Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-4937 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ,,/?' No. 11 - 0 12011 Civil Action - ( x ) Law ?ity Nicholas Loftus Jeremy L. Charles rnm c_ n 29 Center Drive 818 Derby Avenue =M Camp Hill, PA 17011 versus Camp Hill, PA 17011 .,r- -- C)? Brian Charles 3 818 Derby Avenue c Camp Hill, PA 17011 _ Elizabeth Charles 818 Derby Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 Plaintiff(s) & Defendant(s) & Address(es) Address(es) : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please issue writ of summons in the above-captioned action. Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded ) Atto ey ( x ) Sheriff Richard B. Druby, Esquire Nestico, Druby & Hildabrand, P.C. gnature of Attorney 840 East Chocolate Avenue Supreme Court ID No. 61904 Hershey, PA 17033 / 717-533-5406 Date: WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS: YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. pd 44 Od "-- -?4 1 Prot onotary Date: by Deputy ( ) Check here if reverse is issued for additional information SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Sheriff Jody S Smith Chief Deputy Richard W Stewart Solicitor Q??,rtit, at ?u,plrrr???ra? I- C '._,:1- , 2011 JUL 13 AM 8: 02 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Nicholas Jerome Loftus vs. Jeremy Charles (et al.) Case Number 2011-4937 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 06/16/2011 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: Jeremy Charles, but was unable to locate him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of York County, Pennsylvania to serve the within Writ of Summons according to law. 06/16/2011 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: Brian Charles, but was unable to locate him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of York County, Pennsylvania to serve the within Writ of Summons according to law. 06/16/2011 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: Elizabeth Charles, but was unable to locate her in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of York County, Pennsylvania to serve the within Writ of Summons according to law. 06/22/2011 05:25 PM - York County Return: And now June 22, 2011 at 1725 hours I, Richard P. Keuerleber, Sheriff of York County, Pennsylvania, do hereby certify and return that I served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Elizabeth Charles by making known unto herself personally, at 818 Derby Avenue, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. 06/22/2011 05:25 PM - York County Return: And now June 22, 2011 at 1725 hours I, Richard P. Keuerleber, Sheriff of York County, Pennsylvania, do hereby certify and return that I served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Jeremy Charles by making known unto Elizabeth Charles, Mother of Defendant at 818 Derby Avenue, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. 0622/2011 05:25 PM - York County Return: And now June 22, 2011 at 1725 hours I, Richard P. Keuerleber, Sheriff of York County, Pennsylvania, do hereby certify and return that I served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Brian Charles by making known unto himself personally, at 818 Derby Avenue, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. SHERIFF COST: $69.44 July 11, 2011 FILED-OFFICE OF THE PROTHONOTARY SO ANSWERS, RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF !c) „nun'ySuitP Shentf, Tele.ozo, t_ Inc, - Richard B. Druby, Esquire I.D. No. 61904 NESTICO DRUBY, PC 1135 East Chocolate Avenue Suite 300 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-5406 (717) 533-5717 fax NICHOLAS LOFTUS, Plaintiff, v. JEREMY L. CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLES, and ELIZABETH CHARLES, Defendant. r. `?t+-)-0 Flv? 6" ??? ??,QTNO?r?TAiti'i' C1?1 yI- AM p T IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAT NO. 11-4937-CIVIL CIVIL ACTION : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth i the following pages, you must take action within twenty days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NO ' HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFF CE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE COURT ADMINISTRATOR 4TH FLOOR, CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 NOTICA LE HAN DEMANDADO A USTED EN LA COURTE. Si usted quiere defenders de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siquientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de Ian fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia es rit, o en persona o por abogado y archival en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a law demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defien , la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notificaca on y por cualguier queja o alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perde dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO AGOGADO O SI NO TIENCE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICI VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCI SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE COURT ADMINISTRATOR 4TH FLOOR, CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 Richard B. Druby, Esquire I.D. No. 61904 NESTICO DRUBY, PC 1135 East Chocolate Avenue Suite 300 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-5406 (717) 533-5717 fax NICHOLAS LOFTUS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVA1, V. NO. 11-4937-CIVIL JEREMY L. CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLES, and ELIZABETH CHARLES, CIVIL ACTION Defendant. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Nicholas Loftus, and files this Complaint, alleging as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Nicholas Loftus, is an adult individual residing at 29 Center Drive, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011. 2. Defendant, Jeremy L. Charles, is an adult individual residing at 818 Derby Avenue, Camp Hill, York County, Pennsylvania 17011. 3. Defendant, Brian Charles, is an adult individual residing at 818 Derby Avenue, Camp Hill, York County, Pennsylvania 17011. 4. Defendant, Elizabeth Charles, is an adult individual residing at 818 Derby Avenue, Camp Hill, York County, Pennsylvania 17011. 5. Upon information and belief, Defendants Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles husband and wife. 6. Upon information and belief, Defendants Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles the natural parents of Defendant Jeremy L. Charles. 7. The facts and occurrences hereinafter related took place on or about 3:16 p.m. August 25, 2009, on Cedar Cliff Drive, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (hereinafter' Cliff Drive") 8. At the above time and place, Plaintiff Nicholas Loftus was lawfully driving his 2007 Triumph Motorcycle (hereinafter "Motorcycle") westbound on Cedar Cliff Drive. 9. At the above time and place, Defendant Jeremy L. Charles was riding a BMX- style bicycle (hereinafter "Bicycle") westbound on Cedar Cliff Drive. 10. At the aforesaid time and place, Defendant Jeremy L. Charles, suddenly and without warning, unlawfully swerved into Plaintiff's lane of travel in front of Plaintiff. 11. At the above time and place, Plaintiff, due to Defendant Jeremy L. Charles' actions, collided with Defendant Jeremy L. Charles and Plaintiff sustained severe injuries as a result. 2 COUNT I: NEGLIGENCE 12. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 13. The aforesaid collision was caused solely, proximately and/or substantially by t carelessness, negligence and recklessness of Defendant Jeremy L. Charles in the following particulars: a. He suddenly and without warning swerved into Plaintiff's lane of traffic; b. He failed to properly signal his intention to enter Plaintiff s lane of traffic; c. He failed to observe the traffic behind him prior to attempting to enter Plaintiffs lane of traffic; d. He failed to ensure that the movement of the Bicycle was done safely; e. He was inattentive to traffic on Cedar Cliff Drive and failed to see Motorcycle behind him; f. He failed to maintain a safe distance between his Bicycle and Plaintiff s Motorcycle; g. He failed to yield the right of way to Plaintiff s Motorcycle; h. He failed to maintain his Bicycle under proper and adequate control; i. He violated 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3505(a) by failing to obey the applicable rules the road contained within the Vehicle Code; j. He violated 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3301(b); k. He violated 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3334; 1. He violated 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3335(a); in. He violated 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3324; and n. He operated the Bicycle without due regard for the safety of traffic on C Cliff Drive. 3 14. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant Jeremy L. Charles, Plaintiff sustained painful and severe injuries, some or all of which may be permanent in nature, which include, but are not limited to: a. A complex comminuted right zygoma fracture; b. An orbital floor fracture and infraorbital nerve foramina; C. Numerous abrasions and lacerations, including but not limited to, above and below his right eye, his abdomen, his left knee and left shin as well his right hand; d. A significant facial depression on the right side with tenderness; e. A comminuted and significant depressed fracture of the anterior wall maxillary sinus; £ A comminuted lateral wall fracture of the right maxillary sinus; g. A nondisplaced fracture of the right zygomatic arch; h. A mildly comminuted fracture of the lateral right orbital wall; i. Preseptal soft tissue swelling and orbital emphysema; j. Inferior herniation of the orbital fat; k. An air-fluid level in the right maxillary sinus secondary to blood in the maxillary sinus associated with the orbital floor fracture; 1. Stiffness with range of motion of the mandible, right red sclera and numbness of the right side of his face; M. Chipped tooth; 4 n. Weight loss due to inability to open his mouth to eat; o. Tearing of his eye and the right-sided facial numbness; p. Scarring on his eyelid and under his eye; q. Pain associated with the injuries; and Mental and physical anguish. 15. On September 3, 2009, Plaintiff had surgery of an open reduction and internal fixation of a complex right zygomatic fracture through multiple incisions with plates and and open reduction of the right orbital floor blowout fracture with placement of 0.4mm orbital floor plates. 16. Plaintiff suffers from constant facial numbness which is permanent and which will not improve. 17. By reason of the aforesaid injuries sustained by Plaintiff, he was forced to liability for medical treatment, medication, hospitalizations and similar miscellaneous and a claim is made therefor. 18. Because of the nature of his injuries, Plaintiff has been advised, and therefore, avers that he may be forced to incur similar expenses in the future and a claim is made 19. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, Plaintiff has undergone and in the future will undergo great pain and suffering for which damages are claimed. 20. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, Plaintiff has suffered great inconvenience and permanent diminution in carrying out his daily activities, has suffered a of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and a claim is made therefor. 5 21. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff has sustained income loss, and in the future incur loss of opportunity and a diminution of his earning power and capacity, ands a claim is made therefor. 22. As a further result of the aforesaid collision, Plaintiff has incurred or may hereinafter incur financial expenses and losses which exceed sums recoverable under the limitations and exclusions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law which damages are claimed. 23. As a further result of the aforesaid collision, Plaintiff has incurred or may hereinafter incur reasonable and necessary medical and rehabilitative costs and expenses in excess of the amounts paid or payable pursuant to Subchapter B of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, Workers' Compensation or any program, group conl or other arrangement for payment of benefits as defined in 75 Pa. C.S.A. Section 1719. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Nicholas Loftus respectfully demands judgment in his favor against Defendant Jeremy L. Charles in an amount that exceeds the $50,000.00 limit set forth Cumberland County for compulsory arbitration, interest, costs, damages for delay and any relief the Court finds just and proper. 6 COUNT II: NEGLIGENCE FTUS AGAINST DEFENDA ELIZABETH CHARLES 24. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 25. The aforesaid collision was caused solely, proximately and/or substantially by carelessness, negligence and recklessness of Defendants Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles the following particulars: (a) They knew or should have known that Defendant Jeremy L. Charles operate the Bicycle in a careless, negligent, and reckless manner and therefore were in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3503; (b) They negligently entrusted the Bicycle to Defendant Jeremy L. Charles; (c) They failed to supervise Defendant Jeremy L. Charles in the operation the Bicycle; (d) They failed to properly train Defendant Jeremy L. Charles in the operati of the Bicycle; (e) They failed to instruct Defendant Jeremy L. Charles in the proper of the Bicycle; and (f) They failed to instruct Defendant Jeremy L. Charles in the rules of the applicable to the operation of the Bicycle. 26. Defendant Jeremy L. Charles operated the Bicycle in a careless, negligent, and reckless manner as set forth more fully in paragraph 13 above. 7 27. Accordingly, Defendants, Brian Charles' and Elizabeth Charles' failure to exercise the control which they had over their child, Defendant Jeremy L. Charles, when they knew, or in the exercise of due care should have known, that an injury to another, including Plaintiff, was a natural and probable consequence, such failure to act in restraining Defendant Jeremy L. Charles amounts to an approval and sanction of, or assent to, his acts by Defendants, Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles. 28. As a direct result of Jeremy L. Charles' operation of the Bicycle, Plaintiff injuries and damages as set forth more fully in paragraphs 14 - 23 above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Nicholas Loftus respectfully demands judgment in his favor against Defendant Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles in an amount that exceeds the $50,000.1 limit set forth in Cumberland County for compulsory arbitration, interest, costs, damages for delay and any other relief the Court finds just and proper. NESTICO D By: Date: 3 Z Richard B. Attorney I.D. Nd,_3K 1135 E. Chocolate Avenue Suite 300 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-5406 Telephone Attorneys for Plaintiff 8 VERIFICATION I, Nicholas Loftus, verify that the statements made in the foregoing document 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. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: " " I % rf" 47 Nicholas Loftus 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard B. Druby, Esquire, of the law firm of Nestico Druby, PC, hereby certify that the 23`d day of July, 2012, a copy of the foregoing document was sent via First Class U.S. postage paid, to the following: Jeremy Charles 818 Derby Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 Brian Charles 818 Derby Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 Elizabeth Charles 818 Derby Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 10 RI,A?p Ca?N1`t JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & ?Y?V,N1A By: Jefferson J. Shipman I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 jjs@jdsw.com Attorneys for Defend NICHOLAS LOFTUS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVA V. NO. 11-4937-CIVIL JEREMY L. CHARLES, CIVIL ACTION - LAW BRIAN CHARLES, and ELIZABETH CHARLES, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of the Defend the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, Date: July , 2012 507476 N, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNE Te#666n J. Shipofian, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Counsel for Defendants IA In I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Entry of Appearance been duly served upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on July -41 2012: Richard B. Druby, Esquire Nestico Druby, PC 1135 East Chocolate Avenue Suite 300 Hershey, PA 17033 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDN 6 If 1,171'2 y: B eff r r n . Ship an e r~, o'?;C? I10NO CARP 2 0' 2 ,1" - 9 F-1 I: 2 5 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: Jefferson J. Shipman I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 jjs@jdsw.com NICHOLAS LOFTUS, Plaintiff V. JEREMY L. CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLES, and ELIZABETH CHARLES, Defendants r L A,/ND COLNUttorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 11-4937-CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Nicholas Loftus c/o Richard B. Druby, Esquire Nestico Druby, PC 1135 East Chocolate Avenue, Suite 300 Hershey, PA 17033 AND NOW, this P.davy of August, 2012, you are hereby notified to plead responsively within twenty (20) days of the date of service hereof, or judgment may be entered against you. , DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER JO By. for Defend nt JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: Jefferson J. Shipman I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 jjs@jdsw.com Attorneys for Defendants NICHOLAS LOFTUS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 11-4937-CIVIL JEREMY L. CHARLES, CIVIL ACTION - LAW BRIAN CHARLES, and ELIZABETH CHARLES, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Defendants, Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles, by and through their counsel, Jefferson J. Shipman and Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, and file the following Answer and New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint: 1. Admitted upon information and belief. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted only that the Plaintiff was driving a motorcycle westbound on Cedar Cliff Drive. The remaining averments of paragraph 8 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 9. Admitted. 10. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 10 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 11. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 11 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. COUNTI Plaintiff v. Defendant Jeremy L. Charles 12. The Defendants incorporate herein by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 11 above, as though fully set forth herein at length. 13. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 13 and subparagraphs (a) through (n) are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. (a) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles suddenly and without warning swerved into Plaintiffs lane; (b) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles failed to properly signal his intention; 2 (c) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles failed to observe traffic; (d) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles failed to ensure that the movement of his bicycle was done safely; (e) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles was inattentive to traffic; (f) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles failed to maintain a safe distance; (g) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles failed to yield the right-of-way; (h) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles failed to maintain the bicycle under proper and adequate control; (i) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles violated any Section of the Motor Vehicle Code; 0) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles violated any Section of the Motor Vehicle Code; (k) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles violated any Section of the Motor Vehicle Code; (1) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles violated any Section of the Motor Vehicle Code; (m) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles violated any Section of the Motor Vehicle Code; 3 (n) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles operated the bicycle without due regard for the safety of traffic. 14. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 14 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Charles is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments contained in paragraph 14, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Charles is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 15, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Charles is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 16, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Charles is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 17, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Charles is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in 4 paragraph 18, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Charles is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 19, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Charles is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 20, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Charles is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 21, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Charles is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 22, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 23. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Charles is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 23, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 5 WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Jeremy L. Charles, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in his favor and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. COUNT II Plaintiff v. Defendants Brian and Elizabeth Charles 24. The Defendants incorporate herein by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 23 above, as though fully set forth herein at length. 25. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 25 and subparagraphs (a) through (f) are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. (a) Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant knew or should have known that Jeremy Charles would operate the bicycle in a careless, negligent and reckless manner and in violation of the Motor Vehicle Code; (b) Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant negligently entrusted the bicycle to Jeremy; (c) Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendants failed to supervise Jeremy; (d) Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendants failed to properly train Jeremy; (e) Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant failed to 6 instruct Jeremy in the proper operation of the bicycle; and (f) Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendants failed to instruct Jeremy in the rules of the road. 26. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 26 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 27. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 27 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 28. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 28 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles, respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor and that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. NEW MATTER 29. That Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against the Defendants. 30. If it should be found that there was any negligence on the part of the Defendants, which is specifically denied, then in that event, any such negligence was not a factual cause of the Plaintiff's alleged cause of action. 31. That Plaintiff's alleged cause of action may be barred by the statute of limitations. 7 32. That Plaintiff's alleged cause of action may be barred in whole or in part by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act and by Plaintiff's own negligence. 33. Plaintiff's own comparative negligence included the following: (a) Failing to keep the motorcycle under control; (b) Failing to observe the Defendant, Jeremy Charles; (c) Failing to avoid Jeremy Charles; (d) Failing to follow safe motorcycle operating procedures; (e) Failing to wear a helmet. 34. Plaintiff's own comparative negligence was a factual cause of the accident and his own injuries. 35. Plaintiff's alleged cause of action may be barred by Plaintiff's assumption of the risk. 36. That Plaintiffs alleged cause of action may have been caused by a sudden emergency. 37. That Plaintiffs alleged cause of action may have been caused by an intervening superseding cause. 38. That Plaintiffs alleged cause of action may have been caused by third parties or entities not presently involved in this action. 39. That Plaintiff's alleged cause of action may have been caused by a dangerous condition of the roadway. 40. That Plaintiff's alleged cause of action may be barred by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 8 WHEREFORE, the Defendants, Brian Charles, Elizabeth Charles and Jeremy Charles, respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER Date: August T, 2012 507747 4ffErson J. Shipmafh, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Counsel for Defendants 9 VERIFICATION The undersigned, having read the attached Answer and New Matter, hereby certifies that the attached Answer and New Matter is based on information furnished to counsel, which information has been gathered by counsel in the course of this lawsuit. The language of the Answer and New Matter is that of counsel and not of the undersigned. The undersigned verifies that they have read the attached Answer and New Matter and that it is true and correct to the best of their information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the Answer are that of counsel, the undersigned has relied upon counsel in taking this Verification. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Dated: t'15 I a o' a-- Dated: Iz ';/ 2Q I Jere L. Ch les Brian Charles Dated: 1'J )U 1 Efiza-bet1h Charles :507749 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Answer and New Matter 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 August T-, 2012: Richard B. Druby, Esquire Nestico Druby, PC 1135 East Chocolate Avenue Suite 300 Hershey, PA 17033 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER z y:? r J. S ipm JOHNSON, PUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: Jefferson J. Shipman I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box X109 Lemoyne„ PA 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 jjs@jdsw.6om NICHOL4S LOFTUS, Plaintiff V. JEREMY L. CHARLES, BRIAN ?HARLES, and ELIZABETH CHARLES, Defendants V, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANS ORTATION, Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 11-4937-CIVIL CIVIL ACTION -- LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR WRIT TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly issue a Writ of Summons to Join Additional Defendant in the above-captioned matter a0ainst: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 400 North Street Harrisburg, PA 17120 Respectfully submitted, NSO , DUFF IE;a,-- RT & WEIDNER By: lie J e n . Shipma squire orney I.D. No. 51M5 301 Market Street - P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Date: August _, 2012 Attorneys for Defendants Ip?D iK?1NO TA n 2012 AUG 23 AH 8: 1 ril" 8ERL,AND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Attorneys for Defendants WRIT TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT Cumberland County, ss: The, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COMMONWEALTH OF PA 400 NORTH STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17120 You are notified that JEREMY L. CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLES AND ELIZABETH CHARLES have joined you as an additional defendant in this action, which you are required to defend. Date: AUGUST 23, 2012 1 _ David D. Buell, Prothonotary Deputy (Seal) No. 11-4937 Civil Term NICHOLAS LOFTUS vs JEREMY L. CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLES, AND ELIZABETH CHARLES Defendant PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Additional Defendant WRIT TO JOINED AN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT JEFFERSON J. SHIPMAN, ESQUIRE JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER 301 MARKET STREET P.O.BOX 109 LEMOYNE, PA 17043 717-761-4540 Attorney for Defendant Christina A. Israel Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15~' Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Direct Dial: (717) 783-8035 r ~~ . i~G-t~F~. f1r~ ~H~3t~Q+s~'r~i.'~` 1~(2 dUG 29 dM i ~ ~ 26 CU ~~Att ~NTY NICHOLAS LOFTUS, Plaintiff v. JEREMY L. CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLES, And ELIZABETH CHARLES, Defendants v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLV CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED No. 11-4937-CIVIL PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Please enter my appearance on behalf of Additional Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, DATED: August 27, 2012 By: A y CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing document(s) upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Richazd Druby, Esquire Nestico, Druby & Hildarand 840 E. Chocolate Avenue Hershey, PA 17033 717-533-5406 (Attorney for Plaintiff) Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner 301 Mazket Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 (Attorney for Defendants) By: Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Squaze Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-783-1464 -Direct Dial DATED: August 27, 2012 Richard B. Druby, Esquire I.D. No. 61904 NESTICO DRUBY, PC 1135 East Chocolate Avenue Suite 300 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-5406 (717) 533-5717 fax ~"`~~ ` ~'1£~p ~~iil(3Nz3T A~ X012 ~U~ 3 t Pt9 2: 34 ^~~ PE~ldSY~~yq OUN7`Y NtA NICHOLAS LOFTUS, Plaintiff, v. JEREMY L. CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLES, and ELIZABETH CHARLES, Defendant v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVA~ NO. 11-4937-CIVIL CIVIL ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER 29. Conclusion of law, to which no response is required. To the extent a response required, the allegations of paragraph 29 are specifically denied. 30. Conclusion of law, to which no response is required. To the extent a response required, the allegations of paragraph 30 are specifically denied. 31. Conclusion of law, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations of paragraph 31 are specifically denied. 1 32. Conclusion of law, to which no response is required. To the extent a response required, the allegations of paragraph 32 are specifically denied. 33. (a-d) Conclusion of law, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations of paragraph 33 are specifically denied. 34. Conclusion of law, to which no response is required. To the extent a response required, the allegations of paragraph 34 are specifically denied. 35. Conclusion of law, to which no response is required. To the extent a response required, the allegations of paragraph 35 are specifically denied. 36. Conclusion of law, to which no response is required. To the extent a response required, the allegations of paragraph 36 are specifically denied. 37. Conclusion of law, to which no response is required. To the extent a response required, the allegations of paragraph 37 are specifically denied. 38. Conclusion of law, to which no response is required. To the extent a response required, the allegations of paragraph 38 are specifically denied. 39. Conclusion of law, to which no response is required. To the extent a response required, after reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments, and they are therefore denied. In further any alleged dangerous condition of the roadway does not exonerate Defendants from their own liability for this accident. 40. Conclusion of law, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations of paragraph 40 are specifically denied. 2 -, ~__ WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands that Defendants' New Matter be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be entered in his favor and against the Defendants as set forth in Complaint. Date: 0 ,3 D 2.- NESTICO DRU~r , By: 3 ZZichard B. Druby Attorney LD. No. 6 90 1135 E. Chocolate Avenue Suite 300 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-5406 Telephone Attorneys for Plaintiff VERIFICATION I, Nicholas Loftus, verify that the statements made in the foregoing document 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 I S Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: V ~ ~ V Nicholas L us 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard B. Druby, Esquire, of the law firm of Nestico Druby, PC, hereby certify that~on the ~~~ day of August, 2012, a copy of the foregoing document was sent via First Class U.S. Mail, postage paid, to the following: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Counsel for Defendants Pennsylvania Department of Transport Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 400 North Street Harrisburg, PA 17120 Additional Defendants 5 f. .. .. ~ t t it I~i I' 1 , JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART 8c WEIDNER By: John R. Ninosky I.D. No. 78000 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 jrn a~jdsw.com NICHOLAS LOFTUS, Plaintiff v. JEREMY L. CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLES, and ELIZABETH CHARLES, Defendants v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Additional Defendant NO. 11-4937-CIVIL CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: PLEASE substitute the appearance of John R. Ninosky, Esquire of Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, P.C. as the attorney for Defendants Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles, and Elizabeth Charles in the above-captioned matter. Date: October 18, 2012 . ~ ` 4:r { < < ~$ i r~ Attorneys for Defendants, Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Respectfully submitted, JOH N, U/FFI^E, (STEWART &WEIDNER By: Y~~! ~/ John R. Ninosky, Esquir Attorney I.D. No. 78000 301 Market Street ~ P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Counsel for Defendants Charles CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Substitute 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 October 18, 2012: Richard B. Druby, Esquire Nestico Druby, PC 1135 East Chocolate Avenue, Suite 300 Hershey, PA 17033 Counsel for Plaintiff Christina A. Israel, Esquire Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15`h Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Counsel for Additional Defendant, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER r~_ ~" By: Joh R. inos y .IOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART S~ WEIDNER , ~ ~ - - ~ ' ~ ` By: John R. Ninosky .: ; , ::: ~ '-- r :' ., , : ~ , I.D. No. 78000 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 jrn@jdsw.com NICHOLAS LOFTUS, Plaintiff v. JEREMY L. CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLES, and ELIZABETH CHARLES, Defendants v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Additional Defendant NOTICE TO DEFEND NO. 11-4937-CIVIL. CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defense or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association Lawyer Referral and Information Service 32 South Bedford St. Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 Attorneys for Defendants, Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar accion dentro de los proximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notification de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar accion como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier sums de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamation o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes pars usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO~. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association Lawyer Referral and Information Service 32 South Bedford St. Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 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 jrn@jdsw.com NICHOLAS LOFTUS, Plaintiff v. JEREMY L. CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLES, and ELIZABETH CHARLES, Defendants v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Additional Defendant NO. 11-4937-CIVI L CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND NOW, come the Defendants, Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles, by and through their counsel, Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, P.C. and file the following Complaint to Join the Additional Defendant, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, as follows: 1 Defendants, Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles, are adult individuals residing at 818 Derby Avenue, Camp Hill, York County, Pennsylvania. 2. Additional Defendant, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, is a Commonwealth party with a principal place of business located at Keystone Building, 400 North Street, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 17120. Attorneys for Defendants, Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 3. On June 14, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a Praecipe for Writ of Summons. 4. The Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the Defendant on July 12, 2012. A true and correct: copy of the Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 5. In the Plaintiff's Complaint, he alleges that he is an adult individual and resides at 29 Center Drive, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. See ¶1 of Exhibit A. 6. The Plaintiff also alleges that on August 25, 2009, at about 3:16 p.m., an accident occurred between himself as a motorcycle operator, and Defendant Jeremy L. Charles as the operator of a BMX-style bicycle on Cedar Cliff Drive, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. See ¶¶ 7-9 of Exhibit A,. 7. More specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Jeremy L. Charles suddenly, and without warning, unlawfully swerved into the Plaintiff's lane of travel in front of the Plaintiff. See §10 of Exhibit A. 8 The Defendants filed their Answer and New Matter on August 9, 2012. A true and correct copy of the Defendants' Answer and New Matter is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 9 The Defendants denied that they were negligent and alleged in their New Matter that the Plaintiff's alleged cause of action may have been caused by a sudden emergency, by third parties or entities not then involved in this action, or by a dangerous condition of the roadway. See ¶¶36, 38, 39 of Exhibit B. 10. On August 23, 2012, a Writ to Join Additional Defendant was issued to the Pennsylvania Department of Transporkation, and the Writ was served on August 31, 2012. NEGLIGENCE 11. The Defendants repeat and reiterate paragraphs 1 through 10 of the Complaint to Join as if fully set forth at length herein. 12. At all times relevant, the Additional Defendant, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and/or one or more of its departments, employees of servants was responsible 2 for the carE~, supervision, maintenance and/or control of Cedar Cliff Drive, Cumberland Caunty, Pennsylvania. 13. The Additional Defendant had the duty imposed upon it by law to keep and maintain Cedar Cliff Drive, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in such a condition as to make it safe for the travel of vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists for which it was built. 14. The Additional Defendant knew, or should have known, that prior to and at the time of the subject accident on August 25, 2009, the area of Cedar Cliff Drive, Cumberland County where this accident occurred was very narrow with little, if any, berm on the side. 15. The Additional Defendant knew, or should have known, that prior to and at the time of the subject accident on August 25, 2009, the area of Cedar Cliff Drive; Cumberland County where this accident occurred did not have white lines painted on the roadway, 16. The Additional Defendant knew, or should have known, that prior to and at the time of the subject accident on August 25, 2009, the area of Cedar Cliff Drive, Cumberland County where this accident occurred did not have apedestrian/bicycle lane to accommodate safe travel by pedestrians and/or bicyclists and the motoring public. 17. The Defendant knew, c-r should have known, that prior to and at the time of the subject accident on August 25, 2009, the conditions of the roadway identified above posed a dangerous condition for motorists and bicyclists traveling on Cedar Cliff Drive, Cumberland County. 18. Since August 25, 2009, apedestrian/bicycle lane has been erected on Cedar Cliff Drive, Cumberland County. 19. The above described accident was caused by the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the Additional Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation in that it: 3 a. Failed to give proper warning or notice of the existence of the dangerous condition of the narrow, unpainted roadway with little to no berm on August 25, 2009, on Cedar Cliff Drive, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania; b. Failing to take reasonable steps to avoid the dangerous condition of the narrow roadway by erecting apedestrian/bicycle path for safe travel by pedestrians and/or bicyclists and the motoring public; c. Failing to maintain Cedar Cliff Drive, Cumberland County, with clearly painted white lines; d. Failure to keep and maintain Cedar Cliff Drive, Cumberland County, in such a condition as to make it safe for the travel of vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists for which it was built. 20. The aforementioned negligence of the Additional Defendant was the Cause of the alleged injury to the Plaintiff. 21, Because of the negligence of the Additional Defendant, the Additional Defendant is solely liable to, or jointly and severally liable with the Defendants in this matter. WHEREFORE, the Defendants, Brian Charles, Elizabeth Charles and Jeremy Charles, respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor and against the Additional Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Respectfully submitted, Date: October 31, 2012 517629 JOHNSO UFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER _~ ~~ By. ~ ,~, J n R. Ninosky, Esquire -~ Attorney I.D. No. 78000 301 Market Street ~ P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendant 4 EXHIBIT A Richard B. Druby, .Esquire I.D. No. 61904 NESTICO DRUBY, PC 1135 East Chocolate Avenue Suite 300 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 5:33-5406 (717) 5:33-5717 fax '~4~~.r~-Qt=Fl~.t .;,;" ~'iE PF~O~f NOhOTAn'i LOlis ~~! ~~ A"~t 11 ~ 19 e~1P N~SY~~VANIAT { NICHOLAS LOFTUS, Plaintiff, ~, JEREMY L. CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLES, and ELIZABETH CHARLES, Defendant. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAI' NO. 11-493 7-CIVIL CIVIL ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth i the following pages, you must take action within twenty days after this complaint and noti are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing i the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned th t you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against o by the court without further notice :for any money claimed in the complaint or for any othe claim or• relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NO HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFI SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE COURT ADMINISTRATOR. 4~~H FLOOR, CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 if 1: `:4:'f 2 a.m, Z~- "[,' ~ ~+ 114 NOTICA LE HAN DEMANDADO A USTED EN LA COURTS. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demaadas expucstas en las pagittas siquientes, usted liens viente (20) dies de plazo aI partir de tan fecha de la deananda y la notification. Usted debe presenter una apariencia escrita o cn persona o por abogado y archival cn la Corte an forma escrita sus dcfensas o sus objeciones a law demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se~dcfiende, la torte tomara medidas y puede entrar una order contra ustcd sin previo avisa o notificacaion y par cualguier qucja o alivio quc es pedido en la pcticion de demands. Usted puede perder dincro o.sus propiedades o otros dercchos.importantes pate ustcd. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO INIvtEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE AGOGADO O SI NO TIENCE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, , VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A.LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE .ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE COURT ADMINISTRATOR 4~ FLOOR, CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE. CARLISLE, PA 17013 . (7I7) 240-6200 "1.14:~Oa.m. _; :'S~-1312 5114 Richard B. Drvby, Esquire I.D. No. 61904 NESTICO DRUBY, PC 1135 East Chocolate Avenue Suite 300 1-Iershey, PA.17033 (717) 533-5406 {117) 533-5717 fax NICHOLAS LOFTUS, Plaintiff, v. JEREMY L. CHARLES, BR1AN CHARLES, and ELIZABETH CHARLES, Defendant. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANLP- NO. 11=4937-CIVIL CIVIL ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Nicholas Loftus; and files this Complaint, allepng as' follows: 1. Plaintiff. Nicholas Loftus, is an adult individual residing at 29 Center Drive, Cnrrip Hill, Currtberland County, Pennsylvania 170] 1. 2. Defendant Jeremy L. Charles, is an adult individual residing at 818 Derby Avenue,. Camp Hill, York County, Pennsylvania i 7011. 3. Defendant, Brian Charles, is an adult individual residing at 8 ] 8 Derby Avenue, Camp Hill, York County, Pennsylvania 17011. 'L14:28a.m. "?~-26-201'1_ 6/14 4. Defendant, Elizabeth Charter, is an adult individual residing at 818 Derby Avenue, Camp Nill, York County, Pennsylvania 17011. 'i. Upon information and belief, Defendants Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles aze husband and wife. Ei. Upon information and belief; Defendants Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles are the natural parents of Defendant Jereany L. Charles. ~~. The facts and occurrences hereinaRer related took, place on or about 3:I6 p:m. on August 25> 2009, on Cedar-Cliff Drive, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (hereinafter "Cedar Cliff Drive"). 8~. At the above time and place, PlaintiffNicholas Loftus was lawfully dri~7ng his 2007 Triumph Motorcycle (hereinafter "Motorcycle") westbound on Cedar Cliff Drive. 9, At the about time and place, Defendant Jeremy I.. Charles was riding aBMX- style bicycle (hereinafter "Bicycle'') westbound on Cedar Cliff Dri~fe. 10. At the aforesaid time and place, Defendant Jeremy L. Charles, suddenly and without warning, unlawfully swerved into Plaintiff s lane of travel in front of Plaintiff. 11. At the above time and place, Plaintiff, due to Defendant Jeremy L': Charles' actions, collided with Defendant 3ererny L. Charles and Plaintiff sustained severe injuries as a resuliK 2 '1.?4;3o.a.m. '~:-"tu',1 7114 COUNT i. NEGLIGENCE PLAINTIFF NICHOLAS LOFTUS AGAINST DEFENDANT JEREMY L. CHARLES 12. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 13. The aforesaid collision was caused solely, proximately and/or substantially by the carelessness, negligence and recklessness of Defendant Jeremy L. Charles in the fallowing. particulars: a. He suddenly and without warning swerved info Piainti~'s Iane of traffic; b. He failed to properly signal his intention to enter Plaintiff s lane of trafl5c; c. He failed to observe the traffic behind him prior to attempting to enter Plaintiff's lane of traffic; d, He failed to ensure that the movement of the Bicycle was done safely; e. He was inattentive to traffic on Cedar Cliff Drive.and failed to see Plaintiff's Motorcycle behind him; f. He failed to maintain a safe distance between his Bicycle and Plaintiff's Motorcycle; g, He failed to yield the right of way to Plaintiff's Motorcycle; h, He failed to maintain his Bicycle under pcoper and adequate control; i. He violated 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3505(a} by failing to obey the applicable rules of the read contained within the Vehicle Code; j. Hr violated 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3301(b); k, He violated 75 Pa.C.S.A. ~+ 3334; 1. He violated 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3335(a); rn. He violated 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3324; and rt Ne operated the Bicycle without due regard for the safety of traffic~on Cedar Cliff Drive. 3 -. '?:1c;G5a.m. _., .._ 8114 14. As a result of tht negligence of the Defendant~3creYny L, Charles, Plaintiff sustained painful and severe injuries,.sornc or all of which may be permanent in nature, which includes but are not limited to: a. A complex comminuted right rygocna fracture; b. An orbital floor fracture and infraorbital nerve foramina; c. Numemus•abrasions and lacerations, including but not limited to, above and below his right eye, hiss abdomen, his left knee and left:shin as well as his right hand; d. A significant facial depression on the right side with tenderness; e. A comminuted and significant depressed fracture of the anterior wall right maxillary sinus; f. A comminuted lateral; wall fracture of the right maxillary sinus; g. A nondisplaccd fracture of the right rygomatic arch; Et A mildly comminuted fracture of the lateral right orbital wall; i. Preseptal soft tissue swelling and orbital emphysema.; j. Inferior herniation of the orbital fat; k An air-fluid level in the right maxillary sinus secondary to blood in the maxillary sinus associated with the orbital floor fracture;. 1. Stiffness with range of motion of the mandible, right red sclera and numbness of the right side of his face; rn. Chipped tooth; 4 n. Weight loss due to inability to open his mouth to eat; o. Tearing of his eye and the right-sided facial numbness; p. Scarring on his eyelid and under his eye; q. Pain associated with the injuries; and r. Menial and physical anguish. . 15. Qrt September 3, 2009, Plaintiff had surgery of an open reduction and `rrrternal fixation of a complex right zygomatic fracture through multiple incisions with plates and screws and open reduction of the right orbital floor blowout faactwe with placement of 0.4min superfoil orbital floor plates. '.t 6. Plaintiff suffers from constant facial numbness which is permanent and which wi II not improve. _ 17. By reason of the aforesaid injuries sustained by Plaintiff, he was forced to incur liability for medical treatment, medication, hospitalizations and similar miscellaneous expenses and a claim is made therefor. 1 S.. Because of the nature of his injuries, Plaintiff has been advised, and therefore, avers that he may be forced to incur.similar expenses in the future and a claim is made therefor. 19. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, PIaintiff has undergone and in the future. will undergo great pain and.suffering for which damages are claimed. 2i~. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, Plaintiff has suffered great inconvenience and permanent diminution in carrying out his daily activities, has suffered ~a loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and a claim is made therefor. 5 11;15:C3a,m, {'7--?6~-2J1~ 10114 1. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff has sustained income loss, and may in the future incur toss of opportunity and a diminution of his earning power and capacity, and a claim is made therefor. ~2. As a further result of the aforesaid collision, Plaintiff has incurred or may hereinafter incur financial expenses and losses which exceed sums recoverable under the limitations and exclusions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law for which damages are claimed. 23. As a fiu[her r+esuIt of the aforesaid collision, Plaintiff has incurred or may r hereinafter incur reasonable and necessary medical and rehabilitative costs and, expenses in excess of the amounts paid orpayablc pursuant to~Subchapter B of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, Workers Compensation or any program, group contract or other arrangement for payment of benefits as defined in 75 Pa. C.S.A. Section 1719. WHEREFORE, PlaintiffNicholas Loftus respectfully demands judgment in his favor and - against Defendant Jeremy L. Charles in an amount that exceeds the $0,000.00 limit set.farth in Cumberland County for compulsory arbitration, interest, costs, damages for delay and any other relief the Court finds just and proper. 6 11:15:'2a.m, ~~'-'6 -2012 11 !14 COUNT II: NEGLIGENCE Pi.AINTIFF MCHOLAS LOFTUS AGAINST DEFENDANTS BRIAN CHARLES and ELIZABETH CHARLES 24. Plaintiff incorporates the about paragraphs as if fully set forth herein... .25. The aforesaid collision was caused solely, proximately andlor substantially by the carelessness, negligence and recklessness of Defendants Brian Charles and Elizabeth Ghazles in the following particulars: (a) They knew or should have known that Defendant Jeremy L. Charles would operate the.Bicycie in a careless, negligent, and reckless manner and therefore were in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3543; (b) They negligently entrusted the Bicycle to Defendant Jeremy L. Charles; (c) They failed to supervise Defendant Jeremy L. Charles in the operation of the Bicycle; {d) They. failed to properly train Defendant Jeremy L. Charles in the operation of the Bicycle; (e) They failed to instruct Defendant Jeremy L. Charles in the propel operation of the Bicycle; and (fl They failed to instruct Defendant Jeremy L. Charles in the miles of the road applicable to the operatiop of the Bicycle. 26. Defendant Jereany L. Charles operated the Bicycle in a careless, negligent, and reckless manner as~ set forth more fully in paragraph 13 above. 7 "1.15:21 a.m. ~~'~-?5-2G;'2 92;14 27. Accordingly, Defendants, Brian Charles' and Elizabeth Charles' failure to exercise the control which they had over their child, Defendant Jeremy L. Charles, when they knew, or in the exercise of due care should have known, that an injury to another, including Plaintiff, was a natural and probable consequence, such failure to act in restraining Defendant Jeremy L. Charles amounts to an approval and sanction of, or assent to, his acu by Defendants, Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles.. :28. As a direct result of 3eremy L. Charles' operation of the Bicycle, Pisimiff suffered injuries and damages as set forth morn fully in paragraphs 14 - 23 above. WHEREFORE, PlsintiffNicholas Loftus respectfully demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles in an amount that exceeds the 550,000.00 limit set forth in Cumberland County for compulsory arbitration,' interest, costs; damages fur delay and any other relief the Court finds just and proper. Date: ~ ~ !.; NESTICO DR Y, '~` 1 ,; ~ ~ . . By: ~' ~ C. ~ ' ~~ Richard 8. Drub Attorney I.D. Nd 0~ 1135 E. Chocolate Avenue Suite 300 Hershey, PA 17033 (717} 533-540b Telephone Attorneys for Plaintiff 8 ..; 15: Z9a.m. ,' ,;_._,-,~ 13/14 VERIFICA'><'ION 4 Nicholas Loftus. verify that the statements made in the foregoing document arc five 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..~4904 ttlating to~zmsworn falsification to authorities. Date: - ~ ~-- L ~7 Nicholas Loftus 9 "1~.15:?5~~.m. ~.-f;--Z:]?~ 14f14 CERTIFICATE. F SERVICE 1, Richard B. Drrby, Esquire, of the law firm of.Nestico Dniby, PC, hereby certify that on the 23rd day of July, 2012, a copy of the foregoing document was sent via First Class U.S. Mail, postage paid, to the following: Jeremy Charles 818 Derby Avenue Camp Hill, PA 1'7011 Brian Charles 8 18 Derby Avenue Camp Hilt, PA 17011 Elizabeth Charles S 18 Derby Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 10 EXHIBIT B .. 1 ~ ~, .'t~~ I'ivltil.i I~.i~1 n ;° "~ ` `rw~~~LA~dC GGi~~J t ~, JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART& WEIDNER~ ^~,~;~S`; 3 V~,~;Eh By: Jefferson J. Shipman I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 jjs@jdsw.com NICHOLAS LOFTUS, Plaintiff v. JEREMY L. CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLES, and ELIZABETH CHARLES, Defendants Attorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 11-4937-CIVIL CIVIL ACTION -LAIN JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Nicholas Loftus c/o Richard B. Druby, Esquire Nestico Druby, PC 1135 East Chocolate Avenue, Suite 300 Hershey, PA 17033 Q~_'' "_~---- AND NOW, this ~} day of August, 2012, you are hereby notified to plead responsively within twenty (20) days of the date of service hereof, or judgment may be entered against you. JOrH~N550\N, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER i~ j n ~, a~nlpman me for Defend JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: Jefferson J. Shipman I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 jjs@jdsw.com Attorneys for Defendants NICHOLAS LOFTUS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ~~ NO. 11-4937-CIVIL. JEREMY L. CHARLES, CIVIL ACTION - LA,W BRIAN CHARLES, and ELIZABETH CHARLES, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Defendants, Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles, by and through their counsel, Jefferson J. Shipman and Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, and file the following Answer and New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint: 1. Admitted upon information and belief. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted only that the Plaintiff was driving a motorcycle westbound on Cedar Cliff Drive. The remaining averments of paragraph 8 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. 9. Admitted. 10. Deniecl. The averments contained in paragraph 10 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 11. Deniedl. The averments contained in paragraph 1 '1 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. ff a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. COUNTI Plaintiff v. Defendant Jeremy L. Charles 12. The Defendants incorporate herein by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 11 above, as though fully set forth herein at length. 13. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 13 and subparagraphs (a) through (ri) are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. (a) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles suddenly and without warning swerved into Plaintiff's lane; (b) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles failed to properly signal his intention; 2 (c) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles failed tc~ observe traffic; (d) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles failed to ensure that the movement of his bicycle was done safely; (e) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles was inattentive to traffic; (f) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles failed to maintain a safe distance; (g) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles failed to yield the right-of-way; (h) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles failed to maintain the bicycle under proper and adequate control; (i) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles violated any Section of the Motor Vehicle Code; (j) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles violated any Section of the Motor Vehicle Code; (k) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles violated any Section of the Motor Vehicle Code; (I) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles violated any Section of the Motor Vehicle Code; (m) C)enied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles violated any Section of the Motor Vehicle Code; 3 (n) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Charles operated the bicycle without due regard for the safety of traffic. 14. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 14 are in part conclusions of law grid fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Charles is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments contained in paragraph 14, and the same are therefore denied anti strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Charles is without sufficient knowledge or information to form .a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 15, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Charles is without sufficient knowledge or information to form <~ belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraphs 16, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Charles is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 17, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Charles is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in 4 paragraph 18, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 19 Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Charles is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 19, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Charles is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments cantained in paragraph 20, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Charles is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 21, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Charles is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments cantained in paragrapl-i 22, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 23. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Charles is without sufficient knowledgE~ or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments cantained in paragraph 23, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 5 WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Jeremy L. Charles, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in his favor and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. COUNT II Plaintiff v. Defendants Brian and Elizabeth Charles 24. The Defendants incorporate herein by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 23 above, as though fully set forth herein at length. 25. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 25 and subparagraphs (a) through (f) are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. (a} Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant knew or should have known that Jeremy Charles would operate the bicycle in a careless, negligent and reckless manner and in violation of the Motor Vehicle Code; (b) Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant negligently entrusted the bicycle to Jeremy; (c) Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendants failed to supervise Jeremy; (d) Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendants failed to properly train Jeremy; (e) Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant failed to 6 instruct Jeremy in the proper operation of the bicycle; and (f) Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendants failed to instruct Jeremy in the rules of the road. 26. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 26 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 27. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 27 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments> contained therein are specifically denied. 28. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 28 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is rE~quired. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. WHEREFORE, Defendants. Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles, respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor and that Plaintiff's Cornplaint be dismissed with prejudice. NEW MATTER 29. That Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against the Defendants 30. If it should be found that there was any negligence on the part of the Defendants, which is specifically denied, then in that event, any such negligence was not a factual cause of the Plaintiffs alleged cause of action. 31. That Plaintiff's alleged cause of action may be barred by the statute of limitations. 7 32. That Plaintiff s alleged cause of action may be barred in whole or in part by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act and by Plaintiff's own negligence. 33. Plaintiff's own comparative negligence included the following: (a) Failing to kee~> the motorcycle under control; (b) Failing to observe the Defendant, Jeremy Charles; (c) Failing to avoid Jeremy Charles:. (d) Failing to follow safe motorcycle operating procedures; (e) Failing to wear a helmet. 34. Plaintiff's own comparative negligence was a factual cause of the accident and his ovvn injuries. 35. Plaintiff's alleged cause of action may be barred by Plaintiff's assumption of the risk. 36. That Plaintiffs alleged cause of action may have been caused by a sudden emergehcy. 37. That Plaintiff's alleged cause of action may have been caused by an intervening superseding cause. 38. That Plaintiff's alleged cause of action may have been caused by third parties or entities not presently involved in this action. 39. That Plaintiff's alleged cause of action may have been caused by a dangerous condition of the roadway. 40. That Plaintiff's alleged cause of action may be barred by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 8 WHEREFORE, the Defendants, Brian Charles, Elizabeth Charles and Jeremy Charles, respectfully request that ,judgment be entered in their favor and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. r'' Date: August ~_, 2012 507747 Respectfully submitted, JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER fF~rson J. Shipm ,Esquire ttorney I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Counsel for Defendants 9 VERIFICATION The undersigned, having read the attached Answer and New Matter, hereby certifies that the attached Answer and New Matter is based on information furnished to counsel, which information has 'been gathered by counsel in the course of this lawsuit. The language of the Answer and New Matter is that of counsel and not of the undersigned. The undersigned verifies that they have read the attached Answer and New Matter and that it is true and correct to the best of their information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the Answer are that of counsel, thE~ undersigned has relied upon counsel in taking this Verification. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Dated:_ __ ~ ~ 1 ~~ G f ~ _ Dated:_ ~rt~.'r~~:~ _ ,,~ Jere ' L. Ch les ~--~, ~'` ~~~ Brian Charles Dated:_ `, ~ ~J I ~~ ~ ~ _ ~~ Elizabeth Charles 507749 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Answer and New Matter 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 August <~ , 2012: Richard B. Druby, Esquire Nestico Druby, PC 1135 East Chocolate Avenue Suite 300 Hershey, PA 17033 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER ~ _. ~/ ~7 eff r ~on~J. Shipm y VERIFICATION I, Elizabeth Charles, have read the foregoing Joinder Complaint, 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; I 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.. Dated: 1 ~- ~ ,~ ~ (~ '! ... ~ ~,~ ~ fi % ~ ~ Elizabeth C arles CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Complaint to Join Additional Defendant, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 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 October 31, 2012: Richard B. Druby, Esquire Nestico Druby, PC 1135 East Chocolate Avenue, Suite 300 Hershey, PA 17033 Counsel for Plaintiff Christina A. Israel, Esquire Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Counsel for Additional Defendant, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWA~ RT & WEIDNER By: /'~- ~ Jo R. Ninosky Christina A. Israel Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15~' Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Direct Dial: (717) 783-1464 Plaintiff NICHOLAS LOFTUS, v. JEREMY L. CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLES, And ELIZABETH CHARLES, v. Defendants PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, TO ALL PARTIES: Additional Defendant _ -I _ ,.~ . ~~1~;}'., , i` v • i ., ~ 6 _' ^ n 7' "~ 1 ~.k~ 7 1r ~.. ~ ep F, ~~ A IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED No 11-4937-CIVIL NOTICE TO PLEAD YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED to respond to the within NEW MATTER and NEW MATTER CROSS-CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS, JEREMY L. CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLES, and ELIZABETH CHARLES, within twenty (20) days of the date of service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, Dated: November 16, 2012 LINDA L. KELLY ATTO EY ENE C A. I , P 20 94 Deputy Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15~' Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Direct Dial: 717-783-1464 Christina A. Israel Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15~' Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Direct Dial: (717) 783-1464 NICHOLAS LOFTUS, Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA JEREMY L. CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLES, And ELIZABETH CHARLES, Defendants v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Additional Defendant No 11-4937-CIVIL ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT'S ANSWER_ NEW MATTER AND NEW MATTER CROSS-CLAIM TO DEFENDANTS' JOINDER COMPLAINT AND NOW comes the Additional Defendant, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as "Commonwealth Defendant"), by and through the Office of Attorney General, who files an Answer, New Matter and New Matter Cross-Claim to Defendants' Joinder Complaint, as follows: 1. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant does not have sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. By way of further answer, Plaintiff s action is against Defendants Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles, not the Commonwealth Defendant. 2 4. Denied. Plaintiff s Complaint against Defendants Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles and Elizabeth Chazles was filed on July 25, 2012. 5. Exhibit "A" to Defendant's Joinder Complaint speaks for itself. 6. Exhibit "A" to Defendant's Joinder Complaint speaks for itself. 7. Exhibit "A" to Defendant's Joinder Complaint speaks for itself. 8. Exhibit "B" to Defendant's Joinder Complaint speaks for itself. 9. Exhibit "B" to Defendant's Joinder Complaint speaks for itself. 10. Admitted in part. It is admitted that a Writ to Join Additional defendant was issued on August 23, 2012. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant does not have sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments. NEGLIGENCE 11. The Commonwealth Defendant's previous paragraphs of this Answer, New Matter and New Matter Cross-Claim are incorporated herein by reference. 12. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Commonwealth Defendant and/or one or more of its departments, employees or servants was responsible for the care, supervision, maintenance, and/or control of Cedaz Cliff Drive, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. By way of further answer, Cedar Cliff Drive in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is under the care, supervision, maintenance, and/or control of Lower Allen Township of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 13. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, it is specifically denied the Commonwealth Defendant has any duty to keep and maintain Cedaz Cliff Drive, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, as alleged in this pazagraph. 2 Cedar Cliff Drive in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is under the caze, supervision, maintenance, and/or control of Lower Allen Township of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, not the Commonwealth Defendant. 14. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, it is specifically denied the Commonwealth Defendant knew or should have known at any time that the azea of Cedaz Cliff Drive, Cumberland County of the alleged accident upon which this litigation is based is allegedly narrow with little, if any, berm on the side. Cedaz Cliff Drive in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is under the care, supervision, maintenance, and/or control of Lower Allen Township of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, not the Commonwealth Defendant. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without reasonable knowledge or information to form a truth as to the remaining averments. 15. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, it is specifically denied the Commonwealth Defendant knew or should have known at any time that the azea of the alleged accident upon which this litigation is based allegedly did not have white lines painted on the roadway. Cedar Cliff Drive in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is under the care, supervision, maintenance, and/or control of Lower Allen Township of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, not the Commonwealth Defendant. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without reasonable knowledge or information to form a truth as to the remaining averments. 16. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, it is specifically denied the Commonwealth Defendant knew or should have known at any time that the azea of the alleged accident upon which this litigation is based allegedly did 3 not have apedestrian/bicycle lane, as alleged in this pazagraph. Cedaz Cliff Drive in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is under the caze, supervision, maintenance, and/or control of Lower Allen Township of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, not the Commonwealth Defendant. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without reasonable knowledge or information to form a truth as to the remaining averments. 17. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that the Commonwealth Defendant knew or should have known at any time that the conditions of Cedaz Cliff Drive in the area of which the alleged accident occurred posed a dangerous condition for motorists and bicyclists. Cedar Cliff Drive in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is under the care, supervision, maintenance, and/or control of Lower Allen Township of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, not the Commonwealth Defendant. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without reasonable knowledge or information to form a truth as to the remaining averments. 18. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without reasonable knowledge or information to form a truth as to these averments. By way of further answer, Cedar Cliff Drive in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is under the caze, supervision, maintenance, and/or control of Lower Allen Township of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, not the Commonwealth Defendant. 19. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). It is specifically denied that the Commonwealth Defendant was negligent, careless and reckless in any manner with respect to Plaintiff s or Additional Defendants' causes of action, or in any manner as 4 described in subparagraphs (a)-(d). By way of further answer, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(a), claims against the Commonwealth are limited to allegations of "negligence." Allegations of conduct that is alleged to be anything other than "negligent," such as Additional Defendant's inappropriate and baseless allegation of "recklessness" constitute "scandalous or impertinent matter" in violation of Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2), and such allegations are improper and impermissible. Cedar Cliff Drive in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is under the care, supervision, maintenance, and/or control of Lower Allen Township of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, not the Commonwealth Defendant. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without reasonable knowledge or information to form a truth as to the remaining averments. 20. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that the Commonwealth Defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiff's or Additional Defendants' causes of action, as described in Additional Defendants' Joinder Complaint, or that any such alleged negligence caused any alleged injury to Plaintiff. 21. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that the Commonwealth Defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiff's or Additional Defendants' causes of action. It is specifically denied the Commonwealth Defendant is solely liable to, or jointly and severally liable with the Defendants in this matter. WHEREFORE, Additionally Defendant, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor. NEW MATTER 5 22. The Commonwealth Defendant's previous paragraphs of this Answer, New Matter and New Matter Cross-Claim are incorporated herein by reference. 23. The present action is controlled by the provisions of 1 Pa.C.S. §2310 and Act No. 1980- 142, set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. §§8501, et seq., which Acts aze incorporated herein and plead by reference. The Commonwealth Defendant asserts all the defenses contained therein. 24. Liability on the part of the Commonwealth Defendant is denied. 25. The Commonwealth Defendant is specifically entitled to the defenses set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. §8524, which section is incorporated herein and pled by reference. 26. Plaintiff's and Defendants' claims may be barred by the Doctrine of Release. 27. The Commonwealth Defendant invokes any and all common law defenses available to it pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §8524. 28. The Commonwealth Defendant is immune from suit, and therefore Plaintiffs and Defendants' actions are barred. 29. Defendants' 3oinder Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against the Commonwealth Defendant. 30. This action is not within any of the exceptions to immunity as set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. §8522, and therefore is barred. 31. The Commonwealth Defendant did not have notice, written or otherwise, of the allegedly dangerous condition, or in the alternative, if said notice was received, it was not received in sufficient time prior to the alleged accident for the Commonwealth Defendant to have corrected or to have warned Plaintiff of the allegedly dangerous condition. 32. The alleged dangerous condition(s) does not "derive, originate from, or have as its source Commonwealth realty," and therefore, the Commonwealth is immune from suit. 6 33. The Commonwealth Defendant avers that recovery may not be had against it for alleged failures to redesign, change or update designs of state-designated highways, rights-of- ways or fixtures or structures affixed thereto or located thereon. 34. The Commonwealth Defendant is not liable for negligence related to discretionary acts, and therefore this action is barred. 35. All affirmative defenses under Pa.R.C.P. 1030 are asserted and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 36. If the accident occurred as alleged, then the condition complained of did not cause the accident or the damages, injuries and/or losses complained of. 37. Should liability be found on the part of the Commonwealth Defendant, the amounts and types of damages recoverable in the present action are limited and controlled by 42 Pa.C.S. §8528. 38. The Judicial Code at 42 Pa.C.S. §5522(a), which section is incorporated herein and plead by reference, provides that the Commonwealth and the Attorney General must have received written notice of intent to sue within six (6) months from the date the cause of action accrues. In the absence of such notice, this action is barred. 39. The Commonwealth Defendant asserts all defenses available to it under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S. §§1701, et seq., and any successor statute and claims any defenses which may be available pursuant to said Act. 40. The alleged conduct of the Commonwealth Defendant did not cause the Plaintiffs' harm, and therefore the Commonwealth Defendant cannot be held liable for the Plaintiffs' alleged damages and/or losses. 7 41. The Commonwealth Defendant avers that if negligence is found to exist on its part, said negligence was not the proximate cause of Plaintiffs' accident and/or alleged damages, injuries and/or losses. 42. The Commonwealth Defendant is absolved from liability because any negligence alleged on its part merely facilitated the Plaintiffs' alleged damages, injuries and/or losses. 43. Plaintiffs' injuries, as alleged, were caused by other persons or parties which were contributory and/or intervening, superseding causes of Plaintiffs' alleged injuries. 44. Plaintiffs' alleged damages andlor losses were caused by the actions or inactions of other persons or entities and accordingly, 42 Pa.C.S. §7102 is a bar to recovery against the Commonwealth Defendant; or, in the alternative, the Commonwealth Defendant avers that any recovery arising from this action must be diminished in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 45. The accident was caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff, Nicholas Loftus, and/or Defendant, Jeremy Charles. 46. There is no cause of action based upon failure to inspect or improper inspection in that sovereign immunity has not been waived for such claims. 47. At all times material to the happening of the events set forth in Plaintiff s Complaint and Defendants' Joinder Complaint, the Commonwealth Defendant avers Cedar Cliff Drive in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is under the care, supervision, maintenance, and/or control of Lower Allen Township of Cumberland County, not the Department of Transportation. WHEREFORE, Defendant, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. 8 NEW MATTER IN THE NATURE OF ACROSS-CLAIM, PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P.1031.1, AGAINST DEFENDANTS JEREMY L. CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLES. AND ELIZABETH CHARLES 48. The Commonwealth Defendant incorporates, without admission or adoption, the factual averments of Plaintiff's Complaint and Defendants' Joinder Complaint. 49. Liability on the part of the Commonwealth Defendant is denied. 50. If the averments in the Plaintiffs' Complaint and Defendants' Joinder Complaint are established, said averments being specifically denied as they may relate to the Commonwealth Defendant, the Plaintiffs alleged damages, losses and/or injuries complained of were caused solely by Defendants Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles. 51. Defendants have been joined herein to protect the Commonwealth Defendant's right of indemnity and contribution, and the Commonwealth Defendant avers that the Defendants are alone liable to the Plaintiff, or in the alternative, that the above-said Defendant is liable over the Commonwealth Defendant, or jointly and severally liable on the Plaintiff's alleged causes of action. WHEREFORE, Defendant, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. Respectfully submitted, LINDA KELLY ATTORNEY GENERAL By: ` C i na A. srael, LD. #2 6894 Deputy Attorney General DATED: November 16, 2012 9 VERIFICATION I, Christina A. Israel, Esquire, hereby verify that I am counsel for the Commonwealth Defendant in the foregoing action, and also verify that the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. is a A. I e , I . # 0689 Deputy Attorney General Dated: November 16, 2012 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT' S ANSWER, NEW MATTER AND NEW MATTER CROSS-CLAIM TO DEFENDANTS' JOINDER COMPLAINT upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Richard Druby, Esquire Nestico, Druby & Hildarand 840 E. Chocolate Avenue Hershey, PA 17033 717-533-5406 (Attorney for Plaintiff) John R. Ninosky, Esquire Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 (Attorney for Defendants Charles) BY~ 1 ~ n ;~U ~ Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-783-1464 -Direct Dial Attorney General DATED: November 16, 2012 . .. ~ ~ ~~ ~ { . 1 ~'~ JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART 8c WEIDNER By: John R. Ninosky I.D. No. 78000 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 jrn cLDjdsw.com r~~*n `1 7 '} i i L IP _ U ~ ~1~. 1 ~.,~ ~' - ~ tr•~~ _ NICHOLAS LOFTUS, Plaintiff v. JEREMY L. CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLES, and ELIZABETH CHARLES, Defendants NO. 11-4937-CIVI L CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Additional Defendant REPLY OF DEFENDANTS TO NEW MATTER AND NEW MATTER CROSS-CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT AND NOW, come the Defendants, Jeremy L. Charles, Brain Charles, and Elizabeth Charles, by and through their counsel, Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner, P.C., who,files this Reply to the New Matter and New Matter Cross-claim of the Additional Defendant by respectfully stating the following: 22.-47. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph contain conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If an answer is deemed required, the averments contained herein are denied. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor Attorneys for Defendants, Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA as to all parties and claims. NEW MATTER IN THE NATURE OF A CROSS-CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS 48. Defendants incorporate herein by reference their responses to paragraphs 22 through 47 above as if fully set forth at length. 49.-51. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph contain conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If an answer is deemed required, the averments contained herein are denied. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor as to all parties and claims. Respectfully submitted, JOHNSO DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: /Z John R. Ninosky, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 78000 301 Market Street ~ P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Date: November 27, 2012 Counsel for Defendants Charles VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. NO. 1024(c) John R. Ninosky, Esquire, states that he is the attorney for the party filing the foregoing Reply to New Matter and New Matter Cross-claim and 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 unsworn falsification to authorities. /L John .Ninosky, Esquire Attorney for Defendants Date: November 27, 2012 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Reply to New Matter and New Matter Cross- claim 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 November 27, 2012: Richard B. Druby, Esquire Nestico Druby, PC 1135 East Chocolate Avenue, Suite 300 Hershey, PA 17033 Counsel for Plaintiff Christina A. Israel, Esquire Deputy Attorney General Office of Attomey General Torts Litigation Section 15"' Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Counsel for Additional Defendant, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER /L By: hn R. Ninosky SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson F#LEB- "` Sheriff ®t "itu�b� OF' THE PRO T HONI-0 Jody S Smith 2013 MAR 20 PM 3; 08 Chief Deputy Richard W Stewart CUMBERLAND COUNTY Solicitor OFF)CE QF TK SHERIFr PENNSYLVANt A Nicholas Jerome Loftus Case Number JereVS.my Charles(et al.) 2011-4937 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 0311312013 01:36 PM-Deputy Valerie Weary, being duly swom according to law,served the requested Complaint& Notice by handing a true copy to a person representing themselves to be Staci Morgan, Codes Tech. Assistant,who accepted as"Adult Person in Charge"for Lower All=WEARY, Road, Lower Allen Township, Camp Hill, PA 17011. 1 SHERIFF COST: $4146 SO ANSWERS, 11Z, '��- -- March 14, 2013 R-ONIV R ANDERSON, SHERIFF fcj CouniYSu,te Shonf(.?eleosofr wo, WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES ; BY: Christine E. Munion,Esquire i Attorney I.D. No. 72724 2C'13 MAR 22 P/1 10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301 ' Blue Bell,PA 19422 Attorney for Additional CGUNT (215) 274-1731 Lower Allen Township LVANIA Nicholas Loftus COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA V. Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles and NO. 11-4937-CIVIL Elizabeth Charles : Defendants V. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Lower Allen Township Additional Defendant ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance as attorney for Additional Defendant, Lower Allen Township, in the above captioned matter. WILLI EPREN&ASSOCIATES By: 1 f 'CC, ink.Muro , Esquire Attorney for Additional Defendant, Lower Allen Township WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES BY: Christine E. Munion, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 72724 10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Attorney for Additional Defendant, (215) 274-1731 Lower Allen Township Nicholas Loftus COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA V. Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles and NO. 11-4937-CIVIL Elizabeth Charles JURY TRIAL DEMAND w Defendants V. :� , Lower Allen Township BCD -a ,- . :.: Additional Defendant = „t. . DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Additional defendant, Lower Allen Township, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby demand a trial by a jury of twelve. WILLIANV N &ASSOCIATES i Yj By: Christine E.Murtiowtsquire Attorney for Additional Defendant, Lower Allen Township Aj NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: 3 PR - I PM I: v 3 YOU ARE HEPLAINTIFF REBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD THE ENCLOSED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY(20)DAYS FROM THE SERVICE CUMBE M HERETO OR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT MAY BE FENNSYLVANIA ENTERED A;7 YOU. Christine M(Md1G`nn,CS-QME WILLIAM J. FERREN &ASSOCIATES BY: Christine E. Munion, Esquire Attorney I.D.No. 72724 10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Attorney for Additional Defendant, (215) 274-1731 Lower Allen Township Nicholas Loftus COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA V. Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles and NO. 11-4937-CIVIL Elizabeth Charles JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants V. Lower Allen Township Additional Defendant ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP'S ANSWER TO JEREMY L. CHARLES,BRIAN CHARLES and ELIZABETH CHARLES' JOINDER COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER Additional Defendant Lower Allen Township,by and through its counsel, William J. Ferren and Associates files this Answer to Defendant Jeremy L. Charles,Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles' Joinder Complaint with New Matter and in Support thereof states as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form an opinion as to the truth of the matters asserted and they are therefore denied. 2. Admitted 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form an opinion as to the truth of the matters asserted and they are therefore denied. 4. Admitted,upon information and belief. 5. Admitted. Plaintiff s Complaint speaks for itself. 6. Admitted. Plaintiff's Complaint speaks for itself. 7. Admitted. Plaintiff s Complaint speaks for itself. 8. Admitted,upon information and belief. 9. Admitted. Original Defendants' New Matter speaks for itself. NEGLIGENCE 10. Additional Defendant incorporates by reference its response to paragraphs 1-9 of the Joinder Complaint as though the same were set forth herein at length. 11. Admitted. 12. Denied. Additional defendant is advised by counsel that the corresponding averments constitute conclusions of law to which no response is necessary and therefore the same are denied. 13. Denied. Additional defendant is advised by counsel that the corresponding averments constitute conclusions of law to which no response is necessary and therefore the same are denied. 14. Denied. Additional defendant is advised by counsel that the corresponding averments constitute conclusions of law to which no response is necessary and therefore the same are denied. 15. Denied. Additional defendant is advised by counsel that the corresponding averments constitute conclusions of law to which no response is necessary and therefore the same are denied. 16. Denied. Additional defendant is advised by counsel that the corresponding averments constitute conclusions of law to which no response is necessary and therefore the same are denied. 17. Denied. Additional defendant is advised by counsel that the corresponding averments constitute conclusions of law to which no response is necessary and therefore the same are denied. 18. Denied. Additional defendant is advised by counsel that the corresponding averments constitute conclusions of law to which no response is necessary and therefore the same are denied. 19. (a. through d.) Denied. Additional defendant is advised by counsel that the corresponding averments constitute conclusions of law to which no response is necessary and therefore the same are denied. 20. Denied. Additional defendant is advised by counsel that the corresponding averments constitute conclusions of law to which no response is necessary and therefore the same are denied. By way of further reply, additional defendant specifically denies that it was the cause of any injury to the Plaintiff in fact or at law. Strict proof of same is hereby demanded. Furthermore, additional defendant is entitled to the defenses and immunities under the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. 8542 et. seq. 21. Denied. Additional defendant is advised by counsel that the corresponding averments constitute conclusions of law to which no response is necessary and therefore the same are denied. By way of further reply, additional defendant specifically denies that it liable to the Plaintiff in fact or at law. Strict proof of same is hereby demanded. Furthermore, additional defendant is entitled to the defenses and immunities under the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. 8542 et. seq. NEW MATTER 22. Defendant raises all affirmative defenses provided by Pa.R.C.P. 1030. 23. Defendant is considered a political subdivision or an agent of a political subdivision whose liability for claims in tort is statutorily prescribed by the Pennsylvania Political Subdivisions Tort Claim Act,42 Pa. C.S.A. §8542 (hereinafter referred to as"The Act"). 24. The Act provides a general grant of immunity to political subdivisions, their departments and employees, when acting within the scope of their office or duties. 25. The Act further provides limited exceptions under which recovery for tort claims may be made against political subdivisions such as defendants. 26. Plaintiffs' cause of action is or may be barred or otherwise limited by the Pennsylvania Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8241 et seq. 27. Plaintiffs' cause of action is barred because plaintiffs have failed to give notice to the defendants within the six(6)month statute of limitations as set forth in 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8522. 28. Some if not all of Plaintiffs' allegations of negligence are not causes of action that fall within exceptions to the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act,42 Pa.C.S.A. §8541 et. seq. 29. Defendant had no notice, nor can it be reasonably charged with notice under the circumstances, that a dangerous condition existed at a sufficient time prior to the incident to have taken protective measures. 30. Any benefits received by plaintiffs or to which plaintiffs may be entitled other than the proceeds from a life insurance policy are deductible from any damages which may be assessed against the defendants. Act of October 5, 1980, P.L. 693,No. 142 §221(e) 42 Pa. 8553 et§Leq. 31. Any claim by plaintiffs against the defendant is barred or limited by the Act of October 5, 1980, P.L. 693,No. 142 Pa. C.S.A. §8541 et seq. providing governmental immunity. 32. If any injuries and/or damages were sustained by the plaintiffs as averred in their Complaint, they were caused in whole or in part by persons other than the defendant and over whom the defendant had no control and for whose actions defendant is not liable. 33. Whatever injuries and damages, if any, were sustained by plaintiffs as averred in their Complaint were caused in whole or in part by conditions and circumstances beyond the control of the defendant. 34. Plaintiffs' claims are barred or substantially reduced because of plaintiffs' failure to act reasonably or timely to mitigate damages. 35. Any negligence of the defendant was not a substantial factor in causing the harm complained of by plaintiffs. 36. The claims of plaintiffs are barred by the appropriate statutes of limitations and repose. 37. Defendant cannot be primarily liable for the alleged injuries of the plaintiffs. 38. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 39. Defendant was not negligent. 40. Defendant did not cause any alleged, harm, injury or loss. 41. The negligent act or omissions of other individuals or entities constituted superseding, intervening causes of the damages and/or injuries alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiffs. 42. Defendant is not responsible for persons, events, circumstances or conditions beyond Defendant's control. 43. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred in whole or in part by assumption of the risk. 44. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred in whole or in part, or reduced by Plaintiff s contributory and/or comparative negligence. 45. Plaintiffs have not sustained any injuries cognizable under Pennsylvania law as a consequence of defendant's alleged action. 46. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because Plaintiff has sustained no injury in fact. 47. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238,pertaining to delay damages, is inapplicable under the facts of the present case, and is unconstitutional and in violation of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 48. Without waiver of the above defense, to the extent that delay damages are alleged, any such delay was not caused by Defendant but was caused by Plaintiffs, or by a circumstance not the fault of Defendant, and delay damages should not be assessed for same. 49. Plaintiffs' may have entered into a release which bars and/or limited recovery in this action. 50. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. 51. Plaintiffs' claims, if any, may be reduced and/or limited by any collateral source of compensation and/or benefit. 52. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate damages. WHEREFORE, Additional Defendant demands judgment in its favor and against all other parties together with interests and costs. WILLIAM J. FERREN &ASSOCIATES By: Chris lBe-Vr-Uunion, Esquire Attorney for Additional Defendant, Lower Allen Township VERIFICATION I, Thomas Vernau, state that the facts in the foregoing Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint with New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief This Verification is made with knowledge of the penalties contained in 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904,relating to unworn verification to authorities. By: — THOMAS VERN Dated: 3 1-116-1a WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES BY: Christine E. Munion, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 72724 10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Attorney for Additional Defendant, (215) 274-1731 Lower Allen Township Nicholas Loftus COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA V. Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles and NO. 11-4937-CIVIL Elizabeth Charles JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants : V. Lower Allen Township : Additional Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Christine E. Munion, Esquire, hereby certify that I have served upon all persons listed below a true and correct copy of Defendant Lower Allen Township's Answer to Original Defendants' Joinder Complaint with New Matter in the above-captioned matter this date to all parties listed below: Richard B. Druby, Esquire Matthew Ridley, Esquire Nestico Druby, P.C. John R. Ninosky, Esquire 1135 East Chocolate Avenue Johnson Duffie Suite 300 301 Market Street Hershey, PA 17033 Lemoyne, PA 17043 WILLIAM J. FERREN SSOCIATES By: Chri ' e E. Munion, Esquire Attorney for Additional Defendant, Lower Allen Township Dated: March 26, 2013 ' OF THE PRO HCN TAR`r` 2013 APR 17 Plf 12: GO CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Richard B. Druby, Esquire I.D.No. 61904 NESTICO DRUBY, PC 1135 East Chocolate Avenue Suite 300 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-5406 (717) 533-5717 fax NICHOLAS LOFTUS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 11-4937-CIVIL JEREMY L. CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLES, and ELIZABETH CHARLES, CIVIL ACTION Defendant. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED V. LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP Additional Defendant PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff,Nicholas Loftus, and files this Reply to Additional Defendant's New Matter, as follows: 22. No response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are conclusions of law and are therefore denied. 23. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Act speaks for itself and,to the extent that the Additional Defendant misconstrues or mischaracterizes the Act, the allegations are denied. 24. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Act speaks for itself and, to the extent that the Additional Defendant misconstrues or mischaracterizes the Act, the allegations are denied. 25. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Act speaks for itself and, to the extent that the Additional Defendant misconstrues or mischaracterizes the Act,the allegations are denied. 26. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Act speaks for itself and, to the extent that the Additional. Defendant misconstrues or mischaracterizes the Act, the allegations are denied. 27. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 28. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 29. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 30. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 31. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 32. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. 2 r 33. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 34. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 35. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 36. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 37. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 38. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 39. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 40. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 41. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. 42. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 43. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 3 44. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required,the allegations are denied. 45. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 46. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 47. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 48. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 49. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 50. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 51. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 52. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Nicholas Loftus respectfully demands judgment in his favor and against the Defendants and Additional Defendant in an amount that exceeds the $50,000.00 limit 4 r set forth in Cumberland County for compulsory arbitration, interest, costs, damages for delay and any other relief the Court finds just and proper. NESTICO DRU , P By: /ichard B. Druby Attorney I.D.No. 61 35 E. Chocolate Avenue Suite 300 Hershey, PA 17033 t5--113 (717) 533-5406 Telephone Date: `j` Attorneys for Plaintiff 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard B. Druby, Esquire, of the law firm of Nestico Druby, PC, hereby certify that on the 15th day of April, 2013, a copy of the foregoing document was sent via First Class U.S. Mail, postage paid, to the following: John R. Ninosky, Esquire JOHNSON DUFFIE 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 Christine E. Munion, Esquire WILLIAM J. FERREN &ASSOCIATES 10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 and B. Druby 6 NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: DEFENDANT YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD - THE ENCLOSED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND NEW MATTER CROSSCLAIM WITHIN TWENTY(20) DAYS FROM THE SERVICE HERETO OR A DEFAULT v JUDGMENT MAYJK ENTERED AGAINST YOU.. -' C i ' "i M.Munion,MUIRE WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES BY: Christine E. Munion, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 72724 10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Attorney for Additional Defendant, (215) 274-1731 Lower Allen Township Nicholas Loftus COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA V. Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles and NO. 11-4937-CIVIL Elizabeth Charles JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants V. Lower Allen Township Additional Defendant ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP'S AMENDED ANSWER TO JEREMY L. CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLES and ELIZABETH CHARLES' JOINDER COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND NEW MATTER CROSS-CLAIM AGAINST JEREMY L. CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLES and ELIZABETH CHARLES Additional Defendant Lower Allen Township, by and through its counsel, William J. Ferren and Associates files this Amended Answer to Defendant Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles' Joinder Complaint with New Matter and New Matter Cross- Claim and in Support thereof states as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form an opinion as to the truth of the matters asserted and they are therefore denied. 2. Admitted 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge with which to form an opinion as to the truth of the matters asserted and they are therefore denied. 4. Admitted, upon information and belief. 5. Admitted. Plaintiff's Complaint speaks for itself. 6. Admitted. Plaintiff's Complaint speaks for itself. 7. Admitted. Plaintiff's Complaint speaks for itself. 8. Admitted, upon information and belief. 9. Admitted. Original Defendants' New Matter speaks for itself. NEGLIGENCE 10. Additional Defendant incorporates by reference its response to paragraphs 1-9 of the Joinder Complaint as though the same were set forth herein at length. 11. Admitted. 12. Denied. Additional defendant is advised by counsel that the corresponding averments constitute conclusions of law to which no response is necessary and therefore the same are denied. 13. Denied. Additional defendant is advised by counsel that the corresponding averments constitute conclusions of law to which no response is necessary and therefore the same are denied. 14. Denied. Additional defendant is advised by counsel that the corresponding averments constitute conclusions of law to which no response is necessary and therefore the same are denied. 15. Denied. Additional defendant is advised by counsel that the corresponding averments constitute conclusions of law to which no response is necessary and therefore the same are denied. 16. Denied. Additional defendant is advised by counsel that the corresponding averments constitute conclusions of law to which no response is necessary and therefore the same are denied. 17. Denied. Additional defendant is advised by counsel that the corresponding averments constitute conclusions of law to which no response is necessary and therefore the same are denied. 18. Denied. Additional defendant is advised by counsel that the corresponding averments constitute conclusions of law to which no response is necessary and therefore the same are denied. 19. (a. through d.) Denied. Additional defendant is advised by counsel that the corresponding averments constitute conclusions of law to which no response is necessary and therefore the same are denied. 20. Denied. Additional defendant is advised by counsel that the corresponding averments constitute conclusions of law to which no response is necessary and therefore the same are denied. By way of further reply, additional defendant specifically denies that it was the cause of any injury to the Plaintiff in fact or at law. Strict proof of same is hereby demanded. Furthermore, additional defendant is entitled to the defenses and immunities under the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. 8542 et. seq. 21. Denied. Additional defendant is advised by counsel that the corresponding averments constitute conclusions of law to which no response is necessary and therefore the same are denied. By way of further reply, additional defendant specifically denies that it liable to the Plaintiff in fact or at law. Strict proof of same is hereby demanded. Furthermore, additional defendant is entitled to the defenses and immunities under the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. 8542 et. seq. NEW MATTER 22. Additional Defendant raises all affirmative defenses provided by Pa.R.C.P. 1030. 23. Additional Defendant is considered a political subdivision or an agent of a political subdivision whose liability for claims in tort is statutorily prescribed by the Pennsylvania Political Subdivisions Tort Claim Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8542 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act"). 24. The Act provides a general grant of immunity to political subdivisions, their departments and employees, when acting within the scope of their office or duties. 25. The Act further provides limited exceptions under which recovery for tort claims may be made against political subdivisions such as defendants. 26. The Complaint and/or Joinder Complaint fail to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. 27. The Complaint and/or Joinder Complaint is or may be barred or otherwise limited by the Pennsylvania Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8241 et seq. 28. The Complaint and/or the Joinder may be barred because the parties have failed to give notice to the additional defendant within the six (6) month statute of limitations as set forth in 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8522. 29. Some if not all of the allegations in the Complaint and/or the Joinder Complaint are not causes of action that fall within exceptions to the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §8541 et. seq. 30. Additional Defendant had no notice, nor can it be reasonably charged with notice under the circumstances, that a dangerous condition existed at a sufficient time prior to the incident to have taken protective measures. 31. Any benefits received by plaintiffs or to which plaintiffs may be entitled other than the proceeds from a life insurance policy are deductible from any damages which may be assessed against the defendants. 42 Pa.C.S.A.§.8553. 32. The Complaint and/or the Joinder Complaint may be barred or limited by the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. 8542, et. seq. 33. If any injuries and/or damages were sustained by the plaintiff as averred in his Complaint, they were caused in whole or in part by persons other than the additional defendant and over whom the additional defendant had no control and for whose actions defendant is not liable. 34. Whatever injuries and damages, if any, were sustained by plaintiff as averred in his Complaint were caused in whole or in part by conditions and circumstances beyond the control of the additional defendant. 35. Plaintiff s claims are barred or substantially reduced because of plaintiffs' failure to act reasonably or timely to mitigate damages. 36. Any negligence of the additional defendant was not a substantial factor in causing the harm complained of by plaintiffs. 37. The Complaint and/or Joinder Complaint are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 38. Plaintiffs Complaint and/or the Joinder Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 39. The negligent act or omissions of other individuals or entities constituted superseding, intervening causes of the damages and/or injuries alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiff. 40. Plaintiff s claims may be barred in whole or in part by assumption of the risk. 41. Plaintiff s claims may be barred in whole or in part, or reduced by Plaintiff s contributory and/or comparative negligence. 42. Plaintiff may have entered into a release which bars and/or limited recovery in this action. 43. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. 44. Plaintiffs' claims, if any, may be reduced and/or limited by any collateral source of compensation and/or benefit. 45. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate damages. 46. The Complaint and/or Joinder Complaint are barred by the doctrine of assumption of the risk. 47. The Complaint and/or Joinder Complaint are barred by the doctrines of laches, waiver and estoppel. 48. The Complaint and/or Joinder Complaint's alleged damages, if any, occurred due to the intervening and superseding acts of others, over whom Answering Additional Defendant neither controlled nor had the ability to control. 49. The complaint and/or Joinder Complaint are barred and/or limited as Plaintiff and/or Joinder Plaintiff have failed to mitigate their damages. 50. The injuries alleged in the Complaint and/or Joinder Complaint, if any were caused solely by the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of others over whom Additional Defendant exercised no control. 51. Any acts or omissions of Additional Defendant alleged to constitute negligence was not a substantial cause or factor of the subject incident and/or did not result in the injuries and/or losses alleged by the Plaintiff. 52. The injuries alleged in the Complaint, if any, were caused solely by the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of others over whom Additional Defendant exercised no control, including but not limited to Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles. WHEREFORE, Answering additional defendant respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against all other parties as well as costs. CROSS-CLAIM PURSUANT TO Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 AGAINST DEFENDANTS JEREMY L. CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLES and ELIZABETH CHARLES 53. Additional defendant incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if set forth herein at length. 54. For the purposes of asserting a cross-claim against original defendants Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles, Additional Defendant, Lower Allen Township incorporates by reference herein, without admission thereof, all material allegations of fact and law contained in Plaintiff's Complaint. 55. If the allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint are shown to be true, which is specifically denied, then the original defendants in this action are primarily liable therefore, and liable over to Additional Defendant Lower Allen Township by way of indemnity for any amounts which Lower Allen Township might be required to pay Plaintiff, or, in the alternative, Defendants Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles are liable to Lower Allen Township for contribution. WHEREFORE, additional defendant respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against all other parties as well as costs. WILLIAM EE N�& ASSOCIATES C_._ ' By. Christine ff M n' n, Esquire Attorney for A ditional Defendant, Lower Allen Township VERIFICATION I, Christine E. Munion, Esquire, state that the facts in Defendant Lower Allen Township's Amended Answer to Original Defendants' Joinder Complaint with New Matter and New Matter Cross-Claim are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This Verification is made with knowledge of the penalties contained in 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn verification to authorities. By. t istine E. M nio , Esquire Dated: 5 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Nicholas Loftus Plaintiff V. Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles and NO. 11-4937-CIVIL Elizabeth Charles JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants V. Lower Allen Township Additional Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Christine E. Munion, Esquire, hereby certify that I have served upon all persons listed below a true and correct copy of Defendant Lower Allen Township's Amended Answer to Original Defendants' Joinder Complaint with New Matter and New Matter Cross-Claim in the above-captioned matter this date to all parties listed below: Richard B. Druby, Esquire Matthew Ridley, Esquire Nestico Druby, P.C. John R. Ninosky, Esquire 1135 East Chocolate Avenue Johnson Duffle Suite 300 301 Market Street Hershey, PA 17033 Lemoyne, PA 17043 WILUAW.-FER11JEN & ASSOCIATES r By: hristine E'Muniofi, Esquire Attorney for Additional Defendant, Lower Allen Township � r Dated: ' � 11� yiLE0--0(1 I'gf .1'E M SEP -5 PM 2*. 35 JOHNSON,DUFFIE,STEWART&WERLAN� O �{ Attorneys for Defendants, By: John R. Ninosky ENNSYLVANIA Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles I.D. No. 78000 and Elizabeth Charles 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 jrn jdsw.com NICHOLAS LOFTUS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 11-4937-CIVIL JEREMY L. CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLES, and ELIZABETH CHARLES, CIVIL ACTION —LAW Defendants V. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Additional Defendants DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND NEW MATTER CROSS-CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP AND NOW, come the Defendants, Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles, and Elizabeth Charles, by and through their counsel, Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, P.C., who file this Reply to Additional Defendant's New Matter and New Matter Cross-Claim by respectfully stating the following: 22. -52. Denied. The averments contained in these paragraphs contain conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed required, the averments contained herein are denied. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles, and Elizabeth Charles, respectfully request judgment be entered in their favor as to all claims asserted against them in this litigation. CROSS-CLAIM PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 1031.1 AGAINST DEFENDANTS JEREMY L CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLES, AND ELIZABETH CHARLES 53. The responses herein are incorporated as if set forth herein at length. 54. - 55. Denied. The averments contained in these paragraphs contain conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed required, the averments contained herein are denied. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles, and Elizabeth Charles, respectfully request judgment be entered in their favor as to all claims asserted against them in this litigation. Respectfully submitted, JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART&WEID.NER By: John R. Ninosky, Esquire J Attorney I.D. No. 78000 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Date: September 5, 2013 Counsel for Charles Defendants d. VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. NO. 1024(c) John R. Ninosky, Esquire, states that he is the attorney for the party filing the foregoing Defendants' Reply to New Matter and New Matter Cross-Claim of Additional Defendant Lower Allen Township and 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 unsworn falsification to authorities. JOHNSON, DUFFLE, STEWART&WEIDNER By: fohn R.'Ninosky, Esquire Attorney I.D. 78000 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 E-mail: jrn@jdsw.com Attorney for Charles Defendants Date: September 5, 2013 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Reply to New Matter and New Matter Cross- Claim of Additional Defendant Lower Allen Township 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 September 5, 2013: Richard B. Druby, Esquire Nestico Druby, PC 1135 East Chocolate Avenue, Suite 300 Hershey, PA 17033 Counsel for Plaintiff Christine E. Munion, Esquire William J. Ferren &Associates 10 Sentry Parkway—Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Counsel for Additional Defendant Lower Allen Township JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART&WEIDNER By: JZhn R. Ninosky 9 _` re F1R0 fHONQ TA,R,F ""SEP 13 AM 11: 14 COUNTY PENNS YLV COU COU Richard B. Druby, Esquire I.D. No. 61904 NESTICO DRUBY, PC 1135 East Chocolate Avenue Suite 300 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-5406 (717) 533-5717 fax NICHOLAS LOFTUS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 11-4937-CIVIL JEREMY L. CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLES, and ELIZABETH CHARLES, CIVIL ACTION Defendant. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED V. LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP Additional Defendant PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT'S AMENDED NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff,Nicholas Loftus, and files this Reply to Additional Defendant's Amended New Matter, as follows: 22. No response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are conclusions of law and are therefore denied. 23. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Act speaks for itself and, to the extent that the Additional Defendant misconstrues or mischaracterizes the Act, the allegations are denied. 24. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required,the Act speaks for itself and, to the extent that the Additional Defendant misconstrues or mischaracterizes the Act,the allegations are denied. 25. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Act speaks for itself and,to the extent that the Additional Defendant misconstrues or mischaracterizes the Act, the allegations are denied. 26. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Act speaks for itself and, to the extent that the Additional Defendant misconstrues or mischaracterizes the Act, the allegations are denied. 27. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 28. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 29. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 30. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 31. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 32. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 2 33. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 34. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 35. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 36. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required,the allegations are denied. 37. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 38. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 39. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required,the allegations are denied. 40. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 41. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. 42. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required,the allegations are denied. 3 43. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required,the allegations are denied. 44. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 45. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required,the allegations are denied. 46. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required,the allegations are denied. 47. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 48. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required,the allegations are denied. 49. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required,the allegations are denied. 50. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required,the allegations are denied. 51. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required,the allegations are denied. 52. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Nicholas Loftus respectfully demands judgment in his favor and against the Defendants and Additional Defendant in an amount that exceeds the $50,000.00 limit 4 set forth in Cumberland County for compulsory arbitration, interest, costs, damages for delay and any other relief the Court finds just and proper. 53. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 54.-55. The allegations of these paragraphs are directed to a party other than Plaintiff. As such, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, any allegations that in any way are directed to or refer to Plaintiff and that are in any way inconsistent with the allegations set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint are specifically denied. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Nicholas Loftus respectfully demands judgment in his favor and against the Defendants and Additional Defendant in an amount that exceeds the $50,000.00 limit set forth in Cumberland County for compulsory arbitration, interest, costs, damages for delay and any other relief the Court finds just and proper. NESTIC17DRV. C By: / ichard B. D y Attorney I.D. . 6 0 1135 E. Chocolate Avenue Suite 300 Hershey, PA 17033 (717) 533-5406 Telephone Date: I l ( 3 Attorneys for Plaintiff 5 f CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard B. Druby, Esquire, of the law firm of Nestico Druby, PC, hereby certify that on the 11 th day of September, 2013, a copy of the foregoing document was sent via First Class U.S. Mail, postage paid, to the following: John R. Ninosky, Esquire JOHNSON DUFFIE 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 Christine E. Munion, Esquire WILLIAM J. FERREN &ASSOCIATES 10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 — ;z - Ri and B. Druby 6 tr" PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL 14 NOV ` ) PH 2: (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate)CUME3ERLAND COUNTY Y PENNSYLVANIA TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case for a Jury Trial. CAPTION OF CASE jentire caption must be stated in full) (check one) ❑ Civil Action—Law ❑Appeal from arbitration Nicholas Loftus (other) (Plaintiff) No. 114937 Civil Term vs. The trial list will be called on January 7,2014 Jeremy L. CHarles, Brian Charles and and Elizabeth Charles (Defendant) Pretrials will be held on January 22, 2014 (Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials) vs. Lower Allen Township Trials commence on February 3, 2014 Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: Richard B. Druby, Esquire Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: John R. Ninosky, Esquire JOHNSON DUFFIE Christine E. Munion, Esquire 301 Market Street WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES Lemoyne, PA 17043 10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 This case is ready for trial. Signed: ALL I:/�./ Print N e: Richard B. Dr� quire Date: October 29, 2013 Attorney for: Plaintiff OVA-6961'7011 /6j o_g(-19 uits Nicholas Loftus COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PA v. Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles and NO. 11-4937-CIVIL Elizabeth Charles JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants Lower Allen Township : � r . Additional Defendant : ,c' c)c ; Z© }; <.,,,, STIPULATION DISMISSING LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP ^:. It is hereby STIPULATED and AGREED by and among counsel and their respective clients that Defendant,Lower Allen Township, is hereby dismissed without prejudice f • this la, suit. This Stipulation may be filed in counterparts. /," 1 ip - .„„,,,,,,,,e.ii..,,,.....4166./ 'chard B. Dru. , Esq i ire "C1 istine E. ion,Esquire Attorney for Plall tiff Attorney for Defendant Lower Allen Township Alk L, I I i Jo -` Ninosk squire Attorney for Jeremy Charles, Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles APPROVED BY THE COURT: J. Nicholas Loftus COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PA V. Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles and NO. 11-4937-CIVIL Elizabeth Charles JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants r; V. Lower Allen Township s R -5 , Additional Defendant e) � D ZZ.Y CZ5 ' 1!' STIPULATION DISMISSING LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP ' It is hereby STIPULATED and AGREED by and among counsel and their respective clients that Defendant,Lower Allen Township,is hereby dismissed without AAttomneyfor suit. This Stipulation may be filed in counterparts. ire "C istine E. r4 ion, Esquire Attorney for Defendant Lower Allen Township w i AVw 11A li z Z V-i Jo Ninosk , squire Attorney for Jeremy Charles, Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles APPROVED BY THE COURT: cli r t L3 - ' /Q. Qt LL- PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR JURY TRI 0E1 20 11-; le: 05 (Must be typewritten and submitted in POUTCY LVA1-.!it% TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case for a Jury Trial. CAPTION OF CASE jentire caption must be stated in full' Nicholas Loftus (Plaintiff) vs. Jeremy L. Charles, Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles (Defendant) vs. (check one) II. Civil Action — Law n Appeal from arbitration (other) No. 11-4937 Civil Term The trial list will be called on November 10, 2014 and Pretrials will be held on November 26, 2014 (Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials) Trials commence on December 8, 2014 Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: Richard B. Druby, Esquire, Nestico Druby, P.C. 1135 East Chocolate Avenue, Suite 300, Hershey, PA 17033 Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: John Ninosky, Esquire JOHNSON DUFFIE 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 This case is ready for trial. Signed: Print N e: Richard B. Druby, Date: October 17, 2014 Attorney for: Plaintiff ‚2975 P -*‘_-0431/ NICHOLAS LOFTUS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW JEREMY L. CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLES : and ELIZABETH CHARLES, Defendants : 2011-4937 CIVIL TERM RE: CIVIL TRIAL LIST ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 10th day of November, 2014, this being the time and place set for the call of the civil trial list, and Richard B. Druby, Esquire, on behalf of the plaintiff, having indicated this matter is ready for trial, and pursuant to an agreement by defense counsel as to the same, this matter shall remain on the trial list for December 8th, 2014. By the Court, Christ L. Peck, J. //Nestieo Druby, Esquire Richard B. Druby, Esquire For the Plaintiff /John Ninosky, Esquire, For the Defendants Court Administration 6.4DL' Prothonotary :vae ecru ii&ak-ad /!/11/;q kl‘e> ..,1„ -71 ren CZ) CD C) "11 C-) -‹ NICHOLAS LOFTUS, Plaintiff v. JEREMY L. CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLES and ELIZABETH CHARLES, Defendants IN RE: A pretrial November 26, 2014, before #7 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 11-4937 CIVIL TERM . CIVIL ACTON JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRETRIAL CONFERENCE conference was held on Wednesday, the Honorable Edward E. Guido, Judge. Present for the Plaintiff was Richard B. Druby, Esquire, and present for the Defendants was John R. Ninosky, Esquire. This is a case of admitted liability. All that is at issue are the amount of the damages. Counsel indicate that there are no conflicts with regard to scheduling. The case should take one day to try. There are Settlement is unlikely. no complicated evidentiary issues. By the Court, Edward E. Guido, J. Richard B. Druby, Esquire. Attorney for Plaintiff John R. Ninosky, Esquire Attorney for Defendants Court Administrator srs rn C) ZM tp sv CO NICHOLAS LOFTUS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. JEREMY L. CHARLES, DEFENDANT : 11-4937 CIVIL TERM VERDICT 1. State the amount of damages sustained by Plaintiff Nicholas Loftus as a result of Defendant's negligence: Economic Damages: $5,475.51 Non -Economic Damages: $17,500, b a TOTAL: $ 2-2) Q7 , Date: (Z/ g-// 4- eal7itZ 01/-6/7),e6 Foreperson ' NICHOLAS LOFTUS ---- V S ---- JEREMY L CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLES 4..4£IIZ .L4 - CHARLES In the Court of Commons Pleas of Cumberland County, PA., Docket No. 2011-4937 Judge: GUIDO , el Attorney: 41A11 -4.-A rN`( '' Attorney: �0i�'l & !I f 160 SiC-y Date: 410 Ste/ CIA 1g JURORS No. Juror # NAMES OF JURORS CALLED CAUSE P D 2 IIIllI1111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIp DEC08-326 SHEAFFER, JUSTIN S 3 1111111111011111111II11111111111111110 DEC08-6 EICKHOFF, HEATHER N 4 IIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIVIIIIIIIIIIIilII C08 ' . : ► 1..2. I 1 5 111111111111111111111111111111110110 DEC -08- : - - , . ' .• 6 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIII1111IIII DEC08-71 WISMAN, SANDRA M 7 111111111111111111IIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN DEC08-318 WEIBLEY, MARCUS R I EC - _- 9 I111111111111111111111111101111111110 DEC08-129 RIGGS, WENDY W 14 1110111111111111nRI11111lull 1111110 DEC08-51 STEIGERWALT, DANE P 11 1 111111 11111 11111 11111 1111111111 1111 110 DEC08-336 BENNIE, KELLY R 12 111011E1111111111111111111111111111II DEC08-156 ETTER, KAREN A 13 lIIIIII111111111111111011101111111110 DEC08-26 , 14 IICI IIIIIg1111III11111111111NIB DEC08-128 WENZEL, CARRIE A 15 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 DEC08-243 MCGLYNN, DEBORAH L 16 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlI11 DEC08-127 SWAILES, VIKK1 K 17 -• H ; .,- ,. 63 18 1111111111111111111111111111111111111m DEC08-12 BOUMAN, KELI J -, 20 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 DEC08-216 LASHAY, MARGARET 21 1 11 1111 11111 1 111 1 11111 11111 11111 101110 DEC08-73 HARTMANN, AMBER C 22 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIII DEC08-280 SCHWARTZ„ JR PAUL M NICHOLAS LOFTUS JEREMY L CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLE CHARLES In the Court of Commons Pleas of Cumberland County, PA., Docket No. 2011-4937 Judge: GUIDO Attorney: Attorney: Date: JURORS No. Juror # NAMES OF JURORS CALLED CAUSE P D 23 1NI1111111111IUImu111111111111 DEC08-19 GERLACH, DUANE D 24 1 uml IN mu nom n11111111111 DEC08-134 SASSAMAN, LAWRENCE A 25 !mum lull 11 111 Iuu 111►11I DEC08-176 HIPPENSTEEL, CORNELIA U 26 11111111111111 II 1101 11111 11111 1111 III DEC08-290 ROMBERGER, JOHN R 27 I IIIJI lllIl Iilu Illluull 111u 1111 uI DEC08-220 HUMPHREY, KENNETH M 28 1111111 IIIII 11111111111111111111111111 DEC08-7 JENKINS, EVAN R 29 1 11 111111 III 1ul111I111E1111111111I1111 DEC08-309 BRZEZINSKI, BRIAN F 30 I umulun111um11111111101111 II I DEC08-307 HAIR, SANDRA A 31 111111111111 1111111111 1E1111111IIIII Ill DEC08-148 W1SEGARVER, SHARON B 32 Illmnll111111111111110111111111II DEC08-345 HARBOLD, DANA G LUNDQUIST, DENNIS C 34 11111111111111111 I I 111111 m l l I I I I U I DEC08-266 DUNCANSON, JEANNE R 35 ulmllmmmnmlmoan DEC08-131 MATOLYAK, JILL L 36 I111111mlllmlullum11muI1111 DEC08-8 GIFFORD, THOMAS R 37 1111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII DEC08-155 DOUGHERTY, DANIEL M 38 11111111111111111 mll 1111111111 1111111l DEC08-242 ANDERSON, CHRISTOPHER W 39 40 1111111 1111111111111 111111111111111111 DEC08-50 GILBERT, FRANCINE J 41 1111111 11111111111110a1111m111111111 DEC08-170 FRITZ, GEORGE M 42 11111111110111111111111111111111111III DEC08-167 DAUBE, DANIELLA D 43 11111 11111 DEC08-142 SMITH, STEPHEN S 44 IIulI111111U1111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII DEC08-164 COBAUGH, AMANDA N NICHOLAS LOFTUS ---- V S --- JEREMY L CHARLES, BRIAN CHARLE CHARLES JURORS In the Court of Commons Pleas of Cumberland County, PA., Docket No. 2011-4937 Judge: GUIDO Attorney: Attorney: Date: No. Juror # NAMES OF JURORS CALLED CAUSE P D 45 111111111111m0111111111111111111 DEC08-231 MCQUAIT, ROBERT E 46 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII DEC08-287 SHERIFF, JOHN K 4 HNNII EC08-261 KOSTELAC- MIruAEL _1 ----l<- _%'- 48 48 IIIIIIIIIIIII111111111 liIIIIIIIIIIIIIII DEC08-113 WILLIS, HARRIET B 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 NICHOLAS LOFTUS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 11-4937 CIVIL TERM JEREMY L. CHARLES, BRIAN'CHARLES and ELIZABETH CHARLES, Defendants CIVIL ACTION JURY RIAL DEMANDED ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 8th day of December, 2014, this action is dismissed as to Brian Charles and Elizabeth Charles. They are excused from further presence in this proceeding. By the Court, `Richard B. Druby, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff /John R. Ninosky, Esquire Attorney for Defendant srs Edward E. Guido, J. r7;