HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-06767
plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. (//'7, I.' -7/- 'J' ," A ~/J
. _' I...t{/-L1' \..'~ /;"
CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW
CHARLES MILLER,
v.
ARNOLD LOGISTICS,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE
YOU HAVB BBBH SUBD IN COURT. If you wish to defend against
the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take aotion
within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notioe are served,
by entering a written appearanoe personally or by attorney and
filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the
olaims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to
do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be
entered against you by the Court without further notice for any
money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief
requested by the Plaintiff.. You may lose money or property or
other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO
NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE
OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Court Administrator
Cumberland County Courthouse, 4th Floor
One Courthouse square
Carlisle, PA 17013-3387
(717) 240-6200
NOTICIA
La han delllll1)dado a usted en 1a corte. si usted quiere
defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes,
usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de 1a facha de la
demand a y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia
escrita 0 en Pers~na 0 por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma
escrita sus defensas 0 SUB objectiones alas demandas encontra de
su persona. .'3ea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte
tomara medidas y puede oIIntrar una orden contra usted sin previo
aviso 0 notificacion y por cualquier queja 0 alivio que es pedido
en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus
propiedados 0 otros derechoB J.mportantes para usted.
41\16-1.1/<.'ONPl-AI/(fICl.AIl__4, 19'17
Plaintitt
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTll, PENNSllLVANIA
NO. 7'(. I, / (, I (/,,;,1 -{';,....
CHARLES KILLER,
v.
CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW
ARNOLD LOGISTICS,
Detendant
JURll TRIAL DEMANDED
~
1. Plaintitt Charles Miller is an adult individual residing
at 124 Ann street, Middletown, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.
2. Defendant is an entity doing business as Arnold Logistics
with offices located at 335 Heinz Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania.
3. On or about April 11, 1997, Plaintiff was working as an
employee of the Drexel Group, Inc., a temporary employment agency,
on the premises of the Defendant, Arnold Logistics, at 335 Heinz
Road, Mechanicsburg, pennsylvania.
4. At approximately 8:20 AM on said date, Plaintiff exited
a break room and entered the floor of Defendant's warehouse when he
was struck on the left foot by a forklift being operated by an
employee of the Defendant.
5. As a result of said accident, Plaintiff sustained serious
bodily injury, including but not limited to:
(a) Crush injury of the left foot;
(b) Multiple fractures of the left foot;
(c) Complex laceration of the left footl and
(d) scarring on and around the left foot.
6. Plaintiff's inj uries and damages were tho direct and
proximate result of the negligence of Defendant's employee in that
he:
(a) Failed to maintain an adequate lcokout for
pedestrians on the work floor;
(b) Failed to see and appreciate the Plaintiff in his
path of travel;
(c) Failed to stop his forklift so as to avoid the
accident;
(d) Failed to provide any warning of his presence to the
Plaintiff;
(e) Failed to keep his forklift in an area designated
for such equipment; and
(f) Drove his forklift at an unsafe speed for the
conditions existing at the time.
7. Defendant Arnold Logistics is vicariously liable for the
actions of its employee who was working in the course of his
employment at the time of the accident.
8. Plaintiff's injuries and damages were also the direct and
proximate result of the negligence of Defendant Arnold Logistics in
that it:
(a) Failed to properly train and supervise its forklift
operators;
(b) Failed to provide a safe area for persons exiting
the break room;
- 2 -
(0)
warehouse
faoUity;
Failed
BO aB
and
to properly design and construct its
to minimize injuries to persons using its
(d) Failed to place a barrier between the floor area
used by pedeDtrianB and the floor area used by forklifts.
9. As a further result ot Defendant's negligenoe, plaintiff
has suftered and in the future may continue to suffert
(a) Pain and suffering;
(b) LOlls of life's pleasures;
(0) Loss of earnings and earning capaoity; and
Cd) A monetary loss related to his need for medical and
rehabilitative servioeD associated with his injuries.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant in
an amount in excess of this county's mandator.y arbitration limits.
SMIGEL, ANDERS
"
,
SACKS
Date:
Ilu. 4-', N '17
I
By:
/ (~--
Ande son, Esqu re
No. 21315
2917 orth Front street
Harrisburg, PA 17110-1223
(717) 234-2401
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
- 3 -
.. j")
I'
, ' r\
I'
I" .. ~
' ' \'.J ~
I
(il ,-..
