Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-2493 .IK. NNE'r'rlr. Lti(;ARO, : IN THE ('OI~RT OF COMMON I LLA~ Harrisburg, PA 17104, : Plainliff : CIVIl. ACTION - LAW I)()NALI) DONS, : 1509 Ritl~e Road Whilelbrd, M D 21160 : anti ('AI{I,ISI,K ("AIJlIIEI{ ('()III'()IJATIiJN: ]513 East ('mnnlerce Aven,e : I)el~'n(lanl~ : .IURY TRIAl. I)EMA~I)ED 'fO 'l'l II~ I'R( )'1'1 I( )N( )T:\R Y: I)Je:~sc JSSIIL' :1 WI'il of Nu II II ~flS 01~ J~'JtaJf oJ' PI;lilIIiI'I'.J¢:IIIllClIC, J..[l~/ll'O tl[loll J)cl~'lld[llll I)olmld Doss and I)ulbndant ('arlisle (.':Irt ~,' (' 'pt.ralit n :Il Ille :kl( 'css~'~ Jislu'd t b )xc IIANI)I,ER, IIENNIN(; & I{(~NIIER(; , '. Ntcphcn ('L Held. I{sqtfi]'e ' --'- ..kllUl'lle)' I.D. M726h~ J).(). JJox J J 77 ' .' I I~ 'risbur~ I)A 1710R-1177 - '-- =--'A'-- '-- :~l[Ol'llL?'~ Ibr Plaintifl~ Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland 1415 S. 15th Street, Apt. 202 Harrisburg, PA 17104 VS. DONALD DOSS 1509 Ridge Road Whiteford, ~;D 21160 Court of Conunou Plea~ ~o ..... 9 A-_2_ _4 _91 _c_ _i _v~iA _ _~_ _ .~_ ........... ~ .... CARLISLE CARRI~ CORPORATION 1513 East C~,,,~e Avenue In .... _C_.i_v.i.1 A~tion _ Law Carlisle, PA 17013 .................................... To . _Dg_ .n~_l_ _d_..DQs. _s_ _ _a3~_ _ _ _C_ _a~_ .li_s_l_e_ _ _C_ .a~_r_ !_e_r_ _ _Cg_r~orat ion You are hereby no~/ied that Jeanette Lugar~ . the Plaintiff haS commenced an action in Civil Action - Law against you which you are ~quired to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you. (SEAL) Pmthono~ar~ SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2001-02493 p COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LUGARO JEANETTE VS DOSS DONALD ET AL CPL MICHAEL E. 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 CARLISLE CARRIER CORPORATION the DEFENDANT , at 1253:00 HOURS, on the 2nd day of ~ay , 200___~1 at 1513 EAST COMMERCE AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to DAVE METZLER PRESIDENT CEO a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: So Answers: Service 6.20 ' ~"~'~ Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 R. Thomas Kline .00 34.20 05/02/2001 HANDLE HENNING & ROSENBERG .~ Sworn and Subscribed to before By: ~~ me this ~/-~- day of t~/- Deputy Sheriff ~ ~D! A.D. /Prothonotary , , , JEANNETTE LUGARO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : No. 01-2493 DONALD DOSS and : CARLISLE CARRIER : CORPORATION, : : Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PROOF OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ~) day of May, 2001, I hereby certify that I have served the attached Writ of Summons upon Defendant Donald Doss by sending a Certified copy of same to him via United States Certified Mail # 7000 1670 0005 2767 6558 at the following address as evidenced by thc attached receipts. Donald Doss 1509 Ridge Road Whiteford, MD 21160 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG By: ~~ d, Esquire Attorney I.D. #72663 1300 Linglestown Road P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1177 Attorneys for Plaintiffs · Complete I~ema 1, 2, and 3. Also complete iran1 4 if Restricted De,very is desired. B. Date of Delivery · . Print your narse and addrsos on the reverse ' - '~' - D ~ so that we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece. [] ~ or on the front if space permits. [] ,~ddressee 1. Article ~dmssad to: D. Is delivery address different Imm ~tem 1 ? [] Yes If YE~. enter delive~j address below: r'l NO PS Form 3811. July 1999 Dameatfc Return Receil3t 1025SS.(X)-M.09~2 £.onm,..on~,,ealt:~ of Pe,mnsylvania ,,~..ount. y o',' Cumberland JEANNEI'I'E LUGARO, : iN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW V, '- : No. 0t-2493 DONALD DOSS and : CARLISLE CARRIER : CORPORATION, : : Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE y ........ -' ,- --,urt. If ,,ou wish to defend against the claims set ou nave ..e.. =u.. ,,, .... . . . forth In.the follow,.ng pages, you must take act,on, with,n twenty (20) days after this compla,nt and .not,ce a.m.. sewed, by entering a wr,tten appearanc.e, personally or by attorney and.ri,rig In writ, rig with the Court your def .e. nses or obJect, ons to the claims set forth aga,nst y.ou. You ars warned that if you fa,I to do so the case ..m. ay proceed wit.bout you and a judgmen, t may.be entered aga. lnst you by the court w,t.hout furt.h, er not,ce for any money cla,med ,n the compla,nt or for any other.cia,re, or rel,ef requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights ,mportant 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_~T~E,L=EP_H..O.N~,T~HE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN (~=' Cumberland County Court Administrator Fourth Floor Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone (717) 240-6200 JEANNETTE LUGARO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : .' CIVIL ACTION - LAW V, " : No. 01-2493 DONALD DOSS and : CARLISLE CARRIER : CORPORATION, : : Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICIA Le hah demandado a usted en la corfe. Si usfed quiere d. efenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas signuientes, u. sted tlene, v.~e. nta (20) dl.as de plazo .al partir de al fecha de la demanda y la notlflcaclon. Usfe¢~ oer~e presentar una aparlencla escrita o en pemona a por abogado y archlvar en la corte en forma escrlta sue defensas o sue obJectiones a las demandas en contra de .su pemo.na. Sea avisado que si usted no se fefiende, la corte tomara medldas y puecle una omen contra usted sin previo aviso o notlficacion y por cualqul.er queja o akuvui que es pedido en la peticlon de demanda. Usfed puedo parder d~nero o sue propledades o otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DIMERO SUFIClENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVlClO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEPONO A LA OFIClNA CUYA DIRECCION SE EMCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSSGUlA ASlSTENClA LEGAL. Cumberland County Court Administrator Fourth Floor Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone (717) 240-6200 JEANNE'I'~'E LUGARO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW V, ; : No. 01-2493 DONALD DOSS and : CARLISLE CARRIER : CORPORATION, : : Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, by and through her attorney, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, by Stephen G. Held, Esquire, and makes the within Complaint against the Defendants, Donald Doss and Carlisle Carrier Corporation, as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, is a competent adult individual currently residing at 1415 South 15t" Street, Apartment 202, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 17104. 2. Defendant, Donald Doss, is a competent adult individual currently residing at 1509 Ridge Road, Whiteford, Maryland 21160. 3. Defendant, Carlisle Carrier Corporation, is a corporation currently doing business at 6380 Brackbill Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 1 4. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, was the owner and operator of a 1986 Honda Accord that was insured by Progressive Insurance Company under which motor vehicle insurance policy, Plaintiff was covered by the Limited Tort Option. (hereinafter "Plaintiff's vehicle"). 5. Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, elected the Limited Tort Option enumerated in the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. CSA § 1705(a)(1). However, pursuant to Act 6 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. CSA § 1701 et se(~.. Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, is entitled to seek damages as though she has elected the full tort alternative due to the fact that she has sustained injuries as a result of the collision described herein with a vehicle that was registered in Maryland. See 75 Pa CSA § 1705 (d)(1)(ii). 6. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Donald Doss, was employed by Defendant, Carlisle Carrier Corporation, and was the operator of a 1998 Peterbuilt Tractor Truck, upon information and belief, owned by Defendant Donald Doss and ragisterad in Maryland. 7. On or about May 10, 1999, Plaintiff was stopped at a red light on St. Johns Road near Tfindle Road in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 8. At approximately that same time and place, Defendant Donald Doss was traveling on the same road way when he failed to stop and rear-ended Plaintiff Jeannette Lugaro's vehicle. 9. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, Donald Doss and Carlisle Cartier Corporation, Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, sustained extensive and serious personal injuries, as set forth more specifically below. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE Jeannette Luaaro v. Donald Doss 10. Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugam, incorporates and makes part of this complaint paragraphs 1 through 9 above, as if the same were set forth fully below. 11. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and the resultant injuries to the Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of Defendant, Donald Doss, generally, and more specifically, as set forth below: (a) In failing to keep a reasonable lookout for vehicles lawfully stopped on St. Johns Road in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County; (b) In failing to be reasonably vigilant in order to observe the stopped vehicles including the Plaintiff's; (c) In failing to operate the vehicle under proper and adequate control so that he could avoid striking the Plaintiff's vehicle; 3 (d) In failing to operate the vehicle in such a manner so that he could apply his breaks in a manner that would have enabled him to avoid striking the Plaintiffs vehicle; (e) In failing to take such precautions as a prudent person would take in regards to the speed and control of the vehicle, as he approached other vehicles stopped on St. Johns Road in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County; (f) In failing to maintain proper and adequate observation of the existing traffic conditions; (g) In failing to operate a motor vehicle at a speed that was safe for existing weather and road conditions, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3361; (h) In failing to operate said vehicle at a speed and under such control so as to be able to stop within the assured clear distance, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3361; (I) In failing to be continuously alert, in failing to perceive any warning of danger that was reasonably likely to exist, an in failing to have the vehicle under such control that injury to persons of property could be avoided; (j) In driving the vehicle upon the streets in a manner endangering persons and property, and in a manner 4 with careless disregard to the rights and safety of others in strict violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 12. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Donald Doss, the Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, sustained personal injuries including, but not limited to, her neck, back and gluteal regions which ultimately required surgical attention. 13. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Donald Doss, the Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, has been and will in the future be, hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation and from attending to her children, daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation and embarrassment. 14. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Donald Doss, the Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, has suffered great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotions and financial detriment and loss. 15. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Donald Doss, the Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforementioned injuries, to expend money for medicine and medical attention to her great detriment and loss. 16. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Donald Doss, the Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 17. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Donald Doss, the Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, has incurred lost wages and will in the future continue to suffer lost wages and/or a loss of earning capacity. 18. Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro believes and therefore, avers that her injuries are permanent and serious in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, seeks damages from the Defendant, Donald Doss, in an amount in excess of Twenty -Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), exclusive of interests and costs, which is an amount in excess of jurisdictional limits requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT II - NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT Jeanette Luearo v. Carlisle Carrier Corporation 19. Plaintiff, Jeanette Lugaro, incorporates and makes part of this complaint paragraphs 1 through 18 above, as if the same were set forth fully below. 20. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and the resultant injuries to the Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence, carelessness or recklessness of Defendant, Carlisle Carrier Corporation, acting solely and/or in conjunction with Defendant Donald Doss, generally, and more specifically, as set forth below: (a) In allowing Defendant, Donald Doss, to fail to keep a proper lookout for vehicles lawfull stopped on St. Johns Road in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County; 6 (b) In allowing Defendant, Donald Doss, to fail to operate his vehicle at such a speed, and under such control, so as to avoid striking Plaintiff's vehicle; (c) In allowing Defendant, Donald Doss, to fail to properly observe the traffic conditions then and there existing; and (d) In allowing Defendant, Donald Doss, to fail to operate his vehicle at a speed and under such control, so as to be able to stop within the assured clear distance in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. 3361. (e) In allowing Defendant, Donald Doss, to fail to be continuously alert, to fail to perceive any warning of danger that was reasonably likely to exist, and in allowing Defendant to fail to have the vehicle under such control that injury to persons of property could have been avoided; (f) In allowing Defendant, Donald Doss, to fail to drive upon the streets in a manner endangering persons and property, and in a manner ith careless disregard to the rights and safety of others in strict violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 21. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Carlisle Carder Corporation, the Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, sustained pemonal injuries including, but not limited to, her neck, back and gluteal regions which ultimately required surgical attention. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Carlisle Carrier Corporation, the Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, has been and will in the future be, hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation and from attending to her children, daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation and embarrassment. 23. As a direct and proximate result of negligence of Defendant, Carlisle Carrier Corporation, the Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, has suffered great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotions and financial detriment and loss. 24. As a direct and proximate result of negligence of Defendant, Carlisle Carrier Corporation, the Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforementioned injuries, to expend money for medicine and medical attention to her great detriment and loss. 25. As a direct and proximate result of negligence of Defendant, Carlisle Carrier Corporation, the Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 26. As a direct and proximate result of negligence of Defendant, Carlisle Carrier Corporation, the Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, has incurred lost wages and will in the future continue to suffer lost wages and/or a loss of earning capacity. 27. Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, believes and therefore, avers that her injuries are permanent and serious in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, seeks damages from the Defendant, Carlisle Carrier Corporation in an amount in excess of Twenty -Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), exclusive of interests and costs, which is an amount in excess of jurisdictional limits requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT III - RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR J=-_neAe Luaaro v. Carlisle Carrier CorDoration 28. Plaintiff, Jeanette Lugaro, incorporates and makes part of this complaint paragraphs 1 through 27 above, as if the same were set forth fully below. 29. At all times applicable hereto, Defendant Donald Doss, was acting as an employee, agent and/or representative of Defendant, Carlisle Carrier Corporation, and to that extent Defendant is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of Defendant, Donald Doss, under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 30. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and the resultant injuries To the Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence, carelessness or recklessness of Defendant, Carlisle Carrier Corporation, acting solely and/or vicariously and through Defendant, Donald Doss, generally, and more specifically, as set forth below: (a) In allowing Defendant, Donald Doss, to fail to keep a proper lookout for vehicles lawfully stopped on St. Johns Road in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County; (b) In allowing Defendant, Donald Doss, to fail to operate his vehicle at such a speed, and under such control, so as to avoid striking Plaintiff's vehicle; (c) In allowing Defendant, Donald Doss, to fail to properly observe the traffic conditions then and there existing; and (d) In allowing Defendant, Donald Doss, to fail to operate his vehicle at a speed and under such control, so as to be able to stop within the assured clear distance in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.^. 3361. (e) In allowing Defendant, Donald Doss, to fail to be continuously alert, to fail to perceive any warning of danger that was reasonably likely to exist, and in allowing Defendant to fail to have the vehicle under such control that injury to persons of property could have been avoided; tO (f) In allowing Defendant, Donald Doss, to fail to drive upon the streets in a manner endangering persons and property, and in a manner with careless disregard to the dghts and safety of others in strict violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 31. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Carlisle Carder Corporation, the Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, sustained personal injuries including, but not limited to, her neck, back and gluteal regions which ultimately required surgical attention. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Carlisle Carder Corporation, the Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, has been and will in the future be, hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation and from attending to her children, daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation and embarrassment. 33. As a direct and proximate result of negligence of Defendant, Carlisle Carrier Corporation, the Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, has suffered great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite pedod of time in the future, to her great physical, emotions and financial detriment and loss. 34. As a direct and proximate result of negligence of Defendant, Cadisle Cartier Corporation, the Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforementioned injuries, to expend money for medicine and medical attention to her great detriment and loss. ]! 35. As a direct and proximate result of negligence of Defendant, Carlisle Carrier Corporation, the Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 36. As a direct and proximate result of negligence of Defendant, Carlisle Carrier Corporation, the Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, has incurred lost wages and will in the future continue to suffer lost wages and/or a loss of earning capacity. 37. Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, believes and therefore, avers that her injuries are permanent and serious in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, seeks damages from the Defendant, Carlisle Carrier Corporation in an amount in excess of Twenty -Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), exclusive of interests and costs, which is an amount in excess of jurisdictional limits requiring compulsory arbitration. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG St~l~her~ G Helc~', E'~quire I.D. No. 72663 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiffs 12 VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing document are based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the document is of counsel and not my own. I have read the document and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the document are that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this Verification. The undersigned also understands that the statements made therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. _CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ~ day of_ {~d:' ., 2002, I hereby certify that I have, on this date, served the within document upon defendant's counsel and all counsel of record by sending a true and correct copy of same to them via first class United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: Dave Metzler, President, CEO Carlisle Cartier Corporation 1513 East Commerce Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 Donald Doss 1509 Ridge Road Whiteford, MD 21160 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG LLP Patricia Kohhlein IN THE CIRUIT COURT OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No.: 01-:249:3 Civil Term Jeanette Lugaro, : Plaintiff JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VS. Donald Doss and : Carlisle Carders Corp., Defendants : CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this ~'~day of AugUSt, 2002, a copy of foregoing Entry of Appearance of Robert A. Let'man, Esquire, and Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire. was forwarded to the following via first class mail, postage prepaid: Stephen G. Held, Esquire 1300 Linglestown Road, P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1177 Attorney for Plaintiff ~ N ~ GRIFFITH, ER, LERM~ , //~ S.C ~.#07490 S.C.I.D. # 64584 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402-3737 (717) 757-7602 Attorneys for Defendant. Carlisle Carriers Corp. pth- doss-Pagntq/app.z IN THE CIRUIT COURT OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No.: 01-2493 Civil Term Jeanctte Lugaro, : Plaintiff : : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VS. : Donald Doss and : Carlisle Carriers Corp., Defendants PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE_ T__O THE PROTHONOTARY:- Kindly enter the appearance of Robert A. Lerman, Esquire, and Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, as attorneys for the Defendant. Carlisle Carders Corp., in the above-entitled matter and mark the docket accordingly. GRIFFIT~C~KLER, LERMAN, _ Date: : [Robert A. Lerm~n, E ~. # 07490 S.C.I.D. # 64584 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402-3737 (717) 757-7602 Attorneys for Defendant. Carlisle Carriers Corp. IN THE CIRUIT COURT OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No.: 01-2493 Civil Term jEANNETTE LUGARO, Plaintiff, : : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VS. DONALD DOSS AND : CARLISLE CARRIER CORP., : Defendants, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this __~4~ day of ~.~/a~j 2002, I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the interrogatories/Request for Production of Documents of Defendants to Plaintiff, Set No. I by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Stephen O. Held, Esquire Handler, Herming & Rosenberg 1300 Linglestown Road, P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1177 ORIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS THOMAS~ SPONAUGLE, E Q Supreme Court I.D. #64584 Attorney for Defendants 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 IN THE CIRUIT COURT OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JEANNETTE LUGARO, : No.: 01-2493 Civil Term Plaintiff, : vs. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED : DONALD DOSS AND : CARLISLE CARRIER CORP., : Defendants, : NOTICE TO PLEAD To: Jeannette Lugaro c/o Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg 1300 Linglestown Road, P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1177 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer & New Matter of Defendants, Donald Doss and Carlisle Carrier Corporation, within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, THOM[S~./gP-ONAUGLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court I.D. #64584 Attorney for Defendants 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 IN THE CIRUIT COURT OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JEANNETTE LUGARO, : No.: 01-2493 Civil Term Plaintiff, : vs. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED : DONALD DOSS AND : CARLISLE CARRIER CORP., : Defendants, : ANSWER & NEW MATTER 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 5. Denied. Paragraph 5 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 6. Admitted. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 8. Denied. It is specifically denied at approximately that same time and place, Defendant Donald Doss was traveling on the same roadway when he failed to stop and rear- ended Plaintiff Jeannette Lugam's vehicle. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Doss acted in a careful, lawful and prudent manner with due care under the circumstances and did not fail to stop and rear-end Plaintiff's vehicle. 9. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants Donald Doss and Carlisle Carrier Corporation were negligent. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendants acted in a careful, lawful and prudent manner with due care under the circumstances and were not negligent and strict proof thereof is demanded. The remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 9 are denied because al~er reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded. COUNT 1 - NEGLIGENC~ JEANNETTE LUGARO v. DONALD DOSS 10. Paragraphs I through 9 of Defendants' Answer are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 11. Denied. It is specifically denied the occurrence of the aforementioned collision and the resultant injuries to the Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of Defendant, Donald Doss, generally, and more specifically, as set forth below: a. In failing to keep a reasonable lookout for vehicles lawfully stopped on St. Johns Road in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County; b. In failing to be reasonably vigilant in order to observe the stopped vehicles including the Plaintiff's; c. In failing to operate the vehicle under proper and adequate control so that he could avoid striking the Plaintiff's vehicle; d. In failing to operate the vehicle in such a manner so that he could apply his brakes in a manner that would have enabled him to avoid sffiking the Plaintiff's vehicle; e. In failing to take such precautions as a prudent person would take in regards to the speed and control of the vehicle as he approached other vehicles stopped on St. Johns Road in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County; f. In failing to maintain proper and adequate observation of the existing traffic conditions; g. In failing to operate a motor vehicle at a speed that was safe for existing weather and road conditions in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. {}3361; h. In falling to operate said vehicle at a speed and under such control so as to be able to stop within the assured clear distance in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. §3361; i. In failing to be continuously alert, in falling to perceive any warning ofdangar that was reasonably likely to exist, and in failing to have the vehicle under such control that inju~ to persons or property could be avoided; and j. In driving the vehicle upon the streets in a manner endangering persons and property and in a manner with careless disregard to the rights and safety of others in strict violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Donald Doss acted in a careful, lawful and prudent manner with due care under the circumstances and was not negligent and strict proof thereof is demanded. 12. Denied. It is specifically Defendant Donald Doss was negligent in causing this accident. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Donald Doss acted in a careful, lawful and prudent manner with due care under the circumstances and was not negligent and strict proof thereof is demanded. The remaining allegations contained in this Paragraph are denied because at~er reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 13. Denied. It is specifically Defendant Donald Doss was negligent in causing this accident. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Donald Doss acted in a careful, lawful and prudent manner with due care under the circumstances and was not negligent and strict proof thereof is demanded. The remaining allegations contained in this Paragraph are denied because after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 14. Denied. It is specifically Defendant Donald Doss was negligent in causing this accident. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Donald Doss acted in a careful, lawful and prudent manner with due care under the circumstances and was not negligent and strict proof thereof is demanded. The remaining allegations contained in this Paragraph are denied because after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 15. Denied. It is specifically Defendant Donald Doss was negligent in causing this accident. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Donald Doss acted in a careful, lawful and prudent manner with due care under the circumstances and was not negligent and strict proof thereof is demanded. The ren~aining allegations contained in this Paragraph are denied because after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 16. Denied. It is specifically Defendant Donald Doss was negligent in causing this accident. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Donald Doss acted in a careful, lawful and prudent manner with due care under the circumstances and was not negligent and strict proof thereof is demanded. The remaining allegations contained in this Paragraph are denied because after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 17. Denied. It is specifically Defendant Donald Doss was negligent in causing this accident. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Donald Doss acted in a careful, lawful and prudent manner with due care under the circumstances and was not negligent and strict proof thereof is demanded. The remaining allegations contained in this Paragraph are denied because after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendant Donald Doss respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiff. COUNT II - NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT JEANNETTE LUGARO v. CARLISLE CARRIER CORPORATION 19. Paragraphs 1 through 18 of Defendants' Answer are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 20. Denied. It is specifically denied the occurrence of the aforementioned collision and the resultant injuries to the Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence, carelessness or recklessness of Defendant, Carlisle Carrier Corporation, acting solely and/or in conjunction with Defendant Donald Doss, generally, and more specifically, as set forth below: a. In allowing Defendant Donald Doss to fail to keep a proper lookout for vehicles lawfully stopped on St. Johns Road in Mechnnicsburg, Cumberland County; b. In allowing Defendant Donald Doss to fail to operate his vehicle at such a speed and under such control so as to avoid striking Plaintiff's vehicle; c. In allowing Defendant Donald Doss to fail to properly observe the traffic conditions then and there existing; d. In allowing Defendant Donald Doss to fail to operate his vehicle at a speed and under such control so as to be able to stop within the assured clear distance in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. §3361; e. In allowing Defendant Donald Doss to fail to be continuously alert, to fail to perceive any warning of danger that was reasonably likely to exist, and in allowing Defendant to fail to have the vehicle under such contwl that injury to persons or property could have been avoided; and f. In allowing Defendant Donald Doss to fail to drive upon the streets in a manner endangering persons and pwperty and in a manner with careless disregard to the rights and safety of others in strict violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant acted in a careful, lawful and prudent manner and was not negligent, careless or reckless and strict proof thereof is demanded. 21. Denied. It is specifically denied that the negligence of Defendant Carlisle Carder Corporation caused the above-referenced accident. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Carlisle Carrier Corporation acted in a careful, lawful and prudent manner with due care under the circumstances and was not negligent and strict proof thereof is demanded. The remaining allegations contained in this Paragraph are denied because after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 22. Denied. It is specifically denied that the negligence of Defendant Carlisle Carrier Corporation caused the above-referenced accident. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Carlisle Carrier Corporation acted in a careful, lawful and prudent manner with due care under the circumstances and was not negligent and strict proof thereof is demanded. The remaining allegations contained in this Paragraph are denied because aider reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied, and strict proofthereof is demanded. 23. Denied. It is specifically denied that the negligence of Defendant Carlisle Carrier Corporation caused the above-referenced accident. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Carlisle Carrier Corporation acted in a careful, lawful and prudent manner with due care under the circumstances and was not negligent and strict proof thereof is demanded. The remaining allegations contained in this Paragraph are denied because after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 24. Denied. It is specifically denied that the negligence of Defendant Carlisle Carrier Corporation caused the above-referenced accident. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Carlisle Carrier Corporation acted in a careful, lawful and prudent manner with due care under the circumstances and was not negligent and strict proof thereof is demanded. The remaining allegations contained in this Paragraph are denied because after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 25. Denied. It is specifically denied that the negligence of Defendant Carlisle Carrier Corporation caused the above-referenced accident. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Carlisle Carrier Corporation acted in a careful, lawful and prudent manner with due care under the circumstances and was not negligent and strict proof thereof is demanded. The remaining allegations contained in this Paragraph are denied because after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied, and strict proofthereofis demanded. 26. Denied. It is specifically denied that the negligence of Defendant Carlisle Cartier Corporation caused the above-referenced accident. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Carlisle Carrier Corporation ected in a careful, lawful and prudent manner with due care under the circumstances and was not negligent and strict proof thereof is demanded. The remaining allegations contained in this Paragraph are denied because after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 27. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendant Carlisle Cartier Corporation respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against the Plaintiff. COUNT !II - RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR JEANNETTE LUGARO v. CARLISLE CARRIER CORPORATION 28. Paragraphs 1 through 27 of Defendants' Answer are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 29. Denied. Paragraph 29 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 30. Denied. It is specifically denied the occurrence of the aforementioned collision and the resultant injuries to the Plaintiff, Jeannette Lugaro, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence, carelessness or recklessness of Defendant, Carlisle Carrier Corporation, acting solely and/or in conjunction with Defendant Donald Doss, generally, and more specifically, as set forth below: a. In allowing Defendant Donald Doss to fail to keep a proper lookout for vehicles lawfully stopped on St. Johns Road in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County; b. In allowing Defendant Donald Doss to fail to operate his vehicle at such a speed and under such control so as to avoid striking Plaintiff's vehicle; c. In allowing Defendant Donald Doss to fail to properly observe the traffic conditions then and there existing; d. In allowing Defendant Donald Doss to fail to operate his vehicle at a speed and under such control so as to be able to stop within the assured clear distance in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. §3361; e. In allowing Defendant Donald Doss to fail to be continuously alert, to fail to perceive any warning of danger that was reasonably likely to exist, and in allowing Defendant to fail to have the vehicle under such control that injury to persons or property could have been avoided; and f. In allowing Defendant Donald Doss to fail to drive upon the streets in a manner endangering persons and property and in a manner with careless disregard to the rights and safety of others in strict violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant acted in a careful, lawful and prudent manner and was not negligent, careless or reckless and strict proof thereof is demanded. 31. Denied. It is specifically denied that the negligence of Defendant Carlisle Carrier Corporation caused the above-referenced accident. On the contrary, at ali times relevant hereto, Defendant Carlisle Carrier Corporation acted in a careful, lawful and prudent manner with due care under the circumstances and was not negligent and strict proof thereof is demanded. The remaining allegations contained in this Paragraph are denied because after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied, and strict pwofthereof is demanded. 32. Denied. It is specifically denied that the negligence of Defendant Carlisle Carrier Corporation caused the above-referenced accident. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Carlisle Carrier Corporation acted in a careful, lawful and prudent manner with due care under the circumstances and was not negligent and strict proof thereof is demanded. The remaining allegations contained in this Paragraph are denied because after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 33. Denied. It is specifically denied that the negligence of Defendant Carlisle Carrier Corporation caused the above-referenced accident. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Carlisle Carrier Corporation acted in a careful, lawful and prudent manner with due care under the circumstances and was not negligent and strict proof thereof is demanded. The remaining allegations contained in this Paragraph are denied because after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 34. Denied. It is specifically denied that the negligence of Defendant Carlisle Carrier Corporation caused the above-referenced accident. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Carlisle Carrier Corporation acted in a careful, lawful and prudent manner with due care under the circumstances and was not negligent and strict proof thereof is demanded. The remaining allegations contained in this Paragraph are denied because after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 35. Denied. It is specifically denied that the negligence of Defendant Carlisle Carrier Corporation caused the above-referenced accident. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Carlisle Carrier Corporation acted in a careful, lawful and prudent manner with due care under the circumstances and was not negligent and strict proof thereof is demanded. The remaining allegations contained in this Paragraph are denied because after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 36. Denied. It is specifically denied that the negligence of Defendant Carlisle Carrier Corporation caused the above-referenced accident. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Carlisle Carrier Corporation acted in a careful, lawful and prudent manner with due care under the circumstances and was not negligent and strict proof thereof is demanded. The remaining allegations contained in this Paragraph are denied because after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 37. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation, the same is denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendant Carlisle Carrier Corporation respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against the Plaintiff. By way of further response, the following is asserted: NEW MATTER 38. Paragraphs I through 37 above are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 39. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. 40. Plaintiff's Complaint may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 41. Plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any, W~l'e caused solely and directly as a result of individuals or entities other than the Defendants and over whom the Defendants have no responsibility or right of control. 42. Plaintiff created a sudden emergency when she suddenly, abruptly and without warning stopped in front of Donald Doss and Carlisle Carrier Corporation. 43. Plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any, were caused solely and directly as a result of the negligence of the Plaintiff, which consisted of the following: a. Failing to properly control her motor vehicle; b. Failing to keep a proper lookout for other vehicles lawfully on the roadway; c. Driving at an excessive rate of speed for the conditions existing therein; and d. Failing to maintain proper and adequate observation of the existing traffic and road conditions. 44. Plaintiff's claims must be barred or diminished with respect to Pennsylvania's Comparative Negligence Act because of the negligence of the Plaintiff as set forth above. 45. Plaintiff has not sustained a serious injury as defined under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 46. Plaintiff's claims for non-economic damages may be barred because Plaintiff has elected the limited tort option as set forth in the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 47. Plaintiffmay have failed to mitigate her damages. 48. Plaintiff has received various benefits from other insurance arrangements, programs, or group contracts of insurance, including benefits under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, and Plaintiff may not recover the same benefit from this proceeding. 49. The injuries and damages the Plaintiff claims to have sustained in this motor vehicle accident may have pm-existed this accident and were not caused as a result of the accident. 50. The injuries and damages the Plaintiff claims to have sustained in this motor vehicle accident may have pre-existed this accident and were not aggravated or exacerbated as a result of this accident. 51. The injuries and damages the Plaintiffclaims to have sustained in this motor vehicle accident may have been sustained subsequent to this accident and may not be related to this accident. 52. Plaintiff has recovered from the injuries, which she allegedly sustained as a result of this accident. GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERM .A~' SOLYMOS & CALKINS ...'~' ... THOMAS I~'~P9~UGLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court I.D, ~64584 Attorney for Defendants 110 South Northern Way York, PA ! 7402 (717) 757-7602 IN THE CIRUIT COURT OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JEANNETTE LUGARO, : No.: 01-2493 Civil Term Plaintiff, : vs. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED : DONALD DOSS AND : CARLISLE CARRIER CORP., : Defendants, : VERIFICATION I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, do hereby verify that I am the attorney of record for the pleading party herein, Donald Doss, and that the facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, upon information supplied. I understand that false statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERM.~,, Supreme Court I.D. #64584 110 South Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402 (717) 757-7602 IN THE CIRUIT COURT OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JEANNETTE LUGARO, : No.: 01-2493 Civil Term Plaintiff, : vs. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED : DONALD DOSS AND : CARLISLE CARRIER CORP., : Defendants, : VERIFICATION I verify that the foregoing facts are true and correct, upon my perzonal knowledge or inforraation and belief. This verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. ' 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. IN THE CIRUIT COURT OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JEANNETTE LUGARO, : No.: 01-2493 Civil Term Plaintiff, : vs. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED : DONALD DOSS AND : CARLISLE CARRIER CORP., : Defendants, : CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ~d~ day of/~'0~4, 2002, I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the Answer & New Matter by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg 1300 Linglestown Road, P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1177 GRIFFITH, STRICKLER,~RMAN, By: SOL~... THOI~IAS l~. SPONAUGLE, ESQUIRE Supreme Court I.D. #64584 Attorney for Defendants 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 JEANNETTE LUGARO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. : DONALD DOSS and : No. 01-2493 CARLISLE CARRIER : : CORPORATION, : : Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER 38. Paragraphs 1 through 37 of Plaintiff's Complaint ara incorporated herein by reference thereto as set forth at length. 39. The averments in this Paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averments may be deemed factual, they are hereby denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiff's Complaint does state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. 40. The averment in this Paragraph is a conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, the applicable statute of limitations, 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5524 Provides a two-year statute of limitations for an action to recover damages for the injury to the person or for the death of an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect or unlawful violence or the negligence of another. The motor vehicle accident giving rise to the cause of action occurred on May 10, 1999. This action was instituted by a Praecipe for Wdt of Summons filed on April 27, 2001. As such, plaintiffs claims are not barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 41. Defendants' averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, defendants' averment lacks the specificity required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, all of plaintiff's injuries and damages were caused solely and directly as a result of the negligence, carelessness, wantonness and recklessness of the instant defendant. 42. Defendants' averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiff did not create a Sudden emergency when she suddenly, abruptly and without warning stopped in front of Donald Doss and Carlisle Carrier Corporation. Furthermore, if there was a "sudden emergency" involved in this accident, which is specifically denied, said "sudden emergency" was caused by the negligence of Donald Doss and Carlisle Carrier Coq~oration. 43. Defendants' averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiff was not negligent in any way. All of Plaintiff's injuries and damages were caUsed solely and directly as a result of the negligence, carelessness, wantonness and recklessness of the instant defendant. Furthermore, it is denied that Plaintiff failed to properly control her motor vehicle, failed to keep a proper look 2 out for other vehicles lawfully on the roadway, did not ddve at an excessive rate of speed for the conditions existing therein and maintained Proper adequate observation of the existing traffic and road conditions. 44. Defendants' averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, as previously indicated herein, plaintiffwas not negligent in any way. Therefore, the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act does not apply to the instant action. Further, all of plaintiff's injudes and damages are recoverable in the instant action and are in no way reduced. 45. Defendants' averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, to the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, plaintiff has sustained a serious injury as defined under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 46. Defendants' averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, all of plaintiff's injuries and damages are recoverable in the instant action. The Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law in noway limits the damages Plaintiff may recover herein. 47. Defendants' averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, plaintiff has not failed to mitigate her damages. 3 48. Defendants' averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, all of plaintiff's injudes and damages are recoverable in the instant action. The Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law in noway limits damages plaintiff may recover herein. 49. Defendants' averment in this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, all of plaintiff's injuries are due to COnditions caused by the present motor vehicle accident. To the extent that it is averred by defendants that any injuries are the result of Pre-existing COnditions, it is denied. If it is determined that pre-existing COnditions were present in plaintiff, said Pre-existing COnditions were aggravated or accelerated by the damages sustained in the present motor vehicle accident. 50. Defendants' averment in this paragraph is a COnclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, Jt is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification all of plaintiff's injudes are due to conditions caused by the present motor vehicle accident. To the extent that it is averred by defendants that any injuries are the result of Pre-existing COnditions, it is denied. If it is determined that Pre-existing conditions were present in plaintiff, said Pre-existing COnditions were aggravated or accelerated by the damages sustained in the present motor vehicle accident. 4 51. The averment in this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, the injuries and damages that plaintiff sustained in this motor vehicle accident, have not been caused subsequent to the accident and are related to this accident. 52. Defendants' averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, it is denied that plaintiff has recovered from the injuries she sustained as a result of this motor vehicle accident. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Defendants' Answer and New Matter and enter judgment in her favor against the Defendants. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG LLP Date: ~.l f ~L{~/~J-- By: ~ Stephe I.D. No. 72663 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attomey for Plaintiff 5 VERIFICATION STEPHEN G. HELD, ESQUIRE, states that he is the attorney for the party filing the foregoing document; that he makes this affidavit as an attorney, because the party he represents lacks sufficient knowledge or information upon which to make a verification and/or because he has greater personal knowledge of the information and belief than that of the party for whom he makes this affidavit; and that he has sufficient knowledge or information and belief, based upon his investigation of the matters averred or denied in the foregoing document; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa C.S. §4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this "J~'~.~; day of ~, 2002, I hereby certify that I have, on this date, served the within document upon defendant's counsel and all counsel of record by sending a true and correct copy of same to them via first class United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire Griffith, Strickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG LLP Patricia Kohnlein ~ this AND NOW, this ~ day of January, 2003, I hereby certify that I have, on date, served the within Answers to interrogatories/Production of Documents by sending a true and correct copy of same to Defendants' attorney of record via first class United States mail, postage pre-paid and addressed as follows'. nau le, Esquire 'l'hornas B.S.po ~-.o,, S tvrnos & Calkins Griffith, Stnckler, L=,,,, .... _o_ 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402-3737 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG IN THE cOURT OF coMMON pLEAS OF cUMBERLAND COUNTY, pENNSYLVANIA : No.: 01-2493 civil Term plaintiff, : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VS. ONALD DOSS AND : D _ ~ .~.oulER CORP., CARLISL}' ~ Defendants, ~ ~8 day of ~ 2003, I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, & AND NOW, this Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STP, ICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS CALKIIqS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the Defeudant Donald Doss's Response to plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & gosenberg P.O. Box 60337 Harrisburg, PA 17106-0337 GRIFFITH, STRICKLEK, LEGMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKIIqS By: ~E, ESQU Supreme Court I.D. 964584 Attorney for Defendants 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 OF coMMON pLEAS OF cUMBERLAND CouNTY, IN THE cOURT pENNSyLVANIA No.: 01-2493 CiviITerm JEANNETTE LUGARO, : plaintiff, : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED YS. DONALD DOSS AND : CARLISLE CARRIER cORP., Defendants, C-z ~'~h of ~ 2003, I, Thomas B. Sponaugle, AND NOW, this ~ day Esquire, a member of the firm of GRiFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS cALK. INS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the Defendant Carlisle Carrier Corporation's Response to plaintifi's Request for Production of Documents by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as folloWS: Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosanberg P.O. Box 60337 Harrisburg, PA 17106-0337 GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SoLYMOS & CALKINS THOMAS B. SP Supreme Court I.D. #64554 Attorney for Defendants 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No.: 01-2493 Civil Term jEANNETTE LUGARO, : Plaintiff, : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VS. DONALD DOSS AND : CARLISLE CARRIER cORP., : Defendants, PRAECIPE TO: PROTHONOTARY Please mark the docket in the above-captioned matter settled and satisfied. HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, Supreme Court I.D. #~ Attorney for Plaintiff - / P.O. Box 60337 Harrisburg, PA 17106-0337