Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-8647C li, 4J 16 PM 4: n(4 CG1"!SERLAND Coul.4TY PENNSYLVANIA Stephen G. Held, Esquire I.D. No. 72663 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: Held@HHRLaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff BRIAN ADAMS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. KRAFT FOODS CO., KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC., and GIANT FOOD STORES, INC, CIVIL ACTION-LAW Defendants NOTICE 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, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-3166 L? .?' ql.:2 .00 Po h`77/ (2 ??q- /9?'5'- R# -?2 67399 Stephen G. Held, Esquire I.D. No. 72663 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: Held@HHRLaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff BRIAN ADAMS, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vi. KRAFT FOODS CO., KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC., and GIANT FOOD STORES, INC, Defendants . NO. : CIVIL ACTION-LAW AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar accion dentro de los prdximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificacidn de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar accion como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamacion o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME 0 VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO 0 BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-3166 Stephen G. Held (72663) HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Ph. 717.238.2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff Fax 717.233.3029 held@ahhriaw.com BRIAN ADAMS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. KRAFT FOODS CO., KRAFT FOODS CIVIL ACTION - LAW GLOBAL, INC., and GIANT FOOD STORES, INC., Defendants. COMPLAINT AND NOW comes the Plaintiff, Brian Adams ("Mr. Adams"), by and through his attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by Stephen G. Held, Esquire, and makes the within complaint against the Defendants, Kraft Foods Co., Kraft Foods Global, Inc., and Giant Food Stores, Inc., and in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Brian Adams, is a competent adult individual currently residing at 304 3rd Street, P.O. Box 472, Boiling Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, Kraft Foods Co. ("Kraft Foods"), is a corporation registered and existing under the laws of Delaware, with its registered office address at Three Lakes Drive, Northfield, Illinois. 3. Defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc. ("Kraft Global'), is a corporation registered and existing under the laws of Delaware, with its registered office address at Three Lakes Drive Northfield, IL 60093 4. Defendant, Giant Food Stores, Inc. ("Giant"), is a corporation registered and existing under the laws of Delaware, with its registered office address at 1149 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 5. At all times material hereto, Kraft Foods and Kraft Global owned and sold products under the DiGiorno brand. 6. At all times material hereto and into the present, Giant operated and operates a grocery store located at 830 North US Route 15 in Dillsburg, York County, Pennsylvania. 7. On or about November 18, 2009, Mr. Adams was a business invitee upon the premises of the above Giant grocery store. 8. Mr. Adams purchased a DiGiorno Bacon Cheeseburger Stuffed Crust 12" Pizza ("the product") intended for his personal consumption from Giant. 9. At all times material hereto, Kraft Foods and Kraft Global, acting on their own and/or through their agents, servants, and/or employees, were engaged in the design, fabrication, manufacture, assembling, marketing, and/or sale of the product consumed by Mr. Adams. 10. At all times material hereto, Giant, acting on its own and/or through its agents, servants, and/or employees, was engaged in the marketing and/or sale of the product consumed by Mr. Adams. 11. On or about November 22, 2009, Mr. Adams was consuming the product when he 2 bit into a hard substance and broke his tooth. 12. Kraft Foods, Kraft Global, and Giant knew or should have known, that the product was dangerous and harmful and capable of causing harm and injuries to human beings. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE Brian Adams vs. Kraft Foods Co. 13. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth fully below. 14. At all times material hereto, Kraft Foods, acting on its own or through its agents, servants, workmen, and/or employees, was engaged in the manufacture, production, preparation, marketing, and/or sale of the product. 15. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to Mr. Adams were directly and proximately caused by the negligence and/or carelessness of Kraft Foods, its agents, servants, workmen, and/or employees, acting in the scope of their authority, specifically: a) in failing to furnish the product with adequate or proper warning of the danger of exposure to possible foreign objects within; b) in failing to properly design the product in order to avoid such injuries; C) in failing to adequately assemble and fabricate the product in order to provide a safe product; d) in failing to properly and/or adequately manufacture the product in order to provide a safe product; e) in failing to provide adequate warnings, cautions, and/or directions 3 concerning the dangers and limitations of the product; f) in failing to adequately or properly design, fabricate, manufacture, sell, label, and/or supply the product in a safe condition; g) in failing to adequately or properly test and/or inspect the product in order to provide a safe product; h) in failing to provide, establish, and/or follow adequate or proper quality control methods in the manufacture of the product so as to provide a safe product; i) in failing to keep abreast of the state of the art in science, engineering, and specific machine industry in connection with the design of the product; j) in failing to disclose to purchasers or users that the product was defectively and/or unreasonably designed, thereby making it dangerous to consume; k) in failing to adequately or properly test or inspect the product in order to insure its proper purpose; and 1) in failing to use that degree of care, skill, foresight, and caution required under the circumstances and by the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 16. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Kraft Foods, Mr. Adams has: a) suffered personal injuries including, but not limited to, a broken 4 front tooth; b) undergone continuing medical care for these injuries; C) suffered physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss; d) suffered a loss of life's pleasures and he will continue to suffer the same in the future, to his great detriment and loss; and e) underwent extensive medical treatment and care and incurred various expenses for the same, and may be obligated to continue such medical care and incur such expenses for an indefinite time in the future. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, Brian Adams, seeks damages from the defendant, Kraft Foods Co., in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County. COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE Brian Adams vs. Kraft Foods Global. Inc. 17. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth fully below. 18. At all times material hereto, Kraft Global, acting on its own or through its agents, servants, workmen, and/or employees, was engaged in the manufacture, production, preparation, marketing, and/or sale of the product. 19. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to Mr. Adams were directly and proximately caused by the negligence and/or carelessness of Kraft Global, its agents, servants, workmen, and/or employees, acting in the scope of their authority, 5 11 specifically: a) in failing to furnish the product with adequate or proper warning of the danger of exposure to possible foreign objects within; b) in failing to properly design the product in order to avoid such injuries; C) in failing to adequately assemble and fabricate the product in order to provide a safe product; d) in failing to properly and/or adequately manufacture the product in order to provide a safe product; e) in failing to provide adequate warnings, cautions, and/or directions concerning the dangers and limitations of the product; f) in failing to adequately or properly design, fabricate, manufacture, sell, label, and/or supply the product in a safe condition; g) in failing to adequately or properly test and/or inspect the product in order to provide a safe product; h) in failing to provide, establish, and/or follow adequate or proper quality control methods in the manufacture of the product so as to provide a safe product; i) in failing to keep abreast of the state of the art in science, engineering, and specific machine industry in connection with the design of the product; 6 j) in failing to disclose to purchasers or users that the product was defectively and/or unreasonably designed, thereby making it dangerous to consume; k) in failing to adequately or properly test or inspect the product in order to insure its proper purpose; and 1) in failing to use that degree of care, skill, foresight, and caution required under the circumstances and by the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 20. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Kraft Global, Mr. Adams has: a) suffered personal injuries including, but not limited to, a broken front tooth; b) undergone continuing medical care for these injuries; C) suffered physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss; d) suffered a loss of life's pleasures and he will continue to suffer the same in the future, to his great detriment and loss; and e) underwent extensive medical treatment and care and incurred various expenses for the same, and may be obligated to continue such medical care and incur such expenses for an indefinite time in 7 the future. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, Brian Adams, seeks damages from the defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc., in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County. COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE Brian Adams vs. Giant Food Stores, Inc. 21. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth fully below. 22. At all times material hereto, Giant, acting on its own or through its agents, servants, workmen, and/or employees, was engaged in the marketing and/or sale of the product. 23. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to Mr. Adams were directly and proximately caused by the negligence and/or carelessness of Giant, its agents, servants, workmen, and/or employees, acting in the scope of their authority, specifically: a) in failing to furnish the product with adequate or proper warning of the danger of exposure to possible foreign objects within; b) in failing to provide adequate warnings, cautions, and/or directions concerning the dangers and limitations of the product; C) in failing to adequately or properly sell, label, and/or supply the product in a safe condition; d) in failing to adequately or properly test and/or inspect the product in order to provide a safe product; e) in failing to disclose to purchasers or users that the product was defectively and/or unreasonably designed, thereby making it dangerous to consume; 8 f) in failing to adequately or properly test or inspect the product in order to insure its proper purpose; and g) in failing to use that degree of care, skill, foresight, and caution required under the circumstances and by the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 24. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Giant, Mr. Adams has: a) suffered personal injuries including, but not limited to, a broken front tooth; b) undergone continuing medical care for these injuries; C) suffered physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss; d) suffered a loss of life's pleasures and he will continue to suffer the same in the future, to his great detriment and loss; and e) underwent extensive medical treatment and care and incurred various expenses for the same, and may be obligated to continue such medical care and incur such expenses for an indefinite time in the future. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, Brian Adams, seeks damages from the defendant, Giant Food Stores, Inc., in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County. 9 COUNT IV - STRICT LIABILITY Brian Adams vs. Kraft Foods Co. 25. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth fully below. 26. At all times material hereto, Kraft Foods, acting on its own or through its agents, servants, workmen, and/or employees, was engaged in the manufacture, production, preparation, marketing, and/or sale of the product. 27. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to Mr. Adams were directly and proximately caused by the defective product of Kraft Foods, subjecting that company to strict liability in tort in the following particulars: a) Kraft Foods, in the regular course of manufacturing, producing, preparing, marketing, and/or selling the product, placed the product in the stream of commerce where it could be used in an appropriate manner; b) Kraft Foods, in the regular course of manufacturing, producing, preparing, marketing, and/or selling the product, placed the product in the stream of commerce in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition; C) Kraft Foods placed a defective and unreasonably dangerous product in the stream of commerce, as it failed to be of adequate design; d) Kraft Foods placed the defective and unreasonably dangerous product in the stream of commerce in the same condition in which 10 Mr. Adams used the same; e) Kraft Foods is strictly liable in failing to properly manufacture its product before placing the defective product in the stream of commerce; f) Kraft Foods is strictly liable for placing a defective product in the stream of commerce in failing to ensure that it did not sell a defective product to a merchant; g) Kraft :Foods is strictly liable for failing to properly test and inspect the defective product before placing it in the stream of commerce; h) The defective condition of the product which caused Mr. Adams' injuries existed at the time Kraft Foods prepared, marketed, and/or sold the product; and i) Kraft Foods placed the defective product in the stream of commerce without adequate warnings advising intended consumers, such as Mr. Adams of the product and the inherent dangers and potential risks of serious harm associated with the consumption of the product. 28. Mr. Adams consumed the product as was intended by Kraft Foods. 29. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Kraft Global, Mr. Adams has: 11 a) suffered personal injuries including, but not limited to, a broken front tooth; b) undergone continuing medical care for these injuries; C) suffered physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss; d) suffered a loss of life's pleasures and he will continue to suffer the same in the future, to his great detriment and loss; and e) underwent extensive medical treatment and care and incurred various expenses for the same, and may be obligated to continue such medical care and incur such expenses for an indefinite time in the future. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, Brian Adams, seeks damages from the defendant, Kraft Foods Co., in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County. COUNT V - STRICT LIABILITY Brian Adams vs. Kraft Foods Global, Inc. 30. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth fully below. 31. At all times material hereto, Kraft Global, acting on its own or through its agents, servants, workmen, and/or employees, was engaged in the manufacture, production, preparation, marketing, and/or sale of the product. 32. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to Mr. Adams were directly and proximately caused by the defective product of Kraft Global, subjecting 12 that company to strict liability in tort in the following particulars: a) Kraft Global, in the regular course of manufacturing, producing, preparing, marketing, and/or selling the product, placed the product in the stream of commerce where it could be used in an appropriate manner; b) Kraft Global, in the regular course of manufacturing, producing, preparing, marketing, and/or selling the product, placed the product in the stream of commerce in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition; C) Kraft Global placed a defective and unreasonably dangerous product in the stream of commerce, as it failed to be of adequate design; d) Kraft Global placed the defective and unreasonably dangerous product in the stream of commerce in the same condition in which Mr. Adams used the same; e) Kraft Global is strictly liable in failing to properly manufacture its product before placing the defective product in the stream of commerce; f) Kraft Global is strictly liable for placing a defective product in the stream of commerce in failing to ensure that it did not sell a defective product to a merchant; 13 a g) Kraft Global is strictly liable for failing to properly test and inspect the defective product before placing it in the stream of commerce; h) The defective condition of the product which caused Mr. Adams' injuries existed at the time Kraft Global prepared, marketed, and/or sold the product; and i) Kraft Global placed the defective product in the stream of commerce without adequate warnings advising intended consumers, such as Mr. Adams of the product and the inherent dangers and potential risks of serious harm associated with the consumption of the product. 33. Mr. Adams consumed the product as was intended by Kraft Global. 34. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Kraft Global, Mr. Adams has: a) suffered personal injuries including, but not limited to, a broken front tooth; b) undergone continuing medical care for these injuries; C) suffered physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss; d) suffered a loss of life's pleasures and he will continue to suffer the same in the future, to his great detriment and loss; and 14 r e) underwent extensive medical treatment and care and incurred various expenses for the same, and may be obligated to continue such medical care and incur such expenses for an indefinite time in the future. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, Brian Adams, seeks damages from the defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc., in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County. COUNT VI - STRICT LIABILITY Brian Adams vs. Giant Food Stores, Inc. 35. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth fully below. 36. At all times material hereto, Giant, acting on its own or through its agents, servants, workmen, and/or employees, was engaged in the marketing and/or sale of the product. 37. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to Mr. Adams were directly and proximately caused by the defective product of Giant, subjecting that company to strict liability in tort in the following particulars: a) Giant, in the regular course of marketing and/or selling the product, placed the product in the stream of commerce where it could be used in an appropriate manner; b) Giant, in the regular course of marketing and/or selling the product, placed the product in the stream of commerce in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition; C) Giant placed a defective and unreasonably dangerous product in the stream of commerce, as it failed to be of adequate design; 15 d) Giant placed the defective and unreasonably dangerous product in the stream of commerce in the same condition in which Mr. Adams used the same; e) Giant is strictly liable for placing a defective product in the stream of commerce in failing to ensure that it did not sell a defective product to a consumer; f) Giant is strictly liable for failing to properly test and inspect the defective product before placing it in the stream of commerce; g) The defective condition of the product which caused Mr. Adams' injuries existed at the time Giant marketed and/or sold the product; and h) Giant placed the defective product in the stream of commerce without adequate warnings advising intended consumers, such as Mr. Adams of the product and the inherent dangers and potential risks of serious harm associated with the consumption of the product. 38. Mr. Adams consumed the product as was intended by Giant. 39. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Giant, Mr. Adams has: a) suffered personal injuries including, but not limited to, a broken front tooth; b) undergone continuing medical care for these injuries; 16 C) suffered physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future., to his physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss; d) suffered a loss of life's pleasures and he will continue to suffer the same in the future, to his great detriment and loss; and e) underwent extensive medical treatment and care and incurred various expenses for the same, and may be obligated to continue such medical care and incur such expenses for an indefinite time in the future. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, Brian Adams, seeks damages from the defendant, Giant Food Stores, Inc., in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County. COUNT VII - BREACH OF WARRANTY Brian Adams vs. Kraft Foods Co. 40. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth fully below. 41. At all times material hereto, Kraft Foods, acting on its own or through its agents, servants, workmen, and/or employees, was engaged in the manufacture, production, preparation, marketing, and/or sale of the product. 42. At the time Kraft Foods sold the product to Mr. Adams, Kraft Foods warranted, both expressly and implicitly, that the product was free from defects, and was safe and suitable for consumption. 43, Kraft Foods breached the aforesaid warranties, both express and implied, by providing Mr. Adams with a product which was defective, dangerous, and hazardous, as 17 described above, and was neither safe nor suitable for its intended purpose. 44. As a direct and proximate result of Kraft Foods' breach of its express and implied warranties, Mr. Adams suffered personal injuries, as set forth above. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, Brian Adams, seeks damages from the defendant, Kraft Foods Co., in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County. COUNT VIII - BREACH OF WARRANTY Brian Adams vs. Kraft Foods Global Inc 45. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth fully below. 46. At all times material hereto, Kraft Global, acting on its own or through its agents, servants, workmen, and/or employees, was engaged in the manufacture, production, preparation, marketing, and/or sale of the product. 47. At the time Kraft Global sold the product to Mr. Adams, Kraft Global warranted, both expressly and implicitly, that the product was free from defects, and was safe and suitable for consumption. 48. Kraft Global breached the aforesaid warranties, both express and implied, by providing Mr. Adams with a product which was defective, dangerous, and hazardous, as described above, and was neither safe nor suitable for its intended purpose. 49. As a direct and proximate result of Kraft Global's breach of its express and implied warranties, Mr. Adams suffered personal injuries, as set forth above. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, Brian Adams, seeks damages from the defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc., in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County. 18 COUNT IX - BREACH OF WARRANTY Brian Adams vs. Giant Food Stores, Inc. 50. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth fully below. 51. At all times material hereto, Giant, acting on its own or through its agents, servants, workmen, and/or employees, was engaged in the marketing and/or sale of the product. 52. At the time Giant sold the product to Mr. Adams, Giant warranted, both expressly and implicitly, that the product was free from defects, and was safe and suitable for consumption. 53. Giant breached the aforesaid warranties, both express and implied, by providing Mr. Adams with a product which was defective, dangerous, and hazardous, as described above, and was neither safe nor suitable for its intended purpose. 54. As a direct and proximate result of Giant's breach of its express and implied warranties, Mr. Adams suffered personal injuries, as set forth above. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, Brian Adams, seeks damages from the defendant, Giant Food Stores, Inc., in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP Dated: November 16, 2011 By: - ? y1a Stephen G. Held, Esquire I.D. No.: 72663 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff 19 VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO PA R.C.P. NO. 1024 (c) Stephen G. Held, Esquire, states that he is the attorney for the party filing the foregoing document; that he makes this affidavit as an attorney, because the party he represents lacks sufficient knowledge or information upon which to make a verification and/or because he has greater personal knowledge of the information and belief than that of the party for whom he makes this affidavit; and that he has sufficient knowledge or information and belief, based upon his investigation of the matters averred or denied in the foregoing document; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Stephen G. eld, Esquire Date: November 16, 2011 SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNT Ronny R Anderson OF Sheriff ,yttatp ctiinit?er/r'r4 r ?, ody S Smith J39 Chief Deputy CUP` HRLAHO COUNT Richard W Stewart Solicitor lSYG?/Atill A Brian Adams Case Number vs. Giant Food Stores, Inc. (et al.) 2011-8647 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 11/17/2011 03:17 PM - Michelle Gutshall, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on November 17, 2011 at 1517 hours, she served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Giant Food Sjores, Inc., by making known unto Todd Ohara, Manager of Investigations for Giant Food Stores, Inc. at 1149 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013 its contents and at the same time handing to him personally the said true and correct copy of the same. t MIC ELLE GU ALL, DEPUTY 11/17/2011 On this date Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff mailed the within Complaint and Notice by certified mail, return receipt requested to Kraft Foods, Co. 11/17/2011 On this date Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff mailed the within Complaint and Notice by certified mail, return receipt requested to Kraft Foods Global, Inc. 11/21/2011 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that he served the within Complaint and Notice upon the within named defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc., in the following manner: On November 17, 2011 the Sheriff mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested a true and correct copy of the within Complaint and Notice to the defendant's last known address of Three Lakes Drive, Northfield, IL 60093. The certified mail return receipt card was received by the Cumberland County Sheriffs Office signed by an adult in charge on November 21, 2011. 11/21/2011 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that he served the within Complaint and Notice upon the within named defendant, Kraft Fogs, Co., in the following manner: On November 17, 2011 the Sheriff mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested a true and correct copy of the within Complaint and Notice to the defendant's last known address of Three Lakes Drive, Northfield, IL 60093. The certified mail return receipt card was received by the Cumberland County Sheriffs Office signed by an adult in charge on November 21, 2011. SHERIFF COST: $82.30 November 28, 2011 SO ANSWERS, RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF !rj GountySuitP Shards. I6eosoR. Inc. CO wyl-k- ? n04 M ¦ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Item 4 if Restricted Delivery Is desired. ¦ Print your name and address on the reverse' so that we can return the card to you. ¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: a Kraft Foods Co. Three Lakes Drive Northfield, IL 60093 A. Sign711v x ? Agent ?Addre B. Rem byVXgWA me) C. Dajjof De) 41 f r I`&-' I I f /O 1f 1 1 D. Is delivery address different from item 1? " If YES enter delivery address below: ? v--' KNo , 3. Service type ; - j ? certified M>Ij ', ail ' ? Registered `'- .013etum Receipt for Merchandise ? Insured Mail ILL @fj:° 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ? Yes 2. Article Number 7006 0810 0000 7881 8868 (Transfer fnxrr service labeq Ps Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 ¦ Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ¦ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ¦ Attach this card to the back of the maiipiece, or on the front If space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Kraft Foods Global Inc. Three Lakes Drive Northfield, IL 60093 A. Agent X %? % ? k?mdressee ,I. Recelv /V r D* of De D. Is delivery address different from Item 1? ? Yei If YES, enter delivery address below: No 3. Servi"T O e^` 0 Mi- ? EWm Mail ? Regh"rd, ? RkUrn Receipt for Merchandise ? InsureddMall ? C.O:U. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Exba Fee) ? Yes 2. Article Number (Henslerfromservicelaw 7006 0810 0000 7881 8806 PS Form 3811; February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-024A-1540 0 HARVEY, PENNINGTON LTD. BY: Ernest J. Bernabei, III, Esquire IDENTIFICATION NO.: 46359 1835 MARKET STREET, 29TH FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 563-4470 (215) 568-1044 (Fax) Attorneys for Defendant, KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC. (also incorrectly designated as Kraft Foods Co.) BRIAN ADAMS V. KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC., ET AL. Plaintiff Defendants COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 11-8647 CIVIL ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: 2? 1©r'1 t'r't? Z? n -u -< -Z C) , _ Do "? Qo xcC = 2-n ?sue N oral, -< u7 Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc. (also incorrectly designated as Kraft Foods Co.), in the above captioned matter. HARVEY, PENNINGTON LTD. BY: ERNEST J. BERNABEI, III Attorney for Defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc. 00013200 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance to be served by United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid, on December 21, 2011, upon: Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 R. Anthony Michetti, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 10 North Main Street, 2"d Floor Doylestown, PA 18901 ERNEST J. ABEI, III 00013200 FILED-OFFICE THE PROTHONOTARY HARVEY, PENNINGTON LTD. BY: Ernest J. Bernabei, III, Esquire IDENTIFICATION NO.: 46359 1835 MARKET STREET, 29TH FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 2011 DEC 27 PM 1: 38 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA (215) 563-4470 (215) 568-1044 (Fax) Attorneys for Defendant, KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC. (also incorrectly designated as Kraft Foods Co.) BRIAN ADAMS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff V. KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC., ET AL. Defendants NO: 11-8647 CIVIL REPLY OF DEFENDANT, KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC. (also incorrectly designated as Kraft Foods Co.) TO DEFENDANTS', GIANT FOODS STORES, INC. and GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC'S CROSSCLAIM Defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc., by and through its counsel, Harvey, Pennington Ltd, hereby sets forth the following reply to Defendants' Crossclaim. 69. Denied as a series of legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required. 00013324 ,, . " ? `,-?.. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of any and all Crossclaims against it. HARVEY, PENNINGTON LTD. BY. ERNEST J. BERNABEI, III Attorney for Defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc. -2- 00013324 VERIFICATION I, ERNEST J. BERNABEI, III, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I am the attorney of record for Defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc., in the within action and verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Reply to Crossclaim are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A., Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ERNEST J. BERNABEI, III Dated: ?a 00013324 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response of Defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc., to the Crossclaim of Defendants, Giant Food Stores, Inc. and Giant Food Stores, LLC, to be served by United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid, on December , 2011, upon: Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 R. Anthony Michetti, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 10 North Main Street, 2nd Floor Doylestown, PA 18901 ERNEST J. BERNABEI, III 00013324 Id Stephen G. Held, Esq. (72663) HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Ph. 717.238.2000 Fax 717.233.3029 Held@hhrlaw.com BRIAN ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. g"C,. -?; Attorneys for Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.: 11-8647 CIVIL TERM KRAFT FOODS CO., KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC., and GIANT FOOD STORES, INC., Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT. GIANT FOOD STORES. INC. AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Brian Adams, by and through his attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by Stephen G. Held, Esquire, and hereby files the within Reply to New Matter of Defendant, Giant Food Stores, Inc., as follows: 55.-68. These averments are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleadings are required. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment in his favor and against Defendants. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP (?r - a Stephe , Esq. (72663) 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff Date: January 18, 2012 0 VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO PA R.C.P. NO. 1024 (c) Stephen G. Held, Esquire, states that he is the attorney for the party filing the foregoing document; that he makes this affidavit as an attorney, because the party he represents lacks sufficient knowledge or information upon which to make a verification and/or because he has greater personal knowledge of the information and belief than that of the party for whom he makes this affidavit; and that he has sufficient knowledge or information and belief, based upon his investigation of the matters averred or denied in the foregoing document; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 9w,el k S ep n G. d, squire Date: January 18. 2012 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen G. Held, Esquire, hereby certify that on this 18th day of January, 2012, 1 served a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Reply to New Matter of Defendant, Giant Food Stores, Inc., by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, First Class, Postage Prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, upon the following individual(s): Ernest J. Bernabei, ill, Esquire HARVEY, PENNINGTON, CABOT, GRIFFITH & RENNEISEN Eleven Penn Center, 29th Floor 1835 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2989 Attorney for Defendant, Kraft Foods R. Anthony Michetti, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 10 N. Main Street, 2nd Flr. Doylestown, PA 18901 Attorney for Defendant, Giant Food Stores, Inc. HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP Stephen G. Held, Esquire I.D. No. 72663 1300 Linglestown Rd., Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff TO PLAINTIFF and CO-DEFENDANT YOLK ARE HEREBI` NOTIFIED TO FILE A NN'RIT FEN RESPONSE TO THE WITHIN NEW NIATTER WITHIN TWENTI' (20) DAPS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR AA DGMENT WILL BE ENTERED .AGAINST YOI'. i ERNEST.1. BERNABEI, III HARVEY, PENNINGTON LTD. BY: Ernest J. Bernabei, III, Esquire IDENTIFICATION NO.: 46359 1835 MARKET STREET, 29TH FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 563-4470 (215) 568-1044 (Fax) OF THE PR'0 fH-0NbTAR Attorneys for Defendant, KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC. (also incorrectly designated as Kraft Foods Co.) BRIAN ADAMS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff V. KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC., ET AL. Defendants ; NO: 11-8647 CIVIL ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC. (also incorrectly designated as Kraft Foods Co.) TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER Defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc., by and through its counsel, Harvey, Pennington Ltd.. hereby sets forth the following Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. Denied. Answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and therefore deems it denied. 000132' 2. Denied as stated as the proper entity for the purposes of this litigation is Kraft Foods Global. Inc. 3. It is admitted that defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with an office as referenced. 4. This averment is directed towards a defendant other than Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. 5. Admitted in part, denied in part. As to the portion of the averment which references ``at all times material hereto', Answering Defendant is unable to determine what this portion of the averment specifically references and therefore deems it denied without knowledge. it is admitted that Kraft Foods Global did, at a certain point in time, own certain DiGiorno product brands. 6. This averment is directed towards a defendant other than Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. 7. Denied. Answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and therefore deems it denied. 8. Denied. Answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and therefore deems it denied. 9. Denied. Answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and therefore deems it denied. 10. This averment is directed towards a party other than Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. 000132;; 11. Denied. Answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and therefore deems it denied. 12. Denied. To the extent that this averment applies to Answering Defendant, Answering Defendant specifically denies that it had any knowledge or constructive knowledge of any product defect and further specifically denies that at any time any relevant product was dangerous or harmful. On the contrary, at all times pertinent hereto, Answering Defendant had no actual or constructive notice of any dangers nor did Answering Defendant produce any dangerous or harmful products. COUNTI 13. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 12 as if set forth at length herein. 14. Denied. It is specifically that Kraft Foods had any involvement with this matter. On the contrary, the proper party for the purposes of this litigation is Kraft Foods Global, Inc. 15. (a)-(1) Denied. It is specifically that Kraft Foods had any involvement with this matter. On the contrary, the proper party for the purposes of this litigation is Kraft Foods Global, Inc. 16. (a)-(e) Denied. It is specifically that Kraft Foods had any involvement wit11 this matter. On the contrary, the proper party for the purposes of this litigation is Kraft Foods Global, Inc. By way of further answer, Answering Defendant has no knowledge or information as to the portion of this averment which alleges damages and therefore deems them denied. 00013253 WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint. COUNT II 17. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 16 as if set forth at length herein. 18. It is admitted that Answering Defendant manufactured and sold DiGiorno products for a period of time. 19. (a)-(1) Denied. To the extent that this averment references an incident or injuries, Answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to this portion of the averment and therefore deems it denied. As to the remainder of the averment which alleges negligence or carelessness under various theories, Answering Defendant specifically denies that it at any time was negligent, careless in any way whatsoever. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted in a reasonable, non-negligent manner at all times pertinent hereto. 20. (a)-(e) Denied. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant at any time was negligent. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted, at all times pertinent hereto, in a reasonable and non-negligent manner. As to the portion of this averment which alleges various in Answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to this portion of the averment and therefore deems it denied. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc.., demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint. -4- 00013253 COUNT III 21. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 20 as if set forth at length herein. 22. This averment is directed towards a defendant other than Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. 23. This averment is directed towards a defendant other than Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. 24. This averment is directed towards a defendant other than Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. WHEREFORE. Answering Defendant. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plaintiffs Complaint. COUNT IV 25. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 24 as if set forth at length herein. 26. Denied. It is denied that Kraft Foods is a proper entity for the purposes of this litigation. On the contrary, the proper for the name defendant is Kraft Foods Global, Inc. Therefore all allegations are specifically denied as they are directed to Kraft Foods. 27. (a)-(i). Denied. It is denied that Kraft Foods is a proper entity for the purposes of this litigation. On the contrary, the proper for the name defendant is Kraft Foods Global, Inc. Therefore all allegations are specifically denied as they are directed to Kraft Foods. -5- 0001 ;zl ? 28. Denied. It is denied that Kraft Foods is a proper entity for the purposes of this litigation. On the contrary, the proper for the name defendant is Kraft Foods Global, Inc. Therefore all allegations are specifically denied as they are directed to Kraft Foods. 29. Denied. While it is noted that the Count itself is directed improperly to Kraft Foods Co., noting that the specific averment references "Kraft Global", Answering Defendant specifically denies that either Kraft Foods or Kraft Global is a proper entity for the purposes of this litigation and therefore denies all portions of this averment. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc.. demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint. COUNT V 30. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 29 as if set forth at length herein. 31. It is admitted that Kraft Foods Global, Inc. manufactured and sold the DiGiorno pizza product line. 32. (a)-(i) Denied. To the extent that this averment alleges an incident and further alleges injuries. Answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to this portion of this averment and therefore deems it denied. It is specifically denied that the alleged product in question was at any time defective, dangerous, or improperly manufactured. On the contrary, Answering Defendant at all times produced a proper, non- defective and safe product. 33. Denied. Answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and therefore deems it denied. -6- 00013.5, 34. (a)-(e) Denied. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant was at any time negligent. On the contrary, Answering Defendant acted in a reasonable, non-negligent manner. As to the remainder of this averment which alleges various personal injuries, Answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this portion of the averment and therefore deems it denied. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plaintiffs Complaint. COUNT VI 35. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 34 as if set forth at length herein. 36. This averment is directed to a defendant other than Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. 37. This averment is directed to a defendant other than Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. 38. This averment is directed to a defendant other than Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. 39. This averment is directed to a defendant other than Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint. COUNT VII 40. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs i through 39 as if set forth at length herein. -7- 000132; 41. Denied. It is denied that Kraft Foods is the proper entity for the purposes of this litigation and therefore all portions of this averment are denied. 42. Denied. It is denied that Kraft Foods is the proper entity for the purposes of this litigation and therefore all portions of this averment are denied. 43. Denied. It is denied that Kraft Foods is the proper entity for the purposes of this litigation and therefore all portions of this averment are denied. 44. Denied. It is denied that Kraft Foods is the proper entity for the purposes of this litigation and therefore all portions of this averment are denied. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint. COUNT VIII 45. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs I through 44 as if set forth at length herein. 46. It is admitted that Answering Defendant manufactured the DiGiorno pizza product line during certain time periods. 47. Denied. As to the portion of this averment which alleges that Answering Defendant sold the product to the plaintiff, Answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to this portion of the averment and therefore deems it denied. The remainder of this averment is denied as a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. 48. Denied. To the extent that this averment alleges a breach of certain warranties. this portion of the averment is denied as a set of legal conclusions to which no -8- 000132;3 responsive pleading is required. It is specifically denied that any product manufactured or associated with Kraft Foods Global was defective, dangerous, hazardous or unsafe. On the contrarv. at all times pertinent hereto, Kraft Foods Global, Inc. manufactured products which were free of defect and safe for their intended purpose. 49. Denied. To the extent that this averment alleges breaches of warranty, this portion of the averment is denied as a set of legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required. As to the portion of this averment which alleges personal injuries, Answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to this portion of the averment and therefore deems it denied. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint. COUNT IV 50. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 49 as if set forth at length herein. 51. This averment is directed towards a defendant other than Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. 52. This averment is directed towards a defendant other than Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. 53. This averment is directed towards a defendant other than Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. 54. This averment is directed towards a defendant other than Answering Defendant and therefore no response is required. -9- 00032;; WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint. NEW MATTER 55. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 56. Plaintiff's claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 57. Plaintiff's claim is barred under the doctrine of laches. 58. Plaintiff's claim is barred and/or limited by plaintiff's comparative negligence. 59. The claims and damages set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint, all of which are specifically denied, are the direct and proximate result of parties and entities over whom Answering2 Defendant has neither control nor responsibility. 60. Plaintiff has failed to incur any damages causally related to any alleged products manufactured or distributed by Answering Defendant. 61. The "product" was substantially changed, altered, and/or misused after it left the control of Answering Defendant. 62. Some or all of plaintiff's claimed injuries are not causally related to the events alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint and preexisted these events. 63. Plaintiff's claims are limited and/or barred by the doctrine of estoppel. 64. Plaintiff's claims are limited and/or barred by the doctrine of r•es judicata. 65. Plaintiff has spoliated some or all of the evidence in this case. -10- OOOI3??;11 66. Plaintiff has misused the "product". 67. Plaintiff assumed the risk of harm. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint. HARVEY, PENNINGTON LTD. BY: ERNEST J. BE ABEI, III Attorney for Defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc. 000132 ; VERIFICATION NATALIE McCORMICK hereby certifies that she is a Representative for defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc., in the within action and verifies that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer and New Matter and New Matter Crossclaim to Plaintiff's Complaint are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. This statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A., Section 4904 relating to answorn falsification to authorities. " ZZxc ,--l-1- 2? N(St- NATALIE McCORMICK Dated: 000]3253 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer with New Matter of Defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc., to be served by United States First Class Mail. postage prepaid. on February 15, 2012, upon: Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 R. Anthony Michetti, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 10 North Main Street, 2nd Floor Doylestown, PA 18901 ERNEST J. BERNABEI, III 0001 32,; 0 .? VO ? N T r? Stephen G. Held, Esq. (72663) HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Ph. 717.238.2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff Fax 717.233.3029 Held@hhrlaw.com BRIAN ADAMS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO.: 11-8647 CIVIL TERM KRAFT FOODS CO., KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC., and GIANT FOOD CIVIL ACTION - LAW STORES, INC., Defendants PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC. AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Brian Adams, by and through his attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by Stephen G. Held, Esquire, and hereby files the within Reply to New Matter of Defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc., as follows: 55. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiff's Complaint states a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 56. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, it is denied that Plaintiff's claim is barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. 57. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, it is denied that Plaintiff's claim is barred under the doctrine of Loches. 58. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, it is denied that Plaintiff's claim is barred and/or limited by Plaintiff's comparative negligence. It is denied that Plaintiff was in any manner negligent. 59. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiff's claims and damages are the direct and proximate result of Defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc. 60. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiff incurred damages related to products manufactured or distributed by Defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc. 61. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, the product was not substantially changed, altered and/or misused after it left the control of Defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc. 2 I 62. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, none of Plaintiff's claimed injuries pre-existed the events alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint. 63. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiff's claims are neither limited nor barred by the doctrine of estoppel. 64. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiff's claims are neither limited nor barred by the doctrine of res judicata. 65. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiff has not spoliated some or all of the evidence in this case. 66. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiff did not misuse the product. 67. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiff did not assume the risk of harm. 3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests This Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendants. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP q?71 - - Stephen G. Hel , Esquire I.D. No.: 72663 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2.000 Attorneys for Plaintiff Date: February 23, 2012 4 VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO PA R.C.P. NO. 1024 (c) Stephen G. Held, Esquire, states that he is the attorney for the party filing the foregoing document; that he makes this affidavit as an attorney, because the party he represents lacks sufficient knowledge or information upon which to make a verification and/or because he has greater personal knowledge of the information and belief than that of the party for whom he makes this affidavit; and that he has sufficient knowledge or information and belief, based upon his investigation of the matters averred or denied in the foregoing document; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Stephen G. He d, Esquire Date: February 23, 2012 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen G. Held, Esquire, hereby certify that on this 23rd day of February, 2012, 1 served a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Reply to New Matter of Defendant, Kraft Foods Global, Inc., by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, First Class, Postage Prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, upon the following individual(s): Ernest J. Bernabei, III, Esquire HARVEY, PENNINGTON, CABOT, GRIFFITH & RENNEISEN Eleven Penn Center, 29th Floor 1835 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2989 Attorney for Defendant, Kraft Foods R. Anthony Michetti, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 10 N. Main Street, 2nd Flr. Doylestown, PA 18901 Attorney for Defendant, Giant Food Stores, Inc. HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP Stephe G. Held, Esquire I.D. No. 72663 1300 Linglestown Rd., Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff :i ? iLg?OT?,E MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN 4 F i "3 By: R. Anthony Michetti, Esquire L riD COUNT. Attorney I.D. # 30049 Attorney for Defendant, a t J ` l V1? A 10 N. Main Street, 2"d Floor Giant Food Stores, Inc. Doylestown, PA 18901 Telephone No. 267-880-2030 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW BRIAN ADAMS Vs. NO. 11-8647 KRAFT FOODS CO., KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC. and GIANT FOOD STORES, INC. STIPULATION AND NOW, this ?•? day of S\ ` , 2012, it is agreeed that Giant Food Stores, Inc., is dismi ed, without prejudice, from this action. This Stipulation may be sign in count s. Ste en eld, Esquire Ernest J. Bernabei, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Kraft Foods Co., and Kraft Foods Global, Inc. R. Anthony Michetti, Esquire Attorney for Giant Food Stores, Inc. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: R. Anthony Michetti, Esquire Attorney I.D. # 30049 Attorney for Defendant, 10 N. Main Street, 2"d Floor Giant Food Stores, Inc. Doylestown, PA 18901 Telephone No. 267-880-2030 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW BRIAN ADAMS Vs. NO. 11-8647 KRAFT FOODS CO., KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC. and GIANT FOOD STORES, INC. STIPULATION AND NOW, this 1- day of c\?? , 2012, it is agreeed that Giant Food Stores, Inc., is dismissed, without prejudice, from this action. This Stipulation may be signed in counterparts. Stephen Held, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff R. Anthony , Esquire Attorney for Giant Food Stores, Inc. Ernest J. Bern a , Esquire Attorney for Kraft Foods Co., and Kraft Foods Global, Inc. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: R. Anthony Michetti, Esquire Attorney I.D. # 30049 Attorney for Defendant, 10 N. Main Street, 2"d Floor Giant Food Stores, Inc. Doylestown, PA 18901 Telephone No. 267-880-2030 11 THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW BRIAN ADAMS Vs. KRAFT FOODS CO., KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC. and GIANT FOOD STORES, INC. ? oRDER' AND NOW, this fig of above-captioned matter is APPROVED. NO. 11-8647 2012, the attached Stipulation in the BY THE COURT: i J. 4-? cr) Er neesf Step d t?, C d" Id. ?- P- L 2 JAN -6 P C BE(?L A `t7 Couti PENNSYL',Atvom y Stephen G. Held, Esquire Attorney ID#72663 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff Fax : (717)233-3029 E-mail: Held @hhrlaw.com BRIAN ADAMS, •▪ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff • v. : NO. 11-8647 CIVIL TERM KRAFT FOODS CO., KRAFT FOODS •▪ CIVIL ACTION - LAW GLOBAL, INC., and GIANT FOOD STORES, • Defendants • PRAECIPE TO: THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please mark the above-captioned matter settled, discontinued and ended. Respectfully submitted, HAN H NING & ROSENBERG, LLP Dated: 12/13/13 11_ iiII,r Stephen "'di-quire I.D. No. 72663 Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen G. Held, Esquire, hereby certify that on this 2"d day of January, 2014, I served a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Praecipe to Settle, Discontinue and End, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, First Class, Postage Prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, upon the following individual(s): Ernest J. Bernabei, Ill, Esquire HARVEY, PENNINGTON, CABOT, GRIFFITH & RENNEISEN Eleven Penn Center, 29th Floor 1835 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2989 Attorney for Defendant, Kraft Foods R. Anthony Michetti, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman &Goggin 10 N. Main Street, 2nd Flr. Doylestown, PA 18901 Attorney for Defendant, Giant Food Stores, Inc. HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP % ' ♦ Stephen G. eld, Esquire I.D. No. 72663 1300 Linglestown Rd., Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff