Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-04455BRENDA BROWNEWELL AND MARK IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ISENBERG, wife and husband, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. ALLEN J. STUTENROTH, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED N O T I C E 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 LOCAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 BRENbA BROWNEWELL AND MARK IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ISENBERG, wife and husband, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. NO. ALLEN J. STUTENROTH, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED A V I S O USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mss adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar accion dentro de los proximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificacion de esta Demands y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falls de tomar accion como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier soma de dinero reclamada en la demands o cualquier otra reclamacion o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mss aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes pars 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 SIGUIENTE OFICINA PARR AVERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE ENCONTRAR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 BRENDA BROWNEWELL AND MARK IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ISENBERG, wife and husband, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. /~_ ALLEN J. STUTENROTH, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, Brenda Brownewell and Mark Isenberg, by and through their attorneys, SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C., and respectfully set forth as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs, Brenda Brownewell and Mark Isenberg, are adult individuals, and common law husband and wife, currently residing at 216 Hill Street, Mount Holly Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17065. 2. The Defendant, Allen J. Stutenroth, is an adult individual who at the time of the accident set forth in this complaint was residing at 551 Summit Drive, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013, and it is believed and therefore averred, currently resides at this address. 3. The facts and occurrences hereinafter stated took place on or about October 19, 1999, at approximately 8:42 p.m.,.at the intersection of South Hanover Street, and East Pomfret Street, in the Borough of Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4, At the aforementioned time and place it was dark with streetlights, the road surface was dry, and there were no adverse weather conditions. 5, At the aforementioned time and place, the Plaintiff, Brenda Brownewell, was driving a 1995 Dodge, and travelling South on South Hanover Street, approaching the intersection of East Pomfret Street. 6. At the aforementioned time and place, the Defendant, Allen J. Stutenroth, owned and was operating his 1997 Buick Century, and was stopped facing West on East Pomfret Street at a red traffic signal controlling his direction of travel. 7. At the aforementioned time and place, there was also an unknown vehicle stopped at the red traffic signal, directly in front of the Defendant, Allen J. Stutenroth's 1997 Buick, also facing West on East Pomfret Street. 8, At the aforementioned time and place, the unknown third vehicle, which was directly in front of the Defendant, Allen J. Stutenroth's, vehicle, made a legal right turn while the traffic signal was red. 9, At the aforementioned time and place, the Defendant, Allen J. Stutenroth, proceeded to travel forward, through the intersection, without checking the status of the traffic signal controllinq his direction of travel, and failing to notice that the signal was still red, 10. At the aforementioned time and place, the Plaintiff, Brenda Brownewell, was safely travelling through the green traffic signal controlling her direction of travel at the intersection of South Hanover Street and East Pomfret Street. 11. At the aforementioned time and place, after proceeding through the red traffic signal, the Defendant, Allen J. Stutenroth, suddenly and without warning, drove his vehicle directly into the path of the Plaintiff, Brenda Brownewell's, vehicle, causing a collision between the vehicles of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, and the injuries to the Plaintiff set forth below. 12. The injuries set forth below have been caused solely by the negligence of the Defendant, Allen J. Stutenroth, and were in no way caused by or contributed to by the Plaintiff, Brenda Brownewell. COUNT I BRENDA BROWNEWELL V. ALLEN J. STUTENROTH NEGLIGENCE 13. Paragraphs one through twelve of the Plaintiffs' Complaint are herein incorporated by reference and made a part thereof as if set forth in full. 14. The accident was caused solely by the negligence and carelessness of the Defendant, Allen J. Stutenroth, and was in no way caused by or contributed to by the Plaintiff, Brenda Brownewell. 