HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-03180
".
<".,1'
- to,""~,
." ;-<..'-,,,,,,,~_i'_lv'",,
'''"
R. J. MARZELlA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
BY: Charles W. Marsar, Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court J.D. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 234-7828
Facsimile: /717\ 234-6883
'JAil! 2 5 200 lJ-
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Gary Englebert, and
Sharon Enl!:lebert
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERlAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ClVILACTION - lAW
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
Plaintiffs
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDER
AND NOW, this
day of
, 2002, it is hereby ORDERED that
Petition of Defendants, York Waste Disposal, Inc., and Christopher Hollister, For Leave of
Court to Join Gary Englebert as Additional Defendant is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
J.
II
.o:"'~~"-"
"~ ,._ _ "0" _1
",'-,--,-~ - <'~~~'''''
FfM;ooz
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
Plaintiffs
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.,
Defendants
ORDER
AND NOW, this
day of
, 2002, upon consideration of
Defendants' Petition to Join Additional Defendant, Gary Englebert, it is hereby ORDERED and
DECREED that said Petition is GRANTED.
BY:
(J.)
"' ~"
"
'-'I---~~~',
, - ,,- ~-
b_-, ')jlillltl!i..~~_'
riti 4 2002
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
Plaintiffs
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.,
Defendants
ORDER
AND NOW, this
day of
, 2002, upon consideration of
Defendants' Petition to Join Additional Defendant, Gary Englebert, it is hereby ORDERED and
DECREED that said Petition is GRANTED.
BY:
(J.)
",," ~' -=
',,-".
"C 1", , ,--" - '" '" "-, n." - -:.;.... '~- "",- i&::iiliI~<
F~''i4 2002
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
Plaintiffs
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.,
Defendants
ORDER
AND NOW, this
day of
, 2002, upon consideration of
Defendants' Petition to Join Additional Defendant, Gary Englebert, it is hereby ORDERED and
DECREED that said Petition is GRANTED.
BY:
(J.)
. "
~ ,
" -,-,
,'^",
, ",~, ..~'
c,
-e_' ~;'l;'~~S
....
:;~4 2002
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
Plaintiffs
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.,
Defendants
ORDER
AND NOW, this
day of
, 2002, upon consideration of
Defendants' Petition to Join Additional Defendant, Gary Englebert, it is hereby ORDERED and
DECREED that said Petition is GRANTED.
BY:
(J.)
I iii'
, "~' ,
-;".-,
',-,
""'''''' .~' - o. ~_~"' '_'I~;
.....
R.J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, p.e.
BY: Charles W. Marsar, Jr. Esquire
Pennsy1vania Supreme Court 1.0. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717)234-7828
Facsimile: /7171234-6883
JAN :a 5 2002
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Gary Englebert, and
Sharon Enl!lebert
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERlAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CMLACTION -LAW
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
Plaintiffs
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDER
AND NOW, this
day of
, 2002, it is hereby ORDERED that
Petition of Defendants, York Waste Disposal, Inc., and Christopher Hollister, For Leave of
Court to join Gary Englebert as Additional Defendant is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
j.
~~}Vkfi'~t.0~~~t!Z;!X;s..TS~,%:t~/:tJ'2Xr;
:"t;:';J;-:t~0!;~\~
"<;r<"~
",
-"~~
....."'.."'..
....1I.....!----1
-- j II( ,
I II-I'll ;~'-~ "'<' !
I'lill~ I
IL' ~~ ,~ r
'I! i li~-:,-' , .. lj
I! ..-. f....
\!:)1 v--:; !
:~'" => /I,
~~";~,;r#:",, ~,:;
\\f. "", "'_;---(0
,. ,'" j''<'>':'''~~1:'' l.{}
, j- " "'i'~Jj:. [',
~~'i,} ,.~~1)~~
'~\."\)\
Q <t
;J Q
~J~~:.v H.../J
..
v
e
'"
:;,
?
p:)
v
..,
,~
::J
CJ)
"'C '""'1
;d
o
. > ~ ~ l"
'..J .5"n..........-.---'
" b1Je;::-<,
.:) "> ~
.::: 0 """-, p..
:) V1 r
O~ ~ ~ ~)
---' ~ :-.
.--; ('j U.f'
.2 6 '"
V1 Q) 0 t
H......... 0 c::
:-;j 0 r-l .........
~U'TCL.
~
vc-!
,15 p-<.
0<",
'" '"
~~-+-'
:"0 ~ S
~~!J.-
'" tf} (/) t--
[;1..0::........
'" ::J
[;1 a'/J 8..0::
~~"'"P-<.
, 1) '€_ e?
i3: t:: 0 "
tf}~Z~
~ ~ ('r) '8
~ '.- tlj
~~'I)::r::
ut:<:",
J ~ ~_
I'
\;
,
','
,
c;
"
r:
"
\(-,
;,
:r:
~- i
f,1
,
~',:
ii
,
fi'1
",
~1
,I
-~I;
1[,
11'
'I
~{.
f
i
:l
,
,
[
i
'1:;'101;""'"
'-i>':f'''~
';"M~.'O
f,""';,,:,;:::.v{;;;;\"~;1j;'t:~-iJY~>;0';j'B'.;-r+;~;,~~
J1iIt ~~~.. .
, l
" I -' J. ~
r~~r"Hi~:'~"
@\~ :J
~~\i= I',
r\\~";M>""~ '"
i) 4.
~{. Q
jJ '~!YH
~-
(!
,;, '
~:-' ,
~i ,
,
l; ,
(,
i: :
'-I
I
a:I
<l)
...
>-< 'S
>L1<Zl
::r: .
. ~ -g C'l
0" 0......
&J ~;:::
"'~,......! ......-I
~C:;~~
P::i"'~
o <r: S .
i::::r: 8 ~
.s~~~
~~o ta
;;S;;S~::r:
,'"
!;
"
,
,
1::!
}J
Vi
J,_"
1'"
~~!
~;il
Iii
H
a:I
;~
\l!
\i
I
il
fl
'II
11
11
II
il
;i
i
I
I
,
r
,
I
..
<l)
E
c;
~
<l)
,to:
:J
<Zl
~" '-~l
o
C.5 ~ r::
,.,L bJ)-.-
() bJ)-'-
:J 0'8 <r:
B c.J ~ 0...
P -" '"
"() S M
,.....; c:: :j ~
~ ~ r~ .n
..r: := '-' if]
~fl 0 0 r-
..,... "0 ~ d
,2c,~ -q-::C
~-f;Ve;!K-~,<<.~%I~{;it;:Jf~\~ }",:]>,:-;" }:~1;1;;1i({','i '.Ie}'; 'E-l.(~:-1~&Y'-
-~_ ::n:~:;'.;';!,1~,\oS:~;.~J~:;';;-'i;'E~)3;;" K ;:;;!H;~~~J:::t-'fJi;v~'~0:%;iJ;1~
. _ ~ _J
, . ,~.."' ,".. --
'<j., , '..,' -";.'-'.j"--",,:,,;.;,:,, ~~,..; -,,,-",~~';i,,,'-~L,, '" ',' 1.' ~"'_~-__ , ,~'i;;~
ARZELLA
.I.
&ASSOCIATES
Attorneys &. Counselors At Law
~jA~~ ~ 5 2002 W
3513 NORTH FRONT STREET, HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 1 ~llO
717.234.7828 888.838.3426 717.234.6883 FAX
january 17, 2002
Curtis R. Long, Prothonotary
CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
Re: GaIY Englebert and Sharon Englebert vs.
ChristoDher Hollister and York Waste DisDosal. Inc.
Dear Prothonotary Long:
Enclosed please find an original of Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Petition
to join Gary Englebert as Additional Defendant and a proposed Order. Kindly time-
stamp and file the originals and copies. Lastly, please enclose any extra copies and
return them to this office in the self-addressed, stamped envelope provided.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact our
office. I thank you for your assistance with this matter.
Very truly yours,
By:
Z hary D. Campbe ,Legal Assistant to
Charles W. Marsar,jr., Esquire
lOCI
Enclosures
'I
;1
ill
~
I"
II - I
i~'. ]
,
~ ~
, ~
,
o
-
f-<-
~~
Vl ~
f-< ~
Z ;:j
Ii! ,.
<J.< Z
~~
o .
Z ~
~ ffi
~ ~
~
"'
~""
. '" <11
..:;'u ~ 0
" 0 -1-1 T"""
""" t;I) tI),....
~<'e""['-.
... c: _
"'<Xl!:<
2"'"'-"'-
:s:~ -E oii
N ... ...
lJ) """ 0 ='
<1I"'zJ:l
i: 2 M .:!l
ro .,.- """
e:;,lt'l ~
~M::t:
U
0.:
.;
~ t j ~
'0 ~ 0 ~ Vl <
s:t;;:~ ~ ~
~..."N ~.Q
..- ~....Itj ~
o<l ~ <..,0 3
ru ~ 0.. Vl UO
=-c Vl
~ ~ <2l
~ ~ !Z..
'" ~
:;; E
, ..- ~ 0
-:ll/"} ~ ~
O=::M:I: --
0Er~g:t~~);r;;,~j,;;:;
, ~'.i'~;;_;~t}:~\"".'
,<,";;';j,:,\' <.~.:';'''f::i ","};
!1;Jf~~~}.}'.;'." ,.
, ';~:;';'::':v\~:'!l,
c,;",.- .$~;~~;rg-;,yf;;;'ij;\~7~'g,j;f-i'~'-0:R7;f;~%~1'{{i
;Jjj;;:Q'~Q~r;~~~~j '." ",',;~ ,,:1-:
'-cc_"
,~;Cc'"
,,--,
~, :','?\,;1.tt
,'JI
, [
o
~
f-<~
~~
Vl ~
~ ~
iil ~
"-< Z
~~
o -
Z i;l
'" "'
~J
...:
Q)Q)
.: c
::l '-
o-Cil
JjS "0
- Cil
cn1D'c:O
c: .c .- 0::
Q) Q) 01_
03: 2 8';;:::
Q)C)"'" <l:
.J a o/l E 0...
;:":C:2 ~
~~~()Cll.E
~~Q)OQ)'~
CilCilOO:!:'-
:2:2()~~~
o
......
......
I'-
......
::s ~
~ VI <:
~ ~ i<l
~:1
l2 (3
~ J<j
~ ;:'..
j
-<
,-,
.
,
.
l&f:r~"-J
, -~t:'ej~)i!{"~;:~:i~
'~~f::~';P;:h~4:;~r'_~;lc;~;;~\
':i$;;}!%~i:?!l\j'&~,~-01
.
I ~ "lliI
.,
,-"' '"-
..
'*
R.J. MARZELlA & ASSOOATES, P.c.
BY: Charles W. Marsar, Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court J.D. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 234-7828
Facsimile:. 1717\234-6883
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Gary Englebert, and
Sharon Ene:lebert
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
Plaintiffs
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDER
." "'''- -~ ~""
, ~
".i
,
"
JAN 2 5 20e2
AND NOW, this
day of
, 2002, it is hereby ORDERED that
Petition of Defendants, York Waste Disposal, Inc., and Christopher Hollister, For Leave of
Court to Join Gary Englebert as Additional Defendant is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
J.
-
_J iIil
",,,-( , , 'iliim('
R. J. MARZELlA & ASSOCIATES, P.c.
BY: Charles W. Marsar, Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court I.O. No. 86072
3513 North Front Stteet
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 234-7828
Facsimile: /717\234-6883
'JAIn 5 201 2 ~
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Gary Englebert, and
Sharon Emdebert
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
=
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
Plaintiffs
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDER
AND NOW, this
day of
, 2002, it is hereby ORDERED that
Petition of Defendants, York Waste Disposal, Inc., and Christopher Hollister, For Leave of
Court to Join Gary Englebert as Additional Defendant is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
j.
, .-.~
~
,~~~"~""
j"........--
-:.
.J~~, '"'
~ ,
'=--.1':
1--.
- j' .,~
R. J. MARZEUA & ASSOCIATES, P.e.
BY: Charles W. Marsar, Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court J.D. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 234-7828
Facsimile: /717\234-6883
il:J ~u ." " "( r>':J
<Jl'-V,l "~ ry,J IZ_l._I'~VV
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Gal)' Englebert, and
Sharon Ene:lebert
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
Plaintiffs
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDER
AND NOW, this
day of
, 2002, it is hereby ORDERED that
Petition of Defendants, York Waste Disposal, Inc., and Christopher Hollister, For Leave of
Court to Join Gary Englebert as Additional Defendant is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
J.
-=,- , , ~ '''~
~""t,i'l
R.J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
BY: Charles W. Marsar, Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court 1.0. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110
Telephone: (717) 234-7828
facsimile: 1717\ 234-6883
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Gary Englebert, and
Sharon Emdebert
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
GARY ENLGEBERT and
S~1ARON ENGLEBERT
DOCKET NO. 0 I - 3/1'0 Ci0',l ~
Plaintiffs
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YQRK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE TO PLEAD
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 an
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
I-L<\VE 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 Lawyer Referral Service
2 Liberty Ave.
Carlisle, PA 17013
Telephone (717) 249 - 3166
-
" .
,
.'
AVISO
USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las
demand as que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar accion
dentro de los proximos veinte (20) dfas despues de la notificacion de esta Demanda y
Aviso radicando personal mente 0 por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y
r~dicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objeciones a, las demandas
presentadas aquf en contra suya. Se Ie advierte de que si usted fall a de tomar accion
como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por
cualquier sum a de dinero reclamacion 0 remedio solicitado por el demandante puede
ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte, sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder
di~ero 0 propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted.
. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI
USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO 0 NO PUEDE PAGARLE A UNO, LLAME 0 VAYA A LA
S~GUENTE OFlCINA PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE ENCONTRAR ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
'.
Cumberland County Lawyer Referral Service
2 Liberty Ave.
Carlisle, PA 17013
Telephone (717) 249 - 3166
.
~,.
'.
'"
'.
-,.;,-',--
.~~. """",,:'t
_'_0_
~rr
~'-~ l':
R.j. MARZELlA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
BY: Charles W. Marsar, Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court 1.0. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 234-7828
Facsimile: 1717\ 234-6883
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Gary Englebert, and
Sharon Emdebert
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
GARY ENLGEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
.-.-
11 -./ I~
DOCKET NO. 01- 31fo Uv<-I
Plaintiffs
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.,
Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
1. Gary Englebert, Plaintiff, is an adult-individual who, at all relevant times
hereto, resided at 172 Benders Church Road, Biglerville, PA 17307.
2. Sharon Englebert, Plaintiff, is an adult-individual who, at all relevant times
hereto, resided at 172 Benders Church Road, Biglerville, PA 17307.
3. Christopher Hollister, (hereinafter "Defendant Driver") is an adult-
individual and an employee, agent, apparent agent, ostensible agent, and/or servant
who, at all relevant times hereto, resided at 2140 Baltimore Pike, East Berlin, PA 17316.
----,-"-
4. York Waste Disposal, Inc. (hereinafter Defendant Corporation), is a
corporation which, at all relevant times hereto, was incorporated under the laws ofthe
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal place of business at 987 West Trindle
Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055.
5. Gary and Sharon Englebert both work at the Naval Base (NAVICP) in
Mechanicsburg, PA.
6. Every morning Gary and Sharon drive to work together from their home in
Biglerville to Mechanicsburg.
7. On May 2,2000, Gary and Sharon were driving to work together as per
their usual route.
8. Gary was driving and Sharon was in the front passenger seat as they
traveled east on Trindle Road.
9. Fortunately both Gary and Sharon were wearing harness seat belts, and
Gary was driving under the speed limit, because just as they attempted to pass the
driveway at 5022 East Trindle, Defendant Driver backed a garbage truck directly into
their path.
10. Due to a large tree located at the edge ofthe driveway, Gary was unable
to see the defendant's truck until it was actually in the roadway.
11. Gary immediately hit his brakes in an effort to stop before striking the
garbage truck.
12. As Gary applied his brakes, the garbage truck continued to back out onto
the road.
"-,
kmillil.IEI,,-!
2
-
''>i!
13. There was no other reasonable course of action that Gary could have
taken to avoid this collision since oncoming traffic prevented him from swerving left and
the tree, along with telephone poles, prevented him from swerving right.
14. Sharon screamed as their vehicle violently struck the side of the garbage
truck head-on.
15. Instantaneously, Sharon began experiencing constricting chest pains,
while Gary bled from his hand and pain shot though his body.
16. Even though Gary and Sharon Englebert were traveling below the posted
speed limit, their vehicle was damaged beyond repair.
17. Several bystanders assisted by pushing the Englebert's vehicle off ofthe
road.
18. Within minutes of the crash, the police arrived on the scene.
19. After the police officer interviewed the parties and assessed the accident
scene, he concluded that the defendant driver was clearly the sole cause of the accident.
20. When the officer explained to the parties that Defendant Driver caused
the accident by not looking while backing out, the defendant driver nodded admittingly.
21. Although the officer indicated Defendant Driver's traffic violation on the
police report, the decision was made, with Plaintiffs' consent, not to issue a citation to
Defendant Driver.
22. The evening ofthe accident, Gary and Sharon presented to the
Emergency Room of Gettysburg Hospital.
3
........~'r~h
23. Sharon presented due to chest pain, bruising, chipped teeth, neck pain,
sore ribs, fever, and stiffness all over her body.
24. Gary presented due to pain and bruising of the right hand and wrist, neck
pain, back pain, sore ribs, right shoulder pain, right hip pain, right foot pain, headache,
and soreness all over his body.
25. X-rays revealed that, rather than the normal curvature, Gary's spine had
been painfully straightened due to the collision.
26. In addition, the physician informed both Gary and Sharon that they were
suffering from whiplash injury and a deeply bruised rib cage.
2? The physician informed Gary and Sharon that they would most likely
experience new aches and pains in the days to follow and to continue care with their
family doctor.
28. Gary and Sharon were ordered not to return to work the rest of the week
in an effort to allow some time for their injuries to recover.
29. On May 11,2000, Gary and Sharon presented to their family physician for
a follow up evaluation.
30. Sharon was still exhibiting bruising on numerous areas of her body.
31. Gary was still suffering from pain in his neck, back, shoulder, right hip,
and the right side of his rib cage.
32. The family physician prescribed pain and anti-inflammatory medication for
Gary and referred both Gary and Sharon for a course of physical therapy.
4
~N-!#,
33. At the initial physical therapy evaluation, Dr. Buohl stated that Gary was in
very bad shape, and, in fact, he felt that Gary was suffering from a compression fracture
in his vertebrae.
34. Gary endured many grueling physical therapy sessions several times per
week for more than six months.
35. More recently, Gary underwent an orthopedic evaluation, which revealed
he was suffering from a Herniated Nucleus Polposus at the C6-(7 level.
36. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants in
causing the collision, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert, have suffered the injuries and
damages detailed herein.
37. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Gary
and Sharon Englebert have suffered permanent and severe injuries.
38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert have been
and will continue to be forced to incur liability for medical treatment, medicines,
hospitalizations and similar miscellaneous expenses throughout their adult lives and a
claim is made therefor.
39. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert have
undergone and in the future will undergo great physical pain and suffering, great
inconvenience in carrying out their daily activities, loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment,
and emotional distress and a claim is made therefor.
5
, ~"
""0_, j" ^=~t;:"
40. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert have been
and in the future will be subject to great humiliation, disfigurement and embarrassment
and a claim is made therefor.
41. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert have
sustained in the past and will sustain in the future a loss of earnings, a permanent
impairment of their earning power and capacity and a claim is made therefor.
42. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert have been
advised and therefore aver that the damages and injuries alleged herein are permanent
and a claim is made therefor.
43. As a direct and proximate result ofthe negligence of Defendants, the
truck driven by Defendant Driver collided with the Englebert's vehicle causing Gary
Englebert to sustain severe, extensive and permanent personal injuries including but not
limited to his right hand, wrist, and shoulder, as well as his back, neck, and sternum, and
numerous other areas of injury and pain requiring medical treatment and therapy, and
may require medical treatment and therapy in the future, and a claim is made therefor.
44. As a direct and proximate result ofthe negligence of Defendants,
the vehicle driven by Defendant-Driver collided with the Englebert's vehicle causing
Sharon Englebert to sustain severe, extensive and permanent personal injuries including
but not limited to her face, mouth, sternum, back, neck, and numerous other areas of
6
-0 ~',,";" -..;:,
injury and pain requiring medical treatment and therapy, and may require medical
treatment and therapy in the future, and a claim is made therefor.
45. As a direct and proximate result ofthe negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff,
Sharon Englebert, has been deprived of the care, companionship, and services of her
husband, Gary Englebert, for all of which damages are claimed.
COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
GARY ENGLEBERT and SHARON ENGLEBERT
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER
46. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1- 45 of Plaintiff's Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference as iffully set forth.
47. Regarding the accident, which is the subject matter ofthis Complaint,
Defendant Driver was negligent, careless, and/or reckless in the operation of a motor
vehicle in the following particulars:
(a) operating his vehicle in violation of the ordinances ofthe
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles,
including backing into a lane of travel without reasonably checking to see if any
vehicles were there and reckless driving, which constitutes negligence as a
matter oflaw;
(b) failing to have the vehicle under proper and adequate control in
order to stop or avoid striking the Englebert's vehicle;
(c) failing to keep an appropriate lookout to avoid striking the
Englebert's vehicle;
7
(d) failing to maneuver his vehicle appropriately in order to avoid
striking the Englebert's vehicle;
(e) operating the vehicle without due regard for the rights, safety,
well being, and position of Gary and Sharon Englebert under the circumstances;
(f) operating his vehicle negligently, carelessly, and/or recklessly by
blindly backing into oncoming traffic;
(h) improperly, inappropriately and/or illegally backing in front of the
PlaintiWs vehicle;
(i) failing to yield the right of way to oncoming traffic; and
OJ failing to appropriately judge the time and distance available to
pull out onto the street in front of PlaintiWs vehicle.
48. Defendant Driver is liable to Plaintiffs for their injuries and damages as
alleged herein as set forth in paragraphs thirty-six (36) through forty-five (45) above,
which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert demand judgment
against Defendant, Christopher Hollister, in an amount in excess of TWENTY-FIVE
THOUSAND DOLlARS ($25,000.00), together with interest and costs thereon as allowed
bylaw.
. _.,.~ -, ~ .".', "-
8
".
. "
. -~ ~
COUNT" - VICARIOUS LIABILITY
GARY ENGLEBERT and SHARON ENGLEBERT
v.
