Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-3479i R i 'a:NNSYLW;'? ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Richard A.Sadlock Attorney ID# ; 47281 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: rsadlock@angino-rovner.com ROBERT H. KIMMEL and CATHERINE T. INGARRA, his wife, Plaintiffs V. WILLIAM R. HOLMAN, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IVIL ACTION - LAW C NO. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND 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 judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS n OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. 497906 S 7 s8y IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-31.66 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se persentan mds adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar acci6n dentro de los pr6ximos veinte (20) dias despu6s de la notificaci6n de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de' que si usted falla de tomar acci6n como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamaci6n o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin ands aviso adicional. Used puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para used. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE iQUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 497906 ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Richard A. Sadlock Attorney ID# : 47281 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: rsadlock@angino-rovner.com ROBERT H. KIMMEL and CATHERINE T. INGARRA, his wife, Plaintiffs V. WILLIAM R. HOLMAN, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiffs Robert H. Kimmel and Catherine T. Ingarra are husband and wife, adult individuals and citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who reside at 2098 Dartmouth Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011. 2. Defendant William R. Holman is an adult individual and citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who resides at 1506 South Market Street, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 3. The facts and occurrences hereinafter related took place on September 2, 2011, near 6260 Carlisle Pike, Hampden Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. At that time and place, Plaintiff Robert H. Kimmel was operating a 2005 Harley Davidson motorcycle traveling northbound in the far right lane on the Carlisle Pike. 5. At that time and place, Defendant William R. Holman was driving a 2001 Ford F- 250 traveling southbound on the Carlisle Pike. 6. At that time and place, Defendant William R. Holman attempted to cross the northbound lanes of travel, cut directly in front of Plaintiff Robert H. Kimmel's motorcycle and 497906 violently and without warning caused Plaintiff's motorcycle to collided with the rear passenger side wheelwell of Defendants truck. 7. The foregoing accident and all of the injuries and damages set forth hereinafter sustained by Plaintiffs Robert H. Kimmel and Catherine T. Ingarra are the direct and proximate result of the negligent, careless, wanton, and reckless manner in which Defendant William R. Holman operated his vehicle as follows: (a) failure to keep alert and maintain a proper watch for the presence of other motor vehicles on the highway; (b) failure to apply his brakes in sufficient time to avoid colliding with the Plaintiff's motorcycle; (c) failure to drive his vehicle with due regard for the highway and traffic conditions which were existing and of which he was or should have been aware; (d) failure to have proper and adequate control over his vehicle; (e) failure to yield the right-of-way to Plaintiff's approaching motorcycle; (f) failure to take reasonable evasive action to avoid the accident; and (g) driving his vehicle upon the highway in a manner endangering persons and property and in a reckless manner with careless disregard to the rights and safety of others and in violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. CLAIM I ROBERT H. KIMMEL V. WILLIAM R. HOLMAN 8. Paragraphs 1 through 7 are incorporated herein by reference. 9. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned accident, Plaintiff Robert H. Kimmel sustained painful and severe injuries which include but are not limited to complex fracture dislocation of his right foot, a Weber A left ankle fracture, and a distal radius fracture on the right foot which required surgery, a right closed, radiocarpal fracture-dislocation, right closed 497906 first, second, and third carpometacarpal fracture-dislocations and right triquetral body fracture, all of which required surgical repair, as well as shock to his nervous system. 10. By reason of the aforesaid injuries sustained by Plaintiff Robert H. Kimmel, he was forced to incur liability for medical treatment, medications, hospitalizations, physical therapy and similar miscellaneous expenses in an effort to restore himself to health and claim is made therefor. 11. Because of the nature of his injuries, Plaintiff Robert H. Kimmel has been advised and, therefore, avers that he may be forced to incur similar expenses in the future, and claim is made therefor. 12. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, Plaintiff Robert H. Kimmel has undergone and in the future will undergo great physical and mental suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out his daily activities, loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and claim is made therefor. 13. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Robert H. Kimmel has been and in the future will be subject to great humiliation and embarrassment, and claim is made therefor. 14. Plaintiff Robert H. Kimmel continues to be plagued by persistent pain and limitation and, therefore, avers that his injuries may be of a permanent nature, causing residual problems for the remainder of his lifetime, and claim is made therefor. 15, As a result of the aforementioned injuries, Plaintiff Robert H. Kimmel may sustain work loss, loss of opportunity and a permanent diminution of his earning power and capacity, and claim is made therefor. 16. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Robert H. Kimmel has sustained uncompensated work loss, and claim is made therefor. 497906 17. As a result of the aforesaid accident, Plaintiff Robert H. Kimmel has sustained scars which will result in a permanent disfigurement, and claim is made therefor. CLAIM II CATHERINE T. INGARRA v. WILLIAM R. HOLMAN 18. Paragraphs 1 through 17 are incorporated herein by reference. 