Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-6641IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. ~1"" J~/~"-.I-J ~ Civil Action - (XX) Law ( ) Equity JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MARGARET STILL and RICHARD STILL 160 Cedar Lane Carlisle, PA 17013 CALVIN F. MULLER Box 213 Glenwillard, PA 15046 and HERTZ CORPORATION Detroit Metro. ARPP Bldg 289-B Detroit, IL 48242 Plaintiff(s) & Address(es) Defendant(s) & Address(es) PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: above-captioned action. Please issue A Writ of Summons in the X . Writ of Summons Shall be issued and forwarded~o~orney (X P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburq, PA 17108 ~eme Court ID No. 32298 (717) 238-2000 Name/Address/Telephone No. of Attorney Date: 11/19/01 TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HAS/HAVE COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Curti~_ R. Lcn~ Date: November 27. 2001 by 2J ( ) Check here if reverse is used for additiona~ informati 1ROTHON. - 55 SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2001-06641 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND STILL MARGARET ET AL VS MULLER CALVIN F ET AL R. Thomas Kline duly sworn according to law, and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: MULLER CALVIN F but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. deputized the sheriff of ALLEGHENY County, serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being says, that he made a diligent search and He therefore Pennsylvania, to On December 27th , 2001 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from ALLEGHENY Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 Dep Allegheny Co 34.75 Notary 3.00 74.75 12/27/2001 So answer~,3~ ~/y / ~ R. 'Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County HAIqDLER HENNING ROSENBERG Sworn and subscribed to before me this ~-~ day of ~. A.D. t t Prothonotar~' SHERIFF'S RETURN - U.S. CASE NO: 2001-06641 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND STILL MARGARET ET AL VS. MULLER CALVIN F ET AL CERTIFIED MAIL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law served the within named DEFENDANT ,HERTZ CORPOP~ATION , prepaid, on the DETROIT METRO by United States Certified Mail postage 3rd day of December ,2001 at 0000:00 HOURS, at ARPP BLDG 289-B DETROIT, IL 48242 and attested copy of the attached WRIT OF SUMMONS with , a true Together The returned receipt card was signed by LISA LAMB 12/06/2001 Additional Comments: on Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Cert Mail 3.95 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 19.95 Paid by HAiqDLER HENNING ROSENBERG Sworn and subscr~ped to before me this~ day o~ 2~>~2_~ A.D. I~r~Chonotary ~ So answmi-s: ~--~ ~j/ / R. Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County on 12/27/2001 In The Cou. rt of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Mar§aret Still et al VS. ~Calvin F. Muller et al N SERVE: Calvin F. Muller OW, November 30 ,20 01 hereby deputize the Sheriff of No. 01 6641 civil , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do Allegheny County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA a and made known to Affidavit of Service ,20 ol o'clock _~ M. served the copy of the original o~ t~tT the contents thereof. N,,o, tara Seal Sheila R. O Brie~; Notary Public Ci~ of Pi .Rs~g_h, .Allegheny County My ~ommi~lon Expire~ June 19, 2004 Menlber, ~enn~er~ A, .~octat~on o Notanes Sworn and subscribed before me this day of.l~[[l 2. O, COSTS SERVICE MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT MARGARET STILL AND RICHARD STILL Plaintiffs CALVIN F. MULLER AND HERTZ CORPORATION Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.: 01-6641 TO: PROTHONOTARY Please enter the appearance of Hartman, Osborne & Joyce, P.C. on behalf of the Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation, in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, HARTMAN, OSBORNE & JOYCE, P.C. Dated: By: Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #34991 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 717-232-3046 Attorney for Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation I, Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, as follows: Gregory M. Feather, Esquire 1300 Linglestown Road P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Dated: HARTMAN, OSBORNE & JOYCE, P.C. By: Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. # 34991 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717)232-3046 Attorneys for Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation MARGARET STILL AND RICHARD STILL Plaintiffs CALVIN F. MULLER AND HERTZ CORPORATION Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.: 01-6641 TO: PROTHONOTARY Please enter a Rule upon Plaintiffs, Margaret Still and Richard Still, to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days or suffer no___~n pros ~ reg. Respectfully submitted, HARTMAN, OSBORNE & JOYCE, P.C. By ~I~ev~n E. Osbo~e, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D.//34991 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Dated: ] ~//~-O 2_ Attorney for Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation I, Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, as follows: Gregory M. Feather, Esquire 1300 Linglestown Road P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Dated: I- II-o L HARTMAN, OSBORNE & JOYCE, P.C. By: Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. # 34991 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717)232-3046 Attorneys for Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation MARGARET STILL AND RICHARD STILL Plaintiffs CALVIN F. MULLER AND HERTZ CORPORATION Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.: 01-6641 TO: PROTHONO i ARY c/o Gregory M. Feather, Esquire 1300 Linglestown Road P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 A Rule is hereby issued upon Plaintiffs, Margaret Still and Richard Still, to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days after service hereof or suffer non pros seq re.~g. Dated: Prothonotary I, Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, as follows: Gregory M. Feather, Esquire 1300 Linglestown Road P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Dated: HARTMAN, OSBORNE & JOYCE, P.C. Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. # 34991 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717)232-3046 Attorneys for Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation MARGARET STILL and RICHARD STILL, her husband Plaintiffs, CALVIN F. MULLER and HERTZ CORPORATION Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : NO. 0t-6641 CIVIL : : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : ., NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entedng a wdtten appearance personally or by attorney and filing in wdting with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER 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 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone (717) 249-6166 By_ "~,,~/..,~_/ . ~'-~-- #79 .6 ~l.30~9~inglestown Rd. P.O. Box 60337 Harrisburg, PA 17106 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kas/complaint/mva/still MARGARET STILL and RICHARD STILL, her husband Plaintiffs, Vm CALVIN F. MULLER and HERTZ CORPORATION Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-6641 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Margaret Still and Richard Still, by and through their attorney, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by Gregory M. Feather, Esq., and make the within Complaint against the Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation, as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Margaret Still, is a competent adult individual currently residing at 160 Cedar Lane, Carlisle, Cumberland County, PA 17013. 2. Plaintiff, Richard Still, is a competent adult individual currently residing at 160 Cedar Lane, Carlisle, Cumberland County, PA 17013. 3. Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, is a competent adult individual currently residing at Box 213, Glenwillard, Allegheny County, PA 15046. 4. Defendant, Hertz Corporation, is a corporation currently doing business at Detroit Metro AARP Building, 289B, Detroit, MI 48242. and dry. 6. At all times material hereto, the weather and road conditions were clear At all tirhes material hereto, Plaintiff, Margaret Still, was the owner and operator of a 1989 Ford Tempo bearing the Pennsylvania Registration Number BTB- 6112 (hereinafter "Plaintiffs' vehicle). Plaintiffs' vehicle was insured by Progressive Insurance Company. 7. Plaintiff, Margaret Still, elected the limited-tort option enumerated in the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. CSA § 1705(a)(1). However, pursuant to Act 6 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law 75 Pa. CSA § 1701 et seq., Plaintiff, Margaret Still, is entitled to seek damages as though she had elected the full-tort alternative, because she sustained injuries as a result of the collision described herein with a vehicle that was registered in Michigan. See 75 Pa. CSA § 1705 (d)(1)(ii). 8. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, was the operator of a 1999 Ford Explorer bearing the Michigan Registration Number NTV 211 (hereinafter "Defendants' vehicle). Defendants' vehicle was owned by Hertz Corporation who is currently doing business at Detroit Metro AARP Building, 289B, Detroit, Michigan 48242. 9. On or about December 17, 1999, at approximately 2:55 pm, Plaintiff was traveling on exit ramp 17 west, off 1-81 waiting to merge on SR 11 south in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 10. On or about December 17, 1999, at approximately 2:55 pm, Defendant was traveling behind Plaintiff on exit ramp 17 west, off 1-81 waiting to merge on SR 11 south in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 11. At approximately that same time and place, while Plaintiff was waiting to merge onto SR 11 south, Defendant started to move forward while looking left. Defendant drove into the rear of Plaintiff's vehicle. 12. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation, Plaintiff, Margaret Still, sustained extensive and serious personal injuries, as set forth more specifically below. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE Mar,qaret Still v. Calvin F. Muller 13. Plaintiff, Margaret Still, incorporates and makes part of this Complaint paragraphs 1 through 12 above, as if the same were set forth fully below. 14. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and the resultant injuries to the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, generally, and, more specifically, as set forth below: (a) In failing to keep a reasonable lookout for vehicles lawfully traveling on the exit ramp 17 west, off 1-81 waiting to merge on SR 11 south in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County; (b) In failing to be reasonably vigilant in order to observe the stopped vehicles including the Plaintiffs'; (c) In failing to operate the vehicle under proper and adequate control so that he could avoid striking the Plaintiffs' vehicle; (d) In failing to operate the vehicle in such a manner so that he could apply his brakes in a manner that would have enabled him to avoid striking the Plaintiffs' vehicle; (e) In failing to take such precautions as a prudent person would take in regard to the speed and control of the vehicle, as he proceeded on the exit ramp 17 west, off 1-81 waiting to merge on SR 11 south in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County; (f) In failing to maintain proper and adequate observation of the existing traffic conditions; (g) In failing to operate a motor vehicle at a speed that was safe for existing weather and road conditions, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3361; (h) In failing to operate said vehicle at a speed and under such control so as to be able to stop within the assured clear distance, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.^. § 3361; (i) In failing to be continuously alert, in failing to perceive any warning of danger that was reasonably likely to exist, and in failing to have tl'ie vehicle under such control that injury to persons of property could be avoided; (j) In driving the vehicle upon the streets in a manner endangering persons and property, and in a manner with careless disregard to the rights and safety of others in strict violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 15. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, sustained personal injuries including, but not limited to, injuries to her neck and right shoulder. 16. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation and from attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation and embarrassment. 17. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has suffered great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotional and financial detriment and loss. 18. As a direct and proximate result of negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforementioned injuries, to expend money for medicine and medical attention, to her great detriment and loss. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 20. As a direct and proximate result of said Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has incurred lost wages and will in the future continue to suffer lost wages and/or a loss of earning capacity. 21. Plaintiff, Margaret Still believes and, therefore, avers that her injuries are permanent and serious in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margaret Still, seeks damages from the Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). COUNT II - NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT Margaret Still v. Hertz Corporation 22. Plaintiff, Margaret Still, incorporates and makes part of this Complaint paragraphs 1 through 21 above, as if the same were set forth fully below. 23. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and the resultant injuries to the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence, carelessness or recklessness of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, acting solely and/or in conjunction with Defendant Calvin F. Muller, generally, and more specifically, as set forth below: (a) In allowing Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, to fail to keep a proper lookout for vehicles on the exit ramp 17 west, off 1-81 waiting to merge on SR 11 south in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County; (b) In allowing Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, to fail to operate his vehicle at such a speed, and under such control, so as to avoid striking Plaintiffs' vehicle; (c) In allowing Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, to fail to properly observe the traffic conditions then and there existing; and (d) In allowing Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, to fail to operate his vehicle at a speed and under such control, so as to be able to stop within the assured clear distance in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. 3361. 24. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, sustained personal injuries including, but not limited to, injuries to her neck and right shoulder. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from performing the d~ties required by her usual occupation and from attending to her daily duties and chores, to his great loss, humiliation and embarrassment. 26. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has suffered great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotional and financial detriment and loss. 27. As a direct and proximate result of negligence of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforementioned injuries, to expend money for medicine and medical attention to her great detriment and loss. 28. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 7 29. As a direct and proximate result of said Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has incurred lost wages and will in the future continue to suffer lost wages and/or a loss of earning capacity. 30. Plaintiff, Margaret Still, believes and, therefore, avers that her injuries are permanent and serious in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margaret Still, seeks damages from the Defendant, Hertz Corporation, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). COUNT III - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Margaret Still v. Calvin F. Muller 31. Plaintiff,-Richard Still, incorporates and makes part of this Complaint paragraphs 1 through 30 above, as if the same were set forth fully below. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, the Plaintiff, Richard Still, has suffered a loss of consortium, society and comfort from his wife, and he may continue to suffer similar loss in the future. 33. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, the Plaintiff, Richard Still, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for his wife's injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention, and may be required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Richard Still, seeks damages from the Defendant in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT IV - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Mar;laret Still v. Hertz Corporation 34. Plaintiff, Richard Still, incorporates and makes part of this complaint paragraphs 1 through 33 above, as if the same were set forth fully below. 35. ,As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, the Plaintiff, Richard Still, has suffered a loss of consortium, society and comfort from his wife, and he may continue to suffer similar loss in the future. 36. ,As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Hertz Corporation, the Plaintiff, Richard Still, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for his wife's injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention, and may be required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Richard Still, seeks damages from the Defendant, Hertz Corporation, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP Date: By: Gregory M. Feather, Esq. I.D. No. 79456 PO Box 60337 Harrisburg, PA 17106 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs ]0 VERIFICATION THE UNDERSIGNED hereby verify that the statements in thc foregoing document arc based on information that was gathered by counsel in preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the above-named document is of counsel and not our own. We have read the said document and, to the extent that it is based on information that wc gave to counsel, it is true and correct to thc best of our knowledge, info~-~ation and belief. To thc extent that the contents of the said document is that of counsel, we have relied upon our counsel in preparing this Verification. THE UNDERSIGNED also understand that the statements therein arc made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.I~.C.P. 2252(d) C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE: RICHARD STILL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on the Defendants, CALVIN F. MULLER and HERTZ CORPORATION, by sending a copy of the same to their counsel of record, Kevin E. Osborne, Esq., HARTMAN, OSBORNE & JOYCE, P.C., 126-128 Walnut St., Harrisburg, PA 17101, by United States Mail, regular service, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on ~.~y~,~/ /~' , 2OO2. DATE: ~/~/~ HA -' R , LLP By ~__~ /k------ /~ C~/~o ! M. Feather, Esq. ~ ~A~orney I.D. #79456 P.O. Box 60337 Harrisburg, PA 17106 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs MARGARET STILL and RICHARD STILL, her husband Plaintiffs, CALVIN F. MULLER and HERTZ CORPORATION Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-6641 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories Directed to Defendants and the Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents Propounded Upon Defendants were served on the Defendants, CALVIN F. MULLER and HERTZ CORPORATION by sending a copy of the same to their counsel of record, Kevin E. Osborne, Esq., 126-128 Walnut St., Harrisburg, PA 17101, by United States Mail, regular service, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on May ~.C 2002. DATE: P.O. Box 60337 Harrisburg, PA 17106 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be tTrpe~m-itten and sui~itted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Pl-m~e l~st the within matter for the next Ar~t Court. CAPTION OF CASE (entir~ caption must be stated in full) Margaret Still and Richard Still ( p1 ~intiff) Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation ( Defer~ant ) No-01-6641 Civil 19 State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial~ defendant's de~-rer to co,~]aint, etc. ): Preliminary Objections of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, to Plaintiffs' Complaint. 2. Identify counsel who ~ril 1 argue case: (a) for p]mintiff: Gregory M. Feather, Esquire Address: 1300 Linglestown Road P.O. Box 60337 Harrisburg, PA 17106 (b) for defem~L~nt: Stacy B. Wolf, Esquire ~z~ir~ss: 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 I ~ril I ~otif~ ,,~1 1 parties in writing within two days that th~ mm, has been 1 !steal for a~t. 4. Ar~t Court Date: July 24, 2002 Dated: June 11, 2002 Attorney fOrCalvin F. MUller & ]{ertz Cord I, Stacy B. Wolf, Esquire, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, as follows: Gregory M. Feather, Esquire 1300 Linglestown Road P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Dated: HARTMAN, OSBORNE & RETTIG Stacy B.t/ffolf, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. # 88732 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717)232-3046 Attorneys for Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation MARGARET STILL and RICHARD STILL, her husband V= Plaintiffs, CALVIN F. MULLER and HERTZ CORPORATION Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-6641 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER 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 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone (717) 249-6_6_6_~6  ~ Feather, Esq. 94 ~6 lestown Rd. 60337 Harrisburg, PA 17106 (717) 238~2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs MARGARET STILL and RICHARD STILL, her husband Plaintiffs, CALVIN F. MULLER and HERTZ CORPORATION Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ,, NO. 0'1-6641 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Margaret Still and Richard Still, by and through their attorney, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by Gregory M. Feather, Esq., and make the within Complaint against the Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation, as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Margaret Still, is a competent adult individual currently residing at 160 Cedar Lane, Carlisle, Cumberland County, PA 17013. 2. Plaintiff, Richard Still, is a competent adult individual currently residing at 160 Cedar Lane, Carlisle, Cumberland County, PA 17013. 3. Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, is a competent adult individual currently residing at Box 213, Glenwillard, Allegheny County, PA 15046. 4. Defendant, Hertz Corporation, is a corporation currently doing business at Detroit Metro AARP Building, 289B, Detroit, MI 48242. and dry. 9. 5. At all times material to this action, Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, was believed to be an agent, servant, representative, and/or employee of Defendant, Hertz Corporation. 6. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and all of the resultant injuries to Plaintiffs, Margaret and Richard Still, are the direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness of the Defendant, Calvin F. Muller. 7. The aforementioned negligent, careless, and/or reckless conduct of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, occurred while acting in and upon the business of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, and within the course and scope of his employment with said Defendant. At all times material hereto, the weather and road conditions were clear At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Margaret Still, was the owner and operator of a 1989 Ford Tempo bearing the Pennsylvania Registration Number BTB- 6112 (hereinafter "Plaintiffs' vehicle). Plaintiffs' vehicle was insured by Progressive Insurance Company. 10. Plaintiff, Margaret Still, elected the limited-tort option enumerated in the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. CSA § 1705(a)(1). However, pursuant to Act 6 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law 75 Pa. CSA § 1701 etseq., Plaintiff, Margaret Still, is entitled to seek damages as though she had elected the full-tort alternative, because she sustained injuries as a result of the collision described herein with a vehicle that was registered in Michigan. See 75 Pa. CSA § 1705 (d)(1)(ii). 11. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, was the operator of a 1999 Ford Explorer bearing the Michigan Registration Number N'IV 211 (hereinafter "Defendants' vehicle). Defendants' vehicle was owned by Hertz Corporation, which is currently doing business at Detroit Metro AARP Building, 289B, Detroit, Michigan 48242. 12. On or about December 17, 1999, at approximately 2:55 pm, Plaintiff was traveling on exit ramp 17 west, off 1-81 waiting to merge on SR 11 south in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 13. On or about December 17, 1999, at approximately 2:55 pm, Defendant was traveling behind Plaintiff on exit ramp 17 west, off 1-81 waiting to merge on SR 11 south in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 14. At approximately that same time and place, while Plaintiff was waiting to merge onto SR 11 south, Defendant started to move forward whiile looking left. Defendant drove into the rear of Plaintiff's vehicle. 15. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation, Plaintiff, Margaret Still, sustained extensive and serious personal injuries, as set forth more specifically below. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCF Mar,qaret Still v. Calvin F. Muller 16. Plaintiff, Margaret Still, incorporates and makes part of this Complaint paragraphs 1 through 15 above, as if the same were set forth fully below. 17. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and the resultant injuries to the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, generally, and, more specifically, as set forth below: (a) In failing to keep a reasonable lookout for vehicles lawfully traveling on the exit ramp 17 west, off 1-81 waiting to merge on SR 11 south in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County; (b) In failing to be reasonably vigilant in order to observe the stopped vehicles including the Plaintiffs'; (c) In failing to operate the vehicle under proper and adequate control so that he could avoid striking the Plaintiffs' vehicle; (d) In failing to operate the vehicle in such a manner so that he could apply his brakes in a manner that would have enabled him to avoid striking the Plaintiffs' vehicle; (e) In failing to take such precautions as a prudent person would take in regard to the speed and control of the vehicle, as he proceeded on the exit ramp 17 west, off 1-81 waiting to merge on SR 11 south in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County; (f) In failing to maintain proper and adequate observation of the existing traffic conditions; (g) In failing to operate a motor vehicle at a speed that was safe for existing weather and road conditions, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3361; (h) In failing to operate said vehicle at a speed and under such 4 control so as to be able to stop within the assured clear distance, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3361; (i) In failing to be continuously alert, in failing to perceive any warning of danger that was reasonably likely to exist, and in failing to have the vehicle under such control that injury to persons of property could be avoided; (j) In driving the vehicle upon the streets in a manner endangering persons and property, and in a manner with careless disregard to the rights and safety of others in strict violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 18. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, sustained personal injuries including, but not limited to, injuries to her neck and right shoulder. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation and from attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation and embarrassment. 20. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has suffered great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotional and financial detriment and loss. 21. As a direct and proximate result of negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforementioned injuries, to expend money for medicine and medical attention, to her great detriment and loss. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 23. As a direct and proximate result of said Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has incurred lost wages and will in the future continue to suffer lost wages and/or a loss of earning capacity. 24. Plaintiff, Margaret Still believes and, therefore, avers that her injuries are permanent and serious in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margaret Still, seeks damages from the Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). COUNT II - NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT Mar,qaret Still v. Hertz Corporation 25. Plaintiff, Margaret Still, incorporates and makes part of this Complaint paragraphs 1 through 24 above, as if the same were set forth fully below. 26. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and the resultant injuries to the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence, carelessness or recklessness of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, acting solely and/or in conjunction with Defendant Calvin F. Muller, generally, and more specifically, as set forth below: (a) In allowing Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, to fail to keep a proper lookout for vehicles on the exit ramp 17 west, off 1-81 waiting to merge on SR 11 south in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County; (b) In allowing Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, to fail to operate his vehicle at such a speed, and under such control, so as to avoid striking Plaintiffs' vehicle; (c) In allowing Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, to fail to properly observe the traffic conditions then and there existing; and (d) In allowing Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, to fail to operate his vehicle at a speed and under such control, so as to be able to stop within the assured clear distance in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. 3361. 27. At all times material to the action, Defendant, Hertz Corporation, was negligent by and through the careless and/or reckless conduct of their agent, employee, servant, and/or representative, Calvin F. Muller. 28. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, sustained personal injuries including, but not limited to, injuries to her neck and right shoulder. 29. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation and from attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation and embarrassment. 30. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has suffered great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotional and financial detriment and loss. 31. As a direct and proximate result of negligence of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforementioned injuries, to expend money for medicine a,nd medical attention, to her great detriment and loss. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 33. As a direct and proximate result of said Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has incurred lost wages and will in the future continue to suffer lost wages and/or a loss of earning capacity. 34. Plaintiff, Margaret Still, believes and, therefore, avers that her injuries are permanent and serious in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margaret Still, seeks damages from the Defendant, Hertz Corporation, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). COUNT III - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Mar,qaret Still v. Calvin F. Muller 35. Plaintiff, Richard Still, incorporates and makes part of this Complaint paragraphs 1 through 34 above, as if the same were set forth fully below. 36. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, the Plaintiff, Richard Still, has suffered a loss of consortium, society and comfort from his wife, and he may continue to suffer similar loss in the future. 37. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, the Plaintiff, Richard Still, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for his wife's injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention, and may be required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Richard Still, seeks damages from the Defendant in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs. _COUNT IV - LOSS OF CONSORTIU,'.'. Marqaret Still v. Hertz Corporation 38. Plaintiff, Richard Still, incorporates and makes part of this complaint paragraphs 1 through 37 above, as if the same were set forth fully below. 39. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, the Plaintiff, Richard Still, has suffered a loss of consortium, society and comfort from his wife, and he may continue to suffer similar loss in the future. 40. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Hertz Corporation, the Plaintiff, Richard Still, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for his wife's injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention, and may be required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Richard Still, seeks damages from the Defendant, Hertz Corporation, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs. Date: ~,~ ~ 2.-- Respectfully submitted, HANDLER~HE~I{ ~ LP By: ~/, /~[~Oj~,dxe~ryJ Feather, Esq. .~1~. 79456 60337 Harrisburg, PA 17106 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs lO VERIFICATION THE UNDERSIGNED hereby verify that the statements in the foregoing document are based on infom~ation that was gathered by counsel in preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the above-named document is of counsel and not our own. We have read the said document and, to the extent that it is based on information that we gave to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of our knowledge, infoca~ation and belief. To the extent that the contents of the said document is that of counsel, we have relied upon our counsel in preparing this Verification. THE UNDERSIGNED also understand that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE: MAR~Al~ STI~LL RICHARD STILL ,CERTIFICATE OF SERVICF I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on the Defendants, CALVIN F. MULLER, and HERTZ CORPORATION, by sending a copy of the same to their counsel of record, Kevin E. Osborn, Esfl., HARTMAN, OSBORNE & JOYCE, P.C., 126-128 Walnut St., Harrisburg, PA 17101, by United States Mail, return receipt requested, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on June/~, 2002. HA~~~//~~NBERG' ~SttOrney I.D. #79456 P.O. Box 60337 Harrisburg, PA 17106 (717) 238-2000 LLP DATE: Attorneys for Plaintiffs MARGARET STILL AND RICHARD STILL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, CALVIN F. MULLER AND HERTZ CORPORATION Defendants : PENNSYLVANIA : : NO.: 01-6641 : : PRAECIPE TO REMOVE pRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS FROM ARGUMENT COURT LIST TO: Curtis Long, Prothonotary Please remove the Preliminary Objections of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, to Plaintiffs' Complaint from the Argument Court List as Plaintiffs' have filed an Amended Complaint. Respectfully submitted, HARTMAN, OSBORNE & RETTIG o/ag / Stacy B. Wolf; Esqui Supreme Ct. I.D. # 88732 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-3046 Attorneys for Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation I, Stacy B. Wolf, Esquire, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, as follows: Gregory M. Feather, Esquire 1300 Linglestown Road P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Dated: HARTMAN, OSBORNE & RETTIG Stacy B.aWolf, Esquire {J Supreme Ct. I.D. # 88732 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717)232-3046 Attorneys for Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation MARGARET STILL AND RICHARD STILL Plaintiffs CALVIN F. MULLER AND HERTZ CORPORATION Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.: 01-6641 AND NOW comes the Defendant, Hertz Corporation, by and through its attorneys, Hartman, Osborne & Rettig, to submit the within Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. Plaintiffs commenced the above-captioned negligence action by the filing of a Writ of Summons on November 19, 2001. A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Writ of Summons is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 2. The Return of Service filed by the Sheriffreflects that service of Plaintiffs' Writ of Summons upon Defendant Hertz Corporation was effected on November 27, 2001. 3. A Complaint was filed by Plaintiffs on May 15, 2002. A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 4. An Amended Complaint was filed by Plaintiffs on June 19, 2002. A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". 5. Generally, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Calvin Muller was negligent in colliding with Plaintiffs' automobile while driving Defendant Hertz Corporation's automobile, resulting in personal injuries. 6. With regard to Defendant Hertz Corporation, Plaintiffs allege that it was negligent in its entrustment of its automobile to Defendant Muller. A. COUNT II OF PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED cOMPLAINT, ATTEMPTING TO SET FORTH A CLAIM AGAINST HERTZ CORPORATION BASED UPON THE THEORY OF NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH REI,IEF MAY BE GRANTED. 7. Pursuant to PA.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4), a Preliminary Objection in the nature of a demurrer is an appropriate means of challenging the legal sufficiency of a pleading. PA.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4). 8. A demurrer must be granted when the Court is certain that, as a matter of law, there can be no recovery upon the facts alleged. Wurth v. Philadelphia, 584 A.2d 404 (Pa. Commw. 1990). 9. In Count II of her Amended Complaint, Plaintiffis apparently attempting to state a claim against Hertz Corporation based upon negligent entmstment. 10. Paragraph 26 of Count II of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint reads as follows: COUNT II - NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT MARGARET STILL V. HERTZ CORPORATION 26. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and the resultant injuries to the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence, carelessness or recklessness of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, acting solely and/or in conjunction with Defendant Calvin F. Muller, generally, and more specifically, as set forth below: ao In allowing Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, to fail to keep a proper lookout for vehicles on the exit ramp 17 West, offI-81 waiting to merge on SR 11 South in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County; In allowing Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, to fail to operate his vehicle at such a speed, and under such control, so as to avoid striking Plaintiffs' vehicle; Co In allowing Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, to fail to properly observe the traffic conditions then and there existing; and In allowing Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, to fall to operate his vehicle at a speed and under such control, so as to be able to stop within the assured clear distance in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. 3361. 11. Count II of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against Hertz Corporation based upon negligent entmstment. 12. Plaintiffs have failed to state that Defendant Hertz Corporation owed a duty to Plaintiffs. 13. Plaintiffs have failed to state that Defendant Hertz Corporation breached a duty owed to Plaintiffs. 14. Plaintiffs have failed to state the reasons why Defendant Hertz Corporation should not have rented the automobile to Defendant Muller. 15. Plaintiffs have failed, therefore, to state a claim for negligent entmstment upon which relief may be granted in Count II of their Amended Complaint. B. COUNT II OF PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT, ATTEMPTING TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A NEW CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE THEORY OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO BRING A NEW CAUSE OF ACTION WITHIN THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 16. Although, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(c) (1), a party may file an amended pleading as of course, a party is only permitted to amend the original pleadings and may not bring in a new cause of action. Pa.R.C.P. 1028(c) (1). 17. Plaintiffs have not amended the negligent entmstment claim as originally found in the Complaint, but instead have attempted to allege a new cause of action for vicarious liability by taking advantage of their ability to amend the original pleadings in response to Defendant's Preliminary Objections. 18. After the Statute of Limitations has run, a Complaint cannot be amended to allege a new cause of action. Hoare v. Bell Tel. Co. of Pa.,500 A.2d 1112 (Pa. 1985). 19. In Count II of her Complaint, Plaintiff is apparently attempting to state a new cause of action against Hertz Corporation based upon vicarious liability. 20. Paragraph 27 of Count II of Plaintiffs' Complaint reads as follows: COUNT II - NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT MARGARET STILL V. HERTZ CORPORATION 27. At ail times material to the action, Defendant, Hertz Corporation, was negligent by and through the careless and/or reckless conduct of their agent, employee, servant, and/or representative, Calvin F. Muller. 