The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About98-02570 .I ~ .;~ ...::.. ~) I.j '~ '? ~ .3 :s ~ ~J ~ 3'.... ..... '? ~ \) ~ ,I I ~ ~1 ~I .':l , ~i i I I 01 ~I \111 C'6i ~I ~i i -, ~I I 717-243-6486 SR I b I S SHUFF ~IACHlt~D ':J26 P01 OCT 1:1 I ':J(:) 13141. .. Law Offices SAID IS, SHUFF & MASLAND A '''O,..uIONAL COM'OR-ATION lohn E. Silk. 26 Wesl H1ah Slreel. Posl Office Bo~ S60 Robel! C, S.ldl. Carllsll, P.nnlyl"~nla 11013.29% a.olfroy S. Shoff "Iblrt H. Ma.land Tol.phone: (711) 243.6222. Facsimile: (7'7) 243.6486 Johnnal.Oelly r:mail: sgsm(j)e~online.com Rlehard P MlsllIsky t J E II. I" J V I ATE t. E COP I E R i2.mtll , e 1,1, r. _ ~ Scott O. Moor. Karl M. t'Od.;:~ J~e.. beof3e. ~~ FAX #: J~a- 1oJ.\li22.. () FROM: f--\.osk. At \ ~'()l.UlO. ~:SCb' SAIOIS, SHUFF & MAS LAND RE: ~~ \J. CbvYrbJ-t ~Y\ MESSAGE, 00: q~. 0'::/10. :\y;;t ShUN Or"e., 2109 M"'k.tS...... CilIT\P HIli, PA 170/1 Tolephone: (717) 137.340' FQC$lmll.: (717) m.l401 Reply To CIIl'IIsI. -' _NO OF PAGES (INCLTJI:lING COVER SHEET) o Original will follow vial o Regular Mail a Ov~rnighc Mail o Hand Delivery a Other o Original will not: follow ~-----------.~_______M____~_.______________~__~___________________ ~i:~~~!!g!~D:!~~~~~~~~I~f~~lt~~~~i;!s;~~~~o::c~~~~6!~!~~~ ::T tHE INTENDED R!CIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIEP T~T ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNI~TION IS STRICTLy PROHIBITED. IF YOU ~VE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY USE rMMEO!ATE~Y BY TELEPHONE MIl R2TtTRN THE ORI, ':NJU.. MESSAGE TO US AT THli: ASOVE AnDR!:.'.!!: VIA THE U, S. POSTAL SERVICE, THANK YOU. -----~------W---~---~-----______~_____~M._~_____.M_____~_______._ NOTE: IF YOU 00 NOT RECEIVE ALL qF 1H~ PAGES. OR ANY PAG~~ ARE UNCLEAR, PLEASE CALL (71.1~ 24~-6222 AS SOON AS 1?0SSI13{,oE: AND ASK lQlL$ENDER. ,,, .. ,r~ ~jA)fl \ , ~ /(:, -\ j\.~'/ 'y ,I . )"/'" )/-'/ , \, r' \ ./ '1,....__...-:/,," , " // / / ~/ 717-~'4]'-,ABt=, ',;n III I 'Ci ',HUFF I'Ifl",1 HNiJ ':1,,'(', r-n,~J DCT P-i 1;:0 ...... J~. JOHN B. SLUtS ROBeRT C, SAIDIS OeOff'll6Y S. SHUFF' ALBIlRT H, MASLAND IOHNNA J. DBILY RICHARD p, MISl.rrSKY t "'MBS B, RBID, JR. tt KARl, M. LIlDllBOHM IOSIlPH L, HITCH1NOS MARK W. ALLSHOUSB LAW omens SAlOIS, SHUFF & MASLAND A P_OI'l/IIIONAI, CORPORATION 26 WEST KlGH STREET CAIlLISLE, PKl'INSYLVANIA 1701).2956 TBLEPHONI!: (717) 243-6222' FACSIMILE: (717) 243.6486 SMAIL: lawr.hsmatw..com ~HOIl.l: Ut'I'ICE; ZI09 MARKf.7 9Tl1BE'I' CAMl'Iuu,PA 17011 'IllLIIPllONII: (711) 1l1-J40l p^CSlMnJI: (717) 7l7.1407 UPLY 1'0 CARLISLE . -- October 15, 1999 The Honorable Qeorge Hoffer Cumberland County Courth;::\.l\'j~, 1 Courthouse Square Cal"lisle, PA 17013 -... Re: Beasley v. Comfort Inn No,; 98-2570 Civil Cumberland County Common Pleas Dear Judge Hoffer: I am currently trial counsel for the Plaintiff in t.he above-referenced mat.t.er. I am writing to explain my absence at the Call of the List on October 12, 1999. I had inappropriately relied on the Praecipe listing the case for trial filed by Defendant. which states that Call of the List would be October 13, 199~. A copy of that Praecipe is attached hereto for your reference, To the extent that I failed to reconcile this date with the previously provided Court calendar. I apologize. I have filed this day my pre-trial memorandum and a Motion to Strike this case from the trial list, Had I been at the Call of the List, I would have objected to this case being listed for trial for the following reasons: 1, I have recently accepted a new position, at a Harrisburg law firm, to commence November 1, 1999, This new position does not permit me to handle this matter at the November 8th trial term, There is not another attorney at my current firm with sufficient knowledge or familiarity with t.his file to be able to try it in two weeks, the time scheduled for trial. There 18 not enough time in those two weeks for an attorney to obtain the file and familiarize himself as to I C!~TIFlEO AS A CIVIL TRIAL ADVOCATB ~ v THB NATIONAL SOARD OP 11I1^L ^DVOCACV A PENNSYLVANIA SUPREMB CoURT ACCREOITBD ADBNCV .. L,~.M, IN TAXATION '71 'h;!4:1-f,41'1", ,;H III I '; ':;HUFF ~111";Ult~ll 13~~6 F"(,n ocr 11';; !(~r:J t314~! The Honorollble t:leorgl'l HoUer Page Two october. 15, 1999 provide effective representation of Mr. Bel1l11ey at tbe tillle of trial. 2. This case was arbitr'ated on September 10, 1999, by order of this Court, The result of that arbitration waS a $20,000,00 award for Plaintiff. Therel1fter, Defendollnt filed an Appeal. For the purposes of arbitration, it had been agreed by counsel for both parti~s that the following evidence woui~b~ allowed to be introduced at arbitration by agreement of the parties, a, Discovery Deposition of Frederick Abraham b, Medical evidence from Mr. Beasley's he<;llthcare providers; c. Employment record of William Beasley Mr, Shipman has nOW objected to the introduction of that testimony without proper deposition and/or authentication. Therefore, the depositions of Mr. Beasley's healthcare providers and employers still remain to be taken. These healthcare providers and employer are located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and those depositions are to be taken by referral counsel. Referral counsel has not been able to confirm the ability to accomplish taking those depositions prior to the date of trial, The deposition of one doctor is scheduled for November 5, 1999, Additionally, Attorney shipman has objected to the use of the prior deposition of Frederick Abraham for use at trial and has requested a re-deposition of Mr. Abraham. I believe under ~a.R,C,F. Rule 4020 chat the deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the Court finds , , . (bl that the witness is at a greater distance than 100 miles from the place of trial or is outside the Commonwealth unless it appears that the absence of the witness waS procured by the party offering the deposition, 717-243-6486 SA I D I S SHUFF t1RSLRND , 926 H'13 (ICT 1~i ... The Honorable George Hoffer Page Two October 15, 1999 provide effective representation of Mr. Beallley at the time of trial , 2, This case was arbitrated on September llJ, 1999, by Order of this Court. The result of that arbitration was a $20,000.00 award for Plaintiff. Thereafter, Defendant filed an Appeal, For the purposes of ar'bitration, :i.t had been agreed by counsel f.or both parties that the following evidence wou~b~ allowed to be intr0duced at arbitration by agreement of the parties. a. Discovery Deposition of Frederick Abraham b. Medical evidence from Mr. Beasley's healthcare providers; c, Employment record of Willi<!lm Beasley Mr, Shipman has now objected to the introduction of that testimony without proper deposition and/or at\thentication, Therefore, the depositions of Mr. Beasley's healthcare providers and employers still remaln to be taken. These healthcare providers and employer are located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and those depositions are to be taken by referral counsel. Referral counsel has not been able to confirm the abil.ity to accomplish taking those depositions prior to the date of trial, The deposition of one doctor is scheduled for November 5, 1999, Additionally, Attorney Shipman has objected to the use of the prior deposition of Frederick Abraharri for use at. trial and has requested a re-deposition of Mr. Abraham. I believe under Pa.R.C.P, Rule 4020 that the deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the Court finds . . . (b) that the witness is at a greater distance than 100 miles from the place of trial or is outside the Commonwealth unless it appears that the absence of the witness was procured by the party offering the deposition. 1:~ l 42 , r t ~ " l;, ~; I I I list upon agreement of counsel becau~e Plaintiff was not ready for trial in July 1999. 5. Admitted, 6. Admitted upon information and belief, 7. Admitted upon information and belief. 8. Denied that there are no other attorneys with knowledge of the case. In fact, the case origina tes from counsel from Philadelphia, Daniel Jaffe, Esquire, who has been involved in the case throughout. Mr. Jaffe has entered his appearance for the Plaintiff. 9. Admitted. It is customary to admit such evidence without live testimony during arbitration hearings. 10. Denied as stated. Counsel for the Defendant merely requires that Plaintiff follow the rules of evidence regarding admissibility of this evidence. 11. Admi tted. However, Dr. Sridhara' s deposi tion has been scheduled for November 5,1999. It is believed that PlainUff has made no attempts to schedule the additional discovery since the case was listed. 12. Denied as stated. It was agreed that the deposition of Mr. Abraham in October, 1998, would be for discovery purposes only and not for use at trial. Plaintiff was aware of the need 2 to schedule the trial deposition of Mr. Abraham. since October 8, 1998, when Mr. Abraham's discovery deposition was taken. 13. Admitted that Pa. Rule of Civil Procedure 1420 provides as stated. 14. Admitted upon information and belief. 15. Admitted. 16. Admitted. By way of further answer, this is a rather straight-forward slip and fall case and the testimony of this particular witness will be short and straight-forward, He witnessed the fall down, Plaintiff's counsel was aware that the previous deposition was for discovery purposes only, This was agreed upon, and counsel for plaintiff was to re-schedule the deposition and has had over a year to do so. 17. Admitted, Upon information and belief. 