Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-01540 )' ~ ...: o ~ \! \J '" 2 ~ .1 "I' > ~ ::> ~ ~ \ \ r i I I I / j ! . /.1/ I I r \. ~ - . . .~ .. '-1 ~ ~I . 0. \;to . <:)' ~ ~ John Flounl.cker, E.qulr, Thoma., Thoml. & Hiler. LLP 305 N. Front Street P,O. Box 999 H.m.burg, PA 17108-0999 1.0. No.: 73112 C~un..1 lor Delendant McCartnev WYNN WEAVER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 98.1540 CIVIL ACTION -LAW Plaintiff v. DAVID F. HENDERSHOT, NICHOLE K. HENDERSHOT and RICHARD E. McCARTNEY. Defendant(s) JURY THIAL DEMANDED ~TRV OF A{)PEARANCg TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance for Defendant, Richard E. McCartney, In the above-captioned case. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP . - ;)\h\ .,j{ 1.)/ //I/t(. Joh Flounlacker, ESqUlr~ I,D, Number: 73112 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717)237-7134 Counsel for Defendants Dated: ':.4,-)( qr ,:>-. 1I) irl u-~ I <.'.:1 Ill! '- (,n) U-l !;. (,i; \n (,! I Il;t . II I~. fl_., (,) i C..:) u 1'-"'- () ~,; t,: . :1' l ):_"; r");'; , " 1 i(L! i IP.. ..i u N ! M ~ ~ ~ ~ II) 0 ~ ~ j h N ~ 8 1: . . M . N IAn i Z M oil l ~ CJ) . N 0 . - . " ~ ~ 0 cL l f- ~ 0 t Z . .. ~ , i I a: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNS~LVANIA X' X., co"X OF CO""". "SA, OF C.....""'" CO"",,, WYNN WEAVER, Plaintiff ....' " No, 98 - 1540 CiVil Term Th. on..,.i9n.. h.r.by o.rtifi.. th., X .m tbi. .., .er'in9 a 'ro. 'no oorr.o, OOPy Of Def....nt." De'i. F. '.n..r'ho' .n. .ioh01. K. ..n..r.hot, '01. to Fi,. Comp1"n, oPon 'h. ..r.on and in the manner indicated below: v. DAVID F. HENDERSHOT, NICHOLE .f{. HENDERSHOT and RICHARD E. MCCARTNEY, Defendants CIVIL ACTION _ LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 2Roop .oF RP.~ ~~~ ,7ohn A. Statlez', EsqUire GOldbex'g, Katzman & Shipman 320 Market Street Post Office Box 1268 HarriSburg, PennsYlvania 17108-1268 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Datel,/qq 8 REYNOLDS & HAVAS A Professional Corporation By: -- L. Banko, Jr, Y .0, #41727 101 Pine Streot HarriSburg, PA 17108-0932 (717) 236-3200 counsel [or Defendants, David F. Hendershot and Nichole K. Henc:lershot --....., 9. At the aforesaid time and place, Defendant Nichole K Hendershot was operating the Nlssan Maxima eastbound on the Cllrlisle Pike, Route II, when she collided with the renr (If the vehicle operated by Delcndllnt McCartney. 10. As n result of the collision between the Hendershol and McCartney vehicles, the McCnrtney vehicle was propelled forward and collided with the rear of the Plaintill's vehicle causing injuries to the Plaintiff j I. The aforementioned accident was directly and proximately caused by the negligence nnd enrelessness of Defendant Nichole K Hendershot in that she: a. fniled to exercise reasonable control over the operation of her vehicle; b. failed to keep alert and maintain a propel' lookout for other vehicles on the roadway; c. failed to avoid striking the McCartney vehicle; d. drove her vehicle in a hurried, distracted or otherwise unrehsonable manner; e. failed to properly apply her brakes to avoid striking other vehicles on the roadway; and f. violated Sections 3361 and 3714 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code. 3 ',., .-:1. I " , , I r!':i , " I: ( f , , " LL 'n r L; I ( Ii t. , <::'), \ '",-- \ "----/ 7-10, The averments In this paragraph are denied generally In accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e), 11. The averments In this pa,'agraph are directed towards another party and therefore no answer Is required of Answering Defendant. By way of further explanation the averments In this paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no answer. 12. Denied. After reasonable Investigation, answering Defendant lacks Information or knowledge sufficient to form a basis to the belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, If relevant. By way of further explanation any averments in this paragraph alleging that the answering Defendant was the direct and or proximate cause for the Plaintiffs Injuries amount to Legal conclusions which require no Answer. 13. Legal conclusions whic;h require no Answer. Where an Answer Is deemed to be requlied, after reasonable Investigation, Answering Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained In this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a basis to the belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. By way of further explanation any averments suggesting that the Answering Defendant was the direct and/or proximate cause of the Plaintiffs Injuries or damages amount to legal conclusion which require no answer. 