Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-0780 EVA MARGARET HOLDER, 35 East Ridge Street Carlisle, Cumberland County, PA 17013 Hanover, PA 17331 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No. 61- ~J'O Cu'.L I~ Plaintiff vs. RICHARD DiETTERICK, 306 Aron Drive Carlisle, Cumberland County. PA 17013 and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC. CT Corporate System 1515 Market Street, Suite 1210 Philadelphia, Philadelphia County, PA 19102 Defendants : Civil Action - Law : Jury Trial Demanded PRAECIPE FOR SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF SAID COURT: Issue summons in Trespass in the above case. Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to Attorney. Date: ff/ G . Martz, Esq .re Counsel for Plainti 96 South George treet Suite 430 York, PA 17401 (717) 852.8379 Supreme Court 10 Number: 35554 '* '" *.",.", SUMMONS IN CIVIL ACTION TO: RICHARD DIETTERICK and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC. YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF HAS COMMENCED AN ACTIO~AG T YOU. /J '":J ~ 7i; -->K..- J).~ Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division G/ Date: "):ab P ;;tOol I '-- Bv 4n-.. d . [?, '-7n r---- Deputy / ~ ~t ~0~ . . . ~~ e~~ l;j 17" I ~ ~~ J bf? ~ ' ", ra r~~) . \\ " - l ~ ?:,J \ K ~ ~ {/J "~ cJ~ ~ l' C:, I.":> \ ~. !: " , -<.~".. " c. ::'" '--0'.:\ < ~ '...,'. ~~ -- ~:; '..... "" , ." Q' ~ (' \S; " ~, 1 \ .",'\.- " ,::-- ~ ,^\ ~, , 'c, .'"'-. ~" +'1 j re .) C;", IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EVA MARGARET HOLDER, Plaintiff : No. 01-780 vs. RICHARD DIETTERICK and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC., Defendants : Civil Action - Law : Jury Trial Demanded PRAECIPE TO REISSUE WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF SAID COURT: Please re-issue the Writ of Summons in Trespass in the above case. Dare ~?j f / Ga~ Martz, E uire Counsel for Plain ff 96 South Geor Street, Suite 430 York, PA 174 1 (717) 852-8379 Supreme Court 10 Number: 35554 (") G ~ -uG3 mn-; z~. z'" (J)L -<~. r:: ...... -. . ~;:, ~O .....C ~ o '_i ":", :x }.:Do "f! ;:T1 .-, ':~) .~ ,~~:- ')E; ~~n~ :t. -< :;Q I '.0 T~ ~- '? .-V N o J IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EVA MARGARET HOLDER, Plaintiff : No. 01-780 vs. RICHARD DIETTERICK and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC., Defendants : Civil Action - Law : Jury Trial Demanded PRAECIPE TO REISSUE WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF SAID COURT: Please re-issue the Writ of Summons in Trespass in the above case. Dare J/f; 46. Martz, Esq re Counsel for Plainti 96 South George treet, Suite 430 York, PA 17401 (717) 852-8379 Supreme Court 10 Number: 35554 ".'1 (,'~~. SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASB NO: 2001-00780 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND HOLDER EVA MARGARET VS DIETTERICK RICHARD ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: FISHER AUTO PARTS INC but was unable to locate Them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of PHILADELPHIA County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS On April 6th , 2001 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from PHILADELPHIA Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County Surcharge Dep. Phila Co So 6.00 9.00 10.00 116.00 .00 141.00 04/06/2001 MARTZ & GAILEY R. Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me this /112c day of On~ I r;lrm/ A.D. r).& (l ~~' ~ Prothonotary SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR -, . CASE NO: 2001-00780 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND HOLDER EVA MARGARET VS DIETTERICK RICHARD ET AL CPL. MICHAEL BARRICK , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon DIETTERICK RICHARD the DEFENDANT , at 0009:34 HOURS, on the 5th day of April , 2001 at 306 AVON DRIVE CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to ARLENE DIETTERICK a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with REINSTATED and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So Answers: 18.00 9.30 .00 10.00 .00 37.30 ~~ ~~~; R. Thomas Kline 04/06/2001 MARTZ & GAILEY me this / I e:: day of By:~1t?~~ Sworn and Subscribed to before ~ Yrml A.D. C l,~ {2 n,,-,~ ~ . Irdthonotary , In. The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Eva Marga~et Holder VS. Richar& Dietterick, et. al. .Serve: Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. clo C~ Corporate System No. 01-780 Civil Now, 2/9/01 , 20 0 ~ , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, P A, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Philadelphia County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. . r~~' Sheriff of Cum her land County, PA Affidavit of Service Now , ,20 ,at o'clock M. served the within upon at by handing to a copy of the original and made known to the contents thereof. So answers, Sheriff of County, PA Sworn and subscribed before methis_dayof ,20_ COSTS SERVICE MILEAGE AFFIDA VrT $ $ L SHERIFF" RETURN - SUMMONS/~ 53 ( 6UA ml1\CCtA/2q ,11z,lD6Z COMMON PLEAS NO. COUNTY COURT VERSUS TERM, ,(Zo;:;C) nSI-teR. PbfO Pf\(2{5J (NC NO. 17;0 SERVED AND MADE KNOWN TO f\&iV2 Dff\ o Defendant ~efendant Company by handing a true and attested copy of the within Summon~mpla0Y issued in the above captioned matter on / rn~ I2C t-i ,)4' j..():) I ,at (D o'clock, A M.,~.S.T. at C1 T ~ 15(5" m PrR~l 51 , in the County of Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania, to -S-AV[)(GA SOLo {V\..()rU o (I) the aforesaid defendant, personally; o (2) an adult member of the family of said defendant, with whom said defendant resides, who stated that his/her relationship to said defendant is that of o (3) an adult person in charge of defendant's residence; the said adult person having refused, upon re- quest, to give his/her name and relationship to said defendant; o (4) the manager/clerk of the place of lodging in which said defendant resides; o (5) agent or person for the time being in charge of defendant's office or usual place of business. g (6) the ~c:c...,. AGe?01 und officor ~f said defendant Company; So Answers, JOHN o. GREEN, Sheriff " UoJtU~ By: Deputy She';!! 12.38 (Rev. 1<Al7) CASH RECEIPT APPE~ft~CE DOCKET F~"r 711!~OURT I ,),. . ... . ; '.~.'''\ .....\ ~ IN PAYMENT No, FEES Sheriff's Fee Registered Moil Mi I eoge . CODE OFFICE OF THE SHERiFF t BOOK,.:/'~' CITY AND COUNTY OF F~::E~P.~IA .~ SER\AL NO. . PF<OTH. NO. VS: \\ ,. 01= THE I=OU..OW.ING 't'TEMS CODE 311 i.- A.MOUHT j. i 1/ "l-~vertIsing )( /'" J v 331 311 312 / , ~, ATTtlRNEV 12.77 (Rev. 1/741 v . / DEPOSITS AND COSTS AMOUNT Deputi zed Servi ce 332 , i Stote Fee 335, 339 Affidovit Other Costs 340 i; I ..~----~-- -- --~- ">"<' .. -+-L.----.-r---~ TOT.IIL, "~01 I / I IAP~EARANCE CLER~ ';~{ '\o!; "'e~;~_i,~.::~~-~~~.: RECEIPT MOT VALlO UNLESS MACMIME IMPRIMTEO "_.', " , .'~~,' .w;';",.,.... ......". .".".,',;..,,~", ...:,.';.' .;i"..;~f."~".".. '~;,"(.,:.",.,^"...,,,,,,",_:, ...... .,.',","_.", ., q' :;;" . "'< '-oM'.. >- a. o () 'fl cr: w ::t o .... (J) :::l o DONALD M. DESSEYN, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717)791-0400 Attorney I.D. # 69179 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, Richard Dietterick and Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. EVA MARGARET HOLDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 01-780 v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW RICHARD DIETTERICK and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendants, Richard Dietterick and Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. in the above-captioned matter. Date: ~/;0~ .?~/ By: ~ Donald sseyn, squire Attorney for Defendants, Richard Dietterick and Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 4(! day of +/ ,2001, I, Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire, Attorney for Defendants, Richard Dietterick and Fisher Auto Parts, Inc., hereby certifY that I served a copy of the within Praecipe for Entry of Appearance on this date by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Gary D. Martz, Esquire 96 South George Street Suite 430 York, PA 17401 By: ~~ Donald sseyn, - quire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 791-0400 Attorney J.D. # 69179 DONALD M. DESSEYN, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 791-0400 Attorney 1.0. # 69179 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, Richard Dietterick and Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. EVA MARGARET HOLDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 01-780 v. CNIL ACTION - LAW RICHARD DIETTERICK and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED RULE TO FILE A COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Issue a Rule upon Plaintiff, Eva Margaret Holder, to file her complaint against Defendants, Richard Dietterick and Fisher Auto Parts, Inc., within twenty days from the date of service hereof; otherwise, Judgment of Non Pros to be entered in accordance with Rule 1037(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By: ~ Donald1Vl. esseyn, bsquire Attorney for Defendants Richard Dietterick and Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. AND NOW, this ..J~ day of ()pa..~ \. 2001, in accordance with the aforesaid Order, a Rule is issued upon Plaintiff, Eva Margaret Holder, to file her complaint against Defendant, Richard Dietterick and Fisher Auto Parts, Inc., within twenty days from the date of service hereof; otherwise, Judgment of Non Pros to be entered in accordance with Rule 1037(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (L/I. --j.;, J k. ~ Prothonotary {/ ~ u(;. mrT~ ->- z(. 0)",. -<,e, <~-' ~;c> ~8 z ::2 (:) c '~ ~:... c.) ~ '0 00 !'0 cr. -v !;,...) ~. ..' 15 -< ::> ,0 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EVA MARGARET HOLDER, Plaintiff : No. 01-780 vs. RICHARD DIETTERICK and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC. Defendants : Civil Action - Law : Jury Trial Demanded NOTICE TO DEFEND You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth against you 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 default 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 OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Lawyer Referral Service PA Bar Association P.O. Box 186 Harrisburg, PA 17108 800-692-7375 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EVA MARGARET HOLDER, Plaintiff : No. 01-780 vs. RICHARD DIETTERICK and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC. Defendants : Civil Action - Law : Jury Trial Demanded AVISO Usted Ha Sido Demandado en la corte. Si usted desea defenderse de las quejas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, debe tomar accion dentro de veinte (20) dias a partir de la fecha en que recibio la demanda y el aviso. Usted debe presentar comparecencia escrita en persona 0 por abogado y presentar en la Corte por escrito sus defensas 0 sus objeciones alas demandas en su contra. Se Ie avisa que si no se defiende, el caso puede proceder sin usted y la corte puede decidir en su contra sin mas aviso 0 notificacion por cualquier dinero reclamado en la demanda 0 por cualiquier otra queja 0 compensacion reciamados por el Demandante. Usted puede perder dinero, 0 propiedades u otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE 0 NO CONOCE UN ABOGADO, VAYA 0 LLAME A LA OFICINA EN LA DIRECCION ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE OBTENER ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Lawyer Referral Service PA Bar Association P.O. Box 186 Harrisburg, PA 17108 800-692-7375 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EVA MARGARET HOLDER, : No. 01-780 Plaintiff vs. RICHARD DIETTERICK and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC. : Civil Action - Law Defendants : Jury Trial Demanded PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff Eva Margaret Holder is an adult individual residing at 35 East Ridge Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 2. Defendant Richard Dietterick is an adult individual residing at 306 Avon Drive, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 3. Defendant Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. is a corporation authorized to conduct business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and/or doing business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with offices and/or a principal place of business located at 1917 Margaret Avenue, Altoona, Blair County, Pennsylvania 16602. 4. On February 26, 1999 at or about 10:05 a.m., Plaintiff was a pedestrian and stepped southbound from the curb on the north side of East Ridge Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and began crossing the street. 