The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-3942DOROTHY M. ANDERSEN and ROLF ANDERSEN, HER HUSBAND, Plaintiffs V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 0q- m4a No. 09- CIVIL TERM KATHERINE GLASSEL, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your 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(s). 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, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE: CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 South Bedford Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone: 717-249-3166 or 800-990-9108 DOROTHY M. Andersen : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and ROLF Andersen, HER HUSBAND, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. : No. 09- 39yd- CIVIL TERM KATHERINE GLASSEL, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW come the Plaintiffs, Dorothy M. Andersen and Rolf Andersen, her husband, by and through their attorney, Leslie M. Fields, Esquire, COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS, and respectfully represent as follows in support of this Complaint: The Parties 1. Plaintiffs, Dorothy M. Andersen and Rolf Andersen, her husband, are adult individuals residing at 720 Pisgah State Road, Shermans Dale, Perry County, Pennsylvania 17090. 2. Defendant, Katherine Glassel, is an adult individual residing at 450 Meadow Lane, Shermans Dale, Perry County, Pennsylvania 17090. Background Allegations 3. The events giving rise to this cause of action occurred approximately at 4:40 p.m. on or about April 4, 2008 at the intersection of State Route 944 (Sunnyside Drive) and State Route 34 (Spring Road) in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, 1 Pennsylvania. 4. At the aforesaid time and place, Plaintiff, Dorothy M. Andersen, was operating a 2006 Buick Lucerne automobile on State Route 944 and was lawfully stopped at a stop sign at the intersection with State Route 34 when Defendant, Katherine Glassel, who was operating a Ford Explorer vehicle, failed to stop and rear-ended the Plaintiff's vehicle which was forced beyond the stop sign onto State Route 34, thereby causing the injuries and damages set forth in detail below. 5. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of Defendant, Katherine Glassel, the Plaintiff, Dorothy M. Andersen, has suffered serious injuries and damages which are set forth in detail below. Count I: Plaintiff Dorothy M Andersen v Defendant - Negligence 6. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 5 above are incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full. 7. At the aforesaid time and place, the collision and injuries resulting therefrom were caused by the negligent, careless and/or reckless acts of Defendant, Katherine Glassel, in that she: a) drove her vehicle in careless disregard for the safety of Plaintiff, Dorothy M. Andersen, and her property; b) violated Section 3714(a) of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 2 3714(a), "Careless driving - General Rule," and thus is negligent per se; c) operated her vehicle too fast for the prevailing conditions; d) failed to notice that the Plaintiff's vehicle was lawfully stopped at a stop sign; e) failed to maintain her vehicle under proper and lawful control; f) failed to keep a proper lookout; g) failed to pay sufficient attention to the roadway and traffic; h) failed to see what she should have seen; i) failed to notice the imminence of an accident and to take the necessary steps to avoid it; and j) acted without regard for the safety and rights of other motorists, including Plaintiff, Dorothy M. Andersen. 8. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent, careless and/or reckless acts of Defendant, Katherine Glassel, the Plaintiff, Dorothy M. Andersen, has suffered injuries which were and are severe, painful, serious and permanent. These injuries include but are not limited to: a) an acute avulsion fracture of the right distal fibula (right ankle); b) contusions to both knees; and c) a contusion to the left shoulder/breast area. 3 9. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligent, careless and/or reckless acts of Defendant, Katherine Glassel, the Plaintiff, Dorothy M. Andersen, has been obligated to receive and undergo medical attention and care and to assume medical expenses for the injuries she has suffered and, for an indefinite time in the future, may be obligated to continue to receive and undergo medical attention and care and to assume medical expenses. 10. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligent, careless and/or reckless acts of Defendant, Katherine Glassel, the Plaintiff, Dorothy M. Andersen, has suffered a loss of earnings and/or impairment of her earning capacity and power and, for an indefinite time in the future, may continue to suffer a loss of earnings and/or impairment of her earning capacity and power. 11. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligent, careless and/or reckless acts of Defendant, Katherine Glassel, the Plaintiff, Dorothy M. Andersen, has suffered medically determinable physical impairments which have prevented her from performing all of the normal acts and duties which constitute her usual and customary daily activities and, for an indefinite time in the future, may continue to suffer medically determinable physical impairments. 4 12. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligent, careless and/or reckless acts of Defendant, Katherine Glassel, the Plaintiff, Dorothy M. Andersen, has experienced severe pain and suffering, mental anguish and humiliation and, for an indefinite time in the future, may continue to experience severe pain and suffering, mental anguish and humiliation. 13. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligent, careless and/or reckless acts of Defendant, Katherine Glassel, the Plaintiff, Dorothy M. Andersen, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and, for an indefinite time in the future, may continue to suffer a loss of life's pleasures. Count II: Plaintiff Rolf Andersen v. Defendant - Loss of Consortium 14. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 13 above are incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full. 15. At all relevant times herein, the Plaintiff, Rolf Andersen, and the Plaintiff, Dorothy M. Andersen, were lawfully and continuously married. 16. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent, careless and/or reckless acts of Defendant, Katherine Glassel, the Plaintiff, Rolf Andersen, has suffered a loss of consortium, society and companionship of his wife, the Plaintiff, Dorothy M. Andersen, and, for an indefinite time in the future, may continue to suffer a loss of consortium, 5 society and companionship. Conclusion WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Dorothy M. Andersen and Rolf Andersen, her husband, based on the foregoing averments, hereby demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant, Katherine Glassel, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits together with costs and interest as provided by law. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: C:i? I ? ?- ?Z ?D Leslie . Fields, Esquire I.D. N . 29411 COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS 831 Market Street/P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043 Phone: 717.761.2121 Fax: 717.761.4031 Web: Costopoulos.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS DATED: June 10, 2009 6 VERIFICATION I, Dorothy M. Andersen, verify that the facts set forth in this COMPLAINT are true and correct to the best of my information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. BY: Dorothy M. An e n DATED: 2009, 7 VERIFICATION I, Rolf Andersen, verify that the facts set forth in this COMPLAINT are true and correct to the best of my information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. lp--O-yo BY: Rolf And rsen DATED: - 2009. 8 0 OF THE ;,CiTHIONOTARY 2009 JLI N 12 PM 2: 30 418.50 Pb AIi"t't " 1101p7 R-T# lalotolla Sheriffs Office of Cumberland County R Thomas Kline re??ov 01 V-11111btP4 i:.uwaiu i.0wVLFF Solicitor Sher Ronny R Anderson Jody S Smith Chief Deputy OFFICE OF-tll S?fERIFF Civil Process Sergeant Dorothy M. Andersen Case Number vs. 2009-3942 Katherine Glassel SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 06/15/2009 R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: katherine Glassel, but was unable to locate him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of Perry County, PA to serve the within Complaint and Notice according to law. 06/17/2009 09:05 AM - Perry County Return: And now June 17, 2009 at 0905 hours I, Carl E. Nace, Sheriff of Perry County, Pennsylvania, do herby certify and return that I served a true copy of thewithin Complaint, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Katherine Glassel by making known unto Kristen Glassel, daughter of defendant at 450 Meadow Lane Shermans Dale, PA 17090 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. SHERIFF COST: $37.44 June 18, 2009 r-' T _!T W , 4` C7 "? In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Dorothy M. & Rolf Andersen VS. Katherine Glassel 450 Meadow Lane Shermans Dale, PA 17090 Civil No. 2009-3942 Now, June 15, 2009, I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Perry County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. eoooA'Q?? Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Now, June 17, within Complaint upon Katherine Glassel Affidavit of Service 20 O9 at 9:05 O'clock AM, served the at Above Address: Carroll Township, Perry Co. PA by handing to Kristen Glassel, Def. Adult Daughter a True & Attested copy of the original complaint and made known to Her So answers, DerE Deputy Sheriff of Sworn and subscribed before me this-/'? day o ,20 O 9 COM-MONWEAITH OF PENNSYLVANIA MARGW F RUC IN6ER tar cc Bbo eld 8oro. Pam, noway ?3ion Tres At. . +6, 2tbt2 COSTS SERVICE $ MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT County, PA M. _,Pates the contents thereof. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOROTHY M. ANDERSEN and ROLF ANDERSEN, her husband, Plaintiffs, CIVIL DIVISION NO. 09 - 3942 V. KATHERINE GLASSEL, Defendant. PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE (Jury Trial Demanded) Filed on Behalf of the Defendant Counsel of Record for This Party: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Pa. I.D. #83058 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE and SKEEL, L.L.P. Firm #911 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 901-5916 #17157 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOROTHY M. ANDERSEN and CIVIL DIVISION ROLF ANDERSEN, her husband, Plaintiffs, NO. 09 - 3942 V. KATHERINE GLASSEL, Defendant. (Jury Trial Demanded) PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE TO: THE PROTHONOTARY Kindly enter the Appearance of the undersigned, Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire, of the law firm of Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P., on behalf of the Defendant, Katherine Glassel, in the above case. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & (EEL, LAL.P. By: vAFM. rauch, Esquire unsel r Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this 23RD day of June, 2009. Leslie M. Fields, Esquire Costopoulos, Foster & Fields 831 Market Street P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEE".L.P. By: i r"-'w evin D. Rauch, Esquire ounsel for Defendant -.c TLS is i,=,FY 2009Lk?? i I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOROTHY M. ANDERSEN and ROLF ANDERSEN, her husband, Plaintiffs, CIVIL DIVISION NO. 09 - 3942 v. KATHERINE GLASSEL, Defendant. TO: Plaintiffs 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. ~ ~~ ~~~ Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P. ANSWER AND NEW MATTER (Jury Trial Demanded) Filed on Behalf of the Defendant Counsel of Record for This Party: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Pa. I.D. #83058 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE and SKEEL, L.L.P. Firm #911 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 901-5916 #17157 (Jury Trial Demanded) ANSWER AND NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Katherine Glassel, by and through her IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOROTHY M. ANDERSEN and CIVIL DIVISION ROLF ANDERSEN, her husband, Plaintiffs, NO. 09 - 3942 KATHERINE GLASSEL, Defendant. v. counsel, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P., and Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire, and files the following Answer and New Matter and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that a collision occurred on the date and time identified. The remainder of the allegations in paragraph 4 are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 5. Paragraph 5 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. COUNTI PLAINTIFF. DOROTHY M. ANDERSEN V. KATHERIN GLASSEL NEGLIGENCE 6. In response to paragraph 6, the Defendant reiterates and repeats all her responses in paragraphs 1 through 5 as if fully set forth at length herein. 7. Paragraph 7 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 8. Paragraph 8 and all of its subparts state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 9. Paragraph 9 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 10. Paragraph 10 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 11. Paragraph 11 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 12. Paragraph 12 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 13. Paragraph 13 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. COUNTI PLAINTIFF. ROLF ANDERSEN y. KATHERIN GLASSEL LOSS OF CONSORTIUM 14. In response to paragraph 14, the Defendant reiterates and repeats all her responses in paragraphs 1 through 13 as if fully set forth at length herein. 15. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 16. Paragraph 16 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Katherin Glassel, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiffs with costs and prejudice imposed. NEW MATTER 17. The motor vehicle accident in controversy is subject to the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and this Defendant asserts, as affirmative defenses, all rights, privileges and/or immunities accruing pursuant to said statute. 18. Some and/or all of Plaintiffs' claims for damages are items of economic detriment which are or could be compensable pursuant to either the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and/or other collateral sources and same may not be duplicated in the present lawsuit. 19. To the extent that the Plaintiffs have selected the limited tort option or are deemed to have selected the limited tort option then this Defendant sets forth the relevant provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law as a bar to the Plaintiffs' ability to recover non-economic damages. 20. This Defendant pleads any and all applicable statutes of limitation under Pennsylvania Law as a complete or partial bar to any recovery by Plaintiffs in this action. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Katherin Glassel, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiffs with costs and prejudice imposed. Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE ~ SKEEL, L.L.P. By: ~Y1 ~ D. ~~ C,h I C,~JC Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Counsel for Defendant VERIFICATION Defendant verifies that she is the Defendant in the foregoing action; that the foregoing ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is based upon information which she has furnished to her counsel and information which has been gathered by her counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language of the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is that of counsel and not of the Defendant. Defendant has read the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER and to the extent that the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is based upon information which she has given to her counsel, it is true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is that of counsel, she has relied upon counsel in making this Affidavit. Defendant understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: #17157 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER AND NEW MATTER has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this 20th day of July, 2009. Leslie M. Fields, Esquire Costopoulos, Foster & Fields 831 Market Street P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE ~ SKEEL, L.L.P. Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Counsel for Defendant 209 J~!L 22 P~1 1 ~ 32 Clint ~{~j~J,~7`f 1"~..:'r:~:J ~ i..~r1. ~ii1~ G?r+IT PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case: X? for JURY trial at the next term of civil court. ? for trial without a jury. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C PTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) Dorothy M. Andersen a d Rolf Andersen, h r husband rn rn -0 N C-s c --------------- -- W -a (check one) X? Civil Action - Law ? Appeal from arbitration (other) (Plaintiff) vs. ne Glassel The trial list will be called on June 21, 2011 and Trials commence on July 18, 2011 (Defendant) Pretrials will be held on July 6, 2011 vs. (Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials No. 09-3942 Term ate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: d J. Foster e trial counsel for other parties if known: Rauch case is ready for trial. Signe Print Name: Leslie M. Fields Attorney for: Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOROTHY M. ANDERSEN and ROLF ANDERSEN, her husband, Plaintiffs, V. NO. 09 - 3942 KATHERINE GLASSEL, Defendant. THE PROTHONOTARY PRAECIPE TO SETTLE AND DISCONTINUE TO CIVIL DIVISION (Jury Trial Demanded) a' ?Z rn rn a? ?r z 0 n° z --i N a R3 PQ Q o rr, a Please mark the above-referenced case settled and discontinued, with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS i, By. David Foste squire Counsel for D fendant