The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About99-05817•? , ,... '-.. ,,? y.: ?'1 ?..?...? __. 1-.'ss.W_ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 44.5'8/ {9 Civil Action - (XX) Law ( ) Equity JURY TRIAL DEMANDED JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. 136 N. York Road Dillsburg, PA 17019 BRENDA L. PALUSCIO 136 N. York Road Dillsburg, PA 17019 LEROY DETWEILER 917 Messiah Village P.O. Box 2015 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 FLORENCE DETWEILER 917 Messiah Village P.O. Box 2015 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION c/o Office of Attorney General - Torts Litigation 15" Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Plaintiff (s) & Address(es) PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue A Writ of Summons in the above-captioned action. X Writ of Summons Shall be issued and forwarded to IAtto( W. Scott Henning. Esquire ? 319 Market Street P.O. Box 1177 Signature of Attor Harrisburg, PA 17108 _(717) 238-2000 Supreme Court ID Name/Address/Telephone No. of Attorney Date: 9/21/9 WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): Defendant(s) & Address(es) YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HAS/HAVE COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Prothonotary Date: 5 -21 ?9S! by C.y rt Ct. 7Lt, lLt..? -? Deputy ( 1 Check here if reverse is used for additional information PROTHON.-55 UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP 100 Gettysburg Pike Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 ?Y t? ?'y P ? J re w M ,,pp T Q ? 44 Q PIE , C] rq ? U ri - fl.- LLI uJ W _ U m V Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section IS" Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Jay W. Stark Senior Deputy Attorney General Direct Dial 717-783-3148 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants : NO. 99-5817 CIVIL TERM ENTRY OFAPPEARANCE Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, in the above-captioned action. Respectfully submitted, D. MICHAEL FISHER Attorney General By: RK - ID #51786 Attorney General DATED: October 18, 1999 .V CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE I hereby certify that 1 am this day serving the foregoing document(s) upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: SER VICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS. W. SCOTT HENNING, ESQUIRE 319 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 1177 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (Attorney for Plaintiffs) LEROY DETWEILER 917 MESSIAH VILLAGE P.O. BOX 2015 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 FLORENCE DETWEILER 917 MESSIAH VILLAGE P.O. BOX 2015 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP 100 GETTYSBURG PIKE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 By: Gi v - AY. S RK ID #51786 e or Del y Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15" Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-783-3148 - Direct Dial DATED: October 18, 1999 l!7 Ln z i? S JZ?Z CL ?j - ?, o n c? Ch ON SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 1999-05817 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND PALUSCIO JOHN S JR ET AL VS. DETWEILER LEROY ET AL DAWN KELL Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon DETWEILER FLORENCE the defendant, at 15:46 HOURS, on the 28th day of September 1999 at 917 MESSIAH VILLAGE P O BOX 2015 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, by handing to FLORENCE DETWEILER a true and attested copy of the WRIT OF SUMMONS and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: So answers: Docketing 6.00???, SIC Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 8.00 omas in 5 eri $i4.uu1H0ND4ER, HENNING & ROSENBERG by _ A.a?7-rl epu y 5 eri Sworn and subscribed before me this 00a day of SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 1999-05817 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND PALUSCIO JOHN S JR ET AL VS. DETWEILER LEROY ET AL DAWN KELL , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP the defendant, at 15:25 HOURS, on the 28th day of September 1999 at 100 GETTYSBURG PIKE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, by handing to HARRY KROT (TOWNSHIP MANAGER) a true and attested copy of the WRIT OF SUMMONS and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: So answer Docketing 6.00 Service 7.00 +EC Affidavit 00 Surcharge 8.00 omas ine, eri S•21-4?0 DLER99HHENNING & ROSENBERG by V-141 epu y eri Sworn ,anld'subscribed before me this day of A SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 1999-05817 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND PALUSCIO JOHN 3 JR ET AL vs. DETWEILER LEROY 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: PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of DAUPHIN County, Pennsylvania. to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS On October 4th, 1999 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from DAUPHIN County, Pennsylvania. Sheriff's Costs: So answer Docketing 6.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 8.00 I omas ine? Dep. Dauphin Cc 31.50 0 1H0 04/1?9HENNING & ROSENBERG Sworn and subscribed o before me this f day of 1 o r? 21 n SHERIFF'S RETURN - NOT FOUND CASE NO: 1999-05817 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND PALUSCIO JOHN S JR ET AL VS. DETWEILER LEROY 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: DETWEILER LEROY but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore returns the WRIT OF SUMMONS NOT FOUND , as to the within named defendant DETWEILER LEROY DEFENDANT IS DECEASED. Sheriff's Costs: So answ Docketing 18.00 Service 7.44 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 8.00 omas ine, 5 er? $ T 10 DLER, 9ENNING & ROSENBERG Sworn and subscribed before me this ? day of 19 CjC/ A.D. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 99- 6-s/ Li'a T . No. 19 Civil Action - (Xi) Law 1 1 Equity JURY TRIAL DEMANDED JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. LEROY DETWEILER 136 N. York Road 917 Messiah Village Dillsburg, PA 17019 P.O. Box 2015 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 BRENDA L. PALUSCIO 136 N. York Road FLORENCE DETWEILER Dillsburg, PA 17019 917 Messiah Village P.O. Box 2015 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 TRUE COPY FROM flEnk07"D In 6Lt;avyly *.1Aercvi, I here ual:) R^ :;., and 11% S 3C4.1 of S.:itf .-0u' a; f;ar4s ' ila. This A r day of 13 94 Address(es) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION c/o Office of Attorney General - Torts Litigation 15'" Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP 100 Gettysburg Pike Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Defendant(s) & Address(es) PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue A Writ of Summons in the above-captioned action. X Writ of Summons Shall be issued and forwarded to )Atto ney W. Scott Henning, Esquire `// 319 Market Street P.O. Box 1177 Signature of Attorney Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 238-2000 Supreme Court ID No Name/Address/Telephone No. of Attorney Date: 9/21/99 WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HAS/HAVE COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Date:',p? (.:C?.?;Ga K. 4 Yr.: Prothonotary Deputy 1 ) Check here if reverse is used for additional information PROTHON.-55 flea [is LI-Im Eli) LLT ? Q a, s J? N; r ? ? J W yz.-. (h ?- r r (n i 1 ;L W ti C?j W yLLt 4 34 o OFFIC NE, E.• CF THE SHERIFF CLI m SEP 11 3 37 PM '99 PENN I. VANIA (pffice of foe ,?ShPrt ff Man Jane Sm der Ralph G. McAllister Rcal Estate lhputy Chiel lkputy William T. Tully Michael W. Rinehart Solicitor Assistant Chief Depul) Dauphin County Harrisburg. Pennsylvania 17101 plt: (717) 255.2066 tax: (717) 255-2899 Jack Lotwick Sheriff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania PALUSCIO JOHN S JR vs County of Dauphin DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Sheriff's Return No. 2029-T - - -1999 OTHER COUNTY NO. 99-5817 AND NOW: September 28, 1999 at 9:30AM served the within SUMMONS IN CIVIL ACTION upon OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL by personally handing to CATHY STEHMAN 1 true attested copy(ies) of the original SUMMCNS IN CIVIL ACTION and making known to him/her the contents thereof at 16TH FLOOR STRAWBERRY SQUARE HARRISBURG, PA 17101-0000 Sworn and subscribed to before me this 28TH day of SEPTEMBER, 1999 • 1 ?r PROTHONOTARY So Answers, ?)P?°,; ? Sheriff of Dauphin County, Pa. I` ? 1 By, / IT ty Sh iff Sheriff's Costs: $31.50 PD 09/27/1999 RCPT NO 128566 RM/MP In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania John S. Paluscio, Jr., et, al. VS. Leroy Detweiler, et. Serve: Commonwealth of PennsylvaW(p. 99-5817 Civil Department of Transportation, c/o Of motto ey enera Now, 9/22/99 19I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Dauphin 19_, at o'clock M. served the deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, within upon at by handing to a and made known to copy of the original County to execute this Writ, this the contents thereof. So answers, Sheriff of Sworn and subscribed before me this _ day of , 19 COSTS SERVICE $ MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT County, PA $ LW LAW OFFICES OF DEVLIN, KAUFFMAN & SHILLING ATTORNEY: Howard D. Kauffman SUPREME COURT I.D. NO.: 38963 100 PINE STREET, SUITE 300 HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717) 720.0700 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs VS. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Upper Allen Township IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 99-5817-Civil PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Kindly enter the appearance of Howard D. Kauffman, Esquire, on behalf of Defendant Upper Allen Township in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, DEVLIN, KAUFFMAN & SHILLING Ho d D. Kauffinan, Esquire tr LAW OFFICES OF DEVLIN, KAUFFMAN & SHILLING ATTORNEY: Howard D. Kauffman SUPREME COURT I.D. NO.: 38963 100 PINE STREET, SUITE 300 HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717) 720-0700 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs VS. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Upper Allen Township IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 99-5817-Civil CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE y October, 1999, AND NOW, this I, Howard D. Kauffman, Esquire, attorney for Defendant Upper Allen Township, affirm that I served the Praecipe for Entry of Appearance depositing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: W. Scott Henning, Esquire 319 Market Street PO Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Plaintiffs J. W. Stark, Esquire Torts Litigation Section Office of Attorney General 15th Fl., Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Attorney for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation Leroy and Florence Detweiler 917 Messiah Village PO Box 2015 Mechanicsburg, Pa 17055 Howard .Kauffman, Esquire m cl, %k AN LAW OFFICES OF DEVLIN, KAUFFMAN & SHILLING ATTORNEY: Howard D. Kauffman SUPREME COURT I.D. NO.: 38963 100 PINE STREET, SUITE 300 HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717) 720-0700 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs VS. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants DOCKET NO. 99-5817-Civil PRAECIPE FOR ISSUANCE OF RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please issue a Rule upon the Plaintiff to file a Complaint within 20 days of service thereof or suffer judgment of non pros. BY How d D. Kauffman, Esquire TO: Plaintiffs A rule is hereby entered upon you to file a Complaint in the above matter within 20 days of service hereof or suffer judgment of non pros. /11 4-) R' ?n Prothonotary 0 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Upper Allen Township IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Oct . a ie t 1-2?? LAW OFFICES OF DEVIAN, KAUFFMAN & SHILLING ATTORNEY: Howard D. Kauffman SUPREME COURT I.D. NO.: 38963 100 PINE STREET, SUITE 300 HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717) 720-0700 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs vs. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Upper Allen Township IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 99-5817-Civil CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, thi day of October, 1999, I, Howard D. Kauffman, Esquire, attorney for Defendant Upper Allen Township, affirm that I served the Praecipe for Issuance of Rule to File Complaint depositing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: W. Scott Henning, Esquire 319 Market Street PO Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Plaintiffs J. W. Stark, Esquire Torts Litigation Section Office of Attorney General 15th Fl., Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Attorney jar Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation Leroy and Florence Detweiler 917 Messiah Village PO Box 2015 Mechanicsburg, Pa 17055 How . Kauffman, Esquire cJ r; ,z- u: u!?-' - -? ?:?f'' -r ??: tb 41-- N i li_ ?: ? 1^- ???t'J ?, ?_ CJ _ L_ U C:'f o? U LAW OFFICES OF DEVLIN, KAUFFMAN & SHILLING ATTORNEY: Howard D. Kauffman SUPREME COURT I.D. NO.: 38963 100 PINE STREET, SUITE 300 HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717) 720-0700 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Upper Allen Township IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants DOCKET NO. 99-5817-Civil CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ay of October, 1999, I, Howard D. Kauffman, Esquire, attorney for Defendant Upper Allen Township, affirm that I served the Interrogatories Addressed to Plaintiffs - Set I and Request for Production of Documents depositing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: W. Scott Henning, Esquire 319 Market Street PO Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Plaintiffs J. W. Stark, Esquire Torts Litigation Section Office of Attorney General 15th Fl., Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Attorney for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation Leroy and Florence Detweiler 917 Messiah Village PO Box 2015 Mechanicsburg, Pa 17055 How D. Kauffman, Esquire C? l IL. L? ?- CV J L5 U JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs V. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 99-5817-Civil JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendants Leroy Detweiler and Florence Detweiler in the above matter. METZGER, WICKERSHAM. KNAUSS & ERB, P.C. 17 Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 30102 3211 North Front Street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Attorneys for Defendants Detweiler Document #: /64345./ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this/ / d y of OVeynl ? 1999, I, Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire, of Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., hereby certify that 1 served a copy of the within Entry of Appearance this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: W. Scott Henning, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg 319 Market Street, P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 J.W. Stark, Esquire Torts Litigation Section Office of Attorney General 15° Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Howard D. Kauffman, Esquire Devlin, Kauffman & Shilling 100 Pine Street, Suite 300 Harrisburg, PA 17101 B y:- Karl R. Hildabrand Document q.' 164343.1 C-- r ` cn C", s 0- C' ?.' N FC G r.. y aN v r? -off ?' ? ac u JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. Plaintiffs NO. 99-5817 CIVIL LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, CIVIL ACTION LAW Defendants NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone 717-249-3166 or 800-990-9108 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG By W. Scott Henning, Esq. I.D. #3229OS 319 Market reet P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 1717) 238-20 0 Attorney for Plaintiffs JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs NO. 99-5817 CIVIL V. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, CIVIL ACTION LAW Defendants COMPLAIN AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Brenda L. Paluscio and John S. Paluscio, Jr., by and through their attorneys, Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, and make the within Complaint against the Defendants as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio, is an adult individual currently residing at 136 N. York Road, Dillsburg, York County, Pennsylvania 17019. 2. Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr., is an adult individual currently residing at 2303 Stumpstown Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 3. Defendant, Leroy Detweiler, (now deceased) with a last known address of 917 Messiah Village, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 4. Defendant, Florence Detweiler, is an adult individual currently residing at 917 Messiah Village, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 5. Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation (hereinafter, "PennDOT") is an agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and maintains offices at the Transportation and Safety Building, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 17120. 6. Defendant, Upper Allen Township is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and who maintains an office at 100 Gettysburg Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 7. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio, was operating a 1992 Jeep Cherokee 4X4, with Pennsylvania Registration Number BKA 7105, which was owned by her. 8. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr. was a passenger in the 1992 Jeep Cherokee 4X4 that was driven by Brenda L. Paluscio. 9. On or about September 21, 1997, Plaintiff Brenda L. Paluscio was traveling northbound on South Market Street, when she lawfully proceeded through the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 10. On or about the same time, John Ordville was traveling westbound on West Lisburn Road approaching the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road, when he suddenly and without warning, failed to stop at the posted stop sign on West Lisburn Road and violently struck the side of Plaintiffs' vehicle, which was lawfully proceeding through the intersection. 2 11. As a direct and proximate result of the motor vehicle incident, John S. Paluscio, Jr. and Brenda L. Paluscio sustained extensive and serious injuries that required medical treatment shortly after the collision and lead to substantial impairment of bodily function and permanent disfigurement. 12. Before the date of the above-mentioned collision, Plaintiffs elected the limited tort option under their motor vehicle insurance policy issued by Progressive Northern Insurance. However, since the vehicle that collided with the Paluscio vehicle was registered in another State, New Jersey, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover as if they had elected a full tort option in accordance with 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1705(d)(1)(ii). 13. Plaintiffs elected the limited tort option enumerated in the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1705(a)(1), at seq., as amended. However, pursuant to Act 6 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1701, at seq., as amended, Plaintiffs are entitled to seek damages as though they had elected the full tort alternative due to the fact that they sustained serious bodily injuries as a result of the collision described herein. i . 14. Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio's serious injuries, which she sustained as a result of the automobile collision described herein, include, but are not limited to a 4 cm. laceration on the right side of her chin, cervical strain requiring a soft cervical collar to be worn, chest discomfort, aches in neck, upper back and upper arms, intense pain in left knee, sore and clicking jaw, diagnosed at TMJ and a chipped tooth (1113). 15. Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio's serious injuries, which he sustained as a result fo the automobile collision described herein, include, but are not limited to one 3 hundred (100) stitches over his face, a laceration penetrating the artery located above his right eye, lacerations to the left hand and wrist, knee contusion and strain and cervical spine pain. 16. The occurrence of the aforesaid collision and the resultant injuries to Plaintiff were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of the Defendants, more specifically as set forth below: COUNTI JOHN S. PALUSCIO JR. v. LEROY DETWEILER and FLORENCE DETWEILER 17. Paragraph 1 through 16 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 18. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendants, Leroy Detweiler (now deceased) and Florence Detweiler are the owners of a parcel of real estate located at the corner of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road, Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 19. There is a hedge and other vegetation located at the corner of said premises adjacent to the aforesaid intersection, which hedge and vegetation it has been asserted by John Ordille, blocks the sight lines along South Market Street, as one is situated at the stop sign on West Lisburn Road. 20. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants were negligent and careless in the ownership, maintenance and control of their premises as follows: (a) Failing to properly and timely inspect their premises so as to ascertain that the hedge/vegetation was of such a height and dimension to block 4 the sight lines and inhibit the sight distances of persons traveling on West Lisburn Road and South Market Street at the intersection of the said roadways; (b) Failing to remove and/or cut the hedge/vegetation located as aforesaid 21. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Leroy Detweiler and Florence Detweiler, the Plaintiff has been, and will in the future be, hindered from performing and attending to his daily duties and chores, to his great loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 22. As a further result of Defendants' negligence, the Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr., suffered a loss of wages and may continue to suffer the same in the future. 23. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, the Plaintiff has suffered great physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 24. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, the Plaintiff has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for aforesaid injuries, to expend money for medicine and medical attention. Plaintiff continues to incur expenses for his injuries and will most likely continue to do so in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 5 25. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and will continue to suffer the same in the future, to his great detriment and inconvenience. 26. Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr., believes and, therefore, avers that his injuries are serious and permanent in nature. WHEREFORE , Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr., seeks damages from the Defendants, Leroy Detweiler and Florence Detweiler, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand ($25,000) dollars. COUNT II JOHN S. PALUSCIO JR. V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 27. Paragraphs 1 through 26 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length below. 28. At all times material hereto, the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road, Upper Allen Township was a roadway over which Defendant, PennDOT, had the responsibility for the ownership, design, construction, supervision, inspection and maintenance of the roadways and bridges and all areas within the right- of-way of the roadways and bridges. 29. At all times material hereto, Defendant, PennDOT, owed a duty to Plaintiffs and others traveling through the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road to provide and maintain a safe roadway. 6 30. At all times material hereto, Defendant, PennDOT had notice of the dangerous condition. 31. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, was negligent and careless in the ownership, design, construction, supervision, inspection, and maintenance of the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road, Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County which was a substantial factor in causing the collision and said injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs. 32. The negligence and carelessness of the Defendant, PennDOT, consisted of the following: (a) In designing and constructing this intersection in a dangerous manner such that there were improper sight lines and sight distances; Ib? In failing to provide adequate signing and warning of the hazards presented by the dangerous intersection; (c) In failing to properly and timely inspect, maintain, and correct the dangerous condition of this intersection and the inadequate sight lines and sight distances; (d) In failing to properly and timely make repairs to the roadway/ intersection to make the intersection safer for vehicular traffic; (e) In failing to cause the property owners adjacent to the intersection to remove and/or cut the hedges and vegetation blocking the sight lines at the intersection; 7 (f) In failing to install a four-way stop sign at the subject intersection which would have caused all traffic to stop at the intersection thereby eliminating the problem with improper sight lines and sight distances; (g) In failing to install a traffic signal (red/green light) at the intersection to more safely control the flow of traffic at the intersection thereby eliminating the problem with inadequate sight lines and sight distances; (h) In failing to exercise due care and caution under all of the existing circumstances; (il In otherwise violating the laws, statutes, and regulations of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regarding the maintenance of state ) highways. 33. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, I PennDOT, the Plaintiff has been, and will in the future be, hindered from performing and attending to his daily duties and chores, to his great loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 34. As a further result of Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr., suffered a loss of wages and may continue to suffer the same in the future. 35. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has suffered great physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 8 6 36. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for aforesaid injuries, to expend money for medicine and medical attention. Plaintiff continues to incur expenses for his injuries and will most likely continue to do so in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 37. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and will continue to suffer the same in the future, to his great detriment and inconvenience. 38. Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr., believes and, therefore, avers that his injuries are serious and permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr., seeks damages from the Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand ($25,000) dollars. COUNT III JOHN S. PALUSCIO. JR V. UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP 39. Paragraphs 1 through 38 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length below. 40. At all times material hereto, the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road, Upper Allen Township was a roadway over which Defendant, Upper Allen Township, had the responsibility for the ownership, design, construction, 9 supervision, inspection and maintenance of the roadways and bridges and all areas within the right-of-way of the roadways and bridges. 41. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Upper Allen Township, owed a duty to Plaintiffs and others traveling through the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road to provide and maintain a safe roadway. 42. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Upper Allen Township had notice of the dangerous condition. 43. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Upper Allen Township was negligent and careless in the ownership, design, construction, supervision, inspection, and maintenance of the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road, Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County which was a substantial factor in causing the collision and said injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs. 44. The negligence and carelessness of the Defendant, Upper Allen Township, consisted of the following: (a) In designing and constructing this intersection in a dangerous manner such that there were improper sight lines and sight distances; (b) In failing to provide adequate signing and warning of the hazards presented by the dangerous intersection; (c) In failing to properly and timely inspect, maintain, and correct the dangerous condition of this intersection and the inadequate sight lines and sight distances; 10 (d) In failing to properly and timely make repairs to the roadway intersection to make the intersection safer for vehicular traffic; (e) In failing to cause the property owners adjacent to the intersection to remove and/or cut the hedges and vegetation blocking the sight lines at the intersection; If) In failing to install a four-way stop sign at the subject intersection which would have caused all traffic to stop at the intersection thereby eliminating the problem with improper sight lines and sight distances; (g) In failing to install a traffic signal (red/green light) at the intersection to more safely control the flow of traffic at the intersection, thereby eliminating the problem with inadequate sight lines and sight distances; (h) In failing to exercise due care and caution under all of the existing circumstances; (i) In otherwise violating the laws, statutes, and regulations of the Township of Upper Allen regarding the maintenance of Township roadways. 45. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Upper Allen Township, the Plaintiff has been, and will in the future be, hindered from performing and attending to his daily duties and chores, to his great loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 46. As a further result of Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr., suffered a loss of wages and may continue to suffer the same in the future. 11 47. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has suffered great physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 48. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for aforesaid injuries, to expend money for medicine and medical attention. Plaintiff continues to incur expenses for his injuries and will most likely continue to do so in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 49. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and will continue to suffer the same in the future, to his great detriment and inconvenience. 50. Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr., believes and, therefore, avers that his injuries are serious and permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr., seeks damages from the Defendant, Upper Allen Township, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand ($25,000) dollars. COUNT IV BRENDA L. PALUSCIO v. LEROY DETWEILER and FLORENCE DETWEILER 51. Paragraph 1 through 50 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 12 52. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendants, Leroy Detweiler (now deceased) and Florence Detweiler are the owners of a parcel of real estate located at the corner of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road, Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 53. There is a hedge and other vegetation located at the corner of said premises adjacent to the aforesaid intersection, which hedge and vegetation it has been asserted by John Ordille, blocks the sight lines along South Market Street, as one is situated at the stop sign on West Lisburn Road. 54. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants were negligent and careless in the ownership, maintenance and control of their premises as follows: (a) Failing to properly and timely inspect their premises so as to ascertain that the hedge/vegetation was of such a height and dimension to block the sight lines and inhibit the sight distances of persons traveling on West Lisburn Road and South Market Street at the intersection of the said roadways; (b) Failing to remove and/or cut the hedge/vegetation located as aforesaid. 55. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Leroy Detweiler and Florence Detweiler, the Plaintiff has been, and will in the future be, hindered from performing and attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 56. As a further result of Defendants' negligence, the Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio suffered a loss of wages and may continue to suffer the same in the future. 13 57. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, the Plaintiff has suffered great physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 58. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, the Plaintiff has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for aforesaid injuries, to expend money for medicine and medical attention. Plaintiff continues to incur expenses for her injuries and will most likely continue to do so in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 59. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and inconvenience. 60. Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio, believes and, therefore, avers that her injuries are serious and permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio seeks damages from the Defendants, Leroy Detweiler and Florence Detweiler, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand ($25,000) dollars. COUNT V BRENDA L. PALLISCIO V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 61. Paragraphs 1 through 60 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length below. 14 62. At all times material hereto, the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road, Upper Allen Township was a roadway over which Defendant, PennDOT, had the responsibility for the ownership, design, construction, supervision, inspection and maintenance of the roadways and bridges and all areas within the right- of-way of the roadways and bridges. 63. At all times material hereto, Defendant, PennDOT, owed a duty to Plaintiffs and others traveling through the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road to provide and maintain a safe roadway. 64. At all times material hereto, Defendant, PennDOT had notice of the dangerous condition. 65. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, was negligent and careless in the ownership, design, construction, supervision, inspection, and maintenance of the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road, Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County which was a substantial factor in causing the collision and said injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs. 66. The negligence and carelessness of the Defendant, PennDOT, consisted of the following: (a) In designing and constructing this intersection in a dangerous manner such that there were improper sight lines and sight distances; (b) In failing to provide adequate signing and warning of the hazards presented by the dangerous intersection; 15 (c) In failing to properly and timely inspect, maintain, and correct the dangerous condition of this intersection and the inadequate sight lines and sight distances; (d) In failing to properly and timely make repairs to the roadway/ intersection to make the intersection safer for vehicular traffic; (e) In failing to cause the property owners adjacent to the intersection to remove and/or cut the hedges and vegetation blocking the sight lines at the intersection; (f) In failing to install a four-way stop sign at the subject intersection which would have caused all traffic to stop at the intersection thereby eliminating the problem with improper sight lines and sight distances; (g) In failing to install a traffic signal (red/green light) at the intersection to more safely control the flow of traffic at the intersection thereby eliminating the problem with inadequate sight lines and sight distances; IN In failing to exercise due care and caution under all of the existing circumstances; (il In otherwise violating the laws, statutes, and regulations of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regarding the maintenance of state highways. 67. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, PennDOT, the Plaintiff has been, and will in the future be, hindered from performing 16 and attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 68. As a further result of Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio, suffered a loss of wages and may continue to suffer the same in the future. 69. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has suffered great physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 70. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for aforesaid injuries, to expend money for medicine and medical attention. Plaintiff continues to incur expenses for her injuries and will most likely continue to do so in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 71. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and inconvenience. 72. Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio, believes and, therefore, avers that her injuries are serious and permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio, seeks damages from the Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand ($25,000) dollars. 17 COUNT VI BRENDA L PALUSCIO V UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP 73. Paragraphs 1 through 72 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length below. 74. At all times material hereto, the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road, Upper Allen Township was a roadway over which Defendant, Upper Allen Township, had the responsibility for the ownership, design, construction, supervision, inspection and maintenance of the roadways and bridges and all areas within the right-of-way of the roadways and bridges. 75. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Upper Allen Township, owed a duty to Plaintiffs and others traveling through the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road to provide and maintain a safe roadway. 76. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Upper Allen Township had notice of the dangerous condition. 77. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Upper Allen Township was negligent and careless in the ownership, design, construction, supervision, inspection, and maintenance of the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road, Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County which was a substantial factor in causing the collision and said injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs. 78. The negligence and carelessness of the Defendant, Upper Allen Township, consisted of the following: 18 (a) In designing and constructing this intersection in a dangerous manner such that there were improper sight lines and sight distances; (b) In failing to provide adequate signing and warning of the hazards presented by the dangerous intersection; (c) In failing to properly and timely inspect, maintain, and correct the dangerous condition of this intersection and the inadequate sight lines and sight distances; (d) In failing to properly and timely make repairs to the roadway intersection to make the intersection safer for vehicular traffic; (e) In failing to cause the property owners adjacent to the intersection to remove and/or cut the hedges and vegetation blocking the sight lines at the intersection; (f) In failing to install a four-way stop sign at the subject intersection which would have caused all traffic to stop at the intersection thereby eliminating the problem with improper sight lines and sight distances; (g) In failing to install a traffic signal (red/green light) at the intersection to more safely control the flow of traffic at the intersection, thereby eliminating the problem with inadequate sight lines and sight distances; (h) In failing to exercise due care and caution under all of the existing circumstances; (i) In otherwise violating the laws, statutes, and regulations of the Township of Upper Allen regarding the maintenance of Township roadways. 19 79, As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Upper Allen Township, the Plaintiff has been, and will in the future be, hindered from performing and attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 80. As a further result of Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio, suffered a loss of wages and may continue to suffer the same in the future. 81. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has suffered great physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 82. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for aforesaid injuries, to expend money for medicine and medical attention. Plaintiff continues to incur expenses for her injuries and will most likely continue to do so in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 83. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and inconvenience. 84. Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio, believes and, therefore, avers that her injuries are serious and permanent in nature. 20 i WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio, seeks damages from the Defendant, Upper Allen Township, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand ($25,000) dollars. COUNT VII LOSS OF CONSORTIUM JOHN S. PALUSCIO. JR v LEROY DETWEILER FLORENCE DETWEILER. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP 85. Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr.,herein incorporates paragraphs 1 through 84 of this Complaint into this count as if set forth at length. 86. As a result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr. has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort from his wife, Brenda L. Paluscio, and he will continue to suffer a similar loss in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr., seeks damages from Defendants in an amount in excess of thirty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00), and demands a trial by jury. COUNT VIII LOSS OF CONSORTIUM BRENDA L. PALUSCIO V. LEROY DETWEILER FLORENCE DETWEILER COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP 87. Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio, herein incorporates paragraphs 1 through 86 of this Complaint into this count as if set forth at length. 21 88. As a result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort from her husband, John S. Paluscio, Jr., and she will continue to suffer a similar loss in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio, seeks damages from Defendants in an amount in excess of thirty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00), and demands a trial by jury. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG Date: Ya=o3-?L?717> By W. Sc Attor ey I.D. 32298 319 Mark treet P. 0. ox 1177 Harrisburg, P 17108-1177 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiffs 22 VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO PA R.C.P. NO 1024 (c) W. SCOTT HENNING, ESQUIRE, states that he is the attorney forthe party filing the foregoing document; that he makes this affidavit as an attorney, because the party he represents is outside the jurisdiction of the Court and the Verification of the party cannot be obtained within the time allowed for filing this Pleading; the averments set forth herein are based upon information provided by the Plaintiffs; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: af 6 1-6-3 aQx a 6 V_ C_7 W N I-, _ LL _ n Q 0, 0 7 O? R yy.. Q N w v? ?1°-ro w ?d- W N o mN v?iw ?? ,wz =gin ¢Q r. a K JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs V. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants JOHN D. ORDILLE, Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 99-5817-Civil JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND TO: John Ordille 109 Orchard Street Gibbstown, NJ 08027 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 Plaintiffs. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 or (800) 990-9108 Dwulnenr M: 167169.1 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs V. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants JOHN D. ORDILLE, Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 99-5817-Civil JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiffs John S. Paluscio and Brenda L. Paluscio have commenced a civil action against the above named Defendants by the filing of a Complaint on or about January 3, 2000. Attached hereto, marked as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference is a copy of Plaintiffs' Complaint. 2. Defendants Leroy Detweiler and Florence Detweiler have filed an Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint denying liability for the accident alleged. Attached hereto, marked as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference is a copy of said Answer and New Matter. 3. John D. Ordille is an adult individual currently residing at 109 South Orchard Street, Gibbstown, NJ 08027. DDcumcnt 9. 1671691 4. Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that Brenda L. Paluscio and John S. Paluscio, Jr. were injured in a motor vehicle accident on or about September 21, 1997 at the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania due to the negligence of John Ordille in failing to stop for a stop sign and in failing to exercise reasonable care in the operation of his vehicle. 5. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252 the within Defendants herein join John Ordille as an Additional Defendant and assert that said Additional Defendant is solely liable to the Plaintiffs, is liable over to the joining Defendants on the Plaintiffs' cause of action, or is jointly or severally liable with the joining Defendants on the Plaintiffs' cause of action with any liability on the part of joining Defendants being specifically denied. WHEREFORE, the within Defendants herein join John Ordville as an Additional Defendant pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252 and assert that said Additional Defendant is alone liable to the Plaintiffs, is liable over to the within Defendants on the Plaintiffs' cause of action, or is jointly or severally liable with any liability on the part of joining Defendants being specifically denied. METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.C. By: ?f uct?- Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 30102 3211 North Front Street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Attorneys for Defendants Detweiler Davmmlll 0 16-169.1 VERIFICATION 1, Florence Detweiler, do hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Additional Defendant Complaint are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge or information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Date: 1 ?/7 ?ZO°O L? 'lU Florence Detweiler Documenik 167169.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this Z`/ day of January, 2000, 1, Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire, of Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., hereby certify that I served a copy of the within Additional Defendant Complaint this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: W. Scott Henning, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg 319 Market Street, P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 J.W. Stark, Esquire Torts Litigation Section Office of Attorney General 15" Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Howard D. Kauffman, Esquire Devlin, Kauffman & Shilling 100 Pine Street, Suite 300 Harrisburg, PA 17101 B Karl R. Hildabrand Da menr q.: 167169. / u ?'. d 1 q a H ? W I H 1 O F+ 1 2 3 ro v I d I ? 6T-i i W F w 6 q I a I R 1 wa ?° z N ro ` ..7 >+ I i w q"O d i ? I o i - a ? ? W F ? ° U I ?1 2 I N G V> d b a H i H I ^, z z 1 •N W > i C G v u l z I ---- y 0a i x rl Oz a a. w v i z 1 I y p' I H O 5 1 W C W O ? '+ I • 1 1 H y ? W ? H W I I q 1 s? - _ _. G o . v I U m a W El I a 1 N U a 1 1 I p a 4 F O a H I 1 ¢ 1 z 1 qq O I W 1 Z 3 a F w q 1 j z U 6 W Il i O H 6 Z .? W W W a O I F I a N H 1 q = Z' W F fA 1 v] z a O W q I I I -1 . d z I H V z l 0 pd. N > w O W W N a Z I I U q a > I I'• t •-1 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. DOCKET NO. 99-5817-Civil LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO: John S. Paluscio, Jr., and Brenda L. Paluscio, Plaintiffs c/o W. Scott Henning, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg 319 Market Street, P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer with New Matter of Defendants, Leroy Detweiler and Florence Detweiler, within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Date: Januarys? i'2000 METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.C. K-kil R. Hildabrand, Esquire I.D. No. 30102 3211 North Front Street, P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Attorneys for Defendants Document M: 16.'161.1 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L.PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs V. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 99-5817-Civil JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS LEROY DETWEILER AND FLORENCE DETWEILER 1. It is admitted that the Plaintiff is Brenda L. Paluscio. Defendant Florence Detweiler is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments set forth in paragraph one and the averments are therefore denied. 2. It is admitted that the Plaintiff is John S. Paluscio, Jr. Defendant Florence Detweiler is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments set forth in paragraph one and the averments are therefore denied. 3. Denied. Paragraph 3 is specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 4. Admitted, except that the correct residence address of Defendant Florence Detweiler is 917 Aspen Avenue, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. Document N: 167160 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that on or about September 21, 1997, Plaintiff Brenda L. Paluscio was traveling northbound on South Market Street and entered the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. The remaining averments of paragraph nine state a legal conclusion to which no answer is required and the averments are therefore denied. 10. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that at the time specified John Ordille was traveling westbound on West Lisburn Road, failed to obey the stop sign posted on West Lisburn Road, entered the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road, and collided with the vehicle operated by Plaintiff Brenda L. Paluscio. Defendant Florence Detweiler is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments set forth in paragraph ten and the averments are therefore denied. 11. Denied. The averments of paragraph 11 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 12. Denied. Paragraph 12 states a legal conclusion to which no answer is required and the averments are therefore denied. 13. Denied. The averments of paragraph 13 state a legal conclusion to which no answer is required and the averments are therefore denied. Document #: 167161. / 14. Denied. The averments of paragraph 14 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 15. Denied. The averments of paragraph 15 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 16. It is specifically denied that the accident alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint was caused in any respect by the negligence of Defendants Leroy Detweiler or Florence Detweiler as set forth more specifically below. COUNTI 17. The averments of paragraphs 1-16 hereof are incorporated herein by reference. 