HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-2927IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. 20076-7 -Q927 Civil
Civil Action - (XX) Law
( ) Equity
Phillip A. Hammond Edwin Walker
P.O. Box 81. 127 Booz Rd.
Newburg, PA 17240-0092 Shippensburg, PA 17257
and
Elliott E. Walker
127 Booz Rd.
Shippensburg, PA 17257
versus
`Team
Plaintiff(s) & Defendant(s) &
Address(es) Address(es)
PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT:
Please issue a Writ of Summons in the above-captioned action.
Two 2 Writs of Summons Shall be issued and forwarded to ( )Attorney ( X )Sheriff
Matthew S. Crosby, Es
1300 Linglestown Rd.
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
Name/Address/Telephone No.
of Attorney
Signature of Attorney
Supreme Court ID No. 69367
Date: ?1517-00-7
WRIT OF SUMMONS
TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S):
YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HAS/HAVE COMMENCED
ACTION AGAINST YOU. n rl?' r
Date: I ' (ay l L _ oZ dd / ?i
( ) Check here if reverse is used for additional information
PROTHON. - 55
.40
V
c?
=r
r
c.n
cs)
-rt
t--
1J
OCI-)
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
C "'ASE NO: 2007-02927 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
HAMMOND PHILLIP A
VS
WALKER EDWIN ET AL
VALERIE WEARY , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon
WALKER EDWIN the
DEFENDANT , at 1425:00 HOURS, on the 25th day of May , 2007
at 127 BOOZ RD
SHIPPENSBURG, PA 17257 by handing to
EDWIN WALKER
a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with
and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing
Service
Postage
Surcharge
18.00
17.28
.41
10.00
.00
? 45.69
Sworn and Subscibed to
before me this
of
day
So Answers:
R. Thomas Kline
05/29/2007
HANDLER HENNING ROSENBERG
By: _
Deputy S lff
A. D.
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
` 0ASE NO: 2007-02927 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
HAMMOND PHILLIP A
VS
WALKER EDWIN ET AL
VALERIE WEARY
Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon
WALKER ELLIOTT E
the
DEFENDANT , at 1425:00 HOURS, on the 25th day of May , 2007
at 127 BOOZ RD
SHIPPENSBURG, PA 17257
EDWIN WALKER, FATHER
by handing to
a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS
together with
and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing 6.00
Service .00
Affidavit .00
Surcharge 10.00
.00
4Jo4/a7 L?, ? 16.00
Sworn and Subscibed to
before me this day
So Answers:
R. Thomas Kline
05/29/2007
HANDLER HENNING ROSENBERG
By:
Deputy She iff
of A.D.
Matthew S. Crosby, Esq.
I.D.#69367
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 238-2000
Fax: (717) 233-3029
E-mail: Crosby(dhhrlaw.com
PHILLIP A. HAMMOND,
Plaintiff
V.
EDWIN WALKER and
ELLIOTT E. WALKER,
Defendants
Attorneys for Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2007-2927 Civil Term
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the following:
1. Civil Complaint-one copy for each Defendant;
2. Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories Directed to Defendant,
Elliot E. Walker;
3. Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents Directed
to Defendant, Elliot E. Walker;
4. Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories Directed to Defendant,
Edwin Walker;
were served on each Defendant, as indicated above, by first-class United States mail on
November 16, 2007.
HAN ER, ENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
By
thew S. rosby, Esq.
Attorney I.D. 69367
DATE:
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Lancaster Office 717-431-4000 * Carlisle Office 717-241-2244 * York Office 717-845-7800 * Hanover Office 717-630-8200
+v
C C O
O
-r)
rr??
C:)
m _
m
" 0
to ,
;
; m
-
co
q
Matthew S. Crosby, Esq.
I.D.#69367
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Fax : (717) 233-3029
E-mail: Crosby HHRLaw.com
PHILLIP A. HAMMOND, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 2007-2927
ELLIOT E. WALKER and
EDWIN WALKER 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, GO
TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH
INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER.
IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH
INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A
REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
2 Liberty Avenue, Carlisle, PA 17013
Telephone 717-249-3166 or 800-990-9108
AVISO
USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se
presentan mfis adelante en las siguientes p6ginas, debe tomar acci6n dentro de los pr6ximos veinte (20) dias
despui?s de la notificaci6n de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado
una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las
demandas presentadas aquf en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar acci6n como se
describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada
en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamaci6n o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en
contra suya por la Corte sin m6s aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos
importantes para usted.
USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE
UN ABOGADO, LLAME 0 VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE
INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO.
SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA
OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS
LEGALES SIN CARGO 0 BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
2 Liberty Avenue, Carlisle, PA 17013
Telephone 717-249-3166 or 800-990-9108
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
By:
atthew S. C , Esq.
I. D.# 693671
1300 Linglestown Road,
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Matthew S. Crosby, Esq.
I.D.#69367
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 238-2000
Fax : (717) 233-3029
E-mail: Crosby@HHRLaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PHILLIP A. HAMMOND, .
Plaintiff
V.