15. The negligence and carelessness of the Defendant, Allen J. Stutenroth, consisted of: a. Inattentiveness; b. Failing to observe that the traffic signal controlling his direction of travel was red; c. Failing to operate his vehicle in accordance with existing traffic controls; d. Operating his vehicle in a manner such as to create a dangerous situation for other vehicles lawfully on the road; e. Operating his vehicle in violation of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code, Section 3112, for failing to obey traffic control devices which is negligence per se; and f. Failing to stop in time to avoid colliding with the Brownewell vehicle 16. As a direct and proximate result of the accident, the Plaintiff, Brenda Brownewell, suffered severe, and what may be permanent injuries, including the following: a. Pain and numbness in the lower back; b. Left hand pain; c. Left leg pain and numbness; d. Left wrist pain; and e. herniated disc. 17. As a direct and proximate result of the accident, the Plaintiff, Brenda Brownewell, has incurred medical expenses to date and may continue to incur medical expenses into the future, and thus, a claim for, these expenses is made. 18. As a direct and proximate result of the injuries sustained in the accident, the Plaintiff, Brenda Brownewell, has sustained a wage loss and may continue to incur additional wage loss into the future and, thus, a claim for these losses is made. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident, the Plaintiff, Brenda Brownewell, has been advised and, therefore, avers that the aforementioned injuries may be permanent in nature and effect and, thus, a claim for these losses is made. 20. As a direct and proximate result of the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident, the Plaintiff, Brenda Brownewell, suffered a permanent diminution of her ability to enjoy life and life's pleasures and, thus, a claim for these losses is made. 21. As a direct and proximate result of the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident, the Plaintiff, Brenda Brownewell, suffered a loss of earnings and an impairment of her earning power and capacity and, thus, a claim for these losses is made. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident, the Plaintiff, Brenda Brownewell, has undergone in the past and, will continue to undergo in the future, pain and suffering and, thus, a claim for these losses is made. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Brenda Brownewell, demands judgment on the Defendant, Allen J. Stutenroth, in an amount in excess of an amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT II MARK ISENBERG V. ALLEN J. STUTENROTH LOSS OF CONSORTIUM 23. Paragraphs one through twenty-two are herein incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. 24. As a result of injuries sustained by his common law wife Brenda Brownewell, the Plaintiff, Mark Isenberg, was deprived of the assistance, companionship, consortium, and society of his wife, all of which were to his great loss and detriment, and thus, a claim for these losses is made. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Mark Isenberg, demands judgment of the Defendant, Allen J. Stutenroth, in an amount in .excess of the amount requiring compulsory arbitration. Respectfully submitted, SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C. DATE: ~ -C7J By: Lam'"1/ Scott B. Cooper Attorney I.D. #70242 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 Attorney for Plaintiff We, Brenda Brownewell and Mark Isenberg, verify that we are the Plaintiffs in the foregoing action and that the attached Complaint is based upon the information which has been gathered by our counsel in preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the Complaint is that of counsel and is not ours. We have read the Complaint, and to the extent that it is based upon information which we have given to our counsel, it is true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information, and belief. To the extent that the contents of the Complaint are that of counsel, we have relied upon counsel in making this Verification. We understand that intentional false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsifications made to authorities. ~L6 ~ L BRENDA ROWNEWELL .,Q~~ MA KISENBERG ,. .~. (J ~ 6` ~ ~ 0 ~i ~• ~ ~u 0.~ T ~l f, -. _ _ .. . ~~~~w~~~~~~~..~~~.r~Y~, .~ :: _"_ ~,~. ~.~..,.~,,~.~ >.~_~~ -~,.,„~,., SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE N0: 2001-04455 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BROWNEWELL BRENDA ET AL VS STUTENROTH ALLEN J J. MICHAEL ICKES Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon TUTENROTH ALLEN J the DEFENDANT at 1215:00 HOURS, on the 26th day of July 2001 at 551 SUMMIT DRIVE CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to ALLEN STUTENROTH a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 3.25 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 31.25 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this 7~ day of _~ A.D. u~ .Q ~~ , oo,. ~y rbthonotary So Answers: ~~...