18. Denied as stated. On the date in question Florence Detweiler solely owned a parcel of real estate located at the southeast corner of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road, Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. The property is currently owned entirely by Florence Detweiler as Leroy Detweiler is deceased. 19. Denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments regarding the alleged assertions of John Ordille [sic]. It is specifically denied that any vegetation on Defendant's property blocked sight lines along South Market Street for operators exercising reasonable care in the operation of their motor vehicles. 20. Denied. The averments of paragraph 20 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. Document #. 167161.1 21. The averments of paragraph 21 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 22. The averments of paragraph 22 are specifically denied and proof thereof is a demanded at trial. 23. The averments of paragraph 23 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. {{ 24. The averments of paragraph 24 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 25. The averments of paragraph 25 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 26. Denied. The averments of paragraph 26 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. COUNT II 27-38. No answer required. COUNT III 39-50. No answer required. COUNT IV 51. The averments of paragraphs 1-50 hereof are incorporated herein by reference. 52. Denied as stated. On the date in question Florence Detweiler solely owned a parcel of real estate located at the southeast corner of South Market Street and West Lisburn Dwonenr M. 167161.1 Road, Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. The property is currently owned entirely by Florence Detweiler as Leroy Detweiler is deceased. 53. Denied. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments regarding the alleged assertions of John Ordille [sic]. It is specifically denied that any vegetation on Defendant's property blocked sight lines along South Market Street for operators exercising reasonable care in the operation of their motor vehicles. 54. Denied. The averments of paragraph 20 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 55. The averments of paragraph 21 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 56. The averments of paragraph 22 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 57. The averments of paragraph 23 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 58. The averments of paragraph 24 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 59. The averments of paragraph 25 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 60. Denied. The averments of paragraph 26 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. Document 4: 1671613 COUNT V 61-72. No answer required. COUNT VI 73-84. No answer required. COUNT VII 85. The averments of paragraphs 1-84 hereof are incorporated herein by reference. 86. Denied. The averments of paragraph 86 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. COUNT VIII 87. The averments of paragraphs 1-86 hereof are incorporated herein by reference. 88. Denied. The averments of paragraph 88 are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. NEW MATTER 89. Plaintiffs' claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 90. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages. 91. Plaintiffs' claims are barred, in whole in part, by the selection of the limited tort option on applicable policies of insurance. 92. Plaintiffs' claims are barred, in whole in part, by the comparative negligence of Plaintiff Brenda L. Paluscio in the operation of her vehicle. Document N: 167161.1 93. Defendant Leroy Detweiler is deceased, having died in September, 1992 and his estate has no ownership interest in the property in question. NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 2252(d) 94. The averments of Plaintiffs' Complaint and the within Defendant's Answer New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 95. If it is judicially determined that the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover, which is denied, then it is asserted that Defendant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation is alone liable to the Plaintiff, is liable over to the joining parties, or is jointly or severally liable to the Plaintiffs, with any liability on the part of the within Defendants being specifically denied. 96. If it is judicially determined that the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover, which is denied, then it is asserted that Defendant Upper Allen Township is alone liable to the Plaintiff, is liable over to the joining parties, or is jointly or severally liable to the Plaintiffs, with any liability on the part of the within Defendants being specifically denied. METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.C. By: ` <'1 Ls? ?? U Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 30102 3211 North Front Street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Dated: January2l2000 Attorneys for Defendants Detweiler Document 0: 167161.1 VERIFICATION I, Florence Detweiler, do hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer and New Matter are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge or information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Fa.C.S. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: //irlzo.o Florence Detweiler Document #: 167161. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this Zt day of January, 2000, I, Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire, of Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., hereby certify that I served a copy of the within Answer and New Matter this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: W. Scott Henning, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg 319 Market Street, P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 J.W. Stark, Esquire Torts Litigation Section Office of Attorney General 15'" Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Howard D. Kauffman, Esquire Devlin, Kauffman & Shilling 100 Pine Street, Suite 300 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Karl R. Hildabrand Document #: 167161.1 w d O pyQN W r7 a > W z zz a O >. W F o0 04 U o? 0 V W f? F fwA H U N H U I n .4 00 N 1 ? I ? I I I O I Z I a d zZ W y W W 'O •e-I m c z ? O H V (n n7. d a O • N v] V Z a Oi w N ? I w I G I N •O d I 3 m o I ? I I W AN O ?+ I W V I N Ca W 6 F I W I z a d C [ -i I >1 P' W I co a I 04; ° 2 .c i Wra 1++ W Z 2 I F X I M 6 V L d 0 ? / a o 94 z Z a WE, z 33 Qz CZ 3: 1 I F -4 C4 z 6 Q?? d I 0 a 1 G ? 0 6 w I 0.: N I i W 3 0 3 PS 0.. W I v1 0.' F I O a O %? I d a q I .r. :i n:[ K r - v. Office of Attomey General Torts Litigation Section 15" Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Jay W. Stark Senior Deputy Attorney General Direct Dial 717-783-3148 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants NO. 99-5817 CIVIL TERM V. John D. Ordille Additional Defendant : NOTICE TO PLEAD TO ALL PARTIES: YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED to respond to the within New Matter within twenty (20) days of the date of service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, By: D. MICHAEL FISHER Attorney General .K ID #51786 Attorney General DATED: January28, 2000 Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section I Sih Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Jay W. Stark Senior Deputy Attorney General Direct Dial 717-783-3148 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants NO. 99-5817 CIVIL TERM V. John D. Ordille Additional Defendant : ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, by and through the Office of Attorney General, files the following Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint: Admitted, based solely on information obtained from the police accident report, although the report identifies plaintiffs address as 138 N. York Road. 2 - 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. 5. Admitted with the qualification that offices are currently located at Forum Place in Harrisburg, PA. 6. The averments of this paragraph are directed to other parties, requiring no response by this defendant. 7. Admitted, based solely on information obtained from the police accident report. 8. Admitted, based solely on information obtained from the police accident report. 9-11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. 12. Admitted and denied. It is admitted only, based solely on information obtained from the police accident report, that the vehicle which collided with the Paluscio vehicle was registered in New Jersey. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments that the plaintiffs elected the limited tort option. The remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that the remaining portions of this paragraph could be construed as factual allegations, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments that the plaintiffs elected the limited tort option or that they sustained serious bodily injuries as a result of the collision. The remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that the remaining portions of this paragraph could be construed as factual allegations, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 14-15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. 16. Denied. It is specifically denied the Commonwealth defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to plaintiffs' alleged cause of action or that such alleged negligence directly and proximately caused the collision and alleged resultant injuries to the plaintiffs. The Commonwealth defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to all paragraphs of plaintiffs' complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. COUNTI JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. v. LEROY and FLORENCE DETWEILER 17. The Commonwealth Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 16 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 18. The averments of this paragraph are directed to other parties, and, accordingly, no response is required. 19. The averments of this paragraph are directed to other parties. It is specifically denied a dangerous condition existed. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments respecting what John Ordille may have asserted. 20- 25. The averments of this paragraph are directed to other parties, and, accordingly, no response is required. 26. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. WHEREFORE, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. COUNT II JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 27. The Commonwealth defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs I through 26 of plaintiffs' complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 28. Admitted only that the accident situs is a state-designated highway and that the Commonwealth defendant has those legal duties as prescribed by applicable state law and regulation. To the extent that the remaining allegations require an answer, they are specifically denied as ascribing duties and responsibilities upon the Commonwealth defendant which are not imposed by law. 29. Admitted only that the accident situs is a state-designated highway and that the Commonwealth Defendant has those legal duties as prescribed by applicable state law and regulation. The remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that the remaining portions of this paragraph could be construed as factual allegations, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 30. Denied. It is specifically denied PennDOT had notice of the dangerous condition or that a dangerous condition existed. 31. Denied. It is specifically denied the Commonwealth defendant was negligent and careless in any manner with respect to plaintiffs' alleged cause of action or as described in this paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint. It is further specifically denied that such alleged negligence and carelessness was a substantial factor in causing the collision and plaintiffs' injuries and damages. To the contrary, at all relevant times, the roadway in question was in a reasonably safe condition for use by reasonably prudent motorists. 32. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Commonwealth defendant was negligent and careless in any manner with respect to plaintiffs' alleged cause of action. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that the Commonwealth defendant was negligent and careless in the following respects: (a) In designing and constructing this intersection in a dangerous manner such that there were improper sight lines and sight distances; (b) In failing to provide adequate signing and warning of the hazards presented by the dangerous intersection; (c) In failing to properly and timely inspect, maintain, and correct the dangerous condition of this intersection and the inadequate sight lines and sight distances; (d) In failing to properly and timely snake repairs to the roadway/ intersection to make the intersection safer for vehicular traffic; (e) In failing to cause the property owners adjacent to the intersection to remove and/or cut the hedges and vegetation blocking the sight lines at the intersection; (f) In failing to install a four-way stop sign at the subject intersection which would have caused all traffic to stop at the intersection thereby eliminating the problem with improper sight lines and sight distances; (g) In failing to install a traffic signal (red/green light) at the intersection to more safely control the flow of traffic at the intersection thereby eliminating the problem with inadequate sight lines and sight distances; (h) In failing to exercise due care and caution under all of the existing circumstances; (i} In otherwise violating the laws, statutes, and regulations of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regarding the maintenance of state highways. It is specifically denied a dangerous condition existed. 33. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Commonwealth defendant was negligent and careless in any manner with respect to plaintiffs' alleged cause of action or that as a direct and proximate result of such negligence, the plaintiff has been and will be hindered as described in this paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint. 34. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Commonwealth defendant was negligent and careless in any manner with respect to plaintiffs' alleged cause of action or that as a result of such negligence, the plaintiff has suffered and may continue to suffer a loss of wages. 35. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Commonwealth defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to plaintiffs' alleged cause of action or that as a direct and proximate result of such negligence, the plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer as described in this paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint. 36. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Commonwealth defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to plaintiffs' alleged cause of action or that as a direct and proximate result of such negligence, the plaintiff has been compelled to expend money and will continue to do so as described in this paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint. 37. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Commonwealth defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to plaintiffs' alleged cause of action or that as a direct and proximate result of such negligence, the plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer as described in this paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint. 38. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. WHEREFORE, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, respectfully requests thatjudgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. COUNT III JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. V. UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP 39. The Commonwealth defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 38 of plaintiffs' complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 40-49. The averments of these paragraphs are directed to other parties, and, accordingly, no response is required. 50. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. WHEREFORE, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, respectfully requests thatjudgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. COUNT IV BRENDA L. PALUSCIO v. LEROY and FLORENCE DETWEILER 51. The Commonwealth defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs I through 50 of plaintiffs' complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 52. The averments of this paragraph are directed to other parties, and, accordingly, no response is required. 53. The averments of this paragraph are directed to other parties. It is specifically denied a dangerous condition existed. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments respecting what John Ordille may have asserted. 54- 59. The averments of these paragraphs are directed to other parties, and, accordingly, no response is required. 60. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. WHEREFORE, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. COUNT V BRENDA L. PALUSCIO V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 61. The Commonwealth defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 60 of plaintiffs' complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 62. Admitted only that the accident situs is a state-designated highway and that the Commonwealth defendant has those legal duties as prescribed by applicable state law and regulation. To the extent that the remaining allegations require an answer, they are specifically denied as ascribing duties and responsibilities upon the Commonwealth defendant which are not imposed by law. 63. Admitted only that the accident situs is a state-designated highway and that the Commonwealth defendant has those legal duties as prescribed by applicable state law and regulation. The remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that the remaining portions of this paragraph could be construed as factual allegations, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 64. Denied. It is specifically denied PennDOT had notice of the dangerous condition or that a dangerous condition existed. 65. Denied. It is specifically denied the Commonwealth defendant was negligent and careless in any manner with respect to plaintiffs' alleged cause of action as described in this paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint. It is further specifically denied that such alleged negligence and carelessness was a substantial factor in causing the collision and plaintiffs' injuries and damages. To the contrary, at all relevant times, the roadway in question was in a reasonably safe condition for use by reasonably prudent motorists. 66. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Commonwealth defendant was negligent and careless in any manner with respect to plaintiffs' alleged cause of action. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that the Commonwealth defendant was negligent and careless in the following respects: (a) In designing and constructing this intersection in a dangerous manner such that there were improper sight lines and sight distances; (b) In failing to provide adequate signing and warning of the hazards presented by the dangerous intersection; (c) In failing to properly and timely inspect, maintain, and correct the dangerous condition of this intersection and the inadequate sight lines and sight distances; (d) In failing to properly and timely make repairs to the roadway/ intersection to make the intersection safer for vehicular traffic; (e) In failing to cause the property owners adjacent to the intersection to remove and/or cut the hedges and vegetation blocking the sight lines at the intersection; (f) In failing to install a four-way stop sign at the subject intersection which would have caused all traffic to stop at the intersection thereby eliminating the problem with improper sight lines and sight distances; (g) In failing to install a traffic signal (red/green light) at the intersection to more safely control the flow of traffic at the intersection thereby eliminating the problem with inadequate sight lines and sight distances; (h) In failing to exercise due care and caution under all of the existing circumstances; (i) In otherwise violating the laws, statutes, and regulations of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regarding the maintenance of state highways. It is specifically denied a dangerous condition existed. 67. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Commonwealth defendant was negligent and careless in any manner with respect to plaintiffs' alleged cause of action or that as a direct and proximate result of such negligence, the plaintiff has been and will be hindered as described in this paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint. 68. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Commonwealth defendant was negligent and careless in any manner with respect to plaintiffs' alleged cause of action or that as a result of such negligence, the plaintiff has suffered and may continue to suffer a loss of wages. 69. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Commonwealth defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to plaintiffs' alleged cause of action or that as a direct and proximate result of such negligence, the plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer as described in this paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint. 70. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Commonwealth defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to plaintiffs' alleged cause of action or that as a direct and proximate result of such negligence, the plaintiff has been compelled to expend money and will continue to do so as described in this paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint. 71. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Commonwealth defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to plaintiffs' alleged cause of action or that as a direct and proximate result of such negligence, the plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer as described in this paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint. 72. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. WHEREFORE, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. COUNT VI BRENDA L. PALUSCIO v. UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP 73. The Commonwealth defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs I through 72 of plaintiffs' complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 74-83. The averments of these paragraphs are directed to other parties, and, accordingly, no response is required. 84. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to fort a belief as to the truth of these averments. WHEREFORE, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. COUNT VII LOSS OF CONSORTIUM JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. v. DEFENDANTS 85. The Commonwealth defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 84 of plaintiffs' complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 86. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Commonwealth defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to plaintiffs' alleged cause of action or that as a result of such negligence, the plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss as described in this paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments. WHEREFORE, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. COUNT VIII LOSS OF CONSORTIUM BRENDA L. PALUSCIO v. DEFENDANTS 87. The Commonwealth defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs I through 86 of plaintiffs' complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 88. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Commonwealth defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to plaintiffs alleged cause of action or that as a result of such negligence, the plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss as described in this paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments. WHEREFORE, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. NEW MATTER 89. The present action is controlled by the provisions of 1 Pa. C.S. §2310 and Act No. 1980-142, set forth in 42 Pa. C.S. §§8501, et seq., which Acts are incorporated herein and pled by reference. The Commonwealth defendant asserts all the defenses contained therein. 90. The Commonwealth party is immune from suit pursuant to 1 Pa. C.S. §2310, and this action is not within any of the exceptions to immunity as set forth in 42 Pa. C.S. §8522, and therefore this action is barred. 91. The Commonwealth defendant did not have notice, written or otherwise, of the allegedly dangerous condition, or in the alternative, if said notice was received, it was not received in sufficient time prior to the alleged accident for the Commonwealth defendant to have corrected or to have warned the traveling public of the allegedly dangerous condition. 92. There is no cause of action based upon a failure to inspect or improper inspection in that sovereign immunity has not been waived for such claims. 93. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, has no mandatory duty to erect traffic signs or signals. 94. Should liability be found on the part of the Commonwealth defendant, the amounts and types of damages recoverable in the present action are limited and controlled by 42 Pa. C.S. §8528. 