HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-1264ANGEL L. STUCKEY,
Plaintiff
JAMES L. NEFF and CATHY J.
NEFF and NEFFIE'S INC.
dlb/a THREE PINES TAVERN
Defendants
· CIVIL ACTION-LAW
..
· JURY TRIAL D£MAND£D
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
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 LAVVYER AT ONCE. IF
YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR
TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN
GET LEGAL HELP.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
Telephone 717-249-3166 or 800-990-9108
HANDL~~I~,~BERG, LLP
By //
W. Scott
I.D. #322~
1300 kingles~o~r~ 7R~0d
Harrisburg, PA
(717) 238-2000
Attorney for Plair
~tiff
ANGEL L. STUCKEY,
Plaintiff
JAMES L. NEFF and CATHY J. NEFF,
and NEFFIE'S, INC. d/b/a THREE
PINES TAVERN,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Angel L. Stuckey, by and through her attorneys,
HANDLER, HENNING, & ROSENBERG, LLP, by W. Scott Henning, Esquire, and makes
the within Complaint against Defendants, James and Cathy Neff, and Neffie's, Inc. d/b/a
Three Pines Tavern, and in support thereof, avers as follows:
1. Plaintiff, Angel L. Stuckey, is an adult individual who currently resides and/or
has a mailing address of 506 Boston Court, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania 17050-4605.
2. Defendants, James and Cathy Neff, are adult individuals who currently
reside at 519 Chestnut Street, Mount Holly Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
17065.
offices located at 519 Chestnut Street,
Defendant, Neffie's Inc. d/b/a Three Pines Tavern, is a corporation with
Mount Holly Springs, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania 17065.
4. At all times material hereto, James and Cathy Neff, and Neffie's Inc. d/b/a
Three Pines Tavern, were in ownership, possession, and control of the Premises located
at and known as 336 North Baltimore Avenue, Mt. Holly Springs, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania 17065 (hereinafter Premises).
5. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Angel L. Stuckey, was a lawful business
invitee upon said Premises.
6. At all times material hereto, Defendants, who had exclusive control of said
Premises, had allowed a step from the dining room into the pool table/bar area to remain
unsafe.
7. At all times material hereto, there were no warning signs posted on the
Premises nor was there sufficient lighting so as to warn one of the sudden step leading into
the pool table/bar room.
8. On or about August 4, 2001, at approximately 10:30 p.m., Plaintiff, Angel L.
Stuckey, was lawfully upon the Defendants' premises. Plaintiff was returning from the
ladies room to the pool table/bar area when she violently tripped down the step leading into
the pool table/bar room. As a result, Plaintiff fell into the pool table/bar room, landing
harshly on the pool table/bar room floor, thereby causing personal injuries to the Plaintiff,
as more particularly set forth herein:
COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
ANGEL L. STUCKEY V. James and Cathy Neff
Paragraphs 1 through 8 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
10. At all times material to hereto, Plaintiff, Angel L. Stuckey, believes and
therefore avers, that Defendants, James and Cathy Neff, were in ownership, possession,
and/or control of the Premises and were responsible for maintaining the safe condition of
the property known as 336 North Baltimore Avenue, Mt. Holly Springs, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania 17065.
11. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to
Plaintiff, Angel L. Stuckey, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of
Defendants, James and Cathy Neff, each individually, generally and more specifically as
set forth below:
(a) In causing or permitting an unsafe step down to remain between the
dining room and pool table/bar room area on said Premises, thereby
posing an unreasonable risk of injury to the Plaintiff and to other
persons lawfully upon the premises;
(b) In causing or permitting an unsafe step down to remain on said
Premises when Defendant knew or should have known that the
likelihood of the condition of the step could be a tripping hazard to
individuals in the area;
(c) In failing to make a reasonable inspection of said Premises which
would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed
by the unsafe step down on said Premises, and thereby allowing the
same to be and remain a dangerous condition when the Defendant
knew or should have known of it;
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(J)
In failing to ensure the area surrounding the step down on said
Premises was maintained in a safe condition to prevent injury to the
Plaintiff and other persons lawfully upon the Premises;
In failing to erect a railway around the area of the step down so as to
eliminate the dangerous condition on the Premises whereby someone
walking through the doorway opening from the dining room to the pool
table/bar room without realizing there was a difference in elevation
between the floors in the two (2) rooms;
In failing to remove or remedy the significantly dangerous and unsafe
step down on said Premises so as to avoid the situation in which the
Plaintiff tripped and fell;
In failing to maintain the area around the step in a reasonably safe
condition that would prevent Plaintiff, Angel L. Stuckey, from tripping
and falling;
In failing to post a warning sign or other device in the area to notify
of the dangerous step down on said Premises, thus alerting business
invitees that the floors in the two rooms have a different elevation;
In failing to keep the area of said Premises illuminated so as not to
conceal the existence of the step down;
In failing to barricade or block the doorway openings between the two
(2) rooms so that business invitees such as the Plaintiff would not trip
and fall down the step down between the two (2) rooms within the
Defendants' Premises; and
4
(k) In maintaining a step between the two (2) rooms that bore a riser
height significantly in excess of that generally accepted by building
code standards.
12. Defendants, James and Cathy Neff, had actual knowledge or should have
known through the exercise of ordinary care and diligence that there remained an unsafe
step on said Premises.
13. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, James and
Cathy Neff, Plaintiff, Angel L. Stuckey, sustained serious injuries including, but not limited
to, a left thumb fracture at the base of her thumb resulting in extensive treatment, including,
but not limited to the insertion of two temporary screws.
14. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, James and
Cathy Neff, Plaintiff, Angel L. Stuckey, has undergone great physical pain, discomfort and
mental anguish and she will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time
in the future, to her great detriment and loss, physically, emotionally and financially.
15. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, James and
Cathy Neff, Angel L. Stuckey, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending
to her daily duties to her great detriment, loss, humiliation and embarrassment.
16. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, James and
Cathy Neff, Angel L. Stuckey, has, and will in the future, suffer a loss of life's pleasures.
17. As a result of the negligence of As a direct and proximate result of the
negligence of Defendants, James and Cathy Neff, Plaintiff, Angel L. Stuckey, has suffered
lost wages/income and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of
earning capacity.
18. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, James and
Cathy Neff, Plaintiff, Angel L. Stuckey, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the
aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention, and
will be required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to her
great detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Angel L. Stuckey, seeks damages from Defendants, James
and Cathy Neff, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits for Cumberland
County.
COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE
ANGEL L. STUCKEY V. Neffie's Inc. dlbl~
Three Pines Tavern
19. Paragraphs 1 through 18 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
20. At all times material to hereto, Plaintiff, Angel L. Stuckey, believes and
therefore avers, that Defendant, Neffie's Inc. d/b/a Three Pines Tavern, was in ownership,
possession, and/or control of the Premises and were responsible for maintaining the safe
condition of the property known as 336 North Baltimore Avenue, Mt. Holly Springs,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17065.
21. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to
Plaintiff, Angel L. Stuckey, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of the
Defendant, Neffie's Inc. d/b/a Three Pines Tavern, generally and more specifically as set
forth below:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
In causing or permitting an unsafe step down to remain between the
dining room and pool table/bar room area on said Premises, thereby
posing an unreasonable risk of injury to the Plaintiff and to other
persons lawfully upon the premises;
In causing or permitting an unsafe step down to remain on said
Premises when Defendant knew or should have known that the
likelihood of the condition of the step could be a tripping hazard to
individuals in the area;
In failing to make a reasonable inspection of said Premises which
would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed
by the unsafe step down on said Premises, and thereby allowing the
same to be and remain a dangerous condition when the Defendant
knew or should have known of it;
In failing to ensure the area surrounding the step down on said
Premises was maintained in a safe condition to prevent injury to the
Plaintiff and other persons lawfully upon the Premises;
In failing to erect a railway around the area of the step down so as to
eliminate the dangerous condition on the Premises whereby someone
walking through the doorway opening from the dining room to the pool
table/bar room without realizing there was a difference in elevation
between the floors in the two (2) rooms;
(f) In failing to remove or remedy the significantly dangerous and unsafe
step down on said Premises so as to avoid the situation in which the
Plaintiff tripped and fell;
(g) In failing to maintain the area around the step in a reasonably safe
condition that would prevent Plaintiff, Angel L. Stuckey, from tripping
and falling;
(h) In failing to post a warning sign or other device in the area to notify
of the dangerous step down on said Premises, thus alerting business
invitees that the floors in the two rooms have a different elevation;
(I) In failing to keep the area of said Premises illuminated so as not to
conceal the existence of the step down;
(j) In failing to barricade or block the doorway openings between the two
(2) rooms so that business invitees such as the Plaintiffwould not trip
and fall down the step down between the two (2) rooms within the
Defendants' Premises; and
(k) In maintaining a step between the two (2) rooms that bore a riser
height significantly in excess of that generally accepted by building
code standards.
22. Defendant, Neffie's Inc. d/b/a Three Pines Tavern, had actual knowledge or
should have known through the exercise of ordinary care and diligence that there remained
an unsafe step on said Premises.
23. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Neffie's Inc.
d/b/a Three Pines Tavern, Plaintiff, Angel L. Stuckey, sustained serious injuries including,
8
but not limited to, a left thumb fracture at the base of her thumb resulting in the insertion
of two temporary screw which stuck out of her thumb.
24. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Neffie's Inc.
d/b/a Three Pines Tavern, Plaintiff, Angel L. Stuckey, has undergone great physical pain,
discomfort and mental anguish and she will continue to endure the same for an indefinite
period of time in the future, to her great detriment and loss, physically, emotionally and
financially.
25. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Neffie's Inc.
d/b/a Three Pines Tavern, Angel L. Stuckey, has been, and will in the future be, hindered
from attending to her daily duties to her great detriment, loss, humiliation and
embarrassment.
26. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Neffie's Inc.
d/b/a Three Pines Tavern, Angel L. Stuckey, has, and will in the future, suffer a loss of life's
pleasures.
26. As a result of the negligence of As a direct and proximate result of the
negligence of Defendant, Neffie's Inc. d/b/a Three Pines Tavern, Plaintiff, Angel L.
Stuckey, has suffered lost wages/income and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of
income and/or loss of earning capacity.
27. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Neffie's Inc.
d/b/a Three Pines Tavern, Plaintiff, Angel L. Stuckey, has been compelled, in order to
effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and
medical attention, and will be required to expend large sums of money for the same
purposes in the future, to her great detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Angel L. Stuckey, seeks damages from Defendant, Neffie's
Inc. d/b/a Three Pines Tavern, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits
for Cumberland County.
Date: ,~-~00""'o~'~ By:
Respectfully submitted,
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
W. S~'oI e
Attorne~ .D. #~2,~8
1300 Lit II[es~w~ Road
Ha rrisbu rg~-P0~'17110
(717) 238-20~0
Attorney for Plaintiff
]0
VERIFICATION
The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing document
are based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me and
information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of this lawsuit.
The language of the document is of counsel and not my own. I have read the
document and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to
counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To
the extent that the contents of the document are that of counsel, I have relied upon
my counsel in making this Verification. The undersigned also understands that the
statements made therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section
4004, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Angel L. StUckey ~ c~
3
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NO: 2003-01264 p
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
STUCKEY ANGEL L
VS
NEFF JAMES L ET AL
RICHARD SMITH , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon
NEFF JAMES L
the
DEFENDANT , at 1232:00 HOURS, on the 26th day of March
at THREE PINES 336 N BALTIMORE AVENUE
MT HOLLY SPRINGS, PA 17065 by handing to
JAMES L NEFF
a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE
together with
, 2003
and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing 18.00
Service 4.14
Affidavit .00
Surcharge 10.00
.00
32.14
Sworn and Subscribed to before
me this ;~--~ day of
o~ A.D.
' 'Prothonotary:
So Answers:
R. Thomas Kline
03/27/2003
HANDLER HENNING ROSENBERG
By: ~riff
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NO: 2003-01264 p
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
STUCKEY ANGEL L
VS
NEFF JAMES L ET AL
RICHARD SMITH , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon
NEFF CATHY J
the
DEFENDANT , at 1232:00 HOURS, on the 26th day of March
at THREE PINES 336 N BALTIMORE AVENUE
MT HOLLY SPRINGS, PA 17065 by handing to
JAMES L NEFF, HUSBAND
, 2003
a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE
together with
and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing 6.00
Service .00
Affidavit .00
Surcharge 10.00
.00
16.00
Sworn and Subscribed to before
me this /fo ~ day of
~ ~ A.D.
rothonotary
So Answers:
R. Thomas Kline
o3/27/2oo3
HANDLER HENNING ROSENBERG
By: ~~uty~Sh riff
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NO: 2003-01264 p
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
STUCKEY ANGEL L
VS
NEFF JAMES L ET AL
RICHARD SMITH , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon
NEFFIE'S INC D/B/A THREE PINES TAVERN the
DEFENDANT , at 1232:00 HOURS, on the 26th day of March , 2003
at THREE PINES 336 N BALTIMORE AVENUE
MT HOLLY SPRINGS, PA 17065 by handing to
JAMES L NEFF, OWNER
a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE
together with
and at the same time directing ~is attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff.s Costs:
Docketing 6.00
Service .00
Affidavit .00
Surcharge 10.00
.00
16.00
Sworn and Subscribed to before
me this /~
day of
~ ~/~ A.D.
/~rothonotary ~
So Answers:
R. Thomas Kline
03/27/2003
HANDLER HEN~~
By:
ep~ty Sheriff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Of CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Angel L. Stuckey,
Plaintiff,
VS.
James L. Neff and Cathy J. Neff and
Neffie's Inc. d/b/a Three Pines Tavern
Defendant.
CIVIL DIVISION
CASE NUMBER: 03-1264
ISSUE NUMBER:
PLEADING:
ANSWER AND NEW MATTER
CODE AND CLASSIFICATION:
FILED ON BEHALF OF:
James L. Neff and Cathy J. Neff and
Neffie's Inc. d/b/a Three Pines Tavern,
Defendants.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
PAULA a. CAMPBELL, ESQUIRE
Pa. ID# 47079
CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C.
