Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-06236 } G wr?' fy T r? ? #1i 1L ? g tit µ - ( s .try aan i? i k t r 4vc 5 # , Y \ iS V rPS?. i 4 t ? tt a arjkn ' i l A S Y. ' ]T j' .r s 6 a rYi 3 4 5 ? Y } ? r 5 xei _ ti ? s t3 ? S? , of S': i x ? ) k ? } y YX' { r ?4 aj .. ? ? u? iS3Y a ? % 4 S'I l r' t .? t 'i " FAQ ? k _'} g p ( ^ot LP F P, >• t ? ¢ t t P ' 4x t " a4? } !) r? v. 3.« . c IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN BROWN. Civil Action---Slip & Fall Jun, Trial Demanded Docket No. 4'AyQj(, 44t/ PLAINTIFF . VS. HARIT TRIVEDI, DIPTI TRIVEDI, DEFENDANTS 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 (20) twenty 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 cliams 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 %ou by the court without further ntoice 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. COURT ADMINISTRATOR 4T" FLOOR, CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE CARLISLE, PA. 17013 Phone: 717-240-6200 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN BROWN. Civil Action-Slip & Fall Jury Trial Demanded Docket No. PLAINTIFF VS. HARIT TRIVEDI, DIPTI TRIVEDI, DEFENDANTS Aviso Le han demandado a usted en la torte. Si usted quicre defcnderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas singuientes, usted tiene veinte (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Hacc falta asentar una comparesencia escrita o en persona o con un abogado y entregar a la torte en forma escrita sus defcnsas o sus objeciones a Ias demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la cone tomara medidas y puede continuar la demanda en contraa suya sin previo aviso o notificacion. Ademas, la carte puede decidir a favor dcl demandante y requiere que usted cumpla con todas las provisiones de esta demanda. Ustcd puede perder dinero o sus propiedades u otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LAS OFICINA CUYA DIRECCIONSE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. COURT ADMINISTRATOR 4"" FLOOR, CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE CARLISLE, PA. 17013 Phone: 717-240-6200 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN DROWN, Civil Action --Slip & Fall PLAINTIFF CaseNo.-99- to'11( Ou;d " VS. HARIT T. TRIVEDI, DIPTI TRIVEDI, DEFENDANTS COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff, Kathleen Brown, is an adult individual, sui juris, who resides at , 4183 Grouse Court Apt. 102 Mechanicsburg, 17055 in the county of Dauphin Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 2. Defendants, arc Harit Triveli, and Dipti Trivcdi, husband and wife, and adult individuals, both of whom reside at 1610 Matthew Drive, Camphill PA. 17011 in the county Ctmberlaud. 3. At all times mentioned herein, defendants were and are the legal and cquitabio owners of a home located at 3656 Chestnut Street Camphill PA. 17011 which they leased to plaintiff a result of which placed defendants in a business relationship of that of landlords and lessors. 4. Plaintiff, was a leasce of the premises located at 3656 Chestnut Street, Camp Hill, PA. 17011 and commenced the lase of such premises from defendants listed herein on or about the I' day of February, of 1997. 4. Plaintiff, on or about October 15'", 1997 while stepping from the back door of the rear doorway, stepped on the door jam to which was attached a peice of plywood, (with thickness comparative to a piece of paneling) that was fastened by way of nails to a wooden faceplate, prinmrily upon which it relied for its structual integrity and autonomy. Thu plywood dislodged itself from the faceplate due to die rotted and dcterioated condition of the wood, a faceplate, bowing and buckling beneath plaintiffs «right, and causing plaintiff to fall forward onia a cement step and finally a cement patio which bordcrW the home, whereupon plaintiff brokt her right foot and injured her right shoulder. 5. Plaintiffs fall was the direct result of defendants, carelessness, ncgl 3cnce, and wanton disregard for the following reasons: (a) Defendants failed and neglected to inspect the common arras of the promises to detect the presence of deteriorated conditions on, around, or within the common areas -f the home despite repeated requests from plaintiff to engage in corrective repairs of other area such as door locks ctc. (b) Defendants failed and neglected to take any precautionary measures relative to ensuring that the doorways were well repaired and safe for plaintiff and her small child iwrtaining to ingress and egress to and from die common areas of the premises including, but not Ily way of limitation the entranceway doorjams. [c] Defendant's failed and neglected to partake of any corrective repairs to restore the deteriorated and remarkably rotted wood, which constituted the faceplate , if the near doorway upon which the door jam rested and depended for its structural intcgrit? and autonomy and the inherent weakness of which, caused plaintiff to fall. (d) Defendants breached a statutory duty as lessors and landlords of the promises herein described to inspect, repair and maintain common areas of the premise,, COUNT NEGLIGENCE 6. The aforementioned facts, statements, and averments contained in paragraphs I thru 5 are herein incorporated by reference thereto. 7. Defendant's ncgligcnce/nonfcasance was the legal and proximate cause of plaintiffs injury, in that, but for the extensive degeneration and dctcriomtion of the wooden faceplate which leaded primary support to the doodam , which buckled due to the lack of support of the faceplate for which it relied for its support, Plaintiff would not have fallen sustaining an injury. g. Solely, as a consequence of defendants negligence, as defined by his nonfauancc that is failure to inspect, repair, and replace and/or reinforce the rear doorway of plaintiffs wntal home, plaintiff sustained an avulsion fracture of her right foot a consequence of of which, roquired defendant to be placed in a cast, undcrgoc physical rehabilitation treatments, and ingest pain medication on a daily basis, to alleviate, minimize, and contain the intensity, frequency, and duration of pain and distress which heretofore continues to serve as a source of pain, discomfort, and annoyance. 9. Solely and as a consequence of defendants negligence Plaintiff, injured her r ght shoulder, due to die intense impact of her fall, resulting in pain cminating from plaintiff" s rig it shoulder which travels to her neck limiting not only plaintiffs range of motion but severely hi idcring her mobility, and flexibility, while attempting to fulfill her domestic and cmploymc d related endeavors. 10. Solely, and as a result of defendants negligence, plaintiff has incurred medical bills associated with the diagnostic, corrective, medicinal, and rclabilitativc treatment of her injuries. 11. Solely as a result of defendant's negligence, carelessness and recklessness, plaintiffs activities of daily living and most notably her employment obligations, were and currently are severely circumscribed causing plaintiff to miss days of work both due to the severe pain, discomfort, and inconvenience associated with her injuries as well as related absences due to the frequency of her medical appointments. WHEREFORE, plaintiff claims damages of the delendmu in an amount (not) in excess of $35,000.00 (dollars) together with costs and expenses. i HAZLETT & OESTERLINO '12 South Market Stroct Mechanicsburg, PA. 17055 (717)790.0490 VERIFICATION I verify that the aforementioned infomrntion Is true, correct and accurate to the best of my information, knowledge and belief subject to the penalties for unswom falsification of authorities pursuant to 18 Pa C.S. 4904. Datc:*i/f9 THLEEN BROWN, tiff ,. ,..... _ _ . ? .._ .,..... _..wa,?r.,... .. Ir try . j f U: ?=: t?tS.' .' (i. ? lV -,?,. C. Lj t.,,_ ,? 7? i:; 'V llli'. '?iJ? J U ?? ??? 1.1 l? n V a Q n K ?? ? Jo ?? ? ? / `V` ? , Jefferson J.Shipman, Esquire I.D. 0: 51785 GOLDBERG, KATZMAN i SHIPMAN, P.C. 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Telephone: (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants KATHLEEN BROWN, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. HARIT TRIVEDI, DIPTI TRIVEDI, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - SLIP AND FALL NO. 99-6236 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Plaintiff, Kathleen Brown c/oGregory S. Hazlett, Esquire 22 South Market Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Plaintiff YOU ARE REQUIRED to plead to the within New Matter within twenty (20) days of service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. GOLDBERG, KATZMAN 6 SHIPMAN, P.C. Je feVdbn J. Shipman, tsquire 32 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1260 Attorneys for Defendants Trivedi 32409.1 Jefferson J.Shipman, Esquire I.D. 1: 51765 GOLDBERG, KATZMAN f SHIPMAN, P.C. 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Telephone: (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants KATHLEEN BROWN, Plaintiff VS. HARIT TRIVEDI, DIPTI TRIVEDI, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - SLIP AND FALL NO. 99-6236 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER AND NOW, come the Defendants, Harit Trivedi and Dipti Trivedi, by and through their counsel, Goldberg, Katzman 6 Shipman, P.C., and file the following Answer and New Matter: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in L. ?r Paragraph and the same are therefore denied. 2. Admitted. 'E°V -_ 3. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the Defendants are the owners of a home located at 3656 Chestnut Street, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. The remaining averments of Paragraph 3 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 4. Admitted upon information and belief. 4. (sic) Denied. It is denied that the Plaintiff allegedly fell on October 15, 1997. Rather that the Plaintiff allegedly fell on September 15, 1997. The remaining averments of Paragraph 4 are also specifically denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 5. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 5, subparagraphs (a) through (d), are conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained there are specifically denied. (a) It is specifically denied that the Defendants failed and neglected to inspect the common areas of the premises to detect the presence of allegedly deteriorated conditions on, around, or within the common areas of the home despite alleged repeated requests from Plaintiff to engage and correct repairs or other areas such as door locks, etc.; 2 (b) It is specifically denied that the Defendants failed and neglected to take any precautionary measures relative to insuring the doorways were well repaired and safe for Plaintiff and her small child pertaining to ingress and egress to and from the common areas of the premises including, but not limited to the entranceway doorjams. (c) It is specifically denied that the Defendants failed and neglected to partake of any corrective repairs to restore the allegedly deteriorated and remarkedly rotted wood which constituted the fact plate of the rear doorway upon which the door jam rested and depended for its structural integrity and autonomy and the inherent weakness of which, caused Plaintiff to allegedly fall. (d) It is specifically denied that the Defendants reached a statutory duty as lessors and landlords of the premises herein described to inspect, repair and maintain common areas of the premises. 3 6. Defendants incorporate herein by reference answers to paragraphs 1 through 5 above as though fully set forth herein at length. 7. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 7 are in part conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, they are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 7 relating to Plaintiff's alleged injury and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 8. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 8 are in part conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, they are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 8 relating to Plaintiff's alleged injury and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 9. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 9 are in part conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a 4 response is deemed to be required, they are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 9 relating to Plaintiff's alleged injury and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 10. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 10 are in part conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, they are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 10 relating to Plaintiff's alleged injury and the same are therefore i denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. I 11. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 11 are in part conclusions of law to which no response is required. If I a response is deemed to be required, they are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 11 j relating to Plaintiff's alleged injury and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 5 WHEREFORE, the Defendants, Harit Trivedi and Dipti Trivedi, respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. By way of additional answer and reply Defendants, Harit Trivedi and Dipti Trivedi, interpose the following New Matters: 12. That this action is barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations, 42 Pa. C.S.A. 55524. 13. That on September 15, 1997 the Plaintiff was seen and treated bu John R. Frankeny, II, M.D., of the Orthopedic Institute of PA, with a chief complaint of an injury to her right foot when going down steps at her home. 14. That Plaintiff's right foot was placed in a cast by Dr. Frankeny on September 15, 1997 as a result of a fall going down steps at her home on September 15, 1997 which is the fall that is the subject of this case. 15. That the Plaintiff's claims are barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §71021 Lt sea., and by the Doctrine of Comparative Negligence. 6 16. That the Plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care for her own safety under the circumstances then and there existing. 17. That the Plaintiff was comparatively negligent and failed to exercise reasonable care for her own safety in the following: a. Walking inattentively without first ascertaining whether it safe to do so; b. Knowingly and voluntarily encountering an obvious danger; C. Failing to watch where she was walking; d. Walking in a hurried or otherwise inappropriate manner; e. Failing to make repairs to the doorway; and f. Failing to advise or notify the Defendants of the allegedly dangerous condition. 18. That the Plaintiff's failure to exercise reasonable care for her own safety was a substantial factor in the happening of the accident. 19. That if a dangerous condition existed at the time of the Plaintiff's accident, which is denied, then Defendants aver that they did not have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition prior to the accident. 7 20. That the Plaintiffs' injuries and damages, if any, were not caused by any act, omission or breach of duty by answering Defendants. 21. That the Plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk of her injuries under the circumstances then and there existing by identifying a dangerous condition, appreciating its dangerous character and voluntarily proceeding to encounter the condition. WHEREFORE, the Defendants, Harit Trivedi and Dipti Trivedi, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in their favor and that the Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. 32407.1 Je eYJ6n J. Shipman, Esquire 32 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Attorneys for Defendants Trivedi B 1••'vYR--a t We, Harit Trivedi and Dipti Trivedi, have read the foregoing Answer and New Matter and hereby affirm that it is true and correct to the best of our personal knowledge, or information and belief. This Verification and statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. $4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities; we verify that all the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct and that false statements may subject us to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. $4904. Har t Tr ved D pt r ved DATE: 28650.1 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served on the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on October 29, 1999: Gregory S. Hazlett, Esquire 22 South Market Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 GOLDBERG$ KATZMAN & SHIP MAN, P.C. Je 15n J. Shipman, isquire 32 Market Street P. . Box 1268 Add Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Attorneys for Defendants 32516.1 aJ r- Y a. ?r U C? Sj IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN BROWN, PLAINTIFF VS. HARIT T. TRIVEDI, DIPTI TRIVEDI, DEFENDANTS Civil Action-Slip & Fall Case No. 99-6236 AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Kathleen Brown by and through her attorney Gregory S. Hazlett, Esquire and answers the Defendants New Matter as stated hereinafter. 1. No responsive pleading is required for paragraphs I thru I 1 of defendant's Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint. 12. Denied. This action is not barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. 5524 although the initial injury did in fact occurr on September 15, 1999 the plaintiff had a latent injury consisting of severe neck and should pain the symptoms of which did not appear until on or about October 15, 1999 and in response to which medical intervention was sought on October 21, 1999 at Iloly Spirit Ilospital. These symptoms were included as physical injuries within plaintiffs civil complaint and arc as of the time of this responsive pleading the most problematic of her injuries in that she contiucs to experience severe headaches and continued neck and shoulder pain. 13. Admitted. Plaintiff did in fact seek the medical attention of John R. 1'rankcny,11 M.D. with this complaint but at such time the aforementioned complaint regarding neck and shoulder pain did not manifest itself until approximately one month subsequent to her first visit with Dr. John R. Frankeny. 14. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that plaintiffs foot was placed in a cast on September 15, 1999. Denied. This is not the only injury that is the subject of this case but rather was the most obvious at the time of the fall. Patient sought medical intervention on October 21, 1999 with a chief complaint of neck and shoulder stiffness, pain, and tingling sensations which were latent in nature and were not reported or discovered on September 15, 1999 but rather manifested itself on or about October 15, 1999 and later diagnosed on October 21, 1999 by Holy Spirit Hospital as cminating from the September 15, 1999 fall when plaintiff reached out her right palm upon impact with the cement patio to cushion her fall. 15. Denied. Thcre is no evidence at the time of the fall that plaintiff was negligent relative to her conduct in causing the fall in any manner and to that extent has not contributed in any way to the same, and is therefore not excluded or limited under the Doctrine of Comparative Negligence pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. 7102. 16. Denied. Plaintiff walked out of her doorway as she had done numerous times prior to her fall and was not acting in a careless, negligent, or reckless manner. 