~~~ R. Thomas Kline 07/27/2001 SCHMIDT RONCA & KRAMER By: C~'~ "~~ Deputy Sheriff 4 ~~ a BRENDA BROWNEWELL and MARK ISENBERG, wife and husband, v. Plaintiffs, ALLEN J. STUTENROTH, Defendant. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION- LAW NO.O1-4455 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE To the Prothonotary: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendant, Allen J. Stutemoth, in the above- captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF I.D. N0.62012 Hillside Corporate Center 5001 Louise Drive, Second Floor Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Defendant :;~. ~ < R ~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John C. Swv'tz, Jr, Esquire, hereby certify that I have this 06th day of August , 2001, caused to be served via first class United States Mail, postage prepaid, a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading upon the following: Scott B. Cooper, Esquire 209 State Street Hazrisburg, PA """ . -n n s t7 C r~ -. G25" ...j j -` . ' O _ c= .°C c:; ;+.~ r -, f~J ..~ serswna+aaw°r~;actacr,4»dark:etiyas5?~a;~:hYS-`ReglAxi~cam;n'I. BRENDA BRgWNEWELL AND MARK ISENBERG, wife and husband, Plaintiffs vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. O 1-4455 ALLEN J. STUTENROTH, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 1-48. Plaintiffs object to answering any of the Defendant's Interrogatories to Plaintiffs because the Defendant's Interrogatories in combination with the Defendant's Continuing Treatment Interrogatories to the Plaintiff exceed the amount of Interrogatories allowed under Cumberland County Local Rule of Civil Procedure 4005-1. In addition, some of the Continuing Treatment Interrogatories may relate to psychological and psychiatric information, which is not discoverable in this proceeding since no claim for mental distress has been plead. Plaintiffs have requested that Defense Counsel resubmit Interrogatories addressed to the Plaintiffs for answering in accordance with the letter attached hereto as Exhibit A. Respectfully submitted, SCHMIDT, RONCA 8s KRAMER, P.C. By r~~/~ Scott B. Cooper, Esquire I.D. No. 70242 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 Attorney for Plaintiffs ~~k `~'~ y' •~~ 209 State Street 717.232.6300 ,~cl~Ynidt ` Ronca & Kramer PC Harnsburg, Pennsylvania 17101 Fax 717.232.6467 wwwsrklaw.com -INJURY- A ERS September 7, 2001 John C. Swartz, Jr., Esquire Law Offices of Anna Waldherr Hillside Corporate Center 5001 Louise Drive, Second Floor Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-6912 RE: Brownewell v. Stutenroth Cumberland County CCP No. 01-4455 Dear Mr. Swartz: I received Defendant's Interrogatories, Continuing Treatment Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents for Answer by the Plaintiffs. The Request for Production of Documents will be answered and forwarded to you shortly. However, I am going to be preserving the record by filing a blanket objection to the Continuing Treatment Interrogatories and the Interrogatories to the Plaintiff since the number of Interrogatories greatly exceed the amount limited by Cumberland County Local Rule of Civil Procedure 4005-1. In addition, some of the Interrogatories (particularly #s 11 and 12) seek information related to psychological and psychiatric information, which is not discoverable in this case. I would appreciate you resubmitting the Interrogatories which you believe are absolutely necessary to be answered and cannot be covered at a deposition. I am not stating for certain that we will not answer more than 40 Interrogatories, however, I really believe that some of the Interrogatories are objectionable for the reasons stated therein, and also could be covered at a deposition in lieu of interrogatory. If you have any questions, please call me. Very truly yours, SCHMID~T, R~ONCA & KRAMER, P.C. .~L~~' v' Scott B. Cooper Attorney-at-Law SBC/ stp cc: Brenda Brownewell BRENDA BROWNEWELL AND MARK ISENBERG, wife and husband, Plaintiffs vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. O 1-4455 ALLEN J. STUTENROTH, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 7+h day of September, 2001, I, Shawn T. Peterson, hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendant's Interrogatories to Plaintiffs depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: John C. Swartz, Jr., Esquire Law Offices of Anna Waldherr Hillside Corporate Center 5001 Louise Drive, Second Floor Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-6912 SCHMIDT, RONCA & K'RAMER, P.C. o. '' ~~~ Shawn T. Peterson, Paralegal 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 c ~~ ~ ` ~,~ ~ ~, ntr m ~_ = ~ ;~~ ,; fir ,T to ~~ ~, _. L4 am C ' -r. '-~'r ca y{ m ~ y*daau my ss.-.-. ra,ae5t~v33i~?5`~~4'M1~5*£ ~. .. BRENDA BROWNEWELL AND MARK ISENBERG, wife and husband, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs vs. CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. O 1-4455 ALLEN J. STUTENROTH, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 1-20. Plaintiffs object to answering any of the Continuing Treatment Interrogatories Addressed to Plaintiffs because the Continuing Treatment Interrogatories in combination with the Defendant's Interrogatories to the Plaintiffs exceed the amount of Interrogatories allowed under Cumberland County Local Rule of Civil Procedure 4005-1. In addition, some of the Continuing Treatment Interrogatories may relate to psychological and psychiatric information, which is not discoverable in this proceeding since no claim for mental distress has been plead. Plaintiffs have requested that Defense Counsel resubmit Interrogatories addressed to the Plaintiffs for answering in accordance with the letter attached hereto as Exhibit A. Respectfully submitted, SCHMIDT, RONCA 8a KRAMER, P.C. By Scott B. Cooper, Esquire I.D. No. 70242 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 Attorney for Plaintiffs d 209 State Street 717.232.6300 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 Fax 717.232.6467 www.srklaw.com September 7, 2001 John C. Swartz, Jr., Esquire Law Offices of Anna Waldherr Hillside Corporate Center 5001 Louise Drive, Second Floor Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-6912 RE: Brownewell v. Stutenroth Cumberland County CCP No. 01-4455 Dear Mr. Swartz: I received Defendant's Interrogatories, Continuing Treatment Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents for Answer by the Plaintiffs. The Request for Production of Documents will be answered and forwarded to you shortly. However, I am going to be preserving the record by filing a blanket objection to the Continuing Treatment Interrogatories and the Interrogatories to the Plaintiff since the number of Interrogatories greatly exceed the amount limited by Cumberland County Local Rule of Civil Procedure 4005-1. In addition, some of the Interrogatories (particularly #s 11 and 12) seek information related to psychological and psychiatric information, which is not discoverable in this case. I would appreciate you resubmitting the Interrogatories which you believe are absolutely necessary to be answered and cannot be covered at a deposition. I am not stating for certain that we will not answer more than 40 Interrogatories, however, I really believe that some of the Interrogatories are objectionable for the reasons stated therein, and also could be covered at a deposition in lieu of interrogatory. If you have any questions, please call me. Very truly yours, SCHMIDT, RONCA 8s KRAMER, P.C. .~~~~~ Scott B. Cooper Attorney-at-Law SBC/ stp cc: Brenda Brownewell BRENDA BROWNEWELL AND MARK ISENBERG, wife and husband, Plaintiffs vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. O 1-4455 ALLEN J. STUTENROTH, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 7~ day of September, 2001, I, Shawn T. Peterson, hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendant's Continuing Treatment Interrogatories Addressed to the Plaintiffs depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: John C. Swartz, Jr., Esquire Law Offices of Anna Waldherr Hillside Corporate Center 5001 Louise Drive, Second Floor Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-6912 SCHMIDT, RONCA ~ KRAMER, P.C. By: Shawn T. Peterson, Paralegal 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 ~ ~ ~~ -- -, -c~ ~, rn ;-~ -, -c -, , ~~ v ,,- ' Cs .~ - ~ ~~ ,~~ ;:.~;n _~ Q~ BRENDA BROWNEWELL AND MARK ISENBERG, wife and husband, Plaintiffs vs. ALLEN J. STUTENROTH, befendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. O 1-4455 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER 27. Paragraph 27 is not directed towards answering Plaintiffs, and therefore, no response is required. 28. Denied. The averments in Paragraph 28 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary, and therefore, are denied. 29. Denied. The averments in Paragraph 29 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary, and therefore, are denied. 30. Denied. The averments in Paragraph 30 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary, and therefore, are denied. 31. Denied. The averments in Paragraph 31 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary, and therefore, are denied. 32. Denied. The averments in Paragraph 32 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary, and therefore, are denied. 33. Denied. The averments in Paragraph 33 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary, and therefore, are denied. By way of further answer, Paragraph 33 is not sufficiently specific as required under Pennsylvania Fact Pleading Requirements, and is not sufficient to preserve a defense. Therefore, Paragraph 33 should be dismissed and stricken. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs contend that the answering Defendant is responsible for the accident as set forth in the Complaint which is incorporated herein as if in full. 34. Denied. The averments in Paragraph 34 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary, and therefore, are denied. 35. Denied. The averments in Paragraph 35 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary, and therefore, are denied. 36. Denied. The averments in Paragraph 36 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary, and therefore, are denied. 37. Denied. The averments in Paragraph 37 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary, and therefore, are denied. 38. Denied. The averments in Paragraph 38 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary, and therefore, are denied. 39. Denied. The averments in Paragraph 39 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary, and therefore, are denied. 40. Denied. The averments in Paragraph 40 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary, and therefore, are denied. By way of further answer, the Plaintiff had full tort at the time of the accident. 41. Denied. The averments in Paragraph 41 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary, and therefore, are denied. 42. Denied. The averments in Paragraph 42 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary, and therefore, are denied. 43. Denied. The averments in Paragraph 43 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary, and therefore, are denied. 44. Denied. The averments in Paragraph 44 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary, and therefore, are denied. 45. Denied. The averments in Paragraph 45 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary, and therefore, are denied. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs incorporate the Complaint as if set forth in full. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court enter an Order dismissing the Defendant's New Matter and granting the relief requested in the Plaintiffs' Complaint. Respectfully submitted, SCHMIDT, RONCA ~ KRAMER, P.C. By Scott B. Cooper, Esquire I.D. No. 70242 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 Attorney for Plaintiffs VERIFICATION I, Scott B. Cooper, verify that I am attorney of record for the Plaintiffs, and that the foregoing Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant's New Matter contains no new facts within the knowledge of the Plaintiffs, but rather, is based upon the record to date or facts solely within the knowledge of the attorney, and for that reason, I make this Verification on Plaintiffs' behalf. Additionally, no new facts are alleged. I verify that the facts contained in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that intentional false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. X4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. SCHMIDT, RONCA 8a KRAMER, P.C. By Scott B. Cooper I.D. No. 70242 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 Attorney for Plaintiffs Date: b~ Y BRENDA BROWNEWELL AND MARK ISENBERG, wife and husband, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW vs. NO. O 1-4455 ALLEN J. STUTENROTH, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 7+~ day of September, 2001, I, Shawn T. Peterson, hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant's New Matter by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: John C. Swartz, Jr., Esquire Law Offices of Anna Waldherr Hillside Corporate Center 5001 Louise Drive, Second Floor Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-6912 SCHMIDT, RONCA Ss KRAMER, P.C. a Shawn T. Peterson, Paralegal 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 ~ ~--' v c -- m r : z~? --ci ^r; -.,;r Vic: ` `=ice y ~ --c~ ~ ti ~_ ~ -.-; .,. -- ~ C w C)r` _ b ~Wd"!3:=i14~`r`s4 -";YOS ,q.sswnAi'eazl ~~15f ~: BRENDA BROWNEWELL AND MARK ISENBERG, wife and husband, Plaintiffs vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. 01-4455 ALLEN J. STUTENROTH, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 1St day of November, 2001, I, Shawn T. Peterson, hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Plaintiffs' First Set of Request for Production of Documents Addressed to Defendant by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: John C. Swartz, Jr., Esquire Law Offices of Anna Waldherr Hillside Corporate Center 5001 Louise Drive, Second Floor Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-6912 RUNCA & KRAMER, P.C. By: Shawn T. Peterson, Paralegal 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 C c'= ~ ' ;^w ; ~. ;~,~; :::, i _ i -?, _. _. trS p C i' ' -~ C ~., -; i, '~ `~ fJ"Q :!:7 BRENDA BROWNEWELL AND MARK ISENBERG, wife and husband, Plaintiffs vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. O 1-4455 ALLEN J. STUTENROTH, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 1st day of November, 2001, I, Shawn T. Peterson, hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Plaintiffs' Interrogatories Addressed to Defendant (Set I) by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: John C. Swartz, Jr., Esquire Law Offices of Anna Waldherr Hillside Corporate Center 5001 Louise Drive, Second Floor Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-6912 SCHMIDT, RONCA 8s KRAMER, P.C. B y Shawn T. Peterson, Paralegal 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 r> - r,; _ -_ y.T ~~ ' 1.'_. =' ~~ ..tea T -~ {. J r °-rT` Z v =j -<~ ~; _< '§.. .. .. .. .. .. ~ _. .. .. ., .,.l3rbx7'y 5 n~.~,.,,,.. n.ir:x ~xfM'~3F?.a~~fi§~@b?AEtmV;x. ~sscwar,.~~:mm~.~,.3~t'3~smvw~i133+!~n?~#gi. BRENDA BROWNEWELL AND MARK ISENBERG, wife and husband, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs vs. CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. 01-4455 ALLEN J. STUTENROTH, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 21St day of March, 2002, I, Shawn T. Peterson, hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT'S AMENDED INTERROGATORIES by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: John C. Swartz, Jr., Esquire Law Offices of Anna Waldherr Hillside Corporate Center 5001 Louise Drive, Second Floor Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-6912 SCHMIDT, RONCA 8s KRAMER, P.C. By: Shawn T. Peterson, Paralegal 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 :~:~~ c-3 ~~ cv ~:. -~ ~, -_- t, ::: .. l ..'~ .r_ t".. r .. ~ tii i r_. .. ' MP. .. - ,.-. -...SFaz ~s~r~PSrm, ~,'.r±~--,:~+`..hti3:R'Pin: 19RF95°~~+~..*Y~ii., ~~ BRENDA BROWNEWELL and MARK ISENBERG, wife and husband, Plaintiffs, v. ALLEN J. STUTENROTH, Defendant. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION- LAW N O. 01-4455 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD To: BRENDA BROWNEWELL and MARK ISENBERG c/o Scott B. Cooper, Esquire 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Defendants' Answer with New Matter within 20 days of service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, ' ~ ~wbwll Jo C. Swartz, Jr., Esquire Hillside Corporate Center 5001 Louise Drive, Second Floor Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-6912 (717) 691-2063 Counsel for Defendant(s) BRENDA BROWNEWELL and MARK ISENBERG, wife and husband, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs, v. ALLEN 1. STUTENROTH, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION- LAW NO. 01-4455 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT'S ANSWER WITH NEW MATER AND, NOW, comes the defendant, by and through his attorney, John C. Swartz, Jr., Esq. of the Law Offices of Anna Waldherr and files this Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint averring as follows: Denied. After reasonable investigation answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 1 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and therefore, answering Defendant denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 4 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and therefore, answering Defendant denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 4 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and therefore, answering Defendant denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 6. Admitted. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 7 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and therefore, answering Defendant denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 8. Denied. The averments of paragraph 8 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary, and therefore are denied. 9. Admitted. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 4 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and therefore, answering Defendant denies same and demands strict proof thereof at trial. 11. Denied. It is denied that Defendant suddenly and without warning drove his vehicle into the path of the Plaintiff causing the Plaintiff's alleged injuries, and therefore, specific proof thereof is demanded at trial. 12. Denied. The averments of paragraph 8 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary, and therefore are denied. COUNT -I BRENDA BROWNEWELL V. ALLEN J. STUTENROTH NEGLIGENCE 13. No response required. 14. Denied. The averments of paragraph 14 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary, and therefore are denied. 15. Denied. The averments of paragraph 15 (a) through (f) state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary, and therefore are denied. 16. Denied. The averments of paragraph 16 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary, and therefore are denied. 17. Denied. The averments of paragraph 17 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary, and therefore are denied. 18. Denied. The averments of paragraph 18 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleadingis necessary, and therefore are denied. 19. Denied. The averments of paragraph 19 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleadingis necessary, and therefore are denied. 20. Denied. The averments of paragraph 20 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary, and therefore are denied. 