21. In a negligence action pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 5524, the Statute of Limitations began to run on the date of injury, or December 17, 1999. If the period of two (2) years has expired following the date of injury, an action for such an injury is barred. 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 5524. 22. Plaintiffs had failed to state a cause of action for vicarious liability in their original Complaint, and are now attempting to avoid the Statute of Limitations which has expired. 23. of failing to allege a cause of action for vicarious liability in the original Complaint may not be later amended after the running of the Statute of Limitations, because it would constitute the introduction of a new cause of action for vicarious liability. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Hertz Corporation, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant its Preliminary Objection as to Plaintiffs' claims against it based upon negligent entmstment, and dismiss any such claim in its entirety. Dated: Defendant seeks a Motion to Strike Count II of Plaintiffs' Complaint as the defect Respectfully submitted, HART~AN, OSBORNE & RETTIG Stacy B. Wolf, Esquirec/ Supreme Ct. I.D. #88732 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorneys for Defendant, Hertz Corporation Exhibit A , and 160 Lane CarliSle, PA 17013 CALVIN F. MULLER Box 213 Glenwillsrd, PA 15046 and HERTZ CORPORATION Detroit Metro. ARPP Bldg 28g-B DeTroit. IL 48242 Plaintiff{s} & Defendant(s} & Address(esi Address(esi TRUE COPY FROM RECORD ~iAECiPE FOR W~rT OF sUMMoNs In TestJmol~y whereof, I he~ unto set my ~ and ~e seal of ~aJd Cou~ at C~rlisle, Pa. ~OO Linales~own Ro~d P.O. l~ox 1177 Harfisbura. PA 17109 - 1717) 238-2000 Name/Address/Telephone No. [~ ... ,. , .. of Attorney ~G~'~-reme Cour~ ID No. 32,2~ TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(SI: YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF(SI HAS/HAVE COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU, Protl~no,arv / /~ ( i C.ec* .e,.,, ,,,,,,'" '""0' .*.,,,o.., ,.,o,...,~ / I ~'~ MARGARET STILLJiand RICHARD STILL, her husband Plaintiffs, (;ALVIN F, MULLER and HERTZ CORPORATION Defendants NO. 01-6641 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE ~ou have been sued in court. If y.~u wish to defend against the claims set forth in the foiiowin9 pages, you must take actioq witl- in twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served: by entering a written appearance ~ersonally 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 fai! to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or re!ief 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 BELOWTO FIND OLIT WHF_RE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. DATE f Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone (717) 249-6166 HAN DEE ,, ~N NIN*9-&. ROSENBERG ~'Linglestown Rd. P.O, Box 60337 Harrisburg, PA 17106 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs KaS/complalnt/~V~till MARGARET STILL and RICHARD STILL, her husband Plaintiffs, CALVIN F. MULLER and HERTZ CORPORATION Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-6641 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Margaret Still and Richard Still, by and through their attorney, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by Gregory M. Feather, Esq., and make the within Complaint against the Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation, as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Margaret Still, is a competent adult individual currently residing at 160 Cedar Lane, Carlisle, Cumberland County, PA 17013. 2. Plaintiff, Richard Still, is a competent adult individual currently residing at 160 Cedar Lane, Carlisle, Cumberland County, PA 17013. 3. Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, is a competent adult individual currently residing at Box 213, Glenwillard, Allegheny County, PA 15046. 4. Defendant, Hertz Corporation, is a corporation currently doing business at Detroit Metro AARP Building, 289B, Detroit, MI 48242. and dry. 6. the weather and road conditions were clear At all tirhes material hereto, Plaintiff, Margaret Still, was the owner and operator of a 1989 Ford Tempo bearing the Pennsylvania Registration Number BTB- 6112 (hereinafter "Plaintiffs' vehicle). Plaintiffs' vehicle was insured by Progressive Insurance Company. 7. Plaintiff, Margaret Still, elected the limited-tort option enumerated in the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. CSA § 1705(a)(1). However, pursuant to Act 6 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law 75 Pa. CSA § 1701 etseq., Plaintiff, Margaret Still, is entitled to seek damages as though she had elected the full-tort alternative, because she sustained injuries as a result of the collision described herein with a vehicle that was registered in Michigan. See 75 Pa. CSA § 1705 (d)(1)(ii). 8. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, was the operator of a 1999 Ford Explorer bearing the Michigan Registration Number NTV 211 (hereinafter "Defendants' vehicle). Defendants' vehicle was owned by Hertz Corporation who is currently doing business at Detroit Metro AARP Building, 289B, Detroit, Michigan 48242. 9. On or about December 17, 1999, at approximately 2:55 pm, Plaintiff was traveling on exit ramp 17 west, off 1-81 waiting to merge on SR 11 south in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 10, 2:55 pm, Defendant was traveling behind Plaintiff on exit ramp 17 west, off 1-81 waiting to merge on SR 11 south in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 11. At approximately that same time and place, while Plaintiff was waiting to merge onto SR 11 south, Defendant started to move forward while looking left. Defendant drove into the rear of Plainti~s vehicle. 12. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation, Plaintiff, Margaret Still, sustained extensive and serious personal injuries, as set forth more specifically below. COUNTI-NEGLIGENCE Marqaret Still v. Calvin F. Muller 13. Plaintiff, Margaret Still, incorporates and makes part of this Complaint paragraphs 1 through 12 above, as if the same were set forth fully below. 14. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and the resultant injuries to the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, generally, and, more specifically, as set forth below: (a) In failing to keep a reasonable lookout for vehicles lawfully traveling on the exit ramp 17 west, off 1-81 waiting to merge on SR 11 south in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County; (b) In failing to be reasonably vigilant in order to observe the stopped vehicles including the Plaintiffs'; (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) and adequate control sothat ~he could aVOid stri~ing the Plaintiffs' vehicle; In failing to operate the vehicle in such a manner so that he could apply his brakes in a manner that would have enabled him to avoid striking the Plaintiffs' vehicle; In failing to take such precautions as a prudent person would take in regard to the speed and control of the vehicle, as he proceeded on the exit ramp 17 west, off 1-81 waiting to merge on SR 11 south in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County; In failing to maintain proper and adequate observation of the existing traffic conditions; In failing to operate a motor vehicle at a speed that was safe for existing weather and road conditions, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3361; In failing to operate said vehicle at a speed and under such control so as to be able to stop within the assured clear distance, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3361; In failing to be continuously alert, in failing to perceive any warning of danger that was reasonably likely to exist, and in failing to have the vehicle under such control that injury to persons of property could be avoided; the rights,and safety of others in strict violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 15. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, sustained personal injuries including, but not limited to, injuries to her neck and right shoulder. 16. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation and from attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation and embarrassment. 17. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has suffered great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotional and financial detriment and loss. 18. As a direct and proximate result of negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforementioned injuries, to expend money for medicine and medical attention, to her great detriment and loss. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss. iligence, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, haS 'incurred lost wages and will in th.e future continue to suffer lost wages and/or a loss of earning capacity. 21. Plaintiff., Margaret Still believes and, therefore, avers that her injuries are permanent and serious in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margaret Still, seeks damages from the Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). COUNT II - NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT Margaret Still v. Hertz Corporation 22. Plaintiff, Margaret Still, incorporates and makes part of this Complaint paragraphs 1 through 21 above, as if the same were set forth fully below. 23. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and the resultant injuries to the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence, carelessness or recklessness of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, acting solely and/or in conjunction with Defendant Calvin F. Muller, generally, and more specifically, as set forth below: (a) (b) In allowing Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, to fail to keep a proper lookout for vehicles on the exit ramp 17 west, off 1-81 waiting to merge on SR 11 south in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County; In allowing Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, to fail to operate his vehicle at such a speed, and under such control, so as to avoid striking Plaintiffs' vehicle; th~;~tr~ffic condit'iSnS then and there existing; and (d) In allowing Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, to fail to operate his vehicle at a speed and under such control, so as to be able to stop within the assured clear distance in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. 3361. 24. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, sustained personal injuries including, but not limited to, injuries to her neck and right shoulder. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation and from attending to her daily duties and chores, to his great loss, humiliation and embarrassment. 26. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has suffered great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotional and financial detriment and loss. 27. As a direct and proximate result of negligence of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforementioned injuries, to expend money for medicine and medical attention to her great detriment and loss. 28. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 7 Plaintiff, Marg lost wages and wiiI in the future co. ntinue to suffer lost wages and/or a loss of earning capacity. 30. Plaintiff, Margaret Still, believes and, therefore, avers that her injuries are permanent and serious in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margaret Still, seeks damages from the Defendant, Hertz Corporation, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). COUNT III - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Marqaret Still v. Calvin F. Muller 31. Plaintiff, Richard Still, incorporates and makes part of this Complaint paragraphs 1 through 30 above, as if the same were set forth fully below. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, the Plaintiff, Richard Still, has suffered a loss of consortium, society and comfort from his wife, and he may continue to suffer similar loss in the future. 33. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, the Plaintiff, Richard Still, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for his wife's injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention, and may be required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Richard Still, seeks damages from the Defendant in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT IV - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Marqaret Still v. Hertz Corporation 34. Plaintiff, Richard Still, incorporates and makes part of this complaint paragraphs 1 through 33 above, as if the same were set forth fully below. 35. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, the Plaintiff, Richard Still, has suffered a loss of consortium, society and comfort from his wife, and he may continue to suffer similar loss in the future. 36. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Hertz Corporation, the Plaintiff, Richard Still, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for his wife's injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention, and may be required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Richard Still, seeks damages from the Defendant, Hertz Corporation, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP Date: By: Gregory M. Feather, Esq. I.D. No. 79456 PO Box 60337 Harrisburg, PA 17106 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs l0 document are base~ .~ ......... gathered by counsel in prep~ation of this lawsuit. The language of the above-named document is of counsel and not our own. We have read the said document and, to the extent that it is based on information that we gave to counsel, it is tree and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the said document is that of counsel, we have relied upon our counsel in preparing this Verification. THE UNDERSIGNED also understand that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) C.S. Section 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. DATE: MAR~ka, R.~ STILL RICHARD STILL I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on the Defendants, CALVIN F. MULLER and HERTZ CORPORATION, by sending a copy of the same to their counsel of record, Kevin E. Osborne, Esq., HARTMAN, OSBORNE & JOYCE, P.C., 126-128 Walnut St., Harrisburg, PA 17101, by United States Mail, regular service, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on '-~'~/~ '/~' ,2002. DATE: N D LER.~'~,i~E N N i~-,.~._~. ~R,~).~E, B ERG. LLP HA~ '-~--~o~ney I.D. #79456 P.O. Box 60337 Harrisburg, PA 17106 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs RIC HARD SI'IL"L, her Plaintift:~, ¥ CALVIN F, MULLER: and HERTZ CORPOR,ATION Defe~da~ts !N THE COUR'r' OF COMMON PLEAS · , JMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL, VANIA '-' u,-6,:,41 CIVIL ACTION . LAW NO I'LC E ~ }u have bean :~ ]e,J r -ourt ' :: ', :,r t_' dele aga,n~t the claims set forth in the follo,,,,~rg [)ages, you ri ust tat:( acti¢~ /,i: !,,~,~r:t.,, ,:'2,~: lJ'/s after this complaint and notice are served I:~,, entering a written aoeearan:e pe:sz:sali2 or b,, ~ttorney and filing in writing with the Court y3~ll' defenses or o~jecdcns tc tt'E - _,a ,,-~ set form against you. You are warned that if you fa~l t) d3 so the case rna! Droceec ,~, ti~out y,L)L~ ar3d ~ ludgmerlt may be entered against you by the court w~thout further nd:se for any 't'gr, ~'/ clai[T~ed ~n the comdaint or for any other claim or relief lequested b';' the P,a riff. ¥ )~ ~- }; ,~:e money :r oroperty or other rights important to you YOUSHQ.,,ILE ~'~,KE D:c P&PER TO fOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOUDO NOTHAVI=ALAWYERORCFNNOTz,FFORD,pNE GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFiCE SET FORTH BELOVVTO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. C,.rnbe'l,~l.J C punt/ Bar Ass.::.c~atio~' 2 Liberty A/enue ,S~rhsle PA ~7013 Te e:hz. qe .'7 I ~ 249-61 Gregor~ eather, Esq. ~ D ~79456 ~ 300 Dnglest~.,vn P 0 Box 60: Hamsburg P?, 17~06 ,717 ...... ~3~-20.0 Attorneys for Plaintiffs LLP MARGARET:STILL and RICHARD STILL, her husband Mo Plaintiffs, CALVIN F. MULLER and HERTZ CORPORATION Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-6641 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Margaret Still and Richard Still, by and through their attorney, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by Gregory M. Feather, Esq., and make the within Complaint against the Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation, as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Margaret Still, is a competent adult individual currently residing at 160 Cedar Lane, Carlisle, Cumberland County, PA 17013. 2. Plaintiff, Richard Still, is a competent adult individual currently residing at 160 Cedar Lane, Carlisle, Cumberland County, PA 17013. 3. Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, is a competent adult individual currently residing at Box 213, Glenwillard, Allegheny County, PA 15046. 4. Defendant, Hertz Corporation is a corporation currently doing business at Detroit Metro AARP Building, 289B, Detroit MI 48242. and dry. 9. Calvin F. Muller, was believed to be an agent, servant, representative, and/or employee of Defendant, Hertz Corporation. 6. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and all of the resultant injuries to Plaintiffs, Margaret and Richard Still, are the direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness of the Defendant, Calvin F. Muller. 7. The aforementioned negligent, careless, and/or reckless conduct of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, occurred while acting in and upon the business of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, and within the course and scope of his employment with said Defendant. At all times material hereto, the weather and road conditions were clear At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Margaret Still, was the owner and operator of a 1989 Ford Tempo bearing the Pennsylvania Registration Number BTB- 6112 (hereinafter "Plaintiffs' vehicle). Plaintiffs' vehicle was insured by Progressive Insurance Company. 10. Plaintiff, Margaret Still, elected the limited-tort option enumerated in the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. CSA § 1705(a)(1). However, pursuant to Act 6 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law 75 Pa. CSA § 1701 etseq., Plaintiff, Margaret Still, is entitled to seek damages as though she had elected the full-tort alternative, because she sustained injuries as a result of the collision described herein with a vehicle that was registered in Michigan. See 75 Pa. CSA § 1705 (d)(1)(ii). ~, was the (~3erator of a 1999 Ford the MiChigan Registration Number N-IV 211 (hereinafter "Defendants' vehicle). Defendants' vehicle was owned by Hertz Corporation, which is currently doing business at Detroit Metro AARP Building, 289B, Detroit, Michigan 48242. 12. On or about December 17, 1999, at approximately 2:55 pm, Plaintiff was traveling on exit ramp 17 west, off 1-81 waiting to merge on SR 11 south in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 13. On or about December 17, 1999, at approximately 2:55 pm, Defendant was traveling behind Plaintiff on exit ramp 17 west, off 1-81 waiting to merge on SR 11 south in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 14. At approximately that same time and place, while Plaintiff was waiting to merge onto SR 11 south, Defendant started to move forward while looking left. Defendant drove into the rear of Plaintiff's vehicle. 15. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation, Plaintiff, Margaret Still, sustained extensive and serious personal injuries, as set forth more specifically below. _COUNT I - NEGLIGENCF Marqaret Still v. Calvin F. Muller 16. Plaintiff, Margaret Still, incorporates and makes part of this Complaint paragraphs I through 15 above, as if the same were set forth fully below. [injuries ~lirectly and proximately by the negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, generally, and, more specifically, as set forth below: (a) In failing to keep a reasonable lookout for vehicles lawfully traveling on the exit ramp 17 west, off 1-81 waiting to merge on SR 11 south in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County; (b) In failing to be reasonably vigilant in order to observe the stopped vehicles including the Plaintiffs'; (c) In failing to operate the vehicle under proper and adequate control so that he could avoid striking the Plaintiffs' vehicle; (d) In failing to operate the vehicle in such a manner so that he could apply his brakes in a manner that would have enabled him to avoid striking the Plaintiffs' vehicle; (e) In failing to take such precautions as a prudent person would take in regard to the speed and control of the vehicle, as he proceeded on the exit ramp 17 west, off 1-81 waiting to merge on SR 11 south in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County; (f) In failing to maintain proper and adequate observation of the existing traffic conditions; (g) In failing to operate a motor vehicle at a speed that was safe for existing weather and road conditions, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3361; (h) In failing to operate said vehicle at a speed and under such 4 ice, (i) In'failing to be continuously alert, in failing to perceive any warning of danger that was reasonably likely to exist, and in failing to have the vehicle under such control that injury to persons of property could be avoided; (j) In driving the vehicle upon the streets in a manner endangering persons and property, and in a manner with careless disregard to the rights and safety of others in strict violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 18. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, sustained personal injuries including, but not limited to, injuries to her neck and right shoulder. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation and from attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation and embarrassment. 20. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has suffered great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotional and financial detriment and loss. a cure for the for med cine and medical attention, to her aforem~htioned ~ great detriment and loss. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 23. As a direct and proximate result of said Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has incurred lost wages and will in the future continue to suffer lost wages and/or a loss of earning capacity. 24. Plaintiff, Margaret Still believes and, therefore, avers that her injuries are permanent and serious in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margaret Still, seeks damages from the Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). COUNT II - NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT Margaret Still v, Hertz Corporation 25. Plaintiff, Margaret Still, incorporates and makes part of this Complaint paragraphs I through 24 above, as if the same were set forth fully below. 26. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and the resultant injuries to the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence, carelessness or recklessness of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, acting solely and/or in conjunction with Defendant Calvin F. Muller, generally, and more specifically, as set forth below: (b) In allowing Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, to fail to operate his vehicle at such a speed, and under such control, so as to avoid striking Plaintiffs' vehicle; (c) In allowing Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, to fail to properly observe the traffic conditions then and there existing; and (d) In allowing Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, to fail to operate his vehicle at a speed and under such control, so as to be able to stop within the assured clear distance in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. 3361. 27. At all times material to the action, Defendant, Hertz Corporation, was negligent by and through the careless and/or reckless conduct of their agent, employee, servant, and/or representative, Calvin F. Muller. 28. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, sustained personal injuries including, but not limited to, injuries to her neck and right shoulder. 29. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation and from attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation and embarrassment. :)SS. ant, Hertz the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has been compelled, in order to effec:l a cure for the aforementioned injuries, to expend money for medicine and medical at:ent~on, to her great detriment and loss. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence cf Defendar~: Corporation, the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has suffered a loss of life's pleasu,e~ will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss 33. As a direct and proximate result of said Defendant's neDli;~nc~. Plaintiff, Margaret Still, has incurred lost wages and will in the future contim~e t:: suffer lost wages and/or a loss of earning capacity. 34. Plaintiff, Margaret Still, believes and, therefore, avers thai permanent and serious in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margaret Still, seeks damages from the g'e:epdan: Hertz Corporation, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollam ~25 .COUNT III - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM ~Marqaret Still v. Calvin F. MUller~ 35. Plaintiff, Richard Still, incorporates and makes part of this paragraphs 1 through 34 above, as if the same were set forth fully I:elow. 37. As a dire~ and proximate result ( !, Calvin F. Muller, the Plaintiff, Richard Still, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for his wife's injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention, and may be required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Richard Still, seeks damages from the Defendant in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT IV- LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Marqaret Still v, Hertz Corporation 38. Plaintiff, Richard Still, incorporates and makes part of this complaint paragraphs I through 37 above, as if the same were set forth fully below. 39. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, the Plaintiff, Richard Still, has suffered a loss of consortium, society and comfort from his wife, and he may continue to suffer similar loss in the future. 40. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Hertz Corporation, the Plaintiff, Richard Still, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for his wife's injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical exclusive of interest and costs. Date: Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HE~ lNG & ROS~/~B-~RG, LLP Harrisburg, PA 17106 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 10 I nOt Our own. We and, to the extent that it is based on infounation that we gave to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the said document is that of counsel, we have relied upon our counsel in preparing this Verification. THE UNDERSIGNED also understand that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE: x ~ RICHARD STILL CERTIFICATE OF SERVIGF I hereby certify that a true and~0brr~ct copy 'of the fore( the Defendants, CALVIN F. MULLER, and HERTZ copy of the same to their counsel OSBORNE & JOYCE, P.C., 126-128 States Mail :E. OsbOrn arrisburg, PA ~?101, by DATE: ~-~go/ry M. Feather, Esq. A/:t0rney I.D. #79456 ~'----""~.O. Box 60337 Harrisburg, PA 17106 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs LLP I, Stacy B. Wolf, Esquire, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requiremems of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, as follows: Gregory M. Feather, Esquire 1300 Linglestown Road P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Dated: HARTMAN, OSBORNE & RETTIG Stacy B. XYqolf, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. # 88732 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717)232-3046 Attomeys for Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation uo!lmod~oD zl~OH ptm aallniAI '~I U.IAIg~) 'sltrepuajaG ~oj s,(omollv (sfft. Ju!vld ~of lasunoo) 80ILI Vd 'lt:mqsv~H LLI I xo[I 'O'd p~o~t u~olsoI~U!