HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-5289F11 - ED-OFFICE
THE
2012 AUGG24 AIN 11: 24
CUM SERLAND COUNTY
'ENN^YLVr Nl
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
DANA DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL DIVISION
No.: 19, Sod"
V.
JASON MATTHEW SNYDER, an
individual, ISABEL SNYDER, an individual,
JOHN BURKE and SHARON BURKE,
individually, and as husband and wife.
Defendants. COMPLAINT
Filed on Behalf of
Plaintiffs
Counsel of Record for
this Party:
Joseph F. McCarthy,III, Esquire
Pa. I.D. #80328
900 Fifth Avenue, 4th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
(412) 261-1669
A JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Qyu4 a IC?3 75/'? Q?
CtMISy?
eif a7?9 8al
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
DANA DAVIS
Plaintiff,
V.
JASON MATTHEW SNYDER, an
indivi ual, ISABEL SNYDER, an individual,
JOHN BURKE and SHARON BURKE,
individually, and as husband and wife
Defendants.
NOTICE TO DEFEND
CIVIL DIVISION
No.:
You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set
forth inn the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this
Complaint and Notice are served, by entering written appearance personally or by
attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims
set foO against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed
witho?t you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further
noticefor 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 your
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YORU LAWYER AT ONCE. IF
YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR
TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE
YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET
CARLISLE, PA 17013
1-800-990-9108
717-249-3166
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
DANA DAVIS
Plaintiff,
V.
JASON MATTHEW SNYDER, an
individual, ISABEL SNYDER, an individual,
JOHN BURKE and SHARON BURKE,
individually, and as husband and wife
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
CIVIL DIVISION
No..
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Dana Davis, an individual, by and through
her attorney, Joseph F. McCarthy, III, Esquire, and files this action against the
Defendants upon a set of particulars of which the following is a statement:
1. That Plaintiff, Dana Davis is an adult individuals residing at 417
Blackl4tch Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011.
2. That Defendant, Jason Matthew Snyder, is an individual with at least a
known address of 417 Allendale Way, Camp Hill, PA 17011.
3. That Defendant, Isabel E. Snyder, is an individual residing and owning
a residjence at 417 Allendale Way, Camp Hill, PA 17011 and the mother of
Defendant Jason Matthew Snyder. At all relevant times, the Defendants Snyder were
runmq,g a dog "whisperer" or dog training business from the home.
1
4. That Defendants, John Burke and Sharon Burke, husband and wife
and residing at 311 Manchester Road, Camp Hill, PA 17011, are the owners of a
certain german shepherd dog known as "Utley".
5. That at all relevant times hereto, the above-named Defendants were in
ownership, possession and control of a certain dog known as "Utley".
6. That at all relevant times hereto, the above-named Jason Matthew
Snyder was operating a dog behavioralist enterprise at the real property and residence
of Defendant Isabel Snyder and that all Defendants knew of such enterprise.
7. That at all relevant times hereto, the above-named Defendants knew,
or in the exercise of due care should have known, that the aforesaid dog was a
vicious, dangerous, and ferocious nature, and had a demonstrated propensity to
attack' and bite.
8. That at all relevant times hereto, the Defendants Burke knew or should
have known that their dog would be outside and beyond the Snyder home during the
time the dog was given to Defendant Jason Matthew Snyder.
9. That at all relevant times the Defendants Burke knew or should have
known that Defendant Jason Matthew Snyder was ill equipped, untrained, lack the
training and knowledge to care, control and provide adequate protection for the
publics from their dog in his care.
10. That at allrelevant times, the Defendants Burke failed to determine
that Defendant Jason Matthew Snyder could control their dog at the Snyder Home
and outside the confines of the Snyder home
2
11. On or about September 9, 2011, the aforesaid dog, without
provocation, and solely as a result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of
the Defendants, attacked and bit the Plaintiff, Dana Davis about the legs, causing the
hereinafter described injuries and damages.
12. That following such attack on the Plaintiff, the Defendant Jason
Matthew Snyder entered the home of a neighbor where Plaintiff was safely and
secure from Defendants dogs, and Defendant Jason Matthew Snyder brought with
him into this home, uninvited and unannounced, two dogs of which one was
unleashed, creating additional suffering of Plaintiffs mental anguish and emotional
distress.