21. Denied. The averments of paragraph 21 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleadingis necessary, and therefore are denied. 22. Denied. The averments of paragraph 22 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleadingis necessary, and therefore are denied. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiffs, plus costs. COUNT -II MARK ISENBERG V. ALLEN ~. STUTENROTH LOSS OF CONSORTIUM 23. No response required. 24. Denied. The averments of paragraph 8 state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary, and therefore are denied. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiffs, plus costs. DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER 27. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 27 of Defendant's Answer are incorporated herein as if set forth more fully and at length. 28. Plaintiff fails to set forth a cause of action for which relief can be granted. 29. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the applicable Statute of Limitations. 30. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part, restricted or diminished by the application of the Doctrine of Contributory Negligence as may be applied to the facts disclosed in discovery. 31. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part, restricted or diminished by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Statute as may be applied to the facts disclosed in discovery. 32. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part, restricted or diminished by application of the Doctrine of Assumption of the Risk as may be applied to the facts disclosed in discovery. 33. Plaintiff's causes of action alleged and any damages claimed by Plaintiff are the responsibility of individuals and/or entities over whom answering Defendant had no control nor right to control. 34. Any injuries or damages sustained by Plaintiff were not proximately caused by any conduct of the answering Defendant. 35. Plaintiff's claims may be barred in whole or in part, restricted or diminished by the Doctrine of Accord and Satisfaction. 36. Plaintiff's claims may be barred in whole or in part, restricted or diminished by the Doctrine of Arbitration and Award. 37. Plaintiff's claims may be barred in whole or in part, restricted or diminished by the Doctrine of Discharge in Bankruptcy. 38. Plaintiff's claims may be barred in whole or in part by the Doctrines of Estoppel and/or Immunity from Suit, and/or Laches and/or Res Judicata. 39. Plaintiff's claims may be barred in whole or in part by the defense of release. 40.. Plaintiff's causes of action are barred in whole or in part, restricted or diminished by the provisions of the limited tort option provisions set forth in the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Responsibility Law and/or Plaintiff's policy of automobile insurance. 41. Answering Defendant pleads the defense of sudden emergency. 42. Plaintiff's damages may be reduced in whole or in part by the doctrine of mitigation. 43. Answering Defendant pleads the defense of last clear chance rule. 44. Plaintiff's claims in whole or in part are not recoverable items under Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act. 45. Plaintiff's injuries and damages pre-existed this accident and are not related to this subject motor vehicle accident. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant respectfully requests Court to enter an Order in favor of Defendant Allen J. Stutenroth and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF ANN C. Swartz, Jr., Esquire I.D. NO. 62012 Hillside Corporate Center 5001 Louise Drive, Second Floor Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Defendant :~., . VERIFICATION I, Allen J. Stutemoth, verify that the statements made in the foregoing pleadings are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, information or belief. I understand that these statements are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John C. Swartz, Jr., Esquire, hereby certify that I have this 5th day of September, 2001, caused to be served via first class United States Mail, postage prepaid, a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading upon the following: Scott B. Cooper, Esquire 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 ~ ~~ ~_~ C .- _: ~ C77 6.3 t "i __ C~r1 ` ~ .n U'~~: -Ct. C7~ i.::ti `'~' ~ <t' _.~ ,t ~ 'i6 ~ r =, e w? SS ~~ BRENDA BROWNEWELL AND MARK ISENBERG, wife and husband, Plaintiffs vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. O 1-4455 ALLEN J. STUTENRQTH, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PR.4ECIPE F®R DISCONTINdTAIYCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above-captioned action settled, discontinued and ended with prejudice. By_ Respectfully Submitted, SCHMIDT, RONCA 8s KRAMER, P.C. Scott B. Cooper, Esquire I.D. No. 70242 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 Attorney for Plaintiffs ~~~ c ^~ q ~,-, ~.., ~ ,-C~-- r~ ;_ ~~ C. G'7 r, `~ ~;t.> ~ °- z n,, ~~ T" ~ ~ ~~, 2 , _._ -.,..~..-n Y 5~a~ ~ ~ Nor 4- _~: ~ ~ -_l: