HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-0777SETH HELLER
115 Deann Lane
Grantville, PA 17028
Plaintiff & Address
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 0;--77
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
: MATTHEW MALDET
: 4163 Kittatinny Drive
: Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
:
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Versus
Defendant & Address
PRAECIPE FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF SUMMONS
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Please issue a Writ of Summons in the above-captioned action.
X Writ of Summons shall be issued and forward to:
(X) Sheriff ( ) Attorney
Dated: February 13, 2001
vide. ~isn6s~:i, esquire
Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP
2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303
Harrisburg, PA 17110
717/541-9205
Counsel for Plaintiffs
I.D. No. 58796
'ORIGINAL
SET]
1151-
Granl
TO ~I
COM
Dated
1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
HELLER
eann Lane
ville, PA 17028
Plaintiff & Address
: MATTHEW MALDET
: 4163 Kittatinny Drive
: Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
:
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Versus
Defendant & Address
WRIT OF SUMMONS
HE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT:
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTWIED THAT
MENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU.
THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF HAS
Prothonotary
Deputy
TRUE COPY FROM RECORD
~n Tos~tlmony whereof, I hero unto set my hand
md the seal et said Cou[t at Carlisle. Pa.
this ~' ..--, day o! J,.,~t~-~,~ ~-~-
t t Prothonotary
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NO: 2002-00777 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
HELLER SETH
VS
MALDET MATTHEW
SHAWN HARRISON , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon
MALDET MATTHEW the
DEFENDANT
at 4163 KITTATINNY DRIVE
, at 2052:00 HOURS, on the 20th day of February , 2002
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055
by handing to
MATTHEW MALDET
a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS
together with
and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing 18.00
Service 8.97
Affidavit .00
Surcharge 10.00
.00
36.97
Sworn and Subscribed to before
me this /~.~ day of
~~ ~_~ A.D.
/Prothonotar~ ~ '
So Answers:
R. Thomas Kline
02/21/2002
~' D~y Sheriff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SETH HELLER,
Plaimiff,
VS.
MATTHEW MALDET,
Defendant.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CIVIL DIVISION
NO.: 02-777
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY
OF APPEARANCE
Filed on behalf of:
MATTHEW MALDET
Defendant
Counsel of Record for This Party:
PETER J. PAYNE, ESQUIRE
PA I.D. # 68902
Peter & Payne & Associates
PeunPlaza, Suite 208
Turtle Creek, PA15145
FIRM#658
(412)823-8100
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SETH HELLER,
Plaintiff,
VS.
MATTHEW MALDET,
Defendant.
CIVIL DIVISION
NO.: 02-777
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendant, MATTHEW MALDET, in the
above captioned matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Peter ,I. Payne & Associates
Peter J. P~y~e, E(quire
Pa I.D. # 68902
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, PETER J. PAYNE, ESQUIRE, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the within
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE has been served on this I {~day of /.o~a/~
2002, by First Class United States Mail, postage prepaid upon the following:
David S. Wisneski, Esquire
Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP
2040 Lingiostown Road, Suite 303
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Respectfully Submitted,
Peter J. Payne & Associates
Peter J. Payee, 'Esq~e
PA I.D. #68902
Penn Plaza, Suite 208
Turtle Creek, PA 15145
(412) 823-8100
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SETH HELLER,
Plaintiff,
VS.
MATTHEW MALDET,
Defendant.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CIVIL DIVISION
NO.: 02-777
PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO
FILE COMPLAINT
Filed on behalf of:
MATTHEW MALDET
Defendant
Counsel of Record for This Party:
PETER J. PAYNE, ESQUIRE
PA I.D. # 68902
Peter J. Payne & Associates
Penn Plaza, Suite 208
Turtle Creek, PA 15145
FIRM #658
(412)823-8100
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SETH HELLER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
VS. )
)
MATTHEW MALDET, )
)
Defendant. )
CIVIL DIVISION
NO.: 02-777
PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please enter a Rule upon Plaintiff to file a complaint within twenty (20) days of service
thereof or suffer the entry of a Judgment of Non-Pros.
Date:
Respectfully submitted,
Peter J. Payne & Associates
By: Peter J. Pa~ne, Es~e
Pa I.D. # 68902
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, PETER J. PAYNE, ESQUIRE, do hereby certify that a tree and correct copy of the within
PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT has been served on this ! Pt~ay of ~1~¢4/
2002, by First Class United States Mail, postage prepaid upon the following:
David S. Wisneski, Esquire
Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP
2040 Lingiostown Road, Suite 303
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Respectfully Submitted,
Peter J. Payne & Associates
By: ~ ~.....--'"'~
PA I.D. #68902
Penn Plaza, Suite 208
Turtle Creek, PA 15145
(412) 823-8100
SETH HELLER
Plaintiff
V.
MATTHEW MALDET,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02-777 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set
forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint
and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in
writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are
warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered
against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for
any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other
rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO
NOT HAVE A LAWYER 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
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
717/249-3166 or 1-800-990-9108
ORIGll .tt.
SETH HELLER
Plaintiff
V.
MATTHEW MALDET,
Defendant
IN THE COLrRT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02-777 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICIA
Le hah demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas
expuestas en las paginas siquiemes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de
la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita o en persona o por
abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objectiones a las demandas en
contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede
entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier queja o alivio que es
pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos
importantes para usted.
LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO INMEDIATAMENTA. SI NO TIENE
ABODAGO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO,
VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE
ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR
ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
Cumberland County Bar Association
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
717/249-3166 or 1-800-990-9108
SETH HELLER
Plaintiff
V.
MATTHEW MALDET,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02-77 CB/IL
C1VIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
1. Plaintiff Seth Heller is an adult individual who resides in Palmyra, Lebanon
County, Pennsylvania.
2. Defendant Matthew Maldet is an adult individual who resides in Mechanicsburg,
Cumberland County, Pennnsyvlania.
3. The facts and occurrences hereinafter related took place on or about March 1,
2000, at approximately 4:45 p.m., at or near the intersection of 18th and Market Streets, Camp
Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
4. At said time and place, Plaintiff Seth Heller was the operator of a 1998 Ford
Ranger that was traveling on Market Street.
5. At said time and place, Defendant Matthew Maldet was the operator of a 1999
Dodge Intrepid that was traveling directly behind Plaintiff's vehicle on Market Street in Camp
Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
6. At said time and place, Plaintiff Seth Heller brought his vehicle to a halt for a line
of traffic that had backed up on Market Street.
7. At said time and place, the front portion of the Defendant's vehicle violently
collided with the rear portion of Plaintiff's vehicle.
8. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid accident, Plaintiff Seth Heller
sustained injuries that include, but are not limited to, cervical and thoracic strain/strain injuries,
chronic cervical myofascial pain syndrome and a bulging vertebral disc at C4-5.
9. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Seth Heller has
experienced, and continues to experience, a serious impairment of body function.
COUNT I
SETH HE! ,!,ER V. MATTHEW MALDET
10. Paragraphs 1 through 9 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as
if set forth at length.
11. Plaintiff Seth Heller's injuries as alleged herein were a direct and proximate result
of the negligence of Defendant Matthew Maldet as set forth in paragraphs 13 through 20 below.
12. As a direct and proximate result of his negligence as set forth in paragraphs 13
through 20 below, Defendant Matthew Maldet is liable to Plaintiff Seth Heller for the injuries
alleged herein.
13. Defendant Matthew Maldet failed to have his vehicle under such control as to
have been able to stop within the assured cleared distance ahead.
14. Defendant Matthew Maldet failed to keep alert and failed to maintain a proper
watch for the presence of other motor vehicles on the roadway.
15. Defendant Matthew Maldet failed to apply his brakes in sufficient time to avoid
striking the rear of Plaintiffs vehicle.
16. Defendant Matthew Maldet failed to travel at a safe speed.
17. Defendant Matthew Maldet failed to keep proper and adequate control over the
vehicle that he was operating at the time of the accident.
2
18. Defendant Matthew Maldet allowed the vehicle that he was operating to strike the
rear portion of Plaintiff's vehicle.
19. Defendant Matthew Maldet failed to drive his vehicle with due regard for the
highway and traffic conditions that were existing at the time of the accident and of which he was,
or should have been, aware.
20. Defendant Matthew Maldet drove his vehicle upon the roadway in a reckless
manner with careless disregard for the rights and safety of others in violation of the Motor
Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
21. As direct and proximate result of Defendant Matthew Maldet's negligence as set
forth above, Plaintiff Seth Heller suffered injuries that include, but are not limited to cervical and
thoracic strain/strain injuries, chronic cervical myfascial pain syndrome and a bulging vertebral
disc at C4-5.
22. As a direct result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Seth Heller has incurred, and
will in the future incur, medical and rehabilitative expenses, and claim is made therefor.
23. As a direct result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Seth Heller has undergone,
and will in the future undergo, great physical and mental pain and suffering, great inconvenience
in carrying out his daily activities and a loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and claim is made
therefor.
24. As a direct result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Seth Heller has been, and in
the future will be, subject to humiliation and ridicule, and claim is made therefor.
25. As a direct result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Seth Heller has sustained a
loss of wages by reason of not being able to fulfill his employment, and claim is made therefor.
3
26. As a direct result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Seth Heller has sustained a
loss of earning power and capacity, and claim is made therefor.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Seth Heller demands judgment against Defendant Matthew
Maldet for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars
($25,000), exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring
compulsory arbitration.
Date:
Respectfully submitted,
NAVITSK~, OLSON & WISNESKI LLP
Davi/t S. ~¢isn~ki, Esquire ~
I.D. No. 58796
2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303
Harrisburg, PA 17110
717/541-9205
Counsel for Plaintiff
4
VERIFICATION
I, Seth Heller, verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are tree and
correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that this verification
is made subject to the provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to the unswom falsification to
authorities.
Date: q-iO_o ~.,
Seth Heller
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law finn ofNavitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP hereby
certify that a tree and correct copy of the foregoing COMPLAINT was served upon the following
persons by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid on April 11, 2002 as follows:
Peter J. Payne, Esquire
PETER J. PAYNE & ASSOCIATES
Penn Plaza, Suite 208
Turtle Creek, PA 15145
Counsel for Defendant
Lois E. Stauffer
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION
SETH HELLER,
Plaintiff,
MATTHEW MALDET,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL DIVISION
No.: 02-777
ANSWER AND NEW MATTER
Filed on behalf of:
MATTHEW MALDET,
Defendant
Counsel of Record
For This Party:
PETER J. PAYNE, ESQUIRE
PA I.D. # 68902
Payne, Welsh & Klingensmith
Firm # 658
Penn Plaza, Suite 208
Turtle Creek, PA 15145
(412) 823-8100
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION
SETH HELLER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
v. )
)
MATTHEW MALDET, )
)
Defendant. )
CIVIL DIVISION
No.: 02-777
NOTICE TO PLEAD
You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer and New Matter
within twenty (20) days of service hereof or a Judgment may be entered against you.
Peter J~ Pafne, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant, Matthew Maldet
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION
SETH HELLER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
v. )
)
MATTHEW MALDET, )
)
Defendant. )
CIVIL DIVISION
No.: 02-777
ANSWER
AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Matthew Maldet, by and through his attorneys, Peter J.
Payne, Esquire, and Peter J. Payne & Associates, and files the following Answer and New Matter
and in support thereof avers as follows:
1. After reasonable investigation, this Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in Paragraph 1 of
Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore said averments are deemed denied. Strict proof thereof is
demanded at time of trial.
2. Admitted
3. After reasonable investigation, this Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the troth or falsity of the averments contained in Paragraph 3 of
Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore said averments are deemed denied. Strict proof thereof is
demanded at time of trial.
4. After reasonable investigation, this Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the troth or falsity of the averments contained in Paragraph 4 of
Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore said averments are deemed denied. Strict proof thereof is
demanded at time of trial.
5. After reasonable investigation, this Defendant is without knowledge or infoimation
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in Paragraph 5 of
Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore said averments are deemed denied. Strict proof thereof is
demanded at time of trial.
6. After reasonable investigation, this Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the math or falsity of the averments contained in Paragraph 6 of
Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore said averments are deemed denied. Strict proof thereof is
demanded at time of trial.
7. After reasonable investigation, this Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the math or falsity of the averments contained in Paragraph 7 of
Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore said averments are deemed denied. Strict proof thereof is
demanded at time of trial.
8. The averments contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied. The
averments contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which no
response is required. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, this Defendant is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth or falsity of the
averments contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore said averments are
deemed denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
9. The averments contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied. The
averments contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which no
response is required. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, this Defendant is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the math or falsity of the
averments contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore said averments are
deemed denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
COUNT 1
SETH HELLER V. MATTI-IEW BENNER
10. Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs' Complaint merely incorporates other paragraphs and
therefore requires no response.
11. The averments contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied. The
averments contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which
no response is required. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, this Defendant
is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
averments contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore said averments are
deemed denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
12. The averments contained in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied. The
averments contained in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which
no response is required. To the extent any response is necessary, Defendant denies he is liable to
Plaintiff for any alleged injuries and incorporates his hereinafter set forth New Matter by
reference.
13. The averments contained in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied. The
averments contained in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which
no response is required. To the extent any response is necessary, it is denied that Defendant
failed to have his vehicle under control for the assured clear distance ahead. To the contrary,
Defendant at all times relevant operated his vehicle with due care under the circumstances then
and there existing.
14. The averments contained in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied. The
averments contained in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which
no response is required. To the extent any response is necessary, Defendant denies that he failed
to keep alert and failed to maintain a proper watch for the presence of other motor vehicles on the
roadway. To the contrary, Defendant at all times relevant operated his vehicle with due care
under the circumstances then and there existing did keep alert and maintained a proper watch for
the presence of other motor vehicles on the roadway.
15. The averments contained in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied. The
averments contained in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which
no response is required. To the extent any response is necessary, it is denied that Defendant
failed to apply his brakes in sufficient time to avoid striking the rear of Plaintiff's vehicle. To the
contrary, Defendant at all times relevant operated his vehicle with due care under the
cimumstances then and there existing.
16. The averments contained in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied. The
averments contained in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which
no response is required. To the extent any response is necessary, it is denied that Defendant
failed to travel at a safe speed. To the contrary, Defendant at all times relevant operated his
vehicle with due care under the cimumstances then and there existing. Did travel at a safe speed.
17. The averments contained in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied. The
averments contained in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which
no response is required. To the extent any response is necessary, it is denied that Defendant
failed to keep proper and adequate control over the vehicle that he was operating at the time of
the accident. To the contrary, Defendant at all times relevant operated his vehicle with due care
under the circumstances then and there existing. Did maintain proper and adequate control over
his vehicle.
18. The averments contained in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied. The
averments contained in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which
no response is required. To the extent any response is necessary, it is denied that Defendant
allowed the vehicle that he was operating to strike the rear portion of Plaintiff's vehicle. To the
contrary, Defendant at all times relevant operated his vehicle with due care under the
circumstances then and there existing.
19. The averments contained in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied. The
averments contained in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which
no response is required. To the extent any response is necessary, it is denied that Defendant
failed to drive his vehicle with due regard for the highway and traffic conditions that were
existing at the time of the accident and of which he was, or should have been aware. To the
contrary, Defendant at all times relevant operated his vehicle with due care under the
circumstances then and there existing.
20. The averments contained in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied. The
averments contained in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which
no response is required. To the extent any response is necessary, it is denied that Defendant
drove his vehicle upon the roadway in a reckless manner with careless disregard for the rights
and safety of others in violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. To the contrary, Defendant at all times relevant operated his vehicle with due care
under the circumstances then and there existing.
21. The averments contained in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied. The
averments contained in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which
no response is required. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, this Defendant
is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
averments contained in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore said averments are
deemed denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
22. The averments contained in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied. The
aveiments contained in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which
no response is required. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, this Defendant
is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
averments contained in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore said averments are
deemed denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
23. The averments contained in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied. The
averments contained in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which
no response is required. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, this Defendant
is without knowledge or infoimation sufficient to form a belief as to the troth or falsity of the
averments contained in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore said avensxents are
deemed denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
24. The averments contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied. The
averments contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which
no response is required. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, this Defendant
is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
averments contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore said averments are
deemed denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
25. The averments contained in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied. The
averments contained in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which
no response is required. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, this Defendant
is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
averments contained in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore said averments are
deemed denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
26. The averments contained in Paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied. The
averments contained in Paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law to which
no response is required. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, this Defendant
is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
averments contained in Paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore said averments are
deemed den/ed. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Matthew Maldet, denies that he is liable to Plaintiff, Seth
Heller, for any sums and demands judgment on his behalf and against Plaintiff along with costs
of suit, fees, and any other relief that this Honorable Court deems just and proper.
NEW MATTER
By way of further and more complete answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint, the Defendant,
Matthew Maldet, sets forth the following New Matter:
27. Paragraphs 1 through 26 of Defendant's Answer are hereby incorporated by reference
as if more fully set forth at length herein.
28. The Defendant hereby pleads Plaintiffs' failure to state a cause of action upon which
relief may be granted as a complete bar to the entirety of Plaintiffs' Complaint.
29. The Defendant pleads the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law,
as amended, as a complete and/or partial bar to Plaintiffs' recovery.
30. The Defendant raises each and every applicable provision of the Motor Vehicle Financial
Responsibility Law as an affirmative defense to Plaintiffs' claims.
31. To the extent that Plaintiff, Seth Heller, elected the limited tort option, this Defendant
asserts that the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law as a bar to Plaintiffs'
claims for non-economic damages.
32. The Defendant believes and therefore avers that some or all of Plaintiffs' medical and/or
economic damages have been paid by third party sources. Consequently, such medical and/or
economic damages are not recoverable in this action pursuant to the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle
Financial Responsibility Law.
33. The Defendant hereby pleads that the Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages.
34. Any and all claims of the Plaintiffs as fully set forth in their Complaint hereto are barred
by the Doctrines of Contributory Negligence, Comparative Negligence and/or Assumption of Risk.
35. Any injuries that Plaintiffs may have suffered were entirely the result of their own
conduct or the conduct of others.
36. This Defendant avers that the injuries of Plaintiffs as alleged, are due to and solely
attributable to pre-existing conditions and/or injuries.
37. Plaintiffs' causes of action are barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations.
38. Defendant hereby asserts the Sudden Emergency Doctrine as a defense to Plaintiffs'
Complaint.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Matthew Maldet, denies that he is liable to Plaintiff, Seth
Heller, for any sums and demands judgment on his behalf and against Plaintiffs along with costs of
suit, fees, and any other relief that this Honorable Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Peter J. Payne & AssociateS
By:
Peter J. P~(yne, ~qquire
PA I.D. #68902
Attorney for Defendant, Matthew Maldet
VERIFICATION
I, Matthew Maldet, have read the foregoing ANSWER AND NEW MATTER and verify
that the statements therein are correct to the best of my personal knowledge, information and/or
belief.
This verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 PA. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to
unswom falsification to authorities, which provides that if I make knowingly false statements I may
be subject to criminal penalties.
Matthew Maldet
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Peter J. Payne, Esquire, hereby certify that a tree and correct copy of the within,
ANSWER AND NEW MATTER was served via First Class, U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid, this
~ay of.//gff. , 2002, upon the following:
David S. Wisneski, Esquire
Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP
2040 Lingiostown Road, Suite 303
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(Attorney for Plaintiff)
Respectfully submitted,
Peter J./Payn~, Esquire
Pa. I.D. #68902
Attorney for Defendant, Matthew Maldet
Penn Plaza, Suite 208
Turtle Creek, PA 15145
(412) 823-8100
SETH HELLER :
:
Plaintiff :
V. :
.
MATTHEW MALDET, :
:
Defendant :
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02-777 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Seth Heller, by and through his attorneys, Navitsky,
Olson & Wisneski LLP, and hereby enters the following reply to the New Matter of Defendant
Matthew Maldet:
27. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed
necessary, the averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 26 of Defendant's Answer, to the
extent that they do not admit the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of
Plaintiff's Complaint, are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
28. Paragraph 28 of Defendant's New Matter states a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the
averments contained in paragraph 28 of Defendant's New Matter are denied pursuant to
Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
29. Paragraph 29 of Defendant's New Matter states a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the
averments contained in paragraph 29 of Defendant's New Matter are denied pursuant to
Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
30. Paragraph 30 of Defendant's New Matter states a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the
averments contained in paragraph 30 of Defendant's New Matter are denied pursuant to
Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
31. Paragraph 31 of Defendant's New Matter states a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the
averments contained in paragraph 31 of Defendant's New Matter are denied pursuant to
Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
32. Paragraph 32 of Defendant's New Matter states a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the
averments contained in paragraph 32 of Defendant's New Matter are denied pursuant to
Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
33. Paragraph 33 of Defendant's New Matter states a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the
averments contained in paragraph 33 of Defendant's New Matter are denied pursuant to
Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
34. Paragraph 34 of Defendant's New Matter states a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the
averments contained in paragraph 34 of Defendant's New Matter are denied pursuant to
Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
35. Paragraph 35 of Defendant's New Matter states a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the
averments contained in paragraph 35 of Defendant's New Matter are denied pursuant to
Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
36. Paragraph 36 of Defendant's New Matter states a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the
averments contained in paragraph 36 of Defendant's New Matter are denied pursuant to
Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
37. Denied. The accident giving rise to the cause of action set forth in Plaintiffs
Complaint took place on or about March 1, 2000. Plaintiffs Writ of Summons was filed on
February 13, 2002, and timely service was effectuated promptly thereafter. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs cause of action is in no manner barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
38. Paragraph 38 of Defendant's New Matter states a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the
averments contained in paragraph 38 of Defendant's New Matter are denied pursuant to
Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Seth Heller respectfully requests that the New Matter of
Defendant Matthew Maldet be dismissed, and that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff.
Respectfully submitted,
David ~. ~gisne~ki~ Es~'~ire
I.D. No. 58796
2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303
Harrisburg, PA 17110
717/541-9205
Counsel for Plaintiff
Date: May 15, 2002
AFFIDAVIT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :
: SS
COUNTY OF DAUPHIN :
I, David S. Wisneski, Esquire, being duly sworn according to law, depose and say that I
am counsel for Plaintiff and that I am authorized to make this affidavit on behalf of said Plaintiff,
and that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief or, are tree and correct based on the information obtained
from the Plaintiff.
Sworn to and subscribed before
me this /~5~q day of 0qax.{
,2002.
Notary Public
My Commission expires:
I ~ RI/I.~ ~
ICllY o~ flamaseuK, oAulmm coumT I
Im C0MKSm0N maR ungf128. ~I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law from ofNavitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP hereby
certify that a tree and correct copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S
NEW MATTER was served upon the following persons by first-class United States mail, postage
prepaid on May 15, 2002 as follows:
Peter J. Payne, Esquire
PETER J. PAYNE & ASSOCIATES
Penn Plaza, Suite 208
Turtle Creek, PA 15145
Counsel for Defendant
Lois E. Stauffer
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION
SETH HELLER,
Plaintiff,
VS.
MATTHEW MALDET,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL DIVISION
NO.: 02-777
Code:
NOTICE OF SERVICE OF
DEFENDANTS FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO
PLAINTIFF
Filed on behalf of:
MATTHEW MALDET,
Defendant
Counsel of Record for This Party:
PETER J. PAYNE, ESQUIRE
PA I.D. # 68902
Payne, Welsh & Klingensmith
Penn Plaza, Suite 208
Turtle Creek, PA 15145
FIRM #658
(412) 823-8100
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION
SETH HELLER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
VS. )
)
)
MATTHEW MALDET, )
)
Defendant. )
CIVIL DIVISION
NO.: 02-777
Code:
NOTICE OF SERVICE OF FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO
TO:
PLAIN TIFF
Cumberland County Prothonotary
Cumberland County Courthouse
1 Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
Please take notice that Defendant, Matthew Maldet, has served the First Set of Interrogatories
Directed to Plaintiffs, by mailing a tree and correct copy via First Class, U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid,
on the ]~/~ day of May, 2002, upon all counsel of record.
Respectfully submitted,
Pay~_~elsh ~.~ensmith
Peter J. ~ay~e, E~ire
PA. I.D. #68902
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Peter J. Payne, Esquire, hereby certify that a tree and correct copy of the within
NOTICE OF SERVICE OF DEFENDANTS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF was served upon the following, via First Class, U.S. Mail, Postage
Prepaid, this /t ~/ day of May, 2002, addressed as follows:
David S. Wisneski, Esquire
Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP
2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(Attorney for Plaintiff)
Respectfully submitted,
Payne, Welsh & Klingensmith
Pa. I.D. #68902
Attorney for Defendant, Matthew Maldet
Penn Plaza, Suite 208
Turtle Creek, PA 15145
(412) 823-8100
SETH HELLER
Plaimiff
V.
MATTHEW MALDET,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02-777 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Please mark the above matter settled, ended and discontinued.
Respectfully submitted,
NAVITSKY, OLSON & WISNESKI LLP
David S~. W~--~
I.D. No. 58796
2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303
Harrisburg, PA 17110
717/541-9205
Counsel for Plaintiff
Date: June 17, 2002
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law finn ofNavitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP hereby
certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE was served
upon the following person by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid on June 17, 2002 as
follows:
Peter J. Payne, Esquire
PETER J. PAYNE & ASSOCIATES
Penn Plaza, Suite 208
Turtle Creek, PA 15145
Counsel for Defendant
Lois E. Stauffer