1017 Mumma Road
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(717) 975-9600
NOTICE
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO RESPOND TO THE DEFENDANT'S
ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITHIN TWENTY (20)
DAYS OR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU.
IN THE COURT Of COMMON PLEAS Of CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Angel L. Stuckey,
Plaintiff,
VS.
James L. Neff and Cathy J. Neff and
Neffie's Inc. d/b/a Three Pines Tavern
Defendant.
CASE NO: 03-1264
ANSWER AND NEW MATTER
And now, the Defendants, James L. Neff, Cathy J. Neff, and Neffie's, Inc. d/b/a
Three Pines Tavern, by and through their attorney, Cipriani & Wemer, P.C., by Paula A.
Campbell, Esquire, file the following Answer and New Matter and aver as follows:
1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants were
unable to ascertain the truth or falsity of the allegations contained herein; therefore, the
same are denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that Neffie's, Inc. d/b/a
Three Pines Tavern is a corporation; however, it is more specifically an S chapter
corporation under Pennsylvania laws. It is denied that the corporation's offices are
located at 519 Chestnut Street, Mount Holly Springs, Cumberland County, PA. To
the contrary, Neffies, Inc.'s offices are located at 336 North Baltimore Avenue, Mt.
Holly Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17065. The remaining averments
are conclusions of law to which no answer is required and are deemed denied. Strict
proof is demanded at trial.
4. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that James and Cathy
Neff were owners of the premises located at 336 North Baltimore Avenue, Mt. Holly
Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17065, which was leased to Neffies, Inc.,
d/b/a Three Pines Tavern under a lease agreement. The remaining averments are
conclusions of law to which no answer is required and are deemed denied. Strict
proof is demanded at trial.
5. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph #5 are legal conclusions
to which no answer is required. In further answer to any factual averments contained
within paragraph #5, the Defense are unable to ascertain the truth or falsity of the
allegations contained therein; therefore, the same are denied and strict proof is
demanded at trial.
6. Denied. The allegations contained within paragraph #6 are legal
conclusions to which no response is required. It is specifically denied that there was
any unsafe condition upon the premises. Strict proof is demanded at trial.
7. Denied. The allegations contained within paragraph #7 are legal
conclusions to which no response is required. It is specifically denied that there was
any unsafe condition upon the premises. Strict proof is demanded at trial.
8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants were unable to
ascertain the truth or falsity of the allegations contained therein; therefore, the same
are denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. Furthermore, paragraph
#8 contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. Strict proof is
demanded at trial.
Count I - Neqli;ence Angel Stuckey v. James and Cathy Neff
9. The Defendants, James and Cathy Neff and Neffie's, Inc., d/b/a Three
Pines Tavern (hereinafter referred to collectively as the Defendants) hereby
incorporate by reference all their answers to paragraphs #1 through #8 as if fully set
forth herein at length.
10. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that James and Cathy
Neff were owners of the premises located at 336 North Baltimore Avenue, Mt. Holly
Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17065, which was leased to Neffies, Inc.,
d/b/a Three Pines Tavern under a lease agreement. The remaining averments are
conclusions of law to which no answer is required and are deemed denied. Strict
proof is demanded at trial.
11. Denied. As to the factual allegations regarding the occurrence of an
incident and alleged injuries, the answering Defendants are, after reasonable
investigation, unable to ascertain the truth or falsity of those factual allegations
contained herein; therefore, the same are denied. Stdct proof is demanded at the
tdal. The remaining allegations contained within paragraph #11 of the Plaintiff's
Complaint are legal conclusions to which no response is required. Strict proof is
demanded at trial. All allegations of negligence are hereby specifically denied and all
allegations contained within subparts A through K of paragraph #11 are hereby
specifically denied as follows:
(A)
It is specifically denied that there is any unsafe condition upon the
premises. All allegations contained within subpart A are legal conclusions
to which no response is required;
(B)
It is specifically denied that there was any unsafe condition on the
premises. All allegations contained within subpart B are legal conclusions
to which no response is required;
(c)
It is specifically denied that there was any unsafe condition on the
premises. All allegations contained within subpart C are legal conclusions
to which no response is required;
(D)
It ~s specifically denied that there was any unsafe condition on the
premises. All allegations contained within subpart D are legal conclusions
to which no response is required;
(E)
It ~s specifically denied that there was any unsafe condition on the
premises. All allegations contained within subpart E are legal conclusions
to which no response is required;
(F)
It ~s specifically denied that there was any unsafe condition on the
prem,ses. All allegations contained within subpart F are legal conclusions
to which no response is required;
(G)
It ~s specifically denied that there was any unsafe condition on the
premises. All allegations contained within subpart G are legal
conclusions to which no response is required;
(h)
It ~s specifically denied that there was any unsafe condition on the
premises. All allegations contained within subpart H are legal conclusions
to which no response is required;
It is specifically denied that there was any unsafe condition on the
premises. All allegations contained within subpart I are legal conclusions
to which no response is required;
(J)
It ~s specifically denied that there was any unsafe condition on the
premises. All allegations contained within subpart J are legal conclusions
to which no response is required; and
(K)
It ~s specifically denied that there was any unsafe condition on the
premises. All allegations contained within subpart K are legal conclusions
to which no response is required.
12. Denied. Allegations contained within paragraph #12 are legal conclusions
to which no response is required. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial.
13. Denied. As to any factual allegations contained within paragraph #13 the
Defendants are, after reasonable investigation, unable to ascertain the truth or falsity of
those factual allegations contained herein; therefore, the same are denied. Strict proof
is demanded at the trial. In addition, paragraph #13 contains legal conclusions to which
no response is required. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial.
14. Denied. As to any factual allegations contained within paragraph #14 the
Defendants are, after reasonable investigation, unable to ascertain the truth or falsity of
those factual allegations contained herein; therefore, the same are denied. Strict proof
is demanded at the trial. In addition, paragraph #14 contains legal conclusions to which
no response is required. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial.
15. Denied. As to any factual allegations contained within paragraph #15 the
Defendants are, after reasonable investigation, unable to ascertain the truth or falsity of
those factual allegations contained herein; therefore, the same are denied. Strict proof
is demanded at the trial. In addition, paragraph #15 contains legal conclusions to which
no response is required. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial.
16. Denied. As to any factual allegations contained within paragraph #16 the
Defendants are, after reasonable investigation, unable to ascertain the truth or falsity of
those factual allegations contained herein; therefore, the same are denied. Strict proof
is demanded at the trial. In addition, paragraph #16 contains legal conclusions to which
no response is required. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial.
17. Denied. As to any factual allegations contained within paragraph #17 the
Defendants are, after reasonable investigation, unable to ascertain the truth or falsity of
those factual allegations contained herein; therefore, the same are denied. Strict proof
is demanded at the trial. In addition, paragraph #17 contains legal conclusions to which
no response is required. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial.
18. Denied. As to any factual allegations contained within paragraph #18 the
Defendants are, after reasonable investigation, unable to ascertain the truth or falsity of
those factual allegations contained herein; therefore, the same are denied. Strict proof
is demanded at the trial. In addition, paragraph #18 contains legal conclusions to which
no response is required. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial.
Wherefore, the Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to
grant judgment in their favor against the Plaintiff together with attorney's fees and cost
of suit.
Count 2 - Negligence Angel L. Stuckey v. Neffie's, Inc. d/b/a Three Pines Tavern
19. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference all of their answers to
paragraph #1 through #18 as though fully set forth herein at length.
20. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that James and Cathy
Neff were owners of the premises located at 336 North Baltimore Avenue, Mt. Holly
Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17065, which was leased to Neffies, Inc.,
d/b/a Three Pines Tavern under a lease agreement. 'The remaining averments are
conclusions of law to which no answer is required and are deemed denied. Strict proof
is demanded at trial.
21. Denied. As to the factual allegations regarding the occurrence of an
incident and alleged injuries, the answering Defendants are, after reasonable
investigation, unable to ascertain the truth or falsity of those factual allegations
contained herein; therefore, the same are denied. The allegations contained within
paragraph #21 of the Plaintiff's Complaint are legal conclusions to which no response
is required. All allegations of negligence are hereby specifically denied and all
allegations contained within subparts A through K of paragraph #21 are hereby
specifically denied as follows:
(A)
It is specifically denied that there is any unsafe condition on the premises.
All allegations contained within subpart A are legal conclusions to which
no response is required;
(B)
It )s specifically denied that there was any unsafe condition on the
premises. All allegations contained within subpart B are legal conclusions
to which no response is required;
(c)
It ~s specifically denied that there was any unsafe condition on the
premises. All allegations contained within subpart C are legal conclusions
to which no response is required;
(D)
It ~s specifically denied that there was any unsafe condition on the
premises. ,All allegations contained within subpart D are legal conclusions
to which no response is required;
(E)
It ~s specifically denied that there was any unsafe condition on the
premises. ,All allegations contained within subpart E are legal conclusions
to which no response is required;
(F)
It ~s specifically denied that there was any unsafe condition on the
premises. ,All allegations contained within subpart F are legal conclusions
to which no response is required;
(G)
It ~s specifically denied that there was any unsafe condition on the
premises. All allegations contained within subpart G are legal
conclusions to which no response is required;
(H)
It ~s specifically denied that there was any unsafe condition on the
premises. ,All allegations contained within subpart H are legal conclusions
to which no response is required;
0)
It is specifically denied that there was any unsafe condition on the
premises. ,All allegations contained within subpart I are legal conclusions
to which no response is required;
(J)
It ~s specifically denied that there was any unsafe condition on the
premises. All allegations contained within subpart J are legal conclusions
to which no response is required; and
(K)
It is specifically denied that there was any unsafe condition on the
premises. All allegations contained within subpart K are legal conclusions
to which no response is required.
22. Denied. All allegations contained within paragraph #22 are conclusions of
law to which no response is required. Stdct proof is demanded at the time of trial.
23. Denied. The allegations contained within paragraph #23 are legal
conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent that there are any factual
allegations contained within paragraph #23 of the Plaintiff's Complaint, the Defendants
are unable to ascertain the truth or falsity of the allegations contained herein; therefore,
the same are denied. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial.
24. Denied. The allegations contained within paragraph #24 are legal
conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent that there are any factual
allegations contained within paragraph #24 of the Plaintiff's Complaint, the Defendants
are unable to ascertain the truth or falsity of the allegations contained herein; therefore,
the same are denied. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial.
25. Denied. The allegations contained within paragraph #25 are legal
conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent that there are any factual
allegations contained within paragraph #25 of the Plaintiff's Complaint, the Defendants
are unable to ascertain the truth or falsity of the allegations pertaining to the Claimant's
thumb contained herein; therefore, the same are denied. Strict proof is demanded at
time of tdal.
26. Denied. The allegations contained within paragraph #26 are legal
conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent that there are any factual
allegations contained within paragraph #26 of the Plaintiff's Complaint, the Defendants
are unable to ascertain the truth or falsity of the allegations pertaining to the Claimant's
thumb contained herein; therefore, the same are denied. Strict proof is demanded at
time of trial.
26. (27.) Denied. The allegations contained within paragraph #26 are legal
conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent that there are any factual
allegations contained within paragraph #26 of the Plaintiff's Complaint, the Defendants
are unable to ascertain the truth or falsity of the allegations herein; therefore, the same
are denied. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial.
27. (28.) Denied. The allegations contained within paragraph #27 are legal
conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent that there are any factual
allegations contained within paragraph #27 of the Plaintiff's Complaint, the Defendants
are unable to ascertain the truth or falsity of the allegations contained herein; therefore,
the same are denied. Strict proof is demanded at time of trial.
Wherefore, the Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to grant
judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiff, together with attorney's fees and cost of
suit.
New Matter directed to the Plaintiff, Angel L. Stuckey
29. The Defendants, James L. Neff, Cathy J. Neff, and Neffie's, Inc. d/b/a
Three Pines Tavern (hereinafter referred to collectively as Defendants),
hereby incorporate by reference all their answers to paragraph #1 through
#27(28) as if fully set forth herein at length.
30. The Plaintiff's cause of action barred by the statute of limitations.
31. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030, the answering
Defendants hereby preserve the affirmative defenses of contributory negligence and
assumption of the risk.
32. The Plaintiff's Complaint fails to set forth a cause of action upon which can
be granted against the Defendants.
33. The Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages are barred and/or limited by the
Doctrine of Mitigation.
34. Some or all of the Plaintiff's claims, injuries or damages are not recoverable
items under Pennsylvania law.
35. The Plaintiff's injuries, if any, are due in whole or in part to the Plaintiffs
activities and were caused in whole or in part by the Plaintiff herself.
36. The Plaintiff is the sole, direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injuries,
if any.
37. If the Plaintiff was injured as alleged, which is denied, the Plaintiff's injuries
were due to the conduct of others over whom the Answering Defendants have no
control or right of control; said conduct acts as a superseding and/or intervening cause
of Plaintiff's alleged injuries, thereby rendering Answering Defendants not liable to
Plaintiff.
38. The Plaintiff's injuries, if any, are due in whole or in part to conditions which
either pre- or post-date the alleged accident and bear no causal relation whatsoever
thereto.
39. If a dangerous condition existed on the property, the existence of which has
heretofore been previously denied, the Answering Defendant denies any active or
constructive notice of same.
40. The answering. Defendants plead the defense of the Last Clear Chance
Doctrine.
41. Plaintiff's action is barred by the Choice of Ways Doctrine.
Wherefore, the Defendants respectfully request the Honorable Court to grant
judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiff, together with attorney's fees and cost of
suit.
Respectfully submitted,
C~IANI & WERNER, P.C.
~AULA A. (.;AMPBBL,Z., EffdQUIRE
Attorney for the Defendants,
James L. Neff, Cathy J. Neff, Neffies, Inc.,
D/B/A Three Pines Tavern
05/02/03
FRI 17:11 FAX 717 4868656
Three Pines
VERIFICATION
I, James L. Neff, hereby d:erti~/ that the statement:~.:, in the foregoing ANSWER
AND NEW MATTER are true and correct to the best of m,.:' information, knowledge and
belief. This statement and verif, iqation is made subject t:3 penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A.
Section 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorili?.s, which provides that if
knowingly make false statemen¢;:, I may be subject to crimi'~al penalties.
~ Jam Neff
I, Cathy J. Neff, hereby Certify that the statement.=, in the foregoing ANSWER
AND NEW MATTER are true arid correct to the best of m'/information, knowledge and
belief. This statement and verifi,;ation is made subject ~<., penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A.
Section 4904 relating to unsw(im falsification to authoriiies, which provides that if I
knowingly make false statement!~, I may be subject to criminal penalties.
~]002
05/02/03
FRI 17:12 FAX 717 4868656
provides
penalties.
Three Plnes
ii:i VERIFICATION
I, James L. Neff, hereby V¢iify that t am President, ¢;,'~ Neffies, Inc., Defendant, in
this action and as such am authOiiiked to make this verification on its behalf and that the
facts set forth in the foregoin§ A~i$1/VER and NEtN MAlTF!t~are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge, information and belief, including in:"ormation provided to me by
employees of this organization. ;~his statement and verification is made subject to the
penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A, §4904 relating to unsworn falsii'ication to authorities, which
that ill knowingly mi!;~ke false statements, to criminal
Dated:
I '..,~ay be subject
James/{/Neff -
President of Neffies, Inc.
003
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
That counsel for the Defendant, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of its
ANSWER AND NEW MATTER has been served on all counsel of record, by first class
mail, postage pre-paid, according to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, on the
5th day of May 2003.
W. Scott Henning
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Cumberland County Prothonotary
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
I~AOL~ A. ~,AMI~IJ~LL~ESQUIRE
~A ID # 47079
~,ttorney for the Defendant
ANGEL L. STUCKEY,
Plaintiff
JAMES L. NEFF and CATHY J. NEFF,
and NEFFIE'S, INC. d/b/a THREE
PINES TAVERN,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. 03-1264
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Angel L. Stuckey, by and through her attorneys,
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP by W. Scott Henning, Esquire, and
responds as follows:
29. Denied. Paragraph 29 is an incorporation paragraph to which no
responsive pleading is required.
30. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 30 is a conclusion of law to
which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable
Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiff's cause of action is
barred by the Statute of Limitations, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in
this matter
31. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 31 is a conclusion of law to
which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable
Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiff was in any way
contributorily/comparatively negligent and it is further denied that the Plaintiff in any way
assumed the risk of her fall and resulting injuries, and proof to the contrary is
demanded in this matter.
32. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 32 is a conclusion of law to
which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable
Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiff's Complaint fails to set
forth a cause of action upon which relief can be granted against the Defendants, and
proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter.
33. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 33 is a conclusion of law to
which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable
Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiff failed to mitigate her
damages, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter.
34. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 34 is a conclusion of law to
which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable
Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiffis claims, injuries or
damages are not recoverable under Pennsylvania Law, and proof to the contrary is
demanded at the trial in this matter.
35. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 35 is a conclusion of law to
which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable
Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the incident and the resulting injury
sustained by the Plaintiff were caused in whole or in part by any actions or inactions on
the part of the Plaintiff, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter.
By way of further answer, to the extent that the Defendants are asserting that the
Plaintiff was in any way contributorily or comparatively negligent, said allegation is
denied and proof of any contributory or comparative negligence on the part of the
Plaintiff is demanded at the trial in this matter.
36. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 36 is a conclusion of law to
which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable
Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiff is the sole, direct and
proximate cause of her injuries, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this
matter. By way of further answer, to the extent that the Defendants are asserting that
the Plaintiff was in any way contributorily or comparatively negligent, said allegation is
denied and proof of any contributory or comparative negligence on the part of the
Plaintiff is demanded at the trial in this matter.
37. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 37 is a conclusion of law to
which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable
Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiff's injuries were caused
by the conduct of others over whom the Answering Defendants have no control or right
of control and that such acts are a superceding or intervening cause thereby precluding
a finding of liability on the part of the Answering Defendants, and proof to the contrary is
demanded at the trial in this matter.
38. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 38 is a conclusion of law to
which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable
Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiff's injuries are due in
whole or in part to conditions which either pre-date or post-date the alleged incident,
and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. By way of further
answer, the Plaintiff asserts that the allegation set forth in paragraph 38 is deficient in
the sense that the allegation does not set forth any factual or specific condition in which
the Defendants are asserting as a pm-dating or post-dating condition that served to
cause the Plaintiff's fall and resulting injuries.
39. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 39 is a conclusion of law to
which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable
Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Answering Defendant did not
have active or constructive notice of the defective, hazardous condition upon the
premises. By way of further answer, the Plaintiff asserts that the nature of the
hazardous condition/defective condition upon the Defendants' premises is such that
actual or constructive notice is not required or at a minimum, that actual notice is
presumed.
40. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 40 is a conclusion of law to
which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable
Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Last Clear Chance Doctrine
has any applicability to the subject cause of action, and proof to the contrary is
demanded at the trial in this matter.
41. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 41is a conclusion of law to
which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable
Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiff's cause of action is
barred by the Choice of Ways Doctrine, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the
trial in this matter.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants for the relief
set forth in her Complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
DATE
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
W. Scott ~
I.D. #32298 I _/ ./
1300 Linglesto~_.l~a~
Harrisburg, PA 17110
717-238-2000
Attorney for Plaintiff
ANGEL L. STUCKEY,
Plaintiff
JAMES L. NEFF and CATHY J. NEFF, ·
and NEFFIE'S, INC. dlb/a THREE ·
PINES TAVERN, '
Defendants ·
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. 03-1264
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On the 8th day of May, 2003, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of
Plaintiffs Reply To New Matter was served upon the following by depositing in U.S.
Mail;
Paula Campbell, Esq
Cipriani & Werner
1017 Mumma Road
Lemoyne, PA 17043.
DATE
Respectfully submitted,
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
W Sco~[ Hen~-n s uir
I.~. #32298 ~
717-238-2000
Attorney for Plaintiff
VERIFICATION
PURSUANT TO PA R.C.P. NO. 1024 (c)
W. SCOTT HENNING, ESQUIRE, states that he is the attorney for the party filing
the foregoing document; that he makes this affidavit as an attorney, because the party
he represents lacks sufficient knowledge or information upon which to make a
verification and/or because he has greater personal knowledge of the information and
belief than that of the party for whom he makes this affidavit; and that he has
sufficient knowledge or information and belief, based upon his investigation of the
matters averred or denied in the foregoing document; and that this statement is made
18 Pa C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to
subject to the penalties of
authorities.
W. SCOTT HENNIr
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Angel L. Stuckey,
Plaimiff
VS.
James L. Neff and Cathy J. Neff and
Neffie's Inc. dPo/a Three Pines Tavern,
Defendants
CASE NUMBER: 03-1264
ISSUE NUMBER:
PLEADING:
PRAECIPE la'OR APPEARANCE
CODE AND CLASSIFICATION:
FILED ON BEHALF OF:
James L. Neff and Cathy J. Neffand
Neffie's Inc. d/b/a Three Pines Tavern,
Defendants
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
DENNIS J. BONETTI, ESQUIRE
Pa. ID# 34329
CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C.
1017 Mumma Road
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(717) 975-9600
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Angel L. Stuckey,
Plaimiff
)
VS. )
)
James L. Neffand Cathy J. Neffand Neffie's )
Inc. d/b/a Three Pines Tavern, )
)
Defendants
) CASENO: 03-1264
)
)
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE
TO: PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendants, James L. Neff and
Cathy J. Neff and Neffie's Inc. d/b/a Three Pines Tavern, in the above-captioned matter.
A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED
BY:
Respectfully submitted,
CI~/~d~I ~J~VERNER, P.C.
'D~I S~NETTI, ESQUIRE
Attorney for the Defendant
James L. Neff and Cathy J. Neff and
Neffie's Inc. Wb/a Three Pines Tavern
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
That counsel for the Defendants, James L. Neff and Cathy J. Neff and Neffie's
Inc. d/b/a Three Pines Tavern, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of its
PRAEC1PE FOR APPEARANCE has been served on all counsel of record, by first class
mail, postage pre-paid, according to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, on the
· 5 day of ~QO.f? (,2~~ ,2004.
W. Scott Henning, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
BY:
Respectfully submitted,
C1PRIANI & WERNER, P.C.
DE~IS J. BONETTI, ESQUIRE
Attomey for the Defendants
James L. Neff and Cathy J. Neff and
Neffie's Inc. d/b/a Three Pines Tavern
ANGEL L. STUCKEY,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
: No. 03-'1264
V.
..
JAMES L. NEFF and CATHY J. NEFF,:
and NEFFIE'S, INC. dlbla THREE :
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PINES TAVERN,
Defendants :
PRAECIPE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please markthe Docketintheabovecaptioned ma~erasSe~led, Discontinued
and Satisfied.
DATE:
~ Sco~t"l'l)eF~in~, is~0~ 1300 Lingl~sto~n ~
Harrisburg, ~ 171
Tel. No.: 717-238/
Supreme Court4D No. 32298
^ttorneys for Plaintiff