Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-6494R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: NATHAN W. RAMSEY, ESQUIRE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT I.D. N0.209369 3513 NORTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17110-1438 TELEPHONE: (717) 234-7828 FACSIMILE: (717) 234-6883 EMAIL: NRAmsEYjRRJMARzFi.i.A_com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NATHAN W. RAMSEY DOCKET NUMBER: - ?pL! C/Vil PLAINTIFF LAUREN M.GROSS, AND ARIEL KEISLING vs. DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defense or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania (717) 249-3166 NOTICIA Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted guiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguintes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plaza al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la nontificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objectiones a las demandas en contra de su p esona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted pueda perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO INMEDIATAMENTA. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA LFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PEUDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania (717) 249-3166 Respectfully submitted, R. J. MMUELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17110-1438 PHONE: (717) 234-7828 FAx: (717) 234-6883 BY: AN SEY., SQUIB ATTORNE No. 209369 3513 N. ONT 2 R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: NATHAN W. RAMSEY, ESQUIRE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT I.D. N0.209369 3513 NORTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17110-1438 TELEPHONE: (717) 234-7828 FACSIMILE: (717) 234-6883 EMAIi.: 11II2AMCF.YnO R.1MAR7Fi i p (nM NATHAN W. RAMSEY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFF DOCKET NUMBER: 0 JF-- G yf y auto -7Z, LAUREN M.GROSS, AND ARIEL KEISLING DEFENDANTS vs. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT 1. At all relevant times hereto, Nathan W. Ramsey is an adult-individual, maintaining a residential address of 237 West Columbia Road, Enola, PA., 17025. 2. At all relevant times hereto, Ariel Keisling (hereinafter "Defendant Keisling") is an adult-individual, who maintained a residential address of 132 Front Street, Enola, PA 17025. 3. At all relevant times hereto, Lauren M. Gross (hereinafter "Defendant Lauren") is an adult-individual, who maintained a residential address of 132 Front Street, Enola, PA., 17025. 4. At all relevant times hereto, Defendants were adult-individuals, who maintained the same residential address of 132 Front Street, Enola, PA., 17025. 1 5. On or about June 22, 2007, Mr. Ramsey was traveling from his residence on a lunch break. 6. Mr. Ramsey was properly and lawfully operating his 2005 Scion TC traveling on Brick Church Road, a two-lane road in Enola, Pennsylvania. 7. Mr. Ramsey was properly seat-belted with lap and shoulder belts. 8. On or about June 22, 2007, Defendant Keisling was also operating her 1991 Honda ADL traveling East on Pitt Street. 9. Pitt Street ends with a stop sign at the intersection of Brick Church Road. 10. Defendant Keisling approached the stop sign and looked right before proceeding through the intersection turning left. 11. However, she at no time came to a complete stop and/or looked left before proceeding. 12. At the same time, Mr. Ramsey was traveling south on BrickChurch Road. 13. As Mr. Ramsey lawfully proceeded through the intersection, Defendant Keisling disregarded the stop sign and collided with the rear passenger side of his vehicle. 14. The impact of Defendant Keislings vehicle caused Mr. Ramsey's vehicle to turn clockwise almost 180° 15. The collision completely disabled Mr. Ramsey's vehicle. 16. After a thorough investigation, the East Pennsboro Township Police concluded that the Defendant was clearly in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A.§ 3323(B); therefore, the Defendant was issued a Primary Vehicle Code Violation citation. 17. Thereafter, Mr. Ramsey began feeling muscle spasms and pain in his back. 2 18. On or about June 26, 2007, Mr. Ramsey treated with an orthopedic surgeon Dr. Bruce Goodman. 19. Dr. Goodman took specific notice of the bruising on Mr. Ramsey's thighs and wrists. 20. Dr. Goodman's diagnosis was thoracic strain, stain of both quadriceps and wrists. 21. Dr. Goodman ordered physical therapy at with a follow-up appointment approximately 3 weeks later. 22. Additionally, Dr. Goodman ordered 200mg of Celebrex tablets to help alleviate the muscle spasms. 23. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Plaintiff, Nathan Ramsey, has suffered permanent and severe injuries. 24 As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant as alleged herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiff, Nathan Ramsey, has been and will continue to be forced to incur liability for medical treatment, medicines, hospitalizations and similar miscellaneous expenses throughout their adult lives and a claim is made therefore. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant as alleged herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiff, Nathan Ramsey, has undergone and in the future will undergo great physical pain and suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out their daily activities, loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and emotional distress and a claim is made therefore. 3 26. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant as alleged herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiff, Nathan Ramsey, has undergone and in the future will be subject to great humiliation, disfigurement and embarrassment and a claim is made therefore. 27. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant as alleged herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiff, Nathan Ramsey, has sustained in the past a loss of earnings and a claim is made therefore. 28. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant as alleged herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiff, Nathan Ramsey, has been advised and therefore aver that the damages and injuries alleged herein are permanent and a claim is made therefore. 29. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant as alleged herein and incorporated by reference, the vehicle driven by Defendant violently collided with the rear of Plaintiffs, vehicle causing Plaintiff, Nathan Ramsey, to sustain severe, extensive and permanent personal requiring medical treatment and therapy, and may require medical treatment and therapy in the future, and a claim is made therefore. 30. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant as alleged herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiff, Nathan Ramsey, has suffered a diminished loss of vehicle value. 4 COUNTI NEGLIGENCE NATHAN W. RAMSEY VS. ARIEL KEISLING 31. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-30 of Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated herein as reference as if fully set forth. 32. Regarding the accident, which is the subject matter of this Complaint, Defendant was negligent, careless, and reckless in the operation of a motor vehicle in the following particulars: (a) operating her vehicle in violation of the ordinances of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles, including but not limited to failing to stop at a stop stop-sign and failing to look both ways before proceeding through an intersection, which constitute negligence as a matter of law; (b) operating her vehicle at a rate of speed which was dangerous and excessive under the circumstances when she knew or should have known that Plaintiff had no stop-sign in his direction of travel; (c) failing and omitting to keep her vehicle at a reasonable and proper speed; (d) violating 75 Pa.C.S.A. 3323 (b); (e) failing and omitting to take due and proper cognizance of traffic 5 conditions on the road ahead of her; (f) failing to properly and adequately apply her brakes in time in order to prevent the collision which in fact occurred; (g) failing to properly and/or adequately maintain her vehicle so that it was safe for highway/roadway travel on the day of the accident; (h) failing to bring her vehicle to a stop when she was under a duty to do so; (i) operating her vehicle in violation 75 Pa.C.S.A. 3323 (b), which constitutes negligence per se; (j) failing to have the vehicle under proper and adequate control in order to stop or avoid striking the Plaintiff s vehicle; (k) failing to keep an appropriate lookout to avoid striking the - Plaintiffs vehicle; (1) failing to maneuver her vehicle appropriately in order to avoid striking Plaintiffs vehicle; (m) operating the vehicle without due regard for the rights, safety, well being, and position of Plaintiffs under the circumstances; (n) willfully and intentionally operating a motor vehicle on the roads and highways of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in clear violation of Pennsylvania law; 6 (o) failing to bring her vehicle to a stop safely behind the stop-sign, which was lawfully on the roadway; and (p) failing to operate her vehicle at a safe rate of speed under the circumstances. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Nathan W. Ramsey demand judgment against Defendant, Ariel Keisling, in an amount in excess of FIFTY-THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000.00), together with interest and costs thereon as allowed by law. COUNT II Negligent Entrustment NATHAN W. RAMSEY VS. LAUREN M. GROSS 33. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-30 and Count I of Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein as reference as if fully set forth. 34. Regarding the accident, which is the subject matter of this Complaint, Defendant was negligent, careless, and reckless in entrusting her vehicle to Defendant Ariel Keisling in the following particulars: (a) providing a vehicle to Defendant Keisling; (b) failing to ensure that Defendant Keisling was capable of complying with the applicable Pennsylvania Vehicle laws. 7 (c) knowing Defendant Keisling to be such an inexperienced driver, yet allowing Defendant Keisling access to her vehicle; (d) failing to ensure that Defendant Keisling would drive safety; (e) granting permission to the Defendant-Driver to operate her motor vehicle after knowing she was not a safe and/or cautious driver; WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Nathan W. Ramsey, demands judgment against Defendant, Lauren M. Gross, in an amount in excess of FIFTY-THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000.00), together with interest and costs thereon as allowed by law. Respectfully submitted, R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: DATED: /(? 3 1 • O Y 8 _R) 13 N. FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17110-1438 PHONE: (717) 234-7828 FAx: (717) 234-6883 VERIFICATION I, Nathan W. Ramsey, hereby swear and affirm that the facts and matters set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Dated: /0. 31. 0 1 LP 'icy D ' '17 "E a, SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR s CASE NO: 2008-06494 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND RANSEY NATHAN W VS GROSS LAUREN M ET AL ROBERT BITNER , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon KEISLING ARIEL the DEFENDANT , at 1130:00 HOURS, on the 7th day of November-, 2008 at 132 FRONT STREET ENOLA, PA 17025 by handing to RANDY GROSS, FRIEND, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE 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 i !'t p/D F?- ? 16.00- Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day of So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 11/12/2008 NATHAN RAMSEY Yeputy Sheri A.D. CASE NO: 2008-06494 P SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND RANSEY NATHAN W VS GROSS LAUREN M ET AL ROBERT BITNER Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon GROSS LAUREN M the DEFENDANT , at 1130:00 HOURS, on the 7th day of November-, 2008 at 132 FRONT STREET ENOLA, PA 17025 by handing to RANDY GROSS, HUSBAND a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 15.00 Postage .59 Surcharge 10.00 1??p?u5 .00 43.59 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day of , So Answers:, Y. ? r, R. Thomas Kline 11/12/2008 NATHAN RAMSEY By. eputy S eriff A.D. - JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire Attorneys for Defendants I . D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Phone: (717) 761-4540 Fax- (717) 701-3015 E-mail: j'sCM-idsw.com NATHAN W. RAMSEY, Plaintiff V. LAUREN M. GROSS and ARIEL KEISLING Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-6494 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of Defendants Lauren M. Gross and Ariel Keisling in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, Date: December 5, 2008 352165 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: Jgfferson J. Shipman, EsgUire orney I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance has been duly served upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on December 5, 2008: Nathan W. Ramsey, Esquire R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1437 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER 4Jeon J. Shipm n, Esquire ra 00 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I . D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Phone: (717) 761-4540 Fax: (717) 761-3015 F-mail- iic(rhiricw mm Attorneys for Defendants NATHAN W. RAMSEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. O. 08-6494 Civil Term LAUREN M. GROSS and IVIL ACTION - LAW ARIEL KEISLING Defendants J RY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Nathan W. Ramsey, Esquire R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1438 YOU ARE REQUIRED to plead to the within Answer and New Matter within 20 days of service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. JOHNS_qN, DUF IE, STEWART & WEIDNER Date: December 15, 2008 Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire Attorney I D. No. 51785 P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephon (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendants JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Phone: (717) 761-4540 Fax: (717) 761-3015 E-mail- iisOidsw.com Attorneys for Defendants NATHAN W. RAMSEY, Plaintiff V. LAUREN M. GROSS and ARIEL KEISLING, Defendants IN THE C URT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBER ND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA O. 08-6494 Civil Term IVIL ACTION - LAW J RY TRIAL DEMANDED AND NOW, come the Defendants, Lauren M. Gross and Ariel Keisling, by and through their counsel, Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire and Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner and file the following Answer and New Matter t Plaintiffs Complaint: 1. Admitted upon information and belief. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, without sufficient knowledge or information to form a averments contained in paragraph number 5. e answering Defendants are belief as to the truth of the 6. Denied. The averments contained in of law and fact to which no response is required. 7. Denied. The averments contained in of law and fact to which no response is required. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. Denied as stated. 11. Denied. The averments contained in conclusions of law and fact to which no response is requ 12. Admitted upon information and belief. 13. Denied. The averments contained it conclusions of law and fact to which no response is requ 14. Denied. The averments contained it h number 6 are conclusions number 6 are conclusions paragraph number 11 are paragraph number 13 are paragraph number 14 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is requ red. 15. The averments contained in paragraph nu ber 15 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 16. The averments contained in paragraph number 16 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, he answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form belief as to the truth of the 2 averments contained in paragraph number 17 and the me are therefore denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, he answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph number 18 and the same are therefore denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, he answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph number 19 and the ame are therefore denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, he answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph number 20 and the same are therefore denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, he answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph number 21 and the same are therefore denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, he answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form belief as to the truth of the 3 averments contained in paragraph number 22 and the strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 23. Denied. The averments contained in are therefore denied, and raph number 23 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is req ired. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the rem ining averments of paragraph number 23 and the same are therefore denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 24. Denied. The averments contained in pa graph number 24 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein a e specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remoining averments of paragraph number 24 and the same are therefore denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 25. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 25 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein a e specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the ining averments of paragraph 4 number 25 and the same are therefore denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 26. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 26 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein ate specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are information to form a belief as to the truth of the number 26 and the same are therefore denied, and of trial. sufficient knowledge or ining averments of paragraph proof is demanded at the time 27. Denied. The averments contained in pa agraph number 27 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein ate specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remoining averments of paragraph number 27 and the same are therefore denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 28. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 28 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein a e specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the Dining averments of paragraph 5 number 28 and the same are therefore denied, and of trial. 29. Denied. The averments contained in pai conclusions of law and fact to which no response is req to be required, the averments contained therein a reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are information to form a belief as to the truth of the rem number 29 and the same are therefore denied, and stric of trial. proof is demanded at the time igraph number 29 are in part ired. If a response is deemed specifically denied. After Nthout sufficient knowledge or ining averments of paragraph proof is demanded at the time 30. Denied. The averments contained in pa agraph number 30 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein a e specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph number 30 and the same are therefore denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. COUNT I - NEGLIGENC NATHAN W. RAMSEY v. ARIEL KI 31. Ms. Keisling incorporates herein by refere ce the answers to paragraphs 1 through 30 above as though fully set forth herein at length. 6 32. Denied. The averments contained in subparagraphs (a) through (p) are conclusions of law paragraph number 32 and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained in paragraph number 32 and subparagraphs (a) through (p)l are specifically denied. (a) Denied. It is specifically denied that Ms. eisling operated her vehicle in violation of the ordinances of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pertaining to the operation of motor vehic es including but not limited to allegedly failing to stop at a stop sign and to look both ways before proceeding through an intersection; (b) Denied. It is specifically denied that Ms. K isling operated her vehicle at a rate of speed which was dangerous and excessive under the circumstance when she allegedly knew or should have known that Plaintiff had no stop sign in his direction of travel; (c) Denied. It is specifically denied that Ms at a reasonable and proper speed; (d) Denied. It is specifically denied that Ms. 3323(b); (e) Denied. It is specifically denied that Ms. proper cognizance of traffic condition; (f) Denied. It is specifically denied that Ms. adequately apply her brakes; (g) Denied. It is specifically denied that Ms. adequately maintain her vehicle so that it (h) Denied. It is specifically denied that Ms. K to a stop when she was under a duty to do (i) Denied. It is specifically denied that Ms. violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3323(b) and per se; isling failed to keep her vehicle Keisling violated 75 Pa.C.S.A. isling failed to take due and Keisling failed to properly and ling failed to properly and/or safe for highway travel; ing failed to bring her vehicle ling operated her vehicle in Ms. Keisling was negligent 7 (j) Denied. It is specifically denied that Ms. under proper and adequate control in o vehicle; (k) Denied. It is specifically denied that appropriate lookout to avoid striking the !isling failed to have the vehicle r to avoid striking the Plaintiff's Keisling failed to keep an ntiff's vehicle; (1) Denied. It is specifically denied that Ms. eisling failed to maneuver her vehicle appropriately in order to avoid striki g the Plaintiff's vehicle; (m) Denied. It is specifically denied that Ms. Keisling operated the vehicle without due regard for the rights, safety, ell-being, and position of the Plaintiff; (n) Denied. It is specifically denied that Ms. isling willfully and intentionally operated the motor vehicle in violation of P nnsylvania law; (o) Denied. It is specifically denied that Ms. K isling failed to bring her vehicle to a stop safely behind the stop sign; and (p) Denied. It is specifically denied that Ms. Keisling failed to operate her vehicle at a safe rate of speed under the ci cumstances. WHEREFORE, Defendant Ariel Keisling respec ully requests that judgment be entered in her favor and that Plaintiffs Complaint be disnhissed with prejudice. COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE ENTRUSTMENT 33. Ms. Gross incorporates herein by reference the answers to paragraphs 1 through 30 above as though fully set forth herein at 34. Denied. The averments contained inj paragraph number 34 and subparagraphs (a) through (e) are conclusions of law a fact to which no response is 8 required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained in paragraph number 34 and subparagraphs (a) through (e)l are specifically denied. (a) Denied. It is specifically denied that Ms. Goss was negligent in providing a vehicle to Defendant Keisling; (b) Denied. It is specifically denied that Ms. ross was negligent in allegedly failing to insure that Defendant Keisling was capable of complying with the applicable Pennsylvania vehicle laws; (c) Denied. It is specifically denied that Ms. ross knew Defendant Keisling to be such an inexperienced driver yet Ilowed Keisling access to her vehicle; (d) Denied. It is specifically denied that M . Gross failed to insure that Defendant Keisling would drive safely; and (e) Denied. It is specifically denied that Ms. Gross was negligent in granting permission to Defendant Keisling to op rate her motor vehicle after allegedly knowing that she was not safe an /or a cautious driver. WHEREFORE, Defendant Lauren M. Gross respectfully requests that judgment be entered in her favor and that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. NEW MATTER 35. That the Plaintiffs alleged cause of action may be barred in whole or in part by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and by the limited tort option. 36. That if it should be found that the Defe denied, then in that event any such negligence was cause of the Plaintiffs alleged harm. 37. That the Plaintiff's injuries may have been were negligent, which is a proximate cause or factual sting. 9 38. That the Plaintiff may have been contributotily negligent. 39. That the Plaintiffs own negligence was cause of the Plaintiffs alleged harm. 40. That the accident and any alleged injuries intervening, superseding cause. 41. That the accident and any alleged injuries i proximate cause or factual may have been caused by an have been caused by third parties or entities presently involved in this action. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Lauren M. Gross and Ariel Keisling, respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor an that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully su mitted, JOHNSON, DU FIE, STEWART & WEIDNER ffferso J. Shfpman, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 51785 301 Mar et Street P. O. Bo 109 Lemoyn , PA 17043-0109 Telepho a (717) 761-4540 Attorney for Defendants Date: December 15, 2008 352172 10 VERIFICATION I, Ariel Keisling, have read the foregoing Ans and New Matter, and hereby affirm that it is true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, or information and belief This Verification and statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities; verify that all the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct and that fats statements may subject me to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904. n r r i I Keisling Date: E-- ? ° Q 352205 VERIFICATION I, Lauren M. Gross, have read the foregoing and New Matter, and hereby affirm that it is true and correct to the best Of my personal knowledge, or information and belief. This Verification and statement io made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification td authorities; I verify that all the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct land that false statements may subject me to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904. Lauren M. Date: I Z , 0 352205 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing A duly served upon the following counsel of record, by States Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, Nathan W. Ramsey, Esquire R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1437 and New Matter has been the same in the United on December 15, 2008 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER rson 4. Shil6man, Esquire C^? ?? .,., , c -? .__? rr..l t" r-ri `r7 ? -- --- : `,-? C "? ? ; ? , .. y ..,,_ _... .. ,? ?- R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: NATHAN W. RAMSEY, ESQUIRE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT I.D. N0.209369 3513 NORTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17110-1438 TELEPHONE: (717) 234-7828 FACSIMILE: (717) 234-6883 F.MAI .e AMSEYXRJMARZELLA.COM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NATHAN W. RAMSEY DOCKET NUMBER: 08-6494 PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION - LAW VS. LAUREN M.GROSS, AND ARIEL KEISLING DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO NEW MATTER 35. The allegations herein state a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that the Plaintiff's alleged cause of action may be barred in whole or in part by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and by the limited tort option. 36. The allegations herein state a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that if it should be found that the Defendants were negligent, which is denied, then in that event any such negligence was not a proximate cause or factual cause of the Plaintiff s alleged harm. 37. The allegations herein state a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that the Plaintiff's injuries may have been pre-existing. 38. The allegations herein state a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that the Plaintiff may have been contributorily negligent. 39. The allegations herein state a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that the Plaintiff's own negligence was a proximate cause or factual cause of the Plaintiff's alleged harm. 40. The allegations herein state a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that the accident and any alleged injuries may have been caused by an intervening, superseding cause. 41. The allegations herein state a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that the accident and any alleged injuries may have been caused by third parties not present to this action; or entities other than presently named Defendants. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court deny Answering Defendants demands for judgment in its favor and against all other parties, including interest, costs and fees, and other relief deemed appropriate by this Court. Respectfully submitted, R. I MARZELLA & ASSOCIATEV.C. BY: NATHAN W. KIWSEY., hSQUIRJ ATTORNEY ID No. 209369 3513 N. FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17110-1438 PHONE: (717) 234-7828 FAX: (717) 234-6883 DATED: )I- I / - O CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Nathan W. Ramsey, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this 19th day of December, 2008, by depositing said copy in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, first class delivery, addressed as follows and via facsimile, as follows: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire JOHNSON DUFFIE 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Fax 717-761-3015 R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOES. P.C. BY: {^ ?• . ... __. b C:;,j l r I i "x. ?, , ft 4) ?`? ? ,.r_. , ?- ?.?. NATHAN W. RAMSEY, Plaintiff v LAUREN M. GROSS and ARIEL KEISLING, Defendants 2. The claim of the Plaintiff in the action is under $50,000. There is no counterclaim. RULE 1312-1 The Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators shall be substantially in the Following form: PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: Jefferson J. Shipman, counsel for the Defendants in the above action respectfully represents that: 1. The above-captioned action is at issue. The following attorneys are interested in the case as counsel, or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: Nathan W. Ramsey, Esquire (pro se Plaintiff) and Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire (Defendants) WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. ctfully submitted, HS ON, DUFFJ, ?Sf TEWART & WEIDNER //r r _ i "J. Shipman, Esquire for Defendants ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-6494 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW 2009, in consideration of the foregoing petition, Esq., and Esq. and Esq. are appointed arbitrators in the above- captioned action (or actions) as prayed for. 361049 By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley ? ? ? ? , _ ? ? r ? ?} _ "-??t p ? C = " . •' ?+ l JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. No. 51785 By: John R. Ninosky, Esquire I.D. No. 78000 301 Market Street P. Q. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Phone: (717) 761-4540 Fax: (717) 761-3015 E-mail: jis(c-idsw.com NATHAN W. RAMSEY, Plaintiff V. LAUREN M. GROSS and ARIEL KEISLING Defendants Attorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-6494 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of Defendants Lauren M. Gross and Ariel Keisling in the above-captioned matter. Date: May 5, 2009 365295 Respectfully submitted, JOHNSO UFFIE, STEW ,ART & W IDNER By: John R. Ninosky, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 78000 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance has been duly served upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on May 5, 2009: Nathan W. Ramsey, Esquire R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1437 JOHN , DUFFIE, ST WART WEIDNER By / "I V John R. Ninosky, Esquire FILEa CE THE ppr" ".VOTARY 20091 MAY -5 Ir"'N 2: !.4 C7 NATHAN W. RAMSEY Plaintiff LAUREN M. GROSS and ARTF.T. KEIST ING Defendants Oath We do solemnly swear (or affirm) that we will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that we will discharge the duties of our office with de Signa Signature Signature In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania No. 0 8 - 6 4 9 4 Civil Action - Law. John H. Brouios, Esquire jamac M Bach, Esq Michael M_ Badnwski, Esq Name (Chairman) Name Name Law Firm 4 North Hanover St _ Address Carlisle, PA 17073- City, zip 4 11 es Law Firm Law Firm '152 S_ Snort-fig Hill _Rd. 3510 Trindle Rd. Address Address Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Camp Hill, PA 17011 City, zip City, zip Award `:1? 1689S . Arbitrator, dissents. (Insert name if applicable.) Date of Hearin • .T,? n 009 ^ g `??- JOH H B UJOS u , ir ) . Date of Award: ?- Mo f ?aj JAMES-77. HACH-;-'E squi ? w wf11'Pl WZ)r% Esquire -a? Notice of Entry of Award Now, the day of - )I AAA 9 , 206 q--, at 9,!pZ , „&.M., the above award was entered upon the docket and notice thereof given by mail to the parties or their attorneys. Arbitrators' compensation to be paid upon appeal: $ .3 50. e n In By. Prothonotary Deputy We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed), make the following award: (Note: If damages for delay are awarded, they shall be separately stated.) AL LA-C?-r f.,I OF The ? w? "?',.!{?T??Y 2009 JUN 15 AM 5= 2 3 1r.".91.. .. ll\?'r !* Vt 1..,•?w.:??: 4 f :y C" NF,VLyJA NIA -A20o? R.J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: NATHAN W. RAMSEY, ESQUIRE I.D. No. 209369 3513 NORTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17110-1438 TELEPHONE: (717) 234-7828 FACSIMILE: (717) 234-6883 E-mail: NRAMSEY@RJMARZELLA.COM NATHAN W. RAMSEY, Plaintiff V. LAUREN M. GROSS and ARIEL KEISLING Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-6494 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO SATISFY AND DISCONTINUE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: PLEASE mark the above-captioned matter satisfied and discontinued with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, Date: June 25, 2009 R.J. MARZELLA & ASS IATES, P.C. By: atha .Ram y, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 209369 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1438 Telephone (717) 234-7828 370012 FILED-t'lr?ccE OF THE PRGPO" W' TAAY 209 JUN 26 PH 1. 3 3 Cumknl--,..,? O UNTY PENfivSYLVANA