4. On February 26,1999 at or about 10:05 a.m., Defendant Richard Dietterick was the operator of a 1987 Ford Aerostar motor vehicle owned by Defendant Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. with Pennsylvania Registration Number BNP4415. 5. At the aforesaid time and place, as Plaintiff was a pedestrian and was walking across said East Ridge Street from the north side to the south side of the roadway in order to get into her motor vehicle which was parked on the south side of said street, Defendant Richard Dietterick, who was operating the motor vehicle described above and was proceeding eastbound on said East Ridge Street, negligently and carelessly allowed his vehicle to collide with Plaintiff, causing injuries and damages to Plaintiff as described hereinafter. 6. Said accident and the resulting injuries and damages to Plaintiff were caused solely by the negligence and carelessness of Defendants and were due in no manner whatsoever to any act or failure to act on the part of Plaintiff. 7. Solely as a result of said accident and the negligence and carelessness of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered serious personal injuries resulting in severe impairment of her bodily function and/or serious and permanent cosmetic disfigurement including, but not limited to, the following: an injury to her head with associated symptoms including seizures and/or a stroke, as well as pelvic and sacral injuries including but not limited to a right acetabular fracture, right inferior rami fracture, and left superior and inferior rami fractures, various contusions and abrasions, and symptoms and limitations caused by and/or resulting from these injuries. 8. Solely as a result of said accident and the injuries suffered by her therein, Plaintiff Eva Margaret Holder has been forced to incur medical expenses in treatment of the injuries which she suffered in this accident, the sum of which medical expenses has exceeded the sum recoverable under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, and she will or may continue to incur medical expenses in the future treatment of injuries suffered by her in this accident. 2 9. Solely as a result of said accident and the injuries suffered by Plaintiff therein, Plaintiff has suffered and in the future will or may continue to suffer from mental and physical pain and suffering, a loss of enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, cosmetic disfigurement, and a limitation in her pursuit of her usual and customary daily activities, all to her great loss and detriment. 10. This matter is alleged to exceed the applicable limits of arbitration and a jury trial is hereby demanded. COUNT I EVA MARGARET HOLDER v. RICHARD DIETTERICK 11. The allegations set forth in paragraph numbers one through ten (1 - 10) are incorporated herein by reference thereto. 12. The negligence and carelessness of Defendant Richard Dietterick in the operation of his motor vehicle consisted of, but is not limited to, the following: a) Failure to have his vehicle under proper control; b) Failure to keep a proper lookout for the presence of pedestrians on the roadway and surrounding traffic conditions; c) Failing to avoid striking Plaintiff when Defendant saw or in the exercise of reasonable care should have seen that Plaintiff was in the roadway a sufficient period of time prior to the accident for Defendant to have stopped his vehicle or otherwise avoided striking Plaintiff if Defendant had been paying proper attention and/or was operating his 3 vehicle at a proper speed and/or under proper control; d) Failing to beep his horn or otherwise warn Plaintiff of his approaching vehicle; e) Continuing to operate his vehicle in a direction towards Plaintiff when Defendant saw or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have seen that further operation in that direction would result in a collision; f) Failure to operate his vehicle at such a speed and with such control that he could bring his vehicle to a stop within his assured clear distance ahead in violation of the provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code found at 75 Pa.C.S.A. S 3361; g) Operating his vehicle with careless disregard for the rights and safety of other individuals lawfully proceeding on the roadway, including Plaintiff, in violation of the provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code found at 75 Pa.C.S.A. S 3714; h) Negligence and carelessness at law; and i) Being otherwise careless and negligent under the circumstances and as discovery may reveal. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Eva Margaret Holder respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment against Defendant Richard Dietterick in an amount in excess of Twenty-five Thousand ($25,000.00) Dollars, plus costs and interest as allowed by law. 4 COUNT II EVA MARGARET HOLDER v. FISHER AUTO PARTS. INC. 13. The allegations set forth in paragraph numbers one through twelve (1 - 12) are incorporated herein by reference thereto. 14. At the time of the accident Defendant Richard Dietterick was an employee, agent, and/or servant for Defendant Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. and was acting within the course and scope of his employment or agency at the time of the subject accident. 15. Defendant Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. is vicariously liable for the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Richard Dietterick in the course and scope of his employment and/or agency for Defendant Fisher Auto Parts. Inc., which negligence and carelessness caused the subject accident and Plaintiff's injuries and damages. 16. Defendant Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. was negligent or careless in the hiring, training, and/or supervision of Defendant Richard Dietterick and/or was negligent or careless in allowing Defendant Dietterick to operate the vehicle owned by Defendant which Defendant Dietterick was operating at the time of the subject accident when Defendant Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known and/or when it was reasonably foreseeable to Defendant Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. that Defendant Dietterick was going to be negligent or careless in the operation of Defendant Fisher Auto Parts, Inc.'s vehicle and/or that Defendant Dietterick was not capable of properly and/or safely operating said vehicle and when it was reasonably foreseeable to Defendant Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. that an individual, including Plaintiff, would or could suffer personal injuries as a result. 5 17. The negligence or carelessness of Defendant Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. was the sole cause or a substantial factor in causing said accident and Plaintiffs resulting injuries and damages. 18. At all times relevant hereto Defendant Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. acted through its duly authorized agents, employees, and/or servants. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Eva Margaret Holder respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment against Defendant Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. in an amount in excess of Twenty-five Thousand ($25,000.00) Dollars, plus costs and interest as allowed by law. Respectfully submitted, D'te ~ fJj Gary . Martz, Esq ire Counsel for Plainti 96 South Georg treet Suite 430 York, PA 17401 (717) 852-8379 Supreme Court ID Number: 35554 6 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EVA MARGARET HOLDER, Plaintiff : No. 01-780 vs. RICHARD DIETTERICK and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC. Defendants : Civil Action - Law : Jury Trial Demanded VERIFICATION I, Gary D. Martz, Esquire, do hereby verify that I am the Attorney of Record for the pleading party herein, and that the facts set forth in the foregoing PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, upon information supplied and that Plaintiffs' signatures could not be obtained within the time required for the filing of this pleading. I understand that false statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated 1~( By: b Gary D. Martz, Es uire Martz & Gailey LLP Counsel for Plain' 96 S. George St et, Suite 430 York, PA 17401 (717) 852-8379 1.0. No. 35554 . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EVA MARGARET HOLDER, Plaintiff : No. 01-780 vs. RICHARD DIETTERICK and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC. Defendants : Civil Action - Law : Jury Trial Demanded CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this ~ day of ~,2001, served two (2) true and correct copies of the foregoing comPlai~ bUing said copies in the United States First Class Mail, directed to the office address of the following: Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire Suite 103 4999 Louise Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 By: Gary D. Martz, squire Martz & Gail LLP Counsel for laintiff 96 S. Geor e Street, Suite 430 York, PA 17401 (717) 852-8379 1.0. No. 35554 -u n fj; rc )> o ~:.~ <~ < ....., -< -:1r " \L. .~ ) \:: " IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EVA MARGARET HOLDER, : No. 01-780 Plaintiff vs. : Civil Action - Law RICHARD DIETTERICK and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC. Defendants : Jury Trial Demanded PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE VERIFICATION To the Prothonotary: Please substitute the Verification of Gary D. Martz, Esquire, regarding the Complaint in the above-captioned case with the Verification of Eva Margaret Holder. Respectfully submitted, By: Date: Gary D. Martz, squire Martz & Gaile ,LLP Counsel for aintiff 96 South G rge Street Suite 430 York, PA 17401 717-852-8379 10# 35554 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EVA MARGARET HOLDER, Plaintiff : No. 01-780 vs. RICHARD DIETTERICK and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC. Defendants : Civil Action - Law : Jury Trial Demanded VERIFICATION I verify that the foregoing facts are true, upon my personal knowledge or information and belief. This verification is made subject to the penalties of Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. D,ws/if; ~ -, / ' . t . . '/u / .#.1'/ /..e.'-"1.- ~, .~"'r.:;l-~~" Eva Margaret H~~lder IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EVA MARGARET HOLDER, : No. 01-780 Plaintiff vs. : Civil Action - Law RICHARD DIETTERICK and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC. Defendants : Jury Trial Demanded CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have sent a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Substitute Verification, this ~~y of /410001, by First Class United States Mail to the following: Y Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Respectfully submitted, By: D,te J}f ( Gary D. Martz, squire Martz & Gaile ,LLP Counsel for aintiff 96 South Gorge Street Suite 430 York, PA 17401 717-852-8379 ID# 35554 DONALD M. DESSEYN, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 791-0400 Attorney J.D. # 69179 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, Richard Dietterick, et a1 EVA MARGARET HOLDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA Plaintiff No. 01-780 v. CNIL ACTION - LAW RICHARD DIETTERICK, et al Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Defendants, Richard Dietterick and Fisher Auto Parts, Inc., by and through their attorney, Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire, and files Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiff's Complaint based upon the following: I. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION FOR A MORE SPECIFIC PLEADING ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT, RICHARD DIETTERICK 1. Plaintiff filed a Writ of Summons on February 8, 2001, in the above-captioned matter. 2. Plaintiff subsequently filed a Complaint on or about May 8, 2001 which was served upon Defendants' counsel on May 10,2001. A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Complaint is attached hereto and made a part hereof and marked, Exhibit "I". 3. Plaintiff alleges in Count I, Paragraph 12 as follows: 12. The negligence and carelessness of Defendant Richard Dietterick in the operation of his motor vehicle consisted of, but is not limited to, the following: h) Negligence and carelessness at law; and i) Being otherwise careless and negligent under the circumstances as discovery may reveal. 4. Plaintiffs Complaint at Paragraph 12(h) and 12(i) contains boilerplate and nonspecific allegations of negligence which afford this Defendant no meaningful opportunity to investigate and respond to said Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Richard Dietterick, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court strike Paragraph 12(h) and 12(i) from Plaintiffs Complaint; or in the alternative, require the Plaintiff to file a more specific pleading delineating the factual averments upon which their cause of action is based as set forth in Paragraph 12(h) and 12(i) Count I of the Complaint. II. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION FOR A MORE SPECIFIC PLEADING ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT, FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC. 5. The averments of Paragraphs 1-4 of the within Preliminary Objections are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 6. In Count II, Paragraph 13, Plaintiff incorporates the allegations as set forth in Paragraphs 1-12. 7. The allegations as set forth in Count 1, Paragraph 12(h) and 12(i) are boilerplate and nonspecific allegations of negligence which afford this Defendant no meaningful opportunity to investigate and respond to said Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Fisher Auto Parts, Inc., respectfully request that this Honorable Court strike Count II, Paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs Complaint (to the extent that it incorporates Paragraph 12(h) and 12(i) by reference); or in the alternative, require the Plaintiff to file a more specific pleading delineating the factual averments upon which this alleged cause of action is based as set forth in Count II, Paragraph 13 as is referenced in Count I, Paragraph 12(h) and 12(i). Respectfully Submitted, Date: ~y.;.( ,;,/#/ By: 0~ Don esse , Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Richard Dietterick and Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. DONALD M. DESSEYN, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 791-0400 Attorney J.D. # 69179 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, Richard Dietterick, et al EVA MARGARET HOLDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 01-780 v. CNIL ACTION - LAW RICHARD DIETTERICK, et al Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this day of , 2001, after consideration of the Preliminary Objections of Defendants, Richard Dietterick and Fisher Auto Parts, Inc., it is hereby Ordered and Decreed that said Defendants' Preliminary Objections is attacking Count I, Paragraph 12(h) and 12(i); and, Count II, Paragraph 13, which incorporates Paragraphs 12(h) and 12(i) of the Complaint as being unduly insufficient is sustained and such counts are hereby stricken from the Complaint. BY THE COURT: (:' DONALD M. DESSEYN, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 791-0400 Attomey J.D. # 69179 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, Richard Dietterick, et al EVA MARGARET HOLDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 01-780 v. CNIL ACTION - LAW RICHARD DlETTERICK, et al Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED STIPULATION OF COUNSEL TO RESOLVE THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT IN THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED ACTION The parties, through their undersigned counsel, agree to and stipulate to the following: 1. Plaintiff and Defendants agree to stipulate that Count I, paragraph l2(h) of Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby stricken from the pleading; 2. Plaintiff and Defendants agree to stipulate that Count 1, paragraph l2(i) of Plaintiffs Complaint is hereby stricken from the pleading; and, 3. Plaintiff and Defendants agree that Count II, paragraph 13 of Plaintiff's Complaint does not incorporate Count 1, paragraphs 12(h) and l2(i) of Plaintiff's Complaint by reference as such allegations have been stricken from the Complaint by stipulation of the parties. ._".""""""~'~'-'~'''-", The parties, through their undersigned counsel respectfully request that the Court approve of the above Stipulation and agree that the Preliminary Objections will be withdrawn to the Complaint and that an Answer will be filed to the Complaint within 10 days after Court approvaL Date: GaryD. Martz, Es 're Attorney for Plai . ff Date: /~,#f Donald M. sseyn, E(quire Attorney for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this /';i'$day of ....,..-Z::;-1;-'}(:. , 2001, I, Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire, Attorney for Defendants, Richard Dietterick and Fisher Auto Parts, Inc., hereby certify that I served a copy of the Stipulation of Counsel to Resolve the Preliminary Objections of Defendants to Plaintiffs Complaint on this date by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Gary D. Martz, Esquire 96 South George Street Suite 430 York, PA 17401 By: y Donald M. D , squire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 791-0400 Attorney J.D. # 69179 DONALD M. DESSEYN, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717)791-0400 Attorney J.D. # 69179 JUN 2 2 200L~ ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, ~~~ '- Richard Dietterick, et al EVA MARGARET HOLDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 01-780 v. CNIL ACTION - LAW RICHARD DIETTERICK, et al Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this z.s day of -\w , 2001, the Stipulation of the parties, through their undersigned counsel, regarding the Preliminary Objections to the Complaint is hereby APPROVED and the Preliminary Objections are marked withdrawn. Defendants shal1 file an Answer to the Complaint within 10 days from the date of this Order. cc: Gary D. Martz, Esquire - Counsel for Plaintiffs Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire - Counsel for Defendants ~ tT;50J J. cJl AJi<: -"'''':(")8 ss ( '. . " t.,. ,fUN 2 8200tftl DONALD M. DESSEYN, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 791-0400 Attorney J.D. # 69179 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, Richard Dietterick, et al EVA MARGARET HOLDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 01-780 v. CNIL ACTION - LAW RICHARD DIETTERICK, et al Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this ~~ day of ,~ , 2001, the Stipulation of the parties, through their undersigned counsel, regarding the Preliminary Objections to the Complaint is hereby APPROVED and the Preliminary Objections are marked withdrawn. Defendants shall file an Answer to the Complaint within 10 days from the date of this Order. \: J. BY THE COURT:" / Cc: Gary D. Martz, Esquire - Counsel for Plaintiffs Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire - Counsel for Defendants --~---~~._-~"_._,..._._,,..,.- DONALD M. DESSEYN, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717)791-0400 Attorney J.D. # 69179 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, Richard Dietterick, et al EVA MARGARET HOLDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 01-780 v. CNIL ACTION - LAW RICHARD DIETTERICK, et al Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED STIPULATION OF COUNSEL TO RESOLVE THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT IN THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED ACTION The parties, through their undersigned counsel, agree to and stipulate to the following: 1. Plaintiff and Defendants agree to stipulate that Count I, paragraph l2(h) of Plaintiffs Complaint is hereby stricken from the pleading; 2. Plaintiff and Defendants agree to stipulate that Count I, paragraph 12(i) of Plaintiffs Complaint is hereby stricken from the pleading; and, 3. Plaintiff and Defendants agree that Count II, paragraph 13 of Plaintiff s Complaint does not incorporate Count I, paragraphs 12(h) and 12(i) of Plaintiffs Complaint by reference as such allegations have been stricken from the Complaint by stipulation of the parties. The parties, through their undersigned counsel respectfully request that the Court approve of the above Stipulation and agree that the Preliminary Objections will be withdrawn to the Complaint and that an Answer will be filed to the Complaint within 10 days after Court approval. Date: Gary D. Martz, Es ire Attorney for Plai 'ff Date: .t1~~/ Donald M. - sseyn,~ Attorney for Defendants ---------,...,., CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this //tJ-dayof ~~ , 2001, I, Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire, Attorney for Defendants, Richard Dietterick and Fisher Auto Parts, Inc., hereby certify that I served a copy of the Stipulation of Counsel to Resolve the Preliminary Objections of Defendants to Plaintiff's Complaint on this date by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Gary D. Martz, Esquire 96 South George Street Suite 430 York,PA 17401 By: ~~/..-/ DonaldMD~;e 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 791-0400 Attorney J.D. # 69179 DONALD M. DESSEYN, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717)791-0400 Attorney J.D. # 69179 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, Richard Dietterick and Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. EVA MARGARET HOLDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 01-780 v. CNIL ACTION - LAW RICHARD DIETTERICK and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SEPARATE ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT. FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC. TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Fisher Auto Parts, Inc., by and through its counsel, Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire, and for its answers to Plaintiffs Complaint states as follows: I. Denied. After reasonable investigation, this Answering Defendant is without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs Complaint and therefore denies same and strict proof is demanded at the time of tria!. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant, Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. admits that it is a corporation authorized to conduct and does conduct business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and that it has an office at 1917 Margaret Avenue, Altoona, Blair County, Pennsylvania 16001; however, Defendant denies the remaining allegations as set forth in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, this Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs Complaint and therefore denies same and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 4(a)(sic) Admitted. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, this Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief to the truth of the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff's Complaint and therefore denies same as strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, to the extent that the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 5 constitutes a legal conclusion, no response is required. 6. Denied. The allegations as set forth in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a legal conclusion to which to response is required. 7. Denied. The allegations as set forth in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff s constitutes a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Moreover, to the extent that the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs Complaint are factual in nature, this Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff s Complaint and therefore denies same and strict proof is demanded at the time oftrial. 8. Denied. Defendant denies the allegations as set forth in paragraph 8 to the extent that the allegations constitute a legal conclusion of law to which no response is required. Moreover, to the extent that the allegations are factual in nature, Defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff's Complaint and therefore denies same and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 2 c) Denied; d) Denied; e) Denied; f) Denied; g) Denied; h) Stricken by stipulation; and, i) Stricken by stipulation. WHEREFORE, having fully answered, Defendant, Fisher Auto Parts, Inc., respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against the Plaintiff, Eva Margaret Holder together with costs incurred herein. COUNT II 13. In response to Paragraph 13 of Plaintiff's Complaint, the Answering Defendant hereby incorporates each and every answer, averment, defense and/or denial as set forth in Paragraphs 1-12 as if fully rewritten herein. 14. Denied. To the extent that the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 14 constitutes a legal conclusion, no response is required. Moreover, to the extent that the allegations are factual in nature, Defendant admits that Defendant, Richard Dietterick was an employee of Defendant, Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. and was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the subject accident. 15. Denied. The allegations as set forth in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiff's Complaint constitutes a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 16. Denied. Defendant denies the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff's Complaint to the extent that such allegations constitute a legal conclusion to which no 4 response is required. Moreover, to the extent that the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff's Complaint are factual in nature, this Answering Defendant denies the general allegations of negligence or carelessness in regards to hiring, training, and/or supervision of Defendant, Richard Dietterick; denies the general allegations of negligence or carelessness in allowing Defendant Dietterick to operate the vehicle owned by the Defendant; and, denies the general allegations of negligence or carelessness that Defendant Dietterick was not capable of properly and/or safely operating said vehicle. 17. Denied. The allegations as set forth in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs Complaint constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 18. Denied. The allegations as set forth in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs Complaint constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, having fully answered, Defendant, Fisher Auto Parts, Inc., respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against the Plaintiff, Eva Margaret Holder, together with costs incurred herein. NEW MATTER 19. Plaintiff s Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. 20. Plaintiffs action is barred by the statute oflimitations. 21. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages. 22. Plaintiffs negligence in failing to properly cross the street was active and primary and any alleged negligence on the part of this Answering Defendant, such negligence being expressly denied, was secondary and passive by comparison; accordingly, Plaintiffs Complaint is barred. 5 23. Plaintiff's medical expenses, to the extent that such defenses were paid or payable under her own motor vehicle insurance are expressly barred. 24. Any recovery to which Plaintiff might otherwise be entitled should be reduced by her own percentage of comparative negligence. 25. Plaintiff was negligent in failing to yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway in accordance with 75 Pa.C.S.A. S 3543; such negligence being the proximate cause of the subject accident and Plaintiffs resulting injuries. 26. Plaintiff blindly attempted to cross the street without exercising the proper lookout approaching vehicles on the roadway and therefore, is negligent as a matter of law. 27. Plaintiff was negligent in that she failed to look in the direction of Defendant Dietterick and observe his approaching vehicle until she was immediately in front of said vehicle. 28. Defendant asserts any and all available defenses under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 29. The Plaintiff s cause of action and/or right of recovery is barred or modified by the doctrine of assumption of risk as applied in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 30. If the Plaintiff, Eva Margaret Holder, was struck by the vehicle operated by Defendant as alleged, this Answering Defendant avers that Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part due to the Plaintiff's contributory and/or comparative negligence generally and in the following particulars: a) In negligently covering her head with clothing so as to obstruct her peripheral vlSlon; b) In failing to maintain a proper lookout prior to and/or while crossing the street; c) In crossing between vehicles parked along the side of the street so a to shield her from the view of approaching motorists; 6 d) In failing to yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway prior to crossing the street; e) In blindly proceeding across the street without looking or attempting to look in both directions for vehicular traffic; and, f) In running out in front of an approaching vehicle and/or failing to allow the operator of such vehicle sufficient reaction time and/or distance to bring his vehicle to a stop. 31. Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff under the theory of sudden emergency. 32. The alleged damages which Plaintiff claims to have sustained were proximately caused by Plaintiff's own negligence. WHEREFORE, having fully answered, Defendant, Fisher Auto Parts, Inc., respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and against the Plaintiff, Eva Margaret Holder together with costs incurred herein. Respectfully submitted, Date: "7.J;J'dtl; By: .x;;::~W?.,/ Donald:;- .Ie::';::{q~ire Attorney for Defendants 7 VERIFICATION I, Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire, counsel for Fisher Auto Parts, Inc., a Defendant herein, verify that I am authorized to execute this verification and verify that the facts set forth in the Separate Answer and New Matter of Defendant, Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. to Plaintiffs Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief based upon a review of the pleadings and the investigation file. This Verification is being made pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1024(e) as the party is outside the jurisdiction ofthis Court and a Verification cannot be obtained within the time allowed for filing of this pleading. Moreover, the undersigned understands that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: JJI~~ Name:~~~ Donald ~~;-,;squire Attorney for Defendant, Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ""3~ay of ...J'V~ ' 2001, I, Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire, Attorney for Defendants, Richard Dietterick and Fisher Auto Parts, Inc., hereby certify that I served a copy of the Separate Answer of Defendant, Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. to Plaintiffs Complaint on this date by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Gary D. Martz, Esquire 96 South George Street Suite 430 York,PA 17401 BY:~~ Don;i~~~~ire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 791-0400 Attorney J.D. # 69179 DONALD M. DESSEYN, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 791-0400 Attorney J.D. # 69179 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, Richard Dietterick and Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. EVA MARGARET HOLDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 01-780 v. CNIL ACTION - LAW RICHARD DIETTERICK and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SEPARATE ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF RICHARD DIETTERICK TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Richard Dietterick, by and through his counsel, Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire, and for his answer to Plaintiff's Complaint states as follows: 1. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant admits that Plaintiff, Eva Margaret Holder, is an adult individual; however, after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations as set forth in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs Complaint and therefore denies same and strict proof is demanded at the time oftrial. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant admits that Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. is a corporation authorized to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; however, after reasonable investigation, this Answering Defendant is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief a to the truth of the remaining allegations as set forth in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs Complaint and therefore denies same and strict proof is demanded at the time oftrial. 4. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant admits that on or about February 26, 1999 at approximately 10:05 a.m., Plaintiff was a pedestrian; however, after reasonable investigation, this Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining al1egations as set forth in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff's Complaint and therefore denies same and strict proof is demanded at the time oftrial. 4(a)(sic) Admitted in part and denied in part. This Answering Defendant admits that on or about February 26, 1999 at approximately 10:05 a.m., Defendant was operating a 1987 Ford Aerostar motor vehicle owned by the Defendant Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. Defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining al1egations as set forth in Paragraph 4(a) (sic) and therefore denies same and strict proof is demanded at the time oftrial. 5. Denied. The al1egations as set forth in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff's Complaint constitutes a legal conclusion to which no response is required. However, to the extent that the al1egations are factual in nature, this Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the al1egations as set forth in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs Complaint and therefore denies same and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 6. Denied. The al1egations as set forth in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a legal conclusion to which to response is required. 7. Denied. Defendant denies the al1egations as set forth in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff's Complaint to the extent that such al1egations constitutes a legal conclusion to which no 2 response is required. Moreover, to the extent that the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs Complaint are factual in nature, this Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations as set forth in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff s Complaint and therefore denies same and strict proof is demanded at the time oftrial. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, this Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs Complaint and therefore denies same and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, this Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs Complaint and therefore denies same and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 10. Without admitting or agreeing to same, this Answering Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff has alleged that the instant action exceeds the applicable limits of arbitration and jury trial has been demanded. COUNT I II. In response to Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff's Complaint, this Answering Defendant hereby incorporates each and every answer, averment, defense and/or denial as set forth in Paragraphs 1-1 0 as if fully rewritten herein. 12. Denied. Defendant denies any general allegations of negligence as set forth in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Moreover, Defendant specifically denies each and every allegation as set forth as follows: 3 a) Denied; b) Denied; c) Denied; d) Denied; e) Denied; f) Denied; g) Denied; h) Stricken by stipulation; and, i) Stricken by stipulation. WHEREFORE, having fully answered, Defendant, Richard Dietterick respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiff, Eva Margaret Holder, with prejudice, together with costs incurred herein. COUNT II 13. In response to Paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant hereby incorporates each and every answer, averment, defense and/or denial as set forth in Paragraphs 1-12 as if fully rewritten herein. 14. Denied. The allegations as set forth in Paragraph 14 constitutes a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 15. Denied. The allegations as set forth in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 16. Denied. The allegations as set forth in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs Complaint are directed towards a party other than this Answering Defendant and therefore, no response is necessary. Moreover, to the extent that the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 16 of 4 Plaintiffs Complaint are factual in nature, this Answering Defendant denies the general or specific allegations of negligence or carelessness as directed towards this Answering Defendant. 17. Denied. The allegations as set forth in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiff s Complaint constitutes a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 18. Denied. The allegations as set forth in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a legal conclusion to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, having fully answered, Defendant, Richard Dietterick, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiff, Eva Margaret Holder, with prejudice, together with costs incurred herein. NEW MATTER 19. Plaintiff has failed to state of cause of action upon which relief may be granted. 20. Plaintiffs action is barred by statute oflimitations. 21. Plaintiffs own negligent conduct was active and primary and any negligence on the part of this Answering Defendant, such negligence being expressly denied, was secondary and passive by comparison; accordingly, Plaintiffs Complaint is barred. 22. Defendant asserts any and all available defenses under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 23. Plaintiffs medical expenses, to the extent that such defenses were paid or payable under her own motor vehicle insurance are expressly barred. 24. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages. 25. Any recovery to which Plaintiff might otherwise be entitled should be reduced by her own percentage of comparative negligence. 5 26. Plaintiff was negligent in failing to yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway in accordance with 75 Pa.C.S.A. S 3543; such negligence being the proximate cause of the subject accident and Plaintiff's resulting injuries. 27. Plaintiff blindly attempted to cross the street without exercising the proper lookout for approaching vehicles on the roadway and therefore, is negligent as a matter oflaw. 28. Plaintiff was negligent in that she failed to look in the direction of the Defendant and observe his approaching vehicle until she was immediately in front of said vehicle. 29. The Plaintiff's cause of action and/or right of recovery is barred or modified by the doctrine of assumption of risk as applied in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 30. If the Plaintiff, Eva Margaret Holder, was struck by the vehicle operated by Defendant as alleged, this Answering Defendant avers that Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part due to the Plaintiffs contributory and/or comparative negligence generally and in the following particulars: a) In negligently covering her head with clothing so as to obstruct her peripheral VISIon; b) In failing to maintain a proper lookout prior to and/or while crossing the street; c) In crossing between vehicles parked along the side of the street so a to shield her from the view of approaching motorists; d) In failing to yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway prior to crossing the street; e) In blindly proceeding across the street without looking or attempting to look in both directions for vehicular traffic; and, 6 f) In running out in front of an approaching vehicle and/or failing to allow the operator of such vehicle sufficient reaction time and/or distance to bring his vehicle to a stop. 31. Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff under the theory of sudden emergency. 32. The alleged damages which Plaintiff claims to have sustained were proximately caused by Plaintiff s own negligence. WHEREFORE, having fully answered, Defendant Richard Dietterick requests judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiff, Eva Margaret Holder together with costs. Respectfully submitted, Date:/f /'.[,,?a?/ By: ~~N~~ Donald ~~;;:is?cire Attorney for Defendant 7 VERIFICATION I, Richard Dietterick, a Defendant herein, verifY that I am authorized to execute this Verification and verifY that the facts set forth in the foregoing Separate Answer of Defendant, Richard Dietterick to Plaintiffs Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. To the extent that the contents of Separate Answer of Defendant, Richard Dietterick to Plaintiffs Complaint is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in executing this Verification. This statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DateJt 3) 2--00/ Name:~ If J~ Richard Dietterick CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this .....?4'day of $f ' 2001, I, Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire, Attorney for Defendants, Richard Dietterick and Fisher Auto Parts, Inc., hereby certify that I served a copy of the Separate Answer of Defendant, Richard Dietterick to Plaintiffs Complaint on this date by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Gary D. Martz, Esquire 96 South George Street Suite 430 York, PA 17401 By: ~~~ 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 791-0400 Attorney J.D. # 69179 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EVA MARGARET HOLDER, : No. 01-780 Plaintiff vs. RICHARD DIETTERICK, and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC. : Civil Action - Law Defendants : Jury Trial Demanded PLlANTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT RICHARD DIETTERICK 19. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted against Defendant, Richard Dietterick. On the contrary, Plaintiff's Complaint specifically pleads a cause of action against Defendant Richard Dietterick for negligence and/or causing the subject motor vehicle accident upon which relief may be granted by this Honorable Court, which allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein by reference thereto. Strict proof of Defendant's allegation is demanded at trial. 20. Denied. It is denied the Plaintiff's action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Rather, the subject action was timely filed by Praecipe for Writ of Summons filed with the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas on February 8, 2001, which is within the applicable two (2) year statute of limitations from the date of the subject accident, February 26, 1999, which Writ of Summons was timely and properly served upon Defendant. Strict proof of Defendant's allegation is demanded at trial. 21. This is a conclusion of law which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response or pleading is required, the allegations of this paragraph are denied. It is denied that Plaintiff was negligent or careless in the occurrence of this subject accident and denied that any negligence on the part of Plaintiff, which negligence is specifically denied, was active and primary in the occurrence of the subject accident and Plaintiffs resulting injuries and damages. It is further denied that the negligence of answering Defendant was secondary and passive in comparison to any negligence by Plaintiff in the occurrence of this subject accident and denied that Plaintiffs Complaint is barred as a result. On the contrary Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that said accident and her resulting injuries and damages were caused solely by the negligence of Defendant Dietterick and/or the negligence of Defendant Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. or that the negligence and carelessness of Defendants was equal to or greater than any alleged negligence by Plaintiff in the occurrence of the subject accident and Plaintiffs resulting injuries and damages. Strict proof of Defendant's allegation is demanded at trial. 22. Admitted and denied. It is admitted that the provIsions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law apply to the subject action. It is denied that Defendant is entitled to any defenses provided for by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law given the facts and circumstances of the subject action. Strict proof of Defendant's allegation is demanded at trial. 23. Admitted and denied. It is specifically admitted that any medical expenses incurred by Plaintiff which were paid or payable by the motor vehicle insurance carrier which provided motor vehicle insurance coverage to Plaintiff at the time of the subject accident are not recoverable against Defendant in this action given the provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. It is denied that Plaintiff cannot make a claim or recovery against Defendant for medical expenses which she has incurred in excess of the medical benefits paid or payable to her under her motor vehicle insurance policy in effect on the date of this accident. Strict proof of Defendant's allegation is demanded at trial. 24. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages and on the contrary at all times relevant hereto Plaintiff has acted as a reasonably prudent person in attempting to mitigate her damages resulting from the injuries which she 2 suffered in the subject accident as a result of Defendant's negligence. Strict proof of Defendant's allegation is demanded at trial. 25. This is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response of pleading is required it is admitted that the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act applies to the subject action. It is denied that Plaintiff was in any way negligent or careless in the occurrence of the subject accident or her resulting injuries and damages and therefore denied that any recovery to which Plaintiff is entitled in this action should be reduced pursuant to the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. Strict proof of Defendant's allegation is demanded at trial. 26. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff was negligent in failing to yield the right of way to all vehicles on the roadway in accordance with 75 Pa. C.S.A. Section 3543 and denied that any negligence by Plaintiff, which negligence is specifically denied, was the proximate cause of the subject accident and her resulting injuries and damages. On the contrary Plaintiff believes and avers that she exercised due care of a reasonably prudent person when she was crossing said roadway and that said accident and her resulting injuries and damages were caused solely by the negligence and carelessness of Defendant(s), which allegations of negligence and carelessness are fully set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint and are incorporated herein by reference thereto. In the alternative, Plaintiff avers that any casual negligence on her part was less than or equal to the casual negligence of Defendants. Strict proof of Defendant's allegation is demanded at trial. 27. This is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required the allegations of this paragraph are denied. It is denied that Plaintiff blindly attempted to cross the street without exercising a proper lookout for vehicles on the roadway and denied that Plaintiff was negligent as a matter of law under the facts and circumstances of this accident. On the contrary Plaintiff believes and avers that she was exercising reasonable care of an ordinarily prudent person at the time of the subject accident, was not in any way 3 negligent or careless in the occurrence of the subject accident, and that said accident and her resulting injuries and damages were caused solely by the negligence and carelessness of Defendant(s), which allegations of negligence and carelessness are fully set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint and are incorporated herein by reference thereto, or that any negligence on Plaintiffs part, which negligence is specifically denied, was equal to or less than the negligence and carelessness of Defendants in the occurrence of this accident and her resulting injuries and damages. Strict proof or Defendant's allegation is demanded at trial. 28. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff negligently failed to look for Defendant Dietterick's vehicle on the roadway prior to her crossing the roadway, and on the contrary Plaintiff believes and avers that when she began crossing the roadway, she did look for oncoming vehicles on the roadway and that it was safe for her to proceed to cross the roadway when said accident occurred solely as a result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendants, which allegations of negligence and carelessness are fully set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint and are incorporated herein by reference thereto. Strict proof of Defendant's allegation is demanded at trial. 29. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiffs cause of action or right of recovery is barred or modified by the doctrine of assumption of risk as applied in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. On the contrary, assumption of risk is no longer a viable defense in a negligence action under the law of Pennsylvania. It is further denied that at the time of the subject accident that Plaintiff knew or should have known that Defendant(s) would be negligent and careless or that Plaintiff knew the extent of injuries and damages which she would suffer as a result of Defendant(s)' negligence and carelessness. Strict proof of Defendant's allegation is demanded at trial. 30. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff was in any way negligent or careless in the occurrence of this subject accident and her resulting injuries and damages and rather Plaintiff believes and avers that at the time of the accident that she was using due care of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances and that said accident and her resulting injuries and damages were caused solely by the negligence 4 and carelessness of Defendant(s), which allegations of negligence and carelessness are fully set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint and are incorporated herein by reference thereto; in the alternative Plaintiff avers that any causal negligence on her part, which negligence is denied, was equal to or less than the causal negligence of Defendants. The specific allegations of this paragraph are denied as follows: a. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff negligently covered her head with clothing which obstructed her vision or look out at the time of the subject accident; b. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff failed to maintain a proper lookout prior to or while crossing the street at the time of the subject accident; c. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff was in any way negligent or careless in walking across the roadway at the time of this accident and denied that Plaintiff negligently crossed the roadway between vehicles parked along the side of the street so as to shield her from the view of approaChing motorists, and on the contrary the subject impact occurred in Defendant Dietterick's lane of travel which was the far side of the roadway from the side of the roadway from which Plaintiff crossed the subject roadway and therefore Plaintiff believes and avers that she was in plain view to Defendant Dietterick as he was approaching on the roadway if Defendant Dietterick had been keeping a proper lookout and that said accident and her resulting injuries and damages were caused solely by the negligence and carelessness of Defendants, which allegations of negligence and carelessness of Defendants are fully set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint and are incorporated herein by reference thereto; d. Denied. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference thereto her Answer to Paragraphs 26, 27, and 28 above; e. Denied. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference thereto her Answer to Paragraphs 26,27, and 28 above; and f. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff ran out in front of Defendant Dietterick's approaching vehicle at the time of this accident or that the manner in which she 5 crossed the roadway failed to allow Defendant Dietterick sufficient time and/or distance to bring his vehicle to a stop or otherwise avoid the subject collision with Plaintiff, and Plaintiff believes and avers that at the time of the accident that she was exercising reasonable care of an ordinarily prudent person in crossing the street, was walking at a normal pace for her and was not running, that she was in plain view to Defendant Dietterick if he had been keeping a proper lookout, and that said accident and her resulting injuries and damages were caused solely by the negligence and carelessness of Defendant(s), which allegations of negligence and carelessness of Defendants are fully set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint and are incorporated herein by reference thereto. Strict proof of Defendant's allegations is demanded at trial. 31. This is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the allegation of this paragraph is denied. It is denied that Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff under the theory of sudden emergency. On the contrary, Plaintiff believes and avers that the sudden emergency doctrine does not apply to the facts of the subject action and/or that any sudden emergency with which Defendant Dietterick was presented at the time of the subject accident was caused by Defendant Dietterick's own negligence and carelessness in the operation of his motor vehicle at the time of this accident, which allegations of negligence and carelessness are fully set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint and are incorporated herein by reference thereto. Strict proof of Defendant's allegation is demanded at trial. 32. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff was in any way careless or negligent in the occurrence of the subject accident or that any negligence or carelessness on Plaintiff's part, which negligence and carelessness is specifically denied, was a proximate cause of the subject accident and her resulting injuries and damages. Rather Plaintiff believes and avers that said accident and her resulting injuries and damages were caused solely by the negligence and carelessness of Defendant(s), which allegations of negligence and carelessness are fully set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint and 6 are incorporated herein by reference thereto; in the alternative, Plaintiff avers that any causal negligence on her part, which negligence is specifically denied, was equal to or less than the causal negligence of Defendants. Strict proof of Defendant's allegation is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Eva Margaret Holder respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss and deny the New Matter of Defendant Richard Dietterick and enter judgment against Defendant Richard Dietterick in favor of Plaintiff as requested in Plaintiff's Complaint. Respectfully submitted, D,w r/o/ ~ Gary D. Martz Martz & Gailey, LP Counsel for Pia' tiff 96 S. George treet, Suite 430 York, PA 17401 (717) 852-8379 I.D. No. 35554 7 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EVA MARGARET HOLDER, : No. 01-780 Plaintiff vs. RICHARD DIETTERICK, and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC. : Civil Action - Law Defendants : Jury Trial Demanded VERIFICATION I, Gary D. Martz, Esquire, do hereby verify that I am the Attorney of Record for the pleading party herein, and that the facts set forth in the foregoing REPLY TO NEW MATTER are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, upon information supplied and that Plaintiffs' signatures could not be obtained within the time required for the filing of this pleading. I understand that false statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.SA Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dared ;}(ol By: Gary D. Ma ,Esquire Martz & Gai y LLP Counsel fo Plaintiffs 96 S. Geor Street, Suite 430 York, PA 17401 (717) 852-8379 I.D. No. 35554 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EVA MARGARET HOLDER, Plaintiff : No. 01-780 vs. RICHARD DIETTERICK and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC. Defendants : Civil Action - Law : Jury Trial Demanded I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE rday of 4bJ~' served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Reply to New Matter of Defendant Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. by placing said copies in the United States First Class Mail, directed to the office address of the following: Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire Suite 103 4999 Louise Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 By: ry D. Martz, squire Martz & Gailey LP Counsel for P intiff 96 S. Geor Street, Suite 430 York, PA 7401 (717) 852-8379 I.D. No. 35554 "TJ n1 :~ 0- us --<. r" - .!': (-- ~ . (") r;; c~ ~.:I , ~. c:~'t () -'j 1> :~~ t (.-) 'n :1:< ;:".,) :::> (..J IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EVA MARGARET HOLDER, : No. 01-780 RICHARD DIETTERICK, and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC. : Civil Action - Law () C-") 0 c: --"1 s: ~ " . -0 (C" -c' . m [", ~;J 1 - -/ :J," ~ I Z '" (j) c;; -< t~ ) r' .."., ~ I~-; :};:: L. cj C:l ;pc c...' c: -;;-~:".~ Z :::> =< ::0 ,..} -< Plaintiff vs. Defendants : Jury Trial Demanded PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT FISHER AUTO PARTS. INC. 19. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted against Defendant, Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. On the contrary, Plaintiffs Complaint specifically pleads a cause of action against Defendant Fisher Auto Parts for negligence and/or vicarious liability upon which relief may be granted by this Honorable Court, which allegations of Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated herein by reference thereto. Strict proof of Defendant's allegation is demanded at trial. 20. Denied. It is denied the Plaintiffs action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Rather, the subject action was timely filed by Praecipe for Writ of Summons filed with the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas on February 8, 2001, which is within the applicable two (2) year statute of limitations from the date of the subject accident, February 26, 1999, which Writ of Summons was timely and properly served upon Defendant. Strict proof of Defendant's allegation is demanded at trial. 21. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages and on the contrary at all times relevant hereto Plaintiff has acted as a reasonably prudent person in attempting to mitigate her damages resulting from the injuries which she suffered in the subject accident as a result of Defendant's negligence. Strict proof of Defendant's allegation is demanded at trial. 22. This is a conclusion of law which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response or pleading is required, the allegations of this paragraph are denied. It is denied that Plaintiff was negligent or careless in the occurrence of this subject accident or denied that any negligence on the part of Plaintiff, which negligence is specifically denied, was active and primary in the occurrence of the subject accident and Plaintiff's resulting injuries and damages. It is further denied that the negligence of answering Defendant was secondary and passive in comparison to any negligence by Plaintiff in the occurrence of this subject accident and denied that Plaintiff's Complaint is barred as a result. On the contrary Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that said accident and her resulting injuries and damages were caused solely by the negligence of Defendant Dietterick and/or the negligence of Defendant Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. or that the negligence and carelessness of Defendants was equal to or greater than any alleged negligence by Plaintiff in the occurrence of the subject accident and Plaintiff's resulting injuries and damages. Strict proof of Defendant's allegation is demanded at trial. 23. Admitted and denied. It is specifically admitted that any medical expenses incurred by Plaintiff which were paid or payable by the motor vehicle insurance carrier which provided motor vehicle insurance coverage to Plaintiff at the time of the subject accident are not recoverable against Defendant in this action given the provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. It is denied that Plaintiff cannot make a claim or recovery against Defendant for medical expenses which she has incurred in excess of the medical benefits paid or payable to her under her motor vehicle insurance policy in effect on the date of this accident. Strict proof of Defendant's allegation is demanded at trial. 24. This is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response of pleading is required it is admitted that the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act applies to the subject action. It is denied 2 that Plaintiff was in any way negligent or careless in the occurrence of the subject accident or her resulting injuries and damages and therefore denied that any recovery to which Plaintiff is entitled in this action should be reduced pursuant to the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. Strict proof of Defendant's allegation is demanded at trial. 25. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff was negligent in failing to yield the right of way to all vehicles on the roadway in accordance with 75 Pa. C.S.A. Section 3543 and denied that any negligence by Plaintiff, which negligence is specifically denied, was the proximate cause of the subject accident and her resulting injuries and damages. On the contrary Plaintiff believes and avers that she exercised due care of a reasonably prudent person when she was crossing said roadway and that said accident and her resulting injuries and damages were caused solely by the negligence and carelessness of Defendant(s), which allegations of negligence and carelessness are fully set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint and are incorporated herein by reference thereto. In the alternative, Plaintiff avers that any casual negligence on her part was less than or equal to the casual negligence of Defendants. Strict proof of Defendant's allegation is demanded at trial. 26. This is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required the allegations of this paragraph are denied. It is denied that Plaintiff blindly attempted to cross the street without exercising a proper lookout for vehicles on the roadway and denied that Plaintiff was negligent as a matter of law under the facts and circumstances of this accident. On the contrary Plaintiff believes and avers that she was exercising reasonable care of an ordinarily prudent person at the time of the subject accident, was not in any way negligent or careless in the occurrence of the subject accident, and that said accident and her resulting injuries and damages were caused solely by the negligence and carelessness of Defendant(s), which allegations of negligence and carelessness are fully set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint and are incorporated herein by reference thereto, or that any negligence on Plaintiff's part, which negligence is specifically denied, was 3 equal to or less than the negligence and carelessness of Defendants in the occurrence of this accident and her resulting injuries and damages. Strict proof or Defendant's allegation is demanded at trial. 27. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff negligently failed to look for Defendant Dietterick's vehicle on the roadway prior to her crossing the roadway, and on the contrary Plaintiff believes and avers that when she began crossing the roadway, she did look for oncoming vehicles on the roadway and that it was safe for her to proceed to cross the roadway when said accident occurred solely as a result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendants, which allegations of negligence and carelessness are fully set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint and are incorporated herein by reference thereto. Strict proof of Defendant's allegation is demanded at trial. 28. Admitted and denied. It is admitted that the provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law apply to the subject action. It is denied that Defendant is entitled to any defenses provided for by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law given the facts and circumstances of the subject action. Strict proof of Defendant's allegation is demanded at trial. 29. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiffs cause of action or right of recovery is barred or modified by the doctrine of assumption of risk as applied in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. On the contrary, assumption of risk is no longer a viable defense in a negligence action under the law of Pennsylvania. It is further denied that at the time of the subject accident that Plaintiff knew or should have known that Defendant(s) would be negligent and careless or that Plaintiff knew the extent of injuries and damages which she would suffer as a result of Defendant(s)' negligence and carelessness. Strict proof of Defendant's allegation is demanded at trial. 30. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff was in any way negligent or careless in the occurrence of this subject accident and her resulting injuries and damages and rather Plaintiff believes and avers that at the time of the accident that she was using due care of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances and that said accident and her resulting injuries and damages were caused solely by the negligence 4 and carelessness of Defendant(s), which allegations of negligence and carelessness are fully set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint and are incorporated herein by reference thereto; in the alternative Plaintiff avers that any causal negligence on her part, which negligence is denied, was equal to or less than the causal negligence of Defendants. The specific allegations of this paragraph are denied as follows: a. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff negligently covered her head with clothing which obstructed her vision or look out at the time of the subject accident; b. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff failed to maintain a proper lookout prior to or while crossing the street at the time of the subject accident; c. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff was in any way negligent or careless in walking across the roadway at the time of this accident and denied that Plaintiff negligently crossed the roadway between vehicles parked along the side of the street so as to shield her from the view of approaching motorists, and on the contrary the subject impact occurred in Defendant Dietterick's lane of travel which was the far side of the roadway from the side of the roadway from which Plaintiff crossed the subject roadway and therefore Plaintiff believes and avers that she was in plain view to Defendant Dietterick as he was approaching on the roadway if Defendant Dietterick had been keeping a proper lookout and that said accident and her resulting injuries and damages were caused solely by the negligence and carelessness of Defendant(s), which allegations of negligence and carelessness of Defendants are fully set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint and are incorporated herein by reference thereto; d. Denied. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference thereto her Answer to Paragraphs 25, 26, and 27 above; e. Denied. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference thereto her Answer to Paragraphs 25, 26, and 27 above; and f. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff ran out in front of Defendant Dietterick's approaching vehicle at the time of this accident or that the manner in which she 5 crossed the roadway failed to allow Defendant Dietterick sufficient time and/or distance to bring his vehicle to a stop or otherwise avoid the subject collision with Plaintiff, and Plaintiff believes and avers that at the time of the accident that she was exercising reasonable care of an ordinarily prudent person in crossing the street, was walking at a normal pace for her and was not running, that she was in plain view to Defendant Dietterick if he had been keeping a proper lookout, and that said accident and her resulting injuries and damages were caused solely by the negligence and carelessness of Defendant(s), which allegations of negligence and carelessness of Defendants are fully set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint and are incorporated herein by reference thereto. Strict proof of Defendant's allegations is demanded at trial. 31. This is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the allegation of this paragraph is denied. It is denied that Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff under the theory of sudden emergency. On the contrary, Plaintiff believes and avers that the sudden emergency doctrine does not apply to the facts of the subject action and/or that any sudden emergency with which Defendant Dietterick was presented at the time of the subject accident was caused by Defendant Dietterick's own negligence and carelessness in the operation of his motor vehicle at the time of this accident, which allegations of negligence and carelessness are fully set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint and are incorporated herein by reference thereto. Strict proof of Defendant's allegation is demanded at trial. 32. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff was in any way careless or negligent in the occurrence of the subject accident or that any negligence or carelessness on Plaintiff's part, which negligence and carelessness is specifically denied, was a proximate cause of the subject accident and her resulting injuries and damages. Rather Plaintiff believes and avers that said accident and her resulting injuries and damages were caused solely by the negligence and carelessness of Defendant(s), which allegations of negligence and carelessness are fully set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint and 6 are incorporated herein by reference thereto; in the alternative, Plaintiff avers that any causal negligence on her part, which negligence is specifically denied, was equal to or less than the causal negligence of Defendants. Strict proof of Defendant's allegation is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Eva Margaret Holder respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss and deny the New Matter of Defendant Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. and enter judgment against Defendant Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. in favor of Plaintiff as requested in Plaintiff's Complaint. Respectfully submitted, D.torf; ~. Martz Martz & Gail ,LLP Counsel for laintiff 96 S. George Street, Suite 430 York, PA 17401 (717) 852-8379 I.D. No. 35554 7 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EVA MARGARET HOLDER, : No. 01-780 Plaintiff vs. RICHARD DIETTERICK, and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC. : Civil Action - Law Defendants : Jury Trial Demanded VERIFICATION I, Gary D. Martz, Esquire, do hereby verify that I am the Attorney of Record for the pleading party herein, and that the facts set forth in the foregoing REPLY TO NEW MATTER are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, upon information supplied and that Plaintiffs' signatures could not be obtained within the time required for the filing of this pleading. I understand that false statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. D,wd rfl By: n Gary D. Martz, Es uire Martz & Gailey Counsel for P ntiffs 96 S. Geor Street, Suite 430 York, PA 401 (717) 85 -8379 I.D. No. 35554 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EVA MARGARET HOLDER, Plaintiff : No. 01-780 vs. RICHARD DIETTERICK and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC. Defendants : Civil Action - Law : Jury Trial Demanded CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this ~ay of served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Reply to New Matter of Defendant Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. by placing said copies in the United States First Class Mail, directed to the office address of the following: Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire Suite 103 4999 Louise Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 By: / ~rY D. Martz, squire Martz & Gaile LLP Counsel for laintiff 96 S. Geor e Street, Suite 430 York, PA 17401 (717) 852-8379 I.D. No. 35554 -r] ':""~; 1"1', ; Z:) --,'"! ",-- -, (:-., ' ~;l..J ~ -t:-;(.; ~l..) J.?oc: :;2 o c; 1-:.1 ...,. r) . ~ 1 ,,'j I C' 'c: ~.Io? :::> ("";1 l --, ~~~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EVA MARGARET HOLDER, : No. 01-780 Plaintiff vs. RICHARD DIETTERICK and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC. Defendants : Civil Action - Law : Jury Trial Demanded I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE r~y of #tl4~2002, served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents Addressed to Defendants by placing said copies in the United States First Class Mail, directed to the office address of the following: Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire Suite 103 4999 Louise Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 By: // Ga'ry D. Ma , Martz & Gailey LP Counsel for PI ntiff 96 S. George treet, Suite 430 York, PA 17401 (717) 852-8379 1.0. No. 35554 -:1 r"" .,'-. .-.-.i O' > :"") IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EVA MARGARET HOLDER, : No. 01-780 Plaintiff vs. RICHARD DIETTERICK and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC. Defendants : Civil Action - Law : Jury Trial Demanded CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this J~day of 1:Jt~2002, served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Interrogatories to Defendants - Set No. 2 by placing said copies in the United States First Class Mail, directed to the office address of the following: Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire Suite 103 4999 Louise Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 By: Gary D. Martz, Martz & Gailey L P Counsel for Pia' tiff 96 S. George treet, Suite 430 York, PA 1740 (717) 852-8379 1.0. No. 35554 (') C~) ) <;, , ',.' , , ,) c.. n..~ ~} I /'n C ::< c: )> :..) .'- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EVA MARGARET HOLDER, Plaintiff : No. 01-780 vs. RICHARD DIETTERICK and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC. Defendants : Civil Action - Law : Jury Trial Demanded CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this (~~ay of fI~2002, served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Interrogatories to Defendants - Set No. 1 by placing said copies in the United States First Class Mail, directed to the office address of the following: Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire Suite 103 4999 Louise Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 By: / ~~ D. Martz, Esquire Martz & Gail LLP Counsel for laintiff 96 S. Gear e Street, Suite 430 York, PA 17401 (717) 852-8379 I.D. No. 35554 -Dr, n: t,~ ;-;::: -/, (j) , -< r"~:.: ~.-- ).:.. ..,. CJ ~'~ C':,',: ,) . ,) i C:;". IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EVA MARGARET HOLDER, : No. 01-780 Plaintiff vs. RICHARD DIETTERICK and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC. Defendants : Civil Action - Law : Jury Trial Demanded I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE C4aYOf iI~, 2002, served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs Response to Defendants' Request for Production of Documents by placing said copies in the United States First Class Mail, directed to the office address of the following: Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire Suite 103 4999 Louise Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 By: / ~D.M Martz & Gai LLP Counsel for PI ntiff 96 S. Georg treet, Suite 430 York, PA 401 (717) 852-8379 I.D. No. 35554 o ~. .O(]i: nil _, :-c" -/ c::; (). ~~~ ~-~ -~.J 0,/\. '.-,-~ (- >(~ -' :.::::. -< IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EVA MARGARET HOLDER, Plaintiff : No. 01-780 vs. RICHARD DIETTERICK and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC. Defendants : Civil Action - Law : Jury Trial Demanded CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE r~'- 1/1 / I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this ..) day of /1/(~002, served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs Answer to Defendants' Interrogatories by placing said copies in the United States First Class Mail, directed to the office address of the following: Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire Suite 103 4999 Louise Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 By: / ba~ D. Martz, E quire Martz & Gailey P Counsel for PI . tiff 96 S. George treet, Suite 430 York,PA1701 (717) 852-8379 I.D. No. 35554 () C~J C- h) ur; ".,J( ~ -..:.., .J ~ , (f) . (~" ~ -:~} IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EVA MARGARET HOLDER, Plaintiff : No. 01-780 vs. RICHARD DIETTERICK and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC. Defendants : Civil Action - Law : Jury Trial Demanded CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this /6 ~ay of . ,2002, served a true and correct copy of the Notice of Deposition by in the United States First Class Mail, directed to the office address of the following: Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire Suite 103 4999 Louise Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 By: , Esquire C! ~._~ "'\JI.' rill z..~: :;< (!? ~:t ~ , j.; ?~~ ;) \.:~ l:.'~ " " '-.~l ,1' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EVA MARGARET HOLDER, Plaintiff : No. 01-780 vs. RICHARD DIETTERICK and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC. Defendants : Civil Action - Law : Jury Trial Demanded CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this ~ ~ay of ~,2002, served two (2) true and correct copies of the Notice of Deposition by placing said copy in the United States First Class Mail, directed to the office address of the following: Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire Suite 103 4999 Louise Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 By: Gary D. artz, Esquire Martz & i1ey LLP Counsel ~ r Plaintiff 96 S. Gorge Street, Suite 430 York, PA 17401 (717) 852-8379 I.D. No. 35554 n <;;, ;~-' ''<. j< ..." .~) -, ( ;~, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EVA MARGARET HOLDER, : No. 01-780 Plaintiff vs. RICHARD DIETTERICK and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC. Defendants : Civil Action - Law : Jury Trial Demanded I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2/ ;liay Of~, 2002, served a true and correct copies of the Notice of Deposition by placing said copy in the United States First Class Mail, directed to the office address of the following: Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire Suite 103 4999 Louise Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 By: C Gary D. Ma z, Esquire Martz & Gai y LLP Counsel fo Plaintiff 96 S. Ge ge Street, Suite 430 York, PA 17401 (717) 852-8379 I.D. No. 35554 C-=' I'.) DONALD M. DESSEYN, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 791-0400 Attorney J.D. # 69179 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, Richard Dietterick and Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. EVA MARGARET HOLDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 01-780 v. CNIL ACTION - LAW RICHARD DIETTERICK and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Richard Dietterick and Fisher Auto Parts, Inc., Defendants, intend to serve a subpoena(s) identical to the one(s) that is/are attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of records and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena(s). Ifno objection is made the subpoena(s) maybe served. By: ~~~v' Do . esseyJi, Esquire Attorney J.D. # 69179 DONALD M. DESSEYN, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 791-0400 Attorney J.D. # 69179 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, Richard Dietterick, and Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. EVA MARGARET HOLDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 01-780 v. CNIL ACTION - LAW RICHARD DIETTERICK, et al Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Debra Taylor, M.D. Medical Arts Building 220 Wilson Street Suite 109 Carlisle, PA 17013 Within twenty (20) days after service ofthis subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: 1. Any and all medical records pertaining to Eva Margaret Holder; 2. Social Security Number: 245-22-6080; 3. D.O.B.2-26-99:. at the office of Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire, 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103, Mechancisburg, P A 17055. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. ----,-.--."....---.., THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire, 4999 Louise Drive, Ste. 103, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Telephone: (717) 791-0400; Supreme Court ID# 69179, Attorney for Defendant. BY THE COURT: Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division Date: Seal of the Court Deputy "- -'_._-'-"'~' ~-,,_... --~,. , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -I AND NOW, this /Z~ day of ~'<<A~Y, 20gi, I, Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire, Attorney for Defendants, Richard Dietterick and Fisher Auto Parts, Inc., hereby certify that I served a copy of the within Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena(s) on this date by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Gary D. Martz, Esquire 96 South George Street Suite 430 York,PA 17401 BY:~ Donald esseyn, squire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 791-0400 Attorney J.D. # 69179 ,., , .2l ~ (....:.' I',,; ORIGINI'Io.L DONALD M. DESSEYN, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 791-0400 Attorney J.D. # 69179 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, Richard Dietterick, et at EVA MARGARET HOLDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 01-780 v. CNIL ACTION - LAW RICHARD DIETTERICK, et al Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE - PREREOUlSITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 4009.22 As a prerequisite to service of a Subpoena for Documents and Things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants certify that: 1. A Notice of Intent to serve the Subpoena with a copy of the Subpoena attached thereto was mailed on January 12, 2004, which is prior to the date the Subpoena is sought to be served, to Gary D. Martz, Esq., Counsel for Plaintiff; 2. A copy of the Notice of Intent, including the proposed Subpoena, is attached to this Certificate as Exhibit "A"; 3. No objection to the Subpoena had been received and the moving Defendant shall serve the Subpoena; 4. The Subpoena which will be served is identical to the Subpoena which is attached to the Notice of Intent to serve the Subpoena. Date: ~~#1'" Byd~/ Dona! . esseyn, sqUire Attorney for Defendants DONALD M. DESSEYN, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 791-0400 Attorney LD. # 69179 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, Richard Dietterick and Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. EVA MARGARET HOLDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 01-780 v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW RICHARD DIETTERICK and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Richard Dietterick and Fisher Auto Parts, Inc., Defendants, intend to serve a subpoena(s) identical to the one(s) that is/are attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of reGords and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena(s). Ifno objection is made the subpoena(s) maybe served. By: ~~"7'/ DonakH\. esseyrr, Esquire Attorney J.D. # 69179 "" C::;' ~ () -n G.) ....-, i:'~ f',.:' 'DONALD M. DESSEYN, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 791-0400 Attorney J.D. # 69179 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT S, Richard Dietterick, and Fisher AutQ Parts, Inc. EVA MARGARET HOLDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 01-780 v. CNIL ACTION - LAW RICH.ARD DIETTERICK, ct al Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Debra Taylor, M.D. Medical Arts Building 220 Wilson Street Suite 109 Carlisle, P A 17013 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you ar,e ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: 1. Any and all medical records pertaining to Eva Margaret Holder; 2. Social Security Number: 245-22-6080; 3. D.O.B.2-26-99:. at the office of Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire, 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103, Mechancisburg, P A 17055. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. 'tHIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire, 4999 Louise Drive, Ste. 103, Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 Telephone: (717) 791-0400; Supreme Court ID# 69179, Attomey for Defendant. Date: ....J:a~ 13 ~(JO'l I Seal of the Court CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I . 1- AND NOW, this /Z~ day of ,~"'A~r, 209.3",. I, Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire, Attorney for Defendants, Richard Dietterick and Fisher Auto Parts, Inc., hereby certify that I served a copy of the within Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena(s) on this date by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Gary D. Martz, Esquire 96 South George Street Suite 430 York, PA 17401 ~ By: 46_~ ""~ Donald . csseyn, squire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 791-0400 AttorneyLD. # 69179 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this /f day of .Jt/'fiflfk 2004, I, Donald M. Desseyn, Esquire, Attorney for Defendants, Richard Dietterick and Fisher Auto Parts, Inc., hereby certify that I served a copy of the within Certificate Prerequisite to Service of a Subpoena on this date by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Gary D. Martz, Esquire 96 South George Street Suite 430 York, PA 17401 7'~ BY:~ DOnal,~eSSeyn, squire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechlmicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 791-0400 Attorney J.D. # 69179 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EVA MARGARET HOLDER, : No. 01-780 Plaintiff vs. RICHARD DIETTERICK, and FISHER AUTO PARTS, INC. : Civil Action - Law Defendants : Jury Trial Demanded PRAECIPE TO REMOVE To the Prothonotary: (X ) Please mark the above captioned action as settled and satisfied. Please issue a Certificate of Satisfaction. OR ) Please mark the above captioned judgment or lien settled or satisfied. Gary D. Martz, E uire Attorney for Intiff 96 So eorge Street Sui 430 York, PA 17401 ~ ~ (717) 852-8379 1.0. #35554 Dated: ~ ~ / (J"/ ...........f...::.............................................................. I, {J~ ~ W . ~~ ' Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvarla, do her~by ackn~je that the above-mentioned case settled, discontinued and ended on the !-+.... day of -.J::e.hg,,~ "'^ 1 ' 200:J. In witness wher?JtJ have hereunto set my hand and seal of said Court this . 'f. day of -P~fI" ' 2001-. a~- . (' "71 Prothonotary (") ~ ~~ z::r zc. <:Q ::> c::r ');; ,- z'-- _c:. ......-c:: ~ ~ ~ --' ..." g I 0"\ ~ ~:o r:: -om ;Q.Y \-? ,...'-, ~S ~l~ ":z: c> ..--rn ~ ~ :t:P ~ 'f: w Cf'\