~I 00£ ~ o~!nbs~t 'SOtll~O~I 'IAI ,CaoBoJO :SmOllOJ s~ 'p.mdo:~d o~msod ss~Io-lsaB 'I.mm salins pol!Ufl oql m. au. ms jo Xdoo u Su!l.tsodop/~q 'ompooo:td I!^!D jo soInkI u!tm~IKSUUOd oql jo sluamo~!nboa oql smjs!lus OmA~OS q*!q~ '~aOlOq pol~*!pu! ~ammtu *ql u! pue (s)uosaod oql uodn luomn~op ~m.o~osoj oql jo ~do~ ~ ~u!/uos X~p s!ql tug I letll ~!l.to~ Xqmoq 'm!nbs~t 'JIOA5 'g X~mS 'I PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be tyl~tt~ and su~tted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Pl~mme list thewithinmatterforthe next Argt~sentCourt. CAPTION OF CASE (entire c~ption must be stated in b,ll) Margaret Still and Richard Still ( p1 ai ntiff ) Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation ( Defer~ant ) No. 01-6641 Civil 19 State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new t~ia], defendant's de~m~'~r to c~,~]a~nt, etc.): Preliminary Objections of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. 2. Identify counsel who w~ ] ] argue case: (a) for plaintiff: Gregory M. Feather, Esquire Address: 1300 Linglestown Road P.O. Box 60337 Harrisburg, PA 17106 (b) for defendant: Stacy B. Wolf, Esquire ;u~,~ss: 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 3. I w~ll notify All parties in writingwithin tm~days that thim case b~m been li~ted for ar~t. 4. Argtm~.nt Court Date: August 28, 2002 Dated: ey OrDefe~dant , MARGARET STILL and RICHARD STILL, her husband Plaintiffs, CALVIN F. MULLER and HERTZ CORPORATION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-6641 CIVIL ClVlL ACTION- LAW Defendants : MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Margaret Still and Richard Still, by and through their attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by Gregory M. Feather, Esq., and hereby move this Honorable Court to compel the Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation, to file complete and responsive Answers to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents and, in support thereof, avers the following: 1. Plaintiff, Margaret Still, is a competent adult individual currently residing at 160 Cedar Lane, Carlisle, Cumberland County, PA 17013. 2. Plaintiff, Richard Still, is a competent adult individual currently residing at 160 Cedar Lane, Carlisle, Cumberland County, PA 17013. 3. Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, is a competent adult individual currently residing at Box 213, Glenwillard, Allegheny County, PA 15046. 4. Defendant, Hertz Corporation, is a corporation currently doing business at Detroit Metro AARP Building, 289B, Detroit, MI 48242. 5. On or about December 17, 1999, at approximately 2:55 pm, Plaintiff was traveling on exit ramp 17 west, off 1-81, waiting to merge on SR 11 south in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, when the Defendant drove into the rear of Plaintiff's vehicle. 6. On or about November 27, 2001, Plaintiffs filed a Praecipe for Writ of Summons in this matter. 7. On or about May 15, 2002, Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation, were served with Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. 8. As set out in a letter dated June 19, 2002, attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked "Exhibit A, Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation, were advised, by the Plaintiffs, that their Response to Discovery was past due. 9. As set out in a letter dated June 24, 2002, attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked" Exhibit B), Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation, advised the Plaintiffs they were in the process of responding to their Discovery request. 10. As set out in a letter dated July 1, 2002, attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked "Exhibit C), Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation, were given to July 15, 2002 to Respond to Discovery, which was thirty (30) days beyond the original due date. 11. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4006(2), the party answering Interrogatories "...shall serve a copy of the answers, and objections if any, within 30 days after service." 2 12. Pursuant to Pa.R.Civ. P. 4009.12(a), "[t]he party upon whom the request is served shall within thirty days after service of the request (1) serve an answer including objections to each numbered paragraph in the request, and (2) produce or make available to the party submitting the request those documents and things described in the request to which there is no objection." 13. As of the date of this Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs have not received a response to their First Set of Interrogatories or their Requests for Production of Documents from Defendants. 14. Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and their Requests for Production of Documents should have been served on or before June 14th, 2002. 15. Well over thirty (30) days have passed since Plaintiffs served Defendants' with their Interrogatories and their Requests for Production of Documents: in fact, over 67 days have passed. 16. Plaintiffs believe, and, therefore, aver, that the information that could be gained by the responses to their First Set of Interrogatories and their Requests for Production of Documents is necessary and vital in order for them to properly litigate their claim. 17. In order to complete discovery and move this action expeditiously, Plaintiffs respectfully submit this Motion to Compel Discovery. 18. Assuming arguendo that this Honorable Court does not grant the foregoing motion, Plaintiffs respectfully request a Discovery Conference. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Margaret Still and Richard Still, respectfully request that this Honorable Court issue an Order, compelling Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation, to respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents within twenty (20) days or suffer such sanctions as this Honorable Court may deem just. Date:~0Z--'~ Respectfully submitte/~~~ JGre~ory M. Feather, Esq. (' A~pCney I.D. #79456 "---r300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 A~orneys for Plaintiffs DOh 12117/1999 LIM Date: 11/26/2001 ~, Case Type: MVA Ii Still, Ms. Margaret A. Case #: 204240 Class: YEL Assigned: GMF Date ORened: 1/6/2000 [ Page 1 of 1 7/18/2002 11:01 AM Date: 06/19/2002 12:26 PM June 19, 2002 Staff: VFF Case Note - Pa.qe 86 of 92. Topic: CORRESPONDENCE Stacy F. Wolf, Esq. Hartman, Osborne & Joyce, P.C. 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 E~RE:E)Margaret A. Still v. Calvin Muller and Hertz U[]Cumberland Co. No. 01-6641 DDCivil Action - Law; Jury Trial Demanded Dear Ms. Wolf: In response to the Preliminary Objections that you filed on May 30, 2002, on behalf of Defendant Hertz Corporation, please find enclosed a copy of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, which is being filed today and herewith served upon you. I have attempted, in the past several days, through conversations with you and your staff, to obtain a Stipulation or Affidavit from Defendant, Calvin Muller, that he was not an employee of Hertz Corporation at the time of the accident. If Mr. Muller was not an employee of Hertz Corporation, I would be more than willing to voluntarily dismiss Hertz Corporation from this action. However, since you refuse to provide me with such a document, stating that he was not an employee, I am forced to file an Amended Complaint an(f name him as an employee, to protect my client's rights to recover from Hertz Corporation. Furthermore, my Discovery requests, which were filed on May 15th, are now past due. Therefore, I would appreciate your advising me of the expected timeframe for your producing this Discovery to our office. If I do not hear from you within the next seven days advising when you can produce this Discovery, I will be forced to file a Motion to Compel this information. Lastly, I am requesting that you file a Praecipe to remove your Preliminary Objections from the Argument Court list, since the filing of my Amended Complaint now makes your preliminary objections moot. If you have any questions regarding this, please do not hesitate to contact me. Q [] ~ ~ [] ~] uVery truly yours, O[]UUU[]UHANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG •U[~[][]~F~ UEICUDc[~Gregory M. Feather GMF/vff/enclosure cc: E]Margaret A. Still 160 Cedar Lane Carlisle, PA 17013 HARTMAN, OSBORNE & RETTIG ATTORNEYS AT LAW 126-128 WALNUT STREET, HARRISBURG, PA 17101 · TELEPHONE (717) 232-3046 · FACSIMILE (717) 232-3538 JACK M. HARTMAN KEVIN E. OSBORNE JEFFREY B. REYT1G AMY C. FOERSTER CINDY L. lqICHOLSON STACY B. WOLF OF COUNSEL MELINDA S, ]oYCE WRITER'S EXTENSION: 102 wRITER'S E-MALL ADDRESS: swolf~)~hoslawpa.com June 24,2002 Gregory M. Feather, Esquire 1300 Linglestown Road P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Re: Margaret Still and Richard Still v. Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation No.: 01-6641 anticipated cooperation in this matter. Dear Mr. Feather: Please allow this to serve as a response to your concern over Discovery requests voiced in your letter dated June 19, :2002. We are in the process of responding to your Discovery requests. We will produce this Discovery to your office as soon as we are able. Thank you for your Vekw truly yqurs, Stacy B. Wolf Case Type: MVA DOI: 12/17/1999 LIM Date: 11/26/2001 ~, Still, Ms. Margaret A. Case #: 204240 " Class: YEL Assigned: GMF Date ORened: 1/6/2000~ Page 1 of 1 7/18/2002 11:00 AM Date: 07/01/2002 02:20 PM July 1, 2002 Staff: VFF Case Note - Pa.qe 88 of 92. Topic: CORRESPONDENCE Stacy B. Wolf, Esq. Hartman, Osborne & Rettig 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 nRE:E~Still v. Muller and Hertz CE]No. 01-6641 Dear Ms. Wolf: I received your June 24, 2002, correspondence, with regard to my request that you provide our office with responses to Plalnb Discovery requests. You indicated in your letter that you would provide our office with this Discovery as soon as you were able to do so, however, you failed to indicate a date by which you could provide these Discovery responses. I believe it is reasonable to expect that you could produce the Discovery by July 15, 2002, which would give you an extra 30 days beyond the original due date. If you fail to provide answers to these Discovery requests by that date, I will be forced to file a Motion to Compel. If you have any questions, please contact me accordingly. ~ Lq [] ~] [] [? [;Very truly yours, ~E]LqUCE]UHANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP OOOOOOE] O0[0OOE]oGregory M, Feather GMF/vff cc:DMargaret A. Still 160 Cedar Lane Carlisle, PA 17013 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on the Defendants, CALVIN F. MULLER, and HERTZ CORPORATION, by sending a copy of the same to their counsel of record, Kevin E. Osborn, Esq., HARTMAN, OSBORNE & JOYCE, P.C., 126-128 Walnut St., Harrisburg, PA 17101, by United States Mail, return receipt requested, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on July 22, 2002. HANDLER HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By --Grego~ MJ Feather, q. Attorney I.D. #79456 P.O. Box 60337 Harrisburg, PA 17106 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs MARGARET STILL and RICHARD STILL, her husband Plaintiffs, CALVIN F. MULLER and HERTZ CORPORATION Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ,. : NO. 01-6641 CIVIL ., ,. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND.. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMLNTS. AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Margaret Still and Richard Still, by and through their attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by Gregory M. Feather, Esq., and hereby move this Honorable Court to compel the Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation, to file complete and responsive Answers to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents and, in support thereof, avers the following: 1. Plaintiff, Margaret Still, is a competent adult individual currently residing at 160 Cedar Lane, Carlisle, Cumberland County, PA 17013. 2. Plaintiff, Richard Still, is a competent adult individual currently residing at 160 Cedar Lane, Carlisle, Cumberland County, PA 17013. 3. Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, is a competent adult individual currently residing at Box 213, Glenwillard, Allegheny County, PA 15046. 4. Defendant, Hertz Corporation, is a corporation currently doing business at Detroit Metro AARP Building, 289B, Detroit, MI 48242. 5. On or about December 17, 1999, at approximately 2:55 pm, Plaintiff was traveling on exit ramp 17 west, off 1-81, waiting to merge on SR 11 south in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, when the Defendant drove into the rear of Plaintiff's vehicle. 6. On or about November 27, 2001, Plaintiffs filed a Praecipe for Writ of Summons in this matter. 7. On or about May 15, 2002, Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation, were served with Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. 8. As set out in a letter dated June 19, 2002, attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked "Exhibit A, Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation, were advised, by the Plaintiffs, that their Response to Discovery was past due. 9. As set out in a letter dated June 24, 2002, attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked" Exhibit B), Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation, advised the Plaintiffs they were in the process of responding to their Discovery request. 