Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-1332Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire Attorney Identification Number: 83889 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 385-1866 SEYMOUR ZANDEL Plaintiff V. PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSION OF THE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW NO: CIVIL TERM COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : Defendant NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THIS COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED, BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO, THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU AND A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY MONEY CLAIMED IN THE COMPLAINT OR FOR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF. YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PROPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO YOU. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 (717) 249-3166 NOTICIA LE HAN DEMANDADO A USTED EN LA CORTE. SI USTED QUIERE DEFENDERSE DE ESTAS DEMANDAS EXPUESTAS EN LAS PAGINAS SIGUIENTES, USTED TIENE VIENTE (20) DIAS DE PLAZO AL PARTIR DE LA FECHA DE LA DEMANDA Y LA NOTIFICACION. USTED DEBE PRESENTAR UNA APARIENCIA ESCRITA O EN PERSONA O POR ABOGADO Y ARCHIVAR EN LA CORTE EN FORMA ESCRITA SUS DEFENSES O SUS OBJECTIONS A LAS DEMANDAS EN CONTRA DE SU PERSONA. SEA AVISADO QUE SI USTED NO SE DEFIENDE, LA CORTE TOMARA MEDIDAS Y PUEDE ENTRAR UNA ORDEN CONTRA USTED SIN PREVIO AVISO O NOTIFICACION Y POR CUALQUIER QUEJA O ALIVO QUE ES PEDIDO EN LA PETICION DE DEMANDA. USTED PUEDE PERDER DINERO O SUS PROPIEDADAS O OTROS DERECHOS IMPORTANTES PARA USTED. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA UN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEPHONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 (717) 249-3166 Date: M%')'-4 Cr c 7 sp DOUGLAS C. LOVELACE, JR., Esquire Attorney Identification Number: 83889 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 385-1866 2 Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire Attorney Identification Number: 83889 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 385-1866 SEYMOUR ZANDEL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff : PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSION OF THE NO: 0 7 - /3 3 ;.,, CIVIL TERM COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Defendant COMPLAINT Parties 1. Plaintiff, Seymour Zandell is an adult individual residing at 648 Old Dover Road, Morris Plains Borough, Morris County, New Jersey. 2. Defendant Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is an agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with offices at 700 South Eisenhower Boulevard, Middletown, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. Factual Allegations 3. At all material times Defendant had under his care, supervision, control, maintenance, and/or was responsible for the design, construction, maintenance, and repair of a certain curb located on Commonwealth of Pennsylvania property at a pull-over area on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, a highway under the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, also known as Interstate Highway 76, at Exit 226, opposite the Pennsylvania Turnpike Maintenance Building located at the Carlisle, Pennsylvania interchange in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. On March 30, 2005, and for an unknown period of time in the past, the area including and surrounding the aforesaid curb located at the west-bound pull-over area on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, opposite the Pennsylvania Turnpike Maintenance Building located at the aforesaid Carlisle, Pennsylvania interchange was open for use by the public. 5. On March 30, 2005, and for an unknown period of time in the past, it was the duty and responsibility of Defendant to design, construct, repair and maintain, in a reasonably safe condition for public travel thereon, the aforesaid curb and surrounding area. 6. On March 30, 2005 and for an unknown period of time in the past, there existed on the aforesaid curb and surrounding area certain damage, defects, and disrepair creating dangerous conditions that should have been apparent to Defendant, upon reasonable inspection. 7. On March 30, 2005 and for an unknown period of time in the past, there existed on the aforesaid curb damage, defects, and disrepair creating a dangerous condition that should have been apparent to Defendant, upon reasonable inspection, in that the north side and top and the east edge of the curb were not painted with yellow warning non-skid paint and yellow paint on the south side and top edge of the curb had flaked and worn-off, thus creating a slippery and hazardous condition. 8. On March 30, 2005 and for an unknown period of time in the past, there existed on the said curb and surrounding area damage, defects, and disrepair creating a dangerous condition that should have been apparent to Defendant, upon reasonable inspection, in that the ground surrounding the curb was unfilled and hollowed-out such that it made the aforesaid curb a dangerous stumbling block. 9. On March 30, 2005 and for an unknown period of time in the past, there existed in the area surrounding the aforesaid curb damage, defects, and disrepair creating a dangerous 2 condition throughout the area that should have been apparent to Defendant, upon reasonable inspection; to wit, rough and uneven ground that made traversing the area on foot dangerous. 10. On March 30, 2005 and for an unknown period of time in the past, there existed on the aforesaid curb and surrounding area damage, defects, and irregularities creating a dangerous condition that should have been apparent to Defendant, upon reasonable inspection, in that the curb and surrounding area were inadequately illuminated to enable a person traversing the area on foot to notice the presence of the curb and the unfilled and uneven ground. 11. On March 30, 2005, as Plaintiff was traveling by motor vehicle on the Pennsylvania Turnpike and at or about 7:30 p.m., during the hours of darkness, he safely parked his vehicle in the west-bound pull-over area at the aforesaid Carlisle interchange in order to ask for directions. 12. On March 30, 2005, at or about 7:30 p.m., Plaintiff exited his vehicle and attempted to proceed on foot, in a southerly direction, from the Carlisle interchange westbound pull-over area to the Pennsylvania Turnpike Carlisle interchange building. 13. On March 30, 2005, at or about 7:30 p.m., Plaintiff tripped over the aforementioned concrete curb and fell on the ground, sustaining serious head and leg injuries. 14. Plaintiff tripped over the aforesaid concrete curb because it protruded upwards on all sides creating a stumbling block, he was unable to see the curb because it was concrete gray in color and unpainted on the north side and top and on the east edge, because its paint on the southern side and upper edge was flaked and wom, and because the curb and surrounding area was inadequately illuminated, rough and uneven. 15. As a result of tripping over the protruding curb, Defendant suffered certain serious injuries including: 3 (a) a severe laceration to the left side of his forehead which was approximately 1" long x 1/4" wide with significant bleeding and requiring stitches; (b) a large hematoma under the laceration; (c) plaintiff's left eye was swollen with bruising present; (d) laceration to his fingers on his right hand. (e) an abrasion to the right shin area; (f) severe trauma to the head resulting in severe pain in his head; (g) neurological injury requiring Plaintiff to be confined to a hospital for an extended period for further neurological care; and (h) after discharge from the hospital, severe continuing burning in the area of Plaintiff's head injury. 