Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-03988CHARLOTTE CROW, Plaintiff V. MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES and ROBERT SLAGLE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99- 3& $ C? 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(s). 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. Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square, 4th Floor Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 187138 NOTICIA LE HAN DEMANDADO 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 presenter una apariencia escrita o en persona o par abogado y archivar en la torte en forma escrita sus defenses o sus objeciones a [as demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la torte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la petition de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square, 4th Floor Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 CHARLOTTE CROW, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 99. 39 P S ( ?, MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE, t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES and ROBERT L. SLAGLE, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW comes Plaintiff, CHARLOTTE CROW, by and through her attorneys, Mette, Evans & Woodside, P.C. and files the Complaint and avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff, CHARLOTTE CROW, is an adult individual who resides at 231 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, ROBERT L. SLAGLE, is an adult individual who resides at 8 Foxfield Court, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant, ROBERT L. SLAGLE, is the owner of the property located 419 East High Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. Defendants, MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE are the owners of business registered with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES. 5. The accident hereinafter related occurred on or about January 9, 1998, on the premises of Defendant LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES, located at 419 E. High Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. COUNTI CHARLOTTE CROW v. MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES 6. At all times relevant, Defendants MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE, t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES operated, supervised, maintained, and/or controlled the business located at 419 E. High Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. At all times relevant, Defendants MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES acted by and through its duly authorized agents, servants, workmen and/or employees, acting within the scope of their authority and employment and in the course of Defendant's business. At the aforesaid time and place, Defendants MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES was open for business for individuals to purchase office supplies and office-related merchandise. 9. On January 9,1998, Plaintiff, a customer of Defendants MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES who was ninety-two (92) years old at the time, entered Defendants' business to shop. 10. At the aforesaid time and place, Plaintiff was a business invitee of the Defendant to which the highest degree of care is owed. 11. At the aforesaid time and place, Plaintiff was leaving Defendants MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES business when she fell to the ground due to a defectively designed and/or maintained exit passage. 12. At the aforesaid time and place, the exit passageway of Defendants MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES was designed and/or maintained in a negligent, careless and defective manner. 13. The aforesaid negligent, careless, reckless and defective design and/or maintenance of the exit passageway caused Plaintiff to fall into a parked car then onto the ground causing her to suffer serious and permanent injuries as hereinafter related. 14. Defendants MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES knew, or through the exercise of reasonable care should have known, the aforesaid defective nature of the exit passage and should have taken the necessary steps to warn Plaintiff of the hazard and/or take measures to protect the Plaintiff against such hazards. 15. The negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of Defendants MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES consisted of, inter alia the following: (a) Designing, constructing and/or maintaining the exit passage in such a way as to include a step with a minimum elevation change in lieu of a ramp; (b) Failing to provide a handrail to assist customers in properly negotiating the steps; (c) Failing to adequately mark, highlight, illuminate, or otherwise warn customers of stepping surfaces within the exit passage; (d) Failing to exercise reasonable care to inspect for an/or discover the defect; and (e) Permitting the exit passage to remain in an unreasonably dangerous, unsuitable and unsafe condition, having actual or constructive notice of the defect. 16. As a direct result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, Plaintiff sustained the following injuries: (a) depressed fracture of the nose; (b) gash to her forehead requiring sutures; (c) numerous and severe lacerations to her arms and legs; (d) permanent scarring and disfigurement to her forehead; (e) loss of consciousness and elevated white blood count requiring hospitalization; (f) back pain and fatigue; and (g) injury to left arm which is permanent. 17. As a direct and proximate cause of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, the Plaintiff required hospitalization, plastic surgery consultation, in-patient rehabilitation services, and visiting nursing services. 18. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, the Plaintiff has suffered u permanent decrease in her mobility due to increased fatigue and lack of stamina. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, the Pluintiffhas incurred medical expenses. 20. As u direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, the PluintifT has and will continue to suffer great pain, suffering inconvenience and discomfort. WI Ilatl?PORE, Plaintiff CFIARLOTTE CROW, demands judgment in her favor and against the Dalendants in all amount in excess of 535,000, plus costs and interest and other relief as the court deemsfust. COUNT II CHARLOTTE CROW V ROBERT SLAGLE 21. Paragraphs 1 - 20 are incorporated herein by reference. 22. At all times relevant, Defendant ROBERT L. SLAGLE owned, operated, supervised, maintained, and/or controlled the property located at 419 E. High Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. 23. At all times relevant, Defendant ROBERT L. SLAGLE acted by and through his duly authorized agents, servants, workmen and/or employees, acting within the scope of their authority and employment and in the course of Defendant's business. 24. At the aforesaid time and place, the property owned by Defendant ROBERT L. SLAGLE housed LINES' OFFICE SUPPLIES, which was open for business for individuals to purchase office supplies and office-related merchandise. 25. On January 9,1998, Plaintiff, a customer to Defendant LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES, which is situated on the property owned by Defendant ROBERT L. SLAGLE, who was ninety-two (92) years old at the time, entered Defendant's property to shop. 26. As the aforesaid time and place, Plaintiff was a business invitee of the Defendant to which the highest degree of care is owed. 27. At the aforesaid time and place, Plaintiff was leaving Line's Office Supplies, located on the property owned by Defendant ROBERT SLAGLE, when she fell to the ground due to a defectively designed and/or maintained exit passage. 28. At the aforesaid time and place, the exit passageway of Defendant LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES, located on the property owned by Defendant ROBERT L. SLAGLE, was designed and/or maintained in a negligent, careless and defective manner. 29. The aforesaid negligent, careless, reckless and defective design and/or maintenance of the exit passageway caused Plaintiff to fall into a parked car then onto the ground causing her to suffer serious and permanent injuries as hereinafter related. 30. Defendant ROBERT L. SLAGLE knew, or through the exercise of reasonable care should have known, the aforesaid defective nature of the exit passage and should have taken the necessary steps to wam Plaintiff of the hazard and/or take measures to protect the Plaintiff against such hazards. 31. The negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of Defendant ROBERT L. SLAGLE consisted of, inter alia the following: (a) Designing, constructing and/or maintaining the exit passage in such a way as to include a step with a minimum elevation change in lieu of a ramp; (b) Failing to provide a handrail to assist customers in properly negotiating the steps; (c) Failing to adequately mark, highlight, illuminate, or otherwise warn customers of stepping surfaces within the exit passage; (d) Failing to exercise reasonable care to inspect for an/or discover the defect; and (e) Permitting the exit passage to remain in an unreasonably dangerous, unsuitable and unsafe condition, having actual or constructive notice of the defect. 32. As a direct result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, Plaintiff sustained the following injuries: (a) depressed fracture of the nose; (b) gash to her forehead requiring sutures; (c) numerous and severe lacerations to her anus and legs; (d) permanent scarring and disfigurement to her forehead; (e) loss of consciousness and elevated white blood count requiring hospitalization; (f) back pain and fatigue; and (g) injury to left arm which is permanent. 33. As a direct and proximate cause of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, the Plaintiff required hospitalization, plastic surgery consultation, in-patient rehabilitation services, and visiting nursing services. 34. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, the Plaintiff has suffered a permanent decrease in her mobility due to increased fatigue and lack of stamina. 35. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, the Plaintiff has incurred medical expenses. 36. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, the Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer great pain, suffering inconvenience and discomfort. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff CHARLOTTE CROW, demands judgment in her favor and against the Defendants in an amount in excess of $35,000, plus costs and interest and other relief as the court deems just. METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE By: ANDREW H. DOWLING Supreme Court No. 39692 3401 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17011 717-232-5000 \Uk Attorneys for Plaintiff DATED: (,p'??1J 187139 VERIFICATION I, CHARLOTTE CROW, hereby acknowledge that I am the Plaintiff in this action; that I have read the foregoing Complaint; 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. Z-1,-4?-art CHARLOTTE CROW DATED: a,r /99Y 187138 CHARLOTTE CROW, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES and ROBERT SLAGLE, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: MELVIN L. LINE ENID LINE LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES C. B. James, Claims Department 419 E. High Street ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY Carlisle, PA 17013 PO Box 2049 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 ROBERT SLAGLE 8 Foxfield Court Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE BY: ANDREW H. DOWLING, ESQUIRE Supreme Court I.D. No. 39692 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Telephone: (717) 232-5000 q Attorneys for Plaintiff DATED: Ubj1)9 ?? ? ? ? ? a CASE NO: 1999-03988 P SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CROW CHARLOTTE VS. LINE MELVIN L ET AL DAWN KELL , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within NOTICE AND COMPLAINT was served upon LINE MELVIN L T/D/B/A LINES OFFICE SUPPLIES the defendant, at 14:32 HOURS, on the 1st day of July 1999 at 419 EAST HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, by handing to MELVIN L. LINE a true and attested copy of the NOTICE AND COMPLAINT and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. •. .. .. Sheriff's Costs: So ansrG Docketing 18.00 Service 3.10 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 8.00 omas in eri $Z 9J.iuME/06%1999 S & WOODSID?EE 07 by ciW Y? C? h XX. epu y S eri f sworn and subscribe to before me this G day of 19? A.D. Q, Iel-O ono ary' d CASE NO: 1999-03988 P SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CROW CHARLOTTE VS. LINE MELVIN L ET AL DAWN Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within NOTICE AND COMPLAINT was served upon SLAGLE ROBERT L the defendant, at 14:32 HOURS, on the 1st day of July 1999 at 8 FOXFIELD COURT MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, by handing to METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE a true and attested copy of the NOTICE AND COMPLAINT and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: So answers: Docketing 6.00 Service 6.20 Affidavit .00 .Or Surcharge 8.00 _ z2 $20.20 ME TE, EVANS & WOODSIDE 0706/1999 ' by a uYh y> h epu y eri sworn and subscribe to before me this 4 "- day o 19qq A. D. ?