta law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon RUTKOWSKI TIMOTHY JR AKA TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI the DEFENDANT , at 1919:00 HOURS, on the 6th day of January , 2003 at 7 SPRUCE CIRCLE SHIREMANSTOWN, PA 17011 by handing to GERTRUDE RUTKOWSKI, ADULT IN CHARGE FOR DEFENDANT a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 6.00 .00 .00 10.00 .00 16.00 So Answers: ./ ~/'/' ~~/ R. Thomas Kline ,./,/-.:7 ./:~ 01/07/2003 NAVITSKY OLSON & WISNESKI Sworn and Subscribed to before By: Y:L: /-/c ____ Deputy Sheriff ~ me this /3'C day of l AAw/u1 c2~ A.D. VQ ~~ "'L () r6thonotary ,~ ALVIN LONGMIRE and DIANA LONGMIRE, his wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 03-26 CIVIL TERM TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, SR., a/kJa TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, a/kJa TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI and TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, JR., a/kJa TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, a/kJa TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE TO: Prothonotary Please enter the appearance of Richard H. Wix, Esquire, of the firm of Wix, Wenger & Weidner, on behalf of the Defendants in the above-captioned matter. WIX, WENGER & WEIDNER By ~(~ +l. LJ; Richard H. Wix, Esq., I.D. #07274 Attorneys for Defendants 4705 Duke Street Harrisburg, PA 17109-3099 (717) 652-8455 Dated: January 17, 2003 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION ALVIN LONGMIRE and DIANA LONGMIRE, his wife, Plaintiffs : v. File No. 03-26 Civil Term TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, SR., et a. : PRAECIPE AND RULE TO FILE X A COMPLAINT : A BILL OF PARTICULARS TO THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF SAID COURT: Issue rule on Plaintiffs to file a Complaint in the above case within twenty days after service of the rule or suffer a judgement of non pros. DATE: 5/27/03 signature:~~ ~, ~ Print Name: Richard H. Wix, Esq. Attorney for: Defendants Address: 4705 Duke Street Harrisburq, PA 17109-3099 Telephone No: (717) 652-8455 Supreme Court 1D No.: 07274 NOW, fY2 ~'/ :Jj> , ~, RULE ISSUED A~ (?/-U?~J ~ , Prothonotary 8:1'-<- ~ 0.......... - [!. :n;1l/U'r..r-:. Deputy (NOTE: File in duplicate) PROTHON.-12 g ~ ~l'lJ zgj ~S;;. :::<:"'~ !:CC ~c; c;:::C) ,yC -7 ~ o w :!t :tlI'" -<: N cr.> ~ :::.:! ,0:,"1 ;::2 ,.-,01 '''",CJ ':h~~ .....-n ,',-- ~,,:.O C::rTI ~ -0 ~ N .. ::> 0:> ALVIN LONGMIRE and DIANNA LONGMIRE, his wife, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs NO. 03-26 v. TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, Sr., aIkIa TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, aIkIa TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI and TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, Jr., aIkIa TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, aIkIa TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI, CIVIL ACTION - LAW 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 PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 or 1-800-990-9108 ALVIN LONGMIRE and DIANNA LONGMIRE, his wife, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs NO. 03-26 v. TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, Sr., a!k/a TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, a!k/a TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI and TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, Jr., a!k/a TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, a!k/a TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED A VISO USTED HA smo DEMANDADO EN LA CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las quejas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, debe tomar accion dentro de veinte (20) dias a partir de la fecha en que recibio la demanda y el aviso. Usted debe presentar comparecencia escrita en persona 0 por abogado y presentar en la Corte por escrito sus defensas 0 sus objeciones alas demandas en su contra. Se Ie avisa que si no se defiende, el caso puede pro ceder sin usted y la Corte puede decidir en su contra sin mas aviso 0 notificacion por cualquier dinero reclamado en la demanda 0 por cualquier otra queja 0 compensacion reclamados por el Demandante. US TED PUEDE PERDER DINERO, 0 PROPIEDADES U OTROS DERECHOS IMPORTANTES PARA USTED. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE 0 NO CONOCE UN ABOGADO, VAYA 0 LLAME A LA OFICINA EN LA DIRECCION ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE OBTENER ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 or 1-800-990-9108 ALVIN LONGMIRE and DIANNA LONGMIRE, his wife, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs NO. 03-26 v. TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, Sr., a!k/a TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, a!k/a TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI and TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, Jr., a!k/a TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, a!k/a TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT I. Plaintiff Alvin Longmire is an adult individual who resides at 2400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 2. Plaintiff Dianna Longmire is an adult individual who resides at 2400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiffs Alvin Longmire and Dianne Longmire are currently, and were at all times relevant to this Complaint, husband and wife. 4. Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Sr., a!k/a, Timothy Rutkowski, a!k/a Timonthy Ruthkowski (hereinafter Timothy Rutkowski, Sr.) is adult individual who resides at 7 Spruce Circle, Shiremanstown, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 5. Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Jr., a!k/a, Timothy Rutkowski, a!k/a Timonthy Ruthkowski (hereinafter Timothy Rutkowski, Jr.) is adult individual who resides at 7 Spruce Circle, Shiremanstown, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6. The facts and occurrences herein after related took place on or about February 5, 2001, at approximately 4:45 p.m., at the intersection of Central Boulevard and Trindle Road in Camp HilI, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 7. At said time and place, Plaintiff Alvin Longmire was the operator of a 1996 Dodge Stratus that was stopped at a stop sign on Central Boulevard. 8. At said time and place, Plaintiff Alvin Longmire had his right turn signal on and was waiting for traffic to clear so that he could make a right-hand turn onto Trindle Road. 9. At said time and place, Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Sr. and/or Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Jr. was the operator of a 1985 Toyota Corolla that was traveling behind Plaintiffs vehicle on Central Boulevard. 10. At said time and place, Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Sr. and/or Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Jr. caused the automobile that he was operating to strike the rear of Plaintiff s vehicle. II. Alvin Longmire sustained serious injuries, including, but not limited to, damage to his neck and cervical spine, cervical disc herniations and paresthesias in portions of his body as a direct result of the aforesaid accident. 12. Although it is believed that Plaintiff Alvin Longmire had selected the Limited Tort Option on his insurance policy as ofthe time ofthe aforesaid accident, and, depending upon the facts of the case as determined through discovery, he may be found to be bound by same, he nevertheless is entitled to recover non-economic damages in this action, as the serious injuries that he sustained have resulted in serious impairment of body function, including, but not limited to, a serious impairment of his ability to use his neck, arms and hands. 2 COUNT I ALVIN LONGMIRE V. TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, SR., AlKJA TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, A1KJA TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI 13. Paragraphs I through 12 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 14. The aforementioned accident, and all of the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff Alvin Longmire as set forth herein, were a direct and proximate result of the negligent conduct of Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Sr. as set forth in paragraphs 16 through 22 below. 15. As a direct and proximate result of his negligence as set forth in paragraphs 16 through 22 below, Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Sr. is liable to Plaintiff Alvin Longmire for the injuries alleged herein. 16. Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Sr. failed to travel at a safe speed. 17. Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Sr. permitted the vehicle that he was operating to strike the rear of Plaintiff s vehicle. 18. Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Sr. failed to have his vehicle under such control so as to have been able to stop within the assured clear distance ahead. 19. Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Sr. failed to keep alert and failed to maintain a proper watch for the presence of other motor vehicles on the roadway. 20. Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Sr. failed to apply his brakes in sufficient time to avoid striking the rear of Plaintiffs vehicle. 21. Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Sr. failed to keep proper and adequate control over the vehicle that he was operating at the time of the aforesaid incident. 3 22. Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Sr. drove the vehicle that he was operating upon the roadway in a reckless manner with careless disregard for the rights and safety of others in violation of the motor vehicle code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 23. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Sr.'s negligence, Plaintiff Alvin Longmire has suffered serious injuries, including, but not limited to, damage to his neck and cervical spine, cervical disc herniations and paresthesias in portions of his body. 24. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Alvin Longmire has incurred, and will in the future incur, medical and rehabilitative expenses, and claim is made therefor. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid injuries, Alvin Longmire has undergone, and in the future will undergo, great physical and mental pain and suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out his daily activities, and a loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and claim is made therefor. 26. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Alvin Longmire has been, and in the future will be, subject to great humiliation and embarrassment, and claim is made therefor. 27. Plaintiff Alvin Longmire continues to be plagued by cervical neck pain and therefore avers that his injuries may be of a permanent nature, causing residual problems for the remainder of his life, and claim is made therefor. 28. Plaintiff Alvin Longmire has been advised that he may have to undergo surgery for the treatment of his accident-related injuries, which may result in scarring and disfigurement, and claim is made therefor. 4 29. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Alvin Longmire has sustained a loss of earnings by reason of not being able to fulfill his employment, and claim is made therefor. 30. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Alvin Longmire has sustained loss of earning power and earning capacity, and claim is made therefor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Alvin Longmire demands judgment against Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Sr., aIkIa Timothy Rutkowski, aIkIa Timonthy Ruthkowski for damages in an amount of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT II ALVIN LONGMIRE V. TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, JR, AJKJA TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, AlKJA TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI 31. Paragraphs I through 12 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 32. The aforementioned accident, and all of the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff Alvin Longmire as set forth herein, were a direct and proximate result of the negligent conduct of Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Jr. as set forth in paragraphs 34 through 40 below. 33, As a direct and proximate result of his negligence as set forth in paragraphs 34 through 40 below, Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Jr. is liable to Plaintiff Alvin Longmire for the injuries alleged herein. 34. Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Jr. failed to travel at a safe speed. 35. Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Jr. permitted the vehicle that he was operating to strike the rear of Plaintiff s vehicle. 5 36. Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Jr. failed to have his vehicle under such control so as to have been able to stop within the assured clear distance ahead. 37. Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Jr. failed to keep alert and failed to maintain a proper watch for the presence of other motor vehicles on the roadway. 38. Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Jr. failed to apply his brakes in sufficient time to avoid striking the rear of Plaintiffs vehicle. 39. Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Jr. failed to keep proper and adequate control over the vehicle that he was operating at the time of the aforesaid incident. 40. Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Jr. drove the vehicle that he was operating upon the roadway in a reckless manner with careless disregard for the rights and safety of others in violation of the motor vehicle code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 41. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Jr.'s negligence, Plaintiff Alvin Longmire has suffered serious injuries, including, but not limited to, damage to his neck and cervical spine, cervical disc herniations and paresthesia in portions of his body. 42. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Alvin Longmire has incurred, and will in the future incur, medical and rehabilitative expenses, and claim is made therefor. 43. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid injuries, Alvin Longmire has undergone, and in the future will undergo, great physical and mental pain and suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out his daily activities, and a loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and claim is made therefor. 6 44. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Alvin Longmire has been, and in the future will be, subject to great humiliation and embarrassment, and claim is made therefor. 45. Plaintiff Alvin Longmire continues to be plagued by cervical neck pain and therefore avers that his injuries may be of a permanent nature, causing residual problems for the remainder of his life, and claim is made therefor. 46. Plaintiff Alvin Longmire has been advised that he may have to undergo surgery for the treatment of his accident-related injuries, which may result in scarring and disfigurement, and claim is made therefor. 47. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Alvin Longmire has sustained a loss of earnings by reason of not being able to fulfill his employment, and claim is made therefor. 48. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Alvin Longmire has sustained a loss of earning power and earnmg capacity, and claim is made therefor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Alvin Longmire demands judgment against Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Jr., a!k/a Timothy Rutkowski, a!k/a Timonthy Ruthkowski for damages in an amount of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. 7 COUNT III DIANNA LONGMIRE V. TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, SR., A/K/A TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, A/K/A TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI 49. Paragraphs I through 12 and Count I of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 50. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence and the injuries sustained by Plaintiff Alvin Longmire as set forth above, Dianna Longmire has been, and in the future may be, deprived of the companionship, support, services, society, and consortium of her husband, and claim is made therefor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Dianna Longmire demands judgment against Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Sr., aIkIa Timothy Rutkowski, aIkIa Timontby Ruthkowski for damages in an amount of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT IV DIANNA LONGMIRE V. TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, JR., A/K/ A TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI. A/KJA TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI 51. Paragraphs I through 12 and Count II of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 52. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence and the injuries sustained by Plaintiff Alvin Longmire as set forth above, Dianna Longmire has been, and in the future may be, deprived of the companionship, support, services, society, and consortium of her husband, and claim is made therefor. 8 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Dianna Longmire demands judgment against Defendant Timothy Rutkowski, Jr., a!kJa Timothy Rutkowski, a!kJa Timonthy Ruthkowski for damages in an amount of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. Respectfully submitted, ~ N7JJt::L~7LLP David S. Wisneski, Esquire LD. No. 58796 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/541-9205 Counsel for Plaintiffs Date: June 16,2003 9 " VERIFICATION We, Alvin Longmire and Dianna Longmire verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information, and belief. We understand that this verification is made subject to the provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. 94904, relating to the unsworn falsification to authorities, Date: (5(" -/3.03 " Date: 00-/3 -03 ~ , I)~f?~-;:(~/y?j~ c- Dianna Longmire ~. .. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law finn ofNavitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing COMPLAINT was served upon the following person by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid on June 17, 2003 as follows: Richard H. Wix, Esquire 4705 Duke Street Hanisburg, P A 17109-3099 Counsel for Defendants '4- ~ (. IX>> r' - .. Lois E. Stauffer .' G ~- ," C';\ lr; ~- ~ -- f..->' . .,~ , "_J .,' 'J' .., ALVIN LONGMIRE and DIANA LONGMIRE, his wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 03-26 CIVIL TERM TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, SR., alkla TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, alkla TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI and TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, JR., alkla TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, alkla TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD To: Alvin Longmire and Diana Longmire; and David S. Wisneski, Esquire, Attomey for Plaintiffs You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, WIX, WENGER & WEIDNER Dated: 7/9/03 By .'Rt c.4v<.. ~ L..;.;V Richard H. Wix, Esq., 10# 07274 Attomeys for Defendant 4705 Duke Street Harrisburg, PA 17109-3099 (717) 652-8455 ALVIN LONGMIRE and DIANA LONGMIRE, his wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 03-26 CIVIL TERM TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, SR., alkla TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, alkla TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI and TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, JR., alkla TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, alkla TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS' ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW come the Defendants by their attorneys, Wix, Wenger & Weidner and set forth the following Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint. 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Denied as stated. 8. Denied as stated. 9. Admitted that Timothy Rutkowski, Sr. was the operator of the 1985 Toyota Corolla. 10. Denied as stated. It is admitted that there was contact between the two vehicles. 11. Denied. 12. Denied. 13. Defendants incorporate herein by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 12 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. 14. Denied. 15. Denied. 16. Denied. 17. Denied as stated. 18. Denied. 19. Denied. 20. Denied as stated. 21. Denied. 22. Denied. 23. Denied. 24. Denied. 25. Denied. 26. Denied. 27. Denied. 28. Denied. 29. Denied. 30. Denied. It is admitted there was contact between the vehicles, 2 31. Defendants incorporate herein by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 12 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. 32. Denied. 33. Denied. 34. Denied. 35. Denied. 36. Denied. 37, Denied. 38. Denied. 39. Denied. 40. Denied. 41. Denied. 42. Denied. 43. Denied. 44. Denied. 45. Denied. 46. Denied. 47. Denied. 48. Denied. 49. Defendants incorporate herein by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 12 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. 50. Denied. 3 51. Defendants incorporate herein by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 12 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. 52. Denied. NEW MATTER 53. Plaintiffs' claim is barred in whole or in part by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 54. Plaintiffs' claim for non-economic damages are barred by Plaintiffs' election of the limited tort option. 55. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by Plaintiff's own contributory negligence. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment against the Plaintiffs. Respectfully submitted, WIX, WENGER & WEIDNER Dated: 7) 't /03 By 'KchMA. g ~. Richard H. Wix, Esq., ID# 07274 Attomeys for Defendants 4705 Duke Street Harrisburg, PA 17109-3099 (717) 652-8455 4 VERIFICATION I, Timothy Rutkowski, Sr., have read the foregoing Defendants' Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint which has been drafted by my counsel. The factual statements and/or denials contained therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I am authorized to make this verification. This verification is made only as to the factual averments contained therein and not to legal conclusions and averments authorized by counsel in his capacity as attorney for the party or parties hereto. This verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 PA. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities which provides that, if I knowingly made false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. Date: '1 ) 7 J 03 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 9th day of July, 2003, I, Gaye Crist, an employee of the firm of Wix, Wenger & Weidner, attorneys for Defendants, hereby certify that I served the within Defendants' Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint this date by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: David S. Wisneski, Esquire Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 WIX, WENGER & WEIDNER A,W Gay:2rist (') C) 0 c: (--'-~ -" s: :",'1 "'(J l'! - Cl} - - ~:r 4,. . I:! L. '_J (1) C'~) , (~) -, , c::- ''0 --r, ~ -q C~ ! ') > C, r-,) en c: '-) ...( -~ .,., ---; :.) :51 -< (::;, --<. ALVIN LONGMIRE and DIANNA LONGMIRE, his wife, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs NO. 03-26 v. TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, Sr., a/k/a TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, a/k/a TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI and TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, Jr., a/k/a TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, a/k/a TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Alvin Longmire and Dianna Longmire, by and through their attorneys, Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, and hereby enter the following reply to the New Matter of Defendants: 53. Denied. Paragraph 53 of Defendants' New Matter is denied pursuant to Pa R.C.P. 1029(e). 54. Denied. Paragraph 54 of Defendants' New Matter is denied pursuant to Pa R.c.P. 1029(e). By way of further response, Plaintiff Alvin Longmire sustained a serious injury and Plaintiffs' claims for non-economic damages are in no manner barred by the limited tort option. 55. Denied. Paragraph 55 of Defendants' New Matter is denied pursuant to Pa R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further response, Plaintiff Alvin Longmire was in no manner negligent or contributorily negligent with respect to the accident that is the subject ofthis litigation. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Alvin Longmire and Dianna Longmire respectfully request that the New Matter of Defendants be dismissed, and that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs, Respectfully submitted, ..,.-- David S. isnes LD. No. 58796 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, P A 1711 0 717/541-9205 Counsel for Plaintiffs Date: July 11, 2003 AFFIDAVIT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ss COUNTY OF DAUPHIN I, David S, Wisneski, Esquire, being duly sworn according to law, depose and say that I am counsel for Plaintiffs and that I am authorized to make this affidavit on behalf of said Plaintiffs, and that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief or, are true and correct based on the information obtained from the Plaintiffs. ~ QD'~d s. Wi,"~ki Sworn to and subscribed before me this l/jl1 day of -:JIJ /'-{ ,2003. \Am!) t. ~1 Notary Public My Commission expires: NOTARIAL SEAL lOtS E. STAUFFER NOTARY PUBLIC CI1Y OF HARRISBURG, DAUPHIN COUNTY MY COMlllISSION EXPIRES MARCH 28 2005 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law firm ofNavitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP hereby certifY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER was served upon the following person by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid on July 11, 2003 as follows: Richard H. Wix, Esquire 4705 Duke Street Harrisburg, PA 17109-3099 Counsel for Defendants 'A{J~ c- ~ Lois E. Stauffer 0 c_:. c) C c..; --lot ;p- i} (:,' ~ I , ....