ELLIOT E. WALKER and
EDWIN WALKER .
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2007-2927
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond, by and through his attorneys,
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by Matthew S. Crosby, Esq., and makes the
within Complaint against Defendants, Elliot E. Walker and Edwin Walker, and avers as
follows:
1. Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond, is an adult individual currently residing at 130
East Garfield Street, Apartment #4, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, PA 17257.
2. Defendant, Elliot E. Walker, is an adult individual currently residing at 127
Booz Road, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, PA 17257.
3. Defendant, Edwin Walker, is an adult individual currently residing at 127 Booz
Road, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, PA 17257.
4. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond, was a passenger
in a 1995 Saab 900S, bearing Pennsylvania registration number FPE7782, which was
operated by Defendant Elliot E. Walker (hereinafter "Defendants' vehicle").
5. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Edwin Walker, was the owner of the
Defendant's vehicle, and the father of the Defendant, Elliot E. Walker.
6. On or about January 20, 2005, Plaintiff believes and, therefore, avers that
Defendant, Edwin Walker, gave possession of the Defendants' vehicle to Defendant, Elliot
E. Walker.
7. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond, was an insured
under an automobile insurance policy issued to his parents, Kenneth and Angela
Hammond, by Prudential Insurance Company and was covered by the full-tort option.
8. At all times material hereto, there were no adverse weather or road
conditions.
9. On or about June 24, 2004, atapproximately 12:00 a.m., Defendants'vehicle
was traveling southbound on SR0696, approaching the intersection with SR0997 in
Hopewell Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
10. At approximately the same time and place, Defendant, Elliot E. Walker,
failed to negotiate a turn onto eastbound SR0997, while traveling at an unsafe speed.
11. As a result of Defendant, Elliot E. Walker's, failure to operate Defendants'
vehicle at a safe speed, said vehicle skidded out of control and violently collided with an
embankment.
-2-
12. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, Elliot
E. Walker and Edwin Walker, the Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond sustained extensive and
serious personal injuries, as set forth more specifically below.
COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
PHILLIP A. HAMMOND v. ELLIOT E. WALKER
13. Paragraphs 1-12 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth below.
14. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and the resultant injuries to
Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond, are the direct and proximate result of the negligence,
carelessness, and/or recklessness of the Defendant, Elliot E. Walker, generally and more
specifically, as set forth below:
(a) In driving Defendants' vehicle in careless disregard for the safety of
persons or property, in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3714;
(b) In failing to exercise reasonable care in the operation of Defendants'
vehicle for the safety of a guest passenger;
(c) In failing to properly and adequately observe the traffic and road
conditions then and there existing;
(d) In failing to properly regulate the speed of Defendants' vehicle so as
to prevent a collision;
(e) In failing to operate his vehicle in such a manner that would allow him
to apply the brakes and stop before striking the embankment;
(f) In failing to operate his vehicle at a speed at which he could stop
within the assured clear distance ahead, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A.
§ 3361;
(g) In failing to maintain control of Defendants' vehicle;
-3-
(h) In operating Defendants' vehicle at a speed in excess of the posted
speed limit;
(i) In operating Defendants' vehicle at an unsafe speed in light of the
existing conditions;
(j) In failing to have sufficient control of Defendants'vehicle, which would
have allowed the vehicle to be stopped before doing injury to any
person or thing likely to arise under the circumstances; and
(k) In failing to be continuously alert and in failing to have his vehicle
under such control that injury to persons or property could be
avoided.
15. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Elliot E.
Walker, the Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond, suffered extensive injuries including, but not
limited to, injuries to his skull, jaw, and teeth.
16. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Elliot E.
Walker, the Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond, has suffered a loss of income and will in the
future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or earning capacity, to his financial detriment
and loss.
17. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Elliot E.
Walker, the Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond, has suffered physical pain, discomfort, and
mental anguish, and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in
the future, to his physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss.
18. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Elliot E.
Walker, the Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for
aforesaid injuries, to expend money for medicine and medical attention.
19. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Elliot E.
Walker, the Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond, continues to receive treatment and incur
-4-
expenses as a result of said injuries, and will most likely continue to do so in the future, to
his detriment and loss.
20. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Elliot E.
Walker, the Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and he will
continue to suffer the same in the future, to his detriment and loss.
21. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Elliot E.
Walker, the Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from
attending to his daily duties, to his detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment.
22. Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond, believes and, therefore, avers that his injuries
are permanent and serious in nature.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond, seeks damages from the Defendant,
Elliot E. Walker, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland
County, exclusive of interest and costs.
23. Paragraphs 1-22 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth below.
24. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Edwin Walker, owned the motor
vehicle that Defendant, Elliot E. Walker, was operating at the time of the collision.
25. Plaintiff believes and, therefore, avers that at all times material hereto,
Defendant, Elliot E. Walker, operated the Defendants' vehicle with the consent and/or
permission of Defendant, Edwin Walker.
26. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and the resultant injuries to
the Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence
and/or carelessness of the Defendant, Edwin Walker, in giving possession of his vehicle
to Defendant, Elliot E. Walker, when he knew, or should have known:
-5-
(a) Defendant, Elliot E. Walker, was not competent to safely operate a
motor vehicle;
(b) Defendant, Elliot E. Walker, was likely to operate said vehicle in a
dangerous, unsafe, and/or otherwise negligent manner; and
(c) Defendant, Elliot E. Walker, would operate said vehicle in the manner
set forth in Paragraph 14 (a) - (k), of this Complaint.
27. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Edwin
Walker, the Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond, suffered extensive injuries including, but not
limited to, injuries to his skull, jaw, and teeth.
28. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Edwin
Walker, the Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond, has suffered a loss of income and will in the
future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or earning capacity, to his financial detriment
and loss.
29. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Edwin
Walker, the Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond, has suffered physical pain, discomfort, and
mental anguish, and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in
the future, to his physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss.
30. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Edwin
Walker, the Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for
aforesaid injuries, to expend money for medicine and medical attention, and will continue
to do so in the future.
31. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Edwin
Walker, the Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond, continues to receive treatment and incur
expenses as a result of said injuries, and will most likely continue to do so in the future, to
his detriment and loss.
-6-
32. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Edwin
Walker, the Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and he will
continue to suffer the same in the future, to his detriment and loss.
33. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Edwin
Walker, the Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from
attending to his daily duties, to his detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment.
37. Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond, believes and, therefore, avers that his injuries
are permanent and serious in nature.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond, seeks damages from the
Defendant, Edwin Walker, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of
Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs.
Respectfully submitted,
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
Date: ( ?- B . 4?
Matthew S. Crosby, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
VERIFICATION
THE UNDERSIGNED hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing document
are based on information that was gathered by counsel in preparation of this lawsuit. The
language of the above-named document is of counsel and not of my own. I have read the
said document and, to the extent that it is based on information that I gave to counsel, it is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the
contents of the said document is that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in preparing
this Verification.
THE UNDERSIGNED also understands that the statements therein are made subject
to the penalties of 18 Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d), relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
&W?Ji (I J?? J L49 0-1
DATE:
PHILLIP A. AMMOND
r.
Matthew S. Crosby, Esq.
I.D.#69367
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 238-2000
Fax: (717) 233-3029
E-mail: Crosbya-hhrlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PHILLIP A. HAMMOND,
Plaintiff
V.
EDWIN WALKER and
ELLIOTT E. WALKER,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2007-2927 Civil Term
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the following:
1. Civil Complaint-one copy for each Defendant;
2. Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories Directed to Defendant,
Elliot E. Walker;
3. Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents Directed
to Defendant, Elliot E. Walker;
4. Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories Directed to Defendant,
Edwin Walker;
were served on each Defendant, as indicated above, by first-class United States mail on
November 1b, 2007.
Zttlhew HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
. Crosby, Esq.
DATE: I(, Attorney I.D. 69367
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Lancaster Office 717-431-4000 - Carlisle Office 717-241-2244 - York Office 717-845-7800 ' Hanover Office 717-630-8200
4
I-TI
CD
co "G
v - w
Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner
By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire
I.D. No. 51785
301 Market Street
P. O. Box 109
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109
(717) 761-4540
jjs@jdsw.com
Attorneys for Defendants
PHILLIP A. HAMMOND, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ELLIOT E. WALKER and NO. 2007-2927 CIVIL
EDWIN WALKER,
Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
PLEASE enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of the Defendants,
Elliot E. Walker and Edwin Walker, in the above-captioned matter.
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER
Je er§on J. Shipman, Esqu
I. P. #: 51785
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043
DATE: Attorneys for Defendants
r 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served upon the
following, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on 12:- 126 '-)
Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER
e er!9on J. Shipman, Es
. #: 51785
.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Attorneys for Defendants
319039
w
cam; G7
e Cl)
Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner
By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire
I.D. No. 51785
301 Market Street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com
(717) 761-4540
Attorney for Defendants
PHILLIP A. HAMMOND, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
ELLIOT E. WALKER and
EDWIN WALKER,
Defendants
NO. 2007-2927
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NEW MATTER NOTICE
TO: Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Attorneys for Plaintiff
You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20)
days from the date of service. 1-1
HISON, DUFFIE, STEIYVART & WEIDN
DATE: 1/14/1'r,
J&fferson J. Shipman, E§quire
I . D. #: 51785
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
Telephone: 717-761-4540
Attorneys for Defendants
Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner
By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire
I.D. No. 51785
301 Market Street
P. O. Box 109
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109
(717) 761-4540
jjs@jdsw.com
PHILLIP A. HAMMOND,
Plaintiff
V.
ELLIOT E. WALKER and
EDWIN WALKER,
Defendants
Attorneys for Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2007-2927
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS,
TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
AND NOW, come the Defendants, Elliot E. Walker and Edwin Walker, by and
through their counsel, Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire and Johnson, Duffie, Stewart &
Weidner, and file the following Answer and New Matter in response to Plaintiff's
Complaint:
1. Admitted upon information and belief.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted.
7. 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 No. 7 and the same are therefore denied and strict
proof demanded at the time of trial.
8. Admitted.
9. Admitted.
10. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the Walker vehicle left
the roadway. The remaining averments of Paragraph No. 10 are conclusions of law and
fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
11. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the Walker vehicle left
the roadway. The remaining averments of Paragraph No. 11 are conclusions of law and
fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
12. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph No. 12 are conclusions of
law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required,
the averments contained therein are specifically denied.
COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
Phillip A. Hammond v. Elliot E. Walker
13. Mr. Walker incorporates herein by reference his answers to Paragraphs 1
through 12, above, as though fully set forth herein at length.
14. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph No. 14 and
Subparagraphs (a) through (k) are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is
required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are
specifically denied.
(a) Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant drove the
vehicle in careless disregard for the safety of persons or property. It is further
denied that the Defendant was in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3714;
(b) Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant failed to
exercise reasonable care in the operation of Defendant's vehicle for the safety of
a guest passenger;
(c) Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant failed to
properly and adequately observe the traffic and road conditions then and there
existing;
(d) Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant failed to
properly regulate the speed of the vehicle so as to prevent a collision;
(e) Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant failed to operate
his vehicle in such a manner that would allow him to apply the brakes and stop
before striking the embankment;
(f) Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant failed to operate
his vehicle at a speed at which he could stop within the assured clear distance
ahead. It is further denied that the Defendant was in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 3361;
(g) Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant failed to
maintain control of the vehicle;
(h) Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant operated the
vehicle at a speed in excess of the posted speed limit;
(i) Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant operated the
vehicle at an unsafe speed in light of the existing conditions;
Q) Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant failed to have
sufficient control of the vehicle; and
(k) Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant failed to be
continuously alert and in failing to have his vehicle under such control that injury
to persons or property could be avoided.
15. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph No. 15 are, in part,
conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed
to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After
reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments in Paragraph No.
15 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial.
16. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph No. 16 are, in part,
conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed
to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After
reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments in Paragraph No.
16 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial.
17. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph No. 17 are, in part,
conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed
to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After
reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments in Paragraph No.
17 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial.
18. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph No. 18 are, in part,
conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed
to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After
reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments in Paragraph No.
18 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial.
19. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph No. 19 are, in part,
conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed
to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After
reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments in Paragraph No.
19 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial.
20. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph No. 20 are, in part,
conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed
to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After
reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments in Paragraph No.
20 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial.
21. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph No. 21 are, in part,
conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed
to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After
reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments in Paragraph No.
21 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial.
22. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph No. 22 are, in part,
conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed
to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After
reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments in Paragraph No.
and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Elliot E. Walker, respectfully requests that
judgment be entered in his favor and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with
prejudice.
COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE/NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT
Phillip A. Hammond v. Edwin Walker
23. The answering Defendants incorporate herein by reference their answers
to Paragraphs 1 through 22, above, as though fully set forth herein at length.
24. Admitted.
25. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph No. 25 are conclusions of
law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required,
the averments contained therein are specifically denied.
26. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph No. 26 and
Subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is
required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained in
Paragraph No. 26 and Subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) are specifically denied. In further
response, it is specifically denied that the answering Defendant, Edwin Walker, was
negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiff's alleged cause of action.
(a) Denied. It is specifically denied that Edwin Walker knew or should
have known that Defendant Elliot Walker was not competent to safely operate a
motor vehicle;
(b) Denied. It is specifically denied that Edwin Walker knew or should
have known that Defendant Elliot Walker was likely to operate said vehicle in a
dangerous, unsafe, and/or otherwise negligent manner; and
(c) Denied. It is specifically denied that Edwin Walker knew or should
have know that Defendant Elliot Walker would operate said vehicle in the manner
set forth in Paragraph No. 14, Subparagraphs (a) through (k), of Plaintiffs
Complaint.
27. Denied. The averments in contained in Paragraph No. 27 are, in part,
conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed
to be required, the averments contained in Paragraph No. 27 are specifically denied.
After reasonable investigation the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge
or information to form a belief as to the remaining averments of Paragraph No. 27 and
the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial.
28. Denied. The averments in contained in Paragraph No. 28 are, in part,
conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed
to be required, the averments contained in Paragraph No. 28 are specifically denied.
After reasonable investigation the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge
or information to form a belief as to the remaining averments of Paragraph No. 27 and
the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial.
29. Denied. The averments in contained in Paragraph No. 29 are, in part,
conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed
to be required, the averments contained in Paragraph No. 29 are specifically denied.
After reasonable investigation the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge
or information to form a belief as to the remaining averments of Paragraph No. 29 and
the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial.
30. Denied. The averments in contained in Paragraph No. 30 are, in part,
conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed
to be required, the averments contained in Paragraph No. 30 are specifically denied.
After reasonable investigation the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge
or information to form a belief as to the remaining averments of Paragraph No. 30 and
the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial.
31. Denied. The averments in contained in Paragraph No. 31 are, in part,
conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed
to be required, the averments contained in Paragraph No. 31 are specifically denied.
After reasonable investigation the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge
or information to form a belief as to the remaining averments of Paragraph No. 31 and
the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial.
32. Denied. The averments in contained in Paragraph No. 32 are, in part,
conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed
to be required, the averments contained in Paragraph No. 32 are specifically denied.
After reasonable investigation the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge
or information to form a belief as to the remaining averments of Paragraph No. 32 and
the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial.
33. Denied. The averments in contained in Paragraph No. 33 are, in part,
conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed
to be required, the averments contained in Paragraph No. 33 are specifically denied.
After reasonable investigation the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge
or information to form a belief as to the remaining averments of Paragraph No. 33 and
the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial.
34. Denied. The averments in contained in Paragraph No. 34 are, in part,
conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed
to be required, the averments contained in Paragraph No. 34 are specifically denied.
After reasonable investigation the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge
or information to form a belief as to the remaining averments of Paragraph No. 34 and
the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial.
35. Denied. The averments in contained in Paragraph No. 35 are, in part,
conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed
to be required, the averments contained in Paragraph No. 35 are specifically denied.
After reasonable investigation the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge
or information to form a belief as to the remaining averments of Paragraph No. 35 and
the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial.
36. Denied. The averments in contained in Paragraph No. 36 are, in part,
conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed
to be required, the averments contained in Paragraph No. 36 are specifically denied.
After reasonable investigation the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge
or information to form a belief as to the remaining averments of Paragraph No. 36 and
the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial.
37. Denied. The averments in contained in Paragraph No. 37 are, in part,
conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed
to be required, the averments contained in Paragraph No. 37 are specifically denied.
After reasonable investigation the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge
or information to form a belief as to the remaining averments of Paragraph No. 37 and
the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Edwin Walker, respectfully requests that
judgment be entered in his favor and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with
prejudice.
NEW MATTER
By way of additional answer and reply, the answering Defendant interposes the
following New Matter defenses:
38. That the Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action for which relief may be
granted as to Edwin Walker.
39. That the Plaintiffs alleged cause of action would be barred in whole or in
part by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and specifically the
limited tort option.
40. If it should be found that there was any negligence on the part of the
Defendants, which is specifically denied, then in that event any such negligence was not
a factual cause of all of Plaintiff's alleged damages.
41. That the Plaintiffs alleged cause of action may be barred in whole or in
part by the applicable statute of limitations.
42. That the Plaintiff may have been comparatively negligent and that
Plaintiffs comparative negligence was a factual cause of his alleged harm.
43. That the Plaintiff may have failed to mitigate his damages.
WHEREFORE, the Defendants, Edwin Walker and Elliot Walker, respectfully
requests that judgment be entered in their favor and that Plaintiff's Complaint be
dismissed with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER
4Jerson J. Shipman, Esq ire
eys I.D. #: 51785
301 Market Street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com
DATE: Attorneys for Defendants
320127
VERIFICATION
I, Elliot Walker, have read the foregoing Answer and New Matter and hereby
affirm that it is true and correct to the best of my 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; I verify that all the statements
made in the foregoing are true and correct and that false statements may subject me to
the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904.
Elliot Walker
DATE: 36
?y
320204 ' J
VERIFICATION
I, Edwin Walker, have read the foregoing Answer and New Matter and hereby
affirm that it is true and correct to the best of my 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; I verify that all the statements
made in the foregoing are true and correct and that false statements may subject me to
the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904.
Edwin Walker
DATE: //YO ?
320204
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served upon the following
counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on / ef"
Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JOHNSPN, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER
4effdrson J. Shipman, Bfsquire
D. #: 51785
301 Market Street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
Attorneys for Defendants
C
T I
..R... rn
i CY
Matthew S. Crosby, Esq.
I . D.#69367
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 238-2000
Fax: (717) 233-3029
E-mail: CrosbYA-hhrlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PHILLIP A. HAMMOND, .
Plaintiff
V. .
EDWIN WALKER and .
ELLIOTT E. WALKER, .
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2007-2927 Civil Term
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PLAINTIFFS' REPLY
TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond, by and through his
attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by Matthew S. Crosby, Esq.,
and replies to Defendants' New Matter as follows:
38. Denied. The allegations in Paragraph 38 contain conclusions of
law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be
required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied.
39. Denied. The allegations in Paragraph 39 contain conclusions of
law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be
required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied.
40. Denied. The allegations in Paragraph 40 contain conclusions of
law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be
required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied.
41. Denied. The allegations in Paragraph 41 contain conclusions of
law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be
required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied.
42. Denied. The allegations in Paragraph 42 contain conclusions of
law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be
required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied.
43. Denied. The allegations in Paragraph 43 contain conclusions of
law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be
required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied.
required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court
deny Defendants' allegations and enter
favor of the Plaintiff.
