HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-04549
..
FIIW OFFlG~
or '1'1 'I: In~ n 'n;"OTN1'(
90 l,'tn :i'J
1'1\ .LII no
l:lHyJi::i~.j'~i .'
'-'I.t"'"
r _. \1 ,\
lil/illt'IlY
I\!';/;nl
.,.j.\;.\
"
;)1
"
,
I'
I'
',ll
1,\
"
, ,
'"
"
',-I
"
'I
J.'
,
",I
"
,
"
, "
,'J'
"
,
{II
, ,
,
,
II
"
,
,
"
"
"
IJoWO"1C1I
GRI"'THI BTftIC~L1A, LERMAN, SOl. YMOS' c:ALK'NS
, liD IOUIll NOlI'''',," W'Y
YOIIK, ~NNhloV""lA 17~2ol13'
, '
"
I,
,
,I:
"
,
,
, ,
Complllint purllgraphs K IInd 14) IInd thllt Silver Spring Cummunity Fire Cumpany did not have
the proper equipment or properly engage III t1re lighting activities (I'lainlifl's Amended
Cumplaint puragruphs 9, 10, II. 12 and 13),
4, The Defendant, Silver Spring Community Fire Company, is a non-prot1t t1re
company locllled in Silver Spring Township, Cumbcrland County, Pennsylvania (Plaintill's
Amended Complaint parngruph 3),
5, Silvcr Spring Community Fire Company has been designated as an ofticial
volunteer lire company scrving the needs of Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, and altached hereto WId marked as Exhibit "2" is a copy of correspondence from
the Silver Spring Township manager, together with copies of the ofticial Township minutes in
this regard confirming this relationship at the time of this incident,
6, A volunteer tire company such as Silver Spring Community Fire Company,
designated to serve a municipal entity like Silver Spring Township, is a "local agency" entitled
to governmental immunity from liability under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (42
Pa,C,S,A, ~8541 et seq.),
7, The allegations of ncgligence in the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint against Silver
Spring Community Fire Company do not fall within any of the exceptions to the general grant
of immunity under the Political Subdivision Turt Claims Act, and therefore, Plaintiff's suit
against Silver Spring Community Fire Company has no legal basis and should be dismissed,
WHEREFORE, Defcndant, Silver Spring Community Fire Company, requests this
Honorable COllrt enter judgment in its favor and against the Plaintiff for the legal insufliciency
of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint as noted above,
:I
II, An additional 20 minutes passed before a tanker truck with water on it arrived at
the scene, When the tanker truck did arrive they began pUlling water on a nearby home of a
Silver Spring Township supervisor, to pre'ientthat house from catching on fire and did not apply
the water to the Plaintifrs home even though at the time of their arrival more then 70% of the
house still was not damaged by fire,
12, Although the Fire Company officials were told by neighbors and PlnintilTthatthe
swimming pool was filled with water, they ignored this advice and at no time did they use this
water source, Furthcr the property contained a well which could have been used to put water on
the fire, but said well was not used,
13, The negligence of the Fire Company consisted of following:
a, Their failure lo have the proper couplings to allach to the hydrant;
b, Failure to have a full tanker when they arrived on the scene;
c, Failure to acknowledge the advice of the water source on the property, and;
d, The decision of the Fire Company officials to place the water on a neighboring
home which was more then two hundred feet from the site of the fire causing the
Cremo home to be a total loss, The decision to place water on a neighboring
home to keep it from catching fire does not seem to be rational in this case, The
home that was on fire was the Cremo home and there was still 70% of the home
that could have been saved when the decision was made
14, The negligence of the Fire Company in failing to arrive in proper time constituted
a course of conduct that falls substantially below the standards generally practiced and accepted
in like circumstances by similar fire companies rendering such services in this area, The Fire
Company should have recognized the duty to the Plaintiff and had sufficient reason to know that
such acts or omissions created a substantial risk of actual harm to the Plaintiff's property,
15. As a result of the fire, and the delay caused by the negligence of the Fire
Company, the property of the Plaintiff and all of the contents were totally destroyed by fire. The
real property, at the time of destruction had a value of$337,100,6I, which was not covered by
insurance in any company, The $337,100,61 value of the real property was determined by the
calculations as set forth in Exhibit A. which is attached hereto and made a part hereof,
16, The contents had a value of$237,526.25 and were not covered by insurance in
any company, A specific schedule of the property lost is more fully set forth in Exhibit B, which
is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
17. After the destruction of the property the PlaintilTincurred $39,000,00 in
additional living expenses for clothing, room and board.
811..11 0
Llyllllrr room
u..... ..1IIIet
tM.... DIyIt
C.IDII''''
1100.00
1100.00
"'00 110
'1'011_1
",400.00
,;
.'
.,
.1
"I
, '
, ,
LO ot 16
AFFIDAVIT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYL VANIA
COUNTY OF DAUPHIN
Personally appeW'ed before me Annette M. Cremo, who deposes IIIld says that the facts
set forth in the within Amended Complaint W'e true IIIld correcllo the best of her knowledge,
information and belief.
~(J
.' elte . cre~o "-
Subscribed and sworn to before me lhis;,~t day of Janulll)', 1998.
-'
~AULA A.HiOr~ SlAl
Harriob wYDIlA. Nota". MIc
Wr, Com or;. Doo"".. CG~. PA
mlalon bpi... Doc. ~. 2000
My commission expires: 12/4/2000
..f"'t\OU"'...." '
,.... , ,--. ..:.,.
".'... "
...) I '.
.,.. " ':,. . ,
.. ..,'...,.....
,,' ~
1"
. . ., .
. .
, , .
"rll"!"
. ,
,
;',
_J n t-I ..- ~ :2 -; ',1 u I H I I
'." t 1 b L.Il-Vlc:..... l;' '.~' 1 HI'; 'I-olr'.
f' .. lil:a
SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP
Willi.... C. DII"", ClIolrm""
Wayne M. re.h., Vlce.ChalnD""
Ja" N. LeBI.nc
Muia L. Lewla
Jocklc I.It...
lunuary 20. 1991\
RE: Silver Spring Townshlp/Sllvcr Spring Community Fire Company
FIN S~rvl~e Ag.:ncy
Tl1 Whllm 11 Mny CllnC~m:
As docum~nted by th~ attach~d \995 fire S~rvlce Agr~~ment. the SHver Spring Tuwnshlp
Board ofSuperv\sors at Its lunuM)' 5.1995 medln8 recognized the Silver Spring CClmmunlty Fire
Company B~ un offi~la1 tire ~crvlcc agency In Ihe Township.
Sincerely, ('
\('..t
./ I ( \ ,\,
.,.,....1'/......'. ':' ~
WillIam s. Cook
Township MllnaG~r
Attachmc\\t
c~: JamcS f.. Hall. ZuninlJ Ortic~r
WSC/s3b
6471 C",U,I. Pi.. . M.ch'ni"bur~. PA 17011.2;'il · (7\7) 76(yOI7~ · (711)76(,.1696 FAX
OI/~21I1.\ TIW ()!):Oll ITX/\l\ Ml ~7131
_7 nt-4.-:.2.;! -- ';'l;:l T HU
';1 l: .. ':'\ t_,llVL'~.' '." ..~~ 1.". ,-,.11,'.
." .. .., >t;
SILVER 6P~ING coKHUNI~Y FIRE coKP~
6506 CARLISLE PIKE
MECKANICSaURG, PA 17055
sul:lj lict: Fire protecti.on l\qrccment
WHEREAS: The silver Spring Township supervisors, cu~erlBnd county,
Pennsylvania, desire to furnish the citizons of the township ~rot.ction
against the ha7.ards of fire to their property, and arc of the op~nion that
such protection can be provided l:ly seGuring the service of fire companies in
adjacent boroughs, and an arrangement has been made with the silver Spring
community Fire Company of silver spring for the giving of such services.
THEREFORE, THIS l\GREEMENT WITNESS~S:
1. That the silver spring Community Fire company for and in consideration of
tho payment hereinafter mentioned to be made by the authorities of said
township, agrees to answer calls in any part of said township with such part
of its equipment adequate for fire fighting purposes, as it may designate
subject to the use of said equipment at the time of such call under the terms
of this or similar agreement in other localities. It is agreod that the
equipment used shall be fully equipped tor the purpoue intended in the
agreement and that all responses to calls shall be made quickly as possible
so as to causn a minimum of loss.
2. 'Ihe Silver spring Township Beard ef supervisors by its duly elected
office~(s) agrees to pay to the said Silver Spring Community Fire company the
sum ef zero ($0.001 per year, said amount having been appropriated for
use herein stated, and approved by the supervisors of Silver Spring Towns~ip.
3. It is mutually agr.ccd that this contract shall continue for one (1) year
at the rate herein mentioned.
For the period ~uarv 1. 1995 to January ~~. this aqreament is made
in accor.dancc with provisions of the Act of the Asscmbly, approved the 15th
day of July 1935.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the respective parties have caused this agreement to be
executed by their proper officers on this ~nuarv 5. 1995 .
SILVER SPRING COMNUNI'l"{ FIRE CO.
AT'IESTED:
.. /'" .,/'. /
, ",,;." ~
",;;'.-y" ,.- ,/ ;4"'",>::,,-;:!-
Secret!ary i)~ 1'./
~:..) it' '1..~...,1...
I I pres:i:dent
(Seal)
'.
"
~..~ \ \:
l \~~retar~ " .'" . ',J
SIL,vER SPRING TWP. SUPERVISORS
'. ~1. 1 J I\. J...c iii, <I (
Cha,irman
(seal)
OI!~~/il,~ TIll' Oil: 1)',1 I'
I'.\/IU ~() ~71:! I
/i' I
,(, j!ri ,'..
,.I,L!
i~ Ir' ,i:
:1' h,<~-- ..-';i
>>':"1"<\1 ~I ., ,.
1P.~'..;9.-..ri:~! Fe'
"
.',
"I "i,'1:
I i-I
'1:1;
"Ii." I I I .JI.'WftatH. I ,
t,,-.,.' W'\vr-"-~-.. .-,1
.. G~. STRICItLlll, UftMAN. SOI.VM08,a .~ i'I
':1 AnOftNEVI AT LAw . ' "
lID 50uTH NOftTHERN WAY
," VOftK,I'ENNSYLVAljIA 1 7~2.3737
, ,
)-1
;1
'\1
,I
,-,-
r'
".
, .
.
"
.
I,
.
l-t
Compluint pW'agraphs 8 IIIld 14) and that SlIvcr Spring Community Fire Company did not hllve
the proper equipmcnt or propcrly cngage in the lighting activitics (I'lainliffs Amended
Complaint pW'lIgraphs 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13).
4. The Defendant, Silver Spring Community Fire Company, Is a non-profit lire
company located in Sliver Spring Township, Cumbcrland County, Pennsylvania (Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint paragraph 3).
5. Silver Spring Community Fire Company has been dcsignaled as an ofl1cial
volunteer fire company sc....lng thc needs of Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County,
PennsylvlIIlin, IIIld utlllched hcrcto and marked as Exhibit "2" is a copy of correspondence from
the Silver Spring Township manager together with copies of the oflicial Township minutes in
this regW'd confirming this relationship at the time of this incident.
6. A volunteer fire company such as Silvcr Spring Community Fire CompllllY,
designated to serve a municipal entity like Silver Spring Township, is a "local agency" entitled
to governmental immunity from liability under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (42
Pa.C.S.A. ~8541 et seq.).
7. The allegations of negligence in the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint against Silver
Spring Community Fire Company do not fall within IIIlY of the exceptions to the general grant
of immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, and therefore, Plaintiff's suit
against Silver Spring Community Fire Company has no legal basis and should be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Sliver Spring Community Fire Company, requests this
Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and against thc Plaintiff for the legal insufficiency
of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint as noted above.
2
11. An additional 20 minutes passed before a twer truck with waler on it arrived at
the scene. When the lanker truck did arrive they begllll pUlling water on a neW'by home ofa
Silver Spring Township supervisor, to prevent that house from catching on lire and did not apply
the water to the Plaintiffs homc evcn though at the time ofthcir arrival more then 70% of the
house still was not danlaged by lire.
12, Although the Fire Compuny officials were told by neighbors and Plaintiff that lhe
swimming pool was tilled with water, they ignored this advice IIIld at no time did they use this
water source, Further the property contained a well which could have bc~n used to pul water on
the lire, but said well was not used.
13. The negligence of the Fire Company consisted of following:
a. Their failure to have tbe proper couplings to attach to the hydrllllt;
b. Failure to have a full tanker when they arrived on the scene;
c. Failure to acknowledge the advice of the water source on the property, and;
d. The decision of the Fire Company officials to place the water on a neighboring
home which was more then two hundred feet from tlle site of the tire causing the
Cremo home to be a totallos5. The decision to place water on a neighboring
home to keep it from catching tire does not seem to be rational in this case. The
home that was on tire was the Cremo home and there was still 70% of the home
that could have been savcd whcn the decision was made
14. The negligence of the Fire Company in failing to arrive in proper time constituted
a course of conduct that falls substantially below the standards generally practi~ed and accepted
in like circumstances by similar fire companies rendering such services in this area. The Fire
Company should have recognized the duty to the Plaintiffand had sufficient reason to know that
such acts or omissions created a substantial risk of actual harm to the Plaintiffs property.
15. As a result of the tire, ...Ild the delay caused by the negligence of the Fire
Company, the property of the Plaintiff and all of the contents were totally destroyed by tire. The
real property, at the time of destruction had a value of $337,100.61, which was not covered by
insurance in any company. The $337,100.61 value of the real property was determined by the
calculations as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
16. The contcnts had a value of$237.526.25 and were not covered by insUTlIIlce in
any compa.,y. A speci fie schedule of the property lost is more fully set forth in Exhibit B, which
is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
17. After the destruclion of the property the PlaintilTincurred $39,000.00 in
additional living expenses for clothing, room and boW'd.
-;",. --:;--.. ~.~--_.- ~~''''''-~~...~'~
..
Real Property Vllue
Purchue price to loneral conlrlclOr
Pella Window Company
Florescent Supply. lighting fixlllreS
Eaais & Sons Inc. . russ and carpeting
Soft Water
Full Service Security and Alarm System
Fisher COllStruCtiOn.- Decking
Cabll11ll
Swimming Pool
Drapes
Extra room over garage
L. & W. Demolition
51.5,000,00.
36,917.74.
10,733.00.
12,893.27.
5,000.00.
1,500.00.
15,000.00.
5,000.00.
25,000.00.
8,000.00. .
, 10,000.00.
t 2 000.00.
Sub total
Plus Inflation of 3% per year for 5 years
Total
5327,044.01.
49.056.60.
5376,100.61.
Exbibil"A"
" , " "lieU
=r....lnlcIor \
11,000.00
WIltIIlll'N Ltwn traClOt ....000 00
IIIOlr IlIower 12.000.00
kWllQIri~nl 13.00000
T 001I 1300 00
I, I'td locIIlloa 1110.00
Cllilll"n'lllqcIes (8) 1700 00
2 l'bJ IlIOllm 1221.00
Car ... "00,00
Power DrtI "00.00
Slnder "00.00
:2 ..., WKl.rs "50.00
:z IIIIlS '0Im 1'" ...n 11124
co.o.n tDCIII $200.00
~rrow $50.00
ClIalns 'Ot IlIIlrador 25.00
:2 pu.n me_Irs ~ 1500,00
CO lliaYlr ItIClllpe PI.yer 1200.00
COs 1100.00
"'oIltt Clldes 3 Idull.s $300.00 "
Rellr Dladl PIlls for ..en lClull $250.00
'''all.r 1lI1c1. lIelmets $15O.CO
!!like nllmllS ror chlldr.n $250.00
Gal'llln hCSlS SlOO.OO
Tires ror ClIrs 1500.00
. Total $21,638.25
"
"
I'
"
,
, ,
't, I
1,1
, ,
"
"
paq. 2 at :~
~
'''MII
.
