Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-0310IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No.dC - j( C. UL Civil Action - (XX) Law ( ) Equity JURY TRIAL DEMANDED JOYCE D. PINERO 343 S. Sporting Hill Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Plaintiff(s) & Address(es) PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue A Writ of Summons in the above-captioned action. X Writ of Summons Shall be issued and forwarded to ( )Attorney W. Scott Henning. Esquire Handler. Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Name/Address/Telephone No. of Attorney APEX ASPHALT PAVING CORP. 1151 Eisenhower Blvd, Middletown, PA 17057 WEIS MARKETS, INC. 5140 Simpson Ferry Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Signature of AtWr Supreme Court ID WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): Defendant(s) & Address(es) YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HAS/HAVE COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Date: _) 2'0 lu 'a/-YES ( ) check here it reverse is used for additional intormation PROTHON.-55 1 Lr) -to 1 l \ v w J G ? C j O ? ^ C> f l ? 1 ?!3 ^ iii SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2005-00310 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND PINERO JOYCE D VS S MARKETS INC ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: APEX ASPHALT PAVING CORP but was unable to locate Them deputized the sheriff of DAUPHIN serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS County, Pennsylvania, to On January 26th , 2005 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from DAUPHIN Sheriff's Costs: So answers: Docketing 6.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 R. Thomas Kline Dep Dauphin County 30.00 Sheriff of Cumberland County .00 55.00 01/26/2005 HANDLER HENNING ROSENBERG Sworn and subscribed to before me .P? this day of 2cro`; A.D. Prothonotary in his bailiwick. He therefore SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2005-00310 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND PINERO JOYCE D VS WEIS MARKETS INC ET AL ROBERT BITNER , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon WEIS MARKETS INC the DEFENDANT , at 1523:00 HOURS, on the 19th day of January 2005 at 5140 SIMPSON FERRY ROAD MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 by handing to DENISE WIMBERLY, MANAGER, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents- thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 8.14 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 36.14 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this 2.td. day of t A. D. 7 ' . ?i^ -n l? C! I /In oP ?, rothonotary ' So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 01/26/2005 HANDLER HENNING ROSENBERG Deputy Sheriff In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Joyce D. Pinero vs. Weis Markets Inc. et al SERVE: Apex Asphalt Paving Corp No 05-310 civil Now, January 18, 2005 T, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Dauphin County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, within upon at by handing to a and made known to 20_____, at o'clock M. served the copy of the original the contents thereof. So answers, Sheriff of Sworn and subscribed before me this day of 20 COSTS SERVICE MILEAGE _ AFFIDAVIT County, PA (Offize of t4P ?hrxtff Mary Jane Snyder Real Estate Deputy William T. Tully Solicitor Dauphin County Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 ph: (717) 255-2660 fax: (717) 255-2889 Jack Lotwick Sheriff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Dauphin PINERO JOYCE D Vs APEX ASPHALT PAVING CORP Sheriff's Return J, Daniel Basile Chief Deputy Michael W. Rinehart Assistant Chief Deputy No. 0109-T - - -2005 OTHER COUNTY NO. 05-310 AND NOW:January 24, 2005 at 7:58AM served the within SUMMONS upon APEX ASPHALT PAVING CORP by personally handing to DAVID KAYLOR OWNER 1 true attested copy(ies) of the original SUMMONS and making known to him/her the contents thereof at 1151 EISENHOWER BLVD MIDDLETOWN, PA 17057-0000 Sworn and subscribed to before me this 24TH day of JANUARY, 2005 NOTARIAL SEAL MARY JANE SNYDER, Notary Public Highspire, Dauphin County My Commission Expires Sept. 1, 2006 So Answers,( Sheriff of Dauphin County, Pa. By Deputy Sheriff Sheriff's Costs-$30.00 PD 01/20/2005 RCPT NO 203218 Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 43530 Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 78735 THOMAS, THOMAS 8 HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-0999 (717) 237-7119 FAX (717) 237-7105 E-Mail: soeduldiga-tthlaw.com IN THE COURT OF CO¢MON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,IPENNSYLVANIA JOYCE D. PINERO, Plaintiff V. WEIS MARKETS, INC. and APEX ASPHALT PAVING CORP., Defendants CIVIL ACTION - L NO. 05-310 CIVIL JURY TRIAL Attorneys for Defendant: WEIS MARKETS, INC. PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of Stephen E. Gedu Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire and Thomas, Thomas as attorneys for Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc., in captioned matter, reserving our right to answer or to Plaintiff's Complaint. Ldig, Esquire, & Hafer, LLP, =he above- )therwise plead Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFE?2, LLP , By.?. ?l?t It l( L 339843.1 "STEP EN E. GEDULDIG, SQUIRE''--1) Attorney I.D. No. 43530 STEPHANIE L. HERSPERG R, ESQ. Attorney I.D. No. 78735 Attorneys for DefE WEIS MARKETS, INC. fit, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of1the foregoing document was served by depositing the same in the Uni ed States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, o the day of April 2005, on all counsel of record as foll W. Scott Henning, Esquire HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG Post Office Box 60337 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17106-0337 Attorneys for Plaintiff Apex Asphalt Paving Corp. 1151 Eisenhower Boulevard Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Defendant THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, r Ashleigh . Ang LLP )X( I i 339874.1 7 0. ??'