17. Denied. See response paragraph 15. Above. (a) Denied. There were no visible obstructions, impediments, that were within her visual range at the moment she walked through the doorway. (b) Denied. Plaintiff was not aware of an obvious danger at the moment she chose to walk through the doorway. Ilowcvcr, plaintiff was aware and communicated to the defendants that the doorjam appeared to be bowing under the weight of her person thus indicating that it was in need of additional support the extent to which was unknown and the danger posed as a result of its bowing also unknown. (d) Denied. Thcre is no evidence to support the proposition that plaintiff was in a hurry, rushing, or otherwise. (c) Denied. Plaintiff was not obligated to make repairs on the premises. (f) Denied. Plaintiff notified landlord/defendants on numerous occassions complaining not only of the condition relative to the doorway but also as to the deteriorated conditions of the locks on the doors themselves and received no response from defendants. 18. Denied. Plaintiff did exercise reasonable care in that she did not engage in any dangerous or careless conduct in approaching and walking through the doorway. 19. Denied. Defendants were notified on numerous occassions prior to the accident in question and were notified about the deteriorated condition of the doorway, doodams, and doorlocks on both doors of the home. 20. Denied. Defendants had notice of the deteriorated conditions and but for the fact that they neglected to make repairs to the doorjam this accident would not have occurred. 21. Denied. Plaintiff could not have appreciated, understood, nor surmised the level of danger inherent in walking through a doorway that although was deteriorated, she had walked through many times in the past without incident. Plaintiff, cannot be ascribed with assuming the risk of an endeavor without first knowing the level, extent, and nature of the risk posed to her while engaging in the conduct of walking from her home. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff Kathleen Brown, respectfully requests that the Court deny defendants request to dismiss plaintiffs complaint with prejudice, and enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff. HAZLETT & OESTERLING Atto cy for Plaintiff 22 'South Market Street Mechanicsburg, PA. 17055 (717)790.0490 I Gregory S. Hazlett, Esquire declare that the plaintiff was unavailable to sign this verification but that the aforementioned information is true, correct and accurate to the best of my information, knowledge and belief as provided to me by the plaintiff, subject to the penalties for unsworn falsification of authorities pursuant to 18 Pa C.S. 4904. Date-&W? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN BROWN, PLAINTIFF VS. HARIT T. TRIVEDI, DIPTI TRIVEDI, DEFENDANTS Civil Action-Slip & Fall Case No. 99-6236 I, Gregory S. Hazlett, Esquire, hereby certify that service of the foregoing Answer to Defendants New Matter was made upon the interested parties listed hereunder by mailing, postage prepaid, a true copy on the 18th , day of _ November , 1999. GOLDBERG, KATZMAN, & SHIPMAN P.C. 320 MARKET STREET PO BOX 1268 HARRISBURG, PA. 17108-1268 CIO Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire icsburg, PA. 17055 r `i ul KATHLEEN BROWN, Plaintiff Vs. HARIT TRIVEDI, DIPTI TRIVEDI, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - SLIP AND FALL : NO. 99-6236 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this day of upon consideration of Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Plaintiffs response thereto, it is hereby ordered that Defendants' Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff's cause of action is hereby dismissed with prejudice. BY THE COURT: J. Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. N: 31783 John R. Nirwsky, Esquire I.D. N: 78000 GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. 320 Market Strad P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Telephone: ('717)2344,61 Att neys for Defendants KATHLEEN BROWN, Plaintiff vs. HARIT TRIVEDI, DIPTI TRIVEDI, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - SLIP AND FALL NO. 99-6236 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ]DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND NOW, come the Defendants, Harit Trivedi and Dipti Trivedi, by and through their counsel, Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C., who files this Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings by respectfully stating the following: 1. Plaintiff commenced this action with the filing of a Complaint on October 12, 1999. A copy of the Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. Defendants filed an Answer with New Matter on October 29, 1999, and a copy of Defendants' Answer with New Matter is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 3. Plaintiff filed an Answer to Defendants' New Matter on November 18, 1999, and a copy of Plaintil£s Answer is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 4. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are the owners of a home located at 3656 Chestnut Street, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. (Sgg Exhibits A and B, Paragraph 3). 5. Plaintiff alleges that she was a lessee of the above referenced premises. (5m Exhibits A and B, Paragraph 4). 6. Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that on October 15, 1997 she fell from the back door of the rear doorway of the premises. As a result of the fall, Plaintiff claims to have suffered a broken right foot and an injury to her right shoulder. Sc Exhibit A, misnumbered Paragraph 4). 7. Plaintiff concedes in her Answer to Defendants' New Matter, however, that she actually fell at the premises on September 15, 1997, not on October 15, 1997 as incorrectly plead in her Complaint. ft Exhibits B and C, Paragraphs 13 and 14). 8. Plaintiff admits that she was aware of her broken foot on September 15, 1997. (fig Exhibit C, Paragraph 14). 9. The applicable statute of limitations for Plaintiffs cause of action can be found at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §5524(2) which states, "The following actions and proceedings must be commenced within two years: An action to recover damages for injuries to the person or for the death of another individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect or unlawful violence or negligence of another." (emphasis supplied) 10. Plaintiff knew that she fell on September 15, 1997, and Plaintiff knew she suffered an injury as a result of her fall. Consequently, must have commenced her action on or before September 14, 1999 which is when the applicable statute of limitations expired. 