15.16. The averments In this paragraph amount to legal conclusions which require no answer, By way of further explanation any averment In this paragraph suggesting that the Answering Defendant was the direct and/or proximate cause for the Plaintiffs Injuries and/or damages amount to legal conclusions which require no answer. 17. Denied. After reasonable Investigation, answering Defendant lacks Information or knowledge sufficient to form a basis to tha belief as to the truth of the averments contained In this paragraph and same are therefore denied, strict proof being demanded at trial, if relevant. By way of further explanation any averments suggesting Answering Defendant was a direct and/or proximate cause for the Plaintiffs Injuries. NEW MATTER 18. Answering Defendant was not negligent. 19. Other entities and/or Individuals may be the proximate cause for the Plaintiffs injuries. NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 2252 20. If Plaintiff is able to prove the alleged allegations within her Complaint then the Defendant Richard E. McCartney In accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure of 2252(d) hereby join, as additional defendant, David F. Hendershot and Nlchole K. Hendershot, for the purpose of contribution and/or indemnification, hereby averments said additional defendants are alone liable to Plaintiff, are liable over to join Defendant or Is jointly Dr severally liable tolwith the joined Defendant. Wherefore, Defendant McCartney demands that David F. Hendershot and Nlchole K. Hendershot be found solely liable to Plaintiff or In the alternative Defendant McCartney be awarded COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY WYNN WEAVER, Plaintiff No. 98 - 1540 civil Tercm v. DAVID F. HENDERSHOT, NICHOLE K. HENDERSHOT and RICHARD E. MCCARTNEY, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEF'ENDANTS, DAVID F. HENDERSHOT AND NICHOLE K. HENDERSHOT, TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT David F. Hendershot: and Nichole F. Hendershot ("Defendants"), are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, they are denied. 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants, 2. Admitted. 3, Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as t the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, they are denied. 4. Admi tted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, they are denied. 11 (a) - (f). Denied. 'rhe allegations contained in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. 12. Denied. The allegations contained J.n this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. ay way of further answer, with respect to any allegation that Plaintiff sustained personal injury as a result of the motor vehicle accident which occurred on March 23, 1996, after reasonable investigation Oefendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments and, therefore, they are denied. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, they are denied. 14, Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 12 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. - 2 - ,., ...'ed. Th' .n.w.r oont.'ned ,n p.r..r." '2 her.ol ,. 'nOO<l'oroted h.ro'n bY ro,,,.noo .. " ..t ,orth ,n ,to entirety. '6. ",'ed. Th' .n...r oo.t.'n" ,. p.r..r.ph '2 h.r.o' ,. ,noorpor.t" h.r.,n bY r".ronc, .. " ..t ,orth ,n ,to entirety. ,7. D.n'''' Th' ...w.r cont.,n" ,n p.r..r.ph '2 h.r.o' ,. 'noorpor.tod bOr." bY re,,,.nc, .. " ..t ,orth ,n ,to entirety. """"FO"", oe'....nto' ,,"v'd F. ...d".hot .nd .'cho" .. ..n..r.hot, ....nd jod....t ,. tb.'r ,.vor .nd ...'n.t p,.,.t"" li~W MATTER ". Th' .n...re co...,..d 'n por..reph' , tor".h " heroo' or' ,noorporot.. h.re'n bY re'''''C' .. " ..t lOrtb 'n their entirety. '9. p,.,nt"'" 0"'" " .ny, ia b.rr.. bY the applicable statute of limitations. 20. Pi.inti"" 0'"" for no._",onooio ...~.a. i' ".ito. bY hia tort ..,.otto. ooda' the ,oto' v.hiO" pin.nni., Responsibility LaW, Act 6 of 1990. - 3 - '>. (') I ~ i.-r, " i .;1 ~ ~~ , f.', i, .., ," .,-, ().... r,;li, .'. ',j 10..' U., ~ (IJi U;l Ci'i t....: .I' {'.J C\, I "I "- " I , I Cd , 8 ~ 11 t~j (f'l ~) c..\ ~ l, '-J ~ \ .. .