HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-5197ROTHONOTAR
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
n
BY: David Joseph Chapman, ESQUIRE L. 2 AU J 2 O P M : L
I,.D. #209519
209 State Street CUMMERLAND COUNTY
Harrisburg, PA 17101
}y : ; (LV i A
(717) 232-6300
jPhapmannschmidtkramer.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs
NORMA SHOOP and STEVEN COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
SHOOT, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs NO?a
. - 50-7 V.
DONALD PIPER, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant : 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 AN
ATTORNEY AND FILLING 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 JUDGEMENT 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 PEOPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO
YOU.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO
NOT 14AVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO THE TELEPHONE
OR THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL
HELP.
Cumberland County Bar Association
34 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-249-3166
1-800-990-9108
s 103. IS pd a
a a?-3
a? I sa
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
BY: David Joseph Chapman, ESQUIRE
I.D. #209519
209 State Street
IIarrisburg, PA 17101
(,717) 232-6300
i ftpm annschmidtlaamer. corn
NORMA SHOOP and STEVEN
SHOOP,
Plaintiffs
v.
DONALD PIPER,
Defendant
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, Norma and Steven Shoop, by and
through their attorneys, Schmidt Kramer PC, and aver the following:
1,. Plaintiffs, Norma Shoop and Steven Shoop, her husband, are
married adult individuals with a current address at 20148 Spring Run Road,
Spring Run, Franklin County, Pennsylvania, 17262.
2',. Defendant, Donald Piper, is an adult individual residing at 6974
Sunset (Road, Newburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17240.
3; The facts which give rise to the cause of action occurred on July
17, 2011, at approximately noon, at Canoe Creek State Park, Hollidaysburg,
Blair County, Pennsylvania during a horseback trail ride.
4. Defendant had trouble controlling his horse at different times
during the previous days of riding, as well as the earlier part of the day of the
incident.
5. At the aforementioned time and place, Defendant was riding a
horse behind a group, of which he was a part, and finishing a trail ride.
Vii. Defendant lost control of his horse, was shouting, and was hanging
on to the neck of his horse as it ran at a high rate of speed at the rear of the
group.
Plaintiff, Norma Shoop, was riding at the rear of the group with her
horse under control and wearing a helmet.
8. Defendant's horse was out of control and ran past Plaintiff's horse
and either struck Plaintiff's horse or came sufficiently close on the left side of
PlaintiWs horse to cause Plaintiff's horse to startle, become unsettled, and
throw its rider, Norma Shoop.
9I. At the unexpected and uncontrolled passing of Defendant's horse,
Plaintiff's horse threw her to the right and forward, where she landed on the
asphalt path.
10. The incident was in no way caused or contributed to by the
Plaintiff, and was solely caused by the Defendants.
11. Plaintiff, Norma Shoop, suffered severe and permanent injuries
from being thrown from the horse.
COUNT I
NEGLIGENCE
NORMA SHOOP v. DONALD PIPER
12. Paragraphs 1 through 11 are incorporated herein as if set forth in
full.
13. The negligence and carelessness of Defendant consisted of:
a. Failing to discontinue riding his horse which he knew or
should have known he could not control;
b. Failing to possess the riding skill necessary to control his
horse;
C. Failing to recognize, based on experience on previous days of
the ride, that Defendant could not control his horse;
d. Failing to take measures to reschool or train the horse after
problems during the ride on previous days;
e. Failing to keep his horse under control;
f. Failing to keep his horse under control when Defendant
knew it was likely to interfere with other riders;
g. Disregarding the safety of others by riding a horse which he
could not control;
h. Failing to stop his horse from charging at others when the
horse became uncontrollable by Defendant;
i. Failing to choose a position in the order of the ride which
would provide a better opportunity to control his horse;
j. Choosing to ride a horse which Defendant failed to control
during a trail ride which would bring it in close quarters with
other horses and riders;
k. Failing to recognize his inability to control his horse during
the trail rides;
1. Guiding his horse into another rider unexpectedly and
without warning; and
M. Failing to provide sufficient warning for the other riders to
protect themselves from a horse known to be uncontrollable
by Defendant;.
14. As a sole result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has suffered the
following injuries which are serious and permanent:
a. Ten fractured ribs;
b. Two fractured vertebrae;
C. Concussion;
d. Headaches;
e. Fractured right scapula;
f. Back pain radiating into right buttocks;
g. Damage to associated muscles, nerves, and ligaments.
15. As a sole result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has incurred
and will continue to incur medical bills.
16. As a sole result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has lost income,
and will continue to lose income in the future.
17. As a sole result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff suffered an
impairment of future earning power.
18. As a sole result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has suffered a
permanent loss of life's pleasures.
19. As a sole result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has undergone
and will continue to undergo pain and suffering.
20. As a sole result of Defendant's consciously indifferent acts, Plaintiff
demands punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in excess of the compulsory
arbitration limits in Cumberland County.
COUNT II
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
STEVEN SHOOP v. DONALD PIPER
2'1. Paragraphs 1-20 are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
2?. As a sole and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Steven
Shoop has suffered the loss of companionship, society, and services of his wife.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in excess of the compulsory
arbitration limits in Cumberland County.
Date:
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
David Jose
Attorney M. #209519
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Attorneys for Plaintiff
VERIFICATION BASED UPON PERSONAL
KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY COUNSEL
I,' Norma Shoop, verify that I am the Plaintiff in this action and that the
foregoing Complaint is based upon the information which has been gathered by
my counsel in preparation of this action. The language of the Complaint is that
of counsel and is not mine. I have read the Complaint, 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 contents of the Complaint are that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in
making'',, this Verification..
I understand that intentional false statements herein are made subject to
the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsifications made to
authorities.
C.,
Norma Shoop
Date: ?7-
VERIFICATION BASED UPON PERSONAL
KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY COUNSEL
I, Steven Shoop, verify that I am the Plaintiff in this action and that the
foregoing Complaint is based upon the information which has been gathered by
my counsel in preparation of this action. The language of the Complaint is that
of counsel and is not mine. I have read the Complaint, 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 contents of the Complaint are that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in
making this Verification..
I understand that intentional false statements herein are made subject to
the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsifications made to
authorities.
?4?,- Steven Shoop
Date: ;K-y-)eg /
f' r
ROLF E. KROLL, ESQUIRE;
Supreme Court I
D
No
47243
Pa i ;
.
.
.
.
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 L V 1P,
Telephone: 17171975-8114, Direct Dial: (717) 7 Attorneys for Defendant:
Fax: 17171975-8124 DONALD PIPER
E-Mail: rkroll@margolisedelstein.com
NORMA SHOOP and STEVEN JN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
SHOOP, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs, :CIVILE ACTION - LAW
V. :NO. 12-5197 Civil
DONALD PIPER,
Defendant. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE TO PLEAD
To: NORMA SHOOP and STEVEN SHOOP
c/o David J. Chapman, Esquire
Schmidt Kramer PC
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to plead to the enclosed ANSWER WITH NEW
MATTER OF DEFENDANT, DONALD PIPER, within twenty (20) days from service hereof, or
a default judgment may be entered against you.
Date: 11-1 113
Respectfully submitted,
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
By: A.
ROLF E. KROLL, ESQUIRE
PA. Attorney I.D. No. 47243
Attorney for Defendant,
DONALD PIPER
3 510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 975-8114 Direct: (717) 760-7502
Fax: (717) 975-8124
ROLF E. KROLL, ESQUIRE
Pa. Supreme Court I.D. No. 47243
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011
Telephone: [7171975-8114 Direct Dial: (717) 760-7502
Fax: 17171975-8124
Attorneys for Defendant:
DONALD PIPER
NORMA SHOOP and STEVEN :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
SHOOP, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs, :CIVILE ACTION - LAW
V. :NO. 12-5197 Civil
DONALD PIPER,
Defendant. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, DONALD PIPER,
TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes Defendant, Donald Piper ("Mr. Piper"), by and through his counsel,
Margolis Edelstein, to answer the Complaint of Plaintiffs, Norma Shoop and Steven Shoop
("Plaintiffs"), and in support thereof, avers the following:
1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Piper is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph of
Plaintiffs' Complaint, and same and therefore denied.
2. Admitted.
OPERATIVE FACTS
3. Admitted.
4. Denied. The allegation of this paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitutes a
conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied.
5. Admitted.
6. Denied. The allegation of this paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitutes a
conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied.
7. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff, Norma Shoop,
was wearing a helmet. The remainder of this paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitutes
conclusions to which no responsive pleading, and same is therefore denied.
8-9. Denied. These allegations of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law
to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied.
10. Denied. This allegation of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitutes conclusions to which
no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied. By way of further answer, it is
believed and averred that Plaintiff was contributorily negligent as discussed infra.
11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Piper is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph of
Plaintiffs' Complaint, and same are therefore denied.