10. As set out in a letter dated July 1, 2002, attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked "Exhibit C), Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation, were given to July 15, 2002 to Respond to Discovery, which was thirty (30) days beyond the original due date. 11. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4006(2), the party answering Interrogatories "...shall serve a copy of the answers, and objections if any, within 30 days after service." 12. Pursuant to Pa.R.Civ. P. 4009.12(a), "[t]he party upon whom the request is served shall within thirty days after service of the request (1) serve an answer including objections to each numbered paragraph in the request, and (2) produce or make available to the party submitting the request those documents and things described in the request to which there is no objection." 13. As of the date of this Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs have not received a response to their First Set of Interrogatories or their Requests for Production of Documents from Defendants, 14. Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and their Requests for Production of Documents should have been served on or before June 14th, 2002. 15. Well over thirty (30) days have passed since Plaintiffs served Defendants' with their Interrogatories and their Requests for Production of Documents: in fact, over 67 days have passed. 16. Plaintiffs believe, and, therefore, aver, that the information that could be gained by the responses to their First Set of Interrogatories and their Requests for Production of Documents is necessary and vital in order for them to properly litigate their claim. 17. In order to complete discovery and move this action expeditiously, Plaintiffs respectfully submit this Motion to Compel Discovery. 18. Assuming arguendo that this Honorable Court does not grant the foregoing motion, Plaintiffs respectfully request a Discovery Conference. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Margaret Still and Richard Still, respectfully request that this Honorable Court issue an Order, compelling Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation, to respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents within twenty (20) days or suffer such sanctions as this Honorable Court may deem just. Date: 7/~'~ ~'/O~''''' Respectfully submitt~ /Gre-~.~ory M. Feather, Esq. / Att~ney I.D. ¢79456 ~00 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 AAorneys for Plaintiffs 4 S~iii~' Ms. Margaret A. Case Type: MVA DOI: 12/17/1999 LIM Date: 11/26/2001 Case #: 204240 "__ Class: YEL Assigned: GMF Date ORened: !/6/2000 7/18/2002 11:01 AM Page 1 of 1 Date: 06/19/2002 12:26 PM June 19, 2002 Staff: VFF Case Note - Pa.qe 86 of 92 Topic: CORRESPONDENCE Stacy F. Wolf, Esq. Hartman, Osborne & Joyce, P.C. 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 D RE:E}Margaret A. Still v. Calvin Muller and Hertz DE}Cumberland Co. No. 01-6641 [] •Civil Action - Law; Jury Trial Demanded Dear Ms. Wolf: In response to the Preliminary Objections that you filed on May 30, 2002, on behalf of Defendant Hertz Corporation, please find enclosed a copy of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, which is being filed today and herewith served upon you. I have attempted, in the past several days, through conversations with you and your staff, to obtain a Stipulation or Affidavit from Defendant, Calvin Muller, that he was not an employee of Hertz Corporation at the time of the accident. If Mr. Muller was not an employee of Hertz Corporation, I would be more than willing to voluntarily dismiss Hertz Corporation from this action. However, since you refuse to provide me with such a document, stating that he was not an employee, I am forced to file an Amended Complaint an(f name him as an employee, to protect my client's rights to recover from Hertz Corporation. Furthermore, my Discovery requests, which were filed on May 15th, are now past due. Therefore, I would appreciate your advising me of the expected timeframe for your producing this Discovery to our office. If I do not hear from you within the next seven days advising when you can produce this Discovery, I will be forced to file a Motion to Compel this information. Lastly, I am requesting that you file a Praecipe to remove your Preliminary Objections from the Argument Court list, since the filing of my Amended Complaint now makes your preliminary objections moot. If you have any questions regarding this, please do not hesitate to contact me. [] E} [] [] [] [] [3Very truly yours, []•[][]•••HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG DDE]QDDD D[][]DDDDGregory M. Feather GMF/vff/enclosure cc: r~Margaret A. Still 160 Cedar Lane Carlisle, PA 17013 HARTMAN, OSBORNE & RETTIG ATTORNEYS AT LAW 126-128 WALNUT STREET, HARRISBURG, PA 17101 ° TELEPHONE (717) 232-3046 · FACSIMILE (717) 232-3538 JACK M. HARTMAN KEVIN E. OSBORNE JEFFREY B. RJzl IiG AMY C. FOERSTER CINDY L. NICHOLSON STACY B. WOLF OF COUNSEL MELINDA S. JOYCE WRITER'S EXTENSION: 102 WR1TER'S E-MAIL ADDRESS: swolf~hoslawpa, com June 24,2002 Gregory M. Feather, Esquire 1300 Linglestown Road P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Re: Margaret Still and Richard Still v. Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation No.: 01-6641 Dear Mr. Feather: Please allow this to serve as a response to your concern over Discovery requests voiced in your letter dated June 19, 2002. We are in the process of responding to your Discovery requests. We will produce this Discovery to your office as soon as we are able. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Very truly yo~urs, Stacy B. Wolf -' Sti i Ms. Margaret A Case Type: MVA DOI: 12/17/1999 LIM Date: 11/26/2001 Case #: 204240 .... Class: YEL Assigned: GMF Date Op.~ned: 1./.6/2000 7/18/2002 11:00 AM Page 1 of 1 Date: 07/01/2002 02:20 PM July 1,2002 Staff: VFF Case Note - Pa.qe 88 of 92 Topic: CORRESPONDENCE Stacy B. Wolf, Esq. Hartman, Osborne & Rettig 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 []RE:[]Still v. Muller and Hertz []E]NO. 01-6641 Dear Ms. Wolf: I received your June 24, 2002, correspondence, with regard to my request that you provide our office with responses to Plaintiffs' Discovery requests. You indicated in your letter that you would provide our office with this Discovery as soon as you were able to do so, however, you failed to indicate a date by which you could provide these Discovery responses. I believe it is reasonable to expect that you could produce the Discovery by July 15, 2002, which would give you an extra 30 days beyond the original due date. If you fail to provide answers to these Discovery requests by that date, I will be forced to file a Motion to Compel. If you have any questions, please contact me accordingly. D[][]E]E]E][]Very truly yours, DUE]E~E][]CHANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP E]DDE]~]DD D D D [] E] [] DGregory M. Feather GMF/vff cc: []Margaret A. Still 160 Cedar Lane Carlisle, PA 17013 _CERTIFICATE OF SERVICF I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on the Defendants, CALVIN F. MULLER, and HERTZ CORPORATION, by sending a copy of the same to their counsel of record, Kevin E. Osborn, Esq., HARTMAN, OSBORNE & JOYCE, P.C., 126-128 Walnut St., Harrisburg, PA 17101, by United States Mail, return receipt requested, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on July 22, 2002. HANDLER HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP Attorney I.D. #79456 P.O. Box 60337 Harrisburg, PA 17106 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs s~!]U!~ld JO~ s/~euJo~,v .--Z 0/L.~/L.:3.L¥C] '~o0~ '~: ~lnr uo e!ueAl~SUUad '§JnqspJeH u! 'pa3sanbaJ ld!aoaJ uJrl:),~)j 'l!e~ sa3e~s Pa3!ul3 Xq ' ~0 ~Z ~ Vd '6Jnqs!JJeH "39 3nuleAA ~;~ ~-9~ ~ "O'd '3oAor 'g :IN~IOSSO 'N¥1/~±~IVH "bs3 'uJoqso '3 U!Aa>I 'pJooaJ JO lasunoo J!aql ol aLues aq3 ~o Xdoo e §u!puas Aq 'NOIIV'dOcl~lOO ZI~I3H pue '~13'1-113lA1 '_-I NIA-I¥O 'siuepuajaC] uo peAJas se~A 3uagunoop §u!o§aJoj aqi ~o Xdoo loaJJoo pue an J3 e 3eqi Kj!~JaO XqaJaq I :~OIA~IBS =10 3.1.VOI=tlJ.~I30 MARGARET STILL and RICHARD STILL, her husband Plaintiffs, CALVIN F. MULLER and HERTZ CORPORATION Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ,, ., : NO. 01-6641 CIVIL .. ., : CIVIL ACTION - LAW ., _. ORDER AND NOW, this 2--'~'-day of~, 2002, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation, respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogat.ories and Requests for Production of Documents within ~. <9 days of the isoprene-of this Order. Failure to do so will subject Defendants to sanctions as set forth in Pa.R.C.P. Rule 4019. BY THE COURT: MARGARET STILL and RICHARD STILL, her husband PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs, CALVIN F. MULLER and HERTZ CORPORATION Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NO. 01-6641 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the July 29, 2002, Order, signed by the Honorable Kevin A. Hess, Judge, regarding the compelling answers to Discovery was served on the Defendants, CALVIN F. MULLER, and HERTZ CORPORATION, by hand-delivering a copy of the same to their counsel of record, Kevin E. Osborne, Esq., HARTMAN, OSBORNE & JOYCE, P.C., 126-128 Walnut St., Harrisburg, PA 17101, on August 1, 2002. (~ eg(~ry M. Feather, Esq. Harrisburg, PA 17110 (7t7) 238-2000 DATE: // Attorneys for Plaintiffs MARGARET STILL and RICHARD STILL, her husband Plaintiffs, CALVIN F. MULLER and HERTZ CORPORATION Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-6641 CIVIL ClVlL ACTION- LAW PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT, HERTZ CORPORATION'S, PREI,IMINARY OBJECTION~ AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Margaret and Richard Still, and hereby file this response to preliminary objections to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint filed by Defendant, Hertz Corporation, and aver the following in support thereof. DEFENDANT, HERTZ CORPORATION'S, PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO THE PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT IS SUFFICIENT 1N PLEADING ALL NECESSARY ELEMENTS OF EACH CLAIM? I. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. Ao DEFENDANT, HERTZ CORPORATION'S, PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO THE PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM OF NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT IS SUFFICIENT 1N PLEADING ALL NECESSARY ELEMENTS OF EACH CLAIM.'? 8. 9. 10. 11. demanded at trial 12. demanded at trial 13. demanded at trial 14. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted Admitted. Denied. The averments is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is Denied. The averments is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is Denied. The averments is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is Denied. Plaintiffs' specifically deny that the Defendant, Hertz Corporation, did rent the vehicle to Defendant Muller but that Defendant Muller was using the vehicle in the scope and furtherance of his employment. 15. Denied. The averments is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial DEFENDANT, HERTZ CORPORATION'S, PRELIMINARY OBJECTION STATING THAT THE AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGED A NEW CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT IS NOT ALLEGING A NEW CAUSE OF ACTION? 16. Admitted. 17. Denied. When the proposed amendment does not change the cause of action but merely amplifies that which has already been averred, it should be allowed even though the statute has run. _Connor v. Allegheny General Hospital, 501 Pa. 306 (1983); See also, _Schaffer v. Larzelere, 410 Pa. 402, 406-07 (1963). 18. Admitted. 19. Denied. The amended complaint is merely amplifying the vicarious liability cause of action that has already been averred less specifically and not adding a new cause of action. 20. Admitted. 21. Admitted. 22. Denied. The amended complaint is merely amplifying the vicarious liability cause of action that has already been averred less specifically and not adding a new cause of action. 23. demanded at trial Denied. The averments is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is WHEREFORE, Plaintiffrespectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Defendant's preliminary objections and enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs. Date: Respectfully Submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiffs VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.C.P. No. 1024(c) GREGORY M. FEATHER, ESQ. states that he is the attorney for the party filing the foregoing document; that he makes this Complaint as an attorney and verifies that it is correct and accurate to the best of his knowledge, information and belief and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A., Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ..CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a tree and correct copy of Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Preliminary Objections upon counsel ofrecord on this ? day 2002, by placing the same in the U.S. first class mail, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania addressed as follows: Calvin F. Muller Hertz Corporation c/o Kevin Osborn, Esq. Hartman, Osborne & Joyce, P.C. 126-128 Walnut St. Harrisburg, PA 17101 Date: Respectfully submitted, By: ~ ~,~ ~/.?A_~.