HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-4202Stephen G. Held, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: 717-238-2000
Fax: 717-233-3029 Attorney for Plaintiffs
E-mail: HELD(ld)-hhrlaw.com
JUDY PARRISH AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
RONALD PARRISH, her husband, CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
Plaintiffs PENNSYLVANIA nn
V. NO. Oq - ?taaa l.:tvi 1 ?e r-
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC,
and CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC.,
Defendants 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, 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 LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-249-3166
AVISO
USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las
demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar
accion dentro de los proximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificacion de esta
Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una
comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y
objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de
que si usted falla de tomar accion Como se describe anteriormente, el caso
puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la
demanda o cualquier otra reclamacion o remedio solicitado por el demandante
puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted
puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted.
USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE.
SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA.
ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO
CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO.
SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES
POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE
AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO
A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-249-3166
Stephen G. Held, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: 717-238-2000
Fax: 717-233-3029
E-mail: HELD00hrlaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
JUDY PARRISH AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
RONALD PARRISH, her husband, CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
Plaintiffs PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. O 9- ya. 0 .2, C.? -77Z.,-
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC,
and CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC.,
Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Judy and Ronald Parrish, by and through their
attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by Stephen G. Held, Esquire, and
bring forth this Complaint against Defendants, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., DDRTC Carlisle
Commons, LLC, and Central Penn Asphalt, Inc. and aver as follows:
1. Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, is an adult individual currently residing at 554 Pine
Grove Road, New Bloomfield, Perry County, Pennsylvania.
2. Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (hereinafter "Wal-Mart"), is a corporation
registered and established under the laws of Delaware with its principal office located at
702 South West 8th Street, Bentonville, Arkansas 72716, and doing business in
Pennsylvania at 60 Noble Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3. Defendant, DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC. (hereinafter "DDRTC") is a
limited liability corporation, registered and established under the laws of Georgia with its
w
principal office located at 3300 Enterprise Parkway, Beachwood, Ohio 44122, and doing
business in Pennsylvania.
4. Defendant, Central Penn Asphalt, Inc. (hereinafter "Central Penn") is a
corporation, registered under the laws of Pennsylvania with offices located at 3701 G Derry
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17111, and doing business in Pennsylvania.
5. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Wal-Mart, was in exclusive control
of the property located at 60 Noble Boulevard, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
17013-4119 (hereinafter "Premises") and was presumably responsible for the removal of
snow and ice from the Premises.
6. It is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, DDRTC, was the owner
and had exclusive control of the property located at 60 Noble Boulevard, Carlisle,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013-4119, and was presumably responsible for the
removal of snow and ice from the Premises.
7. It is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, Central Penn, was hired
and engaged by Defendant Wal-Mart or DDRTC to remove snow and ice from the
Premises.
8. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, was lawfully on said
Premises as a business invitee of Wal-Mart.
9. At all times material hereto, Defendants, who had exclusive control of said
Premises, had allowed ice to accumulate and remain on the parking lot of Wal-Mart.
10. At all times material hereto, there were no warning signs posted on the
Premises warning of the snow and ice that remained on the parking lot of Wal-Mart.
2
16
11. On or about February 16, 2008, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, arrived at Wal-Mart
at approximately 7:30 PM for a shopping trip with her daughter-in-law and two
grandchildren. Plaintiff's daughter-in-law parked the car, and as Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, was
exiting the vehicle, she slipped on an accumulation of ice that was allowed to remain on
the parking lot of Wal-Mart causing her to fall harshly upon the ground and resulting in
personal injuries to the Plaintiff, as more particularly set forth herein.
12. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, Wal-
Mart, DDRTC, and Central Penn, the Plaintiff sustained extensive injuries as set forth more
specifically below.
COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
Judy Parrish v Wal-Mart Stores Inc
13. Paragraphs 1 through 13 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
14. At all times material to hereto, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, believes and therefore
avers, that Defendant, Wal-Mart, was in ownership, possession, management and/or
control of the Premises and was responsible for maintaining the safe condition of the
property known as 60 Noble Boulevard, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
15. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence (actions or
inactions) of Defendant, Wal-Mart, and/or by its agents, servants, workmen or employees,
acting in the scope of their authority and employment, generally and more specifically as
set forth below:
3
(a) In causing or permitting the parking lot at the Premises to become
covered with snow and/or ice thereby posing an unreasonable risk of
injury to the Plaintiff and to other persons lawfully upon the Premises;
(b) In failing to make a reasonable inspection of said Premises which
would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed
by the snow and/or ice, and thereby allowing the same to be and
remain a dangerous condition when the Defendant knew or should
have known of it;
(c) In failing to ensure the parking lot at said Premises was maintained
in a safe condition to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and other persons
lawfully upon the Premises;
(d) In failing to remove snow piles and allowing them to melt and
subsequently freeze so as to create a hazard by allowing ice to form
on the parking lot;
(e) In failing to post a warning sign or device in the area to notify
of the dangerous icy or slippery condition on the parking lot of
said Premises;
(f) In failing to remove the snow and/or ice from the parking lot of said
Premises so as to avoid the situation in which Plaintiff slipped and fell;
(g) In failing to place, or inadequately placing salt, cinders or any other
non-skid material upon the snow and ice covered parking lot; and
(h) In failing to maintain the parking lot in a reasonably safe condition that
would prevent a business invitee of a tenant from slipping and falling.
4
16. Defendant, Wal-Mart, had actual knowledge or should have known through
the exercise of ordinary care and diligence that there was snow and ice accumulated on
the parking lot in the area where Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, fell.
17. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Wal-Mart,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, sustained serious injuries including, but not limited to, severe injuries
to her left knee which resulted in surgery, physical therapy, permanent scarring, and
depression.
18. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Wal-Mart,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has undergone great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish
and she will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to
her great detriment and loss, physically, emotionally and financially.
19. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Wal-Mart,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to her
daily duties and activities to her great detriment, loss, humiliation and embarrassment.
20. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Wal-Mart,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has and will in the future, suffer a loss of life's pleasures, including,
but not limited to, walking her dogs, exercising, playing with her four granddaughters, and
working in her garden.
21. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Wal-Mart,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid
injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention, and will be
required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to her great
detriment and loss.
5
22. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Wal-Mart,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has suffered lost wages/income, is unable to continue her day-care
business of 24 years, and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss
of earning capacity.
23. Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, believes, and therefore avers, that her injuries are
permanent in nature.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, seeks damages from Defendant, Wal-Mart,
in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County,
exclusive of interest and costs and demands a trial by jury.
COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE
Judy Parrish v. DDRTC Carlisle Commons LLC
24. Paragraphs 1 through 24 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
25. At all times material to hereto, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, believes and therefore
avers, that Defendant, DDRTC, was in possession, management and control of the
Premises and was responsible for maintaining the safe condition of the property known as
60 Noble Boulevard, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17013-4119.
26. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence (actions or
inactions) of Defendant, DDRTC, and/or by its agents, servants, workmen or employees,
acting in the scope of their authority and employment, generally and more specifically as
set forth below:
6
(a) In causing or permitting the parking lot at the Premises to become
covered with snow and/or ice thereby posing an unreasonable risk of
injury to the Plaintiff and to other persons lawfully upon the Premises;
(b) In failing to make a reasonable inspection of said Premises which
would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed
by the snow and/or ice, and thereby allowing the same to be and
remain a dangerous condition when the Defendant knew or should
have known of it;
(c) In failing to ensure the parking lot at said Premises was maintained
in a safe condition to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and other persons
lawfully upon the Premises;
(d) In failing to remove snow piles and allowing them to melt and
subsequently freeze so as to create a hazard by allowing ice to form
on the parking lot;
(e) In failing to post a warning sign or device in the area to notify
of the dangerous icy or slippery condition on the parking lot of
said Premises;
(f) In failing to remove the snow and/or ice from the parking lot of said
Premises so as to avoid the situation in which the Plaintiff slipped and
fell;
(g) In failing to place, or inadequately placing, salt, cinders or any other
non-skid material upon the snow and ice covered parking lot; and
7
(h) In failing to maintain the parking lot in a reasonably safe condition that
would prevent a business invitee of a tenant from slipping and falling.
27. Defendant, DDRTC, had actual knowledge or should have known through the
exercise of ordinary care and diligence that there was snow and ice accumulated on the
parking lot in the area where Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, fell.
28. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, DDRTC,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, sustained serious injuries including, severe injuries to her left knee
which required surgery and resulted in permanent scarring, requiring physical therapy, and
resulting in Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, experiencing depression and requiring anti-depressant
medication.
29. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, DDRTC,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has undergone great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish
and she will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to
her great detriment and loss, physically, emotionally and financially.
30. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, DDRTC,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to her
daily duties and activities to her great detriment, loss, humiliation and embarrassment.
31. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, DDRTC,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has and will in the future, suffer a loss of life's pleasures, including,
but not limited to, walking her dogs, exercising, playing with her four granddaughters, and
working in her garden.
32. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, DDRTC,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid
8
f
injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention, and will be
required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to her great
detriment and loss.
33. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, DDRTC,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has suffered lost wages/income, is unable to continue her day-care
business of 24 years, and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss
of earning capacity.
34. Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, believes, and therefore avers, that her injuries are
permanent in nature.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, seeks damages from Defendant, DDRTC, in
an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive
of interest and costs and demands a trial by jury.
COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE
Judy Parrish v. Central Penn Asphalt Inc
35. Paragraphs 1 through 35 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
36. At all times material to hereto, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, believes and therefore
avers, that Defendant, Central Penn, was in control of the Premises and was responsible
for snow and ice removal from the property known as 60 Noble Boulevard, Carlisle,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013-4119, and was therefore responsible for
maintaining the safe condition of the property.
37. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence (actions or
9
inactions) of Defendant, Central Penn, and/or by its agents, servants, workmen or
employees, acting in the scope of their authority and employment, generally and more
specifically as set forth below:
(a) In causing or permitting the parking lot at the Premises to become
covered with snow and/or ice thereby posing an unreasonable risk of
injury to the Plaintiff and to other persons lawfully upon the Premises;
(b) In failing to make a reasonable inspection of said Premises which
would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed
by the snow and/or ice, and thereby allowing the same to be and
remain a dangerous condition when the Defendant knew or should
have known of it;
(c) In failing to ensure the parking lot at said Premises was maintained
in a safe condition to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and other persons
lawfully upon the Premises;
(d) In failing to remove snow piles and allowing them to melt and
subsequently freeze so as to create a hazard by allowing ice to form
on the parking lot;
(e) In failing to post a warning sign or device in the area to notify of the
dangerous icy or slippery condition on the parking lot of said
Premises;
(f) In failing to remove the snow and/or ice from the parking lot of said
Premises so as to avoid the situation in which the Plaintiff slipped and
fell;
10
(g) In failing to place, or inadequately placing, salt, cinders or any other
non-skid material upon the snow and ice covered parking lot; and
(h) In failing to maintain the parking lot in a reasonably safe condition that
would prevent a business invitee of a tenant from slipping and falling.
38. Defendant, Central Penn, had actual knowledge or should have known
through the exercise of ordinary care and diligence that there was snow and ice
accumulated on the parking lot in the area where Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, fell.
39. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Central
Penn, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, sustained serious injuries including, severe injuries to her left
knee which required surgery and resulted in permanent scarring, requiring physical
therapy, and resulting in Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, experiencing depression and requiring anti-
depressant medication.
40. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Central
Penn, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has undergone great physical pain, discomfort and mental
anguish and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the
future, to her great detriment and loss, physically, emotionally and financially.
41. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Central
Penn, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending
to her daily duties and activities to her great detriment, loss, humiliation and
embarrassment.
42. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Central
Penn, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has and will in the future, suffer a loss of life's pleasures,
11
w
including, but not limited to, walking her dogs, exercising, playing with her four
granddaughters, and working in her garden.
43. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Central
Penn, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has been compelled, in orderto effect a cure forthe aforesaid
injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention, and will be
required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to her great
detriment and loss.
44. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Central
Penn, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has suffered lost wages/income, is unable to continue her
day-care business of 24 years, and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income
and/or loss of earning capacity.
45. Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, believes, and therefore avers, that her injuries are
permanent in nature.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, seeks damages from Defendant, Central
Penn, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County,
exclusive of interest and costs and demands a trial by jury.
COUNT IV - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
Ronald Parrish v. WAL-MART
46. Paragraphs 1 through 46 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
47. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs, Ronald Parrish and Judy Parrish, were
lawfully married as husband and wife.
12
48. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Wal-
Mart, the Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort
from his wife, Judy Parrish, and he will continue to suffer a similar loss in the future.
49. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Wal-
Mart, the Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for his
wife's injuries, to spend money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to
spend money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, seeks damages from Defendant, Wal-Mart,
in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County,
exclusive of interest and costs and demands a trial by jury.
COUNT V - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
Ronald Parrish v. DDRTC Carlisle Commons LLC
50. Paragraphs 1 through 50 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
51. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs, Ronald Parrish and Judy Parrish, were
lawfully married as husband and wife.
52. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, DDRTC,
the Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort from
his wife, Judy Parrish, and she will continue to suffer a similar loss in the future.
53. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, DDRTC,
the Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for his wife's
injuries, to spend money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to spend
money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss.
13
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, seeks damages from Defendant, DDRTC,
in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County,
exclusive of interest and costs and demands a trial by jury.
COUNT VI - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
Ronald Parrish v. Central Penn Asphalt Inc
54. Paragraphs 1 through 54 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
55. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs, Ronald Parrish and Judy Parrish, were
lawfully married as husband and wife.
56. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Central
Penn, the Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort
from his wife, Judy Parrish, and she will continue to suffer a similar loss in the future.
57. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Central
Penn, the Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for his
wife's injuries, to spend money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to
spend money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, seeks damages from Defendant, Central
Penn, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County,
exclusive of interest and costs and demands a trial by jury.
14
Date44?01
Respectfully submitted,
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP < ? , "-"?
By:
Stephen G. Held, Esquire
I. D. # 72663
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
Attorneys for Plaintiff
15
VERIFICATION
THE UNDERSIGNED hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing
document are 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 my own. I
have read the said document and, to the extent that it is based on information that I
gave to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and
belief. To the extent that the contents of the said document is that of counsel, I have
relied upon my counsel in preparing this Verification.
THE UNDERSIGNED also understands 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: Zzdd ??O
;D-4Y4POA IS
VERIFICATION
THE UNDERSIGNED hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing
document are 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 my own. I
have read the said document and, to the extent that it is based on information that I
gave to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and
belief. To the extent that the contents of the said document is that of counsel, I have
relied upon my counsel in preparing this Verification.
THE UNDERSIGNED also understands 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-
RONALD PARRISH
0
(DiF THE ?.
r.
418.61o PO AT'N
a,# 1416 8 So
e 4c2af7O t I
Sheriffs Office of Cumberland County
Sheriff Thomas Kline "„cr of 4'?ra?6r jTy Edward L Schorpp
R
?. Solicitor
Ronny R Anderson Jody S Smith
Chief Deputy oFFu y.F THE S"ERIFF Civil Process Sergeant
Judy Parrish
vs. Case Number
Central Penn Asphalt, Inc. 2009-4202
SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE
06/23/2009 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: Central Penn Asphalt, Inc., but was unable to locate them
in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of Dauphin County, PA to serve the within Complaint
and Notice according to law.
06/26/2009
12:30 PM - Dauphin County Return: And now June 26, 2009 at 1230 hours I, Jack Lotwick, Sheriff of
Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, do herby certify and return that I served a true copy of the within
Complaint, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Central Penn Asphalt, Inc. by making known unto
Jim Griffith, adult in charge at 3701G Derry Street Harrisburg, PA 17111 its contents and at the same time
handing to him personally the said true and correct copy of the camp
SHERIFF COST: $37.00
June 30, 2009
C7 0
?w;
t?0#firilt Elf #?r ?ijcr-
rff
Mary Jane Snyyder
Real Estate Depu
Charles E. Sheaffer
Chief Deputy
William T. Tully
Solicitor
Dauphin County
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101
ph: (717) 780-6590 fax: (717) 255-2889
Michael W. Rinehart
Assistant Chief Deputy
Jack Lotwick
Sheriff
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Dauphin
JUDY & RONALD PARRISH
VS
CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT INC.
Sheriff s Return
No. 2009-T-1813
OTHER COUNTY NO. 20094202
And now: JUNE 26, 2009 at 12:30:00 PM served the within COMPLAINT upon CENTRAL PENN
ASPHALT INC. by personally handing to JIM GRIFFITH 1 true attested copy of the original
COMPLAINT and making known to him/her the contents thereof at 3701 G DERRY STREET HBG PA
17111
PRESIDENT
Sworn and subscribed to So Answers,
before me this 26TH day of June, 2009 I
11 41
NOTARIAL SEAL
RY JANE SNYDER Notary Publi
Highspire, Dauphin County
Lmy Commission Expires Sept 12010
Sheriff of Dauphin County, P
By
Deputy Sheriff
Deputy: T WONG
Sheriffs Costs: $58 6/26/2009
Stephen G. Held, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: 717-238-2000
Fax: 717-233-3029
E-mail: HELDta7.hhrlaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
JUDY PARRISH AND
RONALD PARRISH, her husband,
Plaintiffs
V.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC,
and CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC.,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
0-1 NO. 4dCa ?1 iP.f'M
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, 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 LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-249-3166 0 FROM RECORD
in r i yiNhereO, I here unto sat my hasu
sue! I?f cm at Cark:±,IQ, N
.. nd ? y 9
flu
AVISO
USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las
demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar
accion dentro de los proximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificacion de esta
Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una
comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y
objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de
que si usted falla de tomar accion como se describe anteriormente, el caso
puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la
demanda o cualquier otra reclamacibn o remedio solicitado por el demandante
puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted
puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted.
USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE.
SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA.
ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO
CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO.
SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES
POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE
AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO
A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-249-3166
Stephen G. Held, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: 717-238-2000
Fax: 717-233-3029
E-mail: HELD01-hhrlaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
JUDY PARRISH AND
RONALD PARRISH, her husband,
Plaintiffs
V.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC,
and CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC.,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
NO.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Judy and Ronald Parrish„ by and through their
attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by Stephen G. Held, Esquire, and
bring forth this Complaint against Defendants, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., DDRTC Carlisle
Commons, LLC, and Central Penn Asphalt, Inc. and aver as follows:
1. Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, is an adult individual currently residing at 554 Pine
Grove Road, New Bloomfield, Perry County, Pennsylvania.
2. Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (hereinafter "Wal-Mart"), is a corporation
registered and established under the laws of Delaware with its principal office located at
702 South West 8th Street, Bentonville, Arkansas 72716, and doing business in
Pennsylvania at 60 Noble Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3. Defendant, DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC. (hereinafter "DDRTC") is a
limited liability corporation, registered and established under the laws of Georgia with its
principal office located at 3300 Enterprise Parkway, Beachwood, 0hio 44122, and doing
business in Pennsylvania.
4. Defendant, Central Penn Asphalt, Inc. (hereinafter "Central Penn") is a
corporation, registered underthe laws of Pennsylvania with offices located at 3701G Derry
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17111, and doing business in Pennsylvania.
5. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Wal-Mart, was in exclusive control
of the property located at 60 Noble Boulevard, Carlisle, Cumberland) County, Pennsylvania
17013-4119 (hereinafter "Premises") and was presumably responsible for the removal of
snow and ice from the Premises.
6. It is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, DDRTC, was the owner
and had exclusive control of the property located at 60 Noble Boulevard, Carlisle,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013-4119, and was presumably responsible for the
removal of snow and ice from the Premises.
7. It is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, Central Penn, was hired
and engaged by Defendant Wal-Mart or DDRTC to remove snow and ice from the
Premises.
8. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, was lawfully on said
Premises as a business invitee of Wal-Mart.
9. At all times material hereto, Defendants, who had exclusive control of said
Premises, had allowed ice to accumulate and remain on the parking lot of Wal-Mart.
10. At all times material hereto, there were no warning signs posted on the
Premises warning of the snow and ice that remained on the parking lot of Wal-Mart.
2
11. On or about February 16, 2008, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, arrived at Wal-Mart
at approximately 7:30 PM for a shopping trip with her daughter-in-law and two
grandchildren. Plaintiff's daughter-in-law parked the car, and as Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, was
exiting the vehicle, she slipped on an accumulation of ice that was allowed to remain on
the parking lot of Wal-Mart causing her to fall harshly upon the ground and resulting in
personal injuries to the Plaintiff, as more particularly set forth herein.
12. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, Wal-
Mart, DDRTC, and Central Penn, the Plaintiff sustained extensive injuries as set forth more
specifically below.
COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
Judy Parrish v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc
13. Paragraphs 1 through 13 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
14. At all times material to hereto, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, believes and therefore
avers, that Defendant, Wal-Mart, was in ownership, possession, management and/or
control of the Premises and was responsible for maintaining the safe condition of the
property known as 60 Noble Boulevard, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
15. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence (actions or
inactions) of Defendant, Wal-Mart, and/or by its agents, servants, workmen or employees,
acting in the scope of their authority and employment, generally and more specifically as
set forth below:
3
(a) In causing or permitting the parking lot at the Premises to become
covered with snow and/or ice thereby posing an unreasonable risk of
injury to the Plaintiff and to other persons lawfully upon the Premises;
(b) In failing to make a reasonable inspection of said Premises which
would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed
by the snow and/or ice, and thereby allowing the same to be and
remain a dangerous condition when the Defendant knew or should
have known of it;
(c) In failing to ensure the parking lot at said Premises was maintained
in a safe condition to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and other persons
lawfully upon the Premises;
(d) In failing to remove snow piles and allowing them to melt and
subsequently freeze so as to create a hazard by allowing ice to form
on the parking lot;
(e) In failing to post a warning sign or device in the area to notify
of the dangerous icy or slippery condition on the parking lot of
said Premises;
(f) In failing to remove the snow and/or ice from the parking lot of said
Premises so as to avoid the situation in which Plaintiff slipped and fell;
(g) In failing to place, or inadequately placing salt, cinders or any other
non-skid material upon the snow and ice covered parking lot; and
(h) In failing to maintain the parking lot in a reasonably safe condition that
would prevent a business invitee of a tenant from slipping and falling.
4
16. Defendant, Wal-Mart, had actual knowledge or should have known through
the exercise of ordinary care and diligence that there was snow and ice accumulated on
the parking lot in the area where Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, fell.
17. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Wal-Mart,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, sustained serious injuries including, but not limited to, severe injuries
to her left knee which resulted in surgery, physical therapy, permanent scarring, and
depression.
18. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Wal-Mart,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has undergone great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish
and she will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to
her great detriment and loss, physically, emotionally and financially.
19. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Wal-Mart,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to her
daily duties and activities to her great detriment, loss, humiliation and embarrassment.
20. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Wal-Mart,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has and will in the future, suffer a loss of life's pleasures, including,
but not limited to, walking her dogs, exercising, playing with her four granddaughters, and
working in her garden.
21. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Wal-Mart,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid
injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention, and will be
required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to her great
detriment and loss.
5
22. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Wal-Mart,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has suffered lost wages/income, is unable to continue her day-care
business of 24 years, and will in the future continue to suffer a loss; of income and/or loss
of earning capacity.
23. Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, believes, and therefore avers, that her injuries are
permanent in nature.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, seeks damages from Defendant, Wal-Mart,
in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County,
exclusive of interest and costs and demands a trial by jury.
COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE
Judy Parrish y. DDRTC Carlisle Commons LLC
24. Paragraphs 1 through 24 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
25. At all times material to hereto, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, believes and therefore
avers, that Defendant, DDRTC, was in possession, management and control of the
Premises and was responsible for maintaining the safe condition of the property known as
60 Noble Boulevard, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17013-4119.
26. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence (actions or
inactions) of Defendant, DDRTC, and/or by its agents, servants, workmen or employees,
acting in the scope of their authority and employment, generally and more specifically as
set forth below:
6
(a) In causing or permitting the parking lot at the Premises to become
covered with snow and/or ice thereby posing an unreasonable risk of
injury to the Plaintiff and to other persons lawfully upon the Premises;
(b) In failing to make a reasonable inspection of said Premises which
would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed
by the snow and/or ice, and thereby allowing the same to be and
remain a dangerous condition when the Defendant knew or should
have known of it;
(c) In failing to ensure the parking lot at said Premises was maintained
in a safe condition to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and other persons
lawfully upon the Premises;
(d) In failing to remove snow piles and allowing them to melt and
subsequently freeze so as to create a hazard by allowing ice to form
on the parking lot;
(e) In failing to post a warning sign or device in the area to notify
of the dangerous icy or slippery condition on the parking lot of
said Premises;
(f) In failing to remove the snow and/or ice from the parking lot of said
Premises so as to avoid the situation in which the Plaintiff slipped and
fell;
(g) In failing to place, or inadequately placing, salt, cinders or any other
non-skid material upon the snow and ice covered parking lot; and
7
(h) In failing to maintain the parking lot in a reasonably safe condition that
would prevent a business invitee of a tenant from slipping and falling.
27. Defendant, DDRTC, had actual knowledge or should have known through the
exercise of ordinary care and diligence that there was snow and ice accumulated on the
parking lot in the area where Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, fell.
28. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, DDRTC,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, sustained serious injuries including, severe injuries to her left knee
which required surgery and resulted in permanent scarring, requiring physical therapy, and
resulting in Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, experiencing depression and requiring anti-depressant
medication.
29. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, DDRTC,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has undergone great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish
and she will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to
her great detriment and loss, physically, emotionally and financially.
30. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, DDRTC,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to her
daily duties and activities to her great detriment, loss, humiliation and embarrassment.
31. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, DDRTC,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has and will in the future, suffer a loss of life's pleasures, including,
but not limited to, walking her dogs, exercising, playing with her four granddaughters, and
working in her garden.
32. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, DDRTC,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid
8
injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention, and will be
required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to her great
detriment and loss.
33. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, DDRTC,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has suffered lost wages/income, is unable to continue her day-care
business of 24 years, and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss
of earning capacity.
34. Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, believes, and therefore avers, that her injuries are
permanent in nature.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, seeks damages from Defendant, DDRTC, in
an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive
of interest and costs and demands a trial by jury.
COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE
Judy Parrish v. Central Penn Asphalt, Inc_
35. Paragraphs 1 through 35 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
36. At all times material to hereto, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, believes and therefore
avers, that Defendant, Central Penn, was in control of the Premises and was responsible
for snow and ice removal from the property known as 60 Noble Boulevard, Carlisle,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013-4119, and was therefore responsible for
maintaining the safe condition of the property.
37. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence (actions or
9
inactions) of Defendant, Central Penn, and/or by its agents, servants, workmen or
employees, acting in the scope of their authority and employment, generally and more
specifically as set forth below:
(a) In causing or permitting the parking lot at the Premises to become
covered with snow and/or ice thereby posing an unreasonable risk of
injury to the Plaintiff and to other persons lawfully upon the Premises;
(b) In failing to make a reasonable inspection of said Premises which
would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed
by the snow and/or ice, and thereby allowing the same to be and
remain a dangerous condition when the Defendant knew or should
have known of it;
(c) In failing to ensure the parking lot at said Premises was maintained
in a safe condition to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and other persons
lawfully upon the Premises;
(d) In failing to remove snow piles and allowing them to melt and
subsequently freeze so as to create a hazard by allowing ice to form
on the parking lot;
(e) In failing to post a warning sign or device in the area to notify of the
dangerous icy or slippery condition on the parking lot of said
Premises;
(f) In failing to remove the snow and/or ice from the parking lot of said
Premises so as to avoid the situation in which the Plaintiff slipped and
fell;
10
(g) In failing to place, or inadequately placing, salt, cinders or any other
non-skid material upon the snow and ice covered parking lot; and
(h) In failing to maintain the parking lot in a reasonably safe condition that
would prevent a business invitee of a tenant from slipping and falling.
38. Defendant, Central Penn, had actual knowledge or should have known
through the exercise of ordinary care and diligence that there was snow and ice
accumulated on the parking lot in the area where Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, fell.
39. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Central
Penn, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, sustained serious injuries including, severe injuries to her left
knee which required surgery and resulted in permanent scarring, requiring physical
therapy, and resulting in Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, experiencing depression and requiring anti-
depressant medication.
40. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Central
Penn, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has undergone great physical pain, discomfort and mental
anguish and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the
future, to her great detriment and loss, physically, emotionally andl financially.
41. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Central
Penn, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending
to her daily duties and activities to her great detriment, (loss, humiliation and
embarrassment.
42. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Central
Penn, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has and will in the future, suffer a loss of life's pleasures,
11
including, but not limited to, walking her dogs, exercising, playing with her four
granddaughters, and working in her garden.
43. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Central
Penn, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has been compelled, in orderto effect a cure forthe aforesaid
injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical) attention, and will be
required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to her great
detriment and loss.
44. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Central
Penn, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has suffered lost wages/income, is unable to continue her
day-care business of 24 years, and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income
and/or loss of earning capacity.
45. Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, believes, and therefore avers, that her injuries are
permanent in nature.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, seeks damages from Defendant, Central
Penn, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County,
exclusive of interest and costs and demands a trial by jury.
COUNT IV - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
Ronald Parrish v. WAL-MART
46. Paragraphs 1 through 46 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
47. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs, Ronald Parrish and Judy Parrish, were
lawfully married as husband and wife.
12
48. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Wal-
Mart, the Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort
from his wife, Judy Parrish, and he will continue to suffer a similar loss in the future.
49. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Wal-
Mart, the Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for his
wife's injuries, to spend money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to
spend money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, seeks damages from Defendant, Wal-Mart,
in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County,
exclusive of interest and costs and demands a trial by jury.
COUNT V - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
Ronald Parrish v. DDRTC Carlisle Commons. LLC
50. Paragraphs 1 through 50 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
51. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs, Ronald Parrish and Judy Parrish, were
lawfully married as husband and wife.
52. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, DDRTC,
the Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort from
his wife, Judy Parrish, and she will continue to suffer a similar loss in the future.
53. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, DDRTC,
the Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for his wife's
injuries, to spend money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to spend
money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss.
13
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, seeks damages from Defendant, DDRTC,
in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County,
exclusive of interest and costs and demands a trial by jury.
COUNT VI - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
Ronald Parrish v. Central Penn Asphalt, Inc.
54. Paragraphs 1 through 54 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
55. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs, Ronald Parrish and Judy Parrish, were
lawfully married as husband and wife.
56. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Central
Penn, the Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort
from his wife, Judy Parrish, and she will continue to suffer a similar loss in the future.
57. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Central
Penn, the Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for his
wife's injuries, to spend money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to
spend money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, seeks damages from Defendant, Central
Penn, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County,
exclusive of interest and costs and demands a trial by jury.
14
Respectfully submitted,
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
Dater By.
15K -W-4 WV411
Stephen G. Held, Esquire
I.D. # 72663
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
Attorneys for Plaintiff
15
VERIFICATION
THE UNDERSIGNED hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing
document are 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 my own. I
have read the said document and, to the extent that it is based on information that I
gave to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and
belief. To the extent that the contents of the said document is that of counsel, I have
relied upon my counsel in preparing this Verification.
THE UNDERSIGNED also understands 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.
Dater l?nr Q , °
`DY PAF?AISI-f
VERIFICATION
THE UNDERSIGNED hereby verifies that the statements in -the foregoing
document are 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 my own. I
have read the said document and, to the extent that it is based on information that I
gave to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and
belief. To the extent that the contents of the said document is that of counsel, I have
relied upon my counsel in preparing this Verification.
THE UNDERSIGNED also understands 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: I P 3 ?06)
RONALD PARRISH
Stephen G. Held, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: 717-238-2000
Fax: 717-233-3029
E-mail: HELD(a)-hhrlaw.com
JUDY PARRISH AND
RONALD PARRISH, her husband,
Plaintiffs
V.
Attorney for Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
NO. CA - qacg C?v Ter?+
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC,
and CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC.,
Defendants 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, 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 LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-249-3166 COPY FROM RE RU
1RTgdhW iy whereof, I here unto set my ha nd
of said tort at Cark.;Ie, N.
tno?4 r
AVISO
USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las
demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar
acci6n dentro de los pr6ximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificaci6n de esta
Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una
comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y
objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de
que si usted falla de tomar acci6n como se describe anteriormente, el caso
puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la
demanda o cualquier otra reclamaci6n o remedio solicitado por el demandante
puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted
puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted.
USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE.
SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA.
ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO
CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO.
SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES
POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE
AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO
A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-249-3166
Stephen G. Held, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: 717-238-2000
Fax: 717-233-3029
E-mail: HELDCcD-hhrlaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
JUDY PARRISH AND
RONALD PARRISH, her husband,
Plaintiffs
V.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC,
and CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC.,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
NO.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Judy and Ronald Parrish, by and through their
attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by Stephen G. Held, Esquire, and
bring forth this Complaint against Defendants, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., DDRTC Carlisle
Commons, LLC, and Central Penn Asphalt, Inc. and aver as follows:
1. Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, is an adult individual currently residing at 554 Pine
Grove Road, New Bloomfield, Perry County, Pennsylvania.
2. Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (hereinafter "Wal-Mart"), is a corporation
registered and established under the laws of Delaware with its principal office located at
702 South West 8th Street, Bentonville, Arkansas 72716, and doing business in
Pennsylvania at 60 Noble Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3. Defendant, DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC. (hereinafter "DDRTC") is a
limited liability corporation, registered and established under the laws of Georgia with its
principal office located at 3300 Enterprise Parkway, Beachwood, Ohio 44122, and doing
business in Pennsylvania.
4. Defendant, Central Penn Asphalt, Inc. (hereinafter "Central Penn") is a
corporation, registered underthe laws of Pennsylvania with offices located at 3701 G Derry
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17111, and doing business in Pennsylvania.
5. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Wal-Mart, was in exclusive control
of the property located at 60 Noble Boulevard, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
17013-4119 (hereinafter "Premises") and was presumably responsible for the removal of
snow and ice from the Premises.
6. It is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, DDRTC, was the owner
and had exclusive control of the property located at 60 Noble Boulevard, Carlisle,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013-4119, and was presumably responsible for the
removal of snow and ice from the Premises.
7. It is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, Central Penn, was hired
and engaged by Defendant Wal-Mart or DDRTC to remove snow and ice from the
Premises.
8. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, was lawfully on said
Premises as a business invitee of Wal-Mart.
9. At all times material hereto, Defendants, who had exclusive control of said
Premises, had allowed ice to accumulate and remain on the parking lot of Wal-Mart.
10. At all times material hereto, there were no warning signs posted on the
Premises warning of the snow and ice that remained on the parking lot of Wal-Mart.
2
11. On or about February 16, 2008, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, arrived at Wal-Mart
at approximately 7:30 PM for a shopping trip with her daughter-in-law and two
grandchildren. Plaintiff's daughter-in-law parked the car, and as Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, was
exiting the vehicle, she slipped on an accumulation of ice that was allowed to remain on
the parking lot of Wal-Mart causing her to fall harshly upon the ground and resulting in
personal injuries to the Plaintiff, as more particularly set forth herein.
12. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, Wal-
Mart, DDRTC, and Central Penn, the Plaintiff sustained extensive injuries as set forth more
specifically below.
COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
Judy Parrish v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc
13. Paragraphs 1 through 13 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
14. At all times material to hereto, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, believes and therefore
avers, that Defendant, Wal-Mart, was in ownership, possession, management and/or
control of the Premises and was responsible for maintaining the safe condition of the
property known as 60 Noble Boulevard, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
15. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence (actions or
inactions) of Defendant, Wal-Mart, and/or by its agents, servants, workmen or employees,
acting in the scope of their authority and employment, generally and more specifically as
set forth below:
3
(a) In causing or permitting the parking lot at the Premises to become
covered with snow and/or ice thereby posing an unreasonable risk of
injury to the Plaintiff and to other persons lawfully upon the Premises;
(b) In failing to make a reasonable inspection of said Premises which
would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed
by the snow and/or ice, and thereby allowing the same to be and
remain a dangerous condition when the Defendant knew or should
have known of it;
(c) In failing to ensure the parking lot at said Premises was maintained
in a safe condition to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and other persons
lawfully upon the Premises;
(d) In failing to remove snow piles and allowing them to melt and
subsequently freeze so as to create a hazard by allowing ice to form
on the parking lot;
(e) In failing to post a warning sign or device in the area to notify
of the dangerous icy or slippery condition on the parking lot of
said Premises;
(f) In failing to remove the snow and/or ice from the parking lot of said
Premises so as to avoid the situation in which Plaintiff slipped and fell;
(g) In failing to place, or inadequately placing salt, cinders or any other
non-skid material upon the snow and ice covered parking lot; and
(h) In failing to maintain the parking lot in a reasonably safe condition that
would prevent a business invitee of a tenant from slipping and falling.
4
16. Defendant, Wal-Mart, had actual knowledge or should have known through
the exercise of ordinary care and diligence that there was snow and ice accumulated on
the parking lot in the area where Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, fell.
17. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Wal-Mart,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, sustained serious injuries including, but not limited to, severe injuries
to her left knee which resulted in surgery, physical therapy, permanent scarring, and
depression.
18. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Wal-Mart,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has undergone great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish
and she will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to
her great detriment and loss, physically, emotionally and financially.
19. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Wal-Mart,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to her
daily duties and activities to her great detriment, loss, humiliation and embarrassment.
20. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Wal-Mart,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has and will in the future, suffer a loss of life's pleasures, including,
but not limited to, walking her dogs, exercising, playing with her four granddaughters, and
working in her garden.
21. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Wal-Mart,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid
injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention, and will be
required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to her great
detriment and loss.
5
22. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Wal-Mart,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has suffered lost wages/income, is unable to continue her day-care
business of 24 years, and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss
of earning capacity.
23. Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, believes, and therefore avers, that her injuries are
permanent in nature.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, seeks damages from Defendant, Wal-Mart,
in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County,
exclusive of interest and costs and demands a trial by jury.
COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE
Judy Parrish v. DDRTC Carlisle Commons LLC
24. Paragraphs 1 through 24 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
25. At all times material to hereto, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, believes and therefore
avers, that Defendant, DDRTC, was in possession, management and control of the
Premises and was responsible for maintaining the safe condition of the property known as
60 Noble Boulevard, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17013-4119.
26. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence (actions or
inactions) of Defendant, DDRTC, and/or by its agents, servants, workmen or employees,
acting in the scope of their authority and employment, generally and more specifically as
set forth below:
6
(a) In causing or permitting the parking lot at the Premises to become
covered with snow and/or ice thereby posing an unreasonable risk of
injury to the Plaintiff and to other persons lawfully upon the Premises;
(b) In failing to make a reasonable inspection of said Premises which
would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed
by the snow and/or ice, and thereby allowing the same to be and
remain a dangerous condition when the Defendant knew or should
have known of it;
(c) In failing to ensure the parking lot at said Premises was maintained
in a safe condition to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and other persons
lawfully upon the Premises;
(d) In failing to remove snow piles and allowing them to melt and
subsequently freeze so as to create a hazard by allowing ice to form
on the parking lot;
(e) In failing to post a warning sign or device in the area to notify
of the dangerous icy or slippery condition on the parking lot of
said Premises;
(f) In failing to remove the snow and/or ice from the parking lot of said
Premises so as to avoid the situation in which the Plaintiff slipped and
fell;
(g) In failing to place, or inadequately placing, salt, cinders or any other
non-skid material upon the snow and ice covered parking lot; and
7
(h) In failing to maintain the parking lot in a reasonably safe condition that
would prevent a business invitee of a tenant from slipping and falling.
27. Defendant, DDRTC, had actual knowledge or should have known through the
exercise of ordinary care and diligence that there was snow and ice accumulated on the
parking lot in the area where Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, fell.
28. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, DDRTC,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, sustained serious injuries including, severe injuries to her left knee
which required surgery and resulted in permanent scarring, requiring physical therapy, and
resulting in Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, experiencing depression and requiring anti-depressant
medication.
29. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, DDRTC,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has undergone great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish
and she will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to
her great detriment and loss, physically, emotionally and financially.
30. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, DDRTC,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to her
daily duties and activities to her great detriment, loss, humiliation and embarrassment.
31. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, DDRTC,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has and will in the future, suffer a loss of life's pleasures, including,
but not limited to, walking her dogs, exercising, playing with her four granddaughters, and
working in her garden.
32. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, DDRTC,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid
8
injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention, and will be
required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to her great
detriment and loss.
33. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, DDRTC,
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has suffered lost wages/income, is unable to continue her day-care
business of 24 years, and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss
of earning capacity.
34. Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, believes, and therefore avers, that her injuries are
permanent in nature.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, seeks damages from Defendant, DDRTC, in
an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive
of interest and costs and demands a trial by jury.
COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE
Judy Parrish y. Central Penn Asphalt Inc
35. Paragraphs 1 through 35 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
36. At all times material to hereto, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, believes and therefore
avers, that Defendant, Central Penn, was in control of the Premises and was responsible
for snow and ice removal from the property known as 60 Noble Boulevard, Carlisle,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013-4119, and was therefore responsible for
maintaining the safe condition of the property.
37. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to
Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence (actions or
9
inactions) of Defendant, Central Penn, and/or by its agents, servants, workmen or
employees, acting in the scope of their authority and employment, generally and more
specifically as set forth below:
(a) In causing or permitting the parking lot at the Premises to become
covered with snow and/or ice thereby posing an unreasonable risk of
injury to the Plaintiff and to other persons lawfully upon the Premises;
(b) In failing to make a reasonable inspection of said Premises which
would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed
by the snow and/or ice, and thereby allowing the same to be and
remain a dangerous condition when the Defendant knew or should
have known of it;
(c) In failing to ensure the parking lot at said Premises was maintained
in a safe condition to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and other persons
lawfully upon the Premises;
(d) In failing to remove snow piles and allowing them to melt and
subsequently freeze so as to create a hazard by allowing ice to form
on the parking lot;
(e) In failing to post a warning sign or device in the area to notify of the
dangerous icy or slippery condition on the parking lot of said
Premises;
(f) In failing to remove the snow and/or ice from the parking lot of said
Premises so as to avoid the situation in which the Plaintiff slipped and
fell;
10
(g) In failing to place, or inadequately placing, salt, cinders or any other
non-skid material upon the snow and ice covered parking lot; and
(h) In failing to maintain the parking lot in a reasonably safe condition that
would prevent a business invitee of a tenant from slipping and falling.
38. Defendant, Central Penn, had actual knowledge or should have known
through the exercise of ordinary care and diligence that there was snow and ice
accumulated on the parking lot in the area where Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, fell.
39. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Central
Penn, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, sustained serious injuries including, severe injuries to her left
knee which required surgery and resulted in permanent scarring, requiring physical
therapy, and resulting in Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, experiencing depression and requiring anti-
depressant medication.
40. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Central
Penn, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has undergone great physical pain, discomfort and mental
anguish and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the
future, to her great detriment and loss, physically, emotionally and financially.
41. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Central
Penn, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending
to her daily duties and activities to her great detriment, loss, humiliation and
embarrassment.
42. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Central
Penn, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has and will in the future, suffer a loss of life's pleasures,
11
including, but not limited to, walking her dogs, exercising, playing with her four
granddaughters, and working in her garden.
43. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Central
Penn, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure forthe aforesaid
injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention, and will be
required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to her great
detriment and loss.
44. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Central
Penn, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, has suffered lost wages/income, is unable to continue her
day-care business of 24 years, and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income
and/or loss of earning capacity.
45. Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, believes, and therefore avers, that her injuries are
permanent in nature.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Judy Parrish, seeks damages from Defendant, Central
Penn, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County,
exclusive of interest and costs and demands a trial by jury.
COUNT IV - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
Ronald Parrish v. WAL-MART
46. Paragraphs 1 through 46 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
47. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs, Ronald Parrish and Judy Parrish, were
lawfully married as husband and wife.
12
48. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Wal-
Mart, the Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort
from his wife, Judy Parrish, and he will continue to suffer a similar loss in the future.
49. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Wal-
Mart, the Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for his
wife's injuries, to spend money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to
spend money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, seeks damages from Defendant, Wal-Mart,
in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County,
exclusive of interest and costs and demands a trial by jury.
COUNT V - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
Ronald Parrish v. DDRTC Carlisle Commons LLC
50. Paragraphs 1 through 50 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
51. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs, Ronald Parrish and Judy Parrish, were
lawfully married as husband and wife.
52. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, DDRTC,
the Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort from
his wife, Judy Parrish, and she will continue to suffer a similar loss in the future.
53. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, DDRTC,
the Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for his wife's
injuries, to spend money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to spend
money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss.
13
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, seeks damages from Defendant, DDRTC,
in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County,
exclusive of interest and costs and demands a trial by jury.
COUNT VI - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
Ronald Parrish v. Central Penn Asphalt Inc
54. Paragraphs 1 through 54 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
55. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs, Ronald Parrish and Judy Parrish, were
lawfully married as husband and wife.
56. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Central
Penn, the Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort
from his wife, Judy Parrish, and she will continue to suffer a similar loss in the future.
57. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Central
Penn, the Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for his
wife's injuries, to spend money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to
spend money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Ronald Parrish, seeks damages from Defendant, Central
Penn, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County,
exclusive of interest and costs and demands a trial by jury.
14
Respectfully submitted,
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
Date:( By.
Stephen G. Held, Esquire
I . D. # 72663
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
Attorneys for Plaintiff
15
VERIFICATION
THE UNDERSIGNED hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing
document are 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 my own. I
have read the said document and, to the extent that it is based on information that I
gave to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and
belief. To the extent that the contents of the said document is that of counsel, I have
relied upon my counsel in preparing this Verification.
THE UNDERSIGNED also understands 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: 1???0 ,g?U
DY PA IS
VERIFICATION
THE UNDERSIGNED hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing
document are 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 my own. I
have read the said document and, to the extent that it is based on information that I
gave to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and
belief. To the extent that the contents of the said document is that of counsel, I have
relied upon my counsel in preparing this Verification.
THE UNDERSIGNED also understands 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.
L?
Date: 'lsz , "Woo 7
RONALD PARRISH
STEPHEN L. BANKO, JR., ESQUIRE
Pa. Supreme Court I. D. No. 41727
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Telephone: (717) 760-7501
FAX: (717) 975-8124
E-mail: sbanko(&margolisedelstein.com
Attorney for Defendant,
Central Penn Asphalt, Inc.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
JUDY PARRISH AND RONALD
PARRISH, DOCKET NO. 09-4202
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
V.
WAL-MART STORES, INC., DDRTC JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC, and
CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC.,
Defendants
PRAECIPE TO ENTERAPPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA:
Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, Central Penn Asphalt, Inc.,
in the above-captioned matter.
Date: 7 / 10I
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
By: ?
STE N L. BANKO, JR.
Attorney for Defendant,
Central Penn Asphalt, Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF 'SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on all
counsel of record by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill,
Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the day of ,
2009, and addressed as follows:
Stephen G. Held, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(Counsel for Plaintiff)
DDRTC
3300 Enterprise Parkway
Beachwood, OH 44122
(Defendant)
Wal-Mart Stores
702 South West 8th Street
Bentonville, AR 72716
(Defendant)
cvv?((x T'I?lM,ni?l? l
Angela W. Gaynndn, Soretary
ZGU7 JiL "? ?f) G• ? ti
,v;. r?,
CUM-
STEPHEN L. BANKO, JR., ESQUIRE
Pa. Supreme Court I. D. No. 41727
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Telephone: (717) 760-7501
FAX: (717) 975-8124 Attorney for Defendant,
E-mail: sbanko _marnolisedelstein.com Central Penn Asphalt, Inc.
TO: Judy Parrish and Ronald Parrish
c/o Stephen G. Held, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(Counsel for Plaintiffs)
You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed New Matter within
twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you.
oate ?1 1,41 u?
MARGO IS EDELSTEIN
By:
T N BANKO, JR.
Attorney for Defendant,
Central Penn Asphalt, Inc.
STEPHEN L. BANKO, JR., ESQUIRE
Pa. Supreme Court I. D. No. 41727
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Telephone: (717) 760-7501
FAX: (717) 975-8124 Attorney for Defendant,
E-mail: sbankoOmargolisedelstein.com Central Penn Asphalt, Inc.
address of Plaintiff-Wife, after reasonable investigation Defendant, Central Penn Asphalt,
Inc., ("Central Penn"), is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of said averment and, therefore, it is denied.
2. Admitted. Upon information and belief, the allegations contained in this
paragraph appear to be true.
3. Admitted. Upon information and belief, the allegations contained in this
paragraph appear to be true.
4. Admitted.
1
5. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph state a legal conclusion
to which no response is necessary. By way of further answer, to the extent that an answer
is deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation Central Penn is without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this
paragraph and, therefore, they are denied.
6. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 5 hereof is incorporated herein
by reference as if set forth in its entirety.
7. Denied. Central Penn entered into a contract for performance of certain
duties regarding the plowing and treatment of snow and ice with Cape Enterprises, Inc. on
or about December 2, 2007. A copy of that written agreement is attached hereto,
incorporated herein by reference and marked as Exhibit A.
8. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 5 hereof is incorporated herein
by reference as if set forth in its entirety.
9. The answer contained in paragraph 5 hereof is incorporated herein by
reference as if set forth in its entirety. By way of further answer, the answer contained in
paragraph 7 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety.
Furthermore, it is specifically denied that any conduct on the part of Central Penn was
negligent or that such action on the part of Central Penn caused, contributed to or
increased the likelihood of any harm to Plaintiffs.
10. Denied. After reasonable investigation Central Penn is without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this
paragraph and, therefore, they are denied.
2
11. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 10 hereof is incorporated herein
by reference as if set forth in its entirety.
12. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 9 hereof is incorporated herein
by reference as if set forth in its entirety. By way of further answer, with regard to any
allegation that Plaintiff-Wife sustained injuries, extensive or otherwise, after reasonable
investigation Central Penn is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of said averments and, therefore, they are denied.
COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
Judy Parrish v. Wal-Mart Stores. Inc.
13. The answers contained in paragraphs 1 through 12 hereof are incorporated
herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety.
14-23. The allegations contained in these paragraphs are directed to a party
other than Central Penn. Accordingly, and upon advice of counsel, no answer on the part
of Central Penn is required.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Central Penn Asphalt, Inc., demands judgment in its
favor and against Plaintiffs.
COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE
Judy Parrish v. DDRTC Carlisle Commons. LLC
24. The answers contained in paragraphs 1 through 23 hereof are incorporated
herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety.
25-34. The allegations contained in these paragraphs are directed to a party
other than Central Penn. Accordingly, and upon advice of counsel, no answer on the part
of Central Penn is required.
3
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Central Penn Asphalt, Inc., demands judgment in its
favor and against Plaintiffs.
COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE
Judy Parrish v. Central Penn Asphalt. Inc.
35. The answers contained in paragraphs 1 through 34 hereof are incorporated
herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety.
36. Denied as stated. The allegations contained in this paragraph state a legal
conclusion to which no response is necessary. By way of further answer, the answer
contained in paragraph 9 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its
entirety.
37. (a)-(h) Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 36 hereof is incorporated
herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. By way of further answer, Central Penn
specifically denies that any conduct on its part was negligent or that any conduct caused,
contributed to or increased the likelihood of any harm to Plaintiffs. To the contrary, Central
Penn believes and therefore avers that at all times relevant to the allegations contained in
Plaintiffs' Complaint, that Central Penn acted in a reasonable, cautious and prudent
manner under the circumstances and specifically in compliance with the terms of the
agreement which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
38. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 37 hereof is incorporated herein
by reference as if set forth in its entirety.
39. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 37 hereof is incorporated herein
by reference as if set forth in its entirety. By way of further answer, with regard to any
allegation of personal injury suffered by Plaintiff-Wife, after reasonable investigation
4
Central Penn is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of said averments and, therefore, they are denied.
40. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 39 hereof is incorporated herein
by reference as if set forth in its entirety.
41. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 39 hereof is incorporated herein
by reference as if set forth in its entirety.
42. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 39 hereof is incorporated herein
by reference as if set forth in its entirety.
43. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 39 hereof is incorporated herein
by reference as if set forth in its entirety.
44. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 39 hereof is incorporated herein
by reference as if set forth in its entirety.
45. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 39 hereof is incorporated herein
by reference as if set forth in its entirety.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Central Penn Asphalt, Inc., demands judgment in its
favor and against Plaintiffs.
COUNT IV - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
Ronald Parrish v. Wal-Mart
46. The answers contained in paragraphs 1 through 45 hereof are incorporated
herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety.
47-49. The allegations contained in these paragraphs are directed to a party
other than Central Penn. Accordingly, and upon advice of counsel, no answer on the part
of Central Penn is required.
5
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Central Penn Asphalt, Inc., demands judgment in its
favor and against Plaintiffs.
COUNT V - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
Ronald Parrish v. DDRTC Carlisle Commons LLC
50. The answers contained in paragraphs 1 through 49 hereof are incorporated
herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety.
51-53. The allegations contained in these paragraphs are directed to a party
other than Central Penn. Accordingly, and upon advice of counsel, no answer on the part
of Central Penn is required.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Central Penn Asphalt, Inc., demands judgment in its
favor and against. Plaintiffs.
COUNT VI - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
Ronald Parrish v. Central Penn Asphalt. Inc.
54. The answers contained in paragraphs 1 through 53 hereof are incorporated
herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety.
55. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Central Penn is without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this
paragraph and, therefore, they are denied.
56. Denied. The answers contained in paragraphs 9, 37 and 39 hereof are
incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety.
57. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 56 hereof is incorporated herein
by reference as if set forth in its entirety.
6
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Central Penn Asphalt, Inc., demands judgment in its
favor and against Plaintiffs.
NEW MATTER
58. The answers contained in paragraphs 1 through 57 hereof are incorporated
herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety.
59. Plaintiffs' claim, if any, is or may be barred by the applicable statute of
limitations.
60. Plaintiffs have failed to join all indispensable parties.
61. Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action against Central Penn upon
which relief may be granted.
62. Plaintiffs' injuries, if any, were caused by the conduct of persons or entities
not a party to this action.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Central Penn Asphalt, Inc., demands judgment in its
favor and against Plaintiffs.
LIS EDELSTEIN
Date: 7 (,?( 0 ? By:
7
V1?HE L. BANKO, JR.
Counsel or Defendant,
Central Penn Asphalt, Inc.
VERIFICATION
I, James A. Griffith, Sr., have read the foregoing Answer and New Matter to
Plaintiffs' Complaint. The factual statements contained therein are known by me and are
true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
This statement and verification is made subject to the penalties of
18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities, which
provides that, if I knowingly make false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties.
Date:
nes A. Griffith, Sr. esident
Central Penn As lt, Inc.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on all
counsel of record by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill,
Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the -e day of _ 0-11 ?Cj
,
2009, and addressed as follows:
Stephen G. Held, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(Counsel for Plaintiff)
DDRTC
3300 Enterprise Parkway
Beachwood, OH 44122
(Defendant)
Wal-Mart Stores
702 South West 8th Street
Bentonville, AR 72716
(Defendant)
f?
))q; AVMa'4'.'j
Angel 4/M. Gayman, S retary
„ ? Xh??f?
A
TO FAX:
Todd, Central Penn Asphalt and Paving PHONE: 727 657 2008
DATE
December 2, 2007
3701 Derry St # G
Email: tbartle"centralpennasphalt.corn Harrisburg, PA 17111
From Phone Fax Cell Phone
Bill Robinson, Vice President 610 520 1624 610 520 1625 484 2221946
Subject: 07-08 Snow Removal, Carlisle & Camp Hill, PA Page(s) Two(2),
Dear Todd: Includin Cover Page
Central Asphalt, Inc. agrees to respond to service the two properties depicted in the attached site plans upon each and
every winter storm event from the effective date of this contract, December 2, 2007, through April 15, 2008 with such labor,
equipment, and materials as may be required to meet or exceed the "Snow Specifications", Attachment 1, attached hereto
and hereby made a part of this contract for a lump-sum-fixed price of $70,000.00 (Option 2 (Fixed Flat Rates), which Cape
Enterprise, Inc. will pay to Central Asphalt, Inc. in four checks of $17,500.00 each The first payment is due on December
$ 34.00
$ 75.00
$110.00
$ 35.00
$ 75.00
$105.00
$130.00
$175.00
$110.00
$ 40.00
$ 44.00
$ 35.00
$140.00
$130.00
$ 20.00
$ 10.00
$ 10.00
$ 3.00
2008,
and the final payment on March 28, 2008. .
Option 1. (T&M Rates)
Manual Labor (hand work)
Spreader Truck (bag)
Spreader Truck (bulk) (7-15 an)
Tractor Spreader
Snow Plow (truck-mounted) 7-8.5 ft)
Bobcat
Backhoe
Large front-end loader
Front-end loader
Snow blower (walk-behind)
Snow blower (tractor-mounted)
Spreader Sidewalks (walk-b hind)
Dump truck single axle
Dump truck Tandem
Calcium chloride, or equivalent
Urea
Traction granules
Sand(bag)
Sand (bulk)
Rock Salt (bag)
Rock Salt (bulls)
Snow Pusher (12'
Option 2. (Fixed Flat Rates)
Alternatively, the proposed fixed-one
year prices, without regard to actual
snowfall are as follows:
Carlisle, PA $62,000
Camp Hill, PA $8,000
Upon signing this contract, Contractor
will provide Cape with insurance
certificates naming Cape Enterprise,
Inc. and Developers Diversified Realty
Corp as an additional insureds.
Attes d an bed to By:
9%461 1:1=
Bill Ro inson CAPE ENTERPRISE, INC L j if geX^ RA ASPHALT, INC
Vice President CarlisleCampHilIPA.EmagContractProposal.Snow-07-08
CAPE Enterprise, Inc. 800 Oak Ridge Road Bryn Mawr, PA 19010-1732
Phone: 610 520 1624 Fax: 610 520 1625 Cell: 484 2221946 E-mall: Bl1l0CapeE1.Com
Snow Removal Specification
Attachment 1 to Agreement between Central Asphalt, Inc. and CAPE ENTERPRISE, INC
In General: Contractor, "Central Asphalt, Inc.", personnel and equipment will be dispatched to the project
location when accumulation on pavement reaches two inches and shall inspect project during all snow/ice
events to determine if services are required. Contractor will make decisions as to whether a melting agent or
traction material should be applied. Both office and cellular phone numbers for Contractor personnel managing
snow/ice service will be provided, so that the Owner's representative, CAPE ENTERPRISE, INC, "Cape," may
offer direction and/or receive updates on site conditions, snow removal progress, or use/results of melting
agents. Such services shall be hereinafter described as follows:
• Service to be performed when accumulated snowfall exceeds two (2") inches. Less than two (2") inches,
the Owner is the sole authorizing agent. Contractor shall schedule equipment on site at (11/2") inches to
ensure effective coverage for snow removal or when icy conditions are present.
• Ali snow is to be kept on Owner's premises only. Snow is to be piled in windrows on the outer perimeter
of the pavement or designated areas. No snow is to be pushed into evergreens or other shrubbery
surrounding the lot and no snow is to be mounded at light poles.
• If salting is required, service shall include exits, entryways, drive throughs, storefronts, parking areas,
drives and complete rear of stores. Ice melt will be used on all sidewalks.
• It is understood that the Contractor shall maintain or have available sufficient "back-up" equipment t0
insure service in the event of mechanical breakdowns.
• Basic snow plowing shall consist of clearing entire parking area, all drives, sidewalks and stairs, on and
adjacent to the referred to site. Contractor shall apply Salting/Ice melting products to all walks, parking
areas, loading docks and drives throughout the property.
• It is agreed that all asphalt or concrete curbs surrounding the lot are now in good condition and that the
Contractor shall be held responsible for any damages thereto. Contractor shall advise the Owner in
writing of any exceptions prior to starting any work.
• Payments hereunder shall be made in four monthly payments, starting in December and ending in
March each year for services performed during the season.
Service during regular business hours
• Contractor will clear, to the best of our ability, major roadways and drive lanes to allow vehicles to enter
or exit the property.
• Contractor will clear direct exits from buildings to parking lots.
• A judgment will be made by a Contractor manager as to the necessity of applications of ice melting and
of traction materials.
• Contractor will remain on site as long as conditions warrant, unless otherwise instructed.
&mice during non-business hours
• Every attempt will be made to have the property clean and accessible prior to 7:00 a.m. the following
morning. Success will be greatly dependant on when precipitation ends.
Post Storm Follow-up
• Contractor will maintain contact with the Cape and address any subsequent site conditions that either
Cape or Contractor notice (i.e. snow drifting, refreezing or additional accumulations). Contractor shall
prepare and email a detailed accounting of direct cost for each mobilization to Cape within three days of
each mobilization.
Rates
• Contractor will perform services on a time and materials basis, at the rates stated in the body of the
Agreement, if the National Weather Service calls a winter storm a blizzard.
TOTAL PRICE PER SEASON:
Phone: 610 520 1624 Fax: 610 520 1625 Cell: 484 222 1946 E-mall: brobinsonODCaneUcom
800 Oak Ridge Road Bryn Mawr, PA 19010-1732
ADDENDUM
Addendum to 07-08 Snow Removal, Carlisle & Camp Hill, PA Contract
Dated December 2, 2007
Between Cape Enterprise, Inc. ("Company'l and Central Asphalt, Inc. ("Contractor") For
snow removal services at
Carlisle Commons Shopping Center (less than 395,000 square feet) at the intersection Of
Ridge Street and Noble Boulevard, Carlisle, PA 17013
And Camp Hill Center (less than 63,000 square feet)
At 3416 Simpson Ferry, Camp Hill, PA 17011.
Company and Contractor agree to the following changes to the 07-08 Snow Removal services
contract:
1. Services provided after the National Weather Service calls a "blizzard" will be billed at
the contract time and materials rates.
2. Contractor will provide four invoices totaling the contract price of $70,000.00 as follows:
The first invoice at $20,000.00, the second invoice at $15,000.00, the third invoice at
$15,000.00, and the final invoice at $20,000.00. Contractor will email the first three
invoices immediately and the final invoice not later than March 15, 2008. Company has
scheduled the first payment (dated and mailed on February 1, 2008). The second and
third payments will be scheduled for payment upon receipt of the signed services
contract, this signed addendum, invoices and Contractor's insurance certificate naming
Cape Enterprise, Inc. and Developers Diversified Realty Corp as additional insureds.
Company will notify Contractor by email of check dates. After Company's receipt of
Contractor's final invoice, Company will schedule the final invoice for payment before
April 15, 2008.
CLARIFICATION: With the exception of "blizzards" as called by the National Weather Service,
or additional services not covered by this contract, the maximum amount of consideration
under this contract is $70,000.00. Any payments above the contract price are subject to review
and approval by the property owner, Developers Diversified Realty Corp, who may approve
or disapprove requests for payment for any or no reason.
Contractor will scan and email or fax copies of the signed service contract and this addendum
to Company at Email: bill@capeei.com or Fax: 856 424 9582 and mail originals to Company's
home office: 1763 Route 70 East, Suite 206, Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 and Phone: 856 751 8813 or
8816.
Attested and Hy:
(/tc Q 2/1/08
Name Bill Robinson, Date
Title Vice President
Company Cape Enterprise, Inc.
Jf : Za78'
Name T ` J?I^?t 'D'
Title PY<s!(c%vr? t
Company Central Asphalt, Inc.
Phone: 610 520 1624 Fax: 610 520 1625 Celt: 484 2221946 E-mail: brobinson rACaneEl.com
800 Oak Ridge Road Bryn Mawr, PA 19010-1732
Tp4
rv s
Stephen G. Held, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: 717-238-2000
Fax: 717-233-3029
E-mail: HELDCc-hhrlaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
JUDY PARRISH AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
RONALD PARRISH, her husband, CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
Plaintiffs PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 09-4202 Civil Term
WAL-MART STORES, INC., .
DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC,
and CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC.,
Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER
OF DEFENDANT CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT INC
AND NOW, come Plaintiffs, Judy Parrish and Ronald Parrish, her husband, by
and through their attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP., by Stephen
G. Held, Esquire and bring forth this Plaintiffs' Reply to New Matter of Defendant,
Central Penn Asphalt, and aver as follows:
58. This is a paragraph of incorporation to which no response is required.
59. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby
denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiffs' claim is not barred by the
applicable statute of limitations. By way of amplification, Plaintiffs' cause
of action arose February 16, 2008. As such, Plaintiff's cause of action is
not barred by the statute of limitations until after February of 2010.
60. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby
denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiffs have not failed to join all
indispensable parties.
61. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby
denied. By way of amplification, it is denied that Plaintiffs have failed to
state a cause of action against Central Penn Asphalt, Inc. upon which
relief may be granted.
62. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby
denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiffs' injuries were caused by instant
defendants.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court enter a
judgment in their favor against Defendant.
Respectfully submitted,
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
Date: , Ol By.
Stephen G. Held, Esquire
I.D. # 72663
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
Attorneys for Plaintiff
2
VERIFICATION
PURSUANT TO PA R C P NO 1024 (c)
STEPHEN G. HELD, states that he is the attorney for the party filing the
foregoing document; that he makes this affidavit as an attorney, because the party
he represents lacks sufficient knowledge or information upon which to make a
verification and/or because he has greater personal knowledge of the information
and belief than that of the party for whom he makes this affidavit; and that he has
sufficient knowledge or information and belief, based upon his investigation of the
matters averred or denied in the foregoing document; and that this statement is
made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification
to authorities.
Date: d?
STEPH N HELD, ESQUIRE
Stephen G. Held, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: 717-238-2000
Fax: 717-233-3029
E-mail: HELD6 hhrlaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
JUDY PARRISH AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
RONALD PARRISH, her husband, CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
Plaintiffs PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 09-4202 Civil Term
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC,
and CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC.,
Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2? On this day of July, 2009, 1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's
Reply to New Matter of Defendant, Central Penn Asphalt, was served upon the following by
depositing same in the United States Mail, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania:
Mr. Stephen L. Banko, Esq.
Margolis Edelstein
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Counsel for Central Penn Asphalt
DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC
3300 Enterprise Parkway
Beachwood, OH 44122
Walmart Stores, Inc.
702 Southwest 8th Street
Bentonville, AK 72716
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
Dated: 7/22/09 ?-
Lisa M. Ketterer, Legal Secretary
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
flf THE
2009 jUL 24 FM 2: `,) 9
Cu UP lil`
FL.
82.215
MCDONNELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
By: Patrick J. McDonnell, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 62310
pmcdonnell gmcda-law. com
By: Nancy E. Zangrilli, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 91150
nzangri lligmcda-law.com
Metropolitan Business Center
860 First Avenue, Suite 5B
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Telephone - (610) 337-2087
Facsimile - (610) 337-2575
Attorneys for Defendant
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
JUDY PARRISH and
RONALD PARRISH, her husband
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC, and
CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 09-4202
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., in the above-
captioned matter.
MCDONNELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Dated: July, 2009 By: ' AA I
-&-W ?_ 4M -0--
Patrick J. cDonn , Es ire
Attorney No. 10
Nancy E. Zangrilli, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 91150
Attorneys for Defendant
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
" " "':AfY
OF THE
2009 JUL 3 f Vi''`i 3. 30
clit F,?
82.215
MCDONNELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
By: Patrick J. McDonnell, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 62310
pmcdonnel l gmcda-law. com
By: Nancy E. Zangrilli, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 91150
nzangrillikmcda-law.com
Metropolitan Business Center
860 First Avenue, Suite 5B
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Telephone - (610) 337-2087
Facsimile - (610) 337-2575
Attorneys for Defendant
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
JUDY PARRISH and
RONALD PARRISH, her husband
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC, and
CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 09-4202
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., hereby demands a trial by jury in the above-captioned
matter.
MCDONNELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Dated: July, 2009 By: `
Nancy E. angrilli squi
Attorneys or Def ant
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
FIE""
OF THE )",FRY
2009 JU'L 1 Fri 3: 0
? t{( .
}
82.215
MCDONNELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
By: Patrick J. McDonnell, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 62310
pmcdonnel lkmcda-law.com
By: Nancy E. Zangrilli, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 91150
nzangri l lmcda-law.com
Metropolitan Business Center
860 First Avenue, Suite 5B
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Telephone - (610) 337-2087
Facsimile - (610) 337-2575
JUDY PARRISH and
RONALD PARRISH, her husband
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC, and
CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC.
Attorneys for Defendant
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 09-4202
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Nancy E. Zangrilli, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of our Entry of
Appearance and Demand for Jury Trial on behalf of the Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., was
served on the following via facsimile on July, 2009:
Stephen G. Held, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Fax - (717) 233-3029
Stephen L. Banko, Jr., Esquire
Margolis Edelstein
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Fax: (717) 975-8124
and was served on the following via first class, postage prepaid on July , 2009:
DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC
3300 Enterprise Parkway
Beachwood, OH 4122
MCDONNELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Dated: July, 2009 By:
Nancy E. grilli, s -ire
Attorneys Defe nt
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
OF TH'" Y
2009Jll w1 P1 n
.r.
MCDONNELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
By: Patrick J. McDonnell, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 62310
pmcdonnell gmcda-law. com
By: Nancy E. Zangrilli, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 91150
nzan rg illigmcda-law.com
Metropolitan Business Center
860 First Avenue, Suite 5B
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Telephone - (610) 337-2087
Facsimile - (610) 337-2575
To Plaintiffs and Co-Defendants: You are
hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New
Matter and New Matter Crossclaims within
twenty (20) days of service hereof or judgment
inst you.
may be entered 7
? 12
Nancy E. ngrilli, Vswal-Mart uire
Attorney fo efendaStores, Inc.
Attorneys for Defendant
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
JUDY PARRISH and
RONALD PARRISH, her husband
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC, and
CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 09-4202
DEFENDANT WAL-MART STORES, INC.'S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND NEW MATTER
CROSSCLAIMS, PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 2252(d)
Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (hereinafter "Wal-Mart"), by and through its attorneys,
Law Office of McDonnell & Associates, P.C., hereby answer Plaintiff's Complaint and avers
New Matter and New Matter Crossclaims, as follows:
Denied to the extent this Paragraph asserts no allegations against Wal-Mart.
2. Denied. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
business located at 702 S.W. 8th Street, Bentonville, Arkansas. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is the
parent company of Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, which is a Delaware limited liability company
with a principal place of business located at 702 S.W. 8th Street, Bentonville, Arkansas. Wal-
Mart Stores East, LP, is the operating entity of Store #2574 at issue in this litigation. All
remaining allegations in said Paragraph are denied.
3. Denied to the extent this Paragraph asserts no allegations against Wal-Mart.
4. Denied to the extent this Paragraph asserts no allegations against Wal-Mart.
5. Denied. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
business located at 702 S.W. 8th Street, Bentonville, Arkansas. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is the
parent company of Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, which is a Delaware limited liability company
with a principal place of business located at 702 S.W. 8th Street, Bentonville, Arkansas. Wal-
Mart Stores East, LP, is the operating entity of Store #2574 at issue in this litigation. At all
relevant times herein, the property located at 60 Noble Boulevard, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, was
owned by Defendant, DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC. All remaining allegations in said
Paragraph are denied.
6. Denied to the extent this Paragraph asserts no allegations against Wal-Mart.
7. Denied to the extent this Paragraph asserts allegations against other parties to this action
other than Wal-Mart. All remaining allegations are denied, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
8. Denied, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
9. Denied to the extent this Paragraph asserts allegations against other parties to this action
other than Wal-Mart. All remaining allegations are denied, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
10.-11. Denied, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
12. Denied to the extent this Paragraph asserts allegations against other parties to this action
other than Wal-Mart. All remaining allegations are denied, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and
against Plaintiffs together with costs, attorneys' fees and such other relief that this Court deems
just and appropriate.
COUNT I-NEGLIGENCE
Judy Parrish v. Wal-Mart Store, Inc.
13. All preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth more fully at length.
14. Denied. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
business located at 702 S.W. 8th Street, Bentonville, Arkansas. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is the
parent company of Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, which is a Delaware limited liability company
with a principal place of business located at 702 S.W. 8th Street, Bentonville, Arkansas. Wal-
Mart Stores East, LP, is the operating entity of Store #2574 at issue in this litigation. At all
relevant times herein, the property located at 60 Noble Boulevard, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, was
owned by Defendant, DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC. All remaining allegations in said
Paragraph are denied.
15.-23. Denied, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and
against Plaintiffs together with costs, attorneys' fees and such other relief that this Court deems
just and appropriate.
COUNT II-NEGLIGENCE
Judy Parrish v. DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC
24. All preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth more fully at length.
25.-34. Denied to the extent this Paragraph asserts no allegations against Wal-Mart.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and.
against Plaintiffs together with costs, attorneys' fees and such other relief that this Court deems
just and appropriate.
COUNT III-NEGLIGENCE
Judy Parrish v. Central Penn Asphalt, Inc.
35. All preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth more fully at length.
36.45. Denied to the extent this Paragraph asserts no allegations against Wal-Mart.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and
against Plaintiffs together with costs, attorneys' fees and such other relief that this Court deems
just and appropriate.
COUNT IV-LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
Ronald Parrish v. Wal-Mart
46. All preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth more fully at length.
47.49. Denied, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and
against Plaintiffs together with costs, attorneys' fees and such other relief that this Court deems
just and appropriate.
COUNT V-LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
Ronald Parrish v. DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC
50. All preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth more fully at length.
51.-53. Denied to the extent this Paragraph asserts no allegations against Wal-Mart.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and
against Plaintiffs together with costs, attorneys' fees and such other relief that this Court deems
just and appropriate.
COUNT VI-LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
Ronald Parrish v. Central Penn Asphalt, Inc.
54. All preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth more fully at length.
55.-57. Denied to the extent this Paragraph asserts no allegations against Wal-Mart.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and
against Plaintiffs together with costs, attorneys' fees and such other relief that this Court deems
just and appropriate.
NEW MATTER
58. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because Plaintiffs were injured as a result of an assumed risk.
59. Plaintiffs failed to take due care for their own safety.
60. Plaintiffs' claims are barred insofar as Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages.
61. Plaintiffs' claims and causes of action are barred by operation of the applicable statute of
limitations.
62. Wal-Mart had no actual or constructive notice of any condition alleged by Plaintiffs.
63. If Plaintiffs sustained damages, such damages were caused by the negligence of a third
party over which Wal-Mart exercised no control.
64. If Plaintiffs sustained damages, such damages were caused by intervening or superceding
events or factors over which Wal-Mart exercised no control.
65. If Plaintiffs executed a Release releasing any person or entity from liability arising from
the accident or occurrence described in Plaintiffs' Complaint, Wal-Mart is similarly released
from any such liability.
66. If Plaintiffs seeks compensatory damages for expenses related to medical tests,
medications, and treatment, such damages are reduced by the holding in Moorehead v. Crozer
Chester Medical Center, 557 Pa. 630 (1998), to the amounts actually due and payable.
67. Plaintiffs' claims and causes of action are barred by reason of Plaintiffs' contributory
negligence, or alternatively, are reduced by the percentage of Plaintiffs' comparative negligence.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and
against Plaintiff together with costs, attorneys' fees and such other relief that this Court deems
just and appropriate.
NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 2252(d)
68. For purposes of this cross-claim only, the allegations contained in the Plaintiff's
Complaint against Defendants, DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC, and Central Penn Asphalt,
Inc., are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
69. If Plaintiffs sustained such injuries as alleged, which is specifically denied, Plaintiffs'
accident and injuries were caused by the negligence, carelessness, and otherwise wrongful
conduct of Defendants, DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC, and Central Penn Asphalt, Inc., as
alleged in the body of the Plaintiffs' Complaint.
70. If the averments of Plaintiffs' Complaint are established as true (said averments being
denied by Wal-Mart), and it is established that Plaintiffs suffered the injuries and damages as
alleged (said allegations being denied by Wal-Mart), then for the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs'
Complaint, Defendants, DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC, and Central Penn Asphalt, Inc., alone
are liable to Plaintiffs, jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs or liable over to Wal-Mart by way
of contractual and/or common law contribution and/or indemnification.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and
against all parties together with costs, attorneys' fees and such other relief that this Court deems
just and appropriate. Alternatively, Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., demands that Defendants,
DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC, and Central Penn Asphalt, Inc., are jointly and severally liable
to Plaintiffs or liable to Wal-Mart by way of contribution and/or indemnity.
McDONNELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Dated: August 10, 2009 By:
Patrick J. cDon , Es ire
Attorney I.D. No. 310
Nancy E. Zangrilli, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 91150
Attorney for Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
VERIFICATION
I, Nancy E. Zangrilli, Esquire, am an attorney at law, who represents Defendant, Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc., in this matter, and make this Verification, pursuant to Rule 1024(c)(2), that
said Defendant is outside the jurisdiction of the Court and the Verification of the Answer with
New Matter and New Matter Crossclaims cannot be obtained within the time allowed for filing
the within pleading.
McDONNELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
By: ??, Jem ?' Zvw M*
Nancy E. Z grilli squ'
Dated: August 10, 2009
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Nancy E. Zangrilli, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Answer
to Plaintiffs' Complaint with New Matter and New Matter Crossclaims of Defendant, Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., was served on the following via facsimile on August 10, 2009:
Stephen G. Held, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Fax - (717) 233-3029
Stephen L. Banko, Jr., Esquire
Margolis Edelstein
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Fax: (717) 975-8124
and was served on the following via first class, postage prepaid on August 10, 2009:
DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC
3300 Enterprise Parkway
Beachwood, OH 44122
MCDONNELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
By: Jqanad (? A -
Nancy E. angrilli squ'
Attorneys or Defe dant,
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
f sir. -X- TF E I': ?TAOY
2CO,9 A 3 11 21 : 57 r
Stephen G. Held, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: 717-238-2000
Fax: 717-233-3029
E-mail: HELD00hrlaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
JUDY PARRISH AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
RONALD PARRISH, her husband, CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
Plaintiffs PENNSYLVANIA
V.
NO. 09-4202 Civil Term
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC,
and CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC.,
Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER
OF DEFENDANT. WAL-MART STORES. INC.
AND NOW, come Plaintiffs, Judy Parrish and Ronald Parrish, her husband, by
and through their attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP., by Stephen
G. Held, Esquire and bring forth this Plaintiffs' Reply to New Matter of Defendant, Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc., and aver as follows:
58. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby
denied. By way of amplification, it is denied that Plaintiffs' claims are
barred because of assumption of the risk.
59. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby
denied. By way of amplification, it is denied that Plaintiff failed to take due
care for their own safety.
60. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent this averment is deemed factual, it is hereby
denied. By way of amplification, it is denied that Plaintiffs' claims are
barred because Plaintiffs' failed to mitigate their damages.
61. The averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby
denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiffs' claims and causes of action
are not barred by the operation of the applicable statute of limitations.
62. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby
denied. By way of amplification, it is denied that Wal-mart had no actual
or constructive notice of any condition alleged by Plaintiff.
63. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby
denied. By way of amplification, all of Plaintiffs' damages were caused by
the negligence of instant defendant.
64. The averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby
denied. By way of amplification, it is denied that Plaintiffs' damages were
caused by intervening or superseding events.
65. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby
2
denied. By way of amplification, it is denied that Plaintiffs' executed a
release releasing any person or entity.
66. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby
denied. By way of amplification, it is hereby denied that damages or
medical expenses should be limited by Moorehead v. Crozer Chester
Medical Center 557 Pa 630 (1998).
67. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby
denied. By way of amplification, it is denied that Plaintiffs' was negligent.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs's respectfully request this Honorable Court enter a
judgment in their favor against Defendant.
PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER
PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 2252(b)
68-70. These paragraphs are directed to parties other than Plaintiffs's.
Respectfully submitted,
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
Date: By:
Stephen G. Held, Esquire
I. D. # 72663
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
3
Stephen G. Held, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: 717-238-2000
Fax: 717-233-3029
E-mail: HELD(a)-hhrlaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
JUDY PARRISH AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
RONALD PARRISH, her husband, CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
Plaintiffs PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 09-4202 Civil Term
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC,
and CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC.,
Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER
OF DEFENDANT. WAL-MART STORES INC
AND NOW, come Plaintiffs, Judy Parrish and Ronald Parrish, her husband, by
and through their attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP., by Stephen
G. Held, Esquire and bring forth this Plaintiffs' Reply to New Matter of Defendant, Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc., and aver as follows:
58. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby
denied. By way of amplification, it is denied that Plaintiffs' claims are
barred because of assumption of the risk.
59. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby
denied. By way of amplification, it is denied that Plaintiff failed to take due
care for their own safety.
60. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent this averment is deemed factual, it is hereby
denied. By way of amplification, it is denied that Plaintiffs' claims are
barred because Plaintiffs' failed to mitigate their damages.
61. The averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby
denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiffs' claims and causes of action
are not barred by the operation of the applicable statute of limitations.
62. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby
denied. By way of amplification, it is denied that Wal-mart had no actual
or constructive notice of any condition alleged by Plaintiff.
63. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby
denied. By way of amplification, all of Plaintiffs' damages were caused by
the negligence of instant defendant.
64. The averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby
denied. By way of amplification, it is denied that Plaintiffs' damages were
caused by intervening or superseding events.
65. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby
2
denied. By way of amplification, it is denied that Plaintiffs' executed a
release releasing any person or entity.
66. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby
denied. By way of amplification, it is hereby denied that damages or
medical expenses should be limited by Moorehead v. Crozer Chester
Medical Center 557 Pa 630 (1998).
67. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby
denied. By way of amplification, it is denied that Plaintiffs' was negligent.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs's respectfully request this Honorable Court enter a
judgment in their favor against Defendant.
PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER
PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 2252(b)
68-70. These paragraphs are directed to parties other than Plaintiffs's.
Respectfully submitted,
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
Date: By:
Stephen G. Held, Esquire
I. D. # 72663
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
3
VERIFICATION
PURSUANT TO PA R.C.P. NO. 1024 (c)
STEPHEN G. HELD, states that he is the attorney for the party filing the
foregoing document; that he makes this affidavit as an attorney, because the party
he represents lacks sufficient knowledge or information upon which to make a
verification and/or because he has greater personal knowledge of the information
and belief than that of the party for whom he makes this affidavit; and that he has
sufficient knowledge or information and belief, based upon his investigation of the
matters averred or denied in the foregoing document; and that this statement is
made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification
to authorities.
Date: ?wvo(r I ? - 0 0
STE EN 9-11E-ff, ESQUIRE
Stephen G. Held, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: 717-238-2000
Fax: 717-233-3029
E-mail: HELD(cD_hhrlaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
JUDY PARRISH AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
RONALD PARRISH, her husband, CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
Plaintiffs PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 09-4202 Civil Term
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC,
and CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC.,
Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On this 4 day of August, 2009, 1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy of
Plaintiff's Reply to New Matter of Defendant, Wal-mart Stores, Inc., was served upon the
following by depositing same in the United States Mail, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania:
Mr. Stephen L. Banko, Esq.
Margolis Edelstein
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Counsel for Central Penn Asphalt
DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC
3300 Enterprise Parkway
Beachwood, OH 44122
Mr. Patrick J. McDonnell
McDonnell & Associates
601 S. Henderson Road - Suite 152
King of Prussia, PA 19406
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
Dated: 8/17/09
StephenA.
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
OF THE PR''iT'r-,3 , APY
2009 AUG 19 Pct 1: 3J
Stephen G. Held, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: 717-238-2000
Fax: 717-233-3029
E-mail: HELD(ED-hhrlaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
JUDY PARRISH AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
RONALD PARRISH, her husband, CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
Plaintiffs PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 09-4202 Civil Term
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC,
and CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC.,
Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
On the 1 day of September, 2009, 1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy
of Plaintiffs' Complaint containing Notice to Defend was served upon Defendant, Walmart
Store, Inc., by certified mail, return receipt requested, at 702 South West 8'h Street,
Bentonvill, AK 72716. The green certified return receipt card is attached' hereto as Exhibit
"All
I verify that the statements made in this Affidavit are true and correct. I understand
that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating
to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Respectfully submitted,
HANDLER, ENNING O$ENBERG, LLP
Date: By:
Stephen . Held, Esquire
I. D. # 72663
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
1% a wa rW wmnp 1s
x M11?ICMId odmy b i 0 F+.
t P&t yar nwm and ad*m an ft III m
vw we so ? 90 ow floVOLL
/MIEN wd fats back of** n 01
a an Mtir Rent ? a?ca p?nN1s.
4. Alt* Addw M W.
Wca.?4-- Z6r--
?a7 i ?
IL A0 01600M
m ---I 700
,.. ?rldralb"
rsrwrw? •..+?w?s?..w
x
C) *,Wt
a #ad1, va *mdditi&V - #?u+t9
It1?, wMw drMMyr adds allow:
O ftWd"
0 1NIa1"a" a ate.
?
A I- p"p" ova
500 0001 4505 7859
Stephen G. Held, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: 717-238-2000
Fax: 717-233-3029
E-mail: HELD(c0hrlaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
JUDY PARRISH AND IN THE COURT OF COIF
RONALD PARRISH, her husband, CUMBERLAND COUNT
Plaintiffs PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 09-4202 Civil Term
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC,
and CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC.,
Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PLEAS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On this I day of September, 2009, 1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy of
Plaintiff's Affidavit of Service, was served upon the following by depositing same in the United
States Mail, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania:
Mr. Stephen L. Banko, Esq.
Margolis Edelstein
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Counsel for Central Penn Asphalt
DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC
3300 Enterprise Parkway
Beachwood, OH 44122
Mr. Patrick J. McDonnell, Esq.
McDonnell & Associates
601 S. Henderson Road - Suite 152
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Counsel for Walmart Stores, Inc.
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
Dated:
Step en G. Held
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
OF THE 1009 SEA' -2 Ptl 3- 11
Stephen G. Held, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: 717-238-2000
Fax: 717-233-3029 Attorney for Plaintiffs
E-mail: HELD00hrlaw.com
JUDY PARRISH AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
RONALD PARRISH, her husband, CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
Plaintiffs PENNSYLVANIA
V.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC,
and CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC.,
Defendants
NO. 09-4202 Civil Term
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
On the t day of September, 2009, 1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy
of Plaintiffs' Complaint containing Notice to Defend was served upon Defendant, DDRTC
Carlisle Commons LLC, by certified mail, return receipt requested, at 3300 Enterprise
Parkway, Beachwood, OH 44122. The green certified return receipt card is attached
hereto as Exhibit "A".'
I verify that the statements made in this Affidavit are true and correct. I understand
that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.CS. §4904 relating
to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Respectfully submitted,
HANDLER, HENNING & ROS'ENBERG, LLP
Date: By:
Step a Id, Esquire
I.D. # 72663
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
1 - - N www w - -...T.aw.
4 9 NIr1?Mnd b dvWPM& .. w l
X OAPO
t a?mrnd adAr..? an th.
? men r,r ara p r?+.a?rr?a ?r .,
1
Mat+a.Ma+clF.p«Q.pwmNs -
1
. ya
R
drlM rAftrkfowftm 19
a
?. ea ? ? i?w?r.ddMrwabrr: o ?
t
comymy)s 1...C.. ?'
'dill aim
4. ^W) ow
7008 0500 0001 4505 7842
t, lAA r lt. A # w p rM?wa?Mr
r
Stephen G. Held, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: 717-238-2000
Fax: 717-233-3029
E-mail: HELD hhrlaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
JUDY PARRISH AND
RONALD PARRISH, her husband,
Plaintiffs
V.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC,
and CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC.,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 09-4202 Civil Term
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On this day of September, 2009, 1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy of
Plaintiff's Affidavit of Service, was served upon the following by depositing same in the United
States Mail, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania:
Mr. Stephen L. Banko, Esq.
Margolis Edelstein
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Counsel for Central Penn Asphalt
DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC
3300 Enterprise Parkway
Beachwood, OH 44122
Mr. Patrick J. McDonnell, Esq.
McDonnell & Associates
601 S. Henderson Road - Suite 152
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Counsel for Walmart Stores, Inc.
Dated:
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
S WUnglestown 1oa d
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
i tt-lt.a ri:,t?
OF TYF
2009 SE -2 PM 3: 1 c
ji N4 in,
+?Fr„C?u pnP.r?
r?i11V..et??r?1vIN.
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Todd B. Narvol, Esquire
30-5) NORTH FRONT STREET Attorne-N, ID #42136
P.O. BOX 999 717-237-7133
HARRISBURG. PA 17108 Attornevs for Defendants
DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
JUDY PARRISH AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
RONALD PARRISH, her husband, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
VS.
No. 09-4202
WAL-MART STORES, INC., DDRTC
CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC, and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC.,
Defendants.
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly enter the appearance of Todd B. Narvol, Esquire, Jason C. Giurintano, Esquire
and Thomas, Thomas & Hafer LLP, 305 North Front Street, P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg, PA
17108, on behalf of Defendant DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC.
Respectfully
Date: s v?
By:
Thomas, Tho46ak & Hafer, LLP
Todd B. N
Attorney ID 442136
Jason C. Giurintano
Attorney ID #89177
Attorneys for Defendants
DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC
and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Jason C. Giurintano, Esquire, do hereby certify that on this day I served a true
and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following, by enclosing a true and
correct copy in an envelope addressed as follows, postage prepaid:
Stephen G. Held, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Nancy E. Zangrilli, Esquire
McDonnell & Associates, P.C.
Metropolitan Business Center
860 First Avenue, Suite 5B
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Counsel for WalMart Stores, Inc.
Stephen L. Banko, Jr.
Margolis Edelstein
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Counsel for Central Penn Asphalt, Inc.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: I ? I/
Thomas, homas & Hafer, LLP
By:
T arvol
Attorney ID 442136
Jason C. Giurintano
Attorney ID 489177
Attorneys for Defendants
DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC
and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
OF FILE' C L ;
`.:'` THE
2009 NOY 24 All 9: 1 a
4
82.215
MCDONNELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
By: Patrick J. McDonnell, Esquire
By: Nancy E. Zangrilli, Esquire
Attorney I.D. Nos. 62310 and 91150
Metropolitan Business Center
860 1" Avenue, Suite 5B
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Telephone - (610) 337-2087
Facsimile - (610) 337-2575
JUDY PARRISH and
RONALD PARRISH, her husband
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC, and
CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 09-4202
WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly withdrawal our appearance on behalf of Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., in the
above-captioned matter.
& ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Pdtrick J. McDonnell, Esquire
Attorney ID No. 62310
MCDONNELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
By: ,
Nancy E. grilli, ire
Attorney I. No. 91 0
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., in the above-
captioned matter.
THOMAS, THOMAS AND HAFER LLP
By: By:
Todd B. Narvol, Esquire
Attorney ID No. 42136
THOMAS, THOftS AND HAFER LLP
Jason C. tano, Esquire
Attorn I.D No. 89177
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1, Jason C. Giurintano, Esquire, do hereby certify that on this day I served a true
and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following, by enclosing a true and
correct copy in an envelope addressed as follows, postage prepaid:
Stephen G. Held, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Nancy E. Zangrilli, Esquire
McDonnell & Associates, P.C.
Metropolitan Business Center
860 First Avenue, Suite 5B
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Counsel for WalMart Stores, Inc.
Stephen L. Banko, Jr.
Margolis Edelstein
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Counsel for Central Penn Asphalt, Inc.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP
Date: 1 /- aL ` By:
To&OPNarvol
Attorney ID #42136
Jason C. Giurintano
Attorney ID #89177
Attorneys for Defendants
DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LLC
and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
OF THE F?I?`?Tr 11,40TAAY
2009 NOV 24 AH 9: 18
a
Stephen G. Held, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: 717-238-2000
Fax: 717-233-3029
E-mail: HELD(a~hhrlaw.com
~~~ri
~. ~.,
20{QMA1' 12 f'r~i 2~ S8
Atto rn ey~~~~.~~,'#A
JUDY PARRISH AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
RONALD PARRISH, her husband, ,CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
Plaintiffs
v. NO. 09-4202 Civil Term
I
WAL-MART STORES, INC., I~
DDRTC CARLISLE COMMONS, LLC, : ',
and CENTRAL PENN ASPHALT, INC., '~
Defendants ~~, CIVIL ACTION -LAW
AND NOW, come Plaintiffs, Judy Parlrish and Ronald Parrish, her husband, by and
through their attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP., by Stephen G.
Held, Esquire and bring forth this Plaintiffs'
Stores, East, LP, and DDRTC Carlisle
to New Matter of Defendant, Wal-Mart
mons, LLC, and aver as follows:
75. This is a paragraph of incorporation to which no response is required.
76. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent this averment may b~ deemed factual, it is hereby denied. Byway
of amplification, it is denied that Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a claim against
Answering Defendants upon which relief moy be granted.
77. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent that the averment m~y be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By
way of amplification, it is denied that Plainti~f was negligent.
78. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent that the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By
way of amplification, it is denied that Plaintiff was negligent.
79. This averment is a conclusioln of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent that the averment m'ay be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By
way of amplification, it is denied that Plainti~f, Judy Parrish, assumed the risk of injury.
80. This averment is a conclusiojn of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent that the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By
way of amplification, it is denied that Plaintiff, Judy Parrish was a trespasser.
81. This averment is a conclusio,'p of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent that the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By
way of amplification, it is denied that conditi}~ns existed on the premises in question were
open and obvious.
82. This averment is a conclusioh of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent that the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By
way of amplification, the acts of Answeringl, Defendants were the substantial causes or
factors and/or the legal causes of the subject incident and did result in the injuries,
damages, or losses sustained by Plaintiff.
83. This averment is a concl
of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent that the averment
way of amplification, Plaintiff's damage, inj
be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By
and losses were approximately caused
by Answering Defendants.
84. This averment is a conclu
of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent that the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By
way of amplification, Plaintiff's damage, injuries, and losses were not caused by events
over which Answering Defendants had no control.
85. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent that the averment m~y be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By
way of amplification, Plaintiff's claims are no~ barred by the defenses of release, accorded
satisfaction, waiver, consent, estoppel, the terms of a contract or agreement, or the statute
of limitations.
86. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent that the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By
way of amplification, Answering Defendants were negligent.
87. This averment is a conclusionh of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent that the averment m y be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By
way of amplification, dangerous, defective, ar~d/or unsafe condition existed on the premises
at the times relevant hereto.
88. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent that the averment m~y be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By
way of amplification, Answering Defendants~lhad actual and/or constructive knowledge or
notice of the condition.
89. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent that the averment m~y be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By
way of amplification, Answering Defendants were responsible for the condition of which
Plaintiffs complain.
90. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent that the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By
way of amplification, Plaintiff s injuries were mot the result of pre-existing conditions and/or
related events, but were the result of the incident alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint.
91. This averment is a conclusi
required. To the extent that the averment
of law to which no responsive pleading is
be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By
way of amplification, it is denied that the dc}ctrine of hills and ridges is applicable in this
case. ',
92. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent that the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By
way of amplification, after reasonable investigation, Plaintiff does not possess sufficient
information in which to respond. I!
93. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent that the averment m~y be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By
way of amplification, after reasonable i
ion, Plaintiff does not possess sufficient
information in which to respond
94. This averment is a conclusior} of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. To the extent that the averment
be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By
way of amplification, after reasonable
n, Plaintiff does not possess sufficient
information in which to respond.
95. This averment is a conclu
required. To the extent that the averment
of law to which no responsive pleading is
be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By
way of amplification, the dangerous conditionwhich exists on the premises was not created
by Lexington Group International t/d/b/a Cape Enterprise, Inc., and/orCape Enterprise, Inc.,
and/or Central Penn Asphalt, Inc.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff's request judgement in their favor.
96. - 108. These paragraphs are directed to other entities other than Plaintiffs
and, as such, no response is required.
Ily submitted,
DLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
St pherf~G. I-I~Id, Esquire
Att rney I.D. No.: 72663
13 0 Linglestown Road, Suite 2
Ha risburg, PA 17110
(71 ) 238-2000
Att rney for Plaintiffs
Date: May 10, 2010
VERIFICATION
PURSUANT TOP R.C.P. NO. 1024 c
Stephen G. Held, Esquire, states
at he is the attorney for the party filing the
foregoing document; that he makes this
represents lacks sufficient knowledge or
and/or because he has greater personal kn
of the party for whom he makes this affid
information and belief, based upon his in
avit as an attorney, because the party he
ation upon which to make a verification
edge of the information and belief than that
and that he has sufficient knowledge or
ation of the matters averred or denied in the
foregoing document; and that this statemen~ is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa C.S.
§4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
n"G. HeIdl,Esquire
Date: May 10, 2010
i
CERTIFICA IE OF SERVICE
On this 10 `h day of May, 2010, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's
Reply to New Matter of Defendants, Wal-martStores East, LP and DDRTC Carlisle Commons,
LLC, was served upon the following by
same in the United States Mail, First Class,
Postage Prepaid in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania:
Stephen L. Banko, Esq.
Margolis Edelstein
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Patrick J. McDonnell, Esq.
McDonnell & Associates, P.C.
860 First Avenue, Suite 56
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Counsel for Cenfral Penn Aspha/f
Todd Narvol, Esq.
Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP
305 N Front Street
P O Box 999
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999
Jason C. Giurintano, Esq.
Thomas, Thomas & Hafer
305 North Front Street
P O Box 999
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999
Counsel for DDRTC Carlisle Commons, LL
I.D
13(
Ha.
(71
Counsel for Wal-Mart Stores East, LP
Cape Enterprise, Inc.
1763 Route 70 East, 2nd Floor
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
Defendant
NDLER, HENNI~VG & ROSENBERG, LLP
~heYf G. Held, Esquire
No.: 72663
Linglestown Road, Suite 2
isburg, PA 17110
238-2000
-nsel for Plaintiff
1Davi(f Imo. Buell" i '4os Wcnee X Simpson
Prothonotary " r Z 1st Deputy Prothonotary
�irkS. Sohonage, ESQ ; Tfi Irene E. Morrow
Solicitor „so 2116 Deputy Prothonotary
Office of the Prothonotary
CumbertanciCounty, 1�'-ennsy(vania
O9-4/.210A..., CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES
AND NOW THIS 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013,AFTER MAILING NOTICE OF
INTENTION TO PROCEED AND RECEIVING NO RESPONSE-THE ABOVE
CASE IS HEREBY TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
PA R.C.P.230.2.
BY THE COURT,
DAVID D. BUELL
PROTHONOTARY
One Courthouse Square • Suite 100 • CarCsle, PA 17013 • (717)240-6195 • Fax(717)240-6573