COUNT 1
NEGLIGENCE
NORMA SHOOP V. DONALD PIPER
12. Paragraphs 1 through 11 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth
in full.
13(a-m). Denied. The allegations of this paragraph and its corresponding subparagraphs
of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is
required, and same is therefore denied.
14(a-g). Denied. The allegations of this paragraph and its corresponding subparagraphs
2
of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is
required, and same is therefore denied. By way of further answer, after example investigation,
Mr. Piper is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
averments of this paragraph and its corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs' Complaint. and same
is therefore denied.
15-19. Denied. The allegations of these paragraphs of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute
conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied. By
way of further answer, Mr. Piper is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the averments of these paragraphs of Plaintiffs' Complaint, and same is
therefore denied.
20. The allegations of Paragraph 20 have been stricken by Stipulation of counsel.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Donald Piper, demands judgment in his favor and against
Plaintiffs with costs ensued assessed to Plaintiffs.
COUNT2
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
STEVEN SHOOP V. DONALD PIPER
21. Paragraphs 1 through 20 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth
in full.
22. Denied. The allegation of this paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitutes
conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied. By
way of further answer, Mr. Piper is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint, and same is therefore
denied.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Donald Piper, demands judgment in his favor and against
Plaintiffs with costs ensued assessed to Plaintiffs.
NEW MATTER
23. Paragraphs 1 through 22 are incorporated herein by reference as if
set forth in full.
24. If it is determined that Mr. Piper is liable on Plaintiffs' cause of action, Mr. Piper
avers that any recovery should be eliminated and/or reduced in accordance with the Pennsylvania
Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 7102.
25. It is further averred that if Plaintiffs suffered any injuries or damages, as alleged,
that they were caused solely and primarily by Plaintiffs' own carelessness, recklessness and
negligence.
26. It is further averred that if Plaintiffs suffered any injuries or damages, as alleged,
that they were caused solely and primarily by the carelessness, recklessness and negligence of
third parties over whom Mr. Piper had no control, right of control or duty to control.
27. Pursuant to Rule 2252(d), it is further averred that parties other than Mr. Piper are
solely liable to Plaintiffs or jointly and severally liable or liable over to Mr. Piper on the cause of
action.
28. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
29. The accident described in Plaintiffs' Complaint was not caused by the negligence
4
of Mr. Piper.
30. No causation exists between any alleged act or omission of Mr. Piper and the
alleged injuries and/or damages incurred by Plaintiffs.
31. Other individuals or entities over whom Mr. Piper had no control are causally
negligent.
32. Some or all of the damages claimed by Plaintiffs are not recoverable under the
applicable laws.
33. Any acts and/or omissions of Mr. Piper alleged to constitute negligence were not
substantial causes or factors of the subject accident or alleged damages.
34. Mr. Piper denies that he was negligent in any manner whatsoever. Should it be
determined to the contrary, then the negligence of Plaintiffs, or others, was comparatively greater
than that of Mr. Piper, causing the claims brought against Mr. Piper to be reduced pursuant to the
Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act.
35. Plaintiff s accident was caused by Plaintiff's failure to observe the conditions that
were existing around her, and failure to take precautions for her own safety.
36. Plaintiff s accident was caused by her failure to observe an open and obvious
condition.
37. Mr. Piper reserves his right, upon completion of its investigation and discovery, to
file additional defenses, counterclaims, as may be appropriate.
38. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part by the Doctrine of res judicata
and/or collateral estoppel.
39. Mr. Piper was confronted with a sudden emergency not of his own creation.
5
40, At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff chose to ride her horse over asphalt.
41. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages.
42. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff failed to equip her horse with sound and safe
equipment causing and/or contributing to the injuries she alleges.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Donald Piper, demands judgment in his favor and against
Plaintiffs with costs ensued assessed to Plaintiffs.
Respectfully submitted,
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
Date: 11 1 1 ? 3
By: CQA? A &ut? cy
ROLF E. KROLL, ESQUIRE
PA. Attorney I.D. No. 47243
Attorney for Defendant,
DONALD PIPER
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 975-8114 Direct: (717) 760-7502
Fax: (717) 975-8124
6
VERIFICATION
I, DONALD PIPER, have read the foregoing ANSWER WITH NEW
MATTER OF DEFENDANT, DONALD PIPER, TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT,
which has been drafted by my counsel. The factual statements contained therein
are known by me and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information
and belief.
This statement and verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.
C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities, which
provides that, if I knowingly make false averments, I may be subject to criminal
penalties.
Date 0. ?' - / J k e -/ a -P J"
DONALD PIPER
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT on all counsel of
record by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania,
first-class postage prepaid, on the,7day of January, 2013, and addressed as
follows:
David Joseph Chapman, Esquire
Schmidt Kramer P.C.
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
Ann E. Nelson, Legal Assistant
Tr''E Pf�O TH01140 AI
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC t i t
BY: David Joseph Chapman, ESQUIRE 13 SEP 25 PM 2:
I.D. #209519
209 State Street CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Harrisburg, PA 17101
PENNSYLVANIA(717) 232-6300
jchapman@schmidtkramer.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs
NORMA SHOOP and STEVEN COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
SHOOP, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs NO. 12-5197 CIVIL
V.
DONALD PIPER, CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO
SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA
PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things,
directed to Burnt Mill Veterinary Center, pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Plaintiff
certifies that:
(1) a notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena
attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days
prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served,
(2) a copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is
attached to this certificate,
(3) Defendant waived the waiting period and made no objection to the
subpoena, and
(4) the subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is
attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
-�----
vid Jose , Esquire
Attorney I.D. #209519
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Date: .5 EPT. zH , Zoi 3
■ 209 State Street
Harrisburg,Pennsylvania 17101
717.888.8888
FAX 717.232.6467
www.schmicftkmmer.com
I N J U R Y L A W Y E R S
September 6, 2013
Rolf E. Kroll, Esquire
Margolis Edelstein
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
RE: Shoop v. Piper
Docket No. 12-5197
Dear Mr. Kroll:
In reviewing Mr. Pipper-s Answers to Interrogatories and specially referring to
Question No. 31 and his response, I note that an address was not given for Ron and
Jane Sample. If you would, please provide the address for Mr. and Mrs. Sample.
Further I enclosed a Notice of Intent to Issue a Subpoena directed to the
veterinarians office. If you would, please let me know if you will waive the 20 day
waiting period.
Should you have any questions, please telephone me at my office. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
SCHMIDT KR.AMER PC
Joseph
Attorney at La
DJC/anb
Enclosure
SCEMMT MWER PC
BY: David Joseph Chapman,ESQUIRE
I.D. #209519
209 State Street
Harrisburg,PA 17101
(717)232-6300
jchapman@schmidtlaamer.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs
NORMA SHOOP and STEVEN COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
SHOOP, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs NO. 12-5197 CIVIL
V.
DONALD PIPER, CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT
TO RULE 4009.21
TO: Donald Piper c/o Rolf E. Kroll, Esquire
Margolis Edelstein
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Norma and Steven Shoop intend to serve a 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 ZidMJosephtha ;::' e
subpoena. If no objection is made, the s ,
Attorney I.D. #209519
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Attorneys for:
Norma and Steven Shoop
Date: SAr. 6. 2_yi3
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR
DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
NORMA SHOOP and STEVEN COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
SHOOP, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs NO. 12-5197 CIVIL
V.
DONALD PIPER, CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
TO: Burnt Mill Veterinary Center
15154 Burnt Mill Road
Shippensburg, PA 17257
Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered
by the court to produce the following documents or things:
Veterinary records in your possession for any horse owned by Donald
Piper and/or Julieanne Piper, from January 1, 2011, through the
present.
to the office of:
David Joseph Chapman, Esquire
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
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:
David Joseph Chapman, Esquire
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
Attorney I.D. #209519
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Prothonotary
Date: By:
Deputy
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, thisAT-day of �, 2013, I, D. Joseph Chapman,
Esquire, counsel for the Plaintiff, hereby certify that I have, this day, served a
copy of the Certificate of Prerequisite to Service of a Subpoena by serving a copy
of the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Rolf E. Kroll, Esquire
Margolis Edelstein
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMIDT KR.AMER PC
By:
D. Joseph C man
I.D.# 209519
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Attorney for Plaintiff
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
BY: David Joseph Chapman,ESQUIRE `-` )'3 FEB 28 1 r
t I 1: 6:
I.D. #209519
209 State Street " ?ti t R C.A N D COUNTY
Harrisburg,PA 17101 PENNSYLVANIA
(717) 232-6300
jchapman@schmidtkramer.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs
NORMA SHOOP and STEVEN : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
SHOOP, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs : NO. 12-5197 CIVIL
v.
