HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-01527
v,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO, 9 p- ;,).2 '7 &d ~-
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
KEITH A, HANFORD,
Plaintiff
MICHAEL J, BARRICK; and
DOYLE W, IVEY, JR.,
Defendant
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Keith A, Hanford, by his attorneys, Wilt &
Freeburn, and files the following Complaint:
1. Plaintiff, Keith A, Hanford, is an adult individual who resides at 430
E, Main Street, Dallastown, York County, Pennsylvania,
2, Defendant, Michael J, Barrick" is an adult individual who resides at
650 Mountain Road, Marysville, Perry County, Pennsylvania,
3, Defendant, Doyle W, Ivey, Jr" is an adult individual who resides at
107 Stoney Run Road, Dillsburg, York County, Pennsylvania,
4. The facts and occurrences hereinafter related took place on or about
November 7,1996 at approximately 5:20 p,m, on State Route 83 S in the Borough of
Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania,
5, At that time and place, Plaintiff was operating his 1995 Pontiac
Grand AM, which was stopped behind traffic in the southbound lane of State
Route 83,
6. At that time and place, Defendant, Michael J, Barrick, was operating
his 1991 Ford Ranger which was traveling in the southbound lane of State Route
1
83, Michael J, Barrick's motor vehicle was behind Plaintifrs vehicle, which was
stopped in traffic in the southbound lane of State Route 83,
7, At that time and place, Defendant, Doyle W, Ivey, Jr" was operating
his 1995 GMC Vandura which was traveling in the southbound lane of State
Route 83, Doyle W, Ivey, Jr,'s motor vehicle was behind Plaintiff's vehicle, which
was stopped in traffic in the southbound lane of State Route 83,
COUNT I
Plaintiff, Keith A. Hanford v, Dovle W.lvev. Jr.
8, Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference thereto the allegations
contained in paragraphs 1-7, as though the same were set forth herein at length,
9. Defendant, Doyle W, Ivey, Jr.'s automobile struck the rear portion of
the vehicle in front of him which struck the rear portion of Plaintiff's automobile.
10, As a result of the collision, Plaintiff suffered severe injuries,
damages and losses, including physical injuries to his neck and back,
11. By reason of the injuries he sustained in the collision, Plaintiff has
been required to incur reasonable medical and rehabilitation bills and expenses,
and will continue to incur such bills and expenses in the future, the exact amount
which cannot be ascertained at this time.
12, As a result of the injuries he sustained in the collision, Plaintiff has
suffered severe physical pain, mental anguish, discomfort, inconvenience, and
distress,
2
13, As a result of the injuries he sustained in the collision, Plaintiff wi\l
continue to endure physical pain, mental anguish, discomfort, inconvenience,
and distress in the future,
14, As a result of the injuries he sustained in the collision, Plaintiff has
endured and wi\l continue to endure embarrassment and humiliation,
15. As a result of the injuries he sustained in the collision, Plaintiff has
suffered a loss of his ability to enjoy the pleasures of life, and will continue to
suffer such loss in the future,
16. As a result of the injuries he sustained in the collision, Plaintiff has
suffered and wi\l continue to suffer loss of wages, compensation and income, the
exact amount of which cannot be ascertained at this time,
17, As a result of the injuries he sustained in the co\lision, Plaintiff has
been required to incur certain incidental costs, the exact amount which cannot be
ascertained at this time,
18. The foregoing accident and the damages set forth herein sustained by
Plaintiff are the direct and proximate cause of the negligent, careless, wanton
and reckless manner in which Defendant, Doyle W, Ivey, Jr, operated his motor
vehicle as follows:
a, failure to have his vehicle under such control as to be
able to stop within the assured clear distance ahead;
b, failure to keep alert and maintain a proper watch for the
presence of other motor vehicles on the highway;
3
20, Defendant, Michael J, Barrick failed to stop his automobile, and the
front portion of his vehicle violently collided with the rear portion of Defendant,
Doyle W, Ivey, Jr,'s automobile, The front portion of Defendant, Doyle W, Ivey,
Jr.'s automobile struck the rear portion of the vehicle in front of him which struck
the rear porHon of Plaintiffs automobile,
21. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff suffered severe injuries,
damages and losses, including injuries to his neck and back,
22, By reason of the injuries he sustained in the collision, Plaintiff has
been required to incur reasonable medical and rehabilitation bills and expenses,
and will continue to incur such bills and expenses in the future, the exact amount
which cannot be ascertained at this time,
23, As a result of the injuries he sustained in the collision, Plaintiff has
suffered severe physical pain, mental anguish, discomfort, inconvenience, and
distress,
24. As a result of the injuries he sustained in the collision, Plaintiff will
continue to endure physical pain, mental anguish, discomfort, inconvenience,
and distress in the future,
25, As a result of the injuries he sustained in the collision, Plaintiff has
endured and will continue to endure embarrassment and humiliation,
26, As a result of the injuries he sustained in the collision, Plaintiff has
suffered and will continue to suffer loss of wages, compensation and income, the
exact amount of which cannot be ascertained at this time,
5
27, As a result of the injuries he sustained in the collision, Plaintiff has
suffered a loss of his ability to enjoy the pleasm-es of life, and will continue to
suffer such loss in the future,
28, As a result of the injuries he sustained in the collision, Plaintiff has
been required to incur certain incidental costs, the exact amount which cannot be
ascertained at this time,
29, The foregoing accident and the damages set forth herein sustained by
Plaintiff are the direct and proximate cause of the negligent, careless, wanton
and reckless manner in which Defendant, Michael J, Barrick operated his motor
vehicle as follows:
a, failure to have his vehicle under such control as to be
able to stop within the assured clear distance ahead;
b. failure to keep alert and maintain a proper watch for the
presence of other motor vehicles on the highway;
c, failure to apply his brakes in sufficient time to avoid
striking the rear of Plaintiffs vehicle;
d, failure to travel at a safe speed;
e. failure to keep a proper watch for traffic on the highway;
f, failure to drive his vehicle with due regard for the highway
and traffic conditions which were existing and of which he
was or should have been aware;
g, failure to keep proper and adequate control over his
vehicle; and
6
u
>- r-. ~
~ C'\I
1-'= N ~
~~ :?-:r
I~~"
r..:~ :r.: U~
0- Gil~
~f2 ...:!' ':91CfJ
Q, I ::5z
u::ll.' (.., O:Z
lUUJ
iE =.'":J f:,iJo...
oct
1'- ro ~~
::J
0 0"', U
Ii
,
,- '
which was traveling In the southbound lane of Interstate 83, Answering Defendant is
without knowledge or Information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining
averments contained In this paragraph,
7, It Is admitted that Doyle W, Ivey, Jr" was operating a motor vehicle
In the southbound lane of Interstate 83 on or about November 7, 1996, at approximately
5:20 p,m, Answering Defendant Is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the remaining averments contained In this paragraph,
COUNT I
Plaintiff, Keith A, Hanford v, Dovle W, Ivev, Jr,
8, Paragraphs 1 - 7 of Defendant Michael J. Barrick's Answer are
incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length,
9, - 18, The averments contained in these paragraphs are directed
at a Defendant other than answering Defendant and therefore no response is required
under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, To the extent that a response may be
deemed to be required, the averments in these paragraphs are denied pursuant to
Pa,R.C,P, 1029(e),
COUNT II
Plaintiff. Keith A. Hanford v, Michael J. Barrick
19, Defendant Michael J, Barrick's incorporates herein by reference
paragraphs 1 - 18 of his Answer as though the same were fully set forth at length,
2
-.'.!
Answering Defendant Is without Information or belief as to the balance of the averments
of paragraph 6, hence It Is denied and proof is demanded at time of trial,
7, Admitted In part and denied In part, It Is admitted that Defendant Doyle
Ivey was operating his 1995 GMC Vandura In the southbound lane of Route 83.
Answering Defendant Is without Information or belief as to the balance of the averments
of paragraph 7, hence they are denied and proof Is demanded at time of trial,
COUNT I
Plaintiff, Keith A, Hanford v. Dovle W.lvev, Jr.
8, Answering Defendant Incorporates the averments of paragraphs 1 through
7 herein and made a part hereof as if set forth in full,
9, Denied as stated, It Is admitted that Defendant Ivey's vehicle was pushed
into the rear of the vehicle In front of him, Any and all other averments of paragraph 9
are denied and proof Is demanded at time of trial. In the alternative, Answering
Defendant Is without information or belief as to the balance of the truth of the averments
of paragraph 9, hence it is denied and proof is demanded at time of trial,
10. Denied, Answering Defendant Is without information or belief as to the
truth of the averments of paragraph 10, hence they are denied and proof Is demanded
at time of trial.
11, Denied, Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the
truth of the averments of paragraph 11, hence they are denied and proof is demanded
at time of trial.
12, Denied, Answering Defendant Is without Information or belief as to the
truth of the averments of paragraph 12, hence they are denied and proof Is demanded
at time of trial,
13, Denied, Answering Defendant Is without Information or belief as to the
truth of the averments of paragraph 13, hence they are denied and proof Is demanded
at time of trial,
14, Denied, Answering Defendant is without Information or belief as to the
truth of the averments of paragraph 14, hence they are denied and proof Is demanded
at time of trial.
15, Denied, Answering Defendant is without Information or belief as to the
truth of the averments of paragraph 15, hence they are denied and proof is demanded
at time of trial.
16, Denied, Answering Defendant Is without Information or belief as to the
truth of the averments of paragraph 16, hence they are denied and proof is demanded
at time of trial.
17, Denied, Answering Defendant Is without information or belief as to the
truth of the averments of paragraph 17, hence they are denied and proof is demanded
at time of trial.
18, Denied, It Is denied that the foregoing action was the result of any
negligent, carelessness, wanton, or reckless conduct of Defendant Ivey,
(a) Denied, It is denied that Defendant Ivey failed to have his vehicle
under such control as to be able to stop within an assured clear distance
ahead;
(b) Denied, It Is denied that Defendant Ivey failed to keep alert and
maintain a proper watch for the presence of other motor vehicles on the
highway;
(c) Denied, It Is denied that Defendant Ivey failed to apply his brakes
In sufficient time to avoid striking the rear of Plaintiff's vehicle;
(d) Denied, It Is denied that Defendant Ivey failed to travel at a safe
speed;
(e) Denied, It Is denied that Defendant Ivey failed to keep proper
watch for traffic on the highway;
(f) Denied, It Is denied that Defendant Ivey failed to drive his vehicle
with due regard for the highway and traffic conditions which were existing
and of which he was or should have been aware;
(g) Denied, It Is denied that Defendant Ivey failed to keep proper and
adequate control over his vehicle;
(h) Denied, It is denied that Defendant Ivey drove his vehicle upon the
highway in a manner endangering persons and property and In a reckless
manner and/or with careless disregard for the rights and safety of others
and/or In violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of Pennsylvania,
WHEREFORE, Defendant request this Honorable Court to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint.
COUNT II
Plaintiff. Keith A. Hanford v. Michel J. Barrick
19, The averments of paragraphs 1 through 18 are incorporated herein and
made a part hereof as if set forth in full.
20, - 29,
The averments of paragraphs 20 through 29 are directed to a party
other than Answering Defendant, hence no responsive pleading is required, In the
alternative, to the extent a responsive pleading is required, any and all liability of
Answering Defendant is denied and proof Is demanded a time of trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant request this Honorable Court to dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint.
NEW MATTER
30, Some or all of Plaintiff's claims may be barred or limited by the
Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Act.
31, Some or all of Plaintiff's claims may be barred or limited by his election of
the limited tort option,
32, Some or all of Plaintiff's claims may be barred by the applicable statute of
limitations.
CROSS-CLAIMS
33, Answering Defendant incorporates the averments of his Complaint against
Defendant Barrick filed to action 97-2888 as if set forth in full and made a part hereof,
34, If Defendant Ivey is found liable, Defendant Barrick is solely liable to
Plaintiff, liable over to Answering Defendant, jointly or severally liable with Answering
Defendant, or liable to Defendant for indemnification or contribution,
35, Defendant Barrick is liable over to Defendant Ivey for the damages
sustained by Defendant Ivey as set forth in Defendant Ivey's Complaint.
WHEREFORE, Defendant request this Honorable Court enter judgment in Its
favor against Defendant Barrick as set forth above,
Answering Defendant Is without Information or belief as to the balance of the averments
of paragraph 6. hence it Is denied and proof is demanded at time of trial.
7, Admitted in part and denied In part, It Is admitted that Defendant Doyle
Ivey was operating his 1995 GMC Vandura In the southbound lane of Route 83,
Answering Defendant is without Information or belief as to the balance of the averments
of paragraph 7, hence they are denied and proof is demanded at time of trial,
COUNT I
Plaintiff, Keith A. Hanford v. Doyle W. Iyey. Jr.
8, Answering Defendant incorporates the averments of paragraphs 1 through
7 herein and made a part hereof as if set forth in full,
9, Denied as stated, It is admitted that Defendant Ivey's vehicle was pushed
Into the rear of the vehicle in front of him, Any and all other averments of paragraph 9
are denied and proof is demanded at time of trial. In the alternative, Answering
Defendant is without information or belief as to the balance of the truth of the averments
of paragraph 9, hence it is denied and proof is demanded at time of trial.
10, Denied, Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the
truth of the averments of paragraph 10, hence they are denied and proof is demanded
at time of trial.
11, Denied, Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the
truth of the averments of paragraph 11, hence they are denied and proof is demanded
at time of trial.
(b) Denied, It Is denied that Defendant Ivey failed to keep alert and
maintain a proper watch for the presence of other motor vehicles on the
highway;
(c) Denied, It is denied that Defendant Ivey failed to apply his brakes
In sufficient time to avoid striking the rear of Plaintiffs vehicle;
(d) Denied, It Is denied that Defendant Ivey failed to travel at a safe
speed;
(e) Denied, It Is denied that Defendant Ivey failed to keep proper
watch for traffic on the highway;
(f) Denied, It Is denied that Defendant Ivey failed to drive his vehicle
with due regard for the highway and traffic conditions which were existing
and of which he was or should have been aware;
(g) Denied, It Is denied that Defendant Ivey failed to keep proper and
adequate control over his vehicle;
(h) Denied, It Is denied that Defendant Ivey drove his vehicle upon the
highway In a manner endangering persons and property and In a reckless
manner and/or with careless disregard for the rights and safety of others
and/or In violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of Pennsylvania,
WHEREFORE, Defendant request this Honorable Court to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint.
COUNT II
Plaintiff. Keith A. Hanford v. Michel J. Barrick
19, The averments of paragraphs 1 through 18 are incorporated herein and
made a part hereof as if set forth In full.
20, - 29,
The averments of paragraphs 20 through 29 are directed to a party
other than Answering Defendant, hence no responsive pleading Is required, In the
alternative, to the extent a responsive pleading is required, any and all liability of
Answering Defendant is denied and proof is demanded a time of trial,
WHEREFORE, Defendant request this Honorable Court to dismiss Plaintiffs
Complaint.
NEW MATTER
30, Some or all of Plaintiffs claims may be barred or limited by the
Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Act.
31, Some or all of Plaintiffs claims may be barred or limited by his election of
the limited tort option,
32, Some or all of Plaintiffs claims may be barred by the applicable statute of
limitations,
CROSS.CLAIMS
33, Answering Defendant Incorporates the averments of his Complaint against
Defendant Barrick filed to action 97-2888 as if set forth in full and made a part hereof,
34, If Defendant Ivey Is found liable, Defendant Barrick is solely liable to
Plaintiff, liable over to Answering Defendant, jointly or severally liable with Answering
Defendant, or liable to Defendant for Indemnification or contribution,
35, Defendant Barrick Is liable over to Defendant Ivey for the damages
sustained by Defendant Ivey as set forth In Defendant Ivey's Complaint.
WHEREFORE, Defendant request this Honorable Court enter judgment In its
favor against Defendant Barrick as set forth above,
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP
r.;': 0\ ~
..i: C.
I. ~ N .~;;:;
C1
UI, " (.1"
~.);i..'. ;.:: l.J;':r:
1-;':
, . ...;.... q~~
(~, ~
f-,:l:''- .~~
_I ~ G. 'I ,
, '1l<E
,~. l...1 Ql
I VJ ~,
lJ. B
() Cl
Defendant, Doyle W. Ivey's automobile was also struck from behind by a
1991 Ford Ranger pickup truck driven by Defendant, Michael J. Barrick.
Defendant Barrick admits that he struck the rear of the Defendant Ivey's
van. Defendant Ivey maintains that he had brought his vehicle to a stop
behind Klase's Jeep before being struck from behind by Defendant Barrick.
Both Plaintiff and Klase testified that they felt two separate impacts.
Defendant Barrick testified that he did not see any brake lights on Defendant
Ivey's van prior to impact.
II. DAMAGES
Plaintiff went to the Holy Spirit Hospital Emergency Department on
the evening of the accident where he complained of neck pain and headache.
Plaintiff was diagnosed with cervical strain and released.
Plaintiff followed up with his family physician, Thomas Kunkle, DO
beginning on November II, 1996, for neck pain and headaches.
Plaintiff then began treating with Dr. Leonard Jones of Silver Spring
Chiropractic Center on February 19, 1997. Plaintiff treated with Dr. Jones
approximately 80 times through February 2, 1998. Plaintiff then moved to the
York area where he followed up with a new family physician, Robert J.
Pizziketti, MD with Family Health Associates.
2
On May 5, 1999, Plaintiff began treating with a chiropractor, David
Santoriello, DC for back and neck pain. Plaintiff treated with Dr. Santoriello
approximately nine (9) times through May 17, 1999.
Plaintiff returned to Dr. Santoriello on January 24, 2000, who diagnosed
an acute exacerbation of a chronic condition.
Plaintiff then began treating with Butera, Moritz, Hofmann Associates.
An MRI was obtained on February 25, 2000, which revealed a bulging or
herniated disc at C5-6. An epidural steroid injection was administered and
acupuncture treatment was attempted without lasting relief.
On March 22, 2000, Dr. K. Nicholas Pandelidis performed a C5-6
anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with plating and allograft at C5-6.
Plaintiff continued to experience significant pain in his neck and
interscapular region following surgery. Cervical facet injections were
administered on August 8, 2000, at the Pain Management Center, with no
effect.
On September 5, 2000, Plaintiff began treatment with Bruce E. Sicilia,
MD at York Rehabilitation Associates. Dr. Sicilia treated Plaintiff mainly with
pain medication without lasting relief.
Plaintiff was ultimately treated by Joseph P. Krzeminski, MD who first
saw Plaintiff on March 9, 2001.
3
,- III I:;
( ~-:
,'J. "
.. -.;.
l. ~ ' . , ) .~
" , . ..
: ,':;: ", "~J
(~ .'
',-
'.. U)
I J .<
. " ...~
G , l- . , j "
ILl
i c: :j! n..
c.; .....:
I I, :~~l
'-' CJ U
"
"
i ..:r ~
...:J
Y-l~ M 8~
':;.("j ::t:
H-:i': ~ ~i
l~f-'
~O N
r:.
Cl.
-.11! I- dCn
a: :.: (..) a:l a..
,-- 0 ::;;
u. -:>
0 0 (5
~ 0 ~
1- M :J~
u.J0 0,,,,
<;2t~1 ::r.: O~t
\+-.1-' 0.- (::l~
~~r-: ~~
IJ/C; c:>
)c: N :::..--
tTJ'.. 'fl'"
oJ\, ' :;>, iJ. to
u:.;.. 8 l'tJ(l..
'"'<
r-- - ,--
tl. - :J
a Cl u