Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-4899o. LAW OFFICES of RICHARD R. GAN BY: Richard R Gan, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 68721 17 W. South Street Carlisle, Pa 17013 PETER RUDYK Attorney IurPlaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff V. ROBERT E. McCOY T/A CUMBERLAND VALLEY WELDING CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. D (/. q J'q,? , / -7Z- J u Ry --rk ' a L- fl?-WlanI>e7q Defendants To: Robert a McCoy Cumberland Valley Welding You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend again the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after the 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. 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 relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER IF YOU CAN NOT AFFORD TO FIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717)249.3166 Effective September 1, 2003 Complaint EN LA CORTE DE ALEGATOS COM t1N DEL CONDADO DE Cumberland, PENNSYLVANIA 0XV1516N CIVIL AV I S O PARA DEFENDER Conforme a PA Mm. 1018.1 USTED HA SIDO DEMANDO/A EN LA CORTE. Si usted desea defender coma to demanda puestas en las siguiemes p5ginas, usted tienen que tomar accibn dentro veiate (20) digs despuds que esta Demanda y Aviso es servido, con entrando por escrito una aparencia personalmente o por on abogado y archivando por escrito con la Corte sus defenses o objeciones a las demandas puestas en contra usted. Usted es adverudo que si fella de bacerlo el caso puede proceder sin usted y on jazgamiento puede ser entrado contra usted por la Corte sin mass aviso por cualquier dmero reclamado en la Demanda o por cualquier otro reclamo o alivio solicitado por Demandante. Ustedpuede perder dmero o propiedad o otros derechos importante para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE PAPEL A SU ABOGADO ENSEGUIDA. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, VAYA O LLAME POR TELEFONO LA OFICINA FUADA AQUI ABAJO. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERE CON INFORMAC16N DE C6M0 CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGARLE A UN ABOGADO, ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERE INFORMAC16N ACERCA AGENCIAS QUE PUEDAN OFRECER SERVICIOS LEGAL A PERSONAS ELIGIBLE AQ UN HONORARIO REDUCIDO O GRATIS. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 Efectivo 1 de septiembre, 2003 Queja IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION- LAW PETER RUDYKv PLAINTIFF V ROBERT E. McCOY TIA CUMBERLAND VALLEY WELDING, DEFENDANTS COMPLAINT COUNTI FILE NO. //N. 95,99 (?un0 -7;" NOW COMES THE PLAINTIFF ALLEGING CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT(S) OF WHICH THE FOLLOWING IS A STATEMENT: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Plaintiff is a resident of Cumberland County Pennsylvania and his address is 66 Beech Cliff Drive, Carlisle Pa 17013. 2. Defendant Robert E. McCoy t/a Cumberland Valley Welding is a Pennsylvania Corporation whose principal business address is 1129 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, PA 17013 3. On July 23, 2002, the plaintiff was gainfully employed by Roadway Trucking at Carlisle Pennsylvania 4. On July 23, Plaintiff was in the course of his employment responsibilities and seated in an EZGO at the repair shop door waiting to transport materials. At all times mentioned herein, it was raining and the road surface was wet. 6. Plaintiff was sitting in the EZGO facing the maintenance shop door. 7. An unknown representative of Defendant was driving a motorized vehicle that may be described as an 8,000 pound forklift. 8. Without warning, Defendants agent backed up at an excessive rate of speed for the yard and yard conditions and violently struck the front of the EZGO that Plaintiff was sitting in. 9. That the impact of the accident knocked the EZGO more than 16 feet. 10. That the Plaintiff was thrown violently around during this process. 11. That Plaintiff Peter Rudyk was seriously and by information and belief permanently injured as a result of the unlawful actions of the Defendant: To wit, severe shoulder injuries requiring surgery, rehabilitation. Long term pain and suffering and other yet unknown ramifications. Plaintiff further sustained nervous shock to his entire system. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that ground alleges that he will suffer from the injuries throughout the remainder of his life. Further, as a result of the intense pain and agony of this injury, Plaintiff was prevented from engaging in his vocation for an extensive period of time, resulting in substantial wage loss and loss of the comforts of life in general. 12. Plaintiff Peter Rudyk sustained significant loss of the comforts and joys of life and his family and continues to suffer pain, stiffness and discomfort as a result of the negligence of the Defendant. 13. Plaintiff Peter Rudyk's injuries and damages were sustained as a proximate consequence of the negligence of the employee of the Defendant, who carelessly and improperly caused the forklift he was driving to collide with the EZGO which the Plaintiff was lawfully operating. 14. Plaintiff was at all times during the occurrence set forth in the exercise of due care and caution, and was completely free from any and all negligence in any manner contributing to the injuries and damages complained of. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Peter Rudyk respectfully demands judgment in his favor and against the Defendant in an amount in excess of $35,000 which exceeds the limits of arbitration, along with interest, costs of suit, exemplary damages to the extent permitted by law, attorneys fees and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. COUNT H NEGLIGENCE / FAII.URE TO PROPERLY TRAIN AND LICENSE 15. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 14 are incorporated herein as if set forth in their entirety. 16. That when Defendants forklift was in close proximity to Plaintiffs vehicle, defendant JAMMIAED ON THE BRAKES and struck the Plaintiff with significant force and impact. . 17. After the impact, defendant driver expressed to the Plaintiff that he had not been trained or properly licensed to operate the 8,000 forklift. . 18. That the defendant driver and employee of CVW was required to be properly trained by CVW and Roadway prior to operating the forklift. 19. As the operator of the forklift that collided with the Plaintiff, Defendant is not only guilty of the above mentioned acts of negligence but the negligent acts and omissions alleged below, all of which negligent acts and omissions occurred in Dauphin County Pennsylvania, where this suit is filed. Such acts and omissions on the date in question separately and concurrently proximately caused the collision as set forth below: a. Defendant was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout as he proceeded along in the Roadway yard, b. Defendant was negligent in failing to have the forklift, which he was driving and operating under proper control. c. Defendant was negligent in operating the vehicle under a high and dangerous rate of speed under the circumstances. d. Defendant was negligent in failing to properly brake to avoid hitting the Plaintiff who was lawfully waiting to emerge from the repair garage. e. Defendant was negligent in failing to give or yield the forklift to Plaintiffs vehicle, which was preparing to leave the repair garage. f. Defendant was negligent in failing to apply the brakes, and in failing to apply the brakes properly. g. Defendant was negligent in failing to timely maneuver the vehicle in order to avoid the collision. Jr. Defendant was negligent in traveling too closely to the vehicle being driven by the Plaintiff. 20. That as a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendant, Plaintiff sustained significant and permanent injuries, work loss and wages all directly attributable to the negligence of the Defendant and as referenced above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Peter Rudyk respectfully demands judgment in his favor and against the Defendant in an amount in excess of $35,000.00 which exceeds the limits of arbitration, along with interest, costs of suit, exemplary damages to the extent permitted by law, attorneys fees and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT II[ FAILURE TO KEEP PROPER LOOKOUT / COLLIDING WITH PLAINTIFFS VEHICLE 21. The averments set forth in Paragraphs lthrough 19 are incorporated herein as if set forth in their entirety. 22. Defendant driver struck Plaintiffs vehicle operated by Peter Rudyk as he was attempting to emerge from the repair garage. 23. The collision was directly and proximately caused by the negligence of defendant forklift driver. 24. Defendant driver was negligent in the following respects: a. In operating his vehicle at a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent under existing conditions b. In operating his vehicle in excess rational speeds for the yard. c. In operating his vehicle at an inappropriate speed when approaching and crossing an area of the yard in a manner which presented special hazards to others. d. In failing to give full time and attention to the operation of the vehicle. e. In failing to maintain a proper lookout while operating the vehicle. f. In failing to exercise and maintain proper control of the vehicle. g. Operating the forklift in a reckless, willful and wanton disregard of the safety of others. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the collision and the negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered severe and permanent physical injuries, resulting in conscience pain and suffering in the past, surgery, and which will result in conscience pain and suffering in the future, wage loss and other unknown damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Peter Rudyk respectfully demands judgment in his favor and against the Defendant(s) in an amount in excess of $35,000 which exceeds the limits of arbitration, along with interest, costs of suit, exemplary damages to the extent permitted by law, attorneys fees and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT V WILLFUL AND WANTON MISCONDUCT / GROSS NEGLIGENCE 26. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 24 are incorporated herein as if set forth in their entirety, 27. On the day and date in question, Defendant operated the forklift in such a grossly negligent manner that caused the Plaintiff's to sustain severe personal injuries. The gross negligence of Defendant consisted of the following: a. Defendant carelessly, wantonly, recklessly and negligently operated the forklift that ran into Plaintiff's automobile with great force and impact, severely injuring the Plaintiffs. b. Defendant wantonly and without due respect for the road and rights of others failed to keep the forklift under control. c. At the time of the accident, Defendant was travelling at an unusually high rate of speed and under such circumstances that it was unreasonable to travel at such speed without a reasonable anticipation that harm and injury would occur to others near or around him on the road. d. At the time of the accident, Defendant failed to yield to the properly operated vehicle of the Plaintiff which was waiting to emerge from the repair garage e. That the Defendant driver was not properly trained nor licensed to operate the forklift as required by state and local statues. 28. That all of the above acts constitute willful and wanton misconduct on the part of Defendant. 29. As a direct and proximate result of the willful, malicious and wrongful acts of Defendant as enumerated above, Plaintiff have been substantially and severely injured as enumerated herein. 30. The acts of the Defendant, being willful, malicious and wrongful, demand that punitive damages be awarded to the Plaintiff in an amount to be determined by the court. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Peter Rudyk respectfully demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant in an amount in excess of $35,000.00 which exceeds the limits of arbitration, along with interest, costs of this suit and punitive damages to the extent permitted by law, attorney fees and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. - ?? A -A 1 On $ehalf of the Plaintiff Richard R. Gan, Esq. Law Offices of Richard R. Gan 17 West South Street Carlisle, Pa 17013 717-241-4300 68721 VERIFICATION I verify that I am the Plaintiff in this matter and that the complaint is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of PA CS 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: September 28, 2004 ,? , A eter Rudyk t? ? ? r n? :-ri ?? ' ty. ? ?.. 4? ?\ u1 °a ? ? ;cj ? ? _ Curtis R. Long Prothonotary office of the Protbonotarp Cumbprlanb Cuuntp Renee K. Simpson Deputy Prothonotary John E. Slike Solicitor () - x$49 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES AND NOW THIS 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2008 AFTER MAILING NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PROCEED AND RECEIVING NO RESPONSE - THE ABOVE CASE IS HEREBY TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PA R C P 230.2 BY THE COURT, CURTIS R. LONG PROTHONOTARY One Courthouse Square • Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 • (717) 240-6195 • Fax (717) ')an_,<c-72