18. Denied. The deposition of Dr. Sridhara has been scheduled for November 5, 1999, at 2:30 P.M. 19. Admitted. 20. Denied as stated. Discovery has been completed with the exception of the deposition of Dr. Sridhara, which is the only additional. deposition Plaintiff has attempted to schedule since the case was listed for trial. It is customary that medical depositions are scheduled immediately before trial, 3 11-"'. , . .. I. ./ CERTIFICATE 0.' SEBYIg I hereby oertify that a oopy of the foregoing has been dUly served on the fOllowing oounsel of reoord on October 18, 19991 via faosimile transmission: 215-568-9287 Daniel. M. Jaffe, Esquire 2047 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 17103 via faosimile transmission: 243-6~ Mark w. Allshouse, Esquire saidis, Shuff & Masland 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 GOL J' i ( KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. . / --- Jeff Shipman, 1.0. #: .785 P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Attorneys for Defendants Telephone: 717-234-4161 3691,2 fr: r- f; 04:(. N ....- t', .. ~') 4- ..~ U9. uJ .~. 0'" or (J..;.(l it~i' < .:"",: : );;:'.J (l,-+__ -i';-", . , C:;:l ',)(1 {a uS' ,l.r. '-1" r~':' t-- i:J(o I.- ".: ~ CO) ~-(::l~ t... a 1.1.-. '" ::J u (,n () Geraldine Reisinger comfort Inn West ~'red Abraham, as on cross-examination Defendant respectfully reserveS the right to amend this exhibit list upon receipt and review of the Plaintiff's Pre- Trial Memorandum, 4. Exhibits. 1. Photographs of the hotel; 2. Weather records; 3. All medical records and billsl 4. Wage loss information of William BeasleYI and 5. All. documents produced in discovery. Defendant respectfully reserves the right to amend this witness list upon receipt and review of the Plaintiff's Pre- Trial Memorandum. 5. Expert report. None. 6, Stipulations of the oarties. None by Defendant. " 3 7. 8dditional infor~JQn. A, frincipal iSSUBS of liability and damaaes. 1 , Whether the Defendant was negligent. 2. Whether the Plaintiff was comparatively negligent, 3. Whether the Plaintiff's i nj uries and damages are related to this accident. B. SUmmarv of leoal issues reoardinq admissibilitv of testimony. exhl.bJts or othe.r matte.f.L.. and leoal, authorities reJ:i,ed-1!Porl. It is not "..ticipated that there will be any difficult or novel legal issues during the trial of this case. C. Current statuS--9f settlement neqotiatio!:L~, There was an arbitration award, with a dissent, in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $20,000. The Defendant has offered $5,000 to settle the case. Respectfully submitted, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. on J. ShJpma , Esquire H: 517B5 P.O. Box 126B Harrisburg, PA 1710B-1268 Attorneys for Defendants Telephone: 717-234-4161 31521, 1 4 SAlOIS, SHUFF & MAS LAND ATI'OUa.YltATtJ.&W 16 W. "'Sh SI...I Co.II.,., PA WIl,LII\M S, BEASLEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COM~ON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSn,vANIA v. VALLEYVIEW HOSPITALITY, INC" trading and doing business as COMFORT INN WEST, and DANLODGE, INC., trading and doing business as COMFORT INN WEST, NO. 98-) ','ILl CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, William S, Beasley, by and through his attorneys Saidis, Shuff & Masland and represent as follows: 1. Plaintiff William S, Beasley is an adult individual residing at 1006 South Bouvier Street, Philadelphia, Pr>nnsylvania. 2, Defendant Valley View Hospitality Inc" which is trading and doing business as Comfort Inn West, is a Delaware corporation registered to conduct business in Pennsylvania wi th a principle place of business located at 339 Market Street, Will iamsport, Pennsylvania 17701 and regularly conducts business at 6325 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 3, Defendant DanLodge, Inc" which is trading and doing business as Comfort Inn West, is a Pennsylvania corporation with a principle place of business located at R,D, # 3, Box II, Williamsport, Pennsylvania 17701 and regularly conducts business at 6325 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. Defendants Valley View Hospi tali ty, Inc, and DanLodge, Inc. shall hereinafter be known as "Defendants", 1 SAlOIS, SHUFF & MASLAND AntaNlntATtUW 16 W. 1lI1" Sl'tel CO,II.I., PA 5. At all times ment ioned herfJin, Defendant was in excl usi ve possession, management., and cont rol of the business premises, Comfort Inn West, individually and through their employeefl, 6, The occurrence hereinaft.er related t.ook place on June 12, 1996 at approximately 6:30 p,m, on the inside front door landing, in the lobby area, of Defendants' business, t.he Comfort Inn West located at 6325 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 7. On or about ,June 12, 1996, Plaintiff was a business visitor at the Comfort Inn West, and as he was attempting to descend the stairs leaving from the front. door landing towards the lobby area, there existed an accumulation of wat.er and/or liquid on the landing which caused Plaintiff t.o sli.p and fall resulting in serious and permanent injuries as set forth below. 