The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About97-06973 I, I " , , :Ii) ... ,\ll ~ i~ ,~ d '~ ~ ~:!o.\, ii' , " 'II , , , , I . ',' , ' H U " H " " " J " ,I H ~ , \ I I I , ]-I " 1 I' " i I /' ./ " ..~ :, ~ .\) 'I ~ ~' ,~ ,~, '. the time of the collision referred to in paragraphs 4-6, 4, On January 29, 1996, at approximately 1:00 p.m, on the parking lot of Thrift Drug located at Lowther street and Front street in Wormleysburg, the Plaintiff was the driver of a motor vehicle that was proceeding on the Thrift Drug lot, 5, At that above said time and place the Defendant, Donald Bartolette, was in a motor vehicle owned by the Defendant Miller & Norford and moved said motor vehicle from a parked position back into the vehicle in which the Plaintiff was driving, 6. It is averred, but not determinable until discovery is taken, that the Defendant Bartolette was in the course of his employment with the Defendant Miller & Norford, Inc. at the time of the above described collision. 7, As a result of the above said accident, the Plaintiff incurred head injury which has caused a serious and permanent TMJ problom, cervical and lumbar strains, right knee injury and hip injury. She was subsequently treated by her family physician, an orthopedic physician and others, and incurred extensive physical therapy, 8. plaintiff has incurred great pain and discomfort from her 2 ~ . SHERIFF'S R~TUR" I\EGULM, CASE NO: 1997-1216973 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANlA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND , .1 BRANDT KATHLEEN vs. MILLER & NORFORD INC ET AL DAWN L. KELL , Shariff or Dvputy Sheriff of CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, ~ho being duly s~orn according to law, flays. the' within \;,Q11ELilllIT. was served upon MILLER & NORFORD INC the def(,\ndant, at 1315:00 HOURS. on the 2f1!1. day of Janu.;lI'Y 1998 at 700 AYERS AVE, LEMQYNE. PA 17043_ County, Pennsylvania, AND PERSON IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of the by handing to MICHAEL . CUMBERLAND ZELLERS, SHOP MANAGER COMPLAINT together with NOTICE and at the same time directing H~s attent~on to the contents thereof. J Sheriff'~ Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 18.1210 9.92 .1210 2. ((H~I So answers: R. Thomas C~~:-;f~ 'liT:T.-':T2'I:JI V E G Ll A MID KAY LOR 01/1217/1998 by ~)~f~~ril~-LL , Sworn and slJbacrib~d.lto ~ef(lr~ rIle this -1 't:_ day 'jf ~:y-___ 19_. 'H A. D. ~. J~/ . - ro~noldrr' # THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: James J. Dodd-o, Esquire Identification No. 44678 306 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717)237-7100 Attorney for Defendants: Miller & Norford, Inc. and Donald Bartolotte IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION -- LAW KATHLEEN BRANDT, Plaintiff. NO. 97-6973 Civil Term v. MILLER & NORFORD, INC. and DONALD BERTOLETTE, Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED BY JURY OF TWELVE PERSONS NOTICE TO PL~ TO: Plaintiff, Kathleen Brandt c/o Archie V. Di veglia, Esquire DlVEGLIA & KAYLOR, P.C. 119 Locust Street Harrisb~rg, PA 17101 You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed Answer and New Matter within twenty (20) days or a default may be entered against you. :~MAS '~Ho~itER' Lee E J. DODD-O, ESQUIRE 05 orth Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 237-7100 Attorneys for Defendants, Miller & Norford, Inc. and Donald Bertolette Dated: ~uarv 29. 1998 5. Admitted only that an impact occurred between the vehicle operated by Defendant Donald Bartolette and Plaintiff. 6. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleadi~g is required. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation the Answering Defendant is without such knowledge or ,information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of an adverse party or hostile person. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation the Answering Defendant is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of an adverse party or hostile person. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 9. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted Plaintiff had numerous pre-existing problems. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation the Answering Defendant is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of an adverse party or hostile person. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. COUNT I Kathleen Brandt v. J22nA.ld Bertolette 10. The responses set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 9, above, are incorporated herein by reference t.hereto. 2 11. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiff's alleged cause of action. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant was negligent as in the following respects: (a) Denied as stated. To the contrary, Defendant was making observation in a reasonable matter; (b) Denied. To the contrary, Defendant was backing out in a careful and prudent manner. WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendant demands judgment in his favor. COUNT II Kathleen Brandt v. Miller~orford. Inc. 12. The responses set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 11, above, are incorporated herein by reference thereto. 13. The allegations set forth in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that portions of this paragraph could be construed as factual allegations, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendant demands judgment in his favor. 3 NEW MATTER 14. If the accident occurred as alleged, then the condition complained of did not cause the accident or the injuries complained of. 15. Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 16. The Answering Defendants aver that if fou~d to exist on their part, said negligence proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries. 17. The Plaintiff was contributorily negligent and/or failed to mitigate the claimed damages, thereby limiting and/or barring any recovery. 18. The aforesaid collision and caused by the negligent, reckless, grossly negligent conduct of Plaintiff, following: (a) operating her vehicle at a speed which was too fast for conditions then and there existing; (b) failing to keep a proper lookout for other lawful users of the parking lot; failing to keep her vehicle under proper control; and failing to operate her vehicle with due care under existing circumstances. negligence is was not the resultant injuries were wanton, careless and/or which consisted of the (c) (d) 4 , . " -) ';1 I , .. .n " . I I I" '" " ':} ,II , 1 'q ..~... ,,' ,) 1':' ,1' {i J. ItATHLBBN BltMlDT, 'Plaintiff I IN THB COURT OF CONHON PLEAS I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I I NO. 97-6973 I CIVIL ACTION - LAW I I I I I JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. HILLBR , HORFORD INC. and DOttALD BARTOLBTTB, . Defendant. AND NOW, this REPLY TO NEW MATTeR I~~day of February, 1998, comes the Plaintiff by her attorney, Diveglia & Kaylor, and files the fallowing ~eply to New Matter and avers in support thereof as follows: 14. Denied. The allegations set forth in paragraph 14 do not make sense in regard to this accident in that there was no "condition" referenced in the complaint and, in fact, the cause of this accident was not a "condition" but rather the negligence of the Defendant. As such, no answer can be provided to this allegation. 15. _ 18. Denied. The allegations in these paragraphs are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 18. Denied. The allegations in these paragraphs are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is requir.ed. However, to the extent the factual allegations may be deemed contained therein, said allegations are denied and the Plaintiff was in no manner reckless, wanton or grossly negligent in that she at all times was operating her speed appropriately for the conditions; did keep a proper lookout and control of the vehicle; and operated it with due care. It is further averred that there is absolutely no factual basis for the allegations set forth by the Defendant and it is thereby averred that the Defendant's I I I I I I I I r i I' I. I. ~ I I i allegations represent a malicious defense and are contrary to Pa.R.C.P. 1024. 19. Denied. The allegations in these paragraphs are denied as " conclusions of law to which no further response is required. However, to the extent the factual allegations may be deemed containeQ therein, it is expressly denied that Plaintiff , , i I I consciously assumed the risk in any manner. It is further averred that there is absolutely no factual basis for the allegations set forth by the Defendant and it is thereby averred that the Defendant's allegations represent a malicious defense and are contrary to Pa.R.c.p. 1024. Respectfully Submitted, , P.c. , Dated:~-II~~f By: Arc e V. Dive li Attorney I.D. #1 119 Locust Stree Harrisburg, PA 1 (717) 236-5985 Attorney for Plaintiff 0 ..0 r.; ~ to ..;,~ "Tl ? '"t't j n, /"Ilr" t";J '~:~ ..:.:.: ~'I ) "'T- (,.i,' W '" I'~ i..t I I ~) .", - ~"j . 11 ",r I '"':~~ (~j :n ,~. ( ',.n "&'c :;- ('Jilt ~i .. ."1 In ?;j '<; I l 'I ..,-.- UTHLBBN BRANDT, I IN THB COURT O~ COMKON PLEAS plaintiff I CUMBBRLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA I I NO. 97-6973 v. I CIVIL ACTION - LAW I I IIULBR .. NORrORD INC. an4 I DONALD BARTOLETTI, I Defen4antB I JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE TO THB I'ROTHONOTARYI Please mark the above-captlonad matter as sa':isfied, settled and disoontinued. Respectfully SUbmitted, Datedl_ i;-~-1t Attorney for Plaintiff