HANDL
By
DATE: I i& ROSENBERG, LLP
Matthew S. Crosby, Esq.
Attorney I.D. #69367
1300 Linglestown Rd.
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
Attorneys for Plaintiff
. .w
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on
the Defendants, ELLIOT E. WALKER and EDWIN WALKER, by sending a copy of the
same to their counsel of record, Jefferson J. Shipman , Esq., Johnson, Duffie, Stewart &
Weidner, P.O. Box 109, Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109, by United States Mail, regular
service, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on January L? 2008.
HANDLER, HEPNtW & ROSENBERG, LLP
By
Matthew Vrosby, Esq.
Attorney I.D. #69367
1300 Linglestown Rd.
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
DATE: 00s"'
Attorneys for Plaintiff
??? P`. i
T
Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner
By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire
I.D. No. 51785
301 Market Street
P. O. Box 109
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109
(717) 761-4540
jjs@jdsw.com
Attorneys for Defendants
PHILLIP A. HAMMOND,
Plaintiff
V.
ELLIOT E. WALKER and
EDWIN WALKER,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 2007-2927 CIVIL
Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA
PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
TO: Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Attorneys for Plaintiff
As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to
Rule 4009.22, Defendant hereby certifies that:
(1) A Notice Of Intent To Serve A Subpoena, with copies of the subpoenas
attached thereto, was mailed, via Certified Mail, or delivered to each party at least
twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoenas were sought to be served;
(2) A copy of the Notice of Intent including the proposed subpoenas, is
attached to this Certificate;
(3) No objection to the subpoenas has been received, the twenty day waiting
period was waived; and
(4) The subpoenas to be served are identical to the subpoenas attached to
the Notice Of Intent.
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER
By
Jeffer n J. Shipman, Esquire;
I.D. M 51785
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Attorneys for Defendants
DATE: j ?)??
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served upon the
following, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, first class mail, postage
prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on
Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire
Handier, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWARTAWEIDNER
Y. .^
By
Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire
I.D. #: 51785
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Attorneys for Defendants
Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner
By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire
I.D. No. 51785
301 Market Street
P. 0. Box 109
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109
(717) 761-4540
jjs@jdsw.com
PHILLIP A. HAMMOND,
Plaintiff
V.
ELLIOT E. WALKER and
EDWIN WALKER,
Defendants
Attorneys for Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: CIVIL ACTION -LAW
NO. 2007-2927 CIVIL
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21
TO: Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants intend to serve seven (7) subpoenas
identical to the ones that are attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the
date listed below in which to file of records and serve upon the undersigned objections
to the subpoenas. If no objections are made, the subpoenas may be served.
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER
_.. 40,
By
Jeffe on 'Shipman, Esquire
I.D. 51785
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Attorneys for Defendants
DATE:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served upon the
following, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, certified mail postage
prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on J/)'?
Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Attorneys for Plaintiff
By
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER
Jeffersvon J. Shipman, Esquire
I.D. #: 51785
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Attorneys for Defendants
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
Phillip A. Hammond,
Plaintiff
vs.
Elliot E. Walker and Edwin Walker,
Defendants
File No. 2007-2927
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS
FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
TO: Morehouse Family Dentistry
(Name of Person or Entity)
Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce
the following documents or things: any and all dental records reports correspondence, diagnostic test
results pertaining to Phillip A Hammond . DOB: 6/8/87 SSN: 175-68-9033
at Johnson Duffie Stewart & Weidner, 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109, Lemoyne, PA 17043.
You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this
subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address
listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or
producing the things sought.
If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days
after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it.
THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON:
NAME: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire
ADDRESS: 301 Market Street
Lemoyne, PA 17043
TELEPHONE: 717-761-4540
SUPREME COURT ID #: 51785
ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant
BY THE COURT:
? q-h&7i4
Pr onotary/C , ivil ivision
Deputy
DATE: -3 O-Y10 8
Seal of tl a Court
(Eff. 7/97)
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
Phillip A. Hammond,
Plaintiff
vs.
Elliot E. Walker and Edwin Walker,
Defendants
File No. 2007-2927
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS
FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
TO: Chambersburg Hospital
(Name of Person or Entity)
Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce
the following documents or things: any and all medical records reports correspondence diagnostic test
results from 1/1/04 through 12/31/04 pertaining to Phillip A Hammond DOB: 6/8/87 SSN: 175-68-9033
at Johnson Duffie Stewart & Weidner, 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109, Lemoyne, PA 17043.
You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this
subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address
listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or
producing the things sought.
If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days
after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it.
THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON:
NAME:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
SUPREME COURT ID #:
ATTORNEY FOR:
BY THE COURT:
- / q-144-k
Prot otary/CI , ivil Di ision
Deputy
DATE: .3 0
Se dl of he Court
Jefferson J. Shipman Esquire
301 Market Street
Lemoyne, PA 17043
717-761-4540
51785
Defendant
(Eff. 7/97)
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
Phillip A. Hammond,
Plaintiff
vs.
Elliot E. Walker and Edwin Walker,
Defendants
File No. 2007-2927
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS
FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
TO: Roy A Himelfarb D.D.S.
(Name of Person or Entity)
Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce
the following documents or things: any and all medical records dental records, reports, correspondence,
diagnostic test results pertaining to Phillip A Hammond DOB: 6/8187 SSN: 175-68-9033
at Johnson Duffie Stewart & Weidner, 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109, Lemoyne, PA 17043.
You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this
subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address
listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or
producing the things sought.
If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days
after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it.
THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON:
NAME:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
SUPREME COURT ID #:
ATTORNEY FOR:
BY THE COURT:
Pro onotary/Cle i Is ion
Deputy
DATE: 3 'I O
SeA of he Court
Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire
301 Market Street
Lemoyne, PA 17043
717-761-4540
51785
Defendant
(Eff. 7/97)
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
Phillip A. Hammond,
Plaintiff
vs.
Elliot E. Walker and Edwin Walker,
Defendants
File No. 2007-2927
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS
FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
TO: Richard J. Frank. D.M.D.
(Name of Person or Entity)
Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce
the following documents or things: any and all medical records, dental records, reports, correspondence,
diagnostic test results pertaining to Phillip A Hammond DOB: 6/8/87 SSN: 175-68-9033
at Johnson Duffie Stewart & Weidner, 301 Market Street. P.O. Box 109, Lemoyne, PA 17043.
You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this
subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address
listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or
producing the things sought.
If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days
after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it.
THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON:
NAME: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire
ADDRESS: 301 Market Street
Lemoyne. PA 17043
TELEPHONE: 717-761-4540
SUPREME COURT ID #: 51785
ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant
BY THE COURT:
Proth notary/Cler i Divi n
Deputy
DATE: o1y 018
Sea of t1he Court
(Eff. 7/97)
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
Phillip A. Hammond,
Plaintiff
VS.
Elliot E. Walker and Edwin Walker,
Defendants
File No. 2007-2927
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS
FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
TO: Chambersburg Imaging Associates
(Name of Person or Entity)
Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce
the following documents or things: any and all medical records reports, correspondence, diagnostic test
results pertaining to Phillip A Hammond DOB: 6/8/87 SSN: 175-68-9033
at Johnson Duffie Stewart & Weidner, 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109, Lemoyne, PA 17043.
You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this
subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address
listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or
producing the things sought.
If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days
after its service; the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it.
THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON:
NAME: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire
ADDRESS: 301 Market Street
Lemoyne, PA 17043
TELEPHONE: 717-761-4540
SUPREME COURT ID #: 51785
ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant
BY THE COURT:
Prot onotary/CI ivil D' ision
Deputy
DATE: 3 -l bg
Seal of t fie Court
(Eff. 7/97)
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
Phillip A. Hammond,
Plaintiff
vs.
Elliot E. Walker and Edwin Walker,
Defendants
File No. 2007-2927
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS
FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
TO: Dr. Baxter D. Wellmon
(Name of Person or Entity)
Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce
the following documents or things: any and all medical records reports, correspondence, diagnostic test
results pertaining to Phillip A Hammond DOB: 6/8/87 SSN: 175-68-9033
at Johnson Duffie Stewart & Weidner, 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109. Lemoyne, PA 17043.
You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this
subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address
listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or
producing the things sought.
If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days
after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it.
THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON:
NAME: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire
ADDRESS: 301 Market Street
Lemoyne, PA 17043
TELEPHONE: 717-761-4540
SUPREME COURT ID 51785
ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant
BY THE COURT:
Prot onotary/Clerk Di ion
Deputy
DATE: 3 0?V OS
Se of he Court
(Eff. 7/97)
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
Phillip A. Hammond,
Plaintiff
vs.
Elliot E. Walker and Edwin Walker,
Defendants
File No. 2007-2927
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS
FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
TO: Wesley W. Sabocheck, D.M.D.
(Name of Person or Entity)
Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce
the following documents or things: any and all medical records, dental records, reports, correspondence,
diagnostic test results pertaining to Phillip A. Hammond DOB: 618/87 SSN: 175-68-9033
at Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, 301 Market Street, P.O. Box 109, Lemoyne, PA 17043.
You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this
subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address
listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or
producing the things sought.
If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days
after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it.
THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON:
NAME: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire
ADDRESS: 301 Market Street
Lemoyne, PA 17043
TELEPHONE: 717-761-4540
SUPREME COURT ID #: 51785
ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant
BY THE COURT:
Prot onotary/Cler it Di sion
Deputy
DATE: 3h'/ B
Seal oft a Court
(Eff. 7197)
1
__ ?::)
Y., :'1 .1..a
?'x
_. _.
ra?J 1 ? _,.
'
'
{J.J
yT,' .., .
r?.e
' ?1? d
• - ?7
?„ ??
PHILLIP A. HAMMOND, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
V.
CIVIL ACTION- LAW
ELLIOT E. WALKER and EDWIN
WALKER, NO. 2007-2927
Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 11th day of August, 2008, 1 hereby certify that I
have, on this date, served the within Plaintiffs Responses to Defendants' Requests For
Production of Documents, by sending a true and correct copy of the same to the
attorney of record via first class United States mail, postage prepaid and addressed as
follows:
Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire
Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner
301 Market Street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(Attorney for Defendants)
Respectfully submitted,
HANDLER, HE N & ?p
By: \
Matthew S. Crosby, Esq.
I.D. No. 69367
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
Attorney for Plaintiff
's7
co
C
?
F
n
CO
w
c
PHILLIP A. HAMMOND, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
V.
CIVIL ACTION- LAW
ELLIOT E. WALKER and EDWIN
WALKER, NO. 2007-2927
Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 11th day of August, 2008, 1 hereby certify that I
have, on this date, served the within Plaintiffs' Answers to the Interrogatories of
Defendants, by sending a true and correct copy of the same to the
attorney of record via first class United States mail, postage prepaid and addressed as
follows:
Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire
Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner
301 Market Street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(Attorney for Defendants)
Respectfully su
NhpNf & ROSENBERG, LLP
By:
IPY. No. 69367
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
Attorney for Plaintiffs
c rte':-' c? Mme!
C-n .--CJ
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Please list the following case:
X for JURY trial at the next term of civil court.
? for trial without a jury.
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated in full)
PHILLIP A. HAMMOND,
(check one)
)q Civil Action -Law
? Appeal from arbitration
(Plaintiff)
VS.
ELLIOT E. WALKER and
EDWIN WALKER,
(Defendants)
(other)
The trial fist will be called on June 2, 2009
Trials commence on June 29, 2009
Pretrials will be held on June 10, 2009
(Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials)
No. 07-2927 Civil Term
Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe:
Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire
Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known:
Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire, Counsel for Plaintiff
This case is ready for trial. Si
gLIV, %.' - -:Z-
Print Nam . Jefferson J. Shipman
Date: Apnl 28, 2009
Attorney for: Defendants
364575
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served upon the
following, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid,
in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on April 28, 2009:
Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire
Handier, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER
4rsieon J. Ship an, Esquire
CA/ TL
RED-0 - TL
Y
2039 PR 29 I °i 2' : I I
446. oo P o 'A iry
fix* aoc Dq
"aay4a4
Matthew S. Crosby, Esq.
I. D.#69367
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 238-2000
Fax: (717) 233-3029
E-mail: Crosby(Whhrlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PHILLIP A. HAMMOND,
Plaintiff
V.
EDWIN WALKER and
ELLIOT E. WALKER,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2007-2927 Civil Term
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
STIPULATION
AND NOW, this A day of June, 2009, Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond, and
Defendants, Elliot E. Walker, and Edwin Walker, by and through their respective
attorneys, Matthew S. Crosby, Esq., and Jeffrey J. Shipman, Esq., hereby agree as
follows:
1. Plaintiff, Phillip A. Hammond, agrees to discontinue this action, with
prejudice, with respect to Defendant Edwin Walker only. Therefore, the parties agree to
strike Count II of Plaintiff's Civil Complaint in this matter.
-1-
2. This Stipulation will have the effect of amending the caption in this matter
for all further purposes, including any trial of this action, to name only the single
Defendant, Elliot E. Walker.
3. Plaintiff further stipulates that he is not pursuing any claim for lost income
and/or earning capacity. Therefore, Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff's Civil Complaint is
stricken.
SIGAE[P
DATE: & x 1o ?ATTHI S. CROSBY,`
SQ.
ID No. 60367
??
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JE F J. SHIPM N, ESQ.
oID . 51785
Attorneys for Defendants
-2-
Matthew S. Crosby, Esq.
I.D.#69367
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 238-2000
Fax: (717) 233-3029
E-mail: Crosby(&-hhrlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PHILLIP A. HAMMOND,
Plaintiff
V.
ELLIOTT E. WALKER,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2007-2927 Civil Term
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on
the Defendant, ELLIOT E. WALKER, by sending a copy of the same to his counsel of
record, Jefferson J. Shipman, Esq., Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, P.O. Box
109, Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109, by United States Mail, regular service, in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania on June It, 2009.
DLER,
Matthew S. Crosby, Esq.
Attorney I.D. #69367
ERG, LLP
b? I t'b5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
DATE:
f ILED-llhriCE
OF THE PP
2C0 4 JUN 12 PM 12'. ? 6
GU vi_ h _ ?; vTY
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire
I . D. #69367
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
Crosby@hhriaw.com
PHILLIP A. HAMMOND,
Plaintiff
V.
ELLIOT E. WALKER and
EDWIN WALKER,
Defendants
Attorneys for Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: NO. 2007-2927 CIVIL
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
PLEASE mark the above-captioned matter satisfied, settled and discontinued with
prejudice.
Respectfully submitted,
HANDLER, NIN & ROSENBERG, LLP
By:
Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone (717) 238-2000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Date: 71601
AIED-O"RCE
OF THE PR( i-PONOTAAY
2009 JUL 21 AM 11: 0
1rt?lkl ice... +