8, Defendants and/or their agents knew or should have known that a dangerous condition existed due to the accumulation of liquid or water on the landing, 9. Plaintiff's fall and resulting injuries were caused solely by the negligence of Defendant, their agents and/or employees. 10, Plaintiff William S. Beasley acted with due care in descending the steps and was not contributorily negligent. 11, As a result of the actions or inactions of the Defendants, either jointly or severally, Plaintiff, William S, Beasley, sustained the following injuries and/or aggravations of pre-existing conditions: A. Bruising, swelling and pain in the neck area. 2 SAlOIS. SHUFF & MAS LAND ~YI4AT.IAW 16 W. "11h S"..I 0.,11.1., PA II landing which would prevent the loss of traction due to the accumulatIop. of water on the landing area; G. Defendant provided a false sense of security with regard to the actual traction and fooUng on the steps to those intending to descend the steps and enter the hotel lobby. WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectively requests the court to enter a judgment. in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount in the excess of 825,000.00, together with interest and costs, and such other and further relief as the court deems just and appropriate. COUNT I I Beasley. v. DanLodqe. _Inc ~ 19, Paragraphs 1 through 18 are incorporated by reference as set forth. 20, Plaintiff's fall was caused exclusively and solely by Defendant's negligence, carelessness, and recklessness in that: A. Defendant caused or permitted water and/or liquid to accumulate 011 the stair landing at a point where it caused an unreasonable risk of injury to plaintiff and other business visitors; B. Defendant failed to make reasonable inspection of the floor which would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed by the accumulation of water; C, Defendant. failed to give warning of the dangerous condition posed by the accumulation of water, erect barricades or take any other safety precautions to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and/or business visitors; 5 D, Defendant failed to remove the accumulated water from the floor and keep the floor clear of wateri E, Defendant failed to place floor mats inside the door and on the landing to soak up excess water whi.ch collects t here causing the hazardous conditionSi F, Defendant failed to place effective anti-skid material such as mats and tiles at the top of the steps to the front door landing which would prevent the lOBS of tract i.on due to the accumulation of water on the landing area; G, Defendant provided a false sense of security with regard to the actual traction and footing on the steps to those intending to descend the steps and enter the hotel lobby. WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectively requests the court to enter a judgment in favor of Plaintiff and againe Defendant in the amount in the excess of $25,000,00, together with interest and costs, and such other and further relief as the court deems just and appropriatlil, Respectfully submitted, SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND Dated: ?\~)\~~ \ " Mal w,' Ai~~'-'ESqUire sup Iilme Ct, I,d, # 78014 26 . High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243 - 6222 SAlOIS. SHUFF & MAS LAND A~.AT'LAW 16 W. IIIlh SI.ee\ Clrll.I.. PA Attorney for the Plaintiff 6 Jefferson J, Shipman, Esquire 1.0, *, 51785 GOI,OBERG, KATZMAN & SIIIPMAN, P,C, 320 Market Street P,O, Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Telephone, (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants WIL1.IAM S. BEAS1.EY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. VS. VALLEYVIEW HOSPITALITY INC., trading and doing business as COMFORT INN WEST, and DANLODGE, INC., trading and doing business as COMFORT INN WEST, Defendants NO. 98-2570 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Plaintiff and his counsel, Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 YOU ARE HEREBY notified to plead to the within New Matter of Defendants within twenty (20) days. GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. DA/fE:&( 0 I ~ r 3436.1 -tt. .."..." n J. Ship Esquire 1. . #: 51785 P O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Attorneys for Defendants Mechannicsburg. The correct Defendant is DanLodge Inc., tldlbla Comfort Inn West. 3. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted, except for the address. 4. Admitted, excepting that the correct Defendant is DanLodge, Inc., tldlbla Comfort Inn West. 5. Admitted as to Defendant, DanLodge and Comfort Inn West, only. 6. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the occurrence took place on June 12, 1996, at the Defendants' business, the Comfort Inn West, located at 6325 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. The answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 6 and the same are, therefore, denied. 7. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that on June 12, 1996, the Plaintiff was a business visitor at the Comfort Inn West and was attempting to descend stairs from the front door towards the lobby area and fell. The answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 7 and the same are, therefore, denied. 2 8. Denled. The averments contained in Paragraph 8 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifica~ly denied. 9. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 9 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied, 10. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 10 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 11, Denied. It is specifically denied that the answering Defendants were negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiff's alleged cause of action. By way of further answer, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 11 with regard to Plaintiff's alleged injuries and the same are, therefore, denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 12. Denied. The answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 12 relating to 3 Plaintiff's alleged pain 8nd suffering and mental anxiety to his great detriment and loss and the same are, therefore, specifically denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 13. Denied. The answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 13 and the same are, therefore, denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 14. Denied. 'rhe answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 14 and the same are, therefore, denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 15. Denied. The answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 15 and the same are, therefore, denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 16, Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 16 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response. is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 4 QQ.!.lli.'Ll ,I,3EASLEY V, VALLEYVIEW HQSPI1'ALITY. INC. 17. The answering Defendant incorporate herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 - 16 above as though fully set forth herein at length. 18. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 18, Subparagraphs A-G, are conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. A. It is specifically denied that the Defendant caused or permitted water and/or liquid to accumulate on the stair landing at a point where it caused an unreasonable risk of injury to the Plaintiff and other business visitors; 8, It is specifically denied that the Defendant failed to make reasonable inspection of the floor which would have revealed the existence of the allegedly dangerous condition posed by the accumulation of water; C. It is specifically denied that the Defendant failed to give warning of the allegedly dangerous condition posed by the accumulation of water, erect barricades or take any other safety precautions to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and/or businass visitors; 5 D. It is specifically denied that the Defendant failed to remove the alleged accumulation of water from the floor and keep the floor clear of water; E. It is specifically denied that the Defendant failed to place floor mats inside the door and on the landing to soak up excess water which collects there causing an allegedly hazardous condition; F. It is specifically denied that the Defendant failed to place effective anti-skid material such as mats and tiles at the top of the steps to the front door landing which would allegedly prevent the loss of traction due to the accumulation of water on the landing area; G. It is specifically denied that the Defendant provided a false sense of security with regard to the actual traction and footing on the steps to those intending to descend the steps and enter the hotel lObby. WHEREFORE, the Defendants respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor and that the Plaintiff/s Complaint be dismissed with prejUdice. & CQUN'l' I I. BEAS t,8Y Y-t.....Qlill1...QJ2Ql': , I NC . 19. The answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference the answers to Paragraphs 1 - 18 above as though fully set forth herein at iength. 20. Denied. The averments contaIned in Paragraph 20 are conclusIons of law to whIch no response Is requIred. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied, A. It is specifically denied that the Defendant caused or permitted water and/or liquid to accumulate on the stair landing at a point where it caused an unreasonable risk of injury to the Plaintiff and other business visitors; B. It is specifically denied that the Defendant failed to make reasonable inspection of the floor which would have revealed the existence of the allegedly dangerous condition posed by the accumulation of water; C. It is specifically denied that the Defendant failed to give warning of the allegedly dangerous condition posed by the accumulation of water, erect barricades or take any other safety precautions to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and/or business visitors; 7 D. It is specifically denied that the Defendant failed to remove the alleged accumulation of water from the floor and keep the floor clear of water; E. It is specifically denied that the Defendant failed to place floor mats inside the dour and on the landing to soak up excess water which collects there causing an allegedly hazardous condition; F. It is specific~lly denied that the Defendant failed to place effective anti-skid material such as mats and tiles at the top of the steps to the front door landing which would allegedly prevent the loss of traction due to the accumulation of water on the landing area; G. It is specifically denied that the Defendant provided a false sense of security with regard to the actual traction and footing on the steps to those intending to descend the steps and enter the hotel lobby. WHE~REFORE, the Defendants respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor and that the Plaintiff's Complaint be .dismissed with prejudice. 8 Nf!.:W Ml\'l"I'E:R By way of additional answer and reply, Defendants interpose the following New Matter: 21. The Plaintiff's claims are barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. ~7102, !rt ~" and by the doctr.ine of comparaUve negligence, 22. The Plaintiff fa.iled to exercise reasonable care for his own safety under the circumstances then and there ex.isting, 23. The Plaintiff was comparatively negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care for his own safety in the following: A. Walking inattentively without first ascertaining whether it was safe La do so; B, Knowingly and voluntarily encountering an obvious darlger; C. Failing to wear suitable shoes; D, Failing to watch where he was walking or stepping; E, Walking or stepping in a hurried or otherwise inappropriate manner; and F. Failing to utilize available hand railing. 24. The Plaintiff's failure to exercise reasonable care for his own safety was a substantial factor in the happening of the accident. 9 25, If B dangerous condition existed at the time of the Plaintiff's accident, which is denied, then Defendants aver that they did not have actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition prior to the accident, 26. The Plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any, were not caused by any act, omission or breaches of duty by the answering Defendants. 27. Plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk of his injuries under the circumstances then and there existing by identifying a dangerous condition, appreciating its dangerous character and voluntarily proceeding to encounter the condition. WHEREFORE, the Defendants, Valleyview Hospitality, Inc., t/d/b/a Comfort Inn West, and DanLodge, Inc., t/d/b/a Comfort Inn West, respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, ~LDBERG, KATi'1" . SHIPMAN, P.C. (.BY.. ,/ <'JL2hV\.h" J ff ~on J. Shi man, Esquire I D. #: 51785 P O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Attorneys for Defendants Telephone: 717-234-4161 10 .,... 0\ 'h S!l C f- I-~:' t:~'J u [ (~:: , , " G' 11. ,\ ('.--, J UI C'; II If I I 'I r- .. L ". , \ (J cr. t,) LAW OFFICES SAlOIS, SHUFF & MASLAND ^ I'I((II'HS~ION^L ('OHP(JI(MlIIN JOliN II. SLlKE ~OI\B~T (', SAIDIS OI!OFI'~Ii\' S, SIIIII'fI ALlJl!IlT II. MASI.AND JOIINNA J, 1l1!IL\' ~ICIIARIJ 1', MISLlTSK \'1 JAMBS Ii. ~BII1. JIl,n KA~L M, 1.I!f)I!IlOIIM JOSIiI'III.. IIITCIIINUS MA~K W, ALLSIIOlI.