, '
/" , (',
L' I , ,
'.. , \
j I' ~~ 9
u L ~
'..-' ,"" , ~~~ RJ\
l;' I..)
~~ ~ ~
~ \t) SJ
~'0 \ , ~ \
.~
'I
CHARLES MILLER,
IN 'l'IIE COUR'!' OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
plaintiff
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ARNOLD LOGISTICS,
No. 97-6767
Defendant
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER
NOW COMES defendant, Arnold Logistics, by and through its
attorneys, Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal, LLP, and answers
plaintiff's complaint, averring as follows:
1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant
Arnold Logistics is without sufficient knowledge or information
to form a belief as to the truth of this averment, and proof
thereof is hereby demanded at trial, if relevant.
2. Admitted with clarification. Defendant admits that it
does business as Arnold Logistics with facilities located at 335
Heinz Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
Defendant hereby clarifies that Arnold Logistics is an
unincorporated division of Arnold Transportation Services, Inc.
3. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant admits
that on or about April 11, 1997, plaintiff was working on the
premises of Arnold Logistics, at 335 Heinz Road, Mechanicsburg,
Pennsylvania. Defendant denies that on or about the date in
question, plaintiff was working as an employee of Drexel Group,
Inc., identified by plaintiff as "a temporary employment agency."
On the oontrary, plaintiff was a borrowed servant, and as such
was an employee of defendant at the time of the subject accident
for purposes of this litigation.
4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is
without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as
to the truth of this averment, and proof thereof is hereby
demanded at trial, if relevant.
5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is
without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as
to the truth of the averments of paragraph 5, including the
averments oontained in eaoh and every BUbparagraph thereto, and
proof thereof is hereby demanded at trial, if relevant.
6. Denied. Paragraph 6 1s a conclusion of law or a mixed
conclusion of law and fact, to which no response need be made by
defendant. If a response is deemed necessary by the court,
defendant denies, in general, that plaintiff's injuries and
I
I
~~
I."
I '
I
~
I
i~
I
I
damages were the direct and proximate result of negligence on the
part of its employee, such negligence being specifically denied.
Defendant denies the remaining specific allegations'of this
paragraph as follows:
(a) Defendant specifically denies that its
employee failed to maintain an adequate lookout for
pedestrians on the work floor. On the contrary,
defendant's employee was operating the subject forklift
-2-
in a safe and proper manner at the time of the subjeot
accident.
(b) Defendant specifically danies that its
employee >>failed to see and appreciate plaintiff in his
path of travel." On the contrary, defendant's employee
was operating the subject forklift in a safe and proper
manner at the time of the subject accident.
(c) Defendant specifically denies that its
employee failed to take any reasonable or appropriate
action, inclUding but not limited to stopping the
forklift in question, in order to prevent or avoid
impact with plaintiff who stepped into the path of the
forklift. On the contrary, defendant's employee was
operating the subject forklift in a safe and proper
manner at the time of the subject accident.
(d) Defendant specifically denies that its
employee failed to provide any warning of his presence
to the plaintiff. On the contrary, defendant's
employee was operating the subject forklift in a safe
and proper manner at the time of the subject accident.
(e) Defendant specifically denies that its
employee failed to keep his forklift in an area
designated for such equipment. On the contrary,
defendant's employee was operating the subject forklift
-)-
in a safe and proper manner at the time of the sUbject
accident.
(f) Defendant specifically denies that its
employee drove his forklift at an unsafe speed for the
conditions existing at the time. On the contrary,
defendant's employee was operating the SUbject forklift
in a safe and proper manner at the time of the subject
accident.
7. Denied. Paragraph 7 is a conclusion of law or a mixed
conclusion of law and fact, to which no response need be made by
defendant. If a response is deemed necessary by the court,
defendant states that it is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment,
and proof thereof is hereby demanded at trial, if relevant.
8. Denied. Paragraph 8 is a conclusion of law or a mixed
conclusion of law and fact, to which no response need be made by
defendant. If a response is deemed necessary by the Court,
defendant denies, in general, that plaintiff's injuries and
damages were the direct and proximate result of negligence on the
part of defendant, such negligence being specifically denied.
