Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-8754I -o'- r i? W. Scott Henning (20569) i ? 1 t?O;dU 1t?,o HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA '17110 Ph. 717.238.2000(jM$E?-???D COUN_ Fax 717.233.3029 PENNS` LN/A'R'A henning@hhrlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS WESLEY O. WEAVER, I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff I PENNSYLVANIA I V. I No. 11-8754 CIVIL I BRIDGEPORT PROPERTY I MANAGEMENT, LLC., I Defendant I CIVIL ACTION - LAW 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 Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (800) 990-9108 (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) dias despues de la notificaci6n 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 acci6n 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 reclamaci6n 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 O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (800) 990-9108 (717) 249-3166 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By: w W. Scott Henning (20569) HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Ph. 717.238.2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff Fax 717.233.3029 henning@hhrlaw.com I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS WESLEY O. WEAVER, I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff I PENNSYLVANIA I V. I No. 11-8754 CIVIL I BRIDGEPORT PROPERTY I MANAGEMENT, LLC., I Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT AND NOW come the Plaintiff, Wesley O. Weaver ("Mr. Weaver"), by and through his attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by W. Scott Henning, Esq., and bring forth this Complaint against Defendant, Bridgeport Property Management, LLC. ("Defendant"'), and in support avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Wesley O. Weaver is a competent adult individual residing at 1007 Brentwater Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Bridgeport Property Management, LLC. is a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company, with a last registered address of 3315 Market Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. At all times material hereto, Defendant was in ownership, management, and control of the property located at 67 Hummel Avenue, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania ("the Premises") 4. Plaintiff, Wesley O. Weaver believes and therefore avers that, at all times material hereto, Defendant was responsible for the maintenance of the Premises in a safe condition. 5. Plaintiff, Wesley O. Weaver believes and therefore avers that the retaining wall running along the driveway of the Premises is difficult to observe, during the darkness of night time hours. 6. Said wall is approximately four feet high at the point where Plaintiff fell. 7. At all times material hereto, there were no signs, railings, adequate lighting or other warning devices implemented to warn visitors of the hazardous condition on Premises. 8. Defendant had both actual and constructive notice of the above-stated hazardous condition. 9. On or about the evening of December 3, 2009, Plaintiff, Wesley O. Weaver visited the Premises for the first time. Mr. Weaver was lawfully upon the premises for the purpose of visiting a friend who lived on the premises in one of the apartment units. Because of the hour, the yard and surrounding area was dark. Mr. Weaver was walking around the house, unaware of the retaining wall and the hazard associated therewith, when he fell approximately four feet landing initially on his feet, then his buttocks, and then coming to rest on his back. 10. Mr. Weaver sustained injuries from this fall, as fully set forth below. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE Wesley O. Weaver v. Bridgeport Property Management, LLC. 11. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein as if fully set forth below. 12. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to Plaintiff, Wesley O. Weaver, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of Defendant, Bridgeport Property Management, LLC., individually or by its agents, servants, workmen, or employees, acting in the scope of their authority and employment, generally and more specifically as set forth below: a. In causing or permitting the retaining wall to remain unmarked, thereby posing an unreasonable risk of injury to Plaintiff and to other persons lawfully upon the Premises; b. In permitting the retaining wall to remain unmarked when Defendant knew or should have had reason to know that the likelihood of said unmarked wall posed a serious hazard to people on the premises; c. In failing to make a reasonable inspection of the premises which would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed by the unmarked wall, and thereby allowing the same to be and remain a dangerous condition when Defendant knew or should have known of it; d. In failing to post a warning sign or device as notification of the dangerous condition of the wall on said Premises; e. In failing to have adequate lighting on or in and about the retaining wall so as to illuminate the area, and thus allow the visualization that the retaining wall was present. f. In failing to erect a fence or barrier along the retaining wall to prevent an individual from falling over the retaining wall to the ground below. 13. Defendant had actual knowledge or should have known through the exercise of ordinary care and diligence that the wall on the Premises where Plaintiff, Mr. Weaver, fell was difficult to observe in the darkness. 14. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff, Mr. Weaver, sustained personal injuries including, but not limited to, a compression fracture of the L2 vertebrae. 15. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Mr. Weaver, has undergone, and will continue to undergo physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish to his detriment and loss, physically, emotionally, and financially. 16. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff, Mr. Weaver, has been hindered, and may in the future be hindered, from attending to his daily duties to his detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 17. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff, Mr. Weaver, has suffered, and may in the future continue to suffer, a loss of life's pleasures. 18. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff, Mr. Weaver, has been compelled, and may in the future be compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to expend sums of money for medical attention. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff, Mr. Weaver, has been compelled to expend money to compensate those who assisted him for the two months while Mr. Weaver was unable to perform the duties of daily life, to his detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Wesley O. Weaver, seeks damages from Defendant, Bridgeport Property management, in an amount in excess of compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING H&,,JW ENBERG, LLP r ?-- Date: B _???, ? y: W. Scott 2§nn4V, Esquir I. D. # 32298 1300 Linglestown Ro , Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 1711 Ph. 717.238.2000 Fax 717.233.3029 henning@hhrlaw.com Attomeys for Plaintiff, Wesley O. Weaver j, Handler Henning & Rosenberg LLP Attorneys at Law VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing document are based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the document is cf counsel and not my own. I Have mead the document 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 document are that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this Verification. The undersigned also understands that the statements made therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ?4JZ4?, /44, del Wesley O. ave r Date: C;' 1300 LINGLESTOWN ROAD, SUITE 2 1 HARRISBURG PA 17110 717 238 2000 1 f 717 233 3029 1 toll free 800 422 2224 1 www.hhriaw.com Ca lisle 717 241 2244 1 Hanover 717 630 8200 1 Lancaster 717 !314000 1 York 717 845 7800 WESLEY O. WEAVER, Plaintiff V. BRIDGEPORT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC., Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On the 24th day of January, 2012, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Complaint was served upon the following via Certified Mail: Justin Johanan Bridgeport Property Management 67 Hummel Avenue Lemoyne, PA 17043 Dated: - e/)'- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 11-8754 CIVIL Respectfully submitted HANDLER, HENNIW By: ROSENBERG, LLP W. Scott Pler?rling Supreme Court ID 1300 Linglestown R Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717)238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff Suite 2 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION WESLEY O. WEAVER, CASE NUMBER: 11-8754 ::. c-, o C-- ; rn=ti -10 Plaintiff ISSUE NUMBER: r"rn rn ti - v. NG?' PLEADING: BRIDGEPORT PROPERTY =a c _rc MANAGEMENT, LLC., PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE Defendant CODE AND CLASSIFICATION: FILED ON BEHALF OF: BRIDGEPORT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC., Defendant. COUNSEL OF RECORD: ADAM L. SEIFERTH, ESQUIRE Pa. ID4 89073 CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. 1011 Mumma Road, Suite 201 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 975-9600 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION WESLEY O, WEAVER, Plaintiff V. BRIDGEPORT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC., Defendant CASE NO: 11-8754 PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE TO: PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendant, BRIDGEPORT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC., in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. BY: ADAM L. SEIFERTH, S I Counsel for the Defendant A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED BRIDGEPORT PR.OPE Y MA AGEMENT, LLC. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE That counsel for the Defendant, BRIDGEPORT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC., hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of its PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE has been served on all counsel of record, by first class mail postage prepaid, according to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, on the day of i,& t, - / , 2012. W. Scott Henning Handler, Henning & Rosenberg 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Respectfully submitted, CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. BY: -ADAM L. SEIFE"RTH, P-SOTAR? Counsel for the Defendant BRIDGEPORT PROPE Y MA AGEMENT, LLC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION WESLEY O. WEAVER, Plaintiff V. BRIDGEPORT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC., Defendant TO: PLAINTIFF, WESLEY O. WEAVER YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD TO THE ENCLOSED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. /I ADAM L. 7 CASE NUMBER: 11-8754 -rrt •?. ISSUE NUMBER: . ; E :> C-, ' PLEADING: ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER CODE AND CLASSIFICATION: FILED ON BEHALF OF: BRIDGEPORT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC., Defendant. COUNSEL OF RECORD: ADAM L. SEIFERTH, ESQUIRE Pa. ID# 89073 CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. 1011 Mumma Road, Suite 201 Lemoyne, PA 1.7043 (717) 975-9600 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION WESLEY O. WEAVER, CASE NO: 11-8754 Plaintiff V. BRIDGEPORT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC., Defendant DEFENDANT'S ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Bridgeport Property Management, LLC. (hereinafter "Bridgeport"), by and through its attorneys, Cipriani & Werner, P.C., and files this Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Bridgeport, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs Complaint and the same are therefore denied. 2. Admitted. 3. Denied as stated. Defendant, Bridgeport, owned the premises where 67 Hummel Avenue, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania is located. By way of further answer, the property located at 67 Hummel Avenue was subject to a Residential Lease Agreement with Defendant, Bridgeport. To the extent that a further answer is required, the averments contained in paragraph 4 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 4. Denied. Defendant, Bridgeport, is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of Plaintiff's Complaint state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that a further answer is required, the averments contained in paragraph 4 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 5. Denied. Defendant, Bridgeport, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments regarding what Plaintiff may believe regarding the retaining wall running along the driveway of the premises. To the extent a further answer is necessary, the averments contained in paragraph 7 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Bridgeport, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 6 of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same are therefore denied. To the extent that a further answer is required, the averments contained in paragraph 4 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 7. Denied. It is specifically denied that the retaining wall presented a hazardous condition to those exercising due care for their own safety. To the extent a further answer is necessary, the averments contained in paragraph 7 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 8. Denied. Defendant, Bridgeport, is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of Plaintiff's Complaint state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that a further answer is required, the averments contained in paragraph 8 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Bridgeport, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 9 of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same are therefore denied. By way of further answer, the averments contained in paragraph 9 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 10. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 10 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE WESLEY O. WEAVER v. BRIDGEPORT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT. LLC. 11. Defendant, Bridgeport, incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 10 above as though fully set forth herein at length in response to paragraph I 1 of Plaintif'f's Complaint. 12. Denied. Defendant, Bridgeport, is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in paragraph 12 including subparagraphs (a) through (f) inclusive state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent a further answer is required, the averments contained in paragraph 12 including subparagraphs (a) through (f) inclusive are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 13. Denied. Defendant, Bridgeport, is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of Plaintiff's Complaint state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that a further answer is required, the averments contained in paragraph 13 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 14. Denied. Defendant, Bridgeport, is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of Plaintiff's Complaint state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. By way of further answer, the averments contained in paragraph 14 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, Defendant, Bridgeport, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments concerning the nature and extent of Plaintiff's alleged injuries, and the same is therefore denied. 15. Denied. Defendant, Bridgeport, is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of Plaintiff's Complaint state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. By way of further answer, the averments contained in paragraph 15 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, Defendant, Bridgeport, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments concerning the nature and extent of' Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages, and the same is therefore denied. 16. Denied. Defendant, Bridgeport, is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of Plaintiff's Complaint state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. By way of further answer, the averments contained in paragraph 16 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, Defendant, Bridgeport, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments concerning the nature and extent of Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages, and the same is therefore denied. 17. Denied. Defendant, Bridgeport, is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of Plaintiff's Complaint state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. By way of further answer, the averments contained in paragraph 17 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, Defendant, Bridgeport, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments concerning the nature and extent of Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages, and the same is therefore denied. 18. Denied. Defendant, Bridgeport, is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of Plaintiff's Complaint state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. By way of further answer, the averments contained in paragraph 18 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, Defendant, Bridgeport, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments concerning the nature and extent of Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages, and the same is therefore denied. 19. Denied. Defendant, Bridgeport, is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of Plaintiff's Complaint state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. By way of further answer, the averments contained in paragraph 19 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, Defendant, Bridgeport, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments concerning the nature and extent of Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages, and the same is therefore denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Bridgeport Property Management, LLC., demands that judgment be entered in its favor and against Plaintiff, Wesley O. Weaver, and that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. NEW MATTER 20. Defendant, Bridgeport, incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 19 above as though fully set forth herein at length in response to paragraph 20 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 21. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 22. The retaining wall located on the premises of Defendant, Bridgeport, was maintained in a reasonably safe condition at all times relevant to Plaintiff's Complaint. 23. The retaining wall located on the premises of Defendant, Bridgeport, was not in a hazardous or dangerous condition for its intended use. 24. The existence of the retaining wall presented an open and obvious condition and, therefore, should have been seen and avoided by Plaintiff. 25. Plaintiff's claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by the Comparative Negligence Act. Plaintiff's contributory negligence consisted of, but is not limited to, the following: a. Failing to keep a proper lookout; b. Failing to watch where he was going; c. Failing to avoid an open and obvious condition; d. Failing to take an alternative route that was safe under the facts and circumstances; e. Failing to pay attention; and, f. Failing to exercise due care for his own safety. 26. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the choice of ways doctrine in that Plaintiff knew, or should have known, of the existence of a safe alternative pathway. 27. Plaintiff's claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations and/or statute of repose. 28. Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages, if any, which are specifically denied, may have been pre-existing, either in whole or in part and are not causally related to the accident giving rise to the present litigation. 29. Discovery may reveal that Plaintiff's claims may be barred in whole or in part by one or more affirmative defenses set forth in Pa. R.C.P. 1030, which are incorporated herein by reference including, but not limited to, assumption of the risk, collateral estoppel, res judicata, release or immunity from suit. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Bridgeport Property Management, LLC., demands that judgment be entered in its favor and against Plaintiff, Wesley O. Weaver, and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. BY: ADAM L. SEIFERT , ESQUIRE Attorney ID# 89073 1011 Mumma Road, uit 201 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 975-9600 aseiferth@c-wlaw.com Date: `? - - X/( Counsel for the Defendant, BRIDGEPORT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT VERIFICATION I hereby affirm that the following facts are correct: Bridgeport Property Management, LLC is a Defendant in the foregoing action and I am authorized to make this Verification on their behalf. The attached Answer with New Matter is based upon information which I have furnished to my counsel and information which has been gathered by my counsel in preparation for this lawsuit. The language of the Answer with New Matter is that of counsel and not of me. I have read the Answer with New Matter and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the Answer with New Matter is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this verification. I hereby acknowledge that the facts set forth in the aforesaid Answer with New Matter is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: ze presentative Bridgeport Property Management, LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE That counsel for the Defendant, BRIDGEPORT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC., hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of its ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT has been served on all counsel of record, by first class mail, postage pre-paid, according to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, on thee' day of MAr'C,. , 2012. W. Scott Henning, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiff ) Respectfully submitted, CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. BY: ADAM L. SEIFERTH, ES IRE f. Counsel for the Defendan BRIDGEPORT PROPER Y MANAGEMENT YrS .. _??t'c t ! 1, t I 5 Y,.' ? Y l i.. b.J ?w. i.r???SY L? ???.4,? W. Scott Henning, Esquire I.D.#32298 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: Henning@HHRLaw.commailto:Henning@HHRLaw.com WESLEY O. WEAVER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. I No. 11-8754 CIVIL BRIDGEPORT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC., Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Wesley 0. Weaver, by and through his attorney, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by W. Scott Henning, Esquire, and responds to the Defendant's allegations of New Matter as follows: 20. Paragraph 20 is an incorporation paragraph to which no responsive pleading is required. 21. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 21 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 22. Denied. It is denied that the retaining wall, and more specifically the location of the retaining wall, was not maintained in a reasonably safe condition. The retaining wall and the location of the retaining wall posed a hazardous condition on the premises, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 23. Denied. It is denied that the retaining wall, and more specifically the location of the retaining wall, was not maintained in a reasonably safe condition. The retaining wall and the location of the retaining wall posed a hazardous condition on the premises, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 24. Denied. The existence of the retaining wall was not an open and obvious condition. The position and existence of the retaining wall was not observable during evening/night time hours. There was inadequate lighting and no other visible warnings of the existence of the substantial drop in elevation. 25. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 25 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiff was contributorily or comparatively negligent in any of the respects set forth in Subparagraphs (a)-(f), and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 26. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 26 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Choice of Ways Doctrine, otherwise known as the Assumption of the Risk Doctrine has any applicability to the subject cause of action based upon recent case law. Moreover, Plaintiff was unaware of the existence of the retaining wall and thus did not know or could be deemed to have knowledge of the existence of an alternative pathway, assuming such an alternative pathway even exists. Proof of the applicability of the Choice of Ways Doctrine/Assumption of the Risk Doctrine and whether or not Plaintiff knew or should have known of the existence of the safe alternative pathway, is demanded at the trial in this matter. 27. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 27 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that Plaintiff's claims may be barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations and/or Statute of Repose, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 28. Denied. It is denied that the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff were pre- existing, either whole or in part, and it is further denied that the Plaintiff's injuries and damages were not causally related to the incident set forth in the Plaintiff's Complaint, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 2.9. Denied. The allegation set forth in paragraph 29 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that one or more affirmative defenses set forth in Pa. R.C.P. No. 1030, such as Assumption of the Risk, Collateral Estoppel, Res Judicata, Release, or immunity from suit, would serve to bar or limit the Plaintiff's cause of action, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Wesley 0. Weaver, respectfully requests the Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor and against the Defendant, Bridgeport Property Management, LLC, for the relief set forth in his Complaint. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP Dated: By: W. Scott in Supreme Co r /oad 8 1300 Linglestow- Suite 2 H arrisburg, PA 1 (717)238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO PA R.C.P. NO. 1024 (c) W. SCOTT HENNING, 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 the Plaintiff was not available to execute the Verification so as to comply with the time deadline within which to file this document and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: -9 . _ f L --pt--?- WESLEY O. WEAVER, Plaintiff V. BRIDGEPORT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC., Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 11-8754 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On the 7th day of March, 2012, 1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Reply to New Matter, was served upon the following by depositing in U.S. Mail: Adam L. Seiferth, Esq. Cipriani & Werner 1011 Mumma Road, Suite 201 Lemoyne, PA 17043 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP I ' II uflOTAIi 2013JUu 10 PH 1: ',0 CUi-1r3CRLANO COUNTY PENIS YLVANIA W.Scott Henning, Esquire I.D.#32298 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717)238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: Henning@ HHRLaw.commailto:Henning(@HHRLaw.com WESLEY O. WEAVER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff ( CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. ( No. 11-8754 CIVIL 1 BRIDGEPORT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC., Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the Docket in the above captioned matter as Settled, Discontinued and End. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING&ROSENBERG,LL) By: W. Scott g Supreme Court ID(3,. 98 1300 Linglestown ad Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717)238-2000 Dated: b _�� / 7 Attorney for Plaintiff