Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-8298
W. Scott Henning, Esquire I.DA32296 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Lingiesm Rood Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: HsnnMgMHHRLow.corn JEREMIAH D. LASYONE, Plaintiff V. CHRISTOPHER L. SCHWARTZ, and PATRIOT BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC., Defendants : IN THE COURT OF CO+i PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENWSYLVANIA NO. oQ -9248 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW ueltII1 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 Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (800) 990-9108 (717) 249-3166 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mcis adelante en las siguientes pfiginas, debe tomar acci6n dentro de los pr6ximos veinte (20) dias despubs 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 defenses 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 mfis aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DESE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INIMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINiA. 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 AGENCW3 QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O SAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (800) 990-9108 (717) 249-3166 W. Scott Henning, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Lingiestown Road Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: 717-238-2000 Fax: 717-233-3029 E-mail: Henninafthhrlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff JEREMIAH D. LASYONE, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 09- p z 9 S a?,A _T CHRISTOPHER L. SCHWARTZ, and PATRIOT BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC., Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW ei :, AND NOW comes the Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, by and through his attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING S ROSENBERG, LLP, by W. Scott Henning, Esq., and makes the within Complaint against the Defendants and avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Jeremiah Lasyone, is an adult individual currently residing at 2103 Westwood Lane, Georgetown, Texas. 2. Defendant, Christopher Schwartz, is an adult individual residing at 310 W. Walnut St., Valley View, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant, Patriot Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. (hereinafter "Patriot") is a corporation, registered under the laws of Pennsylvania with offices located at 933 E. Philadelphia Avenue, Boyertown, Berks County, Pennsylvania. 4. On or about May 21, 2008, Plaintiff Jeremiah D. Lasyone was a passenger in a 2006 Pontiac GTO bearing Pennsylvania registration number GJS3069, which was owned and operated by Christopher Schwartz (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant's vehicle"). 5. At all times material to this action, Defendant, Christopher Schwartz was employed by Defendant, Patriot. 6. At all times material to this action, Defendant, Christopher Schwartz was acting within the scope of his employment with Patriot. 7. On or about May 20, 2008 and May 21, 2008, Defendant, Christopher Schwartz was attending a convention at the Hershey Lodge as an employee, agent, or representative of Patriot. 8. At the time of the incident, Defendant, Christopher Schwartz was acting in the furtherance of Patriot's business by entertaining the Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, as a potential customer. 9. At all times material to this action, there were no adverse weather or road conditions. 2 10. On or about May 21, 2008 at approximately 12:35 a.m., Defendant's vehicle was traveling eastbound on State Highway Route 1014 on or about the Harvey Taylor Bridge Bypass in East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 11. At approximately the same time and place, suddenly and without any warning, Defendant Christopher Schwartz, who had been drag racing and/or driving in a reckless, careless, negligent and/or grossly negligent manner, lost control of the vehicle, and violently struck a concrete barrier and subsequently hit a tree. 12. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, jointly and severally, the Plaintiff, Jeremiah Lasyone, sustained serious and permanent injuries as set forth more fully below. 13. Subsequent to the above incident, Defendant, Christopher Schwartz was charged, inter alia, with reckless driving. 14. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant, Christopher Schwartz, was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the aforementioned incident. 15. Paragraphs 1 through 14 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth at length. 16. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and all the resultant injuries to Plaintiff are the direct and proximate result of the carelessness, and/or negligence of the Defendant, Christopher Schwartz, generally and more specifically, as set forth below: 3 (a) In failing to be reasonably vigilant to observe the road and traffic conditions then and there existing; (b) In failing to operate his vehicle in such a manner that would allow him to apply the brakes and stop before striking the concrete barrier; (c) In failing to operate his vehicle under proper and adequate control so that he could have avoided losing control of his vehicle; (d) In failing to properly regulate the speed of his vehicle so as to prevent losing control of his vehicle; (e) In failing to operate his vehicle at a speed and under such control so as to be able to stop within the assured clear distance, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3361; (f) In failing to operate his vehicle at a speed that was safe for existing conditions, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. §3361; (g) In failing to maintain proper and adequate observation of the existing road and traffic conditions; (h) In failing to be continuously alert, in failing to perceive any warning of danger that was reasonably likely to exist, and in failing to have his vehicle under such control that injury to persons or property could be avoided; (I) In failing to exercise reasonable care in the operation and control of his vehicle, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3714; (j) In driving his vehicle upon State Highway Route 1014 in a manner endangering persons and property, and in a manner with careless 4 disregard to the rights and safety of others in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3714; (k) In drag racing with another motor vehicle in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3367; (1) In operating a motor vehicle while participating in a race or speed contest on a highway, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3367; (m) In driving while intoxicated, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3802; and (n) In operating Defendant's motor vehicle at a time when he was unfit to do so due to his consumption of alcohol. 17. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Christopher Schwartz, the Plaintiff has suffered serious injuries, including, but not limited to, an open fracture of his left tibia, fibula, and ankle which required multiple surgical procedures to avoid a possible amputation, an extensive period of hospitalization and ongoing medical are. 18. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Christopher Schwartz, the Plaintiff has suffered lost wages, and he will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Christopher Schwartz, the Plaintiff has suffered physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 5 20. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Christopher Schwartz, Plaintiff has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention. Plaintiff continues to receive treatment and incur expenses of said injuries, and will most likely continue to do so in the future, to his detriment and loss. 21. Asa direct and proximate resultof the negligence of Defendant, Christopher Schwartz, the Plaintiff, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures, and he will continue to suffer the same in the future, to his detriment and loss. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Christopher Schwartz, the Plaintiff has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to his daily duties, to his detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 23. Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, believes, and therefore avers that his injuries are permanent in nature, including the loss of range of motion of his ankle and permanent scarring and disfigurement. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, seeks damages from Defendant, Christopher Schwartz, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County exclusive of interest and costs. 24. Paragraphs 1 through 23 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 6 25. The occurrence of the aforesaid collision and the resultant injuries to Plaintiff were caused directly and proximately by the reckless and outrageous conduct of the Defendant, Christopher Schwartz, generally and more specifically as set forth below: (a) In driving while intoxicated, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3802; (b) In operating Defendant's motor vehicle at a time when he was unfit to do so due to his consumption of alcohol; and (c) In operating a motor vehicle while participating in a race or speed contest on a highway, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3367. 