DONALD PIPER, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
•
Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO
SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA
PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things,
directed to Douglas C. Wallick, pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Plaintiff certifies
that:
(1) a notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena
attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days
prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served,
(2) a copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is
attached to this certificate,
(3) Defendant waived the waiting period and made no objection to the
subpoena, and
(4) the subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is
attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
B ■brte
Davis oseph : -771 el ire
Attorney I.D. #209519
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Date: r',58.
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
BY: David Joseph Chapman,ESQUIRE
I.D. #209519
209 State Street
Harrisburg,PA 17101
(717)232-6300
jchapman@schmidtkramer.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs
NORMA SHOOP and STEVEN : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
SHOOP, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs : NO. 12-5197 CIVIL
v. .
•
DONALD PIPER, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
•
•
Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT
TO RULE 4009.21
TO: Donald Piper c/o Rolf E. Kroll, Esquire
Margolis Edelstein
3510 Triadle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Norma and Steven Shoop intend to serve a 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 an objection to the
Alresubpoena. If no objection is made, the subpoena ma •- ery-•
David id Josep CI. an, Esqu''' - 19
Attorney I.D. #209519
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Attorneys for:
Norma and Steven Shoop
Date: • liY 113 Za Lf
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR
DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
NORMA SHOOP and STEVEN : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
SHOOP, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs : NO. 12-5197 CIVIL
•
v.
•
DONALD PIPER, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
•
•
Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
TO: Douglas C. Wallick
PO Box 0023
Camp Hill, PA 17001
Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered
by the court to produce the following documents or things:
A copy of the full and complete application for insurance of Donald
Piper for insurance with Country Way which began the insurance policy
with Country Way for the policy numbered F0746815. Further, please
provide all requests for changes or endorsements to that policy, which
you submitted to the insurer between the inception of the policy, and
the present. A copy of the renewal effective 8/28/2010-8/28/2011, is
attached for your reference.
to the office of:
David Joseph Chapman, Esquire
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
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:
David Joseph Chapman, Esquire
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
Attorney I.D. #209519
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Prothonotary
Date: By:
Deputy
ROLF E.KROLL,ESQUIRE
Pa.Supreme Court I.D.No.47243
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill,Pennsylvania 17011
Telephone: [717]975-8114 Direct Dial: (717)760-7502 Attorneys for Defendant:
Fax: [717]975-8124 DONALD PIPER
NORMA SHOOP and STEVEN :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
SHOOP, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
: PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs, :CIVIL ACTION-LAW
v. :NO. 12-5197 CivilCD
() cg .11
DONALD PIPER, : - ; ..
Defendant. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED r�
r
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AMEND c -
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT c) c's
P
AND NOW comes Defendant, Donald Piper, by and through his counsel, Margoliii
Edelstein,to file the within Motion to Amend, and so states as follows:
1. Plaintiffs Norma and Steven Shoop,by and through their counsel, filed the above-
captioned civil action against Defendant Donald Piper,by filing a Complaint, on or about
August 20,2012.
2. Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges negligence and carelessness of Defendant Piper, in part, for
failing to keep his horse under control during a horseback trail ride which took place on
July 17, 2011, at Canoe Creek State Park, Hollidaysburg, Blair County, Pennsylvania. A
true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Complaint is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and
marked Exhibit"A."
3. Plaintiffs further allege in their Complaint that Defendant's horse caused"Plaintiff's
horse to startle,become unsettled, and throw its rider,Norma Shoop." Exhibit A, at¶ 8.
4. Defendant Piper,by and through his counsel, on or about January 7, 2013, filed an
Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint. A true and correct copy of
-2 -
Defendant's Answer with New Matter is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked
Exhibit"B."
5. Plaintiffs,by and through their counsel, on or about January 15, 2013, filed an Answer to
Defendant's New Matter. A true and correct copy of the Answer to New Matter is
attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit"C."
6. Since the time of the filing of the Answer with New Matter of Defendant on January 7,
2013, discovery, including depositions of the parties and witnesses identified by
Plaintiffs,has been ongoing.
7. On May 22, 2014,the undersigned deposed Plaintiffs' witnesses, including witness Carol
Daniel, who organized the horseback riding event during which Plaintiff was injured.
8. At or about the time of Ms. Daniel's deposition, it was discovered that the trail ride
participants and their horses left from property owned by Ms. Daniel's fiancé and used by
Ms. Daniel to train and board horses. Further, it was discovered that the trail ride
participants and returned to said property at the end of each ride. Ms. Daniel further
advised that, on each of the three days of this three-day trail ride,there were signed
conspicuously posted on her premises, at least 3 feet by 2 feet in size, which stated
"WARNING: You assume the risk of equine activities pursuant to Pennsylvania law," as
required by the Equine Activity Immunity Act, Act 93 of 2005. A true and correct copy
of the Affidavit of Carol Daniel, with photo exhibits, is attached hereto,made a part
hereof, and marked Exhibit"D."
9. The fact that the horseback trail riding event had began and ended at Ms. Daniel's
property, upon which warning signs advising of the assumption of the risk of equine
activities were conspicuously posted, is information not previously known to counsel for
Defendant prior to the time of Ms. Daniel's deposition on May 22, 2014.
73 -
10. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1033, Defendant now moves to amend his Answer with New
Matter to assert the defenses available against Plaintiff, including the Equine Activity
Immunity Act, Act 93 of 2005, and assumption of risk and, accordingly, requests leave of
court to amend.
11. A copy of this Motion to Amend was forwarded to counsel for Plaintiffs on June 20,
2014, to seek the concurrence of Plaintiffs; a true and correct copy of said correspondence
is attached hereto, and marked Exhibit"E."
12. Plaintiff does not concur with the within Motion to Amend.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Court enter an Order granting
Defendant leave to file an Amended Answer with New Matter.
Respect lly sub 'itted,
4 P 4
Date /• '
hi/ r
d 1(1
: gy
RO ' L, ESQ IRE
' • Attom- .D. #47243
3510 Tri• de Road
Camp r ill, PA 17011
(71 975-8114
Attorney for Defendant Donald Piper
-4 -
09/04/2612 15:29 7174235911 BURNTM ILL VETERINARY PAGE 02
•
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC G:1
BY: David Joseph Chapman,ESQUIRE
T.D.0209519 -C7 2'-`1
rn CO c tY1 r--
209 State Street c7 "Uri
Harrisburg.PA 17101 Q
(717)232-6300 tJ�r
I nalehmidtkramer.earq Attorneys for 30 tiffsO
,Zcn -o cn-
NORMA SHOOP and STEVEN : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF F- —
C
SHOOP, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVIX1, car
•
Plaintiffs . NO. ? pg - 519 7 nvii
•
v. .
DONALD PIPER, : CIVIL ACTION -- LAW
•
Defendant : 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 (2C DAYS AFTER TI-US COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE
SERVED, BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY AN
ATTORNEY AND FILLING 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 JUDGEMENT 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 TIIE PLAINTIFF.
YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PEOPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO
YOU.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO
NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO THE TELEPHONE
OR THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL
HELP.
• Cumberland County Bar Association ..�*�.. ....
34 South Bedford Street - . - .
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-249-3166 — -
1-800-990-9108 7'ttU tOpY. ONFRECOE2b
fn Testifpony,whereof,-1.nei*e ump set my hand
and the:eat at.5oid•Capp.at.CArliste,Pa.
DEFENDANT'S Ttis fib. of 20/n,R
EX BIT l
09/04/2012 15:29 7174235811 BURNTMILL VETERINARY PAGE 03
•
SCHNIDT KRAMER PC
BY: David Joseph Chap= , ESQUIRE
I.D.0208519
209 State Street
Harrisburg,PA 17101
(717)232-6.300
thumezentmaidtkremer.cont Attorneys for PlajntilTs
NORMA SHOOP and STEVEN : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
SHOOP, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs : NO.
V.
DONALD PIPER, • : CIVIL ACTION- LAW
•
Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, Norma and Steven Shoop, by and
through their attorneys, Schmidt Kramer PC, and aver the following:
1. Plaintiffs, Norma Shoop and Steven Shoop, her husband, are
married adult individuals with a current address at 20148 Spring Run Road,
Spring Run, Franklin County, Pennsylvania, 17262.
2. Defendant, Donald Piper, is an adult individual residing at 6974
Sunset Road, Newburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17240.
OPERATIVE FACTS
3. The facts which give rise to the cause of action occurred on July
17, 2011, at approximately noon, at Canoe Creek State Park, Hollidaysburg,
Blair County, Pennsylvania during a horseback trail ride.
09/04/2012 15:29 7174235811 BUR4TMILL VETERINARY PAGE 04
4. Defendant had trouble controlling his horse at different times
during the previous days of riding, as well as the earlier part of the day of the
incident.
5. At the aforementioned time and place, Defendant was riding a
horse behind a group, of which he was a part, and finishing a trail ride.
6. Defendant lost control of his horse, was shouting, and was hanging
on to the neck of his horse as it ran at a high rate of speed at the rear of the
group.
