Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-06568 ... " ~ t , , ~ - Clt (l) ~ cr c - 5 8 '" " r C- rY. ~ ...... - -J:.- ';;) , - u j I I J , .. . Michele J. Thorp. EsqUIre I.D, No, 71117 Thomas, Thomas & lIafer, LLP 1'.0, Box 999 305 N. Fronl Slreet Harrisburg. PA 17108-0999 (717)237-7ISJ ALLAN R. DURNING. III. Plaintiff : IN HIE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : ClJMBERLANDCOUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA v. : No.: 97.6568 MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRIV A, : CIVIL TERM Ilusband and Wife. ~~~tORf{i ENGLAND, as the r: tr. jlJJi! Estate of DORIS Kit M J~ " Defendants TRIAL BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS, MICHAEL GRIV A. TERESA GRIV A Bnd DOLORES ENGLAND I. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff. Allan R. Durning, III ("Plaintitl"), brings this personal injury action as a rcsult of an incidcnt which occurred on or about Novcmber 14, 1996. At the time of the incident, Dcfcndants. Michacl Griva and Teresa Griva. wcre living at 75 Oliver Road. Enola, Pcnnsylvania. The property itsclf was owned by Doris Klinger, who pI,ssed away prior to thc incident. Thcrefore, Plaintiff has also named Dolores England. Administratrix of the Estate of Doris Klinger, as a Defendant to this action. On the day of thc incident. Plaintiff stopped by the home at 75 Oliver Street with his acquaintance, Rick Yarlet. Mr. Varlet is the nephew of Defendants and was temporarily staying in the Defendants' homc at that time. Plaintiff and Mr. Yarlet entered the home by the side door. Mr. Yarlet went into anothcr part of the house while PlaintitT stayed in the kitchen area, Defendants' dog, Cocoa. a short haircd Chihuahua. was on a short chain in the kitchen. One end of the chain was fastened to Cocoa's collar and the other cnd was fastened to a cabinct. PlaintitT voluntarily walked over to describ.:d as "a person who enters or remains upon land in the possession of another without a privilege to do so crcated by the possessors consent or otherwise." Oenerally speaking. a possessor of land (in this casc the Defendants) is not liable to trespassers for physical harm caused by his failure to exercisc reasonable care to put the land in a condition reasonably safe for thcir rcception or to carry on his activitics so as not to endanger them. Restatement of Torts (Second) ~333. If it is proven that Mr. Yarlet had the ability to permit Plaintitl" to enter the land. then Plaintiff should be deemed 'fnj A licensee is a person "who is privileged to cuter or remain on land only by virtuc of the posscssor's consent." Restatemcnt of Torts (Second) ~330. SodllIJII;I.~St.s lillI under the category of licensees. Sec Restatemcnt of Torts (Second) ~330. commcnt 3. If Plaintitl" is deemcd to bc a licensce. then Defendants arc subjcctto liability to ..v Plaintiff for "physical hann caused to [Plaintifll by JDefcndants') failure to carry on [thcir) \ \ ~;r: 1"'N ~~1.:.4- "~.vL. activitics with reasonable care for [PlaintilTs) safety if. but only if. (a) hcshou~~~xpec~~hatthey __, ___,_.____ _qn' ...". .,' -." "'")\v..r;cr --. ",ill not discover or realize the dangcr, and (b) thcy do not know or havc reason to know the posst'Ssors activitics and of the risk involved." Restatement of Torts (Second) ~341. --.. , --. - ... _.~, -~.~---....-. -." Plaintiff is c1carly not a busincss invitce as indicated in Plaintiffs Pre-Trial Memorandum. An invitee is eithcr a public invitcc or a busincss visitor. I Plaintiff does not fit under either of these categorics. C. DOl! Law. Thcre is no strict or absolute liability on the part of dog owners for injurics sustained bccause of a dog bite. Dcardorll" v. BurL!er, 414 Pa.Super 45. 606 A.2d 489 (1992), alloc. denied I A public invitee is a person who is invited to enter or remain on land as a member 01 the public lor a purpose lor which the land is held open to the public. A business visitor is a person who is invited to enter or remain on land lor purpose directly or indirectly connected with business dealings with the possessor 01 the land, Restatement 01 Torts (Second) ~332 3 . Defcndants Prooosed Points for Char\!e No. I - I] Dcfendants request that this lIonomble Court charge on the following Pennsylvania Suggested Standard Civil Jury Instructions: ~2:05 - p.OI - ~3.02 - ~3.03 - ~3.25 - ~5.04 - ~5.30 . ~5.50 - ~7,OO - ~7,04 . ~20.00 - Deposition testimony; Negligcncc; Ordinary care; Contributory negligence; Legal cause; Conllicting tcstimony; Expert testimony/credibility; Burden of proof; Duty of care; Duty of care - Trespassers; and L.., c ~ Concluding instructions, M "hel. 1. Ihurp, Esquire ID, Nu, 71117 Thurn.., Thorn.. & Hafer, LLP P.O. Bu. 999 30.1 N. Front Street Harri.burg, PA 17108-0999 (717)237-71.13 ALLAN R. DURNING. III. Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : No.: 97.6568 MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRIV A, : CIVIL TERM Husband and Wife. and DOLORES ENGLAND. as the Executrix of the Estate of DORIS KLINGER, Defendants PROPOSED VERDICT SLIP OF DEFENDANTS. MICHAEL GRIV A. TERESA GRIV A. and DOLORES ENGLAND Defendants, Michael Griva. T crcsa Griva. and Dolores England ("Defendants"), by their attorneys, Michele J. Thorp. Esquire and Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, respectfully request the Court to submit the within Verdict Slip to the Jury. Respectfully submitted. THO MI hele J. . horp, quire Attome)' /.. .71117 Attorneys for Defendants ~~/o' By: ~ t QUESTION 1: Do you find that Defendant Michael Griva was negligent? Yes No If you answered "Yes," proceed to Question 2. If you answered Question I "No," proceed to Question 3. t ,0# QUESTION 2: Wa~ the negligence of Defendant Michael Oriva a substantial factor in bringing about Plaintitl's harm? ') Yes No " .~ ,\. QUESTION 3: Do you find that Dcfcndant Tcrcsa Griva was ncgligcnt? Ycs No (fyou answcrcd "Ycs," procccd to Qucstion 4, [fyou answered Question 3 "No," proceed to Qucstion 5. I I ! i It , QUESTION 4: Was the negligencc of Defendant Tercsa Griva a substantial factor in bringing about Plaintiffs harm? Yes No OUESTION 5: Do youlind that Defendant Dolores England was negligent? Yes No [fyou answered "Yes," proceed to Question 6. [fyou answered Question S "No," proceed to Question 7. OUESTION 6: Was the negligence of Defendant Dolores England a substantial factor in bringing about Plaintiffs harm? Yes No (\ OUESTION 7: Was thc Plaintiff contributorily ncgligcnt? Ycs No If you answcrcd "Ycs," procccd to Qucstion 8. If you answcrcd Qucstion 7 "No," procced to Qucstion 9. OUESTlON 8: Was the Plainlitrs contributory negligence a substantial factor in bringing about his alleged injuries? Yes No QUESTION 7: Was the Plaintiff contributorily negligent? Yes No If you answered "Yes," proceed to Question 8, If you answered Question 7 "No," proceed to Question 9. OUESTION 8: Was the Plaintiffs contributory negligence a substantial factor in bringing about his alleged injuries? Yes No OIJF.STION 9: Taking thc combined ncgligence that was a substantial factor in bringing about the PlaintilT's hann as 100%, what perccntage of the causal negligence was attributable to each of the parties you havc found causally negligent? Pcrccntage of casual negligence atlributable to Defendant, Michael Griva (Answer only if you have answered yes to Questions I and 2). % Percentage of casual negligencc atlributable to Defendant. Teresa Griva (Amwer only if you have answercd yes to Questions 3 and 4) . % Percentage of casual negligence atlributable to Defendant, Dolores England (answer only if you have answered yes to Questions 5 and 6. % Percentage of casual negligence attributable to Plaintiff, Allan R. Durning, III (answer only if you have answered yes to Questions 7 and 8. % Total equals 100% \ QUESTION 10: State, in a dollar amount. the total economic damages sustained hy the l'lllintill': s State. in a dollar amount. the total non-economic damages sustained hy the 1'lalntiO'; s. I certify the above to be the verdict as found by at lease S/6th8 of the Juml'll. Jury Forepel'llon i> , . LA W OFFICES OF KARDOS AND GOel1 BY: MARK S. KARDOS. ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. #22680 t515 Market Street Suite 1510 Philadelphia. PA 19102 (215) 563.4444 Attorney lor I'laintill's ALLAN R. DURNING. III COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY vs. NO. 656S-Civil-1997 MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRIV A, h/wand DELORES ENGLAND as Executrix of Estate of DORIS KLINGER PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED POINTS FOR CHARGE Plaintiffs respectfully requests the Court to charge the Jury as follows: Members of the jury, this is ALLAN R. DURN/NO, III's. day in Court, as well as the Defendants. and whatever aumages, if any. you find from the evidence. you must, under the law, award them in your verdict today. For it is the law that ALLAN R. Dl1l{NIN<l, III cunnot cull YlJujurors back at any later date and request more compensatiun. Therelilre, whatever uwurd. if any. you find, must include compensation for all pust, present und future puln ul1d suO\:ring und mental anguish. Jamison v, DiNardo. 302 F.2d 30 (3'd Circuit 11)62). c2J;v' .(';<.}r/~ (A \1 ii .1. , The Plaintiff is not required to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. The Plaintiff is only required to prove his case by a fair prepon ance of the evidelJCe and when so proved, he is .' ./ -----. .-/ entitled to recover. A fair preponderance of the eVRIence means that the Plaintiff has presented evidence which would tip the scales in his favor no mailer how slight. If you can, imagine a balance scale with a pan on each side at equal levels. After the Plaintiff has placed his evidence on one side of the scale and the Defendants on the other, if that scale tips in favor of the Plaintiff. then you have found that the Plaintiff has proven his case. -2. Thc Jury is instructcd that under thc law and cvidcncc in this casc, thc vcrdict must be for thc Plaintiff and againstthc Dcfcndants, .3- The legal term negligence, otherwise know~ as carelessness. is the absence of ordinary care which a reasonably prudent person would exercise in the circumstances here presented. Negligent conduct may consist of an act or omission to act when there is a duty to do so. In other words. negligence is the failure to do something which a reasonably careful person would do, or the doing of something a reasonably careful person would not do, in light of all the surrounding circumstances as established by the evidence in this case. It is for you to determine how a reasonably careful person would act in those circumstances, pennsvlvania SUluzested Standard Civil Jurv Instructions. 3.01 v -4- Ordinlll)' care is the care a reasonably careful person would use under the circumstances prcsented in this case. It is the duty of every person to use ordinlll)' are not only for his own safety and thc protection of his propcrty. but also to avoid injury to others. What constitutes ordinary care varies according to the particular circumstances and conditions existing thcn and there. The amount of care required by the law must be in keeping with the degree of danger involved. Pennsvlvania SUl!l!ested Standard Civil Jurv Instructions. 3,02 v -5- If you find that the Defendants are liable to the PlaintitT, you must then find an amount of money damages which you Oelicvc will fairly and adcquately compcnsate thc Plaintiff for all thc physical and financial injury hc has sustaincd as a result of the accident. The amount which you award today must compensate the Plaintiff completely for damagc sustaincd in the futurc. Pennsvlvania SUij\lested Standard Civil Jurv Instructions. 6.00 ~ f ~ () !l .6. i" The dwnages recoverable by the Plaintiff in this case and the items that go to make them up. each of which I will discuss separately, are as follows: (a) medical bills 0 (b) pain and suflering (c) loss "flife's pleasures (d) embarrassment and humiliation G-- (e) scar In the event that you find in favor of Plainti 0". you will add these sums of dwnage together and return you verdict in a single, lump sum. Pennsvlvania SUllllested Standard Civil Jurv Instructions. 6.0 I -7- The Plaintiff is entitlcd to be compcnsatcd in thc amount of all m6es reasonably incurrcd for the diagnosis. trcatmcnt and curc of his injuries in thc past. These expenses, as alleged by the Plaintiff. will bc submitted to you, itemizing thcse costs. for your consideration during deliberation. Pennsvlvania SUl!l!ested Standard Civil Jurv Instructions. 6.01A p. In addition to the cost of medical care. the Plaintiff is entitled to be compensated for all other incidental costs incurred as a result of the incident. () ~ .8. The Plaintiff is entitled to be compensated for all medic,i expenseywhich you find he will reasonably incur in the future for the treatment and care of h~~uing injuries. Pennsvlvania SUl!llested Standard Civil Jurv Instructions. 6.0 I B f " -9. ~"--_.::::; The Plaintiff is entitled to be compcnsated for the amoun to the time ofthe trial as a result of his injuries. This amount is the 's that he had lost up erence between what he probably could have earned but for the harm and any less sum which he actually earned in any employment. ~I' . Instructions 6.0 C (J ~ " ;c " -10- Thc Plaintiff is cntitlcd to bc fairly und adcquatcly compcnsutcd for such physical pain. mcntallll1guish, discomfort, inconvcnicncc IlI1d distress lIS you find he hIlS endured, from the time of the accidcnt until today. Pennsvlvlll1iu SUI!lzest:d Stlll1dard Civil Jurv Instructions. 6.01 E V'. -11- The Plaintiff is entitled 10 be fairly and adequately compensated for such physical pain. mental anguish. discomfort. inconvenience and distress as you believe he will endure in the future as a result of his injuries. Pennsvlvania SUI!lzested Standard Civil Jurv Instructions. 6.0 IF t...--"" " "!= The Plaintiff is entitled to be fairly and adequately compensated for such embarrassment and humiliation as you believe he has endured and will continue to endure in the future as a result of his injuries. Pennsvlvania Sug\lestcd Standard Civil JUry Instructions. 6.0 1 G ,"l' C/' ., .- Ie " i: \ ., I The disli~re9t which the PlaintilT sustained as a result of this accident is a so:parate item of damages recognizcd by the law. Thercforc, in addition to such sums as you award for pain and suffering and for embaITassmentand humiliution. thc Plaintill' is entitlcd to be fairly und adequately compcnsated 1'0. thc disligurcment he has sulli:red in thc past as a rcsult of the accident, and which he will continue to suITer during the future duration of his life. pennsvlvania SUl!l!ested Standard Civil Jurv Instructions. 6.0 I H C-/' -14- The PlaintilT is entitled to be fairly and adequately compensated for past, present and future loss of his ability to enjoy any of the pleasures oflife as a result of his injuries. Pennsvlvania SUl!llested Standard Civil Jurv Instructions. 6.011 G- .IS- . . An occupier ofpremiscs. in this casc Dcfcndants, Michacl Griva and Tcrcsa Griva, h/w and Delores England as Executrix of the Estate of Doris Klingcr, ar: rcquircd to usc reasonable care in the maintenance and use of thc propcrty. If you find that Michael Griva and Teresa Oriva, h/wand Delores England as Executrix of thc Estate of Doris Klinger have failcd in this rcgard, I I I ~ , ; i. I I, this is negligcnce which may make Dcfendants, Michacl Griva and Tcrcsa Griva, hlw and Delores England as Exccutrix of the Eslatc or Doris Klinger, liable for any resulting damage to onc lawfully on the property. What is reasonable carc depends on, and must be in keeping with, the use Defendant expccted to be made of the property, Pennsvlvania SUl!l!ested Standard Civil Jurv Instructions. 7.00 ~ ~.\, fl. ~ \ l () -17- . . A businf90r is a pcrson who is invitcd to cntcr or rcmain on land for a purposc directly or indirectly conncctcd with business dcalings with the occupicr of the land. Pennsvlvania SUlIl!ested Standard Civil Jurv Instructions. 7.00A o -18- . .\ ,t An occupier of land is required to use reasunal1le care in the maintenance and use of his or her property, and to protect his or hcr invitces from I(Jrcsccablc harm. An oeeupicr of land is also required to inspeclthe premiscs and to disco\'Cr dangerous conditions (and to use care 1I0tto injure a busin' s visito by ncgligent activity). An occupier of land is liable for harm caused to condition 011 the land if her or she (a) knows or by the exercise of rcasonable carc would discover the condition, (f and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of ham 1, and (b) she expect that his invitees will not discover or realize the danger, or will , fail to protect themselves against it. and (c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger. An occupier of land is liable to his or her invitees for any harm he or she should have anticipated, regardless of whether the danger is known or obvious. Pennsylvania SUlll!csted Standard Civil JUry Instructions. 7.00B ~ \. o -19- .( ": ,~~'-~ J" ;.:J ""';'<!: .;;:t~ ,--,~"~--"---" ..-, . . ..,.,::,- t/;:,~:) Pain and suffering are not capablc of bcing cxactly mcasurcd by an cquivalcnt in money; that have no market price. Thc question is not what it would cost to hirc somconc to undergo thc mcasure of pain allcgcd to havc bccn sutTcrcd by thc I'laintilT. but what undcr allthc circumstances should bc allowcd to the Plaintiff to compcnsate him for his injuries, Lillman v, ~# Bell Telcohone Company. 315 Pa. 370, () :~ 1.... i- iL j i i In assessing damages the paramount rule is lhal every person unjustly deprived of his or her rights should at least be fully compensated for the injury he or she sustained. The ohjecl of damages is to give compensation to the party injured tor the actual losses sustained, including adequate compensation for pain and suffering. Neuman v. ('om Exchanlze National Bank and Trust Comp8llX. 365 Pa. 442. c..-.c..- .21. Compensation for pain and suffering arc scparate itcms for which damagcs may be awardcd. The compensation should bc such an amount as will bc the most reasonable approximation the circumstances permit for a monctary compcnsation not in the naturc of things capable of exact mcasurcml~nt. Schenkel v, PiUsburl!h Traction Company, 194 Pa, 182. e-C-- .22. The duty of a possessor of land towards an invitee is Ihe highest duty owed to any entrant upon the land. Lonsdale v. JIlsellh "orne Co.. 587 A.2d 810 (Pa. Super. 1991). ~ or \~. -23- Thc owner ofthc ')g is n Iigcnt ifhc hus rcuson to know thc dog hus u tcndcncy fety of persons in u given situution, Groner v, H-:drick, to do uny actthut might endunger t 169 A.2d 320 (Pu., 1961). r " i ,. i) -24- The owncr of a dog iecnt if he fails to properly control or confinc the dOll if hc has reason \0 know that the animal may do harm ifnot confined. !Iermon v. Cohen. 86 Dauph. 207 (1966). . .' . ^ vicious propcnsity of a 8a propcnsity or tcndcncy of a dOll 10 do l!llX act thaI would endangcr the safcly of pcrsons l/l a givcn situation, Groncr v, Iledric~. 169 A.2d 320 (Pa,. 1961). . " C:)' To dcterminc whcthcr thc owncr .' f a dog as knowlcdgc of a dog's tcndcncy to any act that might endangcr the safpty of persons,' look to statcments by the owncr as to the dogs character. ShcDtak v, Wallner. 23 D&C, 3rd 46 (Butler, 1982). (/ -28. .. t' .. If Ihe owners of u dOll know or should know of Ihe propensities of Iheir dog 10 do uny acl Ihul might endanger the safcly of pcrsons who Ihey know will bc cntcring upon their properly. --- - "...... - -- -. u thcn Ihcy arc undcr a dUly to propcrly rcslrain thcir dog so us 10 prevcnl il from cuusinll harm 10 such pcrsons cnterinll upon Ihcir propcrly. Groncr v. Ilcdrick. ~.; Ilcrman v. Cohcn. MUIDl. -29- Ii , . . I ~ -~-- ~~ --- . . ,I . Th~ Def~ndants' admissions that th~ir dug did nutlike being reslrain~d. that the dog bit someone in the face before, and the dUI! was always snappinl! at family members is suflicient proof of the dog's propensity to do an act that might endanger the saf~ty of persons on the property, and suflicient to confirm Defendants' nut ice of this propensity. Snyder v. Milton Auto ~. 428 A.2d 186 (Pa. Sup~r.. 1981), o ... ") r I -30- . I' .. By failinll to properly confinc their dOll and to propcrly warn Plaintiff that he should not piek up, play with. or rcstrain his dog. Dcfcndant brcached their duty to thc Plaintiff to exercise reasonable care to keep their premises reasonably safe. Restatement 2nd of Tort Section 343. . .' .. As to thc knuwlcdgc tu which thc owncr of a dog must possess in ordcr tu chargc him ".--, with liability. thc dog is not entitled to onc ~. j~. It ~ sulTicicntthatthc owncr kncw. or should have known.thatthc animal was a PrOb~~ofharm. Sheptak v. Wal!ner.l!l!1!IIl. ;j -32- ... ALLAN R. DURNING. III, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA CIVIL ACTION. LAW vs. MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRIV A, his wife, and DELORES ENGLAND liS Executrix of the Eslllte of Doris Klinger, Defendants 97-6568 CIVIL IN RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE Present at a pretrial conference held April 11,200 I, were Mark S. Kardos, Esquire, attorney for the plaintiff, and Michele J. Thorp, Esquire, attorney for the defendants. This case arises out of an incident that occurred on November 14, 1996, during which the plaintiff was bitten in the eye by a dog owned and controlled by the defendants, The parties have raised several issues. The first involves a contention that there is insufficient evidence to pennit the question of loss of earning capacity to go to the jury. The second seeks to bar the plaintiff from arguing that by chaining the dog, or otherwise, the defendants "made" the dog vicious, The plaintiff will seek to exclude deposition testimony of his optometrist to the effect that his double vision was not caused by the dog bite. The parties have agreed to stipulate to the authenticity of medical and military records. This otherwise uncomplicated case should be of no more than two days' duration. The nonnlll number of juror challenges will pertain. April It, 2001 .~A. (', 't' 1 ". \/...'-.'.; "'1,,1 )~'br;~:_~, ., L~_f ..'......., r; I~ :!I : :~_: . I... } '[1 .. Mark S. Kardos. Esquire For the Plaintiff Michele j, Thorp, Esquire For the Defendants :rlm u ,- , 't . \.'-- \ API? 0 ~ it;) f/J Attorncy for Plaintiff LA W OFFICES OF KARDOS AND (iO<:l1 BY: MARK S. KARDOS, ESQUIRE Attorncy J.D. 1122680 ISIS Markct Strcct Suite 1510 Philadelphia. PA 19102 (215) 563-4444 ALLAN R_ DURNING, III COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY V5_ CIVIL ACTION - LAW MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRIV A, husband and wife and DOLORES ENGLAND, as the Executrix ofthc Estatc ofDORIS KLINGER NO, 97-6568 - CIVIL TERM Pt.AINTlFF'S PRE. TRIAL BRIEF I. FACTS This is a pcrsonal injury claim arising from an incidcnt of Novcmbcr 14, 1996. whcrein PlaintilTwas bil\cn in thc cyc by a dog owncd and controllcd by Dcfcndants. Thc incident occurrcd in Dcfcndants' homc. Plaintiff was a busincss invitcc, hclping Richard Yarlcl\ move bclongings. Mr. Yarlcl\ was rclatcd to Dcfcndants and Iivcd thcrc atthcir rcsidcncc. Thc incidcnt took placc in thc kitchcn. Thc dog was on a 36-inch chain all day whilc Dcfcndants wcrc at their cmploymcnt. Plaintiff could not go through thc kitchcn without cncountcring thc dog. As Plaintiff walkcd by, hc rcachcd to pctthc dog when thc dog snappcd and bit Plaintiff in thc eye. Plaintiff did nothing to provokc thc dog. '- II. LIABILITY Defendants knew the dog was vicious. but did not warn Plaintiff or use "beware of dog" signs. Plaintitl' was a busincss invitee and owed the highest duty. Defendants made the dog vicious by keeping him on a short chain in a small kitchen all day while they worked. The dog previously but a guest on the cheek a few months before biting Plaintiff. Defendants admit the dog was "very temperamental", was a "one person dog", snipped at people if interrupted while eating, and often snipped at Defendant's mother when she would simply walk by to the medicine cabinet. The dog also snipped at Defendant and hcr daughter. The dog was also chained most of the night to prevent him from urinating through the house. He was on a chain "all his life". This is some evidence that the dog may also have previously bit a neighbor. III. DAMAGES Following the incident, PlaintiITwas taken to Holy Spirit Hospital for emergency eye surgery, He continued to treat with Premier Eye Care for six months, because of vision problems and headaches. As an army veteran, he transferred his care to the V A Ilospital. where Nicholas J. Volpe, M.D. perfonned surgery on January 11,2000 to correct the exotropia causing double vision. Prior to surgery, glasses and prisms were not effective. Presently, Mr. Duming's double vision has improved, but it still manifests at mid-distance ranges, He still has headaches. Plaintiff used an immatrix syringe to alleviate head pain. II. LIABILITY Dcfcndants kncw thc dog was vicious. but did not warn I'laintifT or usc "bcwarc of dog" signs. PlaintitT was a busincss invitcc and owcd thc highest duty. Dcfcndants madc thc dog vicious by kccping him on a short chain in a small kitchcn all day while thcy worked. Thc dog prcviously but a gucst on thc check a fcw months bcforc biting Plaintiff. Dcfcndants admitthc dog was "very temperamental", was a "onc pcrson dog", snippcd at pcoplc ifintcrruptcd whilc cating, and onen snippcd at Dcfendant's mother when she would simply walk by to thc mcdicine cabinct. The dog also snipped at Dcfcndant and her daughtcr. The dog was also chained most of the night to prcvent him Irum urinating through the house. He was on a chain "all his life", This is some evidcnce that the dog may also have previously bit a neighbor. Ill. DAMAGES Following thc incident, Plaintiff was taken to Holy Spirit Hospital for cmergency eye surgery. He continued to treat with Premier Eye Care for six months, because of vision problcms and headachcs. As an army veteran. he transferred his care to thc V A Ilospital. whcrc Nicholas J. Volpe. M.D. performed surgery on January 11,2000 to correctthc exotropia causing double vision. Prior to surgery, glasses and prisms wcrc not effectivc. Presently. Mr. Durning's double vision has improved, but it still manifests at mid-distance rangcs. lie still has headaches. PlaintifT used an immatrix syringe to alleviate hcad pain. ... Plaintill'had no prior eye prohlems except a lazy eye when he WilS 8 ycars old. II was correctcd in a ycar with glasses. and did not clli:ct his cntry to the army. IV, MEDICAL BILLS Most ofPlaintin"s trcatmcnt is covered hy the V A, but there are approximately $7,500.00 in mcdical hills. V, DISABILITY Dr. Volpe states that PlaintilTwas disablcd prior to his surgery and will be "minimally" disablcd in the future. Plaintin'has no work history, because he was in the military of J 2 ycars, up to September of 1995. At the time of the accident, he was a waiter at Denny's and attended Temple Univcrsity. Following the accident hc missed 3 wceks, retumed for 2 wceks, and thcn quit. becausc of eye problcms. lIe has not had meaningful employmcnt since, and missed scmesters at collcge. He had camcd $12.000.00 in 1996. and camed $25,000.00 a ycar in thc army. VI. WITNESSES J. Richard Yarlett 2. Dcfendant's daughter 3. Plaintill"s father and mothcr 4. Custodian of records. Tcmplc University 5. Custodian ofrccords. U.S. Army 6. Nicholas 1. Volpc, M.D. . 7, Peter J. Sakol. M.D. 8. Dr, Mitchell R. Davis 9. Ted Jones. M.D. .... VII. DOCUMENTS 1. Report of Dr. Volpe 2. Rcport of Hospital emergcncy room 3, Report of Dr. Sakol 4. Report of Dr. David S, Report of Dr. Jones 6. Medical bills 7. Statements of Defendants 8. Photographs of dog and Plaintiffs injuries 9. Plaintitrs military record VIII. LEGAL ISSUES Pluinti ff contends that the dog law applies. as well as statutes pertaining to business invitees. IX, TRIAL TIME 3 days X. NEGOTIA TIONS, Demand ------ $100,000.00 OtTer ---------- $10,000,00 LA W OFFICES F KARDOS AND GOCH f I BY: S. KARDO . Anomey for Plaintiff II. LIST OF TYPES AND AMOllNTS OF ALL DAMAGES CLAIMED Defer to Plaintiff. III. LIST OF NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PERSONS WHO MAY BE CALLED AS WITNESSES. CLASSIFYINCl THEM AS LIABIUTY OR DAMAGE WITNESSES A. Liability Plaintiff, Alia" R. Durning. III, as on cross-examination; Defendant, Michael Griva; Defendant. Teresa Griva; Defendant. Delores England; Rick Yarlen; Any witness identified by Plaintiff in discovery; Any witness identified by Plaintiff in his Pre-Trial Memoranda; and Defendants reserve the right to supplement this list prior to trial. B. Damages Plaintiff, as on cross-examination; Defendant. Michael Griva; Defendant, Teresa Griva; Defendant, Delores England; Dr. Volpe. as on cross examination; Dr. Mitchell; Plaintiffs other healthcare providers; Records Custodians for all healthcare providers identified in discovery; Records Custodians for Plaintiffs Temple University 1'C':0rds; Records Custodians for Plaintiffs military records; Dr. David Silbert. IME doctor; 2 Any witness identified by Plaintiff in discovery; Any witness identified by any Plaintiff in his Pre- Trial Memorandum; and Defendants reserve the right to supplement this list prior to trial. IV. LIST ALL EXHIBITS WHICH A PARTY INTENDS TO USE AT TRIAL Photographs of dog, Cocoa; Photographs of area of incident; Diagram of area of incident; Cocoa's dog leash/chain; Plaintiff's medical records; Plaintiff's Temple University records; Plaintiff's military records; Dr. David Silbert's IME report; Plaintiff's dep~sition transcript; Plaintiff's recorded statement; Plaintiff's Complaint; Plaintiff's Answers to Interrogatories; Any exhibit identified or admitted in evi~ence into any deposition in this ea!le; Any exhibit identified in Plaintiff's discovery responses; Any exhibit identified by Plaintiff in his Pre- Trial Memorandum; and Defendants reserve the right to supplement this list prior to trial. V. COpy OF WRIITEN REPORT OR ANSWER TO WRIITEN INT:::E~A~AA CONSISTENT WITH RULE 4003.5 CONTAINING OPINION OF 1:8 Dr. David Silbert's IME Report. a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. J VI. STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES. IF ANY Defendants requestlhat Plaintiff stipulate to the authenticity of Plaintiffs medical records. Plaintiffs Temple lJniver;ity records. and Plaintiffs military records. VII. F.STIMA TED LF.NGTII OF TRIAL 2 1/2 days. VIII. SCHEDULING PROBLF.MS None anticipated. IX. SPFCIAL EVIDF.NTIARY ISSUES Defendants anticipate tiling several Motions in Limine. X. REALISTIC SETTLEMENT OFFER OR DEMAND " Defendants have offered $10,000.0010 resolve this matter. Plaintiffs demand is $100,000.00. THOMAS, THOMAS" HAFER, LLP By: ~ ic J. orp E Attorney J.D. No.: 117 305 N. Front St.. 6lh Floor P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, P A 17108.0999 (717)255.7153 Dated: April 5. 200 I 4 I' " i!'~ _ - /~ - ?7- '-. .~. _.,=;.- OlnltllOphlhilmoloQY Calar'" Surglry BuLl'L t'.:ii:'!1:1 -.1 ~ F,\ C S ',1,1'" J, P j .lei, Mil F ~ C S R.fUCti'oJI Surgery Iftd Cornu I , hllmal DIIUIII 3;j!lrJr. l ~U'lll'rn f.\ U r -'I r: S ,\UI;" ,\ P L::Y" f.l ~\ FA \: S Glaucoml O'JMJ Le'lllJl~(} 00 P,dlllrl. Ophlhllm.l.gy Ind Strabilmul OJ"ld I Stloer! '.1 n DeuloplllUU: Rlconllrucllvl . CDlm'tic OJ'/'fj I Sd!~'~r:, ~.' 0 Rllin.1 , Vilrul Disuses Io.kr.J.;1 R PJ,IIC.I f.lO H,uIQ.Ophlhalm.l.gy Em: L $lllIJrnJI1 f.lO p, ~ e-mJII LOto,ze;~':ipl:'(.,]II'jir, r:'11!1 ';.':/~'J e-,~SDeC!.li1S~'i om laneasl., 140 rlfJflll p,~'I\!'~ g,):,io!', 1I"J LJllr:J';!.>r P,i I ;oCT.Jli2 ;t; 5315151 FJ.. il i 569 ;582 LGH HeaUh Campus 2:06 H.1Ffl'iQlil') p;_.~ (!'H 3'l'JI) S'l'l,~ G.l) LJnc.ls!t:f p~ 1 i6,)4.J~'JO (phllla 155 thrIll rkliJIII'1 R,;J.1 tlll1rJ!.I p~ I ;52:2-!ti,J; Smokelown 2133,0 f1:(! P'~,:.I,!!j:"'J.\ ~,. , -)i!Jr;io,f'l..:,r, P,i I;'):'; {j.;'!') Columbia jr;1j 11tH!!! ')"'i..~)nl '51',;", fl') e')l 'J2f.i C'll'UTHld PA I;.ij'l. Willow Streel l:' 1 B".I.'!! 'J.l~!.! I tJ ~ ~ ,"'I!t/'.'I Srff~d PJ\ 1 .c~,~ I , t December 15, 2000 Michele J. Thorp Thomas, Thomas & Hafer. l.LP Allorneys Atl.aw 305 Nonh Front Street 6'h Floor P.O. Bo~ 999 Harrisburl!, P A 17108 RE: Allan Durning DOB: 04123/64 DATE: t2/05120{)o , , t Dear Ms. Thorp: This leller concerns Allan Durning who you asked me to evaluate for an independent medical e~umination. At the time of the visit with Mr. Durning, I had not yet received the packet that you had sent me but I have fully reviewed this following the visit and following my examination, Enclosed, please find a leller which I dictated at that visit to Dr. Volpe who had performed strabismus surgery on Mr. Durning, In reviewing the case and the patient's exam history, he mentioned to me the history of the VA Hospital, and I feel I can reasonably answer the questions that you asked. I ~ ~ f I I. What injury, if any, did the plaintiff sustain as a result of the dog bite incident? It appears clear that the patknt had problems with an intermittent exotropia. or convergence insufficiency, prior to his injury with the dog. It is possible that he was able to control this adequately and that the dog bite caused the decompensation of his e~otropia. It is also possible that the dog bite had nothing to do ....ith any decompensation of the exotropia. 2. As for the patient's current complaints and symptoms, he noted to me that he had no problem reading, however. he had di fficulty with double \'ision at distance. Interestingly, when I performed cross cover tesling at distance. I was unable to detect any slrabismus at all. However, there was noted to be mild e~ophoria at near. This I find quite curious since il would appear to me that he would be asymptomatic at distance and might have some fatigue at times at near from lhe exophoria. He was noted to have a diminished fusional vergence and a remote near point of convergence, both consistent with convergence insufficiency. Unfonunately, complaints of diplopia arc subjective and one cannot absolutely confirm or deny their presence. 3. Are plaintiffs current complaints and symptoms, if any. related to the dog bite incident? I feel that it is unlikely that the current complaints of the patient arc related to the dog bile incident. Although it is possible that his exotropia decompensated following this injur)jsubsequent to the strabismus surgery, which Michelc J. Thorp Thomas, Thomas & Hafcr, LLP Allan Durning Page 2 Deccmber 15, 2000 .~ 11 appears 10 havc becn quite successful, the paticnt secmingly has a convcrgence \lO insufficicncy. 4. What is the plaintilTs fulure prognosis? I feellhalthc palienl has excellcnt alignmenl at distance bul might bcnefit from vision therapy to controllhis convergence insuflicicncy and I have referrcd him to one of my associales. Dr. , Don Blackburn, for evaluation of this. In conclusion. I feel that the patienl did have an exotropia and currently does have convergence insufficiency. As I mentioned to the patient, it seems unlikely that the exotropia and convergence insufficiency werc caused by the dog bitc. It seems more likely that the patient may have dccompensatcd following this dog bile incident. I thank you for asking me to perform this consultation. r' Sincerely, 2~..F.A.~.P. ... ,. ! D1S/amr Enclosure: Copy of Letter to Dr. Volpe Dated 1211512000 " t f' I ~. December 19,2000 '~.~-~'- G.",,;\IOIII'!. ' C.lltael 5.111" Ul; \~ :" ~ ' Nicholas J. Volpe, M.D. Scheie Eye Institute 51 North 39'" Street Philadelphia, P A 19 J 04 R",;tCIlVi S"~ , Cornul & tl'>,' 91.' ' " \... RE: DOB: DATE: Allan Durning 04123/64 12105100 GlilUCOnl,1 ~; ~ I' , P'di.Jlru; O"n:,. SlubislnUl; ,I ; , .,,' .~ Dear Dr. Volpe: l-':" , Oculopla-;ltc'. RlCon~lru:I:'j ~ '.> .. f' (... I had the pleasure of seeing Allan Dumingtoday. a 36-year old gentleman who complains of horizontal diplopia. He notes diplopia at distance, but not at near. He notes that he had strabismus surgery to correct an exotropia in the right eye with a resection of the medial rectus and a recession of the lateral rectus on adjustable sutures. He now notes that he is able to read comfortably, but still has difficulty at distance. Despite Ihis, I was unable 10 measure any strabismus at distance in any field of gaze. However, at near there was an exophoria of 10 prism diopters. There was noted to be significant convergence insufficiency. He was only able to fuse a 6 base- out prism and lost fusion at 8 base-out. His near point of convergence was 15. Anterior segment biomicroscopy and dilated fundus examination were unremarkable. Visual acuity was 20120. RtUn;aI&Vl". '.1'," N.uro.Ophlhl!'ll' ; I € ":( ~ d'Il" :t.' llllt.Hl!"' I J:! ~ I . Llr~.' . 117 ~,: ' FJ)' ';" My impreSliion is that this gentleman has convergence insufficiency, exophoria at near and is symptomatic. I suggested that he see my associate, Don Blackburn, a pediatric optomelrist who specializes in orthoptics. lGH H'!J::ll 2Hjr. 6t"'~ . LJ~'(: ' (phr31,1 155 ", f;,:r"x It is a pleasure working with you and your patients. Smulle:v 2'.3' . Si~Y. rfaVi~~,A.P. Si":" . Columi)' : Y6" Pl~ e" (1)' : D1S1cmw Willow $: .....".. ,.' Dictated In the presence oj the palie'" to juster patient understanJing. w,:(' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing Prc-Trial Mcmorandum was served upon the following by enclosing the same in an envelope addressed as follows, postage prepaid and depositing the same in the United States Mail. at Harrisburg, Pcnnsylvania on the Sill day of April, 2000: Mark S. Kardos, Esquire Kardos & Goch Suite 1510 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Attomey for Plaintiffs T By: Mich J. orp E Attorney J.D. 11711 30S North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg. P A 171 08 (7t7) 237-7153 :71741.1 . Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ALLAN R, DURNING, III. : CIVIL ACTION. LAW v. MICHAEL GRIVA and TERESA GRIVA, as Husband and Wifs. snd DELORES ENGLAND as ths sxecutrix of ESTATE OF DORIS KLINGER, : G-~ [" z, S. EnollJ.. f)t . Defendant: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED - (3,,014. ,PH /702-) ~+..,I: 103 ~ S{-. s..c..~ fA /70'13 TO: Prothonotery I ~ NO, '17- ~J6 g tw.:.t T~ Pleess issue a Writ of Summons on behslf of the Plaintiff against the Defendants in the above-captioned action, HANDLER AND IENER Date: 1/ /)Y/Jl By Carolyn M. Annar. Esquire Attorney I~D' ,62636 319 Marke reet P,O, Box 77 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 234-8031 Attornays for Plaintiff . 1h.\ -- -t:.. --t:: ~ ;~~ ~~ ~ "W-\t ~ ~).3~ j: -l::> ~ )J - '" ~~\. . ("I ~O 0 r- -.I II .~, ;' 1-;'... ~<:;'J C0 ~,) co' (..;. ':J , -~, () .--;-.' ';:t\ .. ~() ....' :irt1 -.'.t :~ .'~ ~(~ 01 -.. 1 , , I , I , , -::Il....)oIn I l'll'llll:ll )01 I I I -.l1ll~"'1ll lII:1l11 ... ~ ~ , , ~~~"'11 I I "'l.Q 1'1 ~ , -.l 00 III ~=l III , -"':IIa~ ...llle :I , , IIIIll ~ , , IV g, III IV , NCTI1IV In J , o g~ III I . .... e :or.... ,,.. I . , ... 11 IV :II 1< , HlIll:lCl II I 1l,Q....1-I , I~ I 1II a. 11 ~ co' . ~ .... - o en )01 I "'Ill< a , ...."Cl...~:I ,I" I 11 ::r:llll ~>. . ~ ,Ill , ....IVa. .... , I . IV I. , III III :I , -11 El' , IV I: :I l.Q I , , "Cl ",. I , :ol Ie ..' C. . ~. N I ~IVHl , -.l "'l'l I , ..'1'1 IV ~ ... I , I ""'O....llI , I ::J C.. I'D ... o. "'.Q I , l.Q... 11 ... r I .... . I ! IV 11 IrIIV :.1;., , 8' , 11 ... III " I I I , , Ie illl II o ~ Cl 'I. I "'" ....011 ~ 11 ... -.l "'IV< -.l ::rill III IV . SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 1997-06~68 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA I COUNTY Or CUMBERLAND DURNING ALLAN RIll VS. GRIVA MICHAEL ET AL KENNETH E. GOSSERT CU"BERLAND County. Pennsylvania. to law, says. the within WRIT OF upon GRIVA MICHAEL defendant. at 171~;00 HOURS. on the ~ day of December 1997 at 112 SOUTH ENOLA DRIVE ENOLA. PA 1702~ . Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of who being duly sworn according SUMMONS wall served the . CUMBERLAND . County. Pennsylvania. by handing to MICHAEL GRIVA a true and attested copy of the WRIT Or SUMMONS and at the same time directing ~ attention to the contents thereof. . Sheriff's Costs: Dockl!Ung S.rvice Affidavit Surcharge 18.00 9.92 .00 2.00 829.9:':: So answers I / ~ r ~-~ .~ R. Thomas ~e. ;~ -. HANDLER AND WIENER 12/08/1997 by Sworn and subscribed to b.fore me this y'!:: day of (0,,,.'. ~ 19 91 A.D. ~I' ~ok~~~~ry '{P7 SHERIrr'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 1997-06568 P CO"MONWEALTH Or PENNSYLVANIA I COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND OURNING ALLAN RIll VS. GRIVA MICHAEL ET AL KENNETH E. GOSSERT . Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of who being duly sworn according SUl'IMONS vas eerved CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania. to law, says. the within WRIT Or upon GRIVA TERESA defendant. at 1715:00 HOURS, on the ~ day of December i922 at 112 SOUTH ENOLA DRIVE ENOLA. PA 17025 .CUl'IBERLAND County, Pennsylvania. by handing to MICHAEL GRIVA, PERSON IN the CHARGE a true and attested copy of the WRIT Or SUMMONS and at the same time directing ~ attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So answers: ../7/ --e:.. ~~~~< ~ R. Thomas Kline. :~er - 6.00 .00 .00 2.00 .B.~0 HANDLER AND WIENER 12/08/1997 by Sworn and subscribed to before me G'~ f ',0 I this! day 0 AJ111ft f~ .J 19 ';1 A.D. Cl. .,~ r: YJ", II~ I ~.,r.r -~ '~ro{fionotarY 1-' SHERIFF'S RETURN - REOULAR CASE NO: 1997-06568 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA I COUNTY Or CUMBERLAND DURNING ALLAN RIll VS. GRIVA MICHAEL ET AL KENNETH E. OOSSERT . Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of CUMBERLAND County. Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon ENGLAND DELORES EXEC Or EST Or DORIS KLINOER the defendant, at 1520.00 HOURS. on the ~ day of December 1921 at i03 MILLER STREET SU""ERDALE. PA 17093 . CUMBERLAND County. Pennsylvania, by handing to DELORES ENGLAND a true and attested copy of the WRIT Or SUMMONS and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs. Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So answers..,/~_~~~ r QIt;,.V'~<: ~ R. I homas Kline, l:iher1 - 6.00 9.92 .00 2.00 .17.~~ HANDLER AND WIENER 12/08/1997 by De.jffffl Sworn and subscribed to before me this .-It:' day of iSlLu..,.J.........- 19 '11 A. D. ( \,,,..,~ c fuJ~/:~ ~' '--1 I t'rothonotary I r' i j . TilE LAW OFFICES OF KAUFFMAN & SHILLING ATTORNEY: C. William Shilling, Esquire SUPREME COURT I.D. NO. 4699!1 100 PINE STREET, SUITE 300 IIARRISDURG, PA 1710t (717) 720-0700 ATTORNEY FOR: ALLAN R. DURNING, III, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. MICHAEL GRlV A and TERESA GRlV A, Husband and Wife, and DELORES ENGLAND as the Executrix of the Estate of DORIS KLINGER, Defendants CIVIL ACTION. LAW NO. 97-6568 . CIVIL TERM PRAECIPE FOR ISSUANCE OF RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO TIlE PROTHONOTARY: Please Issue a Rule upon the Plaintiff to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days of sclVice thereof or suITer judgment of non pros. Respectfully submilled. TO: Allan R. Durning, Ill, Plaintiff A rule is hereby entered upon you to file a Complaint in the above mailer within twenty (20) days of sclVicc hereof or suITer judgment of nOli pros. ~...f.e..' Va. . (,-/j-~rf 8 \.0 0 c:J '" ?' ,- " "'tif.: ::; :in [i] I; - ,F.; L:. ;,.~c UI ,'J(j \f}.': ,~o -, , ~L, :!~ ,- :a .~, - ::;c -' 'CJ .-OJt '-, N .':rn J:"'''';: 9, ~~j;J .. r:- ',," ~ ::u CD ~ ~! ALLAH R. DURNINa. III, Plaintiff IN TNa COURT 0' COMMON PL&AS CUMlaRLAIID COUNTY. paNNA, v. NICKA8L aRIVA AND TaRaSA aRIVA. .a Huaband and N1f., and DILORas aNOLAND aa the .x.cut~1x of aSTATa 0' DORIS KLINaaR. D.fendanta CIVIL ACTION - LAN NO. 97-6568. CIVIL TaRN Jl1lIY TRIAL D8NAHI)aD NOTIca YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claim set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice is served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing wit~ the Court your detense or objections to the claim set forth against you. You are warned that If you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and judgement may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or lor any other claim or relief requested by the Plaint1tt. You may lose money or property or other rights Important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKB THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCB, IF YOU DO NOT HAVB A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BBLOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. NOTtCIA Le ha~ demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted qulere delenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas signuientes. usted tlene vienta (20) dlas de plazo al part lr de al fecha de la demanda y la not if icacion. Usted debe presentar una aparlencla escrlta 0 en persona a por abogado y archlvar en la corte en forma escrlta sus defensas 0 sus objectlones alas damandas en contra de su persona, Sea avlsado que sl ustad no se laflende. la corte tomara medldas y puede una orden contra usted sin previa aviso 0 notlflcaclon y por cualquler queja 0 akuvul que es pedido en la petlcion de demanda. Usted puedo pa~der dlnero 0 sus propledades 0 otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO IMMEDIATAMENTE, SI NO TIENE ABOGADO 0 SI NO TIENE EL DIMERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEPONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SB EMCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVBRIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSSGUIA ASISTENCIA LEGAL. / By Carolyn 1. D. 319 Mar Harrisburg PA (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintlff{s) ~, COURT ADMINISTRATOR 4th Floor, Cumberland County Cour Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone: (717) 240-62 HANDLER AND Esquire POBox 1177 17108-1177 ~<; Sam/complaintldurning,db ALLAN R. DURNING. III. Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. CIVIL ACTION. LAW NO. 97.6568. CIVIL TER.M v. MICHAEL GRIV A AND TERESA GRIV A. as Husband and Wifr. and DELORES ENGLAND as thr nrcutril of ESTATE OF DORIS KLINGER. Drfrndants JURY TRIAl. DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the PlaintilT. Allan R Durning, III, by and through his attorneys, HANDLER & WIENER, and makes the within Complaint against the Defendants and avers as follows: I. PlaintitT, Allan R. Durning, Ill, is a single, adult individual residing at 403 Washington Avenue, Apartment 3, Sellersville, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, 18960. 2. Defendant, Michael Griva, is an adult individual residing atl12 South Enola Drive, Enola, Pennsylvania, Cumberland County, 17025 . 3. Defendant, Teresa Griva, is an adult individual residing at 112 South Enola Drive, Enols, Pennsylvania, Cumberland County, 17025 . 4. Defendant, Delores England, is an adult individual residing at 103 Miller Street, Summerdale, Pennsylvania, Cumberland County, 17093. 5. At all times mentioned herein, PlaintitTbelieves and therefore avers, Defendants Michael and Teresa Griva were in exclusive ownership and control of a Chihuahua type dog (hereinafter, Chihuahua) that attacked and injured Plaintiff, Allan Durning. 6. Prior to November 14, ] 996, Defendants, Michael and Teresa Griva, were aware that -1- thei( Chihuahua could demonstrate vicious propensities toward persons who were in the presence and made contact with said dog. 7. Subsequent 10 November 14, 1996, Plaintiffs believes and therefore avers the Defendants were aware that their Chihuahua snapped at, anacked, bit and/or otherwise demonstrated vicious propensities toward their grandmother and other penons who entered the house at 75 Oliver Road, ~ Enola, Pennsylvania, Cumberland County, 17025. 8. At all time mentioned herein, Plaintiff, Allan Durning believes and therefore avers that 10. Subsequent to November 14, 1996, Plaintiff believes and therefore avers the Defendant, Defendant, Doris Klinger was the owner of 7S Oliver Road, Enola, Pennsylvania, Cumberland County, 17025 (hereinafter, "Premises"). 9. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Allan Durning believes and therefore avers that Defendant, Delores England was made Executrix of the Estate of Doris Klinger on October 2, 1996. Delores England, was aware that Michael and Teresa Griva were keeping a Chihuahua at the Premises owned by Delores England. II. Subsequent to November 14, 1996, Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant, Delores England, was aware that the Chihuahua being kept at the Premises had snapped at, attacked, bit and/or otherwise demonstrated vicious propensities. 12. At the time of the incident, Plaintiff, Allan Durning, was on the Defendants' premises with the Defendants' nephew, Rick Yarlett. Rick Yarlett was lawfully on the premises as a invitee. Plaintiff was lawfully upon the premises as a guest of Rick Yarlett. 13. On or about November 14, 1996, Plaintitl; Allan Durning, was pelting the Chihuahua when -2- , I I I ! ~ f t".: suddenly and without warning, the Chihuahua lunged up and allacl:ed Plaintiff, Allan Durning, biting him on his eyelid. 14. Plaintiff, Allan Durning, sustained and suffered severe lacerations to his right eye, punctures in his right upper and lower eyelid and scratches to the right eye. As a consequence these injuries, Plaintiffsought and obtained medical treatment at Holy Spirit Hospital and Premier Eyecare, where sutures were made to repair the lacerations and punctures in his eyelid. 15. As a direct and proximate cause of the negligence of the Defendants, Plaintiff, Allan Durning has suffered serious bodily injury as set forth more fully hereinafter. COUNT I Allan R. Durnin!!, III v, Michael Grin and Teresa Grin 16. Plaintiff, Allan Durning, incorporates and makes part of this Count paragraphs I through 15 of this Complaint as if fully set forth. 17. The occurrence of the aforesaid incident and the injures to Plaintiff, Allan Durning, resulting therefrom, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of the Defendants, Michael and Teresa Griva, generally and more specifically as set forth below: a} In failing to properly secure the Chihuahua and otherwise failing to restrain and control the Chihuahua, when the Defendants knew, or should have known, that the Chihuahua had a dangerous nature and vicious propensities; b} In failing to take precautions that may have prevented injury to the Plaintiff, Allan Durning, and anyone lese who might enter the Premises; .3- c) In failing to secure the Chihuahua in an area where anyone entering the Premises would not be harmed or affected by its actions, when the Defendants knew or should have known of the Chihuahua's dangerous nature and vicious propensities; d) Ir. failing to provide premises that were free from unnecessarily dangerous conditions that would have preve~ted injury to Plaintiff, Allan Durning, and anyone else who might enter the Premises; 18. As a direct a proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff, Allan Durning, has sustained severe injuries to his face, more specifically to his right eyelid, requiring sutures. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff, Allan Durning, has undergone great physical pain and discomfort, and mental anguish, and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future to his great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 20. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff, Allan Durning, has been hindered from perfonning his duties at work and attending to his daily activities to his great detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 21. As a result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff, Allan Durning, suffered a loss of life's pleasures, and probably will continue to suffer the same in the future to his great detriment and loss. 22. Plaintiff, Allan Durning, believes and therefore avers that his injuries are permanent in nature, including permanent facial scarring and difficulty with sight. 23. As a result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff, Allan Durning, has undergone great -4- physical pain, discomfort, humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish, and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, causing him great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 24. A~ a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff, Allan Durning, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medicaltreatmenl. Plaintiff continues to receive treatment and incur medical expenses for said injuries, and will continue to do so in the future to his great detriment and loss. 25. As a further result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff, Allan Durning, will incur loss wages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Allan Durning, seeks damages from Defendants, Michael and Teresa Griva, in an amount in excess of Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), which exceeds the jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration and demands trial by jury. Count II Allan Durnin!!. III v, Delores En!!land 26. Plaintiff, Allan Durning, incorporates and makes a part of this Count paragraphs I through 25 of this Complaint as if fully set forth. 27. The occurrence oflhe aforesaid incident and the injuries to Plaintiff, Allan Durning, resulting therefrom, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence ofthe Defendant, Delores England, generally and more specifically as set forth below: .5- a) In failing to properly secure the Chihuahua and otherwise failing to restrain and control the Chihuahua, when the Defendant knew, or should have known, that the Chihuahua had a dangerous nature and had vicious propensities; b) In failing to take precautions that may have prevented injury to the Plaintiff, Allan Durning, and anyone else who might enter the Premises; c) In failing to secure the Chiwawa in an area where anyone entering the Premises would not be harmed or affected by its actions, when the Defendant knew, or should have known of the Chihuahua's dangerous and vicious propensities; d) In failing to provide premises that were free from unnecessarily dangerous conditions that would have prevented injury to Plaintiff, Allan Durning, and anyone else who might enter the Premises; and e) In failing to provide adequate warning to invitees of the premises of the persistency of the dangerous condition thallhe Defendant knew existed by the presence of the Chihuahua within the premises. 28. As a direct and proximate cause of the negligence of the Defendant, Plaintiff, Allan Durning, has sustained severe injuries to his face, more specifically to his right upper and lower eyelids, requiring sutures. 29. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff, Allan Durning, has undergone great physical pain and discomfort, and mental anguish, and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future to his great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 30. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of defendant, Plaintiff, Allan Durning, -6- has been hindered from performing his duties at work and from attending to his daily activities to his great detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 3 I. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, Plaintiff, Allan Durning, sutTered a loss of life's pleasures, and probably will continue to suffer the same in the future to his great detriment and loss 32. Plaintiff, Allan Durning, believes and therefore avers that his injuries are permanent in nature, including permanent facial scarring and sight impairment. 33. As a result of the negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff, Allan Durning, has undergone great pain, discomfort, humiliation, embarrassment, and mental anguish, and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, causing great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 34. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Plaintiff, Allan Durning, has been compelled, in order to affect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention. Plaintiff continues to receive treatment and incur medical expenses for said injuries, and will continue to do so in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 35. As a further result of the negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff, Allan During, will incur lost wages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Allan Durning, seeks damages from Defendant, Delores England, In an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), which exceeds the jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration and demands trial by jury. -7- COUNT III Allan R. Durninll, III v, Michael Grin and Teresa Grin 36. Plaintiff, Allan Durning, incorporales and makes part of this Count, paragraphs I through 35 of this Complaint as if fully set forth. 37. Defendants, Michael and Teresa Griva, should be held strictly liable for the occurrence of the aforesaid incident and injuries to Plaintiff, Allan Durning, generally and more specifically as set forth below: a) Defendants, Michael ~nd Teresa Griva, were in exclusive ownership and control of the Chihuahua that attacked and injured Plainliff, Allan Durning; b) Defendants, Michael and Teresa Griva, knew or should have been aware that their Chihuahua snapped at, attacked, bit and/or otherwise demonstrated vicious propensities towards those persons who were in or enter the Premises; and c) Defendants, Michael and Teresa Griva, failed to protect Plaintiff, Allan Durning, and anyone entering the Premises from a harm they were fully aware of and had control of to eliminate. 38. As a result of the Defendants' failure to protect Plaintiff, Allan Durning, he has sustained severe injuries to his face, more specifically his right eyelid, requiring sutures. 39. As a result of the Defendants' failure 10 protect Plaintiff, Allan Durning, he has undergone great physical pain and discomfort, and mental anguish, and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future to his great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 40. As a result of the Defendants' failure to protect Plaintiff, Allan Durning, he has been -8- hindered from performing his duties at work and allending to his daily activities to his great detriment, loss, humiliation and embarrassment. 41. As a result of the Defendants' failure to protect Plaintiff, Allan Durning, he has suffered a loss of life's pleasures, and probably will continue to suffer the same in the future to his great detrime'lt and loss. 42. Plaintiff, Allan Durning, believes and therefore avers that his injuries are permanent in nature, including permanent facial scarring and difficulty with sight. 43. As a result of the Defendants' failure to protect Plaintiff, Allan Durning, he has undergone great physical pain, discomfort, humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish, and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, causing him great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. , I I ~. 44. As a result of the Defendants' failure to protect Plaintiff, Allan Durning, he has been ~ \. compelled, in order to affect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical treatment. Plaintiff continues to receive treatment and incur medical expenses for said injuries, and will continue to do so in the future to his great detriment and loss. 45. As a further result of Defendants' failure to protect Plaintiff, Allan Durning, he will incur loss wages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Allan Durning, seeks damages from Defendants, Michael and Teresa Griva, in an amount in excess of twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), which exceeds the jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration and demands trial by jury. COUNT IV Allan Durnin!!. III. v. Delores EIl!!land -9. 46. Plaintiff Allan Durning, incorporates and makes a part of this Count paragraphs I through 45 of this Complaint as if fully set forth. 47. Defendant, Delores England, should be held strictly liable for the occurrence of the aforesaid incident and injuries to Plaintiff, Allan Durning, generally and more specifically as set forth below: a) Defendant, Delores England, was in exclusive ownership and control of the Premises, where the aforementioned attack by the Chihuahua injured Plaintiff, Allan Durning; b) Defendant, Delores England, knew or should have been aware that the Chihuahua snapped at, attacked, bit and/or otherwise demonstrated vicious propensities towards those persons who were in or enter the Premises; and c) Defendant, Delores England, failed to protect Plaintiff, Allan Durning, and anyone entering the Premises from a harm she was fully aware of and had control of to eliminate. 48. As a result of the Defendant's failure to protect Plaintiff, Allan Durning, he has sustained severe injuries to his face, more specifically his right eyelid, requiring sutures. 49. As a result of the Defendant's failure to protect Plaintiff, Allan Durning, he has undergone great physical pain and discomfort, and mental anguish, and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future to his great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 50. As a result of the Defendant's failure to protect Plaintiff, Allan Durning, he has been hindered from performing his duties at work a.ld attending to his daily activities to his great detriment, loss, humiliation and embarrassment. -10- 51. As a result of the Defendant's failure to protect Plaintiff, Allan Durning, he has suffered a loss of life's pleasures, and probably will continue to suffer the same in the future to his great detriment and loss. 52. Plaintiff, Allan Durning, believes and therefore avers that his injuries are permanent in nature, including permanent facial scarring and difficulty with sight. 53. As a result of the Defendant's failure to protect Plaintiff, Allan Durning, he has undergone great physical pain, discomfort, humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish, and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, causing him great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 54. As a result of the Defendant's failure to protect Plaintiff, Allan Durning, he has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical treatment. Plaintiff continues to receive treatment and incur medical expenses for said injuries, and will continue to do so in the future to his great detriment and loss. 55. As a further result of Defendant's failure to protect Plaintiff, Allan Durning, he will incur loss wages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Allan Durning, seeks damages from Defendant, Delores England, In an amount in excess of twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), which exceeds the jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration and demands trial by jury. DATE:~ BY: Carolyn I.D. # 636 319 Market Street- P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, P A 17108-1177 (717) 238-2000 -11- CERTIFICATB OF SBRVICE On this lOth day of July, 1998, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint was served upon the following counsel of record by depositing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, regular service, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: C. William Shilling, Esquire Kauffman & Shilling 100 pine Street, Suite 300 Harrisburg PA 17101 HANDLER AND WIBNBR By i~LL/ Secretary ALLAN R. DURNING, III, Plainliff IN TUE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNA, CIVIL ACTION. LAW NO. 97-6568 - CIVIL TERM v. MICHAEL GRIV A AND TERESA GRIV A. as Uusband and Wife. and DELORES ENGLAND as Ihe uecutrb ofESTATE OF DORIS KLINGER, Defendanr., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CBRTIFICATB OF SBRVICB On this 16th day of J~ly, 1998, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents addressed to Michael and Teresa Griva was served Upon the following counsel of record by depositing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, regular service, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: c. William Shilling, Esquire Kauffman & Shilling 100 Pine Street, Suite 300 Harrisburg PA 17101 IlANDLU AIm IfIBHKR ALLAN R. DURNING, III, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. CIVIL ACTION. LAW NO. 97-6568. CIVIL TERM v, MICHAEL GRIV A AND TERESA GRIV A. as Husband and Wife, and DELORES ENGLAND as the uecutrllt ofESTATE OF DORIS KLINGER, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATB 01' SBRVICE On this 16th day of July, 1998, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents addressed to Delores England was served upon the following counsel of record by depositing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, regular service, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: C. William Shilling, Esquire Kauffman & Shilling 100 pine Street, Suite 300 Harrisburg PA 17101 HANDLBR AND WIBNBR By ~AV Secretary ., ~ I c~. , , .-) .~ ". r.;; ., ) , I , '.l , , . :.: , I J' ::..-~ ". '.1 ", I ~. THE LAW OFFICES OF DEVLIN, KAUFFMAN" SHILLING ATTORNEY: C. William Sblllloll, Esquire ATTORNEY FOR: Defeodaot KlloKer SUPREME COURT I,D, NO. 46995 100 PINE STREET. SUITE 300 HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717) 720-0700 ALLAN R. DURNING, III, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V AN1A v. MICHAEL GRlV A and TERESA GRlV A, Husband and Wife, and DOLORES ENGLAND as the Executrix of the Estate of DORIS KLINGER, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 97.6568. CIVIL TERM ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT The Defendants, Michael Griva, Teresa Griva and Dolor.:s England, by and through their counsel, Devlin, Kauffman & Shilling, hereby enter the following Answer and New Maller to Plaintirrs Complaint and aver as follows: I. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to determine the truth or accuracy of the averments in Paragraph I of the Complaint, and accordingly, said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. It is admitted that Michael Griva and Teresa Griva owned a Chihuahua dog. 6. The averments of paragraph 6 constitute a conclusion of law to which no answer is required in the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure. If such an answer be deemed necessary, said averments are denied. 7. The averments of paragraph 6 constitute a conclusion oflaw to which no answer is required in the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure. If such an answer be deemed necessary, said averments are denied. 8. It is admitted that Dolores England was the owner of a residence at 75 Oliver Road in Enola, Pennsylvania. 9. It is admitted that the Defendant Dolores England was Executrix of the Estate of Doris Klinger. 10. It is admitted that Dolores England was aware that a Chihuahua was kept at the aforementioned residence by Michael Griva and Teresa Griva. I \. Denied. 12. The averments of paragraph 12 of the Complaint constitutes a conclusion oflaw of which no answer is required in the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure, 13. After reasonablc investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to thc truth or accuracy of the averments in paragraph 13 of the Complaint, and accordingly, said averments are denied. Strict proof thcre of is demanded at time of trial. 14. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defcndants arc without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments in paragraph 13 of the Complaint, and accordingly, said averments are denied. Strict proof there of is demanded at time oftrial. 15. It is specifically denied that the Defendants were in any manner negligent, careless or reckless under the circumstances, as to the remaining averments in paragraph I S of the Complaint, Answering Defendants, after reasonable investigation, are unable to determine the truth or accuracy of the averments and, accordingly, said averments are denied. Strict proof thereofis demanded at time of trial. ~ COUNT 1 ALLAN R. DURNING, III v. MICHAEL GRlV A AND TERESA GRlV A 16. The Answering Defendants, Michael Griva and Tereea Griva, corporatc herein by reference their answera in paragraph I-I S above as if fully set forth in length. 17(a) - (d). The averments of paragraph 17 of the Complaint constitute a conclusion of law to which no answer is required in the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure. Ifsuch answer is deemed necessary, said averments are specifically denied. 18. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants were in any manner negligent, eareless or reckless of the circumstances, as to the remaining averments of paragraph 18 of the Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a betiefas to the truth or accuracy of the averment, and accordingly, said averments are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of the trial. 19. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants were in any manner negligent, careless or reckless of the circumstances, as to the remaining averments of paragraph 18 of the Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a betiefas to the truth or accuracy of the averment, and accordingly, said averments are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of the trial. 20. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants were in any manner negligent, careless or reckless of the circumstances, as to the remaining averments of paragraph 18 of the Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowl~dge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averment, and accordingly, said averments are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of the trial, II t 21. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants were in any manner negligent, careless or reckless ofthe eircumstances, as to the remaining averments of paragraph 18 of the Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averment, and accordingly, said averments are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of the trial. 22. It is speeifically denied that the Answering Defendants were in any manner negligent, careless or reckless ofthe circumstances, as to the remaining averments of paragraph 18 of the Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averment, and accordingly, said averments are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of the trial. 23. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants were in any manner negligent, careless or reckless of the circumstances, as to the remaining averments of paragraph 18 of the Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averment, and accordingly, said averments are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of the trial. 24. It is specifically denied LlJatthe Answering Defendants were in any manner negligent, careless or reckless of the circumstances, as to the remaining averments of paragraph 18 of the Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averment, and accordingly, said averments are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of the trial. 25. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants were in any manner negligent, careless or reckless of the circumstances, as to the remaining averments of paragraph 18 of the Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averment, and accordingly, said averments are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of the trial. WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendants, Michael Griva and Teresa Griva demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiff Allan R. Durning, 111, with costs. COUNT II ALLAN R. DURNING, III v. DOLORES ENGLAND 26. The Answering Defendant, Dolores England, hereby incorporates the anawers set forth in paragraphs 1-25 above as if fully set forth at length. 27(a)(e). The averments of paragraph 27 of the Complaint constitutes a conclusion oflaw of which no answers are required under the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure. Ifsuch an answer is deemed necessary, said averments are specifically denied. 28. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants were in any manner negligent, careless or reckless of the circumstances, as to the remaining averments of paragraph 18 of the Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averment, and accordingly, said averments are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of the trial. 29. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants were in any manner negligent, careless or reckless of the circumstances, as to the remaining averments of paragraph 18 of the Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averment, and accordingly, said averments are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of the trial. 30. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants were in any manner negligent, careless or reckless of the circumstances, as to the remaining averments of paragraph 18 of the Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averment, and accordingly, said averments are denied. Strict proofis demanded at the time of the trial. 31. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants were in any manner negligent, careless or reckless of the circumstances, as to the remaining averments of paragraph 18 oflhe Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averment, and accordingly, said averments are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time oflhe trial. 32. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants were in any manner negligent, careless or reckless of the circumstances, as to the remaining averments of paragraph 18 of the Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averment, and accordingly, said averments are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of the trial. .... ;' ! . 33. It is specifieally denied that the Answering Defendants were in any munner negligent, careless or reckless of the circumstances, as to the remaining averments of paragraph 18 of the Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averment, and accordingly, said averments are denied. Strict proof is demunded at the time of the trial. 34. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants were in any manner negligent, careless or reckless of the circumstances, as to the remaining averments ofparagroph 18 of the Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficicnt knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averment, and , accordingly, said averments are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time oflhe trial. 35. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants were in any manner negligent, careless or reckless ofthe cireumstances, as to the rcmaining averments of paroiraph 18 ofihe Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants arc without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averment, and accordingly, said averments are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of the trial. WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendant, Dolores England, demandsjudJPllent in her ,. favor and against Plaintiff Allan R. Durning, \II, with costs. COUNT III ALLAN R. DURNING, III v. MICHAEL GRIV A AND TERESA GRIV A , 36. The Answering Defendant incorporate herein by reference the answers in paragraphs 1-35 above as if fully set forth at length. 37. The averments of paragraph 37 constitute a conclusion of law to which no answer is required under the applicable Rules of Civi] Procedure. Should said answers be deemed necessary, said averments are specifically denied. 38. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants failed to protect the Plaintiff. As to the remaining averments of paragraph 38 of the Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments, and accordingly, said averments are denied. Strict proofthereofis demanded at time of trial. 39. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants failed to protect the Plaintiff. As to the remaining averments of paragraph 38 of the Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments, and accordingly, said averments are denied. Strict proof thereof is dernanded at time of trial. 40. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants failed to proteclthe Plaintiff. As to the remaining averments of paragraph 38 of the Complaint, after reasonablc investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledgc or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments, and accordingly, said avcrmentsllrc denicd. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 41. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defcndants failed to prolect tho Plaintiff. As to the remaining averments of paragraph 38 of the Complaint, after reasonablc investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowlcdge or infornlaliolllo form II belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments, and accordingly, said avernlents aro denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 42. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants failed to prolcct tho Plaintiff. As to the remaining <Iverments of paragraph 38 of the Complaint, after rOlllOnabl, investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowlcdllC or information 10 form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments, and accordingly, said avormontsll'll donlod. Strict proof thereof is demanded attimc of trial. 43. It is specifically denied that the Answcring Dcfcndants failcd 10 prolec:t the Plaintiff. As to the remaining averments of paragraph 38 of thc Complaint, after rclllOnable investigation, Answering Defendants are withouI sufficicnt knowlcdge or informatlOll to lbrm a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the avermcnts, und accordingly, said avcrmcnllll'll Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 44. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants failed to protect the Plaintiff. As to the remaining averments of paragraph 38 of the Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the !rUth or accuracy of the averments, and accordingly, said averments are denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time oflrial. 45. It is apecifically denied that the Answering Defendants failed to protect the Plaintiff. As to the remaining averments of paragraph 38 of the Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments, and accordingly, said avenr..ents are denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time oflrial. WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendants, Michael Griva and Teresa Griva, demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiff, Allan R. During, III, with costs. COUNT IV ALLAN R. DURNING, III v. DOLORES ENGLAND 46. Answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference the answers set forth in paragraphs 1-45 above as if fully set forth at length. 47. The averments of paragraph 37 constitute a conclusion oflaw to which no answer is required under the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure. Should said answers be deemed necessary, said averments are specifically denied. 48. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants failed to protect the Plaintiff. As to the remaining averments of paragraph 38 of the Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments, and accordingly, said averments are denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 49. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants failed to protect the Plaintiff. As to the remaining averments of paragraph 38 ofthe Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments, and accordingly, said averments are denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 50. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants failed to protect the Plaintiff. As to the remaining averments of paragraph 38 of the Complaint, after reasonablo investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledgo or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments. and accordingly, said avennents are denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 51. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants failed to protect the Plaintiff. As to the remaining averments of paragraph 38 of the Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy ofthc averments, and accordingly, said avennenta are dImIed. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. ~ ., 52. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants failed to protect the Plaintiff. As to the remaining avennents of paragraph 38 of the Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments, and accordingly, said avennents are denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 53. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants failed to protect the Plaintift". As to the remaining avennents of paragraph 38 of the Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments, and accordingly, said avennents are denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 54. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants failed to protect the Plaintiff. As to the remaining avennents of paragraph 38 cfthe Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or infonnation to fonn a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments, and accordingly, said avennents are denied. Strict proof thercof is demanded at time of trial. 55. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants failed to protect the Plaintiff. As to the remaining avennents of paragraph 38 ofthe Complaint, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or infonnation to fonn a belief as to the trUth or accuracy of the averments, and accordingly, said averments arc denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. ,... WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendant, Dolores England, demands judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiff, Allan R. Durning, tII, with costs. ~ I , , NEW MATTER 56. If it is determined that the Defendants are liable under the Plaintiff's causc of action, then Plaintiff's recovery should be eliminated or reduced in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9 I 702, in that the Plaintiff may have: a. failed to heed any warnings that may have been given to him by Rick Yarlell; b. positioned himself in such a position that the alleged incident could occur; c. posed a threat to the dog in question; d. positioned himself within the dog's area of control, said area being no greater than thirty six (36") in radius; e. was otherwise careless, negligent and reckless in approaching and attempting to pet an animal about whom he had no knowledge at the time. 57. The foregoing acts or admissions of Plain tiff, as set forth above, were careless, negligent, reckless and approximately caused the alleged injuries and/or damages claimed by the Plaintiff. 58. If the Plaintiff suffered any injuries and damages as alleged,they were caused solely and primarily by the Plaintirrs own carelessness, recklessness and negligence. 59. If the Plaintiff suffered any injuries as alleged, Plaintiff, by his conduct, assumed the risk of those injuries and damages due to the conduct herein before alleged. 60. The Complaint fails to state a claim against the Defendant. 6 J. The right to file such additional defenses, affirmative defenses, cross claims, counter claims, and/or third party claims as may be appropriate upon complete investigation of the discovery in this mailer is reserved. 62. Plaintiff has failed to rnitigate damages. 63. The right to challenge any awarded delay damages in this case is hereby reserved. 64. Defendants demand that appropriate hearings be conducted in this case prior to any award of delay damages. 65. Rule 238 of Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, on its face, and as applied, is volatile ofthe due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, ~ 1983 ofTitle 42 of the United States Code and Article I, ~~I,6,11 & 26 in Article V, Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution and imposesa chilling effect on the exercise by Defendants of their constitutional rights. , 66. If the PlalntilTsulTered injuries and damages as described and for reasons set forth in the Complaint, said injuries and damages were caused or contributed to by conditions over .Y which the Answering Defendants had no control and for which they are not responsible. 67. If the PlaintilTsuffered injuries and damages as set forth in the Complaint, said ., injuries and damages were not approximately caused by any negligent act or omission on behalf 68. If the PlaintilTsuffered injuries and damages as described for reasons set forth in of Answering Defendants. the Complaint, said injuries and damages were caused in or contributed to the carelessness and recklessness of other parties over whom Answering Defendants had no control and for whom ; I... I r I I they are not responsible. WHEREFORE, the Defendants, Michael Griva, Teresa Griva and Dolores England demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiff Allan R. Durning, III, with cost. . . VERIFICATION Defendant Michael Griva verifies that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer in New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief and understands that statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to Unsworn Falsification to Authorities. ~~o~ Michael Griva Dated: VERIFICATION r Defendant Teresa Griva verifies that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer in New Malter to Plaintiff's Complaint are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and Section 4904 relating to Unsworn Falsification to Authorities. i r f i belief and understands that statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. J--VLLA-6.- Teresa Griva d~ ./ Dated: I. , t ~ t I ,'j n... . r~ r -, ,- f) O"T 0 . .0<'3 ! 1.1 d ~ .:~r LAW OFO:ICE . VERIFICATION Defendant Delores England as the Executrix of the Estate of Doris Klinger verifies that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer in New Matter to Plaintifrs Complaint are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief and understands that statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to Unsworn Falsification to Authorities. Delores England as th the Estate of Doris Kl Dated: \ ~ ..'" , I, . I . ~ . . . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 13TH day of OCTOBER, 1998,1, C. William Shilling, Esquire, altorney for Defendant aflinm that 1 served the foregoing Answer and New Maller to Plalintitrs Complaint by depositing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: CAROLYN M. ANNER, ESQUIRE HANDLER & WIENER P.O. BOX 1177 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 n ,l"l t;") ,~~~ ,.;) '/I [ ~) ';1 .,.. n . " =11 , I .1 , -.-, n Ul , r , t~) ",1 ,. ! f.") ,'1 ~.J ,,'11 , :<:, -. C:} .) ALAN R. DURNING, III Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW MICHAEL GRIVA and TERESA GRIVA, Husband and Wife, and DOLORES ENGLAND as the Executrix of the Estate of DORIS KLINGER, Defendants : NO. 97-6568-CIVIL TERM : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS To: Defendants, by and through their attorney of record: C. William Shilling, Esquire DEVLIN, KAUFFMAN & SHILLING 100 Pine Street, Suite 300 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Sincerely, / . Anner, Esq. All.<* I,D, # 62636 A rney for Plaintiffs 19 Market Street P.O, Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Dated: October 23, 1998 ALAN R. DURNING, III Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW MICHAEL GRIVA and TERESA GRIV A, Husband and Wife, and DOLORES ENGLAND as the Executrix of the Estate of DORIS KLINGER, Defendants : NO. 97-6568-CIVIL TERM : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS 56. Denied. This ~s a conclusion of law to which no response is required, Should any allegation therein be deemed factual in nature, said allegations are specifically denied, a. Denied. This is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. Should any allegation therein be deemed factual in nature, said allegations are specifically denied. b. Denied. This is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. Should any allegation therein be deemed factual in nature, said allegations are specifically denied. c. Denied, This is a conclusion of Jaw to which no response is required. Should any allegation therein be deemed factual in nature, said allegations are specifically denied. d. Denied, This is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. Should any allegation therein be deemed factual in nature, said allegations are specifically denied. e. Denied. This is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. Should any allegation therein be deemed factual in nature, said allegations are specifically denied. 57. Denied. This is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. Should any allegation therein be deemed factual in nature, said allegations are specifically denied. 58. Denied. This is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. Should any allegation therein be deemed factual in nature, said allegauons are specifically denied, 59. Denied, This is a conclusion of law to which 110 response is required. Should any allegation therein be deemed factual in nature, said allegations are specifically denied. 60. Denied. This is a conclusion of law to which no response is required, Should any allegation therein be deemed factual in nature, said allegations are specifically denied. 61. Denied. This is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. Should any allegation therein be deemed factual in nature, said allegations are specifically denied. 62. Denied. This is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. Should any allegation therein be deemed factual in nature, said allegations are specifically denied, 63, Denied. This is a conclusion of law to which no response is required, Should any allegation therein be deemed factual in nature, said allegations are specifically denied. 64, Denied. This is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. Should any allegation therein be deemed factual in nature, said allegations are specifically denied. 65. Denied. This is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. Should any allegation therein be deemed factual in nature, said allegations are specifically denied. 66. Denied, This is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. Should any allegation therein be deemed factual in nature, said allegations are specifically denied, 67. Denied, This is a conclusion of law to which no response is required, Should any allegation therein be deemed factual in nature, said allegations are specifically denied. 68. Denied. This is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. Should any allegation therein be deemed factual in nature, said allegations are specifically denied. I I! l ~ WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that judgement be entered in their favor and against Defendants. i i ! Date:~Y' I HANDLE:;~~R By / /. Car}lfyn '. Anner, Esquire 1.0. No. 62636 319 Market Street P,O, Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1177 (717) 238-2000 I) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 20th day of October, 1998, I hereby certify that I have, on this date, served the within Response to Defendants' New Matter by sending a true and correct copy of same to his attorney of record via first class United States mail, postage pre-paid and addressed as follows: C, William Shilling, Esquire DEVLIN, KAUFfMAN & SHILLING 100 Pine Street, Suite 300 Harrisburg, PA 17101 HANDLER AND WIENER i i># I I, , (') ~ :i.. :'l:Ir..' [1J IT ; Z,\ Zf;: U'1-.:._ ~.-. ~C ~n "-.'C' >c ~ \D 0) n n ~ N a> (') 'h iJ Ill:!] ~ '.'. !ii ."~r "jl.?, ~.~ ;.),-, d,ln -i ~ i I ! i , I r_ I' I -u :::..: N .. U1 ~ -..~ v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO, 97-6568 - CIVIL TERM ALAN R. DURNING, III, Plaintiff MICHAEL GRIVA and TERESA GRIVA, Husband and Wife, and DOLORES ENGLAND as Executrix of the Estate of DORIS KLINGER: Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, this ~ fh day of ~ , 1999, a Rule is hereby issued upon all Parties to show cause why the Petition of Plaintiff's Counsel for Leave to Withdraw should not be granted, SAID RULE IS RETURNABLE in .,) \) days r ~ BY THE C J. v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 97-6568 - CIVIL TERM ALAN R. DURNING, III, Plaintiff MICHAEL GRIVA and TERESA GRIVA, Husband and Wife, and DOLORES ENGLAND as Executrix of the Estate of DORIS KLINGER: Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PBTITION OP PLAINTIPP'S COUNSEL POR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW The petition of Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire, respectfully represents: 1. Plaintiff, Alan R. Durning, III, is an adult individual who resides at POBox 414, Spring House, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendants, Michael Griva and Teresa Griva, are adult individuals residing at 112 South Enola Drive, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant, Delores England, Executor of the Estate of Doris Klinger, is an adult individual residing at 103 Miller Street, Summerdale, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. Plaintiff filed a Writ of Summons against the Defendanta on or about November 24, 1997. 5. Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the Defendants on or about July 10, 1998. 6. Defendants filed an Answer with New Matter, together with Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents on or about October 13, 1998. 7, Plaintiff filed a Reply to New Matter of Defendants on or about October 23, 1998, 8. On or about December 15, 1998, Defandants scheduled the Deposition of Plaintiff for February 15, 1999, 10. During the time period from October 13, 1998 to the present, petitioner has written and telephoned the Plaintiff numerous times requesting the return of the Answers to Interrogatories of Defendants and notifying the Plaintiff of his scheduled Deposition. 11. Plaintiff has failed to communicate and/or cooperate with his counsel regarding the return of his Answers to Interrogatories and has not returned the same. 12, Plaintiff's Deposition which was scheduled to take place on February 15, 1999 was cancelled due to Plaintiff's failure to communicate with his counsel. 13. petitioner is unable to represent Plaintiff's interests in this action without his cooperation. 14. Petitioner's withdrawal from this action will not prejudice Plaintiff at this time as he will have sufficient time to retain other counsel. 15. petitioner has notified Plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt requested, mailed to his prior address at 403 Washington Avenue, Apartment 3, Sellersville, Pennsylvania, of her intention to withdraw as counsel and received a return receipt dated March 8, 1999 and signed by Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff's counsel, Carolyn M. Anner, respectfully requests This Honorable Court to grant her petition to withdraw as counsel in this matter. HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG 4 ;/ By carolyn MAnner I. D. . 62636 , 319 Market Street - POBox 1177 Harrisburg PA 17108-1177 (717) 238-2000 Date: 1/'10,/1 ~ AI.I.AN R. DURNING, III, Plainliff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMOERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. v. MICHAEL GRIVA AND TERESA GRIVA. as Husband and Wife. and DELORES ENGLAND aslhe executrix of ESTATE OF DORIS KLINGER. Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO, 97-6568. CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CBRTIPICATE OP SBRVICB On this 29th day of March, 1999, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing petition of Plaintiff's Counsel for Leave to Withdraw was served upon the plaintiff and defendants' counsel of record by depositing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, regular service, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: C, William Shilling, Esquire Kauffman & Shilling 100 pine Street, Suite 300 Harrisburg PA 17101 Mr. Allan R. Durning III POBox 414 Spring House PA 19477 HANDLBR, HENNING . ROSENBBRG 1......-' Secretary i , ,. , ~ t 1-: l.\ -:-l -l:l ..." \/.l.! '.','0lS"~~\13d 'lJ ,~," . ," .. 1- "'In" ^ '";i ' : ,- ':'_"1, ;,J lS :Z HJ L -I,V,I fiG A"6'''"lC:. -" '~'~ .J _- L:. .:0 3:' J~':,- 'JJ1U II v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 97-6568 - CIVIL TERM r. r , , i ! I 1 ALAN R, DURNING, III, Plaintiff MICHAEL GRIVA and TERESA GRIVA, Husband and Wife, and DOLORES ENGLAND as Executrix of the Estate of DORIS KLINGER: Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED . MOTION TO MAKB RULB ABSOLUTB Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire respectfully moves This Honorable Court to make absolute the Rule to Show Cause issued on April 9, 1999, and in support states the following: 1. Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire filed a petition to withdraw on April 6, 1999. 2. On April 9, 1999, The Honorable Edward E. Guido, issued a rule on all parties to show cause why Carolyn M, Anner, Esquire should not be allowed to withdraw as counsel for Alan R. Durning, III, said rule ~eturnable in 20 days after service. 3. Said parties have failed to answer the petition to withdraw. WHEREFORE, Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire requests that This Honorable Court make the rule to show cause absolute and grant her petition to withdraw, HANDLER, HE~.tNG I & ROSENBERG By i ,/ Carolyn Ml/Anner I, D. No')}l62636 319 Mar~tSt, - POBox 1177 Harrisburg PA 17108-1177 (717) 238-2000 Date: May 4, 1999 ALLAN R. DURNING, III, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNA, v. MICHAEL GRIV A AND TERESA GRIVA, asllusband and Wife, and DELORES ENGLAND as the executrix of ESTATE OF DORIS KLINGER. Defendants CIVIL ACTION. LAW NO, 97-6~68. CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CBRTIFICATB OF SBRVICE On this 4th day of May, 1999, I hereby certify that a true and cor=ect copy of the foregoing Motion to Make Rule Absolute was served upon the plaintiff and defendants' counsel of record by depositing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, regular service, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: C. William Shilling, Esquire Kauffman & Shilling 100 pine Street, Suite 300 Harrisburg PA 17101 Mr. Allan R. Durning III POBox 414 Spring House PA 19477 HANDLER, BENNING & ROSENBBRG .~ e cfie an E, Green, Secretary .' ALLAN R. DURNING, III. Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - I.A W MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRIV A, husband and wife, and DOLORES ENGLAND, as the Executrix of the Estate of DORIS KLINGER, Defendants 97-6568 CIVIL I I ! I I' i I i. ~ IN RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL . Ail. QRUF.B. AND NOW, this ~ . day of July, 1999, a rule is issued on the plaintiff to show cause why the relief requested in the within motion ought not to be granted. This rule returnable fifteen (15) days after service. BY THE COURT, FllF.D...e, riCE OF T~1F f';.m:'J~'IOTAAY 99 JUL -1 PH 21 21 CUMBERlJlND COUmY PENNSYlVN-/1A ~ f 1 ~ A.~ , ..., ~;'<' ~ ~ THE LAW OFFICES m' DEVLIN, KAUFFMAN & SfIILLlNG ATTORNEY: C. WillIam ShIlIlDIl, Esquire SUPREME COURT I,D, NO, 4699!1 100 PINE STREET, SUITE 300 HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717) 720-0700 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Kllnller ALLAN R. DURNING, III. Plainti ff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRIV A, Husband and Wife, and DOLORES ENGLAND as the Executrix of the Estate of DORIS KLINGER, Defendants CIVIL ACTION. LAW NO. 97-6568 - CIVIL TERM DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL The Defendants, Mici'..llel Griva and Teresa Griva, husband and wife and Dolores England as the Executrix of the Estate of Doris Klinger, Defendants, by and through their counsel, Devlin, Kauffinan & Shilling, hereby file the following Motion to Compel and aver as follows: I. This is a personal injury action instituted by the Plaintiffby Writ on November 25,1997. 2. On June 22,1998, a Rule to File a Complaint was served on the Plaintiff. 3. On or about July 10, 1998, Plaintiff filed his Complaint alleging he sustained lacerations to his right eye, punctures in his right upper and lower eyelid and scratches to the right eye as a result ofan incident involving Defendants' Chihuahua. 4. The Defendants filed an Answer with New Matter together with Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents on or about October 13, 1998. S. Plaintiff filed a Reply to the New Maller of Defendants on or about October 23, 1998. 6. On or about December 15, 1998, the Defendants scheduled the deposition of the Plaintiff for February 15, 1999. 7. The aforementioned deposition was continued at the request of Plaintiffs counsel. 8. On or about March 29, 1999, counsel for the P]aintiff filed a Petition for Leave to Withdraw. 9. On April 9, 1999, a Rule to Show Cause was issued by the Court, said Rule returnable in twenty (20) days after service. 10. On May 7, 1999, the Court made the Rule absolute and the Petition for Plaintiffs counsel to withdraw was granted. A true and correct copy of the Order is marked as Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof. 11. On May 14, 1999, counsel for the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a Notice of Deposition scheduled for June 14, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Deposition is marked as Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof. 12. The Notice of Deposition was sent via Certified Mail to Plaintiffs last known address. I 3. The Return Receipt was signed and returned to the Defendant prior to the scheduled depositions. A true and correct copy of the signed Return Receipt is rnarked as Exhibit "C" attached hereto and made a part hereof. 14. On June 14, 1999, at 10:00 a.m., counsel for the Defendant and the court reporter Wl1re present at counsel for the Defendant's law office to take Plaintiffs deposition. IS. Plaintiff did not show at the appointed time even though defense counsel and the reporter waited 45 minutes for Plaintiff to show. WHEREFORE, the Defendants, Michael Griva and Teresa Griva, husband and wife and , I r Dolores England. as the Executrix of the Estate of Doris Klinger respectfully request this Court enter an Order compelling PI..intiffto appear at depositions at a time to be scheduled. said scheduling to be done within thirty (30) days of the Order. c. Willi illing, Esquire Atty. 1.0.46995 Suite 300 100 Pine Street Harrisburg, P A 17101 (717) 720-0700 Respectfully submitted, EXHIBIT "A" ALAN R. DURNING, III, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 97-6568 - CIVIL TERM I , , I i 1 , v. MICHAEL GRIVA and TERESA GRIVA, Husband and Wife, and DOLORES ENGLAND as Executrix of the Estate of DORIS KI.INGER: Defendants JtTRY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER i ~ ; I AND NOW, this 7~ day of '-nu..;. of Carolyn M, Anner, 1999, upon Esquire, IT IS consideration of the motion . HEREBY ORDERED that the rule issued on all parties in the above- captioned matter dated April 9, 1999, to show cause why Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire should not be allowed to withdraw as counsel for Alan R. Durning, III, is made absolute and the Petition to Withdraw is hereby granted. BY THE COURT, J'i/ c.;,.-..d Pji'..ln I ' J . .... v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 97-6569 - CIVIL TERM ALAN R. DURNING, III, Plaint if f MICHAEL GRIVA and TERESA GRIVA, Husband and Wife, and DOLORES ENGLAND as Executrix of the Estate of DORIS KLINGER: Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire respectfully moves This Honorable Court to make absolute the Rule to Show Cause issued on April 9, 1999, and in support states the following: 1. Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire filed a petition to withdraw on April 6, 1999. 2. On April 9, 1999, The Honorable Edward E. Guido, issued a rule on all parties to show cause why Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire should not be allowed to withdraw as counsel for Alan R. Durning, III, said rule returnable in 20 days after service. 3. Said parties have failed to answer the petition to withdraw. WHEREFORE, caro~yn M. Anner, Esqvire requests that This Honorable Court make the rule to show cause absolute and grant her petition to withdraw. By HANDLER, HENN}NG~~ ROSENBERG ,/ / CarOlyn~Anner I, D. No 62636 319 Mar t St, - POBox 1177 Harrisburg PA 17108-1177 (717) 238-2000 ....,. Date: May 4, 1999 THE LAW OFFICES Of KAUFFMAN & SHILLING ATTORNEY: C. William Shilling. Esquire SUPREME COURT 1.0. NO, 46995 100 PINE STREET, SUITE 300 HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717) 720-0700 I\TTOR,~t:Y FOR: Defendant Klinger I f I I i I ALLAN R. DURNING, III, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA ~v v. MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRIV A, Husband and Wife, and DOLORES ENGLAND as the Executrix of the Estate of DORIS KLINGER, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW 1l NO. 97-6568 - CIVIL TERM NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Allan R. Durning, III 403 Washington Avenue/Apt 3 Sellersville, PA PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants Michael Griva, Teresa Griva and Dolores England as Executrix of the Estate of Doris Klinger, by their attorney C. William Shilling, Esquire will take your deposition at the Law Office ofDevlin, Kauffinan & Shilling, 100 Pine Street, Suite 300, Harrisburg, PeMSylvania, on Monday, June I~ 1999 at 10:00 a.m. for the purpose of discovery and for preservation of testimony for use at trial. C.Wi , I. I ~. I i , I , i J I I i i , ~ ! , ~ EXHIBIT "C" l I f I I I. I ! i i ... i I , & ,3. 0 Addroll8d 10: AIIa.A_.12.. t:lI..ml're I ill Llo 2> '...0:t~ n. r:s +0" PI y c... ^ 1. 3 . . "S:IL.!~~ 5. Rocoivod By: (PrlnINlJmtl) . lCarnIMI.';'" , 1IttMoI2 kw IdcItIonII ~ .~.iteml3."''Wld4b.. aPnnl YOW MmI W IddfwM on NIhWM of INlform to 1heI.. can rltlm tNe _10- eAlacn... fonn to the fronI of the tT\IIIPICe. or on the ba if IP*lI doeI naI .e::':RMLm ~~.,.on.... INilpiece ~!he IIIIcIrI rure.. In. Altum ~ MlIhow 10 whom 1ht 1IUde... deh.-ed 1M Ihe dU - 'V'~b I 0100 _10 rocolvo Iho IoIawtng IOMc:oO (tor 11\ om fool: 1.0 _.....'oAdd1ou 2. 0 R_od DoIIvory CanouII pee_r tor ,... 48. Ar1Ido Numbor P 7 4b. Sol\'tco Typo _ ../'" f o Reglltorod ErCel1lftod II . o Exyoa MAlI 0 lnourod .E ~ ROOIIpC lor MotdlIndIO 0 coo ! .t 7.001001 D 2 ~ 74 8. _....... _OM (Only 1t_1O>1 _ foo ill fM/d) i . t on/) PS Form 3811, Docombor 1_ , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ~day of June, 1999, I, C. William Shilling, attorney for Defendant affirm that I served the foregoing Motion to Compel by depositing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania addressed to: Allan R. Durning, III P.O. Box 414 Spring House, P A 19477 " C') I.!J CJ r:; \'.t:) ~" -r) t.~. , [(''ii, ..- ~;i,' '- -.., ''',1 ~J " C]~ '--J ) r-:' \ CJ ?\; ."J '. f.'} ;...~--: ~ , ) ~...... rr-, :;'" 'i'! ::! C- I;;> :;, -.;: J\i LA W OFFICES OF KARDOS AND GOCII BY: MARK S. KARDOS, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. #22680 1515 Market Street Suite 1510 Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 563.4444 ALLAN R. DURNING, 1lI vs. MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRIV A, husband and wife and DOLORES ENGLAND as the Exeeutrix of the Estate ofDORIS KLINGER Attorney for Plaintiff COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 97-6568 - CIVIL TERM , I I " ! ... I I ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Plaintiff, Allan R, Durning, 1lI, relevant to the above-captioned matter. LA W OFFICES OF KARDOS AND GOCH BY: M S. KARDOS, ESQUIR Attorney for Plaintiff '. ~, , , '., ~ n .F .,.~ 1. L"~.. 01<._.. '/. . -, '" .,. =,--, -;.:, A .......... '1:.>"; ~ ~ i.. t,"C ~""_. ~ tD <0 ~I) '1 -;J I (,.} ~. ~ . i - ~- ::? . ,. 1'._) ~.? ,."1 - ;~ ~] .< U1 ,. ~ . ALLAN R. DURNING, III, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA v. : No.: 97-6568 MICHAEL GRlV A and TERESA GRlV A, : CIVIL TERM Husband and Wife, and DOLORES ENGLAND, as the Executrix of the Estate ofDORlS KLINGER, Defendants ,'# PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: .. Please enter the appearance of Michele 1. Thorp, Esquire. as attorney for Defendants in the above mutter. l , .~ & \. t i , I I f By: Dated: :71711.1 9/IS/oa , I ic e. orp, 're Attorney I.D. No.: 71 I 17 305 N. Front SI., 6th Floor P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PAl 7 I 08-0999 (717)255-7153 n T CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing document in within action was served upon the following by enclosing the same in an envelope addressed as follows, postage prepaid and depositing the same in the United States Mail, First Class Mail, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on the 15th day of September, 1999: Mark S. Kardos, Esquire Kardos & Goch Suite 1510 ISIS Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Attorney for Plaintiffs By: Mich e J. orp, Esq Attorney J.D. 117111 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 255-7153 :71741.1 \Ij~h.:k 1 IlhuT'. I ~li'1I1" "I \!l"rl''',> I \) ....11 ~ Ill' I'IIllU,-'. rim'!....'" 1I.\fEIt, H.P P'hl t IlIl~\' u,~, 'J"'J i1;1lrh1lUtv. P(flf1\)h.lfllol PlllM \lh>l1l\:)l hlr Ikll,:lhlollll, I'T")B~-:'I.~.l 1-.\10111 lllltlllllhl..,,- ,om Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYL VANIA ALLAN R. DURNING, III NO. 97-6568 v. MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRIV A, Husband and Wifc and DOLORES ENGLAND, as thc Executrix oflhe Estate of DORIS KLINGER CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 5th day of January. 2000, I. BARBARA A. ONORATO. a paralegal in the law linn uf Thumas. Thomas & Ilal'cr I.LP, hereby certify that 1 sent a true and correct copy of the furegoing document by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, to thc followmg: Date: January 5, 2000 Mark S. Kardos, Esquirc Kardos & Guch Suitc 1510 1515 Market Strect Philadelphia.PA 19102 ~U Attorney for Plaintiffs , . . Barbara A. Onorato t.:gal Assistant ~ COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ALLAN R. DURNING, III Plaintiff v. NO. 97.6568 MICHAEL GRIV A und TERESA GRIV A, Husbund und Wife ct ul Defcndunts CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Custodian of Records, Mitchell R. Davis, M.D. (Name 01 P."""... Entity) Wllhin rwenty (20) days after ser..-ice of thiS subpoena. you are ordered by the court to produc:e ttle roUewing documenll Of' 1hinQ1: All medical reports, treatment notes, test resulls, correspondence, etc. for treatment rendered on behalf of Allan R. Durning, Ill, dloIb: 4123/64; ssn: 225.96.5310 al THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP, 305 N. Front Street, POB 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108 (Addnlll ) You may deh....er Of ma~ legIble copies 01 the dcx:uments Of produce things requested by tNs lubpoena. too_ther WIth the certJftcale of complianclt, to lhe party making this request al the addrell IIsled above. You have the right to II.. in advlnC6, the reatonable COlt of preparing the copies or pfOCludn; the things sought If you fall to produce the documents Of thIngs reqUired by lhis subpoena. within twenty t20) ~ after itlllf\tlCl. U"Ie party ......ing tN, lubpoena may seek a court ordet compelling you 10 comply With It. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: P","""""",'Clerll, CJv~ Oivi_ NAME Michele J Thoro Esouire AOORESS 305 N Front Street POB 999 J:I~rQ PA 17108 TELEPHONE f7171237.7153 SUPREME COURT 10 No 71117 A TTORNEV FOR Defendants lloputy I I I DATE: 1/06/00 Seal of the Court [, !. ~ . r~- r- ~' COMMONWEAL TIi.QU'ENNSYL VANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND .-\LLA:-.l R DL'RNI:'oiG, III Plaintiff v. NO. 97-6568 MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRI V A, Husband and Wife et al Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Custodian 01 Records, Temple University (Name of PlBOn 01 Enul"f) With." m.nry (20) days Iftlr Hl"f1C8 d IJ1rS subpoena, you are OIdered by the cour1 to produce the ,oIIowtng documenll or lhlngl: All student records including apphcallon for enrollment, academiC records, allendance records, nurse's station records, medical records, correspondence, elc., on behalf of Allan R Dumlng. Ill, d101b: 4/23/64; ssn: 225-96.5310 ., THOMAS. THOMAS & HAFER, lLP. 305 N. Front Street. POB 999. Harrisburg, PA 17108 ~ (AddreSS) You may dlllver at malt legible topieI 01 "" dcXuInenll 01 produce things reques18d by till. SUbpoena, together 'Mlh the cenlf'lc.1l1 of tomPlianc.. to U'Ie patty malting this request il tne add...... li518d abOve You hay' the right to ..., in acNance. the l'8asonable cost of prep.inng II1e coplO' at producing Ihe lItngs sougI1l I' yOU tal! 10 PtOdUCllhe documents 01 thlng$ requited by ttus subpoena, WIU'un lWenry (20) days after itS secvU. the pany ur..1ng tNlsubpoellil may seek a court Older compelling yOU 10 comply WIth II THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOllOWING PERSON: ProlhonolM'jlClorll. 0viI OM_ NA~IE Michele J Thoro Esouire AOORESS 305 N Front Street POB 999 Hamsburo PA 17108 TelEPHONE 1717l237.7153 SUPREME COURT 10 No 11117 ATT0RNEY FOR Defendants Oojluly DATE 1106/00 Seal of the Court COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ALLAN R. DURNING, 111 Plaintiff v. NO. 97-6568 MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRIV A, Husband and Wife et al Dcfcndants CIVIL ACTION- LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Custodian 01 Records, Hershey Medical Cenler (Name 01 P."on 01 ElUyl Within twenty (20) dayslfter ~ice 01 lhilIUbpOena. you are Of'dered by the court 10 produce the fdIowiog documentl Of' thtngs: All medical reports, treatmenlnoles, test results, correspondance, etc. lor treatment rendered on behalf 01 Allan R. Durning, III, dloIb: 4/23/64; ssn: 225-96.5310 al THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP, 305 N. Front Street, POB 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108 (Address) You may delIVer Of mall legible copMlS 01 the doCumenll Of' produce things requested by Ihis subpoena. together with the ceruf'ICaI' of complllnce. 