--- ro ono ary ' SHERIFF'S RETURN - NOT FOUND CASE NO: 1999-03988 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CROW CHARLOTTE VS. LINE MELVIN L ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: LINE ENID T/D/B/A LINES OFFICE SUPPLIES but was unable to locate Her in his bailiwick. He therefore returns the NOTICE AND COMPLAINT NOT FOUND , as to the within named defendant LINE ENID T/D/B/A LINES OFFICE SUPPLIES RETURN NOT FOUND AS PER ATTY, 7/6/99, LINES HAVE BEEN DIVORCED 10 YRS, ENID NO LONGER A PARTNER. Sheriff's Costs: So answer Docketing 6.00 Service nd 5..00 00 Surcharge 8.00 R7 I oma?s K?ire, - 5 eri $T-c?= 0E TE, EVA?NS & WOODSIDE 7199 Sworn and subscribed to before me this 6 a day of C1 Af_ 199,7 A.D. / I 11 oEiFono y r. CHARLOTTE CROW, Plaintiff V. MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES and ROBERT SLAGLE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 9C _?O OO 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(s). 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. Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square, 4th Floor Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 TRUE COPY FRO- M RECORD to Testimony whereof, I hwre unto set my hand and the seal of said Court at Carlisle, Pa. This IF day ot?1931yi? /Prothonotary 187138 NOTICIA LE HAN DEMANDADO A LISTED 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 presentar una apariencia escrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la cone en forma escrita sus defenses o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se deflende, la torte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la petition de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o 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 O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square, 4th Floor Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 CHARLOTTE CROW, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE, t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES and ROBERT L. SLAGLE, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW comes Plaintiff, CHARLOTTE CROW, by and through her attorneys, Mette, Evans & Woodside, P.C. and files the Complaint and avers as follows: Plaintiff, CHARLOTTE CROW, is an adult individual who resides at 231 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, ROBERT L. SLAGLE, is an adult individual who resides at 8 Foxfield Court, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant, ROBERT L. SLAGLE, is the owner of the property located 419 East High Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. Defendants, MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE are the owners of business registered with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES. 5. The accident hereinafter related occurred on or about January 9, 1998, on the premises of Defendant LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES, located at 419 E. High Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. COUNTI CHARLOTTE CROW v. MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES 6. At all times relevant, Defendants MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE, t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES operated, supervised, maintained, and/or controlled the business located at 419 E. High Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. At all times relevant, Defendants MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES acted by and through its duly authorized agents, servants, workmen and/or employees, acting within the scope of their authority and employment and in the course of Defendant's business. 8. At the aforesaid time and place, Defendants MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES was open for business for individuals to purchase office supplies and office-related merchandise. 9. On January 9,1998, Plaintiff, a customer of Defendants MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES who was ninety-two (92) years old at the time, entered Defendants' business to shop. 10. At the aforesaid time and place, Plaintiff was a business invitee of the Defendant to which the highest degree of care is owed. 11. At the aforesaid time and place, Plaintiff was leaving Defendants MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES business when she fell to the ground due to a defectively designed and/or maintained exit passage. 12. At the aforesaid time and place, the exit passageway of Defendants MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES was designed and/or maintained in a negligent, careless and defective manner. 13. The aforesaid negligent, careless, reckless and defective design and/or maintenance of the exit passageway caused Plaintiff to fall into a parked car then onto the ground causing her to suffer serious and permanent injuries as hereinafter related. 14. Defendants MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES knew, or through the exercise of reasonable care should have known, the aforesaid defective nature of the exit passage and should have taken the necessary steps to warn Plaintiff of the hazard and/or take measures to protect the Plaintiff against such hazards. 15. The negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of Defendants MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES consisted of, inter alia, the following: (a) Designing, constructing and/or maintaining the exit passage in such a way as to include a step with a minimum elevation change in lieu of a ramp; (b) Failing to provide a handrail to assist customers in properly negotiating the steps; (c) Failing to adequately mark, highlight, illuminate, or otherwise wam customers of stepping surfaces within the exit passage; (d) Failing to exercise reasonable care to inspect for an/or discover the defect; and (e) Permitting the exit passage to remain in an unreasonably dangerous, unsuitable and unsafe condition, having actual or constructive notice of the defect. 16. As a direct result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, Plaintiff sustained the following injuries: (a) depressed fracture of the nose; (b) gash to her forehead requiring sutures; (c) numerous and severe lacerations to her arms and legs; (d) permanent scarring and disfigurement to her forehead; (e) loss of consciousness and elevated white blood count requiring hospitalization; (f) back pain and fatigue; and (g) injury to left arm which is permanent. 17. As a direct and proximate cause of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, the Plaintiff required hospitalization, plastic surgery consultation, in-patient rehabilitation services, and visiting nursing services. 18. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, the Plaintiff has suffered a permanent decrease in her mobility due to increased fatigue and lack of stamina. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, the Plaintiff has incurred medical expenses. 20. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, the Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer great pain, suffering inconvenience and discomfort. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff CHARLOTTE CROW, demands judgment in her favor and against the Defendants in an amount in excess of $35,000, plus costs and interest and other relief as the court deems just. COUNT II CHARLOTTE CROW V. ROBERT SLAGLE 21. Paragraphs 1 - 20 are incorporated herein by reference. 22. At all times relevant, Defendant ROBERT L. SLAGLE owned, operated, supervised, maintained, and/or controlled the property located at 419 E. High Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. 23. At all times relevant, Defendant ROBERT L. SLAGLE acted by and through his duly authorized agents, servants, workmen and/or employees, acting within the scope of their authority and employment and in the course of Defendant's business. 24. At the aforesaid time and place, the property owned by Defendant ROBERT L. SLAGLE housed LINES' OFFICE SUPPLIES, which was open for business for individuals to purchase office supplies and office-related merchandise. 25. On January 9,1998, Plaintiff, a customer to Defendant LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES, which is situated on the property owned by Defendant ROBERT L. SLAGLE, who was ninety-two (92) years old at the time, entered Defendant's property to shop. 26. As the aforesaid time and place, Plaintiff was a business invitee of the Defendant to which the highest degree of care is owed. 27. At the aforesaid time and place, Plaintiff was leaving Line's Office Supplies, located on the property owned by Defendant ROBERT SLAGLE, when she fell to the ground due to a defectively designed and/or maintained exit passage. 28. At the aforesaid time and place, the exit passageway of Defendant LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES, located on the property owned by Defendant ROBERT L. SLAGLE, was designed and/or maintained in a negligent, careless and defective manner. 29. The aforesaid negligent, careless, reckless and defective design and/or maintenance of the exit passageway caused Plaintiff to fall into a parked car then onto the ground causing her to suffer serious and permanent injuries as hereinafter related. 30. Defendant ROBERT L. SLAGLE knew, or through the exercise of reasonable care should have known, the aforesaid defective nature of the exit passage and should have taken the necessary steps to wam Plaintiff of the hazard and/or take measures to protect the Plaintiff against such hazards. 31. The negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of Defendant ROBERT L. SLAGLE consisted of, inter alia the following: (a) Designing, constructing and/or maintaining the exit passage in such a way as to include a step with a minimum elevation change in lieu of a ramp; (b) Failing to provide a handrail to assist customers in properly negotiating the steps; (c) Failing to adequately mark, highlight, illuminate, or otherwise warn customers of stepping surfaces within the exit passage; (d) Failing to exercise reasonable care to inspect for an/or discover the defect; and (e) Permitting the exit passage to remain in an unreasonably dangerous, unsuitable and unsafe condition, having actual or constructive notice of the defect. 32. As a direct result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, Plaintiff sustained the following injuries: (a) depressed fracture of the nose; (b) gash to her forehead requiring sutures; (c) numerous and severe lacerations to her arms and legs; (d) permanent scarring and disfigurement to her forehead; (e) loss of consciousness and elevated white blood count requiring hospitalization; (f) back pain and fatigue; and (g) injury to left arm which is permanent. 33. As a direct and proximate cause of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, the Plaintiff required hospitalization, plastic surgery consultation, in-patient rehabilitation services, and visiting nursing services. 34. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, the Plaintiff has suffered a permanent decrease in her mobility due to increased fatigue and lack of stamina. 35. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, the Plaintiff has incurred medical expenses. 36. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, the Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer great pain, suffering inconvenience and discomfort. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff CHARLOTTE CROW, demands judgment in her favor and against the Defendants in an amount in excess of $35,000, plus costs and interest and other relief as the court deems just. METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE By: l ANDREW H. DOWLING Supreme Court No. 39692 3401 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17011 717-232-5000 Attorneys for Plaintiff DATED: (1.^)? 187138 VERIFICATION I, CHARLOTTE CROW, hereby acknowledge that I am the Plaintiff in this action; that I have read the foregoing Complaint; 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 unworn falsification to authorities. Z11" s-7iz lam. "'/ CHARLOTTE CROW DATED: 187138 CHARLOTTE CROW, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES and ROBERT SLAGLE, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: MELVIN L. LINE ENID LINE LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES 419 E. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 ROBERTSLAGLE 8 Foxfield Court Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 C. B. James, Claims Department ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY PO Box 2049 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE BY: ANDREW H. DOWLING, ESQUIRE Supreme Court I.D. No. 39692 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Telephone: (717) 232-5000 DATED: U L;k?h/ Attorneys for Plaintiff J', - C3 . CHARLOTTE CROW, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. gel - 395 MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES and ROBERT SLAGLE, Defendants 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(s). 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. Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square, 4th Floor Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 TRUE- ?;O'Py ,? ? r; ,n v cr'r ; r7l h ii 14iat;;pi; 'tvbCf t. I '!J( •1,L` et1C1 3^.. i.1i0 58ii !( 1•fv r.'l':'i ?'( (.n?laB, F2t 187138 NOTICIA LE HAN DEMANDADO A LISTED EN LA CORTE. Si usted quiere defenderse de 2estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene viente (0) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notiticacion. Usted debe presenter una apariencia escrita o en persona o par abogado y archivar en la cone en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la cone tomara medidas y puede entrar una Orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notifieacion y por cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square, 4th Floor Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 CHARLOTTE CROW, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE, t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES and ROBERT L. SLAGLE, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW comes Plaintiff, CHARLOTTE CROW, by and through her attorneys, Mette, Evans & Woodside, P.C. and files the Complaint and avers as follows: Plaintiff, CHARLOTTE CROW, is an adult individual who resides at 231 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, ROBERT L. SLAGLE, is an adult individual who resides at S Foxfield Court, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Defendant, ROBERT L. SLAGLE, is the owner of the property located 419 East High Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. Defendants, MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE are the owners of business registered with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES. 5. The accident hereinafter related occurred on or about January 9, 1998, on the premises of Defendant LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES, located at 419 E. High Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. COUNTI CHARLOTTE CROW v. MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE, t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES 6. At all times relevant, Defendants MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE, t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES operated, supervised, maintained, and/or controlled the business located at 419 E. High Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. At all times relevant, Defendants MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE ?, %b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES acted by and through its duly authorized agents, servants, workmen and/or employees, acting within the scope of their authority and employment and in the course of Defendant's business. 8. At the aforesaid time and place, Defendants MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES was open for business for individuals to purchase office supplies and office-related merchandise. 9. On January 9,1998, Plaintiff, a customer of Defendants MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES who was ninety-two (92) years old at the time, entered Defendants' business to shop. 10. At the aforesaid time and place, Plaintiff was a business invitee of the Defendant to which the highest degree of care is owed. 11. At the aforesaid time and place, Plaintiff was leaving Defendants MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES business when she fell to the ground due to a defectively designed and/or maintained exit passage. 12. At the aforesaid time and place, the exit passageway of Defendants MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES was designed and/or maintained in a negligent, careless and defective manner. 13. The aforesaid negligent, careless, reckless and defective design and/or maintenance of the exit passageway caused Plaintiff to fall into a parked car then onto the ground causing her to suffer serious and permanent injuries as hereinafter related. 14. Defendants MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES knew, or through the exercise of reasonable care should have known, the aforesaid defective nature of the exit passage and should have taken the necessary steps to warn Plaintiff of the hazard and/or take measures to protect the Plaintiff against such hazards. 15. The negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of Defendants MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES consisted of, inter alia the following: (a) Designing, constructing and/or maintaining the exit passage in such a way as to include a step with a minimum elevation change in lieu of a ramp; (b) Failing to provide a handrail to assist customers in properly negotiating the steps; (c) Failing to adequately mark, highlight, illuminate, or otherwise wam customers of stepping surfaces within the exit passage; (d) Failing to exercise reasonable care to inspect for an/or discover the defect; and (e) Permitting the exit passage to remain in an unreasonably dangerous, unsuitable and unsafe condition, having actual or constructive notice of the defect. 16. As a direct result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, Plaintiff sustained the following injuries: (a) depressed fracture of the nose; (b) gash to her forehead requiring sutures; (c) numerous and severe lacerations to her arms and legs; (d) permanent scarring and disfigurement to her forehead; (e) loss of consciousness and elevated white blood count requiring hospitalization; (f) back pain and fatigue; and (g) injury to left arm which is permanent. IT As a direct and proximate cause of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, the Plaintiff required hospitalization, plastic surgery consultation, in-patient rehabilitation services, and visiting nursing services. 18. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, the Plaintiff has suffered a permanent decrease in her mobility due to increased fatigue and lack of stamina. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, the Plaintiff has incurred medical expenses. 20. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, the Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer great pain, suffering inconvenience and discomfort. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff CHARLOTTE CROW, demands judgment in her favor and against the Defendants in an amount in excess of $35,000, plus costs and interest and other relief as the court deems just. COUNT II CHARLOTTE CROW V. ROBERT SLAGLE 21. Paragraphs l - 20 are incorporated herein by reference. 22. At all times relevant, Defendant ROBERT L. SLAGLE owned, operated, supervised, maintained, and/or controlled the property located at 419 E. High Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. 23. At all times relevant, Defendant ROBERT L. SLAGLE acted by and through his duly authorized agents, servants, workmen and/or employees, acting within the scope of their authority and employment and in the course of Defendant's business. 24. At the aforesaid time and place, the property owned by Defendant ROBERT L. SLAGLE housed LINES' OFFICE SUPPLIES, which was open for business for individuals to purchase office supplies and office-related merchandise. 25. On January 9,1998, Plaintiff, a customer to Defendant LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES, which is situated on the property owned by Defendant ROBERT L. SLAGLE, who was ninety-two (92) years old at the time, entered Defendant's property to shop. 26. As the aforesaid time and place, Plaintiff was a business invitee of the Defendant to which the highest degree of care is owed. 27. At the aforesaid time and place, Plaintiff was leaving Line's Office Supplies, located on the property owned by Defendant ROBERT SLAGLE, when she fell to the ground due to a defectively designed and/or maintained exit passage. 28. At the aforesaid time and place, the exit passageway of Defendant LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES, located on the property owned by Defendant ROBERT L. SLAGLE, was designed and/or maintained in a negligent, careless and defective manner. 29. The aforesaid negligent, careless, reckless and defective design and/or maintenance of the exit passageway caused Plaintiff to fall into a parked car then onto the ground causing her to suffer serious and permanent injuries as hereinafter related. 30. Defendant ROBERT L. SLAGLE knew, or through the exercise of reasonable care should have known, the aforesaid defective nature of the exit passage and should have taken the necessary steps to warn Plaintiff of the hazard and/or take measures to protect the Plaintiff against such hazards. 31. The negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of Defendant ROBERT L. SLAGLE consisted of, inter alia the following: (a) Designing, constructing and/or maintaining the exit passage in such a way as to include a step with a minimum elevation change in lieu of a ramp; (b) Failing to provide a handrail to assist customers in properly negotiating the steps; (c) Failing to adequately mark, highlight, illuminate, or otherwise wam customers of stepping surfaces within the exit passage; (d) Failing to exercise reasonable care to inspect for an/or discover the defect; and (e) Permitting the exit passage to remain in an unreasonably dangerous, unsuitable and unsafe condition, having actual or constructive notice of the defect. 32. As a direct result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, Plaintiff sustained the following injuries: (a) depressed fracture of the nose; (b) gash to her forehead requiring sutures; (c) numerous and severe lacerations to her arms and legs; (d) permanent scarring and disfigurement to her forehead; (e) loss of consciousness and elevated white blood count requiring hospitalization; (l) back pain and fatigue; and (g) injury to left arm which is permanent. 33. As a direct and proximate cause of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, the Plaintiff required hospitalization, plastic surgery consultation, in-patient rehabilitation services, and visiting nursing services. 34. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, the Plaintiff has suffered a permanent decrease in her mobility due to increased fatigue and lack of stamina. 35. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, the Plaintiff has incurred medical expenses. 36. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, the Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer great pain, suffering inconvenience and discomfort. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff CHARLOTTE CROW, demands judgment in her favor and against the Defendants in an amount in excess of $35,000, plus costs and interest and other relief as the court deems just. METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE By: i- ANDREW H. DOWLING Supreme Court No. 39692 3401 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17011 717-232-5000 J? _ Attorneys for Plaintiff DATED: (?')