- (n -<: <. r< ,.- / :i~ .L j;:' "J c. :n r.~' :~() \ 0 -< ALVIN LONGMIRE and DIANA LONGMIRE, his wife, Plaintiffs v. TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, SR., alkJa TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, a/k/a TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI and TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, JR., a/kla TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, alkJa TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03-26 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION -- LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark this action as to Timothy Rutkowski, Jr., alone, discontinued. Dated: ;_ /0 - (,) ~ Respectfully submitted, Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski u~ David . Wi neski, Esq., ID #58796 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 541-9205 Counsel for Plaintiffs 0 .~ () "..~ C "'1'1 ?:?: '::'.:.'1> " C" n1 :~~ ;) Z:-.' --;....r (jj :: I' -<" . ~t~ ~(- Zc 5> .. C I Z '''c. -..;! .:u c...> -< ALVIN LONGMIRE and DIANNA LONGMIRE, his wife, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs NO. 03-26 v. TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, Sr., a/k/a TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, a/k/a TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI, CNIL ACTION - LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' PETITION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE AND NOW, come Alvin Longmire and Dianna Longmire, his wife, by their attorneys Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, and hereby move Your Honorable Court to schedule a Status Conference in the above-captioned case for the following reasons: I. This is personal injury action arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania on February 5,2001. 2. A Writ of Summons in this matter was filed and served upon the Defendants on or about January 2, 2003, and a Complaint was subsequently filed on or about June 16,2003. 3. Discovery has been ongoing, and the depositions ofthe parties have been completed. 4. Plaintiff believes that it would be in the best interest of all parties to have the Court set dates for the completion of discovery, the production of Plaintiffs expert reports, Defendants' expert reports, Plaintiff s rebuttal reports, and to also set a date or term for trial. 5. The Status Conference would serve the purpose of allowing all parties to complete their discovery in a timely fashion and would allow Plaintiff to list the case for trial without violating the requirements required by local rules. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request This Honorable Court to schedule a Status Conference. Respectfully submitted, ~AVQlZl~P aVI . IS es I, sqUire I.D. No. 58796 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, P A 17110 (717) 541-9205 Attorney for Plaintiffs Date: February 8, 2005 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law firm ofNavitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP hereby certifY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Petition for Status Conference was served upon the following person by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid on February 8, 2005 as follows: Richard H. Wix, Esquire 4705 Duke Street Harrisburg, PA 17109-3099 Counsel for Defendant Lois E. Stauffer C'~1 7/;m ~J I'....) .;.;;':) ( :~'.~' ',:./'1 "l ["'I'") t},J , ,--C) -T; r~J en -.I v\ FEB 1 0 2005 l' )) 1 ALVIN LONGMIRE and DIANNA LONGMIRE, his wife, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs NO. 03-26 v. TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, Sr., a/k/a TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, a/k/a TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI, CNIL ACTION - LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, considering Plaintiffs' Petition for a Status Conference, it is hereby Ordered that a Status Conference be held on the.34l day of7/ld/vt'A ,2005, at.;i;3"0'cJock.-lpm. BY THE COURT: 41 J. .1. ._-':-ci /: PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (typewritten and filed in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case: ( X) for JURY trial at the next term of civil court. ( ) for trial without a jury. Alvin Longmire and ( ) Assumpsit Dianna Longmire, his wife Plaintiff ) Trespass v. ( ) Trespass (Motor Vehicle) Timothy Rutkowski, Sr., a/k/a Timothy Rutkowski, a/k/a ( X ) Civil Action - Law Timothy Ruthkowski, ( other) Defendant The trial list will be called on 2/14/05 and Trials commence on 3/13/06 Pretrials will be held on 2/22/06 (Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials) (The party listing this case for trial shall provide forthwith a copy of the praecipe to all counsel, pursuant to local Rule 214-1). No. No. 03-26 Civil Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this Praecipe: Richard H. Wi x, Esq. Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: David S. Wisneski, Esq. This case is ready for trial. Signed: ~CM\d..,( H ~ Print Name: Richard H. Wix, Esquire Attorney for: Defendant Dated: 12/15/05 -.,'" '::':, ;:'.,: ---------- I #4 ALVIN LONGMIRE AND DIANNA LONGMIRE, his wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW (j "" 1'-:--" ," ~-~, c)"~ -.--: CO) ':'n .-1 -r f-:; TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, SR. Defendant NO. 03-0026 CIVIL TERM. 1'-' '-'..' PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND NOW, this 22nd day of February, 2006, before E-dgai: en - I'J B. Bayley, Judge, present for the plaintiffs was David S. Wisneski, Esquire, and for the defendant, Kathryn L. Wix, Esquire. Richard H. Wix, Esquire, will be trial counsel for the defendant. This is a two vehicle accident case that occurred on February 5, 2001, at the intersection of Central Boulevard and Trindle Road in Hampden Township. Plaintiff maintains that he was stopped at a stop sign on Central Boulevard in preparation for making a right-hand turn when he was rear ended by defendant, Timothy Rutkowski, Sr. Defendant n1aintains that he was stopped behind plaintiff. Plaintiff then pulled out to make a right-hand turn. While defendant was looking left, plaintiff suddenly stopped without reason, and defendant struck the rear of plaintiff's vehicle. Liability is contested. Plaintiff seeks general damages, lost wages and lost earning capacity. Plaintiff elected a limited tort option, and the limited tort issue will Estimated time of be submitted to the jury. trial, two to thrjk.~ys. By the Court I / IV( Edgar B. Bayley; J. -- --- I David S. Wisneski, Esquire For Plaintiffs Kathryn L. Wix, Esquire For Defendant prs ALVIN LONGMIRE and DIANNA LONGMIRE, his wife, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs NO. 03-26 v. TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, Sr., a/k/a TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, a/kJa TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI, CNIL ACTION - LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO ATTEND To: Timothy Rutkowski, Sr. C/O Richard H. Wix, Esquire 4705 Duke Street, Harrisburg, PA 17109-3099 You are directed to come to the Cumberland County Courthouse, One Courthouse Square, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, on Monday, March 13, 2006 through Friday, March 17, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. to testify on behalf of the Plaintiff in the above case, and remain until excused. If you fail to attend or to produce the documents or things required by this Notice to Attend, you may be subject to the sanctions authorized by Rule 234.5 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Respectfully submitted, NAVI:,~) Ol!! & WiSNESKI LLP I !ju)~ David S. Wisneski, Esquire J.D. No. 58796 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PAl 7 I 10 717/541-9205 Counsel for Plaintiffs Date: February 27, 2006 , O~MI:?;' .'""i.llh,d",.. ..\.,~ .,,-' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE r, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee ofthe law firm ofNavitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice to Attend was served upon the following person by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid on February 27, 2005 as follows: Richard H. Wix, Esquire Wix, Wenger & Weidner 4705 Duke Street Harrisburg, P A 17109-3099 Counsel for Defendant '-A c~ f-, }J-~ Lois E. Stauffer --;"1 , , _.-3 '..'.; 4 ALVIN LONGMIRE and DIANNA LONGMIRE, his wife, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs NO. 03-26 v. TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, Sr., CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT, HIS COUNSEL, AND HIS WITNESSES FROM OFFERING TESTIMONY OR IN ANY WAY MAKING REFERENCE TO WITNESS DR. MARK HOLENCIK'S HISTORY OF BEING A NAMED PARTY IN A CIVIL ACTION AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Alvin Longmire and Dianna Longmire, his wife, by and through their attorneys, Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP and hereby move this Honorable Court for an Order in Limine to preclude Defendant, his counsel, and his witnesses from offering any testimony, mentioning, or in any way referencing at trial that Plaintiffs' causation/damage expert, orthopedic surgeon Dr. Mark Holencik, is or was a party in a civil action. In support of Plaintiffs' Motion, the following is averred: 1. It is anticipated that Defendant's counsel may attempt to bring out at trial the fact that Plaintiff Alvin Longmire's causation/damage expert, orthopedic surgeon Mark Holencik, D.O., has been or presently is a named Defendant in a civil action. 2. Defendant's counsel may attempt to elicit testimony, or otherwise mention, during voir dire on qualifications or during the cross-examination of Dr. Holencik, regarding the fact that Dr. Holencik has been a named Defendant in one or more civil medical malpractice cases. 3. The instant matter is not a medical malpractice case. 4. To the contrary, the matter sub judice is a rear-end collision motor vehicle accident case. 5. In this motor vehicle accident claim, there are no allegations of medical malpractice. 6. Therefore, Dr. Holencik will not be rendering any opinions, or in any way, be addressing the liability or nonliability of a healthcare provider. 7. To the contrary, Dr. Holencik is merely testifying as a causation/damage expert on behalf of Plaintiffs. 8. Dr. Holencik's history of being a named defendant in a civil action has no relevance in a motor vehicle accident case. 9. Any alleged malpractice action in which Dr. Holencik is, or was, a named defendant would lack any substantially similar circumstances or facts to the instant motor vehicle accident action. 10. Dr. Holencik's history of being a named defendant in a civil action has no relationship to any matter at trial, nor is it germane to any issues involved in this motor vehicle accident case. 11. Pursuant to Pa. R.E. 401, Dr. Holencik's history of being a named defendant in a civil action, is not relevant evidence and has no tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of this motor vehicle accident action more probable or less probable than it would be without such evidence. See Pa.R.E. 40 I. 12. Pursuant to Pa. R.E. 402, evidence that is not relevant is not admissible. See Pa.R.E. 401. 13. Moreover, even if Defendant could somehow argue that Dr. Holencik's history of being named as a defendant in a civil action has relevance to his testifying as a causation/damage expert in a motor vehicle accident, such evidence should be excluded because its probative value is 2 far outweighed by its potential for causing an unfair prejudicial impact with the jury, in addition to, causing confusion of the issues for the jury or of misleading the jury. 14. Under Pa. R.E. 403 a witness cannot be impeached if such proffered evidence is irrelevant to the issue at hand. See Pa.R.E. 403 and Pa.R.E. 607. 15. The fact that Dr. Holencik may have been a named defendant in a civil action has no legal bearing on Defendant's culpability in the instant motor vehicle action before this Court. 16. Furthermore, the fact that Dr. Holencik may have been sued in no way goes to his qualifications to render orthopedic expert testimony on the elements of causation and damages. Any doctor who has seen, cared for, and helped as many patients as Dr. Holencik has over the course of his career, is likely to have been named as a Defendant in a civil action, solely on the basis of statistical probability. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable COUl1 to instruct the Defendant, his counsel and his witnesses not to mention, refer to, interrogate, or attempt to convey to the jury in any manner, either directly or indirectly, that Dr. Holencik has been sued for medical malpractice in one or more civil actions, and to not make any reference to the fact that this Motion has been filed and granted and to warrant and caution each and every one of Defendant's witnesses to strictly follow the same instructions. Respectfully submitted, Date: March 8, 2006 NA VITSKY, OLS9N & WISNESKI LL.P /)~I ) ) /-.v~ C/( / --V'\ David . Wisneski, Esquire ---- LD. No. 58796 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/541-9205 Counsel for Plaintiffs 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law firm ofNavitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendant, His Counsel, and His Witnesses from Offering Testimony or in any way Making Reference to Witness Dr. Mark Holencik's History of Being a Named Party in a Civil Action was served upon the following person by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid on March 8, 2005 as follows: Richard H. Wix, Esquire Wix, Wenger & Weidner 4705 Duke Street Harrisburg, P A 17109-3099 Counsel for Defendant '-A~\') <2'. ~ Lois E. Stauffer I -~ c ." ALVIN LONGMIRE and DIANNA LONGMIRE, his wife, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA Plainti ffs NO. 03-26 v. TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, Sr., CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT, HIS COUNSEL AND HIS WITNESSES FROM ARGUING OR IN ANY REFERENCING AT TRIAL THAT MR. LONGMIRE WAS CONTRIBUTORILY OR COMP ARA TIVEL Y NEGLIGENT AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Alvin Longmire and Dianna Longmire, his wife, by and through their attorneys, Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, and hereby move this Honorable Court for an Order in Limine to preclude Defendant, his counsel and his witnesses from arguing, intimating, or in any way referencing at trial that Mr. Longmire was contributorily or comparatively negligent with respect to the motor vehicle accident of February 5, 2001, that is the subject of this action. In support of Plaintiffs' Motion, the following is averred: I. Defendant's counsel has indicated in his Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint and also in his Pretrial Memorandum that he intends to argue at trial that Mr. Longmire was contributorily negligent with regard to the motor vehicle accident that gave rise to the present action. 2. The matter sub judice, is a rear-end collision, which occun'ed at the intersection of Central Boulevard and Trindle Road in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. 3. Mr. Longmire testified that he was stopped at the intersection of Central Boulevard and Trindle Road and was waiting for traffic to clear so that he could make a right-hand turn (onto Trindle Road), when he was struck from behind by Defendant's vehicle. See, deposition of Alvin Longmire at pp. 18-23, attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 4. The Defendant, Timothy Rutkowski, Sr., testified that Mr. Longmire abruptly stopped his vehicle after pulling out onto Trindle Road, at which time Mr. Rutkowski's vehicle struck the rear of Plaintiffs vehicle. See, deposition of Timothy Rutkowski, Sr., pp. 12-16, attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 5. A rear-end collision is prima facie evidence of the negligence of the striking vehicle's driver. Pascale v. Simmons, 49 Del. Co. 223 (C.P. Del. 1962). 6. He who drives too close to the forward vehicle to avoid a collision in case of sudden stop or fails to keep his car under such control that he can stop if the forward car stops is guilty of negligence. Leedom v. Philadelphia Transp. Co., 58 Montg. 392 (C.P. Montg. 1942). 7. It is the duty of the operator in the rear to regulate the speed of his car so as to prevent a rear-end collision, especially when approaching or entering an intersection of public highways. Id. 8. A following motorist, who applied his brakes and slowed down as a line of traffic approached traffic signal on red, and as light turned green and traffic in front proceeded by signal, took his foot off brake in anticipation of doing likewise, who did not see preceding vehicle stop because he "glanced" to the side to observe a pedestrian on sidewalk and who, when he looked back and observed stopped vehicle, immediately "slammed" his brakes but was unable to avoid a minor impact with the rear of preceding vehicle, was guilty as a matter of law of negligence which was proximate cause of accident. Cowger v. Arnold, 460 F.2d 219 (C.A. 3 1972). 9. The operator of the following vehicle has a duty to be constantly on the alert for changes in the direction or speed of the vehicle which is ahead of him. Com. v. Fisher, 8 Adams LJ. 99 (C.P. Adams 1966). 10. The "assured clear distance ahead" rule is a part of the V(~hicle Code in Pennsylvania. It provides, in pertinent part, that "[ n]o person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than... will permit the driver to bring his vehicle to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead...." 75 Pa.C.S. &3361. 2 II. A driver is negligent as a matter of law ifhe fails to operate his vehicle at a speed and with such control that he can stop the vehicle within the assured clear distance ahead. Spearing v. Starcher, 532 A,2d 36 (Pa.Super. 1987). 12. Under the assured clear distance rule, a driver must maintain such control over his vehicle as will permit him to stop and avoid obstructions that fall within his vision. Lankalis v. McClanahan, 27 D.&C.3d 463 (C.P. Carbon 1982). 13. A motorist's failure to comply with the "assured clear distance rule," which requires a motorist to be capable of stopping within the distance that he can clearly see, constitutes negligence as a matter oflaw. Springer v. Luptowski, 635 A.2d 134 (Pa. 1993). 14. Where two persons are driving vehicles in the same direction on a city street, the driver of the rear vehicle must be vigilant and ordinarily have his vehicle under such control as to prevent a rear- end collision even in the event the front vehicle suddenly stops. Meek v. Allen, 58 A.2d 370 (Pa.Super. 1948); Labman v. Haggertv, 28 A,2d 727 (Pa.Super. 1942); Cirquitella v. C.C. Callaghan, Inc., 200 A. 588 (pa. 1938); and Feglev v. New York & Pa. Motor Exp. Inc., 28 Lehigh LJ. 92 (C.P. Lehigh 1958). 15. Sudden slowing or stopping of a vehicle ahead must be anticipated by a driver. Bohner v. Stine, 463 A2d 438 (Pa.Super. 1983). 16. In the matter subjudice, Defendant either did not have his vehicle under proper control or he was not looking in the direction of which his car was proceeding. No matter the reason, the result of his negligence was that he struck Mr. Longmire's vehicle from behind at a public intersection. 17. Even assuming, arguendo, Defendant's version of how the accident occurred to be true, Mr. Longmire cannot be considered to have been contributorily negligent. Stopping one's vehicle is not a violation of any provision of the motor vehicle code. 3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court to instruct the Defendant, his counsel and his witnesses not to mention, refer to, interrogate, or attempt to convey to the jury in any manner, either directly or indirectly, that Mr. Longmire was in any way contributorily or comparatively negligent regarding the motor vehicle accident and to further instruct the Defendant and his counsel not make any reference to the fact that this Motion has been filed and granted and to warrant and caution each and everyone of their witnesses to strictly follow the same instructions. Respectfully submitted, NA VITSKY, OLSON & YVISNESKI LLP I )jLc/0 David S. Wisneski, Esquire LD. No. 58796 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/541-9205 Counsel for Plaintiffs Date: March 8, 2006 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law firm ofNavitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendant, His Counsel, and His Witnesses from Offering Testimony or in any way Referencing at Trial that Mr. Longmire was Contributorily or Comparatively Negligent was served upon the following person by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid on March 8, 2005 as follows: Richard H. Wix, Esquire Wix, Wenger & Weidner 4705 Duke Street Harrisburg, PA 17109-3099 Counsel for Defendant \R~ t' Lois E. Stauffer ~~~ ( ;i ~ \ b It A- ~ ~(Q)~t( ALVIN LONGMIRE AND DIANA LONGMIRE, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03-26 CIVIL TERM V CIVIL ACTION - LAW TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, SR., A/K/A TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, A/K/A TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEPOSITION OF: ALVIN CLARENCE LONGMIRE TAKEN BY: DEFENDANT BEFORE: PAMELA S. SULLIVAN REPORTER-NOTARY PUBLIC DATE: APRIL 22, 2004, 2:39 P.M. PLACE: NAVITSKY OLSON & WISNESKI, LLP 2040 LINGLESTOWN ROAD, STE. 303 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA APPEARANCES: WIX, WENGER & WEIDNER, P.C. BY: RICHARD H. WIX, ESQUIRE FOR - DEFENDANT NAVITSKY OLSON & WISNESKI LLP BY: DAVID S. WISNESKI, ESQUIRE FOR - PLAINTIFFS ALSO PRESENT: DIANA LONGMIRE 2080 Linglestown Road. Suite 103 . Harrisburg, PA 17]10 717.540.0220. fax 717.540.0221. Lancaster 717.393.5101 Page 18 I A Just Ihc Iwo of us. 2 Q And how many vehicles did you and your wife own 3 as of the date of the accident? 4 A Onlyone. 5 Q Okay. Whal kind of a car was thai? 6 A A '96 Dodge Stratus. 7 Q 1996 Dodge Slratus? 8 A 1996, yes, sir, Dodge SIratus. 9 Q And who was Ihe titled owner of that vehicle? 10 A Pax Ion Securilies. 11 Q And who arc Pax Ion Securilies? 12 A Okay. Brenner -- we boughl il from Brenner ] 3 Dodge. But I undersland Ihey have their own finance 14 company. 15 Q So Paxlon Securities was a -- 16 A It's like some.. 17 Q -- financing arrangement? Is that what you're 18 saying? 19 A Yes. 20 Q In other words, they keep the vehicle titled in 21 their name unlil you pay il off" 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q All right Approximately what lime did the 24 accident occur? 25 A Around 4:45 in the afternoon. Page 19 1 Q And where were you headed for at that point in 2 time? 3 A I was headed to Sbiremanstown Road -- I believe 4 Brookwood Farms was located on then. 5 Q All right. 6 A I was heading to my job located. 7 Q And what time were you due there? 8 A I was due there at 5 p.m. 9 Q And from what hours were you expected to work, 10 from 5 to what? 11 A From 5 p.m. to I a.m. I'm approximating that 12 because sometimes we would finish later. sometimes we would 13 finish a few minutes earlier. 14 Q Okay. How had you gotten onto Central Boulevard? 15 A I had -- I had pulled -- I had come off of the 16 Mechanicsburg exit, Exit 4, around the ramp and stopped at 17 the stop sign. 18 Q And from there, you would have made a right-hand 19 turn onto T rindle Road? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q All right. When you arrived at Trind1e Road. 22 were you the first car in tine or were there vehicles ahead 23 of you? 24 A Well, there was a vehicle ahead of mc. And that 25 onc -- the traffic was really busy coming out of there. Multi-Page TM ALVIN CLARENCE LONGMIRE APRIL 22, 2004 Page 20 1 Thai one caught a break in the action. He pulled out. 2 Q All right. 3 A So I pulled up to -- right up to the road, to the 4 intersection there. 5 Q All right. In other words, you had stopped. 6 Originally, you were the second vehicle in line. And then 7 when that vehicle pulled out, you moved forward and stopped 8 again? 9 A Yes. 10 Q All right. Tdl me what happened Ihen. 11 A Well, at Ihat point, I was the only vehicle in my 12 lane. But there was other vehicles making left turns. 13 Q Off of Trindl" -- oh, off of Cenlral Boulevard 14 onto Trindle? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Okay 17 A So al the lime Ihat I pulled up -- when I pulled 18 up, there was a vehicle thai had just pulled oul and made a 19 left lurn. Well, I eouldn'l, you know, see the traffic for 20 him. So I just sit there and wait, you know, for Iraffic. 21 Traffic was -- you know, 10 clear. We had conslanllraffic 22 coming. And I just sat Ihere and waited for action -- for 23 that Iraffic to clear. 24 And I looked in my rear view mirror. I seen a 25 vehicle coming, you know, off the ramp, you know, just Page 21 1 looking back, coming behind me. So I had it in my mind thai 2 it would slop, you know. So I just sat wailing for Iraffic 3 to clear. And when I took my mind off of that, you know, I 4 jusl -- you know, I got slammed inlo my rear end. 5 Q Okay. So lei me just see if I understand you 6 right. As you're then: at the stop sign, there's a vehicle 7 to your immediate left that was going 10 make a Iefl-hand 8 lurn. Is that right so far? 9 A He pulled out and made his Iefl turn. 10 Q Okay. He pulled out. And when be's pulling out, 11 you waited until he was going 10 clear so you could see 12 whether Iraffic was coming? 13 A Well, see, he, like, sped out. And I didn'l wanl 14 to take the chance of ..- you know, I wanted 10 make sure 15 that's -- you know, see how Ihe Iraffic was moving. 16 Q All right. 17 A I wanted to make my own judgment. So that was ] 8 that immediate break in the traffic that he pulled out. 19 Q All right. 20 A But there was a stream of cars, you know, just 21 righl before him. 22 Q Then as you're still stopped Ihere at the stop 23 sign, you looked in your rear view mirror and you saw a 24 vehicle come off of tli" exit and onto Central Boulevard? 25 A No, no. I saw a vehicle directly behind me maybe Page 18.. Page 21 mIGHF.S ALRRIGHT F01.TZ NATA1.I' 717-'\AO-O??0/717-'tO't-,101 ALVIN CLARENCE LONGMIRE APRIl: 22, 2004 Multi-Page TM Page 22 1 about -- maybe about five -- four or five car lengths. 2 Q All right 3 A And I took my mind off of him, you know, because 4 I couldn'l go Oul into the Iraffic there. If I had known he 5 was going to hit me, you know, and if there wouldn't have 6 been any1hing coming, I would have pulled off. But I 7 couldn'l go out I couldn't move. 8 In fact, I just took my mind off of him, just 9 sitting there waiting for the traffic to clear. And I got 10 this, you know. 11 MR. WISNESKL That's not going to portray --Ihe 12 hand gestures is not going to portray on the record. ] 3 '11m WITNESS, Okay, sorry. ] 4 MR. WISNESKI, You have to explain. ]5 'l1lE WITNESS, Okay. So I jusl sit there and 16 wailed for Ihc traffic to clear. And the vehicle evidenlly 17 coming behind me, it didn'l stop. 18 BY MR. WDC 19 Q All right Thai's all I wanled to clarify then. 20 As you were stopped at the stop sign, you looked in your 21 rear view mirror and you saw a beer -- a beer -. jecz -- a 22 vehicle thai was four or five car lengths behind you but 23 approaching you? 24 A Yes. Approaching me, yes, sir. 25 Q All right And did that -- that vehicle you saw Page 24 1 perpendicular -- I mean went back to 180 degrees. 2 At thai poinl, I got out of Ihe car. I gol up. 3 I got oul of the car and walked around the front of the car, 4 in front of my car, walked around. You've got like an 5 overpass there, and I kind of was just pacing. [was pacing 6 to kind of see if I could shake it off, you know. 7 Q All right Did you have any conversation with 8 Mr. Rulkowski? 9 A No. I exchanged -- he exchanged words with me. 10 He asked me if I was all right. And I told him, I don't ] 1 know. I was constanlly moving, you know, trying to colleel 12 myself. 13 Q All right. Did -- you did exchange information 14 Ihen with him? 15 A We exchanged infonnation, but I didn't exchange 16 any words. He offered to -- I don't know why. But he ] 7 offered to wrile down the information and everything. And ]8 he kepi asking me was I all nght I lold him, I don't 19 know, you know. So he tore off some paper. And he wrole 20 down the information for me because I was -- you know, I'm 2] walking around shaking my hands. 22 Q Okay. So he wrOIe down his information and who 23 be was and gave that to you? 24 A Yes, sir. 25 Q All right Did he also wrile down information Page 23 Page 25 I at that time, did that turn out to be the vehicle thai -- ] relating to you') 2 A Yes. 2 A I'm not sure. I'm not sure about that. 3 Q n made contact with you? 3 Q You remember showing him your operator -- or your 4 A That was the only vehicle. 4 registralion? 5 Q All righl. But as I understand ii, afler you 5 A Yes. 6 initially saw that vehicle, you didn't eonlinue to watch it? 6 Q Okay. And was there some discussion to the fact 7 You were wailing for traffic 10 clear? 7 thai it was registered in a nan'e other than your own? 8 A Exactly. 8 A No, sir. 9 Q And you had no idea that you were going 10 be 9 Q Now, you had purchased that vehicle from who? 10 hit Is that correel? 10 A Brenner Dodge. 11 A By all means, no, sir. 11 Q Brenner Dodge. How long had you had that ]2 Q All righl. Had you started to pull forward again 12 vehicle? 13 and stopped? 13 A Since 1996, since Augusl15th of ]996. 14 A No, I couldn't because traffic -- traffic was 14 Q Okay. So it was brand new when you purchased it? ]5 moving. And I didn't want to take a chance -- I feel like I ]5 A Yes. 16 didn't have a chance 10 pull off safely withoul an accident 16 Q You said there was a denl in your bumper before 17 Q Okay. Now, when you were hit, what happened to 17 this accidenl. How had that occurred? ]8 your vehicle? I mean, Was your vehicle moved? I guess is my ]8 A I don't recall exaclly. But I think someone may 19 question. 19 have -- I may have gal bumped from behind. Or I don't know 20 A I'm nol sure how far it moved. Bull'm sure thai 20 whelber...yeah, [ think someone may have hit me from behind. 21 it did move, move some. 21 Q Where was lhat bump on your bumper localed? 22 Q All right. Tell me what happened next. 22 A It was located in the cenler. 23 A Okay. When he hil me, my bumper was bursled. 23 Q All right. Did you look al Mr. Rutkowski's 24 Now, my bumper did have a denl in il. Bul the bumper was 24 vehicle? 25 bursted. And my driver's seat, it went back 25 A Brief1y. I can't recall exactly how it looked Page 22 - Page 25 HUGHES ALBRIGHT FOLTZ NATALE 7]7-.540-022017]7-393-5]0] ExA}tJ+ :B CG(Q)~fr ALVIN LONGMIRE AND DIANA LONGMIRE, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03-26 CIVIL TERM V CIVIL ACTION - LAW TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, SR., A/K/A TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, A/K/A TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEPOSITION OF: TIMOTHY DAVID RUTKOWSKI TAKEN BY: PLAINTIFFS BEFORE: PAMELA S. SULLIVAN REPORTER-NOT}\.RY PUBLIC DATE: APRIL 22, 2004, 2:01 P.M. PLACE: NAVITSKY OLSON & WISNESKI, LLP 2040 LINGLESTOWN ROAD, STE. 303 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA APPEARANCES: NAVITSKY OLSON & WISNESKI LLP BY: DAVID S. WISNESKI, ESQUIRE FOR - PLAINTIFFS WIX, WENGER & WEIDNER, P.C. BY: RICHARD H. WIX, ESQUIRE FOR - DEFENDANT ALSO PRESENT: ALVIN LONGMIRE DIANA LONGMIRE 2080 Linglestown Road. Suite 103 . Harrisburg, PA 1711O 717.540.0220. fax 717.540.0221 . Lancaster 717.393.5]01 MuIti-pageTM Page ] 0 I getting dark? 2 A It was still daylight. 3 Q Can you tell me what the purpose of your trip was 4 at the lime of the accidenl? Where were you headed -- 5 A ]was'- 6 Q -. from? 7 A'- returning from a doclor's appointment. 8 Q And where were you headed to? 9 It] was headed home. 10 Q Was it a workday for you? II A Yes, it was. 12 Q And had you worked your normal shift that day? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Was it after your shift had ended Ihal you WC'TIt 15 to the doctor's office? 16 A No, il wasjusl prior to the end. ] had a 3:30 17 appointment. ] 8 Q Wilh a physician? ] 9 A With a physician. 20 Q And] don't want to pry into your persona] 2] medical history. Bul to Ihe extenl that it might be 22 relevant 10 the accident, can you tell me whal the 23 appoinimenl was for? 24 It I think al the lime it was for a cold. 25 Q Were you taking any medications al the time of Page] ] I the accidenl? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Whal were you laking? 4 A I really don 'I remember. It was mainly 5 medications for the lrealmenl of depression. 6 Q Do you recall whether or not you had taken any 7 Iype of medications for the cold on the day of the accidenl? 8 A I may have. I don't remember. 9 Q In your opinion, do the medications that you were 10 laking Ihat day in any way affect your abilily to operate a II molor vehicle? 12 It I don'llhink so. 13 Q Do you recall what time of the day you would have ] 4 taken Ihose medications? 15 A In Ihe morning. 16 Q And do you recall Ihe names of any of Ihe 17 medicalions? 18 A It may have been like Clarilin or something along 19 those lines. 20 Q But to your recolleclion. it might have been 21 somelhing to help treat depression? 22 It As far as the depression drugs, I've been under 23 treatment for a long time. So Ihey've changed over Ihe 24 course of the treatment cycle. 25 Q As of the day of the accident, would you have TIMOTHY DAVID RUTKOWSKI APRIL 22, 2004 Page ] 2 I taken the proper dosage of whatever medicalion had been 2 prescribed for you by the physician who was lrealing you for 3 the depression? 4 A Yes. 5 Q And if we need to, we could find oul from thai 6 physician's office exactly -- 7 A Yes. 8 Q -- what that was? Who is Ihal physician, by the 9 way? 10 A Dr. Ed Russek. II Q And where is Dr. Russek's office at? 12 A 1800 Linglcstown Road. Do you need a phone 13 number? 14 Q If you know ii, sure. 15 A 233-3630. 16 Q Can you tell me whal your route was that day from 17 Dr. Russek's office? How did you gel over to Central 18 Boulevard? ]9 A Well, I wasn't at Dr. Russek's office thai day. 20 Q Oh, I'm sorry. 21 A I was al my family doclor's office. 22 Q Which doclor was thai? 23 A It's Dr. Kalherine Gallagher. 24 Q And where is her office al? 25 A At the Family Medical Center of Camp Hill on Page 1 3 I Market Slrccl in Camp Hill, which is just at the other end 2 of the intersection of Central Boulevard and Markel Street. 3 Q]s she in that big sort of Tudor-looking mansion 4 on the corner? 5 A That's it. 6 Q Do you recall what traffic conditions were like 7 at the time of the accidenl? 8 A They were heavy. 9 Q Do you recall whether or not it was the 10 after-work rush hour? 11 A Thai's whal it was. 12 Q And tell me to the besl of your recollection how ] 3 the accidenl happened. 14 A] was sitting al the interseclion off Central 15 Boulevard and Trind]" Road behind Mr. Longmire's car. He ] 6 pulled oul inlo the interseclion. I started up from a 17 stopped position, and he abruptly stopped. Unfortunately, 1 18 didn'l stop in time and bumped Ihe rear of his vehicle. I 19 don'l believe I could have been going more than 5 miles an 20 hour at the time. 21 Q Okay. 1 jusl want to go over thai in a lillle 22 bit more detaiL Was Mr. Longmire's vehicle -- do you 23 recall what type of vehicle it was? 24 A I thought il was like a Plymouth Duster. 25 Q Do you remt.il1ber what color it was? Page 10 - Page 13 Hll('a-lF~ AT R1l1nllT J;'lll T7 JJ ATA. T P '71"L.t;i;An_n.,..,n''717 'lO" C'In1 TIMOTHY DAVID RUTKOWSKI APRIL 22, 2004 Multi-Page 1M Page 14 1 A A blue. 2 Q Do you recall whelher the vehicle that 3 Mr. Longmire was in was the flrsl vchicle right at the slop 4 sign at the interseelion of Central Boulevard and Trindle 5 Road') 6 A He was the first vehicle at the intersection, and 7 I was right behind him. 8 Q Were there other vehicles behind you? 9 A Yes. to Q You said that Mr. Longmire started to pull out 11 onto Trindle Road -- 12 A Righi 13 Q n prior to the impact? 14 A Right 15 Q Can you tell me how far he got out into the 16 intersection before the impact occurred? 17 A His car was probably halfway into the 18 intersection when it stopped. 19 Q Were you able to tell why he had stopped? 20 A No, it was clear. 2\ Q When you say it was clear, do you mean that there 22 23 24 25 were no -- A There were no cars coming. Q No cars coming on Trindle Road? A On Trindle Road. Page 15 I Q Prior to the impact with Mr. Longmire's vchicle, 2 had you been walching 10 the left 10 see if there were 3 oncoming vehicles on Trindle Road, to see if it was clear? 4 A Yes, I was. 5 Q Were you slilllooking to the left when you 6 struck Mr. Longmire's vehicle? 7 A No, I was looking straight ahead. 8 Q Why is it that you weren't able 10 stop before 9 colliding with Mr. Longmire's vehicle? 10 A Because he had stopped that abruptly. 11 Q When Mr. Longmire was at the stop sign and you \2 were behind him and he pulled out, did you stop for any 13 period of time at the stop sign? 14 A I was aboutto. 15 Q To lhe point in the roadway where the impact 16 occurred, Ihat happened prior to where your vehicle would 17 have goltcn h ]8 A Just aboul h 19 Q -- to the stop sign? 20 A n where the stop sign was. 21 Q Was there anyone in Mr. Longmire's vehicle other 22 than him? 23 A Just Mr. Longmire. 24 Q What portion of your vehicle struck what portion 25 of Mr. Longmire's vehicle? Page 14 - Page 17 Page 16 1 A The righl front bumper of my car against the 2 right rear bumper of his car. 3 Q Tell me what happened after the impact. 4 A We pulled off to the side of the road. 5 Q To lhe right side? 6 A To the right side of the road. 7 Q Of Central Boulevard or Trindle Road? 8 A Of Trindle Road, off on the shoulder. 9 Q Okay. 10 A I got out 10 check to see if he was okay. 11 Q All right. You gol out of your vehicle, and you ]2 walked over to his vehicle? 13 A Walked over to his vehicle. 14 Q Was he still in his vehicle at that poinl, or had 15 he gotten out? 16 A He was in the process of getting out. 17 Q Okay. And then tell me whal happened. 18 A He wenl back and looked at rear of his car n 19 okay? n and then wenl to get back in his vehicle acting 20 like he wanted to leave. 21 Q You said that you-- 22 A I asked him to exchange information. 