Defendant denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph as
follows:
(a) Defendant specifically denies that it failed
to properly train and supervise its forklift operators.
-4-
On the contrary, defendant's employees who operated
forklifts received the proper and appropriate training
for use of such equipment.
(b)-(d) Defendant specifically denies that it
failed to provide a safe area for persons working in or
using its facilities, including but not limited to the
area near or adjacent to the "break room." On the
contrary, defendant avers that its facility was
properly designed, constructed and maintained in regard
to providing a safe work environment.
9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is
without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as
to the truth of the averments of paragraph 9, including the
averments contained in each and every subparagraphs thereto, and
proof thereof is hereby demanded at trial, if relevant.
WHEREFORE, defendant Arnold Logistics respectfully requests
this Honorable Court to dismiss plaintiff's complaint, to enter
judgment in its favor, and to grant it costs of suit and any such
other relief as the Court deems appropriate and justified.
NEW MATTER
10. Defendant incorporates by reference herein its
responses to paragraphs 1 through 9 of plaintiff's complaint as
if they were set forth fully below.
-5-
11. Plaintiff's action is barred by applicable statutes of
limitations.
12. Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a cause of action
upon which relief can be granted.
13. Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by
plaintiff's contributory or comparative negligence.
14. plaintiff assumed the risk of his injuries.
15. The conduct of other individuals and/or entities, over
whom defendant had no control or right of control, constituted an
intervening, superseding cause of the involved accident and
alleged injuries sustained by plaintiff.
16. Any conduct on the part of defendant and/or its
employees was not the proximate cause of any injuries sustained
by plaintiff.
17. Plaintiff was a borrowed servant, and as such was an
employee of defendant at the time of the accident.
18. 'l'his Honorable Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over the instant litigation in that the provisions of the
Workers' compensation Act and the "borrowed servant doctrine"
thereof prohibit plaintiff from bringing this action against
defendant.
19. The Workers' compensation Act is the exclusive remedy
available to plaintiff under the provisions of said Act and the
"borrowed servant doctrine" thereof.
-6-
20. At all times material hereto, defendant and its
employees acted reasonably, properly and prudently, and were at
no time negligent.
21. In the alternative, if any negligence on the part of
defendant is found to exist, which is specifically denied, such
negligence was not the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries.
22. No act or omission on the part of defendant was the
cause, in law or fact, of plaintiff's alleged injuries and/or
damages.
23. The negligence, carelessness, recklessness, and/or
willful behavior of plaintiff constituted an intervening and
superseding cause of plaintiff's alleged injuries.
24. The damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff were
caused solely, or were contributed to, by plaintiff's own
negligence, lack of due care or other fault on this part. The
degree of such negligence was equal to or greater than any fault
of defendant, which is specifically denied.
25. Plaintiff's cause of action is barred, in whole or in
part, by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence statute, 42 Pa.
C.S. S 7102 ~ ~., or the doctrines of comparntive and
contributory negligence.
26. The conduct of plaintiff, inclUding acts and failures
to act, estops him from recovery against defendnnt.
-7-
WHEREFORE, Arnold Logistics respectfully requests this
Honorable court to dismiss plaintiff's complaint, and to enter
judgment in its favor, and to grant it costs of suit and any such
other relief as the Court deems appropriate and justified.
Respectfully submittod,
KEEFER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL, LLP
Dated: January 16, 1998
By (t.hf.---, c;f
Charles W. Rubendall II
I.D. II 23172
Brenda S. Lynch
I.D. II 75912
210 Walnut street
P. O. Box 11963
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963
717-255-8010 and 255-8037
Attorneys for defendant
!'
-8-
.... . 4U')6:l U/lII.I'I.V TO t1EW ""^'ITFlj/"-'LA/~IIIII/")I1II,II)l n, I'J'HI
Plaintiff
IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLHAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 9'1-6767
CHARLGS ~II LL8R,
v.
CIVIL, ACTION - AT LAW
ARNOLD LOGISTICS,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAlliTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT
10. In response to the allegat ions of fact contained in
Defendant's answers in Paragraphs 1 through 9, Plaintiff states as
follows:
1, No response required,
2. No response required.
3. It is denied that Plaintiff was a borrowed servant
and that as such, he was an employee of the Defendant at the
time of the accident.
