HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-3180R.J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
BY: Charles W. Marsar, Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court I.D. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Telephone: (717) 234-7828 Gary Englebert, and
~r~imile: 17171 234-6883 Sharon En~lehert
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
SHARON ENGLEBERT :
Plaintiffs :
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YQRK WASTE DISPOSAL. INC.
Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE TO PLEAD
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 an
a/;torney 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
v~ithout 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 Count~' Lawyer Referral Service
2 Liberty Ave.
Carlisle, PA 17013
Telephone (717) 249 - 3166
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 acci6n
dentro de los pr6ximos veinte (20) dfas despu~s de la notificaci6n de esta Demanda y
^viso radicando personalmente o pot medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y
rtdicando en la Corte pot escriro sus defensas de, y objeciones a, las demandas
aquf en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de romar acci6n
como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo pot
cualquier suma de dinero reclamaci6n o remedio solicitado pot el demandante puede
ser dictado en contra suya pot la Corte, sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder
dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted.
USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI
USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO O NO PUEDE PAGARLE A UNO, LLAME O VAYA A LA
SIGUENTE OFICINA PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE ENCONTRAR ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
Cumberland County Lawyer Referral Service
2 Liberty Ave.
Carlisle, PA 17013
Telephone (717) 249 - 3166
R.J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES. P.C.
BY: Charles W. Marsar, Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court I.D. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Telephone: (717) 234-7828 Gary Englebert. and
Facsimile: ~7171 234-6883 Sharon F-n~lebe~
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
GARY ENLGEBERT and : DOCKET NO. O/o .~/~) ~t,~/ "~"~'~
SHARON ENGLEBERT, :
Plaintiffs :
V.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and :
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC., :
Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
1. Gary Englebert, Plaintiff, is an adult-individual who, at all relevant times
hereto, resided at 172 Benders Church Road, Biglerville, PA 17307.
2. Sharon Englebert. Plaintiff. is an adult-individual who, at all relevant times
hereto, resided at 172 Benders Church Road. Biglerville, PA ! 7307.
3. Christopher Hollister, (hereinafter "Defendant Driver") is an adult-
individual and an employee, agent, apparent agent, ostensible agent, and/or servant
who, at all relevant times hereto, resided at 2140 Baltimore Pike, East Berlin, PA 17316.
4. York Waste Disposal, Inc. (hereinal~er Defendant Corporation). is a
corporation which, at all relevant times hereto, was incorporated under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal place of'business at 987 West Trindle
Road, Mechanicsbur§, PA 1705S.
5. Gary and Sharon Englebert both work at the Naval Base (NAVICP) in
Mechanicsburg, PA.
6. Every morning Gary and Sharon drive to work together from their home in
Biglerville to Mechanicsburg.
7. On May 2, 2000, Gary and Sharon were driving to work together as per
their usual route.
8. Gary was driving and Sharon was in the front passenger seat as they
traveled east on Trindle Road.
9. Fortunately both Gary and Sharon were wearing harness seat belts, and
Gary was driving under the speed limit, because just as they at'tempted to pass the
driveway at 5022 East Trindle, Defendant Driver backed a garbage truck directly into
their path.
10. Due to a large tree located at the edge of the driveway, Gary was unable
to see the defendant's truck until it was actually in the roadway.
! 1. Gary immediately hit his brakes in an effor~ to stop before striking the
garbage truck.
12. As Gary applied his brakes, the garbage truck continued to back out onto
the road.
2
13. There was no other reasonable course of action that Gary could have
taken to avoid this collision since oncoming traffic prevented him from swerving left and
the tree, along with telephone poles, prevented him from swerving right.
14. Sharon screamed as their vehicle violently struck the side of the garbage
truck head-on.
15. Instantaneously, Sharon began experiencing constricting chest pains,
while Gary bled from his hand and pain shot though his body.
! 6. Even though Gary and Sharon Englebert were traveling below the posted
speed limit, their vehicle was damaged beyond repair.
17. Several bystanders assisted by pushing the Englebert's vehicle off of the
road.
18. Within minutes of the crash, the police arrived on the scene.
19. After the police officer interviewed the parties and assessed the accident
scene, he concluded that the defendant driver was clearly the sole cause of the accident.
20. When the officer explained to the parties that Defendant Driver caused
the accident by not looking while backing out, the defendant driver nodded admittingly.
21. Although the officer indicated Defendant Driver's traffic violation on the
police report, the decision was made. with Plaintiffs' consent, not to issue a citation to
Defendant Driver.
22. The evening ofthe accident, Gary and Sharon presented to the
Emergency Room of Gettysburg Hospital.
23. Sharon presented due to chest pain. bruising, chipped teeth, neck pain.
sore ribs, fever, and stiffness all over her body.
24. Gary presented due to pain and bruising of'the right hand and wrist, neck
pain. sore ribs, right shoulder pain, right hip pain. right foot pain, headache,
soreness all over his body.
25. X-rays revealed that, rather than the normal curvature, Ga~,'s spine had
been painfully straightened due to the collision.
26. In addition, the physician informed both Gary and Sharon that they were
suffering from whiplash injury and a deeply bruised rib cage.
27. The physician informed Gary and Sharon that they would most likely
experience new aches and pains in the days to follow and to continue care with their
family doctor.
28. Gary and Sharon were ordered not to return to work the rest of the week
in an effort to allow some time for their injuries to recover.
29. On May I I, 2000. Gary and Sharon presented to their family physician for
a follow up evaluation.
30. Sharon was still exhibiting bruising on numerous areas of her body.
31. Gary was still suffering from pain in his neck. back. shoulder, right hip,
and the right side of his rib cage.
32. The family physician prescribed pain and anti-inflammatory medication for
Gary and referred both Gary and Sharon for a course of physical therapy.
4
33. At the initial physical therapy evaluation. Dr. Buohl stated that Gaff was in
very bad shape, and, in fact, he felt that Gary was suffering from a compression fracture
in his vertebrae.
34. Gary endured many grueling physical therapy sessions several times per
week for more than six months.
35. More recently. Gary underwent an orthopedic evaluation, which revealed
he was suffering from a Herniated Nucleus Polposus at the C6-C7 level.
36. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants in
causing the collision, Plaintiffs. Gary and Sharon Englebert, have suffered the injuries and
damages detailed herein.
37. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Gary
and Sharon Englebert have suffered permanent and severe injuries.
38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
herein and incorporated by reference. Plaintiffs. Gary and Sharon Englebert have been
and will continue to be forced to incur liability for medical treatment, medicines,
hospitalizations and similar miscellaneous expenses throughout their adult lives and a
claim is made therefor.
39. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs. Gary and Sharon Englebert have
undergone and in the future will undergo great physical pain and suffering, great
inconvenience in carrying out their daily activities, loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment,
and emotional distress and a claim is made therefor.
40. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs. Gary and Sharon Englebert have been
and in the future will be subject to great humiliation, disfigurement and embarrassment
and a claim is made therefor.
41. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs. Gary and Sharon Englebert have
sustained in the past and will sustain in the future a loss of earnings, a permanent
impairment of their earning power and capacity and a claim is made therefor.
42. As a direct and proximate result o£Defendants' negligence as alleged
herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert have been
advised and therefore aver that the damages and injuries alleged herein are permanent
and a claim is made there£or.
43. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, the
truck driven by Defendant Driver collided with the Englebert's vehicle causing Gary
Englebert to sustain severe, extensive and permanent personal injuries including but not
limited to his right hand, wrist, and shoulder, as well as his back, neck, and sternum, and
numerous other areas of injury and pain requiring medical treatment and therapy, and
may require medical treatment and therapy in the fi~ture, and a claim is made therefor.
44. As a direct and proximate result o£the negligence of Defendants,
the vehicle driven by Defendant-Driver collided with the Englebert's vehicle causing
Sharon Englebert to sustain severe, extensive and permanent personal injuries including
but not limited to her face, mouth, sternum, back, neck, and numerous other areas of
6
injury and pain requiring medical treatment and therapy, and may require medical
treatment and therapy in the future, and a claim is made therefor.
45. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff.
Sharon Englebert, has been deprived of the care, companionship, and services of her
husband, Gary Englebert, for all of which damages are claimed.
COUNT I - NEGUGENCE
GARY ENGLEBERT and SHARON ENGLEBERT
!/.
CHRISTOPHER HOLUSTER
46. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1- 45 of Plaintiff's Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
47. Regarding the accident, which is the subject matter of this Complaint,
Defendant Driver was negligent, careless, and/or reckless in the operation ora motor
vehicle in the following particulars:
(a) operating his vehicle in violation of'the ordinances of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles.
including backing into a lane of travel without reasonably checking to see if any
vehicles were there and reckless driving, which constitutes negligence as a
matter of' law;
(b) failing to have the vehicle under proper and adequate control in
order to stop or avoid striking the Englebert's vehicle;
(c) failing to keep an appropriate lookout to avoid striking the
Englebert's vehicle;
(d) failing to maneuver his vehicle appropriately in order to avoid
striking the Englebert's vehicle;
(e) operating the vehicle without due regard for the rights, safety,
well being, and position of Gary and Sharon Englebert under the circumstances;
(f) operating his vehicle negligently, carelessly, and/or recklessly by
blindly backing into oncoming traffic;
(h) improperly, inappropriately and/or illegally backing in front of the
Plaintiffs vehicle;
(i) failing to yield the right of'way to oncoming traffic; and
(j) failing to appropriately]judge the time and distance available to
pull out onto the street in front of' Plaintiff's vehicle·
48. Defendant Driver is liable to Plaintiffs for their injuries and damages as
Ileged herein as set forth in paragraphs thirty-six (36} through forty-five (45) above,
which are incorporated herein by reference as if'set forth at length.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert demand ]judgment
against Defendant, Christopher Hollister, in an amount in excess of TWENTY-FIVE
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00), together with interest and costs thereon as allowed
by law.
COUNT II - VICARIOUS LIABIUTY
GARY ENGLEBERT and SHARON ENGLEBERT
¥.
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
49. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1- 45 of Plaintiff's' Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
50. Regarding the accident, which is the subject matter of this Complaint,
Defendant Corporation was vicariously negligent, careless, and/or reckless in the
operation of a motor vehicle by having an employee, agent, apparent agent, ostensible
agent and/or servant:
(a) operating his vehicle in violation of the ordinances of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles.
including backing into a lane of travel without reasonably checking to see if any
vehicles were there and reckless driving, which constitutes negligence as a
matter of law;
(b) failing to have the vehicle under proper and adequate control in
order to stop or avoid striking the Englebert's vehicle;
(c) failing to keep an appropriate lookout to avoid striking the
Englebert's vehicle:
(d) failing to maneuver his vehicle appropriately in order to avoid
striking the Englebert's vehicle;
(e) operating the vehicle without due regard for the rights, safety,
well being, and position of Gary and Sharon Englebert under the circumstances;
9
operating his vehicle negligently, carelessly, and/or recklessly by
blindly backing into oncoming traffic;
(h) improperly, inappropriately and/or illegally backing in front of the
Plaintiffs vehicle;
(i) failing to yield the right ofway to oncoming traffic; and
{j) failing to appropriately judge the time and distance available to
pull out onto the street in front of Plaintiffs vehicle.
S1. Defendant Corporation is liable to Plaintiffs for their injuries and damages
herein as set forth in paragraphs thirty-six (36} through forty-five {45) above,
which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert demand judgment
against Defendant, York Waste Disposal, Inc., in an amount in excess of TWENTY-FIVE
THOUSAND DOLLARS {$25,000.00), together with interest and costs thereon as allowed
by law.
l0
COUNT III - LOSS OF CONSORTIU.~
SHARON ENGLEBERT
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLUSTER and YORK WASTE DISPOSAL. INC.
52. The allegations contained in Paragraphs l- 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference as if fully set Forth.
53. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff.
Sharon Englebert, has been deprived of the care. companionship, services, society and
consortium of her husband, Gary Englebert, for all of which damages are claimed.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff. Sharon Englebert. demands judgment against Defendants
in an amount in excess of'TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25.000.00), together
with interest and costs thereon as allowed by law.
R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
~lar~es~V, Marsa~
Attorney Identification No. 86072
)ated: 5~' - ~- 2. ,2001
II
VERIFICATION
We. Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert. hereby swear and affirm that the facts and
matters set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of our
knowledge, information and belief.
We understand that the statements made herein are made subject to the
~enalties of Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities.
Sharon Englebert 1/ -
ItJ. MARZELLA & ASSOOAIES, P.C.
BY: (Xmdes W. Marsar, Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court I.D. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Telephone:. {717} 234-7828 Gnry Englebert, and
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
GARY ENGLEBERT and : DOCKET NO. 01-3180
SHARON ENGLEBERT :
Plaintiffs :
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and :
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC. :
Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFf' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' PETflION
FOR LEAVE OF COURT TOJOIN
GARY ENGLERERT AS AODmONAL DEFENDANT
AND NOW this 17'h day of January, comes the Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and
Sharon Englebert, {hereinafter "Plaintiffs") by and through their counsel, RJ. Marzella
and Associates, who file this Response to Defendant's Petition for Leave of Court to Join
Gary Englebert as Additional Defendant and in support thereof aver the following:
1. This action arises out of an automobile accident, which occurred on May
2, 2000 involving the Defendant and the Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert.
2. Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the Cumberland County Court of Common
Pleas on or about May 24, 2001 against the Defendants.
3. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Christopher Hollister negligently backed
his front loader garbage truck out ora driveway and across Trindle Road directly in the
~ath of the Plaintiffs on Trindle Road in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County.
4. Defendants filed an Answer with New Matter on or about August 6, 2001,
denying all allegations of liability and raising in the New Matter the defenses that the
accident was caused by other parties and that Plaintiffs' claim was barred and/or limited
by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act.
5. The parties conducted discovery, including exchange of Interrogatories,
Request for Production of Documents, and depositions of both the Plaintiffs and the
Defendant driver.
6. Following the completion of discovery, on or about January 2, 2002,
counsel for the Defendants filed a Petition for Leave of the Court to Join Plaintiff, Gary
£nglebert, as Additional Defendant (hereinafter "The Petition").
7. In The Petition Defense Counsel cites to Defendant Driver's deposition
testimony, which maintains that he stopped his vehicle short of Trindle Road and
Plaintiff, Gary £nglebert panicked, slammed on his breaks, and lost control of his vehicle
sliding offTrindle Road and striking the York Waste garbage truck. (See The Petition
page 3, paragraph 12).
8. PlaintiffGary Englebert maintains through sworn deposition testimony
that at the time of impact, the garbage truck was completely blocking his lane of travel
on Trindle Road.
9. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2253 provides that neither a Praecipe
for a writ to join an additional defendant, nor a Complaint, shall be filed by the original
Defendant later than 60 days after the service upon the original defendant of the initial
pleading of the Plaintiff, unless such filing is allowed by the court upon cause shown.
10. [t is well settled law in Pennsylvania that Pa.R.C.P. 2253 was designed
primarily for the protection of the plaintiffso that his cause of action would not be
delayed by successive joinder of additional defendants. Graham v. Greater Latrobe
School Dist., 260 A.2d 731,436 Pa. 440, Sup. 1970.
11. The Defendants must show, when requesting belated joinder of an
additional defendant, that the joinder is based on proper grounds, some reasonable
excuse exists for the delay in commencing joinder proceedings, and that the original
plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the late joinder. Lawrence v. Meeke~, 7 i 7 A.2d 1046,
1048, Pa. Super., 1998. Francisco v. Ford Motor Co., 406 Pa.Super. 144, 593 A.2d 1277,
1278 (1991).
12. The Defendants have the burden of proving sufficient cause to allow late
oinder of an additional defendant and must establish some reasonable justification for
:he delay in petitioning the court for leave to join an additional defendant. Exton
Development v. Sun Oil Co. of Pennsylvania, 525 A.2d 402,363 Pa.Super. 17,
Super. 1987. White v. American Honda Research of America 589 A.2d 363, Pa.Super. 17,
Super. 1991.
13. Defendants delayed more than five months after the 60-day period
allowed by Pa.R.C.P 2253 before filing The Petition.
14. Defendant's reasoning for the delay is that new information did not
become available until after the deposition of Defendant Driver was completed on or
about October 23, 2001. (See The Petition page 3, paragraph 12).
15. Following the completion of Defendant Driver's deposition, Defendants
then waited more than two more months before petitioning the Court for leave to join
an additional defendant.
16. Defendants' reasoning for the more than five-month delay in filing The
Petition is invalid.
17. Defense Counsel had ample time to learn of the testimony provided by
Defendant Driver, and, therefore, had ample time to join an additional defendant within
the bounds of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
18. Plaintiffs provided Defendants with two extensions in which to respond to
the Complaint, as well as, extensions in which to respond to written discovery. (See
correspondence attached hereto as Plaintiffs' Exhibit "A").
19. During such time, Defense Counsel had a sufficient opportunity to learn of
Defendant Driver's side of the story, which is now the reasoning for The Petition.
20. No new information, that was available to Defense Counsel at the time of
service of the Complaint, came to light in Defendant Driver's deposition. Therefore, the
reasoning set forth in The Petition is invalid.
21. In their initial pleading, Defendants alleged that the accident was caused
by other parties and that Plaintiffs' claims were barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania
Comparative Negligence Act; thereby, preserving any allegations that Defendants intend
to present via Joinder. Therefore, no party will suffer any prejudice as a result of
denying The Petition.
22. If the Court were to grant Defendants' Petition to join Plaintiff Gary
Englebert as a Defendant, a jury could perceive the Court as granting credence to
Defendants' already preserved Comparative Negligence allegation, thereby, creating
undue prejudice to Plaintiffs.
23. The Joinder of Gary Englebert as an Additional Defendant will only serve
to confuse the issues and mislead the jury.
24. Defendants have failed to express a reasonable excuse for filing The
Petition more than five months beyond the time limit set forth by the Pennsylvania Rules
of Civil Procedure; therefore, Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing
cause to join an additional defendant, as set forth in £xton and White.
25. In addition, Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing that
Plaintiff Gary Englebert will not be prejudiced by such joinder.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert, respectfully
request that this Honorable Court to DENY Defendants' Petition for Leave to Join
Additional Defendant, Gary Englebert.
R.J. Marz. ella& A. ssoc/at~s, P.C.
~arsar,~ ,~, E~uire ~]
entification No,~ST~72
Dated: l- /7 .2002
EXHIBIT A
A REGION.%t DEFENSE LITIGATION LAW FIRM
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B · Harrisburg, PA 17112
(717) 651-3500 · Fax (717) 651-9630
Direct Dial: 717-651-3501
Emaii: mowens~mdwcg, com
BY:
- Chiles W. Mamar, Jr.. Esquire September 6. 2001
R.J. Ma~ella & Associates, P.C.
3513 No~h Front Street
Ha~sburg. PA 17110
Re: Ga~ and Sharon Englebe~ v. C~stopher Hollister and
York W~te Disposal. Inc.
CCP - Cumberl~d County, No. 01-3180 - Civil
Our File No. 18068-00111
De~ Mr. Marsh:
I bare scheduled a meeting with my clients to pr~e responses to your clients' discov~ requests. I
hope to have these responses to you by the end of this month or Sept~ber 30, 2001. My cli~t is ~xious to
move this c~e tb~ard, and therefore, I would like to set ~ide dates in mid to late October for d~ositions in
this c~e. Kindly contact me at your convenience so that we can schedule these deposition.
Your a~ention ~d prompt respome is appreciated. Of coupe, I would like to have your clients'
di~cov~ response~ phor to the d~ositiom, whch I ~ume will not be a problem.
~TTHEW
MLO/acs
~05_A[LIA ~M kO~('O R R[788~CSM 8068~111
A REGION~,I. DEFENSE LITIGATION LaW ]:IR~
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B. Harrisburg, PA 17112
(717) 651-3500 · Fax (717) 651-9630
Direct Dial: 717-651-3501
Email: mowensCu~mdwcg.com
August 29. 200 l .~ .
Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Re: Gary and Sharon Engleben v. Christopher Hollister and
York Waste Disposal, Inc.
CCP - Cumberland County, No. 01-3180 - Civil
Our File No. 18068-00111
Dear Mr. Marsar:
I am in receipt of your clients' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents directed
independently to my two clients. York Waste Disposal, Inc. and Christopher Hollister. I would appreciate a 30-
day extension to respond to these discovery requests in light of the fact that several key people are on vacation
during the month of August. I will assume you have gxanted this extension unless I hear from you to the
conu~a~.
I currently enclose my clients' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents directed to
Gary and Sharon Englebert. Likewise, you may have an additional 30 days to respond.
Your attention is appreciated.
Very truly yours,
MLO/acs
eno.
' .~~g 3513 NORTH FRONT STRE£T, HARRISBCRG. PENNSYI.V^Nb~ 17! i0
7~.?.234.7828 888.838.3-1.26 717234.6883 F.~X '
Attorneys & Counselors At Law
July 20, 2001
Matthew L. Owens. Esquire
Marshall. Dennehey. Warner, Coleman & Goggin
4200 Crums Mill Road
Suite B
Harrisburg. PA 17110
Re: Engleberr v. Hollister. et al.
Dear Matt:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation on the above-date, you had requested a
second extension within which to file your client's Answer. We agreed upon the new
due date of August 5, 2001. I look forward to your response within the new deadline.
If'[ can be or'any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
IL J. Marzella & Associates, P.e.
Charles W~--Marsar, Jr. L
CWMjr/
A REGIO~.,~. DEFE'~SE LIT~G.~,TION L.',W FIR,~
co '8
100 Pine Stree~ Fou~h Floor, P.O. Box 803- Har~sburg, PA 17108-0803
(71~ 232-1022. F~ (717) 232-1849
Direct Dial: 717-232-9324
mowe m w . om
~ JUN ~ 2 2001
B'¢; ....................
June
~001
- Charles W. ~s~. Jr., Esquire
R.J. ~clla ~ Associates, P.C.
3513 No~h F~m S~ccc
Ha~sborg. PA 17110
G~ ~d Sh~ou Englebe~ v. C~stopher Hollis~er ~d
York W~e Disposal, ~c.
COP - Cumbcrl~d County, No. 0 ~-3 ~ 80 - Civil
Our File No. 07~0-
De~ ~r. M~sar:
Ple~e be ~v~s~d that Gallagher B~sc~t SedUces, Inc. h~ retained thc undersized counsel to rep~sem
Vor~ ~aste Disposal ~d C~stopher Hollis~er in the above-captioned matter. I enclose
Appc~ce.
I telephoned ~o~ o~ce ~d le~ a voicemail ~ I w~ unable ~o reach ~o~ on the tel~honc. I would
app~ciatc a ~0-da~ extension to file ~ ~swer with N~ ~a~cr. I will ~s~e 7ou have ~ted that
cxtc~ion unless I he~ ~om ~u to thc comra~.
Please contact me should 7ou have ~ questions at this time. Your a~entiou is app~cia~ed.
~HE~.
MLO/ac~
xOfi_A~L~ ~0'~O ~x7~9~ ~x~CSXl fi~
CEitllFIC~TE OF SERVI~
I, Charles W. Marsar, Jr., hereby certi~t that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this /'"~ day of January, 2002,
by depositing said copy in the United States Mail postage prepaid, first-class deliver, and
addressed as follows:
Matthew L. Owens, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
4200 Crams Mill Road
Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110
ILJ. MARZ~UA & ASSOCIATES. P.C.
Charles~Ivlarsar, ~r:--" ~'-"_~)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and : DOCKET NO. 01-3180
SHARON ENGLEBERT, :
Plaintiffs : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
V.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and :
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC., :
Defendants :
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please enter my appearance on behalf of Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York
Waste Disposal, Inc. in the above-captioned matter.
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER,
BY: ~
MATTHEW~L. OW'L~ISLI~3Q~
I.D. NO. 76080
100 Pine Street, 4th Floor
P.O. Box 803
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803
(717) 232-9324
Attorneys for the Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and : DOCKET NO. 01-3180
SHARON ENGLEBERT, :
Plaintiffs : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
V.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and :
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC., :
Defendants :
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Angela Sanger, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do
hereby certify that on this ~ I~' day of June, 2001, I served a copy of the foregoing document
via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid as follows:
Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY
CASE NO: 2001-03180 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
ENGLEBERT GARY ET AL
VS
HOLLISTER CHRISTOPHER ET AL
R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being
duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and
and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit:
HOLLISTER CHRISTOPHER
but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore
deputized the sheriff of YORK County, Pennsylvania, to
serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE
On June 19th , 2001 , this office was in receipt of the
attached return from YORK
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing 6.00
Out of County 18.00
Surcharge 10.00
Deputize York Co 28.28 --Sh~f of Cumberland County
.00
62.28
06/19/2001
RJ MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES
Sworn and subscribed to before me
this ~ ~ day of ~
A.D.
Prothonotary ·
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NO: 2001-03180 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
ENGLEBERT GARY ET AL
VS
HOLLISTER CHRISTOPHER ET AL
RICHARD SMITH , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL INC the
DEFENDANT , at 0858:00 HOURS, on the 30th day of May , 2001
at 987 WEST TRINDLE ROAD
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 by handing to
JUDY PETENBRINK, DISPATCHER
a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with
and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs: So Answers:
Docketing 18.00
Service 4.96 ~~~/~
Affidavit .00
Surcharge 10.00 R. Thomas Kline
.00
32.96 06/21/2001
RJ MARZELLA ~~
Sworn and Subscribed to before By:
me this g~__- day of j/DepUty Sheriff
7P%othonotary '
COUNTY OF YORK
OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF
28 EAST MARKET ST., YORK, PA 17401 (717) 771-9601
SHERIFF SERVICE l~ INSTRUCTIONS
PROCESS RECEIPT and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN I PLEASE TYPE ONLY LE~IE 1 THRU 12
1 PLAINTIFFIS/ ]_ DO NOT DETACH ANY COPIES
Gary Englebe_~ etal ~~Rcivi1
3 DEFENDANT/~/ 4. TYPE OF WRIT OR COMPLAINT
York waste Disposal etal
SERVE {_ 5. NAME OF INDIVIDUAL. COMPANY. CORPORATION. ETC TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEVIED, A~rACHED. OR SOLD.
~tol~he_~ Hnl 1 ~ste~
6. ADDRESS (STREET OR RFO WITH BOX NUMSER, APT NO. CITY. BORO. TWP.. STATE AND ZIP CODE)
AT
?. ~... ~mg_re Pike East lin PA 17316
INDICATE SERVICE O PERBORAL O PERSO~~LASS M~dL [;) POSTED O OTHER
NOW N_~q2_3.[___- ,20..0_],__ I, SHERIFF OF '111~l~'COUN~.~.~p~do hereby dep~l,tiz~e~the shedff of
York COUNTY to executE~l~~?__. ~~~__~3rding
to law. This deputization being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff·
8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE: SHERIFF OF"g~
N~TE: ONLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN. Any deputy sheriff levying upon or aBaching any pmpany unde~ wi~jn wnt may leave
without a watchman, m custody of whomever is ~und in po~sea&~n after nolifying pa~aon of leW or attachment vathout liability on the ~ of such
herein for any loss. deslmcl~n, or removal of any propa~ly before ~heriff's sale tpamof
· ' . pa deputy or Ihe ~heriff to any plaintiff
9. TYPE NAME and Ag~u~-uu o~'ATFORNEY / ORIGINATOR and SIGNATURE
3513C~[~qL~S W- ~, JR., ESQ. IIO. TELEPHONE NUMBER Ill. UATEFiLED
~ N. ~ S~., ~..[SBrJ~;, PA -1.7110 (717) 234-7828 5/24/01
t2. SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND A",,M==U BELOW: (This area must be c~,,,,~,~=~ ;f nodce is to de ,,,=;~).
· ~
~ SPACE BELOW_~_FOR USE OF ~ ~ - DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS UNE
13. I acknowledge rec~pt of the writ
or complaint as iodicated above. J. rnr'~XG Jl~D' 15. ExpiretionlHearing Dato
[~/4/o[
16 HOWSERVED: PERSONAL( ) RF~t~;~dCE p ~ -- ,
~~~ . " ..... CE() Pu~,Eu( )_ POE( ) SHERIFF'SOFFICE~) OI~IER( ) SEE REMARKS BELOW
.............. *rf'O/ I
". I",.,. ,c. ,me .,..,.
Vd'~O~ ..'
'". COUNTY OF YORK
:' OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF
.' · 28 EAST MARKET ST., YORK, PA 17401 (?17) 771-9601
SHERIFF SERVICE ~~__~..
PROCESS RECEIPT and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN __1~_ _O~LY IJ~ 1
I PLAINTIFF/S/ I ~ ~1 ~. ~ ~.~.r~
3 DEFENDANT/S/
'_.',.?-T. ~,,~i.,z D.£~T.~..] Pt:d.[ ['.~c,t'-~,'~rc & ".,..,.; "[ r'~ '.' .'] -
I~ .~ ?~hrJ~t~;[,l':,.-., t-icl 1 ~.~.[ ,... .... '"~"~' ...... AD.
AT ~. 'i,' n . . , . . ' .... DE)
~u~ I · ZO execut~ this ~
t° law' This deputization being made at the request and dsk of the plaintiff. 7' -¢-~-F-- ~'~'
; . _ ¢'t.lr,t-,~-]-- ! ,. -,;-.
D.'~'";'.h~-'..:~ P.;~:; '.A.io :~'f ~-~.',,p~:;..f ,-'.',~ ~'"T",' ....,., ,
........ A~.., .J., . ;:.'~.
.~, .,. I F~.L~., '~J't ,~AI-'P;'~.:LII~:=~ "A J'7'~ [0
~s;, ~ranmks b~ow.) --
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and : DOCKET NO. 01-3180
SHARON ENGLEBERT, :
Plaintiffs : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
:
V. ~
:
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and :
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC., :
Defendants :
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Engleben
c/o Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs'
Complaint on behalf of Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., within
twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be filed against you.
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER,
MAT~'I-[~'W L. OWENS, ~rQU ti, ua
I.D. No. 76080
100 Pine Street, 4th Floor
P.O. Box 803
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803
(717) 232-9324
DATE: ~}l ~ (0, Attorneys for the Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and : DOCKET NO. 01-3180
SHARON ENGLEBERT, :
Plaintiffs : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
.
V. :
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and :
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC., :
Defendants :
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER
AND NOW comes Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., by
and through the undersigned counsel, who answer Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows:
1. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a beliefas to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
2. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 2, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
5. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 5, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
6. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 6, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
7. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 7, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
8. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 8, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
9. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 13, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 13 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial. To the extent a specific response is required, it is denied that the
Defendant driver backed his truck directly into the path of the Plaintiffs' vehicle.
10. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the troth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 10, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
11. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 11, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict pmoftherenfrequired at trial.
2
12. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a beliefas to
the troth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 12, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
13. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 13, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 13 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
14. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 14, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
15. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 15, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
16. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 16, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 16 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proofthereofroquired at trial.
17. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of thc allegations contained in Paragraph 17, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
3
18. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the troth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 18, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
19. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 19, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof requital at trial. Paragraph 19 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
20. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 20, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 20 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial. To the extent a specific response is required, it is denied that the
Defendant driver nodded edmittingly to any accusations of liability or fault at the scene of the
accident to anyone.
21. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 21, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
22. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 22, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
23. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 23, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict pmofthereofrequired at trial. Paragraph 23 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
24. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the troth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 24, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 24 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
25. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the troth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 25, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 25 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
26. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the troth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 26, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proofthereofrequired at trial. Paragraph 26 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
27. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 27, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 27 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
28. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the troth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 28, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 28 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
29. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 29, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 29 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
30. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 30, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 30 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
3 I. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 31, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 31 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
32. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 32, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 32 is further denied in that the same contains
6
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, thc same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
33. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the troth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 33, and therefore, the same arc denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 33 is further denied in that thc same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, thc same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
34. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
thc troth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 34, and therefore, the same arc denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 34 is further denied in that thc same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
35. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
thc truth of thc allegations contained in Paragraph 35, and therefore, thc same arc denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 35 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, thc same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
36. Denied. Paragraph 36 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, thc same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
37. Denied. Paragraph 37 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, thc same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
7
38. Denied. Paragraph 38 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict preof thereof required
at trial.
39. Denied. Paragraph 39 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
40. Denied. Paragraph 40 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
41. Denied. Paragraph 41 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
42. Denied. Paragraph 42 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof therenf required
at trial.
43. Denied. Paragraph 43 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict preofthereofrequired
at trial.
44. Denied. Paragraph 44 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response Is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proofthercof required
at trial.
45. Denied. Paragraph 45 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
COUNT I - NEGLIGENCF~
GARY ENGLEBERT and SHARON ENGLEBERT
V.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER
46. Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., incorporate by
reference their responses to Paragraphs I through 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as if set forth
herein at length.
47. (a) - 0) Denied. Paragraph 47 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of
law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict preof thereof
required at trial.
48. Denied. Paragraph 47 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc.,
respectfully demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs together with such costs
this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
COUNT I1 - VICARIOUS LIABILITY
GARY ENGLEBERT and SHARON ENGLEBERT
V.
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
49. Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., incorporate by
reference their responses to Paragraphs I through 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as if set forth
herein at length.
50. (a) - (j) Denied. Paragraph 50 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of
law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof
required at trial.
51. Denied. Paragraph 51 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc.,
respectfully demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs together with such costs
this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
COUNT Ill - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
SHARON ENGLEBERT
V.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
52. Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., incorporate by
reference their responses to Paragraphs I through 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as if set forth
herein at length.
10
53. Denied. Paragraph 53 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, inc.,
respectfully demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs together with such costs
this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
17. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
18. Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
19. Plaintiffs are barred and/or limited by all applicable provisions of the
Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law.
20. No act or omission on the part of Defendants was a substantial or contributing
factor in bringing about Plaintiffs' alleged injuries and/or damages, all such injuries and/or
damages being expressly denied.
21. Any and all injuries and/or damages as described by Plaintiffs in their Complaint,
the same being expressly denied, were caused in whole or in part by the acts or omissions on the
part of Plaintiffs and/or others over whom Defendants had no control nor right of control.
22. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the doctrine of res judicata and/or
collateral estoppel.
23. Plaintiffs' claims are derivative in nature and are barred as a matter of law.
24. Defendants breached no duty of care owed to Plaintiffs under the circumstances.
25. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania Comparative
Negligence Act.
11
26. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the applicable provisions of the
Pennsylvania Worker's Compensation Act.
27. At all times material hereto, Defendants acted in a safe, legal and non-negligent
milliner.
28. Plaintiff's negligent operation of his motor vehicle was the sole and proximate
cause of all alleged injuries and damages.
29. Plaintiffs' Complaint and or claims are barred by their selection of limited tort as
set forth by 75 Pa.C.S.A. §1705.
BY:
MATTH£W L. OW~S, ESQ~
I.D. No. 76080
4200 Crams Mill Road, Suite
H~sb~g, PA 17112
(717) 651-3501
Attorneys for the Defend~ts
~5_A~LIA B~M LO~LLPGX73927~CSXl 8~8~111
12
The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing Defendants'
Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are based upon information which has been
furuished to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the
preparation of the defense of this lawsuit. The language of the Defendants' Answer with New
Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Answer with
New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint, and to the extent that it is based upon information which I
have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
To tile extent that the contents of the Defendants' Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs'
Complaint are that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this verification. The
undersigned also understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18
Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
BY: ~
Title: '~,'-,c :~,
DATE: ,/..n/O/
Tile undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing Defendants' Answer
with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are based upon information which has been furnished
to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of the
defense of this lawsuit. The language of the Defendants' Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs'
Complaint is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Answer with New Matter to
Plaintiffs' Complaint, and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to
counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent
that the contents of the Defendants' Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are that of
counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this verification. The undersigned also
understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section
4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and : DOCKET NO. 01-3180
SHARON ENGLEBERT, :
Plaintiffs : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
:
V. ~
:
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and :
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC., :
Defendants :
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Angela Sanger, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do
hereby certify that on this !f'~/~lay of August, 2001, I served a copy of the foregoing
document via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid as follows:
Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
R. ]. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
BY: Charles W. Marsar, Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court I.D. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110 Artorneys for Plaintiffs
Telephone: (717) 234-7828 Gary Englebert, and
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
GARY ENLGEBERT and : DOCKET NO. 01-3180
SHARON ENGLEBERT :
Plaintiffs :
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and :
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC. :
Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANTS'
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER
17. The allegation herein states a conclusion of law to which no response is
required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that
Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
18. The allegation herein states a conclusion of law to which no response is
required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that
Plaintiffs' have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
19. The allegation herein states a conclusion of law to which no response is
required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that
Plaintiffs are barred and/or limited by all applicable provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor
Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law.
20. The allegation herein states a conclusion of law to which no response is
required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that no
act or omission on the part of Defendants was a substantial or contributing factor in
bringing about Plaintiffs' alleged injuries and/or damages, all such injuries and/or
damages being expressly denied.
21. The allegation herein states a conclusion of'law to which no response is
required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that any
and all injuries and/or damages as described by Plaintiffs in their Complaint, the same
being expressly denied, were caused in whole or in part by the acts or omissions on the
part of Plaintiffs and/or other over whom Defendants had no control nor right of control.
22. The allegation herein states a conclusion of law to which no response is
required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that
Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the doctrine of res judicata and/or
collateral estoppel.
23. The allegation herein states a conclusion of law to which no response is
required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that
Plaintiffs' claims are derivative in nature and are barred as a matter oflaw.
24. The allegation herein states a conclusion of law to which no response is
required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that
Defendants breached no duty of care owed to Plaintiffs under the circumstances.
25. The allegation herein states a conclusion of'law to which no response is
required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that
Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence
Act.
26. The allegation herein states a conclusion of. law to which no response is
required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that
Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the applicable provisions of'the
Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act.
27. The allegation herein states a conclusion of.law to which no response is
required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that at
all times material hereto, Defendants acted in a safe, legal and non-negligent manner.
28. The allegation herein states a conclusion of. law to which no response is
required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that
Plaintiffs' negligent operation of.his motor vehicle was the sole and proximate cause of.
all alleged injuries and damages.
29. The allegation herein states a conclusion of.law to which no response is
required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that
Plaintiffs' Complaint and/or claims are barred by their selection of limited tort as set
forth by 75 Pa.C.S.A. § ! 705.
Respectfully submitted.
R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
By:. ~
Charles W. Marsar. Jr.. Esq~
Attorney Identification No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg. PA 17110
(717) 234-7828
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Gary
Engelbert and Sharon Englebert
Dated: August 8. 2001
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Charles W. Marsar, Jr.. hereby certi~ that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this 6~~t day of August. 2001,
by depositing said copy in the United States Mail postage prepaid, first-class deliver, and
addressed as follows:
Matthew L. Owens, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
4200 Crums Mill Road
Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110
R.J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, p.C.
Charle~V. Mar~ar, Jr.~L~/
GARY ENGLEBERT : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
and SHARON : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ENGLEBERT, :
Plaintiffs :
.
v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
:
CHRISTOPHER :
HOLLISTER and YORK :
WASTE DISPOSAL, :
INC., :
Defendants :
:
V. '
GARY ENGLEBERT, :
Additional Defendant : NO. 01-3180 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 5t~ day of September, 2002, upon consideration of Plaintiff's
Motion To Compel Responses to Written Discovery, a Rule is hereby issued upon
Defendant York Waste Disposal, Inc., to show cause why the relief requested should not
be granted.
RULE RETURNABLE within 20 days of service.
BY THE COURT,
esley Oler,~.~ ' J.
Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esq.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Attomey for Plaintiffs
Stephen Barcavage, Esq.
4200 Crums Mill Road
Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Attorney for Defendants
John R. Ninosky, Esq.
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
Attorney for Additional Defendant
-r~
Iff: ~m. tles W. Marmr, Jr. P3qu]re
Pem~m Supine Court I.D. No. 86072
3513 North Front Steer
Harrijburg, PA 17110 Attorneys for Plain~a
Telephone: (717) 234-7828 Gary Engfebe~, and
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CML ACTION - LAW
GARY ENGLEBERT and : DOCKET NO. 01-3180
SHARON ENGL£BERT :
Plaintiffs :
CHRISTOPH£R HOLUSTER and :
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC. :
Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of ,2002, upon
consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Responses to Written Discovery,
posal, Inc is ORDBRED to produce within twenty days of the
date of this Order, full and complete answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories- Set II or suffer
such sanctions as this Court, in its discretion, deems just.
I~J. MARZ~LLA & ASSOflA'W:S, P.C.
BY: Clmdes W. Marmr. Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court I.D. No. 86072
3.513 Noffh Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorneys for IqaintJffs
Telephone:. (717) 234-7828 Gary F,~ieber~ and
Facsimile.' (717~ 234-6883 Sharon EnMeber~
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLE~
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
GARY ENGLEBERT and : DOCKET NO. 01-3180
SHARON ENGLEBERT :
Plaintiffs :
V. :
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and :
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC. :
Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PlAINTIFfS' MOTION TO COMPEL
RESPONSES TO Wlial leN DISCOVERY
RND NOW COMES, Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert, by and
through their attorneys, R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. by way of filing this Motion to
Compel Responses to Written Discovery.
1. On or about, May 24, 2001, Plaintiffs flied this personal injury action via
Complaint.
2. On or about October 24, 2001, Plaintiffs served Interrogatories and
Request for Production of Documents, Set II to Defendant. (See Plaintiffs'
Interrogatories Propounded upon Defendant York Waste Disposal, Inc., Set II attached
hereto as Exhibit "A").
3. In Interrogatory number 1, Plaintiffs' requested Defendant York Waste
Disposal, Inc. to "List the dimensions of the vehicle (model number previously identified
as MR699) driven by the defendant at the time of the accident at issue. Specifically,
state the exact length, height, width, maximum load capacity and recommended air
~ressure for the rear tires." (See Exhibit "A" attached hereto).
3. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4006 (2), Defendants'
~nswers to the aforementioned discovery were due November 23, 2001.
4. On or about December 13.2001, Defendant's York Waste Disposal, Inc.,
served Plaintiffs with their Responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories- Set II. (See
Defendant's, York Waste Disposal, Inc., Responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories- Set II
attached hereto as Exhibit "B").
5. In Defendant's York Waste Disposal, Inc.'s Responses to Plaintiffs'
Interrogatories- Set II, Defendant York Waste Disposal, Inc. responded to Interrogatory
number I by stating "Defendants are investigating your request and will provided this
information when received." (See Exhibit "B").
When no answers were received in a reasonable amount time to
Interrogatory number 1, of Plaintiff's Interrogatories Propounded upon Defendant,
Plaintiffs began eliciting Defendants' response.
7. On May 13, 2002, Plaintiffs sent Defendants a correspondence reminding
of the outstanding discovery response. (See Correspondence dated May 13, 2002
attached hereto as Exhibit "C").
8. Presently, there has been no response from Defendants regarding
Plaintiffs' written discovery requests, which have been served almost one year ago.
/~ Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert, request this
Honorable Court order Defendants to provide full and complete answers to Plaintiffs'
Interrogatories, Set II.
It. J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
(~. Charles W.. Marsar, Jrt'
Attorney ]den~e~c~072
Dated: ~ - 30 - c.~_
EXHIBIT
R.J. MARZELLA & ASSOORTES, P.C
BY: Charles W. Marsar, Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court I.D. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg. PA 17110 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Telephone: {717} 234-7823 Gary Engieber~, and
Facsimile: [7171 294-688:3 Sharon
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
GARY ENGLERERT and DOCKET NO. 01-3180
SHARON ENGLEBERT
Plaintiffs
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL. INC. :
Defendants : JURYTRIAL DEMANDED
PtAINT1FFS' INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED UPON
DEFENDANT YORK WASTE DISPOSAL. INC.
-- SET II ~
TO: York Waste Disposal. Inc.
c/o Matthew L. Owens, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey. Warner. Coleman & Goggin
4200 Crums Mill Road
Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110
DERNIT{ONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
A. Whenever the term "document" is used herein, it includes {wheuher or not
!.peciflcal{y called for) all printed, vypewrir~en, handwritten, graphic or recorded matter,
however formal or informal
8. Whenever you are asked to "identi~' a document, the fo{lowing
information should be given as to each document of which you are aware, whether or
not you have possession, custody or control thereof:
1. The nature of the document le.g., {eccer, memorandum, computer
- ~rint-out, minutes, resolution, tape recording, videotape, etc.);
2. Its date (or if it bears no date. the date when it was prepared);
3. The name. address, employer and position of'the signer or signers
or if'there is no signer, of the person who prepared it);
4. The name. address, employer and position o£che person, i£any, to
whom the document was sent;
5. If' you have possession, custody or control of the document, the
{ocation and designation or' the place or file in which it is contained, and the name.
address, position of person having custody of the document;
6. [£you do not have possession, custody or control or'the document.
the present location thereof' and the name and address' or' the organization having
un. custody or control thereof; and
" 7. A brieFstatement of'the subjec~ mat~er of'each document.
C. Whenever you are asked to "}den£i~' an oral communication, the
[g information should be given as to each oral communication of'which you are
aware, whether or not you or others were present or participated therein:
1. The~ means of communication (.o., telephone, personal
e~
conversation, etc.);
2. Where ir took place;
3. Its date:
4. The names, addresses, employers and positions (a) of all persons
who participated in the communication: and (bJ of all other persons who were present
during or who overheard that communication;
5. The substance of who said what to whom and the order in which it
was said: and
6. Whether that communication or any part thereof is recorded.
described or referred to in any document (however informal) and. if so. an identification
of such document in the manner indicated above.
D. If you claim that the subject matter of a document or oral communication
is privileged, you need not set forth the brief statement of the subject matter of the
document, or the substance of the oral communication called for above. You shall.
however, otherwise "identif-,f' such document or oral communication and shall state each
ground on which you claim that such document or oral communication is privileged.
E. Whenever you are asked to "identi~" a person, the £ollowing information
should be given:
1. The name. present address, and present employer and position of
the person: and
2. Whether the person has given testimony by way of deposition or
otherwise in any proceeding related to the present proceeding and/or whether that
person has given a statement whether oral. written, or otherwise, and if so. the title and
nature of any such proceeding, the date of the testimony, whether you have a copy of
the transcript thereof, the name of the person to whom the statement was given, where
the statement is presently located if written or otherwise transcribed, and the present
location of such transcript or statement if not in your possession.
F. The term '~ou~ shall be deemed to mean and refer to the party to whom
these Interrogatories have been propounded for answer and shall also be deemed to
refer to. but shall not be limited to. your attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitor.
insurers, investigators, and any other agents insofar as the material requested herein is
not privileged. The term."you" shall also be deemed to refer to the Defendants.
G. The word "incident~' shall be deemed to mean and refer to the incident as
alleged co have occurred and set forth in the Complaint.
H. Tile phrase "medical ~reatment" shall include any treatment of any kind or
nature for physical illness, disease, injur~ or condition.
INTERROGATO~E$
I. List ~he dimensions of the vehicle (model number previously identified as
MR699) driven by the defendant at the time of the accident at issue. Specifically. state
~he exact len~h, height, width, maximum load capacity, and recommended air pressure
for the rear tires.
2. List the ~ull name and current address for each and every mechanic.
service technician, or other personneJ whose duties included mechanical servicing ol~
York Waste Disposal. Inc. trucks on May 2. 2000. In addition, identify the mechanic who
inspec:ed and/or worked on the truck involved in the accident that is at issue in :his
litigation.
IL J. Marzella & Associates. P.C.
By: ~
LTmrtt's-W~arsa r. Jr.,' Es~e//
A~orney Identification No. 86072
Dated: ~c~ 2q ,2001
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICI=
.- 1. Barbara Stafford, Secretary,. hereby certify, chat a true and correct copy of the
t'oregomg document was served upon counsel of record ins .~KJ-~day of October.
2001. by depositing said copy in the United States Mail postage prepaid, first<lass
deliver, and addressed as follows:
- Matthe:v L. Owens. Esquire
X, larshall. Dennehev. Warner. Coleman & (;oggin
4200 Crums Mil[ Road
' Suite B
~; Harnsburg, PA 171 lO
R.J. MARZELL-~ & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Barbara Scat'ford. Secre~N.
EXHIBIT 'B'
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and : DOCKET NO. 0 !-3180
SHARON ENGLEBERT, :
Plaintiffs : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
V. ;
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC..
Defendants
DEFENI~ANT'S. YORK WASTE I~ISPOSAL. INC.. RESPONSES
TO PLAINTII~S' INTERROGATORIES - SET II
1. Defendants are investigating your request and will provide this information when
received.
2. Objection. Defendants object to Interrogatory #2 in that the same is overly broad
and overly burdensome. Moreover, the request is beyond the scope of permissible discovery as
promulgated by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The request is further objectionable
in that the identity of all mechanics who worked on the subject vehicle is unlikely to lead to the
discovery of relevant or discoverable material. Without waiverofthe foregoing objection,
Defendants are investigating your request. Please further see Defendants' Responses to
Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents - Set Il.
MARSHALL, DE]8~iEHEY, WARNER,
BY: ~
MAT2Y~W L[J~WTm~S.~-'SQUIRE
I.D. NO. 76080
4200 Crums Mill Road. Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17112
DATE: ,~,.l'~ / 0 I (717)651-3501
Attorneys for the Defendants
The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing Responses to
Plaintiffs' Interrogatories are based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me
and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation ot the defi~nse of this
lawsuit. The language of the Responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories - Set II is that of counsel
and not my own. I have read the Responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories - Set II and to the extent
that it is based upon information which [ have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best
ofmy knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents ofthe Responses to
Plaintiffs' Interrogatories - Set Il are that of counsel, [ have relied upon my counsel in making
this verification. The undersigned also understands that the statements therein are made subject
to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities.
DATE: /
EXHIBIT 'C'
R 3~ !.,,3 NORTH FRONT STREET. HARRISBURG. [~ENNSYLVAN~.
717.234.7828 888.838.3~26 717.234.6883
Attorneys & Counselors At ~w
May 13, 2002
Matthew L. Owens. Esquire
Marshall. Dennehey. Warner.
Coleman & Goggin
4200 Crums Mill Road
Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Re: Englebert v. Hollister, et al.
Cumberland County CC.P. No. 01-3180
Dear Matt:
Back in October of 2001. I served you with a second set or'Interrogatories. In
the response to the first inquiry., you indi~:ated that you were compiling the requested
information. To date, I have not received a response thereto. Kindly provide a
response to the following inquiry_:
List the dimensions of the vehicle (model number
previously identified as MR699) driven by the defendant
at the time of the accident at issue. Specifically, state
the exact length, height, width, maximum load capacity
and recommended air pressure for the rear tires.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Also, please be advised that i
would like to schedule the depositions of Robert Howard and Robert Peterbink Iboth
were supervisors of York Waste at the time of'this incident). My office will be
contacting you shortly for available dates.
Very truly yours,
R.J. Marzella & Associates. P.C.
Cl~RT~ICA'I~ OF SBR~IC~
I, Charles W. Marsar, Jr., hereby certi~ that a tree and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this 30th day of August, 2002,
by depositing said copy in the United States Mail postage prepaid, first-class deliver, and
addressed as follows:
Stephen Barcavage, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
4200 Crums Mill Road
Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110
John R. Ninosky, Esquire
Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C.
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
~J. MARZEUA&ASSOCIATES, P.C.
By:~
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TE?an
(~st be type~itten and su~tted in duplicate)
~D ~ PNOT~K~0TARY OF C%~ERLASD
Please list the following case..
(Check one) (XX) for ~ trial at the next term of civil court.
( ) for trial without a jury.
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated in full) (check one)
Gary ENGLEBERT and Sharon
ENGLEBERT (X~ Civil Action - Law
( ) Appeal from Arbitratio~
( )
(other)
( Plaint iff)
vs.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and The trial list w~l be called on01/07/03
YORE WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
Trials commence on
(Defendant) Pretrials will be held on 01/15/03
vs. (Briefs are due 5 days before pretr~l~. )
Gary ENGLEBERT (The party listing this case for trial sh~l 1
prov/de forthwith a copy of the praecipe to
all counsel, pursuant to local Rule 214.1. )
No. Civil 01 - 3180 X~X
Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe..
Charles Marsar, Jr., Esquirew Attorney ID #86072
Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known.- Steven Barcavaae, Esauir
(Att~. for York Waste, Inc and Chris Hollister). John N~nosky:
(Att~. for additional Defendant, Gary En~lebert) ; _
This case is rea~ for trial. . - , .
Date.- /~- ~- 02- Attorney for.- Plaintiffs
~I~FICATE OF SERVICI~
I, Charles W. Marsar, Jr., hereby certi~ that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this 9th day of October, 2002,
by depositing said copy in the United States Mail postage prepaid, first-class deliver, and
addressed as follows:
Stephen Barcavage, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
4200 Crums Mill Road
Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110
John R. Ninosky, Esquire
Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C.
320 Market Street
P.O. Box i 268
Harrisburg. PA 17108-1268
ILJ. MARZBLLA & ASSO~A~, P.C.
~/~Cha rles ~/1~ rs~'~a" /
Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
V :
:
Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc. :
:
V :
: NO. 01-3180 CIVIL TERM
Gary Englebert :
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, December 31, 2002, counsel having failed to call the above case for
trial, the case is stricken from the February 3, 2003 trial term. Counsel is directed to relist the case
when ready.
By the Court,
Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Steven Barcavage, Esquire
For the Defendant
John Ninosky, Esquire ~.
For the Defendant
Court Administrator
ld
~ Front St~ Ga~ ~n~e~, an~
· u , PA 17110
Ham~b ~ 171~ ~7525
Tel~n°ne:
cI~L A~ON
DOC~T NO. 01'3~80
GARY ENGL~ERT and
SHARON ENGLEGERT plainti~s :
CRRISTOP~ER ~OLL~STER an& .
YORK w~TE DISPO~L. INC. ' JURY TRIAL D~DED
Defen&a~ts :
.P. 229
TO: pmtbo~o~ o{ c~b~l~ Count, Co~ of ~~°~s
P~a~Effb~by vo~y &s~t~nu~ the above-ca~ a~ion due to a
Dated: ~
CEIt~'iC~I~ OF SERVICH
I, Charles W. Marsar, Jr.. hereby certi~ that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this 28th day of February, 2003,
by depositing said copy in the United States Mail postage prepaid, first-class deliver, and
addressed as follows:
Stephen Barcavage, Esquire
Marshall. Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
4200 Crums Mill Road
Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110
John R. Ninosky, Esquire
Goldberg, Katzman & Shipman. P.C.
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 12G8
Harrisburg, PA 17108-12&8
R.J. ~ & ASSO(~TES, P.C.
(~lerW~larsar, Jr~ ~
\05_A:LIA B\M LO\LLPG:8479.~ACS\18068~00111
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and : DOCKET NO. 01-3180
SHARON ENGLEBERT, :
Plaintiffs : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
:
V. :
:
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and :
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC., :
Defendants :
PETITION OF DEFENDANTS. YORK WASTE DISPOSAL. INC.
AND CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER. FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO JOIN
GARY ENGLEBERT AS ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT
AND NOW comes Defendants, York Waste Disposal, Inc. and Christopher Hollister,
(hereinat~er "Defendants") by and through the undersigned counsel, who file this Petition for
Leave to Join Additional Defendant Gary Englebert and in support thereof aver as follows:
1. Plaintiffs Gary and Sharon Englebert filed a personal injury action in the
Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas on or about May 24, 2001 against Defendants
Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc. (A tree and correct copy of the Complaint
is attached hereto and identified as Exhibit "A').
2. The action concerns an automobile accident which occurred on May 2, 2000
involving the Plaintiffs and Defendant driver Christopher Hollister who was employed and
driving for York Waste Disposal, Inc. at the time of the accident.
3. The accident occurred on Tfindle Road in Cumberland County and involves
questionable liability.
4. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Christopher Hollister was backing his frontloader
garbage track out of a driveway adjoining Trindle Road and alleged in that Complaint that he
backed out across the road as Gary and Sharon Englebert were traveling east on Trindle Road.
5. The accident occurred at the intersection of a driveway for a commercial building
at 987 West Trindle Road and Trindle Road in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
6. Defendants, ofcourse, filed an Answer with New Matter denying all allegations
of liability and raising in New Matter the defense that the accident was caused by other parties.
(A true and correct copy of Defendants' Answer with New Matter is attached hereto and
identified as Exhibit "B").
7. Following the closing of the pleadings, the parties engaged in written discovery
including an exchange of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents.
8. Moreover, the parties have been given ample time to investigate the accident and
investigate any and all potential causes for the collision between the York Waste vehicle and
Plaintiffs' vehicle.
9. Depositions were scheduled and taken of both Plaintiffs and the Defendant driver,
Christopher Hollister in this case.
10. Following the completion ofwritten discovery and depositions as well as a
lengthy investigation into this matter, additional avenues of liability and/or recovery came to
light to the parties.
11. Based on the aforementioned discovery and investigation, PlaintiffGary
Englebert was operating Plaintiffs' vehicle at the time of the collision.
12. Defendant Christopher Hollister maintains through sworn deposition testimony
that he stopped his vehicle well short of Trindle Road when backing from the commercial
building, and further, avers that Gary Englebert, Plaintiffdriver, panicked, slammed on his
brakes and lost control of his vehicle sliding offof Trindle Road and striking the York Waste
garbage truck thereby causing the alleged injuries suffered by his wife and front seat passenger,
Sharon Englebert.
13. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2253 provides that neither a Praecipe for a
writ to join an additional defendant, nor a Complaint, shall be filed by an original Defendant later
than 60 days after the service of the initial pleadings unless such filing is allowed by the Court
upon cause shown.
14. Defendant now files this Petition for Leave to Join Additional Defendant, Gary
Englebert, currently a Plaintiffin this action, and states the following with respect to
demonstrating appropriate cause for this joinder:
(a) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed to or caused the subject accident of this
litigation by failing to maintain proper control of his vehicle;
(b) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed to or caused the subject accident of this
litigation by failing to operate his vehicle with due regard for the rights, safety, well-being and
position of his passenger and wife, Sharon Englebert, and Defendant driver Christopher
Hollister;
3
(c) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed to or caused the subject accident of this
litigation by failing to maneuver his vehicle appropriately to avoid striking the York Waste
vehicle operated by Christopher Hollister;
(d) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed to or caused the subject accident of this
litigation by failing to have his vehicle under proper and adequate control so as to avoid an
accident and avoid striking the York Waste truck operated by Defendant Christopher Hollister;
(e) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed to or caused the subject accident of this
litigation by failing to keep an appropriate lookout and obey the rules of the road. thereby
causing a collision with the York Waste vehicle driven by Defendant, Christopher Hollister;
(f) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed to or caused the subject accident of this
litigation by negligently, carelessly and/or recklessly applying the brakes and maneuvering his
vehicle so as to cause a collision with the York Waste truck operated by Defendant, Christopher
Hollister;
(g) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed to or caused the subject accident of this
litigation by negligently operating his vehicle so as to lose control and cause the
collision/accident with the York Waste truck operated by Defendant, Christopher Hollister.
4
15. Defendants aver that there has been no prejudicial or undue delay caused by the
current filing ofthe Joinder Complaint against the proposed Additional Defendant, Gary
EngleberL
16. Defendants further aver that there is no prejudice suffered by the Plaintiffs by
permitting this joinder, and the same is fair, equitable and in the best interest of all parties by
providing a forum which will appropriately apportion or distribute liability in accordance with
the facts and circumstances ofthis accident, thereby promoting a fair and equitable adjudication
of liability in this matter.
WHEREFORE, Defendants, York Waste Disposal, Inc. and Clu'istopher Hollister,
respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant their Petition for Leave to Join Additional
Defendant, Gary EngleberL
MARSHALL, D~NEHEY, WARNER,
COLEM? &p/,~iN
DATE:
I.D. NO. 76080
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17112
(717) 651-3501
Attorneys for the Defendants
5
LJ. MARZELLA & ASSOCIA~_S, P.C.
BY: Charles W. Marsar, Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court I.D. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Telephone: (717) 234-7828 Gary Englebert, and
E~csimile: f7171 234~883 Sharon En~lebert
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
SHARON ENGLEBERT :
Plaintiffs :
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and :
YQRK WASTE DISPOSAL. INC. :
Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE TO PLEAD
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 aider this
Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by an
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
v~ithout 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 PI,pintiff. 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
FL~.VE 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 Lawyer Referral Service
2 Liberty Ave.
Carlisle, PA 17013 ~
Telephone (717) 249 - 3166111 i'~.~_._L~.
QALLAQHER BA88e ~ f
OF HAFIFIISBUR~. PA
AVI$O
USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea det'enderse de las
demandas que se presenran mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe romar acci6n
dentro de los pr6ximos veinte (20) dfas despu6s de la notificaci6n de esta Demanda y.
Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y
rgdicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objeciones a, las demandas
aquf en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted f'alla de romar acci6n
cbmo se describe anteriormenre, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por
cualquier suma de dinero reclamaci6n o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede
set dictado en contra suya por la Corte. sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perde~
dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted.
USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI
USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO 0 NO PUEDE PAGARLE A UNO, LLAME O VAYA A LA
S.[GUENTE OFICINA PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE ENCONTRAR ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
Cumberland County Lawyer Referral Service
2 Liberty Ave.
Carlisle, PA 17013
Telephone (717) 249 - 3166
II
~. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
BY: Charles W. Marsar, Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court I.D. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Telephone: (717) 234-7828 Gary Englebert, and
.Facsimile: 1717l 234-6883 Sharon En~leberf:
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
GARY ENLGEBERT and : DOCKET NO.
SHARON ENGLEBERT, :
Plaintiffs :
V.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and :
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL. INC.,
Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
1. Gaff Englebert, Plaintiff, is an adult-individual who, at all relevant times
hereto, resided at 172 Benders Church Road, Biglerville, PA 17307.
2. Sharon Englebert, Plaintiff, is an adult-individual who, at all relevant times
hereto, resided at 172 Benders C~6~'ch Road, Biglerville, PA 17307.
3. Christopher Hollister, (hereinafter "Defendant Driver") is an adult-
individual and an employee, agent, apparent agent, ostensible agent, and/or servant
who, at all relevant times hereto, resided at 2140 Baltimore Pike, East Berlin. PA 17316.
4. York Waste Disposal, Inc. (hereinafter De£endant Corporation), is a
:orporation which, at all relevant times hereto, was incorporated under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal place of business at 987 West Trindle
Road, Mechanicsburg, PA ! 7055.
5. Gary and Sharon Englebert both work at the Naval Base (N^VICP) in
Mechanicsburg, PA.
6. Every morning Gary and Sharon drive to work together from their home in
Biglerville to Mechanicsburg.
7. On May 2, 2000, Gary and Sharon were driving to work to§ether as per
their usual route.
8. Gary was driving and Sharon was in the front passenger seat as they
traveled east on Trindle Road.
9. Fortunately both Gary and Sharon were wearing harness seat belts, and
Gaff was driving under the speed limit, because just as they attempted to pass the
driveway at 5022 East Trindle, Defendant Driver backed a garbage truck directly into
their path.
! 0. Due to a large tree located at the edge of the driveway, Gary was unable
to see the defendant's truck until~it was actually in the roadway.
! 1. Ga~y immediately hit his brakes in an effort to stop before striking the
garbage truck.
12. As Gary applied his brakes, the garbage truck continued to back out onto
the road.
2
13. There was no other reasonable course of action that Gary could have
taken to avoid this collision since oncoming traffic prevented him from swerving left and
the tree, along with telephone poles, prevented him from swerving right.
14. Sharon screamed as their vehicle violently struck the side of the garbage
truck head-on.
15. Instantaneously, Sharon began experiencing constricting chest pains.
while Gary bled from his hand and pain shot though his body.
16. Even though Gary and Sharon Englebert were traveling below the posted '
speed limit, their vehicle was damaged beyond repair.
17. Several bystanders assisted by pushing the Engle'bert's vehicle offofthe
road.
18. Within minutes of the crash, the police arrived on the scene.
19. After the police officer interviewed the parties and assessed the accident
scene, he concluded that the defendant driver was clearly the sole cause of the accident.
20. When the officer explained to the parties that Defendant Driver caused
the accident by not looking while backing out, the defendant driver nodded admittingly.
21. Although the officer indicated Defendant Driver's traffic violation on the
police report, the decision was m~ade, with Plaintiffs' consent, not to issue a citation to
Defendant Driver.
22. The evening of the accident, Gary and Sharon presented to the
Emergency Room of Gettysburg Hospital.
23. Sharon presented due to chest pain. bruising, chipped teeth, neck pain.
sore ribs, t'ever, and stiffness all over her body.
24. Gary presented due to pain and bruising o~r the right hand and wrist, neck
back pain, sore ribs. right shoulder pain, right hip pain, right foot pain, headache,
nd soreness all over his body.
25. X-rays revealed that. rather than the normal curvature, Gary's spine had
been painfiJIly straightened due to the collision.
26. In addition, the physician informed both Gary and Sharon that they were '
suffering trrom whiplash injury and a deeply bruised rib cage.
27. The physician informed Gary and Sharon that they would most likely
experience new aches and pains in the days to follow and to continue care with their
family doctor.
28. Gary and Sharon were ordered not to return to work the rest of'the week
in an effort to allow some time for their injuries to recover.
29. On May ! 1, 2000, Gary and Sharon presented to their family physician t~or
a follow up evaluation.
30. Sharon was still exhibiting bruising on numerous areas o£her body.
3 !. Gary was still suffe~ring f¥om pain in his neck, back, shoulder, right hip,
and the right side of his rib cage.
32. The family physician prescribed pain and anti-inflammatory medication t~or
Gary and ret'erred both Gary and Sharon for a course of'physical therapy.
33. At the initial physical therapy evaluation, Dr. Buohl stated that Gary was in
' bad shape, and. in fact, he felt that Gary was suffering from a compression fracture
in his vertebrae.
34. Gary endured many grueling physical therapy sessions several times per
week for more than six months.
35. More recently, Gary underwent an orthopedic evaluation, which revealed
he was suffering from a Herniated Nucleus Polposus at the C6-C7 level.
36. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants in
causing the collision, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert, have suffered the injuries and
damages detailed herein.
37. As a direct and proximate result ofthe negligence of Defendants, Gary
and Sharon Englebert have suffered permanent and severe injuries.
38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert have been
and will continue to be forced to incur liability for medical treatment, medicines,
hospitalizations and similar miscellaneous expenses ~hroughout their adult lives and a
claim is made therefor.
39. As a direct and pro~ximate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon £nglebert have
undergone and in the future will undergo great physical pain and suffering, great
inconvenience in carrying out their daily activities, loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment,
and emotional distress and a claim is made therefor.
40. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
~erein and incorporated by reference. Plaintiff's. Gary and Sharon Englebert have been
and in the future will be subject to great humiliation, disfigurement and embarrassment
and a claim is made therefor.
41. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert have
sustained in the past and will sustain in the future a loss of earnings, a permanent
Impairment of their earning power and capacity and a claim is made therefor.
42. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sh-~ron Englebert have been
advised and therefore aver that the damages and injuries alleged herein are permanent
and a claim is made therefor.
43. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, the
truck driven by Defendant Driver collided with the Englebert's vehicle causing Gary
Englebert to sustain severe, extensive and permanent personal injuries including but not
limited to his right hand, wrist, and shoulder, as well as his back, neck, and sternum, and
numerous other areas of injury and pain requiring medical treatment and therapy, and
may require medical treatment ar? therapy in the future, and a claim is made therefor.
44. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants.
the vehicle driven by Defendant-Driver collided with the Englebert's vehicle causing
Sharon Englebert to sustain severe, extensive and permanent personal injuries including
but not limited to her face. mouth, sternum, back, neck. and numerous other areas of
injury and pain requiring medical treatment and therapy, and may require medical
treatment and therapy in the ~uture, and a claim is made therefor.
45. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff'.
Sharon £nglebert, has been deprived of the care. companionship, and services of her
husband, Gary Englebert, for all of which damages are claimed.
COUNT I - N£GLIG£NC£
GARY £NGLEB£RT and SHARON £NGLEBERT
V.
CHRISTOPHER HOLUSTER
46. The allegations contained in Paragraphs !- 45 o£ Plaintiff's Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
47. Regarding the accident, which is the subject matter or'this Complaint,
Defendant Driver was negligent, careless, and/or reckless in the operation ora motor
vehicle in the following particulars:
(a} operating his vehicle in violation of the ordinances ofthe
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles,
including backing into a lane of travel without reasonably checking to see if any
vehicles were there and reckless driving, which constitutes negligence as a
matter of law; ,"
(b} failing to have the vehicle under proper and adequate control in
order to stop or avoid striking the Englebert's vehicle;
(c} failing to keep an appropriate lookout to avoid striking the
Englebert's vehicle;
(d) railing to maneuver his vehicle appropriately in order to avoid
striking the Englebert's vehicle;
(e) operating the vehicle without due regard for the rights, safety,
well being, and position of Gary and Sharon Englebert under the circumstances;
(0 operating his vehicle negligently, carelessly, and/or recklessly by
blindly backing into oncoming traffic:
(h) improperly, inappropriately and/or illegally backing in front of the
Plaintiff's vehicle:
(i) failing to yield the right of way to oncoming traffic; and
(j) failing to appropriately judge the time and distance available to
pull out onto the street in front of Plaintiff's vehicle.
48. Defendant Driver is liable to Plaintiffs for their injuries and damages as
alleged herein as set forth in paragraphs thirty-six (36) through forty-five (45) above,
which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert demand judgment
against Defendant, Christopher Hollister, in an amount in excess of'TwENTY'FiVE
THOUSA~,, D DOLLR. RS ($25,000.00), together with interest and costs thereon as allowed
by law.
COUNT II - VICARIOUS LIABILITY
GARY ENGLEBERT and SHARON ENGLEBERT
V.
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
49. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1- 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are
ncorporated herein by reference as i£fiJIly set forth.
SO. Regarding the accident, which is the subject matter of this Complaint.
Defendant Corporation was vicariously negligent, careless, and/or reckless in the
operation of a motor vehicle by having an employee, agent, apparent agent, ostensible
agent and/or servant:
la) operating his vehicle in violation of the o~'dinances of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles,
including backing into a lane of travel without reasonably checking to see if any
vehicles were there and reckless driving, which constitutes negligence as a
matter of law;
(b) failing to have the vehicle under proper and adequate control in
order to stop or avoid striking the Englebert's Vehicle;
~ (c) failing to keep an appropriate lookout to avoid striking the
Englebert's vehicle; ,.'
(d) failing to maneuver his vehicle appropriately in order to avoid
striking the Englebert's vehicle;
(e) operating the vehicle without due regard for the rights, safety,
well being, and position of Gary and Sharon Englebert under the circumstances:
(f) operating his vehicle negligently, carelessly, and/or recklessly by
blindly backing into oncoming traffic;
(h} improperly, inappropriately and/or illegally backing in front of the
Plaintiff's vehicle;
(i) failing to yield the right of way to oncoming traffic: and
0) failing to appropriately judge the time and distance available to
pull out onto the street in front of Plaintiff's vehicle.
51. Defendant Corporation is liable to Plaintiffs for their injuries and damages'
s alleged herein as set forth in paragraphs thirty-six (36} through forty-five (45) above,
which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at ler~gth.
WH£R£FOR£, Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert demand judgment
against Defendant, York Waste Disposal, Inc., in an amount in excess of TWENTY-FIVE
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00), together with interest and costs thereon as allowed
by law.
COUNT III - LOSS OF CONSORTIU.~
SHARON ENGLEBERT
V.
CHRISTOPHER HOLUS Ilar and YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
52. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1- 45 oir Plaintiffs' Complaint are
herein by reference as if'fully set forth.
53. As a direct and proximate result of'the negligence or'Defendants, Plaintiff,
Sharon Englebert, has been deprived of the care, companionship, services, society and
consortium of her husband, Gary Englebert, for all of which damages are claimed.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Sharon Englebert, demands judg .ment against Defendants
in an amount in excess of TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00), together
with interest and costs thereon as allowed by law.
R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
Charres~, Marsa~ J~'., ~
Attorney Identification No. 86072
~'- ~7_ ,2001
VERIFICATION
We, Ga~y Englebert and Sharon Englebert, hereby swear and affirm that the facts and
matters set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of our.
knowledge, information and belief.
We understand that the statements made herein are made subject to the
penalties of Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities.
- .--..',~,~, I~_
Sharon Englebert ~
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and : DOCKET NO. 01-3180
SHARON ENGLEBERT, :
Plainliffs : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v. : O)~-. i;5 ' -
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and : r'-:'~ .. ,3 .* ,
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC., :
Defendants : s~
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert
c/o Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
R.J. Marzclla & Associates, P.C.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs'
Complaint on behalf of Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., within
twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be filed against you.
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER,
COLEM
MAT~I-~EW ~L. OW~NS,~;~rQ0~IKt: '
I.D. No. 76080
100 Pine Street. 4th Floor
P.O. Box 803
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803
(717) 232-9324
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and : DOCKET NO. 01-3180
SHARON ENGLEBERT, :
Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW
V.
:
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and :
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC., :
Defendants :
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER
AND NOW comes Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., by
and through the undersigned counsel, who answer Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows:
I. Denied. Responding Defendanls lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as Io
lhe troth of the allegations contained in Paragraph I, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
2. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 2, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
5. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a beliefas to
the troth of the allegations cunlained in Paragraph 5, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial
6. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 6, and therefore, Ihe same are denied with
strict prooflhereofrequired al trial.
7. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a beliefas to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
8. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations conlained in Paragraph 8, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
9. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 13, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 13 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with stricl
proof thereof required at trial. To the extent a specific response is required, it is denied that the
Defendant driver backed his truck directly into the path of the Plaintiffs' vehicle.
10. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a beliefas to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 10, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
i 1. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a beliefas to
the truth oflhe allegations contained in Paragraph 1 !, and lherefore, the same are denied with
slrict proof thereof required at trial.
2
12. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the troth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 12, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at thal.
13. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the troth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 13, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 13 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proofthereofrequired at trial.
14. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 14, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
15. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the troth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 15, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
16. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the troth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 16, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 16 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
17. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the troth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 17, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
18. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 18, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
19. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 19, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proofthereofrequired at trial. Paragraph 19 is further denied in that the same contains
conchlsions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
20. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a beliefas to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 20, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 20 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial. To the extent a specific response is required, it is denied that the
Defendant driver nodded admittingly to any accusations of liability or fault at the scene of the
accident to anyone.
21. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a beliefas to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 21, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
22. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 22, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
23. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 23, and therefore, the same are denied with
4
strict pmofthereofrequired at trial. Paragraph 23 is further denied in lhat the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
24. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 24, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict pmofthereofrequired at trial. Paragraph 24 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
25. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 25, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 25 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
26. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the tn~th of the allegations contained in Paragraph 26, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 26 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
27. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 27, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 27 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
28. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 28, and therefore, the same are denied wilh
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 28 is fi,rther denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
29. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 29, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 29 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof reqt, ired at trial.
30. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge suffieiant to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 30, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 30 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
31. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 31, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 31 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
32. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 32, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 32 is further denied in that the same contains
6
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
33. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 33, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proofthereofrequired at trial. Paragraph 33 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
34. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 34, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 34 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
prooflhereof required at trial.
35. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a beliefas to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 35, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 35 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
36. Denied. Paragraph 36 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
37. Denied. Paragraph 37 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proofthe~of required
at trial.
7
38. Denied. Paragraph 38 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of laxv to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereofrequired
at trial.
39. Denied. Paragraph 39 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
40. Denied. Paragraph 40 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
41. Denied. Paragraph 41 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereofrequired
at trial.
42. Denied. Paragraph 42 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proofthereof required
at trial.
43. Denied. Paragraph 43 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
44. Denied. Paragraph 44 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
45. Denied. Paragraph 45 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
COUNT ! - NEGLIGENCE
GARY ENGLEBERT and SHARON ENGLEBERT
V.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER
46. Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., incorporate by
reference their responses to Paragraphs I through 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as if set forth
herein at length.
47. (a) - (j) Denied. Paragraph 47 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of
law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof
required at trial.
48. Denied. Paragraph 47 is denied in Ihat the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proofthercofrequired
at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc.,
respectfully demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs together with such costs
this Honorable Cour~ deems appropriate.
9
COUNT !I - VICARIOUS LIABILITy
GARY ENGLEBERT and SHARON ENGLEBERT
V.
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
49. Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., incorporate by
reference their responses to Paragraphs I through 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as if set forth
herein at length.
50. (a) - (j) Denied. Paragraph 50 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of
law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof
required at trial.
51. Denied. Paragraph 51 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the san~e is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc.,
respectfully demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs together with such costs
this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
COUNT 111 - LOSS OF CONSORTIU/~
SHARON ENGLEBERT
¥.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
52. Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., incorporate by
reference their responses to Paragraphs I through 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as if set forth
herein at length.
10
53. Denied. Paragraph 53 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proofthereofrequired
at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc.,
respectfully demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs together with such costs
this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
17. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
18. Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
! 9. Plaintiffs are barred and/or limited by all applicable provisions of the
Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law.
20. No act or omission on the part of Defendants was a substantial or contributing
factor in bringing about Plaintiffs' alleged injuries and/or damages, all such injuries and/or
damages being expressly denied.
2 I. Any and all injuries and/or damages as described by Plaintiffs in their Complaint,
the same being expressly denied, were caused in whole or in part by the acts or omissions on the
part of Plaintiffs and/or others over whom Defendants had no control nor right of control.
22. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the doctrine ofres judicata and/or
collateral estoppel.
23. Plaintiffs' claims are derivative in nature and are barred as a matter of law.
24. Defendants breached no duty of care owed to Plaintiffs under the circumstances.
25. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania Comparative
Negligence Act.
II
26. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the applicable provisions of the
Pennsylvania W ' '
orker s Compensation Act.
27. At all times material hereto, Defendants acted in a safe, legal and non-negligenl
nlanrlet.
28. Plaintiff's negligent operation of his motor vehicle was the sole and proximate
cause of all alleged injuries and damages.
29. Plaintiffs' Complaint and or claims are barred by their selection of limited tort as
set forth by 75 Pa.C.S.A. §1705.
BY: ~
MATTHE'v}' L. OW~ -- '
S, ESQUIRE
I.D. No. 76080
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17112
(717) 65 !-3501
Attorneys for the Defendants
\05_A~I-IA B~MLO\I- LPG\73927~ACS\i 8068~00111
12
The undersigned hereby verifies thai the statements in the foregoing Defendants'
Answer with Nexv Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are based upon information which has been
furnished to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the
preparation of the defense of this laxvsuit. The language of the Defendants' Answer with New
Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Answer with
New Mailer to Plaintiffs' Complaint, and to the extent that it is based upon information which I
have given to counsel, it is true and correct to lhe best of my knowledge, information and belief.
To the extent that the contents of the Defendants' Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs'
Complaint are that ofcounsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this verification. The
undersigned also understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18
Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
Dwayne
Title: -'-~ ,--~ :~-,
DATE:
The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing Defendants' Answer
with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are based upon infom~ation which has been furnished
to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of the
defense of this laxvsuit. The language ofthe Defendants' Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs'
Complaint is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Answer with New Matter to
Plaintiffs' Complaint, and to the extent that it is based npon information which I have given to
counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent
that the contents of the Defendants' Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are that of
counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this verification. The undersigned also
understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section
4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Christopher Hollister~' -"
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and : DOCKET NO. 01-3180
SHARON ENGLEBERT, :
Plaintiffs : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
V.
:
:
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and :
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC., :
Defendants :
~ERTIFICATE OF SERVICF~
I, Angela Sanger, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do
hereby certify that on this ?,~ day of January, 2002, I served a copy of the foregoing
document via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid as follows:
Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
~ngela Sanger
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and : DOCKET NO. 01-3180
SHARON ENGLEBERT, :
Plaintiffs : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
V. '
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and :
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC., :
Defendants :
AND NOW, this ~o day of ~.~~, 2002, upon
consideration
of
Defendants' Petition to Join Additional Defendant, Gary Englebert, it is hereby ORDERED and
DECREED that said Petition is GRANTED. Defendants may file and serve the Joinder
Englebert.
Complaint against Additional Defendant, Gary
BY:
(J.)
/
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and : DOCKET NO. 01-3180
SHARON ENGLEBERT, :
Plaintiffs : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
.'
V. '
:
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and :
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC., :
Defendants :
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 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 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 Court Administrator
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Phone: (717) 240-6200
NOTI¢IA
Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere
defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas
si§uientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de
la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe prsenar
una apariencia
escrita o en persona o por abogato y archivar en la corte en
forma escrista sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en
contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se deefiende,
la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted
sin revio aviso o notificacion y por cualquier queja o alivio
que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder
dinero o
sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted.
LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO
TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL
SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA
DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITAABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DON-DE SE
PUEDE CONSEQUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
Cumberland County Court Administrator
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Phone: (717) 240-6200
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER,
COLEMAN
DATE: BY: ~
S.CT.I.D. NO. 76080
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17112
(717) 651-3501
\ 05_A\ ~iAB\M~O\S~PG\ 84849\RKN\ 1506 fl \00111
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and : DOCKET NO. 01-3180
SHARON ENGLEBERT, :
Plaintiffs : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
V. i
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and :
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC., :
Defendants :
..IOINDER COMPLAINT
1. Additional Defendant, Gary Englebert, is an adult individual, who at all times
relevant hereto resided at 172 Benders Church Road, Biglerville, Pennsylvania, 17307.
2. Plaintiffs, Gary Englcbert and Sharon Englebert, instituted this action by filing a
Complaint in the Lebanon County Court of Common Pleas on or about May 24, 2001. (A true
and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Complaint is attached hereto and identified as Exhibit "A").
3. Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., filed an Answer
with New Matter denying any and all allegations of negligence and/or liability in the
Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas. (A true and correct copy of Defendants' Answer
with New Matter is attached hereto and identified as Exhibit "B").
4. Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges personal injury sustained by both Gary Englebert
and Sharon Englebert, a front seat passenger in a vehicle operated by Gary Englebert, as a result
of a collision which occurred on May 2, 2000 in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
5. Following the closure of pleadings in this case and with the completion of written
discovery and depositions of the parties, additional theories of liability and causation for
Plaintiffs' injuries have been discovered by moving Defendants, York Waste Disposal, Inc. and
Christopher Hollister.
COUNT l.
Christo_nher Hollister and York Waste Dis_nosal. Inc. v. Gary_ Englebert
6. Paragraphs 1 through 5 above are incorporated herein by reference as though fully
set forth at length herein.
7. Proposed Additional Defendant, Gary Englebert was operating a vehicle in which
Plaintiff, Sharon Englebert, was riding as a passenger at the time of the collision with the York
Waste Disposal truck operated by Defendant, Christopher Hollister, on May 2, 2000.
8. Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert, allege in their Complaint that
Defendant driver, Christopher Hollister, backed his garbage track out of a commercial property
driveway and on to Trindle Road, directly in front of them, which caused a collision.
9. Through discovery and deposition testimony, Defendant, Christopher Hollister,
maintains that he stopped his vehicle well short of Trindle Road and that proposed Additional
Defendant, Gary Englebert, currently a Plaintiff in this action, panicked, slammed on his brakes,
and lost control of his vehicle, sliding offof Trindle Road and colliding with Defendant's truck,
offofTrindle Road, thereby causing injuries as alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint, the same being
denied with strict proof thereof required at trial.
10. Additional Defendant, Gary Englebert, owed a duty to Plaintiff, Sharon Englebert.
and Defendant, Christopher Hollister, as the operator ofthe York Waste garbage truck, to
2
operate his vehicle in a safe and non-negligent manner, so as to avoid collision and causing
injury.
11. All losses, injuries and/or resulting damages sustained by the Plaintiffs, the same
being expressly denied, on behalf of Defendant, as described by the Plaintiffs in their Complaint,
were caused by the carelessness and/or negligence of Additional Defendant, Gary Englebert, as
follows:
(a) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed to or caused the subject accident of this
litigation by failing to maintain proper control of his vehicle;
(b) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed to or caused the subject accident of this
litigation by failing to operate his vehicle with due regard for the rights, safety, well-being and
position of his passenger and wife, Sharon Englebert, and Defendant driver Christopher
Hollister;
(c) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed to or caused the subject accident of this
litigation by failing to maneuver his vehicle appropriately to avoid striking the York Waste
vehicle operated by Christopher Hollister;
(d) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed to or caused the subject accident of this
litigation by failing to have his vehicle under proper and adequate control so as to avoid an
accident and avoid striking the York Waste truck operated by Defendant Christopher Hollister;
3
(e) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed to or caused the subject accident of this
litigation by failing to keep an appropriate lookout and obey the rules of the road, thereby
causing a collision with the York Waste vehicle driven by Defendant, Christopher Hollister;
(f) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed or caused the subject accident of this litigation
by negligently, carelessly and/or recklessly applying the brakes and maneuvering his vehicle so
as to cause a collision with the York Waste truck operated by Defendant, Christopher Hollister;
(g) Through extensive investigation and discovery including depositions, it has
become apparent that Gary Englebert contributed or caused the subject accident of this litigation
by negligently operating his vehicle so as to lose control and cause the collision/accident with the
York Waste truck operated by Defendant, Christopher Hollister.
12. Additional Defendant, Gary Englebert, is solely, exclusively, and/or contributorily
responsible for any alleged damages, the same being expressly denied as set forth in Plaintiffs'
Complaint and no act or failure on behalf of Defendants, York Waste Disposal, Inc. and
Christopher Hollister, caused or contributed to the occurrence of any damage or event alleged in
Plaintiffs' Complaint.
13. This Additional Defendant Complaint is filed to protect Defendants', York Waste
Disposal. Inc. and Christopher Hollister, rights to contribution in the event it is judicially
determined that Defendants, York Waste Disposal, Inc. and Christopher Hollister, are jointly
and/or severally liable to Plaintiff, the existence of any liability on the part of Defendants, York
Waste Disposal, Inc. and Christopher Hollister, hereby being expressly denied.
WHEREFORE, Defendants, York Waste Disposal, Inc. and Christopher Hollister,
demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiff or in the alternative, demand that
Additional Defendant, Gary Englebert. be found solely liable to the Plaintiff, Sharon Englebert,
or jointly and severally liable with Defendants, York Waste Disposal, Inc. and Christopher
Hollister, and liable over to Defendants for contribution and/or indemnity.
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER,
COLEMAN &/C~GIN
DATE: ' Z [, ~'/ OI BY:~
I.D. NO. 76080
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17112
(717) 651-3501
Attorneys for the Defendants
X05_A\LIA B\M LO\LLPG\g4845\RKN~18068~00111
5
VERIFICATION
The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing Joinder Complaint
are based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me and information which
has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of the defense ofthis lawsuit. The language of
the Joinder Complaint is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Joinder Complaint,
and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to counsel, it is true and
correct to tile best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of
the Joinder Complaint are that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this
verification. The undersigned also understands that the statements therein are made subject to
the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
Title: ]~e_~,'~.-~'],~--t ~a',
DATE: December t/o° ,2001
?~J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
B~. Charles W. Marsar, Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court LD. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Telephone: (717) 234-7828 Gary Engiebert. and
~csimile: (7171 234-6883 Sharon En~lebert
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
SHARON ENGLEBERT :
Plaintiffs :
V.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and
YQRK WASTE DISPOSAL. INC. :
Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE TO PLEAD
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 an
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
v~ithout 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'~APER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
I'I'~VE 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 Lawyer Referral Service
2 Liberty Ave.
Telephone (717) 249 - ~166 Iii R~"CI
GALLAQHER BAS81- ~ i · ~-_... _. , I liere i111~ ~ll~ i ly ~Mlll
JUN - ! 2001 ' '
OF HARIqISBUR~. PA
AV~$O
USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las
demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes pa§inas, debe tomar acci6n
dentro de los pr6ximos veinte (20) dfas despu~s de la notificaci6n de esta Demanda y.
Aviso radicando personalmente o pot medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y
r~.dicando en la Corte pot escrito sus defensas de, y objeciones a, las demandas
p. resentadas aquf en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de romar acci6n
como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fa]lo por
cualquJer suma de dinero reclamaci6n o remedio solicitado pot el demandante puede
ser dictado en contra suya pot la Corte, sin mas avJso adJcional. Usted puede perdec
dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted.
USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI
USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO O NO PUEDE PAGARLE A UNO, LLAME O VAYA A LA
SIGUENTE OFICINA PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE ENCONTRAR ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
Cumberland County Lawyer Referral Service
2 Liberty Ave.
Carlisle, PA 17013
Telephone (717) 249 - 3166
R.J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES. P.C.
BY: Charles W. Marsar, Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvnnia Supreme Court I.D. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Telephone: (717) 234-7828 Gary Englebert, and
Facsimile: /7171 2.,.~-F~R'~ Sharon En~leberr
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
GARY ENLGEBERT and : DOCKET NO.
SHARON ENGLEBERT, :
Plaintiffs :
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and :
YORK WAS ri: DISPOSAL, INC., :
Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
1. Gary Englebert, Plaintiff, is an adult-individual who, at all relevant times
hereto, resided at ! 72 Benders Church Road, Biglerville, PA 17307.
2. Sharon Englebert, Plaintiff, is an adult-individual who, at all relevant times
hereto, resided at 172 Benders Ch,6'rch Road, Biglerville, PA 17307.
3. Christopher Hollister, (hereinafter 'Defendant Driver~) is an adult-
individual and an employee, agent, apparent agent, ostensible agent, and/or servant
who, at all relevant times hereto, resided at 2140 Baltimore Pike, East Berlin. PA 17316.
4. York Waste Disposal, Inc. (hereinafter Defendant Corporation), is a
:orporation which, at all relevant times hereto, was incorporated under the laws of'the
Commonwealth of'Pennsylvania with a principal place of'business at 987 West Trindle
Road, Mechanicsburg, PA ] 7055.
5. Gary and Sharon Englebert both work at the Naval Base (NAVICP) in
Mechanicsburg, PA.
6. Every morning Gary and Sharon drive to work together from their home in
Biglerville to Mechanicsburg.
7. On May 2, 2000, Gary and Sharon were driving to work together as per
their usual route.
8. Gary was driving and Sharon was in the front passenger seat as they
traveled east on Trindle Road.
9. Fortunately both Gary and Sharon were wearing harness seat belts, and
Gary was driving under the speed limit, becausejust as they attempted to pass the
driveway at 5022 East Trindle, Defendant Driver backed a garbage truck directly into
their path.
10. Due to a large tree located at the edge olrthe driveway, Gary was unable
to see the defendant's truck until? was actually in the roadway.
i 1. Gary immediately hit his brakes in an effort to stop before striking the
garbage truck.
12. As Gary applied his brakes, the garbage truck continued to back out onto
the road.
2
13. There was no other reasonable course of action that Gary could have
taken to avoid this collision since oncoming traffic prevented him from swerving left and
the tree, along with telephone poles, prevented him from swerving right.
14. Sharon screamed as their vehicle violently struck the side of the garbage
truck head-on.
15. Instantaneously, Sharon began experiencing constricting chest pains,
while Gary bled from his hand and pain shot though his body.
16. Even though Gary and Sharon Englebert were traveling below the posted '
speed limit, their vehicle was damaged beyond repair.
17. Several bystanders assisted by pushing the Engle'bert's vehicle off'of the
road.
18. Within minutes ofthe crash, the police arrived on the scene.
i 9. After the police officer interviewed the parties and assessed the accident
scene, he concluded that the defendant driver was clearly the sole cause of the accident.
20. When the officer explained to the parties that Defendant Driver caused
the accident by not looking while backing out, the defendant driver nodded admittingly.
21. Although the officer indicated Defendant Driver's traffic violation on the
police report, the decision was m~ade, with Plaintiffs' consent, not to issue a citation to
Defendant Driver.
22. The evening of the accident, Gary and Sharon presented to the
Emergency Room of Gettysburg Hospital.
23. Sharon presented due to chest pain, bruising, chipped teeth, neck pain,
sore ribs, fever, and stiffness all over her body.
24. Gary presented due to pain and bruising of the right hand and wrist, neck
back pain, sore ribs, right shoulder pain, right hip pain, right foot pain, headache,
~nd soreness all over his body.
25. X-rays revealed that, rather than the normal curvature, Gary's spine had
been painfully straightened due to the collision.
26. In addition, the physician informed both Gary and Sharon that they were '
suffering from whiplash injury and a deeply bruised rib cage.
27. The physician informed Gary and Sharon that they would most likely
experience new aches and pains in the days to follow and to continue care with their
~'amily doctor.
28. Gary and Sharon were ordered not to return to work the rest of the week
in an effort to allow some time for their injuries to recover.
29. On May 1 l, 2000, Gary and Sharon presented to their family physician for
a follow up evaluation.
30. Sharon was still exhibiting bruising on numerous areas of her body.
31. Gary was still suffer.ring ~om pain in his neck, back, shoulder, right hip,
and the right side of his rib cage.
32. The family physician prescribed pain and anti-inflammatory medication for
Gary and referred both Gary and Sharon for a course of physical therapy.
33. At the initial physical therapy evaluation, Dr. Buohl stated that Gary was in
, bad shape, and, in fact, he felt that Gary was suffering from a compression fracture
in his vertebrae.
34. Gary endured many grueling physical therapy sessions several times per
week for more than six months.
35. More recently, Gary underwent an orthopedic evaluation, which revealed
he was suffering from a Herniated Nucleus Polposus at the C6-C7 level.
36. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants in
causing the collision, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert, have suffered the injuries and
damages detailed herein.
37. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Gary
and Sharon Englebert have suffered permanent and severe injuries.
38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert have been
and will continue to be forced to incur liability for medical treatment, medicines,
hospitalizations and similar miscellaneous expenses throughout their adult lives and a
claim is made therefor.
39. As a direct and pro~ximate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert have
undergone and in the future will undergo great physical pain and suffering, great
inconvenience in carting out their daily activities, loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment,
and emotional distress and a claim is made therefor.
5
40. Rs a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert have been
and in the future will be subject to great humiliation, disfigurement and embarrassment
and a claim is made therefor.
41. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert have
sustained in the past and will sustain in the future a loss of earnings, a permanent
impairment of their earning power and capacity and a claim is made therefor.
42. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence as alleged
herein and incorporated by reference, Plaintiffs, Gary and Shi~ron Englebert have been
advised and therefore aver that the damages and injuries alleged herein are permanent
and a claim is made therefor.
43. As a direct and proximate result ofthe negligence of Defendants, the
truck driven by Defendant Driver collided with the Englebert's vehicle causing Gary
Englebert to sustain severe, extensive and permanent personal injuries including but not
limited to his right hand, wrist, and shoulder, as well as his back, neck, and sternum, and
numerous other areas of injury and pain requiring medical treatment and therapy, and
may require medical treatment a? therapy in the future, and a claim is made therefor.
44. AS a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants,
the vehicle driven by Defendant-Driver collided with the Englebert's vehicle causing
Sharon Englebert to sustain severe, extensive and permanent personal injuries including
but not limited to her face, mouth, sternum, back, neck, and numerous other areas of
injury and pain requiring medical treatment and therapy, and may require medical
treatment and therapy in the future, and a claim is made therefor.
45. Rs a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants. Plaintiff,
Sharon Englebert. has been deprived of the care. companionship, and services of her
husband. Gary Englebert. for all of which damages are claimed.
COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
GARY ENGLEBERT and SHARON ENGLEBERT
V.
CHRISTOPHER HOLUSTER
46. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1- 45 of Plaintiff's Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference as if'fully set forth.
47. Regarding the accident, which is the subject matter of this Complaint,
Defendant Driver was negligent, careless, and/or reckless in the operation of a motor
vehicle in the following particulars:
(a) operating his vehicle in violation of the ordinances of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles,
including backing into a lane of ttavel without reasonably checking to see if any
vehicles were there and reckless driving, which constitutes negligence as a
matter of law: ,"
(b) failing to have the vehicle under proper and adequate control in
order to stop or avoid striking the Englebert's vehicle:
(c) failing to keep an appropriate lookout to avoid striking the
Englebert's vehicle;
(d) failing to maneuver his vehicle appropriately in order to avoid
striking the Englebert's vehicle;
(e) operating the vehicle without due regard for the rights, safety,
well being, and position of Gary and Sharon Englebert under the circumstances;
(f) operating his vehicle negligently, carelessly, and/or recklessly by
blindly backing into oncoming traffic;
(h) improperly, inappropriately and/or illegally backing in fi'ont of the
Plaintiffs vehicle;
(i) failing to yield the right of'way to oncoming traffic; and
0) failing to appropriatelyjudge the time an~l distance available to
pull out onto the street in front o£ Plaintiff's vehicle.
48. Defendant Driver is liable to Plaintiffs for their injuries and damages as
alleged herein as set forth in paragraphs thirty-six (36) through forty-five (45) above,
which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert demand judgment
against Defendant, Christopher Hollister, in an amount in excess of TWENTY-FIVE
THOUSAND DOLLARS (S25,000.00), together with interest and costs thereon as allowed
by law.
~.'
COUNT II - VICARIOUS LIABILITY
GARY ENGLEBERT and SHARON ENGLEBERT
V.
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL INC.
49. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1- 45 of Plaintiff's' Complaint are
ncorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
50. Regarding the accident, which is the subject matter of this Complaint,
Defendant Corporation was vicariously negligent, careless, and/or reckless in the
operation ora motor vehicle by having an employee, agent, apparent agent, ostensible
agent and/or servant:
(a) operating his vehicle in violation of the o~dinances of the
Commonwealth of' Pennsylvania pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles,
including backing into a lane of travel without reasonably checking to see it'any
vehicles were there and reckless driving, which constitutes negligence as a
matter of law;
(b) failing to have the vehicle under proper and adequate control in
order to stop or avoid striking the Englebert's ~ehic{e:
(c) failing to keep an appropriate lookout to avoid striking the
Englebert's vehicle; ,.'
(d) failing to maneuver his vehicle appropriately in order to avoid
striking the Englebert's vehicle;
(e) operating the vehicle without due regard for the rights, safety,
well being, and position of Gary and Sharon Englebert under the circumstances;
(f) operating his vehicle negligently, carelessly, and/or recklessly by
blindly backing into oncoming traffic;
(h) improperly, inappropriately and/or illegally backing in front of the
Plaintiffs vehicle;
(i) failing to yield the right of way to oncoming traffic: and
(j) failing to appropriatelyjudge the time and distance available to
pull out onto the street in front of Plaintiffs vehicle.
51. Defendant Corporation is liable to Plaintiffs for their injuries and damages
as alleged herein as set forth in paragraphs thirty-six (36) through forty-five (45) above,
which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at ler~gth.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert demand judgment
against Defendant, York Waste Disposal, Inc., in an amount in excess of TWENTY-FIVE
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00), together with interest and costs thereon as allowed
by law.
COUNT III - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
SHARON ENGLEBERT
V.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
52. The allegations contained in Paragraphs i- 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference as if' fully set forth.
53. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff',
Sharon Englebert, has been deprived of the care, companionship, services, society and
consortium of her husband, Gary Englebett, for all of which damages are claimed.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Sharon Englebert, demands judg .ment against Defendants
in an amount in excess of TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00), together
with interest and costs thereon as allowed by law.
R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
"--'-Ch-~e~, Marsa~', J~., ~
Attorney Identification No. 86072
2001
I!
~RIRCATION
We, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert, hereby swear and affirm that the facts and
matters set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of our
knowledge, information and belief.
We understand that the statements made herein are made subject to the
5. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities.
/ ~ ,-,.....,- P ~,~,< /"
Sharon £nglebert ~
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and : DOCKET NO. 01-3180
SHARON ENGLEBERT, :
Plaintiffs : CIVIL ACTION - LAW c~ ~. .,'~
V. : .a~.' :, ~-~ '.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and : ,r-.:':"' ,,.,
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC., : c: :r. :, ~
Defendants
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert
cdo Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed Answer with Nexv Matter to Plaintiffs'
Complaint on behalfofDcfendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., within
twenty (20) days from service herenfor a default judgment may be filed against you.
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER,
TTHEW .OWENS, Z~QUIR.~ '
I.D. No. 76080
100 Pine Street, 4th Floor
P.O. Box 803
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803
(717) 232-9324
DATE: ~(OIO,~Att°meysf°rlheDefendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and : DOCKET NO. 01-3180
SHARON ENGLEBERT, :
Plaintiffs : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
:
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and :
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC., :
Defendants :
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER
AND NOW comes Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., by
and through the undersigned counsel, who answer Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows:
1. Denied. Responding Defendants lack know]edge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
2. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as 1o
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 2, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict pruof thereof required at Irial.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
5. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as lo
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 5, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
6. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 6, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
7. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a beliefas Io
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
8. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a beliefas to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 8, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
9. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a beliefas to
the truth of the allegations conlained in Paragraph 13, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 13 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial. To the extent a specific response is required, it is denied that the
Defendant driver backed his track directly into the path of the Plaintiffs' vehicle.
10. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the troth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 10, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
11. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the troth of the allegations contained in Paragraph I 1, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
12. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the Imth oflhe allegations contained in Paragraph 12, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
13. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a beliefas to
the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 13, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 13 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
14. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 14, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
15. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a beliefas to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph ! 5, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
16. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 16, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 16 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
17. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 17, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
18. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a beliefas to
the troth oflhe allegations contained in Paragraph 18, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
19. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the troth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 19, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 19 is further denied in that Ihe same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
20. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a beliefas to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 20, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 20 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proofthereofrequired at trial. To the extent a specific response is required, it is denied that the
Defendant driver nodded admittingly to any accusations of liability or fault at the scene of the
accident to anyone.
21. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a beliefas to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 21, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial.
22. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 22, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict prooflhereof required at trial.
23. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a beliefas to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 23, and therefore, the same are denied with
4
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 23 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
24. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the troth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 24, ,and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 24 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
25. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the tn, th of the allegations contained in Paragraph 25, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 25 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
26. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a beliefas to
the in, th ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 26, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 26 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
27. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the troth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 27, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 27 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to xvhich no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
5
28. Denied. Responding Defendanls lack knowledge sufficient to form a beliefas to
the troth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 28, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proofthereofrequired at trial. Paragraph 28 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
29. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the troth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 29, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 29 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
30. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to fom~ a belief as to
the troth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 30. and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 30 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of laxv Io which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
31. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 31, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 3 i is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
32. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 32, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 32 is further denied in that the same contains
6
conclusions of laxv to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
33. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a beliefas to
the tnxth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 33, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 33 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
34. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a beliefas to
the troth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 34, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 34 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
35. Denied. Responding Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 35, and therefore, the same are denied with
strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 35 is further denied in that the same contains
conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict
proof thereof required at trial.
36. Denied. Paragraph 36 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
37. Denied. Paragraph 37 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
7
38. Denied. Paragraph 38 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proofthereofrequired
at trial.
39. Denied. Paragraph 39 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response ~s required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
40. Denied. Paragraph 40 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response ~s required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict pmofthereofrequired
at trial.
41. Denied. Paragraph 41 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
42. Denied. Paragraph 42 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response ~s required, and therefore, the same ~s denied with strict proofthereofrequired
at trial.
43. Denied. Paragraph 43 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereofrequired
at trial.
44. Denied. Paragraph 44 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response ~s required, and therefore, the same ~s denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
45. Denied. Paragraph 45 is denied in that the same contains conclusions oflaw to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
COUNT ! - NEGLIGENCE
GARY ENGLEBERT and SHARON ENGLEBERT
V.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER
46. Defendants, Christopher Hollistcr and York Waste Disposal, Inc., incorporate by
reference their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as if set forth
herein at length.
47. (a) - (j) Denied. Paragraph 47 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of
law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof
required at trial.
48. Denied. Paragraph 47 is denied in that the same contains conclnsions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proofthereofrequired
at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc.,
respectfully demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs together with such costs
this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
COUNT I1 - VICARIOUS LIABILITY
GARY ENGLEBERT and SHARON ENGLEBERT
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
49. Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., incorporate by
reference their responses to Paragraphs I through 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as ifset forth
herein at length.
50. (a) - (j) Denied. Paragraph 50 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of
law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof
required at thai.
5 i. Denied. Paragraph 5 i is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereofrequired
at trial.
WHEREFOR£, Defendants Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc.,
respectfully demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs together with such costs
this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
COUNT I!I - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
SHARON ENGLEBERT
V.
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
52. Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc., incorporate by
reference their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as ifset forth
herein at length.
10
53. Denied. Paragraph 53 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to
which no response is required, and therefore, the same is denied with strict proof thereof required
at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc.,
respectfiflly demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs together with such costs
this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
17. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
18. Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
i 9. Plaintiffs are barred and/or limited by all applicable provisions of the
Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law.
20. No act or omission on the part of Defendants was a substantial or contributing
factor in bringing about Plaintiffs' alleged injuries and/or damages, all such injuries and/or
damages being expressly denied.
2 I. Any and all injuries and/or damages as described by Plaintiffs in their Complaint,
the same being expressly denied, were caused in whole or in part by the acts or omissions on the
part of Plaintiffs and/or others over whom Defendants had no control nor right of control.
22. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the doctrine of res judicata and/or
collateral estoppel.
23. Plaintiffs' claims are derivative in nature and are barred as a matter of law.
24. Defendants breached no duty of care owed to Plaintiffs under the circumstances.
25. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania Comparative
Negligence Acl.
Ii
26. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by thc applicable provisions of the
Pennsylvania Worker's Compensation Act.
27. At all times material hereto, Defendants acted in a safe, legal and non-negligent
mamler.
28. Plaintiff's negligent operation of his motor vehicle was the sole and proximate
cause of all alleged injuries and damages.
29. Plaintiffs' Complaint and or claims are barred by their selection of limited tort as
set forth by 75 Pa.C.S.A. §1705.
MARSHALL, Ji~N1JCEHEY, WARNER,
MATTHE~ L. OWE'~S,
ESQUIRE
I.D. No. 76080
4200 Crams Mill Road, Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17112
(717) 651-3.501
Atlorneys for the Defendants
'05_A~LIAB\MLO\LLPGW.]927~ACS\18068~00111
12
The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing Defendants'
Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are based upon information which has been
furnished to counsel by me and informalion which has been gathered by counsel in the
preparalion of the defense ofthis lawsuit. The language of the Defendants' Answer with New
Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Answer with
New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint, and to the extent that il is based upon information which I
have given to counsel, it is tree and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
To the extent that the contents of the Defendants' Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs'
Complaint are that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this verification. The
undersigued also understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18
Pa.C.S. Section 4904. relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC.
Title: '~ ,~cr~ , ~ -4 ~,,~. ~ ~.-, tn[~,,.c~7 ~--.
DATE:
The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing Defendants' Answer
with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are based upon information which has been furnished
to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of the
defense ofthis lawsuit. The language of the Defendants' Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs'
Complaint is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Answer with New Matter to
Plaintiffs' Complaint, and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to
counsel, it is true and correct Io the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent
that the contents of the Defendants' Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are that of
counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this verification. The undersigned also
understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section
4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
C['uistopl~r Hollister '- "-
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and : DOCKET NO. 01-3180
SHARON ENGLEBERT, :
Plaintiffs : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
V. :
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and :
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC., :
Defendants :
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Angela Sanger, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do
hereby certify that on this !d/qtay of August, 2001, I served a copy ofthe foregoing
document via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid as follows:
Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and : DOCKET NO. 01-3180
SHARON ENGLEBERT, :
Plaintiffs : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
:
V. ~
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and :
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC., :
Defendants :
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Angela Sanger, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do
hereby certify that on this ~,vv~ day of January, 2002, I served a copy of the foregoing
document via First Class United States mail. postage prepaid as follows:
Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Angela Sanger
5. Comparative negligence is a defense as against Gary Englebert and not Sharon
Englebert.
6. Indeed, Sharon Englebert's claims may be valid but against Gary Englebert and
not the Defendants, and therefore, she would be prejudiced by not permitting the joinder of Gary
Englebert as a Defendant who may have caused or contributed to her injuries.
7. Finally, the delay ora mere five months to await the conclusion of discovery to
make a reasonable determination as to whether or not Gary Englebert should be joined is not
prejudicial, nor is it unreasonable.
8. It is not unusual, but customary practice, to conduct discovery and evaluate
whether or not the joinder of a party to a case makes sense or is supported by the evidence and
fact of that case.
9. Therefore, the joinder of Gary Englebert not only makes sense, but promotes
judicial economy in this case.
WHEREFORE, Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc.,
respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant the Petition for Leave to Join Gary Englebert
as an Additional Defendant in this case.
MARSHALL, DEN~IEHEY, WARNER,
BY: ~
-MATTHEW L.~)WENS, ESQUIRE
I.D. No. 76080
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17112
(717) 651-3501
DATE: ~l'~l O~'' Attorneys for the Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and : DOCKET NO. 01-3180
SHARON ENGLEBERT, :
Plaintiffs : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
.
V.
:
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and :
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC., :
Defendants :
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Angcla Sang(x, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warn(x, Coleman & Goggin, do
hereby certify that on this ~4( day of February, 2002, I served a copy of the foregoing
document via First Class United States mail, postagc prepaid as follows:
Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
R.J. Mm'zella & Associates, P.C.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
P.O. aox 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
Attorneys fo=Additional Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
GARY ENGLEBERT and : DOCKET NO. 01-3180
SHARON ENGLEBERT, :
Plaintiffs : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
:
V. ~
:
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and :
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC., :
Defendants :
SUR=REPLY OF DEFENDANTS. CHRISTOPHER HO!.I.IRTER AND
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL. INC.. TO PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEp'ENDANTS'
PETITION TO JOIN GARY ENGLEBERT AS AN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT
AND NOW comes Defendants, Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc.,
(hereinafter "Defendants"), by and through the undersigned counsel who file this Sur-Reply to
Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Petition to Join Gary Englebert as an Additional Defendant:
1. Plaintiffs allege that there will be prejudice suffered by Gary Englebert should the
Court grant Defendants' Petition to join him as an additional defendant.
2. It is well settled that merely becoming a party to an action, be it a defendant or
plaintiff, does not in and of itself lead to a prejudicial effect upon that party.
3. This would be especially tree where that party may have contributed to or caused
injuries of a separate Plaintiff.
4. Plaintiffs further aver that the joinder of Gary Englebert is duplicative of new
matter defenses raised including comparative negligence.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document has
been duly served upon the following counsel of record, by
depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on ~/).~/0~ :
in
Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
R. J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Matthew L. Owens, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin'
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B
Harrisburg, Pa 17112
Attorneys for Defendants
GOLDBERG, I(ATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C.
Job6 R. N~nosky, Esquire
I.D. ~: 78000
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
Attorneys-Additional Defendant
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
Attorneys for Additional Defendant
GARY ENGLEBERT and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
SHARON ENGLEBERT, : CUMBERL~/qD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs :
vs. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
:
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and : NO. 01-3180 CIVIL
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC., :
Defendants :
VS.
:
GARY ENGLEBERT, :
Additional Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ADDITION;LL DE~NDANT'SANSWER
TO DEFENDANTS' JOINDER COMPLAINT
A-ND NOW, comes the Additional Defendant, Gary Englebert, by
and through his counsel, Goldberg, Katzman and Shipman, P.C., who
files this Answer to Defendants' Joinder Complaint by
respectfully stating the following:
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
5. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 5 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.
COUNT I
Negligence
Christopher Hollister and York Waste Disposal, Inc.
v. Garv Enalebert
6. The answers to paragraphs i though 5 are incorporated
as though fully set forth.
7. Admitted.
8. Admitted.
9. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that
Defendant, Christopher Hollister, maintains he stopped his
vehicle short of Trindle Road. It is denied that this testimony
is correct. To the contrary, the accident was directly and
proximately caused by the negligence of Defendant Hollister.
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. This paragraph, including subparagraphs (a)
through (g) is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
12. Denied. This paragraph is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.
1029(e).
VERIFICATION
I, Gary Englebert, am the Additional Defendant in the this
matter, and I hereby acknowledge that I have read the foregoing
document; and that the facts stated therein are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
I understand that any false statements herein are made
subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. Section 4904, relating to
unsworn falsification to authorities.
,,;7
,~ary ~glebe~ - '
Date:
77254.1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document has
been duly served upon the following counsel of record, by
depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid,
in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on ~/~&/~ :
Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
R. J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Matthew L. Owens, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B
Harrisburg, Pa 17112
Attorneys for Defendants
GOLDBERG, IfATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C.
Johr~R. Ninosky, Esquire
I.D. #: 78000
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
Attorneys-Additional Defendant
77029.1
IL J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
BY: Charles W. Marsar, Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Court I.D. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Hanisburg, PA 17H0 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Telephone: (717) 234-7828 Gary Englebert, and
Facsimile- 1717~ 2.34-6883 ~hnron E~oi~he..rt
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUN'~Y, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
GARY ENGLEBERT and : DOCKET NO. 01-3180
SHARON ENGLEBERT : c: r..) -..~
CHRISTOPHER HO[LISTER and : ~- --, .
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC. : ~
Defendants : JURY IRIAL DEMANDED ~ t'~ ~
PLAINllFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' P~ 1]'liON
FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO JOIN
GARY ENGLEBERT AS ADDmONAL DEFENDANT
AND NOW this 17th day of January, comes the Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and
Sharon Englebert, {hereinafter "Plaintiffs") by and through their counsel, R.J. Marzella
and Associates, who file this Response to Defendant's Petition for Leave of Court to Join
Gary Englebert as Additional Defendant and in support thereof aver the following:
1. This action arises out oran automobile accident, which occurred on May
2, 2000 involving the Defendant and the Plaintiffs, Gary and Sharon Englebert.
2. Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the Cumberland County Court of Common
Pleas on or about May 24, 2001 against the Defendants.
3. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Christopher Hollister negligently backed
his front loader garbage truck out of a driveway and across Trindle Road directly in the
Plaintiffs on Trindle Road in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County.
4. Defendants filed an Answer with New Matter on or about August 6, 2001,
denying all allegations of liability and raising in the New Matter the defenses that the
accident was caused by other parties and that Plaintiffs' claim was barred and/or limited
by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act.
5. The parties conducted discovery, including exchange of Interrogatories.
Request for Production of Documents, and depositions of both the Plaintiffs and the
Defendant driver.
6. Following the completion of discovery, on or about January 2, 2002,
counsel for the Defendants filed a Petition for Leave of the Court to Join Plaintiff, Gary
Englebert, as Additional Defendant {hereinafter "The Petition").
7. In The Petition Defense Counsel cites to Defendant Driver's deposition
testimony, which maintains that he stopped his vehicle short of Trindle Road and
Plaintiff, Gary Englebert panicked, slammed on his breaks, and lost control of his vehicle
sliding offTrindle Road and striking the York Waste garbage truck. (See The Petition
page 3, paragraph 12}.
8. PlaintiffG~ry Englebert maintains through sworn deposition testimony
that at the time of impact, the garbage truck was completely blocking his lane of travel
on Trind[e Road.
9. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2253 provides that neither a Praecipe
for a writ to join an additional defendant, nor a Complaint, shall be filed by the original
Defendant later than 60 days after the service upon the original defendant of the initial
pleading of the Plaintiff, unless such filing is allowed by the court upon cause shown.
10. It is well settled law in Pennsylvania that Pa.R.C.P. 2253 was designed
primarily for the protection of the plaintiffso that his cause of action would not be
delayed by successive joinder of additional defendants. Graham v. Greater I.atrobe
School Dist., 260 A.2d 731,436 Pa. 440, Sup. 1970.
11. The Defendants must show, when requesting belated joinder of an
additional defendant, that the joinder is based on proper grounds, some reasonable
excuse exists for the delay in commencingjoinder proceedings, and that the original
plaintiffwill not be prejudiced by the late joinder. Lawrence v. Meeker, 717 A.2d 1046,
1048, Pa.Super., 1998. Francisco v. Ford Motor Co., 406 Pa.Super. 144, 593 A.2d 1277,
1278 (1991}.
12. The Defendants have the burden of proving sufficient cause to allow late
oinder of an additional defendant and must establish some reasonable justification for
:he delay in petitioning the court for leave to join an additional defendant. Exton
Development v. Sun Oil Co. of Pennsylvania, 525 A.2d 402,363 Pa. Super. 17,
Super. 1987. White v. American Honda Research of America 589 A.2d 363, Pa.Super. 17,
Super. 1991.
13. Defendants delayed more than five months after the 60-day period
allowed by Pa.R.C.P 2253 before filing The Petition.
14. Defendant's reasoning for the delay is that new information did not
become available until after the deposition of Defendant Driver was completed on or
about October 23, 2001. (See The Petition page 3, paragraph 12).
15. Following the completion of Defendant Driver's deposition, Defendants
then waited more than two more months before petitioning the Court for leave to join
an additional defendant.
16. Defendants' reasoning for the more than five-month delay in filing The
Petition is invalid.
17. Defense Counsel had ample time to learn of the testimony provided by
Defendant Driver, and, therefore, had ample time to join an additional defendant within
the bounds of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
18. Plaintiffs provided Defendants with two extensions in which to respond to
the Complaint, as well as, extensions in which to respond to written discovery. {See
correspondence attached hereto as Plaintiff's' Exhibit "A").
19. During such time. Defense Counsel had a sufficient opportunity to learn of
Defendant Driver's side of the story, which is now the reasoning for The Petition.
20. No new information, that was available to Defense Counsel at the time of
service of the Complaint, came to light in Defendant Driver's deposition. Therefore, the
reasoning set forth in T~'e Petition is invalid.
21. In their initial pleading, Defendants alleged that the accident was caused
by other parties and that Plaintiffs' claims were barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania
Comparative Negligence Act; thereby, preserving any allegations that Defendants intend
to present via Joinder. Therefore, no party will suffer any prejudice as a result of'
denying The Petition.
22. If the Court were to grant Defendants' Petition to join Plaintiff Gary
Englebert as a Defendant, a jury could perceive the Court as granting credence to
Defendants' already preserved Comparative Negligence allegation, thereby, creating
undue prejudice to Plaintiffs.
23. The Joinder of Gary Englebert as an Additional Defendant will only serve
to confuse the issues and mislead the jury.
24. Defendants have failed to express a reasonable excuse for filing The
Petition more than five months beyond the time limit set forth by the Pennsylvania Rules
of Civil Procedure; therefore, Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing
cause to join an additional defendant, as set forth in Exton and White.
25. In addition, Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing that
Plaintiff Gary Englebert will not be prejudiced by such joinder.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and Sharon Englebert, respectfully
request that this Honorable Court to DENY Defendants' Petition for Leave to Join
Additional Defendant, G'~ry Englebert.
R.J. Mnrzella & Associates, P.C.
Dated: l- /~ ,200~
.... EXHIBIT A -
A REGION.,.,. OEFENSE LITIGATION LAW FIRM
'
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B · Harrisburg, PA 171~2
(717) 651-3500 · Fax (717) 651-9630
BY:
September
~00]
~5 ~3 No~b ~ro~ Street
E~sbur~, PA ~7]]0
G~ and Sb~ EnS~¢be~ v. C~stophe~ ~oUJs~er and
Yo~k W~¢ Disposal, I~c.
C~P - CumbCd~d ~oumy, No. 0t-3180 - C~vil
Ou~ Fi]~ No. ~8068-001 ] ]
[ have scheduled a meeti~ with my cliems
hope to h~vc ~hese responses to ~ou by the ead o~this momh
move shis c~¢ ~o~ard, aad therefore, [ would [~ke to
~b~s case. Kindly comact me at you~ convenience so that we c~n schedule ~ese depositions.
Your ~Ecntio~ aad p~ompt respons~ is ~ppreciated. O~course, ~ would tike ~o have you~ c~J¢~s'
~TTH~W
MLO/acs
A REGIO~.,,L DEFENSE LITIGATION LAW FIRM
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B. Harrisburg, PA 17112
(717) 651-3500. Fax (717) 651-9630
Direct Dial: 717-651-3501
Email: mowens~mdwcg, com
August 29, 2001
Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
RJ. IVlarzella & Associates, P.C. I~¥: ....................
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Re: Gary and Sharon Englebert v. Christopher Hollister and
York Waste Disposal, Inc.
CCP - Cumberland County,, No. 01-3180 - Civil
Our File No. 18068-00111
Dear Mr. Marsar:
I am in receipt of your clients' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents directed
independently to my two clients, York Waste Disposal, Inc. and Christopher Hollister. I would appreciate a 30-
day extension to respond to these discovery requests in light of the fact that several key people are on vacation
during the month o£August. I will assume you have granted this extension unless I hear from you to the
contrary,.
I currently enclose my clients' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents directed to
Gary and Sharon Englebert. Likewise, you may have an additional 30 days to respond.
Your attention is appreciated.
Very truly yours,
MLO/acs
enG.
' .~~R 3513 No~nq FRONT STR.E~T. ~L.~RRISBURG, PENNSYLVANI.A 171 I0.
717.234.7828 888.838.3426 717.234.6883
Attorneys & Counselors At L~w
July 20, 2001
Matthew L. Owens, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner. Coleman & Go§gin
4200 Crums Mill Road
Suite B
Harrisburg. PA 171 l0
Re: Englebert v. Hollister. et al.
Dear Matt:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation on the above-date, you had requested a
second extension within which to file your client's Answer. We agreed upon the new
due date of August $, 2001. I look fo~vard to your response within the new deadline.
Ifl can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
Charles W. Marsar. Jr./, ~
C'WMJr/
A ~EGIO~I.~L DEFENSE LITIGATION ~..~W FIR.VI
I ,., c,o z I
100 Pine Street, Fourth Floor. P.O. Box 803 · Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803 ~,,..~.~.
(717) 232-1022 · Fax (717) 232-1849~-"~.w.
Direct Dial: 717-232-9324 ~..._..
gmail: mowens~mdwcg.com ~ ~'-~ (~ ~'-~..~
~ JUN 2 2. 2001
B Y: ~ ...................
June
15.
2001
- Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Re: Gary and Sharon Englebert v. Christopher Hollister and
York Waste Disposal, Inc.
CCP - Cumberland County, No. 01-3180 - Civil
Our File No. 07040-
Dear Mr. Mm'sar:
Please be advised that Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. has retained the undersigned counsel to represent
York Waste Disposal and Christopher Hollister in the above-captioned matter. I enclose a copy of my Entry, of
Appearance.
I telephoned your office and left a voicemail as I was unable to reach you on the telephone. I would
appreciate a 30-day extension to file an Answer with New Matter. I will assume you have granted that
extension unless I hear from you to the contrary.
Please contact me should you have any questions at this time. Your attention is appreciated.
- MATTHE1/O~. OWLrn'~S ~,.,/~ ---.--.-~
MLO/acs
~OS_A\ L 1~ B~M LO',CO RR',73931 ~ACS',15000~50000
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Charles W. Marsar, Jr., hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this 77 day of January, 2002,
by depositing said copy in the United States Mail postage prepaid, first-class deliver, and
addressed as follows:
Matthew L. Owens, Esquire
- Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
4200 Crums Mill Road
Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 171 I0
R.J. MARZEU. A & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Charles~Marsar, fi'[--
ILJ. MARZELLA & ASSOGATES, P.C.
BY: Charles W. Marsar, Jr. Esquire
Pennsylvania Supreme Cou~ I.D. No. 86072
3513 North Front Street
Han~sbu~, PA 17110 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Telephone: (717) 234-7828 Gary EngieberG and
Facsimile: 1717~ 234-688~ Sharon
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
GARY ENGLEBERT and : DOCKET NO. 01-3180 .c~. r,o ~'~
SHARON ENGLEBERT : 7!:'. -. ·
Plaintiffs :
CHRISTOPHER HOLLISTER and : ~ '_'
YORK WASTE DISPOSAL, INC. :
Defendants : JURYTR[AL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' P~ I I I ION
FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO JOIN
GARY ENGLEBERT AS ADDmONAL DEFENDANT
AND NOW this 17' day of January, comes the Plaintiffs, Gary Englebert and
Sharon Englebert, (hereinafter "Plaintiffs") by and through their counsel, R.j. Marzella
and Associates, who file this Response to Defendant's Petition ['or Leave of Court to Join
Gary Englebert as Additional Defendant and in support thereof aver the following:
1. This action arises out of an automobile accident, which occurred on May
2, 2oo0 involving the Defendant and the Plaintiffs. Gary and Sharon Englebert.
2. Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the Cumberland County Court of Common
Pleas on or about May 24, 2001 against the Defendants.
3. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Christopher Hollister negligently backed
his front loader garbage truck out ora driveway and across Trindle Road directly in the
e Plaintiffs on Trindle Road in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County.
4. Defendants filed an Answer with New Matter on or about August 6, 200 I,
all allegations of liability and raising in the New Matter the defenses that the
accident was caused by other parties and that Plaintiffs' claim was barred and/or limited
by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act.
5. The parties conducted discovery, including exchange of Interrogatories,
Request for Production of Documents, and depositions of both the Plaintiffs and the
Defendant driver.
6. Following the completion of discovery, on or about January 2, 2002,
counsel for the Defendants filed a Petition f'or Leave of'the Court to Join Plaintiff, Gary
Engtebert, as Additional Defendant {hereinafter "The Petition"}.
7. In The Petition Defense Counsel cites to Defendant Driver's deposition
testimony, which maintains that he stopped his vehicle short of Trindle Road and
Plaintiff, Gary Englebert panicked, slammed on his breaks, and lost control of his vehicle
sliding offTrindle Road and striking the York Waste garbage truck. (See The Petition
page 3, paragraph 12).
8. Plaintiff G'~ry Englebert maintains through sworn deposition testimony
that at the time ol~impact, the garbage truck was completely blocking his lane of travel
on Trindle Road.
9. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2253 provides that neither a Praecipe
?or a writ to join an additional defendant, nor a Complaint, shall be filed by the original
Defendant later than 60 days after the service upon the original defendant of the initial
pleading of the Plaintiff, unless such filing is allowed by the court upon cause shown.
10. It is well settled law in Pennsylvania that Pa.R.C.P. 2253 was designed
primarily for the protection of the plaintiffso that his cause of action would not be
delayed by successive joinder of'additional defendants. Graham v. Greater Latrobe
School Dist., 260 A.2d 731,436 Pa. 440, Sup. 1970.
11. The Defendants must show, when requesting belated joinder oran
additional defendant, that the joinder is based on proper grounds, some reasonable
excuse exists for the delay in commencing joinder proceedings, and that the original
daintiffwill not be prejudiced by the latejoinder. Lawrence v. Meeker, 717 A.2d 1046,
048, Pa.Super., 1998. Francisco v. Ford Motor Co., 406 Pa. Super. 144, 593 A.2d 1277,
1278 {1991).
12. The Defendants have the burden of proving su~cient cause to allow late
additional defendant and must establish some reasonable justification for
petitioning the court for leave to join an additional defendant. Exton
Development v. Sun Oil Co. of Pennsylvania 525 A.2d 402,363 Pa. Super. 17,
Super. 1987. White v. American Honda Research of America, 589 A.2d 363, Pa.Super. 17,
Super. 1991.
13. Defendants delayed more than five months after the 60-day period
allowed by Pa.R.C.P 2253 before filing The Petition.
14. Defendant's reasoning for the delay is that new information did not
become available until after the deposition of Defendant Driver was completed on or
about October 23, 2001. (See The Petition page 3, paragraph 12).
15. Following the completion of Defendant Driver's deposition. Defendants
then waited more than t~vo more months before petitioning the Court for leave to join
an additional defendant.
16. Defendants' reasoning for the more than five-month delay in filing The
Petition is invalid.
17. Defense Counsel had ample time to learn of'the testimony provided by
Defendant Driver, and, therefore, had ample time to join an additional defendant within
the bounds of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
18. Plaintiffs provided Defendants with two extensions in which to respond to
the Complaint, as well as, extensions in which to respond to written discovery. (See
correspondence attached hereto as Plaintiffs' Exhibit "A").
19. During such time, Defense Counsel had a sufficient opportunity to learn of
Defendant Driver's side of the story, which is now the reasoning for The Petition.
20. No new information, that was available to Defense Counsel at the time of
service of the Complaint, came to light in Defendant Driver's deposition. Therefore. the
reasoning set forth in T~'e Petition is invalid.
21. In their initial pleading, Defendants alleged that the accident was caused
by other parties and that Plaintiffs' claims were barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania
Comparative Negligence Act; thereby, preserving any allegations that Defendants intend
:o present via Joinder. Therefore, no party will suffer any prejudice as a result of'
denying The Petition.
22. If' the Court were to grant De~'endants' Petition to join Plaintiff Gary
Englebert as a Defendant, a jury could perceive the Court as granting credence to
Defendants' already preserved Comparative Negligence allegation, thereby, creating
undue prejudice to Plaintiffs.
23. TheJoinder of'Gary Englebert as an Additional Defendant will only serve
to confiJse the issues and mislead the jury.
24. Def.endants have failed to express a reasonable excuse for filing The
Petition more than five months beyond the time limit set forth by the Pennsylvania Rules
of' Civil Procedure: therefore, Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing
cause to join an additional defendant, as sel~ forth in Exton and White.
25. In addition, Defendants have failed to meet their burden of.showing that
Plaintiff Gary Englebert will not be prejudiced by such .ioinder.
WHEREFORE. Plaintiffs, Gary Engleberr and Sharon Englebert, respectfiJlly
request that this Honorable Court to DENY Defendants' Petition for Leave to Join
Additional Defendant, G~ry Englebert.
Dated: ]- /7 ,2002
-E-XHIBIT A --
A REGION.~L DEFENSE LITIGATION L~.W FIRM
'
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B. Harrisburg, PA 17112
(717) 651-3500 · Fax (717) 651-9630
Direct Dial: 717-651-3501
BY:
Charles W. Marsar. Jr., Esquire September 6. 2001
RJ. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Re: Gary. and Sharon Englebert v. Christopher Hollister and
York Waste Disposal, Inc.
CCP - Cumberland Count, No. 01-3180 - Civil
Our File No. 18068-00111
Dear Mr. Marsar:
I have scheduled a meeting with my clients to prepare responses to your clients' discovet'y requests. I
hope to have these responses to you by the end of this month or September 30, 2001. My client is anxious to
move this case forward, and therefore, I would like to set aside dates in mid to late October for depositions in
this case. Kindly contact me at your convenience so that we can schedule these depositions.
Your attention and prompt response is appreciated. Of course, I would like to have your clients'
discovery, responses prior to the depositions, which I assume will not be a problem.
Very tml
MATTHEW
MLO/acs
A RI~GION.~.L DEFENSE LITIGATION L~w F
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B · Harrisburg, PA 17112
(717} 651-3500 · Fax (717) 651-9630
Direct Dial: 717-651-3501
Email: mowens(~.mdwcg.com
August
29,
2001
~ Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire
R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
3513 North Front Street
Hamsburg, PA 171 lO
Re: Gary and Sharon Englebert v. Christopher Hollister and
York Waste Disposal, Inc.
CCP - Cumberland County, No. 01-3180 - Civil
Our File No. 18068-00111
Dear IVlr. Marsar:
I am in receipt of your clients' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents directed
independently to my two clients, York Waste Disposal, Inc. and Christopher Hollister. I would appreciate a 30-
day extension to respond to these discovery, requests in light of the thct that several key people are on vacation
during the month of August. I will assume you have granted this extension unless I hear from you to the
contrary.
I currently enclose my clients' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents directed to
Gary and Sharon Engleben. Likewise, you may have an additional 30 days to respond.
Your attention is appreciated.
Vet3,- truly yours,
MLO/acs
enc.
' .~~1~. 3513 NORTH FRONT STREET, HARRISRURG, PENNSYLV^NI,~ ].7 ! ! 0'
717.234.7828 8888383426 7].7234.6883 F.~.'C
Attorneys & Counselors At Law
July 20. 2001
k'la~hew L. Owens, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
4200 Crums Mill Road
Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Re: Engleberr v. Hollister, et al.
Dear Mare
Pursuant to our telephone conversation on the above-date, you had requested a
second extension within which to file your client's Answer. We agreed upon the new
due date of'August 5, 2001. [ look forward to your response within the new deadline.
Ill can be of'any further assistance, please do nor hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
A REGION..~L OEFE~SE LITIGATION L.A~t FII~M
Erie
100 Pine Street, Fourth Floor, P.O. Box 803 · Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803
(717) 232-1022 · Fax (717) 232-1849 _=._.
Direct Dial: 71%232-9324
Email: moweus~mdwcg.com ~ )'~ C )'~ ~?~-~ ~-
JUN 2 2 2001
June
i5.
2001
Charles W. lVlarsar, Jr., Esquire
R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Re: Gary. and Sharon Englebert v. Christopher Hollister and
York Waste Disposal, Inc.
CCP - Cumberland County. No. 01-3180 - Civil
Our File No. 07040-
Dear Mr. Marsar:
Please be advised that Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. has retained the undersigned counsel to represent
York Waste Disposal and Christopher Hollister in the above-captioned matter. I enclnse a copy o£my Entry, of
Appearance.
I telephoned your office and left a voicemail as I was unable to reach you on the telephone. I would
appreciate a 30-day extension to file an Answer with New Matter. I will assume you have granted that
extension unless I hear from you to the contrary,.
Please contact me should you have any questions at this time. Your attention is appreciated.
- MATTHEW~. O~~-~--~
MLO/acs
'05 _ A~.LIA BVd LO".C 0 RR~7393 I~AC$\I
Cl]R'I~ICA~E OF SERVICE
I, Charles W. Marsar, Jr., hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
'oregoing document was served upon counsel of record this t'7 day of January, 2002,
by depositing said copy in the United States Mail postage prepaid, first-class deliver, and
addressed as follows:
Matthew L. Owens, Esquire
- Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
4200 Crums Mill Road
Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110
ILJ. MAeZl~IJ.A & ASSOClATr:S, P.C.
Charles~W~Marsar, Jri--' ~_~