Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-5884i0079752007-00019 Court Order with a Rule 236 Luzerne County Prothonotary 9/21/200711:5713 AM RICHARD TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife, Plaintiffs VS. DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC., and JHT HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants ?i, . v `1- 5 7P Y Nv -7 ,,,,,.. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUZERNE COUNTY N 0 Civil Action - Law N c? rn No x N - = rnc?r" morn a. ?--?? No. 7975 of ,007 Before: Judge Hugh F. Mundy `-' ORDER AND NOW, this day of 2007, after review, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows: 1) The Preliminary Objections of the Defendants, Daniel Cook, Arizona Truck Center, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., and JHT Holdings, Inc., filed pursuant to Rule 1028(a)(1), alleging improper venue, are SUSTAINED; 2) This matter is to be transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County pursuant to Rule 1006(d)(3), Pa.R.C.P.; 3) The Prothonotary is hereby directed to mail notice of the entry of this Order to all counsel of record pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 236. BY THE COURT: C ??4 ?' -?s'-? ?J1?, LAJ ? ? iii r LUZERNE COUNTY PROTHONOTARY VIEWER Luzerne County Prothonotary Viewer Back-to-_Searc_ Search_ Back to Search Results ?'? Case -Case Number= 0079752007 Case Details Case Number: 0079752007 Initial Filing 7/13/2007 Date: 8:13:09 AM Initial Filing Complaint Type: PFA Number: Caption Turner, Richan Plaintiff: D. Caption Cook, Daniel Defendant: Judgement N Indicator: Lis Pendens N Indicator: Status: Cashiered Judge: Sealed: N CERJIFIED FROM THE RECORDS THI DAY OF .D. 20 MORAN PROTHONOTARY Dockets- R LOGOUT PAGE 1 OF 2 Sequence Docket Tvoe Filing Date Docket Text Select 1 Complaint 7/13/2007 8:13:09 AM Select 2 Notice to Defend and Claim Rights 7/13/2007 8:13:48 AM Select 3 Certificate Of Service 8/2/2007 12:38:52 PM Select Select 4 5 Notice To Plead Preliminary Objections 8/2/2007 12:39:20 PM 8/2/2007 12:39:33 PM Select 6 Certificate Of Service 8/2/2007 12:39:49 PM Select 7 Brief 8/2/2007 12:38:30 PM Select 8 Certificate Of Service 8/22/2007 12:16:10 PM Select 9 Brief 8/22/2007 12:15:58 PM Select 10 Certificate Of Service 8/22/2007 12:23:42 PM Selled 11 Answer 8/22/2007 12:23:29 PM Select 12 File Transmittal 8/28/2007 4:05:10 PM Select 13 Sheriffs Service 8/31/2007 2:53:56 PM Select. 14 Sheriffs Service 8/31/2007 2:54:26 PM Select 15 Sheriffs Service 8/31/2007 2:54:47 PM Select 16 Sheriffs Service 8/31/2007 2:53:25 PM Select 17 Undeliverable Mail 8/31/2007 3:04:36 PM Select 18 Praecipe To Reinstate Complaint 9/1712007 8:34:08 AM Select 19 Court Order with a Rule 236 9/21/2007 11:57:13 AM Defendants: R Name Addrese_Lm.Q..1. Address City state Zip Attorney Line_2 . code . 1854 Statler, Select Cook, Daniel HENDERSONVILLE ASHEVILLE NC 28803 John ROAD Andrew Select ARIZONA TRUCK 2402 SOUTH 19TH PHOENIX AZ 85009- CENTER STREET 5009 AUTO TRUCK 3203 Select TRANSPORT TERMINAL 553 ORCHARD MACUNGIE PA 18062 , INC. ROAD Select JHT HOLDINGS, 4320 39TH AVENUE KENOSHI WI 53144 INC. JILL A. , PER ? ?Lj o" -Plaintiffs: Name Address Line 1 Address. Line 2 Ci_yt State Zip Code Attorney Turner 297 DAIRY Langan, Select , Richard D BARN HILL STILLWATER PA 17878 Gerard . ROAD William Jr. S l t TURNER, 297 DAIRY B e ec NANCY ARN HILL STILLWATER PA 1 17878 ROAD HTTP://MCWEB/PSIVIEWER/ENTITYDETAIL.ASPX Q / 9A i*:) nn-7 e? LUZERNE COUNTY PROTHONOTARY VIEWER PAGE 2 OF 2 Judgments: El Garnishees: S HTTP://MCWEB/PSIVIEWER/ENTiTYDETAIL.ASPX 9/2R/?)n07 RICHARD D. TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife 297 DAIRY BARN HILL ROAD STILLWATER, PA. 17878 PLAINTIFFS VS. DANIEL COOK 1854 HENDERSONVILLE ROAD ASHEVILLE, N.C. 28803 AND ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER 2402 SOUTH 19T" STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA, 85009-5000 AND AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC. TERMINAL 553 3203 ORCHARD ROAD MACUNGIE, PA. 18062 AND JHT HOLDINGS, INC. 4320 39TH AVENUE KENOSHI, WI 53144 DEFENDANTS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LUZERNE COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 'III 19I1111111 0079752007-00002 Notice to Defend and Claim Rights Luzerne County Prothonotary 7/13/2007 8.13:48 AM NO. 2007-CIV- r) q 1 !7 NOTICE TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS 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 an attorney and filing writing with the Court your defenses or objections tot he claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and the Court without further notice may enter a judgment against you 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 OCT = - HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICES SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Northern Pa. Legal Service Pa. Lawyer Referral Service --- Scranton Electric Building - 3rd Floor PO Box 1086 - 100 South Street Scranton, Pa. 18503 Harrisburg, Pa. 17103 (570) 341-0184 800-692-7375 "•° c? RICHARD D. TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 297 DAIRY BARN HILL ROAD STILLWATER, PA. 17878 : LUZERNE COUNTY PLAINTIFF : CIVIL ACTION - LAW VS. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DANIEL COOK 1854 HENDERSONVILLE ROAD ASHEVILLE, N.C. 28803 AND ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER 2402 SOUTH 19T" STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA, 85009-5009 AND AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC TERMINAL 553 3203 ORCHARD ROAD MACUNGIE, PA 18062 AND JHT HOLDINGS, INC. : 4320 39T" AVENUE KENOSHI, WI 53144 DEFENDANTS NO. 2007-CIV- COMPLAINT AND NOW comes the Plaintiffs, Richard Turner and Nancy Turner, his wife, by and through their attorneys, O'Malley & Langan, P.C. and complain as follows: 1. Plaintiffs, Richard Turner and Nancy Turner, his wife, are adult competent individuals residing at 297 Dairy Barn Hill Road, Stillwater, Luzerne County, N c? r- Pennsylvania. c: --- 2. Defendant, Daniel Cook, is an adult individual residing at 1854 Henderse villa = _? S: Road, Asheville, N.C. 1 y'_ 1111oil ?? .-.- 0079752007-00001 O Complaint Luzeme County Prothonotary 7113/2007 8:13'09 AM 3. Defendant, Arizona Truck Center is an Arizona Company. with its principal place of business located at 2402 South 19th Street, Phoenix, Arizona. 4. Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, is a Kentucky Corporation, doing business at Terminal 553, 3202 Orchard Road, Macungie, Pa. 18062. 5. Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc. is a Wisconsin Corporation with its principal place of business located at 4320 39th Avenue, Kenoshi, WI 53144. 6. The events and occurrences giving rise to Plaintiff's cause of action took place on July 23, 2007, at approximately 11:35 a.m. Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pa. 7. On the aforementioned date and time, Plaintiff, Richard D. Turner, was lawfully, carefully and prudently operating his 2003 Kawasaki 1500 motorcycle south on SR Route 11, Harrisburg Pike, Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pa. 8. On the aforementioned date and time, Defendant, Daniel Cook, was operating a 2005 Mack, CV713C tractor trailer south on SR Route 11, Harrisburg Pike, Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pa. 9. Said 2005 Mack CV713C tractor trailer was owned by Defendants, Arizona Truck Center, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., and JHT Holdings. Inc. 10. At all times relevant hereto, South SR Route 11, is a two lane roadway. 11. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Daniel Cook, was driving said 2005 Mack CV7 13C tractor trailer and was in the course of his employment with Defendants Arizona Truck Center, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., and JHT Holdings, Inc. and was acting as the servant, agent, workman and /or employee of Defendants, Arizona Truck Center, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., and JHT Holdings, Inc. 12. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, Daniel Cook while in the course of his employment and while traveling south on SR Route 11, changed from the left lane to the right lane, directly in the path of Plaintiff, Richard Turner, forcing him off the roadway, causing him to strike a curb and causing the motorcycle to overturn. 13. As a result of this collision, Defendant, Daniel Cook was cited with "improper driving actions". 14. As a further result of this collision, Plaintiff Richard Turner, suffered severe and permanent injuries more fully set forth below. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE RICHARD D. TURNER V. DANIEL COOK 15. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs One through Fourteen (14) inclusive as thought the same ad been set forth at length. 16. The negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Daniel Cook, was a proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injuries and consisted of the following: (a) failing to operate his vehicle under proper and adequate control under the aforesaid circumstances; (b) failing to operate his vehicle at a safe speed; (c) failing to keep a proper lookout for the road ahead of him and for other cars and objects along the road; (d) failing to operate his vehicle with due regard for the rights, safety and well- being of Plaintiff, Richard D. Turner, under the aforesaid circumstances (e) failing to operate his vehicle with due caution and control. (f) failing to advise other drivers, including the Plaintiff, of his intention to change lanes of travel; and (g) improperly changing lanes of travel 17. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant Daniel Cook, Plaintiff Richard D. Turner sustained severe and permanent injuries, including but not limited to: (a) Grade 3, AC separation of left shoulder (b) Multiple contusions (c) Multiple abrasions (d) injuries to various soft connective tissues, nerves and muscles, all of which have left him sick, sore, lame and disabled, much to his detriment and financial loss. 18. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Daniel Cook, the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of earnings, and will suffer a loss of earning capacity in the future. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Daniel Cook, the Plaintiff has undergone great pain and suffering. 20. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Daniel Cook, the Plaintiff has suffered a permanent diminution of his ability to enjoy life and life's pleasures. 21. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Daniel Cook, the Plaintiff has been forced to receive and undergo various medical treatment and services for treatment of his injuries. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Daniel Cook, the Plaintiff has incurred various medical expenses for the aforementioned treatment and will continue to incur such medical expenses for the foreseeable future. 23. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant, Daniel Cook, Plaintiff has undergone great mental anguish, physical pain and emotional suffering from which he still suffers and will continue to suffer for an indefinite period of time in the future. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Richard D. Turner, demands judgment either jointly or severally against the Defendant, Daniel Cook, in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE RICHARD TURNER VS. ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER 24. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs One through Twenty- three (23) inclusive, as though the same were set forth at length. 25. The negligence, recklessness, carelessness of Defendant Arizona Truck Center was a proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injuries and consisted of the following: (a) failing to properly supervise the actions of Defendant, Daniel Cook, whom they knew or should have known was not capable of safe operation of a motor vehicle; (b) failing to properly instruct Defendant, Daniel Cook, as to the safe and proper operation of a motor vehicle; (c) entrusting the use and operation of the motor vehicle to Defendant, Daniel Cook, whom they knew or should have known was not capable of safe operation of a motor vehicle. 26. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, the Plaintiff sustained the following injuries: (a) Grade 3, AC separation of left shoulder (b) Multiple contusions (c) Multiple abrasions (d) injuries to various soft connective tissues, nerves and muscles, all of which have left him sick, sore, lame and disabled, much to his detriment and financial loss. 27. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of earnings, and will suffer a loss of earning capacity in the future. 28. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, the Plaintiff has undergone great pain and suffering. 29. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, the Plaintiff has suffered a permanent diminution of his ability to enjoy life and life's pleasures. 30. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, the Plaintiff has been forced to receive and undergo various medical treatment and services for treatment of his injuries. 31. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, the Plaintiff has incurred various medical expenses for the aforementioned treatment, and will continue to incur such expenses for the foreseeable future. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, the Plaintiff has undergone great mental anguish, physical pain and emotional suffering, from which he still suffers and will continue to suffer for an indefinite period of time in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Richard D. Turner, demands judgment either jointly or severally against Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE RICHARD TURNER V. AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT INC. 33. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs One through Thirty- two (32) inclusive, as though the same were set forth at length. 34. The negligence, recklessness, carelessness of Defendant Auto Truck Transport, Inc. was a proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injuries and consisted of the following: (a) failing to properly supervise the actions of Defendant, Daniel Cook, whom they knew or should have known was not capable of safe operation of a motor vehicle; (b) failing to properly instruct Defendant, Daniel Cook, as to the safe and proper operation of a motor vehicle; (c) entrusting the use and operation of the motor vehicle to Defendant, Daniel Cook, whom they knew or should have known was not capable of safe operation of a motor vehicle. 35. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc. the Plaintiff sustained the following injuries: (a) Grade 3, AC separation of left shoulder (b) Multiple contusions (c) Multiple abrasions (d) injuries to various soft connective tissues, nerves and muscles, all of which have left him sick, sore, lame and disabled, much to his detriment and financial loss. 36. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of earnings, and will suffer a loss of earning capacity in the future. 37. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., the Plaintiff has undergone great pain and suffering. 38. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Auto Truck Transport Inc., the Plaintiff has suffered a permanent diminution of his ability to enjoy life and life's pleasures. 39. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc. the Plaintiff has been forced to receive and undergo various medical treatment and services for treatment of his injuries. 40. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., the Plaintiff has incurred various medical expenses for the aforementioned treatment, and will continue to incur such expenses for the foreseeable future. 41. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., the Plaintiff has undergone great mental anguish, physical pain and emotional suffering, from which he still suffers and will continue to suffer for an indefinite period of time in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Richard D. Turner, demands judgment either jointly or severally against Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT IV - NEGLIGENCE RICHARD TURNER V. JHT HOLDINGS INC. 42. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs One through Forty-one (41) inclusive, as though the same were set forth at length. 43. The negligence, recklessness, carelessness of Defendant JHT Holdings, Inc. was a proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injuries and consisted of the following: (a) failing to properly supervise the actions of Defendant, Daniel Cook, whom they knew or should have known was not capable of safe operation of a motor vehicle; (b) failing to properly instruct Defendant, Daniel Cook, as to the safe and proper operation of a motor vehicle; (c) entrusting the use and operation of the motor vehicle to Defendant, Daniel Cook, whom they knew or should have known was not capable of safe operation of a motor vehicle. 44. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc.. the Plaintiff sustained the following injuries: (a) Grade 3, AC separation of left shoulder (b) Multiple contusions (c) Multiple abrasions (d) injuries to various soft connective tissues, nerves and muscles, all of which have left him sick, sore, lame and disabled, much to his detriment and financial loss. 45. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc.., the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of earnings, and will suffer a loss of earning capacity in the future. 46. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc. the Plaintiff has undergone great pain and suffering. 47. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc., the Plaintiff has suffered a permanent diminution of his ability to enjoy life and life's pleasures. 48. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc. the Plaintiff has been forced to receive and undergo various medical treatment and services for treatment of his injuries. 49. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc., the Plaintiff has incurred various medical expenses for the aforementioned treatment, and will continue to incur such expenses for the foreseeable future. 50. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc., the Plaintiff has undergone great mental anguish, physical pain and emotional suffering, from which he still suffers and will continue to suffer for an indefinite period of time in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Richard D. Turner, demands judgment either jointly or severally against Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc., in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT V - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM NANCY TURNER V. DANIEL COOK 51. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs One (1) through Fifty (50) inclusive, as though the same had been set forth at length. 52. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Daniel Cook, Plaintiff, Nancy Turner has been deprived of the society, companionship, contribution and consortium of her husband, Richard Turner, much to her great detriment and loss. 53. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Daniel Cook, Plaintiff Nancy Turner has suffered a disruption in her daily habits and pursuits and the loss of enjoyment of life, all of which have been to her great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Nancy Turner demands judgment either jointly or severally against the Defendant, Daniel Cook, in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT VI - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM NANCY TURNER V. ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER 54 . Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs One (1) through Fifty-three (53) inclusive, as though the same had been set forth at length. 55. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, Plaintiff, Nancy Turner has been deprived of the society, companionship, contribution and consortium of her husband, Richard Turner, much to her great detriment and loss. 56. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, Plaintiff Nancy Turner has suffered a disruption in her daily habits and pursuits and the loss of enjoyment of life, all of which have been to her great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Nancy Turner demands judgment either jointly or severally against the Defendant Arizona Truck Center, in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interests and costs. COUNT VII - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM NANCY TURNER V. AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT INC. 57 . Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs One (1) through Fifty-six (56) inclusive, as though the same had been set forth at length. 58. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., Plaintiff, Nancy Turner has been deprived of the society, companionship, contribution and consortium of her husband, Richard Turner, much to her great detriment and loss. 59. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., Plaintiff Nancy Turner has suffered a disruption in her daily habits and pursuits and the loss of enjoyment of life, all of which have been to her great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Nancy Turner demands judgment either jointly or severally against the Defendant Auto Truck Transport, Inc., in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interests and costs. COUNT VIII - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM NANCY TURNER V. JHT HOLDINGS INC. 60 . Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs One (1) through Fifty-nine (59) inclusive, as though the same had been set forth at length. 61. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc., Plaintiff, Nancy Turner has been deprived of the society, companionship, contribution and consortium of her husband, Richard Turner, much to her great detriment and loss. 62. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc., Plaintiff Nancy Turner has suffered a disruption in her daily habits and pursuits and the loss of enjoyment of life, all of which have been to her great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Nancy Turner demands judgment either jointly or severally against the Defendant JHT Holdings, Inc., in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interests and costs. Respectfully submitted: O'MALLEY & LANGAN, P.C. ZV = erard W. Langa ?,Jr 7,squire Attorney for Plaintiff I. D. # 46938 9 N. Main Street Pittston, Pa. 18640 (570) 883-1321 VERIFICATION I, Gerard W. Langan, Jr., Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiffs, being duly sworn to law, depose and say that based upon the facts set forth herein, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I have been unable to obtain the Verification of the Plaintiffs, Richard and Nancy Turner to attach to the Complaint prior to the date on which I was required to file the Complaint. Upon my ability to meet with my clients, I will obtain a Verification from Richard and Nancy Turner and will substitute their Verification at that time. Gerard W. Langan, ., E quire Attorney for Plaintiffs Date:_ 7 // /G , Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: John A. Statler, Esq. I.D. No. 43812 Wade D. Manley I.D. No. 87244 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 wdm@jdsw.com RICHARD TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife, Plaintiffs V. DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC., and JHT HOLDINGS, INC. Defendants Attorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 2007-CIV- 7975 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMAND€D NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: RICHARD TURNER and NANCY TURNER, Plaintiffs c/o Gerard W. Langan, Jr., Esquire O'Malley & Langan, PC 9 N. Main St. Pittston, PA 18640 r ?o Ma o ?-c w r AND NOW, this 10 , day of August, 2007, you are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Preliminary Objections within 20 days of the date of service hereof or judgment may be entered against you. By: t(14A ON il III oo79752007-00004 Notice To Plead Luzerne County Prothonotary 8/2/2007 12:39.20 PM John A. Sttl r Attorney I. No. 43812 Wade D. Ma le Attorney I.D. No. 87244 Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: John A. Statler, Esq. I.D. No. 43812 Wade D. Manley I. D. No. 87244 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 wdm@jdsw.com RICHARD TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife, Plaintiffs V. DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC., and JHT HOLDINGS, INC. Defendants Attorneys for Defendant 'III 19 Ella ' Elf MIM o 1 Preliminary Objections Luzerne County Prothonotary 8/71200712:39:33 PM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 2007-CIV- 7975 CIVIL ACTION - LAW , o =: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ,v = rn w DEFENDANTS', DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC., and JHT HOLDINGS, INC'S, PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Defendants, Daniel Cook, Arizona Truck Center, Auto Truck Transport, Inc. and JHT Holdings, Inc., by their attorneys, Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner, P.C., and file these Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiffs' Complaint and in support thereof, aver as follows: 1. Plaintiff initiated the instant case by filing a Complaint on July 13, 2007 in Luzerne County. See, Plaintiffs' Complaint attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A. 10 2. This is an action for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on July 23, 2005. See, Exhibit A, ¶6. 3. The accident occurred on SR 11, Harrisburg Pike in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. See, Exhibit A, ¶¶6-8. 4. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(b) requires that all Preliminary Objections to a pleading be raised at one time. 5. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(3) states: "Preliminary Objections may be filed by any party to any pleading and are limited to the following grounds: improper venue." Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(1). 1. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(1) - IMPROPER VENUE 6. The Defendants incorporate by reference herein paragraphs 1-5 of their Preliminary Objections as though set forth herein at length. 7. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that defendant, Daniel Cook, is an adult individual residing at 1854 Hendersonville Road, Asheville, NC. See, Exhibit A, ¶2. 8. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, is an Arizona company, with its principal place of business located at 2402 South 19th Street, Phoenix, AZ. See, Exhibit A, 53. 9. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, is an Kentucky corporation, doing business at a terminal located at 32202 Orchard Road, Macungie, Lehigh County, PA. See, Exhibit A, ¶4. 10. The corporate office for Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, is located at 402 South Main Street, 3rd Floor, Joplin, MO 64801. • 11. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc., is a Wisconsin corporation, with its principal place of business located at 4320 39th Avenue, Kenosha, WI. See, Exhibit A, ¶5. 12. Plaintiffs' Complaint lacks any further averment pertaining to the location or activities of the Defendants. 13. In fact, the only reference to Luzerne County in Plaintiffs' Complaint is Plaintiffs' residence. See, Exhibit A, ¶1. 14. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure allow for an action to be filed only in a county in which an individual may be served, where the cause of action arose or where property at issue is located. Pa.R.C.P. 1006. 15. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1006, based on the allegations set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint, venue as to Defendant, Daniel Cook, is only appropriate in Cumberland County, where the cause of action arose according to Plaintiffs' personal injury Complaint because he is a resident of North Carolina. 16. Pa.R.C.P. 1006 allows for venue against corporations in compliance with Pa.R.C.P. 2179. 17. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2179 allows an action against a corporation to brought in and only in: (a) the county where its registered office or principal place of business is; (b) a county where it regularly conducts business; (c) the county where the cause of action arose; (d) a county where a transaction or occurrence took place out of which the cause of action arose; or (e) a county where the property or a part of the property which is the subject matter of the action is located provided that equitable relief is sought with respect to the property. Pa.R.C.P. 2179 (a). 18. Defendants, Arizona Truck Center, Auto Truck Transport, Inc. and JHT Holdings, Inc., are corporations. 19. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2179, based on the allegations set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint, venue as to Defendants, Arizona Truck Center, Auto Truck Transport, Inc. and JHT Holdings, Inc., is only appropriate in Cumberland County, where the cause of action arose according to Plaintiffs' personal injury Complaint. 20. Venue relates to the right of a party to have the controversy brought and heard in a particular judicial district. McGinley v. Scott, 401 Pa. 310, 164 A.2d 424 (1960); Searles v. Estrada, 856 A.2d 85 (2004), app. denied, 582 Pa. 701 871 A.2d 192 (2005). 21. Corporations have a constitutional right to seek a change of venue. Purcell v. Bryn Mawr Hosp., 525 Pa. 237, 242, 579 A.2d 1282 (1990); Felts v. Delaware. Lackawanna and Western Railroad, et al, 195 Pa. 21, 45 A. 493 (1900). 22. Pa.R.C.P. 1006(b) directs that venue for personal actions against corporations be controlled by Rule 2179. The same procedural test is applied to both venue and jurisdiction to determine if both exist. Purcell v. Bryn Mawr Hosp., 525 Pa. 237, 242, 579 A.2d 1282 (1990); County Construction Company v. Livengood Construction Corporation, 393 Pa. 39, 142 A.2d 9 (1958). 23. Venue is the place in which a particular action is to be brought and determined; it is a matter for the convenience of the litigants. Jurisdiction refers to the competency of a court to determine controversies of the general class to which the case belongs and to bind the parties by its decision. Id., 142 A.2d at 13. 24. Improper venue shall be raised by preliminary objection and if not so raised shall be waived. If a preliminary objection to venue is sustained and there is a county of proper venue in the State the action shall not be dismissed but shall be transferred to the appropriate court of that county. The costs and fees for the transfer and removal of the record shall be paid by the plaintiff. Searles, 856 A.2d 85 (2004), app. denied, 582 Pa. 701 871 A.2d 192 (2005). 25. In the instant matter, Plaintiffs averments confirm that the cause of action arose in Cumberland County and that all Defendants reside and operate from locations outside of Luzerne County. 26. Given that venue properly lays in Cumberland County and does not properly lay in Luzerne County, under the laws and procedural rules in this Commonwealth, this matter must be transferred to Cumberland County. WHEREFORE, the Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court transfer Plaintiffs' cause of action to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)(3). Respectfully submitted, JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: "4 Wade D.(Ma a Esquire Attorney I. 87244 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendant DATE: S ((/ O? 305821 cxk,?kf 07/27/2007 09:29 776-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL PAGE 03/19 RICHARD D. TURNER ,and NANCY TURNER, his wife 297 DAIRY BARN HILL ROAD STILLWATER, PA. 17878 PLAINTIFFS VS. DANIEL COOK 1854 HENDERSONVILLE,ROAD ASHEVILLE, N.C. 28803 AND ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER 2402 SOUTH 19TH STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA, 85009-5000 -••••AND. AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC. TERMINAL 553 3203 ORCHARD ROAD MACUNGIE, PA. 18052 AND JHT HOLDINGS, INC. 4320 39TH AVENUE : : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : LUZERNE COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED KENOSHI, WI 53144 DEFENDANTS ; NO. 2007-CIV-q NOTICE TO DEFUND AND CLAIM-RIGHTS 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 an attorney arid filing writing with the Court your defenses or objections tot he claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and the Court without further, notice may enter a judgment against you 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 OFFICES SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Northern Pa. Legal Service Scranton Eifctric Building - 3'ti Floor Scranton, Pa. 18503 (570) 341-0164 Pa. La " wyer Referral Service C, PO Box 1086 -100 South Street c Harrisburg, Pa. 17103 r 800-692,7375 x? ry 07/27/2007 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL PAGE 04/19 RICHARD D. TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife 297 DAIRY BARN HILL ROAD STILLWATER, PA. 17878 VS. PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LU7_ERNE COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL. DEMANDED DANIEL COOK 1854 HENDERSONVILLE ROAD ASHEVILLE, N.C. 2BB03 AND ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER 2402 SOUTH 19TH STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA, 85009-5009 AND AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC TERMINAL 553 3203 ORCHARD ROAD MACUNGIE, PA 18062 : AND JHT HOLDINGS, INC. 4320 39TH AVENUE - KENOSHI, WI 53144 DEFENDANTS NO.2007-CIV- COMPLAINT AND NOW comes the Plaintiffs, Richard Turner and Nancy Turner, his wife, by and through their attorneys, O'Malley & Langan, P.C. and complain as follows: 1. Plaintiffs, Richard Turner and Nancy Turner, his wife, are adult competent individuals residing at 297 Dairy Barn Hill Road, Stillwater, Luzerne County, r-- c? Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, Daniel Cook, is an adult individual residing at 1854 Hendersc;?vil ?? ;==1 Road, Asheville, N.C. •A• 1 07/27/2007 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL ?AGE 05/19 3. Defendant, Arizona Truck Center is an Arizona Company. with its principal place of business located at 2402 South 19' Street, Phoenix, Arizona. 4. Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, is a Kentucky Corporation, doing business at Terminal 553, 3202 Orchard Road, Macungie, Pa. 18062, 5. Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc. is a Wisconsin Corporation with its principal place of business located at 4320 391' Avenue, Kenoshi, Wf 53144. 6. The events and occurrences giving rise to Plaintiffs cause of action took place on July 23, 2007, at approximately 1125 a.m, Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pa. 7. On the aforementioned date and time, Plaintiff, Richard D. Turner, was lawfully, carefully and prudently operating his 2003 Kawasaki 1500 motorcycle south on SR Route 11, Harrisburg Pike, Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pa. 8. On the aforementioned date and time, Defendant, Daniel Cook, was operating a 2005 Mack, CV7130 tractor trailer south on SR Route 11, Harrisburg Pike, Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pa. 9. Said 2005 Mack CV713C tractor trailer was owned by Defendants, Arizona Truck Center, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., and JHT Holdings. Inc. 10. At all times relevant hereto, South SR Route 11, is a two lane roadway. 11. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Daniel Cook, was driving said 2005 Mack CV7 13C tractor trailer and was in the course of his employment with Defendants Arizona Truck Center, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., and JHT Holdings, Inc. and was acting as the servant, agenf, workman and /or employee of Defendants, Arizona Truck 07/27/2007 09:29 770-614-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL PAGE 06/19 Center, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., and JHT Holdings, Inc. 12. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, Daniel Cook while in the course of his employment and while traveling south on SR Route 11, changed from the left lane to the right lane, directly in the path of Plaintiff, Richard Turner, forcing him off the roadway, causing him to strike a curb and causing the motorcycle to overturn. 13. As a result of this collision, Defendant, Daniel Cook was cited with improper driving actions". 14_ As a further result of this collision, Plaintiff Richard Turner, suffered severe and permanent injuries more fully set forth below. COUNT I --NEGLIGENCE RICHARD D. TURNER V. I]AMEL COOK 16. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs One through Fourteen (14) inclusive as thought the same ad been set forth at length. 16. The negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Daniel Cook, was a proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injuries and consisted of the following- (a) failing to operate his vehicle under proper and adequate control under the aforesaid circumstances; ' (b) failing to operate his vehicle at a safe speed; (c) failing to keep a proper lookout for the road ahead of him and for other cars and objects along the road; (d) failing to operate his vehicle with due regard for the rights, safety and well- being of Plaintiff, Richard D. Turner, under the aforesaid circumstances (e) failing to operate his vehicle with due caution and control. 07/27/2007 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL PAGE 07/19 (f) failing to advise other drivers, including the Plaintiff, of his intention to change lanes of travel; and (g) improperly changing lanes of travel 17. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant Daniel Cook, Plaintiff Richard D. Turner sustained severe and permanent injuries, including but not limited to: (a) Grade 3, AC separation of left shoulder (b) Multiple contusions (c) Multiple abrasions (d) injuries to various soft; connective tissues, nerves and muscles, all of which have left hire sick, sore, lame and disabled, much to his detriment and financial loss, 18. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Daniel Cook, the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of earnings, and will suffer a loss of earning capacity in the future. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Daniel Cook, the Plaintiff has undergone great pain and suffering. 20. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Daniel Cook, the Plaintiff has suffered a permanent diminution of his ability to enjoy life and life's pleasures. 21. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Daniel Cook, the Plaintiff has been forced to receive and undergo various medical treatment 07/27/2007 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL PAGE 08/19 and services for treatment of his injuries. 22_ As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Daniel Cook, the Plaintiff has incurred various medical expenses for the aforementioned treatment and will continue to incur such medical expenses for the foreseeable future. 23. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant, Daniel Cook, Plaintiff has undergone great mental anguish, physical pain and emotional suffering from which he still suffers and will continue to suffer for an indefinite period of time in the future. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Richard D. Turner, demands judgment either jointly or severally against the Defendant, Daniel Cook, in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs. COU 11 NEGLIGENCE RICHARD TURNER VS, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER 24. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs one through Twenty- three (23) inclusive, as though the same were set forth at length. 25. The negligence, recklessness, carelessness of Defendant Arizona Truck Center was a proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injuries and consisted of the following: (a) failing to properly supervise the actions of Defendant, Daniel Cook, whom they knew or should have known was not capable of safe operation of a motor vehicle; 07/27/2007 99:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL PAGE 09/19 (b) failing to properly instruct Defendant, Daniel Cook, as to the safe and proper operation of a motor vehicle; (c) entrusting the use and operation of the motor vehicle to Defendant, Daniel Cook, whom they knew or should have known was not capable of safe operation of a motor vehicle. 26. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, the Plaintiff sustained the following injuries: (a) Grade 3, AC separation of left shoulder (b) Multiple contusions (c) Multiple abrasions (d) injuries to various soft connective tissues, nerves and muscles, all of which have left him sick, sore, lame and disabled, much to his detriment and financial loss. 27. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of earnings, and will suffer a loss of earning capacity in the future. 28. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of [Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, the Plaintiff has undergone great pain and suffering. 29, As a direct and proximate resuit of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, the Plaintiff has suffered a permanent diminution of his ability to enjoy life and life's pleasures. 07/27/2007 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL PAGE 10/19 30, As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, the Plaintiff has been forced to receive and undergo various medical treatment and services for treatment of his Injuries, 31. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, the Plaintiff has incurred various medical expenses for the aforementioned treatment, and will continue to incur such expenses for the foreseeable future. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, the Plaintiff has undergone great mental anguish, physical pain and emotional suffering, from which he still suffers and will continue to suffer for an indefinite period of time in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Richard D. Turner, demands judgment either jointly or severally against Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT 111 NEGLIGENCE RICHARD TURNER V. AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC. 33. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs One through Thirty- two (32) inclusive, as though the same were set forth at length. 34. The negligence, recklessness, carelessness of Defendant Auto Truck Transport, Inc. was a proximate cause of the Plaintiffs injuries and consisted of the following: 07/27/2007 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL PAGE 11/19 (a) failing to properly supervise the actions of Defendant, Daniel Cook, whom they knew or should have known was not capable of safe operation of a motor vehicle; (b) failing to properly instruct Defendant, Daniel Cook, as to the safe and proper operation of a motor vehicle; (c) entrusting the use and operation of the motor vehicle to Defendant, Daniel Cook, whom they knew or should have known was not capable of safe operation of a motor vehicle. 35. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, inc. the Plaintiff sustained the following injuries: (a) Grade 3, AC separation of left shoulder (b) Multiple contusions (c) Multiple abrasions (d) injuries to various soft connective tissues, nerves and muscles, all of which have left him sick, sore, lame and disabled, much to his detriment and financial loss. 36. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of earnings, and will suffer a loss of earning capacity in the future. 37. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., the Plaintiff has undergone great pain and suffering. 38. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and 07/27/2007 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL PAGE 12/19 carelessness of Defendant, Auto Truck Transport Inc., the Plaintiff has suffered a permanent diminution of his ability to enjoy life and life's pleasures. 39. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc. the Plaintiff has been forced to receive and undergo various medical treatment and services for treatment of his injuries. 40. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., the Plaintiff has incurred various medical expenses for the aforementioned treatment, and will continue to incur such expenses for the foreseeable. future. 41. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., the Plaintiff has undergone great mental anguish, physical pain and emotional suffering, from which he still suffers and will continue to suffer for an indefinite period of time in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Richard D. Turner, demands judgment either jointly or severally against Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT l- V-- NEGLIGENCE RICHARD TURNER V. JHT HOLDINGS. INC. 42. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs One through Forty-one (41) inclusive, as though the same were set forth at length. 43. The negligence, recklessness, carelessness of Defendant JHT }holdings, 67/27/2607 69:29 776-914-6936 LIBERTY MUTUAL PAGE 13/19 Inc. was a proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injuries and consisted of the following: (a) flailing to properly supervise the actions of Defendant, Daniel Cook, whom they knew or should have known was not capable of safe operation of a motor vehicle; (b) failing to properly instruct Defendant, Daniel Cook, as to the safe and proper operation of a motor vehicle; (c) entrusting the use and operation of the motor vehicle to Defendant, Daniel Cook, whom they knew or should have known was not capable of safe operation of a motor vehicle. 44. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc.. the Plaintiff sustained the following injuries: (a) Grade 3, AC separation of left shoulder (b) Multiple contusions (c) Multiple abrasions (d) injuries to various soft connective tissues, nerves and muscles, all of which have left him sick, sore, lame and disabled, much to his detriment and financial loss, 45. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc.., the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of earnings; and will suffer a loss of earning capacity in the future, 46. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc. the Plaintiff has undergone great 07/27/2007 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL PAGE 14/19 pain and suffering. 47. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc., the Plaintiff has suffered a permanent diminution of his ability to enjoy life and life's pleasures, 48. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc. the Plaintiff has been forced to receive and undergo various medical treatment and services for treatment of his injuries. 49. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc,, the Plaintiff has incurred various medical expenses for the aforementioned treatment, and will continue to incur such expenses for the foreseeable future. 60. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc., the Plaintiff has undergone great mental anguish, physical pain and emotional suffering, from which he still suffers and will continue to suffer for an indefinite period of time in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Richard D. Turner, demands judgment either jointly or severally against Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc., in an amount in excess of f=ifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs. 07/27/2007 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL PAGE 15/19 COUNT V - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM NANCY TURNER V. DANIEL COOK 51. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs One (1) through Fifty (50) inclusive, as though the same had been set forth at length, 52. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Daniel Cook, Plaintiff, Nancy Turner has been deprived of the society, companionship, contribution and consortium of her husband, Richard Turner, much to her great detriment and loss. 53. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Daniel Cook, Plaintiff Nancy Turner has suffered a disruption in her daily habits and pursuits and the loss of enjoyment of life, all of which have been to her great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Nancy Turner demands judgment either jointly or severally against the Defendant, Daniel Cook, in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT VI - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM NANCY TURNER V. ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER 54 . Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs One (1) through Fifty-three (53) inclusive, as though the same had been set forth at length, 55. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, Plaintiff, Nancy Turner has been 07/27/2007 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL PAGE 16/19 deprived of the society, companionship, contribution and consortium of her husband, Richard Turner, much to her great detriment and loss. 56. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, Plaintiff Nancy Turner has suffered a disruption in her daily habits and pursuits and the loss of enjoyment of life, all of which have been to her great. detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Nancy Turner demands judgment either jointly or severally against the Defendant Arizona Truck Center, in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interests and costs. COUNT V11- LOSS OF CONSORTIUM NANCY TURNER'V. AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORTLINC. 57 . Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs One (1) through Fifty-six (56) inclusive, as though the same had been set forth at length. 58. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., Plaintiff, Nancy Turner has been deprived of the society, companionship, contribution and consortium of her husband, Richard Turner, much to her great detriment and loss. 59. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., Plaintiff Nancy Turner has suffered a disruption in her daily habits and pursuits and the loss of enjoyment of life, all of which have been to her great detriment and loss. 07/27/2007 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL ?AGE 17/19 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Nancy Turner demands judgment either jointly or severally against the Defendant Auto Truck Transport, Inc., in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interests and costs. COUNT Vill - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM NANCY TURNER V. JHT HOLDINGS, INC. 60. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs One (1) through Fifty-nine (59) inclusive, as though the same had been set forth at length. 61. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc., Plaintiff, Nancy Turner has been deprived of the society, companionship, contribution and consortium of her husband, Richard Turner, much to her great detriment and loss. 62, As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc., Plaintiff Nancy Turner has suffered a disruption in her daily habits and pursuits and the loss of enjoyment of life, all of which have been to her groat detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Nancy Turner demands judgment either jointly or severally against the Defendant JHT Holdings, Inc., in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interests and costs. 07/2712007 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL PAGE 18119 Respectfully submitted: O'MALLEY & LANGAN, P.C. t'.4 erard W. Langan, r., squire Attorney for Plaintiff 1,D.-# 46938 9 N. Main Street Pittston, Pa. 18644 (570) 883-1321 07/27/2007 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL PAGE 19/19 VERIFICATION 1, Gerard W. Langan, Jr,, Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiffs, being duly sworn to law, depose and say that based upon the facts set forth herein, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I have been unable to obtain the Verification of the Plaintiffs, Richard and Nancy Turner to attach to the Complaint prior to the date on which I was required to file the Complaint. Upon my ability to meet with my clients, I will obtain a Verification from Richard and Nancy Turner and will substitute their Verification at that time. Berard W. Langan, ,ft`., E6quire Attorney for Plaintiffs Date: '7 ?? 16 7- RICHARD TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife, Plaintiffs V. DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC., and JHT HOLDINGS, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 2007-CIV- 7975 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants ORDER AND NOW, this day of 2007, upon consideration of Defendants', Daniel Cook, Arizona Truck Center, Auto Truck Transport, Inc. and JHT Holdings, Inc.'s, Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiffs' Complaint, it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED that the Preliminary Objections are SUSTAINED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the captioned matter shall be transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)(3) and Plaintiffs shall pay the costs and fees to accomplish transfer. J. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this O day of August, 2007 the undersigned does hereby certify that she did this date serve a copy of the foregoing document upon the other parties of record by causing same to be deposited in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Gerard W. Langan, Jr., Esquire O'Malley & Langan, PC 9 N. Main St. Pittston, PA 18640 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: Ca en Jensen I ' CJCD III s = v ¦ I? 'II > -{ 7-00006 7975200 .. rvice Cerfficate of Serothonotary eme County Luz 81212007 1239.49 PM 0079752pp,_?007 , 41/8 'uzerne nef X2/200712 3 8'%h "'- " pM Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: John A. Statler, Esq. I. D. No. 43812 Wade D. Manley I.D. No. 87244 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 wdm@jdsw.com RICHARD TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife, Plaintiffs V. DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC., and JHT HOLDINGS, INC. Defendants Attorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 2007-CIV- 7975 IVIL ACTION - LAW Gzl? tJ ? xx"'? t JURY TRIAL DEMANDED X„ qo? 3 CD • C.4 N DEFENDANTS', DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC., and JHT HOLDINGS, INC'S, BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT 1. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY Plaintiff initiated the instant case by filing a Complaint on July 13, 2007 in Luzerne County. See, Plaintiffs' Complaint attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A, attached to Preliminary Objections. Contemporaneous with this Brief, Defendants have filed Preliminary Objections for improper venue. Plaintiffs' filed this action for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on July 23, 2005. See, Exhibit A, 56. The accident occurred on SR 11, Harrisburg Pike in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. See, Exhibit A, ¶¶6-8. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that defendant, Daniel Cook, is an adult individual residing at 1854 Hendersonville Road, Asheville, NC. See, Exhibit A, 12. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, is an Arizona company, with its principal place of business located at 2402 South 191h Street, Phoenix, AZ. See, Exhibit A, 13. As to Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc., Plaintiffs allege it is a Wisconsin corporation, with its principal place of business located at 4320 39cn Avenue, Kenosha, WI. See, Exhibit A, 15. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, is an Kentucky corporation, doing business at a terminal located at 32202 Orchard Road, Macungie, Lehigh County, PA. See, Exhibit A, 14. In fact, the corporate office for Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, is located at 402 South Main Street, 3rd Floor, Joplin, MO 64801. Plaintiffs' Complaint lacks any further averment pertaining to the location or activities of the Defendants. In fact, the only reference to Luzerne County in Plaintiffs' Complaint is Plaintiffs' residence. See, Exhibit A, ¶1. II. STATEMENT OF QUESTION PRESENTED A. SHOULD PLAINTIFF'S CAUSE OF ACTION BE TRANSFERRED TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO ALLEGE ANY FACTS TO SATISFY EITHER PA.R.C.P. 1006 OR 2179? ANSWER: Yes. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(b) requires that all Preliminary Objections to a pleading be raised at one time. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure allow for preliminary objections to be filed pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028. Pa.R.C.P. 1028 states: "Preliminary Objections may be filed by any party to any pleading and are limited to the following grounds: (1) ... improper venue ...; Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(1). When ruling on preliminary objections, the court is limited to a review of the allegations set forth in the challenged pleading. Bradford County Citizens in Action v. Board of Commissioners of Bradford County, 64 Pa.Cmwlth. 349, 439 A.2d 1346 (1982). When ruling on preliminary objections, all well and clearly-pleaded facts must be generally accepted as true but not a pleader's conclusions or averments of law. Santiago v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, 418 Pa.Super. 178, 613 A.2d 1235 (1992). Ill. ARGUMENT Venue relates to the right of a party to have the controversy brought and heard in a particular judicial district. McGinley v. Scott, 401 Pa. 310, 164 A.2d 424 (1960); Searles v. Estrada, 856 A.2d 85 (2004), app. denied, 582 Pa. 701 871 A.2d 192 (2005). Corporations have a constitutional right to seek a change of venue. Purcell v. Bryn Mawr Hosp., 525 Pa. 237, 242, 579 A.2d 1282 (1990); Felts v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad, et al, 195 Pa. 21, 45 A. 493 (1900). Pa.R.C.P. 1006(b) directs that venue for personal actions against corporations be controlled by Rule 2179. The same procedural test is applied to both venue and jurisdiction to determine if both exist. Purcell v. Bryn Mawr Hosp., 525 Pa. 237, 242, 579 A.2d 1282 (1990); County Construction Company v. Livengood Construction Corporation, 393 Pa. 39, 142 A.2d 9 (1958). Venue is the place in which a particular action is to be brought and determined; it is a matter for the convenience of the litigants. Jurisdiction refers to the competency of a court to determine controversies of the general class to which the case belongs and to bind the parties by its decision. Id., 142 A.2d at 13. If a preliminary objection to venue is sustained and there is a county of proper venue in the State the action shall not be dismissed but shall be transferred to the appropriate court of that county. The costs and fees for the transfer and removal of the record shall be paid by the plaintiff. Searles, 856 A.2d 85 (2004), app. denied, 582 Pa. 701 871 A.2d 192 (2005). The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure allow for an action to be filed only in a county in which an individual may be served, where the cause of action arose or where property at issue is located. Pa.R.C.P. 1006. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1006, based on the allegations set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint, venue as to Defendant, Daniel Cook, is only appropriate in Cumberland County, where the cause of action arose according to Plaintiffs' personal injury Complaint because he is a resident of North Carolina. Pa.R.C.P. 1006 allows for venue against corporations in compliance with Pa.R.C.P. 2179. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2179 allows an action against a corporation to brought in and only in: (a) the county where its registered office or principal place of business is; (b) a county where it regularly conducts business; (c) the county where the cause of action arose; (d) a county where a transaction or occurrence took place out of which the cause of action arose; or (e) a county where the property or a part of the property which is the subject matter of the action is located provided that equitable relief is sought with respect to the property. Pa.R.C.P. 2179 (a). Defendants, Arizona Truck Center, Auto Truck Transport, Inc. and JHT Holdings, Inc., are corporations. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2179, based on the allegations set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint, venue as to Defendants, Arizona Truck Center, Auto Truck Transport, Inc. and JHT Holdings, Inc., is only appropriate in Cumberland County, where the cause of action arose according to Plaintiffs' personal injury Complaint. III. CONCLUSION In the instant matter, Plaintiffs averments confirm that the cause of action arose in Cumberland County and that all Defendants reside and operate from locations outside of Luzerne County. Given that venue properly lays in Cumberland County and does not properly lay in Luzerne County, under the laws and procedural rules in this Commonwealth, this matter must be transferred to Cumberland County pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)(3) with Plaintiffs ordered to pay costs and fees to accomplish transfer. Respectfully submitted, JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER (V)k By: Wade Dret nley, squire Attorney No. 87244 301 Mar treet P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendant DATE: 8 1 t I d? 305829 c,,, ?- L,. f 07/27/2007 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL PAGE 03/19 RICHARD D. TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife 297 DAIRY BARN HILL ROAD STILLWATER, PA. 17878 PLAINTIFFS VS. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : LUZERNE COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DANIEL COOK 1854 HENDERSONVILLE,ROAD : ASHEVILLE, N.C. 28803 AND ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER 2402 SOUTH 19TH STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA, 88009-5000 ...AND. AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC. TERMINAL 553 3203 ORCHARD ROAD MACUNGIE, PA. 18062 AND JHT HOLDINGS, INC. 4320 39TH AVENUE KENOSHI, WI 53144 DEFENDANTS ; NO. 2007-CIV-q Q I NOTICE TO DEFENb AND CLAN-RIGHTS 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 an attorney acid filing writing with the Court your defenses or objections tot he claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and the Court without further, notice may enter a judgment against you 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 OFFICES SET FORTH BELOW TO FEND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Northern Pa. Legal Service Scranton Electric Building - 3' Floor Scranton, Pa. 18503 (570) 341-0184 "' i Pa. Lawyer Referral Service PO Box 1086 -100 South Street c Harrisburg, Pa. 17103 i` 800-692-7375 w r' 07/2712007 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL PAGE 04/19 RICHARD D. TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife 297 DAIRY BARN HILL ROAD STILLWATER, PA. 17878 PLAINTIFF VS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LUZERNE COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAD. DEMANDED DANIEL COOK 1854 HENDERSONVILLE ROAD : ASHEVILLE, N.C. 28803 AND ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER 2402 SOUTH 19TH STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA, 85009-5009 AND AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC TERMINAL 553 3203 ORCHARD ROAD ; MACUNGIE, PA 18062 AND JHT HOLDINGS, INC. 4320 39TH AVENUE KENOSHI, WI 53144 : DEFENDANTS NO.2007-CIV- COMPI.AIIUT AND NOW comes the Plaintiffs, Richard Turner and Nancy Turner, his wife, by and through their attorneys, O'Malley & Langan, P.C. and complain as follows: 1. Plaintiffs, Richard Turner and Nancy Turner, his wife, are adult competent individuals residing at 297 Dairy Barn Hill Road, Stillwater, Luzerne County, ? ?•._ l: Pennsylvania. <-. 2. Defendant, Daniel Cook, is an adult individual residing at 1854 Henderscst?viH?' r.= Road, Asheville, N.C. 7 T. .? coo 07/27/2007 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL PAGE 05119 3. Defendant, Arizona Truck Center is an Arizona Company. with its principal place of business located at 2402 South 191h Street, Phoenix, Arizona. 4. Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, is a Kentucky Corporation, doing business at Terminal 553, 3202 Orchard Road, Macungie, Pa. 18062. 5. Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc. is a Wisconsin Corporation with its principal place of business located at 4320 39'4 Avenue, Kenoshi, WI 53144. 6. The events and occurrences giving rise to Piaintifrs cause of action took place on July 23, 2007, at approximately 11,35 a.m, Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pa. 7. On the aforementioned date and time, Plaintiff, Richard D. Turner, was lawfully, carefully and prudently operating his 2003 Kawasaki 1500 motorcycle south on SR Route 11, Harrisburg Pike, Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pa. 8. On the aforementioned date and time, Defendant, Daniel Cook, was operating a 2005 Mack, CV713C tractor trailer south on SR Route 11, Harrisburg Pike, Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pa. 9. Said 2005 Mack CV713C tractor trailer was owned by Defendants, Arizona Truck Center, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., and JHT Holdings. Inc. 10. At all times relevant hereto, South SR Route 11, is a two lane roadway. 11. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Daniel Cook, was driving said 2005 Mack CV7 13C tractor trailer and was in the course of his employment with Defendants Arizona Truck Center, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., and JHT Holdings, Inc. and was acting as the servant, agent, workman and /or employes of Defendants, Arizona Truck 07/27/2007 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL Center, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., and JHT Holdings, Inc. PAGE 06/19 12. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, Daniel Cook while in the course of his employment and while traveling south on SR Route 11, changed from the left lane to the right lane, directly in the path of Plaintiff, Richard Turner, forcing him off the roadway, causing him to strike a curb and causing the motorcycle to overturn. 13. As a result of this collision, Defendant, Daniel Cook was cited with "improper driving actions". 14. As a further result of this collision, Plaintiff Richard Turner, suffered severe and permanent injuries more fully set forth below. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE RICHARD D. TURNER V. DANIEL COOK 15. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs One through Fourteen (14) inclusive as thought the same ad been set forth at length. 16. The negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Daniel Cook, was a proximate cause of the Plaintiffs injuries and consisted of the following: (a) failing to operate his vehicle under proper and adequate control under the aforesaid circumstances; ' (b) failing to operate his vehicle at a safe speed; (c) failing to keep a proper lookout for the road ahead of him and for other cars and objects along the road; (d) failing to operate his vehicle with due regard for the rights, safety and well- being of Plaintiff, Richard D. Turner, under the, aforesaid circumstances (e) failing to operate his vehicle with due caution and control. 07/2712007 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL PAGE 27119 (f) failing to advise other drivers, including the Plaintiff, of his intention to change lanes of travel, and (g) improperly changing lanes of travel 17. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant Daniel Cook, Plaintiff Richard D. Turner sustained severe and permanent injuries, including but not limited to: (a) Grade S, AC separation of left shoulder (b) Multiple contusions (c) Multiple abrasions (d) injuries to various soft connective tissues, nerves and muscles, all of which have left him sick, sore, lame and disabled, much to his detriment and financial loss, 18. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Daniel Cook, the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of earnings, and will suffer a loss of earning capacity in the future:. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Daniel Cook, the Plaintiff has undergone great pain and suffering. 20. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Daniel Cook, the Plaintiff has suffered a permanent diminution of his ability to enjoy life and life's pleasures. 21. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Daniel Cook, the Plaintiff has been forced to receive and undergo various medical treatment 07!27/2027 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL °AGE 08119 and services for treatment of his injuries. 22_ As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Daniel Cook, the Plaintiff has incurred various medical expenses for the aforementioned treatment and will continue to incur such medical expenses for the foreseeable future. 23. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant, Daniel Cook, Plaintiff has undergone great mental anguish, physical pain and emotional suffering from which he still suffers and will continue to suffer for an indefinite period of time in the future. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Richard D. Turner, demands judgment either jointly or severally against the Defendant, Daniel Cook, in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs. COU 11-1<IEGI-IGENCE 1ZICHARD TURNER VS. ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER 24. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs One through Twenty- three (23) inclusive, as though the same were set forth at length. 25. The negligence, recklessness, carelessness of Defendant Arizona Truck Center was a proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injuries and consisted of the following: (a) failing to properly supervise the actions of Defendant, Daniel Cook, whom they knew or should have known was not capable of safe operation of a motor vehicle; 07/27/2007 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL PAGE 09/19 (b) failing to properly instruct Defendant, Daniel Cook, as to the safe and proper operation of a motor vehicle; (c) entrusting the use and operation of the motor vehicle to Defendant, Daniel Cook, whom they knew or should have known was not capable of safe operation of a motor vehicle. 26. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, the Plaintiff' sustained the following injuries: (a) Grade 3, AC separation of left shoulder (b) Multiple contusions (c) Multiple abrasions (d) injuries to various soft connective tissues, nerves and muscles, all of which have left him sick, sore, lame and disabled, much to his detriment and financial loss. 27. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of earnings, and will suffer a loss of earning capacity in the future. 28. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, the Plaintiff has undergone great pain and suffering. 29. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, the Plaintiff has suffered a permanent diminution of his ability to enjoy life and life's pleasures. 07127/2027 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL PAGE 10/19 30, As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, the Plaintiff has been forced to receive and undergo various medical treatment and services for treatment of his injuries, 31. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, the Plaintiff has incurred various medical expenses for the aforementioned treatment, and will continue to incur such expenses for the foreseeable future. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, the Plaintiff has undergone great mental anguish, physical pain and emotional suffering, from which he still suffers and will continue to suffer for an indefinite period of time in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Richard D. Turner, demands judgment either jointly or severally against Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs. CQUNT 111-NEGLIGENCE RICHARD TURNER V. AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC; 33. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs One through Thirty- two (32) inclusive, as though the same were set forth at length. 34. The negligence, recklessness, carelessness of Defendant Auto Truck Transport, Inc, was a proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injuries and consisted of the following: 07/27/2007 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL PAGE 11119 (a) failing to properly supervise the actions of Defendant, Daniel Cook, whom they knew or should have known was not capable of safe operation of a motor vehicle; (b) failing to properly instruct Defendant, Daniel Cook, as to the safe and proper operation of a motor vehicle; (c) entrusting the use and operation of the motor vehicle to Defendant, Daniel Cook, whom they knew or should have known was not capable of safe operation of a motor vehicle. 35. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc. the Plaintiff sustained the following injuries: (a) Grade 3, AC separation of left shoulder (b) Multiple contusions (c) Multiple abrasions (d) injuries to various soft connective tissues, nerves and muscles, all of which have left him sick, sore, lame and disabled, much to his detriment and financial loss. 36. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of earnings, and will suffer a loss of earning capacity in the future. 37. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., the Plaintiff has undergone great pain and suffering. 38. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and 07!2712007 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL PAGE 12/19 carelessness of Defendant, Auto Truck Transport Inc., the Plaintiff has suffered a permanent diminution of his ability to enjoy life and life's pleasures. 39. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc_ the Plaintiff has been forced to receive and undergo various medical treatment and services for treatment of his injuries. 40. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., the Plaintiff has incurred various medical expenses for the aforementioned treatment, and will continue to incur such expenses for the foreseeable. future. 41. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., the Plaintiff has undergone great mental anguish, physical pain and emotional suffering, from which he still suffers and will continue to suffer for an indefinite period of time in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Richard D. Turner, demands judgment either jointly or severally against Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT BL, NEGLIGENCE RICHARD TURNER V. JHT HOLDINGS INC. 42. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs One through Forty-one (41) inclusive, as though the same were set forth at length. 43. The negligence, recklessness, carelessness of Defendant JHT Holdings, 07/27/2007 E19:29 776-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL PAGE 13119 Inc. was a proximate cause of the Plaintiffs injuries and consisted of the following: (a) failing to properly supervise the actions of Defendant, Daniel Cook, whom they knew or should have known was not capable of safe operation of a motor vehicle; (b) failing to properly instruct Defendant, Daniel Cook, as to the safe and proper operation of a motor vehicle; (c) entrusting the use and operation of the motor vehicle to Defendant, Daniel Cook, whom they knew or should have known was not capable of safe operation of a motor vehicle. 44. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc.. the Plaintiff sustained the following injuries: (a) Grade 3, AC separation of left shoulder (b) Multiple contusions (c) Multiple abrasions (d) injuries to various soft connective tissues, nerves and muscles, all of which have left him sick, sore, lame and disabled, much to his detriment and financial loss, 45. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc.., the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of earnings; and will suffer a loss of earning capacity in the future, 46. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc. the Plaintiff has undergone great 07/27/2007 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL PAGE 14/19 pain and suffering. 47. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc., the Plaintiff has suffered a permanent diminution of his ability to enjoy life and life's pleasures. 48. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc. the Plaintiff has been forced to receive and undergo various medical treatment and services for treatment of his injuries. 49. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc., the Plaintiff has incurred various medical expenses for the aforementioned treatment, and will continue to incur such expenses for the foreseeable future. 50. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc., the Plaintiff has undergone great mental anguish, physical pain and emotional suffering, from which he still suffers and will continue to suffer for an indefinite period of time in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Richard D, Turner, demands judgment either jointly or severally against Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc., in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs. 07/271/2007 09:29 770-814-6930 PAGE 15119 LIBERTY MUTUAL COUNT V Loss of CONSORTIUM NANCY TURNER V. DANIEL COOK 51 Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs One (1) through Fifty (50) inclusive, as though the same had been set forth at length, 52, As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Daniel Cook, Plaintiff, Nancy Turner has been deprived of the society, companionship, contribution and consortium of her husband, Richard Turner, much to her great detriment and loss. 53. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Daniel Cook, Plaintiff Nancy Turner has suffered a disruption in her daily habits and pursuits and the loss of enjoyment of life, all of which have been to her great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Nancy Turner demands judgment eitherlointly or severally against the Defendant, Daniel Cook, in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT VI - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM NANCY TURNER V. ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER 54 . Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs One (1) through Fifty-three (53) inclusive, as though the same had been set forth at length, 55. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, Plaintiff, Nancy Turner has been 07/27/2007 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL deprived of the society, companionship, contribution and consortium of her husband, Richard Turner, much to her great detriment and loss. 56. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and PAGE 16119 carelessness of Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, Plaintiff Nancy Turner has suffered a disruption in her daily habits and pursuits and the loss of enjoyment of life, all of which have been to her great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Nancy Turner demands judgment either jointly or severally against the Defendant Arizona Truck Center, in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($60,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interests and costs. COUNT Vil - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM NANCY TURNER V. AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT. INC. 57 . Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs One (1) through Fifty-six (56) inclusive, as though the same had been set forth at length. 58. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., Plaintiff, Nancy Turner has been deprived of the society, companionship, contribution and consortium of her husband, Richard Turner, much to her great detriment and loss. 59. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., Plaintiff Nancy Turner has suffered a disruption in her daily habits and pursuits and the loss of enjoyment of life, all of which have been to her great detriment and loss. 07/27/2007 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Nancy Turner demands judgment either jointly PAGE 17/19 or severally against the Defendant Auto Truck Transport, Inc., in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interests and costs. COUNT VIII - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM NANCY TURNER V. JHT HOLDINGS, INC. 60 . Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs One (1) through Fifty-nine (59) inclusive, as though the same had been set forth at length. 61. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc., Plaintiff, Nancy Turner has been deprived of the society, companionship, contribution and consortium of her husband, Richard Turner, much to her great detriment and loss. 62, As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc., Plaintiff Nancy Turner has suffered a disruption in her daily habits and pursuits and the loss of enjoyment of life, all of which have been to her great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Nancy Turner demands judgment either jointly or severally against the Defendant JHT Holdings, Inc., in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interests and costs. 0712712007 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL PAGE 18/19 Respectfully submitted: OVALLEY & LANGAN, P.C. erard W. Langan, Jr., quire Attorney for Plaintiff I, D.- # 46938 9 N. Main Street Pittston, Pa. 18640 (570) 883-1321 0712712007 09:29 770-814-6930 LIBERTY MUTUAL U, VERIFICATION PAGE 19119 I, Gerard W. Langan, Jr., Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiffs, being duty sworn to law, depose and say that based upon the facts set forth herein, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I have been unable to obtain the Verification of the Plaintiffs, Richard and Nancy Turner to attach to the Complaint prior to the date on which I was required to file the Complaint. Lam. ? r• Upon my ability to meet with my clients, I will obtain a Verification from Richard and Nancy Turner and will substitute their Verification at that time. Gerard W. Langan, J(, Uquire Attorney for Plaintiffs Date: 4 Li CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this s? day of August, 2007 the undersigned does hereby certify that she did this date serve a copy of the foregoing document upon the other parties of record by causing same to be deposited in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Gerard W. Langan, Jr., Esquire O'Malley & Langan, PC 9 N. Main St. Pittston, PA 18640 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER BY: djee? /V Ca n Jenson/ '111114mill 07952007_111 II 00003 00003 49 cate of Service Luze Cern'rtifiCounty Prothonotary V Y- 8/2/200712:38:52 PM N fi0'?'1 _ D0 Cv N , 007975 'I 2007_ 00011 Answer Luzerne County prothonotary 8122/2007 1223:29 PM RICHARD D. TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LUZERNE COUNTY PLAINTIFFS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW 'N = ? - V0 VS. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ro N DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK °,co CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, : a INC., AND JHT HOLDINGS, INC. DEFENDANTS ............................................................... : NO. 7975 - C OF 2007 ...................................................... o .................. ... ANSWER OF THE PLAINTIFFS. RICHARD TURNER AND NANCY TURNER. TO THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS NOW COMES the Plaintiffs, Richard Turner and Nancy Turner, his wife, who responds to the Preliminary Objections of the Defendants as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. The allegation in Paragraph 4 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 5. The allegation in Paragraph 5 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. Plaintiff's are without knowledge or information sufficient to forma belief as to the allegation contained in Paragraph 10. Strict proof is demanded. 11. Admitted. 12. Plaintiff's are unable to answer this allegation as it is unclear what the Defendants are alleging, making it difficult for the Plaintiffs to respond. Strict proof demanded. 13. Admitted. 14. The allegations in paragraph 14 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 15. The allegations in paragraph 15 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 16. The allegations in paragraph 16 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 17. The allegations in paragraph 17 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 18. Admitted. -2- 19. Denied. Auto Truck Transport, Inc., regularly conducts business in Macungie, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 2179, venue would be proper against Auto Truck Transport, Inc. in Lehigh County. Strict proof demanded. 20. The allegations in Paragraph 20 are statements of decisional law to which no responsive pleading is required. 21. The allegations in Paragraph 21 are statements of decisional law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, the concept of change of venue found in Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d) differs from that of improper venue. 22. The allegations in Paragraph 22 are statements of decision law to which no responsive pleading is required. 23. The allegations in Paragraph 23 are statements of decision law to which no responsive pleading is required. 24. The allegations in Paragraph 24 are statements of decision law to which no responsive pleading is required. 25. Admitted. 26. Denied. Auto Truck Transport, Inc. regularly conducts business in Macungie, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 2179, venue would be proper against Auto Truck Transport, Inc. in Lehigh County. Pa. R.C.P. 1006(c)(1) -3- allows venue for all Defendants in any county where venue rests for one Defendant. Strict proof demanded. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff's respectfully request this Honorable Court to dismiss the Preliminary Objections of the Defendants. In the alternative, the Plaintiffs request that the matter be transferred to Lehigh County where venue rest for the Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc. Respectfully submitted, O'MAL EY & LANGAN, P.C. A _ Gerard W. Langan, Jr., Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs, Richard Turner and Nancy Turner 9 N. Main Street, P.O. Box 664 Pittston, PA 18640 (570) 883-1321 -4- RICHARD D. TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife PLAINTIFFS VS. DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, : INC., AND JHT HOLDINGS, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LUZERNE COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS : NO. 7975 - C OF 2007 .......................................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................... ORDER AND NOW, this day of 2007, upon consideration of Defendant's Preliminary Objections, and Briefs in Support of Opposition of the same, it is hereby Ordered and Decreed that the Preliminary Objections are DISMISSED. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, it is hereby Ordered and Decreed that the captioned matter shall be transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania pursuant to Pa. R.C.P.(d)(3) and Plaintiffs shall pay the costs and fees to accomplish the transfer. SO ORDERED. J. Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County RICHARD D. TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife PLAINTIFFS VS. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LUZERNE COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 0 DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK .5 C CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, : , INC., AND JHT HOLDINGS, INC. N xY,or M A" DEFENDANTS : NO. 7975 - C OF 2007 w CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Gerard W. Langan, Jr., Esquire, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer of the Plaintiffs, Richard Turner and Nancy Turner, to the Preliminary Objections of the Defendants, upon the following individual by first class United States mail under date of August 21, 2007: Prothonotary - Luzerne County Luzerne County Courthouse 200 N. River Street Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711 John A. Slater, Esquire Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 O'MALLEY & LANGAN, P.C. Bu: /V ?A'rtrd W. Langan, Jr., E§(uire 9 N. Main Street, P.O. Box 664 Pittston, PA 18640 (570) 883-1321 1901 IN 2III 0079752007-00010 Certificate Of Service Luzerne County Prothonotary 8122/2007 12:23:42 PM KBIA, Rull III 0079752007-00009 Brief Luzerne County Prothonotary 8122/2007 12 15-58 PM RICHARD D. TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LUZERNE COUNTY PLAINTIFFS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW VS. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ' N DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, : INC., AND JHT HOLDINGS, INC. N mZ? DEFENDANTS : NO. 7975 - C OF 2007 BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS IN CD OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS STATEMENT OF THE CASE On July 23, 2005, Richard Turner suffered serious personal injuries when the tractor trailer, being operated by Daniel Cook, struck the motorcycle he was driving. The motor vehicle collision occurred on SR 11, Harrisburg Pike, Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. The Defendant, Daniel Cook, resided at the time in Asheville, North Carolina. The truck being operated by Mr. Cook was owned, leased or hired by the Defendants, Arizona Truck Center, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., and JHT Holdings, Inc. Of the three corporate defendants, the Defendant, Auto Truck Transport of Kentucky maintains a place of business located in Macungie, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. On July 13, 2007, the Plaintiffs, Richard Turner and Nancy Turner, filed an eight count civil complaint sounding in negligence against the Defendants. The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the Court of Common Please of Luzerne County. On or about August 1, 2007, the Defendants collectively filed Preliminary Objections raiding Improper Venue as the sole preliminary objection. At the same time, the Defendants filed their brief in support of the Preliminary Objections. The time is now ripe for Plaintiffs to file their response. ISSUE: WHETHER THE COURT SHOULD GRANT DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS AND TRANSFER THIS MATTER TO CUMBERLAND COUNTY FOR DISPOSITION? ANSWER: No. ARGUMENT: Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a) provides that "Preliminary Objections may be filed by any party to any pleading and are limited to the following grounds (1).... improper venue." Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1032(a) in relevant part provides "a party waives all ... objections which are not presented... by preliminary objection..." "If a preliminary objection to venue is sustained and there is a county of proper venue within the state the action shall not be dismissed but shall be transferred to the appropriate court of that county." Pa.R.C.P. 1006(e) Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1006 provides the general rules for venue -2- in actions brought in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Of specific reference, Pa.R.C.P. 1006(a)(1) provides that "an action against an individual may be brought in and only in a county in which (1) the individual may be served or in which the cause of action arose." For purpose of corporate defendants, Pa.R.C.P. 2179 (a) provides as follows: "a personal action against a corporation or similar entity may be brought in and only in: (1) the county where its registered office or principal place of business is located; (2) a county where it regularly conducts business; (3) the county where the cause of action arose; (4) a county where a transaction or occurrence took place out of which the cause of action arose, or (5) a county where the property or a part of the property which is the subject matter of the action is located provided that equitable relief is sought with respect to the property. (emphasis added) Finally, Pa.R.C.P. 1006 (c)(1) states: "an action to enforce a joint or joint and several against two or more defendants... may be brought against all defendants in any county in which the venue may be laid against any one of the defendants." Having set forth the appropriate venue rules, as well as the relevant factual background, the Plaintiffs submit that the Defendants' preliminary objections should be dismissed, or in the alternative, the matter transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of -3- Lehigh County. The insistence by the Defendants that Cumberland County is the only place for the case to be transferred is misplaced. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1006(c)(1) and 2179(a), Lehigh County serves as the appropriate venue for transfer of this claim. The Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, is a Kentucky corporation doing business at Terminal 553, 3202 Orchard Road, Macungie, Pennsylvania. See Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs' complaint. Pa.R.C.P. 2179 provides that proper venue for a corporation includes "a county where it regularly conducts business." Likewise, service of process in this matter was perfected on the Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, at its Macungie facility. No objection to service of process at that address has been raised; therefore, we can conclude that Auto Truck Transport regularly conducts busine3ss in Lehigh County. Pa. R.C.P. 1006(c)(1) allows for an action seeking joint and several liability against more than one defendant to be brought against all defendants in any county in which venue rests against one defendant. Since Auto Truck Transport regularly conducts business in Lehigh County, this matter may be brought against all defendants in Lehigh County. CONCLUSION: Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs, Richard Turner and Nancy Turner, request that this Honorable Court dismiss the Preliminary Objections of the Defendants, or in -4- the alternative, transfer this claim to Lehigh County, where the Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, regularly conducts business. Respectfully submitted, O'MAXLEY & LANGAN, P.C. l? Gerard W. Langan, jJr.s71 Attorney for Plaintiffs, Richard Turner and Nancy Turner 9 N. Main Street, P.O. Box 664 Pittston, PA 18640 (570) 883-1321 -5- RICHARD D. TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LUZERNE COUNTY PLAINTIFFS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW VS. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK No CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, : 7a INC., AND JHT HOLDINGS, INC. C3 p DEFENDANTS : NO. 7975 - C OF 2007 1? P, z;o .? .cam...... CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Gerard W. Langan, Jr., Esquire, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Brief of Plaintiffs in Opposition to Defendants' Preliminary Objections, upon the following individual by first class United States mail under date of August 21, 2007: Prothonotary - Luzerne County Luzerne County Courthouse 200 N. River Street Wlkes-Barre, PA 18711 John A. Slater, Esquire Johnson, DufFe, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 O'MALLEY & LANGAN, P.C. By: G ar W. Langan, Jr., Es re 9 N. Main Street, P.O. Box 664 Pittston, PA 18640 (570) 883-1321 1 111110, ?¦' 00797 1111111 52007-00008 Certificate of Service Luzerne County Prothonotary 8/22/2007 12:16:10 PM PETER JOHN \A0c--E5 Salicitcr ?Llty PraZhorctcry Jill A. Moran I'ratnonotan,/ LUZERVE COUNTY COURTHOU5E 200 North River 5tre.t VAl'ke3-Barre, Pennsylvania 15711-1001 Phone (570) 825-1745 Fax (570) 825-1757 TOO (570) 825-1500 FILE TRANSMITTAL FORM i' Plaintiff _ DOCKET NO: . . ? ? I wi. tl III Iii 111 0079752007.00012 File Transmittal - . Luzerne County Prothonotary 812a12007 4.05:10 PM Defendant. TRANSMITTED TO: JUDGE _..:_.......:...'....__._.........COUT Fil`711i11N1JTKE'ITOt{ . __. _............_ .._.......v_ ._..._.......... _._. _......... MASTER OTHER: Prothonotary Staff Initial: m,"Y' Received sy: LUZERNE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT Fax (570) 825-1 825-1651 200 NORTH RIVER STREET • WILKES-BARRE, PENNSYLVANIA 18711 SHERIFF SERVICE INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS: You must file one instruction sheet LESS RECEIPT, and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN for EACH DEFENDANT. Please type or print legibly. Do Not detach any copies, 1. PLA NTIFF S) 2. CART NUMBER ll60 c. D FEN ANT(S) d ( ) I U6 C14. TI WRIT fCOMPLAIO-V "-T- riuz?- 01 Will D ESS (Street, or FD, Apartment NiQ., C,iVt/??B-orc 7A NDICATE UNUSU L SERVICE: ERT MAIL ? DEPUTIZE E Now, This deputation being made at the request and risk of the plai vp;, SfOte alnd\A zip lode). )ST ? ? OTHER J f?I t` J_Tl ?1F 20 , I, SHERIFF OF LUZERNE COUNTY, PA., do hereby deputize the Sheriff of County to execir ar]?ma thereof according to law. f. SHERIFF OF LUZERNE COUNTY 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE. 9. PRINTPE NAME ANDr ADDRESS OF ATTORNEY/ORIGINATOR s (w 'nNJL 1 ?I?JIJ St?lnJ`'V r , ?? 11, i Olt APPLICABL OWRff OF 9%CyffON: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMEN-Any deputy sheriff levying upon or atta ing any property under wit ay leave same without a watchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession, after notifying person of levy or attachment, without liability on the part of such deputy or the sheriff to any plaintiff herein foilillipy loss, destruction or removal of any such property before sheriff's sale thereof. AMOUNT PAID SPACE • FOR USE OF SHERIFF • - DO NOT W RITE BELOW T HIS LINE 10. I ackr 7l a rec pt of the writ GNATU f Au adz LCSD eputy 11. Date i ed 12. Expiration/Hearing Date or r t as iiMated above. i TO BE OMPLETED BY SHERIFF 13. S?" a et nown to Defendant(s) on the .i1 a day of 20 , at o'clock, M., at '? r` County of luzeme. _ Q Commonwealth of Wnsylvania, in the manner described below: ? Defendant(s) personally served. ? Adult family member with whom said Defendant(s) reside(s). Relationship is ? Adult in charge of Defendant's residence. ? Manager/Clerk of place of lodging in which Defendant(s) reside(s). ? Agent or person in charge of Defendant's office or usual lace of business. r I ? Other 14 n the day of , 20 at o'clock, M. Defendant not found because: ? Moved ? Unknown ? No Answer ? Va cannt ? Other ? ? c REMARKS: 2Z S - ?? -' {'- U ` li / !`? y • , / C! RETURNED: O ANSWERS, 1 I ' - gnature of De ty 'III ?'I II I rif . D to -7 / 1 B. Signature Sheriff 19. Date 0079752007-00013 Sheriffs Service Luzerne County Prothonotary SHERIFF OF LUZERNE COUNTY 8/31/2007 253.56 PM 22. Date Received WHITE: Prothonotary PINK: Luzerne County Sheriff YELLOW: Attorney TTD (570) 825-1860 Jyu ewle coulap Afjeriff's 00471rtutent irweme countp courVouot 200 North River Street Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711 (570) 825-1652 RICHARD D. TURNER, ET UB Plaintiff Vs. DANIEL COOK, ET AL Defendant JHT HOLDINGS, INC. 4320 39TH AVENUE KENOSHI, WI 53144 Fax: (570) 825-1849 Date: JULY 13, 2007 Number: 7975-2007 Attorne : r=r'-1ARD W. LANGAN PhrT-, P0) 883-1321 ICE AND COI FLAINT - T VI'L ACTION " Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed. please find a CERTIFIED copy of the above captioned case, served. upon you according. to the Rules of Civil Process. Please be Governed Accordingly. Very Truly Yours, Barry L. Stankus, Sheriff. Luzerne County U.S Z Post al Ser vice CE RTIFI ED MAIL RE CEIP I (DoM estic M ail Only ; No Ins urance Coverage Prov ided) For de livery inf ormation visit ou r websit e at www us , . ps.co m,y 7975-07 a Postage $ Certified Fee ! f1l O Return Receipt Fee Postmark C3 (Endorsement Required) Here C3 Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) O M1 Total Postage & Fees ru ? sent To JHT HOLDINGS, Stets ApIV, __._."-- nqq --'----------------------- or PO Box No. City S - - -- .--KEROSBl.--?-..- L5 fefe, ----- ¦ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery Is deollred. ¦ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailplece, or on the front If space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: JHT HOLDINGS, INC. 4320 39TH AVENUE IMOSKI, WI 53144 7975-07 CIVIL MCL 7/13/07 Agent ? ? Addressee g, /Mem/o) C. Date of Delivery 14 D. Is delivery address do nt from item 1? ? Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: )kNo 3. service Tips ® Certified Mail ? Express Mail ? Registered ? Return Receipt for Merchandise ? Insured mail ? C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ? Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7 0 0 6 2760 0003 4 711 9061 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 LUZERNE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT Fax (570) 825-1849 COUNTY (570) 825-1651 + 200 NORTH RIVER STREET • WILKES-BARRE, PENNSYLVANIA 18711 SHERIFF SERVICE INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS: You must file one instruction sheet PROCESS RECEIPT, and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN for EACH DEFENDANT. Please type or print legibly, Do Not detach any copies. 1. PL NTIF ) L 2. CQURT NUMBER - el tj 3. DEFEN ANTO Q TYPE OF WRIT OMPLA ' AhA Tr-1 I v i L `- 6. AD RESS (Street, or FD, Apart ent No., City. Boro. , Sta a and Zip Code). AT ._ 7. INDICATE UNUSUAL SE TWICE: >01 RT. MAIL ? DEPUTIZE L?l PO ? OTHER Now, 20 , I, SHERIFF OF LUZERNE COUNTY, PA., do hereby deputize the Sheriff of County to exe!y ?makvil thereof according to law. This deputation being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff. ZIX7 SHERIFF OF LUZERNE COUNTY 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE. 9. PRINT/TYPE ?NAME ^ f AND ,ADDRESS OF ATTONE?Y/ORI ?NATOR O tAPPLICA "RIT OF?TION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMEN-Any deputy sheriff levying upon bLQWchIng any props under with' wr ay leave same without a watchman, in custody of whomever Is found in possession, after notifying person of levy or attachment, without liability on the part of such deputy or the sheriff to nnv ninintiff harain for anv loss. destruction or removal of anv such DroDerty before sheriff's sale thereof. AMOUNT PAID SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF SHERIFF ONLY - DO NOT W RITE BELOW THIS LINE 10. 1 acknowledgereceipt of the writ l /'S ION E of tho zed LC D Deputy 11. Dat iled 12. Expiration/Hearing Date or comploinfW indicated above. T F - TO COMPLETED BY SHERIFF Mz 13. S d rrEe known to Defendant(s) oni?18Q day of 20 , at o'clock, M, at _j :? C•1 County of Luzeme. y Cc n nth nnsylvania, in the manner described below: ? ant(05ersonally served. r ? milyWgmber with whom said Defendant(s) reside(s). Relationship is ? A ult idcha?of Defendant's residence. ? Manager/Clerk of place of lodging in which Defendant(s) reside(s). ? Agent or person in charge of Defendant's office or us al place of business. 11V 9 'Other ,4 AA- n the day of 20 , at o'clock, M. Defendant not found because: Vacant 0 Other No Answer 0 ? Moved ? Unknown ? p > ??/ ?( "' ! REMARKS: ? ?? ??i?( ???E??? ? .f?- ??J N• RETURNED: SO ANSWERS, ature of ff S f 'I III 'III g R?-? -7 tu a of S rif I J na 18. S9 "0 9. Date 1 0079752007-00014 7 Sheriffs Service Luzerne County Prothonotary SHERIFF OF LUZERNE COUNTY 8131/2007 2.54 .26 PM - 22. Date Received WHITE: Prothonotary PINK: Luzerne County Sheriff YELLOW: Attorney ) 825-1860 • ?u?errre ?ourrtp ?fjeriff',s' ?epartmertt X u erne caufto courtfioar Fax: (570) 825-1849 200 North River Street Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711 (570) 825-1652 RICHARD D. TURNER, ET U% Plaintiff Vs. DANIEL COOK, ET AL Defendant Date: JULY 13, 2007 Number: 7975-2007 ttorne : GERARD W. LANGAN Phone: (570) 883-1321 ,Type: NOTICE AND CO1rRYWNT IN CIVIL ACTION ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER 2402 SOUTH 19TH STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85009-5000 Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed please find a ..... CERTIFIED copy of the above captioned case, served upon you. according to the Rules.of Civil. Process. Please be Governed Accordingly. Very Truly Yours, Barry L. Stankus, Sheriff. Luzerne County A16 .- i.a? ..Y ¦ Complete items 1, 2, ai,. Aso compl-: item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ' ` ¦ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: A. B. Rene me) C." of Delivery D. Is delivery address diffwent from item 1? ? Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ? No ARIZONA TRUER CENTER 2402 SOUTH 19TH STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85009-5000 3. Service Type IN Certified Mail ? Express Mail ? Registered ? Return Receipt for Merchandise ? Insured Mail ? C.O.D. 7975-07 CIVIL MCL 7/13/07 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ? Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7006 2760 0003 4 711 9047 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595.02-M-1540 • .••. C3 793-5-2007 Postage $ Certified Fee ITl -? 4i Postmark ? Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) i Here C3 M Restricted Delivery Fee O (Endorsement Required) N Total Postage & Fees ru L C3 2402 SOUTH 19TH STREET --------------- 4 - PHOENI$; --ARIZ01VA •---- 950U9-50G0-- qE 570) 825-1 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT Fax (570) 825-1849 VT Y , 200 NORTH RIVER STREET • WILKES-BARRE, PENNSYLVANIA 18711 SHERIFF SERVi WE INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS: You must file one instruction sheet ACESS RECEIPT, and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN for EACH DEFENDANT. Please type or print legibly. Do Not detach any copies. 1. Pl..,19S) t ?? 2. COURTVUMB R -Q107) ls? 3. EFE DA (S d 4. TYPE OF WRIT or COMPL NT fETC., TO SERVICE OR DESCRIPTION 91F PRO Y TO E LEVIED, ATTACHED OR SOLD. SERVE 5. NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY, C RA O , AT ADDRESS (Street, or RFD, Ap rtment No. City, Bor T p., State d Zip Code) 7. INDICATE UNUSUAL SERVICE: ERT MAIL ? DEPUTIZE ? POST ? OTHE C/JC Now, 20 ,1, SHERIFF OF LUZERNE COUNTY, PA., do hereby deputize the Sheriff of County to exegil ism' aroma thereof according to law. ?S? This deputation being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff. SHERIFF OF LUZERNE COUNTY 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE. AMOUNT PAID 9. PRINT/TYPE NAM AND AD RES OF ATTORNEY/ORIGINATOR GleA ? r`?E L APPOUAW ON W O EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMEN-Any deputy sheriff levying upon or attaching any property and n writ may leave same without a watchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession, after notifying person of levy or attachment, without liability on the part of such deputy or the sheriff to any plaintiff herein for any loss, destruction or removal of any such property before sheriff's sale thereof. 10. 1 acknowledge receipt of the writ ?ON17 of Auth ized LC D Depufy 11. or complaint as Indicated above. 0 TO JIM COMPLETED BY SHERIFF 13. Served and made known to - 0- day of 20 , at at alth gnnsylvania, in the manner described below: Jant(tlpersonally served. omil ember with whom said Defendant(s) reside(s). Relationship is i ch=e of Defendant's residence. ler/Mrk of place of lodging in which Defendant(s) reside(s), or person in charge of Defendant's office or usuoll lace of business. ! i r / 1 t Date _, Defendant(s) o'clock, M, County of Luzerne. "Au n t IV day of 20 , at o'clock, M. ` O DefendarAot famd because: ? Moved ? Unknown ? No Answer ? Vacaannt/ ? Other ?.?/? -1-o"7 REMARKS: aJ "' l1 z -J -/ RETURNED: SO ANSWERS, mill 199 ? 'II? ff__1I1I? lei 18. Signature Sheriff er' $ D 19. Date 0079752007-00015 _ Sheriffs Service SHERIFF OF LUZERNE COUNTY Luzerne County Prothonotary 813112007 2'.54-.47 PM 22. DOfe ReC@IVed 7.1997 WHITE: Prothonotary PINK: Luzerne County Sheriff YELLOW: Attorney TTD (570) 825-1860 Xu errme coufto.0fjerfff'o'ovartmertt zup me countp courtffiew 200 North River Street Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711 (570) 825-1652 RICHARD D. TURNER, ET UX Plaintiff Vs. DANIEL COOK, ET AL Defendant Fax: (570) 825-1849 I Date: JULY 13, 2007 Number: 7975-2007 Attorney: GERARD W. LANGAN Phone: (570) 883-1321 Type: NOTICE AND CO NT IN CIVIL ACTION " AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC. TERMINAL 553 3203 ORCHARD ROAD MAf'iMCTF. PA 1 RQfi2 Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed please find. a. . CERTIFIED copy of the above captioned case, served. upon you according. to the Rules. of Civil. Process. Please be Governed Accordingly. Very Truly Yours, Barry L. Stankus, Sheriff. Luzerne County ¦ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Aleu . item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC. TERMINAL 553 3203 ORCHARD ROAD MACUNGIE, PA 18062 7975-07 CIVIL MCL 7/13/07 ? Agent Received by Name) I Date qf? livery ` t A;&, °,ry1l/U/ D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ? Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ? No L 3. Service Type Xi certified mail ? Express Mail ?-Registered ? Return Receipt for Merchandiep ? Insured Mail ? C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ? Yes 2. Article Number 7006 2760 0003 4711 9054 !Transfer from service label) PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt Postal Service • , MAIL,ri RECEIPT (Domestic MW Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) Ln • • Er ? 74??-2007 .? Postage $ P- Certified Fee M Postmark Return Receipt Fee Here (Endorsement Required) C3 0 Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) E3 Total Postage & Fees $ rU Sent To AUTO TERMI__NAL TRUCK__ 553 To -Y7 " -AIR DOlix__INC--_--_-- sheet, Apr: C3 or PO Box No. -.-__--__ ? City State. ZIP+4 `-----'32?--?CHA1?--1WAD------------ -- 102595-02-M-1540 LUZERNE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT F°" (570 1651 825 COUNTY - ) 101- 200 NORTH RIVER STREET is WILKES-BARRE, PENNSYLVANIA 18711 SHERLFF SERVICE INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS: You must file one instruction sheet PROCESS REC EIPT, and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN for EACH DEFENDANT. Please type or print legibly. Do Not detach any copies. 1. AINTIFF( . 2. COURT NUMBER + ?p U 07) 3 EFENDANT(S) T E OF WRIT or OMPLA SERVE 6. DDRESS (I AT 7. INDICATE UNUS AL SERVICE: Now, L c_Jy ?- r R' , A artment No., City, Boro., CERT. MAIL ? DEPUTIZE ? Thic rlan Aritinn haina made at the reauest and risk of the r ., State oacl}Zip Code). ? is Ve- ; J Ii LLE ? C4 IST ? OTHER 20 , I, SHERIFF OF LUZERNE COUNTY, PA., do hereby deputize the Sheriff of thereof according to law. County to exec I7 f ?? SHERIFF OF LUZERNE COUNTY 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE. 9. PRINT/TYPE NAME AP ?.. Vq rl? I or attaching any properly under w in possession, after notifying perso to any plaintiff herein for any loss, 10. 1 acknowledge receipt of the writ or complaint as indicated above. ZION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMEN-Any deputy sheriff levying upon ry leave same without a watchman, in custody of whomever is found attachment, without liability on the part of such deputy or the sheriff i or removal of any such property before sheriff's sale thereof. 13. Served and made knoV&o on the day of nt C.f....._ f""7 nmonwe WTnsyl=ia, in the manner described below: ? Deferl _ ISO ally served. C] Adult a rnber,vith whom said Defendant(s) reside(s). Relationship is ? Adult F ..c f Dr ldant'S residence. ? Manager (ktf pldof lodging in which Defendant(s) reside(s). ? Agent or p j a Wn ch e of Defendant's office or usual place of business. Defendant not found because: Answer ? Unknown ? No ? Moved ? Vacant ? Other REMARKS: eE:7VP_0,Jc`_b RETURNED: Date _, Defendant(s) o'clock, M.. County of Luzeme. SO ANSWERS, ri 6 t 1 ' 'I III g Lure of Deputy, J 'III ? 1 B. Signature of eriff 19. Date 0079752007-00016 Sheriffs Service Luzerne County Prothonotary SHERIFF OF LUZERNE COUNTY 8/3112007 253.25 PM 22. Date Received I 20 , at )DRESS OF ATTORNEY/ORIGINATOR J . CIII_N_? v INV ? SSA Deputy QED BY SHERIFF AMOUNT PAID c~ c C= o c, C= 'n { C 70 r- ? 1 r- C) rn moo n x V ` 1 t7 V U) /mar _ d 7-1997 WHITE: Prothonotary PINK: Luzerne County Sheriff YELLOW: Attorney TTD (570) 825-1860 Fax: (570) 825-1849 'fugrne countp.0fjeriff 10 orpartmeat 'Eugntr countp courtfjouge 200 North River Street Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711 (570) 825-1652 RICHARD D. TURNER, ET UB Plaintiff Vs. DANIEL COOK, ET AL Defendant DANIEL COOK 1854 HENDERSONVILLE ROAD ASHEVILLE, N.C. 28803 Dear Sir or Madam: Date: JULY 13, 2007 Number: 7975-2007 Attorne : GERARD NGON, ESQ. Phone: (570) 883-1321 Type: NOTICE AND COMPLAINT Enclosed. please find. a CERTIFIED copy of the above. captioned. case, served upon. you. according. to the Rules of Civil. Process. Please be Governed Accordingly. Very Truly Yours, Barry L. Stankus, Sheriff. Luzerne County m Er z STA T975-9007 C? Postage $ .7' M Certified Fee ' O Return Receipt Fee 0 (Endorsement Required) Postmark C3 Restricted Delivery Fee Here O (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees $ n, o _ __ DANIEL COOK Sfre'et At ----"'-"'---•-- or Po P. NoIVo; . 18541DEItSO r NoILLE ItD City, state, zlP+4 -----•-?1'S1fE?jI;j;Lr.____ (Page 1 of 2) 1 1 .r... e•.?wr: T.'y .*S,n° }Z ., ar:a?'a*7n„42 Vagt?g+';",. '!?'?"!? ,.?„,.x..*..q .y,;r,,,.K, n... ^F-':.?. ,. . ;?'• .cif 1.?. f( 3• $ j (to 0 UNO r 04M. it ° r J z4u (h y 3WO rn ? a( wHx a aaa ? n ri r w m td p ?+ ' a m m . ?.._ a Qr' cl co pp r> C3 0 .?? X.-PO N W n, U C3 w O a CL O ? r Le L O~D 4 E ? m d ? w ?;a F, r: . Vd l( l" _?? P (Page 2 of 2) ?, M Y V;- • w? i ro o .i ri?t W O Ir ru it C3 M 0 w r I L-J 0 W i O i } { S t i I i _ ;t. i F s RICHARD D. TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife PLAINTIFFS VS. DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LUZERNE COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED INC., AND JHT HOLDINGS, INC. DEFENDANTS : NO. 7975 - C OF 2007 PRAECIPE TO RE-INSTATE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: W CD Please Re-Instate Complaint against Defendants in the above-captioned matter. O'MALLEY & LANGAN, P.C. 1/lJ ? erard W. Langan Jr., squire Attorney for Plaintiffs 'III ? ??? ? , I'7?1 X11 II 0079752007-00018 Praecipe To Reinstate Complaint Luzerne County Prothonotary 9/17/2007 8:34:08 AM ?? ,n.,J ?-_ i_ -./ ' T] ,._ , --a rr `'`' - r; __, _.. . ?. ?__ ??; ?', _? RICHARD D. TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PLAINTIFFS VS. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, : INC., AND JHT HOLDINGS, INC. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS : NO. 2007-CIV-5884 .......................................................................................................................................... PRAECIPE TO RE-INSTATE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please Re-Instate Complaint against Defendants in the above-captioned matter. O'MALLEY & LANGAN, P.C. YL" t erard W/Canban, Jr., squire Attorney for Plaintiffs R? 8 n R? a a a t' V 5r?: ?.7 % RICHARD D. TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PLAINTIFFS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW VS. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK _ CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, : INC., AND JHT HOLDINGS, INC. DEFENDANTS : NO. 2007-CIV-5884 .......................................................................................................................................... PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE VERIFICATION OF PLAINTIFFS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly substitute the Verification of Richard and Nancy Turner, Plaintiffs, to the Complaint which was filed with the Verification of Plaintiffs' attorney, Gerard W. Langan Jr., Esquire. OWALLEY & LANGAN, P.C. )6efard Van n, r., Esquire Attorney for PI i s VERIFICATION WE, RICHARD AND NANCY TURNER, Plaintiffs, hereby verify that we have read the foregoing Plaintiffs' Complaint and that insofar as it is based upon r information within our own knowledge, it is true and correct, insofar as it is based upon r the expertise of counsel, we have relied upon counsel in making this verification. The language of the pleading is that of counsel and not our own. We understand that this verification is made subject to the provisions of 18 PA C.S. 4904 pertaining to unsworn 4 falsification to authorities. Al Ile-1 RIC ARD TURNER N NCY T NER DATE: ?L-`8- a7 f 4 CD .r3 C , i _ e ??: r e RICHARD D. TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife PLAINTIFFS VS. DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, : INC., AND JHT HOLDINGS, INC. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS : NO. 5884 - C OF 2007 ...........................::::::::::::::: PRAECIPE TO RE INST,g7? COMP e?NT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please Re-Instate Complaint against Defendants in the above-captioned matter. & LANGAN, P.C. rd W. a an, Jr., ?- ieY for intiffc wire oo o (7 r a t _I Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: John A. Statler, Esquire I.D. No. 43812 Wade D. Manley, Esquire I.D. No. 87244 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 jas@jdsw.com wdm@jdsw.com RICHARD TURNER and NANCY TURNER, His Wife, Plaintiffs V. Attorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, NO. Q'7. 5S8q Civi I T riv AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC., and JHT HOLDINGS, INC., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: RICHARD TURNER and NANCY TURNER c/o Gerard W. Langan, Jr., Esquire O'Malley & Langen, P.C. 9 N. Main Street Pittston, PA 18640 AND NOW, this 12*% day of NvverrrWr, 2007, you are hereby notified to plead responsively within 20 days of the date of service hereof, or judgment may be entered against you. JOHNSQN, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER av" By: IJVF] John Statl, Esquire Attorn v I.D. o.43812 Wade D-Malley Attorney I.D. No. 87244 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendants 9 Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: John A. Statler, Esquire I.D. No. 43812 Wade D. Manley, Esquire I.D. No. 87244 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 jas@jdsw.com wdm@jdsw.com RICHARD TURNER and NANCY TURNER, His Wife, Plaintiffs Attorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC., and JHT HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants NO. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS', AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC., and JHT HOLDINGS, INC. ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW come the Defendants, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., and JHT Holdings, Inc., by and through their attorneys, Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, P.C. and file the following Answer with New Matter to the Plaintiffs' Complaint, and aver as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that the Plaintiff, Richard D. Turner, was operating a 2003 Kawasaki 1500 motorcycle south on SR Route 11, Harrisburg Pike, Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania at the date and time identified. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff, Richard D. Turner, was lawfully, carefully and prudently operating that motorcycle, as it asserts a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed required, the averment that the Plaintiff, Richard D. Turner, was lawfully, carefully and prudently operating that motorcycle is specifically denied. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 10. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that certain parts of South SR Route 11 is a two lane roadway. It is denied that South SR Route 11 is entirely a two lane roadway. 11. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that the Defendant, Daniel Cook, at the time of the accident, was operating a 2005 Mac CV713C tractor trailer in the course of his employment with Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc. It is specifically denied that Defendant, Daniel Cook, was operating the tractor trailer in the course of employment with Answering Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc. Additionally, the remaining averments are specifically denied as they are conclusions of law to which no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the remaining averments contained in this paragraph are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 12. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that the Defendant, Daniel Cook, was traveling south on SR Route 11. The remaining averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 13. Denied. The factual averments of this paragraph are inaccurate, irrelevant and prejudicial to the Defendants in the filing of this civil action. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. COUNT I NEGLIGENCE RICHARD D. TURNER v. DANIEL COOK 15. Defendants incorporate paragraphs 1-14 as if fully set forth at length herein. 16. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 17. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 18. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 19. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 20. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 21. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 22. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 23. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. COUNT II NEGLIGENCE RICHARD TURNER v. ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER 24. Defendants incorporate paragraphs 1-23 as if fully set forth at length herein. 25. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 26. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 27. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 28. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 29. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 30. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 31. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 32. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. COUNT 111 NEGLIGENCE RICHARD TURNER v. AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT. INC. 33. Defendants incorporate paragraphs 1-32 as if fully set forth at length herein. 34. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 35. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 36. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 37. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 38. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 39. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 40. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 41. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. COUNT IV NEGLIGENCE RICHARD TURNER v. JHT HOLDINGS, INC. 42. Defendants incorporate paragraphs 1-41 as if fully set forth at length herein. 43. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 44. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 45. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 46. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 47. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 48. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 49. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 50. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc., respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. COUNT V LOSS OF CONSORTIUM NANCY TURNER v. DANIEL COOK 51. Defendants incorporate paragraphs 1-50 as if fully set forth at length herein. 52. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 53. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. COUNT VI LOSS OF CONSORTIUM NANCY TURNER v. ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER 54. Defendants incorporate paragraphs 1-53 as if fully set forth at length herein. 55. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 56. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. COUNT VII LOSS OF CONSORTIUM NANCY TURNER v. AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT. INC. 57. Defendants incorporate paragraphs 1-56 as if fully set forth at length herein. 58. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 59. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Auto Truck Transport Center, Inc., respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. COUNT VIII LOSS OF CONSORTIUM NANCY TURNER v. JHT HOLDINGS, INC. 60. Defendants incorporate paragraphs 1-59 as if fully set forth at length herein. 61. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 62. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc., respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. NEW MATTER By way of additional answer and reply, the Answering Defendants raise the following new matters: 63. Some or all of the Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 64. Some or all of the Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part and/or are limited by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (75 Pa.C.S.A. §1701, et. seq.), and especially by §1722 of that law. 65. Discovery may reveal that the Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages. 66. Discovery may reveal that some or all of the Plaintiffs' alleged injuries, conditions, or damages pre-existed the date of the subject accident and were not caused or aggravated by this accident. 67. Discovery may reveal that some or all of the Plaintiffs' injuries, conditions or damages were caused by the events that occurred subsequent to the subject accident. 68. To the extent that the Plaintiffs have been or will be paid for some or all of their damages, then the claims for those damages are barred both by §1722 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and by the defense of payment generally. 69. The Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action upon which any relief of any kind can be granted. 70. The Plaintiffs' causes of action alleged are barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of comparative negligence and/or contributory negligence, as may be applied to the facts disclosed in discovery. 71. The mechanism in the Plaintiffs' alleged injuries was under the care, custody and control of persons or entities other than the Answering Defendants. 72. The mechanism in Plaintiffs' alleged injuries was under the care, custody and control of persons or entities other than the Answering Defendants, such persons including but not limited to the Plaintiffs. 73. The Plaintiffs' causes of actions alleged damages claimed by the Plaintiffs that were created and/or caused by individuals under circumstances over whom the Answering Defendants had no control or right to control. 74. Sudden and unexpected conditions at the time of the accident created a sudden emergency for drivers on the roadway, including the Answering Defendants, Auto Truck Transport, Inc. and JHT Holdings, Inc. WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendants respectfully request that the Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be entered in favor of the Answering Defendants. Respectfully submitted, JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: John A. at er, Esquire Attorney MY No. 43812 Wade D. Manley Attorney I.D. No. 87244 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendants Date: 14,1 a `01 312235 VERIFICATION ,, STMArh k. 0-n??al?G , representative of JHT HOLDINGS, INC., have read the foregoing Answer with 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. Dated: 10P.12 1 ZOO -7 JHT HOLDINGS, INC. e Name: n Title: Y P - :312235 Nov 16 07 10:21a AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT 7042784211 p.2 i. Oe, , e/ i3 , ,s/o w r , representative of AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT. INC.. have read the foregoing Complaint and hereby affirm that it is true and correct to the best of my pamonal knowiedge, or information and belief. This Verification and statement is made subject to the penalties of IS Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unworn 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 IS Pa. C.S. §4$04. AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT Dated: /j? "'0 el 7 .11 Name: Title: 312235 VERIFICATION I, DANIEL COOK, have read the foregoing Answer with 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. Dated: /.2 ?_ v r L?' J- '?;4' DANIEL COO 312235 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ay of December, 2007, the undersigned does hereby certify that she did this date serve a copy of the foregoing document upon the other parties of record by causing same to be deposited in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Gerard W. Langan, Jr., Esquire O'Malley & Langen, P.C. 9 N. Main Street Pittston, PA 18640 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: 4Caleen S. Jensen :312235 c ? r.a 4::r p -Ti C J i.1@ s "'[7 t i . rn ? { Jz- 01/03/2008 14:47 FAX 570 344 6199 RICHARD D. TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife O'MALLEY&LANGAN P.C. 2003 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PLAINTIFFS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW VS. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, AUTO 'rRUCK TRANSPORT, : INC., AND JHT HOLDINGS, INC. DEFENDA 4TS : NO. 5884 - C OF 2007 ACC _PTANCE OF YICE I, JOHN A, STA*R, ESQUIRE, do hereby ?ic cept service of the Complaint filed to the above-captioned docket number, on behalf of Defendant, Daniel Cook, this 3 rd' day of January, 2008. 7 John A. Sutler, Attorney for Defendants _ :i,7 TlZ "t:::u r _t RICHARD D. TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife PLAINTIFFS VS. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, : INC., AND JHT HOLDINGS, INC. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS : NO. 2007-CIV-5884 PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC. AND JHT HOLDINGS. INC. AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, Richard D. Turner and Nancy Turner, his wife, by and through their attorneys, O'Malley & Langan, P.C. and respectfully responds to Defendant's New Matter as follows: 63. The allegations contained in Paragraph 63 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 63 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time. 64. The allegations contained in Paragraph 64 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 64 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time. 65. The allegations contained in Paragraph 65 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 65 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time. 66. The allegations contained in Paragraph 66 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 66 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time. 67. The allegations contained in Paragraph 67 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 67 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time. 68. The allegations contained in Paragraph 68 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 68 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time. 69. The allegations contained in Paragraph 69 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 69 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time. 70. The allegations contained in Paragraph 70 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 70 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time. 71. The allegations contained in Paragraph 71 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 71 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time. 72. The allegations contained in Paragraph 72 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 72 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time. 73. The allegations contained in Paragraph 73 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 73 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time. 74. The allegations contained in Paragraph 74 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 74 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time. Respectfully submitted: OWALLEY & LANGAN, P.C. __.---- Gerard W. Langan, Jr., Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs `?. ?'??> ' ?„ ?:Y - r- ?3 ..f:} r ?-? ''° __.. _. ..'? ,W ,:* ? ? y-. ? ..? ; , ,i. ??'?.) f ?: ?-7 RICHARD D. TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife vs. PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, : INC., AND JHT HOLDINGS, INC. DEFENDANTS : NO. 5884 - C OF 2007 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Gerard W. Langan, Jr., Esquire, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Acceptance of Service of Complaint from John Statler, Esquire, on behalf of Defendant, Daniel Cook, upon the following individual by first class United States mail under date of January 16, 2008 John A. Statler, Esquire Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 O'MALLY-Y & LANGAN, P.C. By: 9Aain StreeP.O Pittston, PA 18640 (570) 883-1321 ? -t? Wit. c.... ?- ? ? ? .. . ?. ' ? RICHARD D. TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife vs. PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, : INC., AND JHT HOLDINGS, INC. DEFENDANTS : NO. 2007-CIV-5884 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Gerard W. Langan, Jr., Esquire, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Answers to Interrogatories and Response to Request for Production of Documents upon the following individual by first class United States mail under date of February 12, 2008 John A. Statler, Esquire Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 O'MALL Y & LANGAN, P.C. By: an n ., s uir? rNa in Stre , PA 18640 (570) 883-1321 ?i .7 RICHARD D. TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife PLAINTIFFS VS. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY : CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, : INC., AND JHT HOLDINGS, INC. DEFENDANTS : NO. 2007-CIV-5884 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Gerard W. Langan, Jr., Esquire, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents upon all Defendants upon the following individual by first class United States mail under date of February 12, 2008 John A. Statler, Esquire Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 9 N. Main Street, F Pittston, PA 18640 (570) 883-1321 P.O. Box 109 O'MALLEY & LANGAN, P.C. m r C Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner By: John A. Statler, Esquire I. D. No. 43812 Wade D. Manley, Esquire I.D. No. 87244 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 jas@jdsw.com wdm@jdsw.com RICHARD TURNER and NANCY TURNER, His Wife, Plaintiffs V. Attorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, NO. 5884-CIV-2007 AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC., and JHT HOLDINGS, INC., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: RICHARD TURNER and NANCY TURNER c/o Gerard W. Langan, Jr., Esquire O'Malley & Langen, P.C. 9 N. Main Street Pittston, PA 18640 AND NOW, this 40 day of April, 2008, you are hereby notified to plead responsively within 20 days of the date of service hereof, or judgment may be entered against you. JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: John A. Statl r, Esquire Attorney I. D N . 43812 Wade D. Man ey Attorney I.D. No. 87244 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendants Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: John A. Statler, Esquire I.D. No. 43812 Wade D. Manley, Esquire I.D. No. 87244 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 jas@jdsw.com wdm@jdsw.com RICHARD TURNER and NANCY TURNER, His Wife, Plaintiffs V. Attorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, NO. 5884-CIV-2007 AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC., and JHT HOLDINGS, INC., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants DEFENDANT'S, DANIEL COOK'S. ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW come the Defendant's, Daniel Cook, by and through his attorneys, Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, P.C. and file the following Answer with New Matter to the Plaintiffs' Complaint, and aver as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that the Plaintiff, Richard D. Turner, was operating a 2003 Kawasaki 1500 motorcycle south on SR Route 11, Harrisburg Pike, Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania at the date and time identified. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff, Richard D. Turner, was lawfully, carefully and prudently operating that motorcycle, as it asserts a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed required, the averment that the Plaintiff, Richard D. Turner, was lawfully, carefully and prudently operating that motorcycle is specifically denied. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 10. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that certain parts of South SR Route 11 is a two lane roadway. It is denied that South SR Route 11 is entirely a two lane roadway. 11. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that the Defendant, Daniel Cook, at the time of the accident, was operating a 2005 Mac CV713C tractor trailer in the course of his employment with Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc. It is specifically denied that Defendant, Daniel Cook, was operating the tractor trailer in the course of employment with Answering Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc. Additionally, the remaining averments are specifically denied as they are conclusions of law to which no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the remaining averments contained in this paragraph are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 12. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that the Defendant, Daniel Cook, was traveling south on SR Route 11. The remaining averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 13. Denied. The factual averments of this paragraph are inaccurate, irrelevant and prejudicial to the Defendants in the filing of this civil action. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. COUNT I NEGLIGENCE RICHARD D. TURNER v. DANIEL COOK 15. Defendants incorporate paragraphs 1-14 as if fully set forth at length herein. 16. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 17. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 18. Denied. The averments, contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 19. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 20. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 21. . Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 22. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 23. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph area conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. COUNT II NEGLIGENCE RICHARD TURNER v. ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER 24. Defendants incorporate paragraphs 1-23 as if fully set forth at length herein. 25. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 26. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 27. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 28. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 29. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 30. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 31. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 32. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. COUNT III NEGLIGENCE RICHARD TURNER v. AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC. 33. Defendants incorporate paragraphs 1-32 as if fully set forth at length herein. 34. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 35. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 36. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 37. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 38. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 39. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 40. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 41. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. COUNT IV NEGLIGENCE RICHARD TURNER v. JHT HOLDINGS. INC. 42. Defendants incorporate paragraphs 1-41 as if fully set forth at length herein. 43. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 44. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 45. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 46. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 47. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 48. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 49. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 50. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc., respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. COUNT V LOSS OF CONSORTIUM NANCY TURNER v. DANIEL COOK 51. Defendants incorporate paragraphs 1-50 as if fully set forth at length herein. 52. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 53. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. COUNT VI LOSS OF CONSORTIUM NANCY TURNER v. ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER 54. Defendants incorporate paragraphs 1-53 as if fully set forth at length herein. 55. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 56. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants, therefore, no response is required. If it is deemed that a response is required, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. COUNT VII LOSS OF CONSORTIUM NANCY TURNER v. AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT. INC. 57. Defendants incorporate paragraphs 1-56 as if fully set forth at length herein. 58. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 59. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Auto Truck Transport Center, Inc., respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. COUNT VIII LOSS OF CONSORTIUM NANCY TURNER v. JHT HOLDINGS. INC. 60. Defendants incorporate paragraphs 1-59 as if fully set forth at length herein. 61. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 62. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, JHT Holdings, Inc., respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. NEW MATTER By way of additional answer and reply, the Answering Defendants raise the following new matters: 63. Some or all of the Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 64. Some or all of the Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part and/or are limited by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (75 Pa.C.S.A. §1701, et seq.), and especially by §1722 of that law. 65. Discovery may reveal that the Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages. 66. Discovery may reveal that some or all of the Plaintiffs' alleged injuries, conditions, or damages pre-existed the date of the subject accident and were not caused or aggravated by this accident. 67. Discovery may reveal that some or all of the Plaintiffs' injuries, conditions or damages were caused by the events that occurred subsequent to the subject accident. 68. To the extent that the Plaintiffs have been or will be paid for some or all of their damages, then the claims for those damages are barred both by §1722 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and by the defense of payment generally. 69. The Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action upon which any relief of any kind can be granted. 70. The Plaintiffs' causes of action alleged are barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of comparative negligence and/or contributory negligence, as may be applied to the facts disclosed in discovery. 71. The mechanism in the Plaintiffs' alleged injuries was under the care, custody and control of persons or entities other than the Answering Defendants. 72. The mechanism in Plaintiffs' alleged injuries was under the care, custody and control of persons or entities other than the Answering Defendants, such persons including but not limited to the Plaintiffs. 73. The Plaintiffs' causes of actions alleged damages claimed by the Plaintiffs that were created and/or caused by individuals under circumstances over whom the Answering Defendants had no control or right to control. 74. Sudden and unexpected conditions at the time of the accident created a sudden emergency for drivers on the roadway, including the Answering Defendants, Auto Truck Transport, Inc. and JHT Holdings, Inc. WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendants respectfully request that the Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be entered in favor of the Answering Defendants. Respectfully submitted, JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: A John A. St e , Esquire Attorney I. . o. 43812 Wade D. ey Attorney I.D. No. 87244 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendants Date: 4WOO :328140 VERIFICATION 1, DANIEL COOK, have read the foregoing Answer with 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. Dated: DANIEL COO :312235 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this f day of April, 2008, the undersigned does hereby certify that she did this date serve a copy of the foregoing document upon the other parties of record by causing same to be deposited in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Gerard W. Langan, Jr., Esquire O'Malley & Langen, P.C. 9 N. Main Street Pittston, PA 18640 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: Car n S. Jens n ? ? Q --- .?", ?_ n ? s" ? ct't? ?? r r ?; ( ?-.J ?? ? , _ ? ?'? ? ?h+) t17 RICHARD D. TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife PLAINTIFFS VS. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, : INC., AND JHT HOLDINGS, INC. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS : NO. 2007-CIV-5884 PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT DANIEL COOK AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, Richard D. Turner and Nancy Turner, his wife, by and through their attorneys, O'Malley & Langan, P.C. and respectfully responds to Defendant Daniel Cook's New Matter as follows: 63. The allegations contained in Paragraph 63 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 63 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time. 64. The allegations contained in Paragraph 64 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 64 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time. 65. The allegations contained in Paragraph 65 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 65 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time. 66. The allegations contained in Paragraph 66 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 66 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time 67. The allegations contained in Paragraph 67 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 67 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time. 68. The allegations contained in Paragraph 68 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 68 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time. 69. The allegations contained in Paragraph 69 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 69 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time. 70. The allegations contained in Paragraph 70 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 70 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time. 71. The allegations contained in Paragraph 71 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 71 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time. 72. The allegations contained in Paragraph 72 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 72 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time. 73. The allegations contained in Paragraph 73 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 73 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time. 74. The allegations contained in Paragraph 74 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 74 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time. Respectfully submitted: O'MALLEY & LANGAN, P.C. erard W. Langan, Jr.Zuire Attorney for Plaintiffs `",? '' ( } ;) ? ( ., ? ?;, ? nr -? , ._... -7? ? ? y,- .,_ , ?o-. ? r?i a ' , RICHARD D. TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife PLAINTIFFS VS. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, : INC., AND JHT HOLDINGS, INC. DEFENDANTS : NO. 2007-CIV-5884 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Gerard W. Langan, Jr., Esquire, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Response to New Matter of Defendant Caniel Cook , upon the following individual by first class United States mail under date of April 2008: John A. Statler, Esquire Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 James J. Dodd-O, Esq. Thomas, Thomas & Hafer. LLP 3101 Emrick Boulevard Suite 310 Bethlehem, PA 18020 O'MALLEY & LANGAN, ?. By: G and W. Langan, Jr., qui e 9 N. Main Street, P.O. Box 664 Pittston, PA 18640 (570) 883-1321 t> ,.,,, r - ° C? - ? r? i=r t,?°? --- 't.~, "'7 I THOMAS, THOMAS & AFER, LLP By: James J. Dodd-o, squire Attorney Identification No. 44678 3101 Emrick Boulevar Suite 310 Bethlehem, PA 18020'. (610) 332-7000 Attorneys for Defendant: Arizona Truck Center IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION - LAW i :RICHARD D. TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife, Plaintiffs Vs. NO.: 2007-CIV-5884 DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC., and JHT MOLDINGS, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED BY Defendants A JURY OF TWELVE PERSONS ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please eater the appearance of the undersigned as attorneys for Defendant Arizona Truck Center, only, in the above matter. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOM & HAFER, LLP Dated:_ U BY: ame J. Dodd-o, Esquire attorneys for Defendant Arizona Truck Center CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on the) ,/:!? day of April, 2008, a true and correct copy of the foregoing ENTRY OF APPEARANCE was served, via U.S. First Class mail, upon the following: Gerard W. Langan, Jr., Esquire O'MALLEY & LAN(?AN, P.C. 9 North Main Street Pittston, PA 18640 Wade Manley, Esquire JOHNSON, DUFFIV, STEWART & WEIDNER 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 TH .S , WAS & HAFER, LLP r ,. BY: 'L ri A. Carr, Legal Secretary to James J. Dodd-o, Esquire T r THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: James J. Dodd-o, Esquire Attorney Identification No. 44678 3101 Emrick Boulevard Suite 310 Bethlehem, PA 18020 (610) 332-7000 Attorneys for Defendant: Arizona Truck Center IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION - LAW RICHARD D. TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife, Plaintiffs VS. NO.: 2007-CIV-5884 DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC., and JHT HOLDINGS, INC., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED BY Defendants A JURY OF TWELVE PERSONS NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: RICHARD D. TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife, Plaintiffs C/O Gerard W. Langan, Jr., Esquire O'MALLEY & LANGAN, P.C. 9 North Main Street Pittston, PA 18640 DANIEL COOK, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, and JHT HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants C/O Wade Manley, Esquire JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 It You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed Answer and New Matter within twenty (20) days or a default may be entered against you. BY: Dated: li (dli?arov THOMAS, TH & HAFER, LLP jymef/i. Dodd-o, Esquire torneys for Defendant Arizona Truck Center 2 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: James J. Dodd-o, Esquire Attorney Identification No. 44678 3101 Emrick Boulevard Suite 310 Bethlehem, PA 18020 (610) 332-7000 Attorneys for Defendant: Arizona Truck Center IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION - LAW RICHARD D. TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife, Plaintiffs VS. DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC., and JHT HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants NO.: 2007-CIV-5884 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED BY A JURY OF TWELVE PERSONS ANSWER, NEW MATTER, AND 2252(d) NEW MATTER - CROSS-CLAIM OF DEFENDANT ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT COMES NOW Defendant Arizona Truck Center, by and through its undersigned counsel, James J. Dodd-o, Esquire, of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, and for its Answer, New Matter, and 2252(d) New Matter- Cross-Claim to Plaintiffs' Complaint, sets forth as follows: 1. Admitted upon information and belief. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of an adverse party or hostile person. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 3. Answering Defendant denies the characterization set forth in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. 3 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of an adverse party or hostile person. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of an adverse party or hostile person. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 6. Denied as stated. To the contrary, it is believed and therefore averred that the events at issue took place on July 23, 2005. 7. Denied. Answering Defendant denies the characterization as to the activities of Plaintiff set forth in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of an adverse party or hostile person. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 9. Denied. Answering Defendant denies the characterization set forth in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs` Complaint. 10. Admitted upon information and belief. 4 11. Denied. Answering Defendant specifically denies that Defendant Daniel Cook was in the course of employment with Arizona Truck Center as alleged. To the contrary, Daniel Cook was not a servant, agent, workman and/or employee of Defendant Arizona Truck Center. 12. Denied. The response set forth in Paragraph 11 above is incorporated herein by reference thereto. By way of further response, Answering Defendant denies the characterization set forth in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint as to the actions of Daniel Cook. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of an adverse party or hostile person. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of an adverse party or hostile person. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE RICHARD D. TURNER V. DANIEL COOL 15. Answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 14 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 16. The averments set forth in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, including Subparagraphs (a) - (g), refer to a party other than 5 Answering Defendant and, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, which are therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 17. The averments set forth in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, including Subparagraphs (a) - (d), refer to a party other than Answering Defendant and, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, which are therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of an adverse party or hostile person. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of an adverse party or hostile person. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of an adverse party or hostile person. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 6 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of an adverse party or hostile person. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of an adverse party or hostile person. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 23. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of an adverse party or hostile person. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant Arizona Truck Center demands judgment in its favor. COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE RICHARD TURNER V. ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER 24. Answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 23 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 25. Denied. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiff's alleged cause of action. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that the Defendant was negligent as in the following respects: 7 (a) Denied pursuant to the provisions of Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e); (b) Denied pursuant to the provisions of Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e); and, (c) Denied pursuant to the provisions of Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 26. Denied. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiff's alleged cause of action. As to the claim of injuries set forth in Subparagraphs (a) - (d), same is denied, and after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of an adverse party or hostile person. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 27. Denied. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiff's alleged cause of action. As to the claim of loss of earnings, same is denied, and after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of an adverse party or hostile person. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 28. Denied. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiff's alleged cause of action. As to the claim of pain and suffering, same is denied, and after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within 8 the exclusive control of an adverse party or hostile person. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 29. Denied. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiff's alleged cause of action. As to the claim of permanent diminution of ability to enjoy life and life's pleasures, same is denied, and after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of an adverse party or hostile person. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 30. Denied. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiff's alleged cause of action. As to the claim of medical treatment and services, same is denied, and after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of an adverse party or hostile person. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 31. Denied. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiff's alleged cause of action. As to the claim of past, present and future expenses, same is denied, and after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of an adverse party or hostile person. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 9 32. Denied. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiff's alleged cause of action. As to the claim of mental anguish, physical pain and emotional suffering, in the past, at present, and into the future, same is denied, and after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of an adverse party or hostile person. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant Arizona Truck Center demands judgment in its favor. COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE RICHARD TURNER V. AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC. 33. Answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 32 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 34. The averment set forth in Paragraph 34 of Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to a party other than Answering Defendant and, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment, which is therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 35. The averment set forth in Paragraph 35 of Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to a party other than Answering Defendant and, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this 10 averment, which is therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 36. The averment set forth in Paragraph 36 of Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to a party other than Answering Defendant and, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment, which is therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 37. The averment set forth in Paragraph 37 of Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to a party other than Answering Defendant and, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment, which is therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 38. The averment set forth in Paragraph 38 of Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to a party other than Answering Defendant and, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment, which is therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 39. The averment set forth in Paragraph 39 of Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to a party other than Answering Defendant and, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this 11 averment, which is therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 40. The averment set forth in Paragraph 40 of Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to a party other than Answering Defendant and, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment, which is therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 41. The averment set forth in Paragraph 41 of Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to a party other than Answering Defendant and, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment, which is therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant Arizona Truck Center demands judgment in its favor. COUNT IV - NEGLIGENCE RICHARD TURNER V. JHT HOLDINGS, INC. 42. Answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 41 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 43. The averment set forth in Paragraph 43 of Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to a party other than Answering Defendant and, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this 12 averment, which is therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 44. The averment set forth in Paragraph 44 of Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to a party other than Answering Defendant and, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment, which is therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 45. The averment set forth in Paragraph 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to a party other than Answering Defendant and, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment, which is therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 46. The averment set forth in Paragraph 46 of Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to a party other than Answering Defendant and, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment, which is therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 47. The averment set forth in Paragraph 47 of Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to a party other than Answering Defendant and, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this 13 averment, which is therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 48. The averment set forth in Paragraph 48 of Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to a party other than Answering Defendant and, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment, which is therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 49. The averment set forth in Paragraph 49 of Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to a party other than Answering Defendant and, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment, which is therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 50. The averment set forth in Paragraph 50 of Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to a party other than Answering Defendant and, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment, which is therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant Arizona Truck Center demands judgment in its favor. 14 COUNT V - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM NANCY TURNER V. DANIEL COOK 51. Answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 50 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 52. The averment set forth in Paragraph 52 of Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to a party other than Answering Defendant and, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment, which is therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 53. The averment set forth in Paragraph 53 of Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to a party other than Answering Defendant and, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment, which is therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant Arizona Truck Center demands judgment in its favor. COUNT VI - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM NANCY TURNER V. ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER 54. Answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 53 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 55. Denied. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiff's alleged cause 15 of action. As to the claim of loss of consortium, same is denied, and after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of an adverse party or hostile person. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 56. Denied. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiff's alleged cause of action. As to the claim of disruption of activity, same is denied, and after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of an adverse party or hostile person. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant Arizona Truck Center demands judgment in its favor. COUNT VII - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM NANCY TURNER V. AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC. 57. Answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 56 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 58. The averment set forth in Paragraph 58 of Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to a party other than Answering Defendant and, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment, which is therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 16 59. The averment set forth in Paragraph 59 of Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to a party other than Answering Defendant and, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment, which is therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant Arizona Truck Center demands judgment in its favor. COUNT VIII - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM NANCY TURNER V. JET HOLDINGS, INC. 60. Answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 59 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 61. The averment set forth in Paragraph 61 of Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to a party other than Answering Defendant and, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment, which is therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 62. The averment set forth in Paragraph 62 of Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to a party other than Answering Defendant and, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment, which is therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 17 r WHEREFORE, Defendant Arizona Truck Center demands judgment in its favor. NEW MATTER 63. Pursuant to the requirements of Pa.R.C.P. No. 1030, Answering Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs' claim may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 64. Pursuant to the requirements of Pa.R.C.P. No. 1030, Answering Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs' claim may be barred by the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel. 65. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 66. At the time of the incident, Daniel Cook was not an agent, servant, workman or employee of Defendant Arizona Truck Center. 67. Plaintiff's injuries, as alleged, were caused by other persons or parties which were contributory and/or intervening, superseding causes of Plaintiff's alleged injuries. 68. The Plaintiff was contributorily negligent and/or failed to mitigate the claimed damages, thereby limiting and/or barring recovery. 2252(d) NEW MATTER - CROSS-CLAIM AGAINST Daniel Cook, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., and JHT Holdings, Inc. 69. Answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference its Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint as if fully set forth herein at length. 18 i 70. Answering Defendant denies any liability to the Plaintiffs on the claims of the Plaintiffs as set forth in the Complaint against the Defendants. 71. If it is judicially determined that the allegations in the Plaintiffs' Complaint permit a claim of recovery, then in such event, Defendants Daniel Cook, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., and JHT Holdings, Inc. are alone liable to the Plaintiffs and no liability rests with Defendant Arizona Truck Center. 72. If it is determined that Defendant Arizona Truck Center is in any way liable to the Plaintiffs for any damages which Plaintiffs may have sustained, the existence of any such liability being expressly denied, then in such event, Defendant Arizona Truck Center avers that Defendants Daniel Cook, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., and JHT Holdings, Inc. are jointly liable with Defendant Arizona Truck Center to the Plaintiffs, or is liable over by way of contribution and indemnification to Defendant Arizona Truck Center for any verdict recoverable by Plaintiffs. 73. If Defendant Arizona Truck Center is in any way found to be liable to the Plaintiffs on the claims of the Plaintiffs, the existence of any liability being expressly denied, then in such event, Defendants Daniel Cook, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., and JHT Holdings, Inc. are liable over to Defendant Arizona Truck Center for indemnification on any verdict. WHEREFORE, Defendant Arizona Truck Center joins Defendants Daniel Cook, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., and JHT Holdings, Inc., pursuant to 19 Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d), to protect Defendant Arizona Truck Center's right of contribution, liability over and indemnification from Defendants Daniel Cook, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., and JHT Holdings, Inc. and requests the Court to find said Defendants Daniel Cook, Auto Truck Transport, Inc., and JHT Holdings, Inc. liable over by way of contribution and/or indemnification for any verdict against Defendant Arizona Truck Center. BY: Dated: 584885.1 Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP J es . Dodd-o, Esquire A or eys for Defendant Arizona Truck Center 20 VERIFICATION I, tJ ONN J7 O?YRIO l/ of ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, Defendant, hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing ANSWER, NEW MATTER, AND 2252(d) NEW MATTER - CROSS-CLAIM TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT are true and correct to the best of my knowledge or information and belief, as well as reports, records, conferences and other investigatory material made available to me. To the extent that the foregoing contains averments, which are inconsistent in fact, I verify that my knowledge or information is sufficient to form a belief that one or more of them is true, although I am currently unable, after reasonable investigation, to ascertain which of the inconsistent averments are true. To the extent that the foregoing contains legal conclusions or opinions, I hereby state that my Verification is made upon the advice of counsel, upon whom I have relied in the filing of this document. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 related to unsworn falsifications to authorities ?T !Q t 1 e?047 Title Dated: yDo S 586065.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 4? The undersigned hereby certifies that on the day of June, 2008 a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER, NEW MATTER, AND 2252(D) NEW MATTER - CROSS-CLAIM TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT was served, via U.S. First Class mail, upon the following: Gerard W. Langan, Jr., Esquire O'MALLEY & LANGAN, P.C. 9 North Main Street Pittston, PA 18640 Wade Manley, Esquire JOHNSON, DUFFLE, STEWART & WEIDNER 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP r BY: K 11 J ak4r Legal Se re ry to Jame J. oYd Esquire T n ? Q c-? -n ?? ,?_ r" _ ? ?.:? ?'? ..; }_ ? t'c? - ?? -? cra RICHARD D. TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife PLAINTIFFS VS. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY : CIVIL ACTION - LAW DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED INC. AND JHT HOLDINGS, DEFENDANTS : NO.2007-CIV-5884 PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO NEW MATTER AND NEW MATTER-CROSS CLAIM OF DEFENDANT, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, Richard Turner and Nancy Turner, his wife, by and through their attorneys, O'Malley & Langan, P.C. and respectfully responds to Defendant's New Matter as follows: 63. The allegations contained in Paragraph 63 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 63 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict prof is demanded at the time. 64. The allegations contained in Paragraph 64 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 64 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time. 65. The allegations contained in Paragraph 65 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 65 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time. fib. The allegations contained in Paragraph 66 are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 66 contain fads wyhhich require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and proof is demanded at the time. 67. The allegatjp?r! contained in Paragraph 67 are gal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is wsary. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 67 contain which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and's proof demanded at the time. 68lib The allegatior contained in Paragraph 68 are legal conclusions to v** no 00 responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent that the anegations contained in Paragraph 68 contain facts which require a responsive pleading, the same are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at the time. Respectfully Submitted: & LANGAN, P.C. 1* VERIFICATION WE, RICHARD AND NANCY TURNER, Plaintiffs, hereby verify that we have read the foregoing Plaintiffs' Response to New Matter of Defendants and that insofar as it is based upon information within our own knowledge, it is true and correct, insofar as it is based upon the expertise of counsel, we have relied upon counsel in making this verification. The language of the pleading is that of counsel and not our own. We understand that this verification is made subject to the provisions of 18 PA C.S. 4904 pertaining to unsworn falsification to authorities. RICHARD TURNER NANCY T RNER DATE: 6 -,q 6-6- 4 RECEIVED JUL 07 2008 "IMALLEY & LANGAN ' c rn m ccr? , ?° , Pnn Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: John A. Statler, Esquire I.D. No. 43812 Wade D. Manley, Esquire 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 wdm@jdsw.com Attorneys for Defendants Daniel Cook, Auto Truck Transport, Inc. and JHT Holdings, Inc. RICHARD TURNER and NANCY TURNER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF his wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC. and JHT HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants NO. 5884-CIV-2007 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED REPLY OF DEFENDANTS AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC. AND JHT HOLDINGS, INC. TO CROSS-CLAIM OF DEFENDANT ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER AND NOW, this day of July, 2008, come Defendants, Auto Truck Transport, Inc. and JHT Holdings, Inc., and reply to the Cross-Claim of Defendant Arizona Truck Center as follows: 70.-73. Denied. These averments are deemed denied as a conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. WHEREFORE, the Defendants, Auto Truck Transport, Inc. and JHT Holdings, Inc., demand judgment in their favor and against the Defendant, Arizona Truck Center, in its claim for contribution, liability over to and indemnification from the claims made by the Plaintiffs, Richard Turner and Nancy Turner. :336994 14775-101 Respectfully submitted, JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: kV Wade D. ?a)ley VERIFICATION 1,ow , hereby acknowledge that Auto Truck Transport, Inc. is a Defendant in this action and that I am authorized to make this verification on its behalf; that I have read the foregoing Reply to Cross-Claim of Arizona Truck Center; and that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. AUTO TRUCK T SPORT, INC. By: --? J do- Date: 7 a Zpe O /00, V VERIFICATION 1, Inf,4? JLLQ4(?iG? , hereby acknowledge that JHT Holdings, Inc. is a Defendant in this action and that I am authorized to make this verification on its behalf; that I have read the foregoing Reply to Cross-Claim of Arizona Truck Center; and that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. JHT HOLDINGS, INC. By: Date: (1-7/0 Y ? CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ??ay of July, 2008, the undersigned does hereby certify that she did this date serve a copy of the foregoing document upon the other parties of record by causing same to be deposited in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Gerard W. Langan, Jr., Esquire O'Malley & Langan, P.C. 9 North Main Street Pittston, PA 18640 James J. Dodd-O, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 3101 Emrick Boulevard Suite 310 Bethlehem, PA 18020 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: .? -,21 zl?L J Michelle r/ V17 :336994 14775-101 = r= rim ?' .. 7 Co --? N RICHARD TURNER and NANCY TURNER, His Wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, NO. 07-5884 AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC., and JHT HOLDINGS, INC., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please mark the above-captioned action settled and discontinued, including all counterclaims, crossclaims and joinders of additional parties. DATE: s/D Respectfully submitted, O'MALLEY & LANGAN, P.C. By: Gerard W. Lang 6(, Jr. Esquire O'Malley & Langan, P.C. 9 North Main Street Pittston, PA 18640 370416 14775-101 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe upon all parties or counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage prepaid on the (1A(,' day ofd, 2009, addressed to the following: Gerard W. Langan, Jr., Esquire O'Malley & Langan, P.C. 9 North Main Street Pittston, PA 18640 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: V " jj_V Wad D. n , Esquire Attorney I. Y.N . 872 44 Attorneys fendants 1! 2r?? ???.??? 12 ?-???i 1 ? !;. ,..? . ,,- ?4,?,.-?, . , ?. _, ?? ?, a ? . ?„ t' ?: ? _ _ `r t_ a r'?''?rs RICHARD D. TURNER and NANCY TURNER, his wife : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LUZERNE COUNTY PLAINTIFFS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW VS. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DANIEL COOK, ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER, AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT, : INC., AND JHT HOLDINGS, INC. 0,?,' S$$'?I DEFENDANTS : NO. :7976 G OF 2 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Gerard W. Langan, Jr., Esquire, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Response to New Matter of Defendants', upon the following individual by first class United States mail under date of January 23, 2008: Prothonotary - Luzeme County Luzerne County Courthouse 200 N. River Street Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711 John A. Statler, Esquire Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 O'MALLEY & LANGAN, P.C. By: W? 1114,. a' Ger rd W. L ft 9 N. Main Street, Pittston, PA 186 (570) 883-1321 ., 664 r p I?a a `,- -yd ?i - NV "'