?/? 197138 VERIFICATION 1, CHARLOTTE CROW, hereby acknowledge that I am the Plaintiff in this action; that I have read the foregoing Complaint; 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 unworn falsification to authorities. CHARLOTTE CROW DATED: ??yw ?S /gC?fy 187138 CHARLOTTE CROW, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES and ROBERT SLAGLE, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: MELVIN L. LINE ENID LINE LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES 419 E. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 ROBERT SLAGLE 8 Foxfield Court Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 BY: C. B. James, Claims Department ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY PO Box 2049 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE ANDREW H. DOWLING, ESQUIRE Supreme Court I.D. No. 39692 3401 North Front Street P. 0. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Telephone: (717) 232-5000 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff DATED: I ??/9 cum Karen S. Coates, Esquire Attorney I.D. # 52654 Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 237-7121 Attorneys for Defendants Line and Line's Office Supplies CHARLOTTE CROW, Plaintiff V. MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE, t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES, and ROBERT SLAGLE, TO THE PROTHONOTARY: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 99-3988 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE Enter the appearance of Karen S. Coates, Esquire and the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP as counsel for Defendants Melvin L. Line and Enid Line, Ud/b/a Line's Office Supplies in the above captioned matter. :HOMAS. THO S & HA 13,, LLP Karen S. Coates, Esquire Attorney 1. D. # 52654 305 North Front Street P. 0. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 237-7121 Date: August 12, 1999 Attorneys for Defendants Line CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that on this day I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document by first class mail, postage pre-paid, addressed to the following: Andrew H. Dowling, Esquire Matte, Evans & Woodside 3401 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17011 Robert L. Slagle 8 Foxfield Court Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Date: , 1999 :68901.1 THOMAS; HO AS & , FER, LLP ,Karen S. Coates; Esquire Karen S. Coates, Esquire Attorney I.D. # 52654 Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, Li 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 237-7121 Attorneys for Defendants Line and Line's Office Supplies CHARLOTTE CROW, Plaintiff V. MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE, t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES, and ROBERT SLAGLE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 99-3988 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Plaintiff Charlotte Crow and Defendant Robert Slagle You are hereby notified that you are required to respond to the enclosed Answer with New Matter and Crossclaim within twenty (20) days of service or a judgment may be entered against you. Date: October 4, 1999 Attorneys for Defendants Line and Line's Office Supplies 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 237-7121 Karen S. Coates, Esquire Attorney I.D. # 52654 Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717)237.7121 Attorneys for Defendants Line and Line's Office Supplies CHARLOTTE CROW, Plaintiff V. MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE, t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES, and ROBERT SLAGLE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 99-3988 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW, Defendants Melvin L. Line and Enid Line, t/d/b/a Line's Office Supplies, by and through their attorneys, Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, and files the following Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. It is admitted that Defendant Melvin L. Line is the owner of a business registered within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, t/d/b/a Line's Office Supplies. It is, however, specifically denied that Enid Line is an owner of the business and proof is demanded. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and proof is demanded. COUNTI CHARLOTTE CROW v. MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE T/D/B/A LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES 6. Admitted in part and denied in part. The averments of Paragraph 6 are admitted to the extent that at all times relevant, Defendant Melvin L. Line, t/d/b/a Line's Office Supplies, operated, supervised, maintained and/or controlled a business located at 419 East High Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. It is, however, specifically denied that Enid Line had any involvement whatsoever in the business enterprise. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that at all times relevant, Defendant Melvin L. Line, t/d/b/a Line's Office Supplies acted by and through its duly authorized agents, servants, workmen, and/or employees acting within the scope of their authority and employment in the course of Defendant Melvin L. Line's business. It is, however, specifically denied that Enid Line had any involvement with the business whatsoever and proof is demanded. 8. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that at the aforesaid time and place, Defendant Melvin L. Line, t/d/b/a Line's Office Supplies was open for business for individuals to purchase office supplies and office related merchandise. It is, however, specifically denied that Enid Line had any involvement in the business whatsoever and proof is demanded. 9. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that on January 9, 1998, Plaintiff was a customer of Defendant Melvin L. Line, t/d/b/a Line's Office Supplies. It is, however, specifically denied that Enid Line had any involvement whatsoever in the business. Furthermore, with respect to the allegation that Plaintiff was 92 years old at the time and entered Defendant's business to shop, the allegation is specifically denied since after reasonable investigation, answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and proof is demanded. 10. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 10 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. By way of further answer, answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether Plaintiff was a business invitee at the time of the incident and proof is demanded. 11. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 11 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiffs alleged fall was due to a "defectively designed and/or maintained exit passage" and proof is demanded. Furthermore, it is specifically denied that answering Defendants had any involvement in the design and/or maintenance of said passage. 12. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 12 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that answering Defendants were negligent and/or careless in any manner whatsoever. Furthermore, it is specifically denied that answering Defendants had any involvement in the design of the exit passage and/or that they maintained the area in a negligent, careless and defective manner and proof is demanded. 13. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 13 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that answering Defendants were negligent, careless and/or reckless in any manner whatsoever with respect to maintenance of the exit passageway. Furthermore, it is specifically denied that answering Defendants had any involvement in the design and/or maintenance of the exit passageway and proof is demanded. With respect to the cause of Plaintiffs fall; the location of Plaintiffs fall; and the nature of the injuries allegedly sustained; the averments are specifically denied since after 4 reasonable investigation, answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments and proof is demanded. 14. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 14 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that the exit passage was defective in any manner whatsoever and/or presented a hazard to persons exercising reasonable care for their own safety and proof is demanded. Furthermore, it is specifically denied that answering Defendants should have taken steps to warn Plaintiff or to protect Plaintiff, as the condition was not hazardous. 15. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 15, including subparagraphs (a)-(e) constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that answering Defendants were negligent, careless and/or reckless in any manner whatsoever. Furthermore, it is specifically denied that answering Defendants were negligent, careless and/or reckless in: (a) Designing, constructing and/or maintaining the exit passage in such a way as to include a step with a minimum elevation change in lieu of a ramp, and proof is demanded; (b) Failing to provide a handrail to assist customers in properly negotiating the steps, and proof is demanded; (c) Failing to adequately mark, highlight, illuminate, or otherwise warn customers of stepping surfaces within exit passage, and proof is demanded; (d) Failing to exercise reasonable care to inspect for and/or discover the defect, and proof is demanded; and (e) Permitting the exit passage to remain in an unreasonably dangerous, unsuitable and unsafe condition, having actual or constructive notice of the defect, and proof is demanded. 16. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 16 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that answering Defendants were negligent, careless and/or reckless in any manner whatsoever. With respect to the injuries allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff, as outlined in subparagraphs (a)-(g), the averments are specifically denied since after reasonable investigation, answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments and proof is demanded. 17. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 17 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that answering Defendants were negligent, careless and/or reckless in any manner whatsoever. With respect to the alleged medical treatment required by the Plaintiff, the averments are specifically denied since after reasonable investigation, answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments and proof is demanded. 18. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 18 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that answering Defendants were negligent, careless and/or reckless in any manner whatsoever. With respect to the allegation that Plaintiff has suffered a permanent decrease in her mobility due to increased fatigue and lack of stamina, the averments are specifically denied since after reasonable investigation, answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments and proof is demanded. 19. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 19 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that answering Defendants were negligent, careless and/or reckless in any manner whatsoever. With respect to the allegation that Plaintiff has incurred medical expenses, the averments are specifically denied since after reasonable investigation, answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments and proof is demanded. 20. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 20 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that answering Defendants were negligent, careless and/or reckless in any manner whatsoever. With respect to the allegation that Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer great pain, suffering inconvenience and discomfort, the allegations are specifically denied since after reasonable investigation, answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments and proof is demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendants Melvin L. Line and Enid Line, t/d/b/a Line's Office Supplies, respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor. COUNT II CHARLOTTE CROW v. ROBERT SLAGLE 21. Paragraphs 1-20 of Defendants Melvin L. Line and Enid Line, Ud/b/a Line's Office Supplies' Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 22-36. These averments are not directed to answering Defendants and therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants Melvin L. Line and Enid Line, t/d/b/a Line's Office Supplies, respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor. NEW MATTER 37. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted as to answering Defendants Melvin L. Line and Enid Line, ttd/b/a Line's Office Supplies. 38. Defendant Enid Line had no involvement in the ownership or operation of Line's Office Supplies at the aforesaid time and place. 7 39. Answering Defendants were not negligent, careless or reckless in any manner whatsoever. 40. Plaintiffs alleged fall had nothing to do with maintenance of the exit passageway. 41. Answering Defendants Melvin L. Line and Enid Line, t/d/b/a Line's Office Supplies merely occupied the building on the date of the alleged fall and had absolutely no involvement in the design or construction of the building. 42. Any acts or omissions of answering Defendants were not substantial causes or factors of the subject incident and did not result in the injuries and losses allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff. 43. The incident and/or damages described in Plaintiffs Complaint were caused or contributed to by the Plaintiff. 44. The negligent acts or omissions of other individuals and/or entities constitute intervening, superseding causes of the damages and/or injuries alleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiff. 45. Plaintiffs cause of action is barred by the contributory negligence of Plaintiff. 46. Plaintiffs claims are limited or otherwise barred by application of Pennsylvania's Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa. C.S. §7102. 47. The injuries and damages allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff were caused by her contributory negligence and carelessness as follows: (a) In failing to watch where she was walking; (b) In failing to maintain a proper lookout; (c) In failing to use due care and caution under the circumstances, including the failure to observe an open and obvious condition; (d) In failing to discover and/or observe the alleged defect and/or the alleged dangerous condition complained of; (e) In failing to take precaution to avoid injury; (f) In failing to take an alternate path; and (g) In failing to exercise reasonable care for her own safety. 48. Any condition with which Plaintiff was confronted on the premises of 419 East High Street was open and obvious. 49. Answering Defendants had no notice of the allegedly dangerous condition. WHEREFORE, Defendants Melvin L. Line and Enid Line, Ud/b/a Line's Office Supplies, respectfully request that the Complaint be dismissed and judgment be entered against Plaintiff. RULE 2252(d) NEW MATTER DIRECTED TO DEFENDANT ROBERT SLAGLE 50. The averments of Paragraphs 1-4 and Paragraphs 22-46 of Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 51. In the event the injuries and damages claimed by Plaintiff Charlotte Crow are found to exist, then Defendant Robert Slagle is alone liable to Plaintiff for those injuries and damages. 52. In the event any liability is found to exist on the part of answering Defendants Melvin L. Line and Enid Line, t/d/b/a Line's Office Supplies, which liability is specifically denied, then Defendant Robert Slagle is liable over to Melvin L. Line and Enid Line, Ud/b/a Line's Office Supplies or is jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiffs. 53. Defendants Melvin L. Line and Enid Line, t/d/b/a Line's Office Supplies assert this crossclaim against Defendant Robert Slagle to preserve their rights of contribution and/or indemnity. WHEREFORE, in the event it is determined that Plaintiff suffered the injuries and damages as a result of the claims set forth in her Complaint, Defendants Melvin L. Line and Enid Line, t/d/b/a Line's Office Supplies request that Defendant Robert Slagle be found fully 9 liable. In the event that Defendants Melvin L. Line and Enid Line, t/d/b/a Line's Office Supplies are found liable to the Plaintiff, which liability is specifically denied, then Melvin L. Line and Enid Line, t/d/b/a Line's Office Supplies request that Defendant Robert Slagle be found liable over to them or be found jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff, thus entitling the Lines to indemnity or contribution. WHEREFORE, Defendants Melvin L. Line and Enid Line, t/d/b/a Line's Office Supplies, respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS AS & ER, LLP aren S. Coat quire Attorney 1. D. # 52654 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 237-7121 Date: October Y , 1999 Attorneys for Defendants Melvin L. Line and Enid Line, t/d/b/a Line's Office Supplies 10 VERIFICATION 1, Melvin L. Line, Defendant in this action, do hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to Complaint with New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Melvin L. Line, t/d/b/a Line's Office Supplies Melvin L. Line Date: 1999 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that on this day I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document by first class mail, postage pre-paid, addressed to the following: Andrew H. Dowling, Esquire Mette, Evans & Woodside 3401 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17011 Robert L. Slagle 8 Foxfietd Court Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Date: '1999 :70770.1 12 l.i f 9 W m ? H O b ? N N n 0 o m n r K C a s m y 7 n O N o a u .". z ? 0 m Q CHARLOTTE CROW, Plaintiff V. MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE, t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES and ROBERT L. SLAGLE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-3988 Civil JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO NEW MATTER 37. The averments in Paragraph 37 are legal conclusions to which no answers is required. If it is deemed that an answer is required the allegations are specifically denied. 38. According to documents obtained from the Corporation Bureau, both Melvin L. Line and Enid Line have interest in the business of Line's Office Supply. See documents attached hereto. 39-49. The averments in these paragraphs are legal conclusions to which no answer is required. If it is deemed that an answer is required, each and every allegation is hereby specifically denied. To the contrary, Plaintiff's Complaint is incorporated herein by reference. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in her favor and against the Defendants and that Plaintiff's New Matter be stricken and dismissed. By: DATED: October 20, 1999 METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE ANDREW H. DOWLING Supreme Court No. 39692 3401 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17011 717-232-5000 Attomeys for Plaintiff 201235 \yyfi?ation for lr;lM-lino (On or Lonlucting usincss iInlcr An Assurnrl or ?fictitious _7\?amc TO THE rECRETARY OF THE COswONrEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: i `.r -.' .o•-p .c<, .un •nr :e •{.¢e-.e•.•s .i -. All 0 4.e GenerC At«ebl of the +w,r r<re.on+uhh of P q o,rf " :k 1 - , ! n enneyl• -1 of 1.1, ::e%, P.L. %•, :hr (ollowmg gplicuron n prew"d la hims in the CALrc cl :he Acreruy o! mr Coecnenwe s:v Dv one rr.G nb+J a individual e nrmed ml on rnd corndumeg ou sr nett m the roc.con.edrh of Prnnr I,.nie utde, belo+.he is, or ere, <rry :ry:q cr deu gnrua, / n ruuaed or f r i i . i t ooe .me, t 1. n.e red nine, o: urser, rnd rL!-c.res, of rll the pet. ...,min i x or nteteeted i. <.id business is, or re: NAMES RESIDENCES r.r. r•, r v.r.r Mr.rr Cur A.. 1 ' /- -=De ' 1 • •' ••• -- > 7 w. Penn Street Carlisle, Pa. 17013 ............................... ........ i. Then style, a de.'p.r,.n under whr<h ..id Wuneu is being or will be i , . Bur ed on of conducted u: r ...m .. .rY Z. .. ?U! iL_.... .................. . The charter of the burinru a ur.?-? or: a conducted is: _.le .. ?ffllc_ zapFl;ec r:: ..-::Sias ;tees ........................................................ ' .................................................. _.__........_....... ._........... _ ............................... e. The plrce where uid bu tenets is m be curled m oe conduced i.: '••' Cur Neat H!%t Street Carlisle, Pen S enna. ............. . . .......................... ................ .. c nwr o! the rgenl, if .ny through which -.id bwiners it to be crried on or condu d i i cte .u n the common. d, of Penneyl,m,.. with his rddrru ;r ..... .................................... . {qqt ........................................................ /.. Th rrgnrr?es of JI pa ier o>Ping or inrererted in slid Weiner. feller: ............... _......... ......................... ...,. _.. _.. ........_ .................................................................. ....................................................................... .............................................................. 4+mn.uLh of Penn rylrenir furry of •IJC.: Crlnpr }.e? • Pru,n JlY p{ .rrC Lrlae ec, this ........ dry of ..... .T 41Y ................... i9 7 A ..... , L. :.Inc crmg O.IY s+om «cadm to L., deposes .nd rays thr the e,ersener contJned in the l i " orrSo u( epplieY r S..-to ee'd )uo«rrhri br!ar ee'be d.Y rnd Yes, .(ottrowd y , I _ •I A:. - T ^d c; L R .. ..... • rr:..., a. rwLO Aar S.er,.r, ,! rer rows or+rslrh, rbie 27th d-y of 7 3 r ??S+.in M u c'?.r.?rrd? ?+"t? v^t r:% P?r+u+ weir4 or lnt?rretN 1a tb hue lssOO. slut • jlV F ICU th. pplleuttlon is $ „ ctr.ff !• T>•r efftdeett of ese o: the .Lp.ree W!11 G .efflelOat, rho fb for [ ncyP+n1 t>., sypllutt•.,. All eNOelO tract a eertff SOO , • ,. .e ,:l•. t:u t, -o'p"et lp aur.r., offin. of t &---ttar7 Of tie Camismwmsetl q r Y•.te, ¦errl.Larf. hwI %'rL.t.. • ....•w.•:P- •.n u t1 evllt.a, pt,j.- d to ld. / "„5 r r 3-1-75:23 841 m9CB 54 A9 VA IN.. 1e4g4 7th I? I l tin>hr?1 tllr uodol .Ign,N1 rtes. Jl.lr , ,."L? ?I Ju. n?nu,• to IN..ICw. d this _ MELVIN L. L?"i( ENID V. .rl I;'NF _ 19.,lNNli'vl, IlaN111,P11 19?aNN1 u11(I Il?aNan,Pll ' ?? ? 1l?aNarUPll INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETION OF FORM A. This form 1% applicable only (1) where names of parties at interest are to be added to a reglarWM. or (2) where names of parties of Interest are to be added and others deleted. In those caeca where parties are to Ire withdrawn and none added. Film U9CB 54.28.8 (Statement of Cancellation of or Withdrawal from Business Carried an Under are Assunu•d or Fictitious Name) shall be used. B. livery person who Is named In Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the form and all other parties to the reglatradon who have not withdrawn In an earlier application or statement must sign the application. C. Where a corporation is a member of a partnership with Individuals or otherwise conducting a bustrwu with individuals under a ilctltiuus name. the application shell be signed on its behalf by its president or vice president and secretary or trraeorer and shall bear the corporate seal. There shall be filed 9lmultanmN.1v Form DSCR. 15A2 (Apploatloo far an Amendment to a Corporate Fictitious Name RegNtration.I D. romtN and Information relative to Nina It the office of the prothonotary of the proper county, shall h, 9eo used by direct Inquiry addresscil to the prothonotary. 1. All hdi rniatlnn shill No typed or pnnnNl, to black Ink, I. Make cheek payable to, Secretary of the (mnmon vealth. (CASII WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED). C„ Send appllcati in and check to Corl"nation Bureau. Department of State, Room 808 North Me III 4g . I larri9burg. PR. 17120. 31V1S lk3lyido C7 )(!p 3.1-75:23 84:2 Filed this _-}9th day of APPL ICA NT S ACCT NO _ JUr fs]S_ rscs 54 2A as foes 10 141 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nny fat, srs 3.1.75:23 Department of State nN42 I line for numb-•t reel n filters Mrters etl FWNASSetn V ?? % ??1 htln to Yt bnerNnlleatlso COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Mina sepnnnss DEPARTMENT OF STATE. CORPORATION BURF.AL' Secretaryofthe Commonwealth lee (Bon for Certification) In avoidance with the requirements of srction 61.1 of the act of May `tg, 1915 (1'. L 887) (54 II. S. 1288a), the undenlgnal person(s), desiring to add name. of parovs In Interest, or to both add and delete names of parties in Interest. choice (do) hereby certify dia t: 1. The name, style or designation heretofore N•gi%tvred is, LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES 7. 1'he list preceding filing with respect to such mane was made In the Office of the Secretary or the Cornelison. wealthon. July 27th, 1973 IO.IfI .1. The name(s) and address(es). Including street dnd number, If any, of the parties In Interest to be added to said registration Is (am): NAMES RESIDENCES ,i wn ?? onunt .con 11,1111 Rn'cosel ENID V. LINE 550 West Perin Street, Carlisle, Pa., 17013 A The mune(r) and address(es), Including, strn•t :red number, If any, of the former parties in interest to be dolutrd thin sold registration is (nn•). NAMES IIF.SIDF.N('ES nnum to ,o 111111 ore case, Not applicable 1\1 CHARLOTTE CROW, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 4q- 3`l88 c G MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES and ROBERT SLAGLE, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Karen S. Coates, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 6" Floor Harrisburg, PA 17108 Robert Slagle 8 Foxfield Court Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE BY: ANDREW H. DOWLING, ESQUIRE Supreme Court I.D. No. 39692 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Telephone: (717) 232-5000 Attorneys for Plaintiff DATED: October 20, 1999 CHARLOTTE CROW and Plaintiff V. MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE, t/d/b/a LINE'S SUPPLIES and ROBERT L. SLAGLE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 99-3988 CML ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IMPORTANT NOTICE TO: Robert Slagle 8 Foxffeld Court Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 DATE OF NOTICE: October 21,1999 YOU ARE IN DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU rIAVE FAILED TO FILE IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE COMPLAINT SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. UNLESS YOU ACT WITHIN TEN DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE, A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU WITHOUT A HEARING AND YOU MAY LOSE YOUR PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORTANT RIGHTS. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS NOTICE TO A LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE FOLLOWING OFFICE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Lawyer Referral Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE By:? Andrew H. Dowling, Esquire Sup. Ct. I.D. #39692 3401 North Front Street P. 0. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717) 232-5000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositinga copy of same in the United States Mail, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Karen S. Coates, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N. Front St., P. 0. Box 999 Harrisburg,.PA 17108 and Robert Slagle 8 Foxfield Court Mechanicsburg, P.4,17055 METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE 11 ?? BY: ANDREW H. DOWLING, ESQUIRE Supreme Court I. D. No. 39692 3401 North Front Street P. 0. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Telephone: (717) 232-5000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs DATED: October 21, 1999 -zi j }? S 1.. ? CL CI ? ?. ryY _ W:.." CV l rQ . V O? ?} Oi C? POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: JOHN W.DORNBERGER I.D. #69293 BY: JACK R. CANAVAN I.D. # Admitted 12/9/99 240 GRANDVIEW AVENUE ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ROBERT L. SLAGLE CAMP HILL, PA 17011 (717) 731-1970 CHARLOTTE CROW Plaintiff, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE, t/d/b/a LINE'S SUPPLIES and ROBERT L. SLAGLE Defendants. TO THE PROTHONOTARY: NO. 99-3988 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of Defendant Robert L. Slagle, in connection with the above-captioned case. Respectfully submitted, & SCHELL, P.C. JACK R. CANAVAN, I Attorneys for Defendant Robert L. Slagle 1, Kelley Spangler, an employee of the law offices of Post & Schell, P.C., do hereby certify that on the date listed below, I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following person(s) at the following address(es) by sending same in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid: Andrew Dowling, Esquire METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE 3401 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17011 Melvin L. Line Enid Line Line's Office Supplies 419 E. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 ,1 4 D„ I anfflq Day KELLEY S AN LER Dated: 12 oZa cn _ c i i. i^+ NOTICE TO PLEAD POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: JOHN W. DORNBERGER I.D. # 69293 BY: JOHN R. CANAVAN I.D. #84728 240 GRANDVIEW AVENUE CAMP HILL, PA 17011 (717) 731-1970 CHARLOTTE CROW V. MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE, t/d/b/a LINE'S SUPPLIES and ROBERT L. SLAGLE Plaintiff, Defendants. TO: Plaintiff and Co-Defendant: You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter and Cross- Claim of Defendant Robert L. Slagle within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. Robert L. Slagle ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ROBERT L. SLAGLE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-3988 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER, NEW MATTER AND CROSS-CLAIM OF DEFENDANT ROBERT I Si A I F TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Defendant Robert L. Slagle ("Defendant"), by and through his attorneys, Post & Schell, P.C., hereby files this Answer, New Matter and Cross-Claim to Plaintiffs Complaint as follows: Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted in part; denied in part. The corresponding allegations are denied to the extent that Plaintiffs Complaint is vague as to the exact location of Plaintiffs alleged accident and fails to identify "property" with sufficient specificity. Defendant admits that he was the owner of certain real property located at 419 E. High Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania on January 9, 1998. After reasonable investigation Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied. 4. Denied. The corresponding allegations are directed to parties other than Defendant and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent any responses are required, the allegations are denied as conclusions of law. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied. 6. Denied. The corresponding allegations are directed to parties other than Defendant and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent any responses are required, the allegations are denied as conclusions of law. -2- 7. Denied. The corresponding allegations are directed to parties other than Defendant and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent any responses are required, the allegations are denied as conclusions of law. 8. Denied. The corresponding allegations are directed to parties other than Defendant and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent any responses are required, the allegations are denied as conclusions of law. 9. Denied. The corresponding allegations are directed to parties other than Defendant and, therefore, no response is required. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied. To the extent any response is required, the allegations are denied as conclusions of law. 10. Denied. The corresponding allegations are denied as conclusions of law. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied. Any remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law. 12. Denied. The corresponding allegations are directed to parties other than Defendant, and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent any response is required, the allegations are denied as conclusions of law. 13. Denied. The corresponding allegations are directed to parties other than Defendant, and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent any response is required, the allegations are denied as conclusions of law. -3- 14. Denied. The corresponding allegations are directed to parties other than Defendant and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent any response is required, the allegations are denied as conclusions of law. 15. Denied. The corresponding allegations are directed to parties other than Defendant and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent any response is required, the allegations are denied as conclusions of law. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied. Any remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied. Any remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied. Any remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied. Any remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied. Any remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter Judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff. -4- 21. Defendant incorporates by reference its Answers to paragraphs 1 through 20 as if set forth at length fully herein. 22. Admitted in part; denied in part. The corresponding allegations are denied because Plaintiff fails to identify the portion of the leasehold/real property where Plaintiff was allegedly injured with sufficient specificity. The corresponding allegations are further denied because Plaintiff fails to identify "at all times relevant" and "property" with sufficient specificity . Defendant admits he was the owner of certain real property located at 419 E. High Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania on or about January 8, 1998. Defendant denies that he operated, supervised, maintained or controlled the property located at 419 E. High Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania as alleged. 23. Denied. The corresponding allegations are denied because Plaintiff fails to identify "at all times relevant", "duly authorized agents, servants, workmen, and/or employees", "scope of their authority and employment" and "course of Defendants business" with sufficient specificity. Any remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law. 24. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Line's Office Supply operated a retail business at 419 E. High Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania on January 8, 1998. The corresponding allegations are denied because Plaintiff fails to identify "at the aforesaid time and place" and "property" with sufficient specificity. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied. Any remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law. -5- 25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied. 26. Denied. The corresponding allegations are denied because Plaintiff fails to identify "at the aforesaid time and place" with sufficient specificity. Any remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law. 27. Denied. The corresponding allegations are denied because Plaintiff fails to identify "at the aforesaid time and place" and "property" with sufficient specificity. It is denied that the exit passage was defectively designed and/or maintained or that the actions or omissions of Defendant were the proximate cause of Plaintiffs alleged damages. To the contrary, Defendant acted in a reasonable manner under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining factual allegations and, accordingly, all such factual allegations are denied. Any remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law. Defendant incorporates this averment to each and every paragraph of this Answer as if set forth therein at length. 28. Denied. The corresponding allegations are denied because Plaintiff fails to identify "at the aforesaid time and place", "exit passageway" and " property" with sufficient specificity. It is further denied that any portion of 419 East High Street was designed and/or maintained in a negligent, careless or defective manner or that the actions or omissions of Defendant was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs alleged damages. To the contrary, Defendants acted in a reasonable manner under the circumstances. Any remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law. 29. Denied. The corresponding allegations are denied because Plaintiff fails to identify "exit passageway" with sufficient specificity. It is further denied that any portion of 416 East High -6- Street was designed and/or maintained in a negligent, careless, reckless or defective manner or that the actions or omissions of Defendant was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs alleged damages. To the contrary, Defendant acted in a reasonable manner under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining factual allegations and, accordingly, all such factual allegations are denied. Any remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law. 30. Denied. The corresponding allegations are denied because Plaintiff fails to identify "exit passage" with sufficient specificity. It is further denied that the Defendant was negligent, careless or reckless or that the actions or omissions of Defendant was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs alleged damages. To the contrary Defendant acted in a reasonable manner under the circumstances. Any remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law. 31. Denied. It is denied that the Defendants were negligent, careless or reckless or that the actions or omissions of Defendant was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs alleged damages. To the contrary, Defendant acted in a reasonable manner under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied. Any remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law. 32. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied. 33. Denied. It is denied that the Defendant was negligent, careless or reckless or that the actions or omissions of Defendant was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs alleged damages. To the contrary, Defendants acted in a reasonable manner under the circumstances. After reasonable -7- investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied. Any remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law. 34. Denied. It is denied that the Defendant was negligent, careless or reckless or that the actions or omissions of Defendant was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs alleged damages. To the contrary, Defendants acted in a reasonable manner under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied. Any remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law. 35. Denied. It is denied that the Defendant was negligent, careless or reckless or that the actions or omissions of Defendant was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs alleged damages. To the contrary, Defendants acted in a reasonable manner under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied. Any remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law. 36. Denied. It is denied that the Defendant was negligent, careless or reckless or that the actions or omissions of Defendant was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs alleged damages. To the contrary, Defendants acted in a reasonable manner under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations and, accordingly, all such allegations are denied. Any remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law. WHEREFORE, Defendant Robert L. Slagle respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter Judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff. -8- 37. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 38. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the statute of limitations. 39. Recovery is barred because Plaintiff assumed the risk of the occurrence of the incident and the injuries or damages alleged. 40. Claims are bared in whole or in part by the contributory or comparative negligence of Plaintiff or that of her agents. 41. The alleged injuries and damages were the result of the actions and omissions of Plaintiff and/or persons other than Defendant. 42. Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are barred because Defendant was a landlord out of possession. 43. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages. 44. Defendant asserts all of the defenses, limitations and provisions of the lease between Defendant and Line's Office Supply executed on January 3, 1993 relative to 419 E. High Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania and avers that the remedies of Plaintiff and co-Defendant as against Defendant are limited exclusively thereto and therefore the present action is barred. 45. Plaintiffs injuries and/or damages, if any, were caused by the intervening wrongdoing of others over which the Defendant had no control and for which this Defendant was not responsible. 46. Damages alleged by Plaintiff are not recoverable under the applicable law. WHEREFORE, Defendant Robert L. Slagle, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter Judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff. -9- 47. Defendant incorporates by reference paragraphs I through 46 of its Answer and New Matter as if set forth at length herein. 48. If the injuries or damages were suffered by Plaintiff as alleged, the same were not caused by Defendant, but a cause thereof would be the acts, omissions, breach of contract, negligence, carelessness, recklessness, or liability producing conduct of Melvin L. Line and Enid Line, t/d/b/a Line's Office Supplies. 49. Melvin L. Line and Enid Line, t/d/b/a Line's Office Supplies, is liable to Plaintiff or is jointly and/or severely liable with Defendant or is liable or to Defendant for any monies required to be paid by Defendant. WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment against Melvin L. Line and Enid Line, t/d/b/a Line's Office Supplies for breach of contract, contribution and indemnity as well as for attorneys fees, costs, interest or other expenses and such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem appropriate. Date: February / 000 -10- POST & SCHELL, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant cent ny: Liuniai rata a u; 1111e4lulle; Jan-IV-uu /:4UAM; Page 2/2 Y RMCAIM I. Robert L. Slagle, do hereby swear and affinn that the facts and matters set forth in the Answer and New Matter Pursuant to 2252(d) arc true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements made therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsw, DATE: /-7-00 7614 t0 2000 06:57 17172416772 PAGE. 02 I, John W. Domberger, Esq., of the law offices of Post & Schell, P.C., do hereby certify that on the date listed below, I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following person(s) at the following address(es) by sending same in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid: Andrew Dowling, Esquire METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE 3401 North Front Street P. 0. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-5950 Melvin L. Line Enid Line Line's Office Supplies 419 E. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Dated: February / , 2000 ,, ??? L', f_ f,. • 1 !. ? ? f? U (._ r' 1 L. 1 I _ ._ i L.. li ?-? •'. ?' t_. ?. Karen S. Coates, Esquire Attorney I.D. # 52654 Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 237-7121 Attorneys for Defendants Line and Line's Office Supplies CHARLOTTE CROW, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. V. MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE, t/d/b/a LINE'S OFFICE SUPPLIES, and ROBERT SLAGLE, NO. 99-3988 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 47. Defendants Melvin L. Line and Enid Line, t/d/b/a Line's Office Supplies incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 53 of their Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint with New Matter and Crossclaims as if set forth at length. 48. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 48 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiffs injuries and/or damages were caused by any acts, omissions, breaches of contract, negligence, carelessness, recklessness or any conduct on the part of Melvin L. Line and Enid Line, t/d/b/a Line's Office Supplies and proof is demanded. 49. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 49 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendants Melvin L. Line and Enid Line, t/d/b/a Line's Office Supplies are liable to the Plaintiff or are jointly and/or severally liable with Defendant Robert Slagle or are liable over to Defendant Robert Slagle for any monies required to be paid by Defendant Robert Slagle and proof is demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendants Melvin L. Line and Enid Line, t/d/b/a Line's Office Supplies demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant Robert Slagle with respect to his claim for breach of contract, contribution and indemnity, as well as for attorneys' fees, costs, interest or other expenses. Respectfully submitted, & HAFER, LLP ,Caren S. Cdateg, ui Attorney I.D. # 52654 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 237-7121 Date: February 17, 2000 Attorneys for Defendants Melvin L. Line, Enid Line and Line's Office Supplies 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that on this day I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document by first class mail, postage pre-paid, addressed to the following: John W. Dornberger, Esquire Post & Schell, P.C. 240 Grandview Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 Andrew H. Dowling, Esquire Matte, Evans & Woodside 3401 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17011 Date: February 17, 2000 :88553.1 3 - _? .. ? ? .: ?.. ?, n W m ? ? O ? W ,= "? i pqj a ? ? x b ? ? N y = 0aJ ` ?' r O h ? O O 1 ¢ }?v 2 ? fq }?r N Z n 0 h POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: AMY L. CORYER I.D. # 82718 240 GRANDVIEW AVENUE CAMP HILL, PA 17011 (717)731-1970 CHARLOTTE CROW Plaintiff, V. MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE, t/d/b/a LINE'S SUPPLIES and ROBERT L. SLAGLE Dclendnnln. A'T'TORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ROBERT L. SLAGLE INTHE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUM 13ERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-3988 CIVIL AC'T'ION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENIKY (pl U'1'1?AItANC'1. TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalI'll I' Defendant, Robert L. Slagle, in connection with the above-captioned matter. Rcspwtrully submitted, DATE: 9// `i /O U_ POS'r &. SCHELL, P.C. AMY L. DRYER, SQUIRE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jenny L. Colledge, an employee of the law offices of Post & Schell, P.C., do hereby certify that on the date listed below, I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following person(s) at the following address(es) by sending same in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid: Andrew Dowling, Esquire METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-5950 Karen S. Coates, Esquire Thomas Thomas & Hafer 305 N. Front Street PO Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 % l DATE: ?W-(57J a JENNY L. LLEDGE 14, Y nj h O -, iT? CJ J? O_ C.l O CJ A '.y POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: AMY L. CORYER I.D. # 82718 240 GRANDVIEW AVENUE CAMP HILL, PA 17011 (717) 731-1970 CHARLOTTE CROW Plaintiff, V. MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE, t/d/b/a LINE'S SUPPLIES and ROBERT L. SLAGLE Defendants ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ROBERT L. SLAGLE ? ?CQ NO V IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-3988 CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, TO WIT, this day of 2000, upon consideration of the Motion of Defendant, Robert L. Slagle, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff, Charlotte Crow, is to provide full and complete responses to the outstanding Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents or be precluded from introducing testimony, including expert witness testimony, at trial regarding same. Plaintiff is to produce said discovery responses within twenty (20) days of the date of this order or suffer the possibility of sanctions, upon further motion by Moving Defendant. BY THE COURT, POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: AMY L. CORYER I.D. # 82718 240 GRANDVIEW AVENUE CAMP HILL, PA 17011 (717) 731-1970 CHARLOTTE CROW Plaintiff, V. MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE, t/d/b/a LINE'S SUPPLIES and ROBERT L. SLAGLE Defendants. ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ROBERT L.SLAGLE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-3988 CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED RULE. TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, this ? day of v - , 2000, a Rule is issued upon Plaintiff to show cause why Moving Defendant Robert L. Slagle's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents should not be granted. Rule returnable o2 D days after service. BY THE COUR Lp. q O:t.a II- 22-OU ., _ -0, POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: AMY L. CORYER I.D. # 82718 240GRANDVIEW AVENUE CAMP HILL, PA 17011 (717) 731-1970 CHARLOTTE CROW Plaintiff, V. MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE, t/d/b/a LINE'S SUPPLIES and ROBERT L. SLAGLE Defendants. ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ROBERT L. SLAGLE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-3988 CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT ROBERT L. SLAGLE'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF CHARLOTTE CROW AND NOW, comes Defendant, Robert L. Slagle, by and through his attorney, POST & SCHELL, P.C., and for his Motion to Compel Plaintiff to file responses to Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, states as follows: 1. Plaintiff filed the instant negligence action on or about June 29, 1999. 2. On February 11, 2000, Moving Defendant served Plaintiff with Interrogatories and a Request for Production of Documents in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 4005 and Pa. R.C.P. 4009.11. (See Exhibit "A"). 3. Due to objections made by Plaintiffs counsel regarding the number of Interrogatories, revised Interrogatories were served upon Plaintiff by Moving Defendant on March 3, 2000. (See Exhibit "B"). 4. Plaintiff failed to respond in any fashion to Moving Defendant's discovery requests within thirty (30) days. 5. On or about September 19, 2000, Moving Defendant forwarded a letter to Plaintiffs counsel requesting responses to Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. (See Exhibit "C"). 6. After not receiving the responses from the Plaintiff, the Moving Defendant, on or about October 18, 2000, forwarded a letter requesting responses to Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents within ten (10) days. (See Exhibit "D"). 7. On October 31, 2000, Plaintiffs counsel contacted Moving Defendant's counsel and asked for an extension through the end of the week, November 10, 2000, to provide the Plaintiffs responses to Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. 8. On November 1, 2000, counsel for Moving Defendant forwarded a letter to Plaintiffs counsel memorializing their October 31, 2000, telephone conversation and advising Plaintiffs counsel that a Motion to Compel would be filed if the responses to Moving Defendant's discovery responses were not provided by November 10, 2000. 9. Plaintiff did not provide her responses to Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents by November 10, 2000. 10. To date, the Plaintiff still has not provided her responses to Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. 11. Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4006(a)(2), the answering party shall serve a copy of answers and objections, if any, within thirty (30) days after the service of the interrogatories in question. 12. As Plaintiff has failed to respond in accordance with the civil procedure rules, it is respectfully requested that this Court issue an order directing the Plaintiff to provide full and complete answers to outstanding discovery or be precluded from introducing testimony at trial regarding the same. 13. Moving Defendant is prejudiced by Plaintiff's refusal to provide discovery information as it has been precluded from ascertaining the nature of the Plaintiffs claims and/or injuries or gaining the necessary investigative materials to further the course of the instant litigation. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Court issue an order directing Plaintiff to file answers to outstanding discovery or be precluded from offering testimony, including expert witness testimony, regarding the same. Respectfully submitted, POST & SCHELL, P.C. ( ? ,, f Z4 o") - t ' AMY L. CORYER" ESQUIRE Attorney for Moving Defendant Robert L. Slagle Dated: 11 ? 17 /OU AMY L. CORYER, ESQUIRE, states that she is the attorney for the party serving the foregoing document; that she makes this affidavit as an attorney because she has sufficient knowledge or information and belief, based upon her investigation of the matters averred or denied in the foregoing document; that time is of the essence in the filing of this document; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. (l nti?le AMY L.CORY , ESQUIRE DATE: 11) 17 LX) Exhibit A I BOO JOHN F KENNEDY BLVD ADAMS PLACE SURE PHILADELPHIA. PA 10 103 7480 701 WHITE HORSE ROAD C21 VOORHEES. NJ 08043 FAX 121 51 587 1A44 15561 627 8000 FAX 185616274451 February 11, 2000 Andrew Dowling, Esquire Mette, Evans & Woodside 3401 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17011 RE: Crow v. Line's Office Products and Slagle Dear Mr. Dowling: THE BERKSHIRE - SUM 205 SOI WASHINGTON STREET READING, PA 10603 18' 01 373.2256 FAX. 61 OI 375.2253 SHANRY SEMANS 171912-6011 0 SS[rAx[fyvwl9cr?ttL.cou Enclosed please find Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents directed to Plaintiff from Defendant Slagle. Kindly respond in the time provided pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Very truly yours, Sharry Semans Paralegal POST & SCHELL, P.C ATrORNEYS AT LAW 240 GRANDVIEW AVENUE CAMP HILL, PA 1701 1 O I T 73 1. 1 970 FACSIMILE 171 71 73 I - 1 985 1245 5 CEDAR CREST BOULEVARD 1857 WIWAM PENN WAY O OURS 500 P O. BOX 10248 p ALLENTOWN, PA 18103 LANCASTER. PA 176050248 61014330193 171 71 2014532 FGX (810$4333972 J FAX. 1717)201 1500 SDS/mys Enclosure cc: Karen Coates, Esquire Exhibit B XlNlfiC}! ??RT .aum ?;>lauf , .'. l .. 1. 1 iTr ? ,.,, f .nr ?,'In..rr mn• ?l?4grr '; •ipQ)inQ •+prt '.7nbPr} Slaa?lP Il'"I 'r' l .- ,, .t!n•: r: .?.,'., r,l? I ,at".'Rr( 1 -:L;c-:l(73llt-ii:L:r:-. :Rte-t0 S;3tOTIES Exhibit C POST & SCHELL, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 240 GRANOVIEW AVENUE CAMP HILL, PA 1 701 1 (717) 731.1970 FACSIMILE'. 17 1 71 731 1985 I BOO JOHN F. KENNEDY BLVD. ADAMS PLACE - SUITE 3 1 245 3. CEDAR CREST BOULEVARD 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY THE BERKSHIRE - SUITE 205 PHILADELPHIA. PA 191007480 701 WHITE HORSE ROAD SUITE 300 P.O. BOX 10248 501 WASHINGTON STTIEET 12 15) 587- 1 OCO VOORHEES, NJ 015043 ALLENTOWN, PA 1 B 103 LANCASTER. PA 178050248 READING. PA 19603 FAX: 12 15) 587.1444 (8561 627 0900 15101 4330193 (717) 291 4532 10101375.2258 FAX 155516274451 FAX 15 101 433 3972 FAX. (7t71291 1609 FAX'. 101013752253 AMY L. CORYER (717) 01 2.6038 September 19, 2000 A`PK"AOP41111x"F.1C.. FILE NO. 8 26/8 5 590 Andrew H. Dowling, Esq. METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE 3401 N. Front Street P.O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 RE: Crow v. Slagle, et al. Dear Mr. Dowling Please be advised that I have assumed handling of this case and any future correspondence should be sent to my attention. I have filed an Entry of Appearance on today's date. Upon reviewing the file, I noted that my predecessor had forwarded Interrogatories and a Request for Production of Documents to be answered and verified by your client on February 11, 2000. Upon your filing of an objection to the number of Interrogatories, the Interrogatories were revised and the revisions sent to you on March 3, 2000. 1 do not see where your client's responses were ever provided. Please forward your client's verified responses to our discovery requests as soon as possible. Once received, we will schedule the deposition of Ms. Crow. Also, I am quite confident your client had health insurance coverage available to cover her medical bills. Please forward documentation of the amount of the health care lien. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Thank you. Very truly yours, Amy L. Coryer ALC/ Exhibit D POST & SCHELL, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAw 240 GRAN/1VIEw AVENUE CAMP HILL, PA 1 70 1 1 17 1 71 73 1-1070 FAC51MU.E (717) 731 - 1985 11100 JOHN F. KENNEDY BLVD. ADAMS PLACE - SUITE J 1 245 5. CEDAR CREST BOULEVARD 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY THE BERKSHIRE - SURE 205 PHILADELPHIA. PA IQ 103 7480 701 WHITE HORSE ROAD SUITE 300 P.O BOX 10248 501 WASHINGTON STREET 121515871000 VOORHEES. NJ 08043 ALLENTOWN. PA 10103 LANCASTER, PA 175050248 READING, PA 10503 FAR. 12151 B87-1444 48561 627 80M 18101433 OIOJ (7 171291 4532 151015752258 FAX IB5516274451 FAX'. 151014333072 FAX 17171201.1500 FAX 151013752203 AMY L. CORYER 17 1 71 e 1 2-eO38 October 18, 2000 A`°"'`"®P4•'SC"X" R°" FILE NO. e2e/85590 Andrew H. Dowling, Esquire METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE 3401 N. Front Street P.O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 RE: Crow v. Slagle, et al. Dear Mr. Dowling: I trust you were advised that we will keep our $10,000 offer open for an additional period of time. The offer, however, should be considered formally withdrawn if not accepted on or before October 31, 2000. Please forward answers to Interrogatories and Request for Production within ten (10) days in order to obviate the filing of a Motion to Compel. I look forward to receiving Ms. Crow's responses by October 30, 2000. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at the above number. Very truly yours, Amy L. Coryer ALC/ Exhibit E POST & SCHELL, RC. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 240 GRANDVIEW AVENUE CAMP HILL, PA 1 70 1 1 17171731 1070 FAC51M11-C. (717) 7O 1 - 1085 I BOO JOHN F. KENNEDY BLVD. ADAMS PLACE - SUITE 3 1245 5 CEDAR CREST BOULEVARU 1057 WILLIAM PENN WAY THE BERKSHIRE - SURE 205 PHILADELPHIA. PA IQ 103.7480 701 WHITE HORSE ROAD SURE BOO P.O. BOX 10248 501 WASHINGTON STREET 121515871000 VOORHEES, NJ 00043 ALLENTOWN, PA 10103 LANCASTER. PA 170050248 READING, PA 10003 FAX: 12151 5871444 IB 501 5278000 10101 433.0103 171 71 201 4532 10101 3752255 FAX: 185010274451 FAX 101014333072 FAX (717)201 1000 FAX'. 10 1 0) 375 2253 AMY L. CORTER (717) 612-a038 November I, 2000 ACP„"^ FILE NO. 62 0/8 5 500 Andrew H. Dowling, Esquire METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE 3401 N. Front Street P.O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 RE: Crow v. Slagle, et al. Dear Mr. Dowling: This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation on October 31, 2000. You indicated that you are discussing settlement with the Co-Defendant in this case. We also talked about the possibility of obtaining a Joint Tortfeasor Release in exchange for my client's offer of $10,000. I have enclosed a proposed Joint Tortfeasor Release should your client accept this offer. My client has authorized me to keep our $10,000 offer on the table only through November 10, 2000. He will not authorize me to extend the offer beyond this date. Also, he informed me that I should file a Motion to Compel your client's responses to Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents if the responses are not received by November 10, 2000. Again, I will have no choice but to proceed with a Motion to Compel if the responses are not received by that date. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Thank you. Very truly yours, Amy L. Coryer ALC/ Enclosure I, Kelley A. Spangler., of the law offices of Post & Schell, P.C., do hereby certify that on the date listed below, I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following person(s) at the following address(es) by sending same in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid: Andrew Dowling, Esquire METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-5950 Karen S. Coates, Esquire Thomas Thomas & Hafer 305 N. Front Street PO Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 ?? ?i! ?'i1G11/2n_ DATE: -7 -QQ Kelley A. Sp ngler t I I - ? I >- ' i ri : i•. ?.. ?,. . ' u. ` ... ?J _? ) POST & SCHELL, P.C. BY: AMY L. CORYER I.D. # 82718 240 GRANDVIEW AVENUE CAMP HILL, PA 17011 (717) 731-1970 CHARLOTTE CROW Plaintiff, V. MELVIN L. LINE and ENID LINE, t/d/b/a LINE'S SUPPLIES and ROBERT L. SLAGLE Defendants. ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ROBERT L. SLAGLE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-3988 CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FQH DISCONTINUANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: PLEASE mark the above-captioned matter ended, settled and discontinued. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Dowling, Esq. ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF DATE: 1, Kelley A. Spangler, an employee of the law offices of Post & Schell, P.C., do hereby certify that on the date listed below, I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following person(s) at the following address(es) by sending same in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid: Andrew Dowling, Esquire METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-5950 Karen S. Coates, Esquire Thomas Thomas & Hafer 305 N. Front Street PO Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 X LL' I G. I-J bG) Kelley A. Sp gler DATE: L -, ':.J p? ?