Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-1387` F:IFILESTlien1sU4231 Kenda11\14231.I.com2.wpd Revised: 2/16/12 9:40AM George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire I.D. No. 49813 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER co rn MARTSON LAW OFFICES :r-:x3 --,rr, 10 East High Street C t Carlisle, PA 17013 t. , _. 17 (717) 243-3341 v = Attorneys for Plaintiff ; BRIAN E. KENDALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff eiv;iTerii /od 13187 V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW AUTOZONE, INC., AUTOZONE STORES,: INC., RALPH F. LAFFERTY JR., TOBY G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. LAFFERTY, LUCILLE GILMARTIN, and UNION HALL LAWN & GARDEN, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 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 Plaintiffs. 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 REDUCE FEE OR NO FEE: Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 6) 41C>3.75 Pb AT?/ dfasa,53 P-*a7la3y George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire I.D. No. 49813 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER MARTSON LAW OFFICES 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Plaintiff BRIAN E. KENDALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff NO. V. AUTOZONE, INC., AUTOZONE STORES,: INC., RALPH F. LAFFERTY JR., TOBY G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. LAFFERTY, LUCILLE GILMARTIN, and UNION HALL LAWN & GARDEN, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Brian E. Kendall, by and through his attorneys, MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER, and files this Complaint upon the following: 1. Plaintiff, Brian E. Kendall, is an adult individual residing at 138 "A" Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17013. 2 Defendants, Autozone, Inc., and Autozone Stores, inc., (hereinafter Autozone Defendants), are Nevada corporations with principal places of business at 123 South Front Street, Memphis, Tennessee 38103 and a local address of 725 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 3. Defendants, Ralph F. Lafferty, Jr., Toby G. Lafferty, John R. Lafferty, and Lucille Gilmartin (herein collectively referred to as "Owner Defendants") are adult individuals residing at 4010 South Olympic Way, Salt Lake City, Utah 84124. 4. Defendant, Union Hall Lawn & Garden is a Pennsylvania corporation with a principal place of business at 30 Allison Lane, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257. 5. Upon information and belief, Autozone, Inc., Autozone Stores, Inc., Ralph F. Lafferty, Toby G. Lafferty, John R. Lafferty and Lucille Gilmartin are the owners of real property located at 725 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013 (herein referred to as the "Premises") 6. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Autozone Defendants possessed, managed and controlled the business premises located at 725 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 7. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Union Hall Lawn & Garden Defendant provided snow and ice removal services to the business known as Autozone, located at 725 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013 (herein referred to as "Premises"). 8. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff Brian Kendall was lawfully upon the Premises. 9. At all times material hereto, Owner Defendants and Autozone Defendants, who owned, possessed, and controlled the Premises had allowed the condition of the parking lot pavement to deteriorate causing numerous depressions and potholes across the pavement in the parking lot. 10. At all times material hereto, Owner Defendants and Autozone Defendants, who had exclusive control of the Premises had allowed snow and ice to accumulate and remain on the parking lot of the Premises, in ridges or elevations of such size and character as to unreasonably obstruct travel. 11. At all times material hereto, Defendant Union Hall Lawn & Garden, who was required to perform snow and ice removal service for the Premises, had allowed snow and ice to accumulate and remain on the parking lot of the Premises, in ridges or elevations of such size and character as to unreasonably obstruct travel. 12. The accumulation of snow and ice on the parking lot constituted a danger to pedestrians traveling thereon. 13. Defendants had knowledge of the dangerous accumulation of snow and ice on the parking lot of the Premises. 14. At all times material hereto, Defendants were aware of the deterioration in the condition of the parking lot of the Premises and of the dangerous condition created by the snow, ice, depressions, and the potholes. 15. At all times material hereto, there were no warning signs posted on the Premises warning of the accumulation of ice and the numerous depressions and potholes that exist across the t parking lot. 16. Plaintiff Brian Kendall was not warned otherwise of the dangerous condition. 17. On or about January 26, 2011, Plaintiff Brian Kendall parked his car in the Autozone parking lot and when exiting his vehicle, he slipped and fell on a depression in the pavement covered by snow and ice. 18. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, Plaintiff Brian Kendall sustained serious injuries as set forth more specifically below. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE BRIAN KENDALL v. AUTOZONE INC. and AUTOZONE STORES INC. 19. Paragraphs 1-18 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth below. 20. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Autozone Defendants were in ownership, possession, management and control of the Premises and were responsible for maintaining the safe condition of the property known as Autozone, located at 725 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 21. On or about January 26, 2011, Brian Kendall was on the parking lot located immediately outside of the Auto Zone store, intending to enter the store as a business invitee. 22. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to Plaintiff Brian Kendall were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of Autozone, Inc., and Autozone Stores, Inc., and/or by their agents, servants, workmen or employees, acting in the scope of their authority and employment and more specifically as set forth below: (a) In causing or permitting the parking lot pavement to deteriorate creating depressions and numerous potholes which in and of themselves could cause and unreasonable risk of harm; (b) In allowing an accumulation of snow and ice to exist which aggravated the dangerous condition and compounded the risk posed by the depressions and potholes in its parking lot; (c) In failing to make reasonable inspection of the premises which would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed by the depressions and potholes; (d) In failing to make a reasonable inspection which would have revealed the accumulation of snow and ice in the parking lot which hid, disguised or r limited the visibility of the defects to the real estate caused by the depressions and pot holes; (e) In failing to take steps to warn patrons of the dangerous conditions; (f) In failing to place any non-skid material or ice melting material upon the accumulations of snow and ice in the parking lot; (g) In failing to place cinders or other non-skid melting material upon the area of the parking lot which had depressions or pot holes which disguised the defects in the real estate; and (h) In failing to adequately inspect the Premises to discover the unreasonably dangerous condition of the parking lot. 23. Autozone Defendants knew or should have known through the exercise of ordinary care, diligence, and inspection that the parking lot was in an unreasonably dangerous condition for their invitees. 24. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Autozone Defendants, Plaintiff Brian Kendall sustained serious injuries including, but not limited to, extensive quadriceps tendon rupture of the left knee and left lower extremity deep venous thrombosis. As a result of these injuries, Plaintiff developed extensive bilateral pulmonary embolism. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Autozone Defendants, Plaintiff Brian Kendall has undergone physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his detriment and loss, physically, emotionally and financially. 26. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Autozone Defendants, Plaintiff Brian Kendall has suffered lost wages/income and may in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 27. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Autozone Defendants, Plaintiff Brian Kendall has had, and will in the future, suffer loss of life's pleasures. 28. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Autozone Defendants, Plaintiff Brian Kendall has been compelled, in order to affect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention, and will be required to expend more for the same in the future, to his detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Autozone Defendants in an amount r in excess of $50,000.00, plus costs, interest, and delay damages. COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE BRIAN KENDALL V. OWNER DEFENDANTS 29. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 28 are hereby incorporated by reference. 30. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Owner Defendants were in ownership, possession, management and control of the Premises and were responsible for maintaining the safe condition of the property known as Autozone, located at 725 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 31. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to Plaintiff Brian Kendall were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of Owners and/or by their agents, servants, workmen or employees, acting in the scope of their authority and employment and more specifically as set forth below: (a) In causing or permitting the parking lot pavement to deteriorate creating depressions and numerous potholes which in and of themselves could cause an unreasonable risk of harm; (b) In allowing an accumulation of snow and ice to exist which aggravated the dangerous condition and compounded the risk posed by the depressions and potholes in its parking lot; (c) In failing to make reasonable inspection of the premises which would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed by the depressions and potholes; (d) In failing to make a reasonable inspection which would have revealed the accumulation of snow and ice in the parking lot which hid, disguised or limited the visibility of the defects to the real estate caused by the depressions and pot holes; (e) In failing to take steps to warn patrons of the dangerous conditions; (f) In failing to place any non-skid material or ice melting material upon the accumulations of snow and ice in the parking lot; (g) In failing to place cinders or other non-skid melting material upon the area of the parking lot which had depressions or pot holes which disguised the defects in the real estate; (h) Failed to properly inspect the premises when they leased the premises to the Autozone Defendants; (I) Failed to exercise reasonable care in securing a proper property manager or supervisor to inspect the premises to make sure it was safe for individuals traveling on the property which they knew would be open to the public; (j) Leased the premises for a purpose involving admission of the public neglected to inspect or repair dangerous conditions which existed on the parking lot before possession was transferred. (k) Undertook to repair the parking lot, but failed to do so with reasonable care; (1) Reserved control over the unreasonably dangerous and defective parking lot and failed to repair so that it was reasonably safe for business invitees; (m) Allowed the demised premises to be leased with apparent dangerous conditions that constitute a nuisance per se; and (n) Had knowledge of the dangerous condition existing on the parking lot at the time it transferred possession and failed to correct the condition or disclose the condition to its tenant. 32. Owner Defendants knew or should have known through the exercise of ordinary care and diligence that the parking lot was in an unreasonably dangerous condition for their invitees. 33. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Owner Defendants, Plaintiff Brian Kendall sustained serious injuries including, but not limited to, extensive quadriceps tendon rupture of the left knee and left lower extremity deep venous thrombosis. As a result of these injuries, Plaintiff developed extensive bilateral pulmonary embolism. 34. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Owner Defendants, Plaintiff Brian Kendall has undergone physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his detriment and loss, physically, emotionally and financially. 35. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Owner Defendants, Plaintiff Brian Kendall has suffered lost wages/income and may in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 36. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Owner Defendants, Plaintiff Brian Kendall has had, and will in the future, suffer loss of life's pleasures. I' 37. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Owner Defendants, Plaintiff Brian Kendall has been compelled, in order to affect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention, and will be required to expend more for the same in the future, to his detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Owner Defendants in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, plus costs, interest, and delay damages. COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE BRIAN KENDALL v. UNION HALL LAWN & GARDEN 3$. Paragraphs 1-37 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth below. 39. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant Union Hall Lawn & Garden was responsible for removing snow and ice from the property known as Autozone, pursuant to a written or verbal agreement, located at 725 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 40. On or about January 26, 2011, Brian Kendall was on the parking lot located immediately outside of the Auto Zone store, intending to enter the store as a business invitee. 41. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to Plaintiff Brian Kendall were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of Defendant Union Hall Lawn & Garden, and/or by their agents, servants, workmen or employees, acting in the scope of their authority and employment and more specifically as set forth below: (a) In allowing an accumulation of snow and ice to exist which aggravated the dangerous condition and compounded the risk posed by the depressions and potholes in the parking lot of the Premises; (b) In failing to make a reasonable inspection which would have revealed the accumulation of snow and ice in the parking lot which hid, disguised or limited the visibility of the defects to the real estate caused by the depressions and pot holes; (c) In failing to take steps to warn patrons of the dangerous conditions; (d) In failing to place any non-skid material or ice melting material upon the accumulations of snow and ice in the parking lot; (e) In failing to adequately inspect the Premises to discover the unreasonably dangerous condition of the parking lot. (f) In failing to adequately remove snow and ice so that it did not present an unreasonably dangerous condition to business invitees. 42. Defendant Union Hall Lawn & Garden knew or should have known through the exercise of ordinary care, diligence, and inspection that the parking lot was in an unreasonably dangerous condition for invitees. 43. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant Union Hall Lawn & Garden, Plaintiff Brian Kendall sustained serious injuries including, but not limited to, extensive quadriceps tendon rupture of the left knee and left lower extremity deep venous thrombosis. As a result of these injuries, Plaintiff developed extensive bilateral pulmonary embolism. 44. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant Union Hall Lawn & Garden, Plaintiff Brian Kendall has undergone physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his detriment and loss, physically, emotionally and financially. 45. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant Union Hall Lawn & Garden, Plaintiff Brian Kendall has suffered lost wages/income and may in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 46. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant Union Hall Lawn & Garden, Plaintiff Brian Kendall has had, and will in the future, suffer loss of life's pleasures. 47. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant Union Hall Lawn & Garden, Plaintiff Brian Kendall has been compelled, in order to affect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention, and will be required to expend more for the same in the future, to his detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Union Lawn & Garden Defendant in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, plus costs, interest, and delay damages. MARTS A rFF By George B. Faller, Je I.D. Number 49813 Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Date: II J 2-- Attorneys for Plaintiff 1 VERIFICATION The foregoing Complaint is based upon information which has been gathered by my counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language of the document is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the document 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 document is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this verification. This statement and verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if I make knowingly false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. f? Brian E. Kendall FAFILES\ClientaU4231 Kenda1814231.1.com2.wpd F.