26. Defendant's actions in operating his motor vehicle under the aforementioned conditions amount to reckless and outrageous conduct, which Defendant knew or should have known, constituted reckless and wanton disregard for the safety of others. 27. As a direct and proximate result of the reckless and outrageous conduct of Defendant, Christopher Schwartz, Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, sustained serious injuries including, but not limited to, an open fracture of his left tibia, fibula, and ankle which required multiple surgical procedures to avoid a possible amputation, an extensive period of hospitalization and ongoing medical care. 28. As a direct and proximate result of the reckless and outrageous conduct of Defendant, Christopher Schwartz, Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to his daily duties and chores, to his detriment, humiliation, and embarrassment. 7 29. As a direct and proximate result of the reckless and outrageous conduct of Defendant, Christopher Schwartz, Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, has suffered lost wages and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 30. As a direct and proximate result of the reckless and outrageous conduct of Defendant, Christopher Schwartz, Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, has suffered physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 31. As a direct and proximate result of the reckless and outrageous conduct of Defendant, Christopher Schwartz, Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention. Plaintiff continues to receive treatment and incur expenses of said injuries, and will most likely continue to do so in the future, to his detriment and loss. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the reckless and outrageous conduct of Defendant, Christopher Schwartz, Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and he will continue to suffer the same in the future, to his detriment and loss. 8 33. Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, believes, and therefore avers that his injuries are permanent in nature, including the loss of range of motion of his ankle and permanent scarring and disfigurement. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, seeks damages, including punitive damages, from the Defendant, Christopher Schwartz, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County exclusive of interest and costs. 34. Paragraphs 1 through 33 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 35. At all times material to this action, Defendant, Christopher Schwartz, was an agent, servant, and/or employee of Defendant, Patriot. 36. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and the resultant injuries to Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, are the direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness of Defendant, Christopher Schwartz. 37. The aforementioned negligent, careless, and/or reckless conduct of Defendant, Christopher Schwartz, occurred while acting in and upon the business of Defendant, Patriot, and within the course and scope of his employment with said Defendant. 9 38. Defendant, Patriot, is vicariously liable for the injuries suffered by Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, which include, but are not limited to, an open fracture of his left tibia, fibula, and ankle which required multiple surgical procedures to avoid a possible amputation., an extensive period of hospitalization and ongoing medical care. 39. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Patriot, Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, has suffered physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 40. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Patriot, Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, has suffered lost wages and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 41. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Patriot, Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to spend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention. Plaintiff continues to receive treatment and incur expenses of said injuries, and will likely continue to do so in the future, to his detriment and loss. 42. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Patriot, Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, has been, and probably will in the future be, hindered from attending to his daily duties, to his detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 43. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Patriot, Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures, and will continue to endure the same in the future, to his detriment and loss. 10 44. Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, believes, and therefore avers that his injuries are permanent in nature, including the loss of range of motion of his ankle and permanent scarring and disfigurement. 45. Defendant, Patriot, is vicariously liable for the physical, emotional, and financial loss Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, has suffered and will continue to endure for an indefinite period of time in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, seeks Damages from Defendant, Patriot Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc., in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County exclusive of interest and costs. Respectfully Submitted, HANDLER, Date: 1/ By. W. Scott Her W4, Es Attorney I. D. # 32 1300 Linglesto Roa Harrisburg, P 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff LLP 11 VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verges that the statements in the foregoing document are based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the document is of counsel and not my own. I have read the document and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the document are that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this Verification. The undersigned also understands that the statements made therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unswom,?alsification to authorities. Jeremiah D. Date: _l I - r - 0 09 FILED -i;RACE OF THE M")T" ONOTAAY 2009 DEC - i PK 2: 2 4 # *is. sd ?d. 14? c is?y Qgy --? Jo 4 1 AQC /7 ?P,3' 971r 40. - (,s-QCs. - 7 k?G.- 3 33 / 9 S/1- "?'T SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson `~± ~' ~'r~~'(''~ t~-<., ~ i ~~. Sheriff _ , ~°: ~ : ' F ~-` ~„~.~ i ~ s.__ , ~ R n```~'~'~'„``:~iA Y Jody S Smith "~~ ~ ~~ ~~~' Chief Deputy ZQ' ~ ~A~ - $ ~~ ~: ~ l; Edward L Schorpp CU1~~= ="~,4 ~U rr;UiYtY Solicitor Ft~~'~ivSYLVANiA Jeremiah D. Lasyone Case Number vs. 2009-8298 Christopher L. Schwartz SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 12/03/2009 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: Christopher L. Schwartz, but was unable to locate him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of Schuylkill County, PA to serve the within Complaint and Notice according to law. 12/03/2009 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: Patriot-Pontiac-Buick-GMC, Inc., but was unable to locate them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of Berks County, PA to serve the within Complaint and Notice according to law. 12/10/2009 Berks County Return: And now, December 10, 2009 I, Eric J. Weaknecht, Sheriff of Berks County, Pennsylvania, do hereby certify and return, that I made diligent search and inquiry for Patriot-Pontiac-Buick-GMC, Inc. the defendant named in the within Complaint and Notice and that I am unable to find them in the County of Berks and therefore return same NOT FOUND. 12/23/2009 11:40 AM -Schuylkill County Return: And now December 23, 2009 at 1140 hours I, Joseph G. Groody, Sheriff of Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, do herby certify and return that I served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Christopher L. Schwartz by makinc known unto Kristie Schwartz, Wife of defendant at 26 Upper Beechwood Avenue, Pottsville, PA 17901 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. SHERIFF COST: $62.44 SO A RS, ___._,. .~' r ~ ~i January 07, 2010 ROI~IY R ANDERSON, SHERIFF Mon Jan 4, 2010 04:07PM SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT OF SCHUYLKILL COUNTY SCHUYLKILL COUNTY COURT HOUSE POTTSVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17901 (570) 622-5570 ** A F F I D A V I T O F R E T U R N I hereby CERTIFY and RETURN that service was made by handing a TRUE and ATTESTED COPY to KRISTIE SCHEARTZ (WIFE) ON 26 UPPER BEECHWOOD AVE. 12/23/2009 POTTSVILLE PA at 11:40 PAGE: 2 SWORN and subscribed before me this ~ SO ANSWERS ( , ,- l ~ (Deputy Sheriff) (Prothonotary) Sh f ill Co ) End - of - Return (X-447-2009) COUNTY OF BERKS, PENNSYLVANIA SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT Courthouse- 3rd Floor Phone: 610.478.6240 633 Court Street Fax: 610.478.6222 Reading, PA 19601 Eric J. Weaknecht, Sheriff Anthony Damore, Chief Deputy AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE DOCKET NO. 09-8298 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF BERKS Personally appeared before me, Jason Wolfe, Deputy for Eric J. Weaknecht, Sheriff of Berks County, 633 Court Street, Reading, Pennsylania, who being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that after diligent search having been made by him, he was unable to find PATRIOT-PONTIAC-BUICK-GMC, )NC, within named defendant, within this bailiwick. i ~ ` E~G(/L'' DEP TY SHERIFF O ERKS COUNTY., PA Jason Wolfe n and subscribed before me REBE CAOxE REIDfeR 0 day of ec x009 HotarY ~'~ ~rr~ , ._ ~~' READING cm eErtK~ courm ~~ SU \l i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J, '~ ~ ,, j~!, ~~ I I ~ en MY Commlaton Explrse Fib 22. 2012 OTA~~RY PUBLIC; READING, BERKS CO., PA i~;G'tiC ~ ~1 ~'~ Ct c~'c~(p SS i S ~ ~C~ ~e ~. ~ ~ ~tc~~-1-~0 ~ ~~ C.c_~~~ `~-~ . Sheriffs Costs in Above Proceedings $ 100.00 DEPOSIT $ 14.00 ACTUAL COST OF CASE $ 86.00 AMOUNT OF REFUND "NOT FOUND" as to the above named defendant So Answers, SHERIF of BERKS COUNTY, P.A Eric J. Wealazecht All Sheriffs Costs shall be due and payable when services are performed, and it shall be lawful for him to demand and receive from the party instituting the proceedings, or any part liable for the costs thereof, all unpaid sheriffs fees on the same before he shall be obligated by law to make return thereof. _Sec. 2, Act of June 20, 191 1, P.L/ 1072 Dedicated to public service with integrity, virtue & excellence www.countyofberks.com/sheriff z 9 L1 .. ' s! a a 'Q$II Irr'~'lie Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Jeremiah D. Lasyone vs. Christopher L. Schwartz 26 Upper Beechwood Avenue Pottsville, PA 17901 Civil No. 2009-8298 Now, December 3, 2009, I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Schuylkill County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. ~s~ r-~ , Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Now, within upon at by handing to a and made known to Sworn and subscribed before me this day of ,2p the contents thereof. So answers, Sheriff of COSTS SERVICE MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT County, PA Affidavit of Service 20 , at o'clock M, served the copy of the original In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Jeremiah D. Lasyone vs. Patriot-Pontiac-Buick-GMC, Inc. 933 E. Philadelphia Avenue Boyerstown, PA 19512 Civil No. 2009-8298 Now, December 3, 2009, I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Berks County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. 3- ~! Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, , 20 , at o'clock M, served the within upon at by handing to and made known. to Sworn and subscribed before me this day of ,2p So answers, the contents thereof. snenrt of COSTS SERVICE_ _ $ MILEAGE_ AFFIDAVIT County, PA copy of the original ~1E,,,S~J ~_,~,~ k ~ \' 2~lG J~~ ?~i r~:~ }: ~t JEREMIAH D. LASYONE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. NO. 09-8298 CHRISTOPHER L. SCHWARTZ, and PATRIOT BUICK PONTIAC GMC, :CIVIL ACTION -LAW INC., Defendants PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: Please reinstate the Complaint in the above referenced matter. Please instruct the Sheriff of Berks County to deputize the Sheriff of Montgomery County and attempt service of the Complaint upon the Defendant at the following address: Patriot-Pontiac-Buick-GMC, Inc. 933 E. Philadelphia Ave. Boyerstown, PA 19512 Date: ` °~ ~ ~~ `Q HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG By W. S He in q I.D. #32298 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff ~ ID • oo Pp >,-rr1 e~* ~ ~~ n5a a3~9a.~ JEREMIAH D. LASYONE Plaintiff v. CHRISTOPHER L. SCHWARTZ, and PATRIOT BUICK PONTIAC GMC, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-8298 CIVIL ACTION -LAW INC., c Defendants n ~ r~~~', €~ ~.: C+? =:- PRAECIPE ~; -.-~ ~_. ~Y,. ~- TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: N O_ O it'7 CJ1 .c- 0 --{ ~ f"' ~~ Ca~ y~ c, rn Please reinstate the Complaint in the above referenced matter. Please instruct the Sheriff's Office to deputize the Sheriff of Montgomery County and attempt service of the Complaint upon the Defendant at the following address: Patriot-Pontiac-Buick-GMC, Inc. 933 E. Philadelphia Ave. Boyerstown, PA 19512 HANDLER, HENNING 8~ ROSENBERG Date: ~ ~ -°2~ 1~ By _~- W. S ott ng, I.D. #32298 1300 Linglestow o. Harrisburg, PA 1711 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff 1 D. D O ~~ ~~``I C~ ~ S~3~S ~- a3g s~3 MAY 14 2010 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-8298 JEREMIAH D. LASYONE, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION (Jury Trial Demanded) v. CHRISTOPHER L. SCHWARTZ and PATRIOT BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC., Defendants. ORDER AND NOW, TO WIT, this / ~ ~ day of /-'~ ~_, 2010, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, provide Defendant, Christopher L. Schwartz, with full and complete Discovery 3'cru.-v~. Responses within twenty (20) days of the date of~this Order. 1 Distribution List Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE and SKEEL, P.C. 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (A/ttorney for Defendant, Christopher L. Schwartz) /W. Scott Henning, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Attorney for Plaintiff) s ~ ~ ~lv `~~ c~ fl'1 •' i `~~: ~i=: `~i ti N 0 a -.c u: c~-, :~: --~, ~~ .~; .~~ -~~ _~ t.., .„S ,l '~ 4 . '- - _rrt `{ 20101~ir~'~ 20 ~'`1 ~~ `~~ CUP~i~~ - .:'~N Y €'~~ J~~S`tLV~~1,'~. JEREMIAH D. LASYONE, Plaintiff(s) v. CHRISTOPHER L. SCHWARTZ, and PATRIOT BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC., Defendant(s) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: Please reinstate the Complaint in the above referenced matter. Please instruct the Sheriff of Cumberland County to deputize the Sheriff of Montgomery County to serve the Complaint upon Defendant Patriot Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc., at: 933 E. Philadelphia Ave. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA N0.09-8298 CIVIL ACTION -LAW PRAECIPE Boyerstown, PA 19512 Date: ~-~ ~U ~~'J l HANDLER, KENNING By W. ott Henning, sq. I.D. #32298 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff LLP ~v SID-00 Pp ATrY Caw laa3a SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Sheriff Jody S Smith Chief Deputy 44t~~tit~~ of ~nu,G~~„~r~jb ~., F c~, - ,;_ ~^ f~'T ,~ Richard W Stewart Solicitor „ .., ~.~ r ,;' Jeremiah D. Lasyone Case Number vs. Christopher L. Schwartz (et al.} 2009-8298 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 05/24/2010 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: Patriot-Pontiac-Buick-GMC, Inc., but was unable to locate them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of Montgomery County, PA to serve the within Complaint and Notice according to law. 06!02/2010 Montgomery County Return: And now June 2, 2010 at 0855 hours I, John P. Durante, Sheriff of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, do herby certify and return that I served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Patriot-Pontiac-Buick-GMC, Inc. by making known unto Rich Egolf, General Manager for Patriot-Pontiac-Buick-GMC, Inc. at 933 E. Philadelphia Avenue, Boyerstown, PA 19512 its contents and at the same time handing to him personally the said true and correct copy of the same. SHERIFF COST: $37.44 SO ANSWERS, • ~t~--~' June 11, 2010 RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF fci Chun!ySuite Shentt. Te!eesofi. Inc. In The Court of C Pleas Jeremiah D ' Lasyone vs. Patriot-Pontiac-Buick-GMC, Inc. 933 E. Philadelphia Avenue Boyerstown, PA 19512 of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Civil No. 2009-8298 Now, May 24, 2010, I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Montgomery County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. ~~-- /3heriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, ~ ~.~c, Z , 20 I ~ , at ~sls; o'clock fF M, served the within a upon ~-4c~, ~ ~.~,.~ by handing to ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ l ~ (~ , `~ Cam{„ ~~~ 1~ ~ ~- copy of the original ~,,,,,,,~ ~ ~c.r„ 'f and made known to ~~, c.,l,~ E wl -~ the contents thereof. S o answers, ~~ fi Sworn and subscribed before me this day of ,20 '~`~ ~ C" J o~W~, y~- ~?'~v- `''r' ~~©~~y ~ ,~~ Sheriff of _~' County, PA COSTS SERVICE $ MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT MARCH, HURWITZ & DeMARCO, P.C. BY: JOSEPH M. DeMARCO, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. N0.44061 17 WEST THIRD STREET P.O. BOX 108 MEDIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19063 (610) 565-3950 ^f ZOlD,U~ 24 PM ~~ ~~ f~~'-11..rkirrA"N Yirt *.~~I ~f 1 1 pEN~vS`II..VAI`1lP. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW JEREMIAH D. LASYONE, . Plaintiff N0.09-8298 v. CHRISTOPHER L. SCHWARTZ and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PATRIOT BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC., Defendants ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance for Defendant PATRIOT BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC. in the above-captioned matter. l1 3 M. DeMARCO, ESQUIRE for Defendant Patriot Bui Pontia GMC, Inc. MARCH, HURWITZ & DeMARCO, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW • 17 WEST THIRD STREET • P.O. BOX 108 • MEDIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19063 ~ x- .r MARCH, HURW[TZ & DeMARCO, P.C. BY: JOSEPH M. DeMARCO, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY LD.N0.44061 Z~~Q •~+~. '2 ~l ~t~ ~ } 17 WEST THIRD STREET P.O. BOX 108 Ci~~d°:.:;.:~: ~.Ni~' MEDIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19063 r'Cr!W`,!:.;'i'I w','':,°-ice (610) 565-3950 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW JEREMIAH D. LASYONE, Plaintiff N0.09-8298 v. CHRISTOPHER L. SCHWARTZ and PATRIOT BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO PLAINTIFF: You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed Answer with New Matter and BY: Crossclaims within Twenty days (20) of service hereof or a default Judgment may be entered against you. MARCH, HURy~'Z & DeMARCO, P.C. -I M. DeMARCO, ESQUIRE for Defendant Patriot Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. 1 ~• ~ MARCH, HURWITZ & DeMARCO, P.C. BY: JOSEPH M. DeMARCO, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. N0.44061 17 WEST THIRD STREET P.O. BOX 108 MEDIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19063 (610) 565-3950 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW JEREMIAH D. LASYONE, Plaintiff NO. 09-8298 v. CHRISTOPHER L. SCHWARTZ and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PATRIOT BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC., Defendants . ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND CROSSCLAIMS OF DEFENDANT PATRIOT BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC. 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without information sufficient with which to admit or deny the veracity of the averments in this paragraph. Strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at trial. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without information sufficient with which to admit or deny the veracity of the averments in this paragraph. Strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at trial. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without information sufficient with which to admit or deny the veracity of the averments in this paragraph. Strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at trial. 5. Denied as stated. Answering Defendant is uncertain as to the meaning of the term "at all times material to this action" and therefore is unable to respond to the same. It is admitted ~<< that on May 21, 2008 Christopher Schwartz was an employee of Defendant Patriot. It is specifically denied that at the time of this accident Defendant Schwartz was within the course and scope of his employment with Defendant Patriot. 6. Denied as stated. Answering Defendant is uncertain as to the meaning of the term "at all times material to this action" and therefore is unable to respond to the same. It is specifically denied that on or about May 21, 2008 at the time of this accident Mr. Schwartz was acting within the scope of his employment with Patriot. 7. Denied. It is admitted that on or about May 20, 2008 and May 21, 2008 Defendant Christopher Schwartz was attending a convention at the Hershey Lodge. It is denied that this attendance was "as an employee, agent or representative of Patriot". By way of further response, it is specifically denied that at the time of the accident Mr. Schwartz was within the course and scope of any employment relationship he had with Defendant Patriot or acting as an employee, agent or representative of Patriot. 8. Denied. It is specifically denied that at the time of the incident Defendant Schwartz was acting in furtherance of Patriot's business. It is denied that at the time of the incident Defendant Schwartz was entertaining the Plaintiff Jeremiah Lasyone as a potential customer. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without information sufficient with which to admit or deny the veracity of the averments in this paragraph. Strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at trial. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without information sufficient with which to admit or deny the veracity of the averments in this paragraph. Strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at trial. ,~ < < ~ 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without information sufficient with which to admit or deny the veracity of the averments in this paragraph. Strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at trial. By way of further response, certain averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. 12. Denied. Certain averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. It is specifically denied the Answering Defendant was in any fashion negligent. It is specifically denied that any action and/or inaction on the part of the Answering Defendant directly and/or proximately resulted in any damages to the Plaintiff. It is denied that the Answering Defendant is jointly and/or severely liable to the Plaintiff. With respect to any remaining factual averments, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without information sufficient with which to admit or deny the veracity of the same. Strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at trial. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without information sufficient with which to admit or deny the veracity of the averments in this paragraph. Strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at trial. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without information sufficient with which to admit or deny the veracity of the averments in this paragraph. Strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at trial. COUNT I -NEGLIGENCE JEREMIAH D. LASYONE V. CHRISTOPHER SCHWARTZ 15-33. Denied. The averments contained in these paragraphs are addressed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendant. Answering Defendant believes as such that it has no obligation to respond to the same. To the extent a response to these paragraphs is ~ { ~ ~ required, Answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth at length the averments contained elsewhere in this Answer with New Matter and Crossclaims. COUNT III -VICARIOUS LIABILITY JEREMIAH D. LASYONE V. PATRIOT BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC. 34. Denied. Answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth at length the averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 33 of its Answer with New Matter and Crossclaims. 35. Denied. Answering Defendant is uncertain as to the meaning of the term "at all times material to this action" and therefore is unable to respond to the same. It is specifically denied that on or about May 21, 2008 at the time of the accident that Defendant Schwartz was operating as the agent, servant and/or employee of Defendant Patriot. On the contrary, at the time of the accident, Mr. Schwartz was outside the scope of any employment or agency relationship he had with Defendant Patriot. 36. Denied. Certain averments contained in paragraph 36 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. With respect to any factual averments, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without information sufficient with which to admit or deny the veracity of the same. Strict proof is demanded at trial. 37. Denied. Certain averments contained in paragraph 37 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. It is specifically denied that at the time of the accident, Defendant Schwartz was acting in and/or upon the business of Defendant Patriot. It is specifically denied that at the time of the accident Defendant Schwartz was within the course and scope of his employment relationship with Defendant Patriot. With respect to any remaining factual 1`` .C ~ } averments, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without information sufficient with which to admit or deny the veracity of the same. Strict proof is demanded at trial. 38. Denied. Certain averments contained in paragraph 38 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. It is specifically denied that Defendant Patriot is vicariously liable for any damages allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff. With respect to any remaining factual averments, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without information sufficient with which to admit or deny the veracity of the same. Strict proof is demanded at trial. 39. Denied. Certain averments contained in paragraph 39 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, it is specifically denied the Answering Defendant was in any fashion negligent and/or that any action and/or inaction on the part of the Answering Defendant directly and/or proximately resulted in any damages to the Plaintiff. With respect to any remaining factual averments, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without information sufficient with which to admit or deny the veracity of the same. Strict proof is demanded at trial. 40. Denied. Certain averments contained in paragraph 40 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, it is specifically denied the Answering Defendant was in any fashion negligent and/or that any action and/or inaction on the part of the Answering Defendant directly and/or proximately resulted in any damages to the Plaintiff. With respect to any remaining factual averments, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without information sufficient with which to admit or deny the veracity of the same. Strict proof is demanded at trial. 41. Denied. Certain averments contained in paragraph 41 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, it is specifically denied the r jJ ~ Answering Defendant was in any fashion negligent and/or that any action and/or inaction on the part of the Answering Defendant directly and/or proximately resulted in any damages to the Plaintiff. With respect to any remaining factual averments, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without information sufficient with which to admit or deny the veracity of the same. Strict proof is demanded at trial. 42. Denied. Certain averments contained in paragraph 42 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, it is specifically denied the Answering Defendant was in any fashion negligent and/or that any action and/or inaction on the part of the Answering Defendant directly and/or proximately resulted in any damages to the Plaintiff. With respect to any remaining factual averments, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without information sufficient with which to admit or deny the veracity of the same. Strict proof is demanded at trial. 43. Denied. Certain averments contained in paragraph 43 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, it is specifically denied the Answering Defendant was in any fashion negligent and/or that any action and/or inaction on the part of the Answering Defendant directly and/or proximately resulted in any damages to the Plaintiff. With respect to any remaining factual averments, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without information sufficient with which to admit or deny the veracity of the same. Strict proof is demanded at trial. 44. Denied. Certain averments contained in paragraph 44 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. With respect to any remaining factual averments, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without information sufficient with which to admit or deny the veracity of the same. Strict proof is demanded at trial. ~~f a f 45. Denied. Certain averments contained in paragraph 45 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, it is specifically denied the Answering Defendant is vicariously liable for any damages. With respect to any remaining factual allegations, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without information sufficient with which to admit or deny the veracity of the same. Strict proof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter Judgment in its favor. NEW MATTER 46. Averments of preceding paragraphs 1 through 45 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth at length. 47. Plaintiff may have been negligent to such an extent as to bar and/or reduce his recovery. 48. Plaintiff may have assumed the risk. 49. Plaintiffs Complaint may be barred by the Statute of Limitations. 50. Plaintiff s claims may be barred by Pennsylvania case law including Lamp v. Heyman and its progeny. 51. No action or inaction on the part of Answering Defendant is the legal cause of any damage to Plaintiff. 52. The incident at issue may have been due to the actions or inactions of others over whom we have no control. 53. Plaintiffs claims may be barred and/or limited by the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act. 54. Plaintiff s claims may be barred by the Sudden Emergency Rule. ,_ .. 55. Plaintiff s claims may be barred or limited by the doctrine of estoppel. 56. Defendant Christopher Schwartz was not the agent, servant, workman or within the scope of employment with Patriot at the time of this accident. 57. Patriot does not have vicarious responsibility for Christopher Schwartz. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter Judgment in its favor. CROSSCLAIMS OF ANSWERING DEFENDANT PATRIOT BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC. AGAINST CHRISTOPHER L. SCHWARTZ 57. The averments of the preceding paragraphs 1 through 56 of Defendant Patriot Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc.'s Answer with New Matter and Crossclaims are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth at length. 58. Without admitting the veracity of the same, the averments of Plaintiffs Complaint with respect to allegations against Christopher L. Schwartz are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth at length. 59. Without admitting any liability on its own behalf, Defendant Christopher L. Schwartz is liable to the Plaintiff, liable over to Defendant Patriot Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc., or jointly and/or severally liable with Defendant Patriot Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. 60. If Answering Defendant is held liable to Plaintiff for all or part of such damages as Plaintiff may have suffered, any such liability being expressly denied, Defendant Christopher L. Schwartz is liable to Answering Defendant by way of contribution and/or indemnity. ,_,_, } WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter Judgment in its favor. MARCH, HURW DeMARCO, P.C. BY: JOS~~H M. DeMARCO, ESQUIRE Attofnev for Defendant Patriot Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. . . VERIFICATION I, ~Z f ~ ~ ©~eMs , on behalf of PATRIOT BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC., verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer with New Matter and Crossclaims are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and that said statements are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. • MARCH, HURWITZ & DeMARCO, P.C. BY: JOSEPH M. DeMARCO, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY l.D. NO. 44061 l7 WEST THIRD ST., P.O. BOX 108 MEDIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19063 (610) 565-3950 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW JEREMIAH D. LASYONE, Plaintiff NO. 09-8298 v. CHRISTOPHER L. SCHWARTZ and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PATRIOT BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC., Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JOSEPH M. DeMARCO, ESQUIRE, do hereby certify that on June 28, 2010, I served a true and correct copy of the attached Defendant Patriot Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc.'s Answer with New Matter and Crossclaims to the below-named party via deposit in a sealed envelope into First Class Mail. W. Scott Henning, Esquire Handler, Hennings & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie and Skeel, P.C. 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 MARCH, WITZ & DeMARCO, P.C. BY: ~` JOSEPH M. DeMARCO, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant Patriot Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. a t~ r ~ r. - 1'~~E. ,,r T(-,~ - ~~',~~Y CJ~ai= . ~; ~-~. W. Scott Henning, Esquire I. D.#32298 HANDLER, HENNING 8 ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: Henning(aaHHRLaw.com JEREMIAH D. LASYONE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ~• NO. 09-8298 CHRISTOPHER L. SCHWARTZ, and PATRIOT BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC., Defendants CIVIL ACTION -LAW PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT, PATRIOT BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC.'S NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, by and through his attorney, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by W. Scott Henning, Esq., and responds to the Defendant's allegations of New Matter as follows: 46. Paragraph 46 is an incorporation paragraph to which no responsive pleading is required. 47. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 47 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiff was in any manner negligent so as to bar and/or reduce his recovery of compensation for the injury sustained in the motor vehicle collision, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 48. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 48 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiff assumed the risk of the injuries that he sustained in the subject motor vehicle collision, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 49. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 49 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiff s cause of action is barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 50. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 50 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiffs cause of action is barred by Pennsylvania case law, including Lamp v. Heyman and its progeny, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 51. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 51 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that there was not any action or inaction on the part of the Answering Defendant that was a lega{ cause of the damages sustained by the Plaintiff. 2 52. Denied. It is denied that the motor vehicle collision was caused by actions or inactions of other parties over whom the Answering Defendant did not have control or the right to control, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 53. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 53 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, the Plaintiff acknowledges that he will be bound by any provision of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act that the Honorable Court deems properly applicable to the subject cause of action. 54. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 54 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiff's cause of action and claims are barred by the Sudden Emergency Rule, and proof of the applicability of the Sudden Emergency Rule to the subject collision is demanded at the trial in this matter. 55. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 55 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that Plaintiff's claims may be barred or limited by the doctrine of estoppel, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 56. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 56 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable-Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that Defendant Christopher 3 Schwartz was not an agent, servant, workman for Defendant, Patriot Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc., and it is further denied that Defendant Christopher Schwartz was not in the scope of employment with Defendant, Patriot Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc., at the time of the motor vehicle collision, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 57. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 57 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that Defendant Patriot Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc., does not have a vicarious responsibility for the negligent acts and omissions of its agent, servant, emp{oyee, Christopher Schwartz, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 57. (sic) - 60. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 57 (sic) through 60 are in the nature of a cross claim being asserted by Defendant, Patriot Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc., against Defendant Christopher L. Schwartz, and to that extent a response is not required from the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jeremiah Lasyone, requests the Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant, Patriot Buick Pontiac GMC, inc., for the relief set forth in his Complaint. DATED: ~ ~" o2.o~O Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING 8~ ROSENBERG, LLP By: 4 W. Scott Henn' g, squire Supreme Cou I. . # 32 1300 Linglesto Roa Harrisburg, PA 171 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff JEREMIAH D. LASYONE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 09-8298 CHRISTOPHER L. SCHWARTZ, and PATRIOT BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC., Defendants CIVIL ACTION -LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On the 7t" day of July, 2010, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiff s Reply To New Matter was served upon the following by depositing in U.S. Mail; Joseph DeMarco, Esq. Kevin D. Rauch, Esq. March, Hurwitz & De Marco Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, LLP 17 West Third Street 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 P.O. Box 108 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Media, PA 19063 Very truly yours, HANDLER, HENNING By: W. Scott Henning WSH/tgd NBERG, LLP VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO PA R.C.P. NO. 1024 (c) W. SCOTT HENNING, ESQUIRE, 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: "~ .~~~~Q W. SCOTT H I '~i' i,.' ~~= i _`~. ~r5~,.r ,, .: - ~S 2~i 0 "~ ~' " ~ ~~ 3 ,:, L ~ ~ `I.1. '~ d, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JEREMIAH D. LASYONE, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION NO. 09-8298 v. CHRISTOPHER L. SCHWARTZ and PATRIOT BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC., Defendants. TO: Plaintiffs You are hereby notified to file a written Response to the enclosed Answer and New Matter within twenty (20) days From service hereof or a judgment May be entered against you. Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, P.C. ANSWER & NEW MATTER (Jury Trial Demanded) Filed on Behalf of the Defendants Counsel of Record for This Party: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Pa. I.D. #83058 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE and SKEEL, P.C. Firm #911 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 901-5916 #17607 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION JEREMIAH D. LASYONE, Plaintiff, v. NO. 09-8298 (Jury Trial Demanded) CHRISTOPHER L. SCHWARTZ and PATRIOT BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC., Defendants. ANSWER AND NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Christopher L. Schwartz, by and through his counsel, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, P.C., and Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire, and files the following Answer and New Matter and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Denied. To the contrary, the Defendant resides at 26 Beechwood Avenue, Pottsville, PA 17901. 3. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufi'icient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Paragraph 6 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, it is admitted that the answering Defendant was acting in furtherance of his employment with Patriot. Whether the answering Defendant was in the scope of his employment is a question of law that wiN be judicially determined. 7. Admitted. $. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 11. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the Defendant was negligent in the operation of his motor vehicle on the date, time, and place of the subject accident. The remainder of the allegations in paragraph 4 are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 12. Paragraph 12 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 13. Admitted. 14. Paragraph 14 states a lega{ conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. COUNTI 15. In response to paragraph 15, the Defendant reiterates and repeats all his responses in paragraphs 1 through 14 as if fully set forth at length herein. 16. Paragraph 16 and all of its subparts state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 17. Paragraph 17 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 18. Paragraph 18 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 19. Paragraph 19 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 20. Paragraph 20 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 21. Paragraph 21 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 22. Paragraph 22 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied genera{ly pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 23. Paragraph 23 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Christopher L. Schwartz, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiffs with costs and prejudice imposed. COUNT II 24. In response to paragraph 24, the Defendant reiterates and repeats all his responses in paragraphs 1 through 23 as if fully set forth at length herein. 25. Paragraph 25 and all of its subparts state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 26. Paragraph 26 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 27. Paragraph 27 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 28. Paragraph 28 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 29. Paragraph 29 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 30. Paragraph 30 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 31. Paragraph 31 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 32. Paragraph 32 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 33. Paragraph 33 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Christopher L. Schwartz, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiffs with costs and prejudice imposed. COUNT III 34-45. Paragraphs 34-45 are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendant therefore do not require a response. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029 (d) and (e). WHEREFORE, Defendant, Christopher L. Schwartz, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiffs with costs and prejudice imposed. NEW MATTER 46. The motor vehicle accident in controversy is subject to the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and this Defendant asserts, as affirmative defenses, all rights, privileges and/or immunities accruing pursuant to said statute. 47. Some and/or all of Plaintiffs claims for damages are items of economic detriment which are or could be compensable pursuant to either the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law andlor other collateral sources and same may not be duplicated in the present lawsuit. 48. To the extent that the Plaintiff has selected the limited tort option or is deemed to have selected the limited tort option then this Defendant sets forth the relevant provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law as a bar to the Plaintiffs ability to recover non-economic damages. 49. The Plaintiff has failed to set forth a cause of action for punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Christopher L. Schwartz, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiff with costs and prejudice imposed. Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE 8~ SKEEL, P.C. By: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Counsel for Defendant, Christopher L. Schwartz VERIFICATION Defendant verifies that he is the Defendant in the foregoing action; that the foregoing ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is based upon information which he has furnished to his counsel and information which has been gathered by his counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language of the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is that of counsel and not of the Defendant. Defendant has read the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER and to the extent that the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is based upon information which he has given to his counsel, it is true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is that of counsel, he has relied upon counsel in making this Affidavit. Defendant understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ~7 ~I S/!O Christop er Schwartz #~~so~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER AND NEW MATTER has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this 23rd day of July, 2010. W. Scott Henning, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Attorney for Plaintiff) SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE 8~ SKEEL, P.C. gy. ~v Ke ~n D. Rauch, Esquire Counsel for Defendant Christopher L. Schwartz r _ T ~' C ~ ~ ;:'~V 2~,Q,~~~ 29 ~','~ ~: 'r`rl~ a~, + IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JEREMIAH D. LASYONE, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION NO. 09-8298 v. CHRISTOPHER L. SCHWARTZ and PATRIOT BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC., Defendants. DEFENDANT, CHRISTOPHER L. SCHWARTZ'S REPLY TO CO- DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER AND CROSS-CLAIMS (Jury Trial Demanded) Filed on Behalf of the Defendants Counsel of Record for This Party: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Pa. I.D. #83058 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE and SKEEL, P.C. Firm #911 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 901-5916 #17607 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION JEREMIAH D. LASYONE, Plaintiff, v. NO. 09-8298 (Jury Trial Demanded) CHRISTOPHER L. SCHWARTZ and PATRIOT BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC., Defendants. DEFENDANT, CHRISTOPHER L. SCHWARTZ'S REPLY TO CO-DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER AND CROSS-CLAIMS 46. Paragraph 46 is an incorporation paragraph and does not require a response. 47. Paragraph 47 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). 48. Paragraph 48 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). 49. Paragraph 49 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). 50. Paragraph 50 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). 51. Paragraph 51 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). 52. Paragraph 52 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). 53. Paragraph 53 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). 54. Paragraph 54 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). 55. Paragraph 55 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). 56. Paragraph 56 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). WHEREFORE, Defendant, Christopher L. Schwartz, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against the Plaintiff with costs and prejudice imposed. CROSS-CLAIMS AGAINST CHRISTOPHER L. SCHWARTZ 57. Paragraphs 57 is an incorporation paragraph and does not require a response. 58. The Defendant, Christopher L. Schwartz's Answer and New Matter is incorporated herein as if fu11y set forth at length. 59. Paragraph 59 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). 60. Paragraph 60 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). WHEREFORE, Defendant, Christopher L. Schwartz, respectfully requests this Honorable Gourt to enter judgment in its favor and against the Plaintiff with costs and prejudice imposed. Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, P.C. By: Kevin .Rauch, squire Counsel for Defendant, Christopher L. Schwartz CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT, CHRISTOPHER L. SCHWARTZ'S REPLY TO CO-DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER AND CROSS-CLAIMS has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this 28th day of July, 2010. W. Scott Henning, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Attorney for Plaintiff) SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE $ SKEEL, P.C. By: Kevin D. Rauch, quire Counsel for Defendant Christopher L. Schwartz CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT, CHRISTOPHER L. SCHWARTZ'S REPLY TO CO-DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER AND CROSS-CLAIMS has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this 28th day of July, 2010. W. Scott Henning, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Attorney for Plaintiff) Joseph M. Demarco, Esquire March, Hurwitz & Demarco, P.C. 17 West Third Street P.O. Box 108 Media, PA 19063 (Attorney for Co-Defendant Patriot Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc.) SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, P.C. By: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Counsel for Defendant Christopher L. Schwartz ~j l .. ,- j -_ .. v. ..e ~vG-9 ~nr~~:~ r ._ r ,," W. Scott Henning, Esquire I.D.#32298 HANDLER; HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail:. HenningCd~HHRLaw.com JEREMIAH D. LASYONE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 09-8298 CHRISTOPHER L. SCHWARTZ, . and PATRIOT BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC., Defendants CIVIL ACTION -LAW PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF CHRISTOPHER L. SCHWARTZ AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, by and through his attorney, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by W. Scott Henning, Esq., and responds to the Defendant's allegations of New Matter as follows: 46. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 46 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, the Plaintiff acknowledges that he will be bound by any provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law that the Honorable Court deems properly applicable to the subject cause of action. 47. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 47 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, the Plaintiff acknowledges that he will be bound by any provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law that the Honorable Court deems properly applicable to the subject cause of action. By way of further answer, the Plaintiff acknowledges that he will be bound by any collateral source rules that he Honorable Court deems properly applicable to the subject cause of action. 48. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 48 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, the Plaintiff asserts that he is an out-of- state resident, and hence, would not be subject to the Full Tort/Limited Tort selection options provided for in the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 49. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 49 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiff has failed to set forth a cause of action for punitive damages, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jeremiah Lasyone, requests the Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor and against the Defendant, Christopher L. Schwartz, for the relief set forth in his Complaint. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By: DATED: -3-ao~~ W. Scott He Wing, squi Supreme C urt I. . # 3 1300 Lingles Ro Harrisburg, PA 171 Henning.~hhrlaw.com (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff 3 VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO PA R.C P NO 1024 (c1 W. SCOTT HENNING, ESQUIRE, 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: O ~ ~ ~E~~ 5 JEREMIAH D. LASYONE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 09-8298 CHRISTOPHER L. SCHWARTZ, and PATRIOT BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC., Defendants CIVIL ACTION -LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On the 4t" day of August, 2010, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiff s Reply To New Matter of Christopher L. Schwartz was served upon the following by depositing in U.S. Mail; Kevin D. Rauch, Esq. Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, LLP 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Joseph DeMarco, Esq. March, Hurwitz & De Marco 17 West Third Street P.O. Box 108 Media, PA 19063 Very truly yours, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By: w. 4 .w, MARCH, HURWITZ & DeMARCO, P.C. BY: JOSEPH M. DeMARCO, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 44061 17 WEST THIRD STREET P.O. BOX 108 MEDIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19063 (610) 565-3950 FltED-?' ?? .Ir'?, ?IV .00 _jutiTy C'Jfi vait,SYL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW JEREMIAH D. LASYONE, Plaintiff V. NO. 09-8298 CHRISTOPHER L. SCHWARTZ and PATRIOT BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Defendant certifies that: (1) A Notice of Intent to Serve the Subpoenas with a copy of the Subpoenas attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party and either (1) at least twenty (20) days have elapsed since the service of such Notice or (2) each party has consented to the service of such Subpoenas prior to such twenty (20) day notice period expiring, (2) A copy of the Notice of Intent, including the proposed Subpoenas, is attached to this certificate, (3) No objection to the Subpoenas have been received, and (4) The Subpoenas, which will be served, are identical to the Subpoenas which are attached to the Notice of Intent to Serve the Subpoenas. WITZ & DeMARCO, P.C.: By: Date: ?t1 0 16 It IJSEPH M. DeMARCO, ESQUIRE torney for Defendant Patriot Auick Pontiac GMC, Inc. MzV-,101. Ht.tRVVITZ & DeMARCU. P.C. BY: JOSEPI I N1. DeMARC O, FSQUIRE, it"I'FORNFY 11). \10.44061 I ; WEST THIRD STRFF.T P,O. BOY 108 MFDIA,.. PENNSYLVANIA 19063 (610) 46?-3950 IN THE COURT OF CO:YIMO PI,F.A4 OF CU1IBERLAND C'01?TY, PENNSYLVANIA CIYTI, ACHON - LAW JF.RFMIA11 D. LASYONE, Plaintiff N(). 04-8298 V_ CHRISTOPI-IFR U SC'II1 `!1.IC`11 imd .11i Y TRIAI. I7FN.,f,, .NDLD PA I K101 Bt ; I('K PONTI.AC f i NW. INC.. I?>I :ndant?± NI}TIC E OF T>\TENT O SERVE A St"BPOFNA TO PRODIl (-'F DOC'I MFNXTS AND T111NGS FOR DISCC7NF RY Pt!RS ANT TO RULE 4009.21 Patn(OL BOA Pontiac C1M('. inc_ intends to serve a subpocna identical to the mIIC attached to tWS notice. YOU haVt! LWellty (20) days from the dale lisa.ed below in %-hieh Lo file of record and serve upon the undersigncd an abjection to the- subpoena. 11'no objection is made- the. suh -)oena may bt erved. M.aRCN, II1TR TI't DcNIARCO, P.C.; B : J0SF,T1I M, DeNI_ RC:O. F:SQ 1IRF Att(; rnev kir Defendwit Patriot Buick Pontiae (10C, ac. L3atc: .?' i '? Vr MARCH, IITJRtiv'1'I`Z & DeMARC O. P.C. A'rFORNIAS AT LAW t; 17 REST THIRD STR1!ET . P,O. B(,)X 108.= M),01A. PI?NN:SY't.VANLk 19063 II._I 1r.:)-0FFI P"11! 17 [ f 1 2 (? n W. Scott Henning, Esquire I. D. #32298 Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, Pa. 17108 (717) 238-2000 Henning@HHRLaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff JEREMIAH D. LASYONE, Plaintiff V. PATRIOT-PONTIAC-BUICK- GMC, and CHRISTOPHER SCHWARTZ, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 09-8298 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A DISCOVERY CONFERENCE AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, by and through his attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by W. Scott Henning, Esq., and hereby moves this Honorable Court pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4019 and Cumberland County Rule 4019 to order a Discovery Conference, and in support thereof, avers the following: 1. Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, is an adult individual currently residing at 2103 Westwood Lane, Georgetown, Texas. 2. Defendant, Christopher Schwartz, is an adult individual currently residing at 310 West Walnut Street, Valley View, Schuykill County, Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant, Patriot Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. (hereinafter "Patriot") is a 1 corporation, registered under the laws of Pennsylvania with offices located at 933 East Philadelphia Avenue, Boyertown, Berks County, Pennsylvania. 4. On or about December 1, 2009, Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, filed a Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County alleging that Plaintiff sustained personal injuries as a result of an incident that occurred on May 21, 2008. 5. This Motion for Discovery Conference has been initiated, inter alia, to: a. Allow a videoconferencing deposition of Plaintiff, Jeremiah Lasyone; a. Set deadlines with regard to expert examinations, production of reports and depositions; b. Set deadlines with regard to additional lay witness depositions; and, c. Set a trial date. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jeremiah Lasyone, respectfully requestthatthis Honorable Court issue an Order scheduling a discovery conference to facilitate the discovery process. Respectfully Submitted, HANDLE Date: l / ?J C>Xt) By: , LLP W. Scott Hgnffini g s ire I.D. #32298 Handier, Heno osenberg, LLP 1300 Linglest oad, Suite 2 Harrisburg, Pa. 17108 (717) 238-2000 Henning@HHRLaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff 2 JEREMIAH D. LASYONE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW PATRIOT-PONTIAC-BUICK- GMC, and CHRISTOPHER SCHWARTZ, NO. 09-8298 Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On the 15th day of November, 2010, 1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Motion for Discovery Conference was served upon the following by depositing in U.S. Mail; Kevin D. Rauch, Esq. Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, LLP 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Joseph DeMarco, Esq. March, Hurwitz & De Marco 17 West Third Street P.O. Box 108 Media, PA 19063 Very truly yours, HENNJD" ROSENBERG, LLP By: W. Scott W. Scott Henning, Esquire I.D. No. 32298 Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, Pa. 17108 (717) 238-2000 Henninga-HHRLaw.com l 1 HE P FILED IHONO TA, y 1010 DEC -6 AN D: 26 CUMBERLAND CouN, f PENNSYLVANIA Attorney for Plaintiff JEREMIAH D. LASYONE, Plaintiff V. PATRIOT-PONTIAC-BUICK- GMC, and CHRISTOPHER SCHWARTZ, . Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 09-8298 PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION FOR DISCOVERY CONFERENCE AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, by and through his attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by W. Scott Henning, Esq., and hereby moves this Honorable Court pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4019 to order a Discovery Conference, and in support thereof, avers the following: 1. Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, is an adult individual currently residing at 2103 Westwood Lane, Georgetown, Texas. 1 2. Defendant, Christopher Schwartz, is an adult individual currently residing at 310 West Walnut Street, Valley View, Schuykill County, Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant, Patriot Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. (hereinafter "Patriot") is a corporation, registered under the laws of Pennsylvania with offices located at 933 East Philadelphia Avenue, Boyertown, Berks County, Pennsylvania. 4. On or about December 1, 2009, Plaintiff, Jeremiah D. Lasyone, filed a Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County alleging that Plaintiff sustained personal injuries as a result of an incident that occurred on May 21, 2008. 5. This Motion for Discovery Conference has been initiated, inter alia, to: a. Allow a videoconferencing deposition of Plaintiff, Jeremiah Lasyone; b. Set deadlines with regard to expert examinations, production of reports and depositions; C. Set deadlines with regard to additional lay witness depositions; and, d. Set a trial date. 6. On May 18, 2010, the Honorable Kevin A. Hess, ruled upon a motion to compel discovery in this case. 7. Plaintiffs counsel has sought concurrence of defendants' counsel in this matter, however, defendants' counsel does not concur in Plaintiffs Motion for a Discovery Conference. 2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jeremiah Lasyone, respectfully request that this Honorable Court issue an Order scheduling a discovery conference to facilitate the discovery process. Respectfully Submitted, HANDLE , EN OSENBERG, LLP Date: o ?/ w By; W. Scott Henning uire I.D. No. 32298 Handler, Hennin Ro nberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Ro d, Suite 2 Harrisburg, Pa. 171 8 (717) 238-2000 Henning@HHRLaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff JEREMIAH D. LASYONE, Plaintiff V. . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW PATRIOT-PONTIAC-BUICK- GMC, and CHRISTOPHER SCHWARTZ, NO. 09-8298 Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On the 2nd day of December, 2010, 1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's amended Motion for Discovery Conference was served upon the following by depositing in U.S. Mail; Kevin D. Rauch, Esq. Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, LLP 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Joseph DeMarco, Esq. March, Hurwitz & De Marco 17 West Third Street P.O. Box 108 Media, PA 19063 Very truly yours, HENN?_8< ROSENBERG, LLP By: W. Scotthienn k • , DEC 0 7 7010 JEREMIAH D. LASYONE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW PATRIOT-PONTIAC-BUICK- GMC, and CHRISTOPHER SCHWARTZ, NO. 09-8298 Defendants ORDER AND NOW, this `14 day of 2010, upon review and consideration of the within Motion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a Discovery Conference is scheduled, regarding said Motion, at which all parties to this matter shall appear, on 16 , 201 , at %lS I.M. o'clock, at the Cumberland County Courthouse, 1 e 67 Courthouse Square, Carlisle, PA 17013. AV- Ck .#- T BY THE COURT: J. }? N CD t ?Vcj r o s -n c-) a 7 CD -n z: a -meyl y ? w ° ? rYr ? r 1 JEREMIAH D. LASYONE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V CIVIL ACTION - LAW PATRIOT-PONTIAC-BUICK- NO. 2009-8298 GMC, and CHRISTOPHER SCHWARTZ, Defendants IN RE: DISCOVERY CONFERENCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 10th day of January, 2011, following a conference with counsel, it is directed that the parties or a representative be deposed within sixty days of today. The deposition of Jeremiah D. Lasyone, the plaintiff, will take place in Pennsylvania, the defendants being willing to assume the costs thereof. Dispositive motions will be filed in this case within ninety days. By the Court, /W. Scott Henning, Esquire For Plaintiff Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire For Defendant Schwartz Joseph DeMarco, Esquire For Defendant Patriot :bg K evi He s s, P.J. J. CD 11 I p? > C :> l) JEREMIAH D. LASYONE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CHRISTOPHER L. SCHWARTZ and NO. 2009 - 8298 CIVIL TERM PATRIOT PONTIAC BUICK GMC, INC., Defendants IN RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANT PATRIOT BUICK PONTIAC GMC INC. BEFORE HESS, P.J., GUIDO, PECK, JJ. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 6T" day of FEBRUARY, 2012, after reviewing the record as well as the briefs filed by the parties in support of their respective positions and having heard argument thereon, we are satisfied that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant Schwartz was acting within the scope of his employment. As a result Defendant Patriot's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. ?,. rri e Court, cn°? -= ?'~ cxa -.- N? a Edward E. Guido, J. W. SCOTT HENNING, ESQUIRE 1300 LINGLESTOWN ROAD HARRISBURG, PA 17110 KEVIN D. RAUCH, ESQUIRE 100 STERLING PARKWAY, SUITE 306 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 ? JOSEPH DEMARCO, ESQUIRE 17 WEST THIRD STREET P.O. BOX 108 MEDIA, PA 19063 :sld C'? S i?