The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-2838 . THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: Judgment DRll'llm,T ~ PToTI1' Ii] Judgment was entered for: (Name) I"'IU'TTaT. t"TTY t"aD w:unr Ii] Judgment was entered against (Name) I"'T.llD_t\IaOII MlYl'nDR/nDIl!t3 I"'T.nnRIl!D COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: CDMBERLAND Mag 0181. '~o.. OJ Name: Hon 09-1-01 ClIARLBs A. CLBIIBNT, .JR. Add,..., 1106 CARLISLB ROAD CAMp HILL, PA T.~p",", (717) 761-4940 17011 CAPITAL CITY CAR WASH 3525 HARTZDALJ!: DRIVB CAMP HILL, PA 17011 . in the amount of $ --01-- ~lJ> --Cl~-~CH - - -- - - NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT CIVIL CASE PLAINTIFF: NAME."" AccRESS fCAPITAL CITY CAR WASH 3525 HARTZDllT'B DRIVB ~ RILL, PA 17011 VS. DEFENDANT: NAME."" AccRESS ~ IIOTORS/GREG CLOuSBR, B'l':i 55 CLARBIIoNT DR CARLISLE, PA 17013 L Docket No.: CV-0000112-01 Date Filed: 2/21/01 I ...J --.l 1& 1 Qn,; Q2 !M~L AMSL~te of Judgment) o Defendants are jointly and severally liable. o Damages will be assessed on: o This case dismissed without prejudice. O Amount of Judgment Subject to AttachmenVAct 5 of 1996 $ o Levy is stayed for days or 0 generally stayed. o Objection to levy has been filed and hearing will be held: '1 J21/n1 (Date & Time) Amount of Judgment $ 1.771.92 Judgment Costs $ 135.00 Interest on Judgment $ .00 Attorney Fees $ .00 Total $ 1.906.92 Post Judgment Credits $ Post Judgment Costs $ ------------ ------------ Certified Judgment Total $ --- Date: Place: Time: ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COpy OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENTiTRANSC'rT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. 3/21/2001 Date ~ . ~~., ,DistrictJustice I certify that this is a true a 5/3/2001 Date My commission expires first Monday of January, AOPC 315.99 2002 .----___n__ _ _ ___ - n. _"_ '" , District Justice SEAL .--. - . . - . ..--...- .. -- - -- - .- --- - - ~~ u.. $ ~ ~ "-t::> ~ :J~\~ ~;\ ~ ";;; C),. ....... (') s:. s::. ~ :r:: -,t.., --.. mr", -::, :;~:;::. - ht... l-=' tn-..' ~C ;. ~( .-- ~Ci - ;,...C.:. .- ~ ~ ~ -- ~ ~ I..~. C::-~'I . (~) : ; ....., .., ,ii .::'--1 ,... :0 '-<. ~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION Caption: CAPITAL CI'T't cAll IoIAs\>i 352.9 W.qa.TZ.I).q~ DQ.. C:~'"P HILL., PA 1"011 ( ) Confessed Judgment ( ) Other FileNo. 01 ~2.33, l"'Ioc,..q '2. vs. C.LAR.aMolVT mo"lo1Z6' ~R E4 (J./JJSfIR,/ : 41u.. AmtL.8'/ 1;3 .1.>,' e~ .c...,"F PQ, l!:I'\R.LISL". PI\ nOli 1-lAa....o..." H~L.4. ~P. ~ l2'/'cii 1\ . TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF THE SAID COURT: The undersi!!lned hereby certifies that the below does not arise out of a retail installment sale, contract, or aCCOunt based on a confession of jUdgment, but if it does, it is based on the appropriate original proceeding filed pursuant to Act 7 of 1966 as amended; and for real property pursuant to Act 6 of 1974 as amended. Amount Due Interest Atty's Comm Costs Issue writ of execution in the above matter to the Sheriff of ClI""'6El4.ll""D County, for debt, interest and costs, upon the fOllowing described property of the defendant(s) ....,'" .'."".UT "ft"".~ '...,ea. '''' '''''''Uu, _'It. .........,. PRAECIPE FOR AtTACHMENT EXECUTION Issue writ of attachment to the Sheriff of County, for debt, interest and costs, as above, directing attachment against the above-named garnishee(s} for the following property (if real estate, Supply six copies of the description; SUpply four copies of lengthy personalty list) and all other property of the defendant(s) in the possession, custody or Control of the said garnishee(s). o (Indicate) Index this writ against the garnishee(s) as a lis pendens against real estate of the defendant(s) described in the attached exhibit. ~1z..'D I Date Signature: Print Name: Address: tV'h,.~~ kJ"", J c!':r e.h+..... Wi'O w,ter~ c.'a:"'-p I:M..J.., liolL .4tf,Qr:RGr fQJ: Telephone: 911-1u.o "'@it.IlNl.,,8 GatlFllEl No.. (over) I I : j '. .:,.. ~, . " . I' .! _, ""'" _"Y, _Iy ,i< _, of "",_ ,"""",,, "",,,,,,,",,,,,,,,",, on prig1oa''''' - of affidavit of ownership (PaFl'C,P, No. 3129). " ',', . ...' .'" If lengthy pe~so.nal~ Iiflt, supply four copies of list. To index writ, file separate praecipe with writ. .' ..:. . .' ~ .~ .1 ,', .., . '1' I.. ~ .; .'" , . . ..,..' . .,.:' . '.' ...,.,. .,". :.' I. ....i.:." ','.a ,.. , . . I,. ..' .." I , , " ~ . ,. . ~ ., .1: , ..g' 0 " , I.'" '. .'1'1 ;;: ~ . .\ ;D ~~~; "- .." ../ ':" E z~ , ,;t" ...i::' ~,,: N ,~~) l C; ~ ~ !:: ':",}f, ~n -" \. ~g C2 u _.~ ~ s:- ;E" ~ ?a ).,. ..... ..... -a ..c. - <..1'j ~ "" A.. ~ v, "\. ! ~. " I . - - '-"\ <:> -J o '. i'" '. .~ ." .' t'.4.. .".'. .' .. COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA) COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND) WRIT OF EXECUTION and/or ATTACHMENT NO.01-2838 CIVIL~ TERM ---- -- CIVIL ACTION - LAW TO THE SHERIFF OF .!:unberland_ __ ___ COUNTY To satlsly the debl. imerest and COSls due -~apiJp!_C:ity._9Ir ~Ci!l_l1__ 3525 Hartzdale Drive ----------------.--- - - -t;::~_I:li,JJL Pa. 170_1)_ --------------------_________.____ _PLAINTIFF(S) Irom --Cl.arenont..Mnr....'"S!-Gl:eg.clnll""'r.l.J3ill Am"l~____.liaJ:mony_Hal1 Road & Route 11___ -. - -- C"rl ;ele. --Ea... 17011_.______.____ _.______________ . - -. -'- - - -._- -- - -----------.------- (11 You are directed 10 levy upon the property ollhe defendanl(S) and 10 sell Office F.nllipnent, canputer, copies, fax machine, personal "-. --....-------=-"2.."': ___._._._________.___________ --- .----.---- -- DEFENDANT(S) property ".n __.... _ ______ ________.__ _ ___.___ ___ ___._._ '--'-' -.-----------.-------.----------.---- (2) You are also directed 10 anach the property ollhe defendant(s) nOllevied upon in Ihe possession or -.- ---'-.'-'- -- ----------------.- ----- ---------- ------.--.---.----------------------.----.------ ---- _.__n -...---- ----________... __ __ _._ n..._ _ ________________ "-- .-- ------ --.-------- - -__n__ _._._ ...__.....____________ ____ GARNISHEE(S) as follows: and to nOlffy Ihe garniShee(s) thaI: (a) an allachmenr has been issued; (b) the garnishee(s) is/are enjoined from paying any debt 10 or for the account of the derendant(s) and from delivering any property of the defendanl(S) or otherwise disposing Ihereof. -------.- ---.-.------ -- (3) "property of the derendanl(s) not levied upon an Subjeclto anachment is round in the POSsession of anyone other than a named garniShee, you are directed to nOlily hinvherlhat he/She has been added as a garnishee and is enjoined as above slated. AmountDue$l~9DnL92 Imerest ------..--- --------- -.------ --------.---- Any'S Comm ___ % ___ _______ Any Paid _____________ _______ rlain;;f; Faid__ _ -.2.9..2.5...-._________________ Date. ----August__2~_20QL_____.__ __________ _ _____ REQUESTING PARTY N Capital City Car Wash ame -----lil1m:_ Jelli_ r"hh>r __ _ _ _ _ ____ _ __ _____ ___ ~ddress: 1440 W"r"'rF....rn --------__h _.____ ..c.~ HilJ.LJ~g,_ l1Q1_L _ _ -_n___n_ \lIorney tor: _ elephone: 877-3220 :upreme Court to No. --.------ LL -------- Due Prothy --_~.OO Other Costs __ '--- --- _'_h__. ._ _ _...____._.__ .____ -.----- .------ ----.--- ------__9,lrt~_R. Long ProlhonOlary, Civil Division --'---'-- II.. /1. - by --~--.lA.. fk..JI.u ..--- Depuly R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff. who being duly sworn according to law, states this Writ is returned ABANDONED, no action taken in six months. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing poundage Advertising Law Library prothonotarY Mileage Misc. Surcharge Levy Post pone Sale Garnishee Advance Costs: Sheriff's Costs: 150.00 111. 58 38.42 18.00 2.18 1.00 10.40 40.00 40.00 Refunded to Atty on 7/3/02 111. 58 .., So Answers; ~~ft-t:~ R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff B . ~~o.h:, Sworn and Subscribed to before roe this r!:- day of (Lr..t- 2002 A.D. .g~. () In '-'I" ~ P otarY . ~ ~ ~ \Y!::=o ~ .. .....,"' cl . ,""" ,. .'.-oj l.' ," . "..J I~, lId n 1. I :J\l~ kl:".:' . ..,~\p:J "1"'1'0:., .) ".,dJO ....:11 \'- . ~ ," - . "of) /. !gg ~ ~ /!.lb I1!b e Cot.. 313'13 R- p. fill(' No. 01-2838 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ~LMER E. BASS, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, No. 01-2838 v. Issue No. pPG INDUSTRIES, INe., Defendant MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE CONCERNING SUBSEQUENT REMEDIAL MEASURES Code: Filed on behalf of Defendant, PPG Industries, Inc. Counsel of record for this party: John Edward Wall, Esquire PA LD. # 17405 Christopher D. Stofko, Esquire PA LD. # 81979 DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.e. Firm #067 Two PPG Place, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-5402 (412) 281-7272 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED No. 01-2838 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION Defendant ) ) No. 01-2838 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ELMER E. BASS, Plaintiff, v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE CONCERNING SUBSEQUENT REMEDIAL MEASURES AND NOW, comes the Defendant, PPG Industries, Inc. ("PPG"), by and through their ~ttorneys, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.c., and states as follows in support of its Motion in ! i \Limine to Exclude Evidence Concerning Subsequent Remedial Measures: I. Introduction L This matter concerns a May 20, 1999, incident in which the Plaintiff alleges that, \Nhile employed in his capacity as a senior driver with Burlington Motor Carriers, he sustained , ! Injuries when the left door of the trailer that was attached to the tractor disengaged and struck 1 , ~im. 2. Plaintiff was outside of his tractor supervising a trainee driver who was ~ttempting to back the trailer into the dock 3. Plaintiff contends that his injury was caused when the left open trailer door ~ecame engaged with the manual garage door chain and then when the trailer pulled away, the ~hain pulled the door out and struck the Plaintiff. Subsequent to this incident, PPG installed at ~his dock an eye-bracket to pull the chain further away from the door as a remedial measure to ~ttempt to avoid a similar accident No. OI~2838 4. Plaintiff should be precluded from introducing evidence of this subsequent remedial measure. II. Argument 5. Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 407 in pertinent part states: When, after an injury or harm allegedly caused by an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove that the party who took the measures was negligent or engaged in culpable conduct. . . i 6. Ownership, control or feasibility of the precautionary measure is not disputed and, i Itherefore, pursuant to Rule 407 introduction of the installation of the eye-brackets should be Fxcluded. i WHEREFORE, Defendant, PPO Industries, Inc., respectfully requests that this Honorable ~ourt enter an Order excluding evidence of the subsequent remedial measure refened to in this , 1 ration. Respectfully submitted by, DICKIE, McCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.c. ~W4if n Edward Wall, Esquire PA LD. # 17405 Christopher D. Stofko, Esquire PA LD. # 81979 Two PPO Place, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-5402 (412) 281-7272 Attorneys for Defendants, PPO Industries, Inc. No. 01-2838 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, John Edward Wall, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served this 2nd day of May, 2005, by Federal Express, to counsel of record listed below: Howard B. Krug, Esquire PURCELL, KRUO & HALLER 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, P A 17 102 DICKIE, McCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.c. B -;;? ~/ dward Wall, Esquire Attorneys for Defendant, PPO Industries, Inc. r--' n ,---,~) .::rl ~ ~ 1._,'1 , ). -~~ c.:" .. c', , --<.::.. - No. 01-2838 , llN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LMER E. BASS, CIVIL DIVISION I , i 1 I v. tPo INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff, No. 01-2838 Issue No. Defendant. MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE CONCERNING OTHER ALLEGED SIMILAR INCIDENTS Code: Filed on behalf of Defendant Counsel of record for this party: John Edward Wall, Esquire PALD.#17405 Christopher D. Stofko, Esquire PA LD. # 81979 DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.c. Firm #067 Two PPO Place, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-5402 (412) 281-7272 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED No. 01-2838 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PlEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION Defendant ) ) No. 01-2838 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) !ELMER E. BASS, Plaintiff, v. PPO INDUSTRIES, INe., MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE CONCERNING OTHER ALLEGED SIMILAR INCIDENTS AND NOW, Comes the Defendant, PPO Industries, Inc. ("PPO"), by and through their rttorneys, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.e., and states as follows in support of its Motion in timine to Exclude Evidence Other Alleged Similar Incidents: I. Introduction L This matter concerns a May 20, 1999, incident in which Plaintiff alleges that, rhile employed in his capacity as a senior driver with Burlington Motor Carriers, he sustained I rnjury when the left door on the trailer that he was hauling disengaged and struck him. I I 2. Plaintiff was outside of his truck supervising a trainee driver who was attempting I 1 , fO back the trai ler into the dock. 3. It is Plaintiffs allegation that his injury was caused when an already open door on ~he trailer became entangled with the manual garage door chain and, thus, was pulled away from 1 Ithe trailer and struck him. I i IproOf of other incidents where a trailer door struck a dock door at the PPO Carlisle facility and 4. During the trial of this matter, it is expected that Plaintiff may attempt to offer PPO installed a metal bracket to protect the doors. They may attempt to introduce this under the No. 01-2838 guise that striking the dock door is substantially similar to a trailer door becoming entangled with a manual chain. There is no substantial similarity between striking a door and the bizarre jnteraction as occurred in this case with the trailer door becoming entangled with a manual chain used to raise or lower the dock door if the electric power is not available. II. Argument 5. Under Pennsylvania law, admission of evidence of the occurrence of a prior ccident is "considerably limited" and only is admissible where founded upon first-hand proof rom the proponent thereof that the prior accident involved an instrumentality that is the same as r substantially similar to that in suit and occurred at substantially the same place and under the tame or sufficiently similar circumstances. Harkins v. Calumet Realty Co., 614 A,2d 699, 703- r04 (Pa.Super. 1992). , 6. Further, per Pa.R.Evid. 403, the probative value of evidence of other alleged ~imilar incidents is outweighed by the potential for unfair prejudice, thus mandating its rXclusion. I WHEREFORE, Defendant, PPG Industries, Inc., respectfully requests that this Honorable ourt enter an Order excluding reference to other incidents where a trailer door struck a dock oar. Respectfully submitted by, No. 01-2838 DICKIE, McCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.c. dward Wall, Esquire PA LD. # 17405 Christopher D. Stofko, Esquire PA LD. # 81979 Two PPG Place, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-5402 (412) 281-7272 Attorneys for Defendants, PPG Industries, Inc. No. 01-2838 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John Edward Wall, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served this 2nd day of May, 2005, by Federal Express, to counsel of record listed below: Howard B. Krug, Esquire PURCELL, KRUG & HALLER 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 DICKIE, McCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.c. B Attorneys for Defendant, PPG Industries, Inc. .-., ::;::0 , ....~: _.'-J;. -<. C'. Q\ ---l ".,,::--n \'~l.~! -~, (.-?' No. 01-2838 I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IELMER E. BASS, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, No. 01-2838 v. Issue No. 1 \PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., MOTION TO STRIKE TRUCK DRIVERS FROM VENIRE FOR CAUSE Defendant Code: Filed on behalf of Defendant Counsel of record for this party: John Edward Wall, Esquire PA LD. # 17405 Christopher D. Stofko, Esquire PA LD. # 81979 DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.c. Firm #067 Two PPG Place, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA [5222-5402 (412) 281-7272 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED No. 01-2838 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION ELMERE. BASS, Plaintiff, ) ) No. 01-2838 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) v. PPO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant MOTION TO STRIKE TRUCK DRIVERS FROM VENIRE FOR CAUSE AND NOW, Comes the Defendant, PPO Industries, Inc. ("PPO"), by and through their lattomeys, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.c., and states as follows in support of its Motion to I , Strike Truck Drivers from Venire for Cause: I. Introduction L This matter concerns a May 20, 1999, incident in which Plaintiff alleges that, rhile employed in his capacity as a senior driver with Burlington Motor Carriers, he sustained , I Injury when the left door on the trailer that he was hauling disengaged and struck him. 2. Plaintiff was outside of his truck supervising a trainee driver who was attempting , , to back the trailer into the dock. ! 1 3. It is Plaintiff's allegation that his injury was caused when an open door on the , i jrailer became entangled with the manual garage door chain and, thus, was pulled away from the I lrailer and struck him. i 1 4. For the following reasons, PPO asserts that because a fellow truck driver will i 1nost certainly and favorably identify with Plaintiff, any truck driver who is a prospective juror I till have such a close situational relationship with Plaintiff that the Court may presume a 1 i likelihood of prejudice. No. 01-2838 II. Argument 5. Under Pennsylvania law: I I I I IMcHugh v. Proctor and Gamble Paper Prods. Co., 776 A.2d 266, 270 (Pa.Super. 2001). In \MCHUgh, the Superior Court concluded that the trial court erred when it refused to dismiss for , Icause several juror who were employed by the defendant. McHugh, 776 A.2d at 270. I The test for determining whether a prospective juror should be disqualified is whether he is willing and able to eliminate the influence of any scruples and render a verdict according to the evidence, and this is to be determined on the basis of answers to questions and demeanor. . . . A challenge for cause should be granted when the prospective juror has such a close relationship, familial, financial, or situational, with the parties, counsel, victims, or witnesses that the court will presume a likelihood of prejudice or demonstrates a likelihood of prejudice by his or her conduct and answers to questions. i l III. Conclusion i I 6. Because a truck driver who is a juror would have obvious bias in favor of a fellow I I ~ruck driver (Plaintiff in this case), it is requested that any truck drivers be removed from the I renire. ! WHEREFORE, Defendant, PPO Industries, Inc., respectfully requests that this Honorable , Fourt enter an Order excusing for cause truck drivers. I I No. 01-2838 Respectfully submitted by, DICKIE, McCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.c. n Edward Wall, Esquire PA to. # 17405 Christopher O. Stofko, Esquire PA to. # 81979 Two PPG Place, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, P A 15222-5402 (412) 281-7272 Attorneys for Defendants, PPG Industries, Inc. No. 01-2838 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John Edward Wall, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served this 2nd day of May, 2005, by Federal Express, to counsel of record listed below: Howard B. Krug, Esquire PURCELL, KRUO & HALLER 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 DICKIE, McCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.c. ~ ard Wall, Esquire Attorneys for Defendant, PPO Industries, Inc. () ,. c-' ,-.:~ c ..~:\ ~< C'\ I ,\~ o -n :7--., \';1;:';', .., ., ) (~J -,~\ r.;.J .' --