23 Q Okay. 24 A And he was reluctant to do so at first. 25 Q And what was it that he said or did that gave you Page 17 1 the impression thai he was reluclanl to do so? 2 A Thc impression he jusl wanted to leave, he had to 3 be somewhere. 4 Q Did he ultimately give you the inf ormalion thai 5 you wanted? 6 A Yes, he did. We exchanged information, and I 7 noticed that the vehicle he was driving was not his. It 8 belonged to someone else. 9 Q And how did you notice that? 10 A On the registration. J I Q Was the vehicle listed on the registration card 12 the same vehicle thai h 13 A It was n 14 Q -- was involved h IS A h the same vehicle, yes. 16 Q And did you ask him about Ihat? 17 A No, I dido'i 18 Q You mentioned that initially you got out of your 19 vehicle 10 go over and 10 ask Mr. Longmire how he was. Did 20 you do that? 21 A Yes, I did. 22 Q And tell me to the best of your rccolleclion what 23 he said and what that conversation was. 24 A He was fine. 25 Q Did he ask you if you were okay? HUGHES ALBRIGHT FOLTZ NATALE 717-540-0220/7]7-393-5101 , , ., -,-I , - ALVIN LONGMIRE and DIANA LONGMIRE, his wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 03-26 CIVIL TERM TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, SR., alkJa TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, alkJa TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO DR. HOLENCIK'S MALPRACTICE HISTORY I. Facts This litigation arises out of a very minor automobile accident occurring on February 5, 2001. Although the parties differ in their accounts as to how the accident occurred, it is undisputed that this was a low speed automobile accident which resulted in no damages to the Defendant's vehicle, and Plaintiff was able to drive his vehicle from the scene of the accident. In fact following the accident, the parties exchanged insurance information and the police were not called to investigate and Plaintiff no made complaints of injury. The records establish that the Plaintiff did not see any healthcare provider until approximately one month following the accident when he was seen by his family physician with a complaint of neck pain. The Plaintiff continued to work at his regular employment until early April of 2001 when he was terminated for reasons unrelated to the accident. During the year 2001 the Plaintiff was treated by his family physician, by Dr. Stynchula, a chiropractor, Dr. Balint Balog, an orthopedic surgeon in Harrisburg, Dr. Jean Santo, physicians at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Dr. Walter Peppleman and Dr. Todd Samuels. These were the healthcare providers who treated the Plaintiff in the several years following the accident. Other than a brief video deposition of Dr. Samuels, who saw the Plaintiff only twice in the fall of 2001, Plaintiff's entire medical testimony will be presented by Mark P. Holencik, D.O. to whom Mr. Longmire was referred by his counsel in April of 2004, more than three years following the accident. Dr. Holencik has prepared three reports, dated April 12, 2004, May 12, 2004 and January 23, 2006, copies of which are attached hereto. A fair reading of these reports clearly establishes that Dr. Holencik holds himself out as an expert in being able to interpret and read diagnostic x-rays, MRI studies, CAT scans, etc. Dr. Holencik also boasts of his surgical knowledge having "performed more than 1,500 cervical spine fusions in my surgical career, and I am quite familiar with the syndrome, its ideology, and the clinical presentation of such patients". What the Plaintiff seeks to prevent the jury from knowing about Dr. Holencik is that since 2001 he has not performed any surgery because he has been unable to obtain operating privileges at any hospital due to the large number of medical malpractice claims that have been filed against him. There have been at least 16 medical malpractice suits filed against him, for which his malpractice insurance carriers have expended millions of dollars in representing and settling claims against Dr. Holencik. 2 It is also important to recognize that present defense counsel, Richard H. Wix, was plaintiff counsel in at least three of the lawsuits against Dr. Holencik, and Dr. Perry Eagle, the Defendant's expert witness, was a plaintiffs witness in at least one of the medical malpractice claims against Dr. Holencik. A party is entitled to cross-examine an expert witness to explore the credibility of the witness and to inquire into any potential bias, interest or relationship which could affect the testimony of the witness. Downev v. Weston, 451 Pa.259, 301 A.2d 635, 639 (1973); Zamskv v. Public Parkino Authoritv of Pittsburoh, 378 Pa. 38, 105 A.2d 335, 336 (1954); Smith v. Celotex Corporation, 387 Pa. Super. 292, 562 A.2d 913, 917 (1989); Mohn v. Hahnemann Medical Colleoe and Hospital of Philadelphia, 357 Pa.Super. 173, 515 A.2d 920, 923 (1986). Defendant in this case seeks to present evidence on cross- examination of instances of prior professional negligence on the part of Dr. Holencik to explore his credibility, as well as to inquire into any potential bias or interest. While there do not appear to be any Pennsylvania cases on point, many jurisdictions have held that an expert can be cross-examined regarding specific instances of misconduct or professional negligence for the purpose of casting doubt upon their professional competency or credibility. Cosme v. Hospital Pavia (1991, CA1 Puerto Rico) 922 F.2d 926; Underhill v. Stephenson, Ky., 756 S.w.2d 459; Willouohbv v. Wilkins, 65 N.C. App. 626,310 SE2d 697; Oberlin v. Akron Gen. Med. Ctr., 91, Ohio St. 3d 169,2001 Ohio 248,743 N.E.2d 890. 3 Dr. Holencik clearly has a bias against defense counsel because of the fact that defense counsel has successfully sued him on multiple occasions. Dr. Holencik has made remarks to defense counsel which would clearly evidence a bias against defense counsel and anyone he represented, and certainly a jury should be cognizant of that fact when they evaluate Dr. Holencik's testimony. Likewise, it can be seen from a review of his reports, Dr. Holencik is expected to offer testimony critical of Dr. Eagle and his opinions. One of the explanations for this can be the fact that Dr. Eagle has written one or more reports in favor of patients who were bringing lawsuits against Dr. Holencik. Again it is submitted that this is a fact that a jury should be aware of when they evaluate what weight or credibility is to be given to Dr. Holencik's testimony. Defendant does not intend to get into the facts of each of the various malpractice claims against Dr. Holencik, but it should be pointed out that three of the successful suits against Dr. Holencik all involved instances where he performed spinal surgery at the wrong level. Since in this case Dr. Holencik will be testifying at length about the interpretation of x-rays and MRI films, the Plaintiff should not be able to hide from the jury the fact that in his own practice, on multiple occasions, Dr. Holencik has misinterpreted films, and as a result therefore has operated on the wrong levels of individual's spines. Certainly these cases of evidence of professional negligence on the part of Dr. Holencik are relevant to issues of his credibility and competence as it relates 4 to the treatment and diagnosis of spinal injuries. Defendant submits that it would be reversible error for the court to preclude Defendant from showing Dr. Holencik's bias against Defendant's counsel and expert witness, as well as showing his incompetence on multiple occasions as it relates to the treatment of spinal injuries. The scope of cross-examination is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Yacoub v. Lehiqh Vallev Med. Assoc., 2002 Pa. Super. 251,805 A.2d 579, 592 (Pa. Super 2002). Generally, "every circurnstance relating to the direct testimony of an adverse witness or relating to anything within his knowledge is a proper subject for cross-examination, including any matter which qualify or diminish the irnpact of direct examination." KemD v. Qualls, 326 Pa. Super. 319, 324 A.2d 1369, 1371 (1984). WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests your Honorable Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine. Respectfully submitted, WIX, WENGER & WEIDNER Dated: .311& lo\" BYC!~~ 1~; . )J-t- Richard H. Wix, Esq., ID# 07274 Attorneys for Defendant 4705 Duke Street Harrisburg, PA 17109-3099 (717) 652-8455 5 CONSEB~. Mark P. Holencik, D.O. 49 Brookwood Avenue Carlisle. PA 17013 Phone: (717) 243-0241 (717) 243-4395 Fox: (717) 243-4019 April 12, 2004 Attorney Wesniski RE: Alvin Longmire SS: 420-70-7208 Dear Attorney Wesniski: Alvin Longmire was seen today in light of his ongoing complaints of bilateral upper and lower extremity burning pain and weakness ever since a motor vehicle accident dated approximately 2/5/2001, about 3 years ago. The patient states he was previously without any significant disability or lost work time referable to his neck or radiative arm or leg symptoms. He was sitting at a stop sign still in a 1996 Dodge Stratus waiting for traffic to pass until it was safe to pull out. He was properly restrained and he was struck at some degree of speed from behind, a degree of speed sufficient to cause his seat to break off and throw him backwards 180 degrees. He noted immediate pins and needles in his arms. The estimate of damage was not horrible to his car and they were able to fix it for about $1300. At that time he was employed by Brookwood Farms loading and unloading trucks and pulling stock. He thought he would be able to "work it off" or simply "shake it off" but it did not seem to go away and after trying to work for a few weeks with severe neck pain and bilateral deep boring axillary and arm pain and numbness and some progressive "heaviness" in his lower extremities he saw Dr. Cummings & Associates and one of the doctors there sent him for an MRI and plain radiographs of the neck which were abnormal and this was dated sometime about March 20, 2001. He states the pins and needles got worse and he was sent to see Dr. Balog, an orthopedic surgeon, who sent the patient to a pain clinic at a local hospitaL An anesthesiologist Page 2 RE: Alvin Longmire SS: 420-70-7208 gave him one epidural injection and he "felt like he was paralyzed" and he got so much worse that it scared him and he went to Johns Hopkins University for a consult. Apparently they thought the patient had some type of peripheral neuropathy and did not think that he had any significant or surgical pathology and he returned up here with the same complaints. He saw Dr. Peppelman somewhere along the line, a spine surgeon locally, and Dr. Peppelman at least offered the patient or considered some type of spinal surgery but the patient is quite disinclined to consider surgical treatments and elected to continue conservative care strongly believing that if he just let time pass that things would get better. He went to physical therapy but has not been able to return to work for 3 years now.and is not much better and actually a bit worse with feelings of "hot and cold" inside his legs and the feeling of heavy "cinder" blocks in his legs. He also has poor penile sensation and erectile dysfunction. He feels the sensation of pulsation in his legs. He has no rnedicational allergies. Medications include Phenobarbitol for seziures, dosage unknown, Coumadin dosage not recalled for "clots" and he was told that it would "keep his blood running" and prescribed by one of his doctors at Cummings & Associates. I am not sure of a reason for it. He takes Neurontin for pain again dosage unknown and Darvocet for pain. He takes water pills on a p.r.n. basis and Potassium pills apparently on a relatively unscheduled plan. Systems review is benign except for some of the circulatory problems he describes and I believe this is pseudoclaudication or neurologically mediated sensations of hot, cold, and heaviness from what I believe is a central cord syndrome due to whiplash type injury superimposed on a high grade cervical stenosis. He also has essential hypertension. He has pitting edema in his lower extremities by history and on clinical exam today but no sign of heart attack, angina, hypertension, or valve disease. There is no history of liver or kidney disease and no history of blood dyscrasia or cough, hemoptysis, or TB. There is no history of diabetes or thyroid disease. There is no history of stroke or frequent headaches but he does have a history of seizure disorder Page 3 RE: Alvin Longmire 88: 420-70-7208 for which he is medicated. He has a history of external hemorrhoids but no history of ulcer, chronic diarrhea, hematemesis, severe rectal bleeding or severe weight loss. There is no history of dysuria, hematuria, or incontinence. His musculoskeletal history has been described. He requires no assistive devices. He received a blood trarlSfusion in 1987 secondary to the motor vehicle accident but denies hepatitis, HN, or