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
49. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1- 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
50. Regarding the accident, which is the subject matter of this Complaint,
Defendant Corporation was vicariously negligent, careless, and/or reckless in the
operation of a motor vehicle by having an employee, agent, apparent agent, ostensible
agent and/or servant:
(a) operating his vehicle in violation of the ordinances of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles,
including backing into a lane oftravel without reasonably checking to see if any
vehicles were there and reckless driving, which constitutes negligence as a
matter oflaw;
(b) failing to have the vehicle under proper and adequate control in
order to stop or avoid striking the Englebert's vehicle;
(c) failing to keep an appropriate lookout to avoid striking the
Englebert's vehicle;
(d) failing to maneuver his vehicle appropriately in order to avoid
striking the Englebert's vehicle;
(e) operating the vehicle without due regard for the rights, safety,
well being, and position of Gary and Sharon Englebert under the circumstances;
- , ~
.,~
9
~
, .
'" - ~
- ~ ' ~",,-"~
~\~~''''''
(f) operating his vehicle negligently, carelessly, and/or recklessly by
blindly backing into oncoming traffic;
(h) improperly, inappropriately and/or illegally backing in front of the
Plaintiff's vehicle;
(i) failing to yield the right of way to oncoming traffic; and
0) failing to appropriately judge the time and distance available to
pull out onto the street in front of Plaintiff's vehicle.
51. Defendant Corporation is liable to Plaintiffs for their injuries and damages
as alleged herein as set forth in paragraphs thirty-six (36) through forty-five (45) above,
which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert demand judgment
against Defendant, York Waste Disposal, Inc., in an amount in excess of TWENTY-FIVE
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00), together with interest and costs thereon as allowed
bylaw.
10
.-- ~
., -~.- "-_.
"
..., - "-"-,-,"";----,,,,.,,.
"-'- ",.'~,,~
COUNT 11/ - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
SHARON ENGLEBERT
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
52. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1- 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
53. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff,
Sharon Englebert, has been deprived of the care, companionship, services, society and
consortium of her husband, Gary Englebert, for all of which damages are claimed.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Sharon Englebert, demands judgment against Defendants
in an amount in excess of TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00), together
with interest and costs thereon as allowed by law.
R. J. Marzella & Associates. P.c.
Dated: <) ~ 2.. Z. . 2001
11
""
'-,--'
~,..~'-' '-~-"~~'-,",."'~'~~.. -' .,-,- '~~'"
VERIFICATION
We, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert, hereby swear and affirm that the facts and
matters set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of our
knowledge, information and belief.
We understand that the statements made herein are made subject to the
penalties of Pa.C.S. ~ 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities.
Dated:
1/.(2-;' ItJ /
Dated: <// ;t.3J,J I
dANhl f"rJ~
Sharon Englebert
.~t!!I.r_~i!!~I!:;u;W~~Jt<IDi.W'-ll:il~~u~...",*~ru'I-b_~M,;f-ft'k'f;o!l,,j!ij.~~.&1A\lIiI- ---~ ~' u-"-.~~""ilr
- ~.~, '--.
~~
11[:
, ~
(J --br c :::..'
)
p ~ ~c
0 ~ .,'~ --
r ..c- -tH:;-' ..
~ h .\) ITl:--
-- -,..
CJ ~ 6 en -:. .~..
--
........ 6' ~ .
....... f' ~~~!!
& f' J ~ /L '-"
0 ;< ::::>
~ =2 -~
).J
f
J
'''_~_'',=f_~_~
..
......
"--.
"~", "
R.J. MARZELlA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
BY: Charles W. Marsar,Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court I.D. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 234-7828
Facsimile: (71 Z) ~883
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Gary Englebert, and
Sharon Ene:lebert
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERlAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CMLACTION -lAW
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
Plaintiffs
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PlAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' PETITION
FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO JOIN
GARY ENGLEBERT AS ADDmONAL DEFENDANT
AND NOW this 1 J"h day of January, comes the Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and
Sharon Englebert, (hereinafter "Plaintiffs") by and through their counsel, R.J. Marzella
and Associates, who file this Response to Defendant's Petition for Leave of Court to Join
Gary Englebert as Additional Defendant and in support thereof aver the following:
1. This action arises out of an automobile accident, which occurred on May
2, 2000 involving the Defendant and the Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert.
2. Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the Cumberland County Court of Common
Pleas on or about May 24, 2001 against the Defendants.
~~, oil
.
H_ ,-, "" ~, ~,"" _r "~" -.;; ".'~ < ,_. ,"., >
3. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Christopher Hollister negligently backed
his front loader garbage truck out of a driveway and across Trindle Road directly in the
path of the Plaintiffs on Trindle Road in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County.
4. Defendants filed an Answer with New Matter on or about August 6, 2001,
denying all allegations of liability and raising in the New Matter the defenses that the
accident was caused by other parties and that Plaintiffs' claim was barred and/or limited
by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act.
5. The parties conducted discovery, including exchange of Interrogatories,
Request for Production of Documents, and depositions of both the Plaintiffs and the
Defendant driver.
6. Following the completion of discovery, on or about January 2, 2002,
counsel for the Defendants filed a Petition for Leave ofthe Court to Join Plaintiff, Gary
Englebert, as Additional Defendant (hereinafter "The Petition").
7. In The Petition Defense Counsel cites to Defendant Driver's deposition
testimony, which maintains that he stopped his vehicle short ofTrindle Road and
Plaintiff, Gary Englebert panicked, slammed on his breaks, and lost control of his vehicle
sliding offTrindle Road and striking the York Waste garbage truck. (See The Petition
page 3, paragraph 12).
8. Plaintiff Gary Englebert maintains through sworn deposition testimony
that at the time of impact, the garbage truck was completely blocking his lane of travel
on Trindle Road.
,I
II
~
. ,
.,~ ,.,;;, ,-I
, ,;,," ,- "~-"h", r '
'U'.i
9. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2253 provides that neither a Praecipe
for a writ to join an additional defendant, nor a Complaint, shall be filed by the original
Defendant later than 60 days after the service upon the original defendant of the initial
pleading of the Plaintiff, unless such filing is allowed by the court upon cause shown.
10. It is well settled law in Pennsylvania that Pa.R.C.P. 2253 was designed
primarily for the protection ofthe plaintiff so that his cause of action would not be
delayed by successive joinder of additional defendants. Graham v. Greater Latrobe
School Dist., 260 A.2d 731, 436 Pa. 440, Sup. 1970.
11. The Defendants must show, when requesting belated joinder of an
additional defendant, that the joinder is based on proper grounds, some reasonable
excuse exists for the delay in commencing joinder proceedings, and that the original
plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the late joinder. Lawrence v. Meeker, 717 A.2d 1046,
1048, Pa.Super., 1998. Francisco v. Ford Motor Co., 406 Pa.Super.l44, 593 A.2d 1277,
1278 (1991).
12. The Defendants have the burden of proving sufficient cause to allow late
joinder of an additional defendant and must establish some reasonable justification for
the delay in petitioning the court for leave to join an additional defendant. Exton
DeveloDment v. Sun Oil Co. ofPennsvlvania, 525 A.2d 402, 363 Pa.Super. 17,
Super.1987. White v. American Honda Research of America, 589 A.2d 363, Pa.Super.17,
Super.1991.
13. Defendants delayed more than five months after the 60-day period
allowed by Pa.R.C.P 2253 before filing The Petition.
.
~ ~~
"- .,
~,' i __" _
.n' ,
","' "-"-'"'"
~,,'-' -"' ~~
14. Defendant's reasoning for the delay is that new information did not
become available until after the deposition of Defendant Driver was completed on or
about October 23, 2001. (See The Petition page 3, paragraph 12).
15. Following the completion of Defendant Driver's deposition, Defendants
then waited more than two more months before petitioning the Court for leave to join
an additional defendant.
16. Defendants' reasoning for the more than five-month delay in filing The
Petition is invalid.
17. Defense Counsel had ample time to learn of the testimony provided by
Defendant Driver, and, therefore, had ample time to join an additional defendant within
the bounds ofthe Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
18. Plaintiffs provided Defendants with two extensions in which to respond to
the Complaint, as well as, extensions in which to respond to written discovery. (See
correspondence attached hereto as Plaintiffs' Exhibit "An).
19. During such time, Defense Counsel had a sufficient opportunity to learn of
Defendant Driver's side of the story, which is now the reasoning for The Petition.
20. No new information, that was available to Defense Counsel at the time of
service ofthe Complaint, came to light in Defendant Driver's deposition. Therefore, the
reasoning set forth in The Petition is invalid.
21. In their initial pleading, Defendants alleged that the accident was caused
by other parties and that Plaintiffs' claims were barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania
Comparative Negligence Act; thereby, preserving any allegations that Defendants intend
J
.,
.
~, "- , -,
, ,.
....,
,'.:,,-,,,-- ,,,,'_' ',--"l..F-',,- - . m-'"
''-'-;';;1'"
to present via Joinder. Therefore, no party will suffer any prejudice as a result of
denying The Petition,
22. If the Court were to grant Defendants' Petition to join Plaintiff Gary
Englebert as a Defendant, a jury could perceive the Court as granting credence to
Defendants' already preserved Comparative Negligence allegation, thereby, creating
undue prejudice to Plaintiffs.
23. The Joinder of Gary Englebert as an Additional Defendant will only serve
to confuse the issues and mislead the jury.
24. Defendants have failed to express a reasonable excuse for filing The
Petition more than five months beyond the time limit set forth by the Pennsylvania Rules
of Civil Procedure; therefore, Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing
cause to join an additional defendant, as set forth in Exton and White.
25. In addition, Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing that
Plaintiff Gary Englebert will not be prejudiced by such joinder.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert, respectfully
request that this Honorable Court to DENY Defendants' Petition for Leave to Join
Additional Defendant, Gary Englebert.
,
II
.- "
.
Dated: 1- /7 . 2002
~. J
~ ..'
-,;: .1,'
-. -l -'" .._,;--'~ ' -,_,
"'(-'
R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
By:
--, ~
,',
, ;"'0-_
j " ' ,~
_ 0 ~'....~; :
A REGION,;, DEFENSE LITIGATION LAW FIRM
I MARsHAll, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GoGGIN I
BY: ----____n__n_
................
_d>em
Coy"""""
Ene
"""''''''''
Newrown Square:
No""",,",
Phil>dd"'"
Pittsburgh
''''''''00
WUliamspon
N_JUllJE'f
"''''1'Hlll
Ro""".
-..
Wilmington
WurVIIlI,lIJlllA.
Weirton
0",.
Stcubenvillo:
......-
Orlmdo
-..
A" PROFESSIONAL CORPOII.AT[O~
www.marsh~lld...nnehey"com
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B . Harrisburg, P A 17112
(717) 651-3500' Fax (717) 651-9630
Direct Dial: 717-651-3501
Email: mowens@mdwcg.com
I 'iF 0l \"" or ,\':7 -'-
U ~~(..b.-l.1 & ~ .
C'~-. 0 7 "n01 /ii,
.Jr.;'"" . !.'J' l!lj
September 6, 2001
~ ,
'j
.:1
;!
'1
Charles W, Marsar, Jr., Esquire
RJ, Marzella & Associates, P.c.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Re: Gary and Sharon Englebert v. Christopher Hollister and
York Waste Disposal, Inc.
CCP - Cumberland County, No. 01-3180 - Civil
Our File No. 18068-00111
Dear Mr. Marsar:
I have scheduled a meeting with my clients to prepare responses to your clients' discovery requests. I
hope to have these responses to you by the end of this month or September 30,2001. My client is anxious to
move this case forward, and therefore, I would like to set aside dates in mid to late October for depositions in
this case. Kindly contact me at your convenience so that we can schedule these depositions.
Your attention and prompt response is appreciated. Of course, I would like to have your clients'
discovery responses prior to the depositions, which I assume will not be a problem.
MLO/acs
105 JILlABlMLOICORRI78896IACSI18068100111
w."
~ ,
. .
~-, u C',__""," ,_-,., 'A""i.~-~,,-,. ^,","';._ h"'
,'- it,
A REGIONA'l DEFENSE LITIGATION LAW FIRM
.
MARsHALL, DENNmlliX', WARNER, COlEMAN G3 GoGGIN
A" PRO F E S 5 ION ALe 0 Il. P 0 RAT ION
www.marslWldcnnebey.com
. Pcvtn1.~
""'""'=
Doylc51:own
Eri,
K"""'"",
Newtown Square
Norristown
PhiladcJphia
"-
''''''um
Willliun,pon
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B . Harrisburg, P A 17112
(717) 651-3500' Fax (717) 651-9630
Direct Dial: 717-651-3501
Email: mowens@mdwcg.com
NnrJBUKr
",,,,,,Hill
--
August 29,2001
liE@..& ;U.'\j;T.o.,
u 1;(1
ij c::~~ (" '"~01 lill
'..:ct"' -J 1.. L1JU I
DUAWAU
WUmington
WaT VIaGII'RA
Welnon
Omo
SlcubenvI1Ie
.....-
0_
_",
Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.c.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PAl 711 0
BY: ____________________
Re: Gary and Sharon Englebert v, Christopher Hollister and
York Waste Disposal, Inc.
CCP - Cumberland County, No. 01-3180 - Civil
Our File No. 18068-00111
Dear Mr. Marsar:
I am in receipt of your clients' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents directed
independently to my two clients, York Waste Disposal, Inc. and Christopher Hollister. I would appreciate a 30-
day extension to respond to these discovery requests in light of the fact that several key people are on vacation
during the month of August. I will assume you have granted this extension unless I hear from you to the
contrary.
I currently enclose my clients' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents directed to
Gary and Sharon Englebert. Likewise, you may have an additional 30 days to respond.
Your attention is appreciated.
v cry truly yours,
MLO/acs
enc.
....-
-
0""
,-,'t_ '_ ,-c -.-~. , "..-' ,,~"> 'L_ ..'",~<-' ",'1"__," --"~--~~i','
3513 NORTH FRONT STREET, HARRISBURG, PENNS'{l.VANlA \7110
717234.7828 888.838.3426 717234.6883 FAX .
ARZELLA
.1.
Attorneys &: Counselors At Law
July 20,2001
Matthew L. Owens, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
4200 Crums Mill Road
Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Re:
Englebert v. Hollister, et al.
';!
Dear Matt:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation on the above-date, you had requested a
second extension within which to file your client's Answer. We agreed upon the new
due date of August 5, 2001. I look forward to your response within the new deadline.
If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
R.j. Marzella & Associates, P.c.
By:
Charles W. Marsar, Jr.
-
CWMJrl
"' '-I ,'",';
~- '" '"
.\_o~, _-It__,, 'b""-", "'-,'-:'..'~;,'.J,:"".,~,- "'. _::'._'~_
A REGION,,~ DEFENSE LITIGATION LAW FIRM
I MARs~, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COI.EMAN' &5 GoGGIN I
It.. PRO PES S ION ALe 0 R r 0 RAT tON WWW.marsh~lIdrnnehey.com
Direct Dial: 717-232-9324
Email: mowens@mdwcg.com
~ib@~~\W~1iil
ml JUN 2 2 2001 1!IJ
_.....
llc<hkhcn
0_
J!rl,
"""'bws
N=<own Sqwtt
No"""","
_.hi>
PI_
"""'<On
_ort
- ,.....
"""rlllil
LivtngstoD
Duow...
_0
War VlaGll'IIA
Wdrtoo
.....
s_,
100 Pine Street, Fonrth Floor, P.O. Box 803, Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803
(717) 232-1022' Fax (717) 232-1849
SO,
l :c___________
------....
.......
-..
June 15,2001
- Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
RJ. Marzella & Associates, P.c.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, P A 17110
Re: Gary and Sharon Englebert v. Christopher Hollister and
York Waste Disposal, Inc.
CCP - Cumberland County, No. 01-3180 - Civil
Our File No. 07040-
Dear Mr. Marsar:
Please be advised that Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. has retained the undersigned counsel to represent
York Waste Disposal and Christopher Hollister in the above-captioned matter. I enclose a copy of my Entry of
Appearance.
I telephoned your office and left a voicemail as I was unable to reach you on the telephone. I would
appreciate a 30-day extension to file an Answer With New Matter. I will assume you have granted that
extension unless I hear from you to the contrary.
Please contact me should you have any questions at this time. Your attention is appreciated.
-
...~-- --:
MLO/acs
10S _A ILIABIMLOICORR\7393 IIACSI 15000150000
....':
~ ~
i_~ . j - _;., "- .; '_1."':' 0 ^_ -, ,'~~"
'''-- fI-'-'"
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
!, Charles W. Marsar, Jr., hereby certifY that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this ---12-. day of January, 2002,
by depositing said copy in the United States Mail postage prepaid, first-class deliver, and
addressed as follows:
Matthew L. Owens, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
4200 Crums Mill Road
Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110
R.J. MARZELIA&ASSOCIATES, P.C.
~
Charles .' arsar,.. -
S~'lS ~~ -~ <"~ ~
J
,_,=, ~ ,l
- "' " - < , ~ "_.J,
W@_'I
. ..
.
,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
Plaintiffs
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
CNIL ACTION - LAW
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.,
Defendants
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please enter my appearance on behalf of Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York
Waste Disposal, Inc. in the above-captioned matter.
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER,
COLEMAN & GGIN
BY:
MA H W .0
J.D. NO. 76080
100 Pine Street, 4th Floor
P.O. Box 803
Harrisburg,Pll 17108-0803
(717) 232-9324
Attorneys for the Defendants
DATE: (, { ,~( 01
_.,~..,.- ~ ]-~-
" .
-',=-"
---",--.
<~'-'<iIlW:~_,k.,,+
~ ....
.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
Plaintiffs
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.,
Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Angela Sanger, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do
hereby certify that on this "?-ls r day of June, 2001, I served a copy of the foregoing document
via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid as follows:
Charles W. Marsar, JI., Esquire
R.I. Marzella & Associates, P.c.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, P A 17110
~~~
Angela anger
^^'
- - ~ _...-'
."
, ,- ""
='. ,
~;f'J
SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY
l'
......
CASE NO: 2001-03180 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
ENGLEBERT GARY ET AL
VS
HOLLISTER CHRISTOPHER ET AL
R. Thomas Kline
, Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being
duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a dili~ent search and
and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT
, to wit:
HOLLISTER CHRISTOPHER
but was unable to locate Him
in his bailiwick. He therefore
deputized the sheriff of YORK
County, Pennsylvania, to
serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE
19th , 2001 , this office was in receipt of the
On June
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing
Out of County
Surcharge
Deputize York Co
6.00
18.00
10.00
28.28
.00
62.28
06/19/2001
RJ MARZELLA
~R.
Sh
as Kline
f of Cumberland County
attached return from YORK
& ASSOCIATES
Sworn and subscribed to before me
this q~ dayofqJj
~D.
t2 ~ A~+=
Prothonotary'
,Jj .
" l
"""''''
~' '"'
"' '- ..~ ''- n'M' , "" l
'~"'llil;;!I',
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
'"
CASE NO: 2001-03180 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
ENGLEBERT GARY ET AL
VS
HOLLISTER CHRISTOPHER 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
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL INC
the
DEFENDANT
, at 0858:00 HOURS, on the 30th day of May
, 2001
at 987 WEST TRINDLE ROAD
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055
by handing to
JUDY PETENBRINK, DISPATCHER
a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE
together with
and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing
Service
Affidavit
Surcharge
So Answers:
18.00
4.96
.00
10.00
.00
32.96
r~~<:~~
R. Thomas Kline
06/21/2001
RJ MARZELLA
Sworn and Subscribed to before By:
me this q!!!::-
day of
0.~ s21>-O( A.D.
tkO . -
YM.drJl. ,
P othonotary I ~
",.-"A","k;;;*"-"i'~-">"'~>''''',~"__;'~"''''']'>.;\l,,,'''"<c.:.,~.."
'--", <J""","~',~,--.'
...
{.
....
COUNTY OF YORK
OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF
SERVICE CALL
(717) 771-9601
\
2B EAST MARKET ST., YORK, PA 17401
SHERIFF SERVICE
PROCESS RECEIPT and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN
2. CO!lR1T \!\!MBER
20U -3180 civil
4. TYPE OF WRIT OR COMPLAINT
1. PLAINTIFF/Sf
Gary Englebert etal
3. DEFEr-mANT/SI
York waste Dis sal etal Notice & Ccmplaint
SERVE { 5. NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY. CORPORATION, ETC. TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEVIED, ATTACHED, OR SOLO.
... Christopher Hollister
..". 6. ADDRESS (STREET OR RFO \NlTH BOX NUMBER, APT. NO., CITY, BORO, TWP., STATE AND ZIP CODE)
AT 2140 Baltimore Pike East ~lin. PA 17316
7. INDICATE SERVICE: 0 PERSONAL 0 PERSON IN CHARGE DEPUTIZE ~Cfi'W!a 0 1ST CLASS MAIL 0 POSTED 0 OTHER
NOW May 31 , 20..Dl..- I, SHERIFF OF, _.... COUN~~k:;~bY de u'
York COUNTY to execut~ ur
to Jaw. This deputization being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff. .,....-
SHERIFF OF COUNTY
B. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT \MLL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE,
Cumberland
ADVANCE FEE PAID BY CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF
NOTE: ONLY APPLICABLE ON'WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN. Any deputy sheriff levying upon or attactling any property under within writ may leave same
without a watchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession, after notifying person of levy or attachment without liability on the part of such deputy or the sheriff to any plaintiff
herein for any loss, destruction, or removal of any property before sheriffs sale thereof.
9. TYPE NAME and ADDRESS of ATTORNEY I ORIGINATOR and SIGNATURE
3513CHAFLES W. MARSAR, JR., ESQ.
D N. FRONT ST., HARRISBURG, PA 17110
12. SENe> NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW: (This area must be completed If notice IS to be mailed).
10. TELEPHONE NUMBER 11. DATE FILED
(717) 234-7828 5/24/01
16.
~~Ol
. 4j4. Sigratu~e of
I , Dep.. Sh rJff :
TARY '~6. Signatur~ of Yoik
Count,y Sheriff
WILLiAM M. HOSE
45. DATE/
f!rv
47. DATE
6-13-01
48: Signatllle: of Foreign
Courity Sheriff
F'S R TURN SIGNATURE
D TITLE
1. Vv'HITE:. Issuing Authority 2. PINK - Attorney 3. CANARY - Sheriff's Office 4. BLUE - Sheriffs Office
49. DATE
51 DATE RECEIVED
~~,
,..., .