13. That solely as a result of the aforesaid negligence, Plaintiff, Dana Davis
has sustained, inter alia, the following injuries, all of which are or may be of a
permanent nature:
a. Multiple punctures wounds to her legs;
b. Scrapes and Scarring to her legs;
C. Multiple contusions and bruises of her
body; and
d. Shock to the nerves and nervous system;
e. Other serious and severe injuries.
14. That solely as the result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff, Dana Davis,
has sustained the following damages:
3
a. She has suffered and will suffer great pain,
suffering, inconvenience, embarrassment
and mental anguish;
b. She has been and will be required to
expend large sums of money for surgical
and medical attention, hospitalization,
medical supplies, surgical appliances,
medicines and attendance services;
C. She has been disfigured;
d. Her general health, strength and vitality
have been impaired; and
e. She has been and will be unable to enjoy
ordinary pleasures of life.
COUNTI
Dana Davis, Plaintiff v. Jason Matthew Snyder, Defendant
15. Plaintiff, Dana Davis, hereby incorporates by reference each and every
allegation obtained in Paragraph 1 through 14, inclusive, as fully as if the same had
been set forth herein at length.
16. That the above-described occurrence and the resulting injuries and
damaged were caused by, and were the direct and proximate result of the negligence,
recklessness and carelessness of the Defendants, generally and in the following
particulars:
a. In failing to properly control the dog in question;
b. In failing to properly muzzle the dog in question;
C. In failing to warn the Plaintiff of the vicious
propensities of the dog in question, which
Defendants knew of, or in the exercise of due
care should have known of;
4
d. In causing or permitting the dog in question to
come into proximity to Plaintiff, when
Defendants knew, or in the exercise of due care
should have known, of the dog's vicious
propensities; and
In failing to properly restrain the dog in question,
although Defendants knew or in the exercise of
due care should have known, of the dog's vicious
propensities.
f. In failing to conduct, continue and permit the
operation of a business with a known danger to
the public without proper training or experience;
g. to conduct such dangerous business in close
proximity of children and adults without due care
or proper training,
h. In failing to take adequate precautions and due
care with regard to dangerous dogs within their
control and permitting the dangerous dogs to be
off a leash in close proximity of people including
children.
i. In failing to follow the proper training necessary for a dog
deemed dangerous pursuant to Pennsylvania law when the dog
had previously bitten another person;
j. In failing to record the bite by the
dog previous to the incident herein;
k. In failing to adequately secure or provide
adequate measures in the handling of a dog
with a history of prior bites;
1. In failing to protect the public from the
dangerous dog;
M. In failing to take adequate measures in
handling of the dog to prevent the dog
from attacking and biting people again;
n. In failing to register the dog's history
of biting people as required by Pennsylvania law; and
o. In failing to take adequate precautions and safety regarding a
dog with a history of at least one-bite.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff claims damages from the Defendants in amount in
excess of Twenty Five Thousand and 00/100 ($25,000.00) Dollars services for their
son arid will be deprived of his services.
COUNT II
Dana Davis, Plaintiff, v. Isabel Snyder, Defendant
17. Plaintiff, Dana Davis, hereby incorporates by reference each and every
allegation obtained in Paragraph 1 through 14, inclusive, as fully as if the same had
been set forth herein at length.
18. That the above-described occurrence and the resulting injuries and
damaged were caused by, and were the direct and proximate result of the negligence,
recklessness and carelessness of the Defendants, generally and in the following
particulars:
a. In failing to properly control the dog in question;
b. In failing to properly muzzle the dog in question;
C. In failing to warn the Plaintiff of the vicious
propensities of the dog in question, which
Defendants knew of, or in the exercise of due
care should have known of,
d. In causing or permitting the dog in question to
come into proximity to Plaintiff, when
Defendants knew, or in the exercise of due care
6
should have known, of the dog's vicious
propensities; and
e. In failing to properly restrain the dog in question,
although Defendants knew or in the exercise of
due care should have known, of the dog's vicious
propensities.