cancer. He had an inguinal hemia when he was 4 years old and exploratory laparotomy at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in New York City at which time he received a blood transfusion but was not found to have any visceral abnormalities. He had no problems with anesthesia, father is deceased of emphysema and mother alive and healthy. He had six sisters, one who died as a baby and he has four surviving brothers everybody reasonably healthy. He is married with one son. He lives with his family. He denies drug abuse, alcohol use, or tobacco use. Clinically he is 6 feet 2 inches tall and weighs 244 pounds. He is 54 years of age. His peripheral right radial pulse is 82 and regular. He has a normal reciprocating gait that is not wide based and he is able to flex in a level stance phase bringing his fingertips to the mid third of his legs with a severe and diffuse lumbar pain endpoint. He can extend to about 25 degrees with a basi cervical and lumbar pain endpoint. The pain does not radiate into his arms or legs with these maneuvers. Heel and toe walking are intact and side bending and rotation are limited to about 2/3 of normal. He has no pain to passive internal rotation of either hip. He has 2-3+ pitting edema in both legs when examined in the seated position and no palpable pulses at the ankle or posterior medial malleolus. He has shiny skin with patchy pigmentation but no ulcerations or drainage. He has normal gross sensation to light manual touch at both ankles and forefeet. He has good strength of resisted hip flexion and knee extension with negative straight leg raise testing bilaterally and a smooth and symmetrical range of knee and hip motion bilaterally. Page 4 RE: Alvin Longmire SS: 420-70-7208 He has a very irritable neck in rather curious ways and terminal rotation to either side causes deep boring axillary and periscapular pain with rotation limited to 2/3 of normal. Flexion and extension causes deep boring periscapular pain and midline interscapular pain. Spurling's maneuver causes only a dull ache at the base of the neck. He has fairly intact strength in his upper extremities perhaps at 5-/5 at all stations tested globally and diffusely but he has no focal neurologic deficit. Perhaps his grip weakness is the most significantly ~ffected. He has no percussive irritability of the carPal or cubital tunnels and he has a full range of motion of the shoulder, elbow, wrists, and small joints of the finger and hand bilaterally. I find his MRI's and plain radiographs to be diffusely abnormal. He has complete loss of cervical lordosis with a straight spine in all his plain radiographs and advanced degenerative intervertebral changes with horizontal traction osteophyte formation from C3-4 to C7. He has foraminal encroachment. He has significant abnormalities at C4-5 where there is a broad-based horizontal traction type osteophyte that occupies much of his central canal and I believe in light of his complete loss of spinal reserve capacity at these several apical levels of what should have been a cervical lordosis he is a prime set up for so-called central cord syndrome. This occurs when reserve capacity in the canal is lost, usually in a senescent spine with osteophytes encroaching circumferentially. The patient's 16-odd pound head flies forward and backwards due to an impact and the traction of the cords attachment to the base of the brain and brainstem actually places a traction and tethering injury of the cord over the rims of the traction type osteophytes or ligamentum hypertrophy and laminae posteriorly but the edema and signal abnormalities from the central aspect of the cord on MRI studies and there are on two separate subsequent studies interpreted by two separate subsequent radiologists and this would also account for his four extremity findings, with foramina! injury to the roots accounting for his subjective complaints of upper extremity pain and the central cord contusiona! injury accounting for his various vasomotor and'radiative numbness symptoms in his lower extremities especially. I would advised anyone interested in reports to look at the 5/9/2001 and 10/312001 MRI studies , '" . Page S RE: Alvin Longmire SS: 420-70-7208 of the cervical spine that both demonstrate central cord edema and central cord syndrome. An EMG demonstrates a peripheral polyneuropathy which is not incompatible with multiple compressive nerve lesions either. I do not have this mans whole history verified, but if he was not indeed being treated for ongoing cervical problems of a disabling nanrre or of a radicular nature and has no complaints of significant subjective lower extremity radiation until this injury and has injuries compatible with central cord syndrome and nerve root contusional injuries post injury mechanism then there is indeed a causal or significant aggravational relationship between his motor vehicle accident and his injuries. This man was able to work on a loading dock up to the date of his injury and has "hard" diagnostic study findings interpreted by two radiologists and also myself with considerable experience looking at MRI's on a daily basis. The fact that his cord and roots are not better after three years implies there is little relief to be expected as time passes as perhaps 80% of these patients should be better after one year and he is certainly not but getting worse instead. Sincerely, Ml~ Mark P. Holencik, DO MPH/dlb Dictated but not read cc: Alvin Longmire CONSE~.1' Mark P. Holencik, D.O. 49 Brookwood Avenue Carlisle. PA 17013 Phone: (717) 243-0241 (71 7) 243-4395 Fax: (717)243-4019 May 12,2004 Attorney Wesniski RE: Alvin Longmire SS: 420-70-7208 Dear Attorney Wesniski: Relative to your 5/3/2004 correspondence on Alvin Longmire, I have a strong opinion relative to whether or not he sustained a "serious injury" as defined by your subsequent rather voluminous correspondence relative to same. This man had been functional with an extremely abnormal neck and no reserve capacity at all for his cervical spinal cord until the time of the impact. Instead of the spinal cord having a few mm of an "halo" of fluid and space it was tightly enclosed and contacted by osteoarthritic bone spurs. Therefore, a less than massive flexion-extension or whiplash type injury can cause serious and permanent damage. This man has the relative rare fmding of frank: cervical cord edema meaning that the internal fleshy portion of his spinal cord was actually injured to the point of swelling or having fluid accumulate as edema is the body's consequence to serious injury. The cord was tethered over the rims of these horizontal bone spurs and there were so-called "signal abnormalities" to the central aspect of the cord on the MRI on two separate studies and were reported as same by two separate radiologists and myself accounting for a third separate and experienced individual confirming this injury. Cervical spinal cords do not heal. They remain permanently injured and anyone who has ever seen a diving accident or fracture-dislocation of the cervical spine knows what I mean. Instead of severing his cord that would result in paralysis from that point distal to the arms and legs he sustained a severe internal bruise of the cord with the edema rendering the cord subsequently Page 2 RE: Alvin Longmire SS: 420-70-7208 ischemic or permanently damaged due to deprivation of Oxygen secondary to swelling. That means that he has a paresis and not a paralysis, with the former being a permanent significant loss of strength with coexisting pain or numbness and the latter being permanent complete loss of function. He will therefore be unable to complete any type of even sedentary rnanuaJ activities without symptoms and these will be permanent. I described these fmdings at long length in my note to you of 4/12/2004. EMG of the extremities is also diffusely abnormal. He will never be comfortable. He will always have numbness of the upper and lower extremities. He will always have weakness of the upper and lower extremities. He will not be comfortable for even the lightest of manual or repetitive activity and will not be able to maintain a static upward or downward gaze or maintain his arms in extended or prehensile fashion. I believe this is serious and it is "significant and important" These opinions are rendered with a reasonable degree of medical certainty. I would suggest that anyone interested in further particular information relative to this case simply get out a spinal surgery or injury text book and read more extensively on central cord syndrome. Sincerely, ;v( {~t( Mark P. Holencik, DO MPH/dlb Dictated but not read CONSE~-", Mark P. Holencik, D.O., F.A.O.A.O. 40 Brookwood Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone: (717) 243-0241 (717) 243.4395 Fax: (717) 243-4019 Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 303 Harrisburg, P A 17110 January 23, 2006 RE: Alvin Longmire Dear Mr. Barrick: I have reviewed Dr. Eagle's IME report. In response, I can only say that my opinion has not changed a bit As per my previous report, this man's injuries can be simply stated. Two separate radiologists have reported central cord edema when they viewed the diagnos1ic MRI exams of the cervical spine obtained post injury. I discussed how that can occur with complete loss of cervical spine canal reserve capacity especially at C4-5 and he is felt to have coexisting cervical spondylosis and a broad-based "herniation" which is an acute phenomenon. Spondylosis may have antedated the injury but it was clinically quiescent until the whiplash type injury mechanism which was of sufficient velocity to break his seat and bruise his cord enough to cause edema. It is my opinion with a reasonable degree of medical certainly that he would remain weak in all four extremities and unable to lift heavily after such an injury, potentially permanently. It is also my opinion that this injury caused his neck and shoulder pain that I was able to elicit on a clinical exam, particularly with flexion and extension of the cervical spine, which would place increased pressure on a tight mid-cervical canal. A patient does not simply wake up one day with cord edema and weakness. It takes a substantial trauma superimposed on the tight canal to cause the cord ederna, and I am not the only one to report it I believe his cervical spine injury was his most significant injury and the one with potentially permanent sequellae. Page 2 RE: Alvin Longmire I find it interesting to note that the independent medical examiner "concurs with the findings on the formal report" of the MRI and also agrees that there is "associated central canal and foraminal stenosis from C3 -4 through C6-7." He states that "no herniation was reported" but the report dated 3/28/2001 demonstrates "broad-based cervical disc herniations at C3-4, C4-5, and C5-6." The fact that his cervical epidural injection "made (him) feel like he was paralyzed" is because the mass effect of several more cc of fluid packed into an already tight canal with no reserve capacity at the affected levels was simply too much extra fluid for the tight canal to accommodate. Dr. Eagle states that the "foundations" for my opinions are not presented, and I would strongly disagree. I discussed spondylosis, disc herniation, and the loss of reserve capacity in the cervical canal at length and also the classical physics of the injury mechanism. I believe he conveniently chose not to either recall or analyze the merit of these comments. Furthermore, I performed more than 1,500 cervical spine fusions in my surgical career and am quite familiar with this syndrome, its etiology, and the clinical presentation of such patients. The "independent" medical exam reads as I would expect it to, considering the circumstances. It flies in the face of conventional medical wisdom and all logic considering the diagnostic studies and mechanism of injury. Please feel free to contact me if this is insufficient. Sincerely, Ml~ Mark P. Holencik, DO MPHldlb -4 '" ALVIN LONGMIRE and DIANNA LONGMIRE, his wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, SR., Defendant NO. 03-0026 CIVIL TERM VERDICT Question I: Do you find that Defendant was negligent? Yes X No NoT If you answer Question I "No," Plaintiffs can not recover and you should _ answer any further questions and should return to the courtroom. Question 2: Was Defendant's negligence a factual cause of the harrn to Plaintiff Alvin Longmire? Yes)( No If you answer Question 2 "No," Plaintiffs can not recover and you should not answer any further questions and should return to the Courtroorn. I Ouestion 3: Was Plaintiff Alvin Longrnire contributorily negligent? Yes X' No If you answer Question 3 "No," proceed to Question 6. If you answer Question 3 "Yes," proceed to Question 4. Ouestion 4: Was Plaintiff Alvin Longmire's contributory negligence a factual cause of his harrn? Yes-A No If you answer Question 4 "No," proceed to Question 6. If you answer Question 4 "Yes," proceed to Question 5. Ouestion 5: If you have answered "Yes" to Questions 1,2,3 and 4, then answer the following: Taking the cornbined negligence that was a factual cause of the harm to Plaintiff Alvin Longmire as 100 percent, what percentage of that causal negligence was attributable to Defendant and what percentage was attributable to Plaintiff Alvin Longrnire? PERCENTAGE OF CAUSAL NEGLIGENCE ATTRIBUTABLE TO DEFENDANT: itQ% PERCENTAGE OF CAUSAL NEGLIGENCE ATTRIBUTABLE TO PLAINTIFF: TOTAL {;(/)% 100% If you have found Plaintiff Alvin Longmire's percentage of causal negligence to be greater than 50%, Plaintiffs can not recover and you should return to the courtroom. Question 6: A. State the total arnount(s) of darnages, if any, of an economic natnre sustained by Plaintiff Alvin Longrnire as a result of the accident: Past Lost Earnings and Lost Earning Capacity $ Future Lost Earnings and Lost Earning Capacity $ B. State the total amount of darnages, if any, sustained by Plaintiff Dianna Longrnire for loss of consortium as a result of the accident: $ Question 7: Did Plaintiff Alvin Longmire suffer serious irnpairrnent of a body function as a result of injuries sustained in the accident? Yes No If you answer Question 7 "No," Plaintiff Alvin Longrnire can not recover noneconornic damages, and you should return to the courtroom. If you answer Question 7 "Yes," proceed to Question 8. . Question 8: State the total amount of darnages, if any, of a noneconomic nature sustained by Plaintiff Alvin Longmire as a result of the accident: Total $ 31Ifo(~ (Date) . /' .... 