Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-04175IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 2001=~// '~ Civil Action - (XX) Law 1 Equity JURY TRIAL DEMANDED EMMERT BANZHOFF, JR. 4n ~-. HELEN BANZHOFF 5516 Green Village Road Chambersburg, PA 17201 Plaintiftls) & Address(es) PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: please issue A Writ of Summons in the above-captioned action. Defendantlsl & Address(es) X Writ of Summons Shall be issued and forwarded to ( (Attorney IXX)Sheriff W. Scott Henning, Esquire 1300 Linalestown Road P.0. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (7171 238-2000 Name/Address/Telephone No. of Attorney CHERYL EVE HINKLE 20 Carter Place Carlisle, PA 17013 Signature of Supreme Court ID Date: 7!2/2001 ~ WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HAS/HAVE COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Date: ~JGt.,L_v qT 2~ o I ( 1 Check here if reverse is used for additional information 7ROTHON.-55 -~9 c, - ~ `~ '~ ~-~ =~ _ ~ ~ ~ O ~ C G '` N p ~ -V ~ ~ ~ ~= , ' ~ ~ .. -. ~ SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2001-04175 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BANZHOFF EMMERT JR ET AL VS HINKLE CHERYL EVE DOUGLAS DONSEN Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon HINKLE CHERYL EVE the DEFENDANT at 1524:00 HOURS, on the 23rd day of July 2001 at 20 CARTER PALCE CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to CHERYL HINKLE a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 6.50 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 34.50 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this ~ ~ day of amo( A.D. r thonotary So~ erii~~...i R. Thomas Kline 07/24/2001 HANDLER HENNING & ROSENBERG By: ~~~~. Deputy Sheriff EMMERT BANZHOFF, JR. and HELEN BANZHOFF, Plaintiffs v. CHERYL EVE HINKLE, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.2001-4175 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone 717-249-3166 or 800-990-9108 HANDLER, Sy W. Scot He I.D. #32298 ROSENBERG,LLP 1300 Linglestown Roac Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiffs EMMERT BANZHOFF, JR. and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HELEN BANZHOFF, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plairotiffs v. NO.2001-4175 CIVIL GHERYL EVE HINKLE, . CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW come the Plaintiffs, Emmert Banzhoff, Jr. and Helen Banzhoff, by and through their attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by W. Scott Henning, Esq., and make the within Complaint against the Defendant and aver as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Emmert Banzhoff, Jr., is an adult individual currently residing at 5516 Green Village Road, Chambersburg, Franklin County, Pennsylvania 17201. 2. Plaintiff, Helen Banzhoff, is an adult individual currently residing at 5516 Green Village Road, Chambersburg, Franklin County, Pennsylvania 17201. 3. Defendant, Cheryl Eve Hinkle, is an adult individual residing at 20 Carter Place, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 4. On oraboutJuly9,1999, Plaintiff Emmert Banzhoff, Jr. was operating a 1999 Dodge Intrepid bearing the Pennsylvania registration number BWS-0840. (Hereinafter "Plaintiff's" vehicle). 5. On or about July 9, 1999, Defendant Cheryl Eve Hinkle was operating a 1999 Mercury Sable bearing the Pennsylvania registration number ENDORFN. (Hereinafter "pefendant's" vehicle). 6. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was insured under a motor vehicle insurance policy issued by Mennonite Auto Aid under which he elected to have Full Tort status. 7. At all times material to this action, there were no adverse weather or road conditions. 8. On or about July 9,1999 at approximately 10:00 p.m., Plaintiff s vehicle was traveling on Route 114 in Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania and was stopped at a red traffic signal in the right hand lane of said roadway at the intersection of Route 114 and Shadow Oak Drive. 9. At approximately the same time and place, suddenly and without any warning, Defendant Cheryl Eve Hinkle, who had been traveling in the same direction violently struck the rear of Plaintiff's stopped vehicle. 10. As a direct and proximate result of the reckless, careless and negligence of Defendant, the Plaintiff, Emmert Banzhoff, Jr., sustained serious and permanent injuries as set forth more fully below. COUNT I -NEGLIGENCE Emmert Banzhoff. Jr. v. Cheryl Eve Hinkle 11. Paragraphs 1 through 10 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth at length. 12. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and all the resultant injuries to Plaintiff are the direct and proximate result of the recklessness, carelessness and negligence of the Defendant, Cheryl Eve Hinkle, generally and more specifically, as set forth below: 2 (a) In failing to be reasonably vigilant to observe the road and traffic conditions then and there existing; (b) In failing to operate her vehicle in such a manner that would allow her to apply the brakes and stop before striking the rear of Plaintiff s vehicle; (c) In failing to operate her vehicle under proper and adequate control so that he could have avoided striking Plaintiffs vehicle; (d) In failing to properly regulate the speed of her vehicle so as to prevent a rear- end collision; (e) In failing to operate her vehicle at a speed and under such control so as to be able to stop within the assured clear distance, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3361; (f) In failing to operate her vehicle at a speed that was safe for existing conditions, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. §3361; (g) In failing to maintain proper and adequate observation of the existing road and traffic conditions; (h) In failing to keep a proper lookout for vehicles lawfully stopped on Route 114 in Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County; (I) In failing to exercise reasonable care in the operation and control of her vehicle, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3714; Q) In following another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent; (k) In failing to have due regard for the speed of the vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3310(a); 3 (I) In failing to be continuously alert, in failing to perceive any warning of danger that was reasonably likely to exist, and in failing to have her vehicle under such control that injury to persons or property could be avoided; (m) In driving her vehicle on Route 114 in a manner endangering persons and property and in a manner with careless disregard to the rights and safety of others in violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and 13. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Cheryl Eve Hinkle, the Plaintiff, Emmert Banzhoff, Jr. has suffered serious injuries, including, but not limited to, injuries to his neck and low back, a lumbar strain/sprain; a cervical strain/sprain; trauma induced headaches; blurry vision; upper extremity pain; weakness and numbness. 14. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, the Plaintiff, Emmert Banzhoff, Jr. has suffered lost wages/income and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 15. As a direct and proximate result ofthe negligence of Defendant, the Plaintiff, Emmert Banzhoff, has suffered great physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 16. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff, Emmert Banzhoff, Jr. has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for aforesaid injuries, to expend money for medicine and/or medical attention, and will be required to expend money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 4 17. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, the Plaintiff, Emmert Banzhoff, Jr. has suffered a loss of life's pleasures, and he will continue to suffer the same in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 18. As a direct and proximate result of negligence of Defendant, the Plaintiff, Emmert Banzhoff, Jr. has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to his daily duties, to his great detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 19. Plaintiff, Emmert Banzhoff, Jr. believes and, therefore, avers that his injuries are permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Emmert Banzhoff, Jr. seeks damages from Defendant, Cheryl Eve Hinkle, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County. COUNT 11- LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Helen Banzhoff v. Cheryl Eve Hinkle 20. Paragraphs 1-19 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth at length. 21. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Cheryl Eve Hinkle, Plaintiff, Helen Banzhoff, has suffered a loss of consortium, society and comfort from her husband, and she may continue to suffer similar loss in the future. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Cheryl Eve Hinkle, Plaintiff, Helen Banzhoff, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for her husband's injuries, to expend large sums of moneyfor medicine and medical attention, and may be required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 5 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Helen Banzhoff, seeks damages from the Defendant, Cheryl Eve Hinkle, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits for Cumberland County. Respectfully Submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP Date: ~- ~`~'~~ By. W. Sco He n' g, Esquire Attorn I. 32298 1300 Linglest wn Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiffs 6 VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing document are based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of this lawsuit, The language of the document is of counsel and not my own. I have read the document and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the document are that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this Verification. The undersigned also understands that the statements made therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. A~~~~~.~ Emmert Banzho~-c el~zhoff Date: ~ ~ 6 3 EMMERT BANZHOFF, JR. and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HELEN BANZHOFF, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. NO. 2001-4175 CIVIL CHERYL EVE HINKLE, CML ACTION -LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On the 15th day of July, 2003, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Gomplaint with Notice to Defend was served upon the following by depositing in U.S. Mail, certified delivery: pate: 7/15/03 Cheryl E. Hinkle 20 Carter Place Carlisle, PA 17013 Respectfully Submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By: W. Scott Henlri'ng, s i I.D. No. 32298 / 1300 Linglestown o~rC Harrisburg, PA 1711(0 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiffs °; [ _ ('; _ ri'_ / A 7- ...r ~~ _ `r,' . .i '. ._ 7 -^:; RAWLE & HENDERSON ur By: Kimberly J. Keiser, Esquire Identification No.: #53315 One S. Penn Square, 16~h Floor The Widener Building Attorney for Defendant, Philadelphia, PA 19107 Cheryl E. Hinkle (215) 575-4200 EMMERT BANZHOFF, JR. and HELEN BANZHOFF Plainfiffs, v. CHERYL EVE HINKLE Defendant. COURT OF COMMON PLEA5 OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO.2001-4175 -CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance in the above-captioned case for Defendant Cheryl Eve Hinkle. Date: ~-r~~' RAWLE & HENDERSON, LLP Bar: Kimberly J.~Keiser,,~squire P.t±arney far Defeat, o Cheryl Eve Hinkle O~°,~, a r'~w~ w 0 e- 850837 v.1 c ~ `~ ~ ~ '' -p E"~ F"~"€ fy'~ _ ~ - - vt T, i~ E _ ~ r ...,,a `r. J rrt -~' C .. f _ r,: RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP By: Kimberly J. Keiser, Esquire Identification No. 53315 The Widener Building One South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107 215-575-4200 You aze hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed NEW MATTER within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgnent may be entered against you. By VVIEfitp C./`'mberly J. Kei\ser, Attorney for Defendant, Cheryl Eve Hinkle EMMERT BANZHOFF, JR. and HELEN BANZHOFF Plaintiffs, v. CHERYL EVE HINKLE Defendant. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO.2001-4175 -CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF CHERYL EVE HINKLE TO PLAINTIFFS, EMMERT BANZHOFF, JR. AND HELEN BANZHOFF'S COMPLAINT Cheryl Eve Hinkle (hereinafter referred to as responding defendant}, answers plaintiffs' Complaint as follows: Denied. After reasonable investigation, responding defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments contained in paragraph 1 and strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, responding defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments contained in paragraph 2 and strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, responding defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments contained in paragraph 4 and strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 874365 v.l Admitted. 6. Denied. To the extent paragraph 6 contains conclusions of law, no response is required. As to any remaining allegations, after reasonable investigation, responding defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments contained in paragraph 6 and strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. Denied. After reasonable investigation, responding defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments contained in paragraph 7 and strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, responding defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments contained in paragraph 8 and strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, responding defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments contained in paragraph 9 and strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 10. Denied. To the extent paragraph 10 contains conclusions of law, no response is required. As to any remaining allegations, after reasonable investigation, responding defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments contained in paragraph 10 and strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. COUNT I -NEGLIGENCE EMMERT BANZHOFF. JR. v. CHERYL EVE HINKLE 11. Responding defendants incorporate herein paragraphs 1 through 10 above as if set forth herein at length. 12. Denied. To the extent paragraph 12 contains conclusions of law, no response is required. As to any remaining allegations, after reasonable investigation, responding defendant 874365 v.l 2 is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments contained in paragraph 12 and strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 13. Denied. To the extent paragraph 13 contains conclusions of law, no response is required. As to any remaining allegations, after reasonable investigation, responding defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments contained in paragraph 13 and strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 14. Denied. To the extent paragraph 14 contains conclusions of law, no response is required. As to any remaining allegations, after reasonable investigation, responding defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments contained in paragraph 14 and strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 15. Denied. To the extent paragraph 15 contains conclusions of law, no response is required. As to any remaining allegations, after reasonable investigation, responding defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments contained in paragraph 15 and strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 16. Denied. To the extent paragraph 16 contains conclusions of law, no response is required. As to any remaining allegations, after reasonable investigation, responding defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments contained in paragraph 16 and strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 17. Denied. To the extent paragraph 17 contains conclusions of law, no response is required. As to any remaining allegations, after reasonable investigation, responding defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments contained in paragraph 17 and strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 874365 v.l 18. Denied. To the extent paragraph 18 contains conclusions of law, no response is required. As to any remaining allegations, after reasonable investigation, responding defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments contained in paragraph 18 and strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 19. Denied. To the extent paragraph 19 contains conclusions of law, no response is required. As to any remaining allegations, after reasonable investigation, responding defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments contained in paragraph 19 and strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, responding defendant requests that the Complaint against her be dismissed and that the court grant costs, fees and such other relief as it deems equitable and just. COUNT II -LOSS OF CONSORTIUM HELEN BANZHOFF v. CHERYL EVE HINKLE 20. Responding defendant incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 19 as if set forth herein at length. 21. Denied. To the extent paragraph 21 contains conclusions of law, no response is required. As to any remaining allegations, after reasonable investigation, responding defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments contained in paragraph 21 and strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 22. Denied. To the extent paragraph 22 contains conclusions of law, no response is required. As to any remaining allegations, after reasonable investigation, responding defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the averments contained in paragraph 22 and strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, responding defendant requests that the Complaint her be dismissed and that the court grant costs, fees and such other relief as it deems equitable and just. s~ases ~.~ q NEW MATTER 23. Responding defendant incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 22 above as if set forth herein at length. 24. Plaintiff s claims are barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa. CSA §7102. 25. Plaintiff s claims are barred by the doctrine of assumption of risk. 26. Plaintiff s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 27. Plaintiff has failed to sue indispensable parties. 28. Plaintiff s claims are barred by the doctrine of laches. 29. Plaintiff s claims are barred pursuant to the principles of collateral estoppel and/or res judicata. 30. Plaintiff was negligent and careless in that Plaintiff failed to exercise due care for her own safety. 31. Plaintiff violated Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code §75 Pa. CSA §100 et. Seq. 32. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages. 33. Plaintiff s damages are subject to the limited tort threshold pursuant to the Financial Responsibility Act of 75 Pa. CSA § 1705 at et. seq. WHEREFORE, responding defendant, requests that the Complaint against her be dismissed and that the court grant costs, fees and such other relief as it deems equitable and just. RAWLE & HENDERSON, LLP Ki erly J. eiser, Esquire Attorneys for Defendant Cheryl Eve Hinkle 874365 v.l ,. VERIFICATION Cheryl Eve Hinkle, states that she is the defendant herein; that she is acquainted with the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer and New Matter of Defendant to Plaintiffs' Complaint; that the same are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A §4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. eryl Eve Hinkle Dated: ~ ~/~~ 874389 v.l CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on today's date I served a true and correct copy of my Answer, New Matter and Crossclaims to plaintiffls Complaint on behalf of Defendants by first- class mail, postage prepaid, upon the attorney of record, addressed as follows: W. Scott Henning Handler, Henning & Rosenberg P.O. Box 60337 Hamsburg, PA 17106 Via Facsimile and Regular Mail ~- ~IBEZ L~Y J. KEISER, ESQUIRE Dater ~d 874365 v.l c .~,~ t ; , ~, ._, _ , - L. {f; _ <`. ' ~;~: =<, , ~~. ~ ~., ~ ~. . ~ {