Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-1522MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO.C)gr 15 d )- CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue a Writ of Summons regarding the above named Defendants at each of the following addresses: North Mountain Inn, Inc., and Michael F. Strine 3636 Waggoners Gap Rd. & Carlisle, Pa. 17013 The Goalpost, and Betty Jo Gastley RD 2 New Oxford, Pa. 17350 X114 Date Res ectfully Submitted TU 0.?? on Turo, Esquire 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688 Attorney for Plaintiff MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff vs. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. d 7//SJd CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW and THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS: YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE NAMED PLAINTIFF HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Prothonotary Dat DeJ v z MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, CIVIL ACTION - LAW d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC.,, geyisi'D PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue a Writ of Summons regarding the above named Defendant CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a CARLISLE STREET TAVERN at the following addresses: CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, And Paul T. Becker 609 Carlisle St. Hanover, Pa. 17331 ?/?j Dy Date INC., Re ectfully Submitted T W!!l Ron Tu ,Esquire 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688 Attorney for Plaintiff MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. V. North Mountain Inn, Inc., and Michael F. Strine, Individually, d/b/a/, North Mountain Inn, Inc. Defendant and CIVIL ACTION - LAW The Goalpost, and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a, The Goalpost, Defendant and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., Additional Defendants NO. 04 -.1522 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 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 prompt action. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case will proceed without you and a decree in divorce or annulment may be entered against you for any other claim or relief requested in these papers by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you, including custody or visitation of your children. When the ground for the divorce is indignities or irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, you may request marriage counseling. A list of marriage counselors is available in the Office of the Prothonotary at the First. Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse, South Hanover Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. IF YOU DO NOT FILE A CLAIM FOR ALIMONY, DIVISION OF MARITAL PROPERTY, LAWYER'S FEES, OR EXPENSES BEFORE A DIVORCE IS GRANTED, YOU MAY LOSE THE RIGHT TO CLAIM ANY OF THEM. 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 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. V. North Mountain Inn, Inc., and Michael F. Strine, Individually, d/b/a/, North Mountain Inn, Inc., Defendant and CIVIL ACTION - LAW The Goalpost, and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a, The Goalpost, Defendant and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., Additional Defendants NO. 04 -1522 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT The decedent is Van Alexander Williams, an adult individual whose last known address is 1733 McClure's Gap Road, Apartment #1. 2. The decedent is the father of two children, Alexandra Williams, age 16, and Julia, age 10. 3. The decedent, at the time of death, was married to Mary Williams, the Administratrix of the estate of Van Alexander Williams. 4. Plaintiff, Mary E. Williams, is an adult individual residing at 41 Carla Drive, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17257. 5. Defendant, Michael F. Strine, is an adult individual with a business address at 3636 Waggoners Gap Road, Carlisle, PA 17013. 6. Defendant, North Mountain Inn, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation which owns and/or operates the North Mountain Inn, having its principal place of business at 3636 Waggoners Gap Road, Carlisle, PA 17013, and operating as a tavern licensed to serve alcohol by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at all relevant times hereto. 7. Defendant, Betty Jo Gastley, is an adult individual with a business address at RD 2, New Oxford, PA 17350. 8. Defendant, The Goalpost, is a Pennsylvania corporation which owns and/or operates The Goalpost, having its principal place of business at RD 2, New Oxford, PA 17350, and operating as a tavern licensed to serve alcohol by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at all relevant times hereto. 9. Defendant, Paul T. Becker, is an adult individual with a business address at 609 Carlisle Street, Hanover, PA 17331. 10. Defendant, Carlisle Street Tavern, is a Pennsylvania corporation which owns and/or operates the Carlisle Street Tavern, having its principal place of business at 609 Carlisle Street, Hanover, PA 17331, and operating as a tavern licensed to serve alcohol by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at all relevant times hereto. 11. On May 151 2002, Williams engaged in a day of drinking which ultimately resulted in his driving while intoxicated, with a blood ethanol level of 0.63, nearly eight times the legal limit, causing an accident and his death. 12. During the day and evening of May 151, 2002, Williams purchased and consumed alcohol and/or was provided and served alcohol at the North Mountain Inn, The Goalpost, and the Carlisle Street Tavern. 13. On May 15a, 2002, Williams dropped off his Jeep Cherokee for servicing at Callen Tire Shop in Hanover at 10:22a.m. 14. From Callen Tire Shop, Williams went to Carlisle Street Tavern, where he stayed and consumed alcoholic beverages from approximately 10:30a.m. to approximately 4:20p.m., and while visibly intoxicated, was provided or served alcohol at the Carlisle Street Tavern by Carlisle Street Tavern employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons. 15. Thereafter, Williams went to The Goalpost, where he stayed and, while visibly intoxicated, was served or provided alcohol at The Goa lpost by Goalpost employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons. 16. At the North Mountain Inn, Williams, while visibly intoxicated, was served or provided alcohol at the North Mountain Inn by North Mountain Inn employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons. 17. While at the Carlisle Street Tavern, The Goalpost, and the North Mountain Inn, it was obvious that Williams was visibly intoxicated for the following reasons: A. Williams was staggering, listing, and generally unable to walk normally; B. Williams was slurring his words and was incoherent; C. Williams had bloodshot eyes; and D. Williams required assistance to stand and walk. 18. Although Williams was visibly intoxicated, the employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons of the Carlisle Street Tavern, The Goalpost, and the North Mountain Inn furnished alcohol to Williams and/or allowed Williams to possess and consume alcohol. 19. At approximately 8:30p.m., upon leaving the North. Mountain Inn, Williams was the operator and sole occupant of a motorcycle traveling, southbound on McClure's Gap Road in Lower Frankford Twp. Williams lost control of the motorcycle he was operating, struck a tree, and died at the scene of the accident. Post-mordem toxicology tests determined that Williams' blood ethanol level was .63% at the time of death. COUNT I - DRAM SHOP - THE NORTH MOUNTAIN INN 20. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs I through 19 of the Complaint. 21. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has enacted two sections under the Pennsylvania Liquor Code which provide imposition of cavil liability against a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board for actions of one of its licensees under the circumstances described in this Complaint. 22. Title 47 Pa. C.S.A. § 4-493(1) provides that: "It shall be unlawful--(I) FURNISHING LIQUOR. OR MALT OR BREWED BEVERAGES TO CERTAIN PERSONS. For any licensee or the board, or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee or of the board, or any other person, to sell, furnish or give any liquor or malt or brewed beverages, or to pern it any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to be sold, furnished or given, to any person visibly intoxicated, or to any minor: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, no cause of action will exist against a licensee or the board or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee or the board for selling, furnishing or giving any liquor or malt or brewed beverages or permitting any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to be sold, furnished or given to any insane person, any habitual drunkard or person of known intemperate habits unless the person sold, furnished or given alcohol is visibly intoxicated or is a minor." 23. Title 47 § 4-493(1) is to be read in conjunction with § 4-497 which provides: "No licensee shall be liable to third persons on account of damages inflicted upon them off of the licensed premises by customers of the licensee unless the customer who inflicts the damages was sold, furnished or given liquor or malt or brewed beverages by the said licensee or his agent, servant or employe when the said customer was visibly intoxicated." 24. Strine was a licensee of the Liquor Control Board before, on, and after May I 't, 2002. 25. During the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of the North Mountain Inn, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, which beverages were sold or furnished to Williams by employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons of the North Mountain Inn/Strine while visibly intoxicated; or were purchased by other customers from said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons, who then permitted and allowed Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishments. 26. During the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of the North Mountain Inn, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, by said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons of the North Mountain Inn/Strine while visibly intoxicated, by allowing Williams to enter the establishments while visibly intoxicated and be furnished or given the aforesaid beverages by said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons or by customers who were sold or furnished said beverages who then permitted Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment. 27. The actions of Williams were sufficient to put a person who had reasonable training and experience as a bartender, server, or operator on notice that she was intoxicated. 28. The obvious actions and physical signs which Williams displayed while at the North Mountain Inn at the time in which he was served at each establishment included, but are not limited to, the following: A. Williams was staggering, listing, and generally unable to walk normally; B. Williams was slurring his words and was incoherent; C. Williams had bloodshot eyes, and; D. Williams required assistance to stand and walk. 29. Within fifteen minutes after leaving the North Mountain Inn, at which time Williams was served liquor or malted beverages at each establishment while visibly intoxicated, Williams suffered a fatal motorcycle accident. 30. As a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, the aforesaid actions of the North Mountain hm/Strine, by and through their employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons, were in violation of the aforesaid statutes, 47 Pa. C.S.A. § 4493 and §4497, which actions caused and/or were a substantial factor in causing the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 20 through 29 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. 31. As a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, the aforesaid actions of the North Mountain Inn/Strine, are liable per se, as a result of the violations of the aforesaid statutes which violations caused and/or were a substantial factor in causing the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 20 through 30 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. COUNT II - DRAM SHOP - THE GOALPOST 32. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs I through 31 of the Complaint. 33. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has enacted two sections under the Pennsylvania Liquor Code which provide imposition of civil liability against a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board for actions of one of its licensees under the circumstances described in this Complaint. 34. Title 47 Pa. C.S.A. § 4-493(1) provides that: "It shall be unlawful--(1) FURNISHING LIQUOR. OR MALT OR BREWED BEVERAGES TO CERTAIN PERSONS. For any licensee or the board, or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee or of the board, or any other person, to sell, furnish or give any liquor or malt or brewed beverages, or to permit any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to be sold, furnished or given, to any person visibly intoxicated, or to any minor: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, no cause of action will exist against a licensee or the board or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee or the board for selling, furnishing or giving; any liquor or malt or brewed beverages or permitting any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to be sold, famished or given to any insane person, any habitual drunkard or person of known intemperate habits unless the person sold, furnished or given alcohol is visibly intoxicated or is a minor." 35. Title 47 § 4-493(1) is to be read in conjunction with § 4-497 which provides: "No licensee shall be liable to third persons on account of damages inflicted upon them off of the licensed premises by customers of the licensee unless the customer who inflicts the damages was sold, furnished or given liquor or malt or brewed beverages by the said licensee or his agent, servant or employe when the said customer was visibly intoxicated." 36. Gastley was a licensee of the Liquor Control Board before, on, and after May 1st 2002. 37. During the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of The Goalpost, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, which beverages were sold or furnished to Williams by employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons of The Goalpost/Gastley while visibly intoxicated; or were purchased by other customers from said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons, who then permitted and allowed Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment. 38. During the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of The Goalpost, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, by said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons of The Goalpost/Gastley while visibly intoxicated, by allowing Williams to enter the establishment while visibly intoxicated and be furnished or given the aforesaid beverages by said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons or by customers who were sold or furnished said beverages who then permitted Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment. 39. The actions of Williams were sufficient to put a person who had reasonable training and experience as a bartender, server, or operator on notice that she was intoxicated. 40. The obvious actions and physical signs which Williams displayed while at The Goalpost at the time in which he was served at each establishment included, but are not limited to, the following: A. Williams was staggering, listing, and generally unable to walk normally; B. Williams was slurring his words and was incoherent; C. Williams had bloodshot eyes, and; D. Williams required assistance to stand and walk. 41. After leaving The Goalpost, at which time Williams was served liquor or malted beverages at the establishment while visibly intoxicated, Williams suffered a fatal motorcycle accident. 42. As a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, The Goalpost/Gastley, by and through their employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons, were in violation of the aforesaid statutes, 47 Pa. C.S.A. § 4-493 and §4497, which actions caused and/or were a substantial factor in causing the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 32 through 41 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. 43. As a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, the aforesaid actions of The Goalpost/Gastley, are liable per se, as a result of the violations of the aforesaid statutes which violations caused and/or were a substantial factor in causing the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 32 through 42 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. COUNT III - DRAM SHOP - CARLISLE STREET TAVERN 44. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 43 of the Complaint. 45. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has enacted two sections under the Pennsylvania Liquor Code which provide imposition of'civil liability against a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board for actions of one of its licensees under the circumstances described in this Complaint. 46. Title 47 Pa. C.S.A. § 4-493(1) provides that: "It shall be unlawful--(1) FURNISHING LIQUOR OR MALT OR BREWED BEVERAGES TO CERTAIN PERSONS. For any licensee or the board, or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee or of the board, or any other person, to sell, furnish or give any liquor or malt or brewed beverages, or to permit any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to be sold, furnished or given, to any person visibly intoxicated, or to any minor: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, no cause of action will exist against a licensee or the board or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee or the board for selling, furnishing or giving any liquor or malt or brewed beverages or permitting any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to be sold, furnished or given to any insane person, any habitual drunkard or person of known intemperate habits unless the person sold, furnished or given alcohol is visibly intoxicated or is a minor." 47. Title 47 § 4-493(1) is to be read in conjunction with § 4497 which provides: "No licensee shall be liable to third persons on account of damages inflicted upon them off of the licensed premises by customers of the licensee unless the customer who inflicts the damages was sold, furnished or given liquor or malt or brewed beverages by the said licensee or his agent, servant or employe when the said customer was visibly intoxicated." 48. Becker was a licensee of the Liquor Control Board before, on, and after May 1St 2002. 49. During the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of Carlisle Street Tavern, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, which beverages were sold or furnished to Williams by employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons of Carlisle Street Tavern/Becker while visibly intoxicated; or were purchased by other customers from said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons, who then permitted and allowed Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment. 50. During the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of Carlisle Street Tavern, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, by said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons of Carlisle Street TavemBecker while visibly intoxicated, and furnished or given the aforesaid beverages by said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons or by customers who were sold or furnished said beverages who then permitted Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment. 51. The actions of Williams were sufficient to put a person who had reasonable training and experience as a bartender, server, or operator on notice that she was intoxicated. 52. The obvious actions and physical signs which Williams displayed while at The Goalpost at the time in which he was served at each establishment included, but are not limited to, the following: A. Williams was staggering, listing, and generally unable to walk normally; B. Williams was slurring his words and was incoherent; C. Williams had bloodshot eyes, and; D. Williams required assistance to stand and walk. 53. After leaving Carlisle Street Tavern, at which time Williams was served liquor or malted beverages at the establishment while visibly intoxicated, Williams suffered a fatal motorcycle accident. 54. As a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, Carlisle Street Tavern, by and through their employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons, were in violation of the aforesaid statutes, 47 Pa. C.S.A. § 4-493 and §4.497, which actions caused and/or were a substantial factor in causing the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 44 through 53 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. 55. As a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, the aforesaid actions of Carlisle Street Tavern/Becker, are liable per se, as a result of the violations of the aforesaid statutes which violations caused and/or were a substantial factor in causing the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 44 through 54 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. 56. As licensees of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, the aforesaid actions of the North Mountain Inn/Strine, The Goalpost/Gastley, and Carlisle Street Tavern/Becker have each violated the aforesaid statutes and are therefore jointly and severally liable for the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 5 through 55 of this Complaint, which are incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants North Mountain Inn/Strine, The Goalpost/Gastley, and Carlisle Street Tavern/Becker, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits, together with delay damages as applicable under law, as well as any other relief the court deems proper. COUNT IV - WRONGFUL DEATH - THE NORTH MOUNTAIN INN 57. The plaintiff, Mary E. Williams, Administratrix of the estate of Van Alexander Williams, brings this action pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8301 et seq. 58. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 58 of the Complaint. 59. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has enacted two sections under the Pennsylvania Liquor Code which provide imposition of civil liability against a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board for actions of one of its licensees under the circumstances described in this Complaint. 60. Title 47 Pa. C.S.A. § 4-493(1) provides that: "It shall be unlawful--(I) FURNISHING LIQUOR OR MALT OR BREWED BEVERAGES TO CERTAIN PERSONS. For any licensee or the board, or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee or of the board, or any other person, to sell, furnish or give any liquor or malt or brewed beverages, or to permit any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to be sold, furnished or given, to any person visibly intoxicated, or to any minor: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, no cause of action will exist against a licensee or the board or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee or the board for selling, furnishing or giving any liquor or malt or brewed beverages or permitting any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to be sold, furnished or given to any insane person, any habitual drunkard or person of known intemperate habits unless the person sold, furnished or given alcohol is visibly intoxicated or is a minor." 61. Title 47 § 4-493(1) is to be read in conjunction with § 4497 which provides: "No licensee shall be liable to third persons on account of damages inflicted upon them off of the licensed premises by customers of the licensee unless the customer who inflicts the damages was sold, furnished or given liquor or malt or brewed beverages by the said licensee or his agent, servant or employe when the said customer was visibly intoxicated." 62. Strine was a licensee of the Liquor Control Board before, on, and after May 1', 2002. 63. During the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of the North Mountain Inn, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, which beverages were sold or furnished to Williams by employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons of the North Mountain Inn/Strine while visibly intoxicated; or were purchased by other customers from said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons, who then permitted and allowed Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment. 64. During the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of the North Mountain Inn, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, by said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons of the North Mountain Inn/Strine while visibly intoxicated, by allowing Williams to enter the establishments while visibly intoxicated and be furnished or given the aforesaid beverages by said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons or by customers who were sold or furnished said beverages who then permitted Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment. 65. The actions of Williams were sufficient to put a person who had reasonable training and experience as a bartender, server, or operator on notice that she was intoxicated. 66. The obvious actions and physical signs which Williams displayed while at the North Mountain Inn at the time in which he was served at each establishment included, but are not limited to, the following: A. Williams was staggering, listing, and generallly unable to walk normally; B. Williams was slurring his words and was incoherent; C. Williams had bloodshot eyes, and; D. Williams required assistance to stand and walk. 67. Within fifteen minutes after leaving the North Mountain Inn, at which time Williams was served liquor or malted beverages at the establishment while visibly intoxicated, Williams suffered a fatal motorcycle accident. 68. As a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, the aforesaid actions of the North Mountain hm/Strine, by and through their employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons, were in violation of the aforesaid statutes, 47 Pa. C.S.A. § 4-493 and §4497, which actions caused and/or were a substantial factor in causing the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 57 through 67 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. 69. As a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, the aforesaid actions of the North Mountain hm/Strine, are liable per se, as a result of the violations of the aforesaid statutes which violations caused and/or were a substantial factor in causing the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 57 through 68 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. 70. As a direct and proximate result of the defendant's negligence, the decedent died on May 1s`, 2002. COUNT V - WRONGFUL DEATH - THE GOALPOST 71. The plaintiff, Mary E. Williams, Administratrix of the estate of Van Alexander Williams, brings this action pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8301 et seq. 72. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs I through 71 of the Complaint. 73. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has enacted two sections under the Pennsylvania Liquor Code which provide imposition of civil liability against a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board for actions of one of its licensees under the circumstances described in this Complaint. 74. Title 47 Pa. C.S.A. § 4-493(1) provides that: "It shall be unlawful--(1) FURNISHING LIQUOR OR MALT OR BREWED BEVERAGES TO CERTAIN PERSONS. For any licensee or the board, or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee or of the board, or any other person, to sell, furnish or give any liquor or malt or brewed beverages, or to permit any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to be sold, furnished or given, to any person visibly intoxicated, or to any minor: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, no cause of action will exist against a licensee or the board or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee or the board for selling, furnishing or giving any liquor or malt or brewed beverages or permitting any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to be sold, furnished or given to any insane person, any habitual drunkard or person of known intemperate habits unless the person sold, furnished or given alcohol is visibly intoxicated or is a minor." 75. Title 47 § 4-493(1) is to be read in conjunction with § 4-497 which provides: "No licensee shall be liable to third persons on account of damages inflicted upon them off of the licensed premises by customers of the license unless the customer who inflicts the damages was sold, furnished or given liquor or malt or brewed beverages by the said licensee or his agent, servant or employe when the said customer was visibly intoxicated." 76. Gastley was a licensee of the Liquor Control Board before, on, and after May 151 2002. 77. During the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of The Goalpost, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, which beverages were sold or furnished to Williams by employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons of The Goalpost/Gastley while visibly intoxicated; or were purchased by other customers from said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons, who then permitted and allowed Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment. 78. During the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of The Goalpost, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, by said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons of The Goalpost/Gastley while visibly intoxicated, by allowing Williams to enter the establishment while visibly intoxicated and be furnished or given the aforesaid beverages by said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons or by customers who were sold or furnished said beverages who then permitted Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment. 79. The actions of Williams were sufficient to put a person who had reasonable training and experience as a bartender, server, or operator on notice that she was intoxicated. 80. The obvious actions and physical signs which Williams displayed while at The Goalpost at the time in which he was served at each establishment included, but are not limited to, the following: A. Williams was staggering, listing, and generally unable to walk normally; B. Williams was slurring his words and was incoherent; C. Williams had bloodshot eyes, and; D. Williams required assistance to stand and walk. 81. After leaving The Goalpost, at which time Williams was served liquor or malted beverages at the establishment while visibly intoxicated, Williams suffered a fatal motorcycle accident. 82. As a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control. Board, The Goalpost/Gastley, by and through their employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons, were in violation of the aforesaid statutes, 47 Pa. C.S.A. § 4-493 and §4-497, which actions caused and/or were a substantial factor in causing the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 71 through 81 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. 83. As a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, the aforesaid actions of The Goalpost/Gastley, are liable per se, as a result of the violations of the aforesaid statutes which violations caused and/or were a substantial factor in causing the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 71 through 82 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. COUNT VI - WRONGFUL DEATH - CARLISLE STREET TAVERN 84. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has enacted two sections under the Pennsylvania Liquor Code which provide imposition of civil liability against a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board for actions of one of its licensees under the circumstances described in this Complaint. 85. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 84 of the Complaint. 86. Title 47 Pa. C.S.A. § 4-493(1) provides that: "It shall be unlawful--(1) FURNISHING LIQUOR OR MALT OR BREWED BEVERAGES TO CERTAIN PERSONS. For any licensee or the board, or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee or of the board, or any other person, to sell, furnish or give any liquor or malt or brewed beverages, or to permit any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to be sold, furnished or given, to any person visibly intoxicated, or to any minor: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, no cause of action will exist against a licensee or the board or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee or the board for selling, furnishing or giving any liquor or malt or brewed beverages or permitting any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to be sold, furnished or given to any insane person, any habitual drunkard or person of known intemperate habits unless the person sold, furnished or given alcohol is visibly intoxicated or is a minor." 87. Title 47 § 4-493(1) is to be read in conjunction with § 4497 which provides: "No licensee shall be liable to third persons on account of damages inflicted upon them off of the licensed premises by customers of the licensee unless the customer who inflicts the damages was sold, furnished or given liquor or malt or brewed beverages by the said licensee or his agent, servant or employe when the said customer was visibly intoxicated." 88. Becker was a licensee of the Liquor Control Board before, on, and after May Is`, zooz. 89. During the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of Carlisle Street Tavern, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, which beverages were sold or furnished to Williams by employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons of Carlisle Street Tavern/Becker while visibly intoxicated; or were purchased by other customers from said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons, who then permitted and allowed Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment. 9o. During the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of Carlisle Street Tavern, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, by said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons of Carlisle Street Tavem/Becker while visibly intoxicated, and furnished or given the aforesaid beverages by said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons or by customers who were sold or furnished said beverages who then permitted Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment. 91. The actions of Williams were sufficient to put a person who had reasonable training and experience as a bartender, server, or operator on notice that she was intoxicated. 92. The obvious actions and physical signs which Williams displayed while at The Goalpost at the time in which he was served at each establishment included, but are not limited to, the following: A. Williams was staggering, listing, and generally unable to walk normally; B. Williams was slurring his words and was incoherent; C. Williams had bloodshot eyes, and; D. Williams required assistance to stand and walk. 93. After leaving Carlisle Street Tavern, at which time Williams was served liquor or malted beverages at the establishment while visibly intoxicated, Williams suffered a fatal motorcycle accident. 94. As a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, Carlisle Street Tavern, by and through their employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons, were in violation of the aforesaid statutes, 47 Pa. C.S.A. § 4-493 and §4497, which actions caused and/or were a substantial factor in causing the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 84 through 93 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. 95. As a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, the aforesaid actions of Carlisle Street Tavern/Becker, are liable per se, as a result of the violations of the aforesaid statutes which violations caused and/or were: a substantial factor in causing the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 57 through 95 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. 96. As licensees of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, the aforesaid actions of the North Mountain Inn/Strine, The Goalpost/Gastley, and Carlisle Street Tavern/Becker have each violated the aforesaid statutes and are therefore jointly and severally liable for the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 1 through 95 of this Complaint, which are incorporated by reference. 97. The decedent left surviving various persons who were his next of kin, including Mary E. Williams, decedent's widow, and by Mary E. Williams, decedent's 16-year -old daughter Alexandra Williams, and decedent's 10-year-old daughter Julia Williams, who are entitled to take decedent's intestate personal property and who have suffered pecuniary injury, including the loss of the decedent's death. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against ]Defendants North Mountain Inn/Strine, The Goalpost/Gastley, and Carlisle Street TavemBecker, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits, together with delay damages as applicable under law, as well as any other relief the court deems proper. Date Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Court I.D. No. 34334 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. (11VIA Date Mary. V ill ams CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ron Turo, Esquire hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the Complaint, upon North Mountain Inn/Michael F. Strine, The Goalpost/Betty Jo Gastley, and Carlisle Street Tavern/Paul T. Becker, by depositing same in the Unit States Mail, first class, postage pre-paid on the ' day of 2005, from Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Michael F. Strine d/b/a North Mountain Inn 3636 Waggoners Gap Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Betty Jo Gastley d/b/a The Goalpost RD 2 New Oxford, PA 17350 Paul T. Becker d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern 609 Carlisle Street Hanover, PA 17331 TURO. LAW OFFI Ron Turo, Esquire / Supreme Court I.D. No. 34334 Turo Law Offices 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688; FAX 717.245.2165 r> C7 ? c'y "r'? 4; ?n C ..j 3 " ' .... ?:.? - t 1 n'r ?" Y.rr? - t ?t ?? ? ?? _?" . . _ ?? C / ( 7 7 c N ? S,? v? a -_.::.-. GJ) 3,,-. -? ? ? N lD ?Q7? V . C ? ? ?? ? N f17 4`?? v MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT: CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a CARLISLE STREET TAVERN YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE NAMED PLAINTIFF HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. ?