.; `p Wit?) Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 43530 Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 78735 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-0999 (717) 237-7119 FAX (717) 237-7105 E-Mail: speduldigetthlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant: WEIS MARKETS, INC. Plaintiff V. WEIS MARKETS, INC. and APEX ASPHALT PAVING CORP., Defendants TO THE PROTHONOTARY: 1 1V 1 nG l.V VtC 1 VC 1. 111.1ViV YLL'/j.7 VI' CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - L NO. 05-310 CIVIL . JURY TRIAL Kindly issue a Rule on Plaintiff to file a Complaint in the above case within twenty (20) days of service of sad Rule, or suffer a judgment of non pros pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.I1037(a). Respectfully Submit THOMAS, THOMAS & HA Ste en E. Geduldig, Stephanie L. Hersperg Thomas, Thomas and Ha 305 N. Front Street P O Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorneys for Defenda WEIS MARKETS, INC. LLP squir r, squire er, LLP t, Date: JOYCE D. PINERO, Plaintiff V. WEIS MARKETS, INC. and APEX ASPHALT PAVING CORP., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAI NO. 05-310 CIVIL JURY TRIAL RULE TO FILE A COMPLAINT TO: Joyce D. Pinero, c/o W. Scott Henning, Esquire HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG Post Office Box 60337 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17106-0337 AND NOW, this I n4k- day of Rule is hereby issued upon the Plaintiff to fil herein within twenty (20) days after service here the entry of a Judgment of Non Pros pursuant 1037(a). PROTHONOTARY 2 2005, a a Complaint of, or suffer to Pa.R.C.P. ^' O t Y n 7 r; i ORIGINAL GREGORY E. CASSIMATIS, ESQUIRE 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-791-0400 Attorney I.D. # 49619 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, Apex Asphalt Paving Corp. JOYCE D. PINERO Plaintiff V. WEIS MARKETS, INC. and APEX, ASPHALT PAVING CORP., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 05-310 Defendants PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance as Attorney on behalf of Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving, Inc. in the above-captioned matter. Date: By: A"?? s / Le% ,,._ r} L? Gregory assimatis, Esquire Attorney for Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Corp. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ?"day of _J_, 2005, I, Gregory E. Cassimatis, Esquire, Attorney for Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Corp., hereby certify that I served a copy of the within Praecipe for Entry of Appearance on this date by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: W. Scott Henning, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg P.O. Box 60337 Harrisburg, PA 17106-0337 Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 10r By: i-- Gregory assimatis, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 791-0400 Attorney I.D. 4 49619 W. Scott Henning, Esquire I.D.#32298 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: He;tning@HHRLaw.com E D. PINERO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO: 05-310 CIVIL :IS MARKETS, INC. and CIVIL ACTION -LAW EX ASPHALT PAVING CORP., Defendants : 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 3 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. 1 SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH DRMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. YOU CANNOT P.FFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH FORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A EDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Lawyer Referral Service 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADOlA EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas qua se presentan mss adelante an las siguientes p6ginas, debe tomar acci6n dentro de los pr6ximos veinte (20) dies despu6s de la notiflcaci6n de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando an la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se Is advierte de qua si usted falla de tomar acci6n como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier sums de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquie; otra reclamaci6n o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede set dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mss aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes pare usted. STED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE N ABOGADO, U-AME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE JFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. I USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTAOFICINA E PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN ,ARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. Lawyer Referral Service 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 HAN By: Scott Henning, Esquire )LER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP Li ng lestown 'Road ;burg, PA 17110 hone: (717) 238-2000 (717) 233-3029 D. PINERO, Plaintiff V. MARKETS, INC. and ASPHALT PAVING CORP., Defendants Attorney for Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO: 05-310 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, by and through her attorneys, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by W. Scott Henning, Esquire, and the within Complaint against the Defendants, Weis Markets, Inc. and Apex t Paving ',orp., and in support thereof, avers as follows: Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, is an adult individual currently residing at 343 S. Sporting ;Hill Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050. Defendai-it, Weis Markets, Inc., is a corporation currently doing business at 5140 Simpson Ferry Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055. 3. Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Corp., is a corporation currently doing business at 1151 Eisenhower Blvd, Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057. 