HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-6263IN THE COUIRT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION
ROYCE BROWN
400 E. King St., #2
Shippensburg, PA 17257
Plaintiff, Case No.109-4,2&3 Civil Term
V. Civil Action
LORI WHITE and
RICHARD C. WHITE
9526 Cumberland Hwy.
Pleasant Hall, PA 17246
Defendants.
PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT:
Please issue summons in the above case.
Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to Sheriff.
Date:
/Charles A. Pascal, Jr., Es e
402 Grant Avenue
Leechburg, PA 15656
412-855-6598
attorney.pascal@gmail.com
Supreme Ct. I.D. No. 90872
WRIT OF SUMMONS
TO: Lori White and Richard C. White
YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE NAMED PLAINTIFF S COMMENCED
ACTION AGAINST YOU.
Prothonotary
Date: 7 by
4 11 Deputy
(:;P)
RL.EQ-,:)? 'HCE
OF ?tics: ?'!0TARY
2009 SEID i 7 FM 2* 29
F78.s?v??A, (
?? :2307/3
Sheriffs Office of Cumberland County
R Thomas Kline
Sheriff
Ronny R Anderson
Chief Deputy
4titi„to aiu,rrbrrt1114
FILF-D-rORCE
OF THE F^07104%10TARY
2009 OCT -5 AN 11: O3
Jody S Smith
Civil Process Sergeant
Edward L Schorpp
Solicitor
Royce Brown
vs.
Lori White
Case Number
2009-6263
SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE
09/17/2009 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: Lori White, but was unable to locate her in his bailiwick. He
therefore deputized the Sheriff of Franklin County, PA to serve the within Writ of Summons according to
law.
09/17/2009 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: Richard C. White, but was unable to locate him in his
bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of Franklin County, PA to serve the within Writ of Summons
oo?? according to law.
X9428/2009 02:30 PM - Franklin County Return: And now September 28, 2009 at 1430 hours I, Dane Anthony, Sheriff
of Franklin County, Pennsylvania, do herby certify and return that I served a true copy of the within Writ of
Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Lori White by making known unto Richard White,
adult in charge at 9526 Cumberland Highway Pleasant Hall, PA 17246 its contents and at the same time
handing to him personally the said true and correct copy of the same.
128/2009 02:30 PM - Franklin County Return: And now September 28, 2009 at 1430 hours I, Dane Anthony, Sheriff
of Franklin County, Pennsylvania, do herby certify and return that I served a true copy of the within Writ of
Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Richard C. White by making known unto himself
personally, at 9526 Cumberland Highway Pleasant Hall, PA 17246 its contents and at the same time
handing to him personally the said true and correct copy of the same.
SHERIFF COST: $44.44 SO ANSWERS,
October 02, 2009 R THOMAS KLINE, SHERIFF
FILE% .~A~~_.~~r~`F
i ~~ ~ ~. E":..
"R'l~Y
Charles A. Pascal, Jr., Esquire
Pa. I.D. #90872
402 Grant Avenue
Leechburg, Pennsylvania 15656
(412) 855-6598
attorney.pascal@gmail.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
1DIQ.1t~L -I ~;~§ II~ ~9
~.
ROYCE BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
LORI WHITE and RICHARD WHITE
Defendants.
TO: Defendants
c~:r~ ~:~ ;~:;~ ;~N~
~. ` p,;p
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No.09-6263-CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE TO DEFEND
You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in
the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint
and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney, and
filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against
you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a
judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money
claimed in the Complaint or for any 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 OR KNOW A LAWYER, THEN YOU SHOULD GO TO OR TELEPHONE
THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL
HELP:
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
34 S. Bedford Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
717-249-3166
Charles A. Pascal, Jr., Esquire
Pa. I.D. #90872
402 Grant Avenue
Leechburg, Pennsylvania 15656
(412) 855-6598
attorney.pascal@gmail.com
ROYCE BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
LORI WHITE and RICHARD WHITE
Defendants.
Attorney for Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No.09-6263-CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Royce Brown, by and through his counsel, Charles A.
Pascal, Jr., Esquire, and files this Complaint in Civil Action, and states as follows:
1. The Plaintiff, Royce Brown, is an adult individual residing at 400 East King
Street, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17257.
2. The Defendant, Lori White, is an adult individual residing at 95 Shippensburg
Mobile, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17257.
3. The Defendant, Richard White, is an adult individual residing at 9526
Cumberland Highway, Post Office Box B, Pleasant Hall, Franklin County, Pennsylvania 17246.
FACTS
4. On or about September 25, 2007, the Defendant, Lori White, was driving a 1994
Geo Tracker owned by the Defendant, Richard White, east on East King Street in Shippensburg
Borough, Cumberland County.
At the intersection of East King Street and Queen Street, Shippensburg Borough,
the Defendant, Lori White, illegally drove through a steady red light, straight through said
intersection traveling east, at which time she veered from her lane of travel and struck a legally
parked vehicle (2007 Ford F-150 Supercrew XLT) owned by the Plaintiff, Royce Brown,
pushing said vehicle into another legally parked vehicle (1994 Jeep), also owned by the Plaintiff,
Royce Brown.
6. The impact of the White vehicle with the vehicle owned by Brown was with such
force that it caused the White vehicle to roll over and come to rest on its roof.
7. Upon investigation, the Shippensburg Borough Police determined that the
Defendant, Lori White, was driving while under the influence of both alcohol and one or more
controlled substances, and charged her criminally with Driving Under the Influence and other
Vehicle Code violations.
8. Both vehicles owned by Brown, a 2007 Ford F-150 Supercrew XLT pickup truck,
and a 1994 Jeep were damaged by the collision.
9. At the time of the damage caused by White, the 2007 Ford F-150 Supercrew XLT
owned by Brown had approximately 7789 miles on it.
10. The damage to the 2007 Ford F-150 Supercrew XLT owned by Brown required
repairs totaling $19,592.22.
COUNTI
Vs. Defendant Lori White
flVegligence-Resulting in Harm to Chattels)
11. The averments of paragraphs 1-10 are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully
stated herein.
12. The Defendant, Lori White, operated a motor vehicle in a negligent, careless and
reckless manner, in that she was driving under the influence, ran a red light, failed to remain in
her traffic lane, and struck the parked vehicle owned by the Plaintiff.
13. The Defendant, Lori White, failed to exercise due care, diligence or ordinary and
common prudence in her driving, and her driving was outside of the standard of care expected of
drivers on our highways.
14. The negligence of the Defendant was the cause of the damage to the property of
the Plaintiff.
15. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, Lori White, the Plaintiff suffered
diminution in the value of his 2007 Ford F-150 Supercrew XLT pickup truck.
16. Even following the $19,592.22 repair to said vehicle, the Plaintiff was not made
whole; to the contrary, the value of the vehicle after repair was substantially reduced from the
pre-impact value of the vehicle as a result of the Defendant's actions.
17. The fair market value of the Plaintiff's 2007 F-150 Supercrew XLT prior to the
impact caused by the Defendant was $25,675.00. See exhibit A.
18. The fair market value of the Plaintiff's 2007 F-150 Supercrew XLT following the
impact, and following the repairs, was $16,690.00. See exhibit A.
19. Thus, the diminution in the value of the vehicle suffered by the Plaintiff as a result
of the Defendant's negligence was $8,985.00. See exhibit A.
20. The Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment for harm to his chattel, not amounting to the
difference between the value of the chattel before the harm and the value after the harm or, at his
election in an appropriate case, the reasonable cost of repair or restoration, with due allowance
for any difference between the original value and the value after repairs. Restatement (Second)
of Torts § 928.
21. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to the allowance for the difference between the
original value and the value after repairs, which, to date, has not been compensated.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment in his favor, and against Defendant, in
the amount of $8,985.00 plus interest and costs.
COUNT II
Vs. Defendant Richard White
1Negligent Entrustment Resulting in Harm to Chattels)
22. The averments of paragraphs 1-22 are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully
stated herein.
23. The Defendant, Richard White, entrusted the Defendant, Lori White, with his
vehicle on or about September 27, 2007.
24. The Defendant, Richard White, did not use reasonable care in entrusting said
vehicle to Lori White, in that he did not assure that Lori White would drive said vehicle in a safe
and legal manner.
25. The Defendant, Richard White, did not use reasonable care in entrusting said
vehicle to Lori White, in that he did not assure that Lori White would drive said vehicle while
not under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances.
26. Richard White acted in a negligent manner by entrusting said vehicle to Lori
White, in part because it was reasonably foreseeable that Lori White would operate said vehicle
in a negligent and illegal manner, and that Lori White would drive said vehicle while under the
influence of alcohol and/or controlled substances.
27. Richard White knew or should have known that it was reasonably foreseeable that
Lori White may operate his vehicle in an unsafe, unlawful, negligent, or reckless manner if
entrusted with said vehicle.
28. Richard White knew or should have known that it was reasonably foreseeable that
Lori White may operate his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled
substance if entrusted with said vehicle.
29. It was reasonably foreseeable in September, 2007 to Richard White that Lori
White would drive while under the influence of alcohol and/or controlled substances, in violation
of the Vehicle Code, if entrusted with a motor vehicle in that Lori White had been arrested and
criminally charged in May, 2007 and again in August, 2007 with possession of controlled
substances.
30. Richard White was otherwise familiar with Lori White and that Lori White had
problems with alcohol and drug abuse.
31. As the owner of the vehicle, Richard White is otherwise responsible for the
actions of, and damage caused by, Lori White.
32. As a proximate result of Richard White's actions, Lori White caused damage to
Plaintiffs Ford F-150 Supererew XLT pickup truck, resulting in the need for substantial repair.
33. Even following the $19,592.22 repair to said vehicle, the Plaintiff was not made
whole; to the contrary, the value of the vehicle after repair was substantially reduced from the
pre-impact value of the vehicle as a result of the Defendant's actions.
34. The fair market value of the Plaintiff's 2007 F-150 Supercrew XLT prior to the
impact caused by the Defendant was $25,675.00. See exhibit A.
35. The fair market value of the Plaintiffs 2007 F-150 Supercrew XLT following the
impact, and following the repairs, was $16,690.00. See exhibit A.
36. Thus, the diminution in the value of the vehicle suffered by the Plaintiff as a result
of the Defendant's negligence was $8,985.00. See exhibit A.
37. The Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment for harm to his chattel, not amounting to the
difference between the value of the chattel before the harm and the value after the harm or, at his
election in an appropriate case, the reasonable cost of repair or restoration, with due allowance
for any difference between the original value and the value after repairs. Restatement (Second)
of Torts § 928.
38. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to the allowance for the difference between the
original value and the value after repairs, which, to date, has not been compensated.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment in his favor, and against Defendant, in
the amount of $8,985.00 plus interest and costs.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles A. Pascal, Jr., Esq it
Attorney for Plaintiff
Collision Claim Associates, inc.
P.t). Box 1734
Cumming, GA 30828
Phone - 778-887-762fi
Uwner. Royce Brown
Address: 480 E. King St, Apt 2
Shippensburg, PA 97257
Customer Number: 15280
Date Prepared: '8/2!2008
Vin#: 1P'TPVY14V37FA16337 Doors: 4 Roar
Year. 2007 Trans: Automatic
Make: Ford Eng Cyt: 8 CYL
Model: F-1.58 Color.: Red.
Series:. SupercrewXLT Mileage: 7789
F{~Ir Nlartcat Value is defined as tfie amount at which-the property vrould
change hands between a wiping buyer and a willing seller, each being
under no pressuro to buy or sell and etch being aware of'relevant facts.
Pre-Damage Vehicle Value - $25,675,00
Cause of Damage: Collision
Date of Damage: 9/Z5/2007
Point of impact: Rear Left
Cost:~f Repairs:= $19,592.23
'this is the expected value of the veFiiGe with disclosure or discovery
of the nature, location and extent of-the damage. This. amount does noftake
into consideration additional reductions due to repair quality issues.
Post Repair Vehicle 1/alue = $1 fi,690,00
This fs the expected diminished value. This figure represents the average loss
of market value of your vehicle w&h discovery or disclosure of the
damage sustained.
Inherent Diminished Value=:$$,985.00
4 Copyrighf 2008 Collision Claim Associates, Inc. All. Rights Reserved. Dupiicadon in whole orin partis strictly prohibited.
Weassume nd responsibiNtyforerrors, omissions or outcomes.
~~. ~i; i~ ~ '~ 111u~~' fi'
~~ jj ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~
~ ~
~ ~ fa.-~r
AnnratserCredentiais -Richard Hixenbaugh has personally written over 115,000 vehicle appraisals including; Damage
Appraisals, Total Loss Value Appraisals, Value Appraisals of AntiquelClassic/FxoticVeh~cles and Diminished Value
Appraisals. I have been qualified in numerous courts of law as an expert witness in this field. l have completed courses in
total loss i~ppraisalL and diminished value appraisal offered by the tntemational Soclety of Appraisers and I am ASE
Certified in Collision Qamage,Analysis.
tnherent i]iminishetl Value is the sudden and unforeseen. loss of value. of a vehicle dt~e to having sustained collision
damage and subsequent repair's; This is not'to be confused with normal depreraation .that occurs to a vehicle over Gme,
Inhererrt diminished value assumes that the vehiciehas.been repaired to industry standards. Although vehicle repair
technology is of a high level, there is still a difference between the manufacturing process and the repair process.
Consumers generally believe that a vehicle damaged by collision wilt never be the same and has a stigma that renders it
less valuable than a similar vehicle with no damage history. With most states requiring disclosure of collision..damage,
airbag deployment and significant refinish work, as well as consumers having access to vehicle history reports, a
vehicle's damage history will fdlow the vehicle wherever. it goes. As a result, consumers wiN not pay the same price for
a`wrecked and repaired vehicle as theywill for a vehicle with no damage history. Inherent Diminished Value is nova
quality of repair issue of a specrfic vehicle. It is a doss of value based on general public perception that a vehicle repaired
by a bodyshop is not in exactly the same condition as prior to the collision, thafthe refinish work done is not as good: as
that done by the manufacturer and that the structural integrity of the .vehicle. may have been compromised. As'a result of
these perceptions, a collision-damaged. vehicle will suffer from a loss of value perception and'therefore a loss of
matketabfity, which translates into a lower value.
Fair Market Value: is defined as the. amount at which the property Would change hands between a vuilling buyer and a
willing seller, each being'under no pressure to buy or sell and teach being aware of relevant facts.
Calfisicn history is a relev~t fact
Research indicatesthat severely damaged and,repaired vehicles can lose as much as 40°10 of<their pre damage value,
even with quality repairs. C?f course, the amount of value lost by a particular vehicle is dependent on many factors, such as
the year, make, model, location of damage and the extent ofidamage, 1t has been determined that 43% of consumers
would not even consider purchasing a vehicle with a moderate io severe damage history regardless of the price. Many
states require disclosure of damage at`the time of sale. As a result of these disclosure requirements,: dealers would send
these vehicles to auction rather than incurthe risk. of having them on their tot forextended periods of time.
Vehicle dues are basedon the perceution of the buying aubiic
The`fac# that a vehicle has been damaged and`repaired will have a negative effec# on its value.. Mast consumers today
utilize numerous information sources when mafdng a purohasing declsion. With the creation of several Internet based
vehicle history reporting companies, such as CARFAX, i# is easier than .ever before to research the history of a vehicle.
Most dealerships' wili simply refuse to accepttrade-ins with a damage history due to state damage disclosure laws and
liability concerns. In some cases where previously damaged and repaired vehicles are accepted as trade-ins they are
simply sent to auction for disposal. Even at auction, there are requirements for disclosure of structural :damage or air bag
deployment. This means that the auctioneer must make an announcement of this kind of damage when the vehicle enters.
the auction lane. in addition to this announcement, a yellow light is turned on indicating caution to any potential bidders.
Sincerely,
2t1~.f~~~lla~ll~~ ASE: Certified
Senior Appraiser
RJ Cbpyright2008 CdGsion Claim Associates, inc. All Rights Reserved. Duplication ~ whole or in part isstricdy prohibited.
We assume no responsibility for errors, omissions oroutcomes.
VERIFICATION
I verify that I am the plaintiff in the within action, and that the statements of fact made in this
Complaint are true and correct to the best of my krnowledge, information and belief. I understand that false
statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
DATE: ~
Royce own
VERIFICATION
I verify that the Plaintiff is unavailable to sign the verification in this matter within the
time allowed for filing of this Complaint, and that I have sufficient knowledge, information and
belief to verify the statements of fact in the within Complaint. T'he source of said information is
from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has authorized the signing of said verification on his behalf.
Upon receipt of the Verification signed by the Plaintiff, the same will be filed with the Court.
Date: f~~~ ~
--(~`tc
Charles A. Pascal, r., Esqui
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the within Complaint was served on the
following by depositing the same in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, on this,
the 30~' day of June, 2010, addressed as follows:
Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire
Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner
301 Market Street
P. O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Attorney for Defendants
Respectfully submitted,
Charles A. Pascal, Jr., Esquire
~i! ~D'OFFiCE
o~ s~~~ ~r~o~I~aA~~at~.~~
Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner
By: Jefferson J. Shipman
I.D. No. 51785 '
301 Market Street
P. O. Box 109
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109
(717) 761-4540
jjs@jdsw.com
ROYCE BROWN,
Plaintiff
v.
LORI WHITE and RICHARD WHITE,
Defendants
2~l0 C~CT 14 PN ! ~ !
~~~~=t~'~f~~~~nts
S~F~~t~SY~.VAl~6~~
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 09-6263 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: Royce Brown
c/o Charles A. Pascal, Jr., Esquire
402 Grant Avenue
Leechburg, PA 15656
AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2010, you are hereby notified to plead
responsively within twenty (20) days of the date of service hereof, or judgment may be
entered against you.
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER
J ff n J. Ship n
:406639
Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner
By: Jefferson J. Shipman
1. D. No. 51785
301 Market Street
P. O. Box 109
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109
(717) 761-4540
jjs@jdsw.com
ROYCE BROWN,
Plaintiff
Attorneys for Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 09-6263 CIVIL
v.
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
LORI WHITE and RICHARD WHITE,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants
ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
AND NOW, come the Defendants, Lori White and Richard White, by and through
their counsel, Jefferson J. Shipman and Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner and file the
following Answer and New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint:
1. Admitted upon information and belief.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. It is admitted only that the accident
occurred at or near the intersection of East King Street and Queen Street in
Shippensburg when Defendant's vehicle made contact with Plaintiff's vehicles. The
remaining averments of paragraph 5 are conclusions of law and fact to which no
response is required.
6. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. 1t is admitted only that the Defendant's
vehicle came to rest on its roof. The remaining averments of paragraph 6 are
conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required.
7. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 7 are irrelevant
conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required.
8. Admitted upon information and belief.
9. Denied. After a reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without
sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in paragraph 9 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is
demanded at the time of trial.
10. Denied. After a reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without
sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in paragraph 10 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is
demanded at the time of trial.
COUNTI
Plaintiff v. Defendant Lori White
(Negligence -Resulting in Harm to Chattels)
11. Ms. White incorporates herein by reference her answers to paragraphs 1
through 10 above as though fully set forth herein at length.
12. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 12 are conclusions of law
and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
13. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 13 are conclusions of law
and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
14. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 14 are conclusions of law
and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
15. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 15 are conclusions of iaw
and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
16. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 16 are conclusions of law
and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
17. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 17 are conclusions of law
and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
18. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 18 are conclusions of law
and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
19. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 19 are conclusions of law
and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
20. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 20 are conclusions of law
and fact to which no response is required. tf a response is deemed to be required, the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
21. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 21 are conclusions of law
and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant Lori White respectfully requests that judgment be
entered in her favor and the Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
COUNT II
Plaintiff v. Defendant Richard White
(Negligent Entrustment -Resulting in Harm to Chattels)
22. Defendant Richard White incorporates herein by reference the answers to
paragraphs 1 through 22 above as though fully set forth herein at length.
23. Admitted.
24. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 24 are conclusions of law
and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
25. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 25 are conclusions of law
and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
26. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 26 are conclusions of law
and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
27. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 27 are conclusions of law
and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
28. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 28 are conclusions of law
and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
29. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 29 are conclusions of law
and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
30. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 30 are conclusions of law
and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
31. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 31 are conclusions of law
and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
32. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 32 are conclusions of law
and fact to which no response is required. if a response is deemed to be required, the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
33. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 33 are conclusions of law
and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
34. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 34 are conclusions of law
and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
35. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 35 are conclusions of law
and fact to which no response is required. 1f a response is deemed to be required, the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
36. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 36 are conclusions of law
and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
37. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 37 are conclusions of law
and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
38. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 38 are conclusions of law
and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required; the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant Richard White respectfully requests that judgment
be entered in his favor and the Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
NEW MATTER
39. That Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against the Defendants.
40. That Pennsylvania does not recognize diminished value.
41. That Plaintiff s vehicle should have been totaled.
42. That the Plaintiff is only entitled to the lesser of cost to repair or
replacement.
43. That the Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages.
WHEREFORE, the Defendants Lori White and Richard White respectfully
request that judgment be entered in their favor and the Plaintiff's Complaint be
dismissed with prejudice.
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER
B.
J ffe son J. Shipm n
Attorney I.D. No. 51785
301 Market Street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
Telephone (717) 761-4540
Date: October 13, 2010 Attorneys for Defendants
:406639
VERIFICATION
PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. NO.10241c)
Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire, states that he is the attorney for the parties filing
the foregoing Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint, that he makes this
affidavit as an attorney, because the parties he represents are outside of the jurisdiction
of the court and their verification cannot be obtained within the time allowed for filing this
pleading; 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 pena{ties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn
falsification to authorities.
Jeff so .Shipman squire
Date: October 13, 2010
. r
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND N4W, this 13~~ day of October, 2010, the undersigned does hereby
certify that she did this date serve a copy of the foregoing document upon the other
parties of record by causing same to be deposited in the United States Mail, first class
postage prepaid, at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows:
Charles A. Pascal, Jr., Esquire
402 Grant Avenue
Leechburg, PA 15656
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER
By:
Mic ele E. eff
:aossss
rna-
rte
.
;?D G-) "Urn
=
{J} 2
t:
--E C)
C=? ID
ROYCE BROWN,
V.
Plaintiff
LORI WHITE and RICHARD WHITE,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 09-6263 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants
ORDER '/
AND NOW, this SY day of NU 4 0S T , 2011, upon consideration
of the foregoing Defendants' Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Answers to Discovery, it is
ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall provide answers to the Defendants' Interrogatories and
Request for Production of Documents within twenty (20) days of this Order. Failure to
comply with this Order will result in sanctions pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4019.
BY THE COURT:
r J.
e0pu, M ?
Distribution 814,W
Jefferson J. Shipman, 301 Market Street, P. O. Box 109, Lemoyne, PA 17043; Tel. (717) 761-
4540; Fax (717) 761-3015; jjs@jdsw.com.
Charles A. Pascal, Jr., 402 Grant Avenue, Leechburg, PA 15656; Tel. (412) 855-6598;
attorney. pascal@gmail. com.
ROYCE BROWN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
LORI WHITE and
RICHARD WHITE,
DEFENDANT NO. 09-6263 CIVIL
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 3d day of January, 2012, upon consideration of the Motion for
Sanctions filed by the Defendants and no response being filed by the Plaintiff,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Defendants' Motion for
Sanctions is GRANTED. The Plaintiff's cause of action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
By the Court,
. N--? ??A\/
M. L. Ebert, Jr., J.
/Charles A. Pascal, Jr., Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff c C=
-X)z Z.3
/Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire xr"
Attorney for Defendants
Ca Qty , z
bas Oxple5 ma:lod Ir3fis
=C)
t v3