Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-6989IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. /~ • ~i~ 20 Civil Action - (X) Law ( )Equity LINDA ALEXANDER, KAREN E. CUNNINGHAM P.O. BOX 62235 115 2ND STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17106 HIGHSPIRE, PA 17034 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION vs. Plaintiff(s) & Addresses Defendant(s) & Addresses PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue writ of summons in the above-captioned action. ;~ c ~ _ ~=,=; ..~' ~ ~ "' _ s -~- z © rn~ yr .3 +~ -TJ i^r"1 cnr" ~o ~~ ~ o r~ ~~ -~ ° ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ 3 _._. ~~ ~ . -~ ~ cx, .:,: X Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to ( )Attorney (X)Sheriff JOSEPH J. DIXON ESQUIRE 126 STATE STREET 'gnature of Att HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717) 236-851.5 Supreme Court ID No.28290 Names/Address/Telephone No. Of Attorney Date: November 16. 2012 WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT(S): KAREN E. CUNNINGHAM YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HAS/HAVE COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. .. ~ ~~ Proth ` otary Date: November 16 2012 by D pu ( )Check here if reverse is issued for additional information. O /03. 7,5~~. ~'~` /0 7~ ~ ~.~3/77 LINDA M. ALEXANDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA VS. NO. 12-6989 CV 2012 ZZ KAREN E. CUNNINGHAM, CIVIL ACTION-LAW COMPULSORY ARBITRATION co c) , Defendant COMPLAINT AND NOW,this—28th—day of_March_, 2013, comes the Plaintiff, Linda M. Alexander, by and through her attorney, Joseph J. Dixon, Esquire, who respectfully avers as follows: I The Plaintiff is Linda M. Alexander, an adult individual who resides at P. O. Box 62235, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 17106. 2. The Defendant, Karen E. Cunningham, is an adult individual who resides at 135 Lentz Road, Dalmatia,Northumberland County, Pennsylvania 17017, 3. On or about November 18, 2010, at approximately 7:30 PM,the Plaintiff, Linda M. Alexander, was driving a 1998 Ford Taurus from the Route 11 Carlisle Pike onto the ramp onto Route 581 eastbound in Hampden Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. At said time and place, the Plaintiff Linda M. Alexander, had to stop her motor vehicle to wait for traffic to allow her to enter said roadway. 5. At said time and place, a motor vehicle operated by Sarah E. Pickel also stopped, waiting for traffic to clear. The said Pickel motor vehicle was behind the motor vehicle operated by the Plaintiff, Linda M. Alexander. 6. At said time and place, a motor vehicle operated by Benjamin S. Molter also stopped on the ramp behind the Pickel motor vehicle, waiting for traffic to clear. 7. At said time and place, a motor vehicle operated by the Defendant, Karen E. Cunningham, failed to stop for the vehicles stopped in front of her, striking the Molter motor vehicle, which pushed into the Pickel motor vehicle, which was then pushed into the motor vehicle operated by the Plaintiff, Linda M. Alexander. 8. The said collision was caused by the negligence and carelessness of the Defendant, Karen E. Cunningham, which consisted of the following: a. Failure to have her motor vehicle under control as to be able to stop within the assured clear distance ahead. b. Failure to keep alert and maintain a proper watch for the presence of other motor vehicles on the highway. C. Failure to travel at a safe speed. d. Failure to apply her brakes in sufficient time to avoid striking the motor vehicles in front of her. e. Failure to keep proper watch for vehicles on the highway. f. Failure to take reasonable evasive action to avoid the incident. 9. Failure to drive her vehicle with due regard for the highway and traffic conditions which were existing, and of which she was or should have been aware of. h. Failure to keep proper control of her vehicle. 9. Said collision was in no way caused by the action and conduct of the Plaintiff, Linda M. Alexander. 10. As the sole and proximate result of the actions set forth by the Defendant, Karen E. Cunningham, in this Complaint, the Plaintiff, Linda M. Alexander, has suffered painful and severe injuries which include, but are not limited to chest wall pain, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, shoulder injury, left-side numbness, dizziness, lumbago, left shoulder strain, lumbosacral strain/sprain, cervical strain/sprain, aggravation of degenerative joint disease, headaches. 11. By reasons of the aforesaid injuries sustained by the Plaintiff, Linda M. Alexander, she was forced to incur liability for medical treatment, medications, and similar expenses in order to restore herself to health. The total amount of these expenses is unascertained at this time. 12. The Plaintiff, Linda M. Alexander, believes and therefore avers that she will have to incur additional medical care and incur future medical expenses, the total amount of these are unascertained at this time. 13. As a result of the aforesaid injuries,the Plaintiff, Linda M. Alexander, has undergone and in the future will undergo great physical and mental suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out her daily activities, and a loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment. 14. As a result of the aforesaid injuries,the Plaintiff, Linda M. Alexander, continues to be plagued by persistent pain and limitations and therefore avers that her injuries are permanent in nature causing residual problems for the rest of her life. 15. As a result of the aforesaid injuries,the Plaintiff, Linda M. Alexander,has suffered substantial inconvenience in her life and a decrease in the quality of her life. WHEREFORE,the Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court enter a judgment against the Defendant in an amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) or less, an amount that requires Compulsory Arbitration. Respectfully submitted, By: Joseph J. Dixon, Esquire Attorney ID 28290 126 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 236-8515 Attorney for the Plaintiff Dated: March 28, 2013 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this `"`�'G', f f , are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalty of 18 Fa. C.S. §4904,relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: �iF'�id/ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW,this day of 2013, 1, Joseph J. Dixon, Esquire, hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing COMPLAINT,this day by depositing the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, in the Post Office at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE and SKEEL, P.C. Firm#911 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Attention: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire The Law Office of Joseph J. Dixon, Esquire By: zi 'Z�--- ,— JGKEPH J�DIXON, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID 28290 126 STATE STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717) 233-8757 Date: ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OF C ILL- 4- PMCDTHONDTi�i-x' i 201.3 SEP 20 AM {I . 16 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LINDA M. ALEXANDER, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, NO. 12-6989 V. ANSWER AND NEW MATTER KAREN E. CUNNINGHAM, Defendant. (Jury Trial Demanded) Filed on Behalf of the Defendant TO: Plaintiffs Counsel of Record for This Party: You are hereby notified to file a written Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Response to the enclosed Answer and Pa. I.D. #83058 New Matter within twenty (20) days From service hereof or a judgment SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, May be entered against you. GUTHRIE and SKEEL, P.C. Firm #911 X/ 100 Sterling Parkway, Suite 306 Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Guthrie & Skeel, P.C. (717) 901-5916 #19785 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LINDA M. ALEXANDER, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, V. NO. 12-6989 KAREN E. CUNNINGHAM, (Jury Trial Demanded) Defendant. ANSWER AND NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Karen Cunningham, by and through her counsel, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, P.C., and Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire, and files the following Answer and New Matter and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Ms. Pickle's vehicle was behind the Plaintiff's vehicle at the time and place alleged. The remaining allegations in paragraph 5 are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 6. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Mr. Motter's vehicle was behind Ms. Pickle's vehicle at the time and place alleged. The remaining allegations in paragraph 6 are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 7. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant collided with Mr. Motter's vehicle, which then collided with Ms. Pickle's vehicle, which then collided with Plaintiff's vehicle. The remaining allegations in paragraph 7 are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 8. Admitted in part and denied in part, it is admitted that the Defendant was negligent in the operation of her vehicle. The remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 8 and all of its subparts state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 9. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 10. Paragraph 10 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 11. Paragraph 11 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 12. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 13. Paragraph 13 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 14. Paragraph 14 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 15. Paragraph 15 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. NEW MATTER 16. The motor vehicle accident in controversy is subject to the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and this Defendant asserts, as affirmative defenses, all rights, privileges and/or immunities accruing pursuant to said statute. 17. Some and/or all of Plaintiffs claims for damages are items of economic detriment which are or could be compensable pursuant to either the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and/or other collateral sources and same may not be duplicated in the present lawsuit. 18. To the extent that the Plaintiff has selected the limited tort option or is deemed to have selected the limited tort option then this Defendant sets forth the relevant provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law as a bar to the Plaintiff's ability to recover non-economic damages. 19. This Defendant pleads any and all applicable statutes of limitation under Pennsylvania.Law as a complete or partial bar to any recovery by Plaintiff in this action. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Karen Cunningham, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiff with costs and prejudice imposed. Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, P.C. By: K vin D. Rauch, Esquire Counsel for Defendant VERIFICATION Defendant verifies that she is the Defendant in the foregoing action; that the foregoing ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is based upon information which she has furnished to her counsel and information which has been gathered by her counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language of the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is that of counsel and not of the Defendant. Defendant has read the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER and to the extent that the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is based upon information which she has given to her counsel, it is true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is that of counsel, she has relied upon counsel in making this Affidavit. Defendant understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: �--7`A? Karen Cunningham #19785 r CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer and New Matter has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this 18th day of September, 2013. Joseph J. Dixon, Esquire 126 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (Attorney for Plaintiff) SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, P:C'. By: "'Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Counsel`for Defendant THE PRO T HOhil -i iA 2815 JAN -9 API I! 51 CUMBER L 4 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COt~-JJ 5 ,rINANIA LINDA ALEXANDER, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, v. NO. 12-6989 KAREN E. CUNNINGHAM, (Jury Trial Demanded) Defendant. PRAECIPE TO SETTLE AND DISCONTINUE TO: THE PROTHONOTARY Please mark the above -referenced case settled and discontinued, with prejudice. File No. 19785 Respectfully submitted, B Joseph J. Dixon, Esquire Counsel for Plaintiff