The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-4862SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny RAnderson ~- 7~ a~ ~ -~r,; Sheriff a~„tr oC ~umbrrt~ Chief Deputy ~ ~ ~'`' •?~' ~V~ P Richard W Stewart ~~-!'~~'~~ _; ~; ,'p~, Solicitor ~s~)ce ,:,~ -.~e st~E~~Fr ~ .. ~. , Beverly Diane Rydman vs. James M. Decoster Case Number 2010-4862 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 08/02/2010 08:36 PM -Ronald Hoover, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on August 2, 2010 at 2036 hours, he served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: James M. Decoster, by making known unto himself personally, at 161 W. Louther Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013 its contents and at the same time handing to him personally the said true and correct copy of the same. SHERIFF COST: $33.84 August 03, 2010 RONALD HOOVER, EPUTY SO ANSWERS, RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF (c) CountySuite Sheriff, Teleosoft, Inc. In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Beverly Diane Rydman, Plaintiff = `= : No. 2010-4862 Civil V.' James M. DeCoster, Defendant COMPLAINT ,J p-?- r+n AND NOW comes the plaintiff, Beverly Diane Rydman, by and through her attorneys, Flower Law, LLC, and avers the following: 1. The plaintiff is Beverly Diane Rydman ("Plaintiff'), an adult individual residing at 103 North Pitt Street, Apt. C, Carlisle Borough, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. The defendant is James M. DeCoster ("Defendant"), an adult individual residing at 161 West Louther Street, Carlisle Borough, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. On the evening of August 14, 2008, at approximately 9:00 p.m., Plaintiff and Defendant, who were casual acquaintances, were drinking together at Fast Eddie's Bar on High Street in Carlisle. 4. Defendant invited Plaintiff to accompany him to his nearby home at 161 West Louther Street, to visit and to continue drinking alcohol. 5. Plaintiff had known Defendant for approximately eight months and had been to Defendant's home for social visits on several prior occasions. 6. For several hours, from the night of August 14, 2008 through the early morning of August 15, 2008, Plaintiff and Defendant socialized at Defendant's home, drinking and conversing together, and, in Plaintiff s case, making telephone calls. 7. Specifically, Defendant's telephone records show that Plaintiff dialed her son's telephone number in Washington State that night from Defendant's home telephone at 10:10 p.m., 11:15 p.m., 11:18 p.m., 12:11 a.m., 1:07 a.m. and 2:18 a.m. 8. The first five times Plaintiff called she reached only her son's answering machine; the fifth time she spoke with her son's wife for fifteen minutes. 9. During that time Defendant continued to drink alcohol until he was extremely intoxicated, with a blood alcohol level of at least 0.187. 10. At some time between 2:33 a.m. and 3:00 a.m., following a phone conversation with her daughter-in-law in Washington State, Plaintiff went into the defendant's kitchen to locate her cigarettes on a counter. 11. From the kitchen, she saw Defendant siting on the toilet in the bathroom off the kitchen, with the door open; she asked, "Why don't you close the door?" and he did. 12. Plaintiff then decided it was a good time to go outside and smoke a cigarette. 13. Defendant, who would not allow smoking in his home, had directed Plaintiff during previous visits to smoke outside at a bench on his patio, where there he kept an ash tray for the convenience of visiting smokers. 14. Plaintiff, who was familiar with the location of the patio bench from prior visits, proceeded outside to Defendant's patio, where she smoked one or two cigarettes. 15. Plaintiff believes she was outside on Defendant's patio for approximately ten minutes. 16. After her smoke, Plaintiff returned through the back door and into the kitchen of Defendant's home at approximately 3:00 a.m. 17. As Plaintiff proceeded from the kitchen to the dining room of Defendant's home, she heard Defendant run down the stairs from the second story of the home. 18. The police later noted that the pictures hanging on the stairway wall had been knocked askew. 19. Defendant, who was carrying his handgun, rounded the foot of the stairs and ran from the hallway and then through the living room toward the dining room, where he encountered Plaintiff, whom he mistook for an intruder. 20. Alarmed, Defendant instinctively ran the in other direction, and Defendant chased her in a circuit through the hallway, the living room and the dining room, until Plaintiff took a wrong turn and Defendant cornered her in the hallway. 