~B 2r. WEST 111011 ST~EET CARI.ISLE, "li:NNSYLVANIA 170D.2956 '('EI.El'IIONE: (717) 24J.(.222' FACSIMII.E: (717) 24J.MH(' EMAIL: luwli'ssIllUllys,colll WI':ST SIIOIU: (110'1"1( :10:, 21m MA~Klrl' STlUlBT CAMI'IIII.l"I'A 1"/1111 TlII.I!PIIONE: (7171717.1411.\ fll\('SIMIl.B: (7171717..\'111'/ RIII'I.\' '1'0 CA~I.ISLII October 15, 1999 The Honorable George Hoffer Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Re: Beasley v. Comfort Inn No., 98-2570 Civil Cumberland County Common Pleas Dear Judge Hoffer, I am currently trial counsel for the Plaintiff in the above-referenced matter, I am writing to explain my absence at the Call of the List on October 12, 1999, I had inappr'opriately relied on the Praecipe listing the case for trial filed by Defendant, which states that Call of the List would be October 13, 1999. A copy of that Praecipe is attached hereto for your reference. To the extent that I failed to reconcile this date with the previously provided Court calendar, I apologize, I have filed this day my pre-trial memorandum and a Motion to Strike this case from the trial list. Had I been at the Call of the List, I would have objected to this case being listed for trial for the following reasons: 1, I have recently accepted a new position, at a Harrisburg law firm, to commence November 1, 1999, This new position does not permit me to handle this matter at the November atn trial term, There is not another attorney at my current firm with sufficient knowledge or familiarity with this file to be able to try it in two weeks, the time scheduled for trial, There is not enough time in those two weeks for an attorney to obtain the file and familiarize himself as to t <'ER'I'IJ1l1m M, 1\ CIVIL TRIAL AOVOCATE flY TilE NATIONAL IHMkllllF TRIAL ADVOCACY ^ I'ENNSYLVANIA :Wflkl~ME COURT ACCRI:DITEIl AllENCY 1't I..LM_ IN Tt\XATlON The Honorable George Hoffer Page Two October 15, 1999 provide effective representation of Mr. Beasley at the time of trial, 2, ThiB caBe waG arbitrated on September 10, 1999, by order of this Court. The result of that arbitration was a $20,000.00 award for Plaintiff. Thereafter, Defendant filed an Appeal, For the purposes of arbitration, it had been agreed by counsel for bc,th partie8 that the folluwing evidence would be allowed to be introduced at arbitration by agreement of the patties. a. Discovex'y Deposition of Frederick Abraham b, Medical evidence from Mr, Beasley's healthcare providers; c, Employment record of William Beasley Mr, Shipman has now objected to the introduction of that testimony without proper deposition and/or authentication, Therefore, the depositions of Mr. Beasley's healthcare providers and employers still remain to be taken, These healthcare providers and employer are located in Philadelphia, Pennsyrvania, and those depositlons are to be taken by referral counsel, Referral counsel has not been able to confirm the ability to accomplish taking those depositions prior to the date of trial, The deposition of one doctor is scheduled for November 5, 1999. Additionally, Attorney Shipman has objected t.o the use of the prior deposition of Frederick Abraham for use at trial and has requested a re-deposition of Mr. Abraham, I believe under Pa.R.C,P. Rule 4020 that the deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the Cou.rt finds. . (b) that the witness is at a greater distance than 100 miles from the place of trial or is outside the Commonwealth unless it appears that the absence of the witness was procured by the party offering the deposition, >. p~; llie.; ().' f,\,',( ('\1"_ '1 {, h-u I i:.C r.... ,,! .. - .t>< Cl~ I " () ,0 ~il';' -' '-, G1~ 0'\ .~ f.... ;;? i'1~~; C)~~;l ~} .'n lj'J,} "Z ,t\I'O ":I1.\.. ~~j () i~ Cl ?: i3~ (~l .:<. .. i::~}~'{~ 0 0' l>,("'" ( ~~. >'.;....; , -C(, ' ~~9. 'i b...,' ~t, to (, HI' .~. '''T~ I ,L t:'~ l' 1!---, \1.1 .)....'; ..".' " \ ,~ , F' -') , II. Cf' .-.J 0 Cf' C) ~ C~ ~~ ~~ .0 o lil - lil. Co ~ - CO ':fl d. COMl'10NWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND IN .THE MATTER OF, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS WILLIAM S. BEASLEY TERM, 0000 .VS. CASE NO. 98-2570 VALLEYVIEW HOSPITAL INC. ET AL NOTICE OF INTENT '1'0 SERVE.A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS DAVID E. I,IPKIN, M.D. DR. CHANNARAY SRIDHARA ALRERT EINSTEIN MEDICAL CNTR. MEDICAL MEDICAL MEDICAL TO. MARK W. ALLSHOUSE MCS on behalf of JEFFREY SHIPMAN, ESQUIRE . intends t.o serva a slIbpoella identical to the one that is att.ached t.o this notice. You have twellty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made the subpoena may be served pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania 'Rules of civil Procedure 4009.24. Complete copies of any reproduced records may be ordered at. your expense by completing the attached counsel card and returning same to MCS or by contacting our local MCS office. DATE. 1/06/99 MCS on behalf of JEFFREY, SHIPMAN. ESQUIRE Att.orney for DEFENDANT CC. JEFFREY SHIPMAN, ESQUIRE - 22740629 Any questions regarding this matter, contact THE MCS GROUP, INC. 1601 MARKET STREET 1800 PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 (215) 246-0900 DE02.081870 65752-00:1. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby oertify that a oopy of the foregoing has been duly served on the fOllowing Oounsel of reoord, by depositing the same in the United states Mail, postage prepftid, in Harrisburg, PennsYlvania, on September 17, 1999: Hark W. Allshouse, Esquire Saidis, Shuff & Hasland '-6 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 GOLDBERG, KA'rZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. . 3691.1 e on J. Sh EsqUire-- I. . I: 51785 P.O. Box 1268 HarriSburg, PA 11108-1268 Attorneys for Defendants Telephone: 717-234-4161 ~ \l\ ~ . ~ >- 1"1 'r; \ ('.., 'Jf N ? ~ .-: .. (5 . ~ LJ.J~:~ ..;;r i")~ \~ t )"" :c ,)~ ~ ..I.~ \ t". ~i'~ u.. (J~ (is .~-.:~ ~ 1 i.." r- ~:-' 1ii ~ C~f-:, ,.]2' I.II!" nz ~ I!E~I. I 0- inlO ~ ~ .), W If)o.. 1-' (f') "1- ~ .~ ~- 0' -::l ;> 0" U .. .,.. .:1' >- It; ('-I ~ i;~l .. -j orl' \J"I(< ..:I ()Z ( )~t' :c: (_)~f' fllS'! ,.... ()~ 1"\ ~('I .~c.;::: ,.... :5(1) ~' " !.l:1.1. (1: 2- ~:..::lll t'J If,.lle I,." 1'!.1( I, f./', " ("'1 3 [j D"> Ii :1 '- , '~. i Q ~i - ~q N ~rj s:: i~t a.. II '1 (~ en l:tjp. ,. - '~'l: g U." . ~ . .. ~ b en en . .... '- l I:) ~ . N . \.,l ~. 8\ ~.f,:, :c - i:' Q,. ,I)I~ ~'" ~i: C1\ ;5 J}" - ~:; \ ,.1 I- Hi w.. .' c..l ru " t.... Cl a ~ C1\ C1\ ~ '~' ;"''''''} .. . rl I ~, 41,<<t\,', " if, 1, .! \'f--, l. ',", ~f ~'fII.\l\j 'j. ~~i~\ : '-r:.~Y1"" ,> ; - " i,.'; LAW 6""'C1I8 S"IDJS, Cl1JDO, SHlI" " M"'~L.\ND. 26 w. "'OH 1TR88T~I09 MARKllT S1'lISIlT 'CA!lUSLIl. PA 17013 CAMP HiLl., PA 17011 PI\ONB (717).l43-6~2~ PHONS (717) 737.340, , CBRTIPIED COP~: oct) ~199rJ/J-: ' .}' ." ." . PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must be typewritten and submitted In duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY (Check one) Please list the following case: (xx ) for JURY trial at the next term of civil court. ( ) for trial without a jury, .........................................................................................................u............n......~.............~.....nu..............................,........... CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated In full) WILLIAM S. BEASLEY, (check one) Assumpsit ""'!:-,.I l'A I 'I respass '..- .-".".....---.,. ...~~... ,.. . . Trespass (Motor Vehicle) (Plaintiff) (other) . vs. VALLEYVIEW HOSPITALITY INC., trading and doing business as COMFORT INN WEST, and DANLODGE, INC., trading and doing business as COMFORT INN WEST, The trial list will be called on October 13, 1999 (Defendant) and T I I November 8, 1999 r a s commence on . Pretrials will be held on October 20~9 (Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials,) (The party listing this case for trial shall provide forthwith a copy of the praecipe to all counsel. pursuant to local Rule 214.1,) vs. No, 2570 Civil 19 ,~8__ Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who tiles this praer.ipe: ---.-.-...---- ...- )pfhn,nn ,I. Shipman. Esqui.t:e. for the Defendants .------ .----..-- ---'-' Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: Mark W. Allshouse. Esquire, for Plaintiff --.-------....-..----.-...- --,--.-. ._-_._---~-, --'_n_'_""""_"_'n_ Allornel for: Ext-I/6r,"N' ~~---~- .. Slgne . __ . -~ .----- Print Name: _-,!.~ff~!~o.!L'!_L.~I).!P1!J!!llLlisqu~re. Defendants This case is ready for trial. Dale: September 17. 1999 WIL.LIAM S. BEASLEY, PlaintHf IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OP' CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Y. VALLEYVIEW HOSPITALITY, INC., trading and doillg business as COMFORT INN WEST, and DANLODGE, INC" trading and doing business as COMFORT INN WEST, NO. 98-2570 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please withdraw my appearance as counsel for Plaintiff, William Beasl.ey in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND Date IO-.ag. q'l ~ SAlOIS, GUIDO, SHUFF & MASLAND 26 W, Hleh Slreel carll.re. PA Ma k w, Allshous , Esquire A torney 1.0. No.: 78014 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 fr' co (: "'I" \'-1 " f ~, ~'~J ~. ; 'i ~:~ 1J.,l(': I,j ~"'! ;";. ) "'''' . .".j 1.(: ,~ n" ) ;:i ( '/~, .:C(; (,::1 fn l.,l ('C ~" ~fJ '~-. ',' [C f-~ i Cl] (.:1 '-'\ (L ,.;., c:\ :;"\ ('5 en tll () ,I