4. No response required.
5. No response required.
6, It is denied that Defendant's employee was operating
the subject forklift in a safe and proper manner at the time
of the subject accident,
7. No response required,
8. (a) It is denied that Defendant's employee received
the proper and appropriate training for the use of the
forklift in question,
21- The allegation of this paragraph constitutes a conclusion
of law to which no response is required. I .:
,
22. The allegation of this paragraph constitutes a conclusion
of law to which no response is required,
23, The allegation of this paragraph constitutes a conclusion
of law to which no response is required,
24. Thp. allegation of this paragraph constitutes a conclusion
of law to which no response is required,
25, The allegation of this paragraph constitutes a conclusion
of law to which no response is required.
26. The allegation of this paragraph constitut.es a conclusion
of law to which no response is required,
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant as
set forth in his Complaint.
Date:
~'C . ) 7 Iqq ~
,,~ ,
By:
SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS
7
..:/j' It
c. e Anderson, Esquire
I. 0, 21315
2917 orth Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110-1223
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
. 3 .
~.. . ~I.
I " ,~'- ,
iI, ..
lltl, f, ~;
l')'
. '1
U~ i
I,]), ':: ,
f-'I
U.:' &';...
i:, ~ " "
" I,'.: I
(,.1 U" )
~
cHARLES MILLER,
PlaintHf
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLANO COUNT~, PENNS~LVANIA
CIVIL AOTION - LAW
No. 97-6767
1 '
I
I
I
i
v.
ARNOLD LOGISTICS,
Oefendant
TO:
SiU~POBNA TO PRODUCE DOCUKENTP OR THINGS
-9R DISCOVBRY PURSU~ TO RULE 400~
;~~~~d~:~e~~nR;~~~~~: :~~~e1~~~k~:~~~s~~~~~a~~e
(II.... ol ..""" '" e..lly)
Fund. 1111
17104-25.21.
Within twenty (20) day. after eervice of thie eubpoena, you are ordered by the
court to produce the to11owinq documents or thinqs.
~ attached sheet.
/It Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal. LLP, 210 Walnut street. Harrisbura,
PA 17101
("014"..1
You may delivar or mail loqible oopiea of the documente or produce thinq.
reque.ted by this .ubpoena, toqether with the oertificate of compliance, to
the party makinq thi. reque.t at the addra.. lieted above. You have the riqht
to .eak, in advance, the raa.onable coet of preparinq the copies or producinq
the thinqs .ouqht.
If you tail to produce the dOl"jment. or thinqa required by thie .ubpoena,
within twenty (20) daya attar it. .ervice, the party eervinq thi. subpoena may
.eek a court order compellinq you to comply with it.
THIS subpoena WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON:
NAME: ~9a S. Lvnch
ADDRESS: 210 Walnut Street
Harrisbura. PA 17101
TELEPHONE: (717) 2~5-8037
SUPREME COURT 10 # 75912
ATTORNEY FOR: ~ndant
DATE:
By the court.
Sell ot 11M C4U"
Prothonotary
Deputy
Documents required to be produced are as follows:
A complete Co[~ of the workers' compensation file related to
an alleged forklift aooident that occurred on or about April 11,
1997, at the premises of Arnold Logistics, at 335 Heinz Road,
Meohanicsburg, Pennsylvania, involving plaintiff/claimant Charles
Miller (also believed to be known as Charles Edgar Miller, J'r.)
(SSN: 197-54w3340; SWIF claim no. 1370011) ~ a complete oopy of
any other workers' compensation cl,aims filed by said'
plaintiff/olaimant that state Workmen's Insuranoe Fund handled.
These documents should inolude, but not be limited to, all
investigative materials related to the subject accident(s)
(including any report that SWIF may have obtained to determine if
a subrogation claim should be pursued and any report relating to
the identity of plaintiff/claimant's employer at the time of the
subject accident for purposes of workers' compensation benefits)
and/or plaintiff, photographs, videotapes, drawings,
measurements, statements, correspondence, memoranda, maintenance
or service records pertaining to the incident(s), medical records
and bills regarding medical &nd/or vocational rehabilitation
I
treatment rendered to plaintiff, applications or claim forms
submitted by plaintiff and/or his medical care providers, records
regarding plaintiff's work loss claims, and all documents related
to any workers' compensation proceedings arising from the subject
accident(s) .
