Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-8894GERALD E. PADEN, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 11-8894 CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW c MOUNIR HADAM, -vim c Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDEWrn 7-A, a a - r :;r_ < 3;:, C-) :r CD COMPLAINT =r. r. z =rc i CD 01 . 73 AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Gerald E. Paden, by and through his attorneys, Saidis, Sullivan & Rogers and hereby respectfully represents as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Gerald E. Paden, is an adult individual currently residing at 65 Pine Creek Drive, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (hereinafter "Plaintiff") 2. Defendant, Mounir Hadam, is an adult individual currently residing at 69 West Main Street, Apt. 3, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (hereinafter "Defendant"). 3. Venue is appropriately laid in the Court of Common Pleas for Cumberland County as the cause of action occurred in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. Both parties are residents of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 5. On December 3, 2009, Plaintiff was the operator of a Chevrolet pick- up Law Offices of Saudis Sullivan & Rogers 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 truck traveling on Interstate 81 in a northbound direction just before the George N. Wade Memorial Bridge in East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6. At the same date and time, Defendant was the operator of a Honda Civic traveling in the left-hand lane of Interstate 81 in the same direction and location as Plaintiff. 7. Plaintiff legally moved into the left-hand lane and traffic in front of him slowed to a near stop. 8. While Plaintiff was breaking, Defendant struck the rear of Plaintiff's vehicle. 9. Immediately after being struck by Defendant's vehicle, Plaintiff felt pain in his lower back on the left side. 10. The force and impact of the collision caused pain, suffering and injuries to Plaintiff. 11. After the accident, both Plaintiff and Defendant pulled their vehicles to the left shoulder of the road and called the Pennsylvania State Police. 12. Plaintiff indicated to the Trooper that his back was injured. 13. As the day progressed after the accident, Plaintiffs back pain increased. 14. At approximately 3:00 p.m. on the day of the accident, Plaintiff was admitted to the Emergency Room at Carlisle Regional Hospital. 15. The treating physician's assistant, Marcia Sadler, did not order X-Rays or Law Offices of Saidis Sullivan & Rogers 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 any other treatment. 16. Plaintiff was released and advised to follow up with his family doctor in five (5) to seven (7) days. 17. Plaintiff visited his family doctor, Dr. Alexander Spasic, on January 6, 2010, and was referred to Penn's Wood Physical Therapy for rehabilitation therapy. 18. Plaintiff has had a total of seventeen (17) sessions of rehabilitation therapy, which has caused him to miss approximately twenty-two (22) hours of work. 19. The above described accident was caused by the carelessness and negligence of Defendant and consisted of the following: (a) Operating his vehicle in a careless, reckless, and negligent manner; (b) Operating his vehicle without due regard for the rights, safety and position of Plaintiff; (c) Operating his vehicle with no warning of approach or intended direction; (d) Failing to keep a proper lookout; (e) Failing to use due care under the circumstances; (f) Failing to notice the motor vehicle of Plaintiff; (g) Upon noticing the motor vehicle of Plaintiff, failing to yield the right- of-way to Plaintiffs vehicle; (h) Failing to take evasive action in order to avoid impacting with Plaintiffs vehicle; (g) Failing to obey the Rules of the Road and the Law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which constitutes negligence per se; (k) Failing to take into account the place and position of other motor vehicles lawfully traveling on the roadway; and (1) Such further acts of negligence, carelessness, and recklessness as will be developed by future discovery in this case. 20. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts of negligence, Law Offices of Saidis Sullivan & Rogers 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Plaintiff suffered and Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for the following damages: (a) Plaintiffs pain and suffering; (b) Plaintiff's loss of wages; and (c) Plaintiffs medical expenses. 21. The injuries sustained by Plaintiff were the result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant and were in no manner caused by an act or failure to act on the part of Plaintiff. 22. As a result of the above described carelessness and negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff incurred medical expenses. 23. As a result of the above described carelessness and negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff suffered from pain and suffering. 24. As a result of the above described carelessness and negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff suffered lost wages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Gerald E. Paden, respectfully requests judgment in his favor and against Defendant, Mounir Hadam, in an amount less than $50,000.00 plus interest and costs and grant such other relief that is deemed just and appropriate. Respectfully submitted, Law Offices of Saidis Sullivan & Rogers 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: ///S-// Z SAIDIS, SJXYVAN & ROGERS l?? n E. Kelso, Esq. Xftorney ID # 209107 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone: (717) 243-6222 Email: ikelso(D-ssr-attorneys.com Attomeys for Gerald E. Paden GERALD E. PADEN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 11-8894 MOUNIR HADAM, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VERIFICATION ', Gerald E. Paden, hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of our personal knowledge or information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: / e I t Gerald E. Paden GERALD E. PADEN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 11-8894 CIVIL ACTION -AT LAW MOUNIR HADAM, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this 18th day of January, 2012, 1 hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs Complaint upon all parties of record via United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 SAIDIS, SULLIVAN & ROGERS By: Cason E. Kelso, Esq Counsel for Plaintiff Law Offices of Saidis Sullivan & Rogers 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 1 fir= t'?Th' NOTAr'r' 2012 FEB 14 AM 11: 04 GUMBERLA" U coUnT'Y PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GERALD E. PADEN, Plaintiff, V. MOUNIR HADAM, Defendant. CIVIL DIVISION NO. 11-8894 ANSWER AND NEW MATTER (Jury Trial Demanded) TO: Plaintiffs You are hereby notified to file a written Response to the enclosed Answer and New Matter within twenty (20) days From service hereof or a judgment May b?ntp* 9ainst you. ,s, McDonnell, Hudock, & Skeel, P.C. Filed on Behalf of the Defendant Counsel of Record for This Party: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Pa. I.D. #83058 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE and SKEEL, P.C. Firm #911 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 901-5916 #18979 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GERALD E. PADEN, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, V. NO. 11-8894 MOUNIR HADAR (Jury Trial Demanded) Defendant. ANSWER AND NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Mounir Hadam, by and through his counsel, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, P.C., and Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire, and files the following Answer and New Matter and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Admitted. 3. Paragraph 3 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 4. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted in part. It is admitted that the Defendant was traveling in the left- hand lane of Interstate 81 in the same direction as the Plaintiff. It is denied that the Defendant was traveling in the same location as the Plaintiff. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 7. Paragraph 7 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 8. Admitted. 9. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 10. Paragraph 10 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 11. It is admitted that the Plaintiff and Defendant pulled their vehicles to the shoulder of the road. It is further admitted that the Plaintiff called the Pennsylvania State Police. The remainder of the averments of paragraph 11 denied generally and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 12. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 13. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 14. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 15. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 16. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 17. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 18. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 19. Paragraph 19 and all of its subparts state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 20. Paragraph 20 and all of its subparts state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 21. Paragraph 21 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 22. Paragraph 22 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 23. Paragraph 23 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 24. Paragraph 24 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Mounir Hadam, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiff with costs and prejudice imposed. NEW MATTER 25. The motor vehicle accident in controversy is subject to the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and this Defendant asserts, as affirmative defenses, all rights, privileges and/or immunities accruing pursuant to said statute. 26. Some and/or all of Plaintiffs claims for damages are items of economic detriment which are or could be compensable pursuant to either the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and/or other collateral sources and same may not be duplicated in the present lawsuit. 27. To the extent that the Plaintiff has selected the limited tort option or is deemed to have selected the limited tort option then this Defendant sets forth the relevant provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law as a bar to the Plaintiffs ability to recover non-economic damages. 28. This Defendant pleads any and all applicable statutes of limitation under Pennsylvania Law as a complete or partial bar to any recovery by Plaintiffs in this action. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Mounir Hadam, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiff with costs and prejudice imposed. Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEE".C. By: 242.-RaAh, Esquire uI for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer and New Matter has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this 13th day of February, 2012. Jason E. Kelso, Esquire 26 High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Attorney for Plaintiff) SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE 4 SKEEL, P.C. r By: n . Rauch, Esquire ounsel for Defendant GERALD E. PADEN, Plaintiff V. MOUNIR HADAM, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY;-REIMS) /ANIA NO. 11-8894 rnCo ' ' r- :73 CIVIL ACTION - AT LA1J ;7v -- cnr" JURY TRIAL DEMANDT2-1 ?c = .:'cam "c PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER 5 rv AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Gerald E. Paden, by and through his attorneys, Saidis, Sullivan & Rogers and hereby respectfully represents as follows: 25. Denied. The averments of this paragraph state legal conclusions to which no response is required. 26. Denied. The averments of this paragraph state legal conclusions to which no response is required. 27. Denied. The averments of this paragraph state legal conclusions to which no response is required. 28. Denied. The averments of this paragraph state legal conclusions to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Gerald E. Paden, respectfully requests judgment in his favor and against Defendant, Mounir Hadam, in an amount less than $50,000.00 plus interest and costs and grant such other relief that is deemed just and appropriate. Respectfully submitted, Law Offices of Sa.idis Sullivan & Rogers 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date. S/ 7/ Iz SAIDIS ULLI AN?ROC?E/R'S on E. Kelso, Esq. ,Attorney ID # 209107 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone: (717) 243-6222 Email: ikelso(EDssr-attornevs.com Attorneys for Gerald E. Paden GERALD E. PADEN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 11-8894 MOUNIR HADAM, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VERIFICATION I, Gerald E. Paden, hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Reply to New Matter are true and correct to the best of our personal knowledge or information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: ePaden GERALD E. PADEN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 11-8894 CIVIL ACTION -AT LAW MOUNIR HADAM, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this 7th day of March, 2012, 1 hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs Reply to New Matter upon all parties of record via United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 SAIDIS, SULLIVAN & ROGERS f r .?- By:-E J n E. Kelso, Esquire - ounsel for Plaintiff Law Offices of Saidis Sullivan & Rogers 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 i tu_ U- 2Ci2 APR 25 AM 11: i 2 ?,O DLRLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GERALD E. PADEN, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, V. NO. 11-8894 MOUNIR HADAM, (Jury Trial Demanded) Defendant. PRAECIPE TO SETTLE AND DISCONTINUE TO: THE PROTHONOTARY Please mark the above-referenced case settled and discontinued, with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, SALZMANN, HUGHES, P.C. By: 2?? 4? ?. son E. Kelso, Esqu' e Counsel for Plaintiff