'.'''''' f-:'.....
fJFj;~
! (\I" !!'1
"'1,-" .. ~c
*'1" -<I'
COUNlWOF YORK
OFFICE OF tHE SHERIFF
2S':!=AST MARKET ST., YORK, PA 17401
:~
1. PLAINTIFF/SI
Gary Englebert
5":
SERVICE CALL
(717) 771-9601 7,
,1/,J
-'
\
,
SHERIFF SERVICE ;,_.
P~OCESS RECEIPT and AFFIDAVIT OF ~TURN
e.tal
2. ~BVN-NJr8ff civil
3. DEFENDANTISI
York waste Disposal etal Notice & Ccmplaint
SERVE {. 5. NAME.QF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY, CORPORATION, ETC. TO SERVE ORDESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEVIED, ATTACHED, OR SOLO.
~ Christopher Hollister
~ 6. ADDRESS (STREET OR RFO WITH BOX NUMBER, APT. NO., CITY, BORD, TWP., STATE AND ZIP CODE)
. AT . 2140 Baltimore Pike East liD, PA 17316
7. . INDICATE SER)/ICE:' 0 PERSONAL .0 PERSON IN CHARGE EPUTIZE..~\~r'lO 1ST ClASS MAIL 0 POSTED 0 OTHER
NOW f May 31 i ,20 Q1, l'fSHERIFFOf;: '\:~.",COUNTY, PA,' do herebydepotize the sheriff of
'j--" York . COUNTY to execute this d ke return the f cording
to law. This depulization being ma.deat the request and risk of the plaintiff.
4. TYPE OF WRIT OR COMPLAINT
8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER'JNFORMAJ1PN Tt1ATWlLLASSIST IN ~p'EDITING SERVICE:
~;.'-""~""-~'~
Cumberlancl
'...,:~_.... -'"::t- ..
-
DPVANCE FI::E PAID BY CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF
Merr!:: 'oNlr'A:Pp~(C~Bl:iE';Qfi'Vfflj:r6'F;EXEc~'ripN': '~:B;'WpjVER OF WATCHMAN ~ Any deputy sti~'leVYin-g upon Or attaChing any 'property under'~in wri't rnay'l~ve' same
without a watchman, 'in custody' of, whOmever is fouri(f;.if'!7possession, after notifying person of levy or attachment without liability on the part.of such deputy.orthe sheriff to any plaintiff
herein for any loss, destruction. or removal of any property before sheriffs sale thereof.
9. TYPE NAME and ADDRESS of ATTORNEY I ORIGINATOR and SIGNATURE
3513CHARLES W. MARSAR, JR., ESQ.
Xi N. FRONT ST. HARRISBURG, PA 17110
. 12. SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE .COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW: (This area must be completed if notice is to be mailed).
10. TELEPHONE NUMBER
(717) 234-7828
11. DATE FILED
5i24/01
i-
15. ExpllitionlHearing Date
6/23/01
SEE REMARKS BELOW
16.
17.
18.
,",---.,
~ .i:.
! i
j jJ:~;f0, 1
(or I
"
, '4. Foreign C.ounty Costs
~,
j~- , - .
" 41. AFFIRMED and SU~SCrib~_.tp:pef~(~ me thi,~ '. ' OJ}
42. day 01 JU~,E .:' .200.1. 43. ..
. PilOT
_/ _ (~'o,/'
~. Sj~':lature of
, j- Dep: Sheriff
J-NOTARY,f46. SignatlJre,oJYork
'~_~_.-'"" County Sheriff -
IHlLIA~1 ,,1. HOSE
-'
45.DATEL? , f
",'9 " ~I...-"'.'c
47: DATE
;'/
"
:..
r;? "',
////;'~.~//"'~!') ..
",-7'" p ~f.t:'/t:/' r....--;;.r~~,
6., -l"
49. DATE.....
51. DATE RECEIVED
1. WHITE. Issuing Authority 2. PINK. Attorney 3. CANARY'* S~eriff's Office 4. BLUE - Sheriff's Office
.,.
r'
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
Plaintiffs
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.,
Defendants
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert
c/o Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
R.I. Marzella & Associates, P.c.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs'
Complaint on behalf of Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., within
twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be filed against you.
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER,
COLEMAN & G GIN
BY:
MATTHEW . OWENS,
LD. No. 76080
100 Pine Street, 4th Floor
P.O. Box 803
Hanisburg,PPl 17108-0803
(717) 232-9324
DATE B( (g (01
Attorneys for the Defendants
_'__I"
';","~,;
"
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
Plaintiffs
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.,
Defendants
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER
AND NOW comes Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., by
and through the undersigned counsel, who answer Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows:
1. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
2. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 2, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
5. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 5, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
" ~ "
, -,' , ',--','- ~ _ t,
~'~)."
"
6. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 6, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proofthereofrequired at trial.
7. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
8. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 8, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
9. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the tnlth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 13, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 13 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proofthereofrequired at trial. To the extent a specific response is required, it is denied that the
Defendant driver backed his truck directly into the path of the Plaintiffs' vehicle.
10. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the tnIth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 10, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
II. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the tnIth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 11, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
2
-
e.
",;,
'~~*",:"j--:
12. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 12, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proofthereofrequired at trial.
13. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 13, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 13 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proofthereof required at trial.
14. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 14, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
15. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 15, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
16. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 16, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 16 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
17. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the trUth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 17, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
3
~ "
<'
',,=-' ,. ~,
,l;-'i1.ilil.W~!,<-,
18. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 18, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at triaL
19. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 19, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 19 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at triaL
20. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 20, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at triaL Paragraph 20 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proofthereof required at triaL To the extent a specific response is required, it is denied that the
Defendant driver nodded admittingly to any accusations ofliability or fault at the scene of the
accident to anyone.
21. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 21, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at triaL
22. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 22, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at triaL
23. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 23, and therefore, the same are denied with
4
i
".~ ,
.'
:; - '.....~,~""~;~:"
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 23 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
24. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 24, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proofthereofrequired at trial. Paragraph 24 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
25. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 25, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proofthereofrequired at trial. Paragraph 25 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
26. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 26, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 26 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
27. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 27, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 27 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at triaL
5
~ .
., -"- ,
. , .~~.
,1~<c__ ~ ~
'il"_\;lt;;-~'k
28. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 28, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 28 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
29. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 29, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 29 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
30. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 30, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 30 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
31. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 31, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 31 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
32. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 32, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 32 is further denied in that the same contains
6
.""it ,,"" ~"'-,j;\I~1;;I,*,-<f",1i'
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
33. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 33, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proofthereofrequired at trial. Paragraph 33 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
34. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 34, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 34 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
35. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 35, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proofthereofrequired at trial. Paragraph 35 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
36. Denied. Paragraph 36 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
37. Denied. Paragraph 37 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
7
'"
-
." .,
';~;"';.' , '11"'""'~I'1'
38. Denied. Paragraph 38 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
39. Denied. Paragraph 39 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
40. Denied. Paragraph 40 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
41. Denied. Paragraph 41 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
42. Denied. Paragraph 42 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
43. Denied. Paragraph 43 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proofthereof required
at trial.
44. Denied. Paragraph 44 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
8
.
""-~''''''H-''''"';'''"~,;ri
45. Denied. Paragraph 45 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
GARY ENGLEBERT and SHARON ENGLEBERT
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER
46. Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., incorporate by
reference their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as if set forth
herein at length.
47. (a) - (j) Denied. Paragraph 47 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of
law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof
required at trial.
48. Denied. Paragraph 47 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc.,
respectfully demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs together with such costs
this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
9
o ~ __ ," "'"
~ ".'
'-', -- ',-
-Yii'llLb
COUNT II - VICARIOUS LIABILITY
GARY ENGLEBERT and SHARON ENGLEBERT
v.
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
49. Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., incorporate by
reference their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as if set forth
herein at length.
50. (a) - (j) Denied. Paragraph 50 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of
law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof
required at trial.
51. Denied. Paragraph 5 I is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc.,
respectfully demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs together with such costs
this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
COUNT III - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
SHARON ENGLEBERT
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
52. Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., incorporate by
reference their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as if set forth
herein at length.
10
,,,""
, < '^"'~
'~ ,,' ,,"' ..
-:iki",
53. Denied. Paragraph 53 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc.,
respectfully demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs together with such costs
this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
NEW MATTER
17. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute oflimitations.
18. Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
19. Plaintiffs are barred and/or limited by all applicable provisions of the
Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law.
20. No act or omission on the part of Defendants was a substantial or contributing
factor in bringing about Plaintiffs' alleged injuries and/or damages, all such injuries and/or
damages being expressly denied.
21. Any and all injuries and/or damages as described by Plaintiffs in their Complaint,
the same being expressly denied, were caused in whole or in part by the acts or omissions on the
part of Plaintiffs and/or others over whom Defendants had no control nor right of control.
22. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the doctrine of res judicata and/or
collateral estoppel.
23. Plaintiffs' claims are derivative in nature and are barred as a matter oflaw.
24. Defendants breached no duty of care owed to Plaintiffs under the circumstances.
25. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania Comparative
Negligence Act.
11
~- ~
" j~
<,', ',". '. ^ -'<fuktjt
26. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the applicable provisions ofthe
Pennsylvania Worker's Compensation Act.
27. At all times material hereto, Defendants acted in a safe, legal and non-negligent
manner.
28. Plaintiffs negligent operation of his motor vehicle was the sole and proximate
cause of all alleged injuries and damages.
29. Plaintiffs' Complaint and or claims are barred by their selection oflimited tort as
set forth by 75 Pa.C.S.A. 91705.
BY:
HEY, WARNER,
GIN
MATTHE 1. 0
J.D. No. 76080
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B
Harrisburg, P A 17112
(717) 651-3501
Attorneys for the Defendants
DATE: f}( (J ( f) ,
105_ A ILIABIMLOILLPG\73927\ACSI18068100 111
12
"^" -- ,,_... "',".~x' ~- ,~",ne, --~',.'>_"'""",,','~" ".',,,"' ,~,," --"", "Zo(_ ,,'.~. __ .-':.'i,:;:~
VERIFICATION
The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing Defendants'
Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are based upon information which has been
furnished to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the
preparation ofthe defense of this lawsuit. The langnage of the Defendants' Answer with New
Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Answer with
New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint, 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 Defendants' Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs'
Complaint are that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this verification. The
undersigned also understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18
Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
By:;i~N~~~
Dwayne urt
Title: '0 "'':7~'" '" ~(?r~ ri..rY? ...........
DATE: '/ f/<l/
-'"- - ~ . -. ","",",,' - " ~ --'. ",.,-,.." -..-" ~'"~, ,.,"~" --~""".;.:;[,",- 'i,,,,"'>~','h':i,,,_~,, ~"." -'I,': ;" ,," ,
VERIFICATION
The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing Defendants' Answer
with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are based upon information which has been furnished
to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of the
defense of this lawsuit. The language of the Defendants' Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs'
Complaint is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Answer with New Matter to
Plaintiffs' Complaint, 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 Defendants' Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are that of
counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this verification. The undersigned also
understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section
4904, relating to nnswom falsification to authorities.
DATE: 7/--;/ Dr
~~-
Christop r Hollister
~
"'," " ,,~ -' ~"--~,-; ,> , ~--.' '
~~,!",~
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
Plaintiffs
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.,
Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Angela Sanger, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do
hereby certifY that on this ~l-uay of August, 2001, I served a copy of the foregoing
document via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid as follows:
Charles W. Marsar, JI., Esquire
R.I. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 171I0
~~L
Angela ger
::YP'f
~~.~Lsl~ill#iW1if;"'ffi!~"'~'M~:l;;'''j;filf-5.l~~-'M:j.j''hl'~_ '"iU"'i~Wi*,.:"-<9I"~':ilI",,,,",W~~Mjg"""""""'" liiIi '
-
. "-,~ ~
~,~-~, ",,,. ,~
_. ~~ ~,c, ~
H'_ >
j~':.'~)t'l:!W""""'''''''
'-".-'- "
= ~,
..
o
c
~
"1Jf.;
5261
&~'
~
2~~'i
,-- <::5
Pc:
z
:<
"~"
,. , , 0 ,~
."
c>
o
-n
};.::-
-,-,j
l;"}
I
\D
" ~r-'
I~
... rTj
\~)?
~,,,..J
<;?l~
cyri
~
-<
-n
:3-;
r:~)
~
c..;>
~
'. , ~, ; '-, ..' ", ~ ~. ,.., ,
~""--";""''"'.;'"; " '~~;
R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.c.
BY: Charles W. Marsar, Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court J.D. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717)234-7828
Facsimile: (717\ 234-6883
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Gary Englebert, and
Sharon En!!lebert
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
GARY ENLGEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
Plaintiffs
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANTS'
ANSWER WITH NEW MAlTER
17. The allegation herein states a conclusion of law to which no response is
required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that
Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
18. The allegation herein states a conclusion oflaw to which no response is
required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that
Plaintiffs' have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
19. The aIlegation herein states a conclusion oflaw to which no response is
required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that
Y'L
~--
'J1Stl ,,',,~,
~- ~ -W"!?""_
Plaintiffs are barred and/or limited by all applicable provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor
Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law.
20. The allegation herein states a conclusion oflaw to which no response is
required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that no
act or omission on the part of Defendants was a substantial or contributing factor in
bringing about Plaintiffs' alleged injuries and/or damages, all such injuries and/or
damages being expressly denied.
21. The allegation herein states a conclusion of law to which no response is
required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that any
and all injuries and/or damages as described by Plaintiffs in their Complaint, the same
being expressly denied, were caused in whole or in part by the acts or omissions on the
part of Plaintiffs and/or other over whom Defendants had no control nor right of control.
22. The allegation herein states a conclusion oflaw to which no response is
required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that
Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the doctrine of res judicata and/or
collateral estoppel.
23. The allegation herein states a conclusion of law to which no response is
required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that
Plaintiffs' claims are derivative in nature and are barred as a matter oflaw.
24. The allegation herein states a conclusion oflaw to which no response is
required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that
Defendants breached no duty of care owed to Plaintiffs under the circumstances.
~ ~ -'>
~. ~,- ~.'
"~!"' ~"";rk,-:
25. The allegation herein states a conclusion of law to which no response is
required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that
Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence
Act.
26. The allegation herein states a conclusion oflaw to which no response is
required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that
Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the applicable provisions of the
Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act.
27. The allegation herein states a conclusion oflaw to which no response is
required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that at
all times material hereto, Defendants acted in a safe, legal and non-negligent manner.
28. The allegation herein states a conclusion of law to which no response is
required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that
Plaintiffs' negligent operation of his motor vehicle was the sole and proximate cause of
all alleged injuries and damages.
29. The allegation herein states a conclusion oflaw to which no response is
required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that
Plaintiffs' Complaint and/or claims are barred by their selection of limited tort as set
forth by 75 Pa.C.SA 9 1705.
;''", ,
Respectfully submitted,
R. J. Marzella & Associates, P.c.
By:
Charles W, Marsar, jr., e
Attorney Identification No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 1711 0
(717) 234-7828
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Gary
Engelbert and Sharon Englebert
Dated: August 8, 2001
" - ~".
"' -_kTli~iAk
"
"' ' L '" ~
,,~> -: . "~-;:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Charles W. Marsar, Jr., hereby certil)r that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this ~ day of August, 2001,
by depositing said copy in the United States Mail postage prepaid, first-class deliver, and
addressed as follows:
Matthew L. Owens, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
4200 (rums Mill Road
Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110
R.j. MARZELIA&ASSOCIATES, P.c.
II
II
~'~~~~~~li!it!.U~~,~-.tli1f>-;;';1,'\Ij#~,rM~~Ill~~_~&;d"'" -
.r
~
">~ "~
",""" ~<7~
.,-
.~,
..=.~ --jj;':"-~'
~
,"
,
-- """'''"''''>~
-",'
.
,.
"
f,
I,.
i,
,
i:
I:
I'
i.'
,
I:
[,
,.
,
:i
0 c.) (~)
C
s: 'I
"'0[1" ):>0
{TIn'! '--
Z-"1 U)
Z;-::'"';;
en )~- (~
-<;0
<c; ~T) -r ,
Pc>
~CI 1;-;> 0
C
Z .:-i
=< "., '-~
en :0
-<
-
, ~"
~,-
, ' ,-' -~~ -' - ''-', ,'," 00" ""'~ '~'J'-,,"", ,,-, '
. v', , '~':!i'
GARY ENGLEBERT
and SHARON
ENGLEBERT,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CHRISTOPHER
HOLLISTER and YORK
WASTE DISPOSAL,
INC.,
Defendants
v.
GARY ENGLEBERT,
Additional Defendant
NO. 01-3180 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 5th day of September, 2002, upon consideration of Plaintiffs
Motion To Compel Responses to Written Discovery, a Rule is hereby issued upon
Defendant York Waste Disposal, Inc., to show cause why the relief requested should not
be granted.
RULE RETURNABLE within 20 days of service.
BY THE COURT,
Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esq.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, P A 1711 0
Attorney for Plaintiffs
-
~.~ q./o.o:L
r'
~~
, ~",' '~ """,,. ,~
,
!;
l!
"
[I
~!
[i
,.
fi
it
ii
"
!1
'I
!I
,I
:-i
!:
.'
','
1,1
i
I
I
f :~
. -,-,~ ,
'^'.
'0'
V.. ,'''''"', ""'-', ,,,-~,,,,""' ~., '." ,~ '. '"' ~~
OF T:~,tL'~F,~~{,=~~t,TJ~)1'/J1Y
0/ r;:r.P-Ci
~ .~L" ""
I';)'; ?: ~:;6
C' 'I'\,.~;i=l~l" , I'." ;, ',I ; IT\
U VI~_; tV-,,- \,J \....lJdi\i 11'
PENNS\(l.vAN'i\
,.~, '" --~
"
,~ .."
,~!,"'~-1"~"'!Wi'I~\wt~~~~,~~J\l),")I!i~lm~~~_" '%
~,--, -,,"-,'-^-, --,'- ~--";;'>'" " "'~~'1Ii;!>i~.,(
Stephen Barcavage, Esq.
4200 Crums Mill Road
Suite B
Harrisburg, P A 1711 0
Attorney for Defendants
John R. Ninosky, Esq.
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
Attorney for Additional Defendant
:rc
_~~~~M1~~~~,'m~'ibI~l!I.Wl~i;iI~~iiM.' ""'
Jr
yO
._^
..~-~~~~ ,
"' '''''*--~-'.I. '.".",
, ,r- '~
~ ':M'_~ " ,~ ~ '"'~,~
-
~,~
!'_:
11
. ,
ii
,-
"
ii
Ii
i,j
,I
I!
"
, ~
'1
i
.1
:i
I
i
"
. -
....
~~-,,' ,-",-,,-,,"
,ii:I:1
", , 'CUUl:
..
SEP 0 4 200
R.J. MARZEUA&ASSOCIATES, P.C.
BY: Charles W. Marsar, Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court 1.0. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 234-7828
Facsimile: 171712J4.6883
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Gaxy Englebert, and
sharon Ene:lebert
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERlAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION -lAW
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
Plaintiffs
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDER
AND NOW, this
day of
, 2002, upon
consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Responses to Written Discovery,
Defendant York Waste Disposal, Inc is ORDERED to produce within twenty days of the
date of this Order, full and complete answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories- Set Il or suffer
such sanctions as this Court, in its discretion, deems just.
BY THE COURT:
J.
, 'w. __"'rl'~"_ I...' ..:.--,,"
",,' ".,," --, ." iir~:il;'
.'
c:=
R.J. MARZEllA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
BY: Charles W. Marsar, Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court 1.0. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 234-7828
Facsimile: 1717\234-6883
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Gary Englebert, and
Sharon Ene:lebert
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERlAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CML ACTION -lAW
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
Plaintiffs
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PlAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL
RESPONSES TO WRI1TEN DISCOVERY
AND NOW COMES, Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert, by and
through their attorneys, R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.c. by way of filing this Motion to
Compel Responses to Written Discovery.
1. On or about, May 24, 2001, Plaintiffs filed this personal injury action via
Complaint.
2. On or about October 24, 2001, Plaintiffs served Interrogatories and
Request for Production of Documents, Set II to Defendant. (See Plaintiffs'
~ ,
,,--
,~~ C'~", ~, _'._" ,_,""~, -~~n'''' '>
.~" ~"''''-'''"
Interrogatories Propounded upon Defendant York Waste Disposal, Inc., Set II attached
hereto as Exhibit "A").
3. In Interrogatory number 1, Plaintiffs' requested Defendant York Waste
Disposal, Inc. to "List the dimensions ofthe vehicle (model number previously identified
as MR699) driven by the defendant at the time of the accident at issue. Specifically,
state the exact length, height, width, maximum load capacity and recommended air
pressure for the rear tires." (See Exhibit "A" attached hereto).
3. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4006 (2), Defendants'
answers to the aforementioned discovery were due November 23, 2001.
4. On or about December 13, 2001, Defendant's York Waste Disposal, Inc.,
served Plaintiffs with their Responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories- Set II. (See
Defendant's, York Waste Disposal, Inc., Responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories- Set II
attached hereto as Exhibit "B").
5. In Defendant's York Waste Disposal, Inc.'s Responses to Plaintiffs'
Interrogatories- Set II, Defendant York Waste Disposal, Inc. responded to Interrogatory
number 1 by stating "Defendants are investigating your request and will provided this
information when received." (See Exhibit "B").
6. When no answers were received in a reasonable amount time to
Interrogatory number 1, of Plaintiff's Interrogatories Propounded upon Defendant,
Plaintiffs began eliciting Defendants' response.
.......'
..
'j
\.",;
" -, "" " '1' ~__,~_<_,__
~ .i,~,,_
7. On May 13, 2002, Plaintiffs sent Defendants a correspondence reminding
of the outstanding discovery response. (See Correspondence dated May 13, 2002
attached hereto as Exhibit "C").
8. Presently, there has been no response from Defendants regarding
Plaintiffs' written discovery requests, which have been served almost one year ago.
WfIEHEFOKE, Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert, request this
Honorable Court order Defendants to provide full and complete answers to Plaintiffs'
Interrogatories, Set II.
R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
Dated:
f-30-D2-
"~ ,-
.' .
,
.,:
R.J. MARZELlA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
BY: Charles W. Marsar, Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court 1.0. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 234-7828
Facsimile: (717) 234-6883
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Gary Englebert, and
Sharon Enl!:lebert
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACllON - LAW
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
Plaintiffs
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PlAINllFFS'lNTERROGATORlES PROPOUNDED UPON
DEFENDANT YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
-SETII-
TO: York Waste Disposal. Inc.
do Matthew L. Owens, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
4200 Crums Mill Road
Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110
o
'il'i)il '~,_
....
.. .
-
.
-
-.
DEANrnONSANDINSTRUCTIONS
A. Whenever the term "document" is used herein, it includes (whether or not
specifically called for) all printed. typewritten, handwritten, graphic or recorded matter.
however formal or informal.
B. Whenever you are asked to "identiJY' a document. the following
information should be given as to each document of which you are aware. whether or
not you have possession, custody or control thereof:
1, The nature of the document (e.g., letter, memorandum. computer
prinr-out. minutes, resolution. tape recording, videotape. etc.);
2. Its date (or if it bears no date. the date when it was prepared);
3. The name. address. employer and position of the signer or signers
(or if there is no signer. of the person who prepared It);
4. The name. address. employer and position of the person, if any. to
whom the document was sent;
5. If you have possession, custody or control of the document. the
location and designation of the place or file in which it is contained, and the name.
address. position of person having custody of the document;
6. If you do not have possession. custody or control of the document.
the present location thereof and the name and address of the organization having
possession, custody or control thereof; and
"
7.
A brief statement of the subject matter of each document.
C. Whenever you are asked to "identiJY' an oral communication. the
following information should be given as to each oral communication of which you are
aware, whether or not you or others were present or participated therein:
1. Tht means of communication (e.g., telephone. personal
conversation, etc.);
2. Where it took place;
3. Its date;
l'
" n <-1- "~-li'!
~
2
~
~)
~~
4. The names. addresses, employers and positions (a) of all persons
who participated in the communication; and (b) of all other persons who were present
during or who overheard that communication;
5. The substance of who said what to whom and the order in which it
was said; and
6. Whether that communication or any part thereof is recorded,
described or referred to in any document (however informal) and. if so. an identification
of such document in the manner indicated above.
D. lfyou claim that the subject matter of a document or oral communication
is privileged, you need not set forth the brief statement of the subject matter of the
document. or the substance of the oral communication called for above. You shall,
however. otherwise "identifY' such document or oral communication and shall state each
ground on which you claim that such document or oral communication is privileged.
E. Whenever you are asked to "identifY" a person. the following information
should be given:
1.
the person; and
The name. present address. and present employer and position of
2. Whether the person has given testimony by way of deposition or
otherwise in any proceeding related to the present proceeding and/or whether that
person has given a statement whether oral, written, or otherwise, and if so, the title and
nature of any such proceeding. the date of the testimony. whether you have a copy of
the transcript thereof. the name of the person to whom the statement was given, where
the statement is presently located if written or otherwise transcribed, and the present
location of such transcript or statement if not in your possession.
F. The term "you" shall be deemed to mean and refer to the party to whom
these Interrogatories have been propounded for answer and shall also be deemed to
refer to. but shall not be limited to. your attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitor.
insurers. investigators, and any other agents insofar as the material requested herein is
not privileged. The terrrt:'you" shall also be deemed to refer to the Defendants.
G. The word "incident" shall be deemed to mean and refer to the incident as
alleged to have occurred and set forth in the Complaint.
H. The phrase "medical treatment" shall include any treatment of any kind or
nature for physical illness, disease. injury or condition.
~I
1ll~';
....
3
t
'.
,,-' 8..4._
INTERROGATORIES
1. List the dimensions of the vehicle (model number previously identified as
MR699) driven by the defendant at the time of the accident at issue. SpecificaJIy. state
the exact length, height. width. maximum load capacity and recommended air pressure
for the rear tires.
4
~"",""~" l:!l8.i:l~;(;
-
2. List the full name and current address for each and every mechanic,
service technician, or other personnel whose duties included mechanical servicing of
York Waste Disposal, Inc. trucks on May 2, 2000. In addition, identifY the mechanic who
inspected and/or worked on the truck involved in the accident that is at issue in this
litigation.
By:
rsar, Jr., E ir
Attorney Identification No. 86072
Dated:
/0/2'-1 .2001
,
J'
....
5
~
I
.' . .~ l 'I ~~,,' liImL!~jnffiL'tV'_,
--
~~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Barbara Stafford, Secretary, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
fOl"egoing document was served upon counsel of record this ,';!Jl-ifJday of October,
2001, bv depositing said copy in the United States Mail postage prepaid, first-class
deliver. and addressed as follows:
II
i
Matthew L. Owens, Esquire
Marshall. Dennehey. Warner, Coleman & Goggin
-+200 Crums Mill Road
Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110
I'
I
,
R.1- MARZELlA & ASSOCIATES, ?C.
By: p, (,_LL"J/j)G-S?~;{)
Barbara Stafford, Secre '
I
I
11
, '"
J
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
Plaintiffs
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INe.,
Defendants
DEFENDANT'S. YORK WASTE DISPOSAL. INC.. RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES - SET II
1. Defendants are investigating your request and will provide this information when
received.
2. Objection. Defendants object to Interrogatory #2 in that the same is overly broad
and overly burdensome. Moreover, the request is beyond the scope of permissible discovery as
promulgated by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The request is further objectionable
in that the identity of all mechanics who worked on the subject vehicle is unlikely to lead to the
discovery of relevant or discoverable material. Without waiver of the foregoing objection,
Defendants are investigating your request. Please further see Defendants' Responses to
Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents - Set II.
BY:
MARSHALL, DE
COLEMAN &
DATE: , 2./'3 ( 0 I
MAT L
LD. NO. 76080
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B
Harrisburg, P A 17112
(717) 651-3501
Attorneys for the Defendants
'^'. -'^:';:f.:-
-
" ~.
)
VERIFICATION
The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing Responses to
Plaintiffs' Interrogatories are based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me
and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation ofthe detense of this
lawsuit. The language of the Responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories - Set II is that of counsel
and not my own. I have read the Responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories - Set II 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 Responses to
Plaintiffs' Interrogatories - Set II are that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making
this verificatioIl. The undersigned also understands that the statements therein are made subj ect
to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
. DATE:
IlZ/5/cr
1i4e ~I ~
Christophe ollister
~WllJi~~
..
~ ~
="-
!;- ~~"~"l';('-
ARZELLA
.I.
. &ASSOCIATES
3513 NOlUH FRONT STREET, HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANlA 17110
7172347828 888.838.3426 717234.6883 FA:<,.
Attorneys &: Counselors At Law
May ]3, 2002
Matthew L. Owens, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner,
Coleman & Goggin
4200 Crums Mill Road
Suite B
Harrisburg, PA ] 7] ] 0
Rc: Englebert v. Hollister, et al.
Cumberland County c.c.P. No. 01-3180
Dear Matt:
Back in October of 200]. I served you with a second set oflnterrogatories. In
the response to the first inquiry, you indicated that you were compiling the requested
information. To date, I have not received a response thereto. Kindly provide a
response to the following inquiry,
List the dimensions of the vehicle (model number
previously identified as MR699) driven by the defendant
at the time of the accident at issue. Specifically, state
the exact length, height, width, maximum load capacity
and recommended air pressure for the rear tires,
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Also, please be advised that i
would like to schedule the depositions of Robert Howard and Robert Peterbink (both
were supervisors of York Waste at the time of this incident). My office will be
contacting you shortly for available dates.
Very truly yours,
R. J. Marzella & Associates, P.c.
) i
. -
By,
Charles W. Marsar, J'.
CWMJr./
U<ll -
, ',.,,~ . -, ~^ -
_~' ',__ I " -" <
_'1'':-
,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
!, Charles W. Marsar, Jr., hereby certifY that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this 30th day of August, 2002,
by depositing said copy in the United States Mail postage prepaid, first-class deliver, and
addressed as follows:
Stephen Barcavage, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
4200 Crums Mill Road
Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110
John R. Ninosky, Esquire
Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C.
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
R.j. MARZELlA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
By:
~~lI~U~d;j:j,WJlM!M;,i;~I\it~~Jij!irll\li0Jf!41,'M<PiJ.t;1-1;lIl\"~1>:l'i&J'Ji"j;~i\!'~?&'l\:!i"H:'~iij~\\liiIW~.'" ~~ '-<- .',. "'-, .~- -~
~'" w'~~ _,~~",'"
,~, ~~""..",
",'. ~,
-
~"1fII1~'
"c,'"
. Ui('~-<-~' "-.' ~
0 L:J' t:.,.J
C f",,) -n
7" .:/l
i.Jr~
lill-?'; ,-C'! :- ~"i .:..!
Z::.u '-' .'~~
Z ~ I -," :~3
(./"J 0";- ':::~:; l-:"
-<
r- f-'
< .J -0 ,;--.'1'1
Z 0 :]'.: i~8
L ()
so;. c: f);' ~',,-I
:z: rv ?O
=< (1'> -<
",,"~',<" _'~,,_~,.. ~ ",'r.r.~".~"~"",~,,
.:
, 1-
, ""'-- '~',
"',"0'" ,_,<
",'
," .-';..-
""- ll' --w.~;
. -
,
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
TO THE POOl'HO/lOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Please list the following case:
(Check one)
(xx) for JURY trial at the next tenn of civil court.
for trial without a jury.
-----------------------------------------
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated in full)
Gary ENGLEBERT and Sharon
ENGLEBERT
(check one)
( XX) Civil Action - Law
Appeal from Arbitration
(other)
( plaintiff)
vs.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
The trial list will be called on 01 /07/03
and
Trials comnence on o? / 0 1/ 0 1
(Defendant)
Pretrials will be held on 01 /1 5/03
(Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials. )
vs.
Gary ENGLEBERT
(The party listing this case for trial shall
provide forthwith a copy of the praecipe to
all counsel, pursuant to local Rule 214.1.)
No.
Civil 01-3180
x~~x
Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe:
Charles Marsar, Jr., Esquire, Attornev ID #86072
Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: Steven Barcavaae. Esauir
(Atty. for York Waste, Inc and Chris Hollister). John Ninogky. F,gq
(Atty. for additional Defendant Gar
This case is ready for trial.
Signed:
Date:
I()- 9- 02...
Attorney for: Plaintiffs
- -. ", ,,, , --" ~ ~' . >'~
- "~"<' ~-' ~ ,
'"."lw",;,
I
. ~~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Charles W. Marsar, Jr., hereby certifY that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this 9th day of October, 2002,
by depositing said copy in the United States Mail postage prepaid, first-class deliver, and
addressed as follows:
Stephen Barcavage, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
4200 Crums Mill Road
Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110
John R. Ninosky, Esquire
Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.c.
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
R.J. MARZELlA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
~ti:I\iiiIil_llli.!i.iYmlli~ili:\~1IlllI1ii14i~~*,*",,1I;~U~'d.'.,j;>i:w..~~~I,tiJ1lliJ.li ~~ Wil
'..~~~~"""" ~.~ -"'"
. -,~?~,~p,,~", .,-~., "','-,' "--"" -'~'" ,,~ '-~ '<"
'."0-,'<,"'" .".
-~__;____ ~"~"'""'''''~'~ '~"~"k~.r
\,1
\ I ,
i
, ,
II
,
II
I;
I
,
li
':1
:i
"
[,i
!
ii
Ii
"
I:
!'
I'
i
!
,
0 0 c)
C '-v -n
s: Cl
-0 ex.."! C)
mm -l ,.-
Z ::;: i-P
Z
(f) m 2;
-<
yC'. .'0 -, ~ ,
ec,; :1;:: (:) ~L~
f"::Cl 1''' 3r(;
Pc .-\
::;:: I,) 53
::;! - -<
~~ ,~'"
''''''''1''''''
---
"' '
.
.,
-
~ ~ ~ "-~, ",..:;,~,
3.
Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v
Christopher Hollister and Y ork Waste Disposal, Inc.
V
: NO. 01-3180 CIVIL TERM
Gary Englebert
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, December 31, 2002, counsel having failed to call the above case for
trial, the case is stricken from the February 3,2003 trial term. Couns.el is directed to relist the case
when ready.
By the Court,
Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Steven Barcavage, Esquire
For the Defendant
~ ~ l-oMU
g.
John Ninosky, Esquire
For the Defendant
Court Administrator
Id
,
W'
i1
""'",.....,..,
_rJ
"' ""
. ,
~_~ ,I
""n~1 . "~," ~"~ ,~~ ..c~ '~
,~,~ .-" - ~
~~
OF ;DT;HY
03 ..IMJ ..8 fJl 9: :lS
CUI'''lf'C,,] ,[.1.1 ,. " 'il !"'T'j'
iJl;....rl...,I.....-.I,'-' '_.<./...1'j1
PENNSYLVj\Nt/\
.,
~ _,~_E,W\!
,~.~.
~_""",f"""",,.~",~:g.f"l'll-~,~~~~~~W1~~'\WIJ;l~~
-
",;
\.~~
~dt;j__~,<,,-,-;
.'
. ~
I;
R.j. MARZELlA & ASSOCIATES, P.c.
BY: Charles W. Marsar, Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court 1.0. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 234-7828
Facsimile: /7171 234-6883
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Gary Englebert, and
Sharon Emdebert
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERlAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION -lAW
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
Plaintiffs
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE PURSUANT TO Pa.R.c.P. 229
TO: Prothonotary of Cumberland County, Court of Common Pleas
Plaintiff hereby voluntarily discontinues the above-captioned action due to a
settlement agreement reached among all parties.
R. J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
Dated:
Q- d--~ - 03
fI ,
~-
.
'. '"'> ,I.' ,""
.......~, ""'{\li;-;;.ili;~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Charles W. Marsar, Jr., hereby certity that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this 28th day of February, 2003,
by depositing said copy in the United States Mail postage prepaid, first-class deliver, and
addressed as follows:
Stephen Barcavage, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
4200 Crums Mill Road
Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110
John R. Ninosky, Esquire
Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.c.
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
By:
R.J.
lA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
.'
'1
,
I'
"
il
i,
",,",.:-- "'-~_~~I!Y!im~lij~~~~~~lltjjWj~~~:at!..iiAi- '"
~
~
&-.J
J ,~
-
-
2
=
{J?t!a
..?Q,~
;<(~
CO,,_
N ---.;
~C'
:f:~
<0
::E;.O
r:;::
<:
~
,<. "
Q
,-"
-".
"""!o,
""
:::rJ
I
0)
, , ;--~
.::p
-.
iSS
r.-
():)
'i"'
.::.::(::)
:>~ _J-t
\j(-d.:~
~~5 I-Y;
$'
"'
JIlt<
i
I
n
r!
I"
Ii
:(1
:;1
I
1
i
,I
Ii
II
"
(i
II
il
'I
I]
'I
I,
'I
I
I
~
I
i
'I
I
,
S;~j
q
~r
~
-,
, ,
, 'f l
-."
-~""."'IIIi~'"
.
\05_ A ILIABIMLOILLPG\84795\ACS\18068\00 III
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
Plaintiffs
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.,
Defendants
PETITION OF DEFENDANTS. YORK WASTE DISPOSAL. INC.
AND CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER. FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO JOIN
GARY ENGLEBERT AS ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT
AND NOW comes Defendants, York Waste Disposal, Inc. and Christopher Hollister,
(hereinafter "Defendants") by and through the undersigned counsel, who file this Petition for
Leave to Join Additional Defendant Gary Englebert and in support thereof aver as follows:
I. Plaintiffs Gary and Sharon Englebert filed a personal injury action in the
Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas on or about May 24, 2001 against Defendants
Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc. (A true and correct copy of the Complaint
is attached hereto and identified as Exhibit "A").
2. The action concerns an automobile accident which occurred on May 2, 2000
involving the Plaintiffs and Defendant driver Christopher Hollister who was employed and
driving for York Waste Disposal, Inc. at the time of the accident.
~'> h. -._
"",,'-
--~'"
.
3. The accident occurred on Trindle Road in Cumberland County and involves
questionable liability.
4. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Christopher Hollister was backing his frontloader
garbage truck out of a driveway adjoining Trindle Road and alleged in that Complaint that he
backed out across the road as Gary and Sharon Englebert were traveling east on Trindle Road.
5. The accident occurred at the intersection of a driveway for a commercial building
at 987 West Trindle Road and Trindle Road in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
6, Defendants, of course, filed an Answer with New Matter denying all allegations
of liability and raising in New Matter the defense that the accident was caused by other parties.
(A true and correct copy of Defendants' Answer with New Matter is attached hereto and
identified as Exhibit "B").
7. Following the closing of the pleadings, the parties engaged in written discovery
including an exchange of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents.
8. Moreover, the parties have been given ample time to investigate the accident and
investigate any and all potential causes for the collision between the York Waste vehicle and
Plaintiffs' vehicle.
9. Depositions were scheduled and taken of both Plaintiffs and the Defendant driver,
Christopher Hollister in this case.
10. Following the completion of written discovery and depositions as well as a
lengthy investigation into this matter, additional avenues of liability and/or recovery came to
light to the parties.
2
m
'J;
~- , - :; Jw:~'
, ,
11. Based on the aforementioned discovery and investigation, Plaintiff Gary
Englebert was operating Plaintiffs' vehicle at the time of the collision.
12. Defendant Christopher Hollister maintains through sworn deposition testimony
that he stopped his vehicle well short of Trindle Road when backing from the commercial
building, and further, avers that Gary Englebert, Plaintiff driver, panicked, slanuned on his
brakes and lost control of his vehicle sliding off of Trindle Road and striking the York Waste
garbage truck thereby causing the alleged injuries suffered by his wife and front seat passenger,
Sharon Englebert.
13. Pennsylvania Rille of Civil Procedure 2253 provides that neither a Praecipe for a
writ to join an additional defendant, nor a Complaint, shall be filed by an original Defendant later
than 60 days after the service of the initial pleadings unless such filing is allowed by the Court
upon cause shown.
14. Defendant now files this Petition for Leave to Join Additional Defendant, Gary
Englebert, currently a Plaintiff in this action, and states the following with respect to
demonstrating appropriate cause for this joinder:
(a) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed to or caused the subject accident of this
litigation by failing to maintain proper control of his vehicle;
(b) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed to or caused the subject accident of this
litigation by failing to operate his vehicle with due regard for the rights, safety, well-being and
position of his passenger and wife, Sharon Englebert, and Defendant driver Christopher
Hollister;
3
""
,..
i .'''"''_''
. .
(c) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed to or caused the subject accident of this
litigation by failing to maneuver his vehicle appropriately to avoid striking the York Waste
vehicle operated by Christopher Hollister;
(d) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed to or caused the subject accident of this
litigation by failing to have his vehicle under proper and adequate control so as to avoid an
accident and avoid striking the York Waste truck operated by Defendant Christopher Hollister;
(e) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed to or caused the subject accident of this
litigation by failing to keep an appropriate lookout and obey the rules of the road, thereby
causing a collision with the York Waste vehicle driven by Defendant, Christopher Hollister;
(f) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed to or caused the subject accident of this
litigation by negligently, carelessly and/or recklessly applying the brakes and maneuvering his
vehicle so as to cause a collision with the York Waste truck operated by Defendant, Christopher
Hollister;
(g) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed to or caused the subject accident of this
litigation by negligently operating his vehicle so as to lose control and cause the
collision/accident with the York Waste truck operated by Defendant, Christopher Hollister.
4
~ '-,
'''''''~~4-"
~~=" --
,.';.-.
, ':..;."
, :'~:i
15. Defendants aver that there has been no prejudicial or undue delay caused by the
current filing of the Joinder Complaint against the proposed Additional Defendant, Gary
Englebert.
16. Defendants further aver that there is no prejudice suffered by the Plaintiffs by
permitting this joinder, and the same is fair, equitable and in the best interest of all parties by
providing a forum which will appropriately apportion or distribute liability in accordance with
the facts and circumstances of this accident, thereby promoting a fair and equitable adjudication
of liability in this matter.
WHEREFORE, Defendants, York Waste Disposal, Inc. and Christopher Hollister,
respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant their Petition for Leave to Join Additional
Defendant, Gary Englebert.
MARSHALL, D
COLEMAN & 0
DATE:
11__/12.( Of
BY:
MAT E L.O
J.D. NO. 76080
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B
Harrisburg,PA 17112
(717) 651-3501
Attorneys for the Defendants
5
.
.,.
~ ~,,-
,-~.,; '" , - - '_0
" -
,C.,
. ffj
R.J. MARZELlA & ASSOCIATES, P.c.
BY: Charles W. Marsar, Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court 1.0. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110
Telephone: (717) 234-7828
F~csimile: 17171234-6883
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Gary Englebert, and
Sharon En!!lebert
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERlAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION -lAW
GARY ENLGEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT
DOCKET NO. O/-31ID C;lL
Plaintiffs
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YQRK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE TO PLEAD
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 an
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 Plflintiff. 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
, t
fiA,VE 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 Lawyer Referral Sen'ice
2 Liberty Ave.
Carlisle, PA 17013 TAU! COPY "
Telephone (717) 249- 31661u TlItiinooyWher fROM R 0
GALLAGHER BASSETT .. ... _ ^" eo , I here unto set hIni
SERVICES, INC. ... sald Court at Ca1IisIe. PI.
JUN - 1 2001
OF HARRISBURG, PA
'l,
.L ---;'-'w .,"""",""","'^,,-, ,..J__
~-- lO~""""~-'
AVlSO
USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADOIA EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las
demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar accion
dentro de los proximos veinte (20) dfas despues de la notificacion de esta Demanda y
Aviso radicando personal mente 0 por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y
rtdicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objeciones a, las demandas
presentadas aquf en contra suya. Se Ie advierte de que si usted falla de tomar accion
como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede pro ceder sin usted y un fallo por
cualquier suma de dinero reclamacion 0 remedio solicitado por el demandante puede
scr dictado en contra suya por la Corte, sin mas aviso adicionaJ. Usted puede perder
dinero 0 propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted.
USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. 51
USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO 0 NO PUEDE PAGARLE A UNO, LLAME 0 VAYA A LA
S.1GUENTE OFICINA PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE ENCONTRAR ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
Cumberland County Lawyer Referral Service
2 Liberty Ave.
Carlisle, PA 17013
Telephone (717) 249 - 3166
,
;-'
.
,
'.
.
"
I]
!I
R.j. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.c.
BY: Charles W. Marsar, Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court 1.0. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 234-7828
Facsimile: 17171234-6883
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Gary Englebert, and
Sharon Enl!lebert
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERlAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - lAW
GARY ENLGEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
DOCKET NO.