16. As a result of injuries suffered from tripping over the aforesaid curb, Plaintiff was hospitalized for a period of five days, during which time he suffered severe pain, discomfort, and mental anguish and endured a follow-on recovery period of four months, during which time he suffered additional severe pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and was unable to attend to his usual daily duties and affairs and enjoy life's pleasures, to his great detriment and loss. 17. On or about September 26, 2005, in compliance with 42 Pa.C.S §5522(a), "Notice Prerequisite to Action Against Government Unit," Defendant notified the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General, in writing, of Defendant's intent to commence a civil action against a governmental unit of the Commonwealth for damages on account of injury to his person. A true and correct copy of said notice is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4 NEGLIGENCE COUNT 18. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 17, as fully as if set forth herein at length. 19. On March 30, 2005 and for an unknown period of time in the past, the aforementioned curb and surrounding were open for use by invitees and licensees, and it was the duty and responsibility of Defendant to construct, repair, and maintain the curb and surrounding area in a reasonably safe condition for public use and travel thereon. 20. On March 30, 2005 and for an unknown period of time in the past, the aforementioned curb and surrounding were open for public use and travel, and it was the duty and responsibility of Defendant to construct, repair and maintain the curb and surrounding area in a reasonably safe condition for public use and travel thereon, including the use of high- visibility, non-skid paint, proper grading and landscaping, and adequate lighting. 21. On March 30, 2005 and for an unknown period of time in the past, Defendant breached its duty of care to Plaintiff by constructing and maintaining the aforesaid curb and surrounding area in a damaged, defective, irregular, and unreasonably dangerous condition of disrepair that should have been apparent to Defendant, upon reasonable inspection, to wit: the north side and top and the east edge of the curb were not painted with high-visibility, yellow, non-skid warning paint and yellow paint on the south side and top edge of the curb was flaked and worn-off, the ground surrounding the curb was unfilled and hollowed-out such that the curb became a dangerous stumbling block, the area surrounding the said curb was rough and uneven ground that made traversing the area on foot dangerous, and the curb and surrounding area were inadequately illuminated to enable safe traversing of the area on foot or give notice of the presence of the curb, during hours of darkness or other conditions of reduced visibility. 22. On March 30, 2005 and for an unknown period of time in the past, the aforementioned damages, defects, and disrepair of the said curb and surrounding area were sufficiently apparent that they would have been discovered by a reasonable inspection by Defendant; therefore, Defendant had, or should have had, knowledge or constructive notice of the existence of the aforementioned unreasonably dangerous damages, defects, and disrepair, and Defendant could have reasonably foreseen the injuries Plaintiff suffered as a result of his fall over the said curb. 23. The injuries which plaintiff suffered as a result of his fall were caused solely by the negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of the defendant, its agents, servants, and/or employees, which included the following: (a) failing to use due care and to employ reasonable skill in the performance of their duties and in their duty toward plaintiff; (b) failing to exercise the judgment, care, and skill of reasonable persons under similar circumstances; (c) permitting the aforementioned curb and surrounding area to remain in an unsafe, damaged, defective, and dangerous condition of disrepair, despite constructive knowledge of the defect. (d) failing to use reasonable prudence or care in maintaining the curb and surrounding area in a reasonably safe condition; (e) failing to warn plaintiff of the damage, defects, and disrepair; (f) unreasonably exposing plaintiff to dangerous conditions; (g) failing to maintain proper and adequate lighting in and around the aforementioned curb and surrounding area; 6 (i) failing to correct, remedy, repair, and/or eliminate the dangerous conditions, damage, defects, and disrepair; 0) failing properly to construct, maintain, and inspect the curb and surrounding area; (k) creating a dangerous stumbling block by failing to level and grade the ground on the north side of the curb bringing it level with the top of the curb; (1) failing to paint and re-paint the curb with high-visibility yellow, non-skid paint, in order to warn users adequately that a curb is present and make the area reasonably safe for passage; and (m) otherwise conducting itself in a negligent, careless and reckless manner. 24. As a result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff incurred extensive medical treatment costs in excess of $19,840.00. 25. As a result of the Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has undergone severe physical pain and mental anguish, and he will continue to endure pain and mental anguish for an indefinite time in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 26. As a result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff was unable to attend to his usual daily duties and affairs for a period of four months, and he will be unable to attend to them completely for an indefinite time in the future, to his great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, as provided for by 42 Pa. C.S. § 8522, "Exceptions to Sovereign Immunity," Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of this jurisdiction, plus interest and costs. 7 Date: col 9' j10 07 Respectfully submitted, Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire Attorney Identification Number: 83889 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 385-1866 New Jersey Office 1905 Hamilton Avenue Hamilton, NJ 08619 (609) 393-6490 September 26, 2005 Via Certified and First Class Mail Return Receipt Requested Attorney General Thomas Corbett Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General 16th Floor Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Re: Seymour Zandell Date of Accident: March 30, 2005 Dear Attorney General Corbett: Member Pennsylvania & New Jersey Bars I represent Seymour Zandell. In accordance with 42 Pa.C.S.A. 5522(a), I provide the Connunonwealth with the following notice: 1. The name and residence address of the person to whom the cause of action has accrued. Seymour Zandell 648 Old Dover Road Morris Plains, NJ 07950 2. The name and residence address of the person injured. Seymour Zandell 648 Old Dover Road Morris Plains, NJ 07950 3. The date and hour of the accident. March 30, 2005 Approximately 7:30 p.m. Law Off ces Andrew F. Schneider 101 Mechanics Street Doylestown, Pennsylvania 18901-3753 Phone (215) 348-5150 Facsimile (215) 348-5152 E-mail AFSchneider(a4chneiderlax,yer. cony Web Site I7t: //a sera. wld. corn Exhibit A 4. The approximate location where the accident occurred. Carlisle Interchange - Pennsylvania Turnpike Interchange No. 226 5. The name and residence or office address of any attending physician. Carlisle Regional Medical Center Post Office Box 4100 Carlisle, PA 17013 MSHMC Medical Group Hershey Medical Center Post Office Box 850 Hershey, PA 17033 If you have any questions, please call. Very y yours, .ANDREW F. S EIDER, ESQ. AFS:lp cc: Seymour Zandell COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES HARRISBURG October 20, 2005 Andrew F. Schneider, Esquire 101 Mechanics Street Doylestown, PA 18901-3753 RE: Claimant Seymour Zandell Date of Incident: 3/30/05 Clain Number 293303 Location : Cumberland County Dear Mr. SCHNEIDER: This will acknowledge receipt of your correspondence regarding the above captioned accident which occurred on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Please be advised that tort claims arising out of accidents occurring on the Pennsylvania Turnpike are defended by the Turnpike Commission. Therefore, your notice of claim is being forwarded to the following: Turnpike Commission P.O. Bog 67676 Harrisburg, PA 17106 Attn: Insurance Dept. Administrator Please direct any further communications to the above in reference to this incident. Very truly yours, •a-&' ,tom Dennis J. Bavaria, Claims Supervisor Tort Claims Pre-Litigation Division DJB/ww Bureau of Risk '& Insurance Management PO Box 1365, Harrisburg PA 17105 - Telephone (717)783-1742 VERIFICATION SEYMOUR ZANDEL, Plaintiff in this action, hereby states that the statements of fact made in the foregoing COMPLAINT are true and correct to the best of his personal knowledge, information, and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: e o Zandel NO ra c c t? 1 r? c -j •t W f?J O TI T C"i 1 r? -G SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2007-01332 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ZANDEL SEYMOUR VS PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSI R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE but was unable to locate Them to wit: COMMISSION OF THE COMM OF PA in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of DAUPHIN serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE County, Pennsylvania, to On March 27th , 2007 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from DAUPHIN Sheriff's Costs: So answers- Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 Thomas Kli e Dep Dauphin County 41.25 Sheriff of Cu erland County Postage 2.94 81.19 v' ?jaa?? 7 03/27/2007 DOUGLAS LOVELACE Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of A. D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2007-01332 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ZANDEL SEYMOUR VS PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSI R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT ATTORNEY GENERAL THOMAS but was unable to locate Him CORBETT to wit: in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of DAUPHIN serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE County, Pennsylvania, to On March 27th , 2007 , this office was in receipt o attached return from DAUPHIN Sheriff's Costs: So answers Docketing 6.00 Out of County .00 Surcharge 10.00 R. Thomas Kline .00 Sheriff of Cumberla ounty .00 16.00 ? 3/916? 03/27/2007 DOUGLAS LOVELACE Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of A. D. In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvaniia Seymour Zandel VS. Pennsylvania Turnpike Cannission 07-1332 civil SERVE: same No. Now, March 14, 2007 I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Dauphin County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of.Service Now, , 20 , at o'clock M. served the within upon at by handing to a and made known to copy of the original So answers, the contents thereof. Sheriff of Sworn and subscribed before me this day of , 20 COSTS SERVICE MILEAGE _ AFFIDAVIT County, PA ?ifilCE of 14E ?4rrfff Mary Jane Snyder Real Estate Deputy William T. Tully Solicitor Charles E. Sheaffer Chief Deputy Michael W. Rinehart Assistant Chief Deputy Dauphin County Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 ph: (717) 780-6590 fax: (717) 255-2889 Jack Lotwick Sheriff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ZANDEL SEYMOUR vs County of Dauphin ATTORNEY GENERAL THOMAS CORBETT Sheriff's Return No. 0402-T - - -2007 OTHER COUNTY NO. 07 1332 AND NOW:March 21, 2007 at 1:20PM served the within COMPLAINT upon PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSION by personally handing to SHERRY MOUERY 1 true attested copy(ies) of the original COMPLAINT and making known to him/her the contents thereof at 700 SOUTH EISENHOWER BLVD MIDDLETOWN, PA 17057-0000 Sworn and subscribed to before me this 21ST day of MARCH, 2007 NOTARIAL SEAL MARY JANE SNYDER, Notary Public Highspire, Dauphin County My Commission Expires Sept. 1, 2010 So Answers, Sheriff of Dauphin County, Pa. C? By Deputy Sheriff Sheriff's Costs:$41.25 PAID BY COUNTY BRESSLE In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Seymour Zandel vs. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission 07-1332 civil SERVE: Attorney General Thomas Corbett No. Now, March 1?1, 2007 L SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Dauphin County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now. within upon at by handing to a and made known to copy of the original So answers, the contents thereof. Sheriff of Sworn and subscribed before me this day of , 20 COSTS SERVICE _ MILEAGE _ AFFIDAVIT County, PA 20 , at o'clock M. served the Office of t4le S4priff Mary Jane Snyder Real Estate Deputy William T. Tully Solicitor Charles E. Sheaffer Chief Deputy Michael W. Rinehart Assistant Chief Deputy Dauphin County Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 ph: (717) 780-6590 fax: (717) 255-2889 Jack Lotwick Sheriff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ZANDEL SEYMOUR vs County of Dauphin ATTORNEY GENERAL THOMAS CORBETT Sheriff's Return No. 0402-T - - -2007 OTHER COUNTY NO. 07 1332 AND NOW:March 21, 2007 COMPLAINT ATTORNEY GENERAL THOMAS CORBETT to LAUREN HATALLA RECEP at 10:48AM served the within upon by personally handing 1 true attested copy(ies) of the original COMPLAINT and making known to him/her the contents thereof at 16TH FLOOR STRAWBERRY SQUARE HARRISBURG, PA 17120-0000 Sworn and subscribed to before me this 21ST day of MARCH, 2007 11 A----I NOTARIAL SEAL MARY JANE SNYDER, Notary Public Highspire, Dauphin County My Commission Expires Sept. 1, 2010 So Answers, Sheriff of Dauphin County, Pa. It/ By Deputy Sheriff Sheriff's Costs:$41.25 PAID BY COUNTY WONG SEYMOUR ZANDEL Plaintiff V. PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW NO: 07-1332, CIVIL TERM PRAECIPE To the Prothonotary: This praecipe is filed pursuant to the Stipulation whereby Plaintiff and Defendant agree to filing of the attached First Amended Complaint. Kindly file the attached First Amended Complaint. x'1007 Dated: 14 Respectfully submitted, 41- Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire Attorney Identification Number: 83889 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 385-1866 Attorney for Defendant SEYMOUR ZANDEL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff : PENNSYLVANIA V. PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Defendant CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW NO: 07-1332, CIVIL TERM STIPULATION to file within 10 days hereof an Amended Complaint, as set It is forth ik the Date: (Ave `O`( by and between Plaintiff and Defendant, through their undersigned «A » Esquire 4 V"Zz 4 a, Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Date: 7 /,-,? 4o-7 EXHIBIT "A" Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire Attorney Identification Number: 83889 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 385-1866 SEYMOUR ZANDEL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff : PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSION OF THE NO: 07-1332, CIVIL TERM COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Defendant NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THIS COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED, BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO, THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU AND A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY MONEY CLAIMED IN THE COMPLAINT OR FOR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF. YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PROPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO YOU. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 (717) 249-3166 EXHIBIT "A" EXHIBIT "A" NOTICIA LE HAN DEMANDADO A USTED EN LA CORTE. SI USTED QUIERE DEFENDERSE DE ESTAS DEMANDAS EXPUESTAS EN LAS PAGINAS SIGUIENTES, USTED TIENE VIENTE (20) DIAS DE PLAZO AL PARTIR DE LA FECHA DE LA DEMANDA Y LA NOTIFICACION. USTED DEBE PRESENTAR UNA APARIENCIA ESCRITA O EN PERSONA O POR ABOGADO Y ARCHIVAR EN LA CORTE EN FORMA ESCRITA SUS DEFENSES O SUS OBJECTIONS A LAS DEMANDAS EN CONTRA DE SU PERSONA. SEA AVISADO QUE SI USTED NO SE DEFIENDE, LA CORTE TOMARA MEDIDAS Y PUEDE ENTRAR UNA ORDEN CONTRA USTED SIN PREVIO AVISO O NOTIFICACION Y POR CUALQUIER QUEJA O ALIVO QUE ES PEDIDO EN LA PETICION DE DEMANDA. USTED PUEDE PERDER DINERO O SUS PROPIEDADAS O OTROS DERECHOS IMPORTANTES PARA USTED. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA UN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEPHONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 (717) 249-3166 41- DOUGLAS C. LOVELACE, JR., Esquire Attorney Identification Number: 83889 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 385-1866 2 EXHIBIT "A" Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire Attorney Identification Number: 83889 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 385-1866 SEYMOUR ZANDEL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSION OF THE NO: 07-1332, CIVIL TERM COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Defendant FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Parties 1. Plaintiff, Seymour Zandell is an adult individual residing at 648 Old Dover Road, Morris Plains Borough, Morris County, New Jersey. 2. Defendant Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is an agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with offices at 700 South Eisenhower Boulevard, Middletown, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. Factual Allezations 3. At all material times Defendant had under its care, supervision, control, maintenance, and/or was responsible for the design, construction, maintenance, and repair of a certain curb located on Commonwealth of Pennsylvania property at a pull-over area on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, a highway under the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, also known as Interstate Highway 76, at Exit 226, opposite the Pennsylvania Turnpike Maintenance Building located at the Carlisle, Pennsylvania interchange in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. EXHIBIT "A" 4. On March 30, 2005, and for an unknown period of time in the past, the area including and surrounding the aforesaid curb located at the west-bound pull-over area on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, opposite the Pennsylvania Turnpike Maintenance Building located at the aforesaid Carlisle, Pennsylvania interchange was open for use by the public. 5. On March 30, 2005, and for an unknown period of time in the past, it was the duty and responsibility of Defendant to design, construct, repair and maintain, in a reasonably safe condition for public travel thereon, the aforesaid curb and surrounding area. 6. On March 30, 2005 and for an unknown period of time in the past, there existed on the aforesaid curb and surrounding area certain damage, defects, and disrepair creating dangerous conditions that should have been apparent to Defendant, upon reasonable inspection. 7. On March 30, 2005 and for an unknown period of time in the past, there existed on the aforesaid curb damage, defects, and disrepair creating a dangerous condition that should have been apparent to Defendant, upon reasonable inspection, in that the north side and top and the east edge of the curb were not painted with yellow warning non-skid paint and yellow paint on the south side and top edge of the curb had flaked and worn-off, thus creating a slippery and hazardous condition. 8. On March 30, 2005 and for an unknown period of time in the past, there existed on the said curb and surrounding area damage, defects, and disrepair creating a dangerous condition that should have been apparent to Defendant, upon reasonable inspection, in that the ground surrounding the curb was unfilled and hollowed-out such that it made the aforesaid curb a dangerous stumbling block. 9. On March 30, 2005 and for an unknown period of time in the past, there existed in the area surrounding the aforesaid curb damage, defects, and disrepair creating a dangerous 2 condition throughout the area that should have been apparent to Defendant, upon reasonable inspection; to wit, rough and uneven ground that made traversing the area on foot dangerous. 10. On March 30, 2005 and for an unknown period of time in the past, there existed on the aforesaid curb and surrounding area damage, defects, and irregularities creating a dangerous condition that should have been apparent to Defendant, upon reasonable inspection, in that the curb and surrounding area were inadequately illuminated to enable a person traversing the area on foot to notice the presence of the curb and the unfilled and uneven ground. 11. On March 30, 2005, as Plaintiff was traveling by motor vehicle on the Pennsylvania Turnpike and at or about 7:30 p.m., during the hours of darkness, he safely parked his vehicle in the west-bound pull-over area at the aforesaid Carlisle interchange in order to ask for directions. 12. On March 30, 2005, at or about 7:30 p.m., Plaintiff exited his vehicle and attempted to proceed on foot, in a southerly direction, from the Carlisle interchange westbound pull-over area to the Pennsylvania Turnpike Carlisle interchange building. 13. On March 30, 2005, at or about 7:30 p.m., Plaintiff tripped over the aforementioned concrete curb and fell on the ground, sustaining serious head and leg injuries. 14. Plaintiff tripped over the aforesaid concrete curb because it protruded upwards on all sides creating a stumbling block, he was unable to see the curb because it was concrete gray in color and unpainted on the north side and top and on the east edge, because its paint on the southern side and upper edge was flaked and worn, and because the curb and surrounding area was inadequately illuminated, rough and uneven. 15. As a result of tripping over the protruding curb, Plaintiff suffered certain serious injuries including: (a) a severe laceration to the left side of his forehead which was approximately 1" long x 1/4" wide with significant bleeding and requiring stitches; (b) a large hematoma under the laceration; (c) plaintiff's left eye was swollen with bruising present; (d) laceration to his fingers on his right hand. (e) an abrasion to the right shin area; (f) severe trauma to the head resulting in severe pain in his head; (g) neurological injury requiring Plaintiff to be confined to a hospital for an extended period for further neurological care; and (h) after discharge from the hospital, severe continuing burning in the area of Plaintiff's head injury. 16. As a result of injuries suffered from tripping over the aforesaid curb, Plaintiff was hospitalized for a period of five days, during which time he suffered severe pain, discomfort, and mental anguish and endured a follow-on recovery period of four months, during which time he suffered additional severe pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and was unable to attend to his usual daily duties and affairs and enjoy life's pleasures, to his great detriment and loss. 17. On or about September 26, 2005, in compliance with 42 Pa.C.S §5522(a), "Notice Prerequisite to Action Against Government Unit," Plaintiff notified the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General, in writing, of Plaintiff's intent to commence a civil action against a governmental unit of the Commonwealth for damages on account of injury to his person. A true and correct copy of said notice is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4 NEGLIGENCE COUNT 18. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 17, as fully as if set forth herein at length. 19. On March 30, 2005 and for an unknown period of time in the past, the aforementioned curb and surrounding were open for use by invitees and licensees, and it was the duty and responsibility of Defendant to construct, repair, and maintain the curb and surrounding area in a reasonably safe condition for public use and travel thereon. 20. On March 30, 2005 and for an unknown period of time in the past, the aforementioned curb and surrounding were open for public use and travel, and it was the duty and responsibility of Defendant to construct, repair and maintain the curb and surrounding area in a reasonably safe condition for public use and travel thereon, including the use of high- visibility, non-skid paint, proper grading and landscaping, and adequate lighting. 21. On March 30, 2005 and for an unknown period of time in the past, Defendant breached its duty of care to Plaintiff by constructing and maintaining the aforesaid curb and surrounding area in a damaged, defective, irregular, and unreasonably dangerous condition of disrepair that should have been apparent to Defendant, upon reasonable inspection, to wit: the north side and top and the east edge of the curb were not painted with high-visibility, yellow, non-skid warning paint and yellow paint on the south side and top edge of the curb was flaked and worn-off, the ground surrounding the curb was unfilled and hollowed-out such that the curb became a dangerous stumbling block, the area surrounding the said curb was rough and uneven ground that made traversing the area on foot dangerous, and the curb and surrounding area were inadequately illuminated to enable safe traversing of the area on foot or give notice of the presence of the curb, during hours of darkness or other conditions of reduced visibility. 22. On March 30, 2005 and for an unknown period of time in the past, the aforementioned damages, defects, and disrepair of the said curb and surrounding area were sufficiently apparent that they would have been discovered by a reasonable inspection by Defendant; therefore, Defendant had, or should have had, knowledge or constructive notice of the existence of the aforementioned unreasonably dangerous damages, defects, and disrepair, and Defendant could have reasonably foreseen the injuries Plaintiff suffered as a result of his fall over the said curb. 23. The injuries which Plaintiff suffered as a result of his fall were caused solely by the negligence of Defendant, its agents, servants, and/or employees, which included the following: (a) failing to use due care and to employ reasonable skill in the performance of their duties and in their duty toward Plaintiff, to wit: the duty and responsibility of Defendant to construct, repair and maintain the curb and surrounding area in a reasonably safe condition for public use and travel thereon and the duty and responsibility to not maintain said curb and surrounding area in a damaged, defective, irregular, and unreasonably dangerous condition of disrepair that should have been apparent to Defendant, upon reasonable inspection, and as described in paragraphs 21 and 22 herein; (b) failing to exercise the judgment, care, and skill of reasonable persons under similar circumstance, to wit: failing to construct, repair and maintain the curb and surrounding area in a reasonably safe condition for public use and travel thereon and failing to maintain said curb and surrounding area in good repair, free of damage, defect, irregularity, and unreasonable danger, conditions that should have been apparent to Defendant, upon reasonable inspection and were as described in paragraphs 21 and 22 herein; 6 (c) permitting the aforementioned curb and surrounding area to remain in an unsafe, damaged, defective, and dangerous condition of disrepair, despite constructive knowledge of the defect; (d) failing to use reasonable prudence or care in maintaining the curb and surrounding area in a reasonably safe condition; (e) failing to warn Plaintiff of the damage, defects, and disrepair; (f) unreasonably exposing Plaintiff to the dangerous conditions described in paragraphs 20 and 21 herein; (g) failing to maintain proper and adequate lighting in and around the aforementioned curb and surrounding area; (h) failing to correct, remedy, repair, and/or eliminate the dangerous condition, damage, defects, and disrepair, as described in paragraphs 20 and 21 herein; (i) failing properly to construct, maintain, and inspect the curb and surrounding area; 0) creating a dangerous stumbling block by failing to level and grade the ground on the north side of the curb bringing it level with the top of the curb; and (k) failing to paint and re-paint the curb with high-visibility yellow, non-skid paint, in order to warn users adequately that a curb is present and make the area reasonably safe for passage. 24. As a result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff incurred extensive medical treatment costs in excess of $19,840.00. 25. As a result of the Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has suffered severe physical pain and mental anguish, and he will continue to endure pain and mental anguish for an indefinite time in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 7 26. As a result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff was unable to attend to his usual daily duties and affairs for a period of four months, and he will be unable to attend to them completely for an indefinite time in the future, to his great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, as provided for by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including 42 Pa. C.S. § 8522, "Exceptions to Sovereign Immunity," Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant for medical costs of at least $19,840.00 plus damages for past and future pain and suffering, an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of this jurisdiction, plus costs. Date: 7u ?? lloi vZC?07' Respectfully' submitted, ?/? y? ???L? r/ • Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire Attorney Identification Number: 83889 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 385-1866 8 Y New Jersey Office 1905 Hamilton Avenue Hamilton?, NJ 08619 (609) 393-6490 September 26, 2005 Via Certified and First Class Mail Return Receipt Requested Attorney General Thomas Corbett pennsylvania Office of Attomey General 16th Floor Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Re: Seymour Zandell Date of Accident: March. 30, 2005 pear Attomey General Corbett: Member Pennsylvania & Neil, Jersey Bars I represent Seymour Zandell. hi accordance with 42 Pa.C.S.A. 5522(a), I provide the Conunonwealth with the following notice: The name and residence address of the person to whom the cause of action has accrued. Seymour Zandell 648 Old Dover Road Morris Plains, NJ 07950 2. The name and residence address of the person injured. Seymour Zandell 648 Old Dover Road Morris Plains, NJ 07950 3. The date and hour of the accident. March 30, 2005 Approximately 7:30 p.m. Law offices Andrew F. Schneider 101 Alechanies kneel Doylestown, Per717S))1))a7iu 18901-3753 Phone (215) 348-5150 Facsimile (215) 348-5152 E-mail AFSc:hneider(d? chneiderlux?yer. cam Web Site hur: //afsesa w/d. cnni Exhibit A 4. The approximate location where the accident occurred. Carlisle Interchange - Pennsylvania Turnpike Interchange No. 226 5. The name and residence or office address of any attending physician. Carlisle Regional Medical Center Post Office Box 4100 Carlisle, PA 17013 MSHMC Medical Group Hershey Medical Center Post Office Box 850 Hershey, PA 17033 If you have any questions, please call. Very • ly yours, ANDREVT F. S EIDER, ESQ. AFS :lp cc: Seymour Zandell V COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES HARRISBURG October 20, 2005 Andrew F. Schneider, Esquire 101 Mechanics Street Doylestown, PA 18901-3753 ICE: Claimant Seymour Zandell. Date of Incident: 3/30/05 Claim Number 293303 Location Cumberland County Dear Mr. SCHNEI DER: This will acknowledge receipt of your correspondence regarding the above captioned accident which occurred on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Please be advised that tort claims arising out of accidents occurring on the Pennsylvania Turnpike are defended by the Turnpike Commission. Therefore, your notice of claim is being forwarded to the following: Turnpike Commission P.O. Box 67676 Harrisburg, PA 17106 Attn: Insurance Dept. Administrator Please direct any further communications to the above in reference to this incident. Very truly yours, Dennis J. Bavaria, Claims Supervisor Tort Claims Pre-Litigation Division DJB/ww Bureau of Risk & Insurance Management PO Box 1365, Harrisburg PA 17105 - Telephone (717)783-1742 VERIFICATION SEYMOUR ZANDEL, Plaintiff in this action, hereby states that the statements of fact made in the foregoing FIRST AMEMDED COMPLAINT are true and correct to the best of his personal knowledge, information, and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: andel CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., attorney for Plaintiff, Seymour Zandel, hereby certify that on July 1( , 2007, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint upon the below named individual by depositing the same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. SERVED UPON: Daniel E.P. Bausher, Esquire Stevens and Lee Lawyers and Consultants 111 North 6th Street P.O. Box 679 Reading, PA 19603-5610 ,;r/ 00, 41??K Ke. &f Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire Attorney Identification Number: 83889 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 385-1866 !`-? C`? ?- j , y ? -- _. , ?. .,,c. ' 4 1 _?. { - ? "? ,, ?.J SEYMOUR ZANDEL, Plaintiff V. PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 07-1332 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT'S ANSWER CONTAINING NEW MATTER 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph No. 1 of the plaintiff's complaint and said averments are, therefore denied. Proof thereof is demanded, if material, at the trial of the case. In further answer hereto, said averments are specifically denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 2. Admitted. 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph No. 3 of plaintiff's complaint, and said averments are, therefore, denied. The exact location of the alleged incident is not known at present. The existence of any damage, defect, disrepair and/or dangerous or defective condition is specifically denied. Defendant makes no answer to said averments because said averments contain conclusions of law, no answer is required thereto, and said averments are, therefore, denied. Proof thereof is demanded, if material, at the trial of the case. In further answer hereto, said averments are specifically denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 1 SL I 721299v]/061697.00034 No. 4 of plaintiff's complaint, and said averments are, therefore, denied. The exact location of the alleged incident is not known at present. The existence of any damage, defect, disrepair and/or dangerous or defective condition is specifically denied. Defendant makes no answer to said averments because said averments contain conclusions of law, no answer is required thereto, and said averments are, therefore, denied. Proof thereof is demanded, if material, at the trial of the case. In further answer hereto, said averments are specifically denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph No. 5 of plaintiff's complaint, and said averments are, therefore, denied. The exact location of the alleged incident is not known at present. The existence of any damage, defect, disrepair and/or dangerous or defective condition is specifically denied. Defendant makes no answer to said averments because said averments contain conclusions of law, no answer is required thereto, and said averments are, therefore, denied. Proof thereof is demanded, if material, at the trial of the case. In further answer hereto, said averments are specifically denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph No. 6 of plaintiff's complaint, and said averments are, therefore, denied. The exact location of the alleged incident is not known at present. The existence of any damage, defect, disrepair and/or dangerous or defective condition is specifically denied. Defendant makes no answer to said averments because said averments contain conclusions of law, no answer is required thereto, and said averments are, therefore, denied. Proof thereof is demanded, if material, at the trial of 2 SL I 721299v 1 /061697.00034 the case. In further answer hereto, said averments are specifically denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph No. 7 of plaintiff's complaint, and said averments are, therefore, denied. The exact location of the alleged incident is not known at present. The existence of any damage, defect, disrepair and/or dangerous or defective condition is specifically denied. Defendant makes no answer to said averments because said averments contain conclusions of law, no answer is required thereto, and said averments are, therefore, denied. Proof thereof is demanded, if material, at the trial of the case. In further answer hereto, said averments are specifically denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph No. 8 of plaintiff's complaint, and said averments are, therefore, denied. The exact location of the alleged incident is not known at present. The existence of any damage, defect, disrepair and/or dangerous or defective condition is specifically denied. Defendant makes no answer to said averments because said averments contain conclusions of law, no answer is required thereto, and said averments are, therefore, denied. Proof thereof is demanded, if material, at the trial of the case. In further answer hereto, said averments are specifically denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph No. 9 of plaintiff's complaint, and said averments are, therefore, denied. The exact location of 3 SL I 721299v 11061697.00034 the alleged incident is not known at present. The existence of any damage, defect, disrepair and/or dangerous or defective condition is specifically denied. Defendant makes no answer to said averments because said averments contain conclusions of law, no answer is required thereto, and said averments are, therefore, denied. Proof thereof is demanded, if material, at the trial of the case. In further answer hereto, said averments are specifically denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph No. 10 of plaintiff's complaint, and said averments are, therefore, denied. The exact location of the alleged incident is not known at present. The existence of any damage, defect, disrepair and/or dangerous or defective condition is specifically denied. Defendant makes no answer to said averments because said averments contain conclusions of law, no answer is required thereto, and said averments are, therefore, denied. Proof thereof is demanded, if material, at the trial of the case. In further answer hereto, said averments are specifically denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph No. 11 of the plaintiff's complaint and said averments are, therefore denied. Proof thereof is demanded, if material, at the trial of the case. In further answer hereto, said averments are specifically denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph No. 12 of the plaintiff s complaint and said averments are, therefore denied. Proof 4 SL 1721299v 1 /061697.00034 thereof is demanded, if material, at the trial of the case. In further answer hereto, said averments are specifically denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph No. 13 of plaintiff's complaint, and said averments are, therefore, denied. The exact location of the alleged incident is not known at present. The existence of any damage, defect, disrepair and/or dangerous or defective condition is specifically denied. Defendant makes no answer to said averments because said averments contain conclusions of law, no answer is required thereto, and said averments are, therefore, denied. Proof thereof is demanded, if material, at the trial of the case. In further answer hereto, said averments are specifically denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph No. 14 of plaintiffs complaint, and said averments are, therefore, denied. The exact location of the alleged incident is not known at present. The existence of any damage, defect, disrepair and/or dangerous or defective condition is specifically denied. Defendant makes no answer to said averments because said averments contain conclusions of law, no answer is required thereto, and said averments are, therefore, denied. Proof thereof is demanded, if material, at the trial of the case. In further answer hereto, said averments are specifically denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph No. 15 of plaintiffs complaint, and said averments are, therefore, denied. The exact location of S L 1 721299v 1 /061697.00034 the alleged incident is not known at present. The existence of any damage, defect, disrepair and/or dangerous or defective condition is specifically denied. Defendant makes no answer to said averments because said averments contain conclusions of law, no answer is required thereto, and said averments are, therefore, denied. Proof thereof is demanded, if material, at the trial of the case. In further answer hereto, said averments are specifically denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph No. 16 of plaintiff's complaint, and said averments are, therefore, denied. Defendant makes no answer to said averments because said averments contain conclusions of law, no answer is required thereto, and said averments are, therefore, denied. Proof thereof is demanded, if material, at the trial of the case. In further answer hereto, said averments are specifically denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 17. Admitted. NEGLIGENCE COUNT 18. Defendant incorporates herein as a part hereof its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 17 of the Plaintiff's Complaint, inclusive, the same as though they were herein set forth in full. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph No. 19 of plaintiff's complaint, and said averments are, therefore, denied. The exact location of the alleged incident is not known at present. The existence of any damage, defect, disrepair and/or dangerous or defective condition is specifically denied. Defendant makes no answer to said averments because said averments contain conclusions of law, no answer is required thereto, 6 S L 1 721299v 1 /061697.00034 and said averments are, therefore, denied. Proof thereof is demanded, if material, at the trial of the case. In further answer hereto, said averments are specifically denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph No. 20 of plaintiff's complaint, and said averments are, therefore, denied. The exact location of the alleged incident is not known at present. The existence of any damage, defect, disrepair and/or dangerous or defective condition is specifically denied. Defendant makes no answer to said averments because said averments contain conclusions of law, no answer is required thereto, and said averments are, therefore, denied. Proof thereof is demanded, if material, at the trial of the case. In further answer hereto, said averments are specifically denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph No. 21 of plaintiff's complaint, and said averments are, therefore, denied. The exact location of the alleged incident is not known at present. The existence of any damage, defect, disrepair and/or dangerous or defective condition is specifically denied. Defendant makes no answer to said averments because said averments contain conclusions of law, no answer is required thereto, and said averments are, therefore, denied. Proof thereof is demanded, if material, at the trial of the case. In further answer hereto, said averments are specifically denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 7 SL I 721299v 1 /061697.00034 No. 22 of plaintiff's complaint, and said averments are, therefore, denied. The exact location of the alleged incident is not known at present. The existence of any damage, defect, disrepair and/or dangerous or defective condition is specifically denied. Defendant makes no answer to said averments because said averments contain conclusions of law, no answer is required thereto, and said averments are, therefore, denied. Proof thereof is demanded, if material, at the trial of the case. In further answer hereto, said averments are specifically denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 23. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph No. 23 of plaintiff s complaint, and said averments are, therefore, denied. The exact location of the alleged incident is not known at present. The existence of any damage, defect, disrepair and/or dangerous or defective condition is specifically denied. Defendant makes no answer to said averments because said averments contain conclusions of law, no answer is required thereto, and said averments are, therefore, denied. Proof thereof is demanded, if material, at the trial of the case. In further answer hereto, said averments are specifically denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph No. 24 of plaintiffs complaint, and said averments are, therefore, denied. The exact location of the alleged incident is not known at present. The existence of any damage, defect, disrepair and/or dangerous or defective condition is specifically denied. Defendant makes no answer to said averments because said averments contain conclusions of law, no answer is required thereto, and said averments are, therefore, denied. Proof thereof is demanded, if material, at the trial of 8 SL I 721299v 1 /061697.00034 the case. In further answer hereto, said averments are specifically denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph No. 25 of plaintiff's complaint, and said averments are, therefore, denied. Defendant makes no answer to said averments because said averments contain conclusions of law, no answer is required thereto, and said averments are, therefore, denied. Proof thereof is demanded, if material, at the trial of the case. In further answer hereto, said averments are specifically denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 26. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph No. 26 of plaintiff's complaint, and said averments are, therefore, denied. Defendant makes no answer to said averments because said averments contain conclusions of law, no answer is required thereto, and said averments are, therefore, denied. Proof thereof is demanded, if material, at the trial of the case. In further answer hereto, said averments are specifically denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Defendant Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania avers that it is not liable to the Plaintiff in any amount whatsoever and demands judgment in its favor. NEW MATTER AND NOW comes Defendant Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and avers the following New Matter addressed to the Plaintiff: 27. The aforesaid cause of action of the Plaintiff is barred, reduced, limited and/or governed by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 9 S L 1 721299v 1 /061697.00034 28. The aforesaid cause of action of the Plaintiff is barred, reduced, limited and/or governed by the doctrine of Voluntary Assumption of Risk. 29. Any and all injuries or damages claimed by the Plaintiff, the existence of which being expressly denied, are the result of his own negligence and/or failure to use due care for his own well being under the circumstances. 30. The aforesaid cause of action of the Plaintiff is barred, reduced, limited and/or governed by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 31. Some or all of the Plaintiff's alleged injuries and/or damages are the result of pre-existing conditions and/or conditions unrelated to the subject incident. 32. Any and all injuries and/or damages of Plaintiff, the existence of which being expressly denied, are the result of acts or omissions to act of persons or parties over whom defendant had no control or for whose negligence defendant is not responsible. 33. The aforesaid cause of action is barred by the appropriate statute of limitations. 10 SL I 721299v 1 /061697.00034 34. The aforesaid cause of action is barred, reduced, limited and/or governed by the doctrine of governmental and/or sovereign immunity. WHEREFORE, Defendant Pennsylvania Turnpike of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania avers that it is not liable the Plaintiff i whatsoever and demands judgment in its favor. 1 Dated: g \ ?o , 2007 STEVENS & LEE By Daniel Attorrky' D. N9/29980 111 NorthSixd? Street P.O. Box 679 Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 (610) 478-2207 Attorneys for Defendant 11 SL I 721299v 1 /061697.00034 VERIFICATION I, Elizabeth J. Little, Claims Supervisor, of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, state that I am authorized to make this verification on behalf of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission; that I have reviewed the averments in the foregoing Defendant's Answer Containing New Matter; and that these averments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief and are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. BY Elizab th J. Little Dated: ??O 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, DANIEL E.P. BAUSHER, ESQUIRE, certify that on this date, I served a certified true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant's Answer Containing New Matter upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Douglas C. Lovelace, 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, Pennsylvania Date: 2007 S L 1 721299v 1 /061697.00034 n o M r-- r PQ a A r=:, ? SEYMOUR ZANDEL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff : PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSION OF THE : NO: 07-1332, CIVIL TERM COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Defendant PLAINTIF'F'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER AND NOW, August 27, 2007, comes Plaintiff, SEYMOUR ZANDEL, by and through his attorney, Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire, and respectfully replies to Defendant's New Matter, as follows: 27. Denied The averment of paragraph 27 of Defendant's New Matter sets forth an incorrect conclusion of law to which no further response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. In the event and to the extent the averment in paragraph 27 of Defendant's New Matter is found not to be a conclusion of law, Plaintiff denies the some and in support thereof incorporates herein the averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 26, inclusive, of Plaintiffs Complaint, as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length. 28. Denied. The averment of paragraph 28 of Defendant's New Matter sets forth an incorrect conclusion of law to which no further response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. In the event and to the extent the averment in paragraph 28 of Defendant's New Matter is found not to be a conclusion of law, Plaintiff denies the same and in support thereof incorporates herein the averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 26, inclusive, of Plaintiffs Complaint, as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length. 29. Denied. The averment of paragraph 29 of Defendant's New Matter sets forth an incorrect conclusion of law to which no further response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. In the event and to the extent the averment in paragraph 29 of Defendant's New Matter is found not to be a conclusion of law, Plaintiff denies the same and in support thereof incorporates herein the averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 26, inclusive, of Plaintiff's Complaint, as fiilly as though the same were set forth herein at length. 30. Denied. The averment of paragraph 30 of Defendant's New Matter sets forth an incorrect conclusion of law to which no further response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. In the event and to the extent the averment in paragraph 30 of Defendant's New Matter is found not to be a conclusion of law, Plaintiff denies the same and in support thereof incorporates herein the averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 26, inclusive, of Plaintiff's Complaint, as fiilly as though the same were set forth herein at length. 31. Denied. All the injuries, suffering, severe pain, mental anguish, discomfort, inability to attend to daily duties and affairs, inability to enjoy life's pleasures, to Plaintiffs great detriment and loss, resulted solely and exclusively from Defendant's negligence. 32. Denied. All the injuries, suffering, severe pain, mental anguish, discomfort, inability to attend to daily duties and affairs, inability to enjoy life's pleasures, all to Plaintiffs great detriment and loss, resulted solely and exclusively from Defendant's negligence. 33. Denied. The averment of paragraph 33 of Defendant's New Matter sets forth an incorrect conclusion of law to which no further response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. In the event and to the extent the averment in paragraph 33 of Defendant's New Matter is found not to be a conchnion of law, Plaintiff denies the same and in support 2 thereof incorporates herein the averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 26, inclusive, of Plaintiff's Complaint, as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length. WHEREFORE, as provided for by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including 42 Pa. G.S. § 8522, "Exceptions to Sovereign Immunity," Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant for medical costs of at least 519,840.00 phis damages for past and future pain and suffering, mental anguish, discomfort, inability to attend to daily duties and affairs, and inability to enjoy life's ply, an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of this jurisdiction, phis costs. Dated: )442"14 RespectMy submitted, 'k?? 'W" ai? f 01 DOUGLAS C. LOVELACE, JR., Esquire Attorney for *e Plaintiff Attorney Identification Number. 83889 36 Donegd Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 385-1866 3 VERIFICATION The undersigned does hereby verify, subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities, that he is attorney for the Plaintiff herein and makes the Verification of the Plaintiffs Reply to Defendant's New Matter based upon the facts as supplied to him by the Plaintiff, because the Plaintiff is outside the jurisdiction of the court and the Plaintiffs Verification cannot be obtained within the time allowed for the filing of this pleading, and that the facts and circumstances set forth in this pleading are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief. Date: August 27, 2007 4xe 0. /I • Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., attorney for Plaintiff, Seymour Zandel, hereby certify that on August 27, 2007, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiirs Reply to Defendant's New Matter upon the below named individual by depositing the same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. SERVED UPON: Daniel E.P. Bausher, Esquire Stevens and Lee Lawyers and Consultants 111 North 6a' Street P.O. Box 679 Reading, PA 19603-5610 ?Y•?Ia. Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire Attorney Identification Number: 83889 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 385-1866 E•? `' C) C a -cJ s - F frj tw7 -q, ri :I"7!C7 r,. -"rib _T4 Cl, r x „ ern -? w SEYMOUR ZANDEL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSION OF THE : NO: 07-1332, CIVIL TERM COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Defendant PRAECIPE TO SETTLE, DISCONTIN'M AND END CIVIL ACTION To the Prothonotary: Kindly mark this action settled, discontinued and ended. Date: June 22, 2009 4k Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire Attorney Identification Number: 83889 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 385-1866 Counsel for Plaintiff f CL"a r L7 ?if+- ?11 `a.