2 11. Plaintiff did not commence this action within the applicable statute of limitations. Therefore, Defendants respectfully submit that they are entitled to judgment on the pleadings in this matter and that Plaintiffs cause of action should be dismissed. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and that this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiffs cause of action with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. ? KA?Z Jeffe on Shipman, Esquire Attorney I.D. No.: 51785 John R. Ninosky, Esquire Attorney I.D. No.: 78000 320 Market Street, Strawberry Square P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants Date: /91 1,5-151 35189.1 Exhlblt A C_l4ivn ? UI UI 7U 3 3Z.S ct' ? ?Xr? Fu ?aMC-1 (OilgtC1 / IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, d 0';t'W G4t% " %(• a V KATHLEEN BROWN. Civil Action-Slip B Fall PLAINTIFF Jun* Trial Demanded Docket No. (0236 -ld VS. HARIT TRIVEDI, DIPTI TRIVEDI, DEFENDANTS - •n G NOTICE TO EEEND 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 (20) twenty days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or b%' anorney and filing in writing u7th the coon }our defenses or objections to the claams set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed withou: you and a judgment may be entered against you by the coup without further ntoice for any money claimed in the complaint or for an% 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. COURT ADMINISTRATOR 4T° FLOOR, CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE CARLISLE, PA. 17013 Phone: 717-140-6200 ?Wre.sburg cc,1 B 19P Lb.""' M' 332 5113 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLA-XD COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANL4 KATHLEEN BROW..N. PLAINTIFF Civil Action-Slip d Fall Jury Trial Demanded Docket No. VS. HARIT TRIVEDI, DIPTI TRIVEDI, DEFENDANTS Aviso Le han demandado a usted en la cone. Si usted quiere defenders: de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas singuientes, usted tiene veinte (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Hace falta asentar una comparesencia escrita o en persona o con un abogado y entregar a la torte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisade que si usted no se defiende, la torte tomara medidas y puede continuar la demanda en contras suya sin previo aviso o notificacion. Ademas, la cone puede decidir a favor del demandante y requiere que usted cumpla con todas ]as provisiones de esta demandz Listed puede perder dinero o sus propiedades u otros dercchos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DE11 AINDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATA.MENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LAS OFICINA CUYA DIRECCIONSE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PAR4 AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. COURT ADMINISTRATOR 4T" FLOOR, CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE CARLISLE, PA. 17013 Phone: 717-240.6200 -,;°.bJt9 OCT 1 g 1999 CIn.;?? 3 32 Sy3 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAIND COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN BROM7%, Civil Action-Slip S Fall PLAIATIFF Case No. VS. HABIT T. TRIVEDI, DIPTI TRIVEDI, DEFENDANTS COMPLAINT 1. PlainA Kathleen Brown, is an adult individual, sui juris, who resides at , 4183 Grouse Court Apt 102 Mechvticsbutg, 17055 in the county of Dauphin Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 2. Defendants, are Hari, Trivedi, and Dipd Trivedi, husband and wife, and adult individuals, both of whom reside at 1610 Matthew Drive, Camphill PA. 17011 in the coumy Ct.mberland. 3. At all tunes mentioned herein, defendants were and are the legal and equitab:s owners of a home located at 3656 Chestnut Street Camphill PA. 17011 which they leased to phdntiff a result of which placed defendants in a business relationship of that of landlords and lessors. 4. Plaintiff, was a leasee of the premises located at 3656 Chestnut Street, Camp Hill, PA. 17011 and commenced the lease of such premises from defendants listed herein on or about the ? day of February, of 1997. 4. Plaintiff, on or about October 15i°, 1997 while stepping from the back door of the rear doorway, stepped on the door jam to which cons attached a peice of plywood, (with thickness comparative to a piece of paneling) that was fastened by way of nails to a wooden faceplate, primarily upon which it relied for its structual integrity and autonomy. The plywood dislodged OCT 161999 LIti ,;, -A 332 Sq3 itself from the faceplate due to the rotted and deterioated condition of the wood. a faceplate, bowing and buckling beneath plaintiffs weight, and causing plaintiff to fall forward on:a a cement step and finally a cement patio which bordered the home, whereupon plaintiff brokt her right foot and injured her right shoulder. 5. Plaintiffs fall was the direct result of defendants, carelessness, negi;ence, and wanton disregard for the following reasons: (a) Defendants failed and neglected to inspect the common areas of the p-Muses to detect the presence of deteriorated conditions on, around, or within the common areas if the home despite repeated requests from plaintiff to engage in corrective repairs of other arear such as door locks etc. (b) Defendants failed and neglected to take any precautionary measures relative to ensuring that the doorways were wcH tepaircd and safe for plaintiff and her small child ;+ertaining to ingress and egress to and from the common areas of the premises including, but not ' %. way of limitation the entranceway doodams. [c] Defendant's failed and neglected to partake of any corrective re:+airs to restore the deteriorated and remarkably rotted wood, which constituted the faceplate . if the rear doorway upon which the door jam rested and depended for its structural imegrih and autonomy and the inherent weakness of which, caused plaintiff to fall. (d) Defendants breached a statutory duty as lessors and landlords of the pr:mises herein described to inspect, repair and maintain common areas of the premise.,. NEGLIGENCE 6. The aforementioned facts, statements, and averments contained in paragrap:ts I thru 5 are herein incorporated by reference thereto. CCU ? ? 1999 LI???-.;'' 33.2•Se-1? 7. Defendant's negligcnze/nonfeasance was the legal and proximate cause of plaintiffs injure, in that, but for the extensive degeneration and deterioration of the wooden faceplate which landed primary support to the doorjam , which buckled due to the lack of support of the faceplate for which it relied for its support. Plaintiff would not have fallen sustaining an injury. S. Solely, as a consequence of defendants negligence, as defined by his nonfeasance that is failure to inspect, repair, and replace and/or reinforce the rear doorway of plaintiffs rental home, plaintiff sustained an avulsion fracture of her right foot a consequence of of which, required defendant to be placed in a =4 undergoa physical rehabilitation treatments, and ingot pain medication on a dally basis, to alleviate. minimize, and contain the intensity, frequency, and truration of pain and distress which heretofore continues to serve as a source of pain, discomfort, and annoyance. 9. Solely and as a consequence of defendants negligence Plaintif; injured her r :ght shoulder, due to the intense impact of her fall, resulting in pain eminating from plaintiffs rip t shoulder which travels to her neck limiting not only plaintiffs range of motion but sever:}y hi: idering her mobility, and flexibility, while attempting to fulfill her domestic and employment related endeavors. 10. Solely, and as a result of defendants negligence, plaintiff has incurred medical bills associated with the diagnostic, co=ivc, medicinal, and rehabilitative treatment of her injuries. 11. Solely as a result of defendant's negligence, ca-elessness and recklessness, plaintiffs activities of daily living and most notably her employment obligations, were and currently arc severely circumscribed causing plaintiff to miss days of work both due to the severe pain, discomfort, and inconvenience associated with her injuries as well as related absences due to the frequency of her medical appointments. WHEREFORE, plaintiff claims damages of the defendant in an amount (not) in excess of 535,000.00 (dollars) together with costs and expenses. t . ,:.•?rStt3 •r. ??.? ? g 1999 Lla•,;..a 3&lsa. 1 verify that the afortmentioncd information is true, correct and accurate to the best of my information, knowledge and belief subject to the penalties for unworn falsi5cadon of authorities pursuant to IS Pa C.S. 4904. VERIFICATION Date:/fl HAZLEIT &- OESTERLING +12 South Market Strxt Mechanicsburg,. PA. 17055 (717) 790.0490 ^ / `f%- KA MEEK BROWN,I P faintiff ;t9 ? ? g 199` gt.rll'1 O Exhibit B Jefferson J.Shipman, Esquire I.D. 1: 51785 GOLDBERG, KATZMAN 6 S11IPMAN, P.C. 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Telephone: (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants KATHLEEN BROWN, Plaintiff VS. HARIT TRIVEDI, DIPTI TRIVEDI, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - SLIP AND FALL NO. 99-6236 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Plaintiff, Kathleen Brown c/oGregory S. Hazlett, Esquire 22 South Market Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Plaintiff 1 :n i Q ?• A" : Ifll `t YOU ARE REQUIRED to plead to the within New Matter within twenty (20) days of service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. JerfeVdbn J. Shipman, tsquire 32p Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Attorneys for Defendants Trivedi 32409.1 Jefferson J.ahipman, Esquire I.D. 1: 51785 GOLDBERG, KATZMAN i SHIPMAN, P.C. 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Telephone: (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants KATHLEEN BROWN, Plaintiff VS. HARIT TRIVEDI, DIPTI TRIVEDI, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - SLIP AND FALL NO. 99-6236 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AND NOW, come the Defendants, Harit Trivedi and Dipti Trivedi, by and through their counsel, Goldberg, Katzman 6 Shipman, P.C., and file the following Answer and New Matter: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph and the same are therefore denied. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the Defendants are the owners of a home located at 3656 Chestnut Street, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. The remaining averments of Paragraph 3 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 4. Admitted upon information and belief. 4. (sic) Denied. It is denied that the Plaintiff allegedly fell on October 15, 1997. Rather that the Plaintiff allegedly fell on September 15, 1997. The remaining averments of Paragraph 4 are also specifically denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 5. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 5, subparagraphs (a) through (d), are conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained there are specifically denied. (a) It is specifically denied that the Defendants failed and neglected to inspect the common areas of the premises to detect the presence of allegedly deteriorated conditions on, around, or within the common areas of the home despite alleged repeated requests from Plaintiff to engage and correct repairs or other areas such as door locks, etc.; 2 (b) It is specifically denied that the Defendants failed and neglected to take any precautionary measures relative to insuring the doorways were well repaired and safe for Plaintiff and her small child pertaining to ingress and egress to and from the common areas of the premises including, but not limited to the entranceway doorjams. (c) It is specifically denied that the Defendants failed and neglected to partake of any corrective repairs to restore the allegedly deteriorated and remarkedly rotted wood which constituted the fact plate of the rear doorway upon which the door jam rested and depended for its structural integrity and autonomy and the inherent weakness of which, caused Plaintiff to allegedly fall. (d) It is specifically denied that the Defendants reached a statutory duty as lessors and landlords of the premises herein described to inspect, repair and maintain common areas of the premises. x;54 6. Defendants incorporate herein by reference answers to paragraphs 1 through 5 above as though fully set forth herein at length. 7. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 7 are in part conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, they are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 7 relating to Plaintiff's alleged injury and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 8. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 8 are in part conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, they are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 8 relating to Plaintiff's alleged injury and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 9. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 9 are in part conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a 4 response is deemed to be required, they are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 9 relating to Plaintiff's alleged injury and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 10. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 10 are in part conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, they are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 10 relating to Plaintiff's alleged injury and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 11. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 11 are in part conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, they are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 11 relating to Plaintiff's alleged injury and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 5 WHEREFORE, the Defendants, Harit Trivedi and Dipti Trivedi, respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. By way of additional answer and reply Defendants, Harit Trivedi and Dipti Trivedi, interpose the following New Matters: 12. That this action is barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations, 92 Pa. C.S.A. 55529. 13. That on September 15, 1997 the Plaintiff was seen and treated bu John R. Frankeny, II, M.D., of the Orthopedic Institute of PA, with a chief complaint of an injury to her right foot when going down steps at her home. 14. That Plaintiff's right foot was placed in a cast by Dr. Frankeny on September 15, 1997 as a result of a fall going down steps at her home on September 15, 1997 which is the fall that is the subject of this case. 15. That the Plaintiff's claims are barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. 57102, &L sea., and by the Doctrine of Comparative Negligence. 6 16. That the Plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care for her own safety under the circumstances then and there existing. 17. That the Plaintiff was comparatively negligent and failed to exercise reasonable care for her own safety in the following: a. Walking inattentively without first ascertaining whether it safe to do so; b. Knowingly and voluntarily encountering an obvious danger; C. Failing to watch where she was walking; d. Walking in a hurried or otherwise inappropriate manner; e. Failing to make repairs to the doorway; and f. Failing to advise or notify the Defendants of the allegedly dangerous condition. 18. That the Plaintiff's failure to exercise reasonable care for her own safety was a substantial factor in the happening' of the accident. ?g 4 = 19. That if a dangerous condition existed at the time of the Plaintiff's accident, which is denied, then Defendants aver ya r .; that they did not have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition prior to the accident. A? 7 20. That the Plaintiffs' injuries and damages, if any, were not caused by any act, omission or breach of duty by answering Defendants. 21. That the Plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk of her injuries under the circumstances then and there existing by identifying a dangerous condition, appreciating its dangerous character and voluntarily proceeding to encounter the condition. WHEREFORE, the Defendants, Harit Trivedi and Dipti Trivedi, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in their favor and that the Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. Jee*96n J. Shipman, E#quire 32 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Attorneys for Defendants Trivedi 72407.1 8 We, Harit Trivedi and Dipti Trivedi, have read the foregoing Answer and New Matter and hereby affirm that it is true and correct to the best of our personal knowledge, or information and belief. This Verification and statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 84904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities; we verify that all the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct and that false statements may subject us to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. $4904. Rzt / C' . Har t Tr ved ,?rl...?, • Tn ? yr ?? Dipt r ved DATE: 28650.1 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served on the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on October 29, 1999: Gregory S. Hazlett, Esquire 22 South Market Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. Je e n J. Shipman, squire 32 Market Street P. . Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Attorneys for Defendants 32516.1 Exhibit C 4 iVt ??. _... L. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN BROWN, PLAINTIFF Civil Action-Slip & Fall Case No. 99-6236 VS. HARIT T. TRIVEDI, DIPTI TRIVEDI, DEFENDANTS 0 ?n ? V n r) r to ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Kathleen Brown by and through her attorney Gregory S. Hazlett, Esquire and answers the Defendants New Matter as stated hereinafter. 1. No responsive pleading is required for paragraphs 1 thru 1 I of defendant's Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint. 12. Denied. This action is not barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. 5524 although the initial injury did in fact occurr on September 15, 1999 the plaintiff had a latent injury consisting of severe neck and should pain the symptoms of which did not appear until on or about October 15, 1999 and in response to which medical intervention was sought on October 21, 1999 at Holy Spirit Hospital. These symptoms were included as physical injuries within plaintiffs civil complaint and are as of the time of this responsive pleading the most problematic of her injuries in that she contiues to experience severe headaches and continued neck and shoulder pain. 13. Admitted. Plaintiff did in fact seek the medical attention of John It. Frankcny.11 M.D. with this complaint but at such time the aforementioned complaint regarding neck and shoulder pain did not manifest itself until approximately one month subsequent to her first visit with Dr. John R. Frankeny. 14. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that plaintiffs foot was placed in a cast on September 15, 1999. Denied. This is not the only injury that is the subject of this case but rather was the most obvious at the time of the fall. Patient sought medical intervention on October 21, 1999 with a chief complaint of neck and shoulder stiffness. pain, and tingling sensations which were latent in nature and were not reported or discovered on September 15, 1999 but rather manifested itself on or about October 15, 1999 and later diagnosed on October 21, 1999 by Holy Spirit Hospital as eminating from the September 15, 1999 fall when plaintiff reached out her right palm upon impact with the cement patio to cushion her fall. 15. Denied. There is no evidence at the time of the fall that plaintiff was negligent relative to her conduct in causing the fall in any manner and to that extent has not contributed in any way to the same, and is therefore not excluded or limited under the Doctrine of Comparative Negligence pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. 7102. 16. Denied. Plaintiff walked out of her doorway as she had done numerous times prior to her fall and was not acting in a careless, negligent, or reckless manner. 17. Denied. See response paragraph 15. Above. (a) Denied. There were no visible obstructions, impediments, that were within her visual range at the moment she walked through the doorway. (b) Denied. Plaintiff was not aware of an obvious danger at the moment she chose to walk through the doorway. However, plaintiff was aware and communicated to the defendants that the doorjam appeared to be bowing under the weight of her person thus indicating that it was in need of additional support the extent to which was unknown and the danger posed as a result of its bowing also unknown. (d) Denied. There is no evidence to support the proposition that plaintiff was in a hurry, rushing, or otherwise. (e) Denied. Plaintiff was not obligated to make repairs on the premises. (() Denied. Plaintiff notified landlord/defendants on numerous occassions complaining not only of the condition relative to the doorway but also as to the deteriorated conditions of the locks on the doors themselves and received no response from defendants. 18. Denied. Plaintiff did exercise reasonable care in that she did not engage in any dangerous or careless conduct in approaching and walking through the doorway. 19. Denied. Defendants were notified on numerous occassions prior to the accident in question and were notified about the deteriorated condition of the doorway, doorjams, and doorlocks on both doors of the home. 20. Denied. Defendants had notice of the deteriorated conditions and but for the fact that they neglected to make repairs to the doorjam this accident would not have occurred. 21. Denied. Plaintiff could not have appreciated, understood, nor surmised the level of danger inherent in walking through a doorway that although was deteriorated. she had walked through many times in the past without incident. Plaintiff, cannot be ascribed with assuming the risk of an endeavor without first knowing the level, extent, and nature of the risk posed to her while engaging in the conduct of walking from her home. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff Kathleen Drown, respectfully requests that the Court deny defendants request to dismiss plaintiffs complaint with prejudice, and enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff. HAZLETT & OESTERLING Attopfc'y for Plaintiff 22'South Market Street Mechanicsburg, PA. 17055 (717) 790-0490 VERHICATION I Gregory S. Hazlett, Esquire declare that the plaintiff was unavailable to sign this verification but that the aforementioned information is true, correct and accurate to the best of my information, knowledge and belief as provided to me by the plaintiff, subject to the penalties for unswom falsification of authorities pursuant to 18 Pa C.S. 4904. Datco/9? Y v k?. 1 r} CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon all parties or counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage prepaid on the /,5_ day of&aw,141, 1999, addressed to the following: Gregory S. Hazlett, Esquire 22 South Market Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. By: C994- /( 4L'W?? Jelfer on J. Shipman, squire Attorney I. D. No. 51785 John R. Ninosky, Esquire Attorney I. D. No. 78000 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Telephone: (717) 2344161 Attorney for Defendants PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court. CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) KATHLEEN BROWN (Plaintiff) Vs. HARIT TRIVEDI and DIPTI TRIVEDI, (Defendant) No. Civil 6236 19 99 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 2. Identify counsel who will argue case: (a) for plaintiff: Gregory S. Hazlett, Esquire Address: 22 South Market Street Meehanicaburg, PA 17055 (b) for defendant: Jnhn R. Ninonky, Esquire Address: 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: January 5. 2000 i X AJ?u h Dated: /411-111 At orney for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon all parties or counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage prepaid on the =,S day of Aawk 1999, addressed to the following: Gregory S. Hazlett, Esquire 22 South Market Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. By: WA X 4&?J Jeffer n J. Shipman, Esquire Attorney I. D. No. 51785 John R. Ninosky, Esquire Attorney I. D. No. 78000 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Telephone: (717) 2344161 Attorney for Defendants j i Af" Iv m t? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN BROWN Plaintiff, V. HARIT TRIVEDI, DIPTI TRIVEDI Defendant(s) No. 99-6236 Civil Action - Law Slip and Fall JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above captioned case withdrawn and discontinued with prejudice and issue a certificate Name: 20 South Market Street Kathleen Brown Date: 1-5-00 ? wn ' i E l. to+- I 1.;-_ . y o E f? Jefferson J.Shipman, Esquire I.D. /: 51785 GOLDBERG, HATZMAN i SHIPMAN, P.C. 320 Market street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Telephone: (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendants KATHLEEN BROWN, Plaintiff Vs. HARIT TRIVEDI, DIPTI TRIVEDI, Defendants TO THE PROTHONOTARY: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - SLIP AND FALL NO. 99-6236 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE PLEASE withdraw the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the pleadings. GOLDBERG, KATZMAN 6 SHIPMAN, P.C. Je o J. Shipman, Esquire 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Attorneys for Defendants Trivedi 32409.1 ti I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served on the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on January 6, 2000: Gregory S. Hazlett, Esquire 22 South Market Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN* P.C. 32?arketVStreetµ???? L?Yµ+ P. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Attorneys for Defendants 32516.1 lL :z .