Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-0320IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff(s) & Address(es) JENNIFER KIMMEL 421 GEARY AVENUE NEW CUMBERLAND, PA 17070 VS. Defendant(s) & Address(es) TIMOTHY HOGG AND HOGG PROPERTIES, LLC P.O. Box 624 1102 MARKET STREET NEw CUMBERLAND, PA 17070 Case No. ?U? Civil Term Civil Action PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF SAID COURT: M, r, aj Oct-) Z C' 'C N O_ O C.. A tv 0 W Fri r?- Cg Issue summons in the above case Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to Attorne / e e Ci le cho e Date : Jan ual2.201_0 Signature of orney Print Name: Edmund "Tad" Berger Address: 2104 Market Street Camp Hill PA Telephone #: (717) 920-8900 Supreme Court ID Number: #53407 00000 WRIT OF SUMMONS TO: TIMOTHY HOGG and HOGG PROPERTIES LLC YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF(S HAS/HAVE COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division Date: ??l?l 1d?d by # ?; -00 /## 6' 'r ?'rw II'M )2ej? W3U tSCn SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson F(; Sheriff TI iY 00W Jody S Smith Chief Deputy 20 1 0 FEti Edward L Schorpp Solicitor ?P,CE OF -E S"ERIPP EUiv ;Tv Jennifer Kimmel vs. Case Number Timothy Hogg 2010-320 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 01/28/2010 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: Timothy Hogg, but was unable to locate him in his bailiwick. He therefore returns the within Writ of Summons as not found as to the defendant Timothy Hogg. The New Cumberland Postmaster has advised the defendant has moved and left no forwarding address. 01/28/2010 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: Hogg Properties, LLC, but was unable to locate them in his bailiwick. He therefore returns the within Writ of Summons as not found as to the defendant Hogg Properties, LLC. The New Cumberland Postmaster has advised the defendant has moved and left no forwarding address. SHERIFF COST: $69.74 SO ANS RS, January 28, 2010 /BONN ANDERSON, SHERIFF () GountySuite Sheriff. Teleosoft. Inc. Edmund J. Berger Attorney I.D. #53407 Attorney for Plaintiff 2104 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone: 717-920-8900 Fax: 717-920-8901 E-mail: tberger(c-beraerlawfirm.net IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JENNIFER KIMMEL Plaintiff vs. OF !THEE [ 1 Any 2010 FEB -9 P.11 1: 214 Ctrs?R ; ^ i J'J11IN' f 4 i`J 'Na`lt,W, ' ,iA CIVIL DIVISION Docket No. CV-2010-320 CIVIL TIMOTHY HOGG, JANA HOGG, AND HOGG PROPERTIES, LLC Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania Telephone Number 249-3166 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar accion dentro de los proximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificacion de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar accion como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamacion o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CALIFICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania Telephone Number 249-3166 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JENNIFER KIMMEL CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff vs. Docket No. CV-2010-320 CIVIL TIMOTHY HOGG, JANA HOGG AND HOGG PROPERTIES, LLC Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT IN A CIVIL ACTION Filed on behalf of: PLAINTIFF Counsel of Record for this party: Edmund J. Berger Attorney I.D. #53407 Berger Law Firm, P.C. 2104 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 920-8900 (Phone) (717) 920-8901 (Fax) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 1. JENNIFER KIMMEL, Plaintiff herein, is an adult individual and resides at 421 Geary Avenue, New Cumberland, PA 17070. 2. TIMOTHY HOGG, Defendant herein, is an adult individual and resides at 322 Equus Drive, Camp Hill, PA 17011. 3. JANA HOGG, Defendant herein, is an adult individual and resides at 322 Equus Drive, Camp Hill, PA 17011. 4. HOGG PROPERTIES, LLC, Defendant herein, is a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company with an invalid registered office address of 128 Forest Drive, Camp Hill, PA 17011 and a current address of 322 Equus Drive, Camp Hill, PA 17011. 5. At all times relevant to the matters set forth in this Complaint, Timothy Hogg and Jana Hogg owned, as joint tenants with right of survivorship, a property located at 111 South Third Street, Lemoyne, PA 17043 [hereinafter "the rental apartments"] 6. At all times relevant to the matters set forth in this Complaint, Hogg Properties, LLC managed the rental apartments located at 111 South Third Street, Lemoyne, PA 17043 on behalf of Defendants Timothy Hogg and Jana Hogg. 7. At all times relevant to the matters set forth in this Complaint, Defendants acted by and through their duly authorized agents, servants, workmen and/or employees, acting within the scope of their authority and employment. 8. At all times relevant to the matters set forth in this Complaint, Defendant Hogg Properties, LLC rented apartment #3 in the rental apartments, as agent for Defendants Timothy Hogg and Jana Hogg, to Plaintiff. A copy of the lease is attached as Exhibit A. 1 9. At all times relevant to the matters set forth in this Complaint, Defendants had under their care, supervision, control and maintenance the common areas of the rental apartments, including the steps to a basement laundry facility which they provided for the use of Plaintiff and other tenants. 10. At all times relevant to the matters set forth in this Complaint, it was necessary for Plaintiff and other Tenants to access the basement laundry facilities by exiting the apartments and re-entering through the basement door. 11. At all times relevant to the matters set forth in this Complaint, the stairs to the basement laundry facilities were exposed to the elements and required maintenance in the event snow and/or ice accumulated. 