Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-02631 Petersburg Road, South Middleton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. At the above said time and plaoe, the Defendant was operating her motor vehiole north bound on Petersburg Road, and although she initially stopped at a stop sign, she thereafter suddenly, without warning or reason pUlled directly into the path of the Plaintiff thereby causing a collision of the two vehioles. 'l'he oollision caused Plaintiff to be thrown from his motorcyole onto the roadway seriously injuring himself as a result thereof. 5. The injuries to the Plaintiff required his transport by helicopter to Hershey Medical Center where he remained an inpatient for sixty days thereafter. Upon release from Hershey Medical Center he was transferred to the Healthsouth Rehab Center and he remained an inpatient at that facility the balanoe of 1997 and into the first part of 1998. 6. The Plaintiff's injuries include, among other things, serious closed head injury, paraplegia, severe scalp laoerations, and an aortio tear, fractured ribs, bi-lateral pulmonary oontusions, a grade III spleen laoeration, a L-1 burst fracture and sacral fracture and as a result thereof has a fusion from T- 2 .,.. ,.... ~ N 13 I', .. tiC? I.-q ~:-? ~-'f' },;'- 1,1''-' i'~ ~" .' . '.~ ...-. ..'" , ~J.. r 'M rI){~1 " :,.'1 ( ," r- ~..l '. . 1, , n Uj" I .- " ij;'" ~, ! ~.. " , Ii ., L't :11.: " Ll-.. ~. m ,;'; :::;> . en 0 ~' ~~~ ~p ~ - ~ ~.~~. + I\' VJ "'-..s ''.:l A t:::J ~ <:'~ '-- warning, pulled into the path of the Plaintiff and caused a collision of the two vehicles. As to the allegation regarding Plaintiff being thrown from his motorcycle and having sustained serious injury as a result thereof, Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this averment and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 5. Denied. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. The allegations of Paragraph 5 are denied to the extent they contain conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 6. Denied. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 7. Denied. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 8. Denied. Responding Defendant lacks knOWledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations -2 - contained in Paragraph 8 and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 9. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 9 are denied to the extent they contain conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 10. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 10 are denied to the extent they contain conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 11. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 11 are denied to the extent they contain conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 12. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 12 are denied to the extent they contain conclusions of law to which no - 3., response is required, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 13. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 13 are denied to the extent they contain conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 and therefore, t.he same are denied with st.rict proof thereof required at. t.rial. 14. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 14 are denied to the extent they contain conclusions of law t.o which no response is required, and therefore, the same are denied wit.h strict proof t.hereof required at trial. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as t.o the truth of t.he allegations contained in Paragraph 14 and therefore, the same are denied with strict p^oof thereof required at trial. 15.la) - (e). Denied. The allegations of Paragraph 15(a) - (e) are denied to the extent they contain conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. To the extent an answer is required, it is denied that the Defendant acted unreasonably or negligently and to the contrary, acted -4- reasonably and prudently under the circumstances existing at the time. WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiff, together with such other costs this Honorable Court deems appropriate. NEW MATTER 16, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 17. Plaintiff's Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 18. Plaintiff's claims are barred and/or limited by the applicable provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 19. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Statute, 20. Plaintiff's claims are barred and/or limited by the doctrines of the assumption of the risk and/or contributory negligence. 21. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. 22. Answering Defendant breached no duty of care owed to Plaintiff under the circumstances, -5- >- Cn t: u' 1-" ',I ~~ N 1f,1 U,!~~ C ~-:..' /'j ,.. .1., II., . t.L, ' ' C)J:~ (;l) I, r~ , ! lFi. i'i: 1'-1 .. '/ , f..: .. , I.i. (~~, -0' 0 Cr. ... t. defense oounsel. Such an act of bad faith gives rise to an appropriate sanction by the Court and by this Reply, Plaintiff moves the Court for the impositions of sanotions pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1023(0). 1a-19. Denied. The averments of these paragraphs are oontlluslons of law to which no further response is required. 20. Denied. The averments are oonclusions of law to which no further response is required. However, by way of further response, there are IlO factual allegations of any nature to support the defense of assumption of risk in this case. Furthermore, the doctrine of oont~ibutory negligenoe does not exist per se exoept in the form of comparative negligenoe which was previously averred. As such, the allegations in paragraph 20 are I~ade in bad faith and appropriate sanctions should be issued. 21. Denied as a legal conclusion. However, by way of further reply, Defendant has averred that the dootrines of res judioata or oollateral estoppel without any factual basis for averring the same. Furthermore, it is averred that the Defendant and Counsel were aware that there have been no prior actions and made these allegations in bad faith. 22. Denied as a legal conolusion. However, by way of 2 " further reply, the Defendant pulled out from a stop sign direotly into the path of travel of the Plaintiff. For the Defendant to aver that she breaohed no duty of oare owed to the Plaintiff under the oiroumstanoes is not only ludiorous, but is also in bad faith. Suoh an averment without any faotual or legal basis subjeots the Defendant and her oounsel to sanotions pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1023(C). 23. Denied as being, in part, a legal conolusion. By way of further reply, for Defendant to claim that no act or on her part was a substantial contributing factor to bring about Plaintiff's injuries under the oircumstances of this acoident is also ludicrous and made in bad faith and appropriate sanctions should be made against the Defendant and her counsel. 24. Denied as being, in part, a legal conclusion. By way of further reply, for Defendant to allege that the damages set forth in this Complaint were caused "solely" out of reckless and negligent conduot of Plaintiff, under the circumstance of this accident, is ludiorous and appropriated sanotions should be made against the Defendant and her counsel. 25. Denied as a legal oonolusion, in part. By way of further reply, for Defendant to allege that Plaintiff.'s injuries were caused solely by the reckless and negligent conduct of 3 ,', .... (1" , t~;~ , It'',' .L'e_\ ' . ' q:;: c 1(", ?a;~ l1~"" A.. I'" ~) t'.:J ~-. I.. .'." ;'--', .' " i .-~ , I ~ '( , III 1.(, ;' 1:1..' '.. ~;__~ , ;1_ (':";' (,,,-/ _,I ;-':J' eO) ~~, (...'\ L) . 11,. ~ t:::;t~ ,_l ;-; " 110 ~, ~ i ~ ""' +J ~ ""' ~ z "... lu ~ .~ I~ ' ' ! f;.~ ,~ O+J ~ !l1I1 J:l III Z'H ~:g ~! ~' ,.-I ~~ '~~ ~~ II .~. :a 1Il~ 1 I Ii II . . w III l>- . 'H'H r- ;Il 'HO t! .... '-Bi': ~ ~a iii H .... +J i tl 1Il+J .~lilt~i P:'i! ,--, i' " ., ,f < aOBllaT I. LOWI, JR., I IN THE OOURT or OOMMON PLEAS plaintiff I OUMBERLAND OOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I I NO. 98-2631 CIVIL 1998 I v. I CIVIL AOTION LAW I I OELIA M. HODGDON, I JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant I I I I PRAEOIPE TO DISCONTINUE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above-captioned case as discontinued. All claims by the Plaintiff have been settled in full. Respectfully Submitted, DIV P.C. Dated: q -l..~ ~'i~ By: _ Archie . Divegli , Attorney 1.0. #1714 119 Locust Street HarriSburg, PA 1710 (717) 236-5985 Attorney tor Plaintiff ~ ex, ~ . ~- .11: ~o i;' ~~~-t ()~) ~.~~ Jc.: ()t,e 0.. ''''';:-''1 or.' \;.;1"" ~f.'i IX' [>0 (\: , (~ N '.:1._ u__.~ reI'" 0," :h~ "[ Lt.' I'll F.; Vi "00< 1\, m ,,~ (.> ,(;" (,.) .....;-._--~ ~ '. ~ . ' ~ ~. .! II II "", . :f .. .