7. Plaintiff, Norma, Shoop, was riding at the rear of the group with her
horse under control aril wearing a helmet.
8. Defendant's horse was out of control and ran past Plaintiffs horse
and either struck Plaintiffs horse or came sufficiently close onthe left side of
Plaintiff's horse to cause Plaintiffs horse to startle, become unsettled, and
throw its rider, Norma Shoop.
9. At the unexpected and uncontrolled passing of Defendant's horse,
Plaintiffs horse threw her to the right and forward, where she landed on the
asphalt path.
10. The incident was in no way caused or contributed to by the
Plaintiff, and was solely caused by the Defendants.
11. Plaintiff, Norma Shoop, suffered severe and permanent injuries
from being thrown from the horse.
89/04/2012 15:29 7174235811 BURNTMILL VETERINARY PAGE 05
COUNT I
NEGLIGENCE
NORMA SHOOP v. DONALD PIPER
12. Paragraphs 1 through 11 are incorporated herein as if get forth in
full.
13. The negligence and carelessness of Defendant consisted of:
• a. Failing to discontinue riding his horse which he knew or
should have known he could not control;
b. ?'ailing to possess the riding skill necessary to control his
horse;
c. Failing to recognize, based on experience on previous days of
the ride, that Defendant could not control his horse;
d. Failing to take measures to reschool or train the horse after
problems during the ride on previous days;
e. Failing to keep his horse under control;
f. Failing to keep his horse under control when Defendant
• knew it was likely to interfere with other riders;
g. Disregarding the safety of others by riding a horse which he
could not control;
h. Failing to stop his horse from charging at others when the
horse became uncontrollable by Defendant;
i.. Failing to choose a position in the order of the ride which
would provide a better opportunity to control his horse;
j. Choosing to ride a horse which Defendant failed to control
during a trail ride which would bring it in close quarters with
other horses and riders;
k. Failing to recognize his inability to control his horse during
the trail rides;
1. Guiding his horse into another rider unexpectedly and
without warning; and
m. Failing to provide sufficient warning for the other riders to
protect themselves from a horse known to be uncontrollable
by Defendant;.
14. As a sole result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has suffered the
following injuries which are serious and permanent:
a. Ten fractured ribs;
b. Two fractured vertebrae;
c. Concussion;
d. Headaches;
09/04/2012 15:29 7174235811 BURNTMILL VETERINARY PAGE 0$
e. Fractured right scapula;
1. Back pain radiating into right buttocks;
g. Damage to associated muscles, nerves, and ligaments.
15. As a sole result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has incurred
and will continue to incur medical bills.
16. As a sole result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has lost income,
and will continue to lose income in the future.
17. As a .sole result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff suffered an
impairment of future earning power.
18. As a sole result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has suffered a
permanent loss of life's pleasures.
19. As a sole result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has undergone
and will continue to undergo pain and suffering.
20. As a sole result of Defendant's consciously indifferent acts, Plaintiff
demands punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in excess of the compulsory
•
arbitration limits in Cumberland County.
COUNT II
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
STEVEN SHOOP v. DONALD PIPER
21. Paragraphs 1-20 are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
'22. As a sole and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Steven
Shoop has suffered the loss of companionship, society, and services of his wife.
69/04/2012 15:29 7174235011 BURNTM ILL VETERINARY PAGE 07
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in excess of the compulsory
arbitration limits in Cumberland County.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
By Arai v'iSt'1`
David Jose• - • • . .m. . ^ quire
Attorney . P. #209519
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Date: --�'-=3-� l5i t z
09/04/2012 15:2.9 7174235811 BURNTMILL VETERINARY PAGE :08
VERIFICATION BASED UPON PERSONAL
KNOWLEDGE AND INFQRMATION SUPPLIED BY COUNSEL
1, Norma.Shoop, verify that I am the Plaintiff in this action and that the
foregoing Complaint is based upon the information which has been gathered by
my counsel in preparation of this action. The language of the Complaint is that
of counsel andis not mine. I have read the Complaint, 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 contents of the Complaint are that of counsel, i have relied upon counsel in
making this Verification.
understand that intentional false statements herein are made subject to
the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsifications made to
authorities.
/10114"' fr(7/
.. l
Norma Shoop
Date: 7-9-12 9-
09/04/2012 15:29 7174235811 BURNTMILL VETERINARY PAGE 09
•
VERIFICATION BASED UPON PERSONAL
KNOWLEDGE MD INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY COUNSEL
I, Steven Shoop, verify that I am the Plaintiff in this action and that the
foregoing Complaint is based upon the information which has been gathered by
my counsel in preparation of this action. The language of the Complaint is that
of counsel and is not mine. I have read the Complaint, 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 contents Of the Complaint are that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in
making this Verification.
I understand that intentional false statements herein are made subject to
the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsifications made to
authorities.
1A"cifri
DateSteven Shoop
: 7--6/— )2‘
1110
ROLF E.KROLL,ESQUIRE
Pa.Supreme Court I.D.No.47243
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill,Pennsylvania 17011
Telephone: 17171975-8114 Direct Dial: (717)760-7502 Attorneys for Defendant:
Fax: 17171975-8124 DONALD PIPER
E-Mail: rkroll®margolisedelstein.com
NORMA SHOOP and STEVEN :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
SHOOP, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs, :CIVILE ACTION-LAW
v. :NO. 12-5197 Civil
DONALD PIPER, •
Defendant. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE TO PLEAD
To: NORMA SHOOP and STEVEN SHOOP
do David J. Chapman,Esquire
Schmidt Kramer PC.
209 State Street
Harrisburg,PA 17101
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to plead to the enclosed ANSWER WITH NEW
MATTER OF DEFENDANT,DONALD PIPER,within twenty(20)days from service hereof,or
a default judgment may be entered against you.
Respectfully submitted,
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
Date: i I 1 ( 13 By: A. 1
aiAAC
ROLF E. KROLL,ESQUIRE
PA. Attorney I.D.No. 47243
Attorney for Defendant,
DONALD PIPER
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill,PA 17011
(717)975-8114 Direct: (717)760-7502
Fax: (717)975-8124
DEFENDANT'S
EX BIT
8
ROLF E.KROLL,ESQUIRE
Pa.Supreme Court I.D.No.47243
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill,Pennsylvania 17011
Telephone: 17171975-8114 Direct Dial: (717)760-7502 Attorneys for Defendant:
Fax: 17171975-8124 DONALD PIPER
NORMA SHOOP and STEVEN :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
SHOOP, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs, :CHILE ACTION-LAW
v. :NO. 12-5197 Civil
DONALD PIPER, •
Defendant. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT,DONALD PIPER,
TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
AND NOW,comes Defendant,Donald Piper("Mr. Piper"),by and through his counsel,
Margolis Edelstein, to answer the Complaint of Plaintiffs,Norma Shoop and Steven Shoop
("Plaintiffs"),and in support thereof,avers the following:
1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Piper is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph of
Plaintiffs' Complaint, and same and therefore denied.
2. Admitted.
OPERATIVE FACTS
3. Admitted.
4. Denied. The allegation of this paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitutes a
conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required,and same is therefore denied.
5. Admitted.
6. Denied. The allegation of this paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitutes a
conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied.
7. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff,Norma Shoop,
was wearing a helmet. The remainder of this paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitutes
conclusions to which no responsive pleading, and same is therefore denied.
8-9. Denied. These allegations of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law
to which no responsive pleading is required,and same is therefore denied.
10. Denied. This allegation of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitutes conclusions to which
no responsive pleading is required,and same is therefore denied. By way of further answer, it is
believed and averred that Plaintiff was contributorily negligent as discussed infra.
11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Piper is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph of
Plaintiffs' Complaint,and same are therefore denied.
COUNT 1
NEGLIGENCE
NORMA SHOOP V. DONALD PIPER
12. Paragraphs 1 through 11 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth
in full.
13(a-m). Denied. The allegations of this paragraph and its corresponding subparagraphs
of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is
required,and same is therefore denied.
14(a-g). Denied. The allegations of this paragraph and its corresponding subparagraphs
2
of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is
required,and same is therefore denied. By way of further answer, after example investigation,
Mr. Piper is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
averments of this paragraph and its corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs' Complaint. and same
is therefore denied.
15-19. Denied. The allegations of these paragraphs of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute
conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required,and same is therefore denied. By
way of further answer, Mr. Piper is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the averments of these paragraphs of Plaintiffs' Complaint,and same is
therefore denied.
20. The allegations of Paragraph 20 have been stricken by Stipulation of counsel.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Donald Piper, demands judgment in his favor and against
Plaintiffs with costs ensued assessed to Plaintiffs.
COUNT 2
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
STEVEN SHOOP V. DONALD PIPER
21. Paragraphs 1 through 20 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth
in full.
22. Denied. The allegation of this paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitutes
conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required,and same is therefore denied. By
way of further answer,Mr. Piper is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint, and same is therefore
3
denied.