Plaintiffs
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.,
Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPlAINT
1. Gary Englebert, Plaintiff, is an adult-individual who, at all relevant times
hereto, resided at 172 Benders Church Road, BiglerviIle, PA 17307.
2. Sharon Englebert, Plaintiff, is an adult-individual who, at all relevant times
hereto, resided at 172 Benders C~rirch Road, Biglerville, PA 17307.
3. Christopher Hollister, (hereinafter "Defendant Driver") is an adult-
individual and an employee, agent, apparent agent, ostensible agent, and/or servant
who, at all relevant times hereto, resided at 2140 Baltimore Pike, East Berlin. PA 17316.
I
II
I'
!!
,,~ ..I..
.0
~~~ ~ - ;W'" -"f.uJi'."
4. York Waste Disposal, Inc. (hereinafter Defendant Corporation), is a
corporation which, at all relevant times hereto, was incorporated under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal place of business at 987 West Trindle
Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055.
5. Gary and Sharon Englebert both work at the Naval Base (NAVlCP) in
Mechanicsburg, PA.
6. Every morning Gary and Sharon drive to work together from their home in
Biglerville to Mechanicsburg.
7. On May 2, 2000, Gary and Sharon were driving towork together as per
their usual route.
8. Gary was driving and Sharon was in the front passenger seat as they
traveled east on Trindle Road.
9. Fortunately both Gary and Sharon were wearing harness seat belts, and
Gary was driving under the speed limit, because just as they attempted to pass the
driveway at 5022 East Trindle, Defendant Driver backed a garbage truck directly into
their path.
10. Due to a large tree located at the edge of the driveway, Gary was unable
to see the defendant's truck until i.t was actually in the roadway.
.
t
11. Gary immediately hit his brakes in an effort to stop before striking the
garbage truck.
12. As Gary applied his brakes, the garbage truck continued to back out onto
the road.
2
-- ,-
. ~ Cp ~_, ._Oi""""",,--,' .-_ 'w
=^ ""-~-
;.;,
13. There was no other reasonable course of action that Gary could have
taken to avoid this collision since oncoming traffic prevented him trom swerving left and
the tree, along with telephone poles, prevented him from swerving right.
14. Sharon screamed as their vehicle violently struck the side of the garbage
truck head-on.
15. Instantaneously, Sharon began experiencing constricting chest pains,
while Gary bled from his hand and pain shot though his body.
16. Even though Gary and Sharon Englebert were traveling below the posted
speed limit, their vehicle was damaged beyond repair.
17. Several bystanders assisted by pushing the Englebert's vehicle off of the
road.
18. Within minutes of the crash, the police arrived on the scene.
19. After the police officer interviewed the parties and assessed the accident
scene, he concluded that the defendant driver was clearly the sole cause of the accident.
20. When the officer explained to the parties that Defendant Driver caused
the accident by not looking while backing out, the defendant driver nodded admittingly.
21. Although the officer indicated Defendant Driver's traffic violation on the
police report, the decision was m.ade, with Plaintiffs' consent, not to issue a citation to
,.
Defendant Driver.
22. The evening of the accident, Gary and Sharon presented to the
Emergency Room of Gettysburg Hospital.
~
,_to
.,,~ . -~ -- > - -,
...",.~~
23. Sharon presented due to chest pain, bruising, chipped teeth, neck pain,
sore ribs, fever, and stiffness all over her body.
24. Gary presented due to pain and bruising of the right hand and wrist, neck
pain, back pain, sore ribs, right shoulder pain, right hip pain, right foot pain, headache,
and soreness all over his body.
25. X-rays revealed that, rather than the normal curvature, Gary's spine had
been painfully straightened due to the collision.
26. In addition, the physician informed both Gary and Sharon that they were
suffering from whiplash injury and a deeply bruised rib cage.
27. The physician informed Gary and Sharon that they would most likely
experience new aches and pains in the days to follow and to continue care with their
family doctor.
28. Gary and Sharon were ordered not to return to work the rest of the week
in an effort to allow some time for their injuries to recover.
29. On May 11, 2000, Gary and Sharon presented to their family physician for
a follow up evaluation.
30. Sharon was still exhibiting bruising on numerous areas of her body.
31. Gary was still suffering from pain in his neck, back, shoulder, right hip,
.
,
and the right side of his rib cage.
32. The family physician prescribed pain and anti-inflammatory medication for
Gary and referred both Gary and Sharon for a course of physical therapy.
4
"
" "
33. At the initial physical therapy evaluation, Dr. Buohl stated that Gary was in
very bad shape, and, in fact, he felt that Gary was suffering from a compression fracture
in his vertebrae.
34. Gary endured many grueling physical therapy sessions several times per
week for more than six months.
35. More recently, Gary undelWent an orthopedic evaluation, which revealed
he was suffering from a Herniated Nucleus Polposus at the (6-(7 level.
36. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants in
causing the collision, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert, havesuffered the injuries and
damages detailed herein.
37. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Gary
and Sharon Englebert have suffered permanent and severe injuries.
38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert have been
and will continue to be forced to incur liability for medical treatment, medicines,
hospitalizations and similar miscellaneous expenses throughout their adult lives and a
claim is made therefor.
39. As a direct and prox;i'mate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
,
,
herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert have
undergone and in the future will undergo great physical pain and suffering, great
inconvenience in carrying out their daily activities, loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment,
I and emotional distress and a claim is made therefor.
II
II 5
"
Ii
I'
,I
",-
,
. .. -- ~--
- ~--"'~h'"_
40. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert have been
and in the future will be subject to great humiliation, disfigurement and embarrassment
and a claim is made therefor.
41. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert have
sustained in the past and will sustain in the future a loss of earnings, a permanent
impairment of their earning power and capacity and a claim is made therefor.
42. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert have been
advised and therefore aver that the damages and injuries alleged herein are permanent
and a claim is made therefor.
43. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, the
'truck driven by Defendant Driver collided with the Englebert's vehicle causing Gary
Englebert to sustain severe, extensive and permanent personal injuries including but not
limited to his right hand, wrist, and shoulder, as well as his back, neck, and sternum, and
numerous other areas of injury and pain requiring medical treatment and therapy, and
may require medical treatment aQd therapy in the future, and a claim is made therefor.
,.
44. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants,
the vehicle driven by Defendant-Driver collided with the Englebert's vehicle causing
Sharon Englebert to sustain severe, extensive and permanent personal injuries including
but not limited to her face, mouth, sternum, back, neck, and numerous other areas of
6
~.^
. 0:- ,-- '. , ' ~I',",-.
~~
injury and pain requiring medical treatment and therapy, and may require medical
treatment and therapy in the future, and a claim is made therefor.
45. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff,
Sharon Englebert, has been deprived of the care, companionship, and services of her
husband, Gary Englebert, for all of which damages are claimed.
COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
GARY ENGLEBERT and SHARON ENGLEBERT
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER
46. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1- 45 of Plaintiff's Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference as iffully set forth.
47. Regarding the accident, which is the subject matter of this Complaint,
Defendant Driver was negligent, careless, and/or reckless in the operation of a motor
vehicle in the following particulars:
(a) operating his vehicle in violation ofthe ordinances of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles,
including backing into a lane of travel without reasonably checking to see if any
vehicles were there and reckless driving, which constitutes negligence as a
,
,
matter of law;
,
.
,
(b)
failing to have the vehicle under proper and adequate control in
order to stop or avoid striking the Englebert's vehicle;
(c) failing to keep an appropriate lookout to avoid striking the
Englebert's vehicle;
,_, -' 1
.
.. ..~~
'''''="~'Z:-f
(d) failing to maneuver his vehicle appropriately in order to avoid
striking the Englebert's vehicle;
(e) operating the vehicle without due regard for the rights, safety,
well being, and position of Gary and Sharon Englebert under the 'Circumstances;
(f) operating his vehicle negligently, carelessly, and/or recklessly by
blindly backing into oncoming traffic;
(h) improperly, inappropriately and/or illegally backing in front of the
Plaintiff's vehicle;
(i) failing to yield the right of way to oncomil1g traffic; and
-
0) failing to appropriately judge the time and distance available to
pull out onto the street in front of Plaintiff's vehicle.
48. Defendant Driver is liable to Plaintiffs for their injuries and damages as
alleged herein as set forth in paragraphs thirty-six (36) through forty-five (45) above,
which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert demand judgment
against Defendant, Christopher Hollister, in an amount in excess oflWENlY-FlVE
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00), together with interest and costs thereon as allowed
,
,
bylaw.
h
r
R
,I
P
~ ' "
COUNT II - VICARIOUS LIABILIlY
GARY ENGLEBERT and SHARON ENGLEBERT
v.
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
49. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1- 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
50. Regarding the accident, which is the subject matter of this Complaint,
Defendant Corporation was vicariously negligent, careless, and/or reckless in the
operation of a motor vehicle by having an employee, agent, apparent agent, ostensible
agent and/or servant:
(a) operating his vehicle in violation of the ordinances of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles,
including backing into a lane of travel without reasonably checking to see if any
vehicles were there and reckless driving, which constitutes negligence as a
matter of law;
(b) failing to have the vehicle under proper and adequate control in
order to stop or avoid striking the Englebert's vehicle;
(c) failing to keep an appropriate lookout to avoid striking the
Englebert's vehicle;
.
,
(d) failing to maneuver his vehicle appropriately in order to avoid
striking the Englebert's vehicle;
(e) operating the vehicle without due regard for the rights, safety,
well being, and position of Gary and Sharon Englebert under the circumstances;
.1
I]
;1
~~}I-;
<)
.~
'~~'-~""",^k,",-
(f) operating his vehicle negligently, carelessly, and/or recklessly by
blindly backing into oncoming traffic;
(h) improperly, inappropriately and/or illegally backing in front of the
Plaintiff's vehicle;
(i) failing to yield the right of way to @ncoming traffic; and
OJ failing to appropriately judge the time and distance available to
pull out onto the street in front of Plaintiff's vehicle.
51. Defendant Corporation is liable to Plaintiffs for their injuries and damages
as alleged herein as set forth in paragraphs thirty-six (36) through forty-five (45) above,
.
which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert demand judgment
against Defendant, York Waste Disposal, fne., in an amount in excess of1WENTY-FIVE
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00), together with interest and costs thereon as allowed
bylaw.
,
,
,.
JO
'-" ~'
-- '
-;"'~"""_""""'J'
COUNT III - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
SHARON ENGLEBERT
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLUSTER and YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
52. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1- 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
53. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff,
Sharon Englebert, has been deprived of the care, companionship, services, society and
consortium of her husband, Gary Englebert, for all of which damages are claimed.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Sharon Englebert, demands judgJTlent against Defendants
in an amount in excess of TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00), together
with interest and costs thereon as allowed by law.
R. J. Marzella & Associates, P.c.
k
,
...,
Dated: )' - ?. L , 2001
l!
VERIFICATION
We, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert, hereby swear and affirm that the facts and
matters set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of our
knowledge, information and belief.
We understand that the statements made herein are made subject to the
penalties of Pa.C.S. ~ 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities.
Dated:
tI/l-3ft!) /
Dated: q' !~q i "' /
jl , (;. I 1-
; A A I~, r-? i;j f".~l
~" 'Lt'.-r.f7? ~ y/.r,_, ,~'I,/,
SIiaron Englebert Y
,
.
r
II
d
,
" I..:.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V ANlA
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
Plaintiffs
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.,
Defendants
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
CIVIL ACTION - LAW 0
c;
:::::,.,
"TlIT:'
[1)8
~_.u
Zl._
~(~~
~C)
",0
-c-
$
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert
c/o Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
R.I. MarzeIla & Associates, P.C.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, P A 17110
-- ..
You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs'
Complaint on behalf of Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., within
twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be filed against you.
DATE: B( C9 (0'
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER,
COLEMAN & G GIN
BY:
MATTHEW . OWENS,
J.D. No. 76080
100 Pine Street, 4th Floor
P.O. Box 803
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803
(717) 232-9324
Attorneys for the Defendants
~~~~l'f~~mS~%'
S/qt
, , ,~,,;'''o
,,~,' '_c "~'- ,,/,:_, l;'__~"::':~,,"_',~:;';
M 'c
.
- " -~,;:
o
c~
-'~"?
"'"
G)
I
lD
""
, ]':
,
;",
_ .i ,,:..:.~
:::.-:~;>
, ,
;:--": 'i-J
::'>~' ;.~')
Of'f'J
~~
o~
=<
,,<,
3::
r:~
~,^)
(.:>
~
-
,,~~~~,;
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
Plaintiffs
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.,
Defendants
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER
AND NOW comes Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., by
and through the undersigned counsel, who answer Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows:
I. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph I, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
2. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 2, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
5. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 5, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
-'-
,~ '
, -.
~-,...
~, !;\j:-
6. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 6, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
7. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
8. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 8, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
9. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 13, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 13 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proofthereof required at trial. To the extent a specific response is required, it is denied that the
Defendant driver backed his truck directly into the path ofthe Plaintiffs' vehicle.
10. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 10, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
11. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 11, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
2
. ~.
L_
_~a",,,,~;
12. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 12, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
13, Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 13, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proofthereofrequired at trial. Paragraph 13 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
14. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 14, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
15. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 15, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proofthereof required at trial.
16. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 16, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 16 is further denied,in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
17. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 17, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
3
'~ j
'" ,~
. ,~
. ..
'~~~""'..ilicl
18. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 18, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proofthereofrequired at trial.
19. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 19, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 19 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
20. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 20, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proofthereofrequired at trial. Paragraph 20 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial. To the extent a specific response is required, it is denied that the
Defendant driver nodded admittingly to any accusations of liability or fault at the scene of the
accident to anyone.
21. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 21, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
22. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 22, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict prooftbereofrequired at trial.
23. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to forma belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 23, and therefore, the same are denied with
4
"~- ,'" , , '
. ~
l'!M~ .....,.,$-".~~;i"'''''-~'
,
strict proofthereofrequired at trial. Paragraph 23 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
24. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 24, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proofthereof required at trial. Paragraph 24 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
25. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 25, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 25 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
26. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 26, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 26 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proofthereofrequired at trial.
27. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 27, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proofthereof required at trial. Paragraph 27 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proofthereof required at trial.
5
.
"';
',- --" -~
-.L'
, ='" <;" ' .c~ '", -,',.;- i
28. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 28, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 28 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
29. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 29, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proofthereof required at trial. Paragraph 29 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
30. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 30, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 30 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
31. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 31, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 31 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
32. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 32, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 32 is further denied in that the same contains
6
><,
"n",
.~. ", ,
"",
~::>liid~
!
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proofthereof required at trial.
33. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 33, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proofthereofrequired at trial. Paragraph 33 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
34. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 34, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 34 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
35. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 35, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 35 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
36. Denied. Paragraph 36 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
37. Denied. Paragraph 37 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
7
, .'
''-'' . ,",' "~,, -'-,,-~ -,- -
,
~"~ " .
-,r~
I
38. Denied. Paragraph 38 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at triaL
39. Denied. Paragraph 39 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
attriaL
40. Denied. Paragraph 40 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at triaL
41. Denied. Paragraph 41 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at triaL
42. Denied. Paragraph 42 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at tri aL
43. Denied. Paragraph 43 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at triaL
44. Denied. Paragraph 44 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at triaL
8
" ,
,- .
,,,
-.; ,
>'<4Il'1iWN.il<.-'
.
t <
45.
Denied. Paragraph 45 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
GARY ENGLEBERT and SHARON ENGLEBERT
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER
46. Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., incorporate by
reference their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as if set forth
herein at length.
47. (a) - G) Denied. Paragraph 47 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of
law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof
required at trial.
48. Denied. Paragraph 47 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proofthereofrequired
at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc.,
respectfully demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs together with such costs
this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
9
,<,,~
.
COUNT II - VICARIOUS LIABILITY
GARY ENGLEBERT and SHARON ENGLEBERT
v.
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
49. Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., incorporate by
reference their responses to Paragraphs I through 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as if set forth
herein at length.
50. (a) - (j) Denied. Paragraph 50 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of
law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof
required at trial.
51. Denied. Paragraph 51 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proofthereof required
at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc.,
respectfully demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs together with such costs
this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
COUNT III- LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
SHARON ENGLEBERT
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
52. Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., incorporate by
reference their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as if set forth
herein at length.
10
'^
-'U6':b~>i>','!,
'",.."
^ ~--
1- -- ",,,~ ~ '~, II ~ -Ii,":
.
I"
53. Denied. Paragraph 53 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc.,
respectfully demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs together with such costs
this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
NEW MATTER
17. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute oflimitations.
18. Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
19. Plaintiffs are barred and/or limited by all applicable provisions of the
Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law.
20. No act or omission on the part of Defendants was a substantial or contributing
factor in bringing about Plaintiffs' alleged injuries and/or damages, all such injuries and/or
damages being expressly denied.
21. Any and all injuries and/or damages as described by Plaintiffs in their Complaint,
the same being expressly denied, were caused in whole or in part by the acts or omissions on the
part of Plaintiffs and/or others over whom Defendants had no control nor right of control.
22. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the doctrine of res judicata and/or
collateral estoppel.
23. Plaintiffs' claims are derivative in nature and are barred as a matter oflaw.
24. Defendants breached no duty of care owed to Plaintiffs under the circumstances.
25. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania Comparative
Negligence Act.
11
, "n:",,,,,,-- -~-, '
,<<-,
~~'
. '
.
)<" ,.
26. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the applicable provisions of the
Pennsylvania Worker's Compensation Act.
27. At all times material hereto, Defendants acted in a safe, legal and non-negligent
manner.
28. Plaintiffs negligent operation of his motor vehicle was the sole and proximate
cause of all alleged injuries and damages.
29. Plaintiffs' Complaint and or claims are barred by their selection oflimited tort as
set forth by 75 Pa.C.S.A. 91705.
BY:
HEY, WARNER,
GIN
MATTHE L. 0
I.D. No. 76080
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B
Harrisburg,PA 17112
(717) 651-3501
Attorneys for the Defendants
DATE: ~((J ( () ,
\05_AILIABIMLOILLPG\73927\ACS\18068\00II1
12
"'" ,
" ,~,,-,:', >
,,;; ,'~'
~",l~;
I ., ~.
~1 ~I
.... " ,
VERIFICATION
The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing Defendants'
Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are based upon information which has been
furnished to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the
preparation of the defense of this lawsuit. The language of the Defendants' Answer with New
Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Answer with
New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint, 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 ofthe Defendants' Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs'
Complaint are that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this verification. The
undersigned also understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18
Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
By:;i~~r~~~
Dwayne urt
Title: 0,",:.5"'D-.l~OC:<-;' f1i~.-
DATE: ") f/e/
"
"~, -).- -';', ,-.,-,' --.,," -
'-'li-
" .
, "
... f' '>
VERIFICATION
The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing Defendants' Answer
with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are based upon information which has been furnished
to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation ofthe
defense of this lawsuit. The language ofthe Defendants' Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs'
Complaint is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Answer with New Matter to
Plaintiffs' Complaint, 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 Defendants' Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are that of
counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this verification. The undersigned also
understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section
4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
DATE: 7/;/ Dr
~tIh-
Christop r Hollister
,,~'''~.-_,~, ,~-. W _.<," ,-'
~-""~~'''-:t,;;;';
" .. ..
. . .
... .1 ...
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
Plaintiffs
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.,
Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Angela Sanger, an employee of Marshall, Deunehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do
hereby certify that on this 2 flA day of January, 2002, I served a copy of the foregoing
.
document via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid as follows:
Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
R.I. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
~J-VJ~
Angela Sanger
~lM' illb'ij~~lJI,:,jjikllgt"-\;i!,~iW'~~~~,,,j~~Ekcl!J~~&wj~"fui'Jll~;IDi&,p.,l.~'~
Ss-'
-<:;0
""31, >-_."'_.~
'.
..
,'_~^"',""'.",c",,_~,"~ ~,'~>>'~',=" ,_,~","'''','' __,_~<~ ."'~,,' ~~~"
'",~ ,,',' ,~""
~n
,
~ll
-
. '.
.
.
..
(") C:) .~
c: hJ
;:~,,~ -"
" ~n f':c1
S2 :"'i-' ,:; r" Ml
c?} '" l_)
r~: ( C)
_::--~
3'c 'U "
,~-" -
L, '", , c'j
()
s;,. C C- ~j :T1
2:
--j 5:J
-< (.) -<
-~~"
~
,~
-
" J_
~, ~,"' """"" ~ -<~ d '~If,M'$~
~ .
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
Plaintiffs
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.,
Defendants
ORDER
AND NOW, this b
day of
.rA.. . , 2002, upon consideration of
~
Defendants' Petition to Join Additional Defendant, Gary Englebert, it is hereby ORDERED and
DECREED that said Petition is GRANTED. Defendants may file and serve the Joinder
Complaint against Additional Defendant, Gary Englebert./
-_/~
(J.)
BY:
7
A~. Ol.k..(s
firso.r.
:JR.
>C~~
ot-7-02 ~
1
m
m~"'
OF
O'?t:CR
"'" ~ t:""..
.'
-c
[,: \:.1
F;H
CUH";;=.>ii" ,-t." "rN
uV.w,-~ ll)" '~l..--I \/JVI'i 1 1
PENNSYlVANI,,\
.~~ ,~~.~-
. =~ ~"~,>' ''''<'''''''''[lll'i'''m rar.Jillb_. JIll H
I_I[lfni~.:'
c~
.-?,
-{~
-
.....
_'l'o~ff"W~'1+~"';;'~F0'1",'F,,~!~t~t""~"f"AJ:1J1'!;;')'WJmT-U~~I!~~_.,w.mIffif~~!rm~-J1~~~~
,,,.,,
.
. ~.-"",,.;.,-~' '
~~
_,", H _,'
!, ,- .:o..~'
"'""~
-
- ;;~-~ili,*,
,
,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
Plaintiffs
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.,
Defendants
NOTICE TO DEFEND
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, GO TO OR
TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN
GET LEGAL
HELP.
Cumberland County Court Administrator
.Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Phone: (717) 240-6200
" "~"."
.
,- [ ~, ~-
.' """'"c 'i ,~:
c
, .
NOTICIA
Le han demand ado 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 prsenar
una apariencia
escrita 0 en persona 0 por abogato y archivar en la corte en
forma escrista sus defensas 0 sus objeciones alas demandas en
contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se deefiende,
la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted
sin revio aviso 0 notificacion y por cualquier queja 0 alivio
que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder
dinero 0
sus propiedades 0 otros derechos importantes para usted.
LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO
TIENE ABOGADO 0 SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL
SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA
DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE
PUEDE CONSEQUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
Cumberland County Court Administrator
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, pennsylvania 17013
Phone: (717) 240-6200
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER,
COLEMAN & GO N
DATE:
BY:
MATT WL.
S.CT.I.D. NO. 76080
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B
Harrisburg, P A 17112
(717) 651-3501
\05_A\LIAS\MLO\SLPG\84849\RKN\18068\OOlll
--jr-~'J,<c
, ,
r
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
Plaintiffs
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.,
Defendants
JOINDER COMPLAINT
I. Additional Defendant, Gary Englebert, is an adult individual, who at all times
relevant hereto resided at 172 Benders Church Road, Biglerville, Pennsylvania, 17307.
2. Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert, instituted this action by filing a
Complaint in the Lebanon County Court of Common Pleas on or about May 24, 2001. (A true
and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Complaint is attached hereto and identified as Exhibit "A").
3. Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., filed an Answer
with New Matter denying any and all allegations of negligence and/or liability in the
Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas. (A true and correct copy of Defendants' Answer
with New Matter is attached hereto and identified as Exhibit "B").
4. Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges personal injury sustained by both Gary Englebert
and Sharon Englebert, a front seat passenger in a vehicle operated by Gary Englebert, as a result
of a collision which occurred on May 2, 2000 in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
,
HW ". '
-" '~~, i':'}
,
5. Following the closure of pleadings in this case and with the completion of written
discovery and depositions of the parties, additional theories ofliability and causation for
Plaintiffs' injuries have been discovered by moving Defendants, York Waste Disposal, Inc. and
Christopher Hollister.
COUNT I.
NEGLIGENCE
Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal. Inc. v. Gary Englebert
6. Paragraphs I through 5 above are incorporated herein by reference as though fully
set forth at length herein.
7. Proposed Additional Defendant, Gary Englebert was operating a vehicle in which
Plaintiff, Sharon Englebert, was riding as a passenger at the time of the collision with the York
Waste Disposal truck operated by Defendant, Christopher Hollister, on May 2, 2000.
8. Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert, allege in their Complaint that
Defendant driver, Christopher Hollister, backed his garbage truck out of a commercial property
driveway and on to Trindle Road, directly in front ofthem, which caused a collision.
9. Through discovery and deposition testimony, Defendant, Christopher Hollister,
maintains that he stopped his vehicle well short of Trindle Road and that proposed Additional
Defendant, Gary Englebert, currently a Plaintiff in this action, panicked, slammed on his brakes,
and lost control of his vehicle, sliding off of Trindle Road and colliding with Defendant's truck,
off of Trindle Road, thereby causing injuries as alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint, the same being
denied with strict proof thereof required at trial.
10. Additional Defendant, Gary Englebert, owed a duty to Plaintiff, Sharon Englebert,
and Defendant, Christopher Hollister, as the operator of the York Waste garbage truck, to
2
""" -, ~~
"- ,"~
n:-1i.1l.~,?;i,;
.
operate his vehicle in a safe and non-negligent manner, so as to avoid collision and causing
lllJury.
II. All losses, injuries and/or resulting damages sustained by the Plaintiffs, the same
being expressly denied, on behalf of Defendant, as described by the Plaintiffs in their Complaint,
were caused by the carelessness and/or negligence of Additional Defendant, Gary Englebert, as
follows:
(a) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed to or caused the subj ect accident ofthis
litigation by failing to maintain proper control of his vehicle;
(b) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed to or caused the subject accident of this
litigation by failing to operate his vehicle with due regard for the rights, safety, wen-being and
position of his passenger and wife, Sharon Englebert, and Defendant driver Christopher
Hollister;
(c) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed to or caused the subject accident of this
litigation by failing to maneuver his vehicle appropriately to avoid striking the York Waste
vehicle operated by Christopher Hollister;
(d) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed to or caused the subject accident of this
litigation by failing to have his vehicle under proper and adequate control so as to avoid an
accident and avoid striking the York Waste truck operated by Defendant Christopher Hollister;
3
~, > ~ ~ ~
.
: -I~", ,~,/_
~-lilt:lE;
(e) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed to or caused the subject accident ofthis
litigation by failing to keep an appropriate lookout and obey the rules of the road, thereby
causing a collision with the York Waste vehicle driven by Defendant, Christopher Hollister;
(f) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed or caused the subject accident of this litigation
by negligently, carelessly and/or recklessly applying the brakes and maneuvering his vehicle so
as to cause a collision with the York Waste truck operated by Defendant, Christopher Hollister;
(g) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed or caused the subject accident of this litigation
by negligently operating his vehicle so as to lose control and cause the collision/accident with the
York Waste truck operated by Defendant, Christopher Hollister.
12. Additional Defendant, Gary Englebert, is solely, exclusively, and/or contributorily
responsible for any alleged damages, the same being expressly denied as set forth in Plaintiffs'
Complaint and no act or failure on behalf of Defendants, York Waste Disposal, Inc. and
Christopher Hollister, caused or contributed to the occurrence of any damage or event alleged in
Plaintiffs' Complaint.
13. This Additional Defendant Complaint is filed to protect Defendants', York Waste
Disposal, Inc. and Christopher Hollister, rights to contribution in the event it is judicially
determined that Defendants, York Waste Disposal, Inc. and Christopher Hollister, are jointly
and/or severally liable to Plaintiff, the existence of any liability on the part of Defendants, York
Waste Disposal, Inc. and Christopher Hollister, hereby being expressly denied.
4
"
~~,,-
~.
. ,
"'~~ ^ ' .~ , .~",,,;= ,: ~' """ .0" _,.'< ,,_
WHEREFORE, Defendants, York Waste Disposal, Inc. and Christopher Hollister,
demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiff or in the alternative, demand that
Additional Defendant, Gary Englebert, be found solely liable to the Plaintiff, Sharon Englebert,
or jointly and severally liable with Defendants, York Waste Disposal, Inc. and Christopher
Hollister, and liable over to Defendants for contribution and/or indenmity.
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER,
COLEMAN & GIN
DATE:
( 2. ( I z.( 0 I
BY:
MAT EW.
J.D. NO. 76080
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B
Harrisburg, P A 17112
(717) 651-3501
Attorneys for the Defendants
105_ A ILIABIMLOILUG\848451RKN\18068\00111
5
,'~'~"""'-
. L" '
" , J ,,, ", " ,., ,...J. ~-
-" L'll~_',j
VERIFICATION
The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing Joinder Complaint
are based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me and information which
has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of the defense of this lawsuit. The language of
the Joinder Complaint is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Joinder Complaint,
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 Joinder Complaint are that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this
verification. The undersigned also understands that the statements therein are made subject to
the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
BY: ;t:U/ qjf:-.
Title: ~"-SI'J.".,,-r/,--[ 01).$, NJf',
DATE: December I g ,2001
""~~"~
'~ j -
, ,~- ",
'.-1 C_"c"
.,' ~~~, . ",}~~;: 'i_'.':
""'!Iii'
R.J. MARZELlA & ASSOCIATES, P.c.
BY: Charles W. Marsar, Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court to. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110
Telephone: (717) 234-7828
F~csimile: 1717\ 234-6883
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Gary Englebert, and
Sharon Em!!ebert
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
GARY ENLGEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT
DOCKETNO.O/-3IID CIC..;ll I
Plaintiffs
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YQRKWASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE TO PLEAD
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 an
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 Plpintiff. 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, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET
FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
JUN - 1 2001
OF HARRISBURG- PA
,-" 'l--~' -'0- '-~...L" "
~, ~
;""", , '~
'-'''''!'c'
A VISO
USTED HA SIOO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de Ias
demand as que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar acci6n
dentro de Ios pr6ximos veinte (20) dfas despues de la notificaci6n de esta Demanda y
Aviso radicando personal mente 0 por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y
rzdicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objeciones a, las demandas
presentadas aquf en contra suya. Se Ie advierte de que si usted falla de tomar acci6n
como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por
cualquier suma de dinero recIamaci6n 0 remedio solicitado por el demandante puede
ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte, sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder
dinero 0 propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted.
. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI
USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO 0 NO PUEDE PAGARLE A UNO, LIAME 0 VAYA A IA
S.lGUENTE OFICINA PARA A VERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE ENCONTRAR ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
Cumberland County Lawyer Referral Service
2 Liberty Ave.
Carlisle, PA 17013
Telephone (717) 249 - 3166
,
~-'
.
,
,.
'.
. ~ -,...
'"
, .,
.~ " ~''''''' 'i .
""~ , ~ ~ ""~ j'
~'~ ' -
'0-_ "
. .
R.J. MARZELlA & ASSOCIATES, P.c.
BY: Charles W. Marsar.Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court 1.0. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg. PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 234-7828
Facsimile: (717\ 234-6883
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Gary Englebert. and
Sharon Enl!lebert
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERlAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION -lAW
GARY ENLGEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
DOCKET NO.
Plaintiffs
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.,
Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPlAINT
1. Gary Englebert, Plaintiff. is an adult-individual who, at all relevant times
hereto, resided at 172 Benders Church Road, Biglerville, PA 17307.
2. Sharon Englebert, Plaintiff, is an adult-individual who. at all relevant times
hereto, resided at 172 Benders C~tirch Road, Biglerville, PA 17307.
3. Christopher Hollister, (hereinafter "Defendant Driver") is an adult-
individual and an employee, agent, apparent agent, ostensible agent, and/or servant
who, at all relevant times hereto, resided at 2140 Baltimore Pike, East Berlin, PA 17316.
, i
]
!
,1
, ,
"~ ,"
los'"
~~
~ '" ,~
if",
4. York Waste Disposal, Inc. (hereinafter Defendant Corporation), is a
corporation which, at all relevant times hereto, was incorporated under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal place of business at 987 West Trindle
Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055.
5. Gary and Sharon Englebert both work at the Naval Base (NAVlCP) in
Mechanicsburg, PA.
6. Every morning Gary and Sharon drive to work together from their home in
Biglerville to Mechanicsburg.
7. On May 2, 2000, Gary and Sharon were driving to work together as per
their usual route.
8. Gary was driving and Sharon was in the front passenger seat as they
traveled east on Trindle Road.
9. Fortunately both Gary and Sharon were wearing harness seat belts, and
Gary was driving under the speed limit, because just as they attempted to pass the
driveway at 5022 East Trindle, Defendant Driver backed a garbage truck directly into
their path.
10. Due to a large tree located at the edge of the driveway, Gary was unable
to see the defendant's truck until it was actually in the roadway.
.
t
11. Gary immediately hit his brakes in an effort to stop before striking the
garbage truck.
12. As Gary applied his brakes, the garbage truck continued to back out onto
the road.
2
-
~
Co,,,,,'
, ~ '.'" , ~ .-
. "
, -- - ~
r,~ " :
13. There was no other reasonable course of action that Gary could have
taken to avoid this collision since oncoming traffic prevented him from swerving left and
the tree, along with telephone poles, prevented him from swerving right.
14. Sharon screamed as their vehicle violently struck the side of the garbage
truck head-on.
15. Instantaneously, Sharon began experiencing constricting chest pains,
while Gary bled from his hand and pain shot though his body.
16. Even though Gary and Sharon Englebert were traveling below the posted
speed limit, their vehicle was damaged beyond repair.
17. Several bystanders assisted by pushing the Englebert's vehicle off of the
road.
18. Within minutes ofthe crash, the police arrived on the scene.
19. After the police officer interviewed the parties and assessed the accident
scene, he concluded that the defendant driver was clearly the sole cause of the accident.
20. When the officer explained to the parties that Defendant Driver caused
the accident by not looking while backing out, the defendant driver nodded admittingly.
21. Although the officer indicated Defendant Driver's traffic violation on the
police report, the decision was mkade, with Plaintiffs' consent, not to issue a citation to
,.
Defendant Driver.
22. The evening of the accident, Gary and Sharon presented to the
Emergency Room of Gettysburg Hospital.
-
.-=-...
""
"WiW.!' """''',I
,~:
23.
Sharon presented due to chest pain, bruising, chipped teeth, neck pain,
sore ribs, fever, and stiffness all over her body.
24. Gary presented due to pain and bruising of the right hand and wrist, neck
pain, back pain, sore ribs, right shoulder pain, right hip pain, right foot pain, headache,
and soreness all over his body.
25. X-rays revealed that, rather than the normal curvature, Gary's spine had
been painfully straightened due to the collision.
26. In addition, the physician informed both Gary and Sharon that they were
suffering from whiplash injury and a deeply bruised rib cage.
27. The physician informed Gary and Sharon that they would most likely
experience new aches and pains in the days to follow and to continue care with their
family doctor.
28. Gary and Sharon were ordered not to return to work the rest of the week
in an effort to allow some time for their injuries to recover.
29. On May 11,2000, Gary and Sharon presented to their family physician for
a follow up evaluation.
30. Sharon was still exhibiting bruising on numerous areas of her body.
I
31, Gary was still suffering /Tom pain in his neck, back, shoulder, right hip,
,
and the right side of his rib cage.
32. The family physician prescribed pain and anti-inflammatory medication for
Gary and referred both Gary and Sharon for a course of physical therapy.
4
~
"-,,
~~,
r-.;"
-~
33. At the initial physical therapy evaluation, Dr. Buohl stated that Gary was in
very bad shape, and, in fact, he felt that Gary was suffering from a compression fracture
in his vertebrae.
34. Gary endured many grueling physical therapy sessions several times per
week for more than six months.
35. More recently, Gary undeIWent an orthopedic evaluation, which revealed
he was suffering from a Herniated Nucleus Polposus at the C6-(7 level.
36. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants in
causing the collision, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert, havesuffered the injuries and
damages detailed herein.
37. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Gary
and Sharon Englebert have suffered permanent and severe injuries.
38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert have been
and will continue to be forced to incur liability for medical treatment, medicines,
hospitalizations and similar miscellaneous expenses throughout their adult lives and a
claim is made therefor.
39.
As a direct and prox.i"mate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
.
,-
herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert have
undergone and in the future will undergo great physical pain and suffering, great
inconvenience in carrying out their daily activities. loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment,
and emotional distress and a claim is made therefor.
I!
-II
"
I'
"
II
,-
5
.:l.
lllJJ
'"
~
.-, '. ," J '~~",'
, ,-
" ~-"
~y
40. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert have been
and in the future will be subject to great humiliation, disfigurement and embarrassment
and a claim is made therefor.
41. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert have
sustained in the past and will sustain in the future a loss of earnings, a permanent
impairment oftheir earning power and capacity and a claim is made therefor.
42. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert have been
advised and therefore aver that the damages and injuries alleged herein are permanent
and a claim is made therefor.
43. As a direct and proximate result ofthe negligence of Defendants, the
truck driven by Defendant Driver collided with the Englebert's vehicle causing Gary
Englebert to sustain severe, extensive and permanent personal injuries including but not
limited to his right hand, wrist, and shoulder, as well as his back, neck, and sternum, and
numerous other areas of injury and pain requiring medical treatment and therapy, and
may require medical treatment al;)d therapy in the future, and a claim is made therefor.
,.
44. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants,
the vehicle driven by Defendant-Driver collided with the Englebert's vehicle causing
Sharon Englebert to sustain severe, extensive and permanent personal injuries including
but not limited to her face, mouth, sternum, back, neck, and numerous other areas of
6
~~
, ,.'
-,~
,- k
'~._ '.' __ -,-1,'''-''- > ,"~~'
'--hr:!t~,
injury and pain requiring medical treatment and therapy, and may require medical
treatment and therapy in the future, and a claim is made therefor.
45. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff,
Sharon Englebert, has been deprived ofthe care, companionship, and services of her
husband, Gary Englebert, for all of which damages are claimed.
COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
GARY ENGLEBERT and SHARON ENGLEBERT
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER
46. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1- 45 of Plaintiff's Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
47. Regarding the accident, which is the subject matter ofthis Complaint,
Defendant Driver was negligent, careless, and/or reckless in the operation of a motor
vehicle in the following particulars:
(a) operating his vehicle in violation of the ordinances ofthe
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles,
including backing into a lane of travel without reasonably checking to see if any
vehicles were there and reckless driving, which constitutes negligence as a
i
matter oflaw;
,
.
I
(b)
failing to have the vehicle under proper and adequate control in
order to stop or avoid striking the Englebert's vehicle;
(c) failing to keep an appropriate lookout to avoid striking the
Englebert's vehicle;
,
--. '"
(d) failing to maneuver his vehicle appropriately in order to avoid
striking the Englebert's vehicle;
(e) operating the vehicle without due regard for the rights, safety,
well being, and position of Gary and Sharon Englebert under the circumstances;
(f) operating his vehicle negligently, carelessly, and/or recklessly by
blindly backing into oncoming traffic;
(h) improperly, inappropriately and/or illegally backing in front ofthe
Plaintiffs vehicle;
(i) failing to yield the right of way to oncoming traffic; and
.
OJ failing to appropriately judge the time and distance available to
pull out onto the street in front of Plaintiffs vehicle.
48. Defendant Driver is liable to Plaintiffs for their injuries and damages as
alleged herein as set forth in paragraphs thirty-six (36) through forty-five (45) above,
which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert demand judgment
against Defendant, Christopher Hollister, in an amount in excess ofTWENlY-FNE
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00), together with interest and costs thereon as allowed
,
,
bylaw.
,.
f
_-0'
, =~~"
R
;,
"
',. ~ -,l
". .
,~^L-'
~~, "'_ ~,"~" 0 "...':__:::
. .
COUNT" - VICARIOUS LIABILIlY
GARY ENGLEBERT and SHARON ENGLEBERT
v.
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
49. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1- 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
50. Regarding the accident, which is the subject matter of this Complaint,
Defendant Corporation was vicariously negligent. careless, and/or reckless in the
operation of a motor vehicle by having an employee, agent, apparent agent, ostensible
agent and/or servant:
(a) operating his vehicle in violation of the ordinances of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles,
including backing into a lane of travel without reasonably checking to see if any
vehicles were there and reckless driving, which constitutes negligence as a
matter oflaw;
(b) failing to have the vehicle under proper and adequate control in
order to stop or avoid striking the Englebert's vehicle;
(c) failing to keep an appropriate lookout to avoid striking the
Englebert's vehicle;
,
.
.
(d) failing to maneuver his vehicle appropriately in order to avoid
striking the Englebert's vehicle;
(el operating the vehicle without due regard for the rights, safety,
well being, and position of Gary and Sharon Englebert under the circumstances;
9
Ii
,\
-.., ~ ~.-
-'.,;-- .,,, "-'- '-'"
..
.- '-'i.J>;~"'t'~. " ~ n'-, - ,-~, r1"">
(f) operating his vehicle negligently, carelessly, and/or recklessly by
blindly backing into oncoming traffic;
(h) improperly, inappropriately and/or illegally backing in front of the
Plaintiffs vehicle;
(i) failing to yield the right of way to oncoming traffic; and
0) failing to appropriately judge the time and distance available to
pull out onto the street in front of Plaintiffs vehicle.
51. Defendant Corporation is liable to Plaintiffs for their injuries and damages'
as alleged herein as set forth in paragraphs thirty-six (36) through forty-five (45) above,
.
which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert demand judgment
against Defendant, York Waste Disposal, Inc., in an amount in excess of TWENTY-FIVE
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00), together with interest and costs thereon as allowed
bylaw.
"
.
,.
10
=,.
......-- ~,-
0'
L'_,',_o
"--,"-. " '_ ~' i ~,',
, ' ,--< _eo". .' ~"x:<-,
, "', ". 'T~
COUNT 111 - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
SHARON ENGLEBERT
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
52. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1- 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference as iffully set forth.
53. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff,
Sharon Englebert, has been deprived of the care, companionship, services, society and
consortium of her husband, Gary Englebert, for all of which damages are claimed.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Sharon Englebert, demands judgITIent against Defendants
in an amount in excess oflWENTY-FlVE THOUSAND DOLlARS ($25,000.00), together
with interest and costs thereon as allowed by law.
R. J. Marzella & Associates, P.c.
,
h
r
Dated: ) - 2- Z. . 2001
II
!,
j:
j ~
,~, ~~
. ~
. - _J_ , ~~ ~
, .., ^O ,-.~ -'=' . '-~'-' --<>,.' '",'--- '-'< '--',,, "":1
VERIFICATION
We, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert. hereby swear and affirm that the facts and
matters set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of our
knowledge, information and belief.
We understand that the statements made herein are made subject to the
penalties of Pa.c.S. S 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities.
! .,~-
Dated:
L/!Z- 3 /d I
d dl',"5.'"
Date: I /.~/(,'
j'. /;'1 f-
: A If I~, .ri1 /,--, "<#/
-<...d ~/.Lm '-' y'.('vf", L
sharon Englebert V '
.
,
I
\1
il
. ~
~' "
';,- ,~""--
<, _~ . "_~lo_
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
Plaintiffs
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.,
Defendants
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
CIVIL ACTION - LAW <)
c;
,
\JfG
(1)[?~
~__'.J
Zr
(.0 _t~
-<::::2'
~c.-j
::r>=(j
;;;0
Pc
~
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert
c/o Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
R.I. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, P A 1711 0
You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs'
Complaint on behalf of Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., within
twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be filed against you.
DATE: B( (g (or
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER,
COLEMAN & G GIN
BY:
MATTHEW . OWENS,
J.D. No. 76080
100 Pine Street, 4th Floor
P.O. Box 803
Harrisburg, P A 17108-0803
(717) 232-9324
Attorneys for the Defendants
1~~'I'li,r?~(
I;-~ I:;?/~~~,,} ';
'I"~,; _:,. -: ';-\,.;"~'~':;__';<>,__,'~.;:::.::
"'"' ,-: -,<.." '-""!--"-~':j'i,.'-i?'~_~__;;,~";
-~ '"--~~~-':"'-~'-"'" '"
~--, iifta.;;-
~
~,
?
"'"
.:;~
I
lD
,-<
j -~..:'
_ L':"::
.";
~,' ; '-.:J
"
::;;;
N
::::f(~)
-; '~; =;-/
:.0-
(..:>
G?-r1
~--j
=b
-<
(':
,
,'"
<..:.;,,',,-,
-'f"
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
Plaintiffs
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.,
Defendants
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER
AND NOW comes Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., by
and through the undersigned counsel, who answer Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows:
I. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 1, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
2. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 2, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
5. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 5, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
";M~"" .~".....
