The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About97-06424 " 6, The evcnts which give rise to this cause of action involve an uutoll1obilc collision Which occurred on Januury 2, 1996, on Burgner's Roud, Lower Fl'llnkford Township. CUll1berland County, Pcnnsylvania, 7, On said date, Plaintiff Robert O. Bauder was the drivcr of II 1993 Ford Probe owned by his wife, Mary, who was a passcnger in said vehiclc, travcling in u castcrly direction on Burgner's Road. S, Defendant Marinak was at all times relevant to this Illotor vehicle uccident in thc coursc und scope of his employment and was operating a 1989 Ford Tanker truck, Icascd by his employer. Defendant Amerigas, a subsidiary of uar Utilitics, Inc., from the D, L. Petcrson Trust, a legal entity located at 307 International Circle, Hunt Valley, Maryland 2l030, 9, Defendant Marinak was traveling in a westerly direction on Burgner's Roud, whcn as a direct and proximate result of his negligent and careless operation of the above-referenccu vehicle, he crossed the center line of said roadway, entered Plaintiffs lane of travel and struck their stopped vehicle, head-on, causing significant and painful injuries to Plaintiffs as 1110re specifically described herein, 10. Plaintiffs were in no way contributorily negligent regarding the causation of this acc!cent or the injuries they sustained, 11, As a direct and proximate result of the negligent conduct of Defendallls, as more specifically set forth herein, Plaintiff Robert O. Bauder sustained painful injuries. consisting of a right central disc herniation of the 1'8-9, bulging disc at Tll-l2. posterior right rib. thoracic 2 IIllli sUl'l'oundlng muscu!ilturc injur\l:s, right chcst contusions. chronic rcstrlctlons on cxlmlllllon, cspec\ully wilh cxcrl\on, us wcllus shock ullll injurics to lhc ncrVCS und ncrvous system, 12. As II furthcr dlrcctresullof Dcfcndunts' ncgllgcncc, PllllntllT Robcrl Boudcr has hccn restrictcd in hi~ activitics of daily living. hus suffercd work loss, IllSS of oppOI'lUnllY, disfigurcment, humillutlon, ullll clllhal'l'ussmcnt and duc tothc chronic Ullllupparently pcrmancnt nature of his condition may continue 10 suffcr therefrom inthc fUlurc, 13, ~lalntlff Robcrt Bouder has further suffered mcntal anguish, painund suffering, and It is bclievcd will continuc to sutTcr from all thc ufOl'csllid Injurlcs and damagcs in thc future. 14. It is believed und thercfOl'e avcrred that Plaintiff may wcll suffcr impairment of future carnlng capacity us a dircct and proximalc rcsult of Defcndants' negligent und carclcss conductund claim is made thcrefor. l5, As a fUl'lhcr rcsult of Defendants' negligcncc,Plail1liff Mary Bouder sustained, scrious and permanent injurlcs to hcr cervical and thoracic spinc and surrounding musculature, consisting of hel'l1iations of discs at C4-5, C5.6 and C6.7, requiring antcrior ccrvical disecLOmy and fusion of thc C5.6 and C6-7 vel'lebrae. She also sustained injury to her right poslcrior shouldcr and arm, a fractured maxillary left first permanent molar , requiring multiple root canal procedures, headaches, as well as shock and injurics to the ncrvcs and nervous system, 16. As a furthcr dircct rcsult of Defendants' ncgligcnce, Plaintiff Mary Bouder hus becn restricled in her activities of daily living, has suffercd pain. embarrassment, humiliation. J und dlsflguremenlund rurlher, hecU'.Ise "I' the perlllnnenl nulure "I' her Injuries lllUY c"llllnue LO suffer rrom rUIUre menlnlnngulsll. puln und surrerlng, nnd claim Is mude lherer"r, 17. [Iecuuse of the nUlure nnd extelll or hel' Injuries, Mrs, Bouder hus been udvised und lhcrcfore uvers thUI she muy be rllreed t" endure shnilur operallve procedures und IreUlmenl In thc future und elalm Is mnde lhereror, 18. As u dlrectund proxhnale result of Derendallls' ncgllgence, Plulllllff Mary Bouder hus suffered loss of cumings und II Is bellevcd und lhererore averrcd she will suffer impuinnc11l of future camlng eapal:llY and claim is made therefor, 19, As a result of lhe aforesaid Injuries suslalned by Plalllllff Mary Bouder, and her husband Plaintiff Robert Bouder, lhey huve heen forced 10 Incur liability for medlcalu'eutlllcnl. medical ions , hospitullzatlon. surgery, post surgical cure and reluted expenses in an effort 10 restore themselves to heulth, and may, due to the serious nature of their injuries incur similar expenses in the fUlure, and claim is Illade lherefor. 20. ,Plaintiffs Robert and Mary Douder have suffered past and preselll loss of consortium and loss of enjoyment of lire and It is averrcd such losscs may continue into the future, COUNT I r!il.inliffs v. Andrew S, Marinak 21. Paragraphs Ilhrough 20, above, are incorporated herein by reference. 4 28, Defendulll UGI Utilitles,lnc. us parent of Its sUbsidlury Amerlgus, lllC, Is directly und proxlmutely Iiuble till' the negligence of Defendunt Amerlgus' employee, Mtn'inuk, for the reasolls suited in PUl'llgl'llphs 25 und '26, WHEREFORE, I'luilllltTs Robert 0, und Mury A. Bouder denmnd Judgment ugainst Defendant UGI Utilities. Inc, in an UllloUIll in excess of $25,000,00 or un excess of thut figure requiring compulsory urbhl'lltion, COUNTlV Plaintiffs Robert und Murv Bouder v. D, L. Petersen Trust 29, I'arugmphs lthrough 28, ubove, ure incorporated herein by reference, 30. Defendant D. L. I'elersen Trust. as thc employcr of Defendant Marinak, is directly and proximately liablc for all inJurlcs and dUlllugcs sustained by Plaillliffs liS sel limh above, as a result of its negligent cntrustmclll of thc subject 1989 Ford 1'-800 truck to Defendant Andrew Marinak when it knew. or in the exercise of rcasonable diligencc should have known of Defcndant Marinak's rcckless and carcless driving propensities, and/or inability to safely operate said vehicle, 31. Defendant D, L. Petcrsen Trust, as the cmployer of Dcfendant Marinak is vicariously liable for allthc negligl'.nl and tortious acts of its employec, who was acting on its behalf and at its direction and control at all timcs rclevant to this cause of action, 7 ?=J~ Jt:. ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ -.0 ...... '-.J o ~ ~ ~'6q, ~ 9 j 6 ~~ r ~ ~ .....:t' , 1 n I ..I I ? ' , I \ I :1 ','I r-i', , Q ~ ' ! J ,) I') "11 "1: .. " l ' ! ~j.J , , '. ~ , Ie> ;~J '<. ...., I,!/! ',' " ii! ( ( .' , .11 C') I' ': . , . ,~ " .... I : ",., (I ;i ,.' '. (' il ,!) h., IlJ,Ot) Ik/' at Iii; 5t;' '/3r /1#C;' I ;;3 ~ 'J~o;"aa, 'J~Omf.l8 ,& Jrale,. ,7[110""'1' "I 1'"", loa NORTH 'RONT aTRttT p, 0, BOX eee HA:RRISBURO, PA.I?I08 '" that AmerlGas would. therefore, be vicariously responsible for any liability resulllng therefrom. It Is denied that Mr, Marlnak committed negligent and tortious acts, WHEREFORE, the Defendant, AmerlGas Propane. Inc" respectfully requests Judgment In his favor and against the Plalnllffs, plus costs, COUNT 1/1 PlaIntiffs Robert and Mary Bauder v. AmerlGas, Inc. 27-28, Dlsconllnued by SlIpulallon, COUNT IV PlaIntiffs Robert and Mary Bauder v. AmerlGas, Inc. 29-31, Dlsconllnued by Stlpulallon. NEW MA TTER 32, The above answers and averments are Incorporated herein, 33, This aCllon Is limited and controlled by the provisions and thresholds of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 34. Medical expenses, to the extent that they were covered by insurance or other benefit plans, are not recoverable In this action, pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. or other applicable law, 35, Income loss, to tho extent Insured or covered by benefit plans, Is not recoverable in this action, pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 36. Damages are not recoverable In this action to the extent that Plainllffs may have failed to mitigate them. 3 " ~ ... ~j % :i1 t II: it :v ~ ~~ ... P II III c: e .. 1 ~ J II ~ .. ~ .. r~ 3 .. ~ 0 .. ~ ~ r,'.;/ , <' " '.1 , " " '" . 't ' I ,