10 trll pany making lhis reqUell al the address lisled above. You have the righllO seek, In advance. the reasonable cosl of prepanng the coptil Of producing the things sought. It you lail to produce the documents OlIhiogS tequired by this subpoena. WIthin twenty 120) days aner its .ervice, the party 181'\1ing lhis subpoena may seek a court order compelling you 10 compty witn it THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSLlED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: Prolhonotart/Cler1l;. Civil Divilion NAME Michele J Thoro. Esoulre AOORESS 305 N Fronl Street POB 999 HarnsburQ PA 17108 TELEPHONE 1717\ 237-7153 SUPREME COURT 10 No 71117 ATTORNEY FOR Delendants Deputy DATE: 1/06/00 Seal of the Court COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ALLAN R. DURNING, 111 PlaintilT v. NO. 97-6568 MICHAEL GRIVA rnd TERESA GRIV A, Husband and Wife et al Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009 22 TO: Custodian of Records, Veterans Administration Hospital, Philadelphia (Name 01 Person Of Entity) Withtn rwtInry (20) days attar MMe' of INs subpoena. you are oroered by the cour1lo producelhe tQilowing documenw 0( lhlngt All medical reports, treatment notes, test results, correspondence, etc. for treatment rendered on behalf of Allan R. Durning, III, cJlolb: 4/23/64; ssn: 225-96-5310 at THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP, 305 N. Front Street, POB 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108 (Address) You may deUver or mail legible copies at the ooeumenlS or produce things f'l'tqUllted by this subpoena. toyether WIth the certificate of compliance. to the party makang 1M request at the address listed a~'. You hav. the righl to seek. in advance, the reasonable cost of prepanng th, copies or prOducmg lhe things sought If you faille produce the documents 0llhu'lgS required by Ulis subpoena, Wllhln I'Nenfy (20)~. after its S8r'tU. the party serving this subpoena may seek a court croer compeUing you to comply wilh it THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: ProIhonotaryJOer1e. Civil Division NAME Michele J Thoro Esquire ADDRESS 305 N Front Street POB 999 Harrisburo PA 17108 TELEPHONE (717)237-7153 SUPREME COURT 10 No. 11111 ATTORNEY FOR Defendant Cepuly DATE: 1/06/00 Seal of the Court COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVAMlA CQUtlTY OF CUMBERLAND ALLA:'oO R. DURNING, 111 Plaintin' v. NO. 97-6568 MICHAEL GRIV A amI TERESA GRIV A, Husband und Wife el al Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009 22 TO: Custodian of Records, Veterans Administration Hospital, Camp Hill (Namo 01 Po""" 01 En'lyl Wlttun !WIney 120) days an.r "1\'0 01 UlII subpoena, you are ordered by !he court 10 produce Ulelollowing documents or thingS" All medical reports, treatmenl notes, lest results, correspondence, elc. for tredtmenl rendered on behalf or Allan R Durning. III. dlolb: 4/23/64; ssn: 225-96.5310 ..THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER. LLP, 305 N. Front Streel, POB 999, Harrisburg, PA 1710B (Addreul ~ You may deliver Of' rN~ legible copieS of the documents 01 produce things requested by this subpoena. logelher with the certlrlCate of compllOJnce. to the patty rNklOQ lhlS request at the address bilttd abov'. You have the nghl 10 seek. in advance. the reasonable cosl rJ pr.pa~ In. topfes Of' PfedUClng the things s.oughl It you fad to produce the documents Of LhingS requited by thillubpoena, Within lWtnry (20) days ane, ill servICe. the party serving thillubpoena may seek a court Of'der compelling vou to comply WIth II THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: Pfttthonotary/CIertI. Civil Division NAME Michele J Thoro ESQuire AOORESS 305 N Front Slreel POB 999 HarrisburQ PA 17106 TELEPHONE /7171237.7153 SUPREME COURT 10 No 71117 ATTORNEY FOR Defendants OeP'ly DATE 1/06/00 Seal of the Court COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ALLAN R. DURNING, III PlaintilT v. NO. 97-6568 MICHAEL GRIV A amI TERESA GRIV A, Husband and Wife et al Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009 22 TO: Custodian 01 Records, Premier Eye Care (Name of Person or Enbl'f) Wilhlll MInty (1:0) days aIt.r HrilC.e oIlhl$ s.ubpOlN. you are ordered by the court to produce ane foUowlng doCuments OItIlingl All medical reports, treatment notes, test resulls, correspondence, etc. lor treatment rendered on behalf 01 Allan R Durning, Ill, dloIb: 4/23/64; ssn: 225-96-5310 01 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, llP, 305 N. Front Street, POB 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108 (Addtell) You may deliver 01 ma~ IeCJlblfl c.optes 01 the documents Of produce thtngS requeSled by this subpoena, together WIth the certitlata 01 comphanc.. 10 the party maklllQ thiS requ..1 at the ~rell Itsled abo\te You hOIve the ngtlf to leek, in advance. the reasonable GOSI 01 prepanng the CopJl'lS 01 prodUCIng the thingS IOUghI If yOU rad 10 prOduct tne documents or thlflOS l'8QWled by thl. subpOena. WIthin l'Nenly l20) days after ils sef"ilce. U\e party ..rvtng tttiS subpoenol may seek a court ordM compelllnQ yOU to compfy Wttn II THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOllOWING PERSON: ~roIhonoIatyIClert<. eMl 0Msi0n NAME Michele J Thoro EsoUlre AOOAESS 305 N Front Street. POB 999 HarnsburQ PA 17108 TELEPHONE (717\ 237. 7153 SUPREME COURT 10 No 71 t 17 A rTOANEv FOA Defendants Ilopuly DATE. 1/06/00 Seal of the Court COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ALLAN R. DURNING, III Plaintiff NO. 97.6568 v. MICHAEL GR1V A and TERESA GRlV A, Husband and Wife ct al Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009 22 TO: Custodian of Records. Holy Spirit Hospital (Name 01 P."on '" EnlIly) Withln l\Iwenty (20) days aftif' S.rvlC. d ltuS subpoena. you are OId.red by IN COUIt to produce IhI 'oDowing documents 0( thing.: All medical reports. trealmenl notes. lest results. correspondence. etc. for treatment rendered on behaif of Allan R. Durntng. III. d/oIb: 4123/64: ssn: 225-96-5310 al THOMAS. THOMAS & HAFER. LLP. 305 N. Front Street. POB 999, Harrisburg, PA 17106 (Addres.) You may deW"" or mad MsgIbIe copies cline documents Of produce thingS taquelted by em wbpoena. together with the certillcale 0' compliance. 10 the party making ltuI reque'l al lhe a<klress listed abOve You have the ~ 10 .eeK, in advance. the reasonable cost 01 pr.paon; tN CQplll or produa'19 !he things sought If you fOl~ 10 produce the documents or lhinQI required by this subpoena. WIthin t'Nenly (201 days after it. lervce, the party serving this subpoena may leek a court order compelling you 10 comply wnh It. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: Pro_rylClert<. Civil Oivllion NAME Michele J Thoro EsoUlre AOORESS 305 N Front Streel POB 999 Harrisburo PA 17106 TELEPHONE J1j71237-7153 SUPREMECOURTIONo 71117 ATTORNEY FOR Derandants Depuly DATE 1/00100 Seal of the COurt Ml~hch: J 1111lfl'. h~UII\' SLAllomC) III f'\i\I. 71117 TIlm'As. TIIOMAS" IIAfF.II.I.I.P Plhl omc~ 00.\ lJ9lJ 1llIlTllburf" rClIIu)hitllUOI 171lJM AlhIlTlC)' li,r Ikfl:IlUimlS \1171)1I.7Il.l 1..M.1l1 I1IJI,.~dlhll1",.,"1l1U ALLAN R. DURNING, III IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. NO. 97.6568 MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRIV A, Husband and Wife and DOLORES ENGLAND, as the Executrix of the Estate of DORIS KLINGER CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF SUBPOENAS DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 As a prerequisite 10 service of subpoenas for documenls and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Defendant certifies that: (1) A notice of intenlto serve the subpoena with a ((lOY of the subpoenas altached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sough I to be served. (2) A copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is altached to this certificate. (3) Mark Kardos, Attorney for the Plaintiff, has waived the 2D-<lay rule; 4) The subpoenas which will be served are idenlicalto the subpoena which are altached to the notice of inlentto serve the subpoena. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER UP Dall': January 10, 2000 ,\IIl,;h\'Il; J IIl1l1p. 1'~4UIl\' S\Altum..:) IIJ No 71111 'film.,,,, fIIn.\IAS'" IIAFI:K. I.\.p l'mIUlli!.:cllu\IJ<N Ilolnl~huriJ.II"IIl\)halllil IilllM ^llllnlC) _ fm ndcnt!i\l1l~ 11111 !1l.1151 1-.M.1l1 IUJlu~llhli'\lit.:UlU Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYL VANIA ALLAN R. DURNING, III v. NO. 97-6568 MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRIV A, Husband and Wife and DOLORES ENGLAND, as thc Executrix ofthc Estatc ofDORIS KLINGER CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Dcfendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - '- AND NOW, this 10TH day of January, 2000, I, BARBARA A. ONORATO, a legal Assistant atlhe law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer llP, hereby certify that I sent a true and correct copy of the foregoing document by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, 10 the following: Date: January 10, 2000 Mark S. Kardos, Esquire Kardos & Goch Suite 1510 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, P A 19102 Attorney forpainti~s 0 [)IvULUA- . ~ Barbara A. Onorato legal Assistant \ll\.hd~ J rhlllp. t-~ulr~ ~t"llilml:>,I() r-.u 11ll' T1lmhS, THlJ\I,\S'" II,\F[II. L1.r ;"lltOllicc IJo:\ 1")11 IhllTlsburll. Penn:f)lyutu;l 111UaI t\nIlMll:~ 1 lor lkl(!\doanb 17111 !:,:,."IH l>\l./.Il mJI'i;tllhl~" ;;tlm Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ALLAN R. DURNING, 1Il v. NO. 97.6568 MICHAEL GRIVA and TERESA GRlV A, Husband and Wife and DOLORES ENGLAND. as the Executrix of the Estate of DORIS KLINGER CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENAS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009,2} Defendants inlend to serve subpoenas identical to the ones that are attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from lhe date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoenas. If no objection is made, the subpoenas will be served. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER LLP Dale: January 5,2000 By: l!lJil~z'0 ,J{tIr "' {/{jtfffJftEL~ORP Attorney for Defendants \lId1..:h: J 1l11ufI. I.~Ulll: SIAnumc) I U NIl '111'7 TII11.\I,\S, TllmIAS" 1I,\f[H.I.I.P 1'\I,IOllh:l:~n'IiJlJ 11iJ.lThhutll. P~nn,)'I"'iJ.lIlil 11111K Altum..:), lilt lkh:nJOIllb 1717115~.'1 ~J r.~tOlII MlJI{iillhIOlW ~u'" ALLAN R. DURNING, 1\1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. NO. 97-6568 MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRtV A, Husband and Wife and DOLORES ENGLAND, as the Executrix of the Estate of DORIS KLINGER CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A:-ID :'iOW, thIS 5th day oUanuary. 2000, I, BARBARA A. ONORATO. a paralegal in the law lirm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer LLP, hereby certify that I sent a :rue and correct copy of the foregoing document by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid. to the follOWing: Date: January 5, 2000 Mark S. Kardos, Esquire Kardos & Goch Suite 1510 ISIS Market Street Philadelphia,PA 19102 h.....lu....,(U Attorney for Plaintiffs , Barbara A. Onorato legal Assistant ~ ~ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVMM COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ALLAN R. DURNING, III Plaintiff NO. 97-6568 v. MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRIV A. Husband and Wife ct al Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JUR \' TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009 22 TO: Custodian or Records, Mitchell R Davis, M.D. (Name ~f Person or Entity) WIthin twenty (201 day. Inet seNice of IhISIUbpoen.l, you are ordered by the coul1lo produce the 'oll~ documenll or things: AU medical reports, treatment notes, test results, correspondence, elc. for treatment rendered on behalf of Allan R. Durning, lit, dlolb: 4/23/64; ssn: 225-96-5310 0' THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP, 305 N. Front Street, POB 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108 (Add"'''' You may dehvet or mall legIble copieS cJ the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, logethet with the certifICate 01 compliance. to the party making this request al the address listed above. You hall. the right 10 s_. in advance. the reasonable cosl 01 ptepanng the COpI.S or ptooucing the things soughl If yoo rad 10 produce the documents or lhings requited by this subpoena. within tv.'enty 1201 days after its service. tlle party leNing lh4s subpoel'la may seek 3 tourt ordet compelling you 10 comply With It THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: Prolhonola'YlCleI1<. Civil ~ NAME Michele J Thoro ESQuire ADDRESS 305 N Front Street POB 999 Harrisburo PA 17108 TELEPHONE /7171237-7153 SUPREME COURT 10 No 11117 ATTORNEY FOR Defendants Deputy DATE: 1/06100 Seal of the Court CQMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANJA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ALLA:-.I R. DL:RNING, III Plaintiff v. NO. 'J7-6568 MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRIV A, Husbanu and Wirc et al Defcndants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009 22 TO: Custodian of Records, Temple University (Name 01 Person or Entity) 'Mthin twenty (20) days aner IIMce d lhis subpoena. you are ordered by tne court to produce the 10I0wtng document. 01 thing.: All student records including application ror enrollment, academic records, attendance records, nurse's station records, medical records, correspo~dence, etc.. on behatf of Allan R. Durning, ttl, d/olb: 4/23/64; ssn: 225-96-5310 01 THOMAS. THOMAS & HAFER. LLP, 305 N. Fronl Slreet, POB 999, Harrisburg, PA 17106 IAdd....1 You may debver or mall legIble copies 0' the doc.uments 01 produce things requested by this lubpoena, together Wlltl the certlftcate of compliance. to ~ party making lhas request al the address Iisled abOve You have the righllo lee<<. in advance. the reasonable eosl 0' prepanng the topllS or produUlg the lhings sought. If you fa~ to produce the documenlS or lhings requiled by this $Ubpoena, within twenty (20) days aner its SINCe. the party lINing this subpoena m.ty seek iI coun Otder compelbng you 10 comply WIth it THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: ProthonOtarylClert(. Ci...lI OMsion NAME Michele J Thoro Esauire ADDRESS 305 N Front Slreet. POB 999 Harrisburo PA 17106 TELEPHONE' (7171237-7153 SUPREME COURT 10 No 71117 ATTORNEy FOR Defendants Deputy DATE 1'06100 Seal of lhe Court COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYL'iAt'lJA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ALLAN R. DURNING. III PlaintilT \'. NO. 1)7-6568 MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRIV A. Husband and Wile el al Dclendanls CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 400922 TO: Custodian or Records, Hershey Medical Center {Name 01 Penon 01 Entity) INilntn IWency (20) days.fter IelVlCe oi tIlIlSUbpOena. you are ordered by the coun 10 produce the rolkJwing documents or thKlgs: All medical reports, treatment notes, test results, correspondence, etc. for treatment rendered on behalf of Allan R Durning, III, dlolb: 4/23/64; ssn: 225-96-5310 at THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP, 305 N. Front Street, POB 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108 lAddIe") You may d.i1....t or mad legible topMtS of tne dOCuments Of ptodUC8 Uungs (equaled by (Jus subpoena, Iogemer Wtth the certifICate 01 compliance. to the party making ltuI tequI" at the address listed above You have the rlghl to seek, in advance. the reasonable coli 01 prepanng II1e copleS 01 prodUClllg II1e lh"'llS sought II you lad to produce the documents or Irllngs requiled by U'US subpoena. WIthin twenty (20) days an" ItS service. the party lINing this subpoena may "ok a coul1 Otdel compelling you 10 campIy With Il THIS SUB?OENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: ProthonOtary/C"~. Civil Division NAME MiChele J Thoro EsoUlre AOORESS 305 N Front Streel POB 999 Harnsburo PA 17108 TELEPHONE. 17171237-7153 SUPREME COURT 10 No 71117 A TIORNEY FOR Defendants Deputy DATE 1106/00 Seal of the Court COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANlPl COUNTY OF CUMBERLAtlQ ALLAN R. DURNING. III PlaintiO' v. NO. 97-6568 MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRIV A. Husb.lI1d and Wife el al Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Custodian of Records, Velerans Administration Hospital, Philadelphia (Name 01 Penon 01 Enoly) Within lWenty 120) day. aRet HMce ~ U'us subpoena, you are oruered by the cout1 10 ptOdoeIthe 1~loWIng dOCument. or things' All medical reports, treatment noles, test results, correspondence, etc. lor treatment rendered on behall of Allan R. Durning, III, dlolb: 4123/64; ssn: 225.96.5310 al THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP, 305 N. Front Street. i'OB 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108 I-I You may deli'll' Of' mall legible copieS 01 the documents 01 produce things requn&ed by this subpoena. together with the certificate of compJ~nce. 10 the party making hi request at the add!e" listed abolle, You haYllht righllo seek. In advance, the reasonable COil 01 prepanng the copies or prQduclOg lhIlhingSlOUghI I' you 'a~ 10 ptoduce the documents Of things required by thia lubpoena, W\lhln twenty (20) days after itsleNice, the party SllVing thilsubpoena may leek a coun ordet compelbng you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: PnlchonolarylCIeI1c. CMI Oivi."," NAME Michele J Thoro ESQUIre ADDRESS 305 N Front Streel PCB 999 Harrisburo PA 17108 TELEPHONE /7171237-7153 SUPREME COURT 10 No 71117 ATTORNEY FOR Defendant Oepuly DATE: 1106/00 Seal 01 the Court COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ALLAN R. DURNING. III PlainlilT v. NO. 97.6568 MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRIV A. Husband and Wife et al Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LA W JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Custodian of Records, Veterans Administration Hospital, Lebanon lNameofPonon",Enuly) Within twenty 1201 days anet IItvice ollhd subpOena, you are ordeted by the court SO produca Ule rOllowing documenll or INngs: All medical reports, treatment notes, test results, correspondence, etc. for treatment rendered on behall of Allan R. Durning, III, dlolb: 4/23/64; ssn: 225.96.5310 at THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP, 305 N. Front Street, PCB 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108 1-'" You may dell....r Of mall legible Copl8l 01 the documents 01 produce UllnOs requesaed by this subpoena. together W1lh the certifICate of compliance, 10 the party makltlQ lhis request al the addre... bled above. You ha'ete &he righllO seek. in advance. the teasonable coat ot prepanng the COpieS or PtcxlUCIOO the thlngs sought I' you lad to ptodUCl the documents or thulgs tequited by this subpOena. Within rw.tnty (20) days after ill service. the party .......ing IhilaubpOlna may seek a court order compelling you to compt)' WIth II THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOlLOWING PERSON: _IYiClerll, Civi OMolon NAME Michele J Thoro Esouire AODRESS 305 N Front Street POB 999 HarrisburQ PA 17108 TELEPHONE l717\237-7153 SUPREME COURT 10 No 71117 A rTORNEY FOR Defendants Oepuly DATE: 1106100 Seal of lhe Court i L !- t [ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ALLAN R. DURNING. III Plaintiff v NO. 97-6568 MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRIV A. Husband and Wifc et al Defcndants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009 22 TO: Custodian of Records, Premier Eye Care IName 01 P.""" or Enuryl WlthIn....nty (20) days after ~C8 oIlhll Sl'bpOeN. ~ IfI crdered by tne coort to produce tne following dOCuments 0( thIngS, All medical reports, treatment notes, test results, correspondence, etc. for treatment rendered on behalf 01 Allan R Durning, III, dlolb: 4/23/64; ssn: 225.96.5310 al THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP, 305 N. Front Street, POB 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108 (AddreSS) You (Ny deliver 01 ma~ ~ coptel 01 the dowments 01 produce It'IlOQS requested by this IUbpoena. lOgether with the certdlcate 01 compliance, to the party ITQIting thIS requeSI at the address listed abOve You ha.... the ngN to seek. in advance. d'le reasonab6e cosl 01 prepanno the copl4lS Of produtilg !he dw'Q'S sought I' yOU lad to produce the doCuments 01 things tIQuired by this IUbpoena. WIthin IWenIy' (20) days ane, ils seMce. IJ'\e ~rty HNing Ubs subpoena may seek a COUrl Ofd't compelling you 10 compfy With it THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: Prothonotat'llClertt. Civ~ OMsion NAME Michele J Thoro Esouire ADDRESS 305 N Front Street POB 999 HarnsburQ PA 17108 TELEPHONE 17171237-7153 SUPREME COURT 10 No 71117 ATTORNEY FOR Defendants Dtpury DATE: 1/06/00 Sea! of the Court COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Al.LAN R. DllRNING, III Plaintiff v. NO. 97-6568 MICHAEL GRIVA and TERESA GRIV A. Husband and Wife Cl al Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED su.aE.OENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009 22 TO: Custodian of Records, Holy Spirit Hospital (Name 01 p......,,,, Enbly) W1lhln lWenty (20) days alter se~ite of lhls subpOena. you are Of'dered by \he COOrl to produce the folIawVlg doCumenls or lhingl All medical reports, trealment notes. test results, correspondence, etc. for treatment rendered on behalf of Allan R Durning, III, d/oIb: 4123/64; ssn: 225-96.5310 al THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP, 305 N. Front Slreet, POB 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108 (Add<tss) You may deliV1!r or mad legitN coptes 01 the documents Of' produce things requested by this lUbpoeOi. together With !he cerb1icate 01 compliance, to the party making lhI$ request at the addt8SS listed abOve. You hon-e the right 10 seek. in advance. the reasonable COli 01 prepanng the copies Of PfoduGing the things sought I' you 'aM 10 produce lhe documents or ttungs required by tniJ subpoena. withlf'l twenty (20) days aftef' its Mf\tice. the Plrty liNing ttUI subpoena may leek a toUl1 order compelling you 10 compty with it THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: PIOII1Gno/aIyiClet1l.CMlllivlSlOt\ NAME Michele J Thoro Esouire AOORESS 305 N Front 5lreet POB 999 Harrisburo PA 17108 TELEPHONE (7171237-7153 SUPREME COURT 10 No' 7'117 ATTORNEY FOR Defendants Oepuly DATE: 1/06/00 Seal of lhe Court '.11.:l1cl..: j I hurl'. I '><jUH\' '11 \:h'tn,,;~ I D 'I;,,'! 11-' 111(1\1", rtI(1\1AS 1Io1l\FF.K. II.' 1\I~t ellll";": BIl\ 'i'I'i II.li!1~hur ~_ I'.:htl" 1\.1'1101 I" J IJ.!t \lhlr1h:~ ~ 11'1 IklcHJ.UlI~ lil"!l ~~~.11.H t .~IOId lT1Jll~ lthlil"l:Um PlainliO' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYL VANIA r ALLAN R. DURNING. \II \'. NO. 97-6568 , MICHAEL (jRIV A and TERESA GRIV A, Husband and Wife and DOLORES ENGLAND, as the Executrix of the Estate of DORIS KLINGER CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants RULE TO SHOW CAUSE . .. , ,#- \ AND NOW, this ~ ". day of to .~ . 1999, upon consideration of the attached Motion of Defendants to Compel Plaintiffs Answers to Interrogatories and Responses to Request for Production of Documents. shall be produced or show cause why Defendants' Motion should not be granted. RULE RETURNABLE U> DAYS FROM DATE OF SERVICE BY THE COURT: / / 2;,i:~ J /- ':;05.00 RHoS " \ I ~ , ',I \1.;';- {':11.':'.:>'~'~ I"""~'" ,'. ^.lI".! L_~' j , . ::':'-, '1\:::::;;:'! ~~i;;~ Cl~ ).. i t'~ " :\.11.:h~k J lhlllP, 1""'~lIr!: "Il.>\llc'r1\( " IIJ \\1 ~ III ~ r , l f I I I TUO\l~S, ruO\IAS" tIMER. \.LP Po)l {llrl~!: Ikl\ Ijl)'J iliJ.rTl~burv. i'cnlu)h,ami& 1110K Atllln1C:)') fur l.>cfc:nJOUlls t717,~5~.1I.U r.M.ul nljtt4nh1a" ,urn Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ALLAN R. DURNING. III v. NO. 97-6568 MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRIV A, Husband and Wife and DOLORES ENGLAND, as the Executrix of the Estate ofDORIS KLINGER CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants AND NOW, this ORDER day of . 1999, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion to Compel, it is hereby ordered that Defendants' Motion is granted. Plaintiff is to provide full and complete responses to Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for Production within days of the date of this Order or suffer sanctions. BY THE COURT: J, \ltd~dc J 1111111', I \~lllf': "I \llp1I1C\ III Su "'! ll~ 1110\1-\'. UIO\I" J. 1I-\l-'t'H.. 1.1." f'lJ,llllrll.~~' B,n 'I'I'! IloI.rr',hul~, 1'~'llIb)I\",l1lol 171u/l. ,\lh'O\C)~ fur (l..:!i:Ill!anls ('PI~:i5,71!'.' I .\IJd IIlJt~lllhliJ.\\ ~\JIIl ALLAN R. DURNING, III IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYL VANIA Plaintiff v. NO. 97-6568 MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRIV A. Husband and Wife and DOLORES ENGLAND, as the Executrix of the Estate of DORIS KLINGER CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants MOTION TO COMPEL OF DEFENDANTS 1. On October 18, 1999, Defendants, Michael Griva and Theresa Griva, Husband and Wife and Dolores England, as the Executrix of the Estate of Doris Klinger, served Plaintiff, Allan R. Durning, III, with Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Exhibit A). 2. On December 8,1999, and thereafter on December 29,1999, Counsel for the Defendants requested responses to the Discovery (Exhibit B). 3. As of January 13, 2000, no response or objections have been served on Defendants' Counsel. 4. Rule 4009(b)(2) requires that Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents be answered within thirty (30) days. 5. Plaintiff has failed to respond to the discovery efforts on behalf of Defendants. 6. Plaintiffs failure to respond to discovery is delaying Defendant's efforts to move this case to conclusion. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an order compelling Plaintiff to fully and completely answer their Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents within thirty (30) days or suffer sanctions in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure upon subsequent motion on behalf of Defendants. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Date: January 18, 2000 By.~iJ1rf- Mich e J. hor quire Attorney 1.0. # 71117 P.O. Box 999 305 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717)237-7153 Attorney for Defendants --.. MH:hch: J rhl1rp. h4u1rl' StAII'lm&:) I,fl Nu '11117 TIIIlMA.~, TIIO,\lAS " IIAt'[K. !.I.P PUll Otrll.7C Hu' 'NI) Il.nmhurlj:, l'cnn})hOlIllOl 11111~ AltOOlt)i lor DcfcnJ,U!hi (117,J55.715) f.Milll nlJl(!l.uhlil\\1:U1l1 ----- -_.------ -- ,---- _.._,-_._--_.---_._---_._"----'--_.._^~-_._..__.__._~- Plainti ff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA , ALLAN R. DURNING, III ! !il4! v. NO. 97-6568 MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRIV A, Husband and Wife and DOLORES ENGLAND, as the Exccutrix of the Estate of DORIS KLINGER CIVIL ACTION - LAW , i~ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES Rules 4006(a) (2) and 4009 (b)(2) require that answers to Interrogatories and i I I I I- t': Defcndants responses to Request for Production be made within thirty (30) days, Such responses have not been made. Rule 4019(a)(1) permits the Court to make an Order conceming the (i) failure to answer Interrogatories and (vi) failure to respond to a request for production. Mlc e J. horp E No. 71117 P,O. Box 999 305 N. Front Street Harrisburg. PA 17108-0999 (717)237-7153 Attomey for Defendants Date: January 18.2000 - ,-i,;.\jk-;~;:"- - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, thil: 13th day of January, 2000, I, Barbara A. Onorato, of the law firm of ,. Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, hereby certify that I sent a true and correct copy of the foregoing document by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, first class, ....,. postage prepaid, to the following: Mark S. Kardos, Esquire Kardos & Goch Suite 1510 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Attorney for Plaintiffs i.. ,jL~Ut {(, [,_eu;(r Barbara A, Onorato 717-237-7153 mjl@nhlaw.eom October 11. 1999 Mark S. Kardos, Esquire Kardos & Goch Suite 1510 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Re: Durulug v, Grlva Cumberlaud C.c.P. No.: 97-6568 Our File No.: 610-9\308 Dear Mr. Kardos: Enclosed please find Interrogalories and Request for Production of Documents directed to your client in the above c1ptioned matter. Please contact me at your earliest convenient;e should you have any questions concerning either documents. ' Best regards. Thomas, Thomas & Hafer. LLP B(C (0) ~y Barbara A. Onorato, Legal Assistant MJT/bao Enclosure cc: Bruce Riley, ST. PAUL COMPANIES (Claim No.: 9100-004873-01-1) (wI encl.) I .\11,,;h\:I~ J 11111'll' r~lllt~ \I,'lIll111\:~ III .'11 1111' T1ltl\l.\S. Tlltl\l.\S" 1I.\1F.II.I.I.r l'ultOlli':I;UU\'Jl)lJ II~rfhhutV' l'iOM,,,I'loOlUIOI 171l/rM ,\11\1111\0\' IIIf Ikh:lwoiUb t -,- I ~~~. i I ~J I.-\I.ul "'JII'41111101" 101111I Plainti IT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYL VANIA ALLA;-.l R. DURNING. III v. NO. 97-6568 ~IICHAEL GRIVA and TERESA GRIV A. Husband and Wife and DOLORES ENGLAND, as the Executrix of the Estate of DORIS KLINGER CIVIL ACTION - LA W JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants I.VTERROG-ITORIES OF DEFE.VD-I,vTS DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIOC'iS of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. you are required to forward a copy to the undersigned and retain the original 0 f your Answers and objections. if any. in writing and under oalh. to lhe following Interrogalories, wilhin thirty (30) days of service hereof. The Answers shall be insert<'Il in the spaces provided following each Interrogatory. If there is insufficient space to answer an Interrogatory, the remainder of the Answer shall follow on a supplemental sheet. DF.FI'iITlO'iS .\ 'i0 I'iSTRl'CTIO"iS ..\. "DOCl':\IE:-iT" - wrilings or recordings of any kind. whelher handwriuen. typed. or primed. and including, bul not limit<'Il to. letters. memoranda. bulletins. orders. photogrJphs. microlilms. resolutions. books. computer printouts. com puler cards. papers. pamphlets. notebooks. diari~s, not~s. r.'wrding lap~s, lc:1:ording discs. r~cording wircs, manuals. rcgulations, rules. and lomls. B. "IDENTIFY" , whcn used wilh reli:rence 10 a pcrson. shall m.:-.m and include the full name, prcsenl or last known business address, and i I' an individual, pr.'Senl or last known home adJrcss; each of his or h~r employers titles with respecl 10 the pcriod covered by these Il1Ierrogatories; a d~scription ,of each dUly and responsibililY held by each such individual. When useJ with reli:renc.'S 10 a documenl or wriling. the work "identify" shall mean to include the dale it was wrinen: idenlify each pcrson to whom it was addressed and identify each person 10 whom a copy was identilied as being dirccted. id~ntify each person who received a copy of lhe document or wriung with a description of lhe document or writing as lor inslance. "Iener", "memorandum": include the presentlocalion and identify ils custodian. If any document or wriling is no longer in your possession or subjecl to your control, state what disposition was made of iI, the rcason for such disposition.lhe date thereof. and identify its current or last known location and custodian. C. "CO:'iCER.'i", "CO:\CER.'iED", or "CO:'iCER.'iI:\G" - means referring or relaling to. pertaining 10, commenting on, or ~onnr.clcd wilh. in any manner whalSOever. D. "YOl;", "YOCR" or PLAI:'iTIFF - means the pcrson in whose name this action is brought. his cmployecs. officers. represenlati\'es, agcnts. and allomcys, or any person working for such persons. and all persons on whosc behalflhc action is brought. E. If you claim thaI the subj~ct mall~r of a documenl or oral communication is p:i\ilcgcd. you need nOl scl forth Ihe brief slatcmcnt of thc subject mallcr of the documenl, or the suhstan~~ of any oral commullicalion ~alkd lor ahow. You shall, howe\'cr. olhcl\\ise "iJentify" such Jocum~nt or oral ~ommunication and shall stale each grounJ on which you claim that such Jocumenl or oral communicallon is pn\il~g.'Il. F. As used herein. Ihe I~rnl "ST ATEMt:NT" means a wrillen slatement signed or otherwise adopleU or approved by lhe person making il. or a slenographic. rn.'Chanical, electrical or other recording. or a lranscriplion thereof, which is a substantially verbatim recital or an oral stalemelll by Ihe person making It and contemporaneously recorded. G. "INCIDENT". "ACCIDENT' AND/OR "ACTION" refers to the occurrence i .. alle:;ed in >'our Complaint to.have taken place on November 14. 19')6. I , THOMAS. THOMAS'" HAFER. LLP Michele 1. Thorp. Esquire Attorney I.D. #71117 305 Nonh Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 255.7153 DATE: October IS. 1999 Attorney for Defendants I:VTERROG..j TORIES (a) Your full nanle; i t I' f f. I ! I. Slate: (h) Each othcr name. if any, which you have used or by which you have bcen known; (c) The namc of your spouse allhe lime of the accident and the dale and place of your marriage to such spouse; Idl The address o.fyour present residence and lhe address of each other residence which you have had during thc past five years; (e) Your present occupalion and the namc and address of your employer; (f) Date of your birth; Ig) Your Social Security number; (h) Your military scr.ice and positions held, ifany; and (i) The schools vou havc a[\ended and the degrees or certificates awarded. it' any. A::'>iSWER: , Slate the name(s). addre5s(~S). and l.:lephone numbers of any and all persons who wiln~55~u all or pan oflhe incid~nl involving Plainliffin this case. Ai'lSWER: ,', q -I. Except as set forth abov.:. lisllhe namcs and addrcsses of any and all pcrsons known or belicvcd by PlainlilT or anyonc aCling on Plainlifl's bchalf 10 have firsthand knowlcdge of lhe laCIS anJ circumSlances oflhe incidcnl. oroflhc evcnlS Icading up to or following the incident, or of thc injurics allegedly suslained. A:'lSWF.R: ii 5. Except as SCl forth above. Iisl the n~mcs and addreSS4.'S of all persons known or bdi~\~d by PlainlilT or anyone aCling on PI~inlirrs bch~lr: to h~ve firslhand knowledge of th~ condilions ~llh.: scene of Ih.: incidenl .:~isting prior 10. at. or imm.:diately following the incident, :\:"ISWER: " t , I.. L_ j\ I I 6. E.,cept as scl forth above, list the nam~'S and addresses of any and all persons including pOlcntial expert Wiln~'SSeS. from whom Plaintiff. or anyone acting on PlaintilT's behalf, has obtaincd any informalion as to how the incident happened or the cause of the incident. ANS\....:R: 7. Do YOll have anything in writing by way of minutes, slatements or memoranda of panics, dlagr:Ulls. pictures or any olher wriling or doculllent which you anticipate possIbly using in the upcuming trial" If so, pkase identitY each and every item OII1d advise as to who has custody over the writing and/or doclllllent. :\:'iSWER: S. Do you have anything else in wnllng that was obtained as a result of your investigalion inlo the instant incident by way of slalemenlS, reports. memoranda, lestimony, or cxprcssion of opinion as to the instant case? If so, plcase identitY and indicale who has custody of same. A:\SWER: " II. I'I~as~ stale lh~ nam~, .lddress. and tcl~phone number of PlaintilT family phy~ician and ~ach ami ev~ry physician Plaintiffha:i consulted in th~ la:illive (5) ycars prior to thc date of this incident. as well as indicate thc datc in which PlaintilT last consull.'Il any physician for any lype of physical complaint and lhe reason for slIch consultation, A:'iS\n:R: ., 11. Do~s Plaintiff currenlly receive treatment or mellication lor the injuries allegellly sufl\:rcd in this incillenl'! If so, please idelUify the Iype oftreatl1lent andior m~lIication. ANSWER: I J. Has Plaintiff fully rccovered from any of hcr injuries, and if so, stale the approximate Jate of r.-col'cry. If he has not recovercd from any of her injuries, state: those injurie:s from which he has nol r.'Covered, and in what respecls he has nOl fully recovered. "","SWER: 1-1. Has Plail1lirr ever suni:r~d any injuries in any accident. eithcr prior to, or subscqucnl to this inddcnt'! Ifsll, pleasc Slalc: a. the dalc and place of such injury; b. a dctailed description ofthc injurics rL'Ccivcd; c. Ihc namcs and addresscs of any and all hospitals or doctors rendering treatmenl; and d. the nature and eXlcnt of recovery and. if any permanent disability was surli:red, "thc nature and C."cnt of such permanent disability. A:"/SWER: 15. f>lcas~ Slal~ lor a live (5) year p~riod prior 10 or al any time sllbSC'lll~nllo the dat~ of lhis incidcnt. wheth~r Plaintiff sustained any injury. illn~ss. or disability olher than what is described in answer to allY of tho: pr.-ceding Interrogatories. A;"lSWER: I u. Are yuu now receiving, or have you ever received, any disability pension, income, or insur~nce of workmen's compensation from any agency. company, person. corporation. state, or go\emment'! Ifsu, please stale: a. The nalure of any such payment; h. The date you received such income; c. For what injuries or disability you received it. and how such injury occurred or disabilily arose; .... d. By whom paid; e. Whether you now have any present disabilily as a result of such injuries or disability; , I f. Ifso. the nature and extent of such disability; g. Whether you had any disabilily althe time of lhe incident referred 10 in the Complaint; h. If so. lhe nature and extent of such disability. A:'iSWER: " " 17. Have you made a claim for any benefits und~r any medical pay coveragc or policy of insurallcl: relating to the alleged injuric'S suffered in this incident'.' If so, please state: a. Thl: name of the insurance company or organization 10 whom such claim was made; b. Thl: dat~ oflhl: claim or application; c. Thc claim amI policy numbers; d. Whethcr or not sllch claim was paid. and if so, the nature of the amount reccived; e. Whether lhe company requircd you to assign to it any rights of recovery you may have against others. A~SWER: [j IS. Pkasc giw an account. itcmiled as fully and as carefully as possible. of all losses and expcnscs which you claim were incurrcd by YOll as a result of lhis incidenl. and please include in your answer. lhose IlJsses or cxpenses which arc unribulabh: to hospilals, dOCIOr3, medicines, and/or loss of earning capacity. ,\:"/SWER: 22. Set forth the specific acts of negligence (either omission or commission) lhat you contel1U were commilled by the DefendanlS. ANSWER: ;, " t 1-l. With regard to DcfendJnt's premises: a, Why did PIJinti ff enterrhcreon'! b. WhJI busincss did PlaintilThave thereon? c. Did anyone invite PIJintitTther~"\)n. and ifso, give the persons name, address and position; d. How long was Plaintiff present on the Defendant's premises before the alleged incident'! e, Slale what righl. if any, PlaintilT had to be on the Defendant's premises; f. \I;'here was PlaintilT going at the time of the alleged incident? g. Where was PlaintilT coming from at the time oflhe alleged incident? h. State the number of times PlaintilT had previously been on Defendant's pr~mises and the purposes for which PlaintilT entered thereon previously. ANSWER: (l 25. Please d~scribe wllh sp,'CilicilY any and all evid~nc~ you believe demonslrJleS prior viciulls plllp..:nsili~s and tho,: danyerous nalure ufthe dOll which was involved in the incident alleyed in your Complainl. " . 2b. Have you ever been involved in any olher legal aClion for personal inJury, or propcny damage. either as a PlaintitTor as a Defendanl'! If so, please Slale: a. the date and place each such action was tiled, identi tYinglhe name of the Court. docket number. and allomeys represenling each pany; b. a brief descriplion of each such incidenl or lawsuil; and c. Ihe result of each such action. whelher or not there was an appeal, and the nalure and result of any such appeal. A:'i5Wf.R: ,j ,o:i " u 2i. Stal~ \\h~th~r you have ~ver b~~n convicted of any felony or ksser crime in\ol\ing d~ceit or fraud or misdemeanor involving a criminal otli:nse, amI ifso, Slale lhe IQllowiny: (al lhe nalure of the offense for whieh you were convict~d; (bl the dale ofconviclion; and (c) lhe court in which you w~re convicled and lhe term and number assigned to your case. ANSWER: 21J. Pleas~ id~ntify ~ach docum~nt which you intend to inlroduce allhe lime of trial of this mall.:r. and yi\'e a brief d~scription of lh~ conlents of the dOCl1m~nl or lhiny. and attach copies to your Answ~rs 10 Ihese: Im.:rroyalories. ANSWER: " 31. Please stale the names. addresses. and telephone numbers of any and all witnesses. including expert, facl, and liabilily witnesses. which you intend 10 call althe time of the trial of lhis mauer. ANSWER: " 32. Admissions. If you inlcnd to use any admission(s) of a pany at trial, idcntify such admission(s), THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER LLP " " ,\ll~hd.; J 111,11'(1. b411ln: SIAlllJn11:) I\) Su 71111 fII0\I.\S, TIIU.\I..S " II.\FF.H.I.U I'ml 01111;-': Ao.. '1'11.) 11001TI~hutw:. .....:nlh)houllol 17111K ,'\lllJm~)) rut Ikh:OOo&nIl 1'1'1'11~~.7IH I~.~l;u' 111)llli uhl;lw 1.:"," Plainti ff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CutvlBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYL VANIA ALLAN R. DURNING, 111 v. NO. 97-6568 MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRIV A. Husband and Wife and DOLORES ENGLAND. as lhe Execulri~ of the Estate of DORIS KLINGER CIVIL ACTION - LA W JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SER\lCE I. Barbara A. Onoralo, a Legal Assistanl of the law firm of THO"l.~, THOMAS, & HAFER. LLP do certify thaI I served lhe lrolerrogatories Directed to Plainliff on the following person(sl. by depositing the same in the United Stales Mail. postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania addressed as follows: Mark S. Kardos. Esquire Kardos & Goch Suite 1510 1515 Markel Slreel Philadelphia. P A 19102 Allomey for Plaintiffs THO;\JAS, THOMAS & .1..\FER UP Ji~~~ ;) t2~~ BARBAR-\ A. Ol'iOR.-\TO, PlIr:lleglll Date: October 18. 1999 ALLAN R. DURNING. III IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Plainti ff v. NO. 97-6568 MICHAEL GRIVA and TERESA GRIV A, Husband and Wife and DOLORES ENGLAND, as the Execulrix of the Estate ofDORlS KLINGER CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants REDt/EST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OF DEFEND~.VTS DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF Defendant hereby requests that you furnish pursuant to Rule 4009 of lhe Pennsylvania Rules of Ci\'il Procedure, at our expense, or pemlit lhe Defendant or someonc acting on its behalf to inspecl. examinc, and copy the following items concerning lhis action which arc in thc posscssion, custody. or control of the Plaintiff. counsel for Plaintiff. or any othcr pcrson or entity acting on behalf of Plaintiff. including any insurer(s) for Plaintiff. Said itcms shall bc produccd or madc availablc for inspection at the office of Defendant's attorneys loc:ued at 305 North Front Strccl, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania within thirty (30) days after service of this Request, on a datc and timc to be arranged between counsel: 1. All photogr.1phs showing. representing or purporting to show any of the instrumentalities. locales. persons. property. injuries and any and all othcr mattcrs related 10 thc subject matter of this litigation. 2. All diagranls. sketches. drawings. plans, measurements or blueprints showing, representing or purporting to show any of the instnlmentalities. locales, persons, property, injuries or other matter involved in the incident which form the basis of Plaintiffs Complaint or causc of aCliol1. 3. All SlalemenlS. including but not restricted to those defined by Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5. signed statements, transcripts of rccorded stalements or interviews, or any memoranda or summary of transcripts or statements or interviews of any party, person or witness, or their agenls or employees. who have any knowledge or infcmlalion of lhe facts concerning or pertaining 10 lhc incident. the subject matter, the claims. the danlages, injuries, or any other malter involved in or pertaining to this case. 4. All expert opinions. expert reports. e~pert summaries or other wrilings, and curriculum vitae as to each such expert or experts which relate to the subject matter oflhis litigation and the incident in question. 5. All documenls prepared by you or by any insurer(s). representative(s). agent(s) or anyone acting on your behalf, except your anomey(s), during an investigation of any aspect or the incident in question. Such documents shall include any documents made or prepared through the present time with the exclusion of mental impressions, conclusions or opinions respecling the value or merit of a claim or defense or respecling strategy or tactics. (NOTE: As referred to herein. "documents" includes wrinen, prinled, typed. rccorded or graphic maner, however produced or reproduced. including correspondence. telegrams, other wrinen communications, data processing storage units. tapes, videos, films, microfilm, microfiche, contracts. agreements. notes. memoranda, swnrnaries, analyses, projections, indices, work papers. studies. test reports, test results, surveys, diaries, calendars, films, pholographs, videos. movies. diagrams. drawings, sketches, minutes of meetings or any olher writing [including copies of the foregoing. regardless of whether the parties to whom this requesl is addressed is not in the possession, custody or control of the original] now in the possession. custody or control of Plainliffs. their former or prCSCl1t counsel, agents, employees. officers. insurers or any other persons acting on their behalf.) 6. If not othel\\ise COlered by the above Requests, the complete c1aims/investigationisubrogationiinsurance file(s) of your insurer(s). dealing with the incident in question, with the exclusion of the mental impressions. conclusions or opinions respecting the value or merit of a claim or defense, or respecting strategy or tactics. 7. All documents relating in any way to all injuries, damagcs and losses sustained by Plaintiff. This should include, but not be Iimitcd to bills. invoiccs, medical repons, medical records, receipts, hospital records, chans and x-r.lYs, wage and employment infonnation, and all other documcnts in any way relating to Plaintiffs' alleged injulies and damages. 8. Any release or other agreement between any pcrson or entities given or obtained in regard to the subject incident. 9. Any and all documents evidencing or pc:naining to any lien by any pc:rson or entity against potential recovery or damages by Plaintiff in this action. 10. All documents or exhibits which you inlend to offer or identify as exhibits and/or evidence al any depositions or atlhe trial of this maller. II. All documenls, including but not limited to, advenisements, circulars, brochures, pamphlets, leaflets, writings and other such promotional items any expert witness you have retained for use at trial uses and has used in the past to promote his services as an expen witness. 12. All financial records concerning the Plaintiff including but notlirnited to any and all tax returns. W-2's, and olher filings. employment records, and wage or salary infonnation. 13. Any and all documents which evidence any facts on the basis or which it will be asserted that the Defendants caused or contributed to the happening of the injuries or damages sustained by lhe Plainli ff. 1-1. Any documents identi tied in your Answers to any set or Interrogatories propounded by any party to this litigalion. 15. All documents which would support any claims for injuries/damages averred in PlaintiITs Complaint. .. t 16. All records regarding any Ir~atmcnt. consultalion or lhcropy for any psychological or psychiatric condition. injury or issue. 17. Any other discovcroble document or thin!! in your file, not specifically requested h~r~in above. TIIOMAS, TIIOMAS '" IIAFER LLP By: -Jrj( ~ Q. .JL~ MICHELE 1. THOR9( Esquire I.D. No. 71117 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg. P A 17108-0999 (717)255-7153 Attorney for Defendants Dated: October 18, 1999 ALLAN R. DURNING, III IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA PlainlilT v. NO. 97.6568 MICHAEL GRIVA and TERESA GRIV A. Husband and Wife and DOLORES ENGLAND. as the Executrix of lhe ESlate ofDORJS KLINGER CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DefeniJanls CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I. BARBARA A. ONORATO. A Legal Assislanl of the law finm of THOMAS, THOMAS. & HAFER, LLP do r.enify lhal ( served the Request for Production of Documents on lhe following person(s). by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg. Pennsylvania addressed as follows: Mark S. Kardos, Esquire Kardos & Goch Suile 1510 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Anomey for Plaintiffs THOMAS, THOMAS II. HAFER LLP LJul/,u V ~ BARBAR-\ A. ONORATO, Parale&lIl Dale: OctobeT 18.1999 _~.;~_'''"'.t.,,;~> . ~,' exhibitS . . t THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OANIEL J. GALLAGHER ROBERT A. TAYLOR SARAH W AROSELL EUGENE N. McHIJ(jH STEPIIEN E. OEOIJLDIG KAREN S. COA rES GARY T LATHROP TODD 8. NARVOL JAMES J. OO()l).() KENNETH A. RAPP KEVIN C. McNAMARA 8ROOKS R. FOLAND JOliN FLOUNLACKER JOHN M. POPILOCK MICHELE J. THORP DRUMMOND 8. TAYLOR tI JOSEPII P HAFER JAMES K rHOMAs, \I ROBERTSON 8. rAYLOR JEFFREY 8 RETTIG PETER J CURRY R. BURKE McLEMORE, JR. EOW ARD II. JORDAN. JR C KENT PRICE RANDALL G. GALE OA VID L SCHW..LM PETER J SPE..KER [)()Uil...\S B MARCHLO '''CL J DELLASEVA 30S NORTH FRONT STREET slX1lI FLOOR P.O. BOX 999 HARRISBURG, PA 11108 'f (111)lJ7.1100 fAX (7171lJ1.110~ LEHIGH V ALLEY OFFICE 12 EAST MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 1172 BETHLEHEM, PA 18016-1172 (610) 868-1675 FAX (610) 868-1702 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: 717.2J7-7lSJ mjt@nhlaw.com December 8, 1999 Of COUNSEL JAMES K. THOMAS . VI ~ FACSIMII.E & MAIL Mark S. Kardos, Esquire Kardos & Goch Suite 1510 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Re: Durning v. Grin Cumberland c.e.p. No.: 97-6568 Our File No.: 710-91308 Dear Allomey Kardos: In reviewing my file, I note that you have not provided responses to our discovery requests which were served in October. Please provide responses to the discovery requests immediately. As you know, depositions are scheduled next week and I would like the opportunity to review your responses prior to that time. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. ~eQJ, trUyoll?urs - r' D~ , r--' U tv c el ---: T rp THOMAS. THOMAS & HAFER, LLP MJT:sml:71834.8 cc: Bruce Riley, ST. PAUL COMPANIES (Claim No.: 9100-004873.01.1) , . . . . , THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP ATIORNEYSATLAW OANIEL J. GALLAGHER RoeERT A. TAYLOR SARAH W AROSELL EIJOENE N. McHUGH STEPHEN E. OEDULDIG KAllEN S. COATES OARY T. LATHROP TODD B. NARVOL JAMES J. DOD[)'() KEIINETH A. RAPP KEVIN C. McNAMARA BROOKS R. FOLAND JOHN FLOUNLACKER JOHN M. POPILOCK MICHELE J. THORP DRUMMONDB. TAYLOR ~ JOSEPII P HAFER JAMES K. THOMAS, II RoeER TSON B TAYLOR JEFFREY B. RETTIG PETER J CURRY R BURKE McLEMOIlE, JR. EDWARD II JORDAN. JR. C KENT PRJCE RANDALL G GALE DAVIO L SCHWALM PETER J SPEAKER DOUGLAS B MARCELLO PAUll DELLASEGA 30S NORTH FRONT STREET SIXTH FLOOR P.O. BOX 999 HARRISBURG. PA 17108 f (117)ll7.7100 FAX (711) 2}7.710l , LEHIGH V ALLEY OFFICE: 12 EAST MARKET STREET PO. BOX 1172 BETHLEHEM, PA 11016-1172 t610) 868-167S FAX (610) 868-1702 WRlTER'S DIRECf DIAL: 717-2]7-7153 mJI@nhlaw.c:om December 29, 1999 OF COUNSEL JAMES K TtIOMAS Mark S. Kardos, Esquire' Kardos & Goch Suite 1510 1515 Markel Streel Philadelphia, PA 19102 Re: Durning v. Grin Cumberland C.C.P. No.: 97-6568 pur File No.: 710-91308 Dear Mark: As you are aware, lhere are still oUlStanding discovery requests in lhis matter. Please forward Plainti ffs responses 10 our discovery as soon as possible. C. ~.Y~1f {:' -',I', I oJ' ..../ '\..::;/' J Michele J. Thorp THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP MJT:sml:71834.12 cc: Hennan Lawless (Claim No.: 9100-004873-01-1) Mi<hclc J. Thor1>, Esquln Allomoy 10. No. 71117 nlOMAS, THOI\WIA IlAfEK, U.r Post llm<c 8n WI IIltTilbura. rcnna)"ulil 1110' AllUmt)'1 for Dcfendanb (717) m.7Il) E.MIlI mJ.~lIhllw com Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ALLAN R. DURNING, III v. NO. 97-6568 MICHAEL GRJV A and TERESA GRlV A. Husband and Wife and DOLORES ENGLAND, as the Executrix of the Estate ofDORJS KLINGER CIVIL ACTION - LA W JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants .".' t':",: ~~;-i~i:!.~:t~?lJ~'V".\.)I.I_::-'~-.-i-.",. 7. i/l-... \~. )----r, ;;::1'";'"':;"}'." - "..,:, ._ - ~-'.. .", :-""-'.....1Ir'.........&.:Th~:.....\:aM",,ti".k't2~~;.:;j,;1 "-,, , ~ '''._'', ..~l.., ""'_.....HL..""t..-,M;l{..,. ,{ . _~ " .~'* I certify that the Rule to Show Cause dated January 24, 1999 (sic) in the within action was served upon the following by enclosing the same in an envelope addressed as follows, postage prepaid and depositing the same in the Ur:ited States Mail, via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, at Harrisbufg, Pennsylvania on the 27m day of January, 2000: Mark S. Kardos, Esquire Kardos & Goch Suite 1510 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Attorney for Plaintiffs LP By: M he, Thorp, Attorney !.D. #71117 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, P A 171 08 (717)237-7153 :&4385.1 n (.] C ,-' , "nh: .., ." ('. I ',:J . - I , ..~-- I~ (:'" -< r ....\ r;; , tz:: , , "J; ,.. -'. " i "-~ , ~ () - (.~ I , I l~: .. ;~ -.... ~ :..) ::..1 -.l -~ '" , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW. this 14th day of February, 2000,1, Barbara A. Onorato, of the law firm of Thomas. Thomas & Hafer. herehy certi fy that I scnt a true and correct copy of the foregoing document by placing a copy of the sanlC in the United States Mail. first class, postage prepaid, to the following: Mark S. Kardos, Esquire Kardos & Goch Suite 1510 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Attorney for Plaintiffs j i () 'UU/... . Barbara A. Onorato tft-,,- ~,*' PRAECIPE FOR l.ISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (MUSI be lypewritten and suhmined in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case: (Check one) ( X) for JURY lrial althe neXllerm of civil court. ( ) for lrial wilhoUI a jury, --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption musl be Slated in full) (check one) (X) Civil Aclion - Law Allan R. Durning, III ( ) Appeal from Arbitralion (Plainliff) ( ) (other) vs. Michael Griva and Teresa Griva, hlw and Delores England as Executrix of Eslate of Doris Klinger 1be trial list will be caUed on April 3. 2001 ml (Defendanl) TrlaIa commence on April 30. 2001 PretriaII wUI be held on April 11. 2001 (Briefs are due S days beforo pretriala.) ('The patty IIst1n8 lhla case for trial ahaI1 providc fonbwilh a copy of lite praecipe to all COUIISOI. punuant to local Rule 214,1.) vs. No. 6568 Civil 1997 Indicale the anorney who willrry case for the party who tiles this praecipe: Michele J. Thorp, Esquire, 305 N. Fronl Streel, P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108 Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: Mark S, Kardos. Esquire, Suile 1510, 1515 Markel Slreel, Philadelphia, PA 19102 This case is ready for trial. Date: 7-/20 /0 I I . Signed: Mlch J. erp, Es Thomas, Thomas 305 N. Front Streel P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 Attorney for: Defendants .. " . n ~: -rl [' 9:.~ t~ :-:: \. :!> ~:;: l )~:' ::""t ~. ( " /'., ::~ I.:C) -n !~:l f''';' .. ... '.'. '. ~ :-'.1 , '" LA W OFFICES OF KARDOS AND GOel1 BY: MARK S. KARDOS, ESQUIRE Attorney \.0. 1122680 1515 Market Street Suite 1510 Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 563.4444 Attorney for Plaintiff ALLAN R. DURNING, III COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY vs. . NO, 6568-Civil-1997 MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRIV A, h/w and DELORES ENGLAND as Executrix of Estate of DORIS KLINGER ORDER AND NOW, this day of ,2001, it is ORDERED that .- \ Dr, Davis' opinion as to medical causation is hereby stricken from the depositions of Dr. Davis and Dr. Silbert. BY THE COURT: ], " LAW OFFICES OF KARDOS AND OOCII BY: MARK S. KARDOS, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. 1122680 1515 Market Street Suite 1510 Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 563.4444 Attorney for Plaintitl' ALLAN R. DURNING, 111 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY vs. NO. 6568-Civil-1997 MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRIV A, h/w and DELORES ENGLAND as Executrix of Estate of DORIS KLINGER PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE J. Mitchell Davis, O.D. testified at a deposition on April II, 2001, on behalfof Defendants, that he advised Plaintifl'that it was his opinion that PlaintilTs double vision was not caused by the dog bite that is the subject mattcr of the lawsuit. 2. The deposition notice scheduling Dr. Davis was a discovery deposition notice, not a trial notice. 3. Dr. Davis is not a medical doctor or physician. 4. Dr. Davis gave absolutely no foundation. or a single reason for his opinion. 5. A lranscript of the dcposition has not been prcparcd by thc court reporter as of April 25. 2001. but will be forwarded to the court at the time of trial. 6. Dr. David Silbert, Defendants' witness, mentions the opinion of Dr. Davis at the Silbert deposition; April 19, 2001. . WHEREFORE, Pluintiffrequcstslhc Courlto strikc thc opinion of Dr, Davis. LA W OFFICES OF KARDOS AND GOClI BY: MARK S, KARDOS, ESQUIRE AUomey for Plaintiff , ~ , , i I .. , l. f I j 'f, oj I.t\ W C WF/('LS Of K\IWo.... .\:'iIJ(jO('j I BY: MARK S. K,\IWOS. L....C)IJ/RI: Altom.:y I. D. 1122fJ80 f 515 M,lrk~1 Stre~1 Suile /5 /() Philadelphia, I' A I 'iI 02 (2/5) 5fJ.1-4.J.j.j I\UllrJicy li.r PI,lilltitl' ALl.AN It DURN/NCi. 11/ 'M__"..,.._~_._._".._. \'s. cmiRT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY MIC/lAEI. OR/VA and TI:RI:SA GRIVI\. h/IV and DEl.ORES ENGl.AND as EXeeutri.~ Ill' Estale of DOr(/S Kl.lNCiEk NO. fJ568-Civil_' 997 -~-----~--------_.._- MF.I\fORANDlJM Dr. Davis is nol a medical doe lor, physkian. or oSleopatll. r Ie is an oplOmetrist. In Flana!!an \:" l.an.!,;, 666 1\.2d 3.13. (1"1. SUper, I ')<)S) .Iffd. S.J7 "a. 254. 69() A2d J 83 (/ 997). oh, '''''" "",,' "'"' , "",,- ph)., ,,-, '" "',,' "" '" ""'" "p"'", ~ 10 """,,,, "f '""'. but!!QJ !J1ediea/l'lll/sarion. S~~ also 6.1 P.S. S~elion 2 I 2( I). The deposition notice slakd Ih~ depositio/llla.s li'r diseove,}. iloIloI' trial or ~Xpert leslimony. Dr. Du\'is gan' ahso/utely /10 lillllldalio/lor re'l.sonillg Il.r his opinion. /Ie \\as 1101 ljua/ilied as /In expert on double visilln at Ihe deposition. J Ie did nOI Slate his opinion \\ ithin 11 reasonable degree llf medical certainty. or languilg~ ~ven clOSt' 10 same. 1.,\ W O/'TICI:S OF K'\IWOS ,t'iD GO('j I BY: -~------'-'-'--." --"'''--.. ---_.._~._-----..._---.._~_-.._.__.._- MARK s. KARDOS. "SQUIRe Alh1fl1C) fllrl'/aintiff VERIFICATION MARK S. KARDOS, ESQUIRE states that he is the attorney for the within PlaintilT(s), and that the facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, and this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa, e.s. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. MARK S. KARDOS, ESQUIRE DATED: April 25, 200 I " Miehele J. Thorp, Esquire 1.0. No. 71117 Thomas. Thomas & Hafer. UP P.O. Box 999 305 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717)237-7153 .1 ALLAN R. DURNING. Ill, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : No.: 97-6568 MICHAEL GRIV A and TERESA GRIV A. : CIVIL TERM Husband and Wife, and DOLORES ENGLAND, as the Exccutrix of the Estate ofDORIS KLINGER, Dcfendants MOTIONS IN LIMINE OF DEFENDANTS, MICHAEL GRIV A. TERESA GRIV A and DOLORES ENGLAND I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND/STATEMENTOF CASE Plaintiff. Allan R. Durning. 111 ("Plaintiff'). brings this pcrsonal injury action as a result of an incident which occurred on or about November 14. 1996. At the time of thc incident. Dcfendants. Michacl Griva and Tcresa Griva. wcre living at 75 Olivcr Road. Enol a, Pennsylvania. The propcrty itself was previously owned by Doris Klinger, who passed away prior to the incident. Thercforc. Plaintiff has also named Dolores England, Administratrix of the Estate of Doris Klingcr. as a Defendant to this action. On thc day of the incident. Plaintiff stopped by the hornc at 75 Oliver Street with his acquaintance. Rick Yarlct. Mr. Yarlet is thc nephew of Dcfendants and was temporarily staying in the Dcfendants' homc at that time. Plaintiff and Mr. Yarlet cntcrcd the homc by thc side door. Mr. Yarlct went into another part of the housc whilc Plaintilf stayed in the kitchcn area, Dcfcndants' dog. Cocoa. a short haired Chihuahua, was on a short chain in thc kitchen. Onc cnd of the chain was fastcned to Cocoa's collar and the othcr cnd was fastcned to a cabinct. PlaintilT voluntarily walked over to where the chained Chihuahua was and knclt down in front of the dog. Plaintiff claims that the Chihuahua bit him in the cye arca, causing injury Plaintiff sceks damagcs from Defendants as a result of this incidcnt. II. PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM PURSUING A CLAIM FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS/LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY. Plaintiff has indicated through his counsel that he intcnds to make a loss of carnings/loss ofcarning capacity claim. See Corrcspondencc from Plaintiffs counscl dated February 1,2001 which is allached hereto incorporatcd hcrcin by rcference and marked as Exhibit "A," Defendants movc to precludc any cvidence or testimony rcgarding Plaintilrs alleged loss of earning/loss of earning capacity claim for thc following rcasons. A. Loss of earnings First, no documentation hus bcen produced by Plaintiff to demonstrate his employment hist'lry or prove his wages. PlaintilT did not provide to Defendants' counsel any such documentation during the course of discovery. Morcover, Plaintitrs counsel's February 1,2001, leller confirms that "we will not be offering documentation to support this (loss of earnings/loss ofcarning capacity claim) at trial because the Plaintiff spent most of his adult life in the military, and does not have an cmployment history other than low paying temporary jobs." See Exhibit "A". Notwithstanding this fact, Plaintiff asserts in this Prc-Trial memo that he earned "$12,000 in 1996. and earncd $25.000 in the army," See Section V of Plaintilrs Prc-Trial Memorandum. No evidcncc of these carnings was ever provided to Defendant's counsel despite discovery requests regarding the same and numerous inquiries via correspondence. The production of any 2 such documentation at this point would be extremely prejudicial to Defendant's case, Moreover, if Plaintiff is not intending to offer any documentation of his earnings, but merely to testify in that regard, Defendants have no ability to cross examine regarding those figures since the documents were never provided to Dcfendants. Moreover, Plaintiffs expcrt, Dr. Volpe, did not testify rcgarding Plaintiffs alleged inability to work as rcsult of the dog bite accident. There is no evidencc of record that Plaintiff was unable to work. B. Loss of eamine caoacitv Additionally, Plaintiff has indicated that they will not bc producing an expcrt to testify as to Plaintiffs loss of earning capacity claim. See Exhibit "A", paragraph I. Without an expert to testify regarding Plaintiffs inability to work and without an expert to testify regarding his past loss of earnitlg capacity and/or future loss of earning capacity. Plaintiff should not be pcrmitted to proceed with his loss of earning capacity claim. PlaintilT has no expert to say what jobs Plaintiff could/couldn't have done in the past or what jobs Plaintiff can/can't perform in the future. In order for a jury to considcr future loss of earning capacity, there must be competent testimony rcgarding the same. Baccal'c v. Mennella, 246 Pa.Super. 53, 369 A.2d 806 (1976). Loss of earning power and its amount must appear by propcr and satisfactory proof and not left to conjecture. Kcarns v. Riddle, 343 Pa. Super. 30,493 A.2d 1358 citing Gordon v, Trovato, 234 Pa. Super. 279. 338 A.2d 653 (1975). Without that testimony, Plaintiff would be inviting the jury to speculate as to his lost earning capacity claim. Clearly, the jury is not permitted to speculate regarding such matters. 3 III. PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING ANY ADDITIONAL MEDICAL BILLS AT TRIAL PlainlilTs Counsel has indicated that the only expert that will testify at this trial is Nicholas J. Volpe, M.D. Dr. Volpe's videotape deposition has been taken and will be presented by Plaintiff at the trial of this matter. Dr. Volpe did 1I0t testify regarding the reasonableness and necessity of PlaintilTs medkal bills. See Martin v. Soblatnev. 502 Pa. 418, 466 A.2d 1022 (1983). In fact, at the deposition. PlaintilTs counsel did not show Dr. Volpe any bills to review and to introduce as exhibits. Dcspite this lack of necessary testimony regarding PlaintilTs medical bills. Plaintiff asserts in his Pre-Trial Memorandum that there are approximately "$7,500.00 in medical bills.,,1 It is respectfully submitted that Plaintiff should not be permitted to provide that figure to the jury in light of the absencc of expcrt testimony regarding the reasonableness and necessity of the medical bills. IV. PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM ARGUING THAT DEFENDANTS "MADE THE DOG VICIOUS", Plaintiff argues in his Pre-Trial Memorandum that "Defendants made the dog vicious by kccping him on a short chain in a small kitchcn all day while they worked." Plaintiff should be precludcd from arguing that Defendants "made the dog vicious" in light of the fact that there is no expert testimony to link any treatment by the Defendants to any alleged viciousness on the part of their dog. It is respectfully submitted that Plaintiff and his counsel are not experts in dog behavior. Thcrefore. since PlainlilThas choscn not 10 present any expert testimony regarding the I AI Dr. Volpe's deposition. Defense counsel was presenled with a packet of medical bills totaling approximlllely $2,000., but no testimony was gi.en regarding those bills. ;,;. 4 behavior tendencies of dogs and, in particular. that the placin~ of this specific dog on II chllin made him vicious. Plaintiff should be prohibited from making this argument. It involvcs pure speculation and is not based on the facts of record. Respectfully submittcd. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER. LLP Dated: Lf I ?-:,o/C> \ By: Mic ele Thorp, quir Attorney I.D. No.: 71 7 305 N. Front St.. 6th Floor P.O. Box 999 Uarrisburg, P A 17108-0999 (717) 255-7153 5 page 2 Februarv I. 2001 between, such as belween three (3) and twenly-five (25) feet. He continues to do home exercises for the problem. 5. Plainti IT did not inlend to answer interrogatories by identifying his father as having infonnlition about the incident. The father in fact, has no independent information about the incident or its cause. He inlended to list his father as a quality of life witness, and as a witness to continn that Plainliffhad JlQ eye problems prior to this incident. To this regard, his father willteslify at trial. Enclosed are two (2) copies of a Trial Praecipe, which I request that you sign, and tile with the Court, or sign and retum to my office and 1 will file same. Please advise if additional infonnation or documenlS are requested. Very truly yours, I~\ V \llcu..K /)CL\.cl&'~ MARK S. KARDOS MSK/mjp Enclosure ,-' '. ALLAN R. DURNING III, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW NO. 97-6568 CIVIL TERM V. MICHAEL GRIVA and TERESA GRIVA, Husband Wife, DEFENDANTS QUESTION 1: Do you find that defendants were negl1gent? YES-l-L- NO If you answer Question 1 "No", plaintiff cannot recover and you should not answer any further questions and should return to the courtroom. If you answer "Yes", proceed to Question 2. QUESTION 2: Was defendants' negligence a substantial factor in bringing about plaintiff's harm? YES NO-ll-- If you answer Question 2 "No", plaintiff cannot recover and you should not answer any further questions and should return to the courtroom, If you answer "Yes", proceed to Question 3. QUESTION 3: Was plaintiff contributorily negligent? YES NO If you answer Question 3 "No", proceed to Question 6. If you answer Question 3 "Yes", proceed to Question 4. g,UESTION 4: Was plaintiff's contributory negltgence a substantial factor In bringing about plaintiff's harm? YES NO If you answer Question 4 "No", proceed to Question 6. If you answer Questfon 4 "Yes", proceed to Question 5. QUESTION 5: If you have answered "Yes" to questions 1, 2, 3, and 4, then answer the following: Taking the combined negligence that was a substantial factor In bringing about the plaintiff's harm as 100 percent: WHAT PERCENTAGE OF CAUSAL NEGLIGENCE IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO DEFENDANTS % WHAT PERCENTAGE OF CAUSAL NEGLIGENCE IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO PLAINTIFF % TOTAL 1000s If you have found plaintiff's percentage of causal negligence to be greater than 50 percent, plaintiff cannot recover and you should return to the courtroom. If you find plaintiff's percentage of causal negltgence to be 50 percent or less, proceed to Question 6. CASE NO.: 10 ~~:O~ ~~:'~11r~ u........... ~ ~r.-r':'1 . sqURTROOM NO.: VS~J.~n~;o. ~~c....JiAU~ ~L DATE: ~ R.ndom No 154 JurOl . N.m. Stae....... Erika R -I 58116OJ51 .1511931641 4. .' 31 111 148 III 131 I" 159 I" 113 116 140 .Ii 155 111 Iii 11tJ U. 114 186 113 163 156 153 151 81 161 161 151 161 111 10 111 114 " . .. ,....... lilt b....~....t J__ N. n........._.t4I A- ..... "'Z-. ......t"'.-..... SIIa....... Ibra.l. D Buba.. A.... L Bu...." David L Jr D1c.~ Mkk..1 S 'ortlel, Enul R Jr -1453536418 -14119111155 -1314111119 -1.u07...." -1331118861 -1115601-411 -I UI403 I 153 -981646359 -95590 1135 -611J09011 -518JJ1901 -13 f680406 -I 46I6lI5 II 41341014 63996n8 61041114 1686111508 In11ol641 1341111984 311l106893 3871J1115 455051114 411661115 6016131111 698505404 106936954 809983741 117409797 901910981 965499664 fbtJ-&. 'I."~ J A :It: , W..a.r(Gordoa), Tr.cy A r..e-, C..rla 1\ ..#4- .;MJ'IUI, l._... .~. Mull., Jolla A PnJus, Todd UlIp .~... '.I.be.... La..rea.. G U1crry, T.rry L Sr .6.. ~ '+ ~:t!=- -3. Ob...____.. 14 D ,''- ...........1~...-.....r. N....II& E 1\: ~ y B__J...., fad.;}" I: L::::.. ':,::F' ~ W.ptr, Gary L Boya,od., U...II N 7\ ~ ').... ~"c.. KlChfG K Br..dt, Barba... Sualf., Jolla W Deel.r, Edmalld M Jr B.khrl.. Robert W K.p..r, M.u".. C HIP....... L1Sl1 A.. Elliott, Br.ad. J Loll.. Sa"'... K Fore...., David L Erkluoa, M.rt.... D Foust, "_ L Ad....... C"ryl E Miller, Roller N 9I86J8MO IJ8IlI19119 1661811363 '.... f .. t Uo9 B, '-IE... ... JU/Of , Nama RandoM No 141 Job...., J..... R I 787J15576 169 lUIu.n, Ro.ald L 1133989107 146 Tnpb., Mark R 1867007478 149 foor, Amy 1171195764 139 K....y(Moonl. Leall M 1111..,.1. 180 Swain, IUllry. R JI45'796I99 "~ ~'~~~.,.t,::" '']~"' ;:~"':I)qU~5;: ::':,.;~~~/t'}I:;'r::;~g:~..~f~\'~:,':~,~~_~-~~'.'~"~ LAW OFFICES OF KARDOS AND GOCH BY: MARK S. KARDOS. ESQUIRE Attorney J.D. #22680 1515 Market Street Suite 1510 Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 563-4444 Attorney for Plaintiff ALLAN R. DURNING III COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY vs. NO. 6568-Civil-1997 MICHAEL GRIY A and TERESA GRIV A, hlwand DELORES ENGLAND as Executrix of Estate of DORIS KLINGER ORDER TO SETILE. DISCONTINUE. AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly mark the above-captioned case settled, discontinued. and ended. LA W OFFICES OF KARDOS AND GOCH BY: 1/7t1!ti )!~jlY1 MARK S. KARDOS. ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiff " r f