'0_
~='
" " ". A
, , - ..i_~ _
,-,l_'~_ '. ';';;"'_0" rico' d
" '~*'ii
6. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 6, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereofrequired at trial.
7. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proofthereofrequired at trial.
8. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 8, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
9. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 13, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proofthereofrequired at trial. Paragraph 13 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial. To the extent a specific response is required, it is denied that the
Defendant driver backed his truck directly into the path ofthe Plaintiffs' vehicle.
10. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 10, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
11. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 11, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereofrequired at trial.
2
"'~~~ ~,~
,__'_ n_ .'
"
'..1,"-' 'I.. 1_ ';" " I"" '--,,";\0-, , '-,~_
'-":,
12. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 12, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proofthereofrequired at trial.
13. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 13, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proofthereofrequired at trial. Paragraph 13 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
14. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 14, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
15. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 15, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proofthereofrequired at trial.
16. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 16, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 16 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
17. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 17, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
3
-
-0,
, ,~ , , -,
-..,;,,,,,>':
"
"1~j",I'-7_'~'''''''-''-
~,'
18. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 18, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
19. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a beliefas to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 19, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 19 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
20. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 20, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 20 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proofthereof required at trial. To the extent a specific response is required, it is denied that the
Defendant driver nodded admittingly to any accusations ofliability or fault at the scene ofthe
accident to anyone.
21. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 21, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
22. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 22, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
23. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 23, and therefore, the same are denied with
4
. ,t _." ,,_ I
-' . -' -~
-' ='
,."-k.;<.-,i;'\,'-".' -'
~, -;;
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 23 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereofrequired at trial.
24. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 24, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 24 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
25. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 25, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 25 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereofrequired at trial.
26. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 26, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proofthereof required at trial. Paragraph 26 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proofthereofrequired at trial.
27. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 27, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 27 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
5
__, t~
,j I
- J ,';, ,-", iHc -; " ,~ ,_~r"":'"'!i';
28. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the tlUth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 28, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proofthereofrequired at trial. Paragraph 28 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
29. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the tIuth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 29, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 29 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proofthereofrequired at trial.
30. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the tlUth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 30, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proofthereof required at trial. Paragraph 30 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
31. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 31, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 31 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
32. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 32, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 32 is further denied in that the same contains
6
..
,
-,--,
-c._. ,---~" ". ":"~O"':
.
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proofthereof required at trial.
33. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 33, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 33 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proofthereof required at trial.
34. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 34, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 34 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
35. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 35, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 35 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
36. Denied. Paragraph 36 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
37. Denied. Paragraph 37 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
7
~' ~
~-~~
, L'~','
. '" ,,' L
U-~",C.
-~" -, "";...,-",;\~:
.
38. Denied. Paragraph 38 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proofthereof required
at trial.
39. Denied. Paragraph 39 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proofthereof required
at trial.
40. Denied. Paragraph 40 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proofthereof required
at trial.
41. Denied. Paragraph 41 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
42. Denied. Paragraph 42 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proofthereof required
at trial.
43. Denied. Paragraph 43 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
44. Denied. Paragraph 44 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
8
-<-~
'~.
, >'~J.., f,
.
,"
45. Denied. Paragraph 45 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
GARY ENGLEBERT and SHARON ENGLEBERT
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER
46. Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., incorporate by
reference their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as if set forth
herein at length.
47. (a) - G) Denied. Paragraph 47 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of
law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof
required at trial.
48. Denied. Paragraph 47 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc.,
respectfully demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs together with such costs
this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
9
,-",~ ' .
,.J,,,,l.-.i;
~, ,~
__ "L__-, "
c;' ,,",' _<',-',_;"
----, . 't
.
~ t>' ,
COUNT II - VICARIOUS LIABILITY
GARY ENGLEBERT and SHARON ENGLEBERT
v.
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
49. Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., incorporate by
reference their responses to Paragraphs I through 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as if set forth
herein at length.
50. (a) - (j) Denied. Paragraph 50 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of
law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof
required at trial.
51, Denied. Paragraph 51 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc.,
respectfully demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs together with such costs
this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
COUNT 11I- LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
SHARON ENGLEBERT
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
52. Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., incorporate by
reference their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as if set forth
herein at length.
10
r' ~ ~
"
,
""
~--,
~H
~ ,1'-' ~,"
,--f'"
-I" ",-,'<, ,,,-.i'~::
~ (I .
.'
53. Denied. Paragraph 53 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc.,
respectfully demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs together with such costs
this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
NEW MATTER
17. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
18. Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
19. Plaintiffs are barred and/or limited by all applicable provisions of the
Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law.
20. No act or omission on the part of Defendants was a substantial or contributing
factor in bringing about Plaintiffs' alleged injuries and/or damages, all such injuries and/or
damages being expressly denied.
21. Any and all injuries and/or damages as described by Plaintiffs in their Complaint,
the srone being expressly denied, were caused in whole or in part by the acts or omissions on the
part of Plaintiffs and/or others over whom Defendants had no control nor right of control.
22. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the doctrine of res judicata and/or
collateral estoppel.
23. Plaintiffs' claims are derivative in nature and are barred as a matter of law.
24. Defendants breached no duty of care owed to Plaintiffs under the circumstances.
25. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania Comparative
Negligence Act.
11
.~_...."'.
-
~ I '
", -
-,"'I "'
.. ' ~'~ -, ~ ".<-, ~'~-io. ,." '~j"~';j-,:,
- .
, .r \
26. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the applicable provisions of the
Pennsylvania Worker's Compensation Act.
27. At all times material hereto, Defendants acted in a safe, legal and non-negligent
manner.
28. Plaintiffs negligent operation of his motor vehicle was the sole and proximate
cause of all alleged injuries and damages.
29. Plaintiffs' Complaint and or claims are barred by their selection oflimited tort as
set forth by 75 Pa.C.S.A. 91705.
MARSHALL, HEY, WARNER,
COLEMAN GO GIN
BY:
MATTHE L. 0
J.D. No. 76080
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B
Harrisburg,PA 17112
(717) 651-3501
Attorneys for the Defendants
DATE: ~((p ( 0 r
\05_ A \LlABIMLOILLPG\73927\ACS\18068\00l1 I
12
" .
" ,
c-
!; "~
-~~. ,'"'
" '-";'''_:(;"
~.~ 'C:
. tl .
. .
VERIFICATION
The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing Defendants'
Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are based upon information which has been
furnished to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the
preparation ofthe defense of this lawsuit. The language of the Defendants' Answer with New
Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Answer with
New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint, 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 Defendants' Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs'
Complaint are that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this verification. The
undersigned also understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18
Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
By:;i~..c~~T
Dwayne urt
Title: '0",75, D ""' ~"'C"-;-' "i~ ,-
DATE: ? /z/cl
-- "
,,_J,;, I
, ," -~ ,c,,]t;
.. 4' '"
, II;r ,
VERIFICATION
The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing Defendants' Answer
with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are based upon information which has been furnished
to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of the
defense of this lawsuit. The language of the Defendants' Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs'
Complaint is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Answer with New Matter to
i-'
I;
Plaintiffs' Complaint, 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 Defendants' Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are that of
counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this verification. The undersigned also
understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section
4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
DATE: 7/;/ Or
!/~f::.~~
"'"''''''''" ,
"
"'..l - ~' "
I.' '-".i'"
.. If ..,
. ." ~
" .
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
Plaintiffs
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INe.,
Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Angela Sanger, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do
hereby certify that on this Jc:-I1Vay of August, 2001, I served a copy of the foregoing
document via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid as follows:
Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, P A 1711 0
a ~L
Angela ~ger
Y?/h-
-~ , ~,
"'
"'. '. ~-
"-,-,
,~o """'~__:~_"
. l.' ,.
.. . t .
" .
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
Plaintiffs
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.,
Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Angela Sanger, an employee of Mars hall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do
hereby certify that on this )J day of January, 2002, I served a copy of the foregoing
document via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid as follows:
Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
R.I. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, P A 1711 0
~j...,Lj~L
. L--
Angela Sanger
"<U,".(;~~i9r0~,,M,:1lr0h~l'''''_'_,'1,[~~,I;!J;''''A-,~.'\;,.'i''''''~S!.,;""~,"l-<'","-""i,;-;,~,"J,"',!! ,,,",,-,'i'!;1f,,~;,,,-,,,,,,,,";,iil..~'-!"~h.,-;,,:..;,,,,;,,I..1,"',_~~ikiIli_~,t~~1li~~~"" "~"""
.~ ,- -
-"",-,-" "~~
in]
,
.. '. .
~s-
~
'1 ~
, '-
0 0 0
C f"v -)'1
5:. -., -, ,
vfT) t"1
Si~_~i c:J ::'..l,d
.'-
&5S- 1J?
r",
-<~~' ()
r::: '- , -
:;': -n -
.'-', ->7-' ,
::::: '._,' i;:,.-d()
SO: (~) v) ~~:'5^m
C~
Z r::- :::;!
--j ::'~J
-( <:) ~:
~J,X,ijLlJla;., ,~, d,' _~ ~~,
"
>,,~_~, "'''''''__7!',''ft"~_",,,,,,,_,,,_~-^_,<:<.,~ ~
-< "=
~. =
ilJl
-
0'
- "- -~, .l.' , ,,;, iUt,t:.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
Plaintiffs
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.,
Defendants
SUR-REPLY OF DEFENDANTS. CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER AND
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL. INC.. 110 PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANTS'
PETITION TO JOIN GARY ENGLEBERT AS AN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT
AND NOW comes Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc.,
(hereinafter "Defendants"), by and through the undersigned counsel who file this Sur-Reply to
Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Petition to Join Gary Englebert as an Additional Defendant:
1. Plaintiffs allege that there will be prejudice suffered by Gary Englebert should the
Court grant Defendants' Petition to join him as an additional defendant.
2. It is well settled that merely becoming a party to an action, be it a defendant or
plaintiff, does not in and of itself1ead to a prejudicial effect upon that party.
3. This would be especially true where that party may have contributed to or caused
injuries of a separate Plaintiff.
4. Plaintiffs further aver that the joinder of Gary Englebert is duplicative of new
matter defenses raised including comparative negligence.
;O',i;
5. Comparative negligence is a defense as against Gary Englebert and not Sharon
Englebert.
6. Indeed, Sharon Englebert's claims may be valid but against Gary Englebert and
not the Defendants, and therefore, she would be prejudiced by not permitting the joinder of Gary
Englebert as a Defendant who may have caused or contributed to her injuries.
7. Finally, the delay of a mere five months to await the conclusion of discovery to
make a reasonable determination as to whether or not Gary Englebert should be joined is not
prejudicial, nor is it unreasonable.
8. It is not unusual, but customary practice, to conduct discovery and evaluate
whether or not the joinder of a party to a case makes sense or is supported by the evidence and
fact of that case.
9. Therefore, the joinder of Gary Englebert not only makes sense, but promotes
judicial economy in this case.
WHEREFORE, Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc.,
respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant the Petition for Leave to Join Gary Englebert
as an Additional Defendant in this case.
BY:
MARSHALL, DE
COLEMAN & G
MATTHEWL.
J.D. No. 76080
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B
Harrisburg, P A 17112
(717) 651-3501
DATE: Lf' ( 02..
Attorneys for the Defendants
^ " '~~.' '-ri
, "'"
"
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
Plaintiffs
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.,
. Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Angela Sanger, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do
hereby certify that on this --2!!!- day of February, 2002, I served a copy of the foregoing
document via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid as follows:
Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, P A 17110
~~~I~~MM~i~!"':I1l!'~~li:$in!!iE~~_~,"Mii'!til;;";<<'~IW'J'-*~il!t!'l<l&iJc'il~;.w;Mll.jjlii"'-~
,"
, '1"
/"'" ......
1;:,
''11m" .,._~
e~ _
_.'_ ~ . w. _~ >_
,""~, .,<,", .'-~ ,.-- ,~,.
.
<,
1liI\i.{
~~ ..
o
~~
~,
.vC]"
fT"tr;-:
;-::::y'
t-; ~~~:<
-<.-/
r== c:;
:1; ;'-~
::~-(>
--'.-'-c.-::
2:
~
C)
\"")
"0
f'"l
LJ'
,
{""'::i
_:,
~<-
r::-
crt
:..-..1
-<
m
-
, -"
"' '
". N
f
John R. Ninosky, Esquire
1.0. #78000
GOLDBERG, RATtMAN , SHIPMAN, P.C.
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
Attorneys for Additional Defendant
'--"'J_'"~~. ~~_ ;"''''~''_.'_ ;~'."V ""w,",,-" .,,,,<",,(,_"_<,~, ,~". ~~ ''''''-'1-''_"'.,, ,_'=.'j'" ?,;
.
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
Plaintiffs
vs.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.,
Defendants
vs.
GARY ENGLEBERT,
Additional Defendant
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 01-3180 CIVIL
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE
PLEASE enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of
the Additional Defendant, Gary Englebert, in the above-captioned
matter.
DATE: March 25, 2002
75157.1
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C.
By JOh~in~sc!~
Attorney I.D. 78000
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
Attorneys, Additional Defendant
~" ,~
-
~ .
...
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document has
been duly served upon the following counsel of record, by
depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid,
in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on
3!rlr/OJ
, .
Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
R. J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
3513 North Front street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Matthew L. Owens, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin'
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B
Harrisburg, Pa 17112
Attorneys for Defendants
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, p.e.
By Jo:rfNtfosi~re
I.D. #: 78000
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
Attorneys-Additional Defendant
76846.1
-
~,i"
St
-(;lO
t,UA,-,:,",Jl1.JIIJJt9,' , ",~ IT
"'-""~muil"".:.~,. 'i'- _~~~~r',,-i '-c' 'm
., ',.'t r-t ~=
.(
""
._,__fI","~T' ,~,,- ,~...-~, -',,',,' ""'"-,f,_M,_",,,,_.
-,
0 '-
~,= ".'
-0 ,.
el) , ,
, ,)
.f~_
~J! c ,
-' ,-
-, '71
,
C
,-
~-I ::-;,
-(
,~
i
-'
A'
John R. Ninosky, Esquire
I.D. #78000
GOLDBEi!.G, KA'l'ZMAN " SHIPMAN, P.C.
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268.
(717) 234-4161
Attorneys for Additional Defendant
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.,
Defendants
NO. 01-3180 CIVIL
vs.
GARY ENGLEBERT,
Additional Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT'S ANSWER
TO DEFENDANTS' JOINDER COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes the Additional Defendant, Gary Englebert, by
and through his counsel, Goldberg, Katzman and Shipman, P.C., who
files this Answer to Defendants' Joinder Complaint by
respectfully stating the following:
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admi tted.
4. Admitted.
5. Denied. The
conclusions of law and
averments contained in Paragraph 5 are
fact to which no response is required. If
,^"'~ ^~.< .,. _M __ ~,
", ~- . '-~"$" ~ . ~~''''~':A -' -~, '''''''',''W~'''"_>''''P" "'1 """'--""';q
- ,
.
a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained
therein are specifically denied.
COUNT I
Negligence
Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc.
v. Gary Enalebert
6. The answers to paragraphs 1 though 5 are incorporated
as though fully set forth.
7. Admitted.
8. Admitted.
9. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that
Defendant, Christopher Hollister, maintains he stopped his
vehicle short of Trindle Road. It is denied that this testimony
is correct. To the contrary, the accident was directly and
proximately caused by the negligence of Defendant Hollister.
10. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 10 are
conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If
a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained
therein are specifically denied.
11. Denied. This paragraph, including subparagraphs (a)
through (g) is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
12. Denied. This paragraph is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.
1029 (e) .
13. Denied. This paragraph is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.
1029 (e) .
WHEREFORE, Additional Defendant respectfully requests that
This Honorable Court dismiss the joinder Complaint, and that
judgment be entered in his favor with regard to the joinder
Complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C.
~7~;3~; '1 /I~(()J-
By 1~ I(^U~
Jo R. Ninosky, Esq e
I. D. #: 78000
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
Telephone: (717) 234-4161
Attorneys for Additional
Defendant
>' ~', -- ';;-~
.~
,
,
,
,
,
,
j
,
.~
1
'oj
:j
i
"
;j
,1
"I
':1
;:)
i
,"
,~
:
j
i
- - ~ '^-~.~-~~"~~".&--. =-, > ~- >:.,,~, '<-"'''~''',
VERIFICATION
I, Gary Englebert, am the Additional Defendant in the this
matter, and I hereby acknowledge that I have read the foregoing
document; and that the facts stated therein are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
I understand that any false statements herein are made
subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. Section 4904, relating to
unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date:
77254.1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document has
been duly served upon the following counsel of record, by
depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid,
in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on
'11 N/!/6~
. ,
Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
R. J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Matthew L. Owens, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B
Harrisburg, Pa 17112
Attorneys for Defendants
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C.
By JOh~in~cY~e
I.D. #: 78000
320 Market street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
Attorneys-Additional Defendant
77029.1
~~~~- ~-'
))~.
VJ
'~,,, "o_,~. J111J~~
-,r,'-c']' j~~lll1':~iif~i\r.m~~~_~foili,,;
~~=,.,,",~-_ _ ',.C~~ ,,~~~,
"~" ", ,~ .. ,~, ,~- - . ,~,
J('
"III.
c_~.
_"I
C) 0 0
C N "'on
"'::;-,.. po :.~-j
-vt-r: -n " JJ
111 I" 0-0
.-7 _~J ;'"'1
..-_. ;~~
L:' [,- OJ
U)
-,
r-:'. ~,~
~:;
'~:"1' , ~~
.:;c.:. 1,'.;./ ;"",111
::::4
,- S :>
=2 :"',) ~
t..:>
..
:=~-~'
L_ lli
.,l-
,,"-
, ,",-k
~- - ,.
..,,-,,-
"- :"""'111"0-
R. j. MARZELlA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
BY: Charles W. Marsar,jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court /.D. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 234-7828
Facsimile: (717\ 234-6883
Attorneys for Plaintiffii
Gary Englebert, and
Sharon Emz1ebert
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERlAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
GARY ENGLEBERT and DOCKET NO. 01-3180
SHARON ENGLEBERT (") 0 0
C N -n
Plaintiffs s: ~ .--1
"'U Cti ~ 'r'
mrri ['ll~Jd
Z:J)
ze- N ...;-:J
v. ~?L: N : .;'.! ~:-J
(", I
!:<C) <I ~-:j ~~~
:Pc -"'~~ >~-=-~
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and Zj - ';<0
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC. ;.>g 't-? t~)1"1'1
=.j
Z; >
Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ~ (Xl :D
-::
PlAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' PETITION
FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO JOIN
GARY ENGLEBERT AS ADDmONAL DEFENDANT
AND NOW this 17th day of january, comes the Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and
Sharon Englebert, (hereinafter "Plaintiffs") by and through their counsel, R.J. Marzella
and Associates, who file this Response to Defendant's Petition for Leave of Court to join
Gary Englebert as Additional Defendant and in support thereof aver the following:
....
1. This action arises out of an automobile accident, which occurred on May
2, 2000 involving the Defendant and the Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert.
2. Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the Cumberland County Court of Common
."'.
Pleas on or about May 24, 2001 against the Defendants.
~-~
.,
~ 1-
,
,~ ~
,', ~1';'1
3. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Christopher Hollister negligently backed
his front loader garbage truck out of a driveway and across Trindle Road directly in the
path ofthe Plaintiffs on Trindle Road in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County.
4. Defendants filed an Answer with New Matter on or about August 6, 2001,
denying all allegations ofliability and raising in the New Matter the defenses that the
accident was caused by other parties and that Plaintiffs' claim was barred and/or limited
by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act.
5. The parties conducted discovery, including exchange oflnterrogatories,
Request for Production of Documents, and depositions of both the Plaintiffs and the
Defendant driver.
6. Following the completion of discovery, on or about January 2, 2002,
counsel for the Defendants filed a Petition for Leave of the Court to Join Plaintiff, Gary
I, Englebert, as Additional Defendant (hereinafter "The Petition").
II 7. In The Petition Defense Counsel cites to Defendant Driver's deposition
testimony, which maintains that he stopped his vehicle short ofTrindle Road and
Plaintiff, Gary Englebert panicked, slammed on his breaks, and lost control of his vehicle
I sliding offTrindle Road and striking the York Waste garbage truck. (See The Petition
page 3, paragraph 12).
8. Plaintiff Gary Englebert maintains through sworn deposition testimony
that at the time of impact, the garbage truck was completely blocking his lane of travel
on Trindle Road.
'r~_'
",I
J~.ii!( > "."'.
-~
,
9. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2253 provides that neither a Praecipe
for a writ to join an additional defendant, nor a Complaint, shall be filed by the original
Defendant later than 60 days after the service upon the original defendant of the initial
pleading of the Plaintiff, unless such filing is allowed by the court upon cause shown.
10. It is well settled law in Pennsylvania that Pa.R.C.P. 2253 was designed
primarily for the protection of the plaintiff so that his cause of action would not be
=
delayed by successive joinder of additional defendants. Graham v. Greater Latrobe
School Dist., 260 A.2d 731,436 Pa. 440, Sup. 1970.
11. The Defendants must show, when requesting belated joinder of an
additional defendant, that the joinder is based on proper grounds, some reasonable
excuse exists for the delay in commencing joinder proceedings, and that the original
plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the late joinder. Lawrence v. Meeker, 717 A.2d 1046,
1048, Pa.Super., 1998. Francisco v. Ford Motor Co., 406 Pa.Super.I44, 593 A.2d 1277,
1278 (1991).
12. The Defendants have the burden of proving sufficient cause to allow late
joinder of an additional defendant and must establish some reasonable justification for
the delay in petitioning the court for leave to join an additional defendant. Exton
Develooment v. Sun Oil Co. of Pennsvlvania, 525 A.2d 402, 363 Pa.Super. 17,
....
,Super.1987. White v. American Honda Research of America, 589 A.2d 363, Pa.Super.17,
II
I, Super,1991.
II
13. Defendants delayed more than five months after the 60-dayperiod
, 'L.~
, allowed by Pa.R.C.P 2253 before filing The Petition.
ii
Ii
, ~ " "'rl~_'
-'
:''"~ ~"
",
I,. '
. "L~',~
, L_'-"~, ,
14. Defendant's reasoning for the delay is that new information did not
become available until after the deposition of Defendant Driver was completed on or
about October 23, 2001. (See The Petition page 3, paragraph 12).
15. Following the completion of Defendant Driver's deposition, Defendants
then waited more than two more months before petitioning the Court for leave to join
an additional defendant.
16. Defendants' reasoning for the more than five-month delay in filing The
Petition is invalid.
17. Defense Counsel had ample time to learn of the testimony provided by
Defendant Driver, and, therefore, had ample time to join an additional defendant within
the bounds ofthe Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
18. Plaintiffs provided Defendants with two extensions in which to respond to
the Complaint, as well as, extensions in which to respond to written discovery. (See
correspondence attached hereto as Plaintiffs' Exhibit UK).
19. During such time, Defense Counsel had a sufficient opportunity to learn of
Defendant Driver's side of the story, which is now the reasoning for The Petition.
20. No new information, that was available to Defense Counsel at the time of
service ofthe Complaint, came to light in Defendant Driver's deposition. Therefore, the
reasoning set forth in The Petition is invalid.
I
I 21. In their initial pleading, Defendants alleged that the accident was caused
by other parties and that Plaintiff.~' claims were barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania
Comparative Negligence Act; thereby, preserving any allegations that Defendants intend
,~~ J "
-I ~
~"
,j, ,',
- . ,-,,-,,<.d' .'" ~ D1L n-' "(""':1'
to present via Joinder. Therefore, no party will suffer any prejudice as a result of
denying The Petition.
22. If the Court were to grant Defendants' Petition to join Plaintiff Gary
Englebert as a Defendant, a jury could perceive the Court as granting credence to
Defendants' already preserved Comparative Negligence allegation, thereby, creating
undue prejudice to Plaintiffs.
23. The Joinder of Gary Englebert as an Additional Defendant will only serve
to confuse the issues and mislead the jury.
24. Defendants have failed to express a reasonable excuse for filing The
Petition more than five months beyond the time limit set forth by the Pennsylvania Rules
of Civil Procedure; therefore, Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing
cause to join an additional defendant, as set forth in Exton and White.
25. In addition, Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing that
Plaintiff Gary Englebert will not be prejudiced by such joinder.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert, respectfully
request that this Honorable Court to DENY Defendants' Petition for Leave to Join
Additional Defendant, Gary Englebert.
'<.!;
;"_'W ~~
J.ri", ~
Dated:
= - ~
1- /7 ,2002
-
"-~
""-_,,.,1
t lJIIJ' ,,-.'"" ~
- ""'-<" ~', ~'-;-j'l+,
R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
By:
l-!>l:l;\~
. .
" .1
,~
: " '-~ --'<
r' .:~
A REGION,;, DEFENSE L]T]GAT]ON LAW FIRM
I MARsHAll, 1>ENNmmY, WARNER, CO~ &'GoGGIN I
Direct Dial: 717-651-3501
Email: mowens@mdwcg.com
~rE;@l~}(\W:T .
1nJ. SE? 0 7 zaOl Ji1J
BY:
-----------~--------
...............
Bc<bIch""
n_
Etic
HarrisblUll;
Newtown Squ.are
N_
Philaddphia
Pimburgh
Scr.mton
WLlliamspon
NnI'll1Qn
Ch=ylllli
_bad
DBL\WARB
Wilmington
WBST Vb.GINJA
Weirton
OMO
Steubcnvillc:
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIO:-.l
www~h~II.r-IPftnehey.com
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B . Harrisburg, P A 17112
(717) 651-3500 . Fax (717) 651-9630
Pwu_
Orlando
-",
September 6, 2001
- Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.c.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PAl 711 0
Re: Gary and Sharon Englebert v. Christopher Hollister and
York Waste Disposal, Inc.
CCP - Cumberland County, No. 01-3180 - Civil
Our File No. 18068-00111
Dear Mr. Marsar:
I have scheduled a meeting with my clients to prepare responses to your clients' discovery requests. I
hope to have these responses to you by the end of this month or September 30,2001. My client is anxious to
move this case forward, and therefore, I would like to set aside dates in mid to late October for depositions in
this case. Kindly contact me at your convenience so that we can schedule these depositions.
Your attention and prompt response is appreciated. Of course, I would like to have your clients'
discovery responses prior to the depositions, which I assume will not be a problem.
MLO/acs
105_AIL1ABlMLOICORRI78896\ACS\18068\00111
"'~"';;'".I~
.
'w_'"
A REGIONA'l DEFENSE LITIGATION LAW FIRM
I ~iIAu., DENNEBEY, WARNER, CO~ &"GoGGIN I
August 29, 2001
I~@, 0"""1""";'>"
~' Jr"~" ,"
......, ~ ~"M' ',. _. .
_.-"'- -.
lHI
n ~~~ (' 1"~"1 IllUil1
U ;'::ct" 'J 1. L'J!;J ~
.............
Be_
Doylesrown
Ene
Hanisburg
Newtown Square
NOrriStown
Philadelphia
,,,""-
Scranton
WlUlamspon:
NEW JDlRY
Ch=y HW
""""".
_.
WUmington
w..r VraGIN!A
WeinoQ
Om.
Sleubenville
........
OdaDdo
llunpa
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
www.:marshalldennehey.com
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B . Harrisburg, P A 17112
(717) 651-3500 . Fax (717) 651-9630
Direct Dial: 717-651-3501
Email: mowens@mdwcg.com
Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.c.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PAl 711 0
BY: ____________________
Re: Gary and Sharon Englebert v. Christopher Hollister and
York Waste Disposal, Inc.
CCP - Cumberland County, No. 01-3180 - Civil
Our File No. 18068-00 III
Dear Mr. Marsar:
I am in receipt of your clients' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents directed
independently to my two clients, York Waste Disposal, Inc. and Christopher Hollister. I would appreciate a 30-
day extension to respond to these discovery requests in light of the fact that several key people are on vacation
during the month of August I will assume you have granted this extension unless I hear from you to the
contrary.
I currently enclose my clients' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents directed to
Gary and Sharon Englebert. Likewise, you may have an additional 30 days to respond.
Your attention is appreciated.
Very truly yours,
MLO/acs
enc.
""",,,""_'o'~J -~
H
'"
~ I
,,'
.'
<-~.i.._.< ^'
~ Li' "'!U:
3513 NORTH FRONT STREET, HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17110,
717.234.7828 888,838.3426 717.234,6883 FAX
ARZELLA
.L
. ~A.s.sc"')CL-\TES
Attorneys & Counselors At Law
July 20,2001
Matthew L. Owens, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
4200 Crums Mill Road
Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Re: Englebert v. Hollister, et aI.
Dear Matt:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation on the above-date, you had requested a
second extension within which to file your client's Answer. We agreed upon the new
due date of August 5, 2001. I look forward to your response within the new deadline.
If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
R.j. Marzella & Associates. P.c.
-
CWMJrl
\f~'~""""-~-
" L'.,
" '-0' 1 '"
, "
;yc"
A REGION~~ DEFENSE LITIGATION LAW FIRM
I ~~, DENNEBEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GoGGIN I . .
A PROFESSIONA.L CORPORATION
www.marsh~l1drxJnehey.com
_.....
"'-=
"""~~
Ene
--
Newtowo Sq=
No........
Phi1ade.Iphia
___
"""ton
WWi2mspon:
100 Pine Street, Fourth Floor, P.O. Box 803, Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803
(717) 232-1022' Fax (717) 232-1849
B Y:"___________________
_ Jam
Ch=r HW
llvlngstOn
BaA.....
WUmington
WurVuoo..,.
wanoo
Omo
Steubenvt1le
........
1lunpa
Direct Dial: 717-232-9324
Email: mowens@mdwcg.com
~ IT:@ IT: lrWlt~1ID
ill JUN 2 2 2001 1IJJ
June 15.2001
- Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
R.I. Marzella & Associates, P.c.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, P A 1711 0
Re: Gary and Sharon Englebert v. Christopher Hollister and
York Waste Disposal, Inc.
CCP - Cumberland County, No. 01-3180 - Civil
Our File No. 07040-
Dear Mr. Marsar:
Please be advised that Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. has retained the undersigned counsel to represent
Y ork Waste Disposal and Christopher Hollister in the above-captioned matter. I enclose a copy of my Entry of
Appearance.
I telephoned your office and left a voicemail as I was unable to reach you on the telephone. I would
appreciate a 30-day extension to file an Answer with New Matter. I will assume you have granted that
extension unless I hear from you to the contrary.
Please contact me should you have any questions at this time. Your attention is appreciated.
~-.".- ~~
MLO/acs
105 _A ILIABIMLOICORRI73931 IACSII 5000\50000
-~1iilb'.i .
Lo
"I.i
.
~ ,I I 00.....
CERllRCATE OF SERVICE
~ '
.'~; "~ _0. ,.' -{~;i:,
I, Charles W. Marsar, Jr., hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this ---I7- day of January, 2002,
by depositing said copy in the United States Mail postage prepaid, first-class deliver, and
addressed as follows:
Matthew L Owens, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
4200 Crums Mill Road
Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17'11 0
R.J. MARZELlA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
ii
.<~"'""
"-~~. j ~_.
~ ~
"
, _L; . "~'
;;p;C,(,
R.J. MARZELlA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
BY: Charles W. Marsar, Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court J.D. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 234-7828
Facsimile: (7171 23+-6883
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Gary Englebert, and
Sharon Emdebert
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERlAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION -lAW
GARY ENGLEBERT and
SHARON ENGLEBERT
DOCKET NO. 01-3180
() Cl 0
c: N --n
g;: ~ -~!
-oLO ;c.o -
f11p:'1 ~c"'" P'1~
Z':TJ .~
zr- 1'0
(I) )~ N ,
~z ,
GO
);;;. -eJ
:20 -->-
----0 ~ (51
>'c:
z ::-p!
=< \D :u
-<
Plaintiffs
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PlAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' PETITION
FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO JOIN
GARY ENGLEBERT AS ADDmONAL DEFENDANT
AND NOW this 1'P' day of January, comes the Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and
Sharon Englebert, (hereinafter "Plaintiffs") by and through their counsel, R.J. Marzella
and Associates, who file this Response to Defendant's Petition for Leave of Court to Join
Gary Englebert as Additional Defendant and in support thereof aver the following:
..-
1. This action arises out of an automobile accident, which occurred on May
2, 2000 involving the Defendant and the Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert.
2. Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the Cumberland County Court of Common
, '~';
Pleas on or about May 24,2001 against the Defendants,
.'
,'-li__-~
..
.. ' ., ~, ,
"
'"
'-"~~i,
3. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Christopher Hollister negligently backed
his front loader garbage truck out of a driveway and across Trindle Road directly in the
path of the Plaintiffs on Trindle Road in Mechanicsburg. Cumberland County.
4, Defendants filed an Answer with New Matter on or about August 6, 2001,
denying all allegations of liability and raising in the New Matter the defenses that the
accident was caused by other parties and that Plaintiffs' claim was barred and/or limited
by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act.
5. The parties conducted discovery, including exchange ofInterrogatories,
Request for Production of Documents, and depositions of both the Plaintiffs and the
Defendant driver.
6. Following the completion of discovery, on or about January 2,2002,
counsel for the Defendants filed a Petition for Leave of the Court to Join Plaintiff, Gary
Englebert, as Additional Defendant (hereinafter "The Petition").
7, In The Petition Defense Counsel cites to Defendant Driver's deposition
testimony, which maintains that he stopped his vehicle short ofTrindle Road and
Plaintiff, Gary Englebert panicked, slammed on his breaks, and lost control of his vehicle
sliding offTrindle Road and striking the York Waste garbage truck. (See The Petition
page 3, paragraph 12).
8. Plaintiff Gary Englebert maintains through sworn deposition testimony
i I that at the time of impact, the garbage truck was completely blocking his lane of travel
on Trindle Road.
-'.,0
,\,,,,",,,",,,
_'I
^-'.1
" . ',,,,"",,,~ t'~f'~
9, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2253 provides that neither a Praecipe
for a writ to join an additional defendant, nor a Complaint, shall be filed by the original
Defendant later than 60 days after the service upon the original defendant of the initial
pleading of the Plaintiff, unless such filing is allowed by the court upon cause shown.
10, It is well settled law in Pennsylvania that Pa.R.C.P, 2253 was designed
primarily for the protection of the plaintiff so that his cause of action would not be
=
delayed by successive joinder of additional defendants. Graham v, Greater Latrobe
School Dist., 260 A.2d 731,436 Pa, 440, Sup, 1970.
11. The Defendants must show, when requesting belated joinder of an
additional defendant, that the joinder is based on proper grounds, some reasonable
excuse exists for the delay in commencing joinder proceedings, and that the original
plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the late joinder. Lawrence v. Meeker, 717 A.2d 1046,
1048, Pa.Super., 1998. Francisco v. Ford Motor Co., 406 Pa.Super.I44, 593 A.2d 1277,
1278 (1991).
12. The Defendants have the burden of proving sufficient cause to allow late
joinder of an additional defendant and must establish some reasonable justification for
the delay in petitioning the court for leave to join an additional defendant. Exton
.'
Development v, Sun Oil Co. ofPennsvlvania, 525 A.2d 402,363 Pa.Super. 17,
I .
I! Super.1987. White v. American Honda Research of America, 589 A.2d 363, Pa,Super.17,
Super.1991.
13.
Defendants delayed more than five months after the 60-dayperiod
:!
I ' .~. ~ - -
, allowed by Pa.R.C.P 2253 before filing The Petition,
il
II
~.,~
"''''
"- j, ."~
~:.. IT "jj;:;,
.
...,~
14, Defendant's reasoning for the delay is that new information did not
become available until after the deposition of Defendant Driver was completed on or
about October 23, 2001, (See The Petition page 3, paragraph 12).
15, Following the completion of Defendant Driver's deposition, Defendants
then waited more than two more months before petitioning the Court for leave to join
an additional defendant.
16. Defendants' reasoning for the more than five-month delay in filing The
Petition is invalid,
17. Defense Counsel had ample time to learn of the testimony provided by
Defendant Driver, and, therefore, had ample time to join an additional defendant within
the bounds of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
18. Plaintiffs provided Defendants with two extensions in which to respond to
the Complaint, as well as, extensions in which to respond to written discovery, (See
correspondence attached hereto as Plaintiffs' Exhibit "A"),
19. During such time, Defense Counsel had a sufficient opportunity to learn of
Defendant Driver's side of the story, which is now the reasoning for The Petition,
20, No new information, that was available to Defense Counsel at the time of
service of the Complaint, came to light in Defendant Driver's deposition. Therefore, the
reasoning set forth in The Petition is invalid,
21, In their initial pleading, Defendants alleged that the accident was caused
by other parties and that Plaintiffs' claims were barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania
Comparative Negligence Act; thereby, preserving any allegations that Defendants intend
~'~1. ~-""". - ~ .~~ ,--
. ~"'"
"
.\ d,~_
~-. ," ~'.
.,,- . "',;;
to present via Joinder. Therefore, no party will suffer any prejudice as a result of
denying The Petition.
22, If the Court were to grant Defendants' Petition to join Plaintiff Gary
Englebert as a Defendant, a jury could perceive the Court as granting credence to
Defendants' already preserved Comparative Negligence allegation, thereby, creating
undue prejudice to Plaintiffs,
23, The Joinder of Gary Englebert as an Additional Defendant will only serve
to confuse the issues and mislead the jury.
24, Defendants have failed to express a reasonable excuse for filing The
Petition more than five months beyond the time limit set forth by the Pennsylvania Rules
of Civil Procedure; therefore, Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing
cause to join an additional defendant, as se1i forth in Exton and White.
25. In addition, Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing that
Plaintiff Gary Englebert will not be prejudiced by such joinder.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert, respectfully
request that this Honorable Court to DENY Defendants' Petition for Leave to Join
Additional Defendant, Gary Englebert,
,<''''''~
-
,~,- ~
Dated:
> ,_1
1- 1'7 ,2002
-
" ~
,-";,',,,
,-"
.~~-~" ~ ~ -. ~"-~"2i'
R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
By:
'L~'''~~-. -1';''' "
'. ,; I
".
-' ~-, ~
"-""
~'~-""""""I/iIiiffi..
A REGION.." DEFENSE LITIGATION LA.W FIRM
~HAU., DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN fO GoGGIN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPOKAT[O~
www.marshalldennehey.com
.......",.....
Ile<hIeh<m
Doylest:own
Ene
Hattisburg
Newtown Squan:
No_
Philadclphia
N"'.....
"""oon
W'lIliamspon:
Nzw J...n
Ch=y HW
""""".
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B . Harrisburg, P A 17112
(717) 651-3500 . Fax (717) 651-9630
Direct Dial: 717-651-3501
Email: mowens@mdwcg.com
BY,
._-----._-._~--------
""",,.AU
Wilmirlgton
WznVIIIGlNU,
Wcitton
Omo
Steubc:nviUe
........
Orlando
llunpa
I ""',1"ll-=:; "-= ", ".., -'~"",
~~"-..t1,!?...,jL ,;"v'/ ,-;"~
~ M....,."_'-',~'
('~,. 0 7 "no llil
'Je, C'J.1 $
September 6,2001
- Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
RJ. Marzella & Associates, P.c.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, P A 1711 0
Re: Gary and Sharon Englebert v. Christopher Hollister and
York Waste Disposal, Inc.
CCP - Cumberland County, No. 01-3180 - Civil
Our File No. 18068-00111
Dear Mr. Marsar:
I have scheduled a meeting with my clients to prepare responses to your clients' discovery requests. I
hope to have these responses to you by the end of this month or September 30,2001. My client is anxious to
move this case forward, and therefore, I would like to set aside dates in mid to late October for depositions in
this case. Kindly contact me at your convenience so that we can schedule these depositions.
Your attention and prompt response is appreciated. Of course, I would like to have your clients'
discovery responses prior to the depositions, which I assume will not be a problem.
MLO/acs
\05_A\LIABlMLO\CORR\78896\ACS\18068\OOI I 1
".c
I"~ ,.,.
~ ,
~ l _ "~~
j-.
~ ~ -.
,+,,-- " -~'
'".".'
A Ri:GIONA'L DEFENSE LITIGATION lA.W FIRlyt
I MARsHAll, D~f(Hf(l', WARNER, Co~ ~ GoGGIN
A PROfESSIONAL CORPORATION
www.marshal1dennehey.com
.............
iled>leh=
Doylestown
Ene
Harrisburg
Newtown Sq~
Nomstown
Philadelphia
~""'-
'=mo.
Williamspon:
NBWJDlRY
ChmyHW
""""""
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B . Harrisburg, P A 17112
(717) 651-3500,' Fax (717) 651-9630
Direct Dial: 717-651-3501
Email: mowens@mdwcg.com
August 29,2001
1;;;:::r,=:J='''"'''''''''~''' '
~ !E1l:<,!i,oc!1 '0' -'<:,
n <::C-D (, 1 ')f1r:1 IU1
U ,_.c., 'J --L. ~Jtj I J.g)
DU.AW_J:
WlIminglon
WUT VraGINIA
WdrlOD
OHIO
5_,
........
"",",,0
llun",
- Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
R.I. Marzella & Associates, P.c.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, P A 1711 0
BY: ____________________
Re: Gary and Sharon Englebert v. Christopher Hollister and
York Waste Disposal, Inc.
CCP - Cumberland County, No. 01-3180 - Civil
Our File No. 18068-00111
Dear Mr. Marsar:
I am in receipt of your clients' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents directed
independently to my two clients, York Waste Disposal, Inc. and Christopher Hollister. I would appreciate a 30-
day extension to respond to these discovery requests in light of the fact that several key people are on vacation
during the month of August I will assume you have granted this extension unless I hear from you to the
contrary.
I currently enclose my clients' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents directed to
Gary and Sharon Englebert. Likewise, you may have an additional 30 days to respond.
Your attention is appreciated.
Very truly yours,
MLO/acs
enc.
~"ilIIl'"~
-
..J.~..
< "--"I!M,-'
3513 NOIITH FRONT STREET, HARRISBURG, PENNS'lLVANlA 17110'
717,234.7828 888.838.3426 717234.6883 FAX
ARZELLA
.L
~.-\S.sOCL-\.TES
Attorneys & Counselors At Law
July 20, 2001
Matthew L. Owens, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
4200 Crums Mill Road
Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Re: Englebert v. Hollister, et al.
Dear Matt:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation on the above-date, you had requested a
second extension within which to file your client's Answer. We agreed upon the new
due date of August 5, 2001. I look fOIWard to your response within the new deadline.
If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
R. J. Marzella & Associates. P.c.
By:
Charles W. Marsar, Jr.
-
CWMJr/
~.,j~,.... '
'~ ~'~ '" 'l&:[ ~ -~,;:
A RECION'''\L DEFENSE LITIGATION LA,W FIRM
I ~~, DENNEHEY, WARNER, cO~ &, GoGGIN I
A PROPESSIONAL CORPORATION
www.marsh!llnileno.ehey.com
_.....
'-
D.".,..~
Ene
-...
Ncwtown Square:
Nontstown
-....
---
'-'00
_port
100 Pine Street, Fourth Floor, P.O. Box 803, Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803
(717) 232-1022' Fax (717) 232-1849
Direct Dial: 717-232-9324
Email: mowens@mdwcg.com
~IT:@~~WIT:IDl
IDl JUN 2 2 2001 l!!l
-J""'"
"'my HW
livingslOQ
DaA.....
-....
WurVm.GlNlA
Welttoo
B Y:c___________________
Omo
Stcubenville
........
1lunpa
June 15,2001
- Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
RJ. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, P A 1711 0
Re: Gary and Sharon Englebert v. Christopher Hollister and
York Waste Disposal, Inc.
CCP - Cumberland County, No. 01-3180 - Civil
Our File No. 07040-
Dear Mr. Marsar:
Please be advised that Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. has retained the undersigned counsel to represent
Y ork Waste Disposal and Christopher Hollister in the above-captioned matter. I enclose a copy of my Entry of
Appearance.
I telephoned your office and left a voicemail as I was unable to reach you on the telephone. I would
appreciate a 30-day extension to file an Answer with New Matter. I will assume you have granted that
extension unless I hear from you to the contrary.
Please contact me should you have any questions at this time. Your attention is appreciated.
~.._-
MLO/acs
105 _A ILIABIMLOICORRI7393 I IACSII 5000\50000
, '
~
- I II~;""""""~'
~- L. ,;',- ~"
',( 'j'
'li.Jhi./1 ."i..., 'l&",
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
!, Charles W. Marsar, Jr., hereby certifY that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this --LZ- day of January, 2002,
by depositing said copy in the United States Mail postage prepaid, first-class deliver, and
addressed as follows:
i!
Matthew L. Owens, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
4200 Crums Mill Road
Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110
I
R.J. MARZELlA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
ii
II