21. As Defendant approached Plaintiff in the hallway, she noticed that he was in his knee-length underwear and that he was not wearing the eyeglasses he normally wore to correct his vision. 22. Plaintiff also noticed, as Defendant approached her, that his eyes were extremely wide open, as if in fear or excitement. 23. Defendant then pointed the handgun at Plaintiff and shot her in the abdomen. 24. Before collapsing, Plaintiff was able to stumble into the living room and grab the portable phone from the coffee table where the two had been drinking, and she managed to dial 911 to call for help. 25. The police were dispatched to Defendant's house at 3:07 a.m. 26. After the police responded to the call, Defendant, still unaware that he had shot Plaintiff, insisted to the police that he had shot a male intruder. 27. In his drunken condition, to grab his handgun and run downstairs to confront a supposed intruder, without putting on his eyeglasses and without taking time to identify the person in his hallway before shooting, was a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in his situation. 28. Defendant's grossly negligent or reckless shooting of Plaintiff in the abdomen caused Plaintiff such grievous harm that she had to be transported by helicopter for emergency treatment in the trauma center at Hershey Medical Center. 29. Plaintiff was brought in as a level one activation, which is the most serious activation, indicating an imminent danger of death. 30. The gunshot wound was to Plaintiff's abdomen, approximately in the epigastrium. 31. Plaintiff sustained two injuries to her duodenum and her right ureter was damaged as well. 32. Surgeons were unable to remove the bullet, which was lodged near her spine. 33. Surgeons were unable to close Plaintiffs abdomen during that initial operation, because it was not possible to sufficiently repair her duodenum, which was instead protected temporarily with a retrograde tube. 34. At a subsequent surgery, skin grafts were taken from Plaintiff s thighs and used to repair her bowel in a procedure known as a planned ventral hernia. 35. Plaintiff was confined to hospitals and nursing homes for the next eight months. 36. For the first six months after the shooting, while the wound in her abdominal slowly healed, she was not able to eat or drink, subsisting on intravenous solutions alone. 37. During that period of taking no orally-consumed nourishment Plaintiff permanently lost the functioning of her taste buds. 38. Plaintiff continues to have difficulty digesting food, and as a result remains emaciated and has not been able to regain the forty pounds she lost after the wound to her abdomen. 39. Plaintiff's thighs are permanently disfigured by scars from the skin grafts needed to repair her duodenum. 40. Because of the bullet's proximity to her spinal nerves, doctors determined that the risk of removing the bullet was too great, and Plaintiff still carries in her back the bullet with which Defendant shot her. 41. Plaintiffs total charges for medical and nursing care resulting from the harm caused by Defendant amounted to five hundred twenty-four thousand six hundred twenty-two and 99/looths ($524,622.99) dollars, for which the providers were reimbursed by Medicare in the amount of one hundred thirty-three thousand four hundred sixty-two and 35/100ths ($133,462.35) dollars. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court enter judgment against Defendant and award damages to Plaintiff in an amount in excess of $50,000, as compensation for the grievous harm, including disfigurement, pain, suffering and medical costs, caused by Defendant's grossly negligent or reckless acts. Respectfully submitted, FLOWER LAW, LLC Dated: 17, /Z j /to By: omas E. Flower S. Ct. #83993 FLOWER LAW, LLC 10 W. High St. Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone (717) 243-5513 Fax (717) 241-4021 Counsel for the plaintiff In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Beverly Diane Rydman, Plaintiff No. 2010-4862 Civil V. James M. DeCoster, Defendant VERIFICATION I, Beverly Diane Rydman, hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing complaint are true and correct, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED: B Beverly ane RydmanZ' In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Beverly Diane Rydman, Plaintiff No. 2010-4862 Civil V. James M. DeCoster, Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this 21th day of December, 2010, I, Thomas E. Flower, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint, upon Matthew R. Gover, Esquire, attorney for the defendant, by placing a copy of same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Matthew R. Gover, Esquire Gover, Perry & Shore 2411 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Dated: ? 212 9 /10 By: 'Thomas E. Flower S. Ct. #83993 FLOWER LAW, LLC 10 W. High St. Carlisle, PA 17013 (;717) 243-5513 Counsel for the plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 0 ? -n BEVERLY DIANE RYDMAN,' Plaintiff C ' -av NO. 2010-4862 C) _T vs. CIVIL ACTION te JAMES M. DECOSTER, Defendant ' PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF LEBANON COUNTY: Please enter the appearance of Buzgon Davis Law Offices whose address is 525 South Eighth Street, P.O. Box 49, Lebanon, Pennsylvania 17042-0049, as attorneys for the Defendant, James M. DeCoster, in the above-captioned case. BUZGON DAVIS LAW OFFICES DATE: January 18, 2011 BY: SCOTT L. , ENOBLE, ESQUIRE Attorney '. #72808 525 South Eighth Street P.O. Box 49 Lebanon, PA 17042-0049 (717) 274-1421 (717) 274-1752 - facsimile Email: sgrenoble@buzgondavis.com Attorney for Defendant, James M. DeCoster IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BEVERLY DIANE RYDMAN, Plaintiff NO. 2010-4862 vs. CIVIL ACTION c N c- JAMES M. DECOSTER, i rrt CZ) Defendant c? Ca m AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE; -- ?, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ss: COUNTY OF LEBANON j I, Britany Hirst, an employee of the law firm of Buzgon Davis Law Offices, 525 South Eighth Street, Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, Attorneys for Defendant, being duly sworn according to law, depose and say that on January 18, 2011, I mailed to the Office of the Prothonotary of Cumberland County, the original PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE and that I mailed, by First Class mail, in a postpaid envelope, a true and correct copy to Thomas E. Flower, 10 West High Street, Carlisle, PA, 17013, Counsel for Plaintiff. il' k'A? ItA-- ISRITANY HIRST Sworn to and subscribed before me this 18th day of January, A.D., 2011. Notary P, blic COMMONW '?H P PENNSYLVANIA Notarial Seal Notary Public Amy HartraEI=SepL City of Lebannon County My CommisSion 19, 2014 Mem ber, Pennsylvania Assoclation of Notaries 'd JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: John R. Ninosky I.D. No. 78000 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 '3 1 ti,l?. BEVERLY DIANE RYDMAN, Plaintiff V. JAMES M. DECOSTER, Defendant Attorney for Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2010-4862 Civil CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of the Defendant, James M. DeCoster, in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER Z?? IA)lzo?ml-01 By: Joh R. Ninosky, Esquire Att rney I.D. No. 78000 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Date: January 31, 2011 Counsel for Defendant 429784 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Entry of Appearance has been duly served upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on January 31,2011: Thomas E. Flower, Esquire Flower Law LLC 10 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Scott E. Grenoble, Esquire Buzgon Davis Law Offices P.O. Box 49 Lebanon, PA 17042-0049 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: 46 J n R. Ninosky !?',dIbl.itigatiiuf State I <irm inst}cCt?stert??if€davil. 1 servicz UG,v - -(; i 11:1.3 Ai-t .: Lis - ?, w,Ila: T' , ri ?.. -iil ? {r: . _j r i\ L. i-i j r; BEVERLY DIANE RYDMAN, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF vs. JAMES M. DeCOSTER, Defendant CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2010-4862 Civil AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ) ss: COUNTY OF LEBANON ) I, BRITANY HIRST, an employee of Buzgon Davis Law Offices, 525 South Eighth Street, Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, Attorneys for Defendant, being duly sworn according to law, depose and say that I mailed on March i , 2011, by regular mail, in a postpaid envelope, INTERROGATORIES and REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS to Thomas E. Flower, Esquire, FLOWER LAW, LLC, 10 West High Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 17013, attorny for Plaintiff. BRITANY HIRST Sworn to and subscribed before me this L40- day of March, A.D., 2011. (`(?*"""r?MNEALTH OF PENNSYLVAikil: Noftw ?/ r7 ( ,. _ T ihda 1.0' Net Notmy PLINk; CRY Of Lab•rK n, Lebanon 00U* Notary Public *n*WnE*kft ,Wy3.2011 mwwb•r, P+enrsyf,?a ;? A-s x:t.?k'r,l r WM•s a t' i s v 4 0 TAP; ?i? 1 t i?, (aJ retie/ ?3pf ??? VT? L.'NSYLVA' 1A BEVERLY DIANE RYDMAN, Plaintiff vs. JAMES M. DECOSTER, Defendant IN THE COURTOF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION NO. 2010-4862 NOTICE TO PLEAD To Plaintiff: You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. DEFENDANTS' ANSWER AND NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Defendant, James M. DeCoster, by his attorneys, Burgon Davis Law Offices, and files the within Answer and New Matter, averring as follows: 1. Admitted upon information and belief. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to respond to the averments of paragraph 7, strict proof being demanded at trial. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to respond to the averments of paragraph 8, strict proof being demanded at trial. 9. Denied. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to respond to the averments of paragraph 10, strict proof being demanded at trial. H. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to respond to the averments of paragraph 11, strict proof being demanded at trial. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to respond to the averments of paragraph 12, strict proof being demanded at trial. 13. Admitted. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to respond to the averments of paragraph 14, strict proof being demanded at trial. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to respond to the averments of paragraph 15, strict proof being demanded at trial. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to respond to the averments of paragraph 16, strict proof being demanded at trial. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to respond to the averments of paragraph 17, strict proof being demanded at trial. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to respond to the averments of paragraph 18, strict proof being demanded at trial. 19. Admitted? 20. ? 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to respond to the averments of paragraph 21, strict proof being demanded at trial. 22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to respond to the averments of paragraph 22, strict proof being demanded at trial. 23. Admitted in part and denied in part. To the extent said allegations are true, Defendant acted under the belief of justification and/or self defense. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to respond to the averments of paragraph 24, strict proof being demanded at trial. 25. Admitted upon information and belief. 26. Admitted. 27. Denied. The averments of paragraph 27 set forth conclusions to law to which no response is required. By way of further response, said allegations are denied, strict proof being demanded at trial. 28. Denied. The averments of paragraph 28 set Forth conclusions to law to which no response is required. By way of further response, said allegations are denied. strict proof being demanded at trial. 29. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to respond to the averments of paragraph 29, strict proof being demanded at trial. 30. Admitted upon information and belief. 31. Admitted upon information and belief. 32. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to respond to the averments of paragraph 32, strict proof being demanded at trial. 33. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to respond to the averments of paragraph 33, strict proof being demanded at trial. 34. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to respond to the averments of paragraph 34, strict proof being demanded at trial. 35. Admitted upon information and belief. 36. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to respond to the averments of paragraph 36, strict proof being demanded at trial. 37. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to respond to the averments of paragraph 37, strict proof being demanded at trial. 38. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to respond to the averments of paragraph 38, strict proof being demanded at trial. 39. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to respond to the averments of paragraph 39, strict proof being demanded at trial. 40. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to respond to the averments of paragraph 40, strict proof being demanded at trial. 41. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to respond to the averments of paragraph 41, strict proof being demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable ('ourt to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice. II. NEW MATTER To the extent justified by the evidence developed in discovery or the testimony at the time of trial, Defendant was not negligent, reckless, or careless with respect to any conduct regarding the injuries and damages alleged by Plaintiffs. 2. To the extent justified by the evidence developed in discovery or the testimony at the time of trial, the injuries and damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff were not proximately caused by Defendant. 3. To the extent justified by the evidence developed in discovery or the testimony at the time of trial, the injuries and damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff was caused by Plaintiff's own negligence, carelessness and recklessness. 4. To the extent justified by the evidence developed in discovery or the testimony at the time of trial, Plaintiffs cause of action is barred, in whole or in part, by the principles of her own contributory negligence. 5. To the extent justified by the evidence developed in discovery or the testimony at the time of trial, Plaintiff's comparative negligence, carelessness and recklessness exceeds any negligence or carelessness of Defendant, all such negligence or carelessness of Defendant being specifically denied. 6. To the extent justified by the evidence developed in discovery or the testimony at the time of trial, At all times material hereto, Defendant acted in self-defense. 7. To the extent justified by the evidence developed in discovery or the testimony at the time of trial, Defendant's actions were justified under the circumstances. 8. To the extent justified by the evidence developed in discovery or the testimony at the time of trial, Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the affirmative defenses identified in Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030, including but not limited to (a) waiver; (b) estoppel; (c) statute of limitations; (d) laches; (e) illegality; (f) release; (g) impossibility of performance; (h) fraud; (i) assumption of risk; and 0) payment. 9. To the extent justified by the evidence developed in discovery or the testimony at the time of trial, any claim or request in this action for damages for delay pursuant to Rule 238 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure is in contravention to and barred by the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions because: (a) the rule exceeds the rule-making authority granted to the judiciary by the Pennsylvania Constitution; (b) the rule violates the equal protection clauses of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions; (c) the rule violates the standards of due process guaranteed by the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions; and (d) the rule violates the excessive fines clause of the United States Constitution. BUZGON DAVIS LAW OFFICES BY: --- -- ------------ Scott L. Glighth e, quire Attorney 2 8 525 South Street Lebanon, PA 17042-0049 (717) 274-1421 Fax: (717) 274-1752 E-mail: sgrenoble@buzgondavis.com Attorneys for Defendant VERIFICATION I, James M. DeCoster, have read the foregoing Answer with New Matter, and hereby affirm that it is true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, or information and belief. This Verification and statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities; 1 verify that all the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct and that false statements may subject me to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904. James M. D oster Date: 435138 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA BEVERLY DIANE RYDMAN, Plaintiff vs. JAMES M. DECOSTER, Defendant NO. 2010-4862 C'IVIL ACTION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ss: COUNTY OF LEBANON ) I, Natalie K. Jenkins, an employee of the law firm of Buzgon Davis Law Offices, 525 South Eighth Street, Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, Attorneys for Defendant, being duly sworn according to law, depose and say that on March 28, 2011, I mailed to the Office of the Prothonotary of Cumberland County, the original DEFENDANT'S ANSWER AND NEW MATTER and that I mailed, by First Class mail, in a postpaid envelope, a true and correct copy to "Thomas E. Flower, 10 West High Street, Carlisle, PA, 17013, Counsel for Plaintiff, and John R. Ninosky, 301 Market Street, PO Box 109, Lemoync, PA, 17043, Counsel for Defendant. NATALIE' K. JENKINS Sworn to and subscribed before me this 28`" day of rch, A.D., 2011. ` Notary Public F TARIAL SEAL ITANY MIRST otuy Public ON. LEBANON D=2013 n Expln: Jul 1 L at ,. . ,,.,,.,,.,.,.,,,,,,.,.,....,. ?w....w? ~ ~ F:\dlb\Litigation\State Farm Ins\DeCoste~lDeposition notice.docx - 11./8/12 10:13 AM BEVERLY DIANE RYDMAN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION -LAW JAMES M. DECOSTER, N0.2010-4862 ~ : , • ~ ~ e,f:.; Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ~ ~ ~~{ NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITIONS c ~ ~ ~ ~' ON ORAL EXAMINATION UNDER ~ ~ ~ ~.r_. PA.R.C.P. 4007.1 ~ ~ ~= c":: _.,; ca Thomas E. Flower, Esquire FLOWER LAW, LLC 10 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 attorney for Plaintiff John R. Ninosky, Esquire 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 co-counsel for Defendant Notice is given herewith that, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 4007.1, the deposition of Beverly Diane Rydman will be taken on oral examination at Flower Law, LLC, 10 West High Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on the 20~' day of December, 2012, at 10:00 o'clock A.M., and at any and all adjournments thereof. BUZGON DAVIS LAW OFFICES BY: / / Scott L. Grebb, Estee-Attorney I.D. #72808 525 South Ei th Street-Post Office Box 49 Lebanon, PA 17042-0049 (717) 274-1421 Fax: (717) 274-1752 E-mail: sgrenoble@buzgondavis.com co-counsel for Defendant Dated: November 8, 2012 cc: Geiger & Loria Reporting Service ~ ' BEVERLY DIANE RYDMAN, Plaintiff vs. JAMES M. DECOSTER, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW N0.2010-4862 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of NOTICE OF TAIOnnNG 1`~ DEPOSITIONS ON ORAL EXAMINATION UNDER PA.R.C.P. N0.4007.1 on the ~1+E'tY1 day of , 2012, upon the following persons in the manner indicated below: Service by First-Class Mail, Postage Prepaid to: Thomas E. Flower, Esquire FLOWER LAW, LLC 10 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 attorney for Plaintiff John R. Ninosky, Esquire 301 Mazket Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 co-counsel for Defendant BUZGON DAVIS LAW OFFICES BY: ~~ L. Grenoble, Esquire-Attorney I.D. #72808 5 South Eighth Street-Post Office Box 49 Lebanon, PA 17042-0049 (717) 274-1421 Fax: (717) 274-1752 E-mail: srenoble@buzgondavis.com co-counsel for Defendant -2- LEU -C:. uF THE. ROTH IN0 A; PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAM MiS 3 PM 3' 20 (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplica)MBERL AND COUNTY PENNSYLVANI A TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case for a Jury Trial. CAPTION OF CASE jentire caption must be stated in fulll BEVERLY DIANE RYDMAN (Plaintiff) vs. JAMES M. DeCOSTER (Defendant) vs. (check one) Ai Civil Action — Law L Appeal from arbitration LI (other) No. 20104862 Civil Term The trial list will be called on. 09/30/14 and Pretrials will be held on 10/15/14 (Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials) Trials commence on 10/27/14 Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: THOMAS E. FLOWER Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: SCOTT L. GRENOBLE, BUZGON DAVIS LAW OFFICES JOHN R. NINOSKY, JOHNSON DUFFIE LAW OFFICES This case is ready for trial. Date: 08/13/2014 Signed: Print Name: THOMAS E. FLOWER Attorney for: PLAINTIFF /z.4 //Dc -- 0e4 3 0 9.7g- C) f-,7 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania -0 -K. _L-- 2 rnw rricr) Beverly Diane Rydman, --I --iz, = -- Plaintiff No. 2010-4862 Civil r - V. = c', James M. DeCoster, Defendant Joint Motion for Partial Summary Judgment arid Request for Bench Trial AND NOW come the plaintiff, Beverly Diane Rydman, and the defendant, James M. DeCoster, by and through attorneys, Flower Law, LLC and Buzgon Davis Law Offices, counsel for the plaintiffand the defendant, respectively, and state the following in support of this joint motion: 1. The plaintiff is Beverly Diane Rydman ("Plaintiff"), an adult individual residing at 103 North Pitt Street, Apt. C, Carlisle Borough, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. The defendant is James M. DeCoster ("Defendant"), an adult individual residing at 161 West Louther Street, Carlisle Borough, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff and Defendant spent several hours together on the night of August 14 and early morning of August 15, 2008, drinking alcoholic beverages and socializing at Defendant's home at 161 West Louther Street, Carlisle. 4. At some time between 2:33 a.m. and 3:00 a.m., Plaintiffexited Defendant's house by the kitchen door, and sat on a bench on Defendant's back patio, where she smoked one or two cigarettes. 5. Defendant was by then thoroughly intoxicated with a blood alcohol level of at least 0.187 and apparently dozed off. 6. At approximately 3:00 a.m., having finished her smoke, Plaintiff reentered Defendant's home by the kitchen door. 7. Awakening to the sounds of a person moving through his kitchen, Defendant failed to remember that Plaintiff was present as his houseguest. 8. Groggy with intoxication, Defendant grabbed his handgun to confront the supposed intruder. 9. When he encountered Plaintiff, Defendant was not wearing the eyeglasses he normally wore to correct his vision and mistook Plaintiff for an unknown male intruder. 10. Defendant shot Plaintiff in the abdomen with a bullet from his handgun. 11. Although seriously injured by the bullet, Plaintiff was able to dial 911 and telephone for help, before collapsing. 12. When the police arrived, Defendant, who was still unaware that he had shot Plaintiff, insisted to the police that he had shot a male intruder. 13. The foregoing averments (1 -12) are not disputed by Defendant and are stipulated to be facts by both parties. 14. Defendant acknowledges that he shot Plaintiff and thereby caused her injury. 15. Defendant acknowledges that he owed Plaintiff, who was his invited houseguest, a duty of care. 16. Defendant acknowledges that shooting his handgun at a supposed intruder, while intoxicated by alcohol, without first putting on his eyeglasses and taking care to identify the person at whom he was pointing his handgun, was a breach of the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in those circumstances. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant jointly move for summary judgment on the issue of .Defendant's negligence and resulting liability for Plaintiff's injuries; and Plaintiff and Defendant jointly request this Honorable Court schedule a non jury hearing for the presentation of evidence on the issue of damages. Dated: 00 ,//1 Respectfully submitted, BUZGON DAVIS LAW OFFICES Bv. Scott LlGr;/ oble S. Ct. #72/18 P.O. Box 49 Lebanon, PA 17042 Phone (717) 274-1421 Fax (717) 274-1752 Counsel for the defendant FLOWER LAW, LLC By: Thomas E. Flower S. Ct. #83993 10 W. High St. Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone (717) 243-5513 Fax (717) 241-4021 Counsel for the plaintiff In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Beverly Diane Rydman, Plaintiff v. James M. DeCoster, Defendant To the Prothonotary: No. 2010-4862 Civil Praecipe to Withdraw Case from Jury Trial List Kindly withdraw the above -referenced case from the pending jury trial list. Dated: //02# By: Respectfully submitted, FLOWER LAW, LLC Thomas E. Flower S. Ct. #83993 10 W. High St. Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone (717) 243-5513 Fax (717) 241-4021 Counsel for the plaintiff In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Beverly Diane Rydman, Plaintiff v. James M. DeCoster, Defendant AND NOW, this No. 2010-4862 Civil ORDER day of , 2014, upon consideration of the within Joint Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Request for Bench Trial, it is hereby ordered that: (1) the parties' joint motion for partial summary judgment is hereby granted, with respect to the Defendant's negligence and resulting liability for Plaintiff's injuries; and (2) a hearing shall be held before the Court, without jury, in courtroo io:ed a .m. on the /3t1 day of , 2014, for presentation of evidence on the issue of damages. BY THE COURT: L-1 Distribution: Scott L. Grenoble, Esq. BUZGON DAVIS LAW OFFICES P.O. Box 49 Lebanon, PA 17042 ...,John R. Ninosky, Esq. Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 eOpi C5 Thomas E. Flower, Esq. FLOWER LAW, LLC 10 W. High St. Carlisle, PA 17013 BEVERLY DIANE RYDMAN, •• IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff •• CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA C) r - FO VS. : CIVIL ACTION — LAW -- NO. 10-4862 CIVIL 7- rt 1 ai Q r�. JAMES M. DECOSTER, cnr-- i ti L_, Defendant' • CD IN RE: JOINT MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ASD' r % :-. • --- C) , REQUEST FOR BENCH TRIAL -<, '~j ORDER AND NOW, this 3" day of December, 2014, following nonjury trial on the issue of damages, we find in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the following amounts: Medical expenses: $133,462.35 Noneconomic Loss per Pa.R.C.P. 223.3: $250,000.00 TOTAL: $383,462.35 BY THE COURT, Kevi . A. Hess, P.J. Thomas E. Flower, Esquire 10 W. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 For the Plaintiff ✓ Scott L. Grenoble, Esquire P. O. Box 49 Lebanon, PA 17042 For the Defendant