£ In failing to conduct, continue and permit the
operation of a business with a known danger to
the public without proper training or experience;
g. to conduct such dangerous business in close
proximity of children and adults without due care
or proper training;
h. In failing to take adequate precautions and due
care with regard to dangerous dogs within their
control and permitting the dangerous dogs to be
off a leash in close proximity of people including
children.
i. In failing to follow the proper training necessary for a dog
deemed dangerous pursuant to Pennsylvania law when the dog
had previously bitten another person;
In failing to record the bite by the
dog previous to the incident herein;
k. In failing to adequately secure or provide
adequate measures in the handling of a dog
with a history of prior bites;
1. In failing to protect the public from the
dangerous dog,
M. In failing to take adequate measures in
handling of the dog to prevent the dog
from attacking and biting people again;
n. In failing to register the dog's history
of biting people as required by Pennsylvania law; and
7
o. In failing to take adequate precautions and safety regarding a
dog with a history of at least one-bite.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff claims damages from the Defendants in amount in
excess of Twenty Five Thousand and 00/100 ($25,000.00) Dollars services for their
son and will be deprived of his services.
COUNT III
Dana Davis, Plaintiff v John Burke, Defendant
19. Plaintiff, Dana Davis, hereby incorporates by reference each and every
allegation obtained in Paragraph 1 through 14, inclusive, as fully as if the same had
been set forth herein at length.
20. That the above-described occurrence and the resulting injuries and
damaged were caused by, and were the direct and proximate result of the negligence,
recklessness and carelessness of the Defendants Burke, generally and in the following
particulars:
a. In failing to properly control the dog in question;
b. In failing to properly muzzle the dog in question;
In failing to warn the Plaintiff of the vicious
propensities of the above-described dog, which
Defendants knew of, or in the exercise of due
care should have known of;
d. In causing or permitting the dog in question to
come into proximity to Plaintiff, when
Defendants knew, or in the exercise of due care
should have known, of the dog's vicious
propensities; and
e. In failing to properly restrain the dog in question,
although Defendants knew or in the exercise of
due care should have known, of the dog's vicious
propensities.
f. In failing to take adequate precautions and due
care with regard to dangerous dogs within their
control and permitting the dangerous dogs to be
off a leash in close proximity of people including
children.
g. In failing to follow the proper training necessary for a dog
deemed dangerous pursuant to Pennsylvania law when the dog
had previously bitten another person;
h. In failing to record the bite by the
dog in question previous to the incident herein;
i. In failing to adequately secure or provide
adequate measures for a dog with a prior bite history;
j. In failing to protect the public from the
dangerous dog;
k. In failing to take adequate measures in
handling of the dog to prevent the dog
from attacking and biting people again;
1. In failing to register the dog's history
of biting people as required by Pennsylvania law;
M. In entrusting their dog with a history of a least one-bite with an
unqualified person to handle the dog with adequate security and
control;
n. In entrusting their dog with a bite history with an individual
without checking his qualifications to train and handle their dog
to prevent dog from attacking plaintiff;
o. In entrusting their dog with an individual didn't or wasn't
qualified to properly train the dog; contain the dog within a
9
properly fenced in area to provide the dog with adequate
exercise and training; and
p. In entrusting their dog with an individual could firmly secure
the dog by means of a collar or other means to prevent the dog
from straying beyond the premises on which is was to be
secured at the Snyder home.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs claims damages from the Defendants in amount in
excess of Twenty Five Thousand and 00/100 ($25,000.00) Dollars services for their
son and will be deprived of his services.
COUNT IV
DANA DAVIS, Plaintiff v. SHARON BURKE, Defendant
21. Plaintiff, Dana Davis, hereby incorporates by reference each and every
allegation obtained in Paragraph 1 through 14, inclusive, as fully as if the same had
been set forth herein at length.
22. That the above-described occurrence and the resulting injuries and
damaged were caused by, and were the direct and proximate result of the negligence,
recklessness and carelessness of the Defendant, Sharon Burke, generally and in the
following particulars:
a. In failing to properly control the dog in question;
b. In failing to properly muzzle the dog in question;
C. In failing to warn the Plaintiff of the vicious
propensities of the above-described dog, which
Defendants knew of, or in the exercise of due
care should have known of;
d. In causing or permitting the dog in question to
come into proximity to Plaintiff, when
Defendants knew, or in the exercise of due care
10
should have known, of the dog's vicious
propensities; and
e. In failing to properly restrain the dog in question,
although Defendants knew or in the exercise of
due care should have known, of the dog's vicious
propensities.