19. As a result of the aforementioned injuries sustained by her husband, Plaintiff Robert H. Kimmel, Plaintiff Catherine T. Ingarra has been and may in the future be deprived of the care, companionship, consortium, and society of her husband, all of which will be to her great detriment, and claim is made therefor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Robert H. Kimmel and Catherine T. Ingarra demand judgment against Defendant William R. Holman in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. Date: ANGINA , Richar A. Sa quire PA I.D. No. 47281 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 rsadlock@,angino-rovner.com Counsel for Plaintiffs 497906 VERIFICATION I, ROBERT H. KIMMEL, do swear and affirm that the facts set forth in the foregoing COMPLAINT are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that this verification is made subject, to the penalties f 0- Rules cf Civil Procedure relating to unworn falsification to authorities. WITNE ? °?'"" Dated: - f ROBERT H. KIMMEL ROBERT 203648 VERIFICATION I, CATHERINE T. INGARRA, do swear and affirm that the facts set forth in the foregoing COMPLAINT are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that this verification is made subject to the penalties of the Rules of Civil Procedure relating to unworn falsification to authorities. WITNESS............ Dated: Z-- CATHERINE T. INGA 203648 SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Sheriff Jody S Smith Chief Deputy Richard W Stewart Solicitor Robert H. Kimmel VS. William R. Holman O °'-F z-YRIF9 <i;; r? 1: a ?PM 12 A 8: 1 }I lliBULAQ PENNSYLVAI" IA Case Number 2012-3479 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 06/04/2012 03:29 PM - Ryan Burgett, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on June 4, 2012 at 1529 hours, he served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: William R. Holman, by making known unto Mary Holman, Wife of Defendant at 1506 S. Market Street, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. SHERIFF COST: $38.45 June 06, 2012 RYAN BURGETT, DES SO ANSWERS, RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF (c) CountySuite Shenft, Teleosoft, Inc. ,rr- r 1 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 ! 1?10 10 i? e„ I $112 -1?[ iy 14 1 1 i '"t E ?LMND COU114 I:tMSYLVANIA ROBERT H. KIMMEL and CATHERINE T. INGARRA, his wife, Plaintiffs V. WILLIAM HOLMAN, Defendant Attorneys for Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 12-3479 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 in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, , DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER Date: June -G_, 2012 500347 By *fidr Shipm2frf, EsqL orney I.D. No. 51785 01 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Counsel for Defendant it s 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 June Yd, 2012: Richard A. Sadlock, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER y:Q 4r. Shipman V THE f' MOWTARY JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: Jefferson J. Shipman C"ERLAND COUNTY I.D. No. 51785 PENNSYLVANIA 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 jjs@jdsw.com ROBERT H. KIMMEL and CATHERINE T. INGARRA, his wife, Plaintiffs V. WILLIAM HOLMAN, Defendant Attorneys for Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 12-3479 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Robert H. Kimmel and Catherine T. Ingarra c/o Richard A. Sadlock, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 AND NOW, this 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. JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER Td fekson J. Shipman Attorneys for Defendant 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 ROBERT H. KIMMEL and CATHERINE T. INGARRA, his wife, Plaintiffs V. WILLIAM HOLMAN, Defendant NO. 12-3479 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, WILLIAM HOLMAN, TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Defendant, William Holman, by and through his counsel, Jefferson J. Shipman and Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, and files the following Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint: 1. Admitted that the Plaintiffs are adult individuals residing at the stated address. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant 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. Attorneys for Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Mr. Kimmel was operating a motorcycle in the northbound far right lane at the time of the accident. It is denied that he was in the far right lane at all times material to this action. 5. Admitted. 6. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 6 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. 7. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 7 and subparagraphs (a) through (g) 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 Mr. Holman failed to keep alert and maintain a proper watch for the presence of other motor vehicles on the highway; (b) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Holman failed to apply his brakes in sufficient time to avoid colliding with the Plaintiffs motorcycle. By way of further response, it is the Plaintiff who failed to brake in sufficient time to avoid the collision; (c) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Holman failed to drive his vehicle with due regard for the highway and traffic conditions which were existing and which he was or should have been aware; (d) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Holman failed to have proper and adequate control over his vehicle; (e) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Holman failed to yield the right-of-way to Plaintiff's motorcycle; (f) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Holman failed to take reasonable evasive action to avoid the accident; and (g) Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Holman drove his vehicle upon the highway in a manner endangering persons and property and in a reckless manner with careless disregard to the rights and safety and in violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. CLAIM I ROBERT H. KIMMEL v. WILLIAM R. HOLMAN 8. Mr. Holman incorporates herein by reference his answers to paragraphs 1 through 7 above, as though fully set forth herein at length. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 9, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 10, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 11, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 12, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 13, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 14, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 15, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 16, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 17, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. CLAIM II CATHERINE T. INGARRA v. WILLIAM R. HOLMAN 18. Mr. Holman incorporates herein by reference his answers to paragraphs 1 through 17 above, as though fully set forth herein at length. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 19, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, William R. Holman, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in his favor and that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. NEW MATTER 20. That the Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action. 21. That the Plaintiffs' alleged cause of action may be barred by the Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Law. 22. That Plaintiffs' alleged cause of action may be barred in whole or in part by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 23. That Plaintiff's own comparative negligence included the following: (a) Changing lanes inappropriately and when it was unsafe to do so; (b) Traveling too fast for conditions; (c) Failing to be attentive; (d) Failing to apply his brakes in sufficient time to avoid the accident; (e) Failing to avoid striking the left rear portion of the Defendant's vehicle; (f) Failing to operate the motorcycle within accordance with motorcycle rules and regulations; (g) Failing to use a safe motorcycle operating procedure so as to avoid the accident; and (h) Traveling too fast for the existing traffic conditions. 24. That Plaintiff's own comparative negligence was a factual cause of the happening of the accident. 25. If it should be found that Mr. Holman was negligent, which is denied, then in that event, any such negligence was not a factual cause of the accident nor Plaintiffs alleged injuries. 26. That Plaintiffs' alleged cause of action may have been caused by third parties or entities not presently involved in this action. WHEREFORE, Defendant, William R. Holman, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in his favor and that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER Date: JunO&- _, 2012 501102 Adfsbn J. Shipmtn, Esquire ttorney I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Counsel for Defendant VERIFICATION The undersigned verifies that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer and New Matter 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. William R. Hol n Dated: :501114 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Answer and New Matter of Defendant 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 at?L' 2012: Richard A. Sadlock, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 J , DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER t i' PRA} 4tQq Y 2012 JUL -2 PH 2: 39 CL"N£RLAND cOWTY PENNS YLVAN1A ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Richard A.Sadlock Attorney ID# : 47281 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: rsadlock(_d)angino-rovner.com ROBERT H. KIMMEL and CATHERINE T. INGARRA, his wife, Plaintiffs V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2012-03479 WILLIAM R. HOLMAN, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER And now comes, Plaintiffs Robert H. Kimmel and Catherine T. Ingarra, his wife, and replies to Defendant's New Matter as follows: 20. Defendant's averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiffs' Complaint does state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. 502264 21. Defendant's averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, all of Plaintiffs' injuries and damages are recoverable in the instant action. The Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law in no way limits the damages Plaintiff may recover herein and does not bar Plaintiffs' cause of action. 22. Defendant's averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiff was not negligent in any way. Therefore, the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act does not apply to the instant action. Further, all of Plaintiffs' injuries and damages are recoverable in the instant action and are in no way reduced. 23. Defendant's averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, as previously indicated herein, Plaintiff was in no way negligent in the happening of this accident. All of Plaintiffs' injuries and damages were caused solely as a result of the carelessness, wantonness, recklessness and negligence of the instant Defendant. Further, at all times applicable hereto: (a) Plaintiff appropriately operated his vehicle, and all times when changing lanes was necessary, did so in a safe manner; (b) Plaintiff travelled at a safe and appropriate speed and at or below the posted speed limit: (c) Plaintiff was attentive; (d) Plaintiff applied his brakes in an attempt to avoid the accident caused by the instant Defendant; 502264 (e) Plaintiff attempted to avoid striking the rear portion of the Defendant's vehicle, however, he was unable to do so because of Defendant's sudden movement into Plaintiff s path; (f) Plaintiff operated his motorcycle in accordance with the motorcycle rules and regulations; (g) Plaintiff used safe motorcycle operating procedures so as to avoid accidents; and (h) Plaintiff travelled at a safe and appropriate speed for the existing traffic conditions. 24. Defendant's averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. As previously indicated herein, Plaintiff was in no way negligent. The Defendant's negligent, reckless, wanton and careless conduct was the sole factual cause of the accident and Plaintiffs' injuries and damages. 25. Defendant's averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification it is admitted that Defendant was negligent, careless, wanton and reckless and that such conduct was the sole factual cause of the accident and Plaintiffs' injuries. 26. Defendant's averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, Defendant's averment lacks the specificity required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, all of Plaintiffs' injuries and damages were caused solely and directly as a result of the negligence, carelessness, wantonness and recklessness of the instant Defendant. 502264 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court to dismiss Defendant's Answer and New Matter and enter judgment in their favor against the Defendant. ANGINO & ROVNER, P. A. Sadloc- , Esquire A I.D. No. 47281 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 rsadlock@angino-rovner.com Counsel for Plaintiff 502264 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF DAUPHIN SS. AFFIDAVIT I, RICHARD A. SADLOCK, ESQUIRE, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and states that I am counsel for Plaintiffs, that I am authorized to make this Affidavit on behalf of said Plaintiffs, and the facts set forth in the foregoing Reply to New Matter, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. 4:0550WO,10 Richard A. Sadlock Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1,0, 'day of T\kw- .2012. Notary Public My Commission Expires: +'_INWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NOTARIAL SEAL ??- DAWN HORCHLER, Notary Plublic Susquehanna Twp., Dauphin ,.yjty My Commission Expi a,,-,,3 502264 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michelle M. Milojevich, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER upon all counsel of record via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17 043 ID 4: 51785 (717) 761-4540 Michelle M. Milojevich Dated: (r f i0,2264 IL?D~OEI' !Cc C- THE PROTHONOTARY 2012 JUL 10 AN 11: 04 UMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA 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 ROBERT H. KIMMEL and CATHERINE T. INGARRA, his wife, Plaintiffs V. NO. 12-3479 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW WILLIAM HOLMAN, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 As a prerequisite to service of subpoena for documents and things pursuant Rule 4009.22, Defendants hereby certify that, 1) A Notice of Intent to serve the subpoena, with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto, were mailed or delivered to each party at least 20 days prior to the date on which the subpoena were sought to be served; Attorneys for Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS F CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVA IA 2) A copy of the Notice of Intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to this certificate; 3) No objection to the subpoenas has been received; 4) PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL HAS WAIVED THE 20 DAY PERIOD via email dated 07/06/12; and 5) The subpoena to be served is identical to the subpoena attached to the Notice of Intent. JOHNSON DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDN By: Jefffrson'J. Shipman, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Counsel for Defendant Date: July 1, 2012 :504553 22740-2921 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 ROBERT H. KIMMEL and CATHERINE T. INGARRA, his wife, Plaintiffs V. WILLIAM HOLMAN, Defendant Attorneys for Defend IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS O CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN NO. 12-3479 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 TO: Robert H. Kimmel and Catherine T. Ingarra, his wife c/o Richard A. Sadlock, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant, William Holman, intends to serve on (1) subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned objections to the subpoena. If no objections are made, the subpoena may be served. JOH , DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER- By: a Je erso J. Shipman, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Counsel for Defendant Date: July 5 , 2012 :504036 22740-2969 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ROBERT H. KIMMEL and CATHERINE T. INGARRA„ his wife vs. WILLIAM R. HOLMAN Defendant File No. 2012-03479 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 > ?APv-1PDEN TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Your complete file, including but not limited to accident reports, supplemental accident reports, correspondence, notes, color photographs on CD, videos, news releases, diagrams measurements or any other documents in regard to Incident No. HAM20110900088 which occurred on 09%02!2011 on the Carlisle Pike in Hampden Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. at fohnsorl, I)-vffie, Stewart & Weidner, PC, 301 Market St., Lemoyne, PA 17043 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire ADDRESS'. Johnson, Duirie, Stewart & Weidner, P.C. _ 30} t?srket Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 TELEPHONE: 717-761-4540 _ SUPREME COURT ID # 51785 _ ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Date:_ Sp l o the Court . BY THE COU . _ .rr e . Prothonotary, Civil ivision Deputy CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been duly served upo the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States First Cla Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on July 5, 2012: Richard A. Sadlock, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (Counsel for Plaintiff) JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER Barbara A. Carroll, Paralegal to Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the Certificate Prerequisite of Subpoenas upon all parties or counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, with first-class posta?e prepaid on the _j day of July, 2012, addressed to the following: Richard A. Sadlock, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (Counsel for Plaintiff) JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNEt By: a Cox Barbara A. Carroll, Paralegal to Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire 2113JUL 15 p1l 2: 30 C(1r SERLAND COUNTY PE Iq5YLVANIA ANGINO&ROVNER,P.C. Richard A.Sadlock Attorney ID# : 47281 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg,PA 17110-1708 (717)238-6791 FAX(717)238-5610 Attorneys f6r Plaintiff(s) E-mail:rsadlock @angino-rovner.com ROBERT H. KIMMEL and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CATHERINE T. INGARRA, his wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION—LAW V. NO. 2012-03479 WILLIAM R. HOLMAN, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above-captioned action as settled, satisfied, and discontinued. ANGINO & C. and A. Sadl. , Esquire P I.D. Nol.— 281 3 ront Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 rsadlock@angino-rovner.com Counsel for Plaintiff 529957