95. This action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 96. The Judicial Code at 42 Pa. C.S. §5522(a), which section is incorporated herein and pled by reference, provides that the Commonwealth and the Attorney General must have received written notice of intent to sue within six (6) months from the date the cause of action accrues. In the absence of such notice, this action is barred. 97. The Commonwealth defendant asserts all defenses available to it under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1701, et seq., and any successor statute and claims any defenses which may be available pursuant to said Act. 98. Plaintiffs' injuries, as alleged, were caused by other persons or parties which were contributory and/or intervening, superseding causes of plaintiffs' alleged injuries. 99. The Commonwealth defendant avers that if negligence is found to exist on its part, said negligence was not the proximate cause of plaintiffs' injuries. 100. If the accident occurred as alleged, then the condition complained of did not create a reasonably foreseeable risk of the accident or the injuries complained of. 101. The causal negligence of each and all other defendants is asserted and requires that any recovery against the Commonwealth defendant be diminished in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 102. The Commonwealth party is absolved from liability because any negligence alleged on its part merely facilitated the plaintiffs' injuries. 103. Plaintiffs' knowing and conscious assumption of the risk led to the resulting `j injuries and is a bar to recovery. 104. The plaintiffs were negligent and/or failed to mitigate the claimed damages, thereby limiting and/or barring any recovery in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 105. Plaintiffs are either barred from recovery, or their damages must be sufficiently diminished, by reason of their failure to wear a seatbelt. 106. The Commonwealth defendant is specifically entitled to the defenses set forth in 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8524, which section is incorporated herein and pled by reference. 2252(d) NEW MATTER 107. The factual averments of the plaintiffs' and defendant Detweilers' joinder complaints are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length without admission or adoption. 108. Liability on the part of the Commonwealth defendant is specifically denied. 109. If the averments contained in the plaintiffs' and defendants' complaints are established, said averments being specifically denied, as they may relate to the Commonwealth defendant, then the injuries and damages complained of were caused solely by defendants Leroy and Florence Detweiler, Upper Allen Township and John D. Ordille. 110. Defendants, Leroy and Florence Detweiler, Upper Allen Township and John D. Ordille, have been joined herein to protect the Commonwealth defendant's right of indemnity and contribution, and the Commonwealth defendant avers that the above-said defendants are alone liable to the plaintiff, or in the alternative, that the above-said defendants are liable over to the Commonwealth defendant, orjointly and severally liable on the plaintiffs' causes of action. WHEREFORE, Coininonwcalth of'Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. Respectfully submitted, D. MICHAEL FISHER Attorney General By. - A C T RK mor uty Attorney General ID #51786 VERIFICATION I, Jay W. Stark, verify that the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. DATE: January 28, 2000 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing document(s) upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS. W. SCOTT HENNING, ESQUIRE 319 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 1177 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (Attorney for Plaintiffs) KARL R. HILDABRAND, ESQUIRE METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.D. 3211 NORTH FRONT STREET P.O. BOX 5300 HARRISBURG, PA 17110-0300 (Attorney for Detweiler) HOWARD D. KAUFFMAN, ESQUIRE DEVLIN, KAUFFMAN & SHILLING 100 PINE STREET, SUITE 300 HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (Attorney for Upper Allen Twp.) Torts Litigation Section 15° Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-783-3148 - Direct Dial By: J W.S ARK ID #51786 nio eputy Attomey General DATED: January 28, 2000 I- . s BRENDA L. PALUSCIO AND JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. NO. 99-5817 LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE CIVIL ACTION - LAW DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, Handler, Henning and Rosenberg, and submits their Reply to New Matter as follows: 89. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 89 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, the Plaintiffs denies that their claim is barred, in whole or in part, by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 90. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 90 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 91. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 91 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the selection of the Limited Tort option, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 92. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 92 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiff was in any way contributorily or comparatively negligent with respect to the operation of the vehicle being occupied by the Plaintiffs, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 93. Admitted, based upon information provided by Defendant. 94-96. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 94 through 96 are directed to other parties to the suit, other than the Plaintiffs, hence, no response is necessary from the Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, John S. Paluscio, Jr. and Brenda L. Paluscio, demand judgment against the Defendants for the relief set forth in their Complaint. Respectfully Submitted, ING & ROSENBERG Dated: 1 28 00 W. Sco ennin sq I.D. # 229 319 et Street P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 108 (717) 238-200 Attorney for PI intiffs 2 VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO PA R.C P NO 1024 Icl W. SCOTT HENNING, ESQUIRE, states that he is the attorney for the party filing the foregoing document; that he makes this affidavit as an attorney, because the party he represents lacks sufficient knowledge or information upon which to make a verification and/or because he has greater personal knowledge of the information and belief than that of the party for whom he makes this affidavit; and that he has sufficient knowledge or information and belief, based upon his investigation of the matters averred or denied in the foregoing document; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 1-- ,?2p - BRENDA L. PALUSCIO AND JOHN S. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PALUSCIO, JR., CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs NO. 99-5817 V. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE CIVIL ACTION - LAW DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On January 28, 2000, 1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Reply to New Matter was served upon the following by depositing same in the United States Mail, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Karl R. Hildebrand, Esquire Metzger-Wickersham 3211 North Front Street, PO Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG Dated: 1 28 00 W. Scott H nin I. D. # 319 Market Street P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 171 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintif ,. ,.- ?, .:= ?. ?_. ?., , r ? '; -;'' <<: - _- ? n? ?.: L.J l'll L_ ? U JOHN GERARD DEVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P. C. JOHN GERARD DEVLIN, ESQUIRE I. D. NO. 32858 HOWARD D. KAUFFMAN, ESQUIRE I. D. NO. 38963 SUITE 300,100 PINE STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717) 720-0700 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Upper Allen Township IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE. DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants DOCKET NO. 99-5817-Civil PRAECIPE FOR A WRIT TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please issue a Writ to Join Additional Defendant John B. Ordille in the above captioned matter. His address is 109 South Orchid Street, Gibbstown, New Jersey 08027. Respectfully submitted, JOHN GERARD DEVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Howard . Cauffman, Esquire J t- l J (? ? t f. ) kD JOHN GERARD DEVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P. C. JOHN GERARD DEVLIN, ESQUIRE I. D. NO. 32858 HOWARD D. KAUFFMAN, ESQUIRE I. D. NO. 38963 SUITE 300,100 PINE STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717)720.0700 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Upper Allen Township IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants DOCKET NO. 99-5817-Civil CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this :% day of January, 2000, I, Howard D. Kauffinan, Esquire, attorney for Defendant Upper Allen Township, affirm that I served the foregoing Praecipe for a Writ to Join Additional Defendant by depositing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: W. Scott Henning, Esquire 319 Market Street PO Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for PlainttTs Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C. 3211 North Front Street PO Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 Attorney for Defendants Leroy and Florence Detwiler I W. Stark, Esquire Torts Litigation Section Office of Attorney General 15th Fl., Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Attorney for Commomvealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation Howar .Kauffman, Esquire C11 .._ 1CJ nJ q I V_ rJ Cumberland County, ss : The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to John B. ordille (Natne of Additional Defendant) You are notified that upper Allen Township (Name (s) of Defendant (s) ) has (hom) joined you as an additional defendant in this action, which you are re- quired to defend. Date February 2, 2000 (SEAL) Curtis R Long Prodtonotary By rom C? l l l? Dewty John B. Ordille 109 South Orchid Street Gibbstown, New Jersey 08027 N C N Y O u p 01 & I dy I e a o ? [F? - ?t w v ^ Z 4 -Z a FS .° ? ?7 XX? ?? Cl N 'O '?O W a? 4 1 W ? '? p r?c?a S a . ?oH W a Q 0 p am Sw?~' l A U W N r W 41 ? 44 m CD 04 w a ° a rn U] ?p 'O 3 ?I? C ? W °.? i N - C 0 I w + O O O a ? 0 0 hSU]S BRENDA L. PALUSCIO AND JOHN S. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PALUSCIO, JR., CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. NO. 99-5817 LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND NOW, comes Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, Handler, Henning and Rosenberg, and submits their Reply to New Matter as follows: 89. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 89 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessarv, the Plaintiffs acknowledge that they will be bound by any Statutes deemed applicable by the Court, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 90. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 90 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Commonwealth is immune from suit given the circumstances of this cause of action, and it is further denied that the cause of action does not fall within any of the exceptions to immunity as set forth in 42 Pa. D.S. Section 8522, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 91. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 91 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Commonwealth did not have notice, actual or constructive, of the dangerous condition of the intersection in question, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 92. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 92 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Commonwealth is immune from the obligation and duty to inspect roadways under their ownership, control and possession, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 93. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 93 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, Plaintiffs assert that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, has a duty to erect traffic signs or signals at appropriate locations where there is actual or constructive notice of a hazardous condition, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 94. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 94 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the 2 Honorable Court deems a response necessary, the Plaintiffs acknowledge that their cause of action shall be governed by any limitations on the types and amounts of damages that the Honorable Court deems applicable. 95. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 95 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiffs' cause of action is barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 96. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 96 is a statement of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, the Plaintiffs assert that they have complied with any written notice requirements required by 42 Pa. C.S. Section 5522(a), and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 97. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 97 is a statement of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, Plaintiffs acknowledge that they will be bound by any applicable provisions of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law which the Court deems applicable, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 98. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 98 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, the Plaintiffs acknowledge that there are 3 other Defendants whose actions or inactions may have contributed to the cause of the action and Plaintiffs' resulting injuries, however, it is denied the actions or inactions of the other defendants was an intervening or superceding cause of the Plaintiffs' alleged injuries such that the Defendant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, shall not be deemed to be jointly or severally liable with the other Defendants. 99. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 99 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that any negligence found on the part of the Commonwealth was not the proximate cause of Plaintiffs' injuries, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 100. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 100 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the hazardous condition that the Plaintiffs assert in their Complaint did not create a foreseeable risk of the accident or the injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs or other persons similarly situated who crossed through the subject intersection, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 101. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 101 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the 4 Honorable Court deems a response necessary, the Plaintiffs acknowledge that the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act shall be applicable to the subject cause of action to the extent that the Honorable Court deems the same applicable. 102. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 102 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Commonwealth party should be absolved from liability on the theory that any negligence on its part merely facilitated the Plaintiffs' injuries, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 103. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 103 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied the Plaintiffs knowingly and consciously assumed the risk of any injury. By way of further answer, it is denied that the Assumption of the Risk Doctrine is applicable to the circumstances of the subject cause of action, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 104. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 104 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiffs were negligent and/or failed to mitigate their damages so that recovery for damages should be limited or barred in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 5 105. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 105 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. There are no statutory provisions or other authoritative legal precedent in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that provides that an injured party's recovery shall be barred or in any way limited by reason of their alleged failure to wear a seatbelt, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 106. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 106 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, the Plaintiffs acknowledge that the Commonwealth shall be entitled to any defenses that the Honorable Court deems applicable. 107-110. Denied. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 107 through 110 are directed to Co-Defendants, rather than the Plaintiffs, and to that extent, no responsive pleading is required from the Plaintiffs. To the extent applicable, the Plaintiffs also incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 89 through 106 in response to the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 107 through 110. 6 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, John S. Paluscio, Jr. and Brenda L. Paluscio, demand judgment against the Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, for the relief set forth in their Complaint. Respectfully Submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG Dated: February 2. 2000 W. Scott i=nning, Esq I.D. # 3 98 319 Me at Str P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 1 108 (717) 238-200 Attorney for P aintiffs 7 VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO PA R C P NO 1024 Icl W. SCOTT HENNING, ESQUIRE, states that he is the attorney for the party filing the foregoing document; that he makes this affidavit as an attorney, because the party he represents lacks sufficient knowledge or information upon which to make a verification and/or because he has greater personal knowledge of the information and belief than that of the party for whom he makes this affidavit; and that he has sufficient knowledge or information and belief, based upon his investigation of the matters averred or denied in the foregoing document; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. i W. Scott. Hennina., Date: D - D-- BRENDA L. PALUSCIO AND JOHN S. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PALUSCIO, JR., CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs NO. 99-5817 V. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On February 2, 2000, 1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Reply to New Matter of Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, was served upon the following by depositing same in the United States Mail, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: J. W. Stark, Esquire Senior Deputy Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Karl R. Hildebrand, Esq. 3211 North Front Street, PO Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 Howard D. Kauffman , Esq. 100 Pine Street Suite 300 Harrisburg, PA 17101 & ROSENBERG Dated: February 2. 2000 W. Scott Henoffig, Es I.D. n 32298 319 Market Stree P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, P 17108 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiffs ^ ni ? i'- O: :? (' - .. u.. (.; i. ? ? ? ? u ' ? L.. le. ? ? i CJ __, t J JOHN GERARD DEVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P JOHN GERARD DEVLIN, ESQUIRE I. D. NO. 32858 HOWARD D. KAUFFMAN, ESQUIRE 1. D. NO. 38963 SUITE 300,100 PINE STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717) 720-0700 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs VS. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants Vs. JOHN ORDILLE, Additional Defendant C. ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Upper Allen Township IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 99-5817-Civil NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: PLAINTIFFS YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. Respectfully submitted, JOHN GERARD DEVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Howar . Kauffman, Esquire JOHN GERARD DEVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P. C. JOHN GERARD DEVLIN, ESQUIRE I. D. NO. 32858 HOWARD D. KAUFFMAN, ESQUIRE I. D. NO. 38963 SUITE 300, 100 PINE STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717) 720-0700 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Upper Allen Township IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants DOCKET NO. 99-5817-Civil DEFENDANT'S ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 22509(d) Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to fonn a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. Further, the averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. Further, the averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. 16. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. COUNTI 17-26. The averments of these paragraphs are directed to Co-Defendant and not to Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the Defendant in the amount specified, or to any sum of money whatsoever, or to interest or costs and prays that judgment be entered in Defendant's favor and against the Plaintiff and for his costs and fees and for such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. DEFENDANT DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY. COUNT 11 27-38. The averments of these paragraphs are directed to Co-Defendant and not to Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the Defendant in the amount specified, or to any sum of money whatsoever, or to interest or costs and prays that judgment be entered in Defendant's favor and against the Plaintiff and for his costs and fees and for such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. DEFENDANT DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY. COUNT III 39. Answering Defendant's responses to paragraphs 1-38 are incorporated herein as if more fully set forth herein at length. 40. Denied. The averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that any response is required, Answering Defendant had no such responsibilities with regard to the roadways, bridges or rights of way of the roadways and bridges. 41. Denied. The averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. 42. Denied. It is denied Answering Defendant had any notice of any dangerous condition or that any condition was dangerous. 43. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendant owned, designed, constructed, supervised, inspected or maintained the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road or had any duty to do so or that it was negligent or careless in ownership, design, construction, supervision or inspection. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. The remaining averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. 44. Denied. It is denied Answering Defendant was negligent or careless in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. a-g. Denied. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonable and prudently under the circumstances. h-i. Stricken by stipulation. 45. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. 46. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. 47. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. 48. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. 49. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. 50. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the Defendant in the amount specified, or to any sum of money whatsoever, or to interest or costs and prays that judgment be entered in Defendant's favor and against the Plaintiff and for his costs and fees and for such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. DEFENDANT DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY. COUNT IV 51-60. The averments of these paragraphs are directed to Co-Defendant and not to Answering Defendant, therefore no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the Defendant in the amount specified, or to any sum of money whatsoever, or to interest or costs and prays that judgment be entered in Defendant's favor and against the Plaintiff and for his costs and fees and for such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. DEFENDANT DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY. COUNT V 61-72. The averments of these paragraphs are directed to Co-Defendant and not to Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the Defendant in the amount specified, or to any sum of money whatsoever, or to interest or costs and prays that judgment be entered in Defendant's favor and against the Plaintiff and for his costs and fees and for such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. DEFENDANT DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY. COUNT VI 73. The response to paragraphs 1-72 are incorporated herein as if more fully set forth herein at length. 74. Denied. The averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that any response is required, Answering Defendant had no such responsibilities with regard to the roadways, bridges or rights of way of the roadways and bridges. 75. Denied. The averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. 76. Denied. It is denied Answering Defendant had any notice of any dangerous condition or that any condition was dangerous. 77. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendant owned, designed, constructed, supervised, inspected or maintained the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road or had any duty to do so or that it was negligent or careless in ownership, design, construction, supervision or inspection. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. The remaining averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. 78. Denied. It is denied Answering Defendant was negligent or careless in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. a-g. Denied. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonable and prudently under the circumstances. h-i. Stricken by stipulation. 79. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. 80. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. 81. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner I whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. 82. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. 83. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. 84. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the Defendant in the amount specified, or to any sum of money whatsoever, or to interest or costs and prays that judgment be entered in Defendant's favor and against the Plaintiff and for his costs and fees and for such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. DEFENDANT DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY. COUNT VII 85. Answering Defendant incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1-84 to the Complaint as if more fully set forth herein at length. 86. It is denied Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the Defendant in the amount specified, or to any sum of money whatsoever, or to interest or costs and prays that judgment be entered in Defendant's favor and against the Plaintiff and for his costs and fees and for such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. DEFENDANT DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY. COUNT VIII 87. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference it responses to paragraphs 1-86 to the Complaint as if more fully set forth herein at length. 88. Denied. It is denied the Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. 89. It is further averred that if the plaintiffs suffered any injuries/damages, they were caused solely and primarily by the carelessness and negligence of third parties over whom the Answering Defendant had no control. WHEREFORE, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the Defendant in the amount specified, or to any sum of money whatsoever, or to interest or costs and prays that judgment be entered in Defendant's favor and against the Plaintiff and for his costs and fees and for such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. DEFENDANT DEMANDS TRIAL. BY JURY. NEW MATTER 90. Defendant reserves the right to challenge any award of delay damages in this case. 91 Defendant demands that appropriate hearings be conducted in this case prior to any award of delay damages. 92 Rule 238 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, on its face, and as applied is violative of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, § 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code and Article I, §l, 6, 11 and 26 and Article V, § 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution and imposes a chilling effect on the exercise by Defendant of its constitutional rights. 93 Answering Defendant asserts all the defenses, limitations and exclusions available under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1701 et seq. and avers that Plaintiffs may not plead, prove, introduce into evidence or recover any benefits paid or payable under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 94 Some or all the Plaintiffs claims may be barred or limited by the Plaintiffs selection of the limited tort option of their insurance coverage pursuant to the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1701 et seq. 95 Answering Defendant asserts all the defenses, limitations and exclusions available under governmental immunity, including, but not limited to those found at 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8541 et seq. and including, but not limited to the notice provisions of 42 Pa. C.S.A. §5522. 96 Without admitting liability, Answering Defendant can at most be secondarily liable and is not primarily liable to plaintiffs. 97 If it is determined that the Answering Defendants are liable on the plaintiffs cause of action, the Answering Defendant avers that the plaintiff's recovery should be eliminated or reduced in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §7102. 98 It is further averred that if the plaintiff suffered any injury/damages as alleged, they were caused solely and primarily by the plaintiff s own carelessness, recklessness and negligence. NEW MATTER DIRECTED TO BRENDA PALUSCIO PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 2252 99. The Defendant's New Matter and New Matter directed to Co-Defendants is incorporated herein by reference as if more fully set forth herein at length. 100. Pursuant to the provisions of Pa. R.C.P. 2252, Answering Defendant asserts that Additional Defendant, Brenda Paluscio is alone liable or is jointly and severally liable or is liable over to Answering Defendants on the cause of action declared upon in the Complaint by plaintiffs. It is further averred that if it is determined that the Answering Defendant is liable on the plaintifPs cause of action, Additional Defendant is liable to the Answering Defendant for indemnity and contribution. Respectfully submitted, JOHN GERARD DEVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Howaru>1 Caulfman, Esquire VERIFICATION I, Harry Krot, a representative of Upper Allen Township, verifies that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer with New Matter are true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge, information and belief and understands that statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to Unswom Falsification to Authorities. t'411' I - Harry of Representative of Upper Allen Township Dated: l 1,2410 OOOZ L Z NVP OBA13038 OI1- JOHN GERARD DEVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P. C. JOHN GERARD DEVLIN, ESQUIRE I. D. NO. 32858 HOWARD D. KAUFFMAN, ESQUIRE I. D. NO. 38963 SUITE 300,100 PINE STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717) 720-0700 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs Vs. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Upper Allen Township IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 99-5817-Civil CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this _LLL day of February, 2000 Howard D. Kauffinan, Esquire, attorney for Defendant Upper Allen Township, affirm that I served the foregoing Answer with New Matter by depositing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: W. Scott Henning, Esquire 319 Market Street PO Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Plaintiffs Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C. 3211 North Front Street PO Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 Attorney for Defendants Leroy and Florence Detweiler -A, I W. Stark, Esquire Torts Litigation Section Office of Attorney General 15th Ff., Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Attorney for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation Howar. . Kauffman, Esquire -i l_ w JOHN GERARD DEVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P. C. JOHN GERARD DEVLIN, ESQUIRE 1. D. NO. 32858 HOWARD D. KAUFFMAN, ESQUIRE I. D. NO. 38963 SUITE 300,100 PINE STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717) 720-0700 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs VS. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants VS. JOHN ORDILLE, Additional Defendant ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Upper Allen Township IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 99-5817-Civil 94. The response to plaintifrs Complaint and the within Reply to co-defendant's New Matter are incorporated herein by reference. 95. The averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. 96. The averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. Respectfully submitted, JOHN GERARD DEVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Howard auffman, Esquire JOHN GERARD DEVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P. C. JOHN GERARD DEVLIN, ESQUIRE I. D. NO. 32958 HOWARD D. KAUFFMAN, ESQUIRE 1. D. NO. 38963 SUITE 300,100 PINE STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717) 720-0700 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Upper Allen Township IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants DOCKET NO. 99-5817-Civil vs. JOHN ORDILLE, Additional Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this L day of February, 2000, I, Howard D. Kauffman, Esquire, attorney for Defendant Upper Allen Township, affirm that I served the foregoing Reply to New Matter by depositing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: W. Scott Henning, Esquire 319 Market Street PO Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Plaintiffs Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C. 3211 North Front Street PO Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 Attorney for Defendants Leroy and Florence Detweiler J. W. Stark, Esquire Torts Litigation Section Office of Attorney General 15th Fl., Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Attorney for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation / v Howard uffman, Esquire VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that he is counsel for Defendant in the within matter and that the facts set forth in the foregoing Reply to New Matter are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, and that statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 4904 C.S.A. relating to Unworn Falsification to Authorities. JOHN GERARD DEVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Howard ,W. Kaufiinan, Esquire ?') r__ f, J ? ? ?_? i J JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs V. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants JOHN D. ORDILLE, Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 99-5817-Civil JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I, Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire, counsel for Defendants Detweiler hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Additional Defendant Complaint was served upon John Ordille, Additional Defendant at 109 Orchard Street, Gibbstown, NJ 08027 on January 27, 2000 by certified mail, return receipt requested. Attached hereto, marked as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference is the original signed return receipt card for said service. METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.C. By: f `Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 30102 3211 North Front Street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Attorneys for Defendants Detweiler Document N; 168704. / Exhibit A fa S1 " n ? N N •. cc '57 d c E 0° 5. 6. c T PS items t l nd/or 2 far additional services. I also wish to receive the items 3,4a, and 41b . name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this following services (for an extra fee): form to the front of the mailpleco, or on the back if space does not 8 1, ? Addressee's Address um Receipt Requested'on the mailpiece below the article number. 9 Receipt will show to whom the much, was delivered and the dais 2. ? Restricted Delivery Consult postmaster for fee. n to: John Ordille 109 Orchard Street Gibbstown, NJ 08027 , December Z 215 747 997 ? Registered ? Express Mail ? Return Receipt for Merchandise 7. Date of Delivery and fee is paid) I W59598.80229 Is E 5 ® Certified cc ? Insured ? COD 'o[ requested Y CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ! Z day of February, 2000, I, Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire, of Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., hereby certify that I served a copy of the within Affidavit of Service this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: W. Scott Henning, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg 319 Market Street, P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, FA 17108 J.W. Stark, Esquire Torts Litigation Section Office of Attorney General 15' Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Howard D. Kauffman, Esquire Devlin, Kauffman & Shilling 100 Pine Street, Suite 300 Harrisburg, PA 17101 By? Karl R. Hildabrand Dxume t N: 168704.1 H I I I O y y ? 6 I d > I wa I o a i i t P F z i z w O w w F 04 I z E- 1 0 w O M I V 5 W U a 0.' n I a q 1 W O z m U d v1 I a w a rn i vi ¢ H 1 00 zz I x w H U z I " m N 7 a w a wo¢ mo U F CL z x z w w F w a .o-iwa= w 3 6 b z c -OW tE W G7 z H O ¢ O w F F u d H W W > w P. oa.ao? 0 w ? z z wEl z -4 0 W El H L c c w N A w U a W W O F D w r; i 1 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs V. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 99-5817-Civil JURY TRIAL DEMANDED REPLY OF DEFENDANT DETWEILER TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 89. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 89 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. 90. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 90 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. 91. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 91 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. 92. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 92 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. 93. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 93 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. Dwi men! #: 168871.1 94. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 94 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. 95. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 95 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. 96. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 96 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. 97. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 97 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. 98. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 98 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. 99. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 99 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. 100. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 100 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. 101. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 101 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. 102. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 102 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. 103. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 103 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. DOCIIn@nl N: 168871. / 104. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 104 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. 105. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 105 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. 106. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 106 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. REPLY TO NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO PA R C P 2252(d) 107. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 107 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. 108. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 108 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. 109. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 109 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. 110. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 110 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.C. By: :> Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 30102 3211 North Front Street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Dated: February I (! 2000 Attorneys for Defendants Detweiler Document: 168871.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 1 L day of February, 2000, 1, Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire, of Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., hereby certify that I served a copy of the within Response to New Matter this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: W. Scott Henning, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg 319 Market Street, P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 J.W. Stark, Esquire Torts Litigation Section Office of Attorney General 15' Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Howard D. Kauffman, Esquire Devlin, Kauffman & Shilling 100 Pine Street, Suite 300 Harrisburg, PA 17101 B?? Karl R. Hildabrand Document #: 168871.1 s _- r ^y _- ?? Y [J- (? ? ? ? G S ? T. ? T . V? %.?? ' o s 2.n ? 3 ?? o ?? '? JOHN GERARD DEVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P, JOHN GERARD DEVLIN, ESQUIRE I. D. NO. 32858 HOWARD D. KAUFFMAN, ESQUIRE I. D. NO. 39963 SUITE 300,100 PINE STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717) 720-0700 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs C. ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Upper Allen Township IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants DOCKET NO. 99-5817-Civil V9. JOHN ORDILLE, Additional Defendant 107. Answering Defendant, Upper Allen Township, incorporates by reference its responses to Plaintiffs Complaint as if more fully set forth herein at length. The allegations of the Joinder Complaint are not directed to Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. 108. Denied. The averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. 109. Denied. The averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that any response is required, answering defendant denies it caused any injuries or damages to the plaintiff. On the contrary, answering defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. 110. Denied. The averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the Defendant in the amount specified, or to any sum of money whatsoever, or to interest or costs and prays that judgment be entered in Defendant's favor and against the Plaintiff and for his costs and fees and for such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. DEFENDANT DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY. Respectfully submitted, JOHN GERARD DEVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Howard D. uffman, Esquire VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that he is counsel for Defendant in the within matter and that the facts set forth in the foregoing Reply to New Matter are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, infonnation and belief, and that statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 4904 C.S.A. relating to Unswom Falsification to Authorities. JOHN GERARD DEVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Howard ufiinan, Esquire JOHN GERARD DEVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P. C. JOHN GERARD DEVLIN, ESQUIRE 1. D. NO. 32858 HOWARD D. KAUFFMAN, ESQUIRE I. D. NO. 38963 SUITE 300,100 PINE STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717) 720-0700 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Upper Allen Township IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. LEROY DETWEII.ER FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants DOCKET NO. 99-5817-Civil Vs. JOHN ORDILLE, Additional Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE t- AND NOW, this day of February, 2000, I, Howard D. Kauffman, Esquire, attorney for Defendant Upper Allen Township, affirm that I served the foregoing Reply to New Matter by depositing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: W. Scott Henning, Esquire 319 Market Street PO Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Plaintiffs Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C. 3211 North Front Street PO Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 Attorney for Defendants Leroy and Florence Detweiler L W. Stark, Esquire Torts Litigation Section Office of Attorney General 15th Fl., Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Atlorneyfor Commomvealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation Howard . Kauffman, Esquire ? .., ? _ I ?? (`, i ,, ,:") L, ?? - ?? LJ ?_. .? BRENDA L. PALUSCIO AND JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. NO. 99-5817 LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT. UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP AND NOW, comes Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, Handler, Henning and Rosenberg, and submit their Reply to New Matter as follows: 90. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 90 is neither an allegation of fact, or a statement of law, but rather a reservation of rights. To that extent, no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant does not have any legal or factual basis to challenge an award of delay damages. 91. Denied. Plaintiffs incorporate their response to Paragraph 90 as though fully set forth herein. 92. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 92 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that Rule 238 violates Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the US Constitution or any provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 93. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 93 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, the Plaintiffs acknowledge that they will be bound by any proper determinations of the Trial Judge with respect to the applicability of the provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 94. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 94 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that some or all of the Plaintiffs' claims may be barred or limited by the Plaintiffs' selection of the limited tort option, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. By way of further answer, the Plaintiffs assert that the limited tort election does not apply since the other vehicle involved in the motor vehicle collision was registered in the State of New Jersey, and also because the injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs meet the thresholds set forth in § 1705 at seq. 95. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 95 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Answering Defendant is exculpated from liability pursuant to the governmental immunity provisions as set forth in 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8541 et seq. or 42 Pa. C.S.A. §5522, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 2 96. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 96 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, the Plaintiffs assert that the Answering Defendant is jointly and severally liable with the other named Defendants, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 97. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 97 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiffs' recovery should be eliminated or reduced in any manner because of the application of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. Byway of further answer, it is specifically denied that the Plaintiffs were in any way negligent with respect to the occurrence of the subject incident, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 98. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 98 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is specifically denied that the Plaintiffs' injuries/damages were caused in any manner by the Plaintiffs' own carelessness, recklessness and negligence, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 99. Paragraph 99 is an incorporation paragraph to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response 3 necessary, the Plaintiff, Brenda Paluscio, incorporates the responses to the allegations of New Matter set forth in Paragraphs 90 through 98. 100. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 100 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that Plaintiff, Brenda Paluscio, is liable, jointly or severally, or is liable over to the Answering Defendants on the cause of action declared upon in the Complaint. It is further denied that Plaintiff, Brenda Paluscio, is liable to the Answering Defendant for indemnity and contribution, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. To the extent that Paragraph 100 is expressly or impliedly averring that Plaintiff, Brenda Paluscio, was negligent, reckless or careless, with respect to causing the subject incident, said allegation is specifically denied, and proof is demanded. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, John S. Paluscio, Jr. and Brenda L. Paluscio, demand judgment against the Answering Defendant for the relief set forth in their Complaint. Respectfully Submitted, H & ROSENBERG Dated: 2 00 W. Scott Henning,. I.D. # 32298 319 Market Street P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 1 108 (717) 238-200 Attorney for Plaintiffs 4 BRENDA L. PALUSCIO AND JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. NO. 99-5817 LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On J? hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Reply to New Matter of Defendant Upper Allen Township was served upon the following by depositing same in the United States Mail, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Howard D. Kauffman, Esq. John Gerard Devlin & Associates, PC Suite 300, 100 Pine Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire Metzger-Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, PC 3211 Nortn Front Street, PO Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 J. W. Stark, Esq. Torts Litigation Section Office of Attorney General 15" Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 John M. Popilock, Esq. Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 North Front Street PO Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 1 7 1 08-0999 HENNING & ROSENBERG Dated: 2 00 W. Scott Her>FRi , Esq. I.D. # 32298 319 Market Street P.O. Box 1177 JJ Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiffs ._, =. ., ?., _-, JOHN GERARD DEVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P. C. JOHN GERARD DEVLIN, ESQUIRE I. D. NO. 32858 HOWARD D. KAUFFMAN, ESQUIRE 1. D. NO. 38963 SUITE 300, 100 PINE STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717) 720-0700 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs ATTORNEY FOR; Defendant Upper Allen Township IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants DOCKET NO. 99-5817-Civil vs. JOHN ORDILLE, Additional Defendant Plaintiff has filed a Complaint against Defendant, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 2. Defendant has filed an Answer with New Matter pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 2252(d), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 3. As set forth in his Complaint, Plaintiff seeks damages as a result of an accident that occurred on or about September 21, 1997 at the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. Defendant in its Answer has denied any liability whatsoever. 5. Additional Defendant, John Ordille, is an adult with a residence of 109 South Orchard Street, Gibbstown, New Jersey 08027. 6. Plaintiff has filed a Complaint against John Ordille, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". Defendant, Upper Allen Township, asserts that Additional Defendant is alone liable or is jointly and severally liable or is liable over to Defendant, Upper Allen Township on the cause of action declared upon in the Complaint by Plaintiff against John Ordille. It is further averred that if it is determined that Defendant, Upper Allen Township is liable on Plaintiffs cause of action, Defendant, Upper Allen Township avers that Additional Defendant is liable to Defendant, Upper Allen Township for indemnity and contribution. 8. The averments of Plaintiffs Complaint against John Ordille are incorporated herein without admission or adoption. 9. If it is determined that Plaintiff is entitled to recovered any or all damages set forth in the Complaint, which is not admitted, Additional Defendant is solely liable or is jointly and severally liable or liable over to Defendant, Upper Allen Township for contribution and/or indemnity. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that Additional Defendant be found liable or jointly and severally liable or liable over to Defendant, Upper Allen Township for contribution and/or indemnification. Respectfully submitted, JOHN GERARD DEVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Howard auffmam Esquire EXHIBIT "A" JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs Quopv IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-5817 CIVIL V. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, CIVIL ACTION LAW Defendants NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone 717-249-3166 or 800-990-9108 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG By -mac---3 W. Scott Henning, Esq. I.D. #32298 319 Market Street P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 238-20 0 Attorney for Plaintiffs JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs NO. 99-5817 CIVIL V. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, CIVIL ACTION LAW Defendants COMPLAIN AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Brenda L. Paluscio and John S. Paluscio, Jr., by and through their attorneys, Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, and make the within Complaint against the Defendants as follows: 1 . Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio, is an adult individual currently residing at 136 N. York Road, Dillsburg, York County, Pennsylvania 17019. 2. Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr., is an adult individual currently residing at 2303 Stumpstown Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055, 3. Defendant, Leroy Detweiler, (now deceased) with a last known address of 917 Messiah Village, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 4. Defendant, Florence Detweiler, is an adult individual currently residing at 917 Messiah Village, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 5. Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation (hereinafter, "PennDOT") is an agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and maintains offices at the Transportation and Safety Building, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 17120. 6. Defendant, Upper Allen Township is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and who maintains an office at 100 Gettysburg Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 7. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio, was operating a 1992 Jeep Cherokee 4X4, with Pennsylvania Registration Number BKA 7105, which was owned by her. 8. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr. was a passenger in the 1992 Jeep Cherokee 4X4 that was driven by Brenda L. Paluscio. 9. On or about September 21, 1997, Plaintiff Brenda L. Paluscio was traveling northbound on South Market Street, when she lawfully proceeded through the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 10. On or about the same time, John Ordville was traveling westbound on West Lisburn Road approaching the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road, when he suddenly and without warning, failed to stop at the posted stop sign on West Lisburn Road and violently struck the side of Plaintiffs' vehicle, which was lawfully proceeding through the intersection. 2 11. As a direct and proximate result of the motor vehicle incident, John S. Paluscio, Jr. and Brenda L. Paluscio sustained extensive and serious injuries that required medical treatment shortly after the collision and lead to substantial impairment of bodily function and permanent disfigurement. 12. Before the date of the above-mentioned collision, Plaintiffs elected the limited tort option under their motor vehicle insurance policy issued by Progressive Northern Insurance. However, since the vehicle that collided with the Paluscio vehicle was registered in another State, New Jersey, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover as if they had elected a full tort option in accordance with 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1705(d)(1)(ii). 13. Plaintiffs elected the limited tort option enumerated in the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1705(a)(1), et seq., as amended. However, pursuant to Act 6 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1701, et seq., as amended, Plaintiffs are entitled to seek damages as though they had elected the full tort alternative due to the fact that they sustained serious bodily injuries as a result of the collision described herein. 14. Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio's serious injuries, which she sustained as a result of the automobile collision described herein, include, but are not limited to a 4 cm. laceration on the right side of her chin, cervical strain requiring a soft cervical collar to be worn, chest discomfort, aches in neck, upper back and upper arms, intense pain in left knee, sore and clicking jaw, diagnosed at TMJ and a chipped tooth (1113)• 15. Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio's serious injuries, which he sustained as a result fo the automobile collision described herein, include, but are not limited to one 3 hundred (100) stitches over his face, a laceration penetrating the artery located above his right eye, lacerations to the left hand and wrist, knee contusion and strain and cervical spine pain. 16. The occurrence of the aforesaid collision and the resultant injuries to Plaintiff were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of the Defendants, more specifically as set forth below: COUNTI JOHN S. PALUSCIO. JR. v. LEROY DETWEILER and FLORENCE DETWEILER 17. Paragraph 1 through 16 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 18. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendants, Leroy Detweiler (now deceased) and Florence Detweiler are the owners of a parcel of real estate located at the corner of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road, Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 19. There is a hedge and other vegetation located at the corner of said i premises adjacent to the aforesaid intersection, which hedge and vegetation it has been asserted by John Ordille, blocks the sight lines along South Market Street, as one is situated at the stop sign on West Lisburn Road. 20. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants were negligent and careless in the ownership, maintenance and control of their premises as follows: (a) Failing to properly and timely inspect their premises so as to ascertain that the hedge/vegetation was of such a height and dimension to block 4 the sight lines and inhibit the sight distances of persons traveling on West Lisburn Road and South Market Street at the intersection of the said roadways; (b) Failing to remove and/or cut the hedge/vegetation located as aforesaid. 21. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Leroy Detweiler and Florence Detweiler, the Plaintiff has been, and will in the future be, hindered from performing and attending to his daily duties and chores, to his great loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 22. As a further result of Defendants' negligence, the Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr., suffered a loss of wages and may continue to suffer the same in the future. 23. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, the Plaintiff has suffered great physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 24. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, the Plaintiff has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for aforesaid injuries, to expend money for medicine and medical attention. Plaintiff continues to incur expenses for his injuries and will most likely continue to do so in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 4 5 25. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and will continue to suffer the same in the future, to his great detriment and inconvenience. 26. Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr., believes and, therefore, avers that his injuries are serious and permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr., seeks damages from the Defendants, Leroy Detweiler and Florence Detweiler, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand ($25,000) dollars. COUNT II JOHN S. PALUSCIO JR. V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 27. Paragraphs 1 through 26 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length below. 28. At all times material hereto, the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road, Upper Allen Township was a roadway over which Defendant, PennDOT, had the responsibility for the ownership, design, construction, supervision, inspection and maintenance of the roadways and bridges and all areas within the right- of-way of the roadways and bridges. 29. At all times material hereto, Defendant, PennDOT, owed a duty to Plaintiffs and others traveling through the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road to provide and maintain a safe roadway. 6 30. At all times material hereto, Defendant, PennDOT had notice of the dangerous condition. 31. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, was negligent and careless in the ownership, design, construction, supervision, inspection, and maintenance of the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road, Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County which was a substantial factor in causing the collision and said injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs. 32. The negligence and carelessness of the Defendant, PennDOT, consisted of the following: (a) In designing and constructing this intersection in a dangerous manner such that there were improper sight lines and sight distances; (b) In failing to provide adequate signing and warning of the hazards presented by the dangerous intersection; (c) In failing to properly and timely inspect, maintain, and correct the dangerous condition of this intersection and the inadequate sight lines and sight distances; (d) In failing to properly and timely make repairs to the roadway/ intersection to make the intersection safer for vehicular traffic; (e) In failing to cause the property owners adjacent to the intersection to remove and/or cut the hedges and vegetation blocking the sight lines at the intersection; 7 (f) In failing to install a four-way stop sign at the subject intersection which would have caused all traffic to stop at the intersection thereby eliminating the problem with improper sight lines and sight distances; (g) In failing to install a traffic signal (red/green light) at the intersection to more safely control the flow of traffic at the intersection thereby eliminating the problem with inadequate sight lines and sight distances; (h) In failing to exercise due care and caution under all of the existing circumstances; (i) In otherwise violating the laws, statutes, and regulations of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regarding the maintenance of state highways. 33. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, PennDOT, the Plaintiff has been, and will in the future be, hindered from performing and attending to his daily duties and chores, to his great loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 34. As a further result of Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr., suffered a loss of wages and may continue to suffer the same in the future. 35. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has suffered great physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 8 36. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for aforesaid injuries, to expend money for medicine and medical attention. Plaintiff continues to incur expenses for his injuries and will most likely continue to do so in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 37. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and will continue to suffer the same in the future, to his great detriment and inconvenience. 38. Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr., believes and, therefore, avers that his injuries are serious and permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr., seeks damages from the Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand ($25,000) dollars. COUNT III JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. V. UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP 39. Paragraphs 1 through 38 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length below. 40. At all times material hereto, the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road, Upper Allen Township was a roadway over which Defendant, Upper Allen Township, had the responsibility for the ownership, design, construction, 9 supervision, inspection and maintenance of the roadways and bridges and all areas within the right-of-way of the roadways and bridges. 41. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Upper Allen Township, owed a duty to Plaintiffs and others traveling through the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road to provide and maintain a safe roadway. 42• At all times material hereto, Defendant, Upper Allen Township had notice of the dangerous condition. 43. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Upper Allen Township was negligent and careless in the ownership, design, construction, supervision, inspection, and maintenance of the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road, Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County which was a substantial factor in causing the collision and said injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs. 44. The negligence and carelessness of the Defendant, Upper Allen Township, consisted of the following: (a) In designing and constructing this intersection in a dangerous manner such that there were improper sight lines and sight distances; (b) In failing to provide adequate signing and warning of the hazards presented by the dangerous intersection; (c) In failing to properly and timely inspect, maintain, and correct the dangerous condition of this intersection and the inadequate sight lines and sight distances; 10 (d) In failing to properly and timely make repairs to the roadway intersection to make the intersection safer for vehicular traffic; (e) In failing to cause the property owners adjacent to the intersection to remove and/or cut the hedges and vegetation blocking the sight lines at the intersection; (f) In failing to install a four-way stop sign at the subject intersection which would have caused all traffic to stop at the intersection thereby eliminating the problem with improper sight lines and sight distances; (g) In failing to install a traffic signal (red/green light) at the intersection to more safely control the flow of traffic at the intersection, thereby eliminating the problem with inadequate sight lines and sight distances; (h} In failing to exercise due care and caution under all of the existing circumstances; (i) In otherwise violating the laws, statutes, and regulations of the Township of Upper Allen regarding the maintenance of Township roadways. 45. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Upper Allen Township, the Plaintiff has been, and will in the future be, hindered from performing and attending to his daily duties and chores, to his great loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 46. As a further result of Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr., suffered a loss of wages and may continue to suffer the same in the future. 11 47. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has suffered great physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 48. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for aforesaid injuries, to expend money for medicine and medical attention. Plaintiff continues to incur expenses for his injuries and will most likely continue to do so in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 49. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and will continue to suffer the same in the future, to his great detriment and inconvenience. 50. Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr., believes and, therefore, avers that his injuries are serious and permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr., seeks damages from the Defendant, Upper Allen Township, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand ($25,000) dollars. COUNT IV BRENDA L. PALUSCIO v. LEROY DETWEILER and FLORENCE DETWEILER 51. Paragraph 1 through 50 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 12 52. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendants, Leroy Detweiler (now deceased) and Florence Detweiler are the owners of a parcel of real estate located at the corner of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road, Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 53. There is a hedge and other vegetation located at the corner of said premises adjacent to the aforesaid intersection, which hedge and vegetation it has been asserted by John Ordille, blocks the sight lines along South Market Street, as one is situated at the stop sign on West Lisburn Road. 54. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants were negligent and careless in the ownership, maintenance and control of their premises as follows: (a) Failing to properly and timely inspect their premises so as to ascertain that the hedge/vegetation was of such a height and dimension to block the sight lines and inhibit the sight distances of persons traveling on West Lisburn Road and South Market Street at the intersection of the said roadways; (b) Failing to remove and/or cut the hedge/vegetation located as aforesaid. 55. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Leroy Detweiler and Florence Detweiler, the Plaintiff has been, and will in the future be, hindered from performing and attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 56. As a further result of Defendants' negligence, the Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio suffered a loss of wages and may continue to suffer the same in the future. 13 57. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, the Plaintiff has suffered great physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 58. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, the Plaintiff has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for aforesaid injuries, to expend money for medicine and medical attention. Plaintiff continues to incur expenses for her injuries and will most likely continue to do so in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 59. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and inconvenience. 60. Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio, believes and, therefore, avers that her injuries are serious and permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio seeks damages from the Defendants, Leroy Detweiler and Florence Detweiler, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand ($25,000) dollars. COUNT V BRENDA L. PALUSCIO V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 61. Paragraphs 1 through 60 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length below. 14 62. At all times material hereto, the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road, Upper Allen Township was a roadway over which Defendant, PennDOT, had the responsibility for the ownership, design, construction, supervision, inspection and maintenance of the roadways and bridges and all areas within the right- of-way of the roadways and bridges. 63. At all times material hereto, Defendant, PennDOT, owed a duty to Plaintiffs and others traveling through the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road to provide and maintain a safe roadway. 64. At all times material hereto, Defendant, PennDOT had notice of the dangerous condition. 65. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, was negligent and careless in the ownership, design, construction, supervision, inspection, and maintenance of the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road, Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County which was a substantial factor in causing the collision and said injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs. 66. The negligence and carelessness of the Defendant, PennDOT, consisted of the following: (a) In designing and constructing this intersection in a dangerous manner such that there were improper sight lines and sight distances; (b) In failing to provide adequate signing and warning of the hazards presented by the dangerous intersection; 15 (c) In failing to properly and timely inspect, maintain, and correct the dangerous condition of this intersection and the inadequate sight lines and sight distances; (d) In failing to properly and timely make repairs to the roadway/ intersection to make the intersection safer for vehicular traffic; (e) In failing to cause the property owners adjacent to the intersection to remove and/or cut the hedges and vegetation blocking the sight lines at the intersection; lf) In failing to install a four-way stop sign at the subject intersection which would have caused all traffic to stop at the intersection thereby eliminating the problem with improper sight lines and sight distances; (g) In failing to install a traffic signal (red/green light) at the intersection to more safely control the flow of traffic at the intersection thereby eliminating the problem with inadequate sight lines and sight distances; (hl In failing to exercise due care and caution under all of the existing circumstances; (i) In otherwise violating the laws, statutes, and regulations of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regarding the maintenance of state highways. 67. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, PennDOT, the Plaintiff has been, and will in the future be, hindered from performing 16 and attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 68. As a further result of Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio, suffered a loss of wages and may continue to suffer the same in the future. 69• As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has suffered great physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 70. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for aforesaid injuries, to expend money for medicine and medical attention. Plaintiff continues to incur expenses for her injuries and will most likely continue to do so in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 71. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and inconvenience. 72. Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio, believes and, therefore, avers that her injuries are serious and permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio, seeks damages from the Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand ($25,000) dollars. 17 COUNT VI BRENDA L. PALUSCIO V UPPER A LEN TOWNSHIP 73. Paragraphs 1 through 72 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length below. 74. At all times material hereto, the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road, Upper Allen Township was a roadway over which Defendant, Upper Allen Township, had the responsibility for the ownership, design, construction, supervision, inspection and maintenance of the roadways and bridges and all areas within the right-of-way of the roadways and bridges. 75. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Upper Allen Township, owed a duty to Plaintiffs and others traveling through the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road to provide and maintain a safe roadway. 76. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Upper Allen Township had notice of the dangerous condition. 77. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Upper Allen Township was negligent and careless in the ownership, design, construction, supervision, inspection, and maintenance of the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road, Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County which was a substantial factor in causing the collision and said injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs. 78. The negligence and carelessness of the Defendant, Upper Allen Township, consisted of the following: 18 (a) In designing and constructing this intersection in a dangerous manner such that there were improper sight lines and sight distances; (b) In failing to provide adequate signing and warning of the hazards presented by the dangerous intersection; (c) In failing to properly and timely inspect, maintain, and correct the dangerous condition of this intersection and the inadequate sight lines and sight distances; (d) In failing to properly and timely make repairs to the roadway intersection to make the intersection safer for vehicular traffic; (e) In failing to cause the property owners adjacent to the intersection to remove and/or cut the hedges and vegetation blocking the sight lines at the intersection; (f) In failing to install a four-way stop sign at the subject intersection which i would have caused all traffic to stop at the intersection thereby eliminating the problem with improper sight lines and sight distances; (g) In failing to install a traffic signal (red/green light) at the intersection to more safely control the flow of traffic at the intersection, thereby eliminating the problem with inadequate sight lines and sight distances; (h) In failing to exercise due care and caution under all of the existing circumstances; (i) In otherwise violating the laws, statutes, and regulations of the Township of Upper Allen regarding the maintenance of Township roadways. 19 79. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Upper Allen Township, the Plaintiff has been, and will in the future be, hindered from performing and attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 80. As a further result of Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio, suffered a loss of wages and may continue to suffer the same in the future. 81. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has suffered great physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 82. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for aforesaid injuries, to expend money for medicine and medical attention. Plaintiff continues to incur expenses for her injuries and will most likely continue to do so in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 83. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and inconvenience. 84. Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio, believes and, therefore, avers that her injuries are serious and permanent in nature. 20 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio, seeks damages from the Defendant, Upper Allen Township, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand ($25,000) dollars. COUNT VIl LOSS OF CONSORTIUM JOHN S. PALUSCIO JR. v. LEROY DETWEILER FLORENCE DETWEILER COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP 85. Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr.,herein incorporates paragraphs 1 through 84 of this Complaint into this count as if set forth at length. 86. As a result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr. has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort from his wife, Brenda L. Paluscio, and he will continue to suffer a similar loss in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, John S. Paluscio, Jr., seeks damages from Defendants in an amount in excess of thirty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00), and demands a trial by jury. COUNT VIII LOSS OF CONSORTIUM BRENDA L. PALUSCIO v. LEROY DETWEILER FLORENCE DETWEILER COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP 87. Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio, herein incorporates paragraphs 1 through 86 of this Complaint into this count as if set forth at length. 21 88. As a result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort from her husband, John S. Paluscio, Jr., and she will continue to suffer a similar loss in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Brenda L. Paluscio, seeks damages from Defendants in an amount in excess of thirty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00), and demands a trial by jury. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG Date: x=03 aLTlT-?) By: W. Sc twin , Esquir Attor ey I.D. 32298 319 Mark treet P. 0. ox 1177 Harrisburg, P 17108-1177 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiffs 22 VERIFICATION PURSUANT =PR - 6777 NO 1024 (c) W. SCOTT HENNING, ESQUIRE, states that he is the attorney for the party filing the foregoing document; that he makes this affidavit as an attorney, because the party he represents is outside the jurisdiction of the Court and the Verification of the party cannot be obtained within the time allowed for filing this Pleading; the averments set forth herein are based upon information provided by the Plaintiffs; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 0 /-6 3 -")-Oz r EXHIBIT "B" JOHN GERARD DEVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P. C. JOHN GERARD DEVLIN, ESQUIRE I. D. NO. 32858 HOWARD D. KAUFFMAN, ESQUIRE I. D. NO. 38963 SUITE 300,100 PINE STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717) 720-0700 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs VS. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Upper Allen Township c(oply IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 99-5817-Civil DEFENDANT'S ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 22509(d) Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments .of this paragraph. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. Further, the averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. Further, the averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. 16. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. COUNTI 17-26. The averments of these paragraphs are directed to Co-Defendant and not to Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the Defendant in the amount specified, or to any sum of money whatsoever, or to interest or costs and prays that judgment be entered in Defendant's favor and against the Plaintiff and for his costs and fees and for such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. DEFENDANT DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY. COUNT II 27-38. The averments of these paragraphs are directed to Co-Defendant and not to Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the Defendant in the amount specified, or to any sum of money whatsoever, or to interest or costs and prays that judgment be entered in Defendant's favor and against the Plaintiff and for his costs and fees and for such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. DEFENDANT DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY. COUNT III 39. Answering Defendant's responses to paragraphs 1-38 are incorporated herein as if more fully set forth herein at length. 40. Denied. The averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent tha any response is required, Answering Defendant had no such responsibilities with regard to the roadways, bridges or rights of way of the roadways and bridges. 41. Denied. The averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. 42. Denied. It is denied Answering Defendant had any notice of any dangerous condition or that any condition was dangerous. 43. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendant owned, designed, constructed, supervised, inspected or maintained the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road or had any duty to do so or that it was negligent or careless in ownership, design, construction, supervision or inspection. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. The remaining averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. 44. Denied. It is denied Answering Defendant was negligent or careless in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. a-g. Denied. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonable and prudently under the circumstances. h-i. Stricken by stipulation. 45. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. 46. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. 47. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. 48. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. 49. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. 50. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the Defendant in the amount specified, or to any sum of money whatsoever, or to interest or costs and prays that judgment be entered in Defendant's favor and against the Plaintiff and for his costs and fees and for such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. DEFENDANT DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY. COUNT IV 51-60. The averments of these paragraphs are directed to Co-Defendant and not to Answering Defendant, therefore no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the Defendant in the amount specified, or to any sum of money whatsoever, or to interest or costs and prays that judgment be entered in Defendant's favor and against the Plaintiff and for his costs and fees and for such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. DEFENDANT DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY. COUNT V 61-72. The averments of these paragraphs are directed to Co-Defendant and not to Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the Defendant in the amount specified, or to any sum of money whatsoever, or to interest or costs and prays that judgment be entered in Defendant's favor and against the Plaintiff and for his costs and fees and for such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. DEFENDANT DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY. COUNT VI 73. The response to paragraphs 1-72 are incorporated herein as if more fully set forth herein at length. 74. Denied. The averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that any response is required, Answering Defendant had no such responsibilities with regard to the roadways, bridges or rights of way of the roadways and bridges. 75. Denied. The averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. 76. Denied. It is denied Answering Defendant had any notice of any dangerous condition or that any condition was dangerous. 77. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendant owned, designed, constructed, supervised, inspected or maintained the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road or had any duty to do so or that it was negligent or careless in ownership, design, construction, supervision or inspection. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. The remaining averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. 78. Denied. It is denied Answering Defendant was negligent or careless in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. a-g. Denied. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonable and prudently under the circumstances. h-i. Stricken by stipulation. 79. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. 80. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. 81. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. 82. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. 83. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. 84. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the Defendant in the amount specified, or to any sum of money whatsoever, or to interest or costs and prays that judgment be entered in Defendant's favor and against the Plaintiff and for his costs and fees and for such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. DEFENDANT DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY. COUNT VII 85. Answering Defendant incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1-84 to the Complaint as if more fully set forth herein at length. 86. It is denied Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the Defendant in the amount specified, or to any sum of money whatsoever, or to interest or costs and prays that judgment be entered in Defendant's favor and against the Plaintiff and for his costs and fees and for such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. DEFENDANT DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY. COUNT VIII 87. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference it responses to paragraphs 1-86 to the Complaint as if more fully set forth herein at length. 88. Denied. It is denied the Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph are accordingly denied. 89. It is further averred that if the plaintiffs suffered any injuries/damages, they were caused solely and primarily by the carelessness and negligence of third parties over whom the Answering Defendant had no control. WHEREFORE, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the Defendant in the amount specified, or to any sum of money whatsoever, or to interest or costs and prays that judgment be entered in Defendant's favor and against the Plaintiff and for his costs and fees and for such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. DEFENDANT DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY. NEW MATTER 90. Defendant reserves the right to challenge any award of delay damages in this case. 91 Defendant demands that appropriate hearings be conducted in this case prior to any award of delay damages. 92 Rule 238 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, on its face, and as applied is violative of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, §1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code and Article I, §1, 6, 11 and 26 and Article V, §10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution and imposes a chilling effect on the exercise by Defendant of its constitutional rights. 93 Answering Defendant asserts all the defenses, limitations and exclusions available under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1701 et seq. and avers that Plaintiffs may not plead, prove, introduce into evidence or recover any benefits paid or payable under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 94 Some or all the Plaintiffs claims may be barred or limited by the Plaintiffs selection of the limited tort option of their insurance coverage pursuant to the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1701 et seq. 95 Answering Defendant asserts all the defenses, limitations and exclusions available under governmental immunity, including, but not limited to those found at 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8541 et seq. and including, but not limited to the notice provisions of 42 Pa. C.S.A. §5522. 96 Without admitting liability, Answering Defendant can at most be secondarily liable and is not primarily liable to plaintiffs. 97 If it is determined that the Answering Defendants are liable on the plaintiffs cause of action, the Answering Defendant avers that the plaintiff's recovery should be eliminated or reduced in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §7102. 98 It is further averred that if the plaintiff suffered any injury/damages as alleged, they were caused solely and primarily by the plaintiffs own carelessness, recklessness and negligence. NEW MATTER DIRECTED TO BRENDA PALUSCIO PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 2252 99. The Defendant's New Matter and New Matter directed to Co-Defendants is incorporated herein by reference as if more fully set forth herein at length. 100. Pursuant to the provisions of Pa. R.C.P. 2252, Answering Defendant asserts that Additional Defendant, Brenda Paluscio is alone liable or is jointly and severally liable or is liable over to Answering Defendants on the cause of action declared upon in the Complaint by plaintiffs. It is further averred that if it is determined that the Answering Defendant is liable on the plaintiffs cause of action, Additional Defendant is liable to the Answering Defendant for indemnity and contribution. Respectfully submitted, JOHN GERARD DEVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Howard D. Kauffman, Esquire JOHN GERARD DEVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P. C. JOHN GERARD DEVLIN, ESQUIRE I. D. NO. 32858 HOWARD D. KAUFFMAN, ESQUIRE I. D. NO. 38963 SUITE 300,100 PINE STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717) 720-0700 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Upper Allen Township IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants DOCKET NO. 99-5817-Civil CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this day of January, 2000 Howard D. Kauffman, Esquire, attorney for Defendant Upper Allen Township, affirm that I served the foregoing Answer with New Matter by depositing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: W. Scott Henning, Esquire 319 Market Street PO Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Plaintiffs Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C. 3211 North Front Street PO Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 Attorney for Defendants Leroy and Florence Detweiler J. W. Stark, Esquire Torts Litigation Section Office of Attorney General 15th Fl., Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Attorney for Commonwealth of Pennsvlvanla, Department of Transportation Howard D. Kauffman, Esquire EXHIBIT "C" £0'30ttd zeal PEE LSL BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, and JOHN S. PALUSCIO, Jr. Plalntlffs V. EVELYN M. ORDILLE and JOHN B. ORDILLE, Defendants toast 000E tt Nvr C? O p? : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA . NO. : CIVIL ACTION . LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action wlthin 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 fall to do so the case may proceed wlthout you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Court Administrator Fourth Floor Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone (717) 240-8200 HANDLER AND WIENER COPY By W. Scott Henning, Esq. 1.0. #32298 319 Market Street P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff t0'3`)Hd MT tEZ LTL St:ST 0202 it tatlf BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, and IN THE COURT OF COMMON JOHN S. PALUSCIO Jr. PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PLAINTIFFS PENNSYLVANIA NO. v. CIVIL ACTION- LAW EVELYN M. ORDILLE and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED JOHN B. ORDILLE DEFENDANTS AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, BRENDA AND JOHN PALUSCIO, by and through their attorneys, HANDLER & WIENER, and make the within Complaint against the Defendants, Evelyn and John Ordille as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Brenda Paluscio, is an adult individual currently residing at 138 N. York Road, Dillsburg, York County, Pennsylvania, 17019. 2. Plaintiff, John Paluscio, Jr., is an adult individual currently residing at 138 N. York Road, Dillaburg, York County, Pennsylvania, 17019. 3. Defendant , Evelyn Ordille, is an adult individual currently residing at 109 S. Orchard Street, Gibbstown, Now Jersey, 08027. 4, Defendant, John B. Ordille, is an adult individual currently residing at 109 S. Orchard Street, Gibbstown, New Jersey, 08027, 5. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Brenda Paluscio, was operating a 1992 Jeep so Mud eaeT VzZ LTG 27:ST 0202 TT Nbr Cherokee 4x4, with Pennsylvania Registration Number BKA 7105, which was owned by her. 6. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, John Paluscio, Jr., was a passenger in the 1992 Jeep Cherokee 4x4, being driven by Brenda Paluscio. At all times material hereto, Defendant, John B. Ordille, was operating a 1995 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme with New Jersey Registration Number BU4364, 8. At all material time hereto, Defendant, Evelyn Ordille, vvas'the owner of the 1995 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme being driven by John Ordille. 9. On or about September 21, 1997, Plaintiff, Brenda Paluscio, was traveling northbound on South Market Street, when she lawfully proceeded through the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 10. On or about the same time, Defendant, John Ordille, was traveling westbound on West Lisburn Road approaching the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road, when he suddenly and without warning, failed to stop at the posted stop sign on West Lisburn Road and violently struck the side of Plaintiffs vehicle, which was lawfully proceeding through the intersection, 11. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, John Ordille, Plaintiffs, Brenda and John Paluscio sustained extensive and serious injuries that required medical treatment shortly after the collision and lead to substantial impairment of bodily function and permanent disfigurement. 12. Before the date of the above-mentioned collision, Plaintiffs Brenda and John Paluscio, elected limited tort option under their motor vehicle insurance policy issued by Progressive Northern Insurance. However, since the Defendant was driving it motor vehicle 90 Mud zeal PEE LT6 2o:ST 0202 IT NFJr registered in another state, New Jersey, Plaintiffs ere entitled to recover as if they had elected a full tort option in accordance with 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1705 (d)(1)(ii). 13. Plaintiffs Brenda and John Paluscio elected the limited tort option enumerated in the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C,S.A. § 1705 (a) (1), at seq., as amended. However, pursuant to Act 6 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1701, at seq, as amended, Plaintiffs are entitled to seek damages as though they had elected the full tort alternative due to the fact that they sustained serious bodily injuries as a result of the collision described herein. 14. Plaintiff, Brenda Paluscio's serious injuries, which she sustained as a result of the automobile collision described herein, include, but are not limited to, a 4 cm. laceration on the right side of her chin, cervical strain requiring soft cervical collar to be worn, chest discomfort, aches in neck, upper back, and upper arms, intense pain in left knee, sore and clicking left jaw (possible TMJ), and a chipped tooth, # 13, Plaintiff, John Paluscio's serious injuries, which he sustained as a result of the automobile collision described herein, include, but are not limited to, one hundred (100) stitches over his face, a laceration penetrating the artery located above his right eye, lacerations to the left hand and wrist, knee contusion and strain, and severe cervical spine pain 15. The occurrence of the aforesaid collision and the resultant injuries to Plaintiffs were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of the DefRndants, more specifically as act forth below: LWBOUd zeal PEZ LtL 0=11 Brenda PplnaCle Y. Cohn Ord.U e 16. Paragraphs 1.15 are incorporated herein as if act for at length. ZP:S1 0002 tt Rif 17. The occurrence of the aforesaid collision and the resultant injuries to Plaintiff, Brenda Paluacfo, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of Defendant, more specifically as set forth below: a) in failing to keep a reasonable lookout for vehicles lawfully proceeding through the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road; b) In failing to be reasonably vigilant to observe Plaintiff a vehicle; c) In failing to operate the vehicle in such a manner so that he could apply his brakes to avoid striking Plaintiffs vehicle; d) In failing to obey the stop sign at the intersection of West Lisburn Road and South Market Street, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3321; e) In failing to properly and adequately observe the traffic conditions then and there existing; E) In failing to bring his vehicle to a stop at the stop sign at the intersection of _ West Lisburn Road and South Market Street, in violating 75 Pa. C.S.A, §3321; g) In failing to exercise the duty of due care as required by 75 Pa. C.S,A. § 3321. 18, As a direct and proximate result ofthe collision, and Defendant John Ordille's 4 60,39ud Z06T 7£2 4% £t•:ST 0202 TT Ntlr negligence and reckless operation of his automobile, Plaintiff, Brenda Paluscio sustained severe bodily injuries which include, but are not limited to, a 4 cm. laceration on the right side of her chin, cervical strain requiring a soft cervical collar to be worn, chest discomfort, aches in upper back and upper arms, intense pain in left knee, sore and clicking left jaw (possible TMJ), and a chipped tooth, # 13. 19. As it direct and proximate result of the negligence of thi:' Deft„dent, John Ordille, the Plaintiff, Brenda Paluscio, has been, and will in the future, be hindered from performing the duties required by heauaual occupation and from attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loos, humiliation, and embarrassment. 20. As a result of the Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff has suffered great physical pain, discomfort, mental anguish, and substantial impairment of bodily function and permanent disfigurement, and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 21. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums ofmoney for medicine and medical attention. Plaintiff continues to receive treatment and incur expenses of said injuries, and will likely continue to do so in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 22. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 23. Plaintiff Brenda Paluscio, believes and, thureliore, avers that her injuries are serious, if not permanent, in nature. 60'30dd zest 7£z LTL £tv:ST 0202 TT NUf WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Brenda Paluscio, seeks damages ftom the Defendant, John Ordille, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000,00). COUNT 11 John Palusclo v. John Ordlllc 24. Paragraphs 1-23 are incorporated herein as if set forth at lehgth. f 25. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant, John Ordille, I Plaintiff, John Paluscio, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort from his wife, Plaintiff, Brenda Paluscio. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff John Paluscio, seeks damages from Defendant, John Ordille in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). COUNT III John Paluscio Y. John Ordille 26. Paragraphs 1-25 are incorporated herein as if set for at length. 27. The occurrence of the aforesaid collision and the resultant injuries to Plaintiff, John Paluscio, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of Defendant, more _ specifically as set forth below, a) In failing to keep a reasonable lookout for vehicles lawfully proceeding through ilia intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn Road; b) In failing to be reasonably vigilant to observe Plaintiffs vehicle; 6 01'30tid 20Bt Pit L% PP:Sr 0202 ti Nor c) In failing to operate the vehicle in such a manner so that he could apply his brakes to avoid striking Plaintiffs vehicle; d) In failing to obey the stop sign at the intersection of West Lisburn Road and South Market Street, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3321; e) In failing to properly and adequately observe the traffic conditions then and there existing; f) In failing to bring his vehicle to a stop at the atop sign at the intersection of West Lisburn Road and South Market Street, in violating 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3321; g) In failing to exercise the duty of due care as required by 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3321. 28. As a direct and proximate result of the collision and Defendant John Ordille's negligence and reckless operation of his automobile, Plaintiff]ohn Peluscio sustained severe bodily injuries which include, but are not limited to, a laceration penetrating the artery located above his right eye, one hundred (100) stitches over his face, lacerations to his left hand and wrist, -: knee contusion and strain, and severe cervical spine pain. 29. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, John Ordille, the Plaintiff, John Paluscio, has been, and will in the future, be hindered from performing the duties required by his usual occupation and from attending to his daily duties and chores, to his great loss, humiliation, and embarrassment, 30. As a result of the Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff has suffered great physical 7 TI 30tid 200T K2 LtL vest e2ez tt r,ur pain, discomfort, mental anguish, and substantial impairment of bodily fOnction and permanent disfigurement, and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 31. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has been compelled, in t order to effect a cure for aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention. Plaintiff continues to receive treatment and incur expenias of said injuries, and will likely continue to do so in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 32. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and he will continue to suffer the same in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 33. Plaintiff John Paluscio, believes and, therefore, avers that his injuries are serious, if not permanent, in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, John Paluscio, seeks damages from the Defendant, John Ordille, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars (S25,000.00), CQVNT IV n io r 34. Paragraphs 1-33 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 35. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant, John Ordille, Plaintiff, Brenda Paluscio, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort ftom her husband, Plaintiff, John Paluscio. 21 '30dd 20BT bE2 L% bb:Si 0202 TT Nur WHEREFORE, PlaintitFBrenda Paluscio, seeks damages from Defendant, John Ordille in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000,00). Brenda Paluscio v. Evelyn Ord)Ile 36. Paragraphs 1-35 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length 37. Defendant, Evelyn Ordille was the owner of the 1995 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme, which Defendant, John Ordille, was operating with her permission at the time of the collision. 38. Defendant, John Ordille, was operating the 1995 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme at Defendant, Evelyn Ordille's, direction and for her benefit. 39. Defendant, Evelyn Ordille, knew or should have known that Defendant, John Ordille, would be operating their vehicle without reasonable care and safety. 40. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant Evelyn Ordille, Plaintiff, Brenda Paluscio, has suffered serious bodily injury as set forth in full herein. 41. The occurrence of the aforesaid collision and the resultant injuries to the Plaintiff were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of the Defendant, Evelyn Ordille, more _ specifically set forth below: a) In negligently entrusting her vehicle to Defendant, John Ordille; b) In allowing Defendant John Ordille to fail to keep a reasonable lookout for vehicles lawlldly proceeding through the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn 9 £T'39tld 2081 7£2 LTL Road; Sc:ST e202 TT Ntlr c) In allowing Defendant John Ordille to fail to be reasonably vigilant to observe Plaintiffs vehicle; d) In allowing Defendant John Ordille to fail to operate the vehicle in such a manner as that he could apply his brakes to avoid striking the Plaintiffs vehicle; . a) In allowing Defendant John Ordille to fail to obey the stop sign at the Intersection of West Lisburn Road and South Market Street, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3321; f) In allowing Defendant John Ordille to fail to properly and adequately observe the traffic conditions then and there existing; and g) In allowing Defendant John Ordille to fail to exercise the duty of care as required by 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3321. 42. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Evelyn Ordille, the Plaintiff, Brenda Paluscio, has been, and will in the future, be hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation and from attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. . 43. As a result of the Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff has suffered great physical pain, discomfort, mental anguish, and substantial impairment of bodily function and permanent disllguroment, and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 44. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has been compelled, in 10 vT'39t1d 2081 oz2 LTL Sb:ST 0202 TT NUf order to effect a cure for aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention. Plaintiff continues to receive treatment and incur expenses of said injuries, and will likely continue to do so in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 45. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 46. Plaintiff Brenda Paluscio, believes and, therefore, avers that her injuries are serious, if not permanent, in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Brenda Paluscio, seeks damages from the Defendant, Evelyn Ordille, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars (525,000.00). John Paluscio v. Evelyn Ordille 47. Paragraphs 1-46 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 48. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant, Evelyn Ordille, Plaintiff, John Paluscio, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort from his wife, Plaintiff, Brenda Paluscio. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff John Paluscio, seeks damages from Defendant, Evelyn Ordillein an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars (525,000.00). S1'39de UST KE 4.% UNNT VII John Palusclo Y. Evelyn Ordille 49. Paragraphs 1.48 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length Sr:Si 0202 TS Nqr 50. Defendant, Evelyn Ordille was the owner of the 1995 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme, which Defendant, John Ordille, was operating with her permission at the time of the collision. 51. Defendant, John Ordille, was operating the 1995 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme at Defendant, Evelyn Ordille's, direction and for her benefit. 52. Defendant, Evelyn Ordille, knew or should have known that Defendant, John Ordille, would be operating their vehicle without reasonable care and safety. 53. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant Evelyn Ordille, Plaintiff, John Paluscio, has suffered serious bodily injury as set forth in full herein. 54. The occurrence of the aforesaid collision and the resultant injuries to the Plaintiff were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of the Defendant, Evelyn Ordille, more specifically set forth below: 55. The occurrence of the aforesaid collision and the resultant injuries to the Plaintiff were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of the Defendant, Evelyn Ordille, more specifically set forth below: a) In negligently entrusting her vehicle to Defendant, John Ordilic; b) In allowing Defendant John Ordille to fail to keep a reasonable lookout for vehicles lawflilly proceeding through the intersection of South Market Street and West Lisburn 12 9T'30tie Z09T KZ LTL S^:ST 0202 TT Ndf Road; e) In allowing Defendant John Ordille to fail to be reasonably vigilant to observe Plaintiffs vehicle; d) In allowing Defendant John Ordille to fail to operate the vehicle in such a manner as that he could apply his brakes to avoid striking the Plaintiffs vehicle; e) In allowing Defendant John Ordille to fail to obey the stop sign at the intersection of West Lisburn Road and South Market Street, in violation of 75 Pa. C,S.A, § 3321; f) In allowing Defendant John Ordille to fail to properly and adequately observe the traffic conditions then and there existing; and g) In allowing Defendant John Ordille to fail to exercise the duty of care as required by 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3321. 56. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Evelyn Ordille, the Plaintiff, John Paluscio, has been, and will in the future, be hindered from performing the duties required by his usual occupation and from attending to his daily duties and chores, to _ his great loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 57. As a result of the Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff has suffered great physical pain, discomfort, mental anguish, and substantial impairment of bodily function and permanent disfigurement, and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 13 41,30ud zeal Ozz LTL 9b:ST 0202 TT Mir 58. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention. Plaintiff continues to receive treatment and incur expenses of said injuries, and will likely continue to do so in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 59. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and he will continue to suffer the same in the future, to-his great detriment and loss. 60, Plaintiff John Paluscio, believes and, therefore, avers that his injuries are serious, if not permanent, in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, John Paluscio, seeks damages from the Defendant, Evelyn Ordille, in an amount in excess ortwenly-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). COUNT VIII Brendn Paluscio v. Evelvn Ordille 61. Paragraphs 1-60 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 62. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant, Evelyn Ordille, Plaintiff, Brenda Paluscio, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort from her husband, Plaintiff, John Paluscio. 14 81 139dd 208T 7C2 CL 57:ST 0202 IT Nbr WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Brenda Peluscio, seeks damages from Defendant, Evelyn Ordille in an amount In excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). Date: Respectrully Submitted, By, - W. Scott Henning, Esquire HANDLER& WIENER I.D. No. 32298 319 Market Street P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-1.177 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiffs i • 15 6 T'39dd UST Ke LTL Lv:ST azza Ti Nur VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing COMPLAINT are based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me and Information which has been gathered by counsel In the preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the above named COMPLAINT Is of counsel and not my own. I have read the COMPLAINT and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to counsel, It Is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the COMPLAINT is that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this verification. The undersigned also understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Ps.R.C.P. 2252(d) C.S. Section 4904, relating to uneworn falsification to authorities. Jr P/LL', Jo n S, Paluscio, Jr. Date: ZZ/ r' 0Z'89ed ZOaT 7£Z Ltd 0:9T 02OZ TT NUr VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing COMPLAINT are based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of this lawsult. The language of the above named COMPLAINT is of counsel end not my own. I have reed the COMPLAINT and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the beet of my knowledge, Information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the COMPLAINT is that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this verification. The undersigned also understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa,R.C.P. 2252(d) C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Data: ?(r.l?/il'Ill.'? ,' ? /?/)? Brenda L. Paluscd IF '30tid 2081 712 LTL SHERIFF'S RETURN - U.S. CERTIFIED MAIL CASE NO: 1997-06804 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND PALUSCIO BRENDA L ET AL VS. ORDILLE EVELYN M ET AL 0:91 02221, TT Nvr R. Thomas Kline Sheriff or Deputy Shoriff of CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, who boing duly svorn according to law, served the within named DEFENDANT. ORDILLE- JOHN p by United States Certified Mail postage prepaid. on the 11th day of December 1997 at 1500:00 HOURS, at 109 S ORCHARD STREET (3IFB9TOWN, NS 08027 a true and attested copy of the attached _COMPLAINT The returned receipt card was signed by JOHN B. OPDILLE on 12/13/1997. Sheriff': Costs: So answers: Docketing 6.00 _ Service .00 !• ' Affidavit .00 '• •???' CERTIFIED MAIL R/ 3.?2 omas in c, eras TrI77 "4ANDLER E WIENER 12/16/1997 .Sworn and subscribed to before me this day of 19 A. D. ra ono ary uuu PnaT naP ) Ti Qn:gT 0002-TT-TO 2Z'Bodd 2091 DaZ 4T6 c7;ST 0202 TT Nd: SHERIFF'S RETURN - U.S. CERTIFIED MAIL CASE N0: 1997-06804 P DEC 1 7 VT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Faua N aw PALUSCIO BRENDA L ET AL VS. ORDILLE EVELYN M ET AL R. Thomas Kline Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of CUMBERLAND County, Pennoylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, served the within named DF,FENDANT. ORDILLE EVELYN M by United States Certified Mail postage prepaid, on the 11th day of December 1997 at 1500:00 HOURS, at 109 S ORCHARD STREET GIBBSTOWN, NJ 08027 a true and attested copy of the attached COMPLAINT The returned receipt card was signwd by JOKN S. ORDILLE an 12/13/1997. Sheriff': Costs; So answers: Docketing 18,00 / Atfr'idevit .00 / 7?• ?.?.% .00 Surcharge 2.00 omas zne, nerizz CERTIFIED MAIL R/ 3 5 92 -57-HANDLER 6 WIENER 12/16/1997 Sworn and subscribed to before me this day of 19 Prothonotary VERIFICATION I, Harry Krot, a representative of Upper Allen Township, verifies that the facts set forth in the foregoing Joinder Complaint are true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge, information and belief and understands that statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to Unworn Falsification to Authorities. H Krot Dated: Da /a??iv JOHN GERARD DEVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P. C. JOHN GERARD DEVLIN, ESQUIRE I. D. NO. 32858 HOWARD D. KAUFFMAN, ESQUIRE I. D. NO. 38963 SUITE 300,100 PINE STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717) 720-0700 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Upper Allen Township IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF DOCKET NO. 99-5817-Civil PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants VS. JOHN ORDILLE, Additional Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE MA?-(_K_ AND NOW, this day of Febnwq; 2000, I, Howard D. Kauffman, Esquire, attorney for Defendant Upper Allen Township, affirm that I served the foregoing Complaint by depositing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: W. Scott Henning, Esquire 319 Market Street PO Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Plaintiffs Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C. 3211 North Front Street PO Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 Attorney for Defendants Leroy and Florence Detweiler J. W. Stark, Esquire Torts Litigation Section Office of Attorney General 15th Fl., Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Attorney for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation John Ordille 109 South Orchid Street Gibbstown, New Jersey 08027 Howes . {auffnan, Esquire L CV 1 i 11„I r C? 11 C'j C> .) JOHN GERARD DEVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P. C. JOHN GERARD DEVLIN, ESQUIRE I. D. NO. 32858 HOWARD D. KAUFFMAN, ESQUIRE I. D. NO. 38963 SUITE 300, 100 PINE STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717) 720-0700 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Upper Allen Township IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF DOCKET NO. 99-5817-Civil PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants VS. JOHN ORDILLE, Additional Defendant AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I, Howard D. Kauffman, Esquire, counsel for defendant, Upper Allen Township, hereby affirm that a true and correct copy of the Writ of Summons was served upon John Ordille, additional defendant at 109 South Orchard Street, Gibbstown, New Jersey 08027 on February 22, 2000 by certified mail, return receipt requested, attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference is a copy of the original signed return receipt card for said SOOVION 10 u011910osSV EIU4NAsuuad 'leQWOW service. EBOZ'SZ'Bny selldx3 uolsslwulo'? Aw Atunop ulydned'B1rpsweN oll9nd 1110 9eletlox *n Ti P lees mvioN espectfully submitted, Swom to and subscribed before me this t? day of n u_r C_h 2000 JOHN GERARD DEVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ?(`f) c i Howard . Kauf&nan, Esquire NOTARY PUBLIC JOHN GERARD DEVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P JOHN GERARD DEVLIN, ESQUIRE I. D. NO. 32858 HOWARD D. KAUFFMAN, ESQUIRE I. D. NO. 38963 SUITE 300, 100 PINE STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717) 720-0700 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs C. ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Upper Allen Township IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants DOCKET NO. 99-5817-Civil Vs. JOHN ORDILLE, Additional Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IN) C'( Ll`, AND NOW, this ?P` day ofFebmapy, 2000, I, Howard D. Kauffman, Esquire, attorney for Defendant Upper Allen Township, affirm that I served the foregoing Complaint by depositing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: W. Scott Henning, Esquire 319 Market Street PO Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Plaintiffs Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C. 3211 North Front Street PO Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 Attorney for Defendants Leroy and Florence Detweiler J. W. Stark, Esquire Torts Litigation Section Office of Attorney General 15th Fl., Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Attorney for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation John Ordille 109 South Orchid Street Gibbstown, New Jersey 08027 ?l Howard . Kauflinan, Esquire EXHIBIT "A" - .r. - °o SENDER: M •Canplale Rama I W&or 71or additional sankes. I alse wlsh to receive the •Canplele Rama 3,4a, and 4b. lolowng services (for an o •Pont your name and addrata Mew hyena of this faun so teat we can return IN' extra lea): o card to you. Artach Ws loan to the front Of IM maill)41", w on IM back it apace does nor pemer 1. ? Addressee's Address o •vyo18-Ish r Realpt Reeuested'un the mlPlaca WOW the article number. •iM Ratum FWAIPt Will Now to whom Via aide was del varad and the dale delivered. 0 3. Article Addressed to: E John CYC:Ii I Imo, I G, W?< 5. Receive By: Print Name Je2 c 6. Sig et : (I dfessee ent) 2. ? Restricted Delivery Consult postrnaster for lee. ? Registered CarNged ? Empress Mail ? Insured um Receipt for Meldlandse ? COD and lee Is paid) PS Forsi1381 VD42-br`rtbei 104 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-class Mall SPS De u 2r?? to G Permitt '.0.10 Pa wl? YES F• int your name, address, and ZIP Code in this box • 5? I e_ 300 ICU --Pnc- 54h'e-e-?- Harr Is kijrG ?pn F?1 O ou 1.11111,Ito „IM,IIII,11„,II,?f„ II,,,,,, fill, ,,,,,ll,„If( -iluSCC-p ,:, ?- _ ?,. ,;; - •_ _.. _ ` " _,' John M. Popllock, Esquire Attorney I.D. N 72871 Thomas, Thomas & Haler, LLP 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108.0999 (717) 255.7929 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, JR., Plaintiffs V. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP Defendants V. JOHN ORDILLE, Additional Defendant Attorneys for Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA DOCKET NO. 99-5817 - Civil `?5s ? <4RRAECYIPEtFORrENTRYS,OFaJ?RP,EI4RANG?`E*4??'?fw.??"????><-? . TO THE PROTHONOTARY: matter. Please enter my appearance on behalf of Additional Defendant, John Ordille, in the above THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: J I . Popilo s uire ttomey I.D. No.: 72671 305 5 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 255-7629 Attorneys for Defendant Dated: June 21, 2000 :49319.2 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: Howard D. Kauffman, Esquire JOHN GERARD DEVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 100 Pine Street Suite 300 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendant Upper Allen Township W. Scott Henning, Esquire HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG 319 Market Street P. 0. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Plaintiffs Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C. 3211 North Front Street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 Attorney for Defendants Leroy and Florence Detweiler J.W. Stark, Esquire Torts Litigation Section Office of Attorney General 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Attorney for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Date: June 21, 2000 Jo M. Popilock, Esquire \ \ R? ?3.Y? 1`?? ??-a J rS 1 1?1 ' ) iJ JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs NO. 99-5817 CIVIL V. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, CIVIL ACTION LAW Defendants V. JOHN ORDILLE, Additional Defendant PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: Please mark the above captioned matter settled and discontinued without prejudice. HANDLER HENNING & ROSENBERG Date: _k 6cy By ire W*17108 A1PH(717) 238-2000 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS :, Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15'" Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Jay W. Stark Senior Deputy Attorney General Direct Dial 717-783-3148 JOHN S. PALUSCIO, JR. and BRENDA L. PALUSCIO, Plaintiffs V. LEROY DETWEILER, FLORENCE DETWEILER, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants V. John D. Ordille Additional Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEA$ OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSNi,VAMA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 99-5817 CIVIL TERM REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS DETWEILER Defendant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, by and through the Office of Attorney General, files the following Reply to the New Matter of Leroy and Florence Detweiler: 89: 92. These averments are directed to other parties so no response is required. 93. Auer reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. 2252(d) New Matter 94. The Commonwealth Defendant incorporates herein by reference its Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint and its Reply to the New Matter of Defendants Detweiler as I though fully set forth herein at length. 95. Denied. The Commonwealth Defendant specifically denies it is liable in any manner to any party, 96. These averments are directed to other parties so no response is required. WHEREFORE, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. Respectfully submitted, D. Michael Fisher Attorney General BY4Say ! 2. St ID #51786 puty Attorney General DATED: August 15, 2001 VERIFICATION 1, Jay W. Stark, as counsel for the Commonwealth Defendant, verify that the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belie['. W. St DATE: August 15, 2001 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing document(s) upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS. W. SCOTT HENNING, ESQUIRE 319 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 1177 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (Attorney for Plaintiffs) KARL R. HILDABRAND, ESQUIRE METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB, P.D. 3211 NORTH FRONT STREET P.O. BOX 5300 HARRISBURG, PA 17110-0300 JOHN M. POPILOCK, ESQ. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER 305 NORTH FROM STREET P.O. BOX 999 HARRISBURG, PA 17108-0999 (Attorney for Additional Defendant Ordille) (Attorney for Detweiler) HOWARD D. KAUFFMAN, ESQUIRE DEVLIN, KAUFFMAN & SHILLING 100 PINE STREET, SUITE 300 HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (Attorney for Upper Allen Twp.) Torts Litigation Section 15'" Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-783-3148 - Direct Dial By: 'T' AL AY ST RK ID #51786 Se or bep?ty Attorney General DATED: August 15, 2001