f. In failing to take adequate precautions and due
care with regard to dangerous dogs within their
control and permitting the dangerous dogs to be
off a leash in close proximity of people including
children.
g. In failing to follow the proper training necessary for a dog
deemed dangerous pursuant to Pennsylvania law when the dog
had previously bitten another person;
h. In failing to record the bite by the
dog in question previous to the incident herein;
i. In failing to adequately secure or provide
adequate measures for a dog with a prior bite history;
j. In failing to protect the public from the
dangerous dog;
k. In failing to take adequate measures in
handling of the dog to prevent the dog
from attacking and biting people again;
In failing to register the dog's history
of biting people as required by Pennsylvania law;
M. In entrusting their dog with a history of a least one-bite with an
unqualified person to handle the dog with adequate security and
control;
n. In entrusting their dog with a bite history with an individual
without checking his qualifications to train and handle their dog
to prevent dog from attacking plaintiff;
11
o. In entrusting their dog with an individual didn't or wasn't
qualified to properly train the dog; contain the dog within a
properly fenced in area to provide the dog with adequate
exercise and training, and
p. In entrusting their dog with an individual could firmly secure
the dog by means of a collar or other means to prevent the dog
from straying beyond the premises on which is was to be
secured at the Snyder home.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs claims damages from the Defendants in amount in
excess of Twenty Five Thousand and 00/100 ($25,000.00) Dollars services for their
son and will be deprived of his services.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
oseph F. McCarthy, III, squire
Attorney for Plaintiff
12
VERIFICATION
I, Joseph F. McCarthy, III, Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiff in the above matter,
have read the foregoing Complaint. The statements of fact contained herein are true
and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, information and belief, upon
information obtained from the Plaintiff and she is unavailable within the time allowed for
filing of this Complaint.
This statement and verification is made subject to the penalties of 18
PA.C.S.§4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities which provides that if I
make knowingly false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties.
Date: Jul
?I fc)( ?ter -L
OSEPH F. MCCAR , III, ESQUIRE
i`
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HAMILTON
BY: JOSEPH ACQUAVIVA, ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO.: 204456
518 TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD, SUITE 300
BLUE BELL, PA 19422
(215) 358-5072
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
JASON MATTHEW SNYDER
DANA DAMS In the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
v. .
No. 12-5289 Civil Term
JASON MATTHEW SNYDER, an
individual, ISABEL SNYDER, an
individual, JOHN BURKE and SHARON : ~ .:
BURKE, individually, and as husband -
and wife -
~,,
PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE - ~ ~~..~ --
_, - .
_ __ ~ , ,_ ,
TO THE PROTHONOTARY: ,= ; ~ _
Kindly withdraw my appearance on behalf of Defendant Jason Matthew Snyder
regarding the above-captioned matter.
NELSON LEVINE deLUCA & HAMILTON
,~"_//~
,~ Joseph Acquaviva„ Esquire
Attorney ID #204456
518 Township Line Road, Suite :300
Blue Bell, PA 194:?2
215-358-5100
215-358-5101 (FAX)
~at cquaviva(a7,nldhlaw.com
Attorney for Defendant,
Jason Matthew Snyder
c
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HAMILTON
BY: SIAN M. SCHAFLE, ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO.: 206693
518 TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD, SUITE 300
BLUE BELL, PA 19422
(215) 358-5072
DANA DAMS
v.
JASON MATTHEW SNYDER, an
individual, ISABEL SNYDER, an
individual, JOHN BURKE and SHARON
BURKE, individually, and as husband
and wife
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
JASON MATTHEW SNYDER
In the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
No. 12-5289 Civil Term
~~
;~
- _~' ;-~-
- ~~~ ~.
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE '
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant Jason Mal;thew Snyder regarding the
above-captioned matter.
NELSON LEVINE deLUCA & HAMILTON
Sian M. Schafle, I?squire
Attorney ID # 206693
518 Township Line Road, Suite 300
Blue Bell, PA 19422
215-358-5100
215-358-5101 (FA,X)
'a~cc uaviva(cr~,nldhlaw.com
Attorney for Defendant,
Jason Matthew Snyder
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Joseph Acquaviva, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
was served. on October 19, 2012, upon counsel listed below by united States :Mail, postage
prepaid.
Joseph F. McCarthy, III, Esquire
900 Fifth Avenue, 4th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Attorney for Plaintiff
Kevin W. Lynch, Esquire
Zirulnik Sherlock & DeMille
309 Fellowship Road, Suite 330
Mt. Laurel, NJ 0804
Attorneys for Defendants John Burke and Sharon Burke
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HAMILTON
~~~~
JO PH ACQUAVIVA, ESQUIRE
A ORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
JASON MATTHEW SNYDER
r
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HAMILTON ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
BY: 3AMES E. PRENDERGAST, JASON MATTHEW SNYDER
IDENTIFICATION NO.: 66924
518 TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD, SUITE 300
BLUE BELL, PA 19422
DANA DAMS
Plaintiff(s)
v.
JASON MATTHEW SNYDER, ISABEL
SNYDER, JOHN BURKE AND SHARON
BURKE
Defendant(s)
CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT
OF COMMON PLEAS
CIVIL ACTION NO: 12-5289
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, Jason Matthew Snyder, in the
above-captioned matter.
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HAMILTON
BY:
E. PRENDERGAST,
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
JASON MATTHEW SNYDER ~f
~ a
-~ 3
Dated: November 8, 2012 z ~ „~
~ --i
~
~~'
r' -c -an,
~
~
~~, ,_„
w o
'
r-~ ~~
"mac'
z
~ ~''
=~ ~~
_,
r
~
~
N ~ c=:
ors
,
Z
";
-ti
t'
Q -.,
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HAMILTON ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
BY: JAMES E. PRENDERGAST, JASON MATTHEW SNYDER
IDENTIFICATION NO.: 66924
518 TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD, SUITE 300
BLUE BELL, PA 19422
DANA DAVIS
Plaintiffs}
v.
JASON MATTHEW SNYDER, ISABEL
SNYDER, JOHN BURKE AND SHARON
BURKE
CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT
OF COMMON PLEAS
CIVIL ACTION NO: 12-5289
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, James E. Prendergast, ,hereby certify that a true and correct copy of my Entry of
Appeazance was made on November 8, 2012, upon counsel listed below by United States Mail,
postage prepaid.
Joseph F. McCarthy, III, Esquire
900 Fifth Avenue, 4th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Kevin W. Lynch, Esquire
Zirulnik Sherlock & DeMille
309 Fellowship Road, Suite 330
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HAMILTON
~_~..___..~___,,..w, ,~...M,m_
_~ --
BY:
NDERGAST,
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
JASON MATTHEW SNYDER
Dated: November 8.2012
~#I.EB-OFFiGE
~~~ r~c~ o~~orl~o~~ora
2~ 12 NOY 13 Pit 2~ 4 0
CUMBERLAND COUNr1'
PENNSYLVANIA
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HAMILTON
BY: JAMES PRENDERGAST, ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO.: 66924
SIAN M. SCHAFLE, ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO.: 206693
518 TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD, SUITE 300
BLUE BELL, PA 19422
(215) 358-5182
DANA DAVIS
Plaintiff
v.
JASON MATTHEW SNYDER, ISABEL
SNYDER, JOHN BURKE AND SHARON
BURKE
Defendants
Plaintiff is hereby notified that she has 20
days to respond to this New Matter or
Judgment may be entered against them.
James Prendergast, Esquire
Sian M. Schafle, Esquire
Attorneys for Defendant,
Jason Matthew Snyder
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
JASON MATTHEW SNYDER
CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT
OF COMMON PLEAS
CIVIL ACTION NO: 12-5289
DEFENDANT, JASON MATTHEW SNYDER'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND CROSS CLAIMS
Defendant, Jason Matthew Snyder (hereinafter, "Answering Defendant"), by and through
his undersigned counsel, Nelson Levine de Luca & Hamilton, LLC, hereby files his Answer to
Plaintiff s Complaint with New Matter and avers as follows:
ANSWER
1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in
this paragraph and, therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations and demands strict
proof thereof at trial of this case, if deemed relevant.
2. Admitted.
4
3. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that Defendant, Isabel E.
Snyder is Answering Defendant's mother and a resident of 417 Allendale Way, Camp Hill, PA
17011. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant was running a dog "whisperer" or
dog training business from the home.
4. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph aze directed to parties other than
Answering Defendant and, therefore, no response is required.