WHEREFORE,Defendant,Donald Piper,demands judgment in his favor and against
Plaintiffs with costs ensued assessed to Plaintiffs.
NEW MATTER
23. Paragraphs 1 through 22 are incorporated herein by reference as if
set forth in full.
24. If it is determined that Mr. Piper is liable on Plaintiffs' cause of action,Mr. Piper
avers that any recovery should be eliminated and/or reduced in accordance with the Pennsylvania
Comparative Negligence Act,42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 7102.
25. It is further averred that if Plaintiffs suffered any injuries or damages, as alleged,
that they were caused solely and primarily by Plaintiffs' own carelessness,recklessness and
negligence.
26. It is further averred that if Plaintiffs suffered any injuries or damages,as alleged,
that they were caused solely and primarily by the carelessness,recklessness and negligence of
third parties over whom Mr. Piper had no control,right of control or duty to control.
27. Pursuant to Rule 2252(d),it is further averred that parties other than Mr. Piper are
solely liable to Plaintiffs or jointly and severally liable or liable over to Mr. Piper on the cause of
action.
28. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
29. The accident described in Plaintiffs' Complaint was not caused by the negligence
4
of Mr. Piper.
30. No causation exists between any alleged act or omission of Mr. Piper and the
alleged injuries and/or damages incurred by Plaintiffs.
31. Other individuals or entities over whom Mr. Piper had no control are causally
negligent.
32. Some or all of the damages claimed by Plaintiffs are not recoverable under the
applicable laws.
33. Any acts and/or omissions of Mr. Piper alleged to constitute negligence were not
substantial causes or factors of the subject accident or alleged damages.
34. Mr. Piper denies that he was negligent in any manner whatsoever. Should it be
determined to the contrary,then the negligence of Plaintiffs,or others, was comparatively greater
than that of Mr. Piper,causing the claims brought against Mr. Piper to be reduced pursuant to the
Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act.
35. Plaintiff's accident was caused by Plaintiffs failure to observe the conditions that
were existing around her,and failure to take precautions for her own safety.
36. Plaintiff's accident was caused by her failure to observe an open and obvious
condition.
37. Mr. Piper reserves his right,upon completion of its investigation and discovery,to
file additional defenses, counterclaims, as may be appropriate.
38. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part by the Doctrine of res judicata
and/or collateral estoppel.
39. Mr. Piper was confronted with a sudden emergency not of his own creation.
5
40. At all,times relevant hereto,Plaintiff chose to ride her horse over asphalt.
41. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages.
42. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff failed to equip her horse with sound and safe
equipment causing and/or contributing to the injuries she alleges.
WHEREFORE,Defendant, Donald Piper,demands judgment in his favor and against
Plaintiffs with costs ensued assessed to Plaintiffs.
Respectfully submitted,
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
Date: 1 \ 13 By: A ' Eadt; '
ROLF E. KROLL, ESQUIRE
PA. Attorney I.D.No.47243
Attorney for Defendant,
DONALD PIPER
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill,PA 17011
(717)975-8114 Direct: (717) 760-7502
Fax: (717)975-8124
•
6
VERIFICATION
I, DONALD PIPER, have read the foregoing ANSWER WITH NEW
MATTER OF DEFENDANT, DONALD PIPER, TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT,
which has been drafted by my counsel. The factual statements contained therein
are known by me and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information
and belief.
This statement and verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa,
C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities, which
provides that, if I knowingly make false averments, I may be subject to criminal
penalties.
Date: Atm I 3 07 ..1,1 i2 104.4
DONALD PIPER
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT on all counsel of
record by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania,
first-class postage prepaid, on the7 a day of January, 2013, and addressed as
follows:
David Joseph Chapman, Esquire
Schmidt Kramer P.C.
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
'Ann E. Nelson, •gal Assistant
\ , _/
X�
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
BY: David Joseph Chapman,ESQUIRE
I.D.#209519
209 State Street
Harrisburg,PA 17101
(717)232-6300
ichapmar n schmidtkramer.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs
NORMA SHOOP and STEVEN : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
SHOOP, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs : NO. 12-5197 CIVIL
v.
DONALD PIPER, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ANSWER TO NEW MATTER
AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys Schmidt
Kramer PC, and who files the following answer in response to Defendant's New
Matter and sets forth the following:
23. This paragraph requires no response.
24. Denied. Plaintiffs specifically deny they were comparatively
negligent and require strict proof thereof.
25. Denied. Plaintiffs specifically deny injuries were caused by
Plaintiffs' own carelessness, recklessness, or negligence and require strict proof
thereof.
26. Denied. The allegation is specifically denied, and Plaintiffs require
strict proof thereof.
27. Denied. The allegation is specifically denied, and Plaintiffs require
strict proof thereof.
DEFENDANT'S
EX IBIT
28. Denied. Plaintiffs' complaint alleges facts which support a claim
for negligence.
29. Denied. Defendant's negligence caused the incident described in
Plaintiffs'complaint, and caused the injuries resultant.
30. Denied. But for the Defendant's negligent conduct, Plaintiff's
injuries would not have occurred.
31. Denied. The allegation is specifically denied, and Plaintiffs require
strict proof thereof.
32. Denied. The allegation is specifically denied, and Plaintiffs require
strict proof thereof.
33. Denied. Defendant's negligent conduct was a substantial cause
and substantial factor in causing the injuries averred in Plaintiffs' complaint.
34. Denied. Defendant's negligence caused the incident described in
Plaintiffs' complaint, and caused the injuries resultant, and Plaintiff's conduct
was in no way below the standard of care.
35. Denied. The allegation is specifically denied, and Plaintiffs require
strict proof thereof.
36. Denied. The allegation is specifically denied, and Plaintiffs require
strict proof thereof.
37. This paragraph requires no response.
38. This paragraph is a conclusion of law and requires no response.
To the extent it is determined that the paragraph requires any response, it is
specifically denied, and Plaintiffs require strict proof thereof.
39. This paragraph is a conclusion of law and requires no response.
To the extent it is determined that the paragraph requires any response, it is
specifically denied, and Plaintiffs require strict proof thereof.
40. Denied in part, admitted in part. Plaintiff admits that portions of
the ride on the day of the incident were on asphalt. It is denied that at all
times relevant the ride was on asphalt, and strict proof is required thereof.
41. This paragraph is a conclusion of law and requires no response.
To the extent it is determined that the paragraph requires any response, it is
specifically denied, and Plaintiffs require strict proof thereof.
42. Denied. The allegation is specifically denied, and Plaintiffs require
strict proof thereof.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray this Court will enter a judgment against
Defendant in an amount in excess of compulsory arbitration limits for
Cumberland County.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
B .
a
41611011.16.- -
David Jose. - ha . , a ire
Attorney I.D. #209519
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Attorney for Plaintiffs
ATTORNEY VERIFICATION
I, David Joseph Chapman, Esquire, verify that I am attorney of record for
the Plaintiff. I verify that the facts contained in the foregoing document are
true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
I understand that intentional false statements herein are made subject to
the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to
authorities.
Date:• Is 6 4111111111
David Joseph C11-p'41111:‘!-
,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, I, David Joseph Chapman, hereby certify that I have, this
iS ra' day of January, 2013, served a copy of the foregoing document by serving
a copy of the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Rolf E. Kroll, Esquire
Margolis Edelstein
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
Areltta
By: -
David Jos- • Ch.! .. , Esquire _
Attorney I.D. # 09519
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Attorneys for Plaintiff
•
NORMA SHOOP and STEVEN :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
SHOOP, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs, :CIVILE ACTION-LAW
v. :NO. 12-5197 Civil
DONALD PIPER,
Defendant. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
AFFIDAVIT
My name is Carol Daniel. I organized a three-day trail ride that took place in July 2011.
On the third day of that trail ride,Norma Schoop was injured. Each day of the trail ride,the trail
ride participants and their horses left from my property and returned there at the end of each ride.
On each of the three days,I had signs posted as required by the Equine Activity Immunity Act,
Act 93 of 2005.
At all times during this ride,the signs posted on my premises were at least 3 feet by 2 feet
in size and stated that; "You assume the risk of equine activities pursuant to Pennsylvania law."
These signs were conspicuously posted. True and correct copies of these signs are attached
hereto as Exhibit"A."
This statement is made subject to the penalties of Pa.C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn
falsifications to authorities which provides that,if I knowingly make false statements,I may be
subject to criminal penalties.
Date: (rJ�
It,r
Carol Daniel
Date: o//.5/74-1
Wrtne
DEFENDANT'S
E IBIT
•
t
w
1
114611
C..
C, i
4J C/3
f * ,
` J
4
l 7:: _ r. N I . . d )1V03131V1$'7M
,i-
---i-L-7,____A-4,t..-- -27-
F � }t -: ,
,_ ,,
t ____ ;----- --,
i 52 W_ S
rf
t-. art r- +... �1
\- . ,,.
•
V t .
.4110111P
/°."°
MARGOLIS
EDELSTEIN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ww W.m a rg o l i se d e l s t e i n.com
HARRISBURG OFFICE:* Rolf E.Kroll
3510 TRINOLE ROAD Direct Dial: (717)760-7502
CAMP HILL,PA 17011 rkroll@margolisedelstein.com
717-975-8114
FAX 717.975.8124
June 20, 2014
PHILADELPHIA OFFICE:'
THE CURTIS CENTER
170 S.INDEPENDENCE MALL W.
SUITE 400E Joseph Chapman, Esquire
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-3337
215-922-1100 Schmidt Kramer PC
209 State Street
PITTSBURGH OFFICE: PA 17101
525 WILLIAM PENN PLACEHarrisburg,
SUITE 3300
PITTSBURGH, PA 15219
412-281-4256 Re: Shoop v. Piper
Cumberland County Docket No. 12-5197 Civil
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE:
983 THIRD STREET Our File No. 56700.4-00026
BEAVER,PA 15009
724-774.6000
Dear Mr an
SCRANTON OFFICE:
220 PENN AVENUE
SUITE 305 At the time of Carol Daniel's deposition, it was learned that the
SCRANTON, PA 18503 subject trail ride event in this matter began and ended at the stables
570-342-4231
where Ms. DanielCtrains and boards horses. As you will see in the
CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE: attached Affidavit of Ms. Daniel, signs are posted around the property
P.O.Box 628
H9LLIDAYSRURG,PA 16648 assumption of the assum1�1tion of risk pursuant to the Equine Activity
814-695-5064 Immunity Act. Accordingly, Defendant wishes to amend his pleading to
SOUTH NEW JERSEY OFFICE:' assert the defenses available to him pursuant to this Act.
100 CENTURY PARKWAY SUITE 200
PO Box 5084 Enclosed herewith please find a proposed Motion to Amend we
MOUNT LAUREL, NJ 08054
858-727-6000 intend to file with the Court. Please advise of your concurrence or non-
concurrence in the motion.
NORTH NEW JERSEY OFFICE:
CONNELL CORPORATE CENTER
400 CONNELL DRIVE Shouldy ou have any questions, or wish to discuss this matter
SUITE 5400
BERKELEY HEIGHTS, NJ 07922 further, please feel free to contact my o ice.
908-790-1401
DELAWARE OFFICE: Sinc e y,
300 DELAWARE AVE.
SUITE 800
WILMINGTON. DE 19801
302-888-1112
Rolf E. Kroll
MEMBER OF THE H.RMONIE GROUP klm
Enclosures
DEFENDANT'S
EX BIT
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on all counsel of
record by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, first-class postage
prepaid, on the 2j; day of l�Yl1— , 2014, and addressed as follows:
David J. Chapman, Esquire
Schmidt Kramer PC
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Attorney for Plaintiffs
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
r
By:
- 5 -
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
BY: David Joseph Chapman, ESQUIRE
I.D. #209519
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
1chapmanli schrnidtkrarner.com
t. -Li ;fir h
r'rf �1 (f i ;
2?:it JUL -9 PH 2: P3
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
NORMA SHOOP and STEVEN : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
SHOOP, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
DONALD PIPER,
Plaintiffs
Defendant
: NO. 12-5197 CIVIL
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AMEND
ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Norma and Steven Shoop, by and through
their counsel Schmidt Kramer, P.C., and set forth the following in Opposition to
Defendant's Motion to Amend their Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs'
Complaint:
1. Admitted.
2. Denied as stated. Plaintiffs' Complaint speaks for itself. It is
admitted that the Complaint attached to Defendant's Motion is the correct
copy.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted.
7. Admitted.
8. Denied as stated. Ms. Danielle's deposition speaks for itself, as
does her affidavit which was attached to Defendant's Motion.
9. Denied. Plaintiff does not have information to support this
statement.
10. Denied. This is a legal conclusion to which no response is
necessary. To the extent a response is required Plaintiff denies that Defendant
should be allowed to amend his Answer with New Matter.
11. Admitted.
12. Admitted.
13. Plaintiff believes and avers that Defendant waived his right to
assert this defense, that information has been equally available to Plaintiff and
Defendant from the time suit was filed, and that this amendment is not one
which should be allowed under this Court's discretion as the statute in
question was never intended to apply to those situated as is Defendant in this
case. Entertaining a motion to amend Defendant's answer and new matter is a
waste of judicial resources, when even if granted, the defense is inapplicable.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court Deny Defendant's
Motion to Amend their Answer with New Matter.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
By:
David Joseph apman, ' qua e
Attorney I.D. #209519
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Attorney for Plaintiffs
ATTORNEY VERIFICATION
I, David Joseph Chapman, Esquire, verify that I am attorney of record for
the Plaintiff. I verify that the facts contained in the foregoing document are
true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
I understand that intentional false statements herein are made subject to
the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to
authorities.
Date: 1vi.Y q� Loo
David Joseph C$: apman,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, I, David Joseph Chapman, hereby certify that I have, this
10th day of July, 2014, served a copy of the foregoing document by serving a
copy of the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Rolf E. Kroll, Esquire
Margolis Edelstein
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
By•
David Joseph C ! . pman,
Attorney I.D. #209519
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ze4S)S
CP
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT
(Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter for the next
Argument Court.)
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated in full) c2
lam%
Norma Shoop and Steven Shoop - ,
rrl
vs. --Q'zt— N c_:?
co
Donald Piper -<. -
No. 5197 2012 ::2 t
r
1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiffs motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer tci 4 c :'
complaint, etc.): -,:
Defendant's Motion to Amend Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint
2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases:
(a) for plaintiffs:
David J. Chapman, Schmidt Kramer PC, 209 State Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101
(Name and Address)
(b) for defendants:
Rolf E. Kroll, Margolis Edelstein, 3510 Trindle Rd., Camp Hill, PA 17011
(Name and Address)
3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case_. s been listed for
argument.
4. Argument Court Date:
Date: July 17, 2014
rint your name
Defendant Donald Piper
Attorney for
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Original and two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT
ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) before argument.
2. The moving party shall file and serve their brief 14 days prior to argument.
3. The responding party shall file their brief 7 days prior to argument.
4. If argument is continued new briefs must be filed with the COURT
ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) after the case is relisted.
auk 61G lSp�titi
C,ILM atagc01
z+c305-ta lo 4
NORMA SHOOP and STEVEN : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
SHOOP, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs
: CIVIL ACTION — LAW
v.
: No. 12-5197
DONALD PIPER,
Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 1st day of August, 2014, upon consideration of Defendant's
Motion to Amend Answer with New Matter;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that:
1. A rule shall issue upon the Plaintiffs to show cause why the Defendant's
Motion should not be granted.
2. Plaintiffs shall file an answer to the Motion on or before August 22, 2014.
3. Hearing/argument on the Motion will be held on Wednesday August 27, 2014
at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2 of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle,
Pennsylvania.
avid J. Chapman, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiffs
olf E. Kroll, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant
0.6p cs<:S' /Lt tut,
By the Court,
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
BY: David Joseph Chapman, ESQUIRE
I.D. #209519
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
(chapman(i`schmidtkramer.com
LL's /�`, PRO ttf/7/0/Y0
Ur r� , �'
f /'CA'v
Zd/g 40C J j
tI+ _
CjyeERLAND COUNT
PtNNSYLVA 8 Qui/�; SS
Attorneys for Plan,-
iitiffs Y
NORMA SHOOP and STEVEN : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
SHOOP, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
DONALD PIPER,
Plaintiffs
Defendant
: NO. 12-5197 CIVIL
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AMEND
ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS'
COMPLAINT -IN ACCORD WITH COURT ORDER
AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Norma and Steven Shoop, by and through
their counsel Schmidt Kramer, P.C., and set forth the following in Opposition to
Defendant's Motion to Amend their Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs'
Complaint:
1. Admitted.
2. Denied as stated. Plaintiffs' Complaint speaks for itself. It is
admitted that the Complaint attached to Defendant's Motion is the correct
copy.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted.
7. Admitted.
8. Denied as stated. Ms. Daniel's deposition speaks for itself, as does
her affidavit which was attached to Defendant's Motion.
9. Denied. Plaintiff does not have information to support this
statement.
10. Denied. This is a legal conclusion to which no response is
necessary. To the extent a response is required Plaintiff denies that Defendant
should be allowed to amend his Answer with New Matter.
11. Admitted.
12. Admitted.
13. Defendant's motion is vague as to the actual intended content of
an Amended Answer with New Matter, and though paragraph 10 of his motion
indicates Defendant will assert "defenses available against Plaintiff, including
Equine Activity Immunity Act, Act 93 of 2005, and assumption of risk...," how
is Plaintiff or this Court to know what Defendant is asking for? Defendant
could have provided a proposed Amended Answer with New Matter, but failed
to do so. Certainly Defendant would object if Plaintiffs asked to amend their
complaint and did not include the proposed amendment.
14. Plaintiff can address potential additional defenses named in the
motion. Assumption of the risk as a defense need not be pled. Pa. R.C.P.
1030(b). When a defense need not be pled, why go to the trouble of amending?
15. Similarly, when a defense is not applicable, there is no point in
amending a pleading to include it, such is the case with the Equine Act.
16. The scope of the Equine Act applies to someone who
"...sponsors, organizes, conducts or provides the facilities for an equine
activity..." 4 P.S. § 601 (emphasis added). Immunity only applies to those
within the scope of the act. 4 P.S. § 602(a). While this case involves an equine
activity, the Defendant does not fit within the Scope of the statute, as he did
not sponsor, organize, conduct, or provide the facilities for the trail ride during
which the injury was sustained. The emphasis in Defendant's motion on
signage is misplaced where the signage was not on Defendant's premises, the
incident was not on Defendant's premises, the trail ride did not begin on
Defendant's premises, and in fact the incident did not occur on the premises
on which the signage was posted.
17. Where immunity only applies to those within the scope of the act,
and Defendant is not someone within the scope of the act, there is no reason
for Defendant to amend an Answer with New Matter to include inapplicable
law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court Deny Defendant's
Motion to Amend their Answer with New Matter.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
By:
David Joseph Cha an, Esquire
Attorney I.D. #209519
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Attorney for Plaintiffs
ATTORNEY VERIFICATION
I, David Joseph Chapman, Esquire, verify that I am attorney of record for
the Plaintiff. I verify that the facts contained in the foregoing document are
true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
I understand that intentional false statements herein are made subject to
the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to
authorities.
Date: ,vc usr �S 24/
David Joseph apm
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, I, David Joseph Chapman, hereby certify that I have, this
15th day of August, 2014, served a copy of the foregoing document by serving a
copy of the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Rolf E. Kroll, Esquire
Margolis Edelstein
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
By:
David Joseph Ch': pm
Attorney I.D. #209519
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
q ire
ROLF E. KROLL, ESQUIRE
Pa. Supreme Court I.D. No. 47243
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011
Telephone: [717] 975-8114 Direct Dial: (717) 760-7502 Attorneys for Defendant:
Fax: [717] 975-8124
DONALD PIPER
NORMA SHOOP and STEVEN :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
SHOOP, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs, :CIVILE ACTION - LAW
a
r
m co
v. :NO. 12-5197 Civil
<nf N
DONALD PIPER,
Defendant. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v c)
PRAECIPE TO ATTACH EXHIBIT
TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AMEND
"13cm
rr.,
33
mn
�
CD N CIc
i
--.f 1710 .74 1
-< 1'4,3
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA:
Kindly attach the within as Exhibit "F" to Defendant's Motion to Amend Answer With
New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint, filed on or about June 24, 2014, in the above captioned
action.
Date:
Respectfull
OLL, ESQUIRE
orney I.D. No. 47243
A o ey for Defendant,
DONALD PIPER
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 975-8114 Direct: (717) 760-7502
Fax: (717) 975-8124
AFFIDAVIT OF DONALD A. PIPER
In the Summer of 2011, 1 waStlie President &the Path Valley Saddle Club ("the Club").
As President, I took part in the Organization -and planning for trail rides sponsored and organized
by the Club. One such ride was the ride* Canoe Creek State Park that was held July 15,2011,
through July 17, 2011. After organizing the rides and other activities, the Club submitted a
newsletter to its members that included the list of activities for the upcoming year including the
trail ride at Canoe Creek State Park where Norma Shoop was injured: A true and correct copy of
this newsletter is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." Thus, I took part in the organization and
conduct of the trail ride where Norma Shoop was injured.
In addition to assisting in the organization of the ride, I took part in conducting the ride
along with my wife and daughter. Carol Daniels, also a Club member, allowed us to start and
end each day of the ride at her barn during the three -days of the trail ride. In accordance with the
Equine Activities Act, Ms. Daniels had signs posted advising that we assumed the riskofinjury
by participating in any equine activity, such 8 the trail ride in question. True and correct copies
of photographs of the signs posted in and around Ms. Daniel's barn where we began and ended
each day of the ride during the trail ride are attached hereto as Exhibit "13." These signs were
prominently displayed in such a manner that you could not help seeing them if you were present
at the barn during the three day trail ride at Canoe Creek State Park.
This statement is made subject to the penalties of Pa.C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn
falsifications to authorities which provides that, if I knowingly make false statements, I may be
subject to criminal penalties.
Hi All, PV Saddle Club Members,
We have the finalized schedule of events for 2011. We start with the ring clean
up on April 16, 2011 at 9:00arn. We'll have a potluck lunch to enjoy while we work.
On April 30,2011 we'll have our first ride at Gettysburg Battlefield, we leave at 8:00arn.
The Pancake Ride will be on May 1, 2011 at 9:00am, same place, and same great time to
be had. One new thing is that we will be collecting money for the liability insurance. We
will be asking for help with the collection of the money so it can go as fast as possible.
Then comes the Circuit Show at Hammond's Grove at 9:00am on May 7, 2011. The fun
shows start on May 21, 2011 at 10:00, let the fun begin! Then the second fun show will
be on June 18, 2011 at 2:00pm. Our next gathering will on the Canoe Creek Ride July 15-
17, 2011, details to follow. The Fowler's Hollow Ride will be August 1244,2011. If you
are planning on attending Carol will need your truck's make, model, year, color, and
plate number. August 18, 2011 will be the Path Valley Parade. On September 11, 2011
will be another fun show starting at 10:00am. Then on October 1, 2011 is the next fun
show starting at 10:00arn. And the final fun show will be on October 29, 2011 at
10:00=. We will end out the year with our Christmas Party on December 3,2011 at
Doylesburg Ruritan building at 6:00pm. So the list of events ata glance:
April 16- Ring Clean Up 9:00am Jo' -
April 30- Gettysburg Battlefield Ride 8:OOam leave time
May 1- Pancake Ride 900=
May 7- Circuit Show 9:00arn
May 21- Fun Show 10:00arn
June. 18- Fun Show 2:OOpm
July 15-17- Canoe Creek Ride
August 12-14- Fowler's Hollow Ride
August 18- Path Valley Parade
September 11- Fun. Show 10:OOam
October 1- Fun Show 10:00am
October 29- Fun Show 10:00am
December 3- Christmas Party 6:00prn
We hope to see everyone come out for our events and have a great time!!
EXHIBIT
1
IlL
WARNING
YOU ASSUME THE RISK OF EQUINE
ACTIVITIES PURSUANT TO
PENNSYLVANIA LAW
WARNING
YOU ASSUME THE RISK OF EQUINE
ACTIVITIES PURSUANT TO
PENNSYLVANIA LAW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on all counsel
of record by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, first-class
postage prepaid, on the a5 day of , 2014, and addressed as follows:
David J. Chapman, Esquire
Schmidt Kramer PC
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Attorney for Plaintiffs
B
2
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
NORMA SHOOP and STEVEN : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
SHOOP, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs
: NO. 12-5197 CIVIL
v.
: CIVIL ACTION — LAW
DONALD PIPER,
Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW this day of September, 2014, upon consideration of Defendant's
Motion to Amend Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint, Plaintiffs' Answer,
and after argument held on August 27, 2014;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that Defendant's Motion to Amend
Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint is GRANTED. Defendant will have
twenty (20) days from the date of this Order to amend his Answer to include the
defenses of immunity under the Equine Activity Immunity Act and assumption of the
risk.
David Joseph Chapman, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Rolf E. Kroll, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant
Pq
f
ROLF E. KROLL, ESQUIRE
Pa. Supreme Court I.D. No. 47243
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011
Telephone: [717] 975-8114 Direct Dial:
Fax: [717] 975-8124
PROIciDNu
2014 SEP 22 N1 3: 33
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
(717) 760-7502PENNSYLVAN1A Attorneys for Defendant:
DONALD PIPER
NORMA SHOOP and STEVEN
SHOOP,
Plaintiffs,
:IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
:CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:CIVILE ACTION - LAW
v. :NO. 12-5197 Civil
Defendant. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
AMENDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, DONALD PIPER,
TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
DONALD PIPER,
AND NOW, comes Defendant, Donald Piper ("Mr. Piper"), by and through his counsel,
Margolis Edelstein, to amend his Answer With New Matter to the Complaint of Plaintiffs,
Norma Shoop and Steven Shoop ("Plaintiffs"), and in support thereof, avers the following:
1-22. Answering Defendant incorporates herein, as if fully set forth, his Answer With
New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint previously filed and served on or about January 7, 2013.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Donald Piper, demands judgment in his favor and against
Plaintiffs with costs ensued assessed to Plaintiffs.
NEW MATTER
23. Paragraphs 1 through 22 are incorporated herein by reference as if
set forth in full.
24. If it is determined that Mr. Piper is liable on Plaintiffs' cause of action, Mr. Piper
avers that any recovery should be eliminated and/or reduced in accordance with the Pennsylvania
Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 7102.
25. It is further averred that if Plaintiffs suffered any injuries or damages, as alleged,
that they were caused solely and primarily by Plaintiffs' own carelessness, recklessness and
negligence.
26. It is further averred that if Plaintiffs suffered any injuries or damages, as alleged,
that they were caused solely and primarily by the carelessness, recklessness and negligence of
third parties over whom Mr. Piper had no control, right of control or duty to control.
27. Pursuant to Rule 2252(d), it is further averred that parties other than Mr. Piper are
solely liable to Plaintiffs or jointly and severally liable or liable over to Mr. Piper on the cause of
action.
28. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
29. The accident described in Plaintiffs' Complaint was not caused by the negligence
of Mr. Piper.
30. No causation exists between any alleged act or omission of Mr. Piper and the
alleged injuries and/or damages incurred by Plaintiffs.
31. Other individuals or entities over whom Mr. Piper had no control are causally
negligent.
32. Some or all of the damages claimed by Plaintiffs are not recoverable under the
applicable laws.
33. Any acts and/or omissions of Mr. Piper alleged to constitute negligence were not
substantial causes or factors of the subject accident or alleged damages.
2
34. Mr. Piper denies that he was negligent in any manner whatsoever. Should it be
determined to the contrary, then the negligence of Plaintiffs, or others, was comparatively greater
than that of Mr. Piper, causing the claims brought against Mr. Piper to be reduced pursuant to the
Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act.
35. Plaintiff's accident was caused by Plaintiff's failure to observe the conditions that
were existing around her, and failure to take precautions for her own safety.
36. Plaintiffs accident was caused by her failure to observe an open and obvious
condition.
37. Mr. Piper reserves his right, upon completion of its investigation and discovery, to
file additional defenses, counterclaims, as may be appropriate.
38. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part by the Doctrine of res judicata
and/or collateral estoppel.
39. Mr. Piper was confronted with a sudden emergency not of his own creation.
40. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff chose to ride her horse over asphalt.
41. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages.
42. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff failed to equip her horse with sound and safe
equipment causing and/or contributing to the injuries she alleges.
43. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part by the Assumption of Risk
Doctrine.
44. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part by the Equine Activity Immunity
Act, Act 93 of 2005.
3
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Donald Piper, demands judgment in his favor and against
Plaintiffs with costs ensued assessed to Plaintiffs..
Date:
Respectfully submitted,
4
, ESQU
PA A rrney I.D. No. 47243
Attorney for Defendant,
DONALD PIPER
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 975-8114 Direct: (717) 760-7502
Fax: (717) 975-8124
VERIFICATION
I, ROLF E. KROLL, as counsel for Defendant, Donald Piper, in the above -captioned
action sign this Verification on behalf of the named Defendants. The named Defendants are not
currently available to make the verification required by law. Accordingly, the undersigned
believes that he is authorized to sign this Verification. The factual statements contained therein
are known by me and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
This statement and verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section
4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities, which provides that, if I knowingly make
false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties.
DATE:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing
AMENDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER on all counsel of record by placing the
same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, first-class postage
prepaid, on the day of September, 2014, and addressed as follows:
David Joseph Chapman, Esquire
Schmidt Kramer P.C.
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
By:
C)
-c)
rnft
cnr-
>
r- -
c-)
71: CD
(7:
Cr)
rn
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
BY: David Joseph Chapman, ESQUIRE
I.D. #209519
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
jchapmanaschmidtkramer.com
LEO- CiFFIC..
OF THE: PRO THONOTA
2111ti SEP 30 1: 13
CUNBERLAND
PENNCOUNTY SYLVANIA
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
NORMA SHOOP and STEVEN : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
SHOOP, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
DONALD PIPER,
Plaintiffs : NO. 12-5197 CIVIL
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ANSWER TO AMENDED NEW MATTER
AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys Schmidt
Kramer PC, and who files the following answer in response to Defendant's New
Matter and sets forth the following:
23. This paragraph requires no response.
24. Denied. Plaintiffs specifically deny they were comparatively
negligent and require strict proof thereof.
25. Denied. Plaintiffs specifically deny injuries were caused by
Plaintiffs' own carelessness, recklessness, or negligence and require strict proof
thereof.
26. Denied.
strict proof thereof.
27. Denied.
strict proof thereof.
28. Denied.
for negligence.
29. Denied.
Plaintiffs' complaint,
30. Denied.
The allegation is specifically denied, and Plaintiffs require
The allegation is specifically denied, and Plaintiffs require
Plaintiffs' complaint alleges facts which support a claim
Defendant's negligence caused the incident described in
and caused the injuries resultant.
But for the Defendant's negligent conduct, Plaintiff's
injuries would not have occurred.
31. Denied. The allegation is specifically denied, and Plaintiffs require
strict proof thereof.
32. Denied. The allegation is specifically denied, and Plaintiffs require
strict proof thereof.
33. Denied. Defendant's negligent conduct was a substantial cause
and substantial factor in causing the injuries averred in Plaintiffs' complaint.
34. Denied. Defendant's negligence caused the incident described in
Plaintiffs' complaint, and caused the injuries resultant, and Plaintiff's conduct
was in no way below the standard of care.
35. Denied. The allegation is specifically denied, and Plaintiffs require
strict proof thereof.
36. Denied. The allegation is specifically denied, and Plaintiffs require
strict proof thereof.
37. This paragraph requires no response.
38. This paragraph is a conclusion of law and requires no response.
To the extent it is determined that the paragraph requires any response, it is
specifically denied, and Plaintiffs require strict proof thereof.
39. This paragraph is a conclusion of law and requires no response.
To the extent it is determined that the paragraph requires any response, it is
specifically denied, and Plaintiffs require strict proof thereof.
40. Denied in part, admitted in part. Plaintiff admits that portions of
the ride on the day of the incident were on asphalt. It is denied that at all
times relevant the ride was on asphalt, and strict proof is required thereof.
41. This paragraph is a conclusion of law and requires no response.
To the extent it is determined that the paragraph requires any response, it is
specifically denied, and Plaintiffs require strict proof thereof.
42. Denied. The allegation is specifically denied, and Plaintiffs require
strict proof thereof.
43. Denied. Plaintiff's claims are not barred in whole or in part by
Assumption of the Risk Doctrine.
44. Denied. Plaintiff's claims are not barred in whole or in part by the
Equine Activity Act, Act 93 of 2005.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray this Court will enter a judgment against
Defendant in an amount in excess of compulsory arbitration limits for
Cumberland County.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
Josep apman, Esq
Attorney I.D. #209519
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Attorney for Plaintiffs
ATTORNEY VERIFICATION
I, David Joseph Chapman, Esquire, verify that I am attorney of record for
the Plaintiff. I verify that the facts contained in the foregoing document are
true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
I understand that intentional false statements herein are made subject to
the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to
authorities.
Date: .5F- •. 2ft zvr 1
"vid Joseph p an
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, I, David Joseph Chapman, hereby certify that I have, this
2-9fl‘ day of September, 2014, served a copy of the foregoing document by
serving a copy of the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Rolf E. Kroll, Esquire
Margolis Edelstein
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
SCHMIDT
is Joseph Chapman, Esquire
Attorney I.D. #209519
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ROLF E. KROLL, ESQUIRE
Pa. Supreme Court LD. No. 47243
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011
Telephone: [717] 975-8114 Direct Dial: (717) 760-7502
Fax: [717] 975-8124
FILE -OFIC.'_
fIE: PROTHONOT
20I SEP 30 p11 1 : 06
CUMBERLAND
PEtNSYLVAIICOtiginTeYs for Defendant:
DONALDPIPER
v'II.A
NORMA SHOOP and STEVEN
SHOOP,
V.
DONALD PIPER,
Plaintiffs,
:IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
:CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:CIVILE ACTION - LAW
:NO. 12-5197 Civil
Defendant. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE TO ATTACH VERIFICATION
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA:
Kindly attach the within Verification of Defendant, Donald Piper, to the Amended
Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint, filed on or about September 22, 2014, in the above captioned
action.
Date:
By:
QU
Att LI'.No. 47243
Atto y fr Defendant,
DON PIPER
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 975-8114 Direct: (717) 760-7502
Fax: (717) 975-8124
VERIFICATION
I, Donald Piper, state that I have read the foregoing Amended Answer to Plaintiff's
Complaint, that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief
I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Cn/.ali
Donald Piper
Shoop v. Piper
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on all counsel
of record by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, first-class
postage prepaid, on the Jg day of t , 2014, and addressed as follows:
David J. Chapman, Esquire
Schmidt Kramer PC
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Attorney for Plaintiffs
By:
2
MAGOLIS EDELSTEIN