12. At all times relevant to the matters set forth in this Complaint, Defendants were responsible for maintenance of the common areas of the rental apartments, including clearing snow and/or ice from the steps to the laundry area of the rental apartments. 13. On or about February 13, 2008, precipitation in the form of snow and/or ice accumulated in the area of Lemoyne where the rental apartments were located and at the rental apartments. 14. Defendants knew or should have known that snow and/or ice had accumulated at the rental apartments and on the steps to the basement laundry facilities. 15. Despite the accumulation of snow and/or ice at the rental apartments, Defendants failed to maintain the steps to the basement laundry facilities clear of snow 2 and/or ice and failed to clear snow and ice for an unreasonable length of time from such steps.. 16. On or about February 15, 2008, Plaintiff, with the intention of doing laundry, walked from her apartment toward the basement steps with a basket of laundry. 17. On or about February 15, 2008, Plaintiff, while attempting to descend the steps to the basement laundry facilities, slipped and fell because of the slippery condition of the steps caused by the accumulation of snow and/or ice thereon and the failure of Defendants to properly clear such snow and/or ice from the steps to the basement laundry facilities. 18. At the time of Plaintiff's fall, the snow or ice on the steps to the basement laundry facility had accumulated in ridges or elevations of such size and character as to unreasonably obstruct travel and constitute a danger to pedestrians such as Plaintiff. 19. When Plaintiff fell on the steps, she injured her back, neck and shoulders as more specifically detailed below. FIRST COUNT (Jennifer Kimmel, Plaintiff vs. Defendants Timothy Hogg, Jana Hogg and Hogg Properties, LLC) NEGLIGENCE AND GROSS NEGLIGENCE 20. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of the Complaint are incorporated by reference as if set forth at length. 21. Defendants and their agents, ostensible agents, servants, and/or employees were negligent and careless in some or all of the following particulars: 3 a. In failing to maintain the steps to the basement laundry facilities free and clear of snow and/or ice or other slippery condition when they made such basement laundry facilities available to Plaintiff and/or other Tenants as part of their lease and knew or should have known that Plaintiff and/or other Tenants would be using the basement laundry facilities; b. In failing to maintain the steps to the basement laundry facilities in a safe and usable condition for use by residential tenants; c. In inviting Plaintiff and other tenants to use the basement laundry facilities but failing to provide a safe and adequate means of ingress and egress; d. In failing to retain sufficient personnel and/or contractors to provide adequate maintenance of the basement steps; e. In failing to adequately monitor the condition of the basement steps to ensure that tenants would have safe use of the laundry facilities; f. In failing to keep pavement clear of snow and/or ice; ' g. In permitting snow or ice to accumulate in ridges or elevations of such size and character as to unreasonably obstruct travel and constitute a danger to pedestrians; h. In failing to exercise reasonable care for safety in use of a common stairway as per 68 P.S. §250.502-A (Landlord-Tenant Act). 4 22. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligent actions and grossly negligent actions as detailed above, Plaintiff sustained serious injuries to her right shoulder, neck and back for which she received treatment. 23. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence and gross negligence, Plaintiff sustained the following injuries: a. Post-traumatic labral tear of the right shoulder; b. Capsular Impingement syndrome of the right shoulder; c. Right Shoulder Rotator Cuff Tendinitis; d. Right Shoulder Bursitis; e. Right Shoulder Arthritis; f. Right shoulder girdle dysfunction; g. Right Shoulder pain with tendinopathy; h. Cervical strain and spasm; i. Right paracervical spasm j. Thoracic Strain; k. Contusion to cervical spine 1. Contusion to thoracic spine m. Contusion to lumbar spine; n. Contusion of chest wall; o. Low back pain with limited range of motion 24. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence and gross negligence, Plaintiff has suffered great bodily pain and suffering, as well as mental anxiety and nervousness, to her great detriment and loss. The chronic nature of her 5 pain required Plaintiff to utilize medication on an ongoing basis to ameliorate her symptoms and resulted in significant limitations to Plaintiff's activities and her sense of well-being and enjoyment of life. 25. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence and gross negligence, Plaintiff has sustained serious and permanent injury, for the treatment of which she has incurred medical bills and expenses and required surgery. 26. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligent and grossly negligent actions as detailed above, Plaintiff suffered a loss of earnings and earning capacity. 27. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligent and grossly negligent actions as detailed above, Plaintiff suffered an interruption of her daily habits and pursuits to her great and permanent detriment and loss. 28. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligent and grossly negligent actions as detailed above, Plaintiff underwent surgical treatment and was extremely limited in her use of her right shoulder until her recovery. 29. Plaintiff's injuries have resulted in ongoing physical and mental discomfort, anxiety, nervousness, embarrassment and humiliation to her great detriment and loss. 30. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligent and grossly negligent actions as detailed above, the chronic nature of Plaintiff's discomfort and anxiety over her condition has impaired Plaintiff's sense of well-being and enjoyment of life. 31. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence and gross negligence, Plaintiff sustained a serious injury, for the treatment of which she has 6 required significant medical care and may incur additional medical bills and expenses. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jennifer Kimmel demands judgment against Defendants jointly and severally in an amount in excess of $50,000 exclusive of interest, costs, and delay damages, and demands a trial February 4, 2010 Edmund J. Berger Attorney I.D. #53407 Attorney for Plaintiff 2104 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone: 717-920-8900 Fax: 717-920-8901 E-mail: tbergera-bergerlawfirm.net 7 VERIFICATION I, Jennifer Kimmel, affirm that I am the Plaintiff in this action and that the statements of fact made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: February 4, 2010 nnifer immeI SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Fj(Ej -{ -R,'F- Sheriff `0 y}4?5?P of "taltft(J?rr? /! .H C. I"t'+.??t i??I?IJ? Jody S Smith Chief Deputy 1010 PEAR `$ Ark $: 26 Edward L Schorpp Solicitor Jennifer Kimmel Case Number vs. Timothy Hogg (et al.) CV-2010-320 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 02/09/2010 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: Timothy Hogg, but was unable to locate him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of York County, PA to serve the within Complaint and Notice according to law. 02109/2010 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: Hogg Properties, LLC, but was unable to locate them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of York County, PA to serve the within Complaint and Notice according to law. 02/09/2010 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: Jana Hogg, but was unable to locate her in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of York County, PA to serve the within Complaint and Notice according to law. 02/16/2010 York County Return: And now February 16, 2010 at 1520 hours I, Richard P. Keuerleber, Sheriff of York 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: Jana Hogg by making known unto herself personally, at 322 Equus Drive, Camp Hill, PA 17011 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. 02/16/2010 York County Return: And now February 16, 2010 at 1520 hours I, Richard P. Keuerleber, Sheriff of York 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: Timothy Hogg by making known unto Bejana Hogg, adult in charge at 322 Equus Drive, Camp Hill, PA 17011 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. 03/05/2010 York County Return: And now February 16, 2010 at 1520 hours I, Richard P. Keuerleber, Sheriff of York 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: Hogg Properties, LLC by making known unto Jana Hogg, Wife of Timothy Hogg, Owner of Hogg Properties, LLC at 322 Equus Drive, Camp Hill, PA 17011 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. SHERIFF COST: $69.44 March 05, 2010 SO ANSWERS, RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF lit e-nff T - (. h-,- .1 . (?- '? ?r 7'in„ I 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 JENNIFER KIMMEL, Plaintiff 2010 MAR -9 Dili 10: 4 8 Nlry CUfv A ttorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. CV-2010-320 CIVIL V. TIMOTHY HOGG, JANA HOGG and HOGG PROPERTIES, LLC, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE AND NOW, this 5 day of March, 2010, enter the appearance of JEFFERSON J. SHIPMAN, I.D. 51785, on behalf of Defendants in the above captioned suit. JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER B: J ffe s n J. Ship n :394377 -[ - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this rah day of March, 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: Edmund J. Berger, Esquire Berger Law Firm, P.C. 2104 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: helle H. Spangler 67 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 JENNIFER KIMMEL, FLEl'- r ; T zol3w„P; !o ,4It:b Attorneys for Defendais IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. NO. CV-2010-320 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW TIMOTHY HOGG, JANA HOGG and HOGG PROPERTIES, LLC, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Jennifer Kimmel c/o Edmund J. Berger, Esquire Berger Law Firm, P.C. 2104 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 AND NOW, this 15th day of March, 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 :394399 J ffer on J. Ship an Johnson, Duffle, 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 JENNIFER KIMMEL, : Plaintiff V. TIMOTHY HOGG, JANA HOGG and HOGG PROPERTIES, LLC, Defendants Attorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. CV-2010-320 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS' ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Defendants Timothy Hogg, Jana Hogg and Hogg Properties, LLC by and through their counsel, Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner and Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire, and file the following Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 7 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 9 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted. 12. Admitted. 13. Denied. After a reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 13 and the same are therefore denied. 14. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 9 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 law 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. After a reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 16 and the same are therefore denied. 17. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 17 are in part 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. After a reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph 17 and the same are therefore 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. After a reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 19 and the same are therefore denied. COUNTI Jennifer Kimmel v. Timothy Hogg, Jana Hogg and Hogg Properties, LLC 20. The answering Defendants incorporate herein by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 19 above as though fully set forth herein at length. 21. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 21 and subparagraphs a through h 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. a. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendants failed to maintain the steps to the basement laundry facilities free and clear of snow and/or ice or other slippery condition when they made such basement laundry facilities available to Plaintiff and/or other tenants as part of their lease and knew or should have known that the Plaintiff and/or other tenants would be using the basement laundry facilities; b. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendants failed to maintain the steps to the basement laundry facilities in a safe and useable condition for use by residential tenants; C. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendants invited Plaintiff and other tenants to use the basement laundry facilities by failing to provide a safe and adequate means of ingress and egress; d. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendants failed to retain sufficient personnel and/or contractors to provide adequate maintenance of the basement steps; e. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendants failed to adequately monitor the condition of the basement steps to ensure that tenants would have safe use of the laundry facilities; f. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendants failed to keep the pavement clear of snow and/or ice; g. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendants permitted snow or ice to accumulate in ridges or elevations of such and character as to unreasonably obstruct travel and constitute a danger to pedestrians; h. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care for safety in use of a common stairway as per 68 P.S. §250.502-A. 22. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 22 are in part 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. After a reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph 22 and the same are therefore denied. 23. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 23 are in part 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. After a reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph 23 and the same are therefore denied. 24. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 24 are in part 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. After a reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph 24 and the same are therefore denied. 25. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 25 are in part 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. After a reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph 25 and the same are therefore denied. 26. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 26 are in part 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. After a reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph 26 and the same are therefore denied. 27. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 27 are in part 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. After a reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph 27 and the same are therefore denied. 28. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 28 are in part 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. After a reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph 28 and the same are therefore denied. 29. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 29 are in part 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. After a reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph 29 and the same are therefore denied. 30. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 30 are in part 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. After a reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph 30 and the same are therefore denied. 31. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 31 are in part 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. After a reasonable investigation, the answering Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph 31 and the same are therefore denied. WHEREFORE, the Defendants Timothy Hogg, Jana Hogg and Hogg Properties, LLC respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor and that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. NEW MATTER 32. That the Plaintiffs alleged cause of action may be barred in whole or in part by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 33. That the Plaintiffs comparative negligence included the following: a. Failing to watch where she was stepping; b. Failing to observe conditions in front of her; C. Walking and stepping in a hurried or otherwise inappropriate manner; and d. Failing to wear suitable footwear for the conditions. 34. That the Plaintiff's own comparative negligence was a substantial factor or factual cause of the happening of the accident and her alleged injuries. 35. That if it should be found that there was any negligence on the part of the answering Defendants, which is denied, then in that event any such negligence was not a substantial factor nor a factual cause of the happening of the accident. 36. That Plaintiffs alleged cause of action may be barred by the "Hills and Ridges" Doctrine. WHEREFORE, the Defendants Timothy Hogg, Jana Hogg and Hogg Properties, LLC respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER A)? eff n J. Ship an Date: March 15, 2010 :394399 VERIFICATION The undersigned says that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct. This verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Timothy Hogg ' ana Hogg Dated: 4 ° )J :394399 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 15th day of March, 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: Edmund J. Berger, Esquire Berger Law Firm, P.C. 2104 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: helle H. Spangler :394399 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNT, PENNSYLVANIA" r 6s,1 JENNIFER KIMMEL CIVIL DIVISION - Plaintiff vs. Docket No. CV-2010-320 CIVIL TIMOTHY HOGG, JANA HOGG, AND HOGG PROPERTIES, LLC Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED REPLY TO NEW MATTER Filed on behalf of: PLAINTIFF Counsel of Record for this party: Edmund J. Berger Attorney I.D. #53407 Berger Law Firm, P.C. 2104 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 920-8900 (Phone) (717) 920-8901 (Fax) q March 18, 2010 4 AND NOW COMES Plaintiff, Jennifer Kimmel, by and through her attorney, Edmund J. Berger, and replies to New Matter as follows: 32. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 32 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required to such conclusions of law and fact, the averment that Plaintiff's claim is barred in whole or in part by Pennsylvania's Comparative Negligence Act is specifically denied. 33. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff was negligent in any way, and it is denied that Plaintiff was negligent in the following particulars: a. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff failed to watch where she was stepping at the time she slipped and fell; b. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff failed to observe the conditions in front of her at the time she slipped and fell; c. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff walked or stepped in a hurried or otherwise inappropriate manner at the time she slipped and fell; d. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff was not wearing suitable footwear for the conditions at the time she slipped and fell. 34. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 34 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required to such conclusions of law and fact, the averment that Plaintiff's own comparative negligence was a substantial factor or factual cause of the happening of her accident and her alleged injuries is specifically denied. 1 w 35. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 35 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required to such conclusions of law and fact, the averment that the answering Defendants were not negligent is denied and it is further denied that the negligence of the answering Defendants was not a substantial factor nor a factual cause of the happening of the accident. 36. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 36 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required to such conclusions of law and fact, the averment that Plaintiff's cause of action may be barred by the "Hills and Ridges" doctrine is denied. WHEREFORE, the New Matter of Defendants Timothy Hogg, Jana Hogg, and Hogg Properties, LLC should be dismissed and judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff in accordance with Plaintiff's Complaint. 1 00 March 18, 2010 Edmund J. Berger Attorney I.D. #53407 Attorney for Plaintiff 2104 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone: 717-920-8900 Fax: 717-920-8901 E-mail: tberger _bergerlawfirm.net 2 VERIFICATION I, Jennifer Kimmel, affirm that I am the Plaintiff in this action and that the statements of fact made in the foregoing Reply to New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: March 18, 2010 ?n Onnif Kimmel CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the foregoing documents, Reply to New Matter, upon the following person, in the manner indicated: VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Jeff Shipman, Esq. Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 Date: March 18, 2010 FILED-OFF1CE. OF THE PROTHONOTARY 2016 iuTV J ? y, 1 Johnson, Duffle, 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 JENNIFER KIMMEL, Plaintiff V. TIMOTHY HOGG, JANA HOGG and HOGG PROPERTIES, LLC, Defendants Attorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. CV-2010-320 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO SETTLE AND DISCONTINUE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: PLEASE mark the above captioned action settled and discontinued. rger a ohnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner By: B Edmund J. VEsclui2?? ff rson J. Shipman, Es uire Counsel for Plaintiff ounsel for Defendants Dated: l - - l Dated: / 5-111