\FILESTlients\14271 Kendall\14271.1 pral George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire I.D. No. 49813 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER MARTSON LAW OFFICES 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Plaintiff BRIAN E. KENDALL, Plaintiff v. T" IED-OFFIG?. dt? THE PROTHO?lCIT ='`i 2012 APR 1 S AM 10' 38 ? COUNTY YLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 12-1387 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW AUTOZONE, INC., AUTOZONE STORES,: INC., RALPH F. LAFFERTY JR., TOBY G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. LAFFERTY, LUCILLE GILMARTIN, and UNION HALL LAWN & GARDEN, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE Please reinstate the attached Complaint against Union Hall Lawn & Garden, in the above- captioned action and forward same to the Cumberland County Sheriff for service. MARTSON LAW OFFICES Date: April 18, 2012 George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire I. D. No. 49813 Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Plaintiff ?1GTspda? -P- " a-7 317 SC( By SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Sheriff " f? T,4 P" ?yt+ Jody S Smith Chief Deputy Richard W Stewart Solicitor' Brian Eugene Kendall vs. Case Number Union Hall Lawn & Garden 2012-1387 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 04/23/2012 04:45 PM - Stephen Bender, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on April 23, 2012 at 1645 hours, he served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Union Hall Lawn & Garden, by making known unto Penny Duncan-Henry, Owner of Union Hall Lawn & Garden at 30 Allison Lane, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257 it,, contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. i? 0 Z/, STEPHEN BENDER, DEPUTY SHERIFF COST: $48.45 April 26, 2012 SO ANSWERS, RONI'V R ANDERSON, SHERIFF JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: Jefferson J. Shipman .' ERLAND C0utq I.D. No. 51785 UNNSYLVANIA 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 jjs@jdsw.com BRIAN E. KENDALL, Plaintiff V. AUTOZONE, INC., AUTOZONE STORES, INC., RALPH F. LAFFERTY JR., TOBY G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. LAFFERTY, LUCILLE GILMARTIN, and UNION HALL LAWN & GARDEN, Defendants Attorneys for Defendant Union Hall Lawn & Garden IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 12-1387 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of the Defendant, Union Hall Lawn & Garden, in the above-captioned matter. Date: May , 2012 495033 Respectfully submitted, J91HNSONJ DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER e nrort/Mhipman, Escfl.Iire Att rney I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Counsel for Defendant, Union Hall Lawn & Garden CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Entry of Appearance has been duly served upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on May 2012: George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Autozone, Inc./Autozone Stores, Inc. 123 South Front Street Memphis, TN 38103 Autozone, Inc./Autozone Stores, Inc. 725 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Ralph F. Lafferty, Jr. Toby G. Lafferty John R. Lafferty Lucille Gilmartin 4010 South Olympic Way Salt Lake City, UT 84124 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By71AL"iP Michels. E. Neff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BRIAN E. KENDALL, Plaintiff V. AUTOZONE, INC., AUTOZONE STORES, INC., RALPH F. LAFFERTY, JR., TOBY G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. LAFFERTY, LUCILLE GILMARTIN, and UNION HALL LAWN & GARDEN, CASE NO: 12-1387 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO: PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please enter my appearance on behalf of Defendants, AUTOZONE, INC., AUTOZONE STORES, INC., RALPH F. LAFFERTY, JR., TOBY G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. LAFFERTY, and LUCILLE GILMARTIN, in the above captioned matter. Date: &-4-WIZ CIVIL DIVISION BY: Respectfully submitted, CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. ADAM L. SEIFERTH, E Attorney ID# 89073 1011 Mumma Road, Suit, Lemoyne, PA 17043 1 (717) 975-9600 aseiferth@c-wlaw.com Counsel for Defendants, AUTOZONE, INC., AUTOZONE STORES, INC., RALPH F. LAFFERTY, JR., TOBY G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. LAFFERTY, LUCILLE GILMARTIN CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE That counsel for the Defendants, AUTOZONE, INC., AUTOZONE STORES, INC., RALPH F. LAFFERTY, JR., TOBY G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. LAFFERTY and LUCILLE GILMARTIN, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE has been served on all counsel of record, by first class mail, postage pre-paid, according to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, on the'' _ day of ,TO A) 6- 52012. George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire, Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for Plaintifj) Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street, P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (Counsel for Defendant, Union Hall Lawn and Garden) BY: Respectfully submitted, CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. ADAM L. SEIFERTH, ESQ IR C Counsel for the Defendants, AUTOZONE, INC., AUTO /OBY E STORES, INC., RALPH F. LAFFERTY, JR., G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. LAFFERTY and LUCILLE GILMARTIN JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNCAJ? tS By: Jefferson J. Shipman I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 jjs@jdsw.com BRIAN E. KENDALL, Plaintiff V. AUTOZONE, INC., AUTOZONE STORES, INC., RALPH F. LAFFERTY JR., TOBY G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. LAFFERTY, LUCILLE GILMARTIN, and UNION HALL LAWN & GARDEN, Defendants NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Brian E. Kendall c/o George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 NO. 12-1387 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Autozone, Inc., Autozone Stores, Inc., Ralph F. Lafferty, Jr., Toby G. Lafferty, John R. Lafferty, Lucille Gilmartin c/o Adam L. Seiferth, Esquire Cipriani & Werner 1011 Mumma Road, Suite 201 Lemoyne, PA 17043 AND NOW, this c' day of June, 2012, you are hereby notified to plead responsively within twenty (20) days of the date of service hereof, or judgment may be entered against you. Attorneys for Defendant Union Hall Lawn & Garden IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER ,Je'ff6r0n J. Shiprrfan Attorneys for Defendant, Union Hall Lawn & Garden JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: Jefferson J. Shipman I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 jjs@jdsw.com BRIAN E. KENDALL, Plaintiff V. AUTOZONE, INC., AUTOZONE STORES, INC., RALPH F. LAFFERTY JR., TOBY G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. LAFFERTY, LUCILLE GILMARTIN, and UNION HALL LAWN & GARDEN, Defendants Attorneys for Defendant Union Hall Lawn & Garden IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 12-1387 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED LAWN & GARDEN, TO PLAI OF AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Union Hall Lawn & Garden, by and through its counsel, Jefferson J. Shipman and Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, and files the following Answer, New Matter and Cross Claim to Plaintiff's Complaint: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant, Union Hall Lawn & Garden, hereinafter Union Hall, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 1, and the same are therefore denied. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant Union Hall is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 2, and the same are therefore denied. 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant Union Hall is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 3, and the same are therefore denied. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant Union Hall is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 5, and the same are therefore denied. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant Union Hall is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 6, and the same are therefore denied. 7. Admitted. 8. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 8 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 9. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 9 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 10. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 10 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 11. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 11 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 12. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 12 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 13. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 13 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 14. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 14 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 15. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 15 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 16. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 16 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 17. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 17 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 18. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 18 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE BRIAN KENDALL v. AUTOZONE INC.. and AUTOZONE STORES INC. 19. Union Hall incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 18 above, as though fully set forth herein at length. 20-28. The averments contained in paragraphs 20 through 28 are directed to another party and, accordingly, no response is required by Union Hall. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied as they may in any way relate to Union Hall. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Union Hall, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE BRIAN KENDALL v. OWNER DEFENDANTS 29. Union Hall incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 28 above, as though fully set forth herein at length. 30-37. The averments contained in paragraphs 30 through 37 are directed to another party and, accordingly, no response is required by Union Hall. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied as they may in any way relate to Union Hall. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Union Hall, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE BRIAN KENDALL v. UNION HALL LAWN & GARDEN 38. Union Hall incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 38 above, as though fully set forth herein at length. 39. Admitted. 40. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Union Hall, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 40, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 41.(a-f) Denied. The averments contained in paragraphs 41 (a) through (f) are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. (a) Denied. It is specifically denied that Union Hall allowed an accumulation of snow and ice to exist which aggravated the alleged dangerous condition and compounded the risk posed by the depressions and potholes in the parking lot of the premises; (b) Denied. It is specifically denied that Union Hall failed to make a reasonable inspection which would have revealed the accumulation of snow and ice in the parking lot which hid, disguised or limited the visibility of the defects to the real estate caused by the depressions and pot holes; (c) Denied. It is specifically denied that Union Hall failed to take steps to warn persons of the allegedly dangerous condition; (d) Denied. It is specifically denied that Union Hall failed to place any non-skid material or ice melting material upon accumulations of snow and ice in the parking lot; (e) Denied. It is specifically denied that Union Hall failed to adequately inspect the premises to discover the unreasonably dangerous condition of the parking lot; (f) Denied. It is specifically denied that Union Hall failed to adequately remove snow and ice so that it did not present an unreasonably dangerous condition. 42. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 42 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 43. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 43 are, in part, conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, Union Hall is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 43, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 44. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 44 are, in part, conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, Union Hall is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 44, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 45. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 45 are, in part, conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, Union Hall is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 45, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 46. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 46 are, in part, conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, Union Hall is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 46, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 47. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 47 are, in part, conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, Union Hall is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 47, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Union Hall, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. NEW MATTER 48. That Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against Union Hall. 49. That there was no dangerous condition. 50. That Union Hall had no notice of any allegedly dangerous condition; 51. That the Plaintiffs alleged cause of action is barred by the Hills and Ridges Doctrine. 52. That there was no notice of an allegedly dangerous condition. 53. That Plaintiffs alleged cause of action may be caused in whole or in part by Plaintiffs own comparative negligence and by the Comparative Negligence Act. 54. That Plaintiffs alleged cause of action may be barred by the Assumption of Risk Doctrine. 55. That Plaintiffs alleged cause of action may have been caused by third parties or entities not presently involved in this action. 56. That if it should be found that there was any negligence on the part of Union Hall, which is denied, then in that event any such negligence was not a factual cause of the happening of the accident nor Plaintiffs alleged injuries. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Union Hall, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. CROSS CLAIM 57. Union Hall incorporates herein by reference Plaintiffs Complaint without admitted or denying same. 58. To the extent that Plaintiff allegedly suffered the claim damages, which allegations are denied, then said damages were caused, not as a result of any negligence or carelessness on the part of Union Hall, but rather solely and exclusively as a result of the negligence and carelessness of co-Defendants, Autozone, Inc., Autozone Stores, Inc., Ralph F. Lafferty, Jr., Toby G. Lafferty, John R. Lafferty, and Lucille Gilmartin. 59. That Defendants Autozone, Inc., Autozone Stores, Inc., Ralph F. Lafferty, Jr., Toby G. Lafferty, John R. Lafferty, and Lucille Gilmartin, should therefore be held solely liable to the Plaintiff, jointly and severally liable over to the Plaintiff, and/or liable over to the answering Defendant, Union Hall, on any judgment that may be entered in favor of the Plaintiff and against answering Defendant, Union Hall. WHEREFORE, the answering Defendant, Union Hall, respectfully requests that co-Defendants Autozone, Inc., Autozone Stores, Inc., Ralph F. Lafferty, Jr., Toby G. Lafferty, John R. Lafferty, and Lucille Gilmartin be held solely liable to Plaintiff, jointly and severally liable over to the Plaintiff, and/or liable over to answering Defendant, Union Hall, on any judgment that may be entered in favor of the Plaintiff and against the answering Defendant. Date: June, 2012 495045 Respectfully submitted, JOHI@V, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER r - J erson J. Shipman, squire Attorney I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Counsel for Defendant, Union Hall Lawn & Garden VERIFICATION The undersigned verifies that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. ? ?, Ylr\??nc? Penny M. I)dncan-Henry Union Hall Lawn & Garden Date: (D' S- i? 495122 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Answer, New Matter and Cross Claim has been duly served upon the folowing counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on June ?0 , 2012: George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Adam L. Seiferth, Esquire Cipriani & Werner 1011 Mumma Road, Suite 201 Lemoyne, PA 17043-1145 Attorney for Defendants Autozone, Inc., Autozone Stores, Inc., Ralph F. Lafferty, Jr., Toby G. Lafferty, John R. Lafferty, and Lucille Gilmartin JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER C?- J ff r J. Shipm I ,; ` F:1FILES\Clients\14231 Kendall\14231.1.reply3 George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire ; _r { I.D. No. 49813 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALL I L JUN 14 AM I : 5 1 MARTSON LAW OFFICES 10 East High Street ! LJMBERL t'NJ L 'L E Carlisle, PA 17013 PENNS ILLVAFI) (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Plaintiff BRIAN E. KENDALL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. AUTOZONE, INC., AUTOZONE STORES, INC., RALPH F. LAFFERTY JR., TOBY G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. LAFFERTY, LUCILLE GILMARTIN, and UNION HALL LAWN & GARDEN, Defendants NO. 12-1387 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT UNION HALL LAWN & GARDEN AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff by and through his attorneys, MARTSON LAW OFFICES, and hereby responds to the New Mater of Defendant Union Hall Lawn & Garden as follows: 48-54. Denied. To the contrary, see the averments of Plaintiff's Complaint. 55. Denied. To the contrary, see the averments of Plaintiff's Complaint. By way of further response, Defendant Union Hall has not identified any such third party or entities as being responsible. 56. The averment of this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, this averment is denied. See the averments stated in Plaintiff's Complaint. MARTSON A OF S By Geor . Fal er, Jr., Esq Iff"^ I.D. Number 49813 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Plaintiff Date: . VERIFICATION The foregoing Reply to New Matter of Defendant Union Hall Lawn & Garden is based upon information which has been gathered by my counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language of the document is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the document 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 document is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this verification. This statement and verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if I make knowingly false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. Brian E. Kendall F:IFILES\Clients\14231 Kendal1\14231.I.reply3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ami J. Thumma, an authorized agent of Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Reply to New Matter of Defendant Union Hall Lawn & Garden was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Charles T. Young, Jr., Esquire McNEES WALLACE & NURICK, LLC P.O. Box 1166 100 Pine Street Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 Adam L. Seiferth, Esquire CIPRIANI & WERNER 1011 Mumma Road Lemoyne, PA 17043-1145 MA SON LAW O IC ? A n By Ami J. Thuning Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: (q' ? I ( "?- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION CT) BRIAN E. KENDALL, CASE NUMBER: 12-1387 r- M-- -urn ?- ca Plaintiff ISSUE NUMBER: ° =Z° z o -? ?c V. Zo ?r PLEADING: AUTOZONE, INC., AUTOZONE - STORES, INC., RALPH F. LAFFERTY, REPLY TO CROSS-CLAIM OF JR., TOBY G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. DEFENDANT, UNION HALL LAFFERTY, LUCILLE GILMARTIN, LAWN & GARDEN and UNION HALL LAWN & GARDEN, Defendants CODE AND CLASSIFICATION: FILED ON BEHALF OF: AUTOZONE, INC., AUTOZONE STORES, INC., RALPH F. LAFFERTY, JR., TOBY G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. LAFFERTY and LUCILLE GILMARTIN, Defendants. COUNSEL OF RECORD: ADAM L. SEIFERTH, ESQUIRE Pa. ID# 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 BRIAN E. KENDALL, CASE NO: 12-1387 Plaintiff V. AUTOZONE, INC., AUTOZONE STORES, INC., RALPH F. LAFFERTY, JR., TOBY G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. LAFFERTY, LUCILLE GILMARTIN, and UNION HALL LAWN & GARDEN, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED REPLY OF DEFENDANTS, AUTOZONE, INC. AUTOZONE STORES, INC, RALPH F. LAFFERTY, JR., TOBY G. LAFFERTY JOHN R LAFFERTY, AND LUCILLE GILMARTIN, TO CROSS-CLAIM OF DEFENDANT, UNION HALL LAWN & GARDEN AND NOW, come the Defendants, AutoZone, Inc., AutoZone Stores, Inc., Ralph Lafferty, Jr., Toby G. Lafferty, John R. Lafferty, and Lucille Gilmartin (collectively referred ?o herein as "Answering Defendants"), by and through their attorneys, Cipriani & Werner, P.41 and file this Reply to the Cross-Claim of Defendant, Union Hall Lawn & Garden ("Union Hall as follows: 57. Answering Defendants incorporate their Answer with New Matter and Cros?- Claim to Plaintiffs' Complaint herein as though fully set forth at length in response to 57 of the Cross-Claim of Defendant, Union Hall. Denied. 58. Answering Defendants are advised by counsel and therefore aver that allegations contained in paragraph 58 of the Cross-Claim of Defendant, Union Hall, conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that a further answer is required, the averments contained in paragraph 58 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 59. Answering Defendants are advised by counsel and therefore aver that allegations contained in paragraph 59 of the Cross-Claim of Defendant, Union Hall, conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that a further answer required, the averments contained in paragraph 59 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand that this Honorable Court enter j in their favor and against Plaintiff and/or Defendant, Union Hall Lawn & Garden, without costs Respectfully submitted, CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. BY: ADAM L. SEIFERTCJO, I Counsel for the Defenda S, AUTOZONE, INC., AU O E STOR ES, INC. RALPH F. LAFFERTY, OBY G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. LAFFERTY and LUCILLE GILMARTIN VERIFICATION I hereby affirm that the following facts are correct: I am counsel for the Defendants, AutoZone, Inc., AutoZone Stores, Inc., Ralph Lafferty, Jr., Toby G. Lafferty, John R. Lafferty, and Lucille Gilmartin, in the foregoing actic and I am authorized to make this verification on behalf of the Defendants. I have read t attached Reply to Cross-Claim and verify that the information contained therein is true a correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This verification is made by r instead of Defendants since the facts stated in the Reply to Cross-Claim are better known to n I hereby acknowledge that the facts set forth in the aforesaid Reply to Cross-Claim are ma subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification authorities. Date: 7_ 02.7 - 2 Q ( ;? ADAM L. SEIFERTH, tSQ RE Counsel for the Defendants, AUTOZONE, INC., AUTO ONE TORES, INC., RALPH F. LAFFERTY, JR. T Y G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. LAFFERTY and LUCILLE GILMARTIN CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE That counsel for the Defendants, AUTOZONE, INC., AUTOZONE STORES, IN( RALPH F. LAFFERTY, JR., TOBY G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. LAFFERTY and LUCILL GILMARTIN, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of its REPLY TO CROSS-CLAI: OF DEFENDANT, UNION HALL LAWN & GARDEN has been served on all counsel record, by first class mail, postage pre-paid, according to the Pennsylvania Rules of Ci) Procedure, on the cR _ ?k day of d y C,y , 2012. George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire, Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for Plaintifp Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street P.O. BOX 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (Counsel for Defendant, Union Hall Lawn & Garden) BY: Respectfully submitted, CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. ADAM L. SEIFERTH, ESQU E ?`-- Counsel for the Defendants, AUTOZONE, INC., AUTO ON STORES, IN RALPH F. LAFFERTY, JR., T Y G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. LAFFERTY and LUCILLE GILMARTIN t'7 G N IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSfJA CIVIL DIVISION ?o - r-r = BRIAN E. KENDALL, CASE NUMBER: 12-1387 Try Plaintiff V. AUTOZONE, INC., AUTOZONE STORES, INC., RALPH F. LAFFERTY, JR., TOBY G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. LAFFERTY, LUCILLE GILMARTIN, and UNION HALL LAWN & GARDEN, Defendants TO: PLAINTIFF, BRIAN E. KENDALL AND DEFENDANT, UNION HALL LAWN & GARDEN YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD TO THE ENCLOSED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND CROSS-CLAIM TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. ISSUE NUMBER: PLEADING: ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER CODE AND CLASSIFICATION: FILED ON BEHALF OF: AUTOZONE, INC., AUTOZONE STORES, INC., RALPH F. LAFFERTY, JR., TOBY G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. LAFFERTY and LUCILLE GILMARTIN, Defendants. COUNSEL OF RECORD: ADAM L. SEIFERTH, ESQUIRE Pa. ID# 89073 CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. 1011 Mumma Road, Suite 201 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 975-9600 G? -*t --i "t3 C" 0 ca SQ o-n s ADAM L. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLV CIVIL DIVISION BRIAN E. KENDALL, CASE NO: 12-1387 Plaintiff V. AUTOZONE, INC., AUTOZONE STORES, INC., RALPH F. LAFFERTY, JR., TOBY G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. LAFFERTY, LUCILLE GILMARTIN, and UNION HALL LAWN & GARDEN, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND CROSS-CLAIM OF DEFENDANTS AUTOZONE. INC., AUTOZONE STORES, INC., RALPH F LAFFERTY, JR TOBY G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. LAFFERTY AND LUCILLE GILMARTIN, TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Defendants, AutoZone, Inc., AutoZone Stores, Inc., Ralph Lafferty, Jr., Toby G. Lafferty, John R. Lafferty, and Lucille Gilmartin (collectively referred herein as "Answering Defendants"), by and through their attorneys, Cipriani & Werner, P.C -, and file this Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint as follows: Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are wi knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained paragraph 1 of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same are therefore denied. 2. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant, AutoZone Stores, Inc., admits is a Nevada Corporation with a principal place of business at 123 South Front Street, Tennessee 38103. Defendant, AutoZone Stores, Inc., further admits it operates a place 4f business with an address of 725 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. D AutoZone, Inc., admits it is a Nevada corporation with a principal place of business at 123 So?th Front Street, Memphis, Tennessee 38103. However, Defendant, AutoZone, Inc., specifically denies it operates a place of business at an address of 725 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. To the contrary, Defendant, AutoZone, Inc., is a separate and disti ct entity from Defendant, AutoZone Stores, Inc., with no involvement or interest in this litigat on and is, therefore, not a proper party to this litigation. 3„ Denied as stated. Defendant, Toby G. Lafferty, is an adult individual who resi es at 4010 Olympic Way, Salt Lake City, Utah 84124. Defendant, Ralph F. Lafferty, Jr., is an ad ll individual who resides at 280 Bradley Place, Pagosa Springs, Colorado 81147. Defendant, Jo R. Lafferty, is an adult individual who resides at 2310 E Road, Grand Junction, Colorado 815 7. Defendant, Lucille Gilmartin, is an adult individual who 7721 South View Acres Lane, Spoka e, Washington 99224. 4. Denied. Answering Defendants are advised by counsel and, therefore, aver 1 the allegations contained in paragraph 4 pertain to a party other than Answering Defendants a therefore, no answer is required. 5. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants, Ralph F. Lafferty, Jr., Toby Lafferty, John R. Lafferty, and Lucille Gilmartin, admit that they own the real property located l 725 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17013 (hereinaft 1 referred to as the "Premises"). However, it is specifically denied that Defendants, AutoZon . Inc. and/or AutoZone Stores, Inc., own the Premises. To the contrary, Defendant, AutoZo e Stores, Inc., leased a retail space and operated a business with an address of 725 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. By way of further answer, Defendant, AutoZone, Inc., is a separate and distinct entity from Defendant, AutoZone Stores, Inc., and does not posses;. manage, control or own the business premises located at the Premises or otherwise has any involvement or interest in this litigation. 6. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants, AutoZone, Inc. and/or AutoZone Stores, Inc., possessed, managed, and controlled the Premises and, specifically, the parking lot at issue in Plaintiff's Complaint. To the contrary, Defendants, Ralph F. Lafferty, Jr., Toby G. Lafferty, John R. Lafferty, and Lucille Gilmartin, possessed, managed, and controlled the Premises and, specifically, the parking lot at issue in Plaintiff's Complaint. 7. Denied as stated. At all times relevant to Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant, Union Hall Lawn & Garden, provided snow and ice removal services for the parking lot of the Premise's pursuant to an agreement with Defendant, Toby Lafferty. By way of further answer, Defendan S, AutoZone, Inc. and/or AutoZone Stores, Inc., had no legal or contractual relationship with Defendant, Union Hall Lawn & Garden, and further, did not own, possess and control the parking lot of the Premises. 8. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are 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. 9. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants, Ralph F. Lafferty, Jr., Toby G. Lafferty, John R. Lafferty, and Lucille Gilmartin, admit they owned, possessed, and control] the Premises and, specifically, the parking lot at issue in Plaintiff's Complaint. However, it specifically denied that Defendants, Defendants, Ralph F. Lafferty, Jr., Toby G. Lafferty, John Lafferty, and Lucille Gilmartin, allowed the condition of the parking lot pavement to deterior, into an unreasonably dangerous condition. By way of further answer, Defendants, AutoZor Inc. and/or AutoZone Stores, Inc., did not own, possess and control the parking lot of t Premises. To the extent a further answer is required, the averments contained in paragraph 7 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 10. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants, Ralph F. Lafferty, Jr., Toby Lafferty, John R. Lafferty, and Lucille Gilmartin, admit they owned, possessed, and control the Premises and, specifically, the parking lot at issue in Plaintiff's Complaint. However, ii specifically denied that Defendants, Defendants, Ralph F. Lafferty, Jr., Toby G. Lafferty, John Lafferty, and Lucille Gilmartin, allowed unreasonably allowed snow and ice to accumulate the parking lot of the Premises. By way of further answer, Defendants, AutoZone, Inc. and AutoZone Stores, Inc., did not own, possess and control the parking lot of the Premises. To i extent a further answer is required, the averments contained in paragraph 7 are denied pursue to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 11. Admitted in part and denied in part. Answering Defendants admit that Union Hall Lawn & Garden, was required to perform snow and ice removal for the parking lot the Premises. However, the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 8 are denied to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 12. Denied. Answering Defendants are advised by counsel and therefore aver that allegations contained in paragraph 12 of Plaintiff's Complaint state conclusions of law to no answer is required. To the extent that a further answer is required, the averments contained paragraph 12 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 13. Denied. Answering Defendants are advised by counsel and therefore aver that allegations contained in paragraph 13 of Plaintiff's Complaint state conclusions of law to whi no answer is required. To the extent that a further answer is required, the averments contained is or paragraph 13 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 14. Denied. Answering Defendants are advised by counsel and therefore aver that the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of Plaintiff's Complaint state conclusions of law to no answer is required. To the extent that a further answer is required, the averments contained paragraph 14 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 15. Denied. Answering Defendants are advised by counsel and therefore aver that allegations contained in paragraph 15 of Plaintiff's Complaint state conclusions of law to no answer is required. To the extent that a further answer is required, the averments contained paragraph 15 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are in in knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments containedlin paragraph 16 of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same are therefore denied. To the extent further answer is required, the averments contained in paragraph 16 are denied pursuant Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are a to knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained lin paragraph 17 of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same are therefore denied. By way of answer, the averments contained in paragraph 17 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 18. Denied. Answering Defendants are advised by counsel and therefore aver that allegations contained in paragraph 18 of Plaintiff's Complaint state conclusions of law to no answer is required. To the extent that a further answer is required, the averments containedli paragraph 18 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE BRIAN KENDALL v. AUTOZONE, INC. and AUTOZONE STORES, INC. 19. Answering Defendants incorporate their answers to paragraphs 1 through above as though fully set forth herein at length in response to Paragraph 19 of Plaintif Complaint. 20. Denied. At all times relevant to Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant, A Stores, Inc., leased retail space and operated a business at with an address of 725 North Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. However, it is specifically denied that D AutoZone Stores, Inc., owned, possessed, managed and/or controlled the parking lot of 18 S Premises where Plaintiff alleged incident occurred. To the contrary, Defendants, Ralph F. Lafferty, Jr., Toby G. Lafferty, John R. Lafferty, and Lucille Gilmartin, owned, possessed, and controlled the parking lot of the Premises at issue in Plaintiff's Complaint. By way of fort er answer, Defendant, AutoZone, Inc., is a separate and distinct entity from Defendant, AutoZ ne Stores, Inc., and does not possess, manage, control or own the business premises located at he Premises or otherwise has any involvement or interest in this litigation. As such, neit er Defendant, AutoZone Stores, Inc. or AutoZone, Inc., owed any legal duty with respect to the parking lot of the Premises. To the extent that a further answer may be required, the averments contained in paragraph 20 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 21. Denied. Answering Defendants are advised by counsel and therefore aver that allegations contained in paragraph 21 of Plaintiff's Complaint state conclusions of law to w no answer is required. To the extent that a further answer is required, the averments containedli paragraph 21 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 22. Denied. Answering Defendants are advised by counsel and therefore aver that allegations contained in paragraph 28 including subparagraphs (a) through (h) inclusive conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent a further answer is requi the averments contained in paragraph 28 including subparagraphs (a) through (h) inclusive denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 23. Denied. Answering Defendants are advised by counsel and therefore aver that allegations contained in paragraph 23 of Plaintiff's Complaint state conclusions of law to no answer is required. To the extent that a further answer is required, the averments contained in paragraph 23 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 24.-28. Denied. Answering Defendants are advised by counsel and therefore that the allegations contained in paragraphs 24 through 28 of Plaintiff's Complaint conclusions of law to which no answer is required. By way of further answer, the a contained in paragraphs 24 through 28 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Defendants, AutoZone Stores, Inc. and AutoZone, Inc., demand that Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff without costs. COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE BRIAN KENDALL v. RALPH F. LAFFERTY JR. TOBY G. LAFFERTY JOHN R. LAFFERTY, LUCILLE GILMARTIN 29. Answering Defendants incorporate their answers to paragraphs 1 through above as though fully set forth herein at length in response to Paragraph 29 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 30. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants, Ralph F. Lafferty, Jr., Toby Lafferty, John R. Lafferty, and Lucille Gilmartin, admit that, at all times relevant to Plainti?f, Complaint, they owned, possessed, and controlled the parking lot of the Premises at issue. By way of further answer, Defendant, Union Hall Lawn & Garden, was responsible for maintaining the parking lot of the Premises reasonably free of snow and/or ice. To the extent a further answer is required, the averments contained in paragraph 30 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 31. Denied. Answering Defendants are advised by counsel and therefore aver that allegations contained in paragraph 31 including subparagraphs (a) through (n) inclusive conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent a further answer is the averments contained in paragraph 31 including subparagraphs (a) through (n) inclusive denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 32. Denied. Answering Defendants are advised by counsel and therefore aver that allegations contained in paragraph 32 of Plaintiff's Complaint state conclusions of law to w no answer is required. To the extent that a further answer is required, the averments contained in paragraph 32 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 33.-37. Denied. Answering Defendants are advised by counsel and therefore that the allegations contained in paragraphs 33 through 37 of Plaintiff's Complaint conclusions of law to which no answer is required. By way of further answer, the contained in paragraphs 33 through 37 are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Defendants, Ralph F. Lafferty, Jr., Toby G. Lafferty, John R. LafferIty, and Lucille Gilmartin, demand that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor against Plaintiff without costs. COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE BRIAN KENDALL v. UNION HALL LAWN & GARDEN 38. Answering Defendants incorporate their answers to paragraphs 1 through 37 above as though fully set forth herein at length in response to Paragraph 38 of Plainti s Complaint. 39.-47. Denied. Answering Defendants are advised by counsel and therefore that the allegations contained in paragraphs 39 through 47 pertain to a party other Answering Defendants and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent a further answer{ is required, the averments contained in paragraphs 39 through 47 are denied pursuant to Pa.R. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand that this Honorable Court enter in their favor and against Plaintiff without costs. NEW MATTER 48. Answering Defendants incorporate their answers to paragraphs 1 through 47 above as though fully set forth herein at length. 49. Plaintiff's Complaint has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be against Answering Defendants. 50. Defendant, AutoZone, Inc., is a separate and distinct entity from AutoZone Stores, Inc. 51. Defendant, AutoZone, Inc., does not own, possess, manage or control the lot of the Premises where Plaintiff's incident allegedly occurred. 52. Defendant, AutoZone Stores, Inc., does not own, possess, manage or control parking lot of the Premises where Plaintiff's incident allegedly occurred. 53. Defendants, Ralph F. Lafferty, Jr., Toby G. Lafferty, John R. Lafferty, and Lucille Gilmartin, own, possess, manage, and control the parking lot of the Premises where Plaintiff's incident allegedly occurred. 54. Defendant, Union Hall Lawn & Garden was responsible for the removal of treatment of snow and/or ice on the parking lot of the premises at all times relevant to Plaintiff's Complaint. 55. Answering Defendants acted in a reasonable and prudent manner under the and circumstances of this case. 56. It is believed and, therefore, averred that generally slippery conditions existed the Carlisle, Pennsylvania community on January 26, 2011. 57. Plaintiff's claims may be barred by application of the Doctrine of Hills a Ridges. 58. Plaintiff's claims may be barred by application of the Doctrine of Choice Ways. 59. The parking lot located on the Premises was maintained in a reasonably condition at all times relevant to Plaintiff's Complaint. 60. The parking lot located on the Premises was not in a hazardous or condition for pedestrians. in of 61. The alleged hazardous condition of the parking lot, if any, which is specifica ly denied, was open and obvious to Plaintiff and, therefore, should have been seen and avoided y Plaintiff. 62. Any alleged defect of the parking lot, which is specifically denied, was a trio defect for which no liability may exist. 63. Plaintiff's claims may be reduced or barred by the Comparative Negligence Act. Plaintiff's contributory negligence consisted of, but is not limited to: a. Failing to pay attention to the conditions of the parking log; b. Failing to watch where he was going; C. Failing to take an alternative path that was safe under the facts and circumstances; d. Failing to park his vehicle in a prudent location; and e. Failing to observe and avoid an open and obvious condition. 64. If Plaintiff slipped and fell when exiting his vehicle as alleged in the then Plaintiff's alleged damages may be reduced or barred, in whole or in part, by operation the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act, as amended. 65. Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages, if any, which are specifically may have been caused, either in whole or in part, by the acts or omissions of third parties than Answering Defendants, including the entity responsible for snow removal of the parking Union Hall Lawn & Garden. 66. Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages, if any, which are specifically may have been pre-existing, either in whole or in part and are not causally related to the giving rise to the present litigation. 67. 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 reference including, but not limited to, assumption of the risk, collateral estoppel, res j release or immunity from suit. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff without costs. NEW MATTER IN THE NATURE OF A CROSS-CLAIM ANSWERING DEFENDANTS v. UNION HALL LAWN & GARDEN 68. Answering Defendants incorporate Plaintiff's Complaint without admission adoption and their Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint as though the same were fully set forth at length. 69. In the event that any liability is found to exist on the part of Defendants, which liability is specifically denied, then Defendant, Union Hall Lawn & is liable over to Answering Defendants for contribution and/or indemnification or is jointly severally liable to Plaintiff. 70. In the event that harm, losses or damages alleged by Plaintiff are found to which are specifically denied, then Defendant, Union Hall Lawn & Garden, is solely liable Plaintiff for the harm, losses or damages of Plaintiff or is liable over to Answering for contribution and/or indemnification, or is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand that this Honorable Court enter in their favor and against Defendant, Union Hall Lawn & Garden, without costs Respectfully submitted, CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. BY: l Y - , ADAM L. SEIFERTH SQUIRE Counsel for the Defe It,, AUTOZONE, INC., UT ZONE STORES, INC., RALPH F. LAFFERT , JR., TOBY G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. LAFFERTY and LUCILLE GILMARTIN VERIFICATION I hereby affirm that the following facts are correct: AutoZone, Inc. and AutoZone Stores, Inc. are Defendants in the foregoing action, I am authorized to make this Verification on their behalf. The attached Answer with Matter is based upon information which I have furnished to my counsel and information has been gathered by my counsel in preparation for this lawsuit. The language of the with New Matter is that of counsel and not of me. I have read the Answer with New and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to my counsel, it is and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the of the Answer with New Matter is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making verification. I hereby acknowledge that the facts set forth in the aforesaid Answer with N Matter is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Dated: J Lk 1 2.01 2- nwwf-une, inc. ana Auto/-one mores, inc. VERIFICATION I hereby affirm that the following facts are correct: I, Toby Lafferty, am a Defendant in the foregoing action. The attached Answer New Matter is based upon information which I have furnished to my counsel and which has been gathered by my counsel in preparation for this lawsuit. The language of Answer with New Matter is that of counsel and not of me.. I have read the Answer with N Matter and to the extent that the Answer with New Matter is based upon information which I have given to my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information aiid 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 n the aforesaid Answer with New Matter is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 49 4 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: z. / 12- G Toby L fe y VERIFICATION I hereby affirm that the following facts are correct: I, John R. Lafferty, am a Defendant in the foregoing action. The attached Answer w th New Matter is based upon information which I have furnished to my counsel and informati n which has been gathered by my counsel in preparation for this lawsuit. The language oft e Answer with New Matter is that of counsel and not of me. I have read the Answer with New Matter and to the extent that the Answer with New Matter is based upon information whit I have given to my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information d belief. To the extent that the content of the Answer with New Matter is that of counsel, I ha 'e 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: Z VERIFICATION I hereby affirm that the following facts are correct: I, Lucille Gilmartin, am a Defendant in the foregoing action. The attached Answer New Matter is based upon information which I have furnished to my counsel and which has been gathered by my counsel in preparation for this lawsuit. The language of Answer with New Matter is that of counsel and not of me. i havc real" the Answer with Matter and to the extent that the Answer with New Matter is based upon information which I have given to my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information belief. To the extent that the content of the Answer with New Matter is that of counsel, I relied upon counsel in making this verification. I hereby acknowledge that the facts set forth the aforesaid Answer with New Matter is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. i? i ?I G -7 Dated: LtIc'ille Gilmartin / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE That counsel for the Defendants, AUTOZONE, INC., AUTOZONE STORES, IN RALPH F. LAFFERTY, JR., TOBY G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. LAFFERTY and LUCIL GILMARTIN, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of its ANSWER WITH NF MATTER AND CROSS-CLAIM has been served on all counsel of record, by first class rn, postage pre-paid, according to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, on the _ 27 14t c of J vt-y 52012. George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire, Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for Plaintiffi Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (Counsel for Defendant, Union Hall Lawn & Garden) Respectfully submitted, CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. BY: ADAM L. SEIFERTHE UIRP Counsel for the Defna `-'-"- rsAUTOZONE, INC., AU NE STO RES, INC. RALPH F. LAFFERTYOBY G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. LAFFERTY and LUCILLE GILMARTIN JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: Wade D. Manley I.D. No. 87244 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 WDM@jdsw.com 2`312 OCT 16 M 11: 3,31 1 " 13 LRI AND COUNT`PENNSYLVANIA Attorneys for Defendant Union Hall Lawn & Garden BRIAN E. KENDALL, Plaintiff V. AUTOZONE, INC., AUTOZONE STORES, INC., RALPH F. LAFFERTY JR., TOBY G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. LAFFERTY, LUCILLE GILMARTIN, and UNION HALL LAWN & GARDEN, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 12-1387 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please substitute the appearance of Wade D. Manley, Esquire, of Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, P.C., as counsel on behalf of the Defendant, Union Hall Lawn & Garden, in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, Date: October 2012 519493 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: I",," 141 Wade D. Manley, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 87244 301 Market Street - P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Counsel for Defendant, Union Hall Lawn & Garden CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Substitute Appearance has been duly served upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on October /';? , 2012: George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Adam L. Seiferth, Esquire Cipriani & Werner 1011 Mumma Road, Suite 201 Lemoyne, PA 17043-1145 Attorney for Defendants Autozone, Inc., Autozone Stores, Inc., Ralph F. Lafferty, Jr., Toby G. Lafferty, John R. Lafferty, and Lucille Gilmartin JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By. TV1 Mich le E. Neff .14: \FILES \Clients 1142)1 Kenda11\14231.1.pra2.wpd 1-1D-OF10E George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire (::F *I HL. N.;OTHONOTARY I.D. No. 49813 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALtI1IEP 17 PH 12' MARTSON LAW OFFICES CUMBERLA.0 COUNTY 10 East High Street PENNSYLVANIA Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Plaintiff BRIAN E. KENDALL, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. : NO. 12-1387 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW AUTOZONE, INC., AUTOZONE STORES,: INC., RALPH F. LAFFERTY JR., TOBY G. LAFFERTY, JOHN R. LAFFERTY, LUCILLE GILMARTIN, • and UNION HALL LAWN & GARDEN, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO SETTLE, DISCONTINUE AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Kindly mark the above -referenced matter as settled, discontinued and ended. OFFICES By George B. Faller, Jr., I. D. No. 49813 Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Date: September 17, 2014 Attorneys for Plaintiff quire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Nichole L. Myers, an authorized agent of Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Adam L. Seiferth, Esquire CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. 1011 Mumma Road, Suite 201 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Wade D. Manley, Esquire JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 MARTSON LAW OFFICES By, )k0116-*--/Y1Ar Nichole L. Myers Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: September 17, 2014