~` ~ Gr&gory M. Feather, Esquire / I.D?No. 79456 "~ t~3'00 Linglestown Rd Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff MARGARET STILL and RICHARD STILL, her husband, Plaintiffs VS. CALVIN F. MULLER and HERTZ CORPORATION, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 01-6641 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF THE DEFENDANT, HERTZ CORPORATION BEFORE BAYLEY AND HESS, J.J. ORDER AND NOW, this JZ o, day of November, 2002, the preliminary objections of defendant, Hertz Corporation, to Count II of the plaintiffs' amended complaint is SUSTAINED, and said count is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT, ~Foregory M. Feather, Esquire r the Plaintiffs /d~evin E. Osborne, Esquire For Defendant Hertz Corporation :rim 11-13-05L MARGARET STILL and RICHARD STILL, her husband, Plaintiffs VS. CALVIN F. MULLER and HERTZ CORPORATION, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COErNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 01-6641 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION -LAW 1N RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF THE DEFENDANT, HERTZ CORPORATION BEFORE BAYLEY AND HESS, J.J. OPINION AND ORDER Before the court are the preliminary objections of the defendant, Hertz Corporation, to the plaintiffs' amended complaint. This action arises from a rnotor vehicle accident which occurred on December 17, 1999. Plaintiff, Margaret Still, alleged in her complaint that she was traveling on exit ramp No. 17 of Interstate 81, attempting to merge onto SR11, when her vehicle was rear-ended by the defendants' vehicle. The plaintiff claims to have suffered serious injuries from the accident at issue and claims, further, that such injuries were proximately caused by the defendants' negligence. The applicable portion of Count II of plaintiff's amended complaint is as follows: 26. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and the resultant injuries to the Plaintiff, Margaret Still, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence, carelessness or recklessness of Defendant, Hertz Corporation, acting solely and/or in conjunction with Defendant Calvin F. Muller, generally, and more specifically, as set forth below: (a) In allowing Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, to fail to keep a proper lookout for vehicle:; on the exit ramp 17 west, offI-81 waiting to merge on SR 01-6641 CIVIL 11 south in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County; (b) In allowing Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, to fail to operate his vehicle at such a speed, and under such control, so as to avoid striking Plaintiffs' vehicle; (c) In allowing Defendant, Calvin F. Mul.ler, to fail to properly observe the traffic conditions then and there existing; and (d) In allowing Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, to fail to operate his vehicle at a speed and under such control, so as to be able to stop within the assured clear distance in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. 3361. 27. At all times material to the action, Defendant, Hertz Corporation, was negligent by and through the careless and/or reckless conduct of their agent, employee, servant, and/or representative, Calvin F. Muller. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, ¶ 26, 27. The defendant's preliminary objections to plaintiffs' amended complaint seeks dismissal of Count II of plaintiffs' amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This count alleges a cause of action against Hertz Corporation based upon a theory of negligent entrustment. Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a) (4), a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer is an appropriate means of challenging the legal insufficiency of a pleading. A preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer can be sustained and a complaint dismissed when the complaint is clearly insufficient on its face to establish the pleader's right to relief. Wurth v. City of Philadelphia, 136 Pa. Commw. 629, 584 A.2d 403 (1990). 01-6641 CIVIL A negligent entrustment occurs where one permits "a third person to use a thing or to engage in an activity which is under the control of the actor, if the actor knows or should know that such person intends or is likely to use the thing or to conduct himself in the activity in such a manner as to create an unreasonable risk of haxm to others." Re:statement (Second) of Torts §308; Christiansen v. Silfies, 446 Pa. Super. 464, 472-473,667 A.2d 396 (1995). In Count II of plaintiff's amended complaint, plaintiff attempts to state a claim of negligent entrustment against the defendant, Hertz Corporation. The amended complaint alleges that plaintiff's injuries were caused by the "negligence, carelessness or recklessness of defendant, Hertz Corporation, acting solely and/or in conjunction with defendant, Calvin F. Muller." The amended complaint makes no factual averments with regard to whether the Hertz Corporation knew or should have known that Calvin F. Muller, the operator of the vehicle involved in the accident with plaintiff, intended to or was likely to use the Hertz vehicle in such a manner as to create an unreasonable risk of harm to others. In fiict, the complaint fails to even make such an allegation. In short, the complaint is void of any of the elements of negligent entmstment. Count II fails to state a claim upon which relief cma be granted. ORDER AND NOW, this /g.4 day of November, 2002, the preliminary objections of defendant, Hertz Corporation, to Count II of the plaintiffs' amended complaint is SUSTAINED, and said count is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT, Hess, J. 01-6641 CIVIL Gregory M. Feather, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire For Defendant Hertz Corporation :rlm MARGARET STILL AND RICHARD STILL Plaintiffs Vo CALVIN F. MULLER AND HERTZ CORPORATION Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERI_,AND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.: 01-6;641 NOTICE TO PLEAD You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer and New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, HARTMAN, OSBORNE & RETTIG, P.C. By: Kevin E. OSbome, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #34991 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 717-232-3046 Dated: November 19, 2002 Attorney for Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation MARGARET STILL AND RICHARD STILL Plaintiffs CALVIN F. MULLER AND HERTZ CORPORATION Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.: 01-6641 ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT MULLER TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Calvin F. Muller, by and through his attomeys, Hartman, Osbome& Rettig, P.C., and in response to Plaintiffs' Complaint avers as follows: 1-2. After reasonable investigation, Defendant lacks information and knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 2 of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. The averments are therefore denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 3. Admitted. 4. This Defendant is no longer a party to this lawsuit and no response is required of this allegation. 5. Admitted. 6. The averments of Paragraph 6 are denied in accordance with Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 7. The averments of Paragraph 7 state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer is deemed required, the averments are denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. The Defendant incorporates herein by reference his answer to Paragraph 5 above as if set forth at length. 8-15. The averments of Paragraphs 8 through 15 are denied in accordance with Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE Margaret Still v. Calvin Muller 16. The Defendant incorporates herein by reference his answers to Paragraphs 1 through 15 above as if set forth at length. 17. The averments of Paragraph 17 state conclusion's of law to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the averments are denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial. It is specifically denied that Defendant Muller was negligent: (a) In failing to keep a reasonable lookout for vehicles lawfully traveling on the exit ramp 17 west offI-81 waiting to merge on SR 11 south in Middlesex Township, Cumberland C. ounty; (b) In failing to be reasonably vigilant in order to observe the stopped vehicles including the Plaintiffs; (c) In failing to operate the vehicle under proper and adequate control so that he could avoid striking the Plaintiffs' vehicle; (d) In failing to operate the vehicle in such a manner so that he could apply his brakes in a manner that would have enabled him to avoid striking the Plaintiffs' vehicle; (e) In failing to take such precautions as a prudent person would take in regard to the speed and control of the vehicle, as he proceeded on the exit ramp 17 west, offI-81 waiting to merge on SR 11 south in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County; -2- (0 In failing to maintain proper and adequate observation of the existing traffic conditions; (g) In failing to operate a motor vehicle at a speed that was safe for existing weather and road conditions, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3361; (h) In failing to operate said vehicle at a speed and ~mder such control as to be able to stop within the assured clear distance, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3361; (i) In failing to be continuously alert, in failing to perceive any warning of danger that was reasonably likely to exist, and in failing to have the vehicle under such control that injury to person sof property could be avoided; and 0) In driving the vehicle upon the streets in am maaaner endangering persons and property, and in a manner with careless disregard to the fights and safety of others in strict violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 18-23. While denying any negligence on his part, the Defendant states that after reasonable investigation, he is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraphs 18 through 23 and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 24. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or infmmation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 24 and proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at trial. Any implication that the Plaintiffs' injuries are permanent and serious is denied in accordance with Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff. -3- COUNT II - NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT Margaret Still v. Hertz Corporation 25-34. The Court has stricken this Count. COUNT III - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Margaret Still v. Calvin Mulller 35. The Defendant incorporates herein by reference his answers to Paragraphs 1 through 34 above as if set forth at length. 36-37. While denying any negligence on the part of Answering Defendant, he states that after reasonable investigation, he is without knowledge or info~xnation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraphs 36 through 37 and proof thereof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff. COUNT IV - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Margaret Still v. Hertz Corporation 38-40. Count IV is a derivative action arising out of the claims set forth in Count ll of Plaintiffs' Complaint. That Count has been stricken by the Court and this Count is stricken as well by operation of law. WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff. NEW MATTER 41. be granted. The averments in Plaintiffs' Complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief can -4- 42. At all times relevant hereto, Answering Defendant complied with the applicable standard of care. 43. Nothing done or omitted by Answering Defendants was a proximate cause of or a substantial factor in causing any injury to Plaintiff. 44. Any acts or omissions of Answering Defendant alleged to constitute negligence were not substantial factors contributing to the injuries and damages alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint. 45. Any claim or cause of action set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint is barred and/or may be barred by operation of contributory, comparative negligence of Plaintiffs as may be developed during discovery, and the same is alleged herein for purposes of preserving that defense. 46. 47. selection. 48. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the applicab][e statute of limitations. The Plaintiffs' claims may be limited or barred by Plaintiff's own tort recovery The Plaintiffs' claims are limited or governed by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, the provisions of which are incolporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. -5- WHEREFORE, Defendants request judgment in their favor and against Plaintiffs. Dated: November 19, 2002 Respectfully submitted, HARTMAN, OSBORNE & RETTIG, P.C. By: Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #34991 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 717-232-3046 Attorney for Defendants, Calvin F. Muller and Hertz Corporation -6- 11/19/2002 13:49 7244S73703 MOBILE WASH PAGE 01 VERIHCATION I, Calvin F. Muller, hereby verify and state that the fact.~; set forth in the foregoing ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT MULLER TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT are true and correct to thc best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.$.A. Section 4904 relating to unswom verification to authorities. Dat~: //~ 2 o - c~ z__- Calvin F, Muller . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, as follows: Gregory M. Feather, Esquire 1300 Linglestown Road P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) HARTMAN, OSBORNE & RETTIG, P.C. By: Kevin E. Osbom'e,, Es'quire Supreme Court I.D. #37349 Cindy L. Nicholson, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #83823 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Dated: November 19, 2002 Attorneys for Defendants MARGARET STILL AND RICHARD STILL Plaintiffs CALVIN F. MULLER AND HERTZ CORPORATION TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.: 01-6641 PRAEc!PE TO OlSCONTIN~ Please mark the above-captioned matter settled, discontinued and ended. Respectfully submitted, Dated: April 16, 2003 HAND~ENN~, LLP By: · ,, / ly)0 Linglestown Road (.____~...Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiffs CERI'IFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, as follows: Gregory M. Feather, Esquire 1300 Linglestown Road P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) HARTMAN, OSBORNE & RETTIG, P.C. By: /~.~c~,~ ~~~~. Kevin E. Osborne, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #37349 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Dated: April 16, 2003 Attorneys for Defendants