Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-4063 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MASA YO QUICK, an individual, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION No. 01./- !./OIoO c,~il v. PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS IN CIVIL ACTION THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, a non-profit corporation (educational), Filed on Behalf of: Plaintiff Defendant. Counsel of Record for This Party: 208 0\d Mo..\'f\ Ii\,,\~\"\ rp......IL..\R\\ \(P~ Gianni Floro, Esquire PA 10 No. 85837 TARASI, TARASI & FISHMAN, P.C. 510 Third Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 P: (412) 391-7135 F: (412)471-2673 A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MASA YO QUICK, an individual, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION No. at{ - 'fOcA3 v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, a non-profit corporation (educational), Defendant. PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS IN CIVIL ACTION TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please issue a Writ of Summons with respect to the Defendant in the above- captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, TARASI, TARASI & FISHMAN, P.C. -~-::> ~ 'I '-...l, Date: 0=' '.09'0 , c ~~~-- By:.>', ~ ,/ Gi nni FI 0, Esquire for the Plaintiff ~----- A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MASAYO QUICK, an individual, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiff, No. 04-41063 v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, a non-profit corporation (educational), Defendant. REPLY TO NEW MATTER Filed on Behalf of: Plaintiff Counsel of Record for This Party: Gianni Floro. Esquire PA 10 No. 85837 TARAS I , TARASI & FISHMAN, P.C. 510 Third Avenue Pittsbur~lh, PA 15219 P: (412) 391-7135 F: (412) 471-2673 A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED No. 04-4063 VERIFICATION I hereby certify that I have read the foregoing Reply to New Matter, and that the statements made therein are true and correct to the besll of my knowledge, information and belief. This statement and verification is made SUbjl3ct to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to ;authorities, which provides that if I knowingly make false statements, I may be subject to criminal penalties. Date: & fa.. 5 JOe;- 1l?~~ {)cJd' Masayo Quick No. 04-4063 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MASAYO QUICK, an individual, CIVIL ACTION-LAW Plaintiff, No. 04-4063 v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, a non-profit corporation (educational), Defendant. REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Masayo Quick, individually and by her attorneys, TARASI, TARASI & FISHMAN, P.C. and Gianni Floro, Esquire, and files the following Reply to New Matter, and in support thereof avers that: 47. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Levinson Curtilage houses students and offices. It is denied that the Plaintiff requested student housing initially; rather, it was only after the Plaintiff was unable to procure off-campus housing due to the largest incoming class in the "law school's" hilstory that Plaintiff turned to the Defendant for habitable residential premises. 48. Denied. By way of further response and without waiver of the foregoing, the Plaintiff was constructively unable to "find other housing on her own at any time" in that Plaintiff was a first year student, utilizing financial assistance, who traveled from out-of-state (Colorado), expressly upon the warranties and representations of the Defendant. Moreover, the Plaintiff made several complaints to the student housing officials, including "Karlisma Souders," and she advised the Plaintiff after her September 6, 2002 complaints to Ms. Souders, that the Plaintiff could not leave and No. 04-4063 that leaving would breach her contract with the Defendant. 49. Denied. By way of further response and without waiver of the foregoing, the Plaintiff made several complaints to the student housing officials during the 2002- 2003 school year, alerting the Defendant to the conditions of the student housing. Plaintiffs health condition was not only know to the Defendant, but the Plaintiff also supplied all of her medical costs to Defendant alerting it further of her condition. On September 6, 2002, the Plaintiff sent Ms. Souders information detailing her complaints regarding the condition of the leasehold premises. More,over on May 13, 2003, after the Plaintiffs severe condition developed, the Plaintiff a~lain detailed her complaints to Ms. Souders, and this time received a response from "Nancy LaMont" the Assistant Dean for Administration, admitting that the Defendant was aware of the conditions and that they were a result of ongoing roof leakage. 50. Denied. By way of further response and without waiver of the foregoing, it was not until some time latter than alleged that the Plaintiff was offered alternate housing, and the alternate housing had unreasonable re,strictions and was next to a street light on a high traffic roadway, offering uninhabitable conditions for the purpose required, the study of law. 51. Denied. By way of further response and without waiver of the foregoing, the Defendant is directed to the photographs already provided to it demonstrating the existence of a "moldy condition." By way of further response and without waiver of the foregoing, the law student who occupied the room the year before observed mold all over the wall in her room in August 2001. 2 No. 04-4063 52. Denied. By way of further response and without waiver of the foregoing, the Defendant is directed to the photographs already provided to it demonstrating the existence of a "moldy condition." 53. Denied as a conclusion of law and fact, for which no response is required. Insofar as a response is required it is denied that Levison Curtilage was fit for habitation, especially due to the Plaintiffs health condition that resulted from the "moldy condition," making the living conditions uninhabitable. 54. Denied. By way of further response and without waiver of the foregoing, the Plaintiff made several complaints to the student housing officials during the 2002- 2003 school year, alerting the Defendant to the conditions of the student housing. Plaintiffs health condition was not only know to the Defendant, but the Plaintiff also supplied all of her medical costs to Defendant alerting it further of her condition. On September 6, 2002, the Plaintiff sent Ms. Souders information detailing her complaints regarding the condition of the leasehold premises. Momover on May 13, 2003, after the Plaintiffs severe condition developed, the Plaintiff a!~ain detailed her complaints to Ms. Souders, and this time received a response from "Nancy LaMont" the Assistant Dean for Administration, admitting that the Defendant was aware of the conditions and that they were a result of ongoing roof leakage. 55. Denied. By way of further response and without waiver of the foregoing, the Plaintiff made several complaints to the student housing officials during the 2002- 2003 school year, alerting the Defendant to the conditions of the student housing, and further expecting from her student housing contract to r,eceive habitable conditions; she 3 No. 04-4063 specifically precluded from undertaking repairs by the "housing contract." 56. Denied as a conclusion of law, for which nel response is required. 57. Denied as a conclusion of law, for which no response is required. By way of further response and without waiver of the foregoing, the Plaintiff reasonably relied upon the representations and warranties of the Defendant that she would receive the benefit of her bargain, i.e., habitable conditions. 58. Denied as a conclusion of law and fact, for which no response is required. By way of further response and without waiver of the for,egoing, the Plaintiff made several complaints to the student housing officials durin!~ the 2002-2003 school year, alerting the Defendant to the conditions of the student housing. Plaintiff's health condition was not only know to the Defendant, but the Plaintiff also supplied all of her medical costs to Defendant alerting it further of her condition. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Masayo Quick, demands judgment in excess of $25,000 plus costs of suit, attorney fees, and demands a trial by jury. Respec1fully submitted, TARAS I , TARASI & FISHMAN, P.C. ~ .~. "::;;( Esquire 10 No. 85837 Attorney for the Plaintiff 510 Third Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 P: (41:n 391-7135 F: (412)471-2673 4 No. 04-4063 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to New Matter was served on counsel for the Defendant on this 30th day of June, 2005, by United States Mail, First Class, postage pre-paid addressed as follows: Charles E. Wasilefski, Esquire Peters & Wasilefski 2931 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17100-1250 TARAS I , TARASI & FISHMAN, P.C. . ro, Esquire mey for the Plaintiff PA ID No. 85837 510 Third Avenue Pittsbur!;1h, PA 15219 P: (412) 391-7135 F: (412) 471-2673 .' '.:t;p (j ~ "'" = ~ <...c: c. o I Ul -T) ~ ~ :C-n (nr=: "f'p:J .0-,- -;........ .....:.> '~<;-, ::r.::.;j Qo ~tT1 ~ ~?' 'Xl -<, t;? 01 ,...'I @ J0 ~ .~ ~ ~ 0::,\ V'{ ....... RJ V') v' is- , ..J: () U -, v\ .~ ().} 5:4 -; ..., r, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland WRIT OF SUMMONS Masay Quick, an individual Plaintiff Court of Common Pleas Vs. No. 04.4063 In CivilAction-Law The Pennsylvania State University, a non-profit corporation (educational) 208 Old Main University Park, PA 16802 Defendant To The Pennsylvania State University, a non-profit corporation (educational) You are hereby notified that Masayo Quick, an individual the Plaintiff has / have commenced an action in Civil Action-Law against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you. (SEAL) Date August 16, 2004 CURTIS R. LONG Prothonotary By Jlt~pf(( ~6 Attorney: Name: Gianni Floro, Esq. Address: 510 Third Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Attorney for: Plaintiff Telephone: 412-391-7135 Supreme Court ill No. 85837 TRUE COPY FROM RECORD :JllStlmony whereof. I here unto set my hanC This ~~ of said Cou at Car Sle. PI. ~~of ~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MASA YO QUICK, an individual, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, No. 04-4063 v. ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 402 THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, a non-profit corporation (educational), Filed on Behalf of: Plainltiff Defendant. Counsel of Record for This Party: Gianni Floro, Esquire PA ID No. 85837 TARASI, TARASI & FISHMAN, P.C. 510 Third Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 P: (412) 391-7135 F: (412) 471-2673 A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MASAYO QUICK, an individual, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, No. 04-4063 v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, a non-profit corporation (educational), Defendant. ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE PURSUANT TiD Pa.R.C.P. 402 TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Attached hereto as exhibit "1" is the original Acceptance of Service, for upon the Defendant, The Pennsylvania State University of the Writ of Summons in the above captioned action. Respectfully submitted, TARASI, TARASI & FISHMAN, P.C. Date: os' 3\'0 'i A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MASA YO QUICK, an individual, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, No. 04-4063 v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, a non-profit corporation (educational), Defendant. ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE: I, James Horne, Esquire, on behalf of Defendant, The Pennsylvania State University, hereby acknowledge my acceptance of original service of the Writ of Summons issued in the above-captioned action and certify that I am authorized to do so. Respectfully submitted, McQuaide Blasko Date: ~i O"\'JU>lf BY:~~ J s Horne, Esquire P No. :u.cro 'C) Attorney fOI" the Defendant 901 University Drive, 2nd Floor State Colle!~e, PA 16801 A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED. Exhibit "1" Civil 'Division No. 04-4063 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Acceptance of Service Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 402 was served on counsel for the Defendant on this 31st day of August, 2004, by United States Mail, First Class, postage pre-paid addressed as follows: James Horne, Esquire McQuaide Blasko 901 University Drive, 2nd Floor State College, PA 16801 TARAS I , TARAS I & FISHMAN, P.C. 510 Third Avenue pittsburgh, PA 15219 P: (412)391-7135 F: (412) 471-2673 o c f ii~;"'t .<:. 0:" C;t:C, .~- .. w. ~~:~~ ~ ......, "'" = .r- o .,., ;t-., 11;::::::: -Orn :DC) C "7 ~CJ T-r (3-d -:;I"{'-) (5r-ri S:J ~ U) rq ''0 I r" -0 :x r:-i' .:;:- co PETERS & W ASILEFSKI By: Charles E. Wasilefski, Esquire Attorney ill #21027 2931 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17116-1250 [717] 238-7555 Attorney for The Pennsytvania State University MASA Y QUICK, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 04-4063 PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: Please issue Rule upon Plaintiff, Masay Quick, to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days from service hereof or suffer judgment non pros. PETERS & W ASILEFSKI B{J;J~M~?l C CHARLES E. W ASILEFSKI Attorney 10 #21027 U 2931 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 [717] 238-7555 Attorney for Defendant Date: "1(('((Ol RULE TO THE PLAINTIFF: You are hereby ordered and directed to file your Complaint against the Defendant, The Pennsylvania State University, in the above-captioned matter within twenty (20) days of service of this Rule against you or suffer judgment non pros. Dated:Jlp~ L J q ~6OS' , Prothonotary, Cumberland CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that I, Pamela J. Crum, a legal assistant in the law offices of Peters & Wasilefski, have this ~ day o~\<~.\ 2005, served a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT upon all parties by depositing same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to counsel of record as follows: Gianni Floro, Esquire 510 Third Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 ~~~~~ Pamela J. Crum (J -" -.:;1 \ r~ - \...:.:) ~o r:? ~ .) 0"\ ------ ~ PETERS & W ASILEFSKI By: Charles E. Wasilefski, Esquire Attorney ill #21027 2931 North Front Street Harrisburg, P A 17110~ U50 [717] 238.7555 Attorney for The Pennsylvania State University MASA Y QUICK, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 04-4063 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE This is to certify that I, Charles E. Wasilefski, Esquire, an attorney in the law offices of Peters & Wasilefski, have served upon Plaintiff, a Rule to File Complaint by depositing same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, certified mail #7002 2410 0000 4123 1443. Service has been made as evidenced by PS Form 3811 attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A". Rule mailed 4/20/05 addressed as follows: Gianni Floro, Esquire 510 Third Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (~!O?- R Z! Charles E. Wasilefski Sworn and subscribed to before me this~ day Of~~\ \ ,2005. Notary Public My commission expires: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ~ Notarial Seal Pamela J. Crum. Nolaly Public aty Of Harrisburg. Da<Jp/1In County My Canmission ExpIres Aug. 24, 2006 Member, Pennsylvania Association Of Notaries CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that I, Pamela J. Crum, a legal assistant in the law offices of Peters & Wasilefski, have this ~ day of ~~~2\ 2005, served a true and correct copy of the foregoing AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE upon all parties by depositing same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to counsel of record as follows: Gianni Floro, Esquire 510 Third A venue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 ~,~~ Pamela J. Crum .' ' , . Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Item 4 If Restricted Delivery Is _Ired. . Print your name end address on the rev..... so that we can return the card to you. . Atlach this card to the back of the mall piece, or on the front If space permits. 1, ArtIc:le Addressed to: c;\c...",<" \ ~\()\LC) l:) \ () "".:~ c\ ~~ "- \)~"o~ \So.\1\, 2, ArticJe Number (lIonsfer from service label) PS Form 3811, FoIDnloOy 20001 D. Is deI\ve1y add.... dlffersnt ""'" Item 11 0 Ves If YES, enter delivel'Y address below: 0 No 3. -lYPe '&J.Certlfled Mall 0 Exp.... Mall -cl'RegI_ 0 Retum Receipt "" Merc~ o Insured Mall 0 C.O.D. 4. R_clod Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Vo. 7002 2410 0000 4123 1443 eorn..tk: ReIum F*:eIpt 10251&-02-M-1&40 ("> c: -~ ~- -;::'tt:r1 nlfP ~ -:J' --~j ;-~" (~. ~.') :. I~(j ~{--; (.2 5.~'c: ~ -> 'c:> C.-;' ,'..11 ~--. :::?, -" r<" ...0 -0 .-'<.- (-:'? 1"-~ (....) ,", ..;- /------- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MASAYO QUICK, an individual, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiff, No. 04-4063 v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, a non-profit corporation (educational), Defendant. COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION Filed on Behalf of: Plaintiff Counsel of Record for This Party: Gianni Floro, Esquire PA 10 No. 85837 TARASI, TARAS I & FISHMAN, P.C. 510 Third Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 P: (412) 391-7135 F: (412) 471-2673 A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED Civil Action-Law No. 04-4063 NOTICE TO DEFEND 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 Ifiling 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 Iclaimed 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 INOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH IBELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 Civil Action-Law No. 04-4063 VERIFICATION I hereby certify that I have read the foregoing COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION, and that the statements made therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This statement and verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if I knowingly make false statements, I may be subject to criminal penalties. Date: oS' cr;f' O~ ~;c.5: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MASAYO QUICK, an individual, CIVIL ACTION-LAW Plaintiff, No. 04-4063 v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, a non-profit corporation (educational), Defendant. COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Masayo Quick, individually and by her attorneys, TARAS I , TARASI & FISHMAN, P.C. and Gianni Floro, Esquire, and files the following Complaint in Civil Action, and in support thereof avers that: 1. The Plaintiff, Masayo Quick, is an adult individual, currently residing 714 East Cucharras Street, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903. 2. The Defendant, The Pennsylvania State University, is a non-profit Pennsylvania corporation (educational), with its registered address at 208 Old Main, University Park, Centre County, Pennsylvania16802. 3. At all relevant times pertinent to this action, the Defendant was the owner of "The Dickinson School of Law" and its residence hall known as "Levinson Curtilage," located at 150 South College Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. (Ex. 1, "www.dsl.psu.edu/abouUtour.cfm") 4. At all times pertinent to this action, the Defendant maintained the property located at 150 South College Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013, as a "rental property." Civil Action-Law No. 04-4063 5. On or about August 17, 2002, up until May 18, 2003, the Defendant rented said 150 South College Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013, to the Plaintiff, Masayo Quick, where she resided during her first year of law school. 6. At all relevant times pertinent to this action, the rental property at 150 South College Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013, was contaminated with toxic mold. 7. The Plaintiff, after residing in the rental property, began to experience adverse health problems while lawfully occupying her dorm room within the Levinson Curtilage residence hall located at 150 South College Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 8. In October 2002, the first signs and symptoms of the Plaintiff's adverse health condition appeared as small circles of irritation to her right hand, causing flaky, dry and red skin, with attendant pain. 9. By the end of November 2002, the Plaintiff's condition steadily worsened, and in December 2002, both of the Plaintiff's hands were swollen, bleeding from the deep cracks in her skin, and the color of her skin in the affected areas was changing to a gray-ashen color; in addition, her pain and discomfort increased significantly. 10. Between December 2002 and January 2003, the Plaintiff returned to Colorado Springs, Colorado and her adverse health problems began to disipate, her skin returned to normal by the end of her "winter break." 11. Upon the Plaintiff's return to law school in early January, 2003, to begin 2 Civil Action-Law No. 04-4063 her "Spring Semester of 2003," the adverse health conditions returned upon her first night in her dorm room and the rash returned the next morning after spending the first night in her dorm. 12. The Plaintiff's adverse health condition increased in severity and worsened and her skin began to ooze a thin yellow liquid, sometimes profusely. 13. The painful and uncomfortable condition kept the Plaintiff up all night and increased the difficulties of her studies. 14. The Plaintiff's hands were now red and covered in rash, she was unable to shake hands with people; moreover, the rash had now spread to her legs and back. 15. The Plaintiff sought medical treatment, but the treatments were unsuccessful in relieving her symptoms; however, they were successful in keeping the symptoms from worsening. 16. After consulting with her physicians the Plaintiff was advised to examine her residence hall for signs of mold, which she did and personally observed mold covered areas of her common living area. 17. The Plaintiff has been diagnosed with "dermatitis," secondary to her mold exposure. 18. After the Plaintiff moved out of the dorms her symptoms continued for sometime thereafter, leaving her with scarring attendant to the symptoms she suffered. 19. The Plaintiff was also diagnosed with sinitus and respiratory symptoms secondary to her mold exposure. 20. The Plaintiff suffered severe injuries as a result of her mold exposure that 3 Civil Action-Law No. 04-4063 resulted form her residing at 150 South College Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 21. The Plaintiff also suffered and will continue to suffer as a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant, the following damages and injuries, and/or suffered increased severity and/or suffered aggravation of these damages and injuries, all of which may be permanent and lasting in nature: (a) Dermatitis secondary to her mold exposure; (b) sinitus secondary to her mold exposure; (c) erythema secondary to her mold exposure; (d) fissures and scales secondary to her mold exposure; (e) bleeding and oozing skin secondary to her mold exposure; (f) scarring secondary to her mold exposure; and (g) pain and discomfort secondary to her mold exposure; and (h) other symptoms of her mold exposure which have become or may become apparent during the pendency of this action. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the hereindescribed conduct of the Defendant, the Plaintiff underwent numerous medical procedures and examination with the pain and suffering attendant to the use of such procedures, and may require further such treatment in the future; in addition to the cost, expense and time of such treatments. 23. As further direct and proximate result of the hereindescribed conduct of the Defendant, the Plaintiff endured and will in the future experience great bodily pain, 4 Civil Action-Law No. 04-4063 suffering and humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish and inconvenience. 24. As further direct and proximate result of the hereindescribed conduct, the Plaintiff suffered a loss of life's enjoyment. 25. As a further direct and proximate result of the hereindescribed conduct, the Plaintiff was unable to attend to the usual daily duties encountered in life. 26. As a further direct and proximate result of the herein described conduct, the Plaintiff suffered a loss of earnings and diminution of his earning capacity and power. COUNT I - Negligence MASAYO QUICK v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY 27. Paragraphs 1 through 26 are incorporated by reference, as fully as if they were set forth at length herein. 28. The Defendant, The Pennsylvania State University, as lessor, was responsible for the care and maintenance of the rented premises, 150 South College Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 29. The Plaintiff, as the lessee, expected that since all rental payments were made to the Defendant that adequate heat, light and ventilation, serviceable plumbing facilities, secure windows and doors, proper sanitation and proper maintenance would be provided by the Defendant. 30. Through the exercise of reasonable care, the Defendant could have discovered that toxic mold was present in the Plaintiff's living areas. 31. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's failure to exercise 5 Civil Action-Law No. 04-4063 reasonable care and discover that toxic mold was present in the Plaintiff's living area, the Plaintiff suffered those injuries and damages aforedescribed. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Masayo Quick, demands judgment in excess of $25,000, and demands a trial by jury. COUNT 11- Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability MASAYO QUICK v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY 32. Paragraphs 1 through 31 are incorporated by reference, as fully as if they were set forth at length herein. 33. The Defendant, as lessor, was responsible for the care and maintenance of the rented premises, 150 South College Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 34. The Plaintiff, as the lessee, expected that since all rental payments were made to the Defendant that adequate heat, light and ventilation, serviceable plumbing facilities, secure windows and doors, proper sanitation and proper maintenance would be provided by the Defendant. 35. The Defendant, breached the implied warranty of habitability by failing to maintain the leased residence in a condition suitable for use as a residence, i.e., the Defendant failed to properly inspect and subsequently repair conditions leading to the existence and development of the toxic mold's presence in the Plaintiff's living area. 36. The Defendant had notice of the conditions leading to the existence and development of the toxic mold's presence in the Plaintiff's living area, and therefore had notice, constructive or otherwise, of the defect which impaired the habitability of the 6 Civil Action-Law No. 04-4063 premises, i.e., conditions leading to the existence and development of the toxic mold's presence in the Plaintiff's living area. 37. The Defendant failed to make the necessary inspections and repairs to the conditions leading to the existence and development of the toxic mold's presence in the Plaintiff's living area, despite having reasonable time to do so that would have prevent the existence and development of the toxic mold's presence in the Plaintiff's living area. 38. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's failure to properly inspect and repair the existence and development of the toxic mold's presence in the Plaintiff's living area, the Plaintiff suffered those injuries and damages aforedescribed. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Masayo Quick, demands judgment in excess of $25,000 plus costs of suit, attorney fees, and demands a trial by jury. COUNT 11I- Negligence per se and Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability MASAYO QUICK v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY 39. Paragraphs 1 through 38 are incorporated by reference, as fully as if they were set forth at length herein. 40. The Defendant, as lessor, was responsible for the care and maintenance of the rented premises, 150 South College Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 41. The Plaintiff, as the lessee, expected that since all rental payments were made to the Defendant that adequate heat, light and ventilation, serviceable facilities, secure windows and doors, proper sanitation and proper maintenance would be 7 Civil Action-Law No. 04-4063 provided by the Defendant. 42. The Defendant, breached the implied warranty of habitability by failing to maintain the leased residence in a condition suitable for use as a residence, i.e., the Defendant failed to properly inspect and repair the existence and development of the toxic mold's presence in the Plaintiff's living area, prior to renting said premises to the Plaintiff. 43. The Defendant should have known of the existence and development of the toxic mold's presence in the Plaintiff's living area, and therefore should have known, constructively or otherwise, of the defect which impaired the habitability of the premises, i.e., the existence and development of the toxic mold's presence in the Plaintiff's living area. 44. The Defendant failed to make the necessary inspections and repairs to the Plaintiff's living area despite the ability to have reasonable time to do prior to renting said premises to the Plaintiff, so that the Defendant would have prevented the existence and development of the toxic mold's presence in the Plaintiff's living area. 45. The Defendant violated the applicable building and maintenance codes, adopted by this Commonwealth, by failing to properly inspect and/or repair the defective condition of the toxic mold's presence in the Plaintiff's living area. 46. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's failure to properly inspect and repair the Plaintiff's living area prior to renting the premises to the Plaintiff, in violation of the law, and allowing the existence and development of the toxic mold's presence in the Plaintiff's living area, the Plaintiff suffered those injuries and damages 8 Civil Action-Law No. 04-4063 aforedescribed. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Masayo Quick, demands judgment in excess of $25,000 plus costs of suit, attorney fees, and demands a trial by jury. Respectfully submitted, TARAS I , TARASI & FISHMAN, P.C. By: . loro, Esquire ID No. 85837 Attorney for the Plaintiff 510 Third Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 P: (412) 391-7135 F: (412) 471-2673 9 ~I \ ~)}~ I Penn State Dickinson School of Law - Virtual Tour (Welcome) Page I of I PENNSrATE ~ The Dickinson V School of Law l-blne I-.)"'j; ->u InUElr:El Caiendar Sttdt:nt:; Cu(rcnt Students I Alumni & Friends I Apply' Welcome Virtual Tour Welcome from the Dean Virtual Tour About our Community About Penn State Dickinson Visit Us Welcome to a Virtual Tour of The Dickinson School of Law. Use the Directory below to choose a subject. Click the link and you will be taken on a guided virtual tl Enjoy your visit! . Trickett Hall . Classrooms . Law Library . COrT1pute:r LC!bs . Levinson Curti\9.g~ . Hummel HQus~ . Community..La'JLCeI11~r . Directions . Street Map "(:m-, ;;ldU: ~):(:KIf1~;(i' Law. All Hights F~"Se(\d-}(j ;',;'-);1&0 see un http://www.dsl.psu.cdu/aboul/tour.cf111 5/7/2005 I Penn State Dickinson School of Law - www.dsl.psu.edu PENI'lJSrATE ~ The Dickinwn V SchoolofL.aw Virtual Tour Trickett Hall Classrooms Law Library Computer Labs Levinson Curtilage Hummel House Community Law Center Directions Street Map Levinson Curtilage The Levinson Curtilage is a residence hall built around a courtyard, which houses about 60 people. Located adjacent to Trickett Hall, it also houses the Law School's Agricultural Law Research and Education Center. Page 1 of I i,'uurc;.:'{ "li(}r':':j;Ji '/VeL1rllJi ,!},IUi1J,; I Appty I http://www.dsl.psu.edu/about/curtilagc.cfl11 5/7/2005 Penn ~tate Dickinson School of Law - www.dsl.psu.edu PENNSrATE ~ The Dickinson V Sch""lofLaw )'-10Ine Pi'(j\;0C<;\\'iC Sh\dent:;, ',My ! /Uurnni & Page 1 of I ~ Apply' http://www .dsl. psu.edul about/strcetl11al'. c till 5/7/2005 Street Map Virtual Tour Exit U " rl.81) -"".,.",..", Trickett Hall Classrooms Law Library Computer Labs Levinson Curtilage Hummel House Community Law Center Directions Street Map i;C!'L:>:]'\. or: 1.Nt;' 41 (I~a11 Penn State Dickinson is located at 150 S. College Street, Carlisle, PA 17013. :crir;qU ! a'ii AI! F'.i~.F\ts Civil Action-Law No. 04-4063 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint in Civil Action was served on counsel for the Defendant on this 7th day of May, 2005, by United States Mail, First Class, postage pre-paid addressed as follows: Charles E. Wasilefski, Esquire Peters & Wasilefski 2931 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17100-1250 TARASI, TARAS I & FISHMAN, P.C. BY:~ ~ I loro, Esquire Attorney for the Plaintiff PA ID No. 85837 510 Third Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 P: (412) 391-7135 F: (412) 471-2673 ('" .', . , (') >c\ ..,~, 0..":' 1, " (.1 ,-,,) ---- ~. PETERS & W ASILEFSKI By: Charles E. Wasilefski, Esquire Attorney ill #21027 2931 North Front Street Harrishurg, PA 17110-1250 [717] 238-7555 Attorney for The Pennsylvania State University MASA Y QUICK, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 04-4063 NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: PLAINTIFF AND HER COUNSEL YOU ARE REQUIRED to plead to the within Answer with New Matter within twenty (20) days of service hereof, or a default judgment may be entered against you. PETERS & W ASILEFSKl Q--p~~ 11 CHARLES E. W ASILEFSKl Attorney ID #21027 2931 North Front Street Harrisburg. PA 17110 [717] 238-7555 Attorney for Defendant Date: June 16, 2005 , , PETERS & W ASILEFSKI By: Charles E. Wasilefski, Esquire Attorney ID #21027 2931 North Front Street Harrisburg, P A 1711 0 1717J 238-7555 Attorney for Defendant The Pennsylvania State University v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MASAYO QUICK, an individual, Plaintiff THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, a non-profit Corporation (educational), Defendant No. 04-4063 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER FILED BY DEFENDANT, THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY NOW COMES, Defendant, The Pennsylvania State University ("Penn State"), by and through its attorneys, Peters & Wasilefski, and answers Plaintiffs Complaint as follows: I. Defendant, Penn State, admits in part and denies in part the allegations contained in Paragraph I of Plaintiffs Complaint. Upon information and belief, it is admitted that Plaintiff is an adult individual. The remaining allegations are denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Penn State, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 2. Defendant, Penn State, admits the allegations contained III Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 3. Defendant, Penn State, admits the allegations contained III Paragraph 3 ofPlaintitI's Complaint. 4. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff s Complaint. It is specifically denied that said property was maintained as a "rental property". To the contrary, said property was maintained as faculty offices and student residence facilities on the campus of "The Dickinson School of Law". In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in said paragraph pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 5. Defendant, Penn State, admits in part and denies in part the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 oh Plaintiff s Complaints. It is admitted that on or about August 17, 2002 through May 18, 2003, Plaintiff, after requesting on-campus housing, was assigned a room at 150 S. College St, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. It is further stated that at that time, Plaintiff was a first year law student. It is denied, however, that the property was "rented" to Plaintiff. To the contrary, Plaintiff was assigned to a room in the student residence portion of the "Levinson Curtilage" upon her request for on-campus student housing. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 2 6. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff's Complaint. To the contrary, the property was not "rental property". Upon Plaintiffs request for on-campus student housing, she was assigned a room in the "Levinson Curtilage". In further answer, it is specifically denied that at any relevant time, the property was contaminated with "toxic mold". To the contrary, at no time relevant, was there "toxic mold" on or within said property. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies that allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 7. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained III Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff s Complaint. It is specifically denied that the property III question was a "rental property". To the contrary, the property in question contained faculty offices and on-campus student housing. In further answer, after reasonable investigation, Defendant, Penn State, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 8. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs Complaint. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Penn State, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 9. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained III 3 Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs Complaint. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Penn State, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 10. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff s Complaint. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Penn State, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 11. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs Complaint. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Penn State, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 12. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs Complaint. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Penn State, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.c.P. 1029 (e). 13. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs Complaint. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Penn State, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of 4 said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 14. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs Complaint. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Penn State, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. RC.P. 1029 (e). IS. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph IS of Plaintiffs Complaint. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Penn State, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 16. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs Complaint. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Penn State, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. RC.P. 1029 (e). 17. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs Complaint. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Penn State, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. RC.P. 1029 (e). 5 18. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs Complaint. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Penn State, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 19. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs Complaint. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Penn State, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 20. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 oh Plaintiffs Complaint. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff had mold exposure as a result of her residing at 150 S. College St, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. It is further specifically denied that Plaintiff suffered severe injuries or any type of injuries from mold exposure or otherwise as a result of residing at 150 South College Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1 029( e). 21. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained III Paragraph 21 of Plaintiff s Complaint. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages as a result of any act or failure to act on behalf of Defendant, Penn State. To the contrary, no act or failure to act on behalf of Defendant, Penn State, caused or contributed to any of Plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages. In further answer, it is 6 believed and therefore avers that if Plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages, it was as a result of her own negligent actions and/or inactions. In further answer, with regard to the specific injuries and damages claimed, after reasonable investigation, Defendant, Penn State, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 22. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiff's Complaint. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages as a result of any act or failure to act on behalf of Defendant, Penn State. To the contrary, no act or failure to act on behalf of Defendant, Penn State, caused or contributed to any of Plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages. In further answer, it is believed and therefore avers that if Plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages, it was as a result of her own negligent actions and/or inactions. In further answer, with regard to the specific injuries and damages claimed, after reasonable investigation, Defendant, Penn State, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. I029(e). 23. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiff's Complaint. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages as a result of any act or failure to act on behalf of Defendant, Penn State. To the contrary, no act or failure to act on behalf of Defendant, Penn State, caused or contributed to any of Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages. In further answer, it is 7 believed that therefore avers that if Plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages, it was as a result of her own negligent actions and/or inactions. In further answer, with regard to the specific injuries and damages claimed, after reasonable investigation, Defendant, Penn State, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 24. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs Complaint. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages as a result of any act or failure to act on behalf of Defendant, Penn State. To the contrary, no act or failure to act on behalf of Defendant, Penn State, caused or contributed to any of Plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages. In further answer, it is believed and therefore avers that if Plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages, it was as a result of her own negligent actions and/or inactions. In further answer, with regard to the specific injuries and damages claimed, after reasonable investigation, Defendant, Penn State, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. I029(e). 25. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiff s Complaint. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages as a result of any act or failure to act on behalf of Defendant, Penn State. To the contrary, no act or failure to act on behalf of Defendant, Penn State, caused or contributed to any of Plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages. In further answer, it is 8 believed and therefore avers that if Plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages, it was as a result of her own negligent actions and/or inactions. In further answer, with regard to the specific injuries and damages claimed, after reasonable investigation, Defendant, Penn State, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 26. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of Plaintiff's Complaint. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages as a result of any act or failure to act on behalf of Defendant, Penn State. To the contrary, no act or failure to act on behalf of Defendant, Penn State, caused or contributed to any of Plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages. In further answer, it is believed that therefore avers that if Plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages, it was as a result of her own negligent actions and/or inactions. In further answer, with regard to the specific injuries and damages claimed, after reasonable investigation, Defendant, Penn State, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. I029(e). COUNT I - Nel!llil!lence 27. Defendant, Penn State, incorporates its answers as contained in Paragraphs I through 26 above as if fully rewritten herein in response to Paragraph 27 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 9 28. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant, Penn State, is advised and therefore avers that the allegations contained in said paragraph are conclusions of law to which no further answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be necessary, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Penn State, is a lessor. To the contrary, at the request of Plaintiff, a student at "The Dickinson School of Law", student housing was provided to her by "The Dickinson School of Law". In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, believes and therefore avers that "The Dickinson School of Law" did properly maintain the premises at 150 S. College St, Carlisle, Cumberland County, PA 17013. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 29. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained III Paragraph 29 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant, Penn State, is advised and therefore avers that the allegations contained in said paragraph are conclusions of law which require no further answer. To the extent that an answer may be necessary, Defendant, Penn State, denies that Plaintiff was a lessee. To the contrary, at the request of Plaintiff, a student at "The Dickinson School of Law", student housing was provided to her. In further answer, it is stated that adequate heat, light and ventilation, serviceable plumbing facilities, secure windows and doors, proper sanitation and proper maintenance was contained on the premises at 150 S. College St, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 10 30. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant, Penn State, did exercise reasonable care in maintaining the premises at 150 South College Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. In further answer, it is specifically denied that toxic mold was present in said premises. To the contrary, at all relevant times, no toxic mold existed in the premises. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 31. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs Complaint. It is specifically denied that Defendant, Penn State, failed to exercise reasonable care. To the contrary, at all times relevant, Defendant, Penn State, acted in a careful and prudent manner. In further answer, it is specifically denied that toxic mold was present within said premises. To the contrary, no toxic mold existed in the premises. In further answer, no act or failure to act on behalf of Defendant, Penn State, caused or contributed to any of Plaintiff s alleged injuries or damages. To the contrary, if Plaintiff suffered injury and damage as she has alleged, it was as a result of her own negligent actions and/or inactions. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). WHEREFORE, Defendant, Penn State, demands that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed. II COUNT II-Breach ofImplied Warranty of Habitabilitv 32. Defendant, Penn State, incorporates its answers as contained in paragraphs I through 31 above as if fully rewritten herein in response to Paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 33. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 33 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant, Penn State, is advised and therefore avers that the allegations contained in said paragraph are conclusions of law to which no further answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be necessary, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Penn State, is a lessor. To the contrary, at the request of Plaintiff, a student at "The Dickinson School of Law", student housing was provided to her. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, did properly maintain the premises at 150 S. College St, Carlisle, Cumberland County, PA 17013. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 34. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained III Paragraph 34 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant, Penn State, is advised and therefore avers that the allegations contained in said paragraph are conclusions of law which require no further answer. To the extent that an answer may be necessary, Defendant, Penn State, denies that Plaintiff was a lessee. To the contrary, at the request of Plaintiff, a student at "The Dickinson School of Law", student housing was provided to her. In further answer, it is stated that adequate heat, light and ventilation, serviceable plumbing facilities, secure windows and doors, proper sanitation and proper maintenance was 12 contained on the premises at 150 S. College St, Carlisle, Cwnberland County, Pennsylvania. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 35. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 35 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant, Penn State, is advised and therefore avers that the allegations contained in said paragraph are conclusions of law and require no further answer. To the extent that an answer may be necessary, it is specifically denied that the concept of implied warranty of habitability is applicable to this case. To the contrary, under the facts and circwnstances of this case, said legal concept is not applicable. In further answer, to the extent that said legal concept may be applied to this case, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Penn State, breached any implied warranty of habitability. To the contrary, at all times relevant, the premises in question, was habitable and appropriate for student housing. In further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Penn State, failed to maintain the premises in a condition suitable for use as a residence. To the contrary, at all times relevant, Defendant, Penn State, had properly maintained the premises for its intended use. In further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Penn State, failed to properly inspect and repair conditions existing on the premises. To the contrary, Defendant, Penn State, at all times relevant, made reasonable inspections, and when defects were discovered, repaired such conditions. In further answer, is specifically denied that toxic mold was present on the premises. To the contrary, at all times relevant, no toxic mold existed on the premises. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 13 36. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of Plaintiffs Complaint. To the contrary, at no time relevant was there toxic mold present in the premises. In further answer, it is specifically denied that any defect existed in the premises which impaired the habitability of the premises. To the contrary, at all times relevant, the premises was habitable and in an appropriate condition for its intended use. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 37. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 37 of Plaintiffs Complaints. To the contrary, at all times relevant, Defendant, Penn State, made appropriate and proper inspections and repairs to said premises. In further answer, it is denied that any toxic mold was present on the premises. To the contrary, at all times relevant, no toxic mold was present on the premises, including Plaintiff s living area. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 38. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 38 of Plaintiffs Complaint. To the contrary, at all times relevant, Defendant, Penn State, made appropriate and proper inspections of and repairs to said premises. In further answer, it is specifically denied that toxic mold was present within said premises. To the contrary, no toxic mold existed in the premises. In further answer, no act or failure to act on behalf of Defendant, Penn State, caused or contributed to any of Plaintiff's alleged injuries or damages. To the contrary, if Plaintiff suffered injury and 14 damage as she has alleged, it was as a result of her own negligent actions. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). WHEREFORE, Defendant, Penn State, demands that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed. COUNT III-Neelieence per se and Breach ofImplied Warranty of Habitability. 39. Defendant, Penn State, incorporates its answers as contained in Paragraphs I through 38 above is a fully rewritten herein in response to Paragraph 39 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 40. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 40 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant, Penn State, is advised and therefore avers that the allegations contained in said paragraph are conclusions of law to which no further answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be necessary, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Penn State, is a lessor. To the contrary, at the request of Plaintiff, a student at "The Dickinson School of Law", student housing was provided to her. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, did properly maintain the premises at 150 S. College St, Carlisle, Cumberland County, PA 17013. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 41. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained III Paragraph 41 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant, Penn State, is advised and therefore avers that the allegations contained in said paragraph are conclusions of law which 15 require no further answer. To the extent that an answer may be necessary, Defendant, Penn State, denies that Plaintiff was a lessee. To the contrary, at the request of Plaintiff, a student at "The Dickinson School of Law", student housing was provided to her. In further answer, it is stated that adequate heat, light and ventilation, serviceable plumbing facilities, secure windows and doors, proper sanitation and proper maintenance was contained on the premises at 150 S. College St, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 42. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 42 of Plaintiff's Complaint. Defendant, Penn State, is advised and therefore avers that the allegations contained in said paragraph are conclusions of law and require no further answer. To the extent that an answer may be necessary, is specifically denied that the concept of implied warranty of habitability is applicable to this case. To the contrary, under the facts and circumstances of this case, said legal concept does not apply. In further answer, to the extent that said legal concept may be applied to this case, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Penn State, breached any implied warranty of habitability. To the contrary, at all times relevant, the premises in question, was habitable and appropriate for student housing. In further answer, it is specifically denied that the premises was not maintained in a condition suitable for use as a residence. The contrary, at all times relevant, Defendant, Penn State, properly maintained the premises for its intended use. In further answer, it is specifically denied that the premises was not properly inspected and repaired. To the contrary, Defendant, Penn State, at all times 16 relevant, made reasonable inspections, and when defects were discovered, repaired such conditions. In further answer, it is specifically denied that toxic mold was present on the premises. To the contrary, at all times relevant, no toxic mold existed on the premises. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. RC.P. 1029 (e). 43. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 43 of Plaintiffs Complaint. It is specifically denied that toxic mold was present on the premises. Therefore, Defendant, Penn State, could not have known, constructively or otherwise, of the alleged presence of toxic mold since it did not exist. In further answer, it is specifically denied that any defect in the premises impaired the habitability of the premises. To the contrary, at no time relevant, did a defect exist in the premises that impaired the habitability of the premises. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. RC.P. 1029 (e). 44. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 44 of Plaintiffs Complaints. To the contrary, at all times relevant, Defendant, Penn State, made appropriate and proper inspections and repairs to said premises. In further answer, is denied that any toxic mold was present in the premises. To the contrary, at all times relevant, no toxic mold was present in the premises, including Plaintiffs living area. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. RC.P. 1029 (e). 45. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 45 of Plaintiff's Complaint. To the contrary, at all times relevant, Defendant, 17 Penn State, made appropriate and proper inspections and repairs to said premises. In further answer, it is specifically denied that toxic mold was present within said premises. To the contrary, no toxic mold existed on the premises. In further answer, no act or failure to act on behalf of Defendant, Penn State, caused or contributed to any of Plaintiffs alleged injuries or damages. To the contrary, if Plaintiff suffered injury and damage as she has alleged, it was as a result of her own negligent actions and/or inactions. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e). 46. Defendant, Penn State, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 46 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant, Penn State, is advised and therefore avers that said allegations are conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be necessary, Defendant, Penn State, specifically denies that it failed to properly inspect and repair the premises prior to Plaintiff occupying her living area within the student housing section in the Levinson Curtilage. To the contrary, Defendant, Penn State, did properly inspect and repaired, where necessary, the premises prior to Plaintiff occupying her living area. In further answer, Defendant, Penn State, did not violate any laws. To the contrary, at all times relevant, Defendant, Penn State, acted in a lawful manner. In further answer, it is specifically denied that toxic mold was allowed to exist and/or develop in Plaintiffs living area. To the contrary, during all relevant times, no toxic mold existed or was allowed to develop within Plaintiff's living area or within the buildings comprising the Levinson Curtilage. In further answer, it is denied that act or failure to act on behalf of Defendant, Penn State, caused or contributed 18 to Plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages. To the contrary, no action or inaction on behalf of Defendant, Penn State, caused or contributed to any of Plaintiffs alleged injuries or damages. If Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages as alleged, said injuries and damages were as a direct and proximate result of Plaintiffs own negligent actions and/or inactions. Defendant, Penn State, further denies said allegations pursuant to Pa. RC. P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Defendant, Penn State, demands that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed. NEW MATTER 47. Plaintiff requested to be housed in student housing and was assigned student housing in the Levinson Curtilage, which also houses faculty offices, meeting rooms, student housing and other offices and facilities for law school related organizations. 48. Plaintiff was free to leave the student housing and find other housing on her own at any time if she found the student housing inadequate for her needs. 49. At no time during the 2002-2003 School Year did Plaintiff complain about any conditions that would alert Defendant, Penn State, to conditions that Plaintiff believed were causing her any type of health problem until one week before the school year ended. 50. Upon being notified that Plaintiff believed that there was something in the Levinson Curtilage that was causing her physical difficulties, 19 .. '" Defendant, Penn State, immediately made other arrangements for alternate housing for Plaintiff until she completed her final examinations and left for the summer break. 5!. At no time has toxic mold or any other type of contaminant been discovered in the Levinson Curtilage. 52. At all times relevant, the Levinson Curtilage did not have toxic mold present within the buildings that comprise the Levinson Curtilage. 53. At all times relevant, the Levinson Curtilage was fit for habitation, and, therefore, if the warranty theory alleged by Plaintiff is applicable to this case, which is denied, then under the facts and circumstances of this case, there was no breach of warranty of habitability. 54. If Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages as alleged, she did not make Defendant, Penn State, aware of such physical conditions or her belief that such physical conditions were being caused by something within the Levinson Curtilage; and, therefore, Defendant, Penn State, could not make other arrangements for Plaintiff or correct a problem of which it was not aware. 55. If Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages as alleged, such injuries and damages were cause by Plaintiffs own negligence in failing to take the necessary precautions to protect herself and to take the necessary steps to remove herself from an environment in which she alleges was causing her physical problems. 56. If Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages as alleged, any claim therefore is barred, in whole or in part, by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 20 . , 57. If Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages as alleged, any claim therefore is barred because Plaintiff assumed the risk. 58. Plaintiff failed to mitigate her mJunes and damages after she became aware of such alleged injuries and damages. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Penn State, demands that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed. PETERS & W ASILEFSKI B Charles E. Wasilefski Attorney ID #2 I 027 2931 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1250 [717] 238-7555, Ext. 110 Attorney for Defendant, The Pennsylvania State University Date: June 16,2005 21 \;....'..,.i" AlNn(/:. o i :[,: "".'!;"".{"'.' Atd";.\./'"l.l j:J(:~::y'_J "U ',""fY\ ./1111...1 91 Nnr SJJl jHl ;)0 ;IfJid 06/15/2005 14:54 FAX 8148654029 PSD RISK ~"AGEIlENT ..PW 1aI002 .. ' I ,I " VERIFICATION I hereby affirm that the following facts are correct: The Pennsylvania State University is a Defendant in the foregoing a~on aDd I am authorized to execute this verification on their behalf. The. ; attached AnSwer with New Matter is based upon information which I have furnished to my counsel !'And information which has been gathered by my counsel in preparation of the defense !of the lawsuit. The language of the Answer with New Matter is that of , counsel and IDOl of me. I have read the Answer with New Matter and 10 the extent that I I the Answer! with New Matter is based upon information that I have given to my counsel. it ~ true and correct to the best of my knowledge. information and belief. To the extent diat the content of the Answer with New Matter is that of counsel. I have relied upon eounsel in making this verification. I hereby acknowledge that the facts set forth in the Uoresaid Answer with New Matter are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Kenneth S. Babe Corporate Controller Dated; J",l I?, U/:':Jtj . " CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that I, Pamela J. Crum, a legal assistant in the law offices of Peters & Wasilefski, have this \\...,. day of ~\S'..L 2005, served a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER FILED BY DEFENDANT, THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY upon all parties by depositing same in the United States mail, first class. postage prepaid, addressed to counsel of record as follows: Gianni Floro, Esquire 510 Third Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 ~~ ~ ~~'-~~ Pamela J. Crum ...... tr~: \~,.~ \.JIS~~ ().&-; _.._Cj ~t.~~"~. '-\'0 O\.l- WP... ::';~\..l t>-:r;. y '6 <;::I -- :-~.... 0:::- ,,~ :,oi -...0 - ~'.~#' :;S -> 'if!, 'F-> ,,:: ,_!,:.ij ""\["J- ""." e_) U PETERS & W ASILEFSKI By: Charles E. Wasilefski, Esquire Attoruey ID #21027 2931 North Front Street Harrisburg, P A 1711 0-1250 [717] 238-7555 Attorney for The Pennsylvania State University MASAY QUICK, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 04-4063 PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE VERJlFICATION OF DEFENDANT. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY. TO ITS ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT TO: THE PROTHONOTARY, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: Kindly replace the Verification previously filed with the Answer with New Matter of Defendant, The Pennsylvania State University, with the attached Verification. PETERS & W ASILEFSKI By:(};1,J;l () CHARLES E. W ASILEFSKI Attorney ID #21027 2931 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 [717] 238-7555 Attorney for Defendant Dated: June 17. 2005 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that I, Pamela J. Crum, a legal assistant in the ~ law offices of Peters & Wasilefski, have this \\ day of-:~~L 2005, served a true and correct copy of the fQregoing PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE VERIFICATION OF DEFENDANT, THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNVERSITY, TO ITS ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT upon all parties by depositing same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to counsel of record as follows: Gianni Floro, Esquire 510 Third Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 ~~~0~'~- Pamela J. Crum VERIFICATION I hereby affirm that the following facts are correct: The Pennsylvania State University is a Defendant in the foregoing action and I am authorized to execute this verification on their behalf. The attached Answer with New Matter is based upon information which I have furnished to my counsel and information which has been gathered by my counsel in preparation of the defense of the lawsuit. The language of the Answer with New Matter is that of counsel and not of me. I have read the Answer with New Matter and to the extent that the Answer with New Matter is based upon information that I have given to my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the Answer with New Matter is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this verification. I hereby acknowledge that the facts set forth in the aforesaid Answer with New Matter are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~~ Kenneth S. Babe Corporate Controller Dated: J()AI& I "I ~ ....' "'" {-;::;> c.J" ,- c;. ~;;..- f..:l I"" Q. ...... ~~ .c'i-<' ,..)0 ~?~ (J -( ..;,':' <:i (~~ ~2:.n ..". ~!-t -., "';~ t:? r-" o IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MASAYO QUICK, an individual, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiff, No. 04-4063 v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, a non-profit corporation (educational), Defendant. ORIGINAL VERIFICATION TO COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION Filed on Behalf of: Plaintiff Counsel of Record for This Party: Gianni Floro, Esquire PA ID No. 85837 TARASI, TARAS I & FISHMAN, P.C. 510 Third Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 P: (412) 391-7135 F: (412) 471-2673 A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MASAYO QUICK, an individual, CIVIL ACTION-LAW Plaintiff, No. 04-4063 v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, a non-profit corporation (educational), Defendant. ORIGINAL VERIFICATION TO COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Masayo Quick, individually and by her attorneys, TARASI, TARAS I & FISHMAN, P.C. and Gianni Floro, Esquire, and hereby files this Original Verification to Complaint in Civil Action, and in support thereof attached as Exhibit "1" is the original verification to the Complaint in Civil Action. Respectfully submitted, TARASI, TARASI & FISHMAN, P.C. -::::::;::::> /E' Gia n ro, squire ID No. 135837 Attorney for the Plaintiff 510 Third Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 P: (412) 3~11-7135 F: (412) 47'1-2673 A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED Civil Action-Law No. 04-4063 VERIFICATION I hereby certify that I have read the foregoing COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION, and that the statements made therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This statement and verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsifieation to authorities, which provides that if I knowingly make false statements, I may be subject to criminal penalties. Date: 5/,;z 3 jus- , t.~. \ No. 04-4063 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Original Verification to Complaint in Civil Action was served on counsel for th,e Defendant on this 20th day of June, 2005, by United States Mail, First Class, postagl9 pre-paid addressed as follows: Charles E. Wasilefski, Esquire Peters & Wasilefski 2931 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17100-1250 TARASI, TARAS I & FISHMAN, P.C. ~ -~/ Gi n 0, Esquire orney for the Plaintiff PA ID No. 85837 510 Third Avenue Pittsburgh" PA 15219 P: (412) 391-7135 F: (412)471-2673 o c- .-.> ~',~.;) co' V""' '.-- ~-~ ,,' rv '- :;~l -< .." o -n .-l :J: -I" fr'-. -0>;:' -00 i::J(.) ,em, (,-~. (:: o o,J;) :.~ - \ MASA YO QUICK, an individual, Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, a non-profit Corporation (educational), Defendant No. 04-4063 CIVIL ACTION - LA W JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: Please mark the docket in the above captioned matter discontinued and ended with prejudice. TARASI & TARASI, P.C. ia . loro, Esquire Attorney # 858! r 510 Third Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2191 [412] 391-7135 Attorneys for Plaintiff Date: \ '-\ v.... \ tv ~ , .. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that I, Pamela J. Crum, a legal assistant in the law offices of Peters & Wasilefski, have this ~ day ~~~"-'L- 2006, served a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE upon all parties by depositing same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to counsel of record as follows: Gianni Floro, Esquire 510 Third Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 ~~~~~ Pamela J. Crum (") ~:.; r<' "-.) = C::~ r;;n o rq (""".l ~ --l I-n nl- r- -Urn :DO (0}~; ,"-"\- (1 >(''5 c:5rn ~ :'.zJ -< w -r; -,~ <.:? w