1 .!oQ \JlA~ . \ \e~/ C- (\ .--(/~' . "" ,~Ii ~ ;'/.' . \ J c~. (! .,"~ ~LJCC ,illi.eoV' \ < ~. ' CASE NO.: 'I E",o";"'- ,C:Q,}-(.. [)OCKET NO.: I~ -~ .:J (, VS Juror # Name . 11 I18'lJ,'AR.fl., r4Af"C I ~. ,,~ YOCHUM, WILLIAIVI U.1I 8 DEITER, FAE L. 74 MOORE, JOHN T. 39 ANDERSON, KIMBERLY A 1::12 P]~IEg, 8E/.rJ 40 SEIFERT, GARY R. 17 UlII'O'T'7 Tovr:K 96 ACRI, LAUREN M. ~ [)(, FRITTS, .L\R,\.rrEhb 11 ~n~K11.Jf\.I~, JULIA A. 100 PETRI, GRETCHEN 117 HECKMAN, JEAN 79 PRICE, HAROLD '7 .i~~lA, hAlIIRYj)' J,.:( '7"1, n.OIJSFR TAMll'liO:l 35 LANGLEY, JOAN I WOODRING, JOHN ANDR 29 GOOD, JENNIFER 50 VOGEL, JAY F. 9 SLATTERY, CHERYL A 107 ROSEN, ROBERT J 85 KUBISIAK, MARSHA S 91 LONG, CECELIA 98 DOUGHTY, R. JONA THAN 105 HEPLER, MICHAEL H. 82 ACHILLES, MARY ANNE 49 KUTZ, DENNIS 72 RUPP, RUBY 52 ROBINETTE, TOPPlE G. 32 DECRENY, GLORIA MARl 97 MURREN, ANDREW PHILI 28 CUMMINGS, BRENDA 95 LIPSON, STEPHEN B. 90 OKUNIEWSKI, STEPHANI 101 MOTZ, JOANNE Mnnrl::nf.'M:ur.-h'1'r-t'.:'200fi --- ~ -'....,....' '.-.-- -.. . -.' -. -,' Judge ~lerk/Proth _ Tipstaff _ COURTROOM NO.: ~ Ii!-- I? .u:::r }uu KI1? , . DATE: 3/n II)/,. , I Random No. -J~Ulll..614 -182 T3(;S:3J -1747632097 -1745452176 -1741264937 ] 6:5487$J8 -1516541236 1J16J9'99(;] -1195069783 _QdQ1'\lhlt'1 -SI""~HL~Sl" -784294188 -769295967 -596919631 iPBg11674 -~1t3643765 -427928850 -418830135 -339695589 -195510855 -187162764 -164625376 - 128562564 -100227830 213367039 480472827 722256967 800538520 954266610 1062047622 1202048704 1287555510 1416192706 1445788232 1628864461 1745773381 P~g~.'1 ,o'f2 M If .Jzuf-'--' ~..i' 7{ ~ J 1t:l! ~ 7r~2- T:Ji ~ D'-;>, 0\ D'3 DIf , " . Juror # Name Random No. 104 CASHMAN, RONALD 1878487330 42 COMPTON, MARCIA Y. 1967459805 61 HOCKENSMITH,ROGER 2043959588 94 NICKLE, TAMMY 2079456963 33 HOLLINGSWORTH, CAR 2145769409 80 SWEGER, WILLIAM L. 2146096926 M('lnd~y;iMar~h~1~i,:.2QJ)6 Pa,!!~:2of2 . ALVIN LONGMIRE and DIANNA: LONGMIRE, HIS WIFE, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CIVIL ACTION - LAW 03-0026 CIVIL TERM TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, SR., a/k/a TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, a/k/a TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI,: Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: MOTION IN LIMINE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 13th day of March, 2006, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' motion in limine to preclude Defendant, his counsel, and his witnesses from offering testimony or in any way making reference to witness Dr. Mark Holencik's history of being a named party in a civil action, the motion is granted to the extent that such evidence shall not be presented in the Defendant's case-in-chief or otherwise without prior approval by the Court. Nothing herein is intended to preclude Defendant from offering evidence as to any failure of Dr. Holencik to receive hospital privileges from hospitals nor is anything herein intended to preclude Defendant from offering the evidence sought to be excluded in the event that Plaintiffs open the door for such testimony. ~,b\P ,fJ 0") By the Court, / (j~1~j[ J. . ~ ... David Wisneski, Esquire 2040 Ling1estown Road Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110-9568 For Plaintiffs Richard H. Wix, Esquire 4705 Duke Street Harrisburg, PA 17109-3099 For Defendant :mae , Iii (1/[; ('own of t!~rI1PN f/LE/lS . ('u/Yl!3EiU.AAlf) ClJWIlT~ POINS/IIIIIAlI A , NO_ 0-3- z.6 ell/iL --rEl?/"tf . Q/LIIL ACT/oN _ LAw , , I I I I IlLvlN I-O^,6MI,ze I sltt..jc.J uncle, f;..e. f€r74../,I/<2J Pro ",'j t!!!d by I B PeL, c-, s-. $ J.jfO~ !htf-l: 11Ilifn ~ ,D IO:'W1cz. /.-Nzf'111 ~ f hr., WIFe;J ('1a."./.fl'''5' v Ti'Ut7frl {::uTI;1JWSKI I Sf.. I I I. 1: C{JYI t/tL.- fla:nl/I-'P /17 -fAe ti(;,ve liC-fCt77V ViJ beCd-'uJL.- bF my fi'n&J1(!c'J (!b7/",/-/t~x.. IU'YI unable.. fc 1?c1 I1w-- fellow/':} Fee.5 Mid (jo1fr : d-// e II a k t:'/II (/1 fpes fir 16 () I ro ('t;sl-- k7 re./rt:ducC:" recerri.s- tI br/e.B r (Jr f;/,:-y Ci~ illlelse~aJ Se01r:ly /r:: /rte/tfrabl-e. iia.rm UJldi r&Jul+ {F n~f cva..;~cl 13 e. era 2.. /J1y {'&Stln-.f4:j -fo./lLt:.-- ruesfr~ /;ekuJ re/tz/lV fo 1111 r:();'/L7 ~ fJ ~ feeJ tt.rzd t1Of/r tJF terJ':e- ~U+t~ an. o//~/ CLt"e- -/rae ~/ld Corr-e(!.{.. (c(j A~ YCrl{ fr~Jy ~~7ed -: /10 .~ luCi..i.- (Q +- eA!tl6-tfd 5d./1tlCNj' .2(7(:)4 7'k- t{,.1V{~ * 'S'<<j7 <1..fl.4-, w~ R-e'=-~l~ tuJrJI ~,tv . Lh) +~ yiM-1. {ece/c/ed tUl~kt/~ <1M- tw-f ~/tL&fitPtdM t ' t "'''1 ,.,~ '*'" "- iJlP1noS; 1'r.F€55</TL or~r (&file e-[: 5eIF-Grt1.plbj r11en~ ~r;1/ fk fi;n1I (.~ !2eAt+- !bj11U?fl,{r I /~lleresf, cJ fVld-endS; fells/WI I I r . ( ; '.jq t, '1, So J c1l1rLt.L11/-e5) -3OC!taA s.ectlrt'( vtY7eF1'f::J/' cytorr_ fJ,~~ or &/I.-er S6tA.rC~ '? Yt'~ '; I, r Ret!et~ed Scrlf<:J. Se(jV'/ty dlsaeJJi!tfy fbr /1 ,lj J--i\,..--J765Ci' --!fte- f'&.Jf -IweJue tvU;T!:t'}..! 111.. T'Le- afll~tV or If, . . I (~) ])0 Y04 e-tU/t ~ (!cgJ^- i7{- Che~KlnJ 2ft S"av/':J5 l1t!eotLl1-.-f? YeJ; my t!_iz.eJ; rLJ t(J'(t dz.l1!/1- ;5' Ifs: ctJ ~ &1)])0 yc--v.. &~IL Lfl.( !'eCLies/tik I S#US I bUlds ,lltIeJ tib-~ ",<bel es, er v,Ju,J";- f'''f'''7@dud;~J ora/riM! Atus~kl rant/.fh;nJ~ CVtd C;bU/nJJ? Yv : :r j,~ t:( 1196 -rw.l'e s J .L, - / , ~ "'ffZU t4>'1.J -tS - qffYD)(/~ ()dll.R- I) a)eu!- }j~so, (YtJ~ 6'&url/Jr~ ,'~ . 1&) ,,-:Sf- -!k P_7CS,; f (krt y, who are Mf""d eat ufo' y"" F"r st<ffurf <Ln4- sjJk y""r ,.e/~sc, fO fJws..e perstffl.>'~ , ' j) {6A1fl rY J-.wt1,.rl (Y'6 (11'/ IiII Fe · , ' r""" deWs tu1J oJrl'fdt>L5. it J:;C5'~ (rfj sed t ~ :r Ib-<.i 1/ff}, ('v r{. /Z"t>O . ( rJ; J7' 60 \ (E) ;;Sf tZ ( ( If ~ 2) (JfL 3) Ile-~) oYt Ph8~ f) {lJo ::fM rs '7 z ,~/() 5/ ~l/.k oeM t 2-1, b() <) ):l--OCTJ rI 3C{', 00 ,).M;ii t-J &l ~ 1_0 0 1 , 00 &01''''; h-k-'<'-- /<Jo A"'~ &5 ^,/,:i>J I ~7BOD, 00 e~ cad ' 'P ~r #3744' 00 /p- fro,.? ;LtL'/ k a"".j- 10) ~)"- ;;.,' ,# 721, ,0 "~ , <1JI ' II;> ~ (1 n, 000 . ", ""'" k/p"1 f't'",dp fi 7IU<l (~ .prsf,wIA (1 S,,cO ,00 (<>f, "'1 sot/- awt4'~M, ,\ . .J' I~ ,c,,L--r II'vsJd in ~ ~, "I ~,,,,ooJT ~ ('aPk se-.A"" , / f!; (f 0'8 ,De t r '~),lvrW1' (j,ev<Me ~e i) aa"Jif (1 ?O,60 to'-"L (f;) Ik) N YJ HE 11)Yell~ oee 1f, /I;, 10/060. /I /59. S/-ukrJ- L9arL st4/ d'~f ~v ", ... (3) I Uf/drers::!cucd -fAd tX- kj~ ,~ {) Jr M5tu.erl-o a/11 r ~es+~; /{ fit{ S ~ ()€ r/r:{~ sla-l~,r7lCd- wrl/ s'cdJj.ec:f me - , +0 -Ik pel1czf.!t-e.5 PI"t9'(/d-ee! /;7 /~iV_ (' !vi ~ del1t&UU>>>- of -/he.. S~Of1-cL dl?c1 ree) ~u ~ujmi:V . -1. C/ .' ;D~Jy\./V~~~(fi.'l.J.-j. -vI rr r ( ~- ~~ ~ l j~t f3 f fh.,. ALVIN LONGMIRE and DIANNA: LONGMIRE, HIS WIFE, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CIVIL ACTION - LAW 03-0026 CIVIL TERM TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, SR., a/k/a TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, a/k/a TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI, : Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: JUROR NO. 8 EXCUSED ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 15th day of March, 2006, upon relation of the Court's tipstaff that Juror Number 8 is ill and unable to continue to serve as a juror in this case, and pursuant to an agreement of counsel, Juror Number 8 is excused, and the first alternate, Cheryl A. Slattery, Juror Number 9, shall become a regular juror. By the Court, J. David Wisneski, Esquire 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110-9568 For Plaintiffs ~ ~D\o ,r;: 0') Richard H. Wix, Esquire 4705 Duke Street Harrisburg, PA 17109-3099 For Defendant :mae .>- ,-~ 0 --'. Q ,- ...:;"Z: -. .. C''') l.J " " l'.J C:': '1-' "' ~: <",<'- " ..,;,> c5 , , :_j <:;;.:} ".." U ALVIN LONGMIRE and DIANNA: LONGMIRE, HIS WIFE, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v CIVIL ACTION - LAW 03-0026 CIVIL TERM TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, SR., a/k/a TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, a/k/a TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI, : Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: MOTION IN LIMINE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 13th day of March, 2006, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' motion in limine to preclude Defendant, his counsel, and his witnesses from arguing or in any [way] referencing at trial that Mr. Longmire was contributorily or comparatively negligent, the motion is denied without prejudice to Plaintiffs' right to argue at the conclusion of the evidentiary phase of the trial that such contributory or comparative negligence has not been shown sufficiently to warrant the issue's being presented to the jury. By the Court, David Wisneski, Esquire 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA For Plaintiffs 1~<~ l}(\~ 3'~ o i, I.,) Richard H. Wix, Esquire 4705 Duke Street Harrisburg, FA 17109-3099 For Defer,dant :mae :c- c., ',- ,'--", L.r; .~ ~ ~--. (") "'oJ C'cO :;:;: u.. '.:"-' ..~:',-:';; .~ ("J \..:';"';- C1 ,..,....l ALVIN LONGMIRE and DIANNA LONGMIRE, his wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI,: SR., Defendant NO. 03-0026 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND NOW, this 10th day of April, 2006, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' petition to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal in the above-captioned matter, and it appearing that no issues for appellate review were preserved by the filing of a motion for post-trial relief pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 227.1,1 the petition is denied.2 BY THE COURT, / .~vin and Dianna Longmire 2400 Market Street Apt. C-82 Harrisburg, P A 17103 Plaintiffs, Pro Se ~ v ,Aichard H. Wix, Esq. 4705 Duke Street Harrisburg, PA 17109-3099 Attorney for Defendant ~ vZ)D...\J1d.. L0'\ 5n<='5 K \, [SO' I Lenhart v. Cigna Companies, 2003 P A Super. J 95, 'l!8, 824 A.2d 1193, 1196. 2 See Thomas v. Holtz, 707 A.2d 569, 572 (1998) (affirming trial court's decision to deny plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis at the trial court because the underlying cause of action was frivolous). , Courtesy Copy: David Wisneski, Esq. 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 303 Harrisburg, P A 1711 0-9568 ! [] ..~ ff I n I " ') ':.-1 - ... ALVIN LONGMIRE and DIANA LONGMIRE, his wife, Plaintiffs v. TIMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, SR., alkla TiMOTHY RUTKOWSKI, a/kJa TIMOTHY RUTHKOWSKI Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03-26 CIVIL TERM CiViL. ACTiON - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO ENTER JUDGMENT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter judgment in favor of the Defendant upon the jury's verdict of March 16, 2006, since no post-trial motions have been filed by Plaintiff. Dated: .3/3:>1 Diu Respectfully submitted, WIX, WENGER & WEIDNER \" .- 1 I '. ) By cLJL -./11 ~ - -JLr Richard H. Wix, Esq., ID# 07274 Attorneys for Defendant 4705 Duke Street Harrisburg, PA 17109-3099 (717) 652-8455 .- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 30th day of March 30, 2006, I, Gaye Crist, an employee of the firm of Wix, Wenger & Weidner, attorneys for Defendant, hereby certify that I served the within Praecipe to Enter Judgment this date by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: David S. Wisneski, Esquire Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 WIX, WENGER & WEIDNER _A w -- Gaye c~ 't:<j (" ~ -- >-' "" v., -L.. ..;, <" '-" v .... "-v <:~ S .. ~ r; c', ',,; r) ":,1 :c:1 , C~ C'::; ( '.