Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-0080 LAURIE CHRIS BILGER, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs, : NO. 04- PC> CIVIL TERM HOME DEPOT OF U.S.A., INe. Defendant 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 attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may loose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association Two Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 LAURIE CHRIS BILGER, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA vs. NO. 04 - PC CIVIL TERM HOME DEPOT OF U.S.A., INC. Defendant COMPLAINT L Plaintiff is Laurie Chris Bilger, an adult individual currently residing at 224 North Pitt Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2, Defendant is the Home Depot of U.S.A., Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Georgia, with authority to conduct business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and a service address in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of c/o C T Corporation System, 1635 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. 3. At all times referenced herein, Defendant was in exclusive possession, management, and control of the Home Depot store located at 6000 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 4. At all times referenced herein, Defendant, through its employees, workmen, servants, and agents, was aeting within the scope of its business and its employees and agents were operating within the scope of their employment by Defendant in furtherance of Defendant's business. 5. On or about May 25, 2002, at approximately 7:00 p.m., Plaintiff was a business visitor to the referenced store. 6. On or about May 25, 2002, at approximately 7:00 p.m., Plaintiff and a companion were examining an outside display of garden bricks and related product, which display was prepared, established, and located by Defendant through its employees, workmen, servants, or agents. 7. The display established by the Defendant through its employees, workmen, servants, or agents, was created by placing skids of garden wall blocks and similar blocks in a square or rectangular fashion in Defendant's parking lot area. 8. The display was prepared in such a manner as to provide a walkway around the inside of the square with the preparation of other skids and block designs on the inside of the square or rectangle created by other skids of blocks or displays. 9. As Plaintiff walked in the pathway created by the design of blocks, Plaintiff tripped over a low lying display of blocks jetting into the pathway, which was created for walking. 10. Plaintiff slipped, stumbled, and fell as a result of tripping on the display, resulting in serious injuries to Plaintiff as set forth below. II. The accident was caused exclusively and solely by the negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of the Defendant, through its employees, workmen, servants, and agents, by: a.) b,) Causing or permitting to exist an unsafe condition where business invitees were directed to walk; Failing to properly maintain the pathway or walkway upon which business invitees were directed to walk; c.) Allowing a dangerous and unsafe condition, after notice or opportunity for notice; d.) Failing to properly inspect the design and display of the products which created the unsafe condition; e.) Failing to warn of a dangerous condition; f.) Failing to use reasonable prudence and care in the maintenance and establishment ofthe display; g.) Failure to make reasonable inspection of the display which would have revealed the existence ofthe dangerous condition; and h.) Failing to give warning of the dangerous condition created by the display through establishing at the display, barricades or notice of some nature at eye level, or providing other safety precautions to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and other business invitees. 12. Solely as a result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff sustained serious and painful injuries to her body and extremities including injury to and abrasions of her hands, elbow, and knee, as well as injuries to her back and hip, which included severe or moderate muscle spasms in the bi-lateral upper cervical, bi-laterallower cervical, bi- lateral upper thoracic, bi-laterallower thoracic, bi-laterallower lumbar, and bi-lateral upper lumbar regions of Plaintiffs back; ecchymosis and edema to the superior aspect of the right shin and the distal aspect of the shin; abrasions to the shin and right interior forearm; joint tenderness at Si joints C 1-3, T2-3, and L4-5, and the palpablehypomobility at L4-5 and C2-3. 13. As a result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has been obliged and may in the future be obliged to expend various sums of money for medicines and medical treatment necessitated by the above injuries to her great detriment and financial loss. 14. As a result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has undergone great physical pain and mental anguish and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite time in the future to her great detriment and loss. 15. Solely as a result of Defendant's negligence, carelessness, and recklessness, Plaintiff has and will in the future be unable to attend to her usual and daily duties to her detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff claims damages from the Defendant in an amount not to exceed $25,000.00, together with cost and interest, and in an amount requiring arbitration. Respectfully submitted, I:?f/ ;)4{ D) Date B . riffle, Esquire orney for Plaintiff GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5551 (800) 347-5552 . VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. DATE: (z...!z.'! /0 '3 !/J \ rr)' ()-~fz/ LA~ BILGER ;Q R ~ if. il .O't ~ >lJ () ~ ~ ~ ~ ?'j o "> '--: ~:; -4...- 0 r -r: :.;:- -{ ,..,. T .,;; h1:rJ c~, ,:-;[:;:; re :,", y' '_ ":,0 D '~7:::~ ~ L.... I o McDONNELL & ASSOCIATE, P.C. By: Courtney Seda McDonnell, Esquire Attorney LD. No.: 76263 601 South Henderson Road, Suite 152 King of Prussia, PA 19406 610-337-2087 Attorney for Defendant, The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA - CIVIL ACTION - LAW LAURIE CHRIS BILGER Plaintiff vs. 80 Docket No.: 04-~ HOME DEPOT OF U.S.A., INC. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER Defendant, The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., incorrectly designated as Home Depot of U.S.A., Inc. (hereinafter "Home Depot"), by and through its attorneys, Law Offices of McDonnell & Associates, answers Plaintiffs Complaint and avers New Matter as follows: 1. Denied to the extent that this paragraph makes no allegations against answering Defendant. 2. Denied. Defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. By way of further answer, Defendant is authorized to operate a home improvement warehouse store in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 3. Denied as stated. Defendant leases the premises located at 6000 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. 4. Denied. By way of further answer, Defendant also retains independent contractors. 5. Denied. 6. Denied. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to determine the truth or falsity ofthe allegations of this paragraph. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to determine the truth or falsity of the allegations of this paragraph. 9. Denied. 10. Denied. 11. (a)-(h). Denied. 12. Denied. 13. Denied. 14. Denied. 15. Denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant Home Depot demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff together with costs and attorneys' fees in this matter. NEW MATTER 16. Plaintiffs claims and causes of action are barred because Plaintiff was injured as a result of a known risk which Plaintiff assumed. 17. Plaintiffs claims and causes of action are barred by reason of Plaintiffs own -2- contributory negligence, or alternatively, are reduced by the percentage of Plaintiffs own comparative negligence. 18. Plaintiffs claims and causes of action are barred because Plaintifffailed to mitigate damages. 19. Plaintiff s claims and causes of action are barred by operation ofthe applicable statute of limitations. 20. If Plaintiff sustained damages, such damages were caused by the negligence of a third party over which Defendant exercised no control. 21. If Plaintiff sustained damages, such damages were caused by intervening or superceding events or factors over which Defendant exercised no control. 22. If Plaintiff executed a Release releasing any person or entity from liability arising from the accident or occurrence described in Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant is similarly released from any such liability. 23. If Plaintiff seeks cornpensatory damages for expenses related to medical tests, medications, and treatment, such damages are reduced by the holding in Moorehead v. Crozer Chester Medical Center to the amounts actnally due and payable. 24. Defendant reserves the right to assert any and all new matters which are revealed or arise during the course of litigation. 25. On or about May 25, 2002, Defendant was operating the above-referenced premises in accordance with the standard of care owed to Plaintiff and others similarly situated. 26. On or about May 25, 2002, Defendant had no notice of any alleged defective condition upon its premises. -3- WHEREFORE, Defendant Home Depot demands judgment in its favor and against plaintiff, together with costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and such other relief that this Court deems proper. DATED: February R, 2004 -4- Laurie Chris Silaer v. Harne DeDal U.S.A.. Inc. (incorrecllv desianaled as Home DeDol of U.S.A.. Inc.) VERIFICATION STATE OF GEORGIA COUNTY OF COBB Sandra M. Wilkerson being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a Litigation Paralegal for Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.; that she has read the foregoing responses to Defendant Home Depot, U.S.A. Inc.'s Answer to Complaint with New Matter; knows contents thereof; that said responses were prepared with the assistance and advice of counsel and the assistance of employees and representatives of Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., upon which she has relied; that the Answer to Complaint with New Matter set forth herein, subject to inadvertent or undiscovered errors, are based on and therefore necessarily limited by the records and information still in existence, presently recollected, and/or thus far discovered in the course of the preparation of the Answer to Complaint with New Matter; that consequently Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., reserves the right to make any changes in the Answer to Complaint with New Matter if it appears at any time that omissions or errors have been made therein or that more accurate information is available; and that subject to the limitations set forth herein the said Answer to Complaint with New Matter is true to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. ~~ 9l)clJ~Vl Sandra M. Wilkerson HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. Sworn to and subsc.r:ibed before me, this ~day of February, 2004 to certify which witness my hand of seal of office. c:f: ~\\\\"1If"",// ~,,, OM r,.,o.,,~,. c:>~. I~ ~~~~ssioN%;~~ << :~ JULY t.~ ~ Notary Public, State of Georgia *: 15 "':*= My commission expires: ~ l\. 2006 : a ~ ~..-O8, (b"t-: it ~ o..~couN'f4:....CJ~ ~ ')'-i.......:...v~ ~I/ Ay pO" 1t.'~ "'"11I11I\'\\\ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, COURTNEY SEDA McDONNELL, ESQUIRE hereby certifies that a trne and correct copy of Defendant The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.'s Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint with New Matter, Entry of Appearance and Demand for Jury Trial was served by facsimile (717-243-5063) on February~, 2004 to the counsel below named: Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, P A 17013 LAW OFFICES OF McDONNELL & ASSOCIATES BY: J~'M~ COURTNEY SEDA cDONNELL, ESQUIRE (') ...., 0 c:::, ~~ .::::;) -n .r- -l ..,., ~ r1 hi -n = P'l ~[j I'-n l'.} CJ W C') .i.. ';:...J~T~ ~ ~::;? ~-l:~j ~ Cl C~~i rn s-;; C~~) ., ~, -- ::~-~ --I w -< "'" McDONNELL & ASSOCIATE, P.C. By: Courtney Seda McDonnell, Esquire Attorney LD. No.: 76263 601 South Henderson Road, Suite 152 King of Prussia, P A 19406 610-337-2087 Attorney for Defendant, The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA- CIVIL ACTION - LAW LAURIE CHRIS BILGER Plaintiff vs. Docket No.: 04-~ HOME DEPOT OF U.S.A., INC. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, The Home Depot U.S,A" Inc., incorrectly designated as Home Depot of U.S.A., Inc. in the-above captioned matter. McDONNELL & ASSOCIATES, P.c. Dated: February Ji, 2004 o f; --;.-~ ...._, .,--: -< ,..., = = .r- ..." {"l c:;:l N W o -n -I :1:,'"; nlr:::::l -.-)m :.99 (~() 9~ S. j::-. ~:~ -0:: -- ~ W McDONNELL & ASSOCIATE, P.C. By: Courtney Seda McDonnell, Esquire AttomeyLD. No.: 76263 601 South Henderson Road, Suite 152 King of Prussia, PA 19406 610-337-2087 Attorney for Defendant, The Home Depot U.S.A., Ine, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA - CIVIL ACTION - LAW LAURIE CHRIS BILGER Plaintiff vs. ~ Docket No.: 04-0%'r5 HOME DEPOT OF U.S.A., INC. Defendant. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Defendant, The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc" incorrectly designated as Home Depot of U.S.A., Inc. by and through its undersigned counsel hereby demands a trial by jury in the above-captioned matter. McDONNELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~do'~ COURTNEY DA McDONNELL Dated: February 11, 2004 o c: ,...., "'" ~ ;- ...,. r> CO N W ',-'. ~; :.=j -, ::::0. ~,..~ ~ ..... :r.: -r1 "lF~ _1'1'1 "'.'.0 -u 1. SU :..r-r, __-r Uc') ;2Jrn ::::... 1>- ~2: ~ W - SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2004-00080 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BILGER LAURIE CHRIS VS HOME DEPOT OF USA INC R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: HOME DEPOT OF USA INC but was unable to locate Them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of PHILADELPHIA County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE On February 5th, 2004 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from PHILADELPHIA Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County Surcharge Dep Philadelphia So 18.00 9.00 10.00 116.00 .00 153.00 02/05/2004 GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES R. Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me this iJ" ~ day of j~ )~'f A.D. ( L,,-<- {2 ~ ,(0,..,;:,. I~ Prothonotary' 7~J 1 , In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Laurie Chris Bilger . / ~D l ( Hane Depo~S~f USA Inc ' 1/ 'b SERVE: same 04-80 civil No. Now, January 9, 2004 , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, P A, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Philadelphia County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. r~~~~ Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA c.:.:. ...- S .,c." ;":: Affidavit of Service r'.) "-, :-,~... Now, !(J-n within c-omp/a/rLf- upon H(ltylf. ()( +Jot- at ) .5'/5' Ua..rt..~ . by handing to /2 DS/~ Wt,~ ell ,204, at /o..'sj o'clock ..ct. M. se&ed the .J:'" '" a Ojc7A'1.Y copy of the original ~mpI6.A. + and made known to he V' the contents thereof. So answers, Sworn and s,uyscribeAJJ,efore LV-: I $~f;rA^," ~20"-'f / \. N~AL EA , SUSAN L ROSENFEL ~ Public Ci!y of PhtI Ia. OOUn MY_COmmiftlo~... M.rDllS. ~4 , I-OAPJI/kg{/ XMCft1 . Shodfl'of Ph.j--County, PA PI'C7c.vss 5e.rv-vt. D.Oe.a..n<>- LUlIo COSTS SERVICE $ MlLEAGE AFFIDAVIT $ LAW OFFICES OF McDONNELL & ASSOCIATES Courtney Seda McDonnell, Esquire Attorney ill No. 76263 601 South Henderson Road, Suite 152 King of Prussia, PA 19406 TeL (610) 337-2087 Fax (610) 337-2575 Attorneys for Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA - CIVIL ACTION - LAW LAURIE CHRIS BILGER, Plaintiff Docket No.: 04-80 v. HOME DEPOT OF U.S.A., INC., Defendantffhird- Party Plaintiff E.P. HENRY CORPORATION Third Party Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT, THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.'S THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT AGAINST E.P. HENRY CORPORATION Defendant, The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., incorrectly designated as Home Depot of U.S.A., Inc. (hereinafter "Home Depot"), by and through its undersigned counsel, Law Offices of McDonnell & Associates, hereby files this Third-Party Complaint against E.P. Henry Corporation (hereinafter "E.P. Henry"): L Plaintiff, Laurie Chris Bilger, has commenced a civil action against Home Depot due to injuries arising out of an alleged trip and fall in the parking lot of the Home Depot store located at 6000 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 2. In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that while examining an outdoor display of garden bricks and related products in the Home Depot store parking lot, she tripped over the display and fell resulting in serious and painful injuries. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 3. Plaintiff alleges that the accident was caused by the negligence of Home Depot in creating the unsafe condition of a display of garden bricks (hereinafter "Display"), allowing said Display to exist, failing to inspect the Display, and failing to warn Plaintiff of the Display. (See Exhibit A'I[7-10). 4. On or about February 23, 2004, Home Depot filed an Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint denying liability for Plaintiff's injuries. A true and correct copy of Defendant's Answer with New Matter is attached hereto as Exhibit "8". 5. Upon information and belief, Third-Party Defendant E.P. Henry is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware with a principle place of business located at 201 Park Avenue, Woodbury, New Jersey 08096. 6. Upon information and belief, E.P. Henry was responsible for setting up the Display at the Mechanicsburg Home Depot Store which allegedly caused Plaintiff's injury. 7. If Plaintiff's allegations against Home Depot are proven true, which allegations are specifically denied by Home Depot, it is averred that Third-Party Defendant E.P. Henry is liable to Home Depot for all or part of Plaintiff's claims, as a result ofE.P. Henry's conduct in designing and setting up the Display at issue. 8. If Plaintiff's allegations are proven true at the time of trial, then Third-Party Defendant E.P. Henry is jointly or severally liable to Home Depot for such damages by way of contribution and indemnity. 9. If Plaintiff's allegations are proven true at the time of trial, which allegations are specifically denied by Home Depot, the Third-Party Defendant E.P. Henry is contractually liable pursuant to the Vendor's Buyer Agreement which obligates it to defend and indemnify Home Depot. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Home Depot demands: 1) judgment in its favor together with costs; 2) judgment that, if there is any liability to Plaintiff, Third-Party Defendant E.P. Henry is liable to Home Depot for all or part of Plaintiffs claims; and 3) if a verdict is rendered for Plaintiff against Home Depot, that Home Depot may have judgment over and against Third-Party Defendant E.P. Henry by way of contribution and indemnity for any and all damages, together with interest, costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and other further relief as this Court deems just and proper. LAW OFFICES OF McDONNELL & ASSOCIATES BY: Courtney Seda McD nell, Esquire Attorney for Defendant, The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. D DATED: March 24, 2004 LAURIE CHRIS BILGER, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : NO. 04..;:0 CIVIL TERM HOME DEPOT OF U.S.A., INC. Defendant 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 attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may loose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LA WYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association Two Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 ... ,,~ '~.-~ ~ ,<.i, '.', ".'." If!....., LAURIE CHRIS BILGER, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA vs. NO. CIVIL TERM HOME DEPOT OF U.S.A., INC. Defendant COMPLAINT I. Plaintiff is Laurie Chris Bilger, an adult individual cUlTently residing at 224 North Pitt Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant is the Home Depot of U.S.A., Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Georgia, with authority to conduct business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and a service address in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of c/o C T Corporation System, 1635 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. 3. At all times referenced herein, Defendant was in exclusive possession, management, and control of the Home Depot store located at 6000 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 4. At all times referenced herein, Defendant, through its employees, workmen, servants, and agents, was acting within the scope of its business and its employees and agents were operating within the scope of their employment by Defendant in furtherance of Defendant's business. 5. On or about May 25, 2002, at approximately 7:00 p.m., Plaintiff was a business visitor to the referenced store. 6. '--' On or about May 25, 2002, at approximately 7:00 p.m., Plaintiff and a companion were examining an outside display of garden bricks and related Product, which display was prepared, established, and located by Defendant through its employees, workmen, servants, or agents. 7. The display established by the Defendant through its employees, workmen, servants, or agents, was created by placing skids of garden wall blocks and similar blocks in a square or rectangular fashion in Defendant's parking lot area. 8. The display was prepared in such a manner as to provide a walkway around the inside of the square with the preparation of other skids and block designs on the inside of the square or rectangle ereated by other skids of blocks or displays. 9. As Plaintiff walked in the pathway created by the design of blocks, Plaintiff tripped Over a low lying display of blOcks jetting into the pathway, which was created for walking. 10. Plaintiff slipped, stumbled, and fell as a result of tripping on the display, resulting in serious injuries to Plaintiff as set forth below. 11. The accident was caused exclusively and Solely by the negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of the Defendant, through its employees, workmen, servants, and agents, by: a.) Causing or pennitting to exist an unsafe condition where business invitees were directed to walk; b.) Failing to properly maintain the pathway or walkway upon which business in vi tees were directed to walk; c.) Allowing a dangerous and unsafe condition, after notice or opportunity for notice; d.) Failing to properly inspect the design and display of the products which created the unsafe condition; e.) Failing to warn ofa dangerous condition; f.) Failing to use reasonable prudence and care in the maintenanee and establishment of the display; g.) Failure to make reasonable inspection of the display which would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition; and h.) Failing to give warning of the dangerous condition created by the display through establishing at the display, barricades or notice of some nature at eye level, or providing other safety precautions to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and other business invitees. 12. Solely as a result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff sustained serious and painful injuries to her body and extremities including injury to and abrasions of her hands, elbow, and knee, as well as injuries to her back and hip, which included severe or moderate muscle spasms in the bi-Iateral upper cervical, bi-laterallower cervical, bi- lateral upper thoracic, bi-Iaterallower thoracic, bi-laterallower lumbar, and bi-Iateral upper lumbar regions of Plaintiffs back; ecchymosis and edema to the superior aspect of the right shin and the distal aspect of the shin; abrasions to the shin and right interior forearm; joint tenderness at Si joints CI-3, T2-3, and L4-5, and the palpablehypomobility at L4-5 and C2-3. 13. As a result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has been obliged and may in the future be obliged to expend various sums of money for medicines and medical treatment necessitated by the above injuries to her greaI detriment and financial loss. 14. As a result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has undergone great physical pain and mental anguish and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite time in the future to her great detriment and loss. 15. Solely as a result of Defendant's negligence, carelessness, and recklessness, Plaintiff has and will in the future be unable to attend to her usual and daily duties to her detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff claims damages from the Defendant in an amount not to exceed $25,000.00, together with cost and interest, and in an amount requiring arbitration. Respectfully submitted, ~).~/6 ), Date ~" Attorney for Plaintiff GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 243-5551 (800) 347-5552 .p ct tit (t7iI7) ;?43- 50f.,5 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. DATE: )~/ 2Jf1 03 , lieu ( ~ LAURIE CHRIS BILGER FILE COpy McDONNELL & ASSOCIATE, P.c' By: Courtney Seda McDonnell, Esquire Attorney I.D. No.: 76263 601 South Henderson Road, Suite 152 King of Prussia, P A 19406 610-337-2087 Attorney for Defendant, The Home Depot U's,A., Inc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA - CIVIL ACTION - LAW LAURIE CHRIS BILGER Plaintiff tft/- to DockeI No.: ~HlG-15 n ~~ , -"1;- vs. HOME DEPOT OF U.S.A., INC, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant. ::2 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER Defendant, The Horne Depot U.S.A., Inc., incorrecIly designated as Home Depot of U.S.A., Inc. (hereinafter "Home Depot"), by and through its attorneys, Law Offices of McDonnell & Associates, answers Plaintiffs Complaint and avers New Matter as follows: 1. Denied to the extent that this paragraph makes no allegations against answering Defendant. 2. Denied. Defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. By way of further answer, Defendant is authorized to operate a home improvement warehouse store in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 3. Denied as stated. Defendant leases the premises located at 6000 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. "" = <=- "'" ." r,-'j OJ I'.) W ?, .-1 :1:-,., fllr= -prn ;rJY ~:~(") .'- -Tj f)?; :_~i.n ::'i:) .-;, -'J ~,) <..) r..3 4. Denied. By way of further answer, Defendant also retains independent contractors. 5. Denied. 6. Denied. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to determine the truth or falsity of the allegations of this paragraph. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to determine the truth or falsity of the allegations of this paragraph. 9. Denied. 10. Denied. 11. ( a)-(h). Denied. 12. Denied. 13. Denied. 14. Denied. 15. Denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant Home Depot demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff together with costs and attorneys' fees in this matter. NEW MATTER 16. Plaintiffs claims and causes of action are barred because Plaintiff was injured as a result of a known risk which Plaintiff assumed. 17. Plaintiffs claims and causes of action are barred by reason of Plaintiffs own -2- contributory negligence, or alternatively, are reduced by the percentage of Plaintiffs own comparative negligence. 18. Plaintiff s claims and causes of action are barred because Plaintiff failed to mitigate damages. 19. Plaintiffs claims and causes of action are barred by operation ofthe applicable statute of limitations. 20. If Plaintiff sustained damages, such damages were caused by the negligence of a third party over which Defendant exercised no control. 21. If Plaintiff sustained damages, such damages were caused by intervening or superceding events or factors over which Defendant exercised no control. 22. If Plaintiff executed a Release releasing any person or entity from liability arising from the accident or occurrence described in Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant is similarly released from any such liability. 23. If Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for expenses related to medical tests, medications, and treatment, such damages are reduced by the holding in Moorehead v. Crozer Chester Medical Center to the amounts actually due and payable. 24. Defendant reserves the right to assert any and all new matters which are revealed or arise during the course of litigation. 25. On or about May 25, 2002, Defendant was operating the above-referenced premises in accordance with the standard of care owed to Plaintiff and others similarly situated. 26. On or about May 25, 2002, Defendant had no notice of any alleged defective condition upon its premises. -3- WHEREFORE, Defendant Home Depot demands judgment in its favor and against plaintiff, together with costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and such other relief that this Court deems proper. DATED: February rl, 2004 Q CO Y SE McDONNELL Attorney for De endant, The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. -4- Laurie Chris Bikler v. Home Deoo! U.S.A.. Inc. (incorrectlv desionated as Home Deoot of U.S.A. Inc.) VERIFICATION STATE OF GEORGIA COUNTY OF COBB Sandra M. Wilkerson being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a Litigation Paralegal for Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.; that she has read the foregoing responses to Defendant Home Depot, U.S.A. Inc.'s Answer to Complaint with New Matter; knows contents thereof; that said responses were prepared with the assistance and advice of counsel and the assistance of empioyees and representatives of Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., upon which she has relied; that the Answer to Complaint with New Matter set forth herein, subject to inadvertent or undiscovered errors, are based on and therefore necessarily limited by the records and information still in existence, presently recollected, and/or thus far discovered in the course of the preparation of the Answer to Complaint with New Matter; that consequently Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., reserves the right to make any changes in the Answer to Complaint with New Matter if it appears at any time that omissions or errors have been made therein or that more accurate information is available; and that subject to the limitations set forth herein the said Answer to Complaint with New Matter is true to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. #~))~U~M . Sandra M. Wilkerson HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. Sworn to and sUb,~ed before me, this I day of February, 2004 to certify which witness my hand of seal of office. ~ :\\,,'\l1I"I/111 ~,,,, ~~A TftC////' c;) ~ // . 1~~%~:;'\$$jO;"ii:;~~ /~.. .~ JULY ~. '::. = ..~ l'T\- :: Notary Public, State of Georgia =*: 15 <n:*= - . . - My commission expires: 'i .. t\. 2006 :;: ~*'I:..-o~ rt>""" S ~ o...~couN1"":..,CJ ~ ~')-...........",~ '///,.."iY p\lv:\,~ 11111/1111\1'\\\ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, COURTNEY SEDA McDONNELL, ESQUIRE hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of Defendant The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.'s Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint with New Matter, Entry of Appearance and Demand for Jury Trial was served by facsimile (717-243-5063) on February 19-,2004 to the counsel below named: Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 LAW OFFICES OF McDONNELL & ASSOCIATES BY: J", '0A~ Laurie Chris Bilcer v. Home Deool of U.S.A.. Inc. lincorrectlv named) E.P. Henrv Coooration VERIFICATION STATE OF GEORGIA COUNTY OF COBB Sandra M. Wilkerson being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a Litigation Paralegal for Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.; that she has read the foregoing responses to Defendant Home Depot, U.S.A. Inc.'s Third Party Complaint Against EP. Henry Corporation; knows contents thereof; that said responses were prepared with the assistance and advice of counsel and the assistance of employees and representatives of Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., upon which she has relied; that the Third Party Complaint Against E.P. Henry Corporation set forth herein, subject to inadvertent or undiscovered errors, are based on and therefore necessarily limited by the records and information still in existence, presently recollected, and/or thus far discovered in the course of the preparation of the Third Party Complaint Against EP. Henry Corporation; that consequently Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., reserves the right to make any changes in the Third Party Complaint Against EP. Henry Corporation if it appears at any time that omissions or errors have been made therein or that more accurate information is available; and that subject to the limitations set forth herein the said Third Party Complaint Against E.P. Henry Corporation is true to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. Sandra M. Wilkerson HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. Sworn to and su~ed before me, this~day of :\\\\\\" " ";{'III, March, 2004 to certify which witness n:!i:~a-~~~-9ffice. $C:J.....~ . ..t-?...t..o:. ~ 2~,1l()~\O"iARY .... &.;. - . ~ .. -- -. .-: (!j- -". - ..- _ \.J ~ . cc - -: r- \. pua\..\V I 0 ~ -:.7.J..... ~ro..{ij.... Notary Public, State of Georgia d -;,,:o~!.~;?~;;.~.~.f My commission expires: /t!J'lr/oo ""1 COUN \\\\\ V\ I ",,,,,,\, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE COURTNEY SEDA McDONNEll, ESQUIRE hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of Defendant, The Home Depot U.S.A., lnc.'s Third Party Complaint Against E.P. Henry Corporation was served by United States first class mail, Certified Delivery, Return Receipt Requested (Article No.: 7001 2510 0008 595~ O'l.'f?;!, postage prepaid, on March ;;>,5, 2004 10 the corporation and counsel below named: E.P. Henry Corporation 201 Park Avenue VVoodbury,NJ 08096 Bradley L Griffie, Esquire 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 LAW OFFICES OF McDONNELL & ASSOCIATES -- ~O DA McDONNEll (') ....., ( cO> ~ ~::;~ ~:;:;) ..c- ::!r. =r ):~'" .. ;;:0 ni j11 f',) 338 \D ,-} , ..,0 .."., =r.=;, _.r... q?') N ('jm (-." ~~ ~n -..l -< Thomas S. Brumbaugh, Esquire I.D.No.89037 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 717 441-7060 LAURIE CHRIS BILGER Plaintiff Attomeys for Third Party Defendant E. P. Henry Corporation IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. HOME DEPOT OF U.S.A., INC. Defendant NO. 04-80 v. E. P. HENRY CORPORATION Third Party Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PMIiiCINFi'OftE!Nt~'i( OF APPIA!~I!l~liE I TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of Thomas S. Brumbaugh, Esquire and Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP as counsel for Third Party Defendant, E.P. Henry Corporation, in the above matter. Respectfully submitted, Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP Date: April 27, 2004 --~~~- Thomas S. Brumbau, uire Attorney 1.0. No. B 305 N. Front StrelBt P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 717-441-7060 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICIE AND NOW, this 2&4 day of April, 2004, I, Michelle E. Wendt, of the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, hereby certify that I sent a true and correct copy of the foregoing document by placing a copy of the same in Ilhe United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Bradley L Griffie, Esquire Griffie & Associates 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorneys for Plaintiff Courtney Seda McDonnell, Esquire Law Offices of McDonnell & Associates 601 S, Henderson Road, Suite 152 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Attorneys for Defendant, The Home Depot of U.S.A., Inc. ~' (/.@/- ~(/~~ Mlc elle E. ~endt o c ~ -On' C11[i"; 0~:~; r": :.>c:; ':;;:c -- C >(-.: Z ~ --- ....., <=> <::> .... ".. -0 ;;u N \0 ~ ~:rJ ~~ 2~ Om ~ -< -0 :x c.:> .. 0'\ Thomas S. Brumbaugh, Esquire 1.0. No. 89037 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North F ron! SIree! P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 717 441-7060 LAURIE CHRIS BILGER Plaintiff Attorneys for Third Party Defendant E. P. Henry Corporation IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. HOME DEPOT OF U.S.A., INC. Defendant NO. 04-80 v. E. P. HENRY CORPORATION Third Party Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP - ;~~ Thomas S. Brumbaugh uire 1.0. No. 89037 P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717)441-7060 Attorneys for Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry Corporation Dated: 5'/lo/or Thomas S. Brumbaugh, Esquire I.D. No. 89037 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 717 441-7060 LAURIE CHRIS BILGER Plaintiff Attorneys for Third Party Defendant E. P. Henry Corporation IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PIENNSYLVANIA v. HOME DEPOT OF U.S.A., INC. Defendant NO. 04-80 v. E. P. HENRY CORPORATION Third Party Defendant CIVIIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED THIRD PART DEFENDANT. E. P. HENRY CORPORAT~ON'S ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM TO DEFENDANT. THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A.. INC.'S THIRD PARTY COMPLAIN1[ AND NOW, comes the Third-Party Defendant, E. P. Henry Corporation (hereinafter "E. P. Henry"), by and through its attorneys, Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, and files the following Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim to Defendant, The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.'s (hereinafter "Home Depot") Third Party Complaint Against E. P. Henry Corporation, and in support thereof avers the following: 1. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). Third-Party Defendant, E. P. Henry is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in this paragraph, and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 2. Denied as stated. Third-Party Defendant, E. P. Henry admits that a copy of Plaintiff's Complaint was attached to Defendant, Home Depot's Third Party Complaint Against E. P. Henry. Plaintiff's Complaint is a written document, and it speaks for itself. To the extent that any of the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint may be inferred as stating claims of negligence or other wrongdoing on the part of Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry, said claims are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 3. Denied as stated. Plaintiff's Complaint is a written document, and it speaks for itself. To the extent that any of the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint may be inferred as stating claims of negligence or other wrongdoing on the part of Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry, said claims are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 4. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant, Home Depot's Answer to Complaint with New Matter was attached to Defendant, Home Depot's Third Party Complaint. To the extent that any of the allegations in Defendant Home Depot's Answer to Complaint with New Matter may be inferred as stating claims of negligence or other wrongdoing on the part of Additional Defendants, said claims are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 5. Admitted. 6. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 7. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry specifically denies that it is liable to Defendant, Home Depot. 8. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 9. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry specifically denies that it is contractually liable to Defendant, Home Depot, or that it is obligated to defend or indemnify Defendant, Home Depot. 2 WHEREFORE, Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor, together with all applicablle court costs. NEW MATTER 10. Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein the averments and denials contained in paragraphs 1 through 9 of this Answer with New Matter with Counterclaim. 11. Defendant, Home Depot's Complaint against Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry fails to state a cause of action against Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry. 12. Any and all damages, injuries and losses allegedly sustained by Plaintiff may have been due to the negligence and carelessness of Plaintiff, and such conduct serves to reduce or bar Plaintiff's recovery pursuant to Ithe terms of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa.C.S. 97102. 13. Plaintiff's cause of action may be barred by Plaintiffs' contributory negligence. 14. Any conditions about which Plaintiff complains were open and obvious to any individual exercising reasonable care for their own safety. 15. Plaintiff may have assumed the risk of injury. 16. At no time prior to Plaintiff's alleged fall, did Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry have actual and/or constructive notice of the conditions about which Plaintiff complains. 17. No conduct of Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry was the proximate cause of any injuries and/or damages sustained by the Pllaintiff. 3 18. No act or omission of Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry was a cause of, or a substantial factor in causing, the Plaintiff's alleged injuries, 19. At all times mentioned herein, Third Palrty Defendant, E. P. Henry, exercised reasonable care. 20. Plaintiff's alleged injuries may be the result of pre-existing conditions or unrelated events and not a result of the incident alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint. 21. Any damages or injuries allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff may have been proximately caused by individuals and entities other than Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry, including but not limited to Plaintiff, Defendant Home Depot, and others. 22. Plaintiff and Defendant Home Depot's claims against Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry may be barred by the statute of limitations as set forth in the Pennsylvania Judicial Code and/or under the Lamp v. Hevman Doctrine. 23. Defendant Home Depot's may be barred or limited by collateral estoppel, and/or res judicata. 24. Defendant Home Depot's claims may be barred by the defenses of release, accord and satisfaction, waiver, estoppel, the terms of a contract or express warranty, or an award at arbitration as may be shown by discovery in this case. 25. Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry, did not design or set up the display in question, or in the alternative, the display in question was substantially and materially altered by Defendant, Home Depot or others. WHEREFORE, Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter a judgment in its favor, and if it is determined that the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery, the Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry demands that judgment 4 therefore be entered solely against Defendant, Home Dl3pot. In the alternative, if it is determined that Plaintiff is entitled to recover against Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry, which is specifically denied, then Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter a judgment against Defendant Home Depot for joint and several liability, contribution, indemnification, or all three. COUNTERCLAIM 26. Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein the averments and denials contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Answer with New Matter with Counterclaim. 27. Without admission or adoption, and for the purposes of this counterclaim only, Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry incorporates hen3in by reference the averments and allegations set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint against Defendant, Home Depot. 28. Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry is not a joint tortfeasor with Defendant, Home Depot on Plaintiff's Complaint and cannot be held jointly and severally liable with Defendant, Home Depot as to Plaintiffs Complaint. 29. To the extent that Plaintiff is entitled to any recovery on her Complaint, which is specifically denied, any such liability is solely that of the Defendant, Home Depot. 30. In the event it is determined that Plaintiff is entitled to a recovery against Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry, which is specifically denied, then Defendant, Home Depot is liable over to Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry by way of indemnity and/or contribution. 5 31. If it is determined that Plaintiff is entitled to recover any or all of the damages set forth in the Complaint, which is specifically denied, then Defendant, Home Depot may be solely liable to Plaintiff, jointly liable to Plaintiff, or liable over to Additional Defendant, E. P. Henry, for contribution, indemnification or both. WHEREFORE, Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter a judgment in its favor, and if it is determined that the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery, the Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry demands that judgment therefore be entered solely against Defendant, Home D'epot. In the alternative, if it is determined that Plaintiff is entitled to recover against Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry, which is specifically denied, then Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter a judgment against Defendant Home Depot for joint and several liability, contribution, indemnification, or all three. Dated: 5/t.jPr Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP -~, Thomas S. Brumbaugh, I.D. No. 89037 P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717)441-7060 Attorneys for Third Party Defendant, E. P. Henry Corporation 6 , VERIFICA TlON I, Michael DiRienzo, verify that I am an authorized representative of the Third Party Defendant in the foregoing action and that the attached document is based upon information which has been gathered by me, my counsel and/or others on my behalf in preparation of the defense of this lawsuit. The langua!~e of the document is that of counsel and is not mine. I have read the document, and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. To the extent that the contents of the document are that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this verification. I understand that intentional false statements he,rein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 94904 relating to unsworn falsifications made to authorities. Date:----f-tJ~_L_-- E. P. Henry Corpo ation By: CERTlFICA TE OF SERVICIE AND NOW, this {OUl. day of +,2004, !I, Michelle E. Wendt, of the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, hereby certify that I sent a true and correct copy of the foregoing document by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Bradley L Griffie, Esquire Griffie & Associates 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorneys for Plaintiff Courtney Seda McDonnell, Esquire Law Offices of McDonnell & Associates 601 S. Henderson Road, Suite 152 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Attorneys for Defendant, The Home Depot of U.S.A., Inc. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP V!4!:f/#!/. a~/~ Michelle E. Wendt (') ~~ 0 C";'") c: c;;> 'TI .<;" .". -n ~ " ;'C :r -.< rn ;;g -Drn :b6 " 0 'j~ ", ;, ~t1 -~ ')0 1'..> ~'jfl'1 :--1 f.:_. ,.,. __oj (,,) ~ -, OJ LAW OFFICES OF McDONNELL & ASSOCIATES Courtney Seda McDonnell, Esquire Attorney ill No. 76263 601 South Henderson Road, Suite 152 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Tel. (610) 337-2087 Fax (610) 337-2575 Attorneys for Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA - CIVIL ACTION - LAW LAURIE CHRIS BILGER, Plaintiff Docket No.: 04-80 v. HOME DEPOT OF U.S.A., INC., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff E.P. HENRY CORPORATION Third Party Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT, THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.'S ANSWER TO NEW MATTER OF THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT, E.P. HENRY CORPORATION and ANSWER TO COUNTER-CLAIM NEW MATTER Defendant, The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. ("incorrectly designated as Home Depot of U.S.A, Inc.") (hereinafter "Home Depot") by and through its attorneys hereby files this answer to New Matter and Counterclaim of Third Party Defendant E.P. Henry 10. Denied to the extent that this paragraph mahs no allegations against Home Depot. 1 L Denied. 12-15. Denied to the extent that these paragraphs makes no allegations against Home Depot. 16-19. Denied. 20. Denied to the extent that this paragraph mahs no allegation against Home Depot. 21-25. Denied. COUNTER CLAIM 26-27. Denied to the extent that these paragraphs make no allegations against Home Depot. 28-31. Denied. LAW OFFICES OF McDONNELL & ASSOCIATES BY: ~J~M~ Courtn S,~da McDtr;hell, EsqUire Attorney for Defendant, The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE COURTNEY SEDA McDONNELL, ESQUIRE hereby certifies that a trne and correct copy of Defendant, The Horne Depot U.S.A., Inc. 's Answer to Defendant, EP Henry's New Matter with Counter-Claim was served by facsimile on MaY~004 to the corporation and counsel below named: Thomas S. Brumbaugh, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 North Front Street PO Box 999 Harrisburg, P A 17108 F- 717-237-7105 Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, P A 17013 F-7l7-243-5063 LAW OFFICES OF Mc][)ONNELL & ASSOCIATES BY: f2 .Ie? rn~ Courtney S ,1 McDonnell, Esquire Attorney for Defendant, The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc, () c:: ::>- ;fiH~; ..,'- ,'- tl ~>. i:~ -~', ", i:L~ :J '. - .... ......, "'" c::::., ",,- ::g: ;;::iI>~ 'f? =::1 r4, :l] r- "D rr, ."':09 Q6 .~::;i ~("5 (S,-" ......,' " "0:-,. :.<' -.;: N CO ;g .c- o LAURIE CHRIS BILGER, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. HOME DEPOT OF U.S.A., INC., : NO. 04-80 Defendant vs. EP. HENRY CORPORATION, Third Party Defendant: CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE Please mark the above-captioned action as settled and discontinued. Respectfully submitted, (" \. <{ IlIsI u ( Date -/ ...;.';;" // . /...... .,:,/ /....L....{Jrif~e, .Esquire ~ Jrtl8rney for Plamtiff GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 243-5551 (800) 347-5552 () -T~ -- -', .....,.. \ ,~, ~'-,