5. Denied. The allegations are conclusions of law to which no response is required.
The remaining allegations in this paragraph aze directed to parties other than Answering
Defendant and, therefore, no response is required.
6. Denied. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant was operating a "dog
behavioralist enterprise" at the real property and residence of Isabel Snyder. The remaining
allegations in this pazagraph aze directed to parties other than Answering Defendant and,
therefore, no response is required.
7. Denied. The allegations aze conclusions of law to which no response is required.
The remaining allegations in this pazagraph are directed to parties other than Answering
Defendant and, therefore, no response is required.
8. Denied. The allegations in this pazagraph aze directed to parties other than
Answering Defendant and, therefore, no response is required.
9. Denied. The allegations aze conclusions of law to which no response is required.
The remaining allegations in this pazagraph are directed to parties other than Answering
Defendant and, therefore, no response is required.
2
10. Denied. The allegations are conclusions of law to which no response is required.
The remaining allegations in this paragraph are directed to parties other than Answering
Defendant and, therefore, no response is required.
11. Denied. The allegations are conclusions of law to which no response is required.
12. Denied. The allegations are conclusions of law to which no response is required.
To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at the time of trial if deemed relevant.
13. Denied. The allegations are conclusions of law to which no response is required.
14. Denied. The allegations are conclusions of law to which no response is required.
COUNTI
Dana Davis v. Jason Matthew Snyder
15. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through and
including 14 of his Answer to Plaintiff s Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length.
16. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph and its subparts are conclusions of law
to which no response is required.
WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendant demands judgment in its favor, dismissing the
Complaint with prejudice together with costs of suit, counsel fees, and such other relief as the
Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT II
Dana Davis v. Isabel Snyder
17. ~ Answering Defendant incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through and
including 16 of his Answer to Plaintiff s Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length.
3
t
18. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are directed to parties other than
Answering Defendant and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent that any of the
allegations are directed to Answering Defendant, the same are denied as conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendant demands judgment in its favor, dismissing the
Complaint with prejudice together with costs of suit, counsel fees, and such other relief as the
Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT III
Dana Davis v. John Burke
19. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through and
including 18 of his Answer to Plaintiff s Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length.
20. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are directed to parties other than
Answering Defendant and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent that any of the
allegations are directed to Answering Defendant, the same are denied as conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendant demands judgment in its favor, dismissing the
Complaint with prejudice together with costs of suit, counsel fees, and such other relief as the
Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT IV
Dana Davis v. Sharon Burke
21. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through and
including 20 of his Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length.
4
22. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are directed to parties other than
Answering Defendant and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent that any of the
allegations are directed to Answering Defendant, the same are denied as conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendant demands judgment in its favor, dismissing the
Complaint with prejudice together with costs of suit, counsel fees, and such other relief as the
Court deems equitable and just.
NEW MATTER
23. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through and
including 22 of its Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length.
24. Plaintiffs Complaint and each and every allegation contained therein fails to
allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted against
Answering Defendant.
25. Plaintiff s claims are barred by the Doctrine of Waiver.
26. Plaintiff s claims are barred by the Doctrine of Estoppel.
27. Plaintiffs claims may be barred and/or limited for failure to mitigate their
damages.
28. Plaintiff s claims may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
29. Plaintiffs damages, if any, are the result of negligence or fault of the Plaintiff or
third parties over which Answering Defendant has no control.
5
30. Plaintiffs claims are barred by or her recovery is substantially reduced by
Plaintiff's comparative negligence and application of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence
Act.
31. At no time on or before the date of loss did Answering Defendant know or have
any reason to know of Utley's viciousness or dangerous propensities.
32. The alleged attach on plaintiff was an unforeseeable event.
33. Any injuries or damages proven by the Plaintiff in this action were not
proximately caused by Answering Defendant.
34. Any acts or omissions of Answering Defendant alleged to constitute negligence
were not substantial causes or factors and did not result in any injury or losses as alleged by
Plaintiff.
35. Plaintiffs claims may be barred by the Doctrine of Superseding and/or
Intervening cause.
36. The negligent acts or omissions of other individuals may have constituted
superseding causes of the damages and/or injuries alleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiff.
37. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of release.
38. Plaintiff s claims are barred by the Doctrine of Payment.
39. Plaintiff's claims are barred and/or limited by the doctrines of accord and
satisfaction.
40. Plaintiff's claims may be barred and/or limited due to payment of restitution in
any related criminal case.
6
WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendant demands judgment in its favor, dismissing the
Complaint with prejudice together with costs of suit, counsel fees, and such other relief as the
Court deems equitable and just.
CROSS CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS JOHN BURKE AND SHARON BURKE
1. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference all of the facts and claims made
by Plaintiff in Plaintiff s Complaint against every defendant other than Answering Defendant,
but Answering Defendant makes no admissions by reason of said incorporation.
2. Answering specifically denies all averments of liability, but if, upon adjudication
of Plaintiffs cause of action, it is judicially determined that said Defendant is liable to the
Plaintiff, said liability being expressly denied, then said liability have been caused or contributed
to be the negligence, carelessness and /or recklessness of Co-Defendants John Burke and Sharon
Burke, for which claim is hereby made for contribution and/or indemnity.
3. If the Plaintiff sustained the injuries and damages as alleged, those injuries and
damages were due solely as a result of the causes of action pleaded by Plaintiff against
defendants John Burke and Shazon Burke.
WHEREFORE, all of the Defendants identified in Plaintiffs Complaint, except
Answering Defendant, are alone liable to Plaintiff on Plaintiffs cause of action, or are jointly
and severally liable with Answering Defendant or are liable over to Answering Defendant
together with costs and counsel fees.
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HAMILTON, LLC
JAMES PRENDE AST, ESQUIRE
ATTORNEY ID # 66924
SIAN M. SCHAFLE, ESQUIRE
7
ATTORNEY ID # 206693
ATTORNEYS FOR
DEFENDANT JASON MATTHEW SNYDER
518 Township Line Road, Suite 300
Blue Bell, PA 19422
215-358-5100
215-358-5101 (fax)
Dated: November 8, 2012
8
VERIFICATION
I, 3ason Matthew Snyder, do hereby state that I am a party of the within action, and as
such do hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to Defendant Bwkes'
New Matter in the Nature of a Crossclaim are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made
subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to auorities.
,, _-.
f f
l
J
Dated: ~ ~ N ~
r
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HAMILTON
BY: JAMES PRENDERGAST, ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO.: 66924
SIAM M. SCHAFLE, ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO.: 206693
518 TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD, SUITE 300
BLUE BELL, PA 19422
(215) 358-5182
DANA DAVIS
Plaintiff
v.
JASON MATTHEW SNYDER, ISABEL
SNYDER, JOHN BURKE AND SHARON
BURKE
Defendants
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
JASON MATTHEW SNYDER
CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT
OF COMMON PLEAS
CIVIL ACTION NO: 12-5289
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Sian M. Schafle, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
was served on November 8, 2012, upon counsel listed below by United States Mail, postage
prepaid.
Joseph F. McCarthy, III, Esquire
900 Fifth Avenue, 4th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Attorney for Plaintiff
Kevin W. Lynch, Esquire
Zirulnik Sherlock & DeMille
309 Fellowship Road, Suite 330
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054
Attorneys for Defendants John Burke and Sharon Burke
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HAMILTON
BY: ~ I` ~
SIAN M. SCHAFLE, SQUIRE
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
JASON MATTHEW SNYDER
Dated: November 8, 2012
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA&HAMILTON ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
BY: SIAN M. SCHAFLE,ESQUIRE JASON MATTHEW SNYDER
IDENTIFICATION NO.:206693
518 TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD,SUITE 300
BLUE BELL,PA 19422
DANA DAVIS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT
OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff(s)
V. CIVIL ACTION NO: 12-5289
JASON MATTHEW SNYDER,ISABEL
SNYDER,JOHN BURKE AND SHARON y
BURKE,
Defendants .
rc
ORDER TO SETTLE,DISCONTINUE AND END
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly mark the above-captioned matter Settled,Discontinued and Ended.
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA&HAMILTON
BY: BY.
SIAM M. SCRAPE ,ESQUIRE JO H F.McCARTHY,III, UIRE
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT A RNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
JASON MATTEW SNYDER DANA DAVIS
ZIRULNIK RL CK&DeMILLE
L 61
BY:
KE. W.LYN ,ESQUIRE
ATTORNEY F DEFENDANTS
JOHN BURKE AND SHARON BURKE
Date: