The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About00-08382 09-3-04 cX()()()- 838"J- civil NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT CIVIL CASE PLAINTIFF: NAME and ADDRESS IJERANKA, LAUREN. M I ~" 1021-2 MONROE ST. OBERLIN, PA 17113 L ~ ~.. " COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: CUMBERLAND Mag. Dis!. No.: DJ Name: Hon. THOMAS A. PLACEY Addeo,", 104 S.' SPORTING HILL RD. MECllANICSBURG, PA 17050 DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS 'MIDAS AUTO SYSTEMS EXPERTS 4909 CARLISLE PIKE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 L Docket No.: CV- 0000219 - 00 Date Filed: 6/21/00 VS. r"'phon" (717) 761- 8230 I LAUREN M. JERANKA 1021-2 MONROE ST. OBERLIN, PA 17113 ~ ," 'ii THIS IS TO NOTIFYYOUTHAT: Judgment: [jJ Judgment was entered for: (Name) [il Judgment was entered against: (Name) . FOR pr;j\.TNTYFF .TRRlIN'R'lI r.lITlRRT\T M . MTDAS AUTO SYSTRMS RXPRRTR in the amount of $ fi?? QQ on: (Date of J,udgment) . (Datl;!&Time) Q/?fi/nn . D {J Defendarts are jointlyaDcJ seyegl.lly liable, Damages will be assessed on: . Amount of Judgment Judgment Costs Interest.on.Judgment Attorney FeeS Total $ $ $ $ $ 511.99 116.00 .00 .00 627.99 D This case dismissed without prejudice.; D Amountof Judgment Subject to Attachment! Act 5 of 1996 $ Post Judgment Credits $ Post Judgment Costs $ D D Levy is stayed for days or D generally stayed, ------------ ------------ Certified Judgment Total $ Objection to levy has been filed and hearing will be held: - Date: Piace: Time: ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON.PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COp)'o CE' .FJUDG NSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. My commission expires first Monday of January,' AOPC 315.99 , District Justice ~.Date, I certify that this is a true and cqrreQt cop , .',' ",:" g-~/n-OO Date SEAL ",,",,,.,.,,,,,;..,,', , '; ~ ~ " ; ,;i ,','"" "';,"-';"i ),:", .,"odo<'," , " ~-~ -, ~'"" ~ .-".' ~' '-lli!W' ~ .. LAUREN JERANKA, Plaintiff v. ~.~ DISTRICT COURT 09-3-04 MIDAS AUTO SYSTEMS EXPERTS, Defendant CV-0219-00 FACTS FROM TRIAL Plaintiff took her 1991 Isuzu Impulse to Defendant for oil change service on 8 April 2000. At this. time and at the one prior service it was noted that the car had an ongoing noise from the engine. Plaintiff indicated the noise was from her distributor and both times simply had the oil Changed. On 16 April 2000, the car broke down while Plaintiff was ten (10) miles from home on the Turnpike. Plaintiff's own roadside service found the added oil to be draining from the bottom of the engine as it was added. The car was left to sit until towed ultimately to an Isuzu dealer on 24 April 2000. At the dealer the drain plug was found missing. There were no telltale signs of damage or alteration to the drain plug area. A new plug was installed and oil was added at a cost of $61.99. The engine was emitting noise from an unknown area for undiagnosed reasons. The dealer provided a written estimate to replace this engine of 103642 miles with a brand new core at a cost of $7206.00. The car stopped running again prior to Plaintiff's obtaining it from the dealer. It has been towed to Plaintiff home where it sits today. No further inspection by either party has been done. DISCUSSION There is a rebuttable presumption that a defendant was negligent upon proof that the instrumentality causing the injury was in defendant's exclusive control, and that the incident was one which does not ordinarily occur in the absences of negligence. This presumption is applicable in this case. All witnesses agree that the oil drain plug does not ordinarily fall out on its own. The Defendant was the last entity to exercise control over this area of the car. Further, Defendant has not rebutted this presumption by ." ~' "~~" ":",."jk: .../ . '. evidence of Plaintiff's or others actions which caused this plug to fall out. Thus, Defendant is liable for the resulting damage. The issue of damages shown by Plaintiff is opaque. Defendant did not cause thousands of dollars worth of damage to this one hundred thousand plus mileage engine based on the evidence shown. There is no shown failure in the engine which was caused by the oil loss, only engine failure. The actual losses shown are for the repairs and unsubmitted towing awarded at $75.00 per tow. In addition to these actual losses, nominal damage of $300.00 for the engine is added. Judgement is in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $511.99, together with the costs of this action. The parties have previously been i:ldVlsed of their appeariTghts and the original exhibits have been returned to the presenting party. 26 SEP 00 Date D.J. 1ti1~lliE;11i~.kl~Wl!lli""'ili:1f;cilklli;/;W'ffilM~miI~iiW~~rnKii:~~~HiiiiUi!r~*f.illilillW!~'-" - ~,~"~, ';J ' .'U ~" - ,--"- .. '. . 's:: -oi 0 0 ~ 0- ) 0, c:;, ......., ... -::;- ~ -J2 ,\.I-I g := ~ -D ~ n --'~ 11 ni~ " 0 I r- 0> ~ ~S;;, -I"'>m - "'I j5;1; $ <::::, ~ ~ U) r-:6 c?-c' .c:. --0 ~ ~ .y-f. ~ ~ ~ ~ -<:::> )>8 '~3It .......... s:l. 6~ ~ -0 I\.) J:... ~ " '"'? --0 :;.-f -lJ ~ f\:> :'0 "'< III' ,-"