-2C-2ic Prothonotary Dat Deputy n-A SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2004-01522 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND WILLIAMS MARY L ET AL VS NORTH MOUNTAIN INN INC ET AL CHIEF DEPUTY RONNY ANDERSON , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon NORTH MOUNTAIN INN INC the DEFENDANT , at 0835:00 HOURS, on the 14th day of April 2004 at CUMBERLAND CO SHERIFF'S OFFICE ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to MICHAEL F. STRINE a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs Docketing 18.00 Service 3.45 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 31.45 So Answeris R. Thomas Kline 04/26/ RON TUF Sworn and Subscribed to before B} me this ,6day of l ez?o ( A.D. `Jr ¢rothl.donotary SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2004-01522 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND WILLIAMS MARY L ET AL VS NORTH MOUNTAIN INN INC ET AL CHIEF DEPUTY RONNY ANDERSON , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon STRINE MICHAEL F DEFENDANT , at 0835:00 HOURS, on the 14th day of April at CUMBERLAND CO SHERIFF'S OFFICE ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE CARLISLE, PA 17013 MICHAEL F. STRINE by handing to a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS the 2004 together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this ?Y day of 0-01 A.D. Q C", Prothonotary So Answers- R. Thomas Kline 04/26/2004 RON TURO By: SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2004-01522 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND WILLIAMS MARY L ET AL VS NORTH MOUNTAIN INN INC ET AL CHIEF DEPUTY RONNY ANDERSON , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon STRINE MICHAEL F D/B/A NORTH MOUNTAIN INN INC the DEFENDANT , at 0835:00 HOURS, on the 14th day of April 2004 at CUMBERLAND CO SHERIFF'S OFFICE ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to MICHAEL F. STRINE a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 16.00 So Answers: Yu s R. Thomas Kline 04/26/ RON TL Sworn and Subscribed to before E me this 4 6 day of Ltb Q,2ou { A.D. 00u1 P ?ec ro hono?tar?y ' SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2004-01522 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND WILLIAMS MARY L ET AL VS NORTH MOUNTAIN INN INC ET AL 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: GOALPOST THE but was unable to locate Them deputized the sheriff of ADAMS in his bailiwick. He therefore County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS On April 26th , 2004 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from ADAMS Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 dep Adams County 50.40 .00 75.40 04/26/2004 RON TURO So answe sr R. Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me w ?,?? this ?S day of Q-0 ?9-auy A. D. A Prothonotary SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2004-01522 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND WILLIAMS MARY L ET AL VS NORTH MOUNTAIN INN INC ET AL 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: GASTLEY BETTY JO but was unable to locate Her deputized the sheriff of ADAMS in his bailiwick. He therefore County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS On April 26th , 2004 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from ADAMS Sheriffs Costs: Docketing 6.00 Out of County .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 .00 16.00 04/26/2004 RON TURO So answer; omas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me w this day of QH ;Zvi { A. D. 7 ?? Protark SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2004-01522 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND WILLIAMS MARY L ET AL VS NORTH MOUNTAIN INN INC ET AL 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 GASTLEY BETTY JO D/B/A THE but was unable to locate Her deputized the sheriff of ADAMS to wit: GOALPOST in his bailiwick He therefore County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS On April 26th , 2004 this office was in receipt of the attached return from ADAMS Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Out of County .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 .00 16.00 04/26/2004 RON TURO So answer?? -? Thomas ftli e Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me this 1L- day of oZ(,?N A. D. Prothonotary In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Mary E. Williams et al VS. North Mountain Inn Inc. et al SERVE: The Goalpost 04-1522 civil No. Now, April 13, 2004 , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Adams County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. f, Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, within upon April 15 , 20 04 , at 8:40 o'clock P. M. served the Writ of Summons in Civil Action The Goalpost at 5413 Carlisle Pike, New Oxford, PA by handing to Betty Jo Gastley a true and attested. and made known to her Sworn and subscribed before me this N/A day of , 20 copy of the original writ of summons the contents thereof. So answers, n n X tu ^ n^ (. J. ?f 14 S?GJ.? D She riff ?riff of AaamsCounty, PA COSTS SERVICE MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT $ 30.00 20.40 $ 50.40 Pd. 4/22/0+ :71 In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Mary E. Williams et al VS. North Mountain Inn Inc. et al SERVE: Betty Jo Gastley Now April 13, 2004 No. , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Adams County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, April 15 , 20 04 , at 8:40 o'clock P. M. served the within Writ of Summons in Civil Action upon Betty Jo Gastley at 5413 Carlisle Pike, New Oxford, PA by handing to her a true and attested. and made known to her Sworn and subscribed before me this N/A day of 20 copy of the original writ of summons 04-1522 civil the contents thereof. So saversI X ( .tin A CAI. r? . L 000A De y Sheriff 1 eriff of Adams County, PA COSTS SERVICE MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT $ Included cn amther return ,.??; •??^1, ?? ??. ..- ? ;, %1 In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Mary E. Williams et al vs. North Mountain Inn Inc. et al SERVE: Betty Jo Gastley d/b/a The Goalpost No 04-1522 civil No. Now, April 13, 2004 , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Adams County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, within upon April 15 2004 , at 8:40 o'clock P. M. served the Writ of Summons in Civil Action Betty Jo Gastley d/b/a The Goalpost at 5413 Carlisle Pike, New Oxford, PA by handing to Betty Jo Gastley a true and attested and made known to her Sworn and subscribed before me this N/A day of 20 copy of the original writ of summons the contents thereof. So answers, CLI xUe y Sheriff eriffof Adams County, PA COSTS SERVICE MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT $ Irchrled on amther return h i h i t1,1'1 nr 7 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually NO. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, deceased, Plaintiff NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and THE GOALPOST and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Kindly enter the appearance of Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire of Barley Snyder on behalf of Defendants Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. in the above-captioned matter. Serve all papers at 126 East King Street, Lancaster, PA 17602. Notice by copy hereof given this date to opposing counsel. BARLEY SNYDER By: Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Attorneys for Additional Defendants 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 52586 1278312-1 N r? ? n J can IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, deceased, Plaintiff V. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., and MICHAEL F. STRIKE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and THE GOALPOST and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants NO. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served this day of prepaid, upon: Ronald A. Turo, Esquire 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 2004, by first class mail, postage BARLEY SNYDER By: -1 W - Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Attorneys for Additional Defendants 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 52586 1278312-1 ca a o T?F" L T? -: f n '` DY O -. -- C7 r:: . "mot _- ?n GJt ti, SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2004-01522 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND WILLIAMS MARY L ET AL VS NORTH MOUNTAIN INN INC ET AL R. Thomas Kline Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligen search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: CARLISLE STREET TAVERN but was unable to locate Them deputized the sheriff of YORK in his bailiwick. He therefore County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS On June 18th , 2004 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from YORK Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 Dep York County 52.88 .00 89.88 06/18/2004 RON TURO So answe - R. Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me this d,21"( day of a-UU'i A.D. Frothono`t ary ( ? SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2004-01522 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND WILLIAMS MARY L ET AL VS NORTH MOUNTAIN INN INC ET AL 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: BECKER PAUL T but was unable to locate Him deputized the sheriff of YORK in his bailiwick He therefore County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS On June 18th , 2004 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from YORK Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Out of County .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 .00 16.00 06/18/2004 RON TURO So answer _ R. Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me this as ?*? day of ?()v f A.D. Prothonotary SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2004-01522 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND WILLIAMS MARY L ET AL VS NORTH MOUNTAIN INN INC ET AL 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: BECKER PAUL T D/B/A CARLISLE STREET TAVERN but was unable to locate Him deputized the sheriff of YORK in his bailiwick. He therefore County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS On June 18th , 2004 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from YORK Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Out of County .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 .00 16.00 06/18/2004 RON TURO So answer R. Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me this 22 wC day of o2OO?f' A.D. -- Q`? Prothonotary COUNTY OF YORK 2 of 3 L OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF SE17) ICE 771-9601 45 N. GEORGE ST.,YORK, PA 17401 SHERIFF SERVICE YIISTRU?:T10Pls PROCESS RECEIPT and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN PLEASE TYPE ONLY LPE 1 TMU 12 DO NOT DETACH ANY COPES 1. PLAINTIFFISI 2. COURT NUMBER Mary E. Williams et al 04-1522 rivil 3. DEFENDANT/s/ 4. TYPE OF WRIT OR COMPLAINT North Mountain Inn Inc et al Writ of Simmons SERE 5 NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY, CORPORATION. ETC TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEVIED, ATTACHED. OR SOLD Paul T. Becker 6. ADDRESS (STREET OR RFO WITH BOX NUMBER. APT. NO., CITY. BORO. TWP.. STATE AND ZIP CODE) AT 609 Carlisle Street Hanover, PA 17331 7. INDICATE SERVICE: O PERSONAL O PERSON IN CHARGE *DEPUTIZE t?I ?CEER??Ti]?MM?AIL U 1ST CLASS MAIL U POSTED U OTHER NOW May 3 .20 04 I, SHERIFF AIIiIJ f180UNTY, PA, Oo hereby depu he sheriff of York COUNTY to execute tfjy?,YMftt'smale.GeRurn wording to law. This deputization being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff. SHERIF F OFa111fircouNTv 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE: but of County - Cuntlerland ADVANCE FEE PD BY CUMBERLAND CTY SHERIFF NOTE: ONLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN - Any deputy sheriff levying upon or attaching any property under within 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 a the sheriff to any plaintiff herein for any loss, destruction, or removal of any property before sheriffs sale thereof. 9. TYPE NAME and ADDRESS of ATTORNEY I ORIGINATOR and SIGNATURE 110. TELEPHONE NUMBER 111. DATE FILED RON TURD, ESQ. 28 SOUTH PITT ST. CARLISLE PA 17013 1 717-245-9688 1 04-29-2004 12. SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW: (This, area must be completed it notice m o be mailed) ULOW, 13. 1 aGnowledge receipt of the writ 14. DATE RECEIVED 1 5 Expiration/Hearing Dad or complain as maeated above RONDA M. AHRENS / RAT 05 -04-2004 I 05-29-2004 16. HOW SERVED: PERSONAL RESIDENCE ( ) POSTED( I POE p?) SHERIFF'S OFFICE ( \ ) OTHER ( 1 SEE REMARKS BELOI 17. O _I-?era pany. etc. named above. (See remarks below.) by cerliy and retum a NOT FOUND because I am unable to locate the individual, com/ 18. y t D TITLE F IF OU ERVED I LI ADDRESS HERE IF NOT SHOWN ABOVE (Relationship to Defendant) 19. Dale ql Sery 20. Time of Service ? / I ( at - , 1 ? ( 21. PTTS A EM Da te Ti e ` Mil s In. ate Time Miles Int. Date Tim Miles Int. Date Time Mies Int. Dale Time Miles Int. Date Time Mass Int. I II I o I /7, r I r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 22. REMARKS: ?f 23. Advance Coals 1 24. Service Coats 1 25. NIF 1 26. Mileage 127. Postage1 28. Sub Total 129. Pound 130. Notary 1 31. Surohg. 132. Tot. Costal 33. Cats Due or Refund Check 34. F~ County Costs 135. Advance Costs 136. Service Costs 137. Notary Cert. 138. MileagelPasbgafNOl Found 139. Total Costs 140. Costs Due or Refund 41. AFF _ 110 to before me this I U SO ANSWERS U LM P. sY 1 44 Spn=.01 45. D ZT / 42. day N4D If91. 5 -AL DeP. Sheriff ?j'J/' 7[ I _ ffuTECfB-$A.;I.2HAFFER,Not9 ARY e. Signature ofY 47. DATE City Of VWX, `cirk CCUnII Cou Sheriff My Cr7Rlml8elen EXRlres Ap '120, zoos WILLIAM 11. LOSE -? 6-10-04 ?\ 48. Signature of Foreign 49. DATE ????/L/ County Sheriff S0. I ACK WL E RECEIPT OF THE SHERIFF' RN SIGNATURE 51. DATE RECEIVED OF THORIZED ISSUING AUTHORITY AND T? 1. WHITE - Iss ing Authority 2. PINK - ARaney 3. CANARY - Shelia Office 4. BLUE - SherirS ORen COUNTY OF YORK 3 of 3 OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF SER)t'EC9601 45 N. GEORGE ST.,YORK, PA 17401 SHERIFF SERVICE U 12 PROCESS RECEIPT and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN 1. PLAIN71FFISI 2. COURT NUMBER Mary E. Williams et al 04-75?7 civil 3. DEFENDANT/S/ 4. TYPE OF WRIT OR COMPLAINT North Mountain Inn Inc et al Writ of SuDmons SERE 5. NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY, CORPORATION, ETC TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEVIED, ATTACHED. OR SOLD Carlisle Street Tavern 6. ADDRESS (STREET OR RFO WITH BOX NUMBER, APT. NO., CITY, BORO, TWP., STATE AND ZIP CODE) AT 609 Carlisle Street Hanover, PA 17331 7. INDICATE SERVICE: O PERSONAL O PERSON IN CHARGE DEPUTIZE ''J C,?E,RRTr. MAIL O 1ST CLASS MAIL U POSTED J OTHER NOW May 3 2004 I, SHERIFF 84&ik &NTY, PA, do hereby deputjze,the sheriff of York COUNTY to execute thi l firaftd make return jj%if*aF , rding to law. This deputization being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff. SHERIFF OFG?lCOUNTY 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVIffut of county - Ctmlberland ADVANCE FEE PD BY CUMBERLAND CTY SHERIFF's DEPT. NOTE: ONLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN -Any deputy sheriff levying upon or attaching any property under within writ may leave same will a watchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession, after nolifying person of levy or attachment, without liability on the pan of such deputy or the sheriff to any plaintiff herein for any loss, destruction, or removal of any property before sheriffs sale thereof. 9. TYPE NAME and ADDRESS of ATTORNEY I ORIGINATOR and SIGNATURE 110. TELEPHONE NUMBER 111. DATE FILED RON TUQD. ESO. 28 SOUTH PITT ST. CARLISLE, PA 17013 1717-245-9688 1 04-29 -2004 12. SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW: (This. area must be completed a notice is to be hissed) CUMBERLAND CTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. 13 l acknowledge receipt of the writ 14. DATE RECEIVED 15 Expiration/Hearing Date or complaint as indicated above. RONDA M. AHRENS / RAT 05-04-2004 105-29 2004 16. HOW SERVED: PERSONAL RESIDENCE ( ) POSTED( ) POESHERIFF'S OFFICE ( ) OTHER( ) SEE REMARKS BELOV 17. O I h and return a NOT FOUND because I am unable to locate the individual, company, etc. named above. (See remade below.) 18. AND ALE OF /y/yNI SERVED ?Ijy,$5?ADDRESS HERE IF NOT SHONM ABOVE (Relationship to DsfendanU 19. Dort/ry?o1 Se ice 20 . Time of Service (M^f/ ??????/'*?? Cam! ' 7 21. ATTE S? Dab I time h I Int I Date I Time I Miles I Int. I Dale I Time I Milos 1 Int. I Dale i Time Miles I Int. I Date Time Miles I Int. I Date Time I Miles 1 Int. 22. REMARKS: 23. Advance Costs 1 24. Service Costs 25. NIF 26. Mileage 27. Postage 28. Sub Total 29. Pound 1 30. Notary 31. Surcng. 132. Tot. Copal 33 Costs Due or Refund Check N 34. Foreign County Costs 135. Advance Costs 136. Service Costs 137. Notary Cart, 138. Mileage/Postagethlol Found 139. Total Costs 140. Costs Due or Refund 41. AFFIRMED and subscribed to before me this 10 SO ANSWERS JUNE 04 44. Signalureof ?a 45.W J y 42. day of , 20 _ 43. ?> _ Dep. Sheriff 71 PnOT (YOT°. Y 48. Signa=d 1,t 47. DATE NOTARIAL SEA?_ County Sheen MELISSA J. SMAFFER, Notary Publle City ofYgrk, or my WILLIAP9 M. HOSE 6-10-04 Comrnisaion _ he 0 48. Signature of Foreign 49. DATE uJ County Sheriff j5Kg DGE RECEI URE 51DATE RECEIVED ZED ISSUING AUTHORITY A D ITLE 1. WHITE - Issuing AWlority 2. PINK -Attomey 3. CANARY - Sheriffs Office 4. BLUE - Sheriffs Office COUNTY OF YORK 1 of 3 OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF S(R)I 71961E 45 N. GEORGE ST., YORK, PA 17401 .......... . ... .... ...,,,,., ssu gee:... a .., .., , SHERIFF SERVICE PROCESS RECEIPT and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN PLEASE TYPE ONLY LSE 1 THRU 12 DO NOT DETACH ANY-COPES 1. PLAINTIFF/S/ 2 COURT NUMBER Mary E. Williams et al 04-1522 civil 4. TYPE OF WRIT OR COMPLAINT 3. DEFENDANTISI North Mountain Inn Inc et al Writ of Summons SERE 5 NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY. CORPORATION, ETC TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEVIED, ATTACHED, OR SOLD Paul T. Becker d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern 6. ADDRESS (STREET OR RFO WITH BOX NUMBER, APT. NO., CITY, BORO, TWP.. STATE AND ZIP CODE) AT 609 Carlisle Street Hanover, PA 17331 7. INDICATE SERVICE: U PERSONAL U PERSON IN CHARGE ?/ al DEPUTIZE cur CERT. MAIL U 1ST CLASS MAIL U POSTED U OTHER NOW Mav 3 , 20 04 I, SHERIFF OFD COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the sheriff of York COUNTY to execute this g aRe return theCeof-gl0ording to law. This deputization being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff. SHERIFF OFib %UNTV 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE: Out of CountyCtmlberland ADVANCE FEE PD BY CUMBERLAND CTY SHERIFF NOTE: DIMLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN - Any deputy sheriff levying upon or attaching any property under within 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 property before sheriffs sale thereof. 9. TYPE NAME and ADDRESS of ATTORNEY I ORIGINATOR and SIGNATURE 10. TELEPHONE NUMBER 11. DATE FILED RON TURD, E.SO. 28 SOUTH PITT ST. CA4t[.ISLE, PA 17013 717-745-96RFt 114-99-2004 12. SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW: (This. area must be completed 4 notice is to be mailed). CUMBERLAND CPY SHERIFF'S DEPT. `:I P ' '' iMtt `T 'tfl19r r7 . 13. 1 atlmowkdge receipt of the writ 14. DATE RECEIVED 15 ExpuabonMearing Date or complaint as indicated above. / RONDA M. AHRENS / RAT ,s` I05-04-2004 n5-99-9n04 16. HOW SERVED: PERSONAL (M RESIDENCE( ) POSTED( ) PO ?Ly' SHERIFF'S OFFICE ( ) OTHER ( ) SEE REMARKS BELOW 17. tE certify card return a11V???o FOUND because I am unable to locate the individual. company, etc. named above. (See remarks below.) _ 16. l TI TLE INpPM9l1Al SERVLIST ADDRESS HERE IF NOT SHOWN ABOVE (Relationship to DefendanU 19. ?1 pSe/vi 20Time/pf Service ' ?l(G / "/'G ys 21M Dab I Time ?MIV Int. I Date I Time Miles I Int. I Date I Time I Miles I IM. I Date I Tana Miles Int, I Date I Time I Miles I Int. I Date I Time 1 Miles Int. 22. REMARKS: 41 (r'`(ffli? A/NI -?r7I 3 ? / R.Wno ' t4i 23 Advance Costs 12 Costs 125. NIF 125 Mileage 127. Postage) 2? ?oW 129. Pound I?. Notavy 131. Surchg. 13LTW. costs 347. Foreign County Costs 135. Advance Costs 136. Service Costs 137. Notary Cert. 138: M4eagHPtlalagalNot Found 139I}.,Total Costs 1400, Costs Due or Refund ?• 41. AFFIRMED and subscribed to before me this 10 7SE741. Signature of 45. DATEE 42day a JIJ N E? 2004 44 Sheriff ? OTARIAL SERiO.T Y/NOfAR 46. gnaWre dYOrk 47DATE M9 to County Sheriff nty M 3D 6TILLI?,M M H4 ye'??1?'1f?7lj, 48 . SpnaWredFOregn 49 DATE DATE County Sheriff 4AN OWL GNATURE 151DATE RECEIVED HORIZED ISSUING AUTHORITY AND TITLE 1. WHITE - Issuing Authority 2. PINK - Attorney 3. CANARY - Sheriffs Office 4. BLUE - Shenffs Office -6- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA UGI Energy Services, Inc. d/b/a GasMark, Plaintiff V. Civil Action No. 04-1552 CV Mh Dielectrics, Inc. Mh Technologies, LLC, Defendants ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT Mh TECHNOLOGIES, LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND NOW, this , day of 2004, after response of the Plaintiff and any argument thereupon, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant Mh Technologies, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED and judgment is entered in its favor and against the Plaintiff UGI Energy Services, Inc. d/b/a GasMark on all claims against this Defendant in the above captioned action, it is further ORDERED that, Defendant, Mh Technologies, LLC is awarded its reasonable attorneys' fees in an amount to be determined at a hearing on the day of 2004• BY THE COURT J. M114621.1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA UGI Energy Services, Inc. d/b/a GasMark, Plaintiff ) V. ) Mh Dielectrics, Inc. ) Mh Technologies, LLC ) Defendants ) Civil Action No. 04-1552 CV DEFENDANT MH TECHNOLOGIES. LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY TUDGINIENT NOW COMES the Defendant, Mh Technologies, LLC ("MhT"), by and through its counsel, Nixon Peabody LLP, and respectfully moves for summary judgment against the Plaintiff, UGI Energy Services, Inc. d/b/a GasMark ("GasMark") and in support of this Motion states as follows: 1. No issues of material fact remain in controversy. 2. Under the undisputed material facts, MhT is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 3. MhT incorporates herein by reference its Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment together with the Affidavit of John Allard which is filed contemporaneously with this Motion. 4. Because the relief requested by this Motion is dispositive, the assent of opposing counsel has not been sought. WHEREFORE, MhT respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant summary judgment on all of its claims against GasMark; B. Award MhT its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in an amount to be established through a separate filing; and M 114697.1 2- C. Grant such further relief that is just and equitable. Respectfully submitted, Mh Technologies, LLC By its October 7, 2004 gmann (85759) Street, I Ith Floor PA 19103 i24 (Telephone) 889 Elm Street Manchester, NH 03101 (603) 628-4014(Telephone) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this date a copy of the foregoing Motion for Summary Judgment was forwarded via first-class mail to Anthony P. Krzywicki, Esq., counsel for the Plaintiff. Anthony P. Krzywicki, Esquire KRZYWICI October 7, 2004 P.O. Box 50 New Hope, I Nit 146197.1 G.p S? l? r.._? Pv i -r? fV < 7 fr, CJ"f IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA UGI Energy Services, Inc. ) d/b/a GasMark, ) Plaintiff ) V. ) Mh Dielectrics, Inc. Mh Technologies, LLC ) Defendants ) Civil Action No. 04-1552 CV AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN R ALLARD I, John R. Allard, duly sworn, depose and state as follows: 1. I am over the age of 18 and I make this affidavit on personal knowledge. 2. I am the principal of Mh Technologies, LLC ("MhT"). 3. MhT was not offered and did not accept any of GasMark's product or property in the transaction in question. 4. When MhT purchased the assets of Debtor, Mh Dielectrics, Inc., these were never an intent to benefit UGI Energy Services, Inc. d/b/a Gas Mark ("GasMark"). 5. During the negotiations for the purchase of Debtor's assets by MhT, neither the Debtor nor the Bank ever indicated that the transaction would benefit GasMark. 6. MhT's purchase of the Debtor's assets was not made with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud GasMark. 7. Neither MhT nor any of its principals are or were insiders of the Debtor. 8. The Debtor did not retain possession or control of any of the assets transferred to MhT. 9. The transfer to MhT was not concealed, but was rather a matter of public record. M114627.1 10. The purchase by MhT of Debtor's real estate was not a transfer of substantially all of the Debtor's assets. 11. Upon information and belief the Debtor did not abscond after the transaction with MhT. 12. I do not believe the Debtor concealed or removed any assets in this transaction. 13. I believe the value of the consideration received by the Debtor from MhT for the sale of the real estate was reasonably equivalent in value to the real estate transferred. FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. Jo R. Al`lard //? STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE COUNTY OF Before me this / 511- day of4u4y, appeared John R. Allard known to me or properly identified, and gave oath that his signature appearing above was his own free act and deed. _-("-dam s?J?r Ye Notary Public/Justice of the Peace My commission expires: CYNTHIA L. MEADE, Notary public MY Commission Expires 0010ber 10, 2008 MI 14627.1 C f o IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA UGI Energy Services, Inc. ) d/b/a GasMark, ) Plaintiff ) V. ) Mh Dielectrics, Inc. ) Mh Technologies, LLC ) Defendants ) Civil Action No. 04-1552 CV SUBSTITUTION OF VERIFICATION Kindly substitute the attached original Verification of John Allard, CEO for Mh Technologies, LLC, for the Verification of Renee F. Bergmann, Esquire, attached to Defendants' Answer to First Amended Complaint. Dated: October 7, 2004 M ee F. B mam? Esquire 1 cet Str t, 11` Floor Philadelph', A 19103-3647 (21 6-3520(Telephone) Attorneys for Defendants Mh Dielectric, Inc. and Mh Technologies, LLC R802324J IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA UGI Energy Services, -Inc.) d/b/a GasMark, ) Plaintiff ) V. ) Mh Dielectrics, Inc. Mh Technologies, LLC ) Defendants ) Civil Action No. 04-1552 CV //?? ,, SUBSTITUTION OF VERIFICATION I,?J6hn Alof Mh Technologies, LLC, state and affirm that, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the averments in the Answer are true and correct. I understand that any false statements made in the Answer are subject to penalties of 18 Pa. Con. Stat. Section 4904 (relating to unworn falsifications to authorities). Mh Technologies, LLC 1 ?' B/ 4o M114n4.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Rene6 F. Bergmann, Esquire, hereby certify that on or about this 7`h day of October 2004, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the Substitution of Verification of John Alland by first-class mail, postage prepaid upon the following: Anthony P. Krzywicki, Esquire KRZYWICKI & ASSOCIATES P.O. Box 505 New Hope, 8802424 I n c.? -n r[ fv ?. tt IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually * CIVIL ACTION - LAW and as Adminsitratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff * v North Mountain Inn, Inc. and * Case No.: 2004-1522 Michael F. Stone, Individually, * CIVIL TERM d/b/a/, North Mountain Inn, Inc. Defendant and * The Goalpost, and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a, The Goalpost, Defendant and * Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a, Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. Additional Defendants ************************************** ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Prothonotary: Please enter the appearance of Peter D. Solymos, Esquire of the law firm, Griffith, Strickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins, as attorney for :Defendant, The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, and d/b/a, The Goalpost. Respectfully submitted, GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOSA CALKINS by: PETE D. O. OS, ESQUIRE Attorney ID. : 07475 110 S. Northern Way York, PA 17402 1-717-757-7602 Attorney fir Defendant, The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually and d!b/a The Goalpost IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually * CIVIL ACTION - LAW and as Adminsitratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff * v * Case No.: 2004-1522 North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, Individually, * CIVIL TERM d/b/a/, North Mountain Inn, Inc. Defendant and * The Goalpost, and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a, The Goalpost, Defendant and * Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a, Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. Additional Defendants u CERTIF T OF SERVICE; AND NOW, this.? ?7 day of 2005, I, Peter D. Solymos, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, S CKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of an Entry of Appearance on behalf of Defendant, The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a The Goalpost by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Ronald A. Turo, Esquire Turo Law Offices 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Counsel for Plaintiff Michael F. Strine d/b/a North Mountain Inn 3636 Waggoners Gap Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Defendant Paul T. Becker d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavem 609 Carlisle Street Hanover, PA 17331 Additional Defendant GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, Attorney for Defendant, The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually and d/b/a The Goalpost 1-717-757-7602 F? r: ? C7 _ C l I-? J u.t IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually . and as Administratrix of the Estate of Case No. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, CIVIL ACTION - LAW d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a, CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Mary E. Williams, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Van Alexander Williams c/o Ronald A. Turo, Esquire Turo Law Offices 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer, New Matter and Cross Claim of Defendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a The Goalpost within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, r SOL OS & CALKINS By: THOMAS B. SPONAUGLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court I.D. #64584 Attorney for Defendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Case No. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and CIVIL ACTION - LAW THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a, CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER. NEW MATTER & CROSS CLAIM OF DEFENDANT THE GOALPOST and BETTY JO GASTLEY. Individually d/b/a THE GOALPOST 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted and denied. It is admitted that Defendant, The Goalpost, has its principal place of business at RD2, New Oxford, Pennsylvania 17350 and operating as a tavern licensed to serve alcohol by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is denied that Defendant, The Goalpost, is a Pennsylvania corporation as it is a sole proprietorship. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 12. Admitted. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering; Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 15. Admitted and denied. It is admitted that Williams went to The Goalpost where he stayed and was served or provided alcohol at The Goalpost by Goalpost employees, agents, servants or authorized persons. It is specifically denied that he was served while visibly intoxicated and strict proof thereof is demanded. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 17. Denied. It is specifically denied that while at the Carlisle Street Tavern, The Goalpost and the North Mountain Inn, it was obvious that Williams was visibly intoxicated for the following reasons: a. Williams was staggering, listing and generally unable to walk normally; b. Williams was slurring his words and was incoherent; c. Williams had bloodshot eyes; and d. Williams required assistance to stand and wall:. It is specifically denied as to The Goalpost that Williams was visibly intoxicated for the above reasons and strict proof thereof is demanded. As to whether Williams was visibly intoxicated at the Carlisle Street Tavern and North Mountain Inn, this is denied because after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 18. Denied. It is specifically denied that although Williams was visibly intoxicated, the employees, agents, servants or authorized persons of The Goalpost furnished alcohol to Williams and/or allowed Williams to possess and consume alcohol and strict proof thereof is demanded. As for whether Williams was visibly intoxicated and was served alcohol at the Carlisle Street Tavern and North Mountain Inn, this is denied because after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. COUNT I-DRAM SHOP THE NORTH MOUNTAIN INN 20. Paragraphs I through 19 of Defendant The Goalpost's Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated by reference. 21-31. Denied. Paragraphs 21 through 31 are directed to a non-Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. COUNT 11 - DRAM SHOP THE GOALPOST 32. Paragraphs 1 through 31 of Defendant The Goalpost's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated by reference. 33. Denied. Paragraph 33 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 34. Denied. Paragraph 34 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 35. Denied. Paragraph 35 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 36. Admitted. 37. Denied. It is specifically denied that during the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of The Goalpost, he was furnished, given and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, which beverages were sold or furnished to Williams by employees, agents, servants or authorized persons of The Goalpost/Gastley while visibly intoxicated; or were purchased by other customers from said employees, agents, servants or authorized persons, who then permitted and allowed Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment and strict proof thereof is demanded. 38. Denied. It is specifically denied that during the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of The Goalpost, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, by said employees, agents, servants or authorized persons of The Goalpost/Gastley while visibly intoxicated, by allowing Williams to enter the establishment while visibly intoxicated and be furnished or given the aforesaid beverages by said employees, agents, servants or authorized persons or by customers who were sold or furnished said beverages who then permitted Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment and strict proof thereof is demanded. 39. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 40. Denied. It is specifically denied that the obvious actions and physical signs which Williams displayed while at The Goalpost at the time in which he was served at each establishment included, but are not limited to, the following and strict proof thereof is demanded: a. Williams was staggering, listing and generally unable to walk normally; b. Williams was slurring his words and was incoherent; c. Williams had bloodshot eyes; and d. Williams required assistance to stand and walk. 41. Denied. It is specifically denied that while at The Goalpost, Williams was served liquor or malted beverages at the establishment while visibly intoxicated and strict proof thereof is demanded. The remaining allegations are denied because after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 42. Denied. Paragraph 42 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, at all times relevant hereto, The Goalpost/Gastley complied with all applicable Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board rules and regulations and all applicable Pennsylvania statutes. 43. Denied. Paragraph 43 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, at all times relevant hereto, The Goalpost/Gastley complied with all applicable Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board rules and regulations and all applicable Pennsylvania statutes. COUNT III - DRAM SHOP CARLISLE STREET TAVEFIN 44. Paragraphs 1 through 43 of Defendant The Goalpost's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated by reference. 45-56. Denied. Paragraphs 45 through 56 are directed to a non-Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant The Goalpost/Gastley demands judgment in its favor and against all other parties. COUNT IV - WRONGFUL DEATH THE NORTH MOUNTAIN INN 57. Paragraphs 1 through 56 of Defendant The Goalpost's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated by reference. 57-70. Denied. Paragraphs 57 through 70 are directed to a non-Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. COUNT V - WRONGFUL DEATH THE GOALPOST 71. Paragraph 71 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 72. Paragraphs 1 through 71 of Defendant The Goalpost's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated by reference. 73. Denied. Paragraph 73 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 74. Denied. Paragraph 74 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 75. Denied. Paragraph 75 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 76. Admitted. 77. Denied. It is specifically denied that during the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of The Goalpost, he was furnished, given and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, which beverages were sold or furnished to Williams by employees, agents, servants or authorized persons of The Goalpost/Gastley while visibly intoxicated; or were purchased by other customers from said employees, agents, servants or authorized persons, who then permitted and allowed Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment and strict proof thereof is demanded. 78. Denied. It is specifically denied that during the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of The Goalpost, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, by said employees, agents, servants or authorized persons of The Goalpost/Gastley while visibly intoxicated, by allowing Williams to enter the establishment while visibly intoxicated and be furnished or given the aforesaid beverages by said employees, agents, servants or authorized persons or by customers who were sold or furnished said beverages who then permitted Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment and strict proof thereof is demanded. 79. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 80. Denied. It is specifically denied that the obvious actions and physical signs which Williams displayed while at The Goalpost at the time in which he was served at each establishment included, but are not limited to, the following and strict proof thereof is demanded: a. Williams was staggering, listing and generally unable to walk normally; b. Williams was slurring his words and was incoherent; c. Williams had bloodshot eyes; and d. Williams required assistance to stand and walk. 81. Denied. It is specifically denied that while at The Goalpost, Williams was served liquor or malted beverages at the establishment while visibly intoxicated and strict proof thereof is demanded. The remaining allegations are denied because after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 82. Denied. Paragraph 82 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, at all times relevant hereto, The Goalpost/Gastley complied with all applicable Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board rules and regulations and all applicable Pennsylvania statutes. 83. Denied. Paragraph 83 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, at all times relevant hereto, The Goalpost/Gastley complied with all applicable Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board rules and regulations and all applicable Pennsylvania statutes. COUNT VI - WRONGFUL DEATH CARLISLE STREET TAVERN 84. Denied. Paragraph 84 is directed to a non-Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. 85. Paragraphs 1 through 84 of Defendant The Goalpost's Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated by reference. 86-95. Denied. Paragraphs 86 through 95 are directed to a non-Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. 96, Denied. Paragraph 96 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 97. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendant The Goalpost/Gastley demands judgment in its favor and against all other parties. By way of further response, the following is asserted: NEW MATTER 98. Paragraphs 1 through 97 of Defendant The Goalpost's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated by reference. 99. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. 100. Plaintiffs Complaint maybe barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 101. Plaintiffs injuries and damages, if any, were caused solely and directly as a result of individuals or entities other than the Answering Defendant and over whom the Answering Defendant has no responsibility or right of control. 102. Plaintiffs injuries and damages, if any, were caused solely and directly as a result of the negligence of Plaintiff Van Alexander Williams which consisted of the following: a. Failing to properly operate his motorcycle; b. Failing to operate his motorcycle at a safe speed; c. Failing to properly operate his motor vehicle within the lane of travel; and d. Operating his motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol to a degree which rendered him incapable of safe driving. 103. Plaintiffs claims must be barred or diminished with respect to Pennsylvania's Comparative Negligence Act because of the negligence of the Plaintiff as set forth above. 2252(d) NEW MATTER TO DEFENDANTS NORTH MOUNTAIN, INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN. INC. and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually d/b/a CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC. 104. Paragraphs 1 through 103 of Defendant The Goalpost's Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated by reference. 105. Liability on the part of Defendant The Goalpost/Gastley is specifically denied. If the averments contained in Plaintiffs Complaint are established, said averments being specifically denied as they may relate to Defendant The Goalpost/Gastley, the injuries and damages complained of were caused solely by Defendants North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, Individually d/b/a North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc.. 106. In the event of a finding of liability against Defendant The Goalpost/Gastley, which liability is specifically denied, Defendant The Goalpost/Gastley hereby asserts its full rights of indemnification and contribution against Defendants North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, Individually d/b/a North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Carlisle Street Tavem, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. on the basis that Defendants North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, Individually d/b/a North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually d/b/ a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. are alone liable, liable over, or jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff. 107. Defendants North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, Individually d/b/a North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc, and Paul T. Becker, Individually d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. have been joined herein to protect the rights of indemnity of Defendant The Goalpost/Gastley. WHEREFORE, Defendant The Goalpost/Gastley demands that any judgment in favor of the Plaintiff be entered solely against Defendants North Mountain hm, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, Individually d/b/a North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. In the alternative, Defendant The Goalpost/Gastley demands that in the event that judgment is entered against it, any liability on its part being specifically denied, such judgment should be entered jointly and severally against Defendants North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, Individually d/b/a North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., together with Defendant The Goalpost/Gastley, or that Defendants North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, Individually d/b/a North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. be held liable over to Defendant The Goalpost/Gastley for contribution and/or indemnity. GRIFFITH, STIjJCKL, LERMAN, SOLYMO5 T GAL S / By: THOMA". SPX GLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court G 64584 Attorney for Defendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a, CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants VERIFICATION Case No. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JUICY TRIAL DEMANDED I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, do hereby verify that I am the attorney of record for the pleading party herein, The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost, and that the facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, upon information supplied. I understand that false statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS Dated: 1-14 -or BY: THOMA B AUGLE, ESQUIRE Supreme C .D.064584 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402 (717) 757-7602 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Case No. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and CIVIL ACTION - LAW THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a, CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this l64 day of k, 2005, I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERM.AN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of Answer, New Matter and Cross Claim of Defendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Ronald A. Turo, Esquire Turo Law Offices 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Michael F. Strine d/b/a North Mountain Inn 3636 Waggoners Gap Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Ronald H. Pollack, Jr., Esq. Barley Snyder, LLC 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 (Counsel for Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc.) GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALIIIVS By: / THOMAS B. PO GLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court IA. #64584 Attorney for Defendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Uldividually d/b/a The Goalpost 110 South Northena Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 9n cr rri r _?z f3rn CO IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a, CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants Case No. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this day of , 2005, I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of Request for Production of Documents, Statements and Things Served Upon Defendant North Mountain Inn, Inc./Strine by Defendant The Goalpost/Gastley by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Ronald A. Turo, Esquire Turo Law Offices 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Michael F. Strine d/b/a North Mountain hm 3636 Waggoners Gap Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Ronald H. Pollack, Jr., Esq. Barley Snyder, LLC 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 (Counsel for Carlisle Street Tavern, hic.) GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS / ,, By: THOMAS B. SP LE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court . 4584 Attorney for Defendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 fi ? ? ?' m t? g , r .f _ ?- ?SY ,:_m ? ?:; ?, ._ `T" ?-? N C, j IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and Case No. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a, CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this l6 ''day of 'V , 2005, I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, ST(QJRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of Request for Production of Documents, Statements and Things Served Upon Defendant Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc./Becker by Defendant The Goalpost/Gastley by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Ronald A. Turo, Esquire Turo Law Offices 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Michael F. Strine d/b/a North Mountain Inn 3636 Waggoners Gap Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Ronald H. Pollack, Jr., Esq. Barley Snyder, LLC 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 (Counsel for Carlisle Street Tavern, hrc.) GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS By: Zlzr THOMAS GLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court D. #64584 Attorney for Defendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 a ? n c a IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a, CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants Case No. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this /44day of , 2005, I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of Interrogatories/Request for Production of Documents of Defendant The Goalpost/ Gastley to Plaintiff, Set No. 1 by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Ronald A. Turo, Esquire Turo Law Offices 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Michael F. Strine d/b/a North Mountain Inn 3636 Waggoners Gap Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Ronald H. Pollack, Jr., Esq. Barley Snyder, LLC 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 (Counsel for Carlisle Street Tavem, Inc.) GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS By. W'441-104L THOMAS B. SPO LE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court I.D. #64584 Attorney for Defendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 n n? 94 cn p HAROLD S. IRWIN, III, ESQ SUPREME COURT ID NO 28920 84 SOUTH PITT STREET CARLISLE, PA 17018 717.24941080 ATTORNEY POR DEFENDANT MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and As Administmtrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, deceased, Plaintiff V. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually and dIWo NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and THE GOALPOST and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually and d/b/a THE GOALPOST IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW and . CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and : PAUL T. DECKER, Individually and d/b/a CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC.: Defendants . AND NO. 2004 -1522 CIVIL TERM NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually and d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. Cross-Plaintiff V. THE GOALPOST and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually and d/b/a THE GOALPOST and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and : PAUL T. DECKER, Individually and . d/b/s CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC.: Cross-Defendants : JURY TRIAL NOTICE TO CROSS-DEFENDANTS You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this cross- 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 mat be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the counterclaim or for any other claim or relief requested by the additional defendants. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP: Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 243-3166 Harold S. Irwin, III 64 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6090 Attorney for North Mountain Inn, Inc. ANSWER OF DEFENDANT NORTH MOUNTAIN INN INC NOW comes defendant North Mountain Inn, Inc., by its attorney, Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire, and responds to the plaintiffs complaint, representing as follows: 1. The averments of paragraph one of the complaint are admitted. 2. The averments of paragraph two of the complaint are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. 3. The averments of paragraph three of the complaint are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. 4. The averments of paragraph four of the complaint are admitted. The averments of paragraph five of the complaint are admitted. The averments of paragraph six of the complaint are admitted. 7. The averments of paragraph seven of the complaint are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation, answering additional defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. 8. The averments of paragraph eight of the complaint are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. 9. The averments of paragraph nine of the complaint are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. 10. The averments of paragraph ten of the complaint are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. 11. The averments of paragraph eleven of the complaint are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. 12. The averments of paragraph twelve of the complaint are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that decedent purchased one beer at the North Mountain Inn on the evening of May 1, 2002 and that he consumed a small portion of this beer at the premises. The remaining averments of this paragraph are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. 13. The averments of paragraph thirteen of the complaint are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. 14. The averments of paragraph fourteen of the complaint are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. 15. The averments of paragraph fifteen of the complaint are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. 16. The averments of paragraph sixteen of the complaint are specifically denied. On the contrary, the decedent entered the bar and sat down at the bar directly inside the bar and ordered on beer. At that time, decedent was not visibly intoxicated. After taking a couple sips of his beer he stood to go to the restroom. At that time, the bartender observed that decedent was unable to walk normally and when he returned to his seat he got into an argument with a female customer. At that time, the bartender removed decedent's beer and asked him to leave the premises. 17. The averments of paragraph seventeen of the complaint are specifically denied to the extent that they refer to answering defendant. On the contrary, the decedent entered the bar and sat down at the bar directly inside the bar and ordered on beer. At that time, decedent was not visibly intoxicated. After taking a couple sips of his beer he stood to go to the restroom. At that time, the bartender observed that decedent was unable to walk normally and when he returned to his seat he got into an argument with a female customer. At that time, the bartender removed decedent's beer and asked him to leave the premises. To the extent that these averments refer to other defendants, these averments are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. 18. The averments of paragraph eighteen of the complaint are specifically denied. On the contrary, the decedent entered the bar and sat down at the bar directly inside the bar and ordered on beer. At that time, decedent was not visibly intoxicated. After taking a couple sips of his beer he stood to go to the restroom. At that time, the bartender observed that decedent was unable to walk normally and when he returned to his seat he got into an argument with a female customer. At that time, the bartender removed decedent's beer and asked him to leave the premises. To the extent that these averments refer to other defendants, these averments are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. 19. The averments of paragraph nineteen of the complaint are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. COUNTI DRAM SHOP - NORTH MOUNTAIN INN. INC. 20. Answering defendant hereby incorporates by reference its responses to defendant's complaint, paragraphs one through nineteen inclusive, as if fully set forth herein at length. 21. The averments of paragraph twenty-one of the complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required. However, if a response is required, it is specifically denied that answering defendant violated the Pennsylvania Liquor Code. 22. The averments of paragraph twenty-two of the complaint do not require a response. However, if a response is required, it is specifically denied that answering defendant violated the Pennsylvania Liquor Code. By way of further response, the provisions of the Pennsylvania Liquor Code speak for themselves. 23. The averments of paragraph twenty-three of the complaint do not require a response. However, if a response is required, it is specifically denied that answering defendant violated the Pennsylvania Liquor Code. By way of further response, the provisions of the Pennsylvania Liquor Code speak for themselves. 24. The averments of paragraph twenty-four of the complaint are admitted. 25. The averments of paragraph twenty-five of the complaint are specifically denied. On the contrary, the decedent entered the bar and sat down at the bar directly inside the bar and ordered on beer. At that time, decedent was riot visibly intoxicated. After taking a couple sips of his beer he stood to go to the restroom. At that time, the bartender observed that decedent was unable to walk normally and when he returned to his seat he got into an argument with a female customer, At that time, the bartender removed decedent's beer and asked him to leave the premises. 26. The averments of paragraph twenty-six of the complaint are specifically denied. On the contrary, the decedent entered the bar and sat down at the bar directly inside the bar and ordered on beer. At that time, decedent was not visibly intoxicated. After taking a couple sips of his beer he stood to go to the restroom. At that time, the bartender observed that decedent was unable to walk normally and when he returned to his seat he got into an argument with a female customer. At that time, the bartender removed decedent's beer and asked him to leave the premises. 27. The averments of paragraph twenty-seven of the complaint are specifically denied. On the contrary, the decedent entered the bar and sat down at the bar directly inside the bar and ordered on beer. At that time, decedent was not visibly intoxicated. After taking a couple sips of his beer he stood to go to the restroom. At that time, the bartender observed that decedent was unable to walk normally and when he returned to his seat he got into an argument with a female customer. At that time, the bartender removed decedent's beer and asked him to leave the premises. 28. The averments of paragraph twenty-eight of the complaint are specifically denied. On the contrary, the decedent entered the bar and sat down at the bar directly inside the bar and ordered on beer. At that time, decedent was not visibly intoxicated. After taking a couple sips of his beer he stood to go to the restroom. At that time, the bartender observed that decedent was unable to walk normally and when he returned to his seat he got into an argument with a female customer. At that time, the bartender removed decedent's beer and asked him to leave the premises. 29. The averments of paragraph twenty-nine of the complaint are specifically denied to the extent that they allege that decedent was served liquor or malted beverages while visibly intoxicated. On the contrary, the decedent entered the bar and sat down at the bar directly inside the bar and ordered on beer. At that time, decedent was not visibly intoxicated. After taking a couple sips of his beer he stood to go to the restroom. At that time, the bartender observed that decedent was unable to walk normally and when he returned to his seat he got into an argument with a female customer. At that time, the bartender removed decedent's beer and asked him to leave the premises. The remaining averments of this paragraph are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. 30. The averments of paragraph thirty of the complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required. However, if a response is required, it is specifically denied that answering defendant violated the Pennsylvania Liquor Code or that it did anything that caused and J or were a substantial factor in causing decedent's death. 31. The averments of paragraph thirty-one of the complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required. However, if a response is required, it is specifically denied that answering defendant violated the Pennsylvania Liquor Code or that it did anything that caused and / or were a substantial factor in causing decedent's death. COUNT 11 DRAM SHOP - THE GOALPOST 32. Answering defendants hereby incorporate by reference their responses to plaintiffs complaint, paragraphs one through thirty-one inclusive, as if fully set forth herein at length. 31-44. The averments of paragraphs thirty-three through forty-three of the complaint are not addressed to answering defendant. Therefore, no response from answering defendant is required. However, if a response is required, these averments are conclusions of law to which no response is required or are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. By way of further answer, to the extent that these paragraphs contain a recitation of Pennsylvania statutes, those statutes speak for themselves. COUNT III DRAM SHOP - CARLISLE STREET TAVERN 44. Answering defendant hereby incorporates by reference its responses to plaintiffs complaint, paragraphs one through forty-four inclusive, as if fully set forth herein at length. 44.-55. The averments of paragraphs forty-four through fifty-five of plaintiffs complaint are not addressed to answering defendant. Therefore, no response from answering defendant is required. However, if a response is required, these averments are conclusions of law to which no response is required or are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. By way of further answer, to the extent that these paragraphs contain a recitation of Pennsylvania statutes, those statutes speak for themselves. 56. The averments of paragraph fifty-six of plaintiff's complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required. However, if a response is required, it is specifically denied that answering defendant violated the Pennsylvania Liquor Code or that it did anything that caused and / or were a substantial factor in causing decedent's death or that it is jointly or severally liable with the remaining defendants for the death of decedent . WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands that the complaint be dismissed and that judgment be entered against the plaintiff as to answering defendant. COUNT IV WRONGFUL DEATH - NORTH MOUNTAIN INN. INC. 57. The averments of paragraph fifty-seven of the complaint require no response. 58. Answering defendant hereby incorporates by reference its responses to the complaint, paragraphs one through fifty-seven inclusive, as if fully set forth herein at length. 59. The averments of paragraph fifty-nine of the complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required. However, if a response is required, it is specifically denied that answering defendant violated the Pennsylvania Liquor Code. 60. The averments of paragraph sixty of the complaint do not require a response. However, if a response is required, it is specifically denied that answering defendant violated the Pennsylvania Liquor Code. By way of further response, the provisions of the Pennsylvania Liquor Code speak for themselves. 61. The averments of paragraph sixty-one of the complaint do not require a response. However, if a response is required, it is specifically denied that answering defendant violated the Pennsylvania Liquor Code. By way of further response, the provisions of the Pennsylvania Liquor Code speak for themselves. 62. The averments of paragraph sixty-two of the complaint are admitted. 63. The averments of paragraph sixty-three of the complaint are specifically denied, On the contrary, the decedent entered the bar and sat down at the bar directly inside the bar and ordered on beer. At that time, decedent was not visibly intoxicated. After taking a couple sips of his beer he stood to go to the restroom. At that time, the bartender observed that decedent was unable to walk normally and when he returned to his seat he got into an argument with a female customer. At that time, the bartender removed decedent's beer and asked him to leave the premises. 64. The averments of paragraph sixty-four of the complaint are specifically denied. On the contrary, the decedent entered the bar and sat down at the bar directly inside the bar and ordered on beer. At that time, decedent was not visibly intoxicated. After taking a couple sips of his beer he stood to go to the restroom. At that time, the bartender observed that decedent was unable to walk normally and when he returned to his seat he got into an argument with a female customer. At that time, the bartender removed decedent's beer and asked him to leave the premises. 65. The averments of paragraph sixty-five of the complaint are specifically denied. On the contrary, the decedent entered the bar and sat down at the bar directly inside the bar and ordered on beer. At that time, decedent was not visibly intoxicated. After taking a couple sips of his beer he stood to go to the restroom. At that time, the bartender observed that decedent was unable to walk normally and when he returned to his seat he got into an argument with a female customer. At that time, the bartender removed decedent's beer and asked him to leave the premises. 66. The averments of paragraph sixty-six of the complaint are specifically denied, On the contrary, the decedent entered the bar and sat down at the bar directly inside the bar and ordered on beer. At that time, decedent was riot visibly intoxicated. After taking a couple sips of his beer he stood to go to the restroom. At that time, the bartender observed that decedent was unable to walk normally and when he returned to his seat he got into an argument with a female customer. At that time, the bartender removed decedent's beer and asked him 4o leave the premises. 67. The averments of paragraph sixty-seven of the complaint are specifically denied to the extent that they allege that decedent was served liquor or malted beverages while visibly intoxicated. On the contrary, the decedent entered the bar and sat down at the bar directly inside the bar and ordered on beer. At that time, decedent was not visibly intoxicated. After taking a couple sips of his beer he stood to go to the restroom. At that time, the bartender observed that decedent was unable to walk normally and when he returned to his seat he got into an argument with a female customer. At that time, the bartender removed decedent's beer and asked him to leave the premises. The remaining averments of this paragraph are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. 68. The averments of paragraph sixty-eight of the complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required. However, if a response is required, it is specifically denied that answering defendant violated the Pennsylvania Liquor Code or that it did anything that caused and 1 or were a substantial factor in causing decedent's death. 69. The averments of paragraph sixty-nine of the complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required. However, if a response is required, it is specifically denied that answering defendant violated the Pennsylvania Liquor Code or that it did anything that caused and ( or were a substantial factor in causing decedent's death. 70. The averments of paragraph seventy of the complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required. However, if a response is required, it is specifically denied that answering defendant violated the Pennsylvania Liquor Code or that it did anything that caused and 1 or were a substantial factor in causing decedent's death. The averment as to the date of death is denied by reason that after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. COUNT V WRONGFUL DEATH - THE GOALPOST 71. The averments of paragraph seventy-one of the complaint require no response. 72. Answering defendant hereby incorporates by reference its responses to the complaint, paragraphs one through seventy-one inclusive, as if fully set forth herein at length. 73.-83. The averments of paragraphs seventy-three through eighty-three of plaintiffs complaint are not addressed to answering defendant. Therefore, no response from answering defendant is required. However, if a response is required, these averments are conclusions of law to which no response is required or are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. By way of further answer, to the extent that these paragraphs contain a recitation of Pennsylvania statutes, those statutes speak for themselves. COUNT VI WRONGFUL DEATH - CARLISLE STREET TAVERN 84.-95. The averments of paragraphs eighty-four through ninety-five of plaintiff's complaint are not addressed to answering defendant. Therefore, no response from answering defendant is required. However, if a response is required, these averments are conclusions of law to which no response is required or are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. By way of further answer, to the extent that these paragraphs contain a recitation of Pennsylvania statutes, those statutes speak for themselves. 96. The averments of paragraph ninety-six of plaintiffs complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required. However, if a response is required, it is specifically denied that answering defendant violated the Pennsylvania Liquor Code or that it did anything that caused and / or were a substantial factor in causing decedent's death or that they are jointly or severally liable with the remaining defendants for the death of decedent. 97. The averments of paragraph ninety-seven of the complaint are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. WHEREFORE, answering defendants demand that the complaint be dismissed and that judgment be entered against the plaintiff as to answering defendant. NEW MATTER 98. Answering defendant hereby incorporates by reference its responses to the complaint, paragraphs one through ninety-seven inclusive, as if fully set forth herein at length. 99. Decedent's injuries were the direct result of his own activities on the day in question as well as the actions of The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, individually, d/b/a The Goalpost and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. 100. Decedent's own activities on the day in question as well as the actions The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, individually, d/b/a The Goalpost and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. were a superseding and intervening cause of decedent's injuries and damages. 101. Decedent was contributorily negligent in bringing about his own injuries and damages on the day in question. 102. Decedent and defendants The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, individually, d/b/a The Goalpost and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. are jointly liable for the injuries and damages suffered by decedent without any contribution by North Mountain Inn, Inc and Michael F. Strine whatever. 103. Plaintiff has no basis in fact for the inclusion of North Mountain Inn, Inc and Michael F. Strine as a third party in this lawsuit other than decedent's presence in that establishment for a period of about ten minutes on the night in question. 104. North Mountain Inn, Inc and Michael F. Strine have been joined in this action for the sole purpose of attempting to find another source for the payment of damages, for which decedent and defendants The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, individually, d/b/a The Goalpost and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. are alone jointly liable. 105. The inclusion of North Mountain Inn, Inc and Michael F. Strine in this matter is so blatantly without merit that it is an abuse of the processes of this Court and constitutes malicious prosecution such as to justify an award of attorney fees against the plaintiff. WHEREFORE, defendants North Mountain Inn, Inc and Michael F. Strine demand that the complaint against them be dismissed and that judgment be entered against the plaintiff. Additionally, defendants North Mountain Inn, Inc and Michael F. Strine demand judgment against the plaintiff for all costs and attorney fees incurred in the defense of this action. CROSS-COMPLAINT NORTH MOUNTAIN INN. INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, individually vs. THE GOALPOST and BETTY JO GASTLEY, individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC. 106. Cross-complainants believe and therefore aver that the decedent spent no more than ten minutes on the premises of North Mountain Inn on the day in question. 107. During the time decedent was on the premises of North Mountain Inn, he was served one regular can of beer and consumed no more than a few sips of that beer before being ordered to leave the bar. 108. Cross-complainants believe and therefore aver that prior to arriving at North Mountain Inn, decedent patronized the establishment of defendant Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. for approximately six hours, from 10:30 a.m. until about 4:20 p.m. and thereafter the establishment of defendant Betty Jo Gastley„ known as The Goalpost, for some period of time thereafter. 109. During the time decedent patronized the establishments known as Carlisle Street Tavern and The Goalpost, cross-complainants believe and therefore aver that decedent consumed substantial quantities of liquor or malt beverages such that while visibly intoxicated employees, agents or other authorized persons continued to serve decedent. 110. The actions of the employees, agents or other authorized persons at Carlisle Street Tavern and The Goalpost in continuing to serve decedent while he was visibly intoxicated were the substantial factor in bringing about the death of decedent. 111. To the extent that any liability is found on the pail of complainants, complainants believe and therefore aver that The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, individually, d/b/a The Goalpost and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. are liable over to complainants for such damages as plaintiffs may prove at trial. WHEREFORE, complainants demand that should any liability be found on the part of complainants, that The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, individually, d/b/a The Goalpost and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. should be found liable over to complainants for such damages as plaintiffs may prove at trial. August 26, 2005 HAROLD S. IRWIN, Iq J Attorney for North Mo`O?' Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, defendants 64 South Pitt Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-2353 Supreme Court ID No. 29920 VERIFICATION I hereby state that I am one of the defendants herein and President of North Mountain Inn, Inc., one of the defendants herein and that the facts and information set forth in the foregoing Answer are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. August 26, 2005 MIC AEL F. STRINE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing answer, new matter and counterclaim was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: RON TURO ESQ 28 S PITT ST CARLISLE PA 17013 THOMAS B SPONAUGLE ESQ 110 S NORTHERN WY YORK PA 17402-3737 RONALD H POLLACK JR ESQ BARLEY SNYDER LLC 126 E KING ST LANCASTER PA 17602-2893 August 26, 2005 HAROLD S. IRWIN, kI J Attorney for North Mduataffi Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, defendants 64 South Pitt Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-2353 Supreme Court ID No. 29920 C= I Tj C7 C7 csJ ?. HAROLD E. IRWIN, 111, ESQ SUPREME COURT ID NO 21120 s4 SOUTH PITT STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 717-24341010 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF As Adminlstratrlx of the Estate of : CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, deceased, Plaintiff V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually and d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and THE GOALPOST and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually and dlb/a THE GOALPOST and . CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and : PAUL T. BECKER, Individually and . dlb/a CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC.: Defendants AND NO. 2004 - 1522 CIVIL TERM NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually and d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. Cross-Plaintiff V. THE GOALPOST and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually and d/b/a THE GOALPOST and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and : PAUL T. BECKER, Individually and . d/b/a CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC.: Cross-Defendants : JURY TRIAL PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT MICHAEL F. STRINE TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT NOW comes defendant Michael F. Strine, by his attorney, Harold S. Irwin, 111, Esquire, and files these preliminary objections, representing as follows: DEMURRER 1. Defendant Strine presents this demurrer to plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to Rule No. 1017 and Rule No. 1028 (a)(4) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. Plaintiff lists as two of the defendants in this action North Mountain Inn, Inc and Michael F. Strine, individually, d/b/a North Mountain Inn, Inc. 3. North Mountain Inn, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation, duly registered, chartered and doing business in Pennsylvania. 4. Michael F. Strine is a stockholder and officer of the corporation. 5. The only reference to defendant Strine in the entire complaint, except for his name as a party in the caption, is paragraph five, in which Strine is named and his business address is provided, and paragraph twenty-four, in which Strine's status as a holder of a Pennsylvania liquor license is noted. 6. The complaint does not include any allegation of negligence or liability whatsoever on the part of defendant Strine. 7. Moreover, all actions to which the complaint refers are in regard to alleged actions or omissions of agents, employees or other authorized persons of North Mountain Inn, Inc., a corporation, not Michael F. Strine, individually. Even if the plaintiff were able to substantiate the allegations of her complaint regarding North Mountain Inn, Inc., no liability would inure to defendant Strine individually. WHEREFORE, defendant Strine demands that the complaint against him be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action and that judgment be entered against the plaintiff and in favor of defendant Strine, with prejudice. August 26, 2005 HAROLD S. IRWI 111 Attorney for North oun in Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, de endants 64 South Pitt Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-2353 Supreme Court ID No. 29920 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing answer, new matter and counterclaim was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: RON TURO ESQ 28 S PITT ST CARLISLE PA 17013 THOMAS B SPONAUGLE ESQ. 110 S NORTHERN WY YORK PA 17402-3737 RONALD H POLLACK JR ESQ BARLEY SNYDER LLC 126 E KING ST LANCASTER PA 17602-2893 August 26, 2005 HAROLD S. IRW N, III Attorney for North Veu tain Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, defendants 64 South Pitt Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-2353 Supreme Court ID No. 29920 c ? _ ? ? ?? ?' ?,,, ''? ?„ . c?, ? a.:; , ?- ? ? ?ni ?? ? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ORIGINAL CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually NO. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, deceased, Plaintiff V. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., and MICHAEL F. STRIKE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and THE GOALPOST and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Mary E. Williams, individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Van Alexander Williams, deceased c/o Ronald A. Turo, Esquire Turo Law Offices 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to file a written response to the enclosed New Matter/Crosselaim within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. BARLEY SNYDER LLC By: :p:! ;,z Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Attorneys for Additional Defendants Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., et al. and Paul T. 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 52586 RHP1472823-18/24/05 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually NO. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, deceased, Plaintiff V. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and THE GOALPOST and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants ANSWER, NEW MATTER AND CROSSCLAIM OF DEFENDANT CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC. AND PAUL T. BECKER, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC. 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 1, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 2, and strict proof thereof is demanded. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 3, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 4, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 5, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 6, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 7, and strict proof thereof is demanded. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 8, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 9. Denied. While Answering Defendant Paul T. Becker is an individual, he does not operate a business under his own name or as a proprietorship at the address indicated. 10. Admitted. RHP1472823-18/23/05 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 11, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 12, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 13, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 14, and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, Answering Defendants did not serve Plaintiff's decedent or any other patron while visibly :intoxicated as described. By way of fi2rther answer, the averments of Paragraph 14 are denied as stating conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 15, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 16, and strict proof thereof is demanded. RHP1472823-18/23/05 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 17, and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, Answering Defendants did not serve Plaintiff's decedent or any other patron while visibly intoxicated as described. By way of further answer, the averments of Paragraph 17 are denied as stating conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 18, and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, Answering Defendants did not serve Plaintiff's decedent or any other patron while visibly intoxicated as described. By way of further answer, the averments of Paragraph 18 are denied as stating conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 19, and strict proof thereof is demanded. COUNT I - DRAM SHOP - THE NORTH MOUNTAIN INN 20.-31. Denied. Paragraphs 20 through 31, inclusive, are directed to a Answering Defendant other than Answering Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. COUNT II - DRAM SHOP - THE GOALPOST 32.43. Denied. Paragraphs 32 through 43, inclusive, are directed to a Defendant other than Answering Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. RHP1472823-18/24/05 4 COUNT III - DRAM SHOP - CARLISLE STREET TAVERN 44. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 43 of this Answer and New Matter as if fully set forth herein at length. 45. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 45 are denied as stating conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 46. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 46 are denied as staring conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 47. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 47 are denied as stating conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 48. Denied. To the contrary, Carlisle Street Tavern was a licensee of the Liquor Control Board. 49. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 49, and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, Answering Defendants did not serve Plaintiff's decedent or any other patron while visibly intoxicated as described. By way of further answer, the averments of Paragraph 49 are denied as stating conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 50. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief.as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 50, and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, Answering Defendants did not serve Plaintiff's decedent or any other patron while visibly intoxicated as described. By way RHP1472823-18/23/05 of further answer, the averments of Paragraph 50 are denied as stating conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 51. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 51, and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, Answering Defendants did not serve Plaintiff's decedent or any other patron while visibly intoxicated as described. By way of further answer, the averments of Paragraph 51 are denied as stating conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 52. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 52, and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, Answering Defendants did not serve Plaintiff's decedent or any other patron while visibly intoxicated as described. By way of further answer, the averments of Paragraph 52 are denied as stating conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 53. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 53, and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, Answering Defendants did not serve Plaintiff's decedent or any other patron while visibly intoxicated as described. By way of further answer, the averments of Paragraph 53 are denied as stating conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 54. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 54 are denied as stating conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, Answering Defendants RHP1 47 2 82 3-1 8/2 3/0 5 complied with all applicable Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board rules and regulations and all applicable Pennsylvania statutes. 55. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 55 are denied as stating conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, Answering Defendants complied with all applicable Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board rules and regulations and all applicable Pennsylvania statutes. 56. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 56 are denied as stating conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, Answering Defendants complied with all applicable Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board rules and regulations and all applicable Pennsylvania statutes. WHEREFORE, Defendants Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc./Paul T. Becker respectfully request judgment in their favor and against all other parties. COUNT IV - WRONGFUL DEATH - THE NORTH MOUNTAIN INN 57.-70. Denied. Paragraphs 57 through 70, inclusive, are directed to a Defendant other than Answering Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. COUNT V - WRONGFUL DEATH - THE GOALPOST 71.-83. Denied. Paragraphs 71 through 83, inclusive, are directed to a Defendant other than Answering Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. COUNT VI - WRONGFUL DEATH - CARLISLE STREET TAVERN 84. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 84 are denied as stating conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. RHP1472823-18/23/05 85. Denied. Answering Defendant hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 84 of this Answer and New Matter as if fully set forth herein at length. 86. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 86 are denied as stating conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 87. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 87 are denied as stating conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required, 88. Denied. To the contrary, Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. was a licensee of the Liquor Control Board. 89. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 89, and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, Answering Defendants did not serve Plaintiff's decedent or any other patron while visibly intoxicated as described. By way of further answer, the averments of Paragraph 89 are denied as stating conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 90. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 90, and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, Answering Defendants did not serve Plaintiff's decedent or any other patron while visibly intoxicated as described. By way of further answer, the averments of Paragraph 90 are denied as stating conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 91. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph RHP1472823-18/23/05 91, and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, Answering Defendants did not serve Plaintiff s decedent or any other patron while visibly intoxicated as described. By way of further answer, the averments of Paragraph 91 are denied as stating conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 92. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 92, and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, Answering Defendants did not serve Plaintiff s decedent or any other patron while visibly intoxicated as described. By way of further answer, the averments of Paragraph 92 are denied as stating conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 93. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 93, and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, Answering Defendants did not serve Plaintiffs decedent or any other patron while visibly intoxicated as described. By way of further answer, the averments of Paragraph 93 are denied as stating conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 94. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 94 are denied as stating conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, Answering Defendants complied with all applicable Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board rules and regulations and all applicable Pennsylvania statutes. 95. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 95 are denied as stating conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, Answering Defendants RHP 14"72823-18/23/05 complied with all applicable Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board rules and regulations and all applicable Pennsylvania statutes. 96. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 96 are denied as stating conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, Answering Defendants complied with all applicable Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board rules and regulations and all applicable Pennsylvania statutes. 97. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 97 are denied as stating conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 97 and strict proof thereof is demanded. NEW MATTER 98. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. 99. Plaintiff s Complaint may be barred by the statute of limitations. 100. Plaintiffs injuries and damages, if proven, were caused solely and directly as a result of individuals or entities other than Answering Defendants and over whom Answering Defendant had no control or right of control. Plaintiff s injuries and damages, if proven, were caused solely and directly as a result of the negligence, carelessness and/or other liability in producing conduct on the part of Plaintiff, Van Alexander Williams. 101. Plaintiffs claims should be barred or reduced by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. REP1472823-18/23/05 10 RULE 2252(d) NEW MATTER/CROSSCLAIM DIRECTED TO CO-DEFENDANTS NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. AND MICHAEL F. STRINE, INDIVIDUALLY DB/A NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. AND THE GOALPOST AND BETTY JO GASTLEY INDIVIDUALLY, DB/A THE GOALPOST 102. Paragraphs 1 through 101 of this Answer and New Matter are hereby incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth herein at length. 103. Liability on the part of Defendant Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. is specifically denied. If the averments contained in Plaintiff s Complaint are established, said averments being specifically denied as they may relate to Defendant Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., the injuries and damages complained of were caused solely by Defendants North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, Individually d/b/a North Mountain Inn, Inc. and The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost. 104. In the event of a finding of liability against Defendant Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., Defendant Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc, hereby asserts their full rights of indemnification and contribution against Defendants North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, Individually d/b/a North Mountain Inn, Inc. and The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost, on the basis that Defendants North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, Individually d/b/a North Mountain Inn, Inc. and The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost, are alone liable, liable over, or jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff. MP1472823-18/23/05 I I 105. Defendants North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, Individually d/b/a North Mountain Inn, Inc. and The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost, have been joined herein to protect the rights of indemnity of Defendant Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. WHEREFORE, Defendant Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., demand that any judgment in favor of Plaintiff be entered solely against Defendants North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, Individually d/b/a North Mountain Inn, Inc. and The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost. In the alternative, Defendant Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., demands that in the event that judgment is entered against them, any liability on their part being specifically denied, such judgment should be entered jointly and severally against Defendants North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, Individually d/b/a North Mountain Inn, Inc. and The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost, together with Defendant Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., or that Defendants North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, Individually d/b/a North Mountain Inn, Inc. and The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost, be held liable over to Defendants Carlisle Street RHP1472823-18/23/05 12 Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. for contribution and/or indemnity. BARLEY SNYDER LLC By. Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Attorneys for Additional Defendants Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually and d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 52586 RHP1472823-18/23/05 13 VERIFICATION I, Paul T. Becker, verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer, New Matter and Crossclaim are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: 2005 (Paul T. Becker) RHP1472823-18/23/05 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer, New Matter and Crossclaim has been served this 30th day of August, 2005, by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon: Ronald A. Turo, Esquire 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 .Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire 64 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire Griffith, Strickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 BARLEY SNYD,ER L? C By: ?L /VL_ _? Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Attorneys for Additional Defendants Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually and d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 52586 I'D = T _ -r ?i (1 MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. V. North Mountain Inn, Inc., and Michael F. Strine, Individually, d/b/a/, North Mountain Inn, Inc., Defendant and CIVIL ACTION - LAW The Goalpost, and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a, The Goalpost, Defendant and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., Additional Defendants 98. No Answer Required. NO. 04 - 1522 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 99. This allegation is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. If a responsive pleading is required plaintiff conclusively denies this allegation. 100. This allegation is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. If a responsive pleading is required plaintiff conclusively denies this allegation. 101. This allegation is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. If a responsive pleading is required plaintiff conclusively denies this allegation. 102. Denied. Plaintiff's injuries and damages were caused solely and directly as a result of the negligence of all defendant's listed in great detail above. Plaintiff's injuries were not, at anytime, the negligence of plaintiff, Van Alexander Williams and any allegation to that extent is conclusively denied. 103. This allegation is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. If a responsive pleading is required, plaintiff conclusively denies this allegation. 104. No answer required. 105. - 107. These allegations are directed to parties other than the plaintiff and therefore no answer is required. WHEREFORE, for all the above reasons, Plaintiff, Mary E. Williams, individually and as administratrex of the Estate of Van Alexander Williams, request judgment in her favor pursuant to the complaint more fully set forth above. ?;d?/4s? Date Respectfully Submitted, I on Turo, Equire 28 S. Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 VERIFICATION I, Ron Turo, Esquire, attorney for the Plaintiff herein, has sufficient knowledge of the facts contained in this Answer and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, based upon information received from the Plaintiff. I understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities Date CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ron Turo, Esquire hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of Answer to New Mattelr, by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class, postage pre-paid on the d CP day of L.tG'' , 2005, from Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Ronald Pollock, Jr, Esquire 126 E. King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire Law Offices of Harold S. Irwin, III 64 South Pitt Carlisle, PA 17013 Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire Griffith, Trickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402-3737 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688; FAX 717.245.2165 C -T{ ?? ? J` .-? r„ ? [-t try i ?;?? -f ? 'j ?Y ?1 J' r...- r { = : ` (3V MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. V. North Mountain Inn, Inc., and Michael F. Strine, Individually, d/b/a/, North Mountain Inn, Inc. Defendant and CIVIL ACTION - LAW The Goalpost, and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a, The Goalpost, Defendant and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., Additional Defendants NO. 04 -- 1522 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER OF PLAINTIFF TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT NORTH MOUNTAIN INN. INC. 98. No Answer Required. 99. The allegations in this paragraph are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required. If a responsive pleading is required Plaintiff denies that decedent's death was caused in anyway by his contributory negligence. 100. The allegations in this paragraph are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required. If a responsive pleading is required Plaintiff denies that decedent's death was caused in anyway by his contributory negligence. 101. The allegations in this paragraph are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required. If a responsive pleading is required Plaintiff denies that decedent's death was caused in anyway by his contributory negligence. 102. The allegations in this paragraph are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required. If a responsive pleading is required Plaintiff denies that decedent's death was caused in anyway by his contributory negligence 103. Denied. Plaintiff avers that decedent was intoxicated when he entered North Mountain Inn, was provided alcohol by Defendants own admission and thereafter left in a visibly intoxicated state and was ultimately killed within only a few moments after leaving the North Mountain Inn. 104. Denied. The North Mountain Inn, Inc. has been joined in this lawsuit because it is a responsible party who may, along with other defendants, be responsible for the injuries and death of decedent. 105. No responsive pleading is required as the averments in this paragraph are legal conclusions. By way of further answer, Plaintiff has every belief that the North Mountain Inn, Inc. played a major role, if not the primary role, in causing the death of decedent. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment in its favor and against all Defendants. 106. - 111. These averments are directed at parties other than Plaintiff and therefore, no answer by Plaintiff is required. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment in its favor and against all Defendants. 3t c Date Carlisle, PA 17013 28 S. Pitt Street VERIFICATION I, Ron Turo, Esquire, attorney for the Plaintiff herein, has sufficient knowledge of the facts contained in this Answer and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, based upon information received from the Plaintiff. I understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating pvnsworn falsification to authorities G Date CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Ron Turo, Esquire hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of Answer to New Matter, by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class, postage pre-paid on the ? j day of _, 2005, from Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Ronald Pollock, Jr, Esquire 126 E. King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire Law Offices of Harold S. Irwin, III 64 South Pitt Carlisle, PA 17013 Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire Griffith, Trickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402-3737 v 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688; FAX 717.245.2165 r-, ?_, `?? r, -n ?-- "' --t " Y'? 7 V {? ?? ?? ? , ? ? ? ?- . , ? ? l"" ? ? ?? 1 '' C _. ?rc, + - :`=i cn = ?.._ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and Case No. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a, CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE VERIFICATION TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please substitute the attached verification of Defendant Betty Jo Gastley for the verification of Defendant's counsel to the Answer, New Matter and Cross Claim of Defendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost which was filed in the above-captioned matter. GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKI>S _ By: THOMAS 4Y SP. dCiLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court I.D. #64584 Attorney for Defendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, :Individually d/b/a The Goalpost 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a, CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants VERIFICATION Case No. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED I verify that the foregoing facts are true and correct, upon my personal knowledge or information and belief. This verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: 9- C?J-elJ BETTY J SST Y THE GOALPOST IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a, CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 3o'xday ofL4?t, 2005, I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of Praecipe to Substitute Verification by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Ronald A. Turo, Esquire Turo Law Offices 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Michael F. Strine d/b/a North Mountain Inn 3636 Waggoners Gap Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Ronald H. Pollack, Jr., Esq. Barley Snyder, LLC 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 (Counsel for Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc.) Case No. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKJXS By: THOMAS B.`SP )RWQL9,ESQUIRE Supreme Co .964594 Attorney for Defendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 N tip -TI i nor C7 MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. V. North Mountain Inn, Inc., and Michael F. Strine, Individually, d/b/a/, North Mountain Inn, Inc., Defendant and CIVIL ACTION - LAW The Goalpost, and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a, The Goalpost, Defendant and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., Additional Defendants NO. 04 -- 1522 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CARLISLE STREET TAVERN. INC. 98. The averments of this paragraph are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required. 99. The averments of this paragraph are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required. 100. The averments of this paragraph are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required. 101. The averments of this paragraph are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required. 102. - 105. The averments of these paragraphs are directed to Defendants and not Plaintiffs and therefore no answer is required. Date Su Rom Turo, Equire 28 S. Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 VERIFICATION I, Ron Turo, Esquire, attorney for the Plaintiff herein, has sufficient knowledge of the facts contained in this Answer and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, based upon information received from the Plaintiff. I understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsifica#ion to authorities W/ ?5 Date , Esquire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ron Turo, Esquire hereby certify that R served a true and correct copy of Answer to New Matter, by depositing same in t United States Mail, first class, postage pre-paid on the day of 2005, from Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Ronald Pollock, Jr, Esquire 126 E. King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire Law Offices of Harold S. Irwin, III 64 South Pitt Carlisle, PA 17013 Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire Griffith, Trickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402-3737 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688; FAX 717.245.2165 ?-, c? °, .a ;n ??, ,:,;?. ?:? ,_ `,?'. { '?7 _ .-- PZ if .a W :< IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, deceased, Plaintiff V. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and THE GOALPOST and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and NO. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., AND PAUL T. BECKER, TO NEW MATTER AND CROSSCLAIM OF DEFENDANT NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. 99, 100, 102, 104. Denied. The variance of these paragraphs are denied as being conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate by reference their Answer and New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint as if fully set forth herein at length. 106-111. Denied. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate by reference their Answer and New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint as if fully set forth herein at length. By way of further answer, the averments of paragraphs 106-111, inclusive, are denied as stating conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of these paragraphs and strict proof thereof is demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendants Carlisle Street Tavern, hic./Paul T. Becker respectfully request this Honorable Court to dismiss Defendant's cross-complaints with prejudice. BARLEY ? ?SNYDER LLC By: hI r''/ ? , Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Attorneys for Additional Defendants Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 52586 RHP 1476897-19/2/05 2 [Williams v. Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., et al.] VERIFICATION I, Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire, am the attorney for Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., and being duly affirmed according to law, depose and say that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer to New Matter and Crossclaim are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire RHP 1476897-19/2/05 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer to New s' Matter and Crossclaim has been served thi?l( day of , 2005, by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon: Ronald A. Turo, Esquire 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire 64 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire Griffith, Strickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 BARLEY SNYDER LLC By: k" hk? Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Attorneys for Additional Defendants Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually and d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 52586 1476897.1 C3 ?' O rn r1 l -r . . Ill r 1 C G'l s 7. : t IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Case No. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, CIVIL ACTION - LAW d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a, CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants DEFENDANT GASTLEY'S REPLY TO CROSS COMPLAINT OF NORTH MOUNTAIN I_NN INC and MICHAEL F. STRINE Individually v. THE GOALPOST and BETTY JO GASTLEY Individually d/b/a THE GOALPOST and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC. 106. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 107. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 108. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 109. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 110. Denied. It is specifically denied that the actions of the employees, agents or other authorized persons at The Goalpost in continuing to serve decedent while he was visibly intoxicated was the substantial factor in bringing about the death of the decedent. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, The Goalpost employees, agents or other authorized persons acted in a careful, lawful and prudent manner with due care under the circumstances and strict proof thereof is demanded. 111. Denied. Paragraph 111 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, individually d/b/a The Goalpost, demand judgment in their favor and against all other parties. SOLYMbS & By: LERMAN, THOMASI ONAUGLE, ESQUIRE Supreme I.D. #64584 Attorney for Defendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and Case No. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a, CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VERIFICATION I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, do hereby verify that I am the attorney of record for the pleading party herein, The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost, and that the facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, upon information supplied. I understand that false statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS Dated: 6 - a" b S' BY. THOMA GLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Cou D.464584 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402 (717) 757-7602 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Case No. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and CIVIL ACTION - LAW THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a, CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this o ? day of? 2005, I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of Defendant Gastley's Reply to Cross Complaint of North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, Individually v. The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Ronald A. Turo, Esquire Turo Law Offices 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Harold S. Irwin, 111, Esquire 64 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for North Mountain Inn, Inc.) Ronald H. Pollack, Jr., Esq. Barley Snyder, LLC 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 (Counsel for Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc.) GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CAL?kNS By: THOMAS B. SP LE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court I. D. #64584 Attorney for Defendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 n. 't"fl CD `1J s IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Case No. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff vs. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRIKE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, : Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a, CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT GASTLEY'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER/ CROSS CLAIM OF NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRIKE, Individually d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. 102. Answering Defendant, The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, individually d/b/a The Goalpost, incorporates by reference its Answer & New Matter. 103. Denied. Paragraph 103 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 104. Denied. Paragraph 104 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 105. Denied. Paragraph 105 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, individually d/b/a The Goalpost, demands judgment in their favor and against all other parties. GRIFFITH, STR1C ER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & kWXINS By: THOMAS BUGLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Co I #64584 Attorney for Defendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Case No. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a, CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants VERIFICATION CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, do hereby verify that I am the attorney of record for the pleading party herein, The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost, and that the facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, upon information supplied. I understand that false statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. GRIFFITH, STKICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS Dated: q-6-05- BY: THOMAS BSP . QUIRE Supreme Co D. # 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402 (717) 757-7602 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Case No. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and CIVIL ACTION - LAW THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a, CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this G day of2005, 1, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of Defendant Gastley's Reply to New Matter/Cross Claim of North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, Individually d/b/a North Mountain Inn, Inc, by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Ronald A. Turo, Esquire Turo Law Offices 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire 64 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for North Mountain Inn, Inc.) Ronald H. Pollack, Jr., Esq. Barley Snyder, LLC 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 (Counsel for Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc.) GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS. By: THOMAW. LE, ESQUIRE Supreme Co 1J. 64584 Attorney for efendant The Goalpost and Betty 7o Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 r"? ? ; O ?_? ?? u+ 4ry . ? Y ?y ? ,? _.. ?? .- r , - ?, :-.3 -? ? i ,. ,c.: --, -;; ?,, '<:> v} i ro c.? _? ?7 ?? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a, CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants Case No. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF THE GOALPOST AND BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST AND NOW, TO WIT, this 2M day of T? , 2007, comes the Defendant, The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a The Goalpost, by her counsel, GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, and files the following Motion for Summary Judgment: 1. On July 5, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the above-referenced matter as it relates to a motor vehicle accident that occurred on May 1, 2002 in which Van Williams, spouse of Mary Williams, was killed in a one vehicle accident on McClures Gap Road, Lower Frankford Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Complaint is attached hereto and marked Exhibit 1. 2. On August 17, 2005, Petitioner filed an Answer, New Matter and Cross Claim. A copy of the Answer, New Matter and Cross Claim of Petitioner is attached hereto and marked Exhibit 2. 3. On August 31, 2005, Plaintiff filed an Answer to the New Matter of Petitioner, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked Exhibit 3. 4. Plaintiff's Complaint essentially alleges a dram shop violation against the Defendants in that Van Williams was served alcoholic beverages while visibly intoxicated in each one of the establishments, North Mountain Inn, The Goalpost, and Carlisle Street Tavern. 5. The Cumberland County coroner has reported that Van Williams' blood ethanol level at the time of the accident was 0.63 percent. 6. The Pennsylvania State Police accident report indicates the time of the accident of 8:45 p.m. on May 1, 2002. 7. On August 1, 2006, Mary Williams was deposed and could not provide any first hand information with regard to the accident of Van Williams and his actions on May 1, 2002. Indeed, all information as it relates to Mr. Williams' actions on May 1, 2002 in Mary Williams knowledge is as the result of speaking to Sharon Otten, now known as Sharon Siegfried. See Mary Williams deposition transcript attached hereto and marked Exhibit 4, p. 6-11. 8. On August 1, 2006, Sharon Siegfried, formerly known as Sharon Otten, was deposed and recounted that from 12:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. she was with Van Williams at the Carlisle Street Tavern and saw him drink three 12 ounce bottles of Budweiser. See Sharon Siegfried deposition transcript attached hereto and marked Exhibit 5, p. 9. At approximately 4:30 to 5:00 p.m., they arrived at The Goalpost for maybe about an hour and a half, at which time Mr. Williams had one or two 12 ounce bottles of Budweiser. See Exhibit 5, p. 11-12. They then proceeded to the North Mountain Inn, at which time Mr. Williams had one 12 ounce bottle of Budweiser. See Exhibit 5, p. 14. Ms. Siegfried believed that Mr. Williams was okay to drive when he left the North Mountain Inn, Carlisle Street Tavern, and The Goalpost. See Exhibit 5, p. 16-17. At no time on May 1, 2002 did he appear to be visibly intoxicated and did not have any slurred speech, trouble walking, or bloodshot eyes. See Exhibit 5, p. 18. Sharon Siegfried was very familiar with Van Williams as she had lived with him for about four years immediately prior to the accident. See Exhibit 5, p. 18. 9. On July 20, 2006, the depositions of Paul Becker, owner and operator of Carlisle Street Tavern, Michael Strine, owner and operator of North Mountain Inn, and Betty Jo Gastley, owner and operator of The Goalpost, were taken all of whom did not provide any information that the Plaintiff was served while visibly intoxicated at any one of the establishments. 10. On August 1, 2006, the deposition of Tracy McClintock was taken, and a copy of her deposition transcript is attached hereto and marked Exhibit 6. Ms. McClintock was the sole bartender at The Goalpost from the time Mr. Williams entered The Goalpost at approximately 4:15 to 4:30 p.m. to the end of her shift at 6:00 p.m. See Exhibit 6, p. 7. Van Williams had one Budweiser and one shot of Windsor in The Goalpost at that time. See Exhibit 6, p. 11. He was never visibly intoxicated while in the bar, and he was not visibly intoxicated when he left The Goalpost. See Exhibit 6, p. 12. 11. On August 1, 2006, the deposition of Anna Moore was taken, and a copy of her deposition transcript is attached hereto and marked Exhibit 7. Anna Moore was the bartender at The Goalpost whose shift began at 6:00 p.m. on May 1, 2002 and who arrived early for work at 5:30 p.m. Ms. Moore did not serve any drinks to Mr. Williams. See Exhibit 7, p. 8. Van Williams exited The Goalpost at 6:00 p.m. on May 1, 2002. See Exhibit 7, p. 8. In her opinion, Mr. Williams was not visibly intoxicated when he left The Goalpost. See Exhibit 7, p. 9. 12. There is no eyewitness testimony to indicate that Van Williams was visibly intoxicated while served two drinks in The Goalpost on May 1, 2002. Indisputably, there is no information to date that Van Williams was visibly intoxicated when served at The Goalpost on May 1, 2002. 13. "In order for an injured plaintiff to recover under the Dram Shop Act which prohibits serving alcoholic beverages to visibly intoxicated patrons, it must be proven that the plaintiff was served alcoholic beverages by a licensee while visibly intoxicated and that this violation of statute proximately caused injuries". Johnson v. Harris, 615 A.2d 771, 775 (Pa. Super. 1992); McDonald v. Marriott Corp., 564 A.2d 1298 (Pa. Super. 1989). 14. "An owner of a drinking establishment cannot be held liable under the Dram Shop Act to patrons who are injured in a single vehicle accident after they were served alcohol at the establishment absent showing that the patrons were visibly intoxicated when they were served". Johnson, 615 A.2d at 771, 776. See also Fandozzi v. Kelly Hotel, Inc., 711 A.2d 524 (Pa. Super. 1998); Hiles v. Brandywine Club, 662 A.2d 16 (Pa. Super. 1995). 15. The Plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case, and a Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted as a genuine issue of fact does not exist. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Honorable Court grant the Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a The Goalpost. By: GRIFFITH, STRI SOLYMOS &,e- THOMAS B. SPONA?' U `r-, ESQUIRE Supreme Court I.D. # 84 Attorney for Defendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 1 MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. V. North Mountain Inn, Inc., and Michael F. Strine, Individually, d/b/a/, North Mountain Inn, Inc., Defendant and : CIVIL ACTION - LAW The Goalpost, and : NO. 04 -1522 CIVIL TERM Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a, The Goalpost, Defendant and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., y4.9 Additional Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 1TWE C-() pry, FROM RFCORD f `is7'1? Y 1 6 « Set JJNb t,,. j You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take prompt action. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case will proceed without you and a decree in divorce or annulment may be entered against you for any other claim or relief requested in these papers by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you, including custody or visitation of your children. When the ground for the divorce is indignities or irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, you may request marriage counseling. A list of marriage counselors is available in the Office of the Prothonotary at the First Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse, South Hanover Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. IF YOU DO NOT FILE A CLAIM FOR ALIMONY, DIVISION OF MARITAL PROPERTY, LAWYER'S FEES, OR EXPENSES BEFORE A DIVORCE IS GRANTED, YOU MAY LOSE THE RIGHT TO CLAIM ANY OF THEM. 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 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff V. North Mountain Inn, Inc., and Michael F. Strine, Individually, d/b/a/, North Mountain Inn, Inc., Defendant and The Goalpost, and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a, The Goalpost, Defendant and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., Additional Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 04 -1522 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT 1. The decedent is Van Alexander Williams, an adult individual whose last known address is 1733 McClure's Gap Road, Apartment #l. 2. The decedent is the father of two children, Alexandra Williams, age 16, and Julia, age 10. 3. The decedent, at the time of death, was married to Mary Williams, the Administratrix of the estate of Van Alexander Williams. 4. Plaintiff, Mary E. Williams, is an adult individual residing at 41 Carla Drive, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17257. 5. Defendant, Michael F. Strine, is an adult individual with a business address at 3636 Waggoners Gap Road, Carlisle, PA 17013. 6. Defendant, North Mountain Inn, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation which owns and/or operates the North Mountain Inn, having its principal place of business at 3636 Waggoners Gap Road, Carlisle, PA 17013, and operating as a tavern licensed to serve alcohol by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at all relevant times hereto. 7. Defendant, Betty Jo Gastley, is an adult individual with a business address at RD 2, New Oxford, PA 17350. 8. Defendant, The Goalpost, is a Pennsylvania corporation which owns and/or operates The Goalpost, having its principal place of business at RD 2, New Oxford, PA 1735 and operating as a tavern licensed to serve alcohol by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at all relevant times hereto. 9. Defendant, Paul T. Becker, is an adult individual with a business address at 609 Carlisle Street, Hanover, PA 17331. 10. Defendant, Carlisle Street Tavern, is a Pennsylvania corporation which owns and/or operates the Carlisle Street Tavern, having its principal place of business at 609 Carlisle Street, Hanover, PA 17331, and operating as a tavern licensed to serve alcohol by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at all relevant times hereto. 11. On May 1st, 2002, Williams engaged in a day of drinking which ultimately resulted in his driving while intoxicated, with a blood ethanol level of 0.63, nearly eight times the legal limit, causing an accident and his death. 12. During the day and evening of May Is`, 2002, Williams purchased and consumed alcohol and/or was provided and served alcohol at the North Mountain Inn, The Goalpost, and the Carlisle Street Tavern. 13. On May 1st, 2002, Williams dropped off his Jeep Cherokee for servicing at Callen Tire Shop in Hanover at 10:22a.m. 14. From Callen Tire Shop, Williams went to Carlisle Street Tavern, where he stayed and consumed alcoholic beverages from approximately 10:30a.m. to approximately 4:20p.m., and while visibly intoxicated, was provided or servedalcohol at the Carlisle treet Tavern by Carlisle Street Tavern employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons. 15. Thereafter, Williams went to The Goalpost, where he stayed and, while visibly intoxicated, was served or provided alcohol at The Goalpost by Goalpost employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons. 16. At the North Mountain Inn, Williams, while visibly intoxicated, was served or provided alcohol at the North Mountain Inn by North Mountain Inn employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons. 17. While at the Carlisle Street Tavern, The Goalpost, and the North Mountain Inn, it was obvious that Williams was visibly intoxicated for the following reasons: A. Williams was staggering, listing, and generally unable to walk normally; B. Williams was slurring his words and was incoherent; C. Williams had bloodshot eyes; and D. Williams required assistance to stand and walk. 18. Although Williams was visibly intoxicated, the employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons of the Carlisle Street Tavern, The Goalpost, and the North Mountain Inn furnished alcohol to Williams and/or allowed Williams to possess and consume alcohol. 19. At approximately 8:30p.m., upon leaving the North Mountain Inn, Williams was the operator and sole occupant of a motorcycle traveling southbound on McClure's Gap Road in Lower Frankford Twp. Williams lost control of the motorcycle he was operating, struck a tree, and died at the scene of the accident. Post-mordem toxicology tests determined that Williams' blood ethanol level was .63% at the time of death. COUNT I - DRAM SHOP - THE NORTH MOUNTAIN INN 20. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 19 of the Complaint. 21. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has enacted two sections under the Pennsylvania Liquor Code which provide imposition of civil liability against a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board for actions of one of its licensees under the circumstances described in this Complaint. 22. Title 47 Pa. C.S.A. § 4-493(1) provides that: "It shall be unlawful--(1) FURNISHING LIQUOR OR MALT OR BREWED BEVERAGES TO CERTAIN PERSONS. For any licensee or the board, or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee or of the board, or any other person, to sell, furnish or give any liquor or malt or brewed beverages, or to permit any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to be sold, famished or given, to any person visibly intoxicated, or to any minor: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, no cause of action will exist against a licensee or the board or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee or the board for selling, furnishing or giving any liquor or malt or brewed beverages or permitting any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to be sold, furnished or given to any insane person, any habitual drunkard or person of known intemperate habits unless the person sold, furnished or given alcohol is visibly intoxicated or is a minor." 23. Title 47 § 4-493(1) is to be read in conjunction with § 4-497 which provides: "No licensee shall be liable to third persons on account of damages inflicted upon them off of the licensed premises by customers of the licensee unless the customer who inflicts the damages was sold, furnished or given liquor or malt or brewed beverages by the said licensee or his agent, servant or employe when the said customer was visibly intoxicated." 24. Strine was a licensee of the Liquor Control Board before, on, and after May 1St, 2002. 25. During the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of the North Mountain Inn, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, which beverages were sold or furnished to Williams by employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons of the North Mountain Inn/Strine while visibly intoxicated; or were purchased by other customers from said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons, who then permitted and allowed Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishments. 26. During the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of the North Mountain Inn, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, by said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons of the North Mountain Inn/Strine while visibly intoxicated, by allowing Williams to enter the establishments while visibly intoxicated and be furnished or given the aforesaid beverages by said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons or by customers who were sold or furnished said beverages who then permitted Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment. 27. The actions of Williams were sufficient to put a person who had reasonable training and experience as a bartender, server, or operator on notice that she was intoxicated. 28. The obvious actions and physical signs which Williams displayed while at the North Mountain Inn at the time in which he was served at each establishment included, but are not limited to, the following: A. Williams was staggering, listing, and generally unable to walk normally; B. Williams was slurring his words and was incoherent; C. Williams had bloodshot eyes, and; D. Williams required assistance to stand and walk. 29. Within fifteen minutes after leaving the North Mountain Inn, at which time Williams was served liquor or malted beverages at each establishment while visibly intoxicated, Williams suffered a fatal motorcycle accident. 30. As a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, the aforesaid actions of the North Mountain Inn/Strine; by and through their employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons, were in violation of the aforesaid statutes, 47 Pa. C.S.A. § 4-493 and §4497, which actions caused and/or were a substantial factor in causing the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 20 through 29 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. 31. As a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, the aforesaid actions of the North Mountain Inn/Strine, are liable per se, as a result of the violations of the aforesaid statutes which violations caused and/or were a substantial factor in causing the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 20 through 30 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. COUNT II - DRAM SHOP - THE GOALPOST 32. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs I through 31 of the Complaint. 33. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has enacted two sections under the Pennsylvania Liquor Code which provide imposition of civil liability against a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board for actions of one of its licensees under the circumstances described in this Complaint. 34. Title 47 Pa. C.S.A. § 4-493(1) provides that: "It shall be unlawful--(1) FURNISHING LIQUOR OR MALT OR BREWED BEVERAGES TO CERTAIN PERSONS. For any licensee or the board, or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee or of the board, or any other person, to sell, furnish or give any liquor or malt or brewed beverages, or to permit any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to be sold, furnished or given, to any person visibly intoxicated, or to any minor: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, no cause of action will exist against a licensee or the board or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee or the board for selling, furnishing or giving any liquor or malt or brewed beverages or permitting any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to be sold, furnished or given to any insane person, any habitual drunkard or person of known intemperate habits unless the person sold, furnished or given alcohol is visibly intoxicated or is a minor." 35. Title 47 § 4-493(1) is to be read in conjunction with § 4-497 which provides: "No licensee shall be liable to third persons on account of damages inflicted upon them off of the licensed premises by customers of the licensee unless the customer who inflicts the damages was sold, furnished or given liquor or malt or brewed beverages by the said licensee or his agent, servant or employe when the said customer was visibly intoxicated." 36. Gastley was a licensee of the Liquor Control Board before, on, and after May 1', 2002. 37. During the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of The Goalpost, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, which beverages were sold or furnished to Williams by employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons of The Goalpost/Gastley while visibly intoxicated; or were purchased by other customers from said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons, who then permitted and allowed Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment. 38. During the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of The Goalpost, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, by said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons of The Goalpost/Gastley while visibly intoxicated, by allowing Williams to enter the establishment while visibly intoxicated and be furnished or given the aforesaid beverages by said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons or by customers who were sold or furnished said beverages who then permitted Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment. 39. The actions of Williams were sufficient to put a person who had reasonable training and experience as a bartender, server, or operator on notice that she was intoxicated. 40. The obvious actions and physical signs which Williams displayed while at The Goalpost at the time in which he was served at each establishment included, but are not limited to, the following: A. Williams was staggering, listing, and generally unable to walk normally; B. Williams was slurring his words and was incoherent; C. Williams had bloodshot eyes, and; D. Williams required assistance to stand and walk. 41. After leaving The Goalpost, at which time Williams was served liquor or malted beverages at the establishment while visibly intoxicated, Williams suffered a fatal motorcycle accident. 42. As a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, The Goalpost/Gastley, by and through their employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons, were in violation of the aforesaid statutes, 47 Pa. C.S.A. § 4493 and §4497, which actions caused and/or were a substantial factor in causing the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 32 through 41 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. 43. As a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, the aforesaid actions of The Goalpost/Gastley, are liable per se, as a result of the violations of the aforesaid statutes which violations caused and/or were a substantial factor in causing the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 32 through 42 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. COUNT III - DRAM SHOP - CARLISLE STREET TAVERN 44. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 43 of the Complaint. 45. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has enacted two sections under the Pennsylvania Liquor Code which provide imposition of civil liability against a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board for actions of one of its licensees under the circumstances described in this Complaint. 46. Title 47 Pa. C.S.A. § 4493(1) provides that: "It shall be unlawful--(1) FURNISHING LIQUOR OR MALT OR BREWED BEVERAGES TO CERTAIN PERSONS. For any licensee or the board, or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee or of the board, or any other person, to sell, furnish or give any liquor or malt or brewed beverages, or to permit any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to be sold, furnished or given, to any person visibly intoxicated, or to any minor: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, no cause of action will exist against a licensee or the board or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee or the board for selling, furnishing or giving any liquor or malt or brewed beverages or permitting any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to be sold, furnished or given to any insane person, any habitual drunkard or person of known intemperate habits unless the person sold, furnished or given alcohol is visibly intoxicated or is a minor." 47. Title 47 § 4-493(1) is to be read in conjunction with § 4-497 which provides: "No licensee shall be liable to third persons on account of damages inflicted upon them off of the licensed premises by customers of the licensee unless the customer who inflicts the damages was sold, furnished or given liquor or malt or brewed beverages by the said licensee or his agent, servant or employe when the said customer was visibly intoxicated." 48. Becker was a licensee of the Liquor Control Board before, on, and after May 1St, 2002. 49. During the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of Carlisle Street Tavern, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, which beverages were sold or furnished to Williams by employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons of Carlisle Street Tavern/Becker while visibly intoxicated; or were purchased by other customers from said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons, who then permitted and allowed Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment. 50. During the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of Carlisle Street Tavern, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, by said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons of Carlisle Street Tavern/Becker while visibly intoxicated, and furnished or given the aforesaid beverages by said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons or by customers who were sold or famished said beverages who then permitted Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment. 51. The actions of Williams were sufficient to put a person who had reasonable training and experience as a bartender, server, or operator on notice that she was intoxicated. 52. The obvious actions and physical signs which Williams displayed while at The Goalpost at the time in which he was served at each establishment included, but are not limited to, the following: A. Williams was staggering, listing, and generally unable to walk normally; B. Williams was slurring his words and was incoherent; C. Williams had bloodshot eyes, and; D. Williams required assistance to stand and walk. 53. After leaving Carlisle Street Tavern, at which time Williams was served liquor or malted beverages at the establishment while visibly intoxicated. Williams suffered a fatal motorcycle accident. 54. As a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, Carlisle Street Tavern, by and through their employees, agents, servants, or'authorized persons, were in violation of the aforesaid statutes, 47 Pa. C.S.A. § 4-493 and §4-497, which actions caused and/or were a substantial factor in causing the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 44 through 53 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. 55. As a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, the aforesaid actions of Carlisle Street Tavern/Becker, are liable per se, as a result of the violations of the aforesaid statutes which violations caused and/or were a substantial factor in causing the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 44 through 54 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. 56. As licensees of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, the aforesaid actions of the North Mountain Inn/Strine, The Goalpost/Gastley, and Carlisle Street Tavern/Becker have each violated the aforesaid statutes and are therefore jointly and severally liable for the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 5 through 55 of this Complaint, which are incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants North Mountain hm/Strine, The Goalpost/Gastley, and Carlisle Street Tavern/Becker, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits, together with delay damages as applicable under law, as well as any other relief the court deems proper. COUNT IV - WRONGFUL DEATH - THE NORTH MOUNTAIN INN 57. The plaintiff, Mary E. Williams, Administratrix of the estate of Van Alexander Williams, brings this action pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8301 et seq. 58. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs I through 58 of the Complaint. 59. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has enacted two sections under the Pennsylvania Liquor Code which provide imposition of civil liability against a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board for actions of one of its licensees under the circumstances described in this Complaint. 60. Title 47 Pa. C.S.A. § 4-493(1) provides that: "It shall be unlawful--(1) FURNISHING LIQUOR OR MALT OR BREWED BEVERAGES TO CERTAIN PERSONS. For any licensee or the board, or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee or of the board, or any other person, to sell, furnish or give any liquor or malt or brewed beverages, or to permit any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to be sold, furnished or given, to any person visibly intoxicated, or to any minor: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, no cause of action will exist against a licensee or the board or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee or the board for selling, furnishing or giving any liquor or malt or brewed beverages or permitting any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to be sold, furnished or given to any insane person, any habitual drunkard or person of known intemperate habits unless the person sold, furnished or given alcohol is visibly intoxicated or is a minor." 61. Title 47 § 4-493(1) is to be read in conjunction with § 4-497 which provides: "No licensee shall be liable to third persons on account of damages inflicted upon them off of the licensed premises by customers of the licensee unless the customer who inflicts the damages was sold, furnished or given liquor or malt or brewed beverages by the said licensee or his agent, servant or employe when the said customer was visibly intoxicated." 62. Strine was a licensee of the Liquor Control Board before, on, and after May 1St, 2002. 63. During the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of the North Mountain Inn, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, which beverages were sold or furnished to Williams by employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons of the North Mountain Inn/Strine while visibly intoxicated; or were purchased by other customers from said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons, who then permitted and allowed Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment. 64. During the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of the North Mountain Inn, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, by said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons of the North Mountain Inn/Strine while visibly intoxicated, by allowing Williams to enter the establishments while visibly intoxicated and be furnished or given the aforesaid beverages by said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons or by customers who were sold or furnished said beverages who then permitted Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment. 65. The actions of Williams were sufficient to put a person who had reasonable training and experience as a bartender, server, or operator on notice that she was intoxicated. 66. The obvious actions and physical signs which Williams displayed while at the North Mountain Inn at the time in which he was served at each establishment included, but are not limited to, the following: A. Williams was staggering, listing, and generally unable to walk normally; B. Williams was slurring his words and was incoherent; C. Williams had bloodshot eyes, and; D. Williams required assistance to stand and walk. 67. Within fifteen minutes after leaving the North Mountain Inn, at which time Williams was served liquor or malted beverages at the establishment while visibly intoxicated, Williams suffered a fatal motorcycle accident. 68. As a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, the aforesaid actions of the North Mountain Inn/Strine, by and through their employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons, were in violation of the aforesaid statutes, 47 Pa. C.S.A. § 4-493 and §4-497, which actions caused and/or were a substantial factor in causing the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 57 through 67 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. 69. As a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, the aforesaid actions of the North Mountain Inn/Strine, are liable per se, as a result of the violations of the aforesaid statutes which violations caused and/or were a substantial factor in causing the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 57 through 68 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. 70. As a direct and proximate result of the defendant's negligence, the decedent died on May 1", 2002. COUNT V - WRONGFUL DEATH - THE GOALPOST 71. The plaintiff, Mary E. Williams, Administratrix of the estate of Van Alexander Williams, brings this action pursuant to 42 Pa: C.S.A. § 8301 et seq. 72. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 71 of the Complaint. 73. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has enacted two sections under the Pennsylvania Liquor Code which provide imposition of civil liability against a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board for actions of one of its licensees under the circumstances described in this Complaint. 74. Title 47 Pa. C.S.A. § 4-493(1) provides that: "It shall be unlawful--(1) FURNISHING LIQUOR OR MALT OR BREWED BEVERAGES TO CERTAIN PERSONS. For any licensee or the board, or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee or of the board, or any other person, to sell, furnish or give any liquor or malt or brewed beverages, or to permit any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to be sold, furnished or given, to any person visibly intoxicated, or to any minor: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, no cause of action will exist against a licensee or the board or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee or the board for selling, furnishing or giving any liquor or malt or brewed beverages or permitting any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to be sold, furnished or given to any insane person, any habitual drunkard or person of known intemperate habits unless the person sold, furnished or given alcohol is visibly intoxicated or is a minor." 75. Title 47 § 4-493(1) is to be read in conjunction with § 4497 which provides: "No licensee shall be liable to third persons on account of damages inflicted upon them off of the licensed premises by customers of the licensee unless the customer who inflicts the damages was sold, furnished or given liquor or malt or brewed beverages by the said licensee or his agent, servant or employe when the said customer was visibly intoxicated." 76. Gastley was a licensee of the Liquor Control Board before, on, and after May 1st, 2002. 77. During the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of The Goalpost, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, which beverages were sold or furnished to Williams by employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons of The Goalpost/Gastley while visibly intoxicated; or were purchased by other customers from said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons, who then permitted and allowed Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment. 78. During the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of The Goalpost, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, by said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons of The Goalpost/Gastley while visibly intoxicated, by allowing Williams to enter the establishment while visibly intoxicated and be furnished or given the aforesaid beverages by said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons or by customers who were sold or furnished said beverages who then permitted Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment. 79. The actions of Williams were sufficient to put a person who had reasonable training and experience as a bartender, server, or operator on notice that she was intoxicated. 80. The obvious actions and physical signs which Williams displayed while at The Goalpost at the time in which he was served at each establishment included, but are not limited to, the following: A. Williams was staggering, listing, and generally unable to walk normally; B. Williams was slurring his words and was incoherent; C. Williams had bloodshot eyes, and; D. Williams required assistance to stand and walk. 81. After leaving The Goalpost, at which time Williams was served liquor or malted beverages at the establishment while visibly intoxicated, Williams suffered a fatal motorcycle accident. 82. As a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, The Goalpost/Gastley, by and through their employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons, were in violation of the aforesaid statutes, 47 Pa. C.S.A. § 4-493 and §4497, which actions caused and/or were a substantial factor in causing the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 71 through 81 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. 83. As a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, the aforesaid actions of The Goalpost/Gastley, are liable per se, as a result of the violations of the aforesaid statutes which violations caused and/or were a substantial factor in causing the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 71 through 82 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. COUNT VI - WRONGFUL DEATH - CARLISLE STREET TAVERN 84. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has enacted two sections under the Pennsylvania Liquor Code which provide imposition of civil liability against a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board for actions of one of its licensees under the circumstances described in this Complaint. 85. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 84 of the Complaint. 86. Title 47 Pa. C.S.A. § 4-493(1) provides that: "It shall be unlawful--(1) FURNISHING LIQUOR OR MALT OR BREWED BEVERAGES TO CERTAIN PERSONS. For any licensee or the board, or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee or of the board, or any other person, to sell, furnish or give any liquor or malt or brewed beverages, or to permit any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to be sold, furnished or given, to any person visibly intoxicated, or to any minor: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, no cause of action will exist against a licensee or the board or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee or the board for selling, furnishing or giving any liquor or malt or brewed beverages or permitting any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to be sold, furnished or given to any insane person, any habitual drunkard or person of known intemperate habits unless the person sold, furnished or given alcohol is visibly intoxicated or is a minor." 87. Title 47 § 4-493(1) is to be read in conjunction with § 4-497 which provides: "No licensee shall be liable to third persons on account of damages inflicted upon them off of the licensed premises by customers of the licensee unless the customer who inflicts the damages was sold, furnished or given liquor or malt or brewed beverages by the said licensee or his agent, servant or employe when the said customer was visibly intoxicated." 88. Becker was a licensee of the Liquor Control Board before, on, and after May 1St, 2002. 89. During the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of Carlisle Street Tavern, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, which beverages were sold or furnished to Williams by employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons of Carlisle Street Tavern/Becker while visibly intoxicated; or were purchased by other customers from said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons, who then permitted and allowed Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment. 90. During the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of Carlisle Street Tavern, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, by said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons of Carlisle Street Tavern/Becker while visibly intoxicated, and furnished or given the aforesaid beverages by said employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons or by customers who were sold or furnished said beverages who then permitted Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment. 91. The actions of Williams were sufficient to put a person who had reasonable training and experience as a bartender, server, or operator on notice that she was intoxicated. 92. The obvious actions and physical signs which Williams displayed while at The Goalpost at the time in which he was served at each establishment included, but are not limited to, the following: A. Williams was staggering, listing, and generally unable to walk normally; B. Williams was slurring his words and was incoherent; C. Williams had bloodshot eyes, and; D. Williams required assistance to stand and walk. 93. After leaving Carlisle Street Tavern, at which time Williams was served liquor or malted beverages at the establishment while visibly intoxicated, Williams suffered a fatal motorcycle accident. 94. As a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, Carlisle Street Tavern, by and through their employees, agents, servants, or authorized persons, were in violation of the aforesaid statutes, 47 Pa. C.S.A. § 4-493 and §4497, which actions caused and/or were a substantial factor in causing the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 84 through 93 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. 95. As a licensee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, the aforesaid actions of Carlisle Street TavemBecker, are liable per se, as a result of the violations of the aforesaid statutes which violations caused and/or were a substantial factor in causing the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 57 through 95 of this Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. 96. As licensees of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, the aforesaid actions of the North Mountain Inn/Strine, The Goalpost/Gastley, and Carlisle Street Tavern/Becker have each violated the aforesaid statutes and are therefore jointly and severally liable for the death of Williams, as stated in Paragraphs 1 through 95 of this Complaint, which are incorporated by reference. 97. The decedent left surviving various persons who were his next of kin, including Mary E. Williams, decedent's widow, and by Mary E. Williams, decedent's 16-year -old daughter Alexandra Williams, and decedent's 10-year-old daughter Julia Williams,,,vho are entitled to take decedent's intestate personal property and who have suffered pecuniary injury, including the loss of the decedent's death. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants North Mountain Inn/Strine, The Goalpost/Gastley, and Carlisle Street Tavern/Becker, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits, together with delay damages as applicable under law, as well as any other relief the court deems proper. Date Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Court I.D. No. 34334 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Date Mary .Will ams CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ron Turo, Esquire hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the Complaint, upon North Mountain Inn/Michael F. Strine, The Goalpost/Betty Jo Gastley, and Carlisle Street Tavern/Paul T. Becker, by depositing same in the Unite-d_States Mail, first class, postage pre-paid on the S day of 2005, from Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Michael F. Strine d/b/a North Mountain Inn 3636 Waggoners Gap Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Betty Jo Gastley d/b/a The Goalpost RD 2 New Oxford, PA 17350 Paul T. Becker d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern 609 Carlisle Street Hanover, PA 17331 TUIRO. LAW OFFI r ? /f Ron Turo, Esquire / Supreme Court I.D. No. 34334 Turo Law Offices 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688; FAX 717.245.2165 a IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant . and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a, CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants Case No. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Mary E. Williams, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Van Alexander Williams c/o Ronald A. Turo, Esquire Turo Law Offices ' 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 l ,E C: ra <n 0 -n ?> sn You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer, New Matter and Cross Claim of Defendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a The Goalpost within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS Y: THOMAS B. SPONAUGLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court I.D. #64584 Attorney for Defendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant . and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a, CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants Case No. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER, NEW MATTER & CROSS CLAIM OF DEFENDANT THE GOALPOST and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually d/b/a THE GOALPOST 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted and denied. It is admitted that Defendant, The Goalpost, has its principal place of business at RD2, New Oxford, Pennsylvania 17350 and operating as a tavern licensed to serve alcohol by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is denied that Defendant, The Goalpost, is a Pennsylvania corporation as it is a sole proprietorship. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 12. Admitted. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 15. Admitted and denied. It is admitted that Williams went to The Goalpost where he stayed and was served or provided alcohol at The Goalpost by Goalpost employees, agents, servants or authorized persons. It is specifically denied that he was served while visibly intoxicated and strict proof thereof is demanded. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 17. Denied. It is specifically denied that while at the Carlisle Street Tavern, The Goalpost and the North Mountain Inn, it was obvious that Williams was visibly intoxicated for the following reasons: a. Williams was staggering, listing and generally unable to walk normally; b. Williams was slurring his words and was incoherent; c. Williams had bloodshot eyes; and d. Williams required assistance to stand and walk. It is specifically denied as to The Goalpost that Williams was visibly intoxicated for the above reasons and strict proof thereof is demanded. As to whether Williams was visibly intoxicated at the Carlisle Street Tavern and North Mountain Inn, this is denied because after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 18. Denied. It is specifically denied that although Williams was visibly intoxicated, the employees, agents, servants or authorized persons of The Goalpost furnished alcohol to Williams and/or allowed Williams to possess and consume alcohol and strict proof thereof is demanded. As for whether Williams was visibly intoxicated and was served alcohol at the Carlisle Street Tavern and North Mountain Inn, this is denied because after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. COUNT I - DRAM SHOP THE NORTH MOUNTAIN INN 20. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of Defendant The Goalpost's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated by reference. 21-31. Denied. Paragraphs 21 through 31 are directed to a non-Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. COUNT II - DRAM SHOP THE GOALPOST 32. Paragraphs 1 through 31 of Defendant The Goalpost's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated by reference. 33. Denied. Paragraph 33 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 34. Denied. Paragraph 34 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 35. Denied. Paragraph 35 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 36. Admitted. 37. Denied. It is specifically denied that during the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of The Goalpost, he was furnished, given and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, which beverages were sold or furnished to Williams by employees, agents, servants or authorized persons of The Goalpost/Gastley while visibly intoxicated; or were purchased by other customers from said employees, agents, servants or authorized persons, who then permitted and allowed Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment and strict proof thereof is demanded. 38. Denied. It is specifically denied that during the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of The Goalpost, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, by said employees, agents, servants or authorized persons of The Goalpost/Gastley while visibly intoxicated, by allowing Williams to enter the establishment while visibly intoxicated and be furnished or given the aforesaid beverages by said employees, agents, servants or authorized persons or by customers who were sold or furnished said beverages who then permitted Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment and strict proof thereof is demanded. 39. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 40. Denied. It is specifically denied that the obvious actions and physical signs which Williams displayed while at The Goalpost at the time in which he was served at each establishment included, but are not limited to, the following and strict proof thereof is demanded: a. Williams was staggering, listing and generally unable to walk normally; b. Williams was slurring his words and was incoherent; c. Williams had bloodshot eyes; and d. Williams required assistance to stand and walk. 41. Denied. It is specifically denied that while at The Goalpost, Williams was served liquor or malted beverages at the establishment while visibly intoxicated and strict proof thereof is demanded. The remaining allegations are denied because after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 42. Denied. Paragraph 42 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, at all times relevant hereto, The Goalpost/Gastley complied with all applicable Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board rules and regulations and all applicable Pennsylvania statutes. 43. Denied. Paragraph 43 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, at all times relevant hereto, The Goalpost/Gastley complied with all applicable Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board rules and regulations and all applicable Pennsylvania statutes. COUNT III - DRAM SHOP CARLISLE STREET TAVERN 44. Paragraphs 1 through 43 of Defendant The Goalpost's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated by reference. 45-56. Denied. Paragraphs 45 through 56 are directed to a non-Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant The Goalpost/Gastley demands judgment in its favor and against all other parties. COUNT IV - WRONGFUL DEATH THE NORTH MOUNTAIN INN 57. Paragraphs 1 through 56 of Defendant The Goalpost's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated by reference. 57-70. Denied. Paragraphs 57 through 70 are directed to a non-Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. COUNT V - WRONGFUL DEATH THE GOALPOST 71. Paragraph 71 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 72. Paragraphs 1 through 71 of Defendant The Goalpost's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated by reference. 73. Denied. Paragraph 73 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 74. Denied. Paragraph 74 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 75. Denied. Paragraph 75 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 76. Admitted. 77. Denied. It is specifically denied that during the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of The Goalpost, he was furnished, given and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, which beverages were sold or furnished to Williams by employees, agents, servants or authorized persons of The Goalpost/Gastley while visibly intoxicated; or were purchased by other customers from said employees, agents, servants or authorized persons, who then permitted and allowed Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment and strict proof thereof is demanded. 78. Denied. It is specifically denied that during the aforesaid time period when Williams was a customer of The Goalpost, he was furnished, given, and/or allowed to have liquor or malted or brewed beverages, by said employees, agents, servants or authorized persons of The Goalpost/Gastley while visibly intoxicated, by allowing Williams to enter the establishment while visibly intoxicated and be furnished or given the aforesaid beverages by said employees, agents, servants or authorized persons or by customers who were sold or furnished said beverages who then permitted Williams to consume the beverages while visibly intoxicated at the aforesaid establishment and strict proof thereof is demanded. 79. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 80. Denied. It is specifically denied that the obvious actions and physical signs which Williams displayed while at The Goalpost at the time in which he was served at each establishment included, but are not limited to, the following and strict proof thereof is demanded: a. Williams was staggering, listing and generally unable to walk normally; b. Williams was slurring his words and was incoherent; c. Williams had bloodshot eyes; and d. Williams required assistance to stand and walk. 81. Denied. It is specifically denied that while at The Goalpost, Williams was served liquor or malted beverages at the establishment while visibly intoxicated and strict proof thereof is demanded. The remaining allegations are denied because after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 82. Denied. Paragraph 82 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, at all times relevant hereto, The Goalpost/Gastley complied with all applicable Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board rules and regulations and all applicable Pennsylvania statutes. 83. Denied. Paragraph 83 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, at all times relevant hereto, The Goalpost/Gastley complied with all applicable Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board rules and regulations and all applicable Pennsylvania statutes. COUNT VI - WRONGFUL DEATH CARLISLE STREET TAVERN 84. Denied. Paragraph 84 is directed to a non-Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. 85. Paragraphs 1 through 84 of Defendant The Goalpost's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated by reference. 86-95. Denied. Paragraphs 86 through 95 are directed to a non-Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. 96. Denied. Paragraph 96 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 97. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendant The Goalpost/Gastley demands judgment in its favor and against all other parties. By way of further response, the following is asserted: NEW MATTER 98. Paragraphs 1 through 97 of Defendant The Goalpost's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated by reference. 99. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. 100. Plaintiffs Complaint may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 101. Plaintiffs injuries and damages, if any, were caused solely and directly as a result of individuals or entities other than the Answering Defendant and over whom the Answering Defendant has no responsibility or right of control. 102. Plaintiffs injuries and damages, if any, were caused solely and directly as a result of the negligence of Plaintiff Van Alexander Williams which consisted of the following: a. Failing to properly operate his motorcycle; b. Failing to operate his motorcycle at a safe speed; c. Failing to properly operate his motor vehicle within the lane of travel; and d. Operating his motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol to a degree which rendered him incapable of safe driving. 103. Plaintiff's claims must be barred or diminished with respect to Pennsylvania's Comparative Negligence Act because of the negligence of the Plaintiff as set forth above. 2252(d) NEW MATTER TO DEFENDANTS NORTH MOUNTAIN, INN, INC. and MICHAEL F STRINE, Individually d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC. and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually d/b/a CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC. 104. Paragraphs 1 through 103 of Defendant The Goalpost's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated by reference. 105. Liability on the part of Defendant The Goalpost/Gastley is specifically denied. If the averments contained in Plaintiff's Complaint are established, said averments being specifically denied as they may relate to Defendant The Goalpost/Gastley, the injuries and damages complained of were caused solely by Defendants North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, Individually d/b/a North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc.. 106. In the event of a finding of liability against Defendant The Goalpost/Gastley, which liability is specifically denied, Defendant The Goalpost/Gastley hereby asserts its full rights of indemnification and contribution against Defendants North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, Individually d/b/a North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. on the basis that Defendants North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, Individually d/b/a North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. are alone liable, liable over, or jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff. 107. Defendants North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, Individually d/b/a North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. have been joined herein to protect the rights of indemnity of Defendant The Goalpost/Gastley. WHEREFORE, Defendant The Goalpost/Gastley demands that any judgment in favor of the Plaintiff be entered solely against Defendants North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, Individually d/b/a North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. In the alternative, Defendant The Goalpost/Gastley demands that in the event that judgment is entered against it, any liability on its part being specifically denied, such judgment should be entered jointly and severally against Defendants North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, Individually d/b/a North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., together with Defendant The Goalpost/Gastley, or that Defendants North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, Individually d/b/a North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. be held liable over to Defendant The Goalpost/Gastley for contribution and/or indemnity. GRIFFITH, STI ICKLPR, LERMAN, SOLYMOS 9AL ? By: THOMA". SP GLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court 64584 Attorney for Defendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a, CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants VERIFICATION Case No. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, do hereby verify that I am the attorney of record for the pleading party herein, The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost, and that the facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, upon information supplied. I understand that false statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS Dated: 1-14 BY: / THOMA B?- , AUGLE, ESQUIRE Supreme C "urt .D. #64584 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402 (717) 757-7602 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and . CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a, CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants Case No. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this l64 day of , 2005, I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of Answer, New Matter and Cross Claim of Defendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Ronald A. Turo, Esquire Turo Law Offices 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Michael F. Strine d/b/a North Mountain Inn 3636 Waggoners Gap Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Ronald H. Pollack, Jr., Esq. Barley Snyder, LLC 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 (Counsel for Carlisle Street Tavem, Inc.) GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALr,-INS % ./ By: THOMAS B.tPO `UGLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court I. #64584 Attorney for Defendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 3 MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff V. North Mountain Inn, Inc., and Michael F. Strine, Individually, d/b/a/, North Mountain Inn, Inc., Defendant and The Goalpost, and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a, The Goalpost, Defendant and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., Additional Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. CIVIL ACTION - LAW 711. NO. 04 - 1522 CIVIL TERM 47- JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT "THE GOALPOST AND BETTY JO GASTLEY, INDIVIDUALLY, d/b/a, THE GOALPOST" 98. No Answer Required. 99. This allegation is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. If a responsive pleading is required plaintiff conclusively denies this allegation. 100. This allegation is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. If a responsive pleading is required plaintiff conclusively denies this allegation. 101. This allegation is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. If a responsive pleading is required plaintiff conclusively denies this allegation. 102. Denied. Plaintiff's injuries and damages were caused solely and directly as a result of the negligence of all defendant's listed in great detail above. Plaintiff's injuries were not, at anytime, the negligence of plaintiff, Van Alexander Williams and any allegation to that extent is conclusively denied. 103. This allegation is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. If a responsive pleading is required, plaintiff conclusively denies this allegation. 104. No answer required. 105. - 107. These allegations are directed to parties other than the plaintiff and therefore no answer is required. WHEREFORE, for all the above reasons, Plaintiff, Mary E. Williams, individually and as administratrex of the Estate of Van Alexander Williams, request judgment in her favor pursuant to the complaint more fully set forth above. Date Respectfully Submitted, on Turo, Equire 28 S. Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 VERIFICATION I, Ron Turo, Esquire, attorney for the Plaintiff herein, has sufficient knowledge of the facts contained in this Answer and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, based upon information received from the Plaintiff. I understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities Date / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ron Turo, Esquire hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of Answer to New Matter, by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class, postage pre-paid on the J 60 day of e6'- , 2005, from Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Ronald Pol!ock, Jr, Esquire 126 E. King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire Law Offices of Harold S. Irwin, III 64 South Pitt Carlisle, PA 17013 Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire Griffith, Trickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402-3737 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688; FAX 717.245.2165 4 H 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1VIINUSCRTPT i MARY E. WILLIAMS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Individually, and as CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff, V. North Mountain Inn, Inc.,: CIVIL ACTION - LAW and Michael F. Strine, Individually, d/b/a, North Mountain Inn, Inc.,: Defendant, and The Goalpost, and NO. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a, The Goalpost, Defendant, and Carlisle Street Tavern, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Inc., and Paul T. Becker,: Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., §M' Additional Defendants.. TELEPHONIC DEPOSITION OF: MARY E. WILLIAMS TAKEN BY: Defendant Goalpost BEFORE: Amy R. Fritz, R.P.R. Notary Public DATE: August 1, 2006, 10:00 a.m. PLACE: Turo Law Offices 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services 800-863-3657 • 717-258-3657 • 717-258-0383 fax ccir•ti-eporte;-s4ti C,t,zol.cona f PACE 5 SHEET 2 osr_c 17 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 i6 17 18 is Q. And what are their names and ages? A. Alexandra Williams, who is 17; and Julia Williams, who Is 11. Q. And what's Alexandra's date of birth? A. Alexandra Is August 30th, 1988, and Julia is September 19th, 19 -- I'm sorry. Alexandra -- yes. Julia Is September 19th, 1994. Q. Now, at the time of this accident, May 1, 2002, what was the marital status with Mr. Williams? Were you separated, still married? A. We uere living in different homes, separated. Q. When did you become separated from him and start living separately? A. Approximately -- let me think about that. Approximately a year before. Q. Was there a particular reason why you became separated? A. There was many reasons. Q. What? A. One of then was that he was an alcoholic. 0. Any other reasons why you became separated? A. Very hard -- It was Just becoming hard to live together. Q. What Is your date of birth, ma'am? A. July 19th, 1958. D.1 _r c 6A 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 16 17 18 120 0. And what Is your address? A. 240 Whispering Woods, Apartment 16, saint Augustine, Florida 32140. Q. And when did you move to Saint Augustine? A. Last August 1st. Q. Where were you residing at the tine of the accident? A. 41 Carla Drive, Shippensburg. Q. And where was your husband residing at that time of the accident? A. I an not sure of the address. Q. Was your husband living with anybody else at the time of the accident? A. No. I believe he was not. Q. Do you know a Sharon Otten? A. Yes, I do. Q. Who's she? A. She was -- she was dating him at the time. Q. Do you know how long she had been dating him before the accident happened? A. I have no idea. Q. At the tine of the accident, had You at all, had You already filed divorce papers at all? A. No. Q. Had you retained a divorce attorney? 1 A. I had talked to someone, but I had not retained 2 them. 3 Q. Do you recall the name of the attorney that you 4 had spoken to about getting a divorce? 5 A. No, I do not. 6 Q. Now, you said that your husband was an 7 alcoholic? 8 A. Right. 9 Q. How much would he drink In terns of alcoholic 10 beverages on a dally or weekly basis at approximately the 11 time of the accident? 12 A. At the time of the accident, we weren't living 13 together. And he had gone Into rehab about -- I don't know 14 -- maybe two years before that and was sober for 15 approximately nine months and then went back to drinking. 16 And at that Point is when we separated, so I wasn't sure at 17 that time what his drinking habits were. 18 Q. Prior to him going into the rehab, how often and 19 how much would he drink alcoholic beverages, say, for about 20 a one-year period of tine before he went Into rehab? 21 A. He was a binge drinker. He would drink 22 excessively when he started drinking, but he could go 23 months without drinking. 24 Q. And when he would engage In binge-drinking, how 25 much uould he drink over how long a period of time? 81 1 A. Well, if ue were at a party or something, he 2 would drink and then continue to drink when it was -- he 3 Just -- he -- I don't Know the exact number because I 4 wasn't aware of It until he went into rehab that this was S even an issue or a problem. And then I learned afterwards. 6 So I couldn't even tell you, you Knou, the exact amount or 7 anything, but I knew that he would drink a lot. 8 Q. Okay. After he went to rehab and you learned 9 how much he would drink, what did you learn? 10 A. What did I learn? 11 0. Yes. 12 A. Well, us learned to classify it that he was an 13 alcoholic and that, You know, basically hou it started and. 14 you know, the progressiveness of it, and that's about it. 15 Q. When he would drink alcoholic beverages, uhat 16 uould he usually drink? 17 A. Beer. 18 Q. Would he ever drink whiskey or any type of hard 19 alcohol? 20 A. Not that I knew of, no. 21 Q. Was there a particular type of beer that he 22 would drink? 23 A. This goes back to before he entered rehab; I 24 uould say he drank mostly Budweiser. 2S Q. Now, at the time of the accident, was he PAGE 9 SHEET 3 piGQ II 1111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 16 17 18 employed? A. Yes, he was. Q. Where was he employed? A. He was employed with a contracting company in Harrisburg, I do believe. I could look up the name of the Place. Q. What was his profession? What did he do for a living? A. He was a carpenter. Q. Was he In a union? A. At that time, I an not sure. Q. Was he paging you -- well, strike that. At the time of the accident, who had custody of the children? A. I did. Q. Were they living with you full time? A. Yes, they were. Q. Was he Paying you any child support? A. He was paving me voluntarily child support. Q. How much was he paying you at the time of the accident? A. Approximately -- I believe It was at that time about 100 a week, so it would be 800 a month. No. It was about 200 a week. Q. Was he paving you any alimony? A. No, he was not. 1 anybody else about where he had been that night and how 2 much he had to drink at any of the bars that he was at? 3 A. I had talked to Sharon, and she had given me 4 some detail. Other than that, I don't think I talked to -- 5 I don't think anybody talked to me. 6 Q. What did Sharon tell you? 7 A. Well, this is two years ago, but basically she 8 told me the places they had been. 9 Q. Did Sharon tell you that she was with him at the 10 Goalpost, the Carlisle Street Tavern and the North Mountain 11 Inn? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. What did she tell you about what happened at the 14 Goalpost? 15 A. I do not remember anything specific other than 16 her telling me the places that they were. 17 Q. So all you can recall at this point is that she 18 told you that they were at those three bars? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. And you can't recall at this point how much she 21 told you that he had to drink at those bars or how long 22 they were there or if they had anything to eat? 23 A. I don't recall any -- I don't recall what her 24 answers were. I know I was asking, but I don't recall 25 right now the specifics. piCF 101 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 Iii 15 16 17 119 Q. Were you employed at the time of the accident? A. Yes. I was. Q. Where were you employed at the time of the accident? A. At the time of the accident, I was just opening up my own hair salon. Q. And what was the name of the hair salon? A. Natural Designs by Mary Williams. Q. Did you ever speak to anyone associated with the Goalpost such as Betty Gastiev, Anna Moore or Tracy McClintock about what happened that night of May 1, 2002? A. No. Q. Did you ever speak to anybody from Carlisle Street Tavern, including Paul Becker, about what happened that night? A. No, I did not. Q. Ever speak to anybody from the North Mountain Inn, including Michael Strine, about what happened that night of May 1, 2002? A. No. Q. What's your understanding of how much your husband had to drink the night of the accident? A. I had gotten from the coroner the amount of alcohol which was over .6. Q. Okay. Did you ever receive any Information fron nir_c qe 1 Q. What impact has the accident had on you? 2 A. Pretty huge, pretty huge for MY children. They 3 were very close with their dad. Pretty huge on me because 4 I had gone through rehab with him and we were learning 5 quite a lot and I was hoping -- you know, there's always 6 hope that they would turn around and continue to lead a 7 good life like that. 8 Q. Did you receive any financial compensation from 9 any group because of the accident; from insurance or his 10 Work or any other source? 11 A. From insurance, life insurance. 12 Q. How much did you receive through life Insurance? 13 A. $80,000. 14 Q. Did you receive any Social Security payments? is A. Yes. Yes, we do get Social Security. 16 Q. And what's the amount of Social Security 17 payments that you receive? 18 A. Approximately a month Is 1,500. 1s Q. Now, according to the police accident report, 20 your husband was operating a motorcycle at the tine of the 21 accident, Do you know how long he had been riding a 22 motorcycle? 23 A. No, I do not. 24 MR. SMITH: I'm sorry. I didn't understand you. 25 Can you repeat that answer? 5 MINUSCRIPT 1 1 MARY E. WILLIAMS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Individually, and as CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2 Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER 3 WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff, 4 V. 5 North Mountain Inn, Inc.,: CIVIL ACTION - LAW 6 and Michael F. Strine, Individually, d/b/a, 7 North Mountain Inn, Inc.,: Defendant, 8 and 9 The Goalpost, and NO. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM Betty Jo Gastley, 10 Individually, d/b/a, The Goalpost, 11 Defendant, and 12 Carlisle Street Tavern, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 13 Inc., and Paul T. Becker,: Individually, d/b/a 14 Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., . 15 Additional Defendants.: 16 17 18 DEPOSITION OF: SHARON I. SIEGFRIED 19 TAKEN BY: Defendant Goalpost 20 BEFORE: Amy R. Fritz, R.P.R. Notary Public 21 DATE: August 1, 2006, 10:45 a.m. 22 PLACE: Turo Law Offices 23 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 24 25 Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services 800-863-3657 • 717-258-3657 • 717-258-0383 fxx Coll rtreporters4uOa aol. com 1 Q. How long were you at the Carlisle Street Tavern 2 that day? 3 A. Oh, we left probably around 3:30. I got there. 4 We ate lunch. I had a couple beers, and then us had left 5 Q. Now, besides the beer that Mr. Williams was 6 drinking at the time that you arrived at the Carlisle 7 Street Tavern, did he finish that beer? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Did he have more beer to drink? 10 A. What do you mean? 11 Q. At the Carlisle Street Tavern. 12 A. After we ate, we probably had one beer and left. 13 Q. From 12:30 to 3:30, how many beers did you see 14 Mr. Williams drink? 15 A. Probably about three. 16 Q. And these were all Budweiser? 17 A. Um-hum. 18 Q. Drafts? 19 A. No: bottle. 20 Q. 12-ounce bottle or 16? 21 A. 12. 22 Q. Do you recall what You had to eat there? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Do you recall uhat he had to eat? 25 A. No. OR= in 10 i Q. I'm trying to get an idea -- 2 A. We usually -- when him and I ate In a bar, we 3 usually got, like, hot wings or a cheeseburger or 4 something. S Q. Some bar food? 6 A. Yeah. 7 Q. I'm trying to get an idea hou tall and how heavy 8 he was at that time. Do you know? 9 A. Not much taller than me. Oh, my. Probably -- I 10 don't know. Probably about 150. He was real thin. He 11 wasn't a heavy gug. 12 Q. About 150 and, what, about 5-9, 5-10 maybe? 13 A. About -- all but my height, and I'm 5-6. So 14 probably -- I don't know -- 5-7. IS Q. And at that point, how long had you been dating 16 him? 17 A. Oh, we were together, that would have been our 18 fourth year, 19 Q. At 3:30 you leave the Carlisle Street Tavern. 20 You're driving? 21 A. We both were because he picked up his Jeep. We 22 stopped there, and then I followed him. 23 Q. Where did you go then? He went to get his Jeep, 24 and then where did You go? 25 A. Some other bar that was on the way home. I ?ar_c 11 11 1 think that would have been the GoalPost. 2 Q. In Neu Oxford? 3 A. Yeah. 4 Q. And do you recall what time you got to the 5 Goalpost? 6 A. No. If we left the bar at 3:30, until he got 7 his Jeep, probably 4:30, 5:00. I don't know. 8 Q. And do you recall how long you stayed at the 9 Goalpost? 10 A. Not long. Maybe about an hour and a half. 11 Q. Did he have any alcoholic beverages to drink at 12 the Goalpost? 13 A. Yes, and we did eat again. We Just had, like, 14 snacks, like chips, and I think they had Pretzels and 15 popcorn on the bar. I'm not positive. 16 Q. What did he have to drink at the Goalpost? 17 A. Budweiser. 1s Q. Do you know hou many he had? 19 A. Probably two. 20 Q. You say probably. 21 A. Yeah. I'm not sure. 22 Q. Could It have been less than two? 23 A. Yeah, because he went over to another table with 24 a guy from work and was shooting pool and stuff. And I 2S wasn't sitting there watching, you know, what all he was nar_c 49 12 1 drinking. I was at my own little table. 2 Q. So he may have had one or two Budueisers at the 3 Goalpost? 4 A. Yeah, because we ueren't In there all that long. s Q. And were these Budweiser drafts or bottles? 6 A. Bottle. 7 Q. 12-ounce bottle? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Did You see him have anything else to drink 10 there? 11 A. No. 12 Q. And you left approximately 6:00? 13 A. Yeah, somewhere -- yeah, I'd sag. 14 Q. Were You and he having any type of argument at 15 the Goalpost? is A. No. 17 Q. Were you talking to each other at the Goalpost? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Did You have anything to drink at the Goalpost? 20 A. Yes, and I don't recall, again, how many. I 21 didn't drink -- I'm not a fast drinker, so I'm assuming I 22 had maybe two. 23 Q. Beers? 24 A. Un-hum, gas. 2S Q. After you leave the Goalpost, where do you go? ?1CC 19 E! L-F A 13 1 A. I vent up to North Mountain. 2 Q. The North Mountain Inn? 3 A. Yeah. Van took the Jeep hone and got on his 4 Harley and cafe up. 5 Q. Any Idea why he took the Jeep hone and got the 6 Harley? 7 A. No. He Just got the Harley. He had it a month 8 before he got killed, and that's Just -- I don't Know. He 9 always wanted one, and he was wanting to get on it any 10 chance he could. it Q. So he had just gotten the Harley about a month 12 before? 13 A. Yeah. 14 Q. Do you know what type of Harley? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Do you recall if he would use a helmet when he 17 rode a motorcycle? SB A. Yeah. He had one on that night. 19 Q. Do you know what time that he got to the North 20 Mountain Inn approximately? 21 A. No, I don't. But I do know he had one beer up 22 there and left because he had no money, and I wouldn't give 23 him any. Because between the last bar and North Mountain, 24 I was drunk, and I black out when I drink. And we had an 25 argument, and he wouldn't tell me how to get hone. So IMI-9 7 6 14 1 that's -- we argued over the cell phones for a feu minutes 2 Q. You had an argument after you left the Goalpost? 3 A. After, yeah, because I took the wrong road and 4 he was sort of like laughing at me and calling me stupid. 5 So then he cone in North Mountain, had one and left. 6 Q. And what did he have? 7 A. Budweiser. 8 Q. Another 12-ounce bottle? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Did you have anything to drink at the North 11 Mountain Inn? 12 A. Yes. I was there probably, I'd say a half hour 13 before he even got there. 14 Q. And you stayed after he left? 15 A. Yup. We started arguing at the bar, so I ended 16 up sleeping out back of the North Mountain In my vehicle 17 because I didn't want to go home and be arrested or 18 fighting with him and cops coming and so I slept In my 19 vehicle. So I didn't know of his death until the next 20 norning. 21 Q. How much did you have to drink at North Mountain 22 Inn? 23 A. Me? Oh, I Probably had a good six-Pack. 24 Q. And having the six beers at the North Mountain 25 Inn, is that what you believe caused you to believe that Dacc 1r. 15 1 you weren't safe to drive? 2 A. No. I just didn't want to go hone and argue 3 with Van. 4 Q. Oh, were you living -- 5 A. Yeah, we were living together. And I was pretty 6 drunk, so I Just parked out back and slept in my car all 7 night. And then I got up the next morning about 6 and 8 called his cell phone to see if he was hone, and he didn't 9 answer. So I went hone and laid down and the coroner came, 10 I guess, about B. 11 Q. Do you have any knouledge as to what Van did 12 from the tine he left the North Mountain Inn until the tine 13 of his accident? 