-2-
C!RTI'ICAT! or S!RVICB
I, Brenda S. Lynch, Esquire, ono of the attorneys for
defendant, hereby certify that I have served the foregoing paper
upon counsel of record this date by depositing a true and correct
copy of the same in the United states mail, first~class postage
prepaid, addressed as follows:
c. Lee Anderson, Esquire
2917 North Front street
Harrisburg, PA 17110-122J
KEEFER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL, LLP
Dated: February 9, 1997
By 1!/,uC j -l..L
Brenda S. Lynch I'
~.
; c v I
I ' ,
" J ....
I ,
I', I I
(,); . ,
J I
, , ,.
L " I I
, L
I '
,. I , J
~,: ~. ~.;
Documents requirp.d to be produced are as followsl
1, A copy of the complete personnel or employment file fqr
Charles Miller (POBI 11/13/62/ SSN 197-54-3340), including, but
not limited to, all employment applications, job performance
evaluations, attendance and time records, accident records,
documents relating to job assignments, salary and wage
information, workers' compensation claims, and insurance
benefits,
2, A copy of all documents in the possession of Drexel
Group, Inc., related to any investigation (whether undertaken
internally, by OSHA or any other governmental agency, or by
another entity) related to the accident involving plaintiff
Charles Miller, that occurred on April 11, 1997, at Arnold
Logistics, 335 Heinz Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, These
documents should include, but not be limited to, all
investigative material, including all reports, photographs,
videotapes, drawings, measurements, statements, correspondence,
memoranda, etc.
3, Any and all contracts and/or agreements between Drexel
Group, Inc. and Arnold Logistics which relates to Drexel Group,
Inc. ' s assignment of plaintiff to work at Arnold r,ogistics.
4. Any and all documents relating to plaintiff'S
assignment to do work at Arnold Logistics, including, but not
limited to, his job assignments and duties, dates that he worked,
any training plaintiff received to per:orm his job assignment,
who supervised and/or controlled his' work at Arnold Logistics,
who he reported to regarding tne performance of the work at
Arnold Logistics.
5, Any and all promotional materials relating to the
services that Drexel Group, Inc. provides for individuals seeking
employment and employers seeking workers.
6. Any and all employee handbocks, and/or personnel
policies and procedures that were in e::ect during the time
period that plaintiff was employed by :rexel Group, Inc.
~". ,0 '. .
l,\' (I. I
,-;- "
,- "
1\1.'
( "
\' ,(
(0,-:' <~ \
Ii' .
,
,
~,
. .
'i "
" "
CHARLES MILLER,
Plaintif f
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUN'fY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 97-6767
CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW
v,
ARNOLD LOGISTICS,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, C. Lee Anderson, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and
correct copy of Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's Interrogatories
(Set r) was served upon the following as addressed below by
depositing the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage
prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on April 9, 1998:
Brenda S, Lynch, Esquire
Charles W. Rubendall, II, Esquire
210 Walnut Street
P. O. Box 11963
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963
SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS
By:
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
~
,.-
I
CHARLES MILLER,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 97-6767
v,
CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW
ARNOLD LOGISTICS,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, C, Lee Anderson, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and
correct copy of Plaintiff's Response to Request for Production of
Documents (Set 1) was served upon the following as addressed below
by depositing the same in the United States Mail, first class,
postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on April 9, 1998:
Brenda S. Lynch, Esquire
Charles W, Rubendall, II, Esquire
210 Walnut Street
P. O. Box 11963
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963
SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS
By:
./ //!i
. ./ .' . it/( fit, ~/ _~_d_
C. Le derson, Esquire
I. D. N . 21315
2917 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110-1223
(717) 234-2401
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
"KIJ{I.2.IlJJWII/I"IIVllll^H'II'I~lul~ H, I'IIJK
CHARLES MILLER,
IN TilE COURT OF COMMON I'LEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, I'ENNSYLV ANIA
l'llllntlff
NO. 97-6767
v.
CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW
ARNOLD LOGISTICS,
Dcfcndllllt
.JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
r.R.AECfPE TO WITHDRAW
TO TilE PROTHONOTARY:
Please mark the above-captioned matter withdrawn by the Plaintiff.
SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS
Date:
~ Ipd'
BY:
Attorneys for Plaintiff