DInIno IMftI
MIIIogI/\J DiNng latIlI 11.000.00
CII..... ICI'een '1.100.00
S,lv_,. lor . 2~~
~""
Lovl Nil llId ChaITl 12.000.00
NlCIl kIIIdllltlle (811111111I) 12.000.00
Cl/lllln.s IIlIIICI'II>owl HI 11.000.00
c.llGCIaIltas (Qd lllaSl) 1500 00
CIII \lI8SS
- IIId stl' PlItIem
ao,,1s 100.00
3 canoy dIShes 50.00
3 hl\lll candy dIsIles 100.00
Slfyer
Tta ..,.,.,ce 100.00
PilCIII' 100.00
candy drllles 50.00
BIJWpurpll vas. 50.00
CI\amlIU.r 12.000.00
OIlenlJ11\I1l 12.000.00
Wlt.rlOI'd Wine WI'er cnempllgnl 12.000.00
TICt. ror puncn bcwt HI ~oo
IlllClIaCl:luer c:ftesI 11.000,00
· ft roullCl marbl. lop SlI/lCl $500 00
Total $17,950.00
,
, ,
'.,
, ,
. ot 16
./
.1 Ht-4 --;! 2 - o.:lt;:l THU
~..:;, ~ 1 ~ t;, 1 l" V l-: t--' '_. t- . ,..' 1 H l~ r '.J I . ..
,'. . ~ I '.~
- .
SILVlR Si~ING r.OKKUNI~Y FIRE COKP~
6506 CARLISLE PIKE
MgC~ICSeURG, PA 17055
S~bject: Fire protection ~~roement
WHEREAs: The silver Spring Township supcrvisor~, cu~erlBnd county,
pennsylvanio., deuire to turnish the citizens of tha township ~rot8ction
against the ha1.ards of firo to thnir property, and arc of tho oplnion that
ouch protection can be provided by securing the se~icc of ~ire companies in
adjacent boroughs, and an arrangement has been made with the silver spring
community Fire Company of Silver Spring for the giving of ~uch 5c~icQ5.
THEREFORE, THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES:
1. That the Silver spring community Fire company ~or and in consideration of
the payment hereinafter mentioned to be made by the author.ities of said
township, agrees to answer calls in any part of said township with such part
of its equipment adequate for fire fighting purposes, as it may designate
subject to the use of said equipment at the time of such call under the terms
of thin or similar agreement in other localities. It is agrl.1ed that the
equipment used shall be fully equipped for the pUqlOZC intenced in the
agreement and that all responses to calls shall be made quickly as possible
so as to cause a minimum of 106s.
2. The Silver Spring Township Board of superVisors by its duly elected
officer(s) agrees to pay to the said silver Spring community Fire company the
sum of zero 150.00\ per year, said amount having been appropriated for
use herein stated, and approved by the supervisors of silver Spring Township.
3. It is m~tually agreed that this contract shall continue fer one (1) year
at the rate herein mentioned.
For the period Januarv 1. 1995 to Januarv 1. 1~, this agreement is made
in accordance with provisions of the Act of the Assembly, approved the 15th
day of July 1935.
IN WITNESS WHE~EOF, the respective parties have caused this agreement to be
executed by their proper officern on this Januarv 5. 1995 ,
ATTESTED:
SILVER SPRING COM'l-IUNITY fIRE CO.
, ,/
';1 /'" , " "
. ~" ~ ~
",~--.-, " /' 4,""""%-
secretlary .I)~r,./
i:.,)
,
I
'r "2.L....)...
Presl:dent
_ (Seal)
"
SI~VER SPRING 'l'W1? SUPERVISORS
"
v "... ... "
~t 1., ':... '"'" .\. 'to,,",. .\\.'~.
Secretary ,f
'-.. I I~
'. ,\ a l' 1'- A.. ( . i J..' <I C
chairman
(Seal)
OI/"I!JM Till' 00:00 ('1"
"/ln ~o M7I.l1
II. An additionul 20 minutes pllSsed before a tllllker truck with water on il arrived at
the scene. When the tl1llker truck did arrlve they began putting waler on a nearby home of.
Silver Spring Township supervisor, 10 prevent thai house from catching on llre and did notlpply
the water 10 lhe Plainllfl's home even though al the lime of their arrlval more lhen 70% of1ne
house slill WI15 not damaged by lire.
12. Although the Fire Company officials were lold by neighbors IIIld PlaintilT that the
swimming pool WI15 lllled wilh waler, they ignored this advice IIIld at no time did they use this
water source. Further the property contained a well which could have been used to put water on
lhe lire, but said well WI15 not used.
13. The negligence of the Fire CompllllY cons is led of following:
a. Their failure to have the proper couplings to attach to the hydrant;
b. Failure 10 have a full lanker when they arrived on the scene;
c. Failure 10 acknowledge the advice of the water source on the property. and;
d. The decision of the Fire Company officials 10 place the water on a neighboring
home which WIIS more then two hundred feet from the site of the llre causing the
Cremo home to be a total loss. The decision to place water on a neighboring
home 10 keep it from catching fire does not seem to be rational in this cl15e. The
home Ihat WI15 on lire WIIS the Cremo home and there was slill '10% of the home
that could have been saved when the decision was made
14. The negligence of the Fire Company in failing tG W'rivc in proper time constituted
a course of conduct that falls substlllltially below the sllllldards generally practiced IIIld acccpted
in like circumstllllces by similW' lire companies rendering such services in this W'ea. The Fire
Company should have recognized the duly to the PlaintilTand had sufficient reason to know that
such acts or omissions cr.::ated a substantial risk of actual hann to the Plaintiffs property.
15. As a result of the fire, and the delay caused by the negligence of the Fire
Company, the property of the PlainlilTand all of the contents were totally destroyed by fire. The
real property, at the time ofdeslruction had a value of$337,100.61, which was not covered by
insurance in any company. The $337,100.61 value of the real property was determined by the
calculations as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto IIIld made a part hereof.
16. The contents had a value of$237,526.25 and were not covered by insurance in
any compllllY. A specillc schedule of the property lost is more fully set forth in Exhibit B. which
is altached hereto and made a part hereof.
17. After the destruction of the property the PlaintilT incurred $39,000.00 in
additional living expenses for clothing. room and board.
. _..~~.,:--:...;:::;..'..:"")-
.....7
\
Noli..... a,JI.OCIRI
CMfI1 'I d oom Nt lndudinO poIIlI
Iled. ,,1I\lIY'lII1tII""'. "1Of\ Ilo,.
two tftIl IHln. ItmOIn
CIcSII..... CI'Ial
Iled II/IIpI
DraIIng table
0Ik Inl.ne.nmenl cablntl
,eM nIIOII
~
RllllllUlltrDOm LImP (InlIqUI)
Coel oil \11'IIO (MtlQue)
Willi"'"
AI*IUt pilCIIer Ind bowl MI
$bIIII UlIIP
SIIieft rockIf
rr Mldem Alexander DOl WItIlItTIW lilt (1110)
in 0IIll1lll1 \lOll
Sdy CIOII My lIrst clol
.... IIINIr poc:IUres
~Imir vlOlOI
~1WIdn Mint Proof Sets
$QICe
SUles
PresIdents
AntIques c.arw
J-.IIy
CIclI/leS
.. H1IIMMfa
DrIoInIS
~.A.....
BId IlIInI InIl comfort.,
2 SlIIIlI greenllmPl for a_no tiC Ie
m,ooo.OO
'1.200.00
aoo 00
1300.00
".200.00
POD.oo
1200 00
50.00
1200 00
"SO 00
100.00
S3llQ.00
250.00
100.00
1500.00
100,00
100.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
200.00
200.00
&20.000.00
S20.ooo00
1500.00
SIOO 00
1800.00
$0&00.00
"00.00
Total
.
60,900,00
, ,
"
"
,
,
" '
'j'
'7 01, 16
','
1"'-
DWne-
"I"og""" 0iI*'8 .... 12,000.00
c:NlWIlCI'ttft 1"'00.00
IIIv""" lOt . 2f&\~
Un.na
LovINIIIIld CIIIlra 12.000.00
NlQ llIIC& lalll. (11II11I"') 12,000.00
CUI 0.... PlII\C11 Dowllll 11,000.00
ClllOI\IIlta (Q/lg....) 1100 00
ell! .....
__ Illr__
2 DOwIS 100.00
~ canor ddllu !50.00
~ IlJOII CIIIdr ...... 100.00
SiIv.r
T.I 1IItVlc:e LOO.OO
Ptlc/l1f LOO.OO
CI/ldJ dlSllCS !50.00
BlaWPllIJlle vue !50.00
CIIancltIier 12.000.00
0ne1U1 "" 12.000.00 "
WIllrlOtll WIn, Wiler C"ampaon, 12.000,00
TIIlI' lor puncIlllclwt Nt S20Il 00
!laea ilCQutr dIftl ".00000
. l\ roullCllNtlll. lop Il.ncl 1500 00
Totel $l7,9!50.00
. ot 16
./
'"tttl4
'.
'''''' htne NOlII
Do J J .... MOO 00
OIIIMII....IIIII ",100.00
0ItIlIIII "" ... door ,,*,00
....1Ivt IUII4 CIIIn U,OOO 00
.... "*'" 140000
011I.. ...... "CA 100.00
....... CIM ,.., 0IlI NCarcII 50.00
....... "1M. ..... ..00
~.... U,OOO.OO
.,.... ....",.". 1200.00
12 ........1... ....n...., iii.. a,ooo,oo
u,.. ClI11 oiIlatnD IlecInIled 1200 00
.... ... 100.00
dIw IIIlIe 250.00
2111111l1t lop IaeIes 100.00
......1Imp ot \IWOmen 300.00
-- a "1IllIe 100.00
fIIniIr JlIClUra 50.00
~"lIIlooka 100.00
"'0' .....,. " 50.00
--II' IJw~ 50.00
U. SI.500.00
Total
.
II.Tao.CO
" .
"
,!
II, '
, , i
, '
, '
,.
L4 of 11
---
"
,
,
.,
,)
,
,.) "
, ,
'!I
, ..
.)
,.1 .)
,
, ,
. . I . "
, . ,
, . . , ,
, ~~ . 1 I,
. I ,
. . , :.'l
" .,.' .!
, ,
, ,
IN TilE COURT m' COMMON PLEAS 0.' CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLV ANIA
PI.lnUlI
CIVIL ACTtON -LAW
No. 97...S49 CIVIL TERM
ANNE1iE M. CRt:MO,
v.
SIL VEil SPRING TOWNSIlIP\ AND
SILVER SPRING COMMU:'oIITY
FIRE CO.,
Defendanl.
JURY TRJAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
1. The Plaintiff, Annette M. Cremo is an adult individual residing at 1209 Redwood
Hills Circle, Middlesex Township, Cumberland County. Pennsylvania.
2. The Defendant. Silver Spring Township is a polilical subdivision in Cumberland
County in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
3. The Defendant, Silver Spring Community Fire Co.. is a non-profit fire company
located in Silver Spring Township. Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
4. On or about November 30, 1995. and at all times averred herein. the Plaintiff
owned the properly at 15 Wheatland Drive. Silver Spring Township. Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania where she was living with her seven minor children.
5. On or about November 30. 1995, at approximately 5:00 p.m. a fire started on the
premises of 15 Wheatland Drive, Silver Spring Township. Cumberland County. Pennsylvania.
6. Neighbors on the said November 30.1995 at approximately 5:05 p.m. and at
various times immediately thereafter made separate calls to 911 to report the fire.
7. The in-house fire alarm system also went off at the time of the fire.
8. The Silver Spring Fire Company did not arrive on the scene for an hour after the
initial call was made. in spite of the fact that the said Fire Company is located less than 3 miles
from the property.
9. Upon arriving the Silver Spring Fire Company were unable to find a fire hydrant
in the W'ea and upon finding one approximately \.5 miles away they could not attach their hose
to the hydrant because they did not have the proper couplings which caused further delay in their
response, This lack of proper utility service facilities (i.e. the water system) they were
unprepared to fight the fire a fact. whi~h should have been foreseeable to the Township and the
Fire Company.
10. Funhcr more. the Fire Company had serious problems eSlablishing a fill. site at
the hydrant. It was another 20 minutes before they began putting water on the fire.
II, An uddillol1l11 20 minulcs pusscd hclllrc u tunker Iruck with wutcr unit urrlvcd ul
the scene. Whcnthe lunker Iruck did urrive Ihcy heglln pUlling wilier on u neurby hume of u
Silvcr Spring Township supcrvisor, 10 pr~v~ntlhut housc Ihull cUlching on I1rc IIIllI did nul upply
lhc wutcr to Ih~ PI;lintifl's hom~ evcnlhough ullhe limc urlheir IIrrivulmure th~n 70'!I" ofthc
house still was nol dllmugcd by fire,
12, Although Ihe Firc Compuny officials were lold hy neighbors ulld PluintilTlhul the
swimming pool wus tilled wilh waleI', Ihey ignored Ihis ;Idvice IIllll Ulno timc did thc)' usc this
wuter source, Furthcr Ihc propcrly conlaincd a well which ,;ould huvc hccn uscd to put waleI' on
the lire, but said wcll wus not used.
13. The negligence of the Fire Company consisted or following:
a, Thcir railure 10 have the proper couplings to ullach to the hydrant;
b. Failure to havc a rulltanker whenlhcy arrivcd onlhe sccnc;
c. Failure to acknowledge the advice orthe water source on the property, and;
d. The decision of lhe Fire Company orlicials 10 place the water on a neigbborinll
home which was more then two hundred reel rrom the site of the fire causing the
Cremo home to be a total loss. The decision to place water on a neighboring
home to keep it rrom catching fire docs not sccmto be rational in Ihis case. The
home that was on fire was Ihe Cremo home and thcre was sti II 70'% of the home
Ihat could have becn savcd when the decision was made
14. The ncgligence orlhe Fire Company in failing to arrive in proper time constituted
a course of conduct that lulls substanlially below th~ standards gcnerally practiced and accepted
in like circumstances by similar lire companies rendering such services in this area. The Fire
Company should have recognized the duty to the Plaintiff and had sufficient reason to know that
such acls or omissions created a substantial risk or aclual hanll 10 the PlaintitTs property.
15. As a result of the tire, and the delay caused by the negligenc<: or the Fire
Company, the property of the Plaintiff and all or the contenls were totally destroyed by fire. The
real property. at the time or destruction had a value or $337, I 00.(,1, which was not covered by
insurance in any company. The $337,\ 00,61 value or the real property was detem1ined by the
calculations as set rorth in Exhibit A, which is attached herelo and madc a part hereor.
16. The contents had a value 01'$237,526,25 and were not covered by insurance in
any company, A specilic schedulc or the property lost is more rully set rorth in Exhibil 8, which
is attached hereto and made u purt hereof.
17. Aner the destruction of the property the Plaintirrincurred $39,000.00 in
additional living expenses for clothing, room and board.
Bony, I1lOIII
Round 01. 111lI1
4 Chilli
Children', lay,
I!nc~oped",
T,mtlllll un.. on count,.... pllllll.
Sa'l
Bookl
:z Ind Ilbl..
2 limps
rlllvlllon
Stlreo 'Y"lrnI ,pelklnl
'1'ot.l
",'
"
"
"
" "
, ,
, ,
Ihltll2
'200 00
1300 00
'200.00
'2.000.00
'500.00
'500 00
110O 00
1200.00
1100.00
.30000
'1.200 00
11,100.00
, ,
,12C?tl~
,
,
,
"
"
"
"
"
f2 .oj ''1
~I "'I
";-
-nf,'- , .
, <,71
tI.I;',' ,
"
r.;"li '. ,
" th ;..~ I::, ,{,.,
" j.:l'r I
.',. 'Y;t '11
1". j : ,:l'l
:J':,~ .1 ..
~;; 'n
'5" I ~' t
"'c"
...' .~,' ."..
::< ,'I
'~I ."
,I'
"
, ,
"
.
3. Plaintiff alle'iJes that her damaqes were. caused, in part,
because silver Sprinq community Fire Company failed to timely respond to
the dispatch call (plaintiff's complaint paragraphs 8 and 14) and that
Silver spring community Fire company did not have the proper equipment
or properly engage in fire fighting activities (Plaintiff's Complaint
paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13).
4. The Defendant, Silver Spring Community Fire company, is a non-
profit fire company located in Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania (Plaintiff's Complaint paragraph 3).
5. Silver Spring Community Fire Company has been desiqnated as an
official volunteer fire company serving the needs of Silver Spring
TownShip, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and attached hereto and marked
as ..hibit "2" is a copy of correspondence from the Silver Spring
Township manager, together with copies of the official Township minutes
in this regard confirming this relationship at the time of this incident.
6. A volunteer fire company such as Silver Spring Community Fire
company, designated to serve a municipal entity like Silver Spring
Township, is a "local agency" entitled to governmental immunity from
liability under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (42 Pa.C.S.A.
S8541 et seq.).
7. The allegation13 of negligence in the Plaintiff's Complaint
against Silver Spring Community Fire Company do not fell within any of
the exceptions to the general grant of immunity under the Political
Subdivision Tort Claims Act, and therefore, Plaintiff's suit against
2
"
'....,.,-~...---
.-....-.,..~~~;
j 'I
IN mE COURT OF COMl\ION PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, 'ENNSYLV AMA
ANNETTE M. CREMO,
PIIIDllrr
CIVIL AcnON .LA W
No. 9''''5019 CIVIL TERM
Y.
SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIPI AND
SILVER SPRING COMMtlNITY
nRE CO..
DdlDdlDU
JURY 1'R1AL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
I. The Plaintiff, Anne"e M. Cremo is an adult individual residing at 1209 Redwood
Hills Circle, Middlesex Township, Cumbcrlll/1d County. Pennsylvania.
2, The Defendll/1t, Silver Spring Township is a political subdivision in Cumberland
County in the Commonwealth ofPennsylvlI/1ia,
3, The Defendant, Silver Spring Community Fire Co" is a non-profit fire company
located in Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
4. On or about November 30, 199~, and at all times averred herein. the Plaintiff
owned the property at 15 Wheatland Drive, Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania where she was living with her seven minor children.
S. On or about November 30, 199~. alapproximalely 5:00 p.m. a lire stllT1ed on the
premises of IS Wheatland Drive, Silver Spring TownshIp, Cumberlll/1d County, Pennsylvania.
6. Neighbors on the said November 30. 199~ al approximately ~:05 p,m. and at
various times immediately thereafter made separale calls to 911 to repol1 the lire.
7. The in-house fire alarm system also went off althe time of the fire.
8. The Silver Spnng Fire Company did not amve un the scene for an hour after the
initial call was made. in spile of the fact thaI the saId Fire Company IS located less than 3 miles
from the property.
9. Cpon amvtng the Silver Spnng FIre Company were unable 10 find a fire hydrant
III the area and upon finding one appro"lmalely 1.5 mIles away they could nOlattach thell' hose
to the hydrll/1t because they dId nOI have the proper couplings whIch caused funher delay in their
response. This lack of proper uulllY servIce (aclllues Il.e. the water syslem) they were
unprepared [0 fil!hl the tire a facl. which should have been foreseeable to the Township and the
Fire Company.
10, Funher more. the FIre Company had smous problems establishing a fill-sile at
the hydrant. II was another 20 minutes before they bellan pumng waler on the fire,
II. An additional 20 minutes passed before a lanker truck with waler on il arrived al
the scene. When the tanker truck did arrive Ihey began putting water on a nearby home of a
Silver Spring Township supervisor, to prevent that house from calching on fire and did not apply
the water to the Plaintiffs home even though at the lime oflheir arrival more then 70% of the
house still was not damaged by fire.
12. Although the Fire Company officials were told by neighbors and Plaintiff thaI the
swimming pool wns filled wilh water, they ignored this advice and at no time did they use this
waler source. Further the property contained a well which could have been used to PUI water on
the fire, but said well was not used.
13. The negligence of the Fire Company consisled of following:
a. Their failure to have the proper couplings 10 attach 10 the hydranl;
b. Failure 10 have a full tanker when they arrived on the scene;
c. Failure to acknowledge the advice oflhe waler source on the property, and;
d. The decision of the Fire Company officials 10 place the water on a neighboring
home which was more men two hundred feet from lhe site oflhe fire causing the
Cremo home to be a lotalloss, The decision 10 place waler on a neighboring
h"me 10 keep it from calching fire does not seem to be rational in this case. The
home that was on fire was the Cremo home and there was still 70% of the home
that could have been saved when the decision was made
14. The negligence oflhe Fire Company in failing 10 arrive in proper time constituted
a course of conduclthat falls substantially below the standards generally practiced and accepted
in like circumstances by similar firc companies rendering such services in this area. The Fire
Company should have recognized the duty to the Plainliff and had sufficient reason to know that
such acts or omissions created a substantial risk of actual hann to Ihe Plaintiffs property.
15, As a result of the fire, and Ihe delay caused by the negligence I)flhe Fire
Company, Ihe property of the Plaintiff and all of the contents were totally destroyed by fire. The
real property. at the time of destruction had a value of$337.100.61, which was not covered by
insurance in any company. The $337,100.61 value of the real property was determined by the
ca1culalions as set forth in Exhibil A, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
16. The contents had a value of$237,526.25 and were not covered by insurance in
any company. A specific schedule of the property lost is more fully sel forth in Exhibil B, which
is attached hereto and made a plll1 hereof.
17. After the destruction of the property the Plaintiff incurred $39,000.00 in
additional living expenses for clothing, room and board,
.,
IIIHII
DIIll,. laWn
MlIlogany Di,*" latlll IZ,DOG.DO
C'*-e lCreen 1"'00.00
Id._,.. lor. 2f&~
Lllltn.
Lo., ...1 IncI enllrl 12,000,00
NodllllllCk tlllle (InhquI) 12,000.00
CUI gl... punen DowISII 1',ooo,DO . ,
elllllelllltls (cutgll'S) 1500 00
Cut glass
moon InClIlI' ~Im
2 DOwt. lOO.OO
3 CllIlly d,sl'l.. 50.00
3 hllln CIndy dIah.. 100.00
S/lv"
Te. servIce 100.00
Pden" 100.00
candy dishes 50.00
.... '. ""
BllCAillUrpll vue 50.00 ~t 'J,: ~
Cnlnd.III' 12,000.00
Onenl.1 rug $2,00000
WillifOrd Wine WI.er Chlmpagnl 12,000 00
T.Dle for pundl bowl set $200 00
!lIICllI'CQuer en... $' ,00000
4 II rouncl tnlrIlIe top Illncl saaa 00
Total $17,950.00
"
..
,
. or 16
"
allHlt
LlYl/Ig room
'Total
".000,00
11,100,00
110O 00
11.00000
11.100 00
1.2,000 00
".100 00
25.00
.100 00
1200 00
125.00
1100 00
1400 00
1200 00
IUO 00
I~OODO
"00.00
POO.OO
1.2,000.00
1200,00
1100.00
$19,600.00
LII''''' Mdion"
SOl.
WulO DeCk ch."
Royllll ml~le top 1.llIe
MI/Ill, lop Ind llll/II
CIII 0111' poICllI,. VIHS, Ollhll
O,"n glln with golcll,lmoptlCller VIIIIS. 12 pt.ClS
Penn SlIte Cnrmmu egg
ChllClrtn's pidUIWS Ind rr.mes
FlI'tllllCl sctWln Ino lollll
010 WlIld YO clOCk
FlrepllCl dried no..., decor1lion
Orepene$
2 ellllllDle lamp&
, s~me noor lamp
, SIIftle tlDle limp
Silver cenclle holders helo 3 candll$ etCh
Ceiling rill
Org,n ,na ClenCll
SKver cenclle holcltr CirculI( a ClInc1ll.
Ch.l,
, ,
"
I .
9 of 16'
AFFIDA VIT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYL V ANlA
COUNTY OF DAUPHIN
Personally appeared before me AnDette M, Cremo, who deposes II/1d says thaI the facts
set forth in the within ComplalDt are trUe and correct to the best of her knowledge. information
II/1d belief,
/--
~In,
e"e . . Cremo
qp
~
Subsrrribed and sworn to before me this ::L!::!day of November, 1997.
')
~R' *,,;~
OTARY PUBLIC
My commission eXPireS:/#~
~TAJlAL SUl
~.\U~ A. WYOAA. _ry Pvbolc
Hamllbvr;. eawpni" Ccvnty, : A
,.,., Com_. &PO... Doc. 4, 2000
~
. ~
.
, -
'- ... ,
l7
,.
'J
,
v
"
"
I
,
,
I
1
I'
@
2
~
I
,
i
I ,
,
I "
, ,
1
,;; I
'I'.;
wherein plalntilfs property caughtl1re and codefendant Sliver Spring Community Fire Company,
a separate legal entity, responded thereto,
3, 11 is alleged that dnmage was caused, In pnrt, by certain conduct of Ihe Township
with respect to availability of water and claimed lack of promulgation of"preparednen standards"
pertaining 10 the Fire Company,
4. Nowhere in the cOl1lplalntls Itallegcd that the characler of the conduct of the
Township was willful or wanton, though such conduct is necessary In order to suppOI1 a claim for
punitive damages. Rizzo v. H~, 520 Pn, 484, 555 A.2d 58 (1989)
5. Both Defendants are political subdivisions to whom the provisions of Tort
Immunity apply.
6. Under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa,C.S,A. ~~8S4I, el seq.,
defendant is immune from the alleged punitive damngc claim since it must be based upon willful
and wanton misconduct or intentional acts, neither of which fnll within the exceptions to Tort
Immunity and, further, punitive damages do not fall within the classification of types of losses
recoverable under 42 Pa.C.S.A. ~8553.
7. In further SUPPOI1 of its preliminary objections, defendant incorporates herein by
reference its brief in support of the same.
8. Further with respect to the allegations pertaining to "preparedness" standards",
defendant states that such allegations are based upon an alleged failure to inspeclthe activities of
another and are therefore derivative and passive and, under the "any other persons" language of
42 Pa,C,S.A. ~8S41, the Township is protect cd from liability. Maloney v. City of Philadelphia,
III Pa. Cmwhh, 634, 53S A.2d 209 (1987).
2
11. An additional 20 minutes passed before a lanker truck with water on it arrived at
the scene, When the tanker truck did arrive they began pUlling water on a nearby home of a
Silver Spring Township supervisor, to prevenlthat house from catching on lire and did nol apply
the water to the Plaintifl's home even Ihough at the time of their arrival more then 70% of the
house still was not danlagcd by fire,
12. Although Ihe Fire Company officials were told by neighbors and PlaintilTthat the
swimming pool WIlS tilled with water, Ihey ignored this advice an<lal no time did they use this
water source, Further Ihe property contained a well which could have been used to put waler on
the lire, bUI said well WIlS not used.
13, The negligence oflhe Fire Company consisted of following:
a. Their failure to have the proper couplings to attach to Ihe hydrant;
b. Failure to have a full tanker when Ihey am ved on the scene;
c. Failure to acknowledge the advice of the water source on Ihe propel1y, and;
d. The decision of the Fire Company officials to place the waler on a neighboring
home which was more Ihen two hundred feet from the site of Ihe fire causing the
Cremo home 10 be a lotalloss. The decision to place waler on a neighboring
home to keep it from calching lire does nol seem to be ralional in Ihis cllSe. The
home thaI was on lire was the Cremo home and there was still 70% of the home
thaI could have been saved when the decision was made
14. The negligence oflhe Fire Company in falling to arrive in proper time constituted
a course of conducl thaI falls substanlially below the standards generally practiced and accepted
in like circumstances by similar fire companies rendering such services in this area. The Fire
Company should have recognized Ihe dUly 10 Ihe PlainlilT and had sufficient reason 10 know that
such acts or omissions crealed a subSlanlial risk of actual harm 10 the Plainlifl's property.
15. As a result of the fire, and the delay caused by the negligence oflhe Fire
Company, the property of the Plaintiff and all of Ihe conlents were 10lally destroyed by fire. The
real property, at the lime of destruction had a value of $337,100.61, which was nol covered by
insurance in any company. The $337,100.61 value of the real property was determined by the
calculalions as sel fOl1h in Exhibil A, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
16. The contents had a value of$237,526.25 and were nol covered by insurance in
any company. A specific schedule of Ihe property lost is more fully sel forth in Exhibil B, which
is attached herclo and made a part hereof.
17. After Ihe deslruclion of the property Ihe Plaintiff incurred $39,000.00 iniadditional living expenses for clolhing, room and board.
8hlllS
..pI\In'l led~
ANlqlll 11111 bed
MlIVtu Ind loa Ipllnlll
:2 end 'IDln
:2 1.1"""
1 DlIll.nd boOk cell
Dl'lpentl
IIel I",na, comlol1.r &eI
PNto.
Dr....r
CloIh.a
51,00000
5700 00
1:200.00
5100 00
10400,00
5100 00
1300 00
15000
5300,00
10400,00
,
,
Tohl
13,&50,00
,
,
,I
, ,
, '
"
,I
"
, ,
"
, ,
"1
"
6 of' t.s
"
I
: ~, I
,
III""
DIIIIno 100m
Ml/IooInr Di,*" 1.eI. U,ooo,OO
CIIlM11lCN.n 11.100.00
1.1._,.. 'ot . 2f~~
unen'
Lon 1111 all4 e11llrs 12,000.00
NlCIl kniCk tlble (InllClu,) 12,000,00
CUI gila puncn Ilowl lei 11,000.00
CIllCllllllta. (cui 011.1) 1500 00
CIII OllIS
rftOOIllllG Itlr l)Ml.m
Z DOwt. 100.00
3 tIIlOy dlallas SO,OO
3 hlOft .:andr dlah.. 100,00,
SIt"er
Ttllerv,c. 100.00
P~chef 100.00
candy dl$/leS SO.OO
BI,~purpl' YI.. 50.00
Chandelier 12,000,00
On'n.11 rug $2,00000 "
W..erlorc:l Win. Wiler Ch.mpagnlt 12.000 00
TIllie lor punCh bowl set $200 00
e,.CIt I'CQuer chest $1,000.00
4 II rouncl rnarbl. top IIlncl 1500 00
Total $17,950.00
"
. '
j .i
. Qf 16
./
'I
"
,I
"
I.
,I
I,
q .0:- f.)
(,.J ~ t ."
.,);',\', '.t! .1
~ ',,'I 1 :.~ 1 I 'J
,- \ .- .,
-'''1 )
;.1.'. ~ J.. "
I,:.'
\; >:1 ...., '\
"
~I n .-.. .)
(J . .1"
" t,- ~ _,J,
,j' , ..
1 J - -J;
,~ ,j' ~<
'I
,
,
, ,
, ,
~.[~~
' ~J ~
~
-
c::> ~ J
.....\ ~.
~ .,...
I".)...
0v
, ,
~\~~
~17\ ~'
l") ,,;) ,') ~
"'.... ...1 01
, ':.~ -'
'\1 " 1'1 :tl
U;i , 'j"")
.'1 r-> (~
" I::>
.-. ...'IL)
I~.",., I. ." ,- '~
'....f
.' ~ ( l.
.,.f
.J." <. ~~ ~~ (:)1 \l
.. -I
,. :.n ~
:.::! ,<;
,
,
l 11 .'
'.
" I,
, ;.
, ~.
,
,
" '
, ,
J
-61
II~Ji
~ !
I! I
j
p
-~,,~
'I(]'~I~
r')L,l
. n
::\!,
/_:
,..-'
;'r}(-,
i~$.)
,
~1'
, ,
"
"
"
"
','
"
"
"
, ,
"
, '
"
,
,
"
,
,
I.
,It'"
"
1.0
...J
<:')
'-')
"'j
,
0'\
()
h
--;1
'[,:'17
,Jr,
. ; I~~)
, \ 1
, . ()
A~J
,3f,l
~~
~
-n
:-~:
,,-
o,
-,
"
"
, ,
,
"
,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLBAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ANNETTE M. CREMO, t CIVIL ACTION - LAW
t
Plaintiff, t NO. 97-4549 CIVIL TERM
t
v. t
t
SILVER SPRING FIRE CO. , t
I
Defendant. I JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY or APPEARANCE PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 1012
TO THE ~ROTHONOTARY:
Kindly enter the appearance of Robert A. Lerman of Griffith,
Strickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins, as attorneys for the
Defendant, silver Spring fire Company, in the above~captioned
matter and mark the docket accordingly.
BY
Date:
q/a4!a7
BERT A. LE M N
Attorney for the De en nt
Supreme Court 1.0. ~07490
110 South Northern Way
York, ~ennsylvania 17402
, (717) 757-7602
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ANNETTE M. CREMO, I CIVIL ACTION - LAW
I
Plaintiff, I NO. 97-4549 CIVIL TERM
I
v. t
I
SILVER SPRING FIRE CO., I
t
Defendant. I JURY TRIAL DEMANDBD
CBRTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this
30#)
day of September, 1997, I, Robert A.
Lerman, a member of the firm of GRH'E'ITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN,
SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have, this date, served a
copy of PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by United States Mail,
addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows:
William T. Smith, Esquire
3747 Derry Street
Harrisburg, PA 17111
(Attorney for Plaintiff)
RICKLER, LERMAN,
S & CAr,KINS
BY:
BERT A. LERMAN
Attorney for Defendan
S~preme Court I..D. #07490
110 South Northern Way
York, Pennsylvania 17402
(717) 757-7602
mlc/silvercr.prp.2
PRAECIPE FOR LlSTI:"G c..~SE FOR ARGDIE:-lT
I ~IU5t blltypewntt~n .11111 \ubmin~d In -iupHcate I
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CI.:~IBERL.\.\D COI.:~T":
Plellll :lIl thf '.vltlun matter f~r ',h~ I1~Xt;
Pre. T<ll1 .\1 IUI1\~nt .: ~Ur',
--
'~ Miumfnt C~urt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CAP'I'ION OF C.o\SE
(entlrt ~;plion mllll be \laled In lull)
t . >,::;
, ., J
I
" , 'I
I
I
,
, J , I
,
.. \(')
.'>NNETl'E M. CRE1'IO
I P\IW\IUTl
V$.
SILVER SPRING 'lU'lNSHlP and
SILVER SPRING CO't'!llNI'l"i
FI RE CC1>\PJ\N'i
(Defendant)
"
vs.
4549
97
t9_
:-;\l.
CLvll
l. Slate mltter to be ugued O.~.. ;:lJlinwrl motion for new mal.
defendant's demuner to ,om9lJlint. .tc.):
Dt>ft'ndant Silwr Spring Township's Pn,liminary Objt'ctions
:, ld.ntiiy ~ounsel wl\o 'N1ll1rgu~ ,:at:
'. " William T. smith, Esquin'
(~) tor .!:u.ntUf: 3747 Dt.rry Stn,d, Harrisburg, PA l7111
Address:
(b) lor delendult: C, William Shilling, Esquin'
Address: 100 l'in~' Strt.~.t, Suitt' 300. Harrisburg. PA 1710l
(c) Robl'rt A. lk'rTMn, Esquirt', 110 S. Nort~'rn Way, York. PA l7402
3. 1 will notliy :Ill parties to wntin~ 'VI ::Un tWQ d~y, :1\1t :1\13 ,:ae h:a ~een
Usted lor :lfiUmfnl. _
4. Argument Court Date: January
Call of Argument List Date:
I.\ttor for
Oll.d; Dt'c~,rrbt-'r 12, 1997
p
I
"
I
I
I
I
g :es 0
.1'1
:?": I
'a'Cli C? L ,.11
~(r' .r: ,.\j'-
tfel - .,rl'
'II;.)
~.:. :;;. .J,b
''''!,i.-j "-1:') ,...'1
i'f- .....1\
J;.~, ; -:;r; i ~ '(-)
-if~ t..'j f: .., ~ \ I
.... , '.':"0\
. , ';j~).
~ -
,'1' .....
,I
"
I,
'I
',II
I'
,
,
" '"
,
,
e ~ 0
..."
~..... ~ .,,\
~r" c~' 'L cr1
r~I"I'~ "- lIlt.-
, , " " - :;9
;Z,I'
(;':;;;; c'
.-, ~. . -~(")
(njl. ' ::1. "'1
;;i~:; ,:i~'
... ~.I ~-' ':j' (.
~,.:.,,- ; r:"
p'c_ 0> .::,
.~ - .~;
.- 0' -<
",
, 'I
"
IN THR COURT OP COMMON PLSAS OP CUMBBRLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA
ANNBTTB M. CREMO, t CIVIL ACTION - LAW
t
Plaintiff, t NO. 97-4549 CIVIL TBRM
t
v. t
t
SILVBR SPRING PIRE CO., t
t
Defendant. t JURY TRIAL DBMANDBD
PRAIICIPIl
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please enter a Rule, upon Plaintiff, Annette M. Cremo, to file
a Complaint within twenty (20) days from thp. date of the service of
this Rule or suffer Judgment non-pros.
BY:
RICKLER, LER
, )""'.' m;:)
OBERT A. LERMA
Attorney for Defend nt
Supreme Court 1.0. No. 07490
110 South Northern Way
York, PA 17402
Telephone No. (717) 757-7602
Dated:
Del, 7, ,QQ1
NOW, ,(J)t.:r;;.6..v-- q
, 1997, RULE ISSUED AS ABOVE,
l:"""",- P W..tl<!-(,->
PROTHONOTARY
/r,.....
I
BY: ~~~'t< C. fVU (' t' <-
"
"
, ,
, If.) <':1
,n
c: _I
~,' , ' <":'l " ,
-1')1'1 :-), "
[H,' 'I <I~
" ! r " IJ
~':: I l..t:J "
(II -,,;~-'
',i .. ~ ',IJ
.... ;[;)
I ., ... :";~\In
.T" ......
.' , .. i~' ,
~'I ." ~~ '
-', r.::>
ii
"
'j
.~
,. .
,
,
i'
,
"
J'
I _ -I q ,
!. IJ)
t:,,;t,1 Cf) ..,
U'i 2}(/; r "1
.. ~:...
tj;'il .. ,J
r"_I_.i! .;.r: , i~f/
Ull r:."l r,) 'ib
,', f' (...
r"'" . ,
: . '-')
~! I' " , .' r'! .'1) ,I,
I "'-- 'J
, , , ,.. .,
J,--
, ,.'1' ,. C'#-J t.~r;i
:;.~ ,; , ..
,. :;! r.- ."j
I ,,;) ~'\i
....
I'
,
"
, ,
"I'
",1
I
I
"
, '
"
"
"
SILVER EPRtNG COKKUNITY FIRE COKPANY
6506 CARLISLE PIKE
MECKANICSBURG, Ph 17055
suhject: Fire Protection Agrcnment
WHERE~S: The silver spring Township supervisors, cumberland county,
Pennsylvania, deuire to furnish the citizens ot tho township protection
against tho hazards of firo to thnir property, and are of the opinion that
such protection can be provided by securing the servicu of ~ire companies in
adjacent boroughs, and an arrangement has buon made with the Silver spring
community Fire company of Silver spring for the giving of such servicos.
THEREFOR!, THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES:
1. That the silver Spring community Fire company for and in consideration of
the payment hereinafter mcntioned to be made by the authorities of said
township, agreus to answer calls in any part of said township with such part
of its equipment adequato for tire fighting purposes, as it may designate
subject to the use of said equipment at the time of such call under the terms
of this or similar agreoment in other localities. It is agreed that the
equipment used shall be fully equipped for the purpo:3e intended in the
agreement and that all re~pon~es to calls shall be made quickly as possible
SQ as to cause a minimum of 10015.
2. The Silver Spring Township Board of Supervisors by its duly el€cted
officer(s) agrees to pay to the said silver spring Community Fire Company the
sum of zero eSO.ool per year, said amount having been appropriated for
use herein stated, and approved by the Supervisors of Silver Spring Township.
3. It is mutuallY agreed that this contract shall continue for one (1) year
at the rate herein mentioned.
For the period ~uat'v 1. 19S~ to January 1. 1.2.2..L, this agreement is made
in accordance with provisions of the Act of the Assembly, approved the 15th
day of July 1935.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the respective parties have caused this agreement to be
executed by their proper offlcers on this Januarv 5. 1995 .
ATTESTED:
SILVER SPRIl'lG COM'NllNIT'l FIRE CO.
:? "'~ t
./.-
:::J;,-y,1-t':...
\.",,)
,
I _
'r ")J...,l...
presi'dent
(Seal)
'-
SI~VER SPRING TWP. SUPERVISORS
"
v ..~. " "
1'"'\ll'~~~:.;ar~'I" .\...~. '/
~ . I . ~/'"
'. "a. 7' 1'- A.<, / ..U <! C
Chairman
(seal)
,
ANNETTE M, CREMO,
PLAINTIFF
V.
SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP AND
SILVER SPRING COMMUNITY
FIRE CO"
DEFENDANTS
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
,
.
: 97-4549 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: PRe~IMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT, SILVER SPRING
POMMUNITY FIRE CO.. TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINt
BEFORE BAYLEY. J. AND GUIDO, J,
ORDER OF COUFll
AND NOW, this 1"1 day of April, 1998, a demurrer is granted to defendant
Sliver Spring Community Fire Co,
By the Court, / /
William T. Smith, Esquire
For Plaintiff
I
~
)
Robert A. Lerman, Esquire
For Sliver Spring Community Fire Co.
C. William Shilling, Esquire
For Sliver Spring Township
:saa
C-W;1~'" OM":,./... 'if ,s} ') 8'
lJ .J.~'
ANNETTE M. CREMO,
PLAINTIFF
V.
SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP AND
SILVER SPRING COMMUNITY
FIRE CO.,
DEFENDANTS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
97-4549 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT. SILVE;R SPRI~Q
COMMUNITY FIRE CO.. TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT
BEFORE BAYLEY. J. AND GUL~
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
BAYLEY, J., April 14, 1998:..
This action was Instituted by a writ of summons flied on August 20, 1997, by
plaintiff Annette M. Cremo against defendants, Silver Spring Township and Sliver
Spring Community Fire Co. A complaint was flied on November 10, 1997. Plaintiff
filed an amended complaint on January 26, 1998. The Sliver Spring Fire Co. filed a
preliminary objection to the amended complaint in the form of a demurrer.
The facts averred In plaintiff's amended complaint are as follows. On
November 30, 1995, plaintiff owned a property at 15 Wheatland Drive, Sliver Spring
Township, Cumberland County. Sliver Spring Township Is a political subdivision in
Cumberland County, and the Sliver Spring Community Fire Co. Is a non-profit fire
company In the Township. A fire occurred at plaintiff's property on November 30,
1995, which resulted in the destruction of the entire property and the contents therein.
As to the Sliver Spring Community Fire Co., plaintiff avers that It Is located less than
three miles from her property and that It did not respond to the scene "for an hour
.
97-4549 CIVIL TERM
after the initial call was made." Plaintiff further avers:
9. Upon arriving the Sliver Spring Fire Company were unable
to find a fire hydrant In the area and upon finding one approximately 1,5
miles away they could not attach their hose to the hydrant because they
did not have the proper couplings which caused further delay In their
response. This lack of proper utility service facilities (I.e. the water
system) [sic] they were unprepared to fight the fire a fact, which should
have been foreseeable to the Township and the Fire Company,
10. Further more [sic], the Fire Company had serious problems
establishing a fill-site at the hydrant. It was another 20 minutes before
they began putting water on the fire, [sic]
11. An additional 20 minutes passed before a tanker truck with
water on it arrived at the scene. When the tanker truck did arrive they
began putting water on the nearby home of a Silver Spring Township
supervisor, [sic] to prevent that house from catching on fire and did not
apply the water to the Plaintiff's home even though at the time of their
arrival more than 70% of the house still was not damaged by fire.
12. Although the Fire Company officials were told by
neighbors and Plaintiff that the swimming pool was filled with water, they
Ignored this advice and at no time did they use this water source.
Further the property contained a well which could have been used to
put water on the fire, but said well was not used.
13. The negligence of the Fire Company consisted of following:
a. Their failure to have the proper couplings to attach to the
hydrant;
b. Failure to have a full tanker when they arrived on the
scene;
c. Failure to acknowledge the advice of the water source on
the property, and;
d. The decision of the Fire Company officials to place the
water on a neighboring home which was more then [sic] two
hundred feet from the site of the fire causing the Cremo home to
be a total loss. The decision to place water on a neighboring
home to keep It from catching fire does not seem to be rational In
this case. The home that was on fire was the Cremo home and
there was still 70% of the home that could have been saved when
the decision was made,
14. The negligence of the Fire Company in failing to arrive in
proper time constituted a course of conduct that falls substantially below
the standards generally practiced and accepted in like circumstances by
similar fire companies rendering such services in this area. The Fire
-2-
, . .,. -. ...~.. ';" --
97-4549 CIVIL TERM
Company should have recognized the duty to the Plaintiff and had
sufffclent reason to know that such acts or omissions created a
substantial risk of actual harm to the Plaintiff's property.
The Sliver Spring Community Fire Co. argues that as a volunteer fire company
It Is a local agency entitled to governmental Immunity from private causes of action. It
maintains that Its fire fighting activities, even If porformed negligently, do not
constitute an exception to the grant of Immunity under the Judicial Code at 42
Pa.C.S. ~ 8541 m eg. Section 8541 grants governmental Immunity, subject to
certain exceptions, to any "local agency," which Is defined as "[A] government unit
other than the Commonwealth government. The term Includes an Intermediate unit."
42 Pa.C.S. ~ 8501. In Wlllon V. Dr.volburg Vol. Fire Dep't. No.1, 101 Pa.
Commw. 284 (1988), the Commonwealth Court held that volunteer fire companies are
government units entitled to Immunity In the performance of public fire fighting duties
because they exist as an entity acting on behalf of local governments.
To Impose liability on the Fire Company, plaintiff has the burden of establishing
(1) that a common law or statutory cause of action exists as a result of a negligent act
of the company, or Its employees acting within the scope of their employment, 42
Pa.C.S. ~ 8542{a), and (2) that the negligent act falls within one of the eight
exceptions to Immunity enumerated In subsection 8542{b). Those exceptions are (1)
the operation of any motor vehicle in the possession or control of the local agency;
(2) the care, custody or control of personal property of others In the possession or
control of the local agency; (3) the care, custody or control of real property In the
.3-
97-4549 CIVIL TERM
possession of the local agency; (4) a dangerous condition of trees, traffic signs, lights
or other traffic controls, street lights or street lighting systems under the care, custody
or control of the local agency; (5) a dangerous condition of the facilities of steam,
sewer, water, gas or electric systems owned by the local agency and located within
r1ghts.of-way; (6) a dangerous condition of streets owned by the local agency or of
streets owned or under the jurisdiction of a Commonwealth agency If the local agency
has a written maintenance and repair contract with the Commonwealth agency; (7) a
dangerous condition of sidewalks within the rlghts.of.way of streets owned by the
local agency, and (8) the care, custody or control of animals In the possession or
control of a local agency.
Plaintiff's allegations of negligence on the part of the Fire Company do not fall
within any of the exceptions to governmental Immunity set forth in subsection
8542(b). Even If we were to stretch plaintiff's averment in paragraph 9 of her
amended complaint that there was a "lack of proper utility service facilities (I.e. the
water system)" to mean there was a dangerous condition of the water system, there is
no averment that the Fire Company owned the water system. In City of Philadelphia
v. GUm, 149 Pa. Commw. 491 (1992), the Commonwealth Court held that
governmental Immunity barred a suit against Philadelphia and its employees based
on a claim of negligence that does not fall within any of the governmental Immunity
exceptions at 42 Pa.C.S. ~ 8542(b). Accordingly, In the present case, even If plaintiff
could establish a common law or statutory cause of action based on negligent acts of
.4-
-
'':'t::~ ~\I'__
._. .'
," ..'
-'~ .i
97-4549 CIVIL TERM
the Sliver Spring Fire Co., recovery Is barred because such acts do not fit within any
of the eight exceptions to Immunity In 42 PEI.C.S. !l 8542(b),
In her brief, citing City of Philadelphia, plaintiff maintains that she may recover
against the Fire Company If she is able to establish willful misconduct. Plaintiff did
not plead In her amended complaint that the conduct of the Fire Company
constituted willful misconduct. Section 8542(a)(2) of the Judicial Code provided In
pertinent part:
!l 8542. Exceptions to governmental immunity
* * *
(2) The Injury waa cauaed by the negligent acta of the local agency
or an employee thereof acting in the scope of his office or duties with
respect to one of the categories listed In subsection (b). As used in this
paragraph, 'negligent acta' aha II not Include acts or conduct which
constitutes a crime, actual fraud, actual maiice or willful mlaconduct.
(Emphasis added.)
In City of Philadelphia, aupra, the Commonwealth Court held that Section 8542(a)(2)
prevented even a plaintiff who had averred willful misconduct on the part of
Philadelphia employees from recovering against the Cltv because the definition of
"negligent acts" constituting exceptions to government immunity specifically excludes
willful misconduct.
For the foregoing reasons, the following order Is entered.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ~ day of April, 1998, a demurrer Is granted to defendant
Sliver Spring Community Fire Co.
.5-