14 A. Oh, he was heading hone. He was less than a -- 15 he was probably half a mile from our apartment. He left 16 there and was heading straight hone. 17 Q. Did you two have any alcoholic beverages at your 1B hone? Did you have any beer there, or did you have any 19 other alcohol there? 20 A. No, no. 21 Q. Let me be clear about what I'm asking you. I'm 22 not saying that you had anything to drink at your house. 23 What I'm asking you is. did you have anything, any 24 alcoholic beverages at the house? Did you have any bottles 25 there? Dar-c Ic 16 I A. There was probably a six-pack in the 2 refrigerator, but that could have came from anywhere. I 3 mean, you're talking he drank every day. 4 Q. Did you have any bottles of liquor at hone at 5 that time of the accident. 6 A. No. He never drank liquor. No. I drank 7 liquor, but he never left me have it In the house. 8 Q. This area where the North Mountain Inn is, are 9 there any liquor stores In that area? 10 A. Oh, no. That Is up In the -- that's on the top ll of the mountain, and It's actually about two to, I'd say, 12 three miles from where we lived. 13 Q. When you went home that tine after the next day 14 and subsequent, did you check to see if there were any 15 alcoholic bottles, any liquor bottles that had been missing 16 or were drank? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Did you believe that Van was okay to drive when 19 he left the North Mountain Inn? 20 A. Um-hum. 21 Q. Yes? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Did you believe that he was okay to drive when 24 he left the Carlisle Street Tavern? 25 A. Yes. I lived with him. And I don't knou how to 5 ?rxa?: a, vuwa .. 17 1 explain it, but I see it all the time because all my 2 friends are every-day drinkers. 3 I don't drink anymore, but I don't see how theta 4 do it because they'll go to the same bar; get off night 5 shift, sit in the bar until 4:00 in the afternoon, can't 6 even tell they'd been drinking. And he was the same way. 7 Q. Did you believe that Van uas okay to drive uhen 8 you left the Goalpost? 9 A. Yes, yeah. 16 Q. You said that Van drank every day back then. 11 How much would he drink? 12 A. Oh, I don't know. Probably close to a case a 13 day. He was a heavg drinker. Something that runs in the 14 family, i5 Q. A case of Budweiser every day? 16 A. Yeah. I mean, If you count stopping at the bar 17 and then he'd bring a six-pack home with him, yeah. But to 18 him, It's like a case of Pepsi because he had so much in 19 his system, it Just didn't affect him. And I know quite a 20 feu people like that. 21 Q. How long had he been like that where he was 22 drinking about a case of beer a day? 23 A. All his life from what I've been told. His 24 father was the same way. 25 Q. Did you notice that for the four years that you 18 1 were together? 2 A. Because when I first met Van, we met at the bar 3 every night. He'd go in after work; I'd meet him about 4 7:30, and we'd sit in there until, like, 2 In the morning 5 I mean, he's one he could walk a straight line. you knou, 6 you just couldn't tell. 7 Q. Did It ever appear to you on May 1, 2002 when 8 you were with him that he was visibly Intoxicated? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Such as slurred speech, trouble ualking? 11 A. He never did any of that, no. 12 Q. Bloodshot eyes? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Back when the accident happened, how close was 15 he to his kids? 16 A. I mean, they got along fine. He got then every 17 two weeks. 18 Q. Would he have then for a weekend? 19 A. Oh, yeah, and he'd take them to do things. We'd 20 9o to the lake or up to Ski Roundtop In the wintertime. 21 Q. Did You Live with him for about four years? 22 A. Yeah. 23 Q. Was he paying his wife any support money for the 24 kids? 25 A. Off and on, whenever he -- I mean, she didn't . w? 19 I complain. Yeah, he gave her money. I wouldn't say 2 accurately every two weeks like he should have been. But I 3 don't think they were through the courts on it. 4 Q. Do you know how much he would usually pay her? 5 A. I think -- oh, I don't remember; it's been so 6 long. I don't know because one time he uould give her 100, 7 and then another time it would be 60. It just, when he had 8 money, he would give it to her. 9 Q. How long have you been sober now? 10 A. Only seven months. ll Q. Did you ever go to uhere the accident happened, 12 apparently on McClures Gap Road? 13 A. Yes. My dad, he made me a cross to put up at 14 the tree. And I used to go there, believe it or not, 15 weekly with the ueed whacker and whack from where he uas 16 laying up around the tree where I had the cross. 17 Q. Is it still there? 18 A. The cross? When I looked last summer, it was 19 still there. I'm not sure if it still is. I go by there; 20 but when I first net MY husband, I wasn't quite over Van. 21 And I talked a lot about Van when I drank, and he would get 22 upset. So if we ever go by there, I normally don't look 23 anymore because I don't want a Problem with Todd. I 24 visited the cemetery for a year and a half after he passed. 25 MR. SPONAUGLE: I don't have any other 20 1 questions. Thanks. 2 EXAMINATION 3 BY MR. POLLOCK: 4 Q. I'm Ron Pollock. I represent Carlisle Street 5 Tavern. I Just have a couple of questions for you. When 6 you were asked in the beginning of today about the bar in 7 Hanover -- do you remember that? B A. Um-hum. 9 Q. Mr. Sponaugle mentioned Carlisle Street Tavern. 10 Do you know If you were in the Carlisle Street Tavern? 11 A. Yeah. 12 Q. You're sure that's where you were? 13 A. Yeah. I know there's one called Carlisle 14 Tavern, but I got that one and the Goalpost mixed up. I 15 didn't know which bar came first. Is Q. Did you talk about what happened with 17 Mrs. Williams, Mary Williams? Do you know her? le A. Um-hum. 19 Q. You talked to her about what happened after? 20 A. Yeah. 21 Q. Do you remember what you talked about at all? 22 A. The sane thing I said today. 23 Q. Do you have an understanding of whether -- well, 24 you know there's a lawsuit that's been filed, correct? 25 A. Right. C? MINUSCRIPT 1 1 MARY E. WILLIAMS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Individually, and as CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2 Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER 3 WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff, 4 V. 5 - North Mountain Inn, Inc.,: CIVIL ACTION - LAW 6 and Michael F. Strine, Individually, d/b/a, 7 North Mountain Inn, Inc.,: Defendant, 8 and 9 The Goalpost, and NO. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM Betty Jo Gastley, 10 Individually, d/b/a, The Goalpost, 11 Defendant, and 12 Carlisle Street Tavern, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 13 Inc., and Paul T. Becker,: Individually, d/b/a 14 Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc ' 15 Additional Defendants.: 16 17 18 DEPOSITION OF: TRACY J. McCLZNTOCR 19 TAKEN BY: Plaintiff 20 BEFORE: Amy R. Fritz, R.P.R. Notary Public 21 DATE: August 1, 2006, 10:20 a.m. 22 PLACE: Turo Law Offices 23 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 24 25 Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services 800-863-3657 • 717-258-3657 • 717-258-0383 fizz courtreporters4u L'aol. cotn mec r euer•r e 5 1 2002? 2 A. Tending bar. 3 Q. Nov, I understand you're the owner's daughter. 4 Is that correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And what's your mother's name? 7 A. My mother's name? 8 Q. Yes. 9 A. Betty Jo. 10 Q. How long have you been a bartender? 11 A. Since I was 18, so 22 years. 12 Q. Have you taken any of the certification classes 13 offered by PLCB, things like that? 14 A. No. 15 Q. And were you aware of the law that precludes 16 selling alcoholic beverages to visibly Intoxicated 17 customers? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And how did you become aware of that law? 20 A. Through my parents, my mom, training. 21 Q. And what sort of training did you have? 22 A. On-hand training. My mom, I guess, had gone to 23 RAMP classes and passed on to me what she had learned. 24 Q. And when did that training -- when did she train 25 you? Dame e 6 i A. The first day that I stepped behind the bar at 2 18. 3 Q. And who was your direct supervisor when you 4 worked as a bartender? 5 A. My parents, I guess. 6 Q. And do you ever recall discussing the idea of 7 visibly Intoxicated with either of your parents? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. What is your understanding and interpretation of 10 visibly Intoxicated? 11 A. Slurred speech, staggered walking, bloodshot 12 eyes. 13 Q. And were you working at the Goalpost on May 1st, 14 2002? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And was your mother or father present on that 17 date? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Were either or both of your parents generally on 20 the premises? 21 A. Most of the time on the premises? 22 Q. Yes. 23 A. No. 24 Q. And when they were not there, who was the boss? 25 A. Me. DI : 7 7 1 Q. And did you have any other coworkers? 2 A. No. 3 Q. On May 1st, 2002, was there anyone else working 4 with you that day? 5 A. Not with me. 6 Q. What do you mean by that? 7 A. Well, someone else came on when my shift was 8 done at 6:00. 9 Q. And who was that? 10 A. Annie Moore. 11 Q. And that's 6 p.m.? 12 A. Yes. She arrived there probably around 5:15. 13 but her shift actually started at S. 14 Q. Do you recall when Mr. Williams entered the 15 Goalpost? 16 A. That was approximately around 4:15, 4:30. 17 Q. And was there anyone with him? 18 A. No. He walked in by himself. 19 Q. Were there any other customers present while he 20 was there? 21 A. John Bixler. And there was another man on the 22 other side of the bar, but I didn't know who he was, and he 23 wasn't there very long. 24 Q. Is Mr. Bixler a regular there that you would 25 know him? Der_c a a 1 A. They were building a school in Hanover and would 2 stop pretty much, I think, every day. Him and Van worked 3 together. And I at that time worked every Wednesday, so I 4 pretty much, like, for a month or two months had seen then 5 every Wednesday. 6 Q. But they didn't come in together? 7 A. Sometimes. But that day, no, they did not. 8 Q. You don't happen to knou his address or phone 9 number, Mr. Bixler•s? 10 A. No. it Q. Did you know Mr. Williams by name? 12 A. Van, yes. 13 Q. And you say you worked every Wednesday? 14 A. Yeah. 15 Q. And you saw him every Wednesday for about a 16 month? 17 A. Probably closer to two months, but I'm not 18 exactly sure about that. 19 Q. Can you describe his behavior while he was in 20 that day? 21 A. When he first came through the door and ordered 22 his Budweiser, he seemed like he did every other Wednesday 23 when he came In. Probably maybe about Five, ten minutes 24 after he cane in, a woman came In who I had never seen 25 before, and obviously then I knew they uere together. 9 1 She came over and sat beside him, and there was 2 John Bixler, and the two of then were all talking. And I 3 could tell that, like, there was something going on between 4 Van and this woman that came in. 5 I couldn't hear what was going on, but you could 6 Just tell that it was, like, not a happy conversation going 7 on. They weren't loud that I could hear what they were 8 saying, but she actually got up to go back to the bathroom, 9 I guess, and he was calling her names: bitch, whore, slut. 10 I mean, this was -- I never heard him talk like 11 that before. So she went back to the back room: and I was, 12 like, you don't mean that, and he was, like, no, I do. 13 And basically until that time she was back out 14 of the bathroom and sat down again. The conversation was 15 going on that I was trying to stay out of. 16 And then he went back to the bathroom at one 17 point, and I said to her -- It was, like. you know, I'm 18 sure he doesn't mean these things, whatever. But she was 19 kind of -- I could tell she was very upset. 20 And she then started talking about her sister 21 was HIV positive, which I didn't know what that had to do 22 with anything. At that point, he came back out, and 23 basically it was back In to talking again. And that was 24 probably about the tine Annie, the person that took over my 25 shift, cane in. 10 1 And they went over -- her and her husband came 2 In together, and they sat on the other side of the bar. 3 And, again, at that point It was, you know, you could tell 4 that those two were in a heated discussion. And 5 I actually called Annie -- well. Annie cane back In the 6 kitchen to start counting her money and stuff, the things 7 you do before you go on your shift. And I said. I'm not 8 going to serve them any more. 9 And I explained to her, I said, you know, 10 there's some kind of argument going on and I lust don't 11 want that going on In here. And I said, you need to do the 12 same, like if they would still be there after I left. 13 So that took place. I went out and did my -- I 14 wasn't, like, really Involved uith then anymore because I 15 was filling the coolers, ice, things you do for the next 16 Person before they come on. 17 I was In a hurry that night because my son had a 18 baseball game. I lust remember hurrying to get my stuff 19 done. And when I was leaving, van was in the bathroom at 20 that tine, and I was at the front door. And I thought, 21 well, I'm going to wait until he comes out Just to say, You 22 know, good-bye to him, see you next Wednesday. 23 He cane out of the bathroom, walked over to me, 24 and I Just said, you know, I'll see you next Wednesday. 25 And that was the last words that we spoke. He said ?+ 21 1 good-bye. 2 Q. Do you have any idea when he left? 3 A. I don't because, you know, I left. I know Just 4 from Annie telling me that she thought he left right after 5 I did because she didn't wait on him. 6 Q. Did you notice any problem with his speech? 7 A. No. Like I said, you know, we were standing at 8 the door talking before I left. 9 Q. Any Problem with his gait, walking or standing? 10 A. No. He had to walk -- it's not a big walk, but 11 it's, you know, a pretty big room that he walked across. 12 Q. He didn't bump Into things or anything? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Now, was he only drinking Budweiser? 15 A. He had one Bud and one shot of Windsor. 16 Q. And Windsor would be a uhiskey? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And that's all you served him? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Old you tell him that you were not going to 21 serve him any more? 22 A. No, I did not tell him. 23 Q. And did he have anything left of the beer, do 24 you recall, when you left? 25 A. I don't recall. 12 i Q. Would he have given you any idea of where he was 2 going after he left your place? 3 A. No. 4 Q. And would you say he was visibly Intoxicated 5 when he left your establishment? 6 A. No. 7 MR. SMITH: I have no further questions. Which 8 of you gentlemen would like to go first? 9 MR. POLLOCK: I'll Just ask one or two. 10 EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. POLLOCK: 12 Q. My name is Ron Pollock. I represent Carlisle 13 Street Tavern. Was he ever visibly intoxicated while he 14 was in your bar? 15 A. No. 16 Q. The reason that you said you didn't want to 17 serve him any more was because of the argument? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And You thought it would be a bad idea, I guess? 20 A. I Just didn't want that happening. 21 Q. Fuel to the fire? 22 A. Right. 23 Q. But there was nothing -- You mentioned different 24 criteria for being visibly intoxicated. He didn't exhibit 25 any of those? 1 1 INUSCRIPT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MARY E. WILLIAMS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Individually, and as CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff, V. North Mountain Inn, Inc.,: CIVIL ACTION - LAW and Michael F. Strine, Individually, d/b/a, North Mountain Inn, Inc.,: Defendant, and The Goalpost, and NO. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a, The Goalpost, Defendant, and - Carlisle Street Tavern, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Inc., and Paul T. Becker,: Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., Additional Defendants.: DEPOSITION OF: ANNA L. b=RE TAKEN BY: Plaintiff BEFORE: Amy R. Fritz, R.P.R. Notary Public DATE: August 1, 2006, 10:35 a.m. PLACE: Turo Law Offices 28 South Pitt Street Ca lisle, Pennsylvania Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services 800-863-3657 • 717-258-36357 • 717-258-0383 fax courtreporter;4uCvaol.com rp= o once c 5 i A. Three or four years ago. 2 Q. What was your Job at the Goalpost? 3 A. Bartender. 4 Q. And how long have you been a bartender? 5 A. Probably five or six years. 6 Q. Have you taken any of the certification classes 7 offered by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board? 8 A. Not in the last year, no. 9 Q. No. I'm talking about ever. 10 MR. SPONAUGLE: He's talking about classes like 11 RAMP. 12 THE DEPONENT: Yes, I did. 13 BY MR. SMITH: 14 Q. You took RAMP? 15 A. I don't know if that's what it was called. When 16 I worked for the Eagles, we had to take a class. 17 Q. When was that again approximately? 18 A. I'll say the early '90s. 19 MR. POLLOCK: TIPS maybe? You ever take TIPS? 20 THE DEPONENT: That sounds More like it. 21 MR. SMITH: Okay. That's fine. Thank you very 22 much, Mr. Pollock. 23 BY MR. SMITH: 24 Q. Are you aware of the law that precludes selling 25 alcoholic beverages to visibly intoxicated customers? 6 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And how were you made aware of the law? 3 A. We even have signs of it that says if you're 4 visibly intoxicated, you're not going to get served. 5 Q. But they covered that in the training? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Did you ever discuss it with your employer? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. When you worked for the Goalpost, who was your 10 direct supervisor? 11 A. John Gastiev. 12 Q. And do you recall discussing visibly intoxicated 13 with him? 14 A. Yes. 15 0. When you think of the tern visibly intoxicated, 16 what cones to mind? How would you describe it? 17 A. They're not walking right or maybe their speech le would be slurred. 19 Q. Anything else? 20 A. Nothing comes to mind right now. 21 Q. And were You working at the Goalpost on May ist, 22 2002? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And do You recall whether Mr. and Mrs. GastleY 25 were present at the time? rp= 7 1 A. They were not. 2 Q. Was anybody working with you on May 1st? 3 A. No. 4 Q. What tine did you get there? 5 A. 5:30. 6 Q. And what was the and of your shift? 7 A. I'll say 12:30. 8 Q. You closed the bar at 12:30? 9 A. Yes. 10 0. Do you recall Mr. Williams being at the 11 Goalpost? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Was anybody with him? 14 A. His girlfriend. 15 Q. Anybody else? is A. John Bixler was there. 17 Q. Did you know Mr. Williams by name? 18 A. Yes. I knew Van. 19 Q. And how long have you known him? 20 A. Just from him coning into the Goalpost. 21 Q. Was he a regular? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And how often did he cone in? 24 A. Probably two or three times a week. 25 Q. From what you observed of Mr. Williams that 8 1 evening, describe his behavior. 2 A. Him and his girlfriend were having an argument 3 between themselves. 4 Q. Did you overhear the argument? 5 A. No, because I went in the kitchen to count my 6 money. I was getting ready to come on duty. 7 Q. And how many drinks did you serve Mr. Williams? B A. I didn't serve him any. 9 0. Why not? 10 A. They were arguing, and Tracy had asked me not to 11 give him any. 12 0. Did you tell him you weren't going to serve him 13 any more? 14 A. I didn't have to. 15 Q. Why not? 16 A. They got up and left. 17 Q. Did he finish his drink? 18 A. I don't think so. is 0. Did you observe him when he left? 20 A. No. I was in the kitchen when he went out 21 because when I came out, they were alfeadu out the door. 22 Q. And when did You cone out? 23 A. Right -- I heard the buzzer so I cane right out. 24 At 6:00 we change shifts. 25 Q. Did you speak uith Mr. Williams at all? .AP_C a Q-OV 7 9 i A. I lust said hi. That's it. 2 G. And you didn't overhear any of the conversation? 3 A. No. 4 G. So you don't know whether they were actually 5 arguing or not? 6 A. No. They were Just, like, talking, getting 7 louder at each other. 8 G. So he left before 6? 9 A. Yeah, because when I started -- when I started, 10 they were going out the door. 11 G. Based upon your observations and your knowledge 12 of the law, was Mr. Williams visibly intoxicated when he 13 left the Goalpost? 14 A. No. 15 G. Say again. 16 A. No, he was not. 17 G. Did he leave with Sharon Otten? 18 A. Yes. He left with his girlfriend. 18 G. Did he cone back later? 20 A. No, he did not. 21 MR. SMITH: I have no further questions. 22 MR. POLLOCK: I have no questions. 23 MR. SPONAUGLE: I don't have any questions. 24 Thanks. 25 IIhe deposition concluded at 10:43 a.m.) GAPC 10 10 1 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 1 I SS. 2 COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND 1 3 4 I, AMY R. FRITZ, R.P.R., a Court 5 Reporter-Notary Public authorized to administer oaths and 6 take depositions In the trial of causes, and having an 7 office In Carlisle, Pennsylvania, do hereby certify that 8 the foregoing Is the testimony of ANNA L. MOORE. 9 I further certify that before the taking of 10 said deposition the witness was duly sworn; that the 11 questions and answers were taken down stenotype by the said 12 Reporter-Notary, approved and agreed to, and afterwards 13 reduced to computer printout under the direction of said 14 Reporter. 15 I further certify that the proceedings and 16 evidence are contained fully and accurately In the notes 17 taken by me on the within deposition, and that this copy is 18 a correct transcript of the same. 19 In testimony whereof, I have hereunto 20 inscribed my hand this 31st day of August, 2006. 21 _ 22 Notary P i c 23 ? 24 25 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a, CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this day of , 2007, I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a The Goalpost by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Ronald A. Turo, Esquire Turo Law Offices 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire 64 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for North Mountain Inn, Inc.) Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esq. Barley Snyder, LLC 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 (Counsel for Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc.) Case No. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GRIFFITH, STI SOLYMOS & By: THOMAS A?IX- ON , ESQUIRE Supreme Coul{I.D. 8 Attorney for Defenda e Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 ?.} r., ?? r-?? ,,? y _ ._,, _:w ?? F C Y^w ?.;_- r.y? a PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased (Plaintiff} VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and THE GOALPOST and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOAST (Defendant) CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC. and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC. No. 04-1522 CIVIL Term (Additional Defendants) 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Motion for Summary Judgment of Defpndant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a The Goalpost 2. Identify counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiff: Michael R. Smith, Esquire (Name and Address) Turo Law Offices, 28 S. Pitt Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 (b) for defendant: Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire, 64 S. Pitt Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 (Name and Address) (Counsel for North Mountain Inn, Inc.) 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire Print your name The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley Date: ?J?? ?? Attorney for 2. (b) for defendant: Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, 110 S. Northern Way, York, PA 17402 (Counsel for The Goalpost/Betty Jo Gastley) (b) for additional defendant: Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire, Barley Snyder, LLC, 126 E. King Street, Lancaster, PA 17602 (Counsel for Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc.) C?D ?- (- 1 { lam! r? c n y s A . } a. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff V. North Mountain Inn, Inc., and Michael F. Strine, Individually, d/b/a/, North Mountain Inn, Inc., Defendant and The Goalpost, and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a, The Goalpost, Defendant and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., Additional Defendants Case No. 04 - 1522 CIVIL TERM : CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiffs Answer to Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley Motion for Summary Judgment 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted and Denied. The transcript speaks for itself. 8. The transcript speaks for itself. 9. The transcripts speak for themselves. 10. The transcript speaks for itself. 11. The transcript speaks for itself. . , 12. Denied. There is evidence, circumstantially, that Van Williams was visibly intoxicated when he left The Goalpost bar on or about May 1, 2002. Such evidence is in the form of scientific evidence, relation back evidence and other evidence that Plaintiff intends to introduce at time of trial. 13. No answer required. 14. No answer required. 15. Denied. There is a genuine issue of fact as to whether or not the Plaintiff was visibly intoxicated at the time he was served alcoholic beverages at The Goalpost by a licensee of the Liquor Control Board such evidence coming circumstantially from the testimony of various witnesses, including the companion of the Plaintiff as well as the medical testimony from the Cumberland County Coroner as to the blood test results and relation back testimony which will be provided by the Plaintiff indicating that the levels of alcohol consumption and condition of the Plaintiff at the time he was at The Goalpost based on his alcohol level at the time of his death. These factors and all factors in the case raise a genuine material issue of fact which must be left to the fact finder to decide at the time of trial and consequently the Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied. WHEREFORE, the all the above reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to deny the Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gasteley. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, V Ron Turo, Esquire --Attorney for Plaintiff Turo Law Offices 28 S. Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-245-9688 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ron Turo, Esquire hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Answer to Motion for Summary Judgment, by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class, postage pre-paid on the day of /t/4 , 2007, from Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Ronald Pollock, Jr, Esquire 126 E. King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire Law Offices of Harold S. Irwin, III 64 South Pitt Carlisle, PA 17013 Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire Griffith, Trickier, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402-3737 t C's i _ .C' I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a, CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants Case No. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO REMOVE ARGUMENT COURT LISTING TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly remove the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a The Goalpost from Argument Court which is scheduled for April 4, 2007 at 10:15 a.m. GRIFFITH, STRI ER L AN, SOLYMOS By: J? THOMAS B. SP E, ESQUIRE Supreme Court I. it 584 Attorney for Defendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a, CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this a? 4day of O !0 e.'c , 2007, I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of Praecipe to Remove Argument Court Listing by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Ronald A. Turo, Esquire Turo Law Offices 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire 64 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for North Mountain Inn, Inc.) Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esq. Barley Snyder, LLC 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 (Counsel for Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc.) Case No. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS &jCALKINS By. THOMAS B. UGLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court I. . #64584 Attorney for Defendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 ra tic! c - rn G3 S7`F 16 Mary E. Williams, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Van Alexander Williams, deceased v. North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, Individually d/b/a North Mountain Inn, Inc. and The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a The Goalpost and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, April 10, 2007, by agreement of counsel, the above-captioned matter is continued from the August 4, 2007 Argument Court list. Counsel is directed to relist the case when ready. ichael R. Smith, Esquire For the Plaintiff arold S. Irwin, III, Esquire For the Defendant omas B. Sponaugle, Esquire For the Defendant ,Xonald H. Pollock, Jr. Esquire For the Defendant Court Administrator kam J Edgar B. Bayley, J. n 0 a 4p a -0 z HAROLD S. IRWIN, 111, ESQ. SUPREME COURT ID NO 29920 64 SOUTH PITT STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 717-243-6090 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT NORTH MOUNTAIN INN I STRINE MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and As Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, deceased, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually and d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN INC. and THE GOALPOST and BETTY JO GASTLEY, individually and d/b/a THE GOALPOST and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, individually and d/b/a CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC.: Defendants AND : NO. 2004 - 1522 CIVIL TERM NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually and d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. Cross-Plaintiff V. THE GOALPOST and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually and d/b/a THE GOALPOST and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, individually and d/b/a CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC.: Cross-Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER NOW, this day of , 2007, on petition of defendants North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Michael E. Strine, and on motion of their attorney, Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire, a rule is v hereby issued upon the plaintiff to show cause why summary judgment should not be rendered against the plaintiff and on behalf of these defendants. Rule returnable days after service upon Michael Smith, Esquire, Turo Law Offices, attorney for plaintiff. By the Court, J. U MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF As Administratrix of the Estate of : CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, deceased, Plaintiff V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually and d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and THE GOALPOST and BETTY JO GASTLEY, individually and d/b/a THE GOALPOST and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, individually and d/b/a CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC.: Defendants : AND : NO. 2004 - 1522 CIVIL TERM NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., and MICHAEL F. STRINE, individually and d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. Cross-Plaintiff V. : THE GOALPOST and BETTY JO GASTLEY, individually and d/b/a THE GOALPOST : and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and : PAUL T. BECKER, individually and d/b/a CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC.: Cross-Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS NORTH MOUNTAIN INN. INC. AND MICHAEL F. STRINE NOW come defendants, North Mountain Inn, Inc. and Michael F. Strine, by their attorney, Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire and present this motion for summary judgment, representing as follows: On July 5, 2005, the plaintiff filed a complaint in this matter regarding a fatal motor vehicle accident which occurred on May 1, 2002, in Lower Frankford Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. All relevant pleadings have been attached to defendants Betty Jo Gastley and The Goalpost's companion Motion for Summary Judgment filed on or about March 7, 2007. 2. All of the defendants have filed timely answers to the complaint, containing new matter as well as cross claims against the other defendants. The plaintiff has filed a response to the new matter filed by the defendants. 3. The action essentially involves the plaintiffs allegation of a dram shop violation by all of the defendants, insisting that the decedent was served alcoholic beverages while visibly intoxicated in all three establishments. 4. Since the filing of the pleadings, depositions and other discovery has taken place. The owners of the establishments, as well as bartenders and a friend of decedent that accompanied him at each of the locations have been deposed. 5. Plaintiff has failed to elicit any information, testimony or other evidence of any kind that the decedent was visibly intoxicated when served alcoholic beverages at any one of the establishments or elsewhere on the night in question. 6. Plaintiff's sole evidence appears to be the coroner's toxicology report which indicates, incredibly, that the decedent's blood alcohol level was 0.63 per cent. 7. The laws of this Commonwealth and the case law interpreting them clearly provide that in order for a plaintiff to recover based on a violation of the Dram Shop Act, it must be proven not only that the "victim" was intoxicated, but also that the plaintiff was served alcoholic beverages while visiblv intoxicated. 8. The plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case and there exists no genuine issue of material fact surrounding the subject matter of the this motion. WHEREFORE, defendants requests the Court issue a rule upon plaintiff to show cause why this motion for summary judgment should not be granted. May , 2007 HAROLD S. IRWIN, III Attorney for defendants 64 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6090 Supreme Court ID No. 29920 VERIFICATION I verify that the facts contained in the foregoing Motion for Summary Judgment are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4094, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Counsel is executing this verification on behalf of the defendants since there is no averment of fact contained herein which is not part of the record of this case. May / , 2007 HAROLD S. IRWIN, III C J r`' Cl ` ?.l K BARLEY SNYDER LLC Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 52586 MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, deceased, Plaintiff, Attorneys for Additional Defendants Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually and d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 04-1522 Civil Term V. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant, and THE GOALPOST and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant, and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., AND PAUL T. BECKER, INDIVIDUALLY, D/B/A CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND NOW, come Defendants Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., through their attorneys, Barley Snyder LLC, move for summary judgment in their favor and against all other parties, and in support thereof state the following: 1908477-1 I . On July 5, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a complaint in this matter regarding a fatal motor vehicle accident which occurred on May 1, 2002, in Lower Frankford Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. All relevant pleadings have been attached to Defendants Betty Jo Gastley and The Goalpost's companion Motion for Summary Judgment filed on or about March 7, 2007. 2. All of the Defendants have filed timely answers to the complaint, containing new matter as well as cross-claims against the other Defendants. The Plaintiff has filed a response to the new matter filed by the Defendants. 3. The action involves Plaintiff's allegation of a dram shop violation by all of the Defendants, insisting that the decedent was served alcoholic beverages while visibly intoxicated in all three establishments. 4. Since the filing of the pleadings, depositions and other discovery has taken place. The owners of the establishments, as well as the bartenders and a friend of decedent that accompanied him at each of the locations have been deposed. 5. Plaintiff has failed to elicit any information, testimony or other evidence of any kind that the decedent was visibly intoxicated when served alcoholic beverages at any one of the establishments or elsewhere on the night in question. 6. On August 1, 2006, Mary Williams was deposed and could not provide any first hand information with regard to decedent's actions leading up to his accident on May 1, 2002. 7. On August 1, 2006, Sharon Siegfried, formerly Sharon Otten, was deposed and recounted that from 12:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. she was with decedent at the Carlisle Street Tavern and saw him drink three 12-once bottles of beer. See Sharon Siegfried deposition transcript attached to Betty Jo Gastley and The Goalpost's Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit 5, p. 9. 1908477-1 8. After leaving the Carlisle Street Tavern, decedent drove to a local automotive garage and picked up his jeep. The jeep had been recently serviced at the garage. See Sharon Siegfried deposition at p. 10. 9. Plaintiff's sole evidence for establishing her claim that decedent was served an alcoholic beverage while visibly intoxicated at the Carlisle Tavern is the coroner's toxicology report which indicates that the decedent's blood alcohol level was 0.63 percent after the accident. 10. The accident occurred over five hours after decedent left the Carlisle Street Tavern. 11. The laws of this Commonwealth and the case law interpreting them clearly provide that in order for a Plaintiff to recover based on a violation of the Dram Shop Act, it must be proven not only that the patron was intoxicated, but also that the patron was served alcoholic beverages while visibly intoxicated. 12. Plaintiff has failed to present any evidence that decedent was visibly intoxicated while present at the Carlisle Street Tavern, and there exists no genuine issue of material fact surrounding the subject matter of this litigation. 13. Plaintiff's argument that because decedent's blood alcohol level was 0.63 percent over five hours after leaving the Carlisle Street Tavern then, ipse dixit, the Carlisle Street Tavern is liable under a dram shop liability theory is an incorrect interpretation of the applicable statutes, belies fact, and must fail. 14. In further support of this motion for summary judgment, Defendant Carlisle Street Tavern will be filing a brief memorandum of law. 1908477-1 WHEREFORE, Defendants Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., and Paul T. Becker, individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, respectfully request that summary judgment be granted in their favor. Dated: BARLEY SNYDER LLC By: Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Court ID No. 52586 Attorneys for Defendants Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually and d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 717-299-5201 1908477-1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served this . ? 4 day of °`? , 2007, by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon: Ronald A. Turo, Esquire 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire 64 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 "Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire Griffith, Strickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 BARLEY SNYDER LLC BY. ?(-4z Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire Court I.D. 52586 Attorneys for Attorneys for Defendants Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker, Individually and d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 717-299-5201 1908477-1 t ?r. } l' ? f ? e • '??n ?. rw? PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) MARY WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased (Plaintiff) VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL 171. ( STRINE;, ( `Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and THE GOALPOST and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST (Defendant) CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC. and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC. No. 04-1522 CIVIL Term (Additional Defendants 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiffs motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Motion for Summarv Judgment of Defendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a The Goalpost 2. Identify counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiff: Michael R. Smith, Esquire (Name and Address) Turo Law Offices, 28 S. Pitt Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 (b) for defendant: Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire, 64 S. Pitt Street, Carlisle, (Name and Address) (Counsel for North Mountain Inn, Inc.) 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire Print your name The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley Date. _ 2. (b,) s - 2-0 7 for defendant: Thomas B. York, PA PA 17013 Attorney for Sponaugle, Esquire, 110 S. Northern Way, 17402 (Counsel for The Goalpost/Betty Jo Gastley) (b) for additional defendant: Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire, Barley, Snyder, LLC, 126 E. King Street, Lancaster, PA 17602 (Counsel for Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc.) -*i ` i'4 C-l ( y? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and . THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a, CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants Case No. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF THE GOALPOST AND BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST AND NOW, TO WIT, this q A day of , 2007, comes the Defendant, The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b a The Goalpost, by her counsel, GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, and files the following Supplement to Motion for Summary Judgment: 1. On April 17, 2007, the deposition of Karen Lentz, the bartender of the North Mountain Inn on May 1, 2002, was taken. A copy of her deposition transcript is attached hereto and marked Exhibit 8. Ms. Lentz recalled seeing Van Williams for approximately 20 minutes on May 1, 2002. She could provide no information as to where Mr. Williams was between the hours of approximately 6:00 p.m. when he left The Goalpost Inn to approximately 8:30 p.m. when he arrived at North Mountain Inn. However, when he was at the North Mountain Inn, she stated that he was stumbling and couldn't walk straight. See Exhibit 8, p. 8. Sharon Otten had told her that Mr. Williams was probably at another bar between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. that evening. See Exhibit 8, p. 15. Mr. Williams appeared to be visibly intoxicated that evening. See Exhibit 8, p. 13. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Honorable Court grant the Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a The Goalpost. GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & C KINS By: THOMAS B. SP A E, ESQUIRE Supreme Court I.D. #64584 Attorney for Defendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 g MINUSCRIPT 1 1 MARY E. WILLIAMS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Individually, and as CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2 Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER 3 WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff, 4 V. . 5 North Mountain Inn, Inc.,: CIVIL ACTION - LAW 6 and Michael F. Strine, Individually, d/b/a, 7 North Mountain Inn, Inc.,: Defendant, 8 and . 9 The Goalpost, and NO. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM Betty Jo Gastley, 10 Individually, d/b/a, The Goalpost, 11 Defendant, and 12 Carlisle Street Tavern, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 13 Inc., and Paul T. Becker,: Individually, d/b/a, 14 Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., 15 Additional Defendants.: 16 17 DEPOSITION OF: KARM L. IJMZ 18 TAKEN BY: Plaintiff 19 BEFORE: VIA TELEPHONE Amy R. Fritz, R.P.R. 20 Notary Public 21 DATE: April 17, 2007, 9:35 a.m. 22 PLACE: Turo Law Offices 28 South Pitt Street 23 Carlisle, Pennsylvania 24 yT. : _... 25 Central Illa. '"Cq-urt Reporting Services 400-863-3657 - 71 7-258-3657 - 717-258-0383 fax courtreporters4u Gaol. com PAGE 5 SHEET 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 0. Okau. Did you personallu know Van Williams? A. Yes. 0. Do uou remember Mr. Van WiLLiams? A. Yes. Q. Were wou the bartender on -- it was the night we're speaking about here? A. Yes. 0. And do wou recaLL Mr. Williams being in the bar that night? A. Yes. MR. IRWIN: What night are we speaking of? MR. SPONAl1GLE: Maw 1st. THE DEPONENT: Yes. That was the date. BY MR. SM ITH: 0. You were the bartender on Maw lat. 2002? A. Yes. 0. And when did wou come on dutw that daw? A. 4:30. Q. And what was the end of wour shift? A. 3 in the morning. 0. Was there anti other emplowees or owners present at the ti me during that shift? A. No. Q. No other waitresses, waiters, managers, hostess. anything Like that? 71 1 0. Could wou tell us who thew were? 2 A. Dean, Cindw and Sharon. 3 0. Do uou know the last names? 4 A. Dean Chestnut. I have no idea what Cindu's Last 5 name is, and Sharon Otten. 6 Q. 0-t-t-e-n? 7 A. I think that's how she spells it. 8 0. Were any of them sitting with Mr. WiLLiam57 9 A. No. 10 Q. How long have wou been a bartender: not just at 11 North Mountain Inn, but generallw? 12 A. Six wears. 13 Q. And had wou had any training? 14 A. Yes. I was TAP certified, 15 0. And when was that? 16 A. In 2002 and then again in 2005. 17 Q. And who arranged for that certification? Did 18 wou do it yourself? 19 A. Mike Strine did the one, and West End did the 20 second one. 21 0. To the best of wour recollection, how many 22 drinks di d fir. Williams have that evening that you served 23 his to dr ink? 24 A. None. 25 Q. You did saw he had one. n.rr n 811 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 A. No. 0. Do wou remember when Mr. Williams came in the facility? A. Yes. 0. And approximateLu what tine was that? A. ProbabLu 8:30. 9:00. 0. And did he order seething? A. I was in the kitchen when he walked through the door. And I came out and he was sitting on the barstool and he ordered a Budweiser. Q. And that was a bottle? A. Yes. 0. Was there anwone with him? A. No. 0. And how many patrons were in North Mountain Inn? Do wou recall? A. Thee was four at the time. 0. Any of them sitting at the bar? A. ALL of them. Q. And were thew regular customers there? A. Three of them were. 0. And wou knew them? A. Yes. 0. Did wou know them bw name? A. Yes. 1 A. Right. 1 took it from him. 2 0. Why did wou take it from him? 3 A. When 1 came out of the kitchen. he was sitting 4 on a barstool and he Looked fine. I set a beer up. Him 5 and Sharon Otten got into words, which apparentlu that was 6 his girlfriend at the time. 7 He got up and walked to the bathroom. I had 8 seen him walking. He came back out of the bathroom. 1 9 took the bee off the bar and told him, here, wou can have 10 wour aonew back, you're not being served. 11 Q. When wou saw him walk. describe his gait for us. 12 A. He was stumbling and couldn't walk straight. He 13 said he tripped over something. 14 0. And to wour recollection, did wou see he 15 tripped, or was he -- 16 A. No. I didn't see him trip. 17 Q. Was he stumbling and staggering as he came out 18 of the bathroom? 19 A. No. He was fine, but 1 felt he had enough. 20 Q. Did he say anything to wou? 21 A. Yes. He wanted his beer. He was reallw mad 22 that I had took his beer from him. 23 0. And did wou give him his beer back? 24 A. No. I did not. 25 Q. Did wou tell him whu? PAGE 13 SHEET 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 13 told him he needed to pet back on the other side of the bar and he needed to leave, that I didn't need that in the bar. 0. And he left? A. Yes. Q. Now, based upon wour training with the TAP program, do uou know what it is to be visible intoxicated? A. Yes. Q. In your estimation. was his behavior, his omit and station. the reason wou stopped, took his drink back, would wou say that was characteristic of what's described in the TAP program? A. Yes. Q. And Is that the reason why you did not let his finish his drink? A. Yes. 0. To your knowledge, did he have anw hard liquor? A. No. 0. Approximately what time did he leave? Do wou recall? A. It was just starting to get dark out. So it was 9, a little after 9. Q. He was there about 20 minutes? A. Yes. 0. Was he carrying anuthino when he came into the bar that you saw? oer_c 1d oer_r 1c A 1 A. No. 2 G. I'LL represent to wou that he left the Goalpost 3 Bar and Tavern at approximately 6 p.m. that day. And what 4 I'm asking wou is, do you have any information or knowledge 5 as to where Mr. Williams was or what he had drank, back on 6 beverages, between the time that he left the Goalpost at 7 around 6 D.E. and the time that he showed up at the North 8 Mountain Inn at about 8:30? 9 A. The only thing Sharon said to me was that they 10 were out drinking most of the day, they oot into a fight, 11 she left with the friends they were with and she didn't 12 know where he was at: he was probably at another bar 13 somewhere. 14 0. And that was the -- Sharon told you that when 15 she showed up that night at the North Mountain Inn? 16 A. Yes. 17 0. And she showed up that night at the North 18 Mountain Inn about what time? 19 A. She was probably there 7:30. 8:00. 20 MR. SPONALGLE: I don't have any other 21 questions. Thank wou. 22 MR. POLLOCK: No questions. 23 EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. IRWIN: 25 Q. Karen. what's your address? Cer_r 1e 161 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 A. Like I said, he was sitting down when I came out of the kitchen so I didn't see him come in the door. 0. And there were no other employees so wou know you were the only one who served him? A. Yup. 0. Why did you leave North Mountain Inn? A. Because I got a divorce and I couldn't work nights anymore. 0. Did you note any problems with his language? A. No. I'¦ used to hearing that when uou're a bartender. 0. How about the pace of his language, the tone? A. He was loud. but that was just -- 1 mean, wou could tell he was loud. 0. Any sLurrino. anything Like that? A. No. MR. SMITH: 1 have no further questions. EXAMINATION BY MR. SPONAUGLE: Q. I'm going to represent to wou that earlier in the day Mr . Williams was at the Carlisle Street Tavern and was at the Goalpost. Are you familiar with those two entities? A. No. Q. Never heard of them? 1 A. 1247 Hidden Valley Road, Lowsville. PA 17047. 2 0. Where do you work now? 3 A. Suraw Promotions. 4 0. What twpe of work is that? 5 A. I am a bookkeeper and admin. and I just started 6 bartendine on weekends. 7 Q. Where do you do that? B A. VFW NewviLLe. 9 0. And what did wou do with Mr. Williams' beer when 10 he went to the bathroom? 11 A. I took it off the bar and dumped it down the 12 drain. 13 0. Did you offer him any coffee or anything to eat 14 or anything like that? 15 A. Yes. I offered to make his food, coffee, 16 whatever he would like. 17 Q. Did he accept that? 16 A. No. 19 0. Any of the things that wou said you observed 20 about Mr. Williams with his speech or his walking, did you 21 have an opportunity to observe any of that before wou 22 served his beer? 23 A. No. 24 0. Why not? 25 A. Because 1 was in the kitchen and 1 came out of IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff VS. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., Defendant and Case No. 04-1522 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW THE GOALPOST, and BETTY JO GASTLEY, Individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST, Defendant and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. BECKER, Individually, d/b/a, CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Additional Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED q CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this '?A day of , 2007, I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of Supplement to Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a The Goalpost by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Ronald A. Turo, Esquire Turo Law Offices 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire 64 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for North Mountain Inn, Inc.) Ronald H. Pollock, Jr., Esq. Barley Snyder, LLC 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 (Counsel for Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc.) GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & C fKM By: THOMAS B. UGLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Cou #64584 Attorney for efendant The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually d/b/a The Goalpost 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 N =? _.,_ - r.: ., .. --Y-r T ? :? .:.,? ,ti. ? t T"1 ?::? C`t? --G `? C.a, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff : No. 04 - 1522 CIVIL TERM V. North Mountain Inn, Inc., and Michael F. Strine, Individually, d/b/a/, North Mountain Inn, Inc., Defendant and CIVIL ACTION - LAW The Goalpost, and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a, The Goalpost, Defendant and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiffs Answer to Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., and Paul T. Becker Motion for Summary Judgment 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied. There is evidence, circumstantially, that Van Williams was visibly intoxicated while served at Carlisle Street Tavern on or about May 1, 2002. Such evidence is in the form of circumstantial evidence, depositional evidence, scientific evidence, relation back evidence and other evidence that Plaintiff intends to introduce at time of trial. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied. There is more evidence, circumstantially, that Van Williams was visibly intoxicated while served at Carlisle Street Tavern on or about May 1, 2002. Such evidence is in the form of depositional testimony, scientific evidence, relation back evidence and other evidence that Plaintiff intends to introduce at time of trial. 10. Admitted. 11. This paragraph contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 12. There is a genuine issue of fact as to whether or not the Plaintiff was visibly intoxicated at the time he was served alcoholic beverages at Carlisle Street Tavern, such evidence coming circumstantially from the testimony of various witnesses to Williams's activity throughout his last day, including the companion of the Plaintiff and bartenders of other establishments at which the decedent drank, as well as the medical testimony from the Cumberland County Coroner as to the blood test results and relation back testimony which will be provided by the Plaintiff indicating that the levels of alcohol consumption and condition of the Plaintiff at the time he was at Carlisle Street Tavern based on his alcohol level at the time of his death. These factors and all factors in the case raise a genuine material issue of fact which must be left to the fact finder to decide at the time of trial and consequently the Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied. 13. This paragraph contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 14. No response is required. WHEREFORE, the all the above reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to deny the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern. Respectfully submitted, Michael R. Smith, Esquire Turo Law Offices 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-245-9688 Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michael R. Smith, Esquire, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Answer to Motion for Summary Judgment, by depositing the same in the -- a United States Mail, first class, postage pre-paid on the 4 day of May, 2007, from Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire Law Offices of Harold S. Irwin, III 64 South Pitt Carlisle, PA 17013 Ronald Pollock, Jr, Esquire 126 E. King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire Griffith, Trickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402-3737 TURO LAW OFFICES aei R. Smi h, Esquire Turo Law Offices 28 S. Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-245-9688 Attorney for Plaintiff ?-? r., _??; -rt y y ? -.r, 'ti,1 ) __ _ ?? }_ R `• _-7 ?._„ ` s ! IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff V. North Mountain Inn, Inc., and Michael F. Strine, Individually, d/b/a/, North Mountain Inn, Inc., Defendant and The Goalpost, and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a, The Goalpost, Defendant and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., Additional Defendants No. 04 - 1522 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiffs Answer to North Mountain Inn, Inc., and Michael F. Strine Motion for Summary Judgment 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied. There evidence that Van Williams was visibly intoxicated when served alcohol at the North Mountain Inn bar on or about May 1, 2002. Such evidence is in the form of depositional testimony, scientific evidence, relation back evidence and other evidence that Plaintiff intends to introduce at time of trial. r , (- 6. Denied. There evidence that Van Williams was visibly intoxicated when served at the North Mountain Inn bar on or about May 1, 2002. Such evidence is in the form of depositional testimony, scientific evidence, relation back evidence and other evidence that Plaintiff intends to introduce at time of trial. 7. Admitted. 8. There is a genuine issue of fact as to whether or not the Plaintiff was visibly intoxicated at the time he was served alcoholic beverages at North Mountain Inn by a licensee of the Liquor Control Board such evidence coming circumstantially from the testimony of various witnesses, including the bartender, the companion of the Plaintiff, and the medical testimony of the Cumberland County Coroner as to the blood test results and relation back testimony which will be provided by the Plaintiff indicating that the levels of alcohol consumption and condition of the Plaintiff at the time he was at North Mountain Inn based on his alcohol level at the time of his death. These factors and all factors in the case raise a genuine material issue of fact which must be left to the fact finder to decide at the time of trial and consequently the Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied. WHEREFORE, the all the above reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to deny the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants North Mountain Inn, Inc., and Michael F. Strine. Respectfully submitted, Michael R. Smith, Esquire Turo Law Offices 28 S. Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-245-9688 Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michael R. Smith, Esquire, hereby certify that I served a true and correct py of Plaintiff's Answer to Motion for Summary Judgment, by depositing the me in the United States Mail, first class, postage pre-paid on the oV4 day May, 2007, from Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire Law Offices of Harold S. Irwin, III 64 South Pitt Carlisle, PA 17013 Ronald Pollock, Jr, Esquire 126 E. King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire Griffith, Trickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402-3737 TURO LAW OFFICES ichael R. Smith, Esquire Turo Law Offices 28 S. Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-245-9688 Attorney for Plaintiff I' v r..) e _? - __ . ......? ....7 t ? = _ ^?,? _ ? C ? '? , > ,. _.., > ===a ..? ..__. -C ". , MARY WILLIAMS, individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 04-1522 CIVIL NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. : and MICHAEL F. STRIKE, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED individually, d/b/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC.; and THE GOALPOST and BETTY JO GASTLEY, individually, d/b/a THE GOALPOST; and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC. and PAUL T. BECKER, individually, d/b/a CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., Defendants IN RE: MOTIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE HESS, OLER AND EBERT, J.J. ORDER AND NOW, this 13" day of November, 2007, it appearing that the alleged blood alcohol content of the plaintiff's decedent was twice that of the plaintiff's decedent in Fandozzi v. Kelly Hotel, Inc., 711 A.2d 524 (Pa.Super. 1998), (a case holding that Dram Shop liability can be proven in the absence of direct eye witness evidence that an individual was served alcohol at a time when he or she was visibly intoxicated), and it being the law in Pennsylvania that summary VI y A M1 N3d AiNnc,? .n.y, afj L l • I I W ?l AON LOOZ A8ViQlNO RLa,-k 3 3Ht 33LPCY-? -' judgment may not be entered based upon the oral testimony of the moving party,] the motions of the defendants for summary judgment are DENIED. BY THE COURT, X.ichael R. Smith, Esquire For the Plaintiff ,Xarold S. Irwin, III, Esquire For Defendants North Mountain Inn and Michael Strine ,,Xomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire For Defendants The Goalpost and Betty Jo Gastley X i/""nald H. Pollock, Jr., Esquire For Defendants Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc. and Paul T. Becker Am A 1 See Penn Center House, Inc. v. Hoffman, 553 A.2d 900 (Pa. 1989, citing Nanty-Glo v. American Surety Co., 163 A.2d 523 (1932). MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff V. North Mountain Inn, Inc., and Michael F. Strine, Individually, d/b/a/, North Mountain Inn, Inc., Defendant and The Goalpost, and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a, The Goalpost, Defendant and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., Additional Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04 -1522 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the Request for Admissions set forth herein contains averments to which you are required to respond within thirty (30) days after service thereof. Failure to do so by you may constitute an admission. orh3/off Date Carlisle, PA 17013 717-245-9688 Attorney for Plaintiff MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff V. North Mountain Inn, Inc., and Michael F. Strine, Individually, d/b/a/, North Mountain Inn, Inc., Defendant and The Goalpost, and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a, The Goalpost, Defendant and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., Additional Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04 - 1522 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS DIRECTED TO DEFENDANT NORTH MOUNTAIN INN Plaintiff, Mary E. Williams, individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of Van Williams, deceased, by and through her attorneys, Turo Law Offices, requests that Defendant North Mountain Inn admit or deny the following statements of fact. Please specifically deny the matter or set forth in detail the reasons why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. 1. Karen Lentz, on May 1, 2004, was a bartender and employee of North Mountain Inn. 2. On May 1, 2004, Karen Lentz, while on shift as North Mountain Inn bartender, served Van Williams at least one alcoholic beverage - a bottle of Budweiser - on the premises of North Mountain Inn. 3. On May 1, 2004, Van Williams consumed at least some of the alcoholic beverage described in paragraph 2. 4. On May 1, 2004, Karen Lentz, while on shift as North Mountain Inn bartender, observed Van Williams in a stumbling, visibly intoxicated condition which rendered him incapable of walking in a straight line. 5. On May 1, 2004, Karen Lentz, while on shift as North Mountain Inn bartender, observed Van Williams in an intoxicated condition in a verbally belligerent argument with Sharon Often and asked Van Williams to leave the premises. OC600 t Date Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688 Attorney for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the Request for Admissions to Defendant North Mountain Inn on the following by depositing the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage pre-paid on the Thirteenth day of June 2008, from Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Ronald Pollock, Jr., Esquire 126 E. King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire Griffith, Trickier, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402-3737 Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire 64 S. Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688 Attorney for Plaintiff ry ?+ CIO MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff V. North Mountain Inn, Inc., and Michael F. Strine, Individually, d/b/a/, North Mountain Inn, Inc., Defendant and The Goalpost, and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a, The Goalpost, Defendant and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04 - 1522 CIVIL TERM Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., CIVIL ACTION - LAW Additional Defendants NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Harold S. Irwin, II, Esq. Irwin Law Offices 64 S. Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the Request for Admissions set forth herein contains averments to which you are required to respond within thirty (30) days after service thereof. Failure to do so by you may constitute an admission. Suhiitted, og-lo/ge Date mouth Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-245-9688 Attorney for Plaintiff , Esq. n MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff V. North Mountain Inn, Inc., and Michael F. Strine, Individually, d/b/a/, North Mountain Inn, Inc., Defendant and The Goalpost, and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a, The Goalpost, Defendant and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 04 - 1522 CIVIL TERM Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., CIVIL ACTION -LAW Additional Defendants REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS DIRECTED TO DEFENDANT NORTH MOUNTAIN INN Plaintiff, Mary E. Williams, individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of Van Williams, deceased, by and through her attorneys, Turo Law Offices, requests that Defendant North Mountain Inn admit or deny the following statements of fact. Please specifically deny the matter or set forth in detail the reasons why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. 1. Karen Lentz, on May 1, 2002, was a bartender and employee of North Mountain Inn. 2. On May 1, 2002, Karen Lentz, while on shift as North Mountain Inn bartender, served Van Williams at least one alcoholic beverage - a bottle of Budweiser - on the premises of North Mountain Inn. 3. On May 1, 2002, Van Williams consumed at least some of the alcoholic beverage described in paragraph 2. 4. On May 1, 2002, Karen Lentz, while on shift as North Mountain Inn bartender, observed Van Williams in a stumbling, visibly intoxicated condition which rendered him incapable of walking in a straight line. 5. On May 1, 2002, Karen Lentz, while on shift as North Mountain Inn bartender, observed Van Williams in an intoxicated condition in a verbally belligerent argument with Sharon Often and asked Van Williams to leave the premises. CC/iglor Date Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688 Attorney for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the Request for Admissions to Defendant North Mountain Inn on the following by depositing the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage pre-paid on the Nineteenth day of June 2008, from Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire Irwin Law Offices 64 S. Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Ronald Pollock, Jr., Esquire 126 E. King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire Griffith, Trickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402-3737 C lis 17013 (717) 245-9688 Attorney for Plaintiff ?v T i ?Ri --- !" 2 °10 C [. ± c ITT MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff V. North Mountain Inn, Inc., and Michael F. Strine, Individually, d/b/a/, North Mountain Inn, Inc., Defendant and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04 - 1522 CIVIL TERM The Goalpost, and Betty Jo Gastley, Individually, d/b/a, The Goalpost, Defendant and Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., and Paul T. Becker, Individually, d/b/a Carlisle Street Tavern, Inc., Additional Defendants : CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW REQUEST FOR AQMISSIONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please withdraw the Request For Admissions Directed to Defendant North Mountain Inn filed on June 13, 2008, on behalf of the Plaintiff. Respectfully Submitted, S ©s/o/Q.V Date Lor 9t1rew pyder, Esquire C*a isle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688 Attorney for Petitioner CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the Praecipe to Withdraw Request for Admissions Directed to Defendant North Mountain Inn upon Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire, Harold S. Irwin, II, Esquire, Kevin Pollock, Jr., Esquire, and Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage pre-paid on the Nineteenth day of June, 2008, from Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Martson Law Offices 10 E. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire Irwin Law Offices 64 S. Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Ronald Pollock, Jr., Esquire 126 E. King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire Griffith, Trickier, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins 110 S. Northern Way York, PA 17402-3737 Phone: (717) 245-9688 Fax: 717-245-2165 Attorney for Petitioner . r _ -1 HAROLD IL IRTM, Hl, =Q sU COURT Is NO 2MM M soUrm Prrr GTR T CAR MA6 PA IM3 T7T,i4f4NM ATTOMNY ROR os DAMT MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF As Administ:atrbc of the Estate of : CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA VAN ALEXANDER INILLIAMS, docea"d ' Plaintiff V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., and MICHAEL F. STRINE, indhrldually and dib/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. and THE GOALPOST and BETTY JO GASTLEY, indlvidually and dlb/a THE GOALPOST and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and PAUL T. NRCKER, Individually and dlb/a CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC.: Defandants : AND : NO. 2004 -1522 CIVIL TERM NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC., and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually and dib/a NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, INC. Cross-Plaintiff V. THE GOALPOST and BETTY JO GASTLEY, indlviduaily and dib/a THE GOALPOST and CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC., and : PAUL T. BECKER, Individually and dlb/a CARLISLE STREET TAVERN, INC.: Cross-Drhndanta : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT NORTH MOUNTAIN INN. INC. to PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NOW comes answering defendant, by its attorney, Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire, and responds to plaintiff's request for admissions, representing as follows: The averments of paragraph one of plaintiff's request for admissions are admitted. 2. The averments of paragraph two of plaintiff's request for admissions require no response as the deposition testimony of Karen Lentz, incorporated herein by reference, speaks for itself. To the extent that this request for an admission does require a response, this request is denied in that the witness's testimony clearly indicates that she served Van Williams one bottle of Budweiser on the premises, not "at leapt one alcoholic beverage". 3. The averments of paragraph three of plaintiff's request for admissions require no response as the deposition testimony of Karen Lentz, incorporated herein by reference, speaks for itself. To the extent that this request for an admission does require a response, this request is denied in that the witness's testimony clearly indicates that Van Williams appeared to consume only one or two sips of the beer, not "at least some of the alcoholic beverage...." 4. The averments of paragraph four of plaintiff's request for admissions require no response as the deposition testimony of Karen Lentz, incorporated herein by reference, speaks for itself. To the extent that this request for an admission does require a response, this request is denied in that the witness's testimony clearly indicates that she did not observe Van Williams in such condition until after serving him one bottle of beer, of which he drank one or two sips. Furthermore, such testimony also indicated that upon making such observation, the witness immediately removed the beer from the bar and disposed of it. 5. The averments of paragraph five of plaintiff's request for admissions require no response as the deposition testimony of Karen Lentz, incorporated herein by reference, speaks for itself. To the extent that this request for an admission does require a response, this request is denied in that the witness's testimony clearly indicates that such observation did not occur until after she served him one bottle of beer, of which he drank one or two sips. Furthermore, such testimony also indicated that upon making such observation and being witness to the argument with Sharon Often, having already removed the bottle of beer and disposed of it, she asked Van Williams to leave the bar. June L S , 2008 HAROLD S. IRWIN III Attorney for North unta' Inn, Inc. 64 South Pitt Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-2353 Supreme Court tD No. 29920 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing answer, new matter and counterclaim was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: LORIN A SNIDER ESQ 28 S PITT ST CARLISLE PA 17013 THOMAS B SPONAUGLE ESQ 110 S NORTHERN WY YORK PA 17402-3737 RONALD H POLLACK JR ESQ BARLEY SNYDER LLC 126 E KING ST LANCASTER PA 17602-2893 June 2 ??.2008 HAROLD S. IRWIN, I Attorney for North M n Inn, Inc. 64 South Pitt Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-2363 Supreme Court ID No. 29920 ? N f"i Ye ? MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually, and as Administratrix of the Estate of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff V. NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, Inc., and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a/, North Mountain Inn, Inc., et al Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04 - 1522 CIVIL TERM : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Plaintiff intends to serve a Subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this Notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an Objection to the Subpoena. If no objection is made, the Subpoena may be served. O7/-S 0/" Date T , Esq. arlisl 17103 ( r)-245-9688 Attorney for Plaintiff MARY E. WILLIAMS, Individually, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF and as Administratrix of the Estate CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA of VAN ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Deceased, Plaintiff V. NO. 04 -1522 CIVIL TERM NORTH MOUNTAIN INN, Inc., and MICHAEL F. STRINE, Individually, d/b/a/, North Mountain Inn, Inc., et al. Defendants CIVIL ACTION -LAW SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Meleason, Inc. & Peter Meleason c/o Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq. Martson Law Offices 10 E. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the Court to produce the following documents or things: All documents pertaining to the transfer of the liquor license from North Mountain Inn and Michael F. Strine to Meleason. Inc., and Peter Meleason, including but not limited to any and all records, correspondence to and from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, correspondence to and from Michael F. Strine and/or North Mountain Inn. Inc., files, memoranda, handwritten notes, reports, including any and all such items as may be stored in a computer database or otherwise in electronic form. You may mail or deliver legible copies of the documents requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed below. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies of the items sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. This subpoena was issued at the request of the following person: Lorin Andrew Snyder, Esq. Turo Law Offices 28 S. Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688 Supreme Court ID# 203199 Attorney for Plaintiff DATE: Seal of the Court Deputy OFFICIAL NOTE: This form of subpoena shall be used whenever a subpoena is issuable, including hearings in connection with depositions and before arbitrators, masters, commissioners, etc. in compliance with Pa.R.C.P. No. 234.1. If a subpoena for production of documents, records or things is desired, complete paragraph 2. BY THE COURT: Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena to Produce Documents on the following by depositing the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage pre-paid on the Thirtieth day of July, 2008, from Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire Irwin Law Offices 64 S. Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Ronald Pollock, Jr., Esquire 126 E. King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire Griffith, Trickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402-3737 TURO LAW O-fFICES Lor' ndrew Sn er, Esq. Seet 7013 8 8 for Plaintiff Attorney ": VT David D. Bued Prothonotary KirkS. Sohonage, ESQ Solicitor I'5G' Renee K. Simpson 1st Deputy Prothonotary Irene E. 9dorrow 2"- Deputy Prothonotary Office of the Prothonotary Cumberland County, Pennsy(vania n g " /5.Z _ CIVIL TERM ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES AND NOW THIS 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011, AFTER MAILING NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PROCEED AND RECEIVING NO RESPONSE -THE ABOVE CASE IS HEREBY TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PA R.C.P 230.2 BY THE COURT, DAVID D. BUELL PROTHONOTARY One Courthouse Square • Suite 100 9 Car(isle, PA 17013 • (717 240-6195 9 Ta-v (717 240-6573