4. At all times material hereto, Weis Markets, Inc., was the owner and had exclusive, control of the property located at and known as Weis Markets, 5140 Simpson Ferry Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055. 5. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, was lawfully on said premises as she had just finished her shopping at the aforementioned Weis Markets. 6. At all times material hereto, Defendants, who had exclusive control of said Premises, had allowed snow and ice to accumulate and remain on the parking lot. At all times material hereto, there were no warning signs posted on the Premises warning of the snow and ice that remained in the parking lot. On or ab='wt February 7, 2003, Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, was on the Premises. While waking upon the parking lot, returning to her vehicle, Plaintiff was caused to slip and fall harshly upon the ground due to an accumulation of snow and/or ice that was allowed to remain on the parking lot, causing personal injuries to the Plaintiff, as more particularly set forth herein. COUNTI - NEGLIGENCE JOYCE D. PINERO v. WEIS MARKETS, INC. Paragraphs 1 through 8 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. -2- 10. At all times material to hereto, Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, believes and therefore avers, that Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc., was in ownership, possession, management and control of the Premises and was responsible for maintaining the safe condition of the property known as Weis Markets, 5140 Simpson Ferry Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc., and/or by its agents, servants, workmen or employef"s, acting in the scope of their authority and employment, generally and more specifically as set forth below: a. In allowing the parking lot at the Premises to remain covered with snow and/or ice thereby posing an unreasonable risk of injury to the Plaintiff and to other persons lawfully upon the premises; b. In failing to make a reasonable inspection of said Premises which would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed by the snow and/or ice, and thereby allowing the same to be and remain a dangerous condition when the Defendant knew or should have known of it; C. In failing to ensure the parking lot at said Premises was maintained in a safe condition to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and other persons lawfully upon the Premises; d. In having an improper design of the premises so as to create a hazard by allowing ice and/or snow to accumulate; -3- e. In failing to post a warning sign or device in the area to notify of the dangerous icy or slippery condition on the parking lot of said Premises; f. In wiling to remove the snow and/or ice from the parking lot of said Premises so as to avoid the situation in which the Plaintiff slipped and fell; g. In failing to keep the parking lot in a proper state of repair, and maintained free from hazardous conditions, in violation of the Property Maintenance Cade of Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania § 302.3; h. In failing to place or adequately place salt, cinders or any other non-skid material upon the snow and ice covered parking lot; i. In 'ailing to give an independent contractor proper orders or instructions, as provided in Restatement (Second) of Torts, §410; In failing to use reasonable care to employ a competent and careful independent contractor to perform a duty owed to third parties (Restatement (Second) of Torts, §411); k. In `failing to inspect an independent contractor's work following completion (Restatement (Second) of Torts, §412); In failing to establish a reasonable protocol between itself and an independent contractor for the removal of snow and ice (Restatement (Second) of Torts, §411); M. In failing to ensure that an independent contractor removed snow and/or ice from the parking lot; -4- n. In `ailing to supervise independent contractor to ensure that they performed snow and or ice removal on a parking lot used by the public (Restatement (Second) of Torts, §415); and o. In ;ailing to maintain the parking lot in a reasonably safe condition that would prfwent an entrant upon the land from slipping and falling. 2. Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc., had actual knowledge or should have known through the exercise of ordinary care and diligence that there was snow and ice accumulated on the parking lot in the area where Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, fell. 3. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc., Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, sustained serious injuries including, but not limited to, a fracture to her right patella with ligament damage. 4. As a direc.# and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc., Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, has undergone great physical pain, discomfortand mental anguish and she will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great detriment and loss, physically, emotionally and financially. 5. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc., Joyce D. Pinero, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to her daily duties and activities to her great detriment, loss, humiliation and embarrassment. 16. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc., Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, has and will in the future, suffer a loss of life's pleasures. -5- 17. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc., Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention, and will be required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 18. As a result of the negligence of Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc., Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, has suffered lost wages/income and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 9. Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, believes, and therefore avers, that her injuries are permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, seeks damages from Defendant, Weis Inc., in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland and demands a trial byjury. COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE JOYCE D. PINERO v. APEX ASPHALT PAVING CO. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth at length. 1. At all times material to hereto, Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, believes and therefore avers, that Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Co., was under contract with Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc., for the removal of snow and ice from Premises and/or was responsible for maintaining the safe condition of the property located at -6- and known as Weis Markets, 5140 Simpson Ferry Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055. (Plaintiff does not have copy of the aforementioned agreement however its existence has been evidenced through correspondence with both Defendants.) 22. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of DefendaO, Apex Asphalt Paving, Co., and/or by its agents, servants, workmen or employees, acting in the scope of their authority, scope and employment, generally and more specifically as set forth below: a. In allowing the parking lot at the Premises to remain covered with snow and/or ice thereby posing an unreasonable risk of injury to the Plaintiff and to other persons lawfully upon the premises; b. In failing to make a reasonable inspection of said Premises which would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed by the snow L and/or ice, and thereby allowing the same to be and remain a dangerous condition when the Defendant knew or should have known of it; C. In failing to ensure the parking lot at said Premises was maintained in a safe condition to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and other persons lawfully upon the Premises; d. In failing to post a warning sign or device in the area to notify of the dangerous icy or slippery condition on the parking lot of said Premises; -7- e. In failing to remove the snow and/or ice from the parking lot of said Premises so as to avoid the situation in which the Plaintiff slipped and fell; f. In failing to keep the parking lot in a proper state of repair, and maintained free from hazardous conditions, in violation of the Property Maintenance Code of Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania § 302.3; g. In failing to place or adequately place salt, cinders or any other non-skid material upon the snow and ice covered parking lot; and h. In failing to maintain the parking lot in a reasonably safe condition that would prevent an entrant upon the land from slipping and falling. Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Co., had actual knowledge or should have known through the exercise of ordinary care and diligence that there was snow and ice accumulated on the parking lot in the area where Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, fell. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Co., Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, sustained serious injuries including, but not limited to, a fracture to her right patella with ligament damage. 4 As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Co., Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, has undergone great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish and she will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great detriment and loss, physically, emotionally and financially. -8- 26. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Co., Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to her daily duties and activities to her great detriment, loss, humiliation and embarrassment. 27. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Co., Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, has and will in the future, suffer a loss of life's pleasures. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Co., Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention, and will be required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to her great detriment and loss. As a result of the negligence of Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Co., Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, has suffered lost wages/income and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, believes, and therefore avers, that her injuries are permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, seeks damages from Defendant, Apex Paving Co., in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of County and demands a trial by jury. -9- COUNT III - BREACH OF CONTRACT JOYCE D. PINERO v. APEX ASPHALT PAVING CO. 31. Paragraphs 1 through 30 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth at length. 32. The property located at and known as, Weis Markets, 5140 Simpson Ferry Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055, is a grocery store and parking lot private parking lot. On or about February 2, 2003, Plaintiff was a business invitee, lawfully upon said premises. Pursuant to a contract or lease between Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc. and Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Co., Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Co., was responsible for the removal of snow and ice from Premises and/orwas responsible for maintaining the safe condition of the property located at and known as Weis Markets, 5140 Simpson Ferry Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055. (Plaintiff does not have copy of the aforementioned agreement however its existence has been evidenced through correspondence with both Defendants.) Pursuant to the aforementioned agreement between Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc. and Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Co., Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero was a third party beneficiary of the contract. Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Co., failed to properly maintain the parking lot and keep it froe from hazardous conditions, namely, snow and/or ice. -10- 37. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, were a direct result of the failure of the Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Co., to properly and/or timely remove snow and ice from the Premises of the Defendant Weis Markets, thereby breaching the terms of the contract/agreement. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, seeks damages from Defendant, Apex Paving _,Co., in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of County and demands a trial by jury. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP -c? BY TE: W. Scott Henning EAuire Attorney for -11- VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing document are based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of this lawsuit. The language ;,f the document of counse! and not my own. I have read the document and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to nsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To extent that the contents of the document are that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this Verification. The undersigned also understands that the nts made therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Joyc D. P' ero ate: Scott Henning, Esquire HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: Henning@HHRLaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff OYCE D. PINERO, Plaintiff V. MARKETS, INC. and ASPHALT PAVING CORP., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO: 05-310 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On May 2, 2005, 1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Complaint with Notice Defend was served upon thefollowing bydepositing in U.S. Mail, certified delivery, return receipt requested: Stephanie Hersperger mas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP N. Front Street Box 999 -isburq, PA 17108-0999 5/2/05 By: Mr. Gregory E. Cassimatis 4999 Louise Drive Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Respectfully Submitted, HANDLER, ROSENBERG,LLP r -'^ n t? ? ,_i -r -ri t-.;?> . .. ?? ? ;?? c' ? n ,? =? Jc,? ??J ORIGINA I GREGORY E. CASSIMATIS, ESQUIRE 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-791-0400 Attorney I.D. # 49619 JOYCE D. PINERO Plaintiff V. WEIS MARKETS, INC. and APEX, ASPHALT PAVING CORP., Defendants ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, Apex Asphalt Paving Corp. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 05-310 DEFENDANT, APEX ASPHALT PAVING CORPORATION'S ANSWER NEW MATTER AND CROSSCLAIM TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Answering Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Corporation, by and through its attorney, Gregory E. Cassimatis, Esquire, and files the following Answer, New Matter and Crossclaim to Plaintiff's Complaint and avers as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff's Complaint and, therefore, said allegations are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of tri al. 2. Admitted on information and belief. 3. Admitted. hl,.l s 4. Admitted on information and belief. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff's Complaint and, therefore, said allegations are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 6. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendant had exclusive control of the premises referred to in Plaintiffs Complaint. The balance of the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs Complaint are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs Complaint and, therefore, said allegations are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 8. Denied. The allegations raised in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff s Complaint contain legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are deemed denied. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs Complaint and, therefore, said allegations are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. _ COUNT I-NEGLIGENCE JOYCE D. PINERO v. WEIS MARKETS, INC. 9.-19. The allegations of Paragraph 9 - 19 of Plaintiff's Complaint are directed towards a Defendant other than the Answering Defendant and, therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Corporation respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and against all parties, together with costs of suit. COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE JOYCE D. PINERO v. APEX ASPHALT PAVING CORPORATION 20. The Answering Defendant incorporates its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 19 above as if fully set forth at length. 21. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that at all times relevant hereto, Answering Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Corporation had a snow plowing contract with Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc. Portions of said contract in possession of the Answering Defendant are attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked as Exhibit "A". The balance of the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiff's Complaint contain legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are deemed denied and strict proof thereof demanded. 22. (a)-(h) Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 23. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 23 of Plaintiff's Complaint contain legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are deemed denied and said allegations are also denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiff s Complaint and the same are deemed denied and strict proof thereof demanded at the time of trial. 25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs Complaint and the same are deemed denied and strict proof thereof demanded at the time of trial. 26. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of Plaintiff s Complaint and the same are deemed denied and strict proof thereof demanded at the time of trial. 27. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of Plaintiff s Complaint and the same are deemed denied and strict proof thereof demanded at the time of trial. 28. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs Complaint and the same are deemed denied and strict proof thereof demanded at the time of trial. 29. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same are deemed denied and strict proof thereof demanded at the time of trial. 30. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 30 of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same are deemed denied and strict proof thereof demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Corporation respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and against all parties, together with costs of suit. COUNT III - BREACH OF CONTRACT JOYCE D. PINERO v. APEX ASPHALT PAVING CORPORATION 31. The Answering Defendant incorporates its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 30 above as if fully set forth at length. 32. Admitted on information and belief. 33. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 33 of Plaintiff's Complaint contain legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are deemed denied and strict proof thereof demanded at the time of trial. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, after reasonable; investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 33 of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same are deemed denied and strict proof thereof demanded at the time of trial. 34. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that at all times relevant hereto, answering Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Corporation had a snow plowing contract with Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc. . Portions of said contract in possession of the Answering Defendant are attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked as Exhibit "A". The balance of the allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of Plaintiff's Complaint contain legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are deemed denied and strict proof thereof demanded. 35. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 35 of Plaintiff's Complaint contain legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are deemed denied. 36. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of Plaintiff s Complaint contain legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are deemed denied. 37. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 37 of Plaintiff s Complaint contain legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are deemed denied. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Corporation respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and against all parties, together with costs of suit. NEW MATTER 38. Paragraphs 1 through 37 of the Answering Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff s Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 39. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to set forth a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 40. Any work, Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Corporation performed in connection with its contract for the premises in question was performed in a workman like manner in accordance with the terms and specifications with its contract with Co- Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc. 41. Any work performed and completed by the answering Defendant was inspected, approved and accepted by Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc. prior to the Plaintiff's alleged accident. 42. No deficiencies or defects in materials and/or workmanship existed in the work performed by the Answering Defendant. 43. Plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any, were caused solely and directly as a result of the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the Plaintiff in failing to exercise ordinary care for her own safety under the existing circumstances. 44. Plaintiff assumed the risk by traversing over and/or into an open and obvious condition. 45. Plaintiff had notice and knowledge of the condition alleged to have caused the accident in question and did knowingly, and willfully encounter this condition and did assume the risk of any injury that could have arisen. 46. If it is determined that the Answering Defendant is liable in Plaintiff's cause of action, the Answering Defendant avers that Plaintiff s recovery should be eliminated or reduced in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 7102. 47. If Plaintiff suffered any damages as alleged, they were caused solely and primarily by the carelessness, recklessness and negligence of third. parties unknown to the Answering Defendant and over whom the Answering Defendant had no control or right to control. 48. Count III of Plaintiff's Complaint fails to set forth a cause of action against the Answering Defendant for Breach of Contract. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Corporation respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and against all parties, together with costs of suit. NEW MATTER IN THE NATURE OF A CROSSCLAIM PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) DEFENDANT, APEX ASPHALT PAVING CORPORATION v. WEIS MARKETS, INC.; 49. Paragraphs 1 through 48 of the Answering Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 50. For purposes of this crossclaim, the allegations and counts against the respective parties as set forth in the Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length without admission or adoption. 51. On or about February 7, 2003, Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc. did not direct or request that Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Corp. salt the parking lot referred to in Plaintiff's Complaint until after the Plaintiff's alleged slip and fall incident. 52. Any work performed and completed by Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Corp. prior to Plaintiff's alleged accident was inspected, approved and accepted by Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc. prior to the Plaintiff's alleged slip and fall incident. 53. If the incident described in Plaintiff's Complaint occurred as alleged therein then Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc. is solely liable to the :Plaintiff. 54. In the alternative, Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc. is liable over to the Answering Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Corporation for contribution and indemnity, the existence of any liability on the part of the Answering Defendant being expressly denied. 55. The negligence of Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc. was active and primary and, any alleged negligence on the part of the Answering Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving, Inc. (which is specifically denied) was secondary and passive. 56. Answering Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Corporation asserts this crossclaim against Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc. to preserve its right of contribution and/or indemnity or both. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Corporation demands that any judgment entered in favor of the Plaintiff be entered solely against Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc. In the alternative, Answering Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Corporation demands that in the event that judgment is entered against it, any liability on its part being specifically denied, that such judgment be entered jointly and/or severally against Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc., together with it, or that Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc. be held liable over to Answering Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Corporation for contribution and/or indemnity or both. Date: ,22 6S By: A41- Gregory E, assimatis, Esquire Attorney for Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Corp. Weis Markets, Inc. 1000 South Second Street Sunbury, PA. 17801 Telephone 570-9884749 Fax 570.286-3232 SR0Wp10win2 Quote / 2002-2003 Date,8-29-02 Contractor Name: Store Number or Location: Push rates. [his scion must be filled out) 2"-6" (total snow fall per storm) 7-10" (total snow fall per storm) I l- 14" (total snow fall per storm) 15+"- blizzard conditions (total snow fall per storm) Houtdy rates- ffor removal of snow from site only) Truck w/ plow & operator Shovel & laborer Snow-blower & operator Loader & operator Plow/Spreader & operator Mauler & Operator P'\ M? Miscellaneous Iteins- I6 Salt per lb. (spread on site, i cl equipment, material & labor) .5 14 Peal N'4 Salt per ton (spread on site, includes equipment, material & labor) _gk5-6.0d p,--T Anti-skid per ton (spread on site, cl as equipment, material & labor) _ f?) /?_ Ice-melt applied to sidewalks per application (includes equipment, material & labor) IV 1 k 1. All snow plowing will be completed by contractor who has contract with Weis Markets, Inc. NO SUBCONTRA,MNG WILL HE ALLOWED, Please contact store manager for instructions as to where snow is to be removed and where it is to be stacked prior to signing of proposal, flowing and deicing are to be under the direction of store mane amen. The decision to stockpile on site or remove the snow is to be under the direction-of store level management. Abrasive anti-skid material, such as sand and cinders, are not to a us wi to seventy-five (75') feet of entrance door. Salt or calcium will be used for the entrance door area. 2. Snowplowing rates are to include maintaining bumper blocks, sign posts, raAin& etc, moved or damaged by plowing, as weu as removal of antiskid material at no extra cost to Weis Markets, Inc. Final invoice will not be paid until these items are satisfactory. These items must be completed by April 15, 2003. IN 11 Diato Re-LS < C,M C 00 Fir MK. - Per VIE.ca' V7 lFw\fQ MAIL INVOICE AND ORrWLL B/LADING TO T?R'C ?aCJC ORDER `V1/EIS MARKETS, INC. • 1000 SOUTH SECOND ST. P.O. BOX 471 SUNBURY. PENNA. 17801,0471 vw ao,a - tOICED DATE ?p p n I ©CTOBERA 2002) va ?`'AL ENW d9CfMlul NT AC C W Pl(YN.WfFE: GROCERY 670-286-u238 ,aD,uc slew VOEL PRODUCE 570-706-91202 _ S MILTON AREA INDUSTRIAL PARK RT 147) M E W ' I--- , . . IL ? INDUSTRIAL PARK ROAD ( A 17847 H . MILTON, PA. 10: I 1000 S, SECOND STRI;ET APE( PAYM CORP. P SUNBURY, PENNA. 1151 EISENHOWE i BLVD, 515.6111& SECOND IiTREET 17 MMMETOWN. PA 17DS7 T SUNBURY, PENNA. O 70X. 58 - WCHANKSBURG. PA OVAnf11Y PAC. 9¢E MIOIIPTION S PRICE F NOWPLOWNG AS PER RATES LISTED ON THIS PURC SE OR URCHASE ORDER NUMBER MUST APPEAR = ACHED TO ALL INVOICES FOR EACH DA com ORM GO'S MUST BE OBTAINED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF C MPLETI N ly rata t rude w/, Qbw A oq+?atmr - B5AD iwallenemom Bon-at kylcr b, - i?p.aod a1 dh®. ?4luyfptrlant, ntaberisl6 r?- . PHONE CFLL 17-497-9449 WEIS MARKETS, INC. BY HAR 011-05899-51.4150 I- w NO SUBSTITUTIONS ACCEn1ED UNAUTHORkED SUBSTITUTIONS OR ADDITIOP WILL BE RETURNED TO VENUOR AT HIS EXPENS 7HIS NUMBER MUST APPEAR ON ALL INVOICES. B/L CO DVMPONOENCE ETC. V7NDOR P,O, NO 677195 VERIFICATION I, David Kaylor, President of Apex Asphalt Paving Corporation, a Defendant herein, verify that I am authorized to execute this Verification and verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Defendant's Answer and New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. To the extent that the contents of the Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint are that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in executing this Verification. This statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Date: C_?s Name K ,?yy k ?-? David Kaylor, President, Apex Paving Corp. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this Z 3 day of Lm c 2005, I, Gregory E. Cassimatis, Esquire, Attorney for Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Corp., hereby certify that I served a copy of the within Defendant's Answer with New Matter and Crossclaim to Plaintiff's Complaint on this date by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 W. Scott Henning, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 By: Z Gregory a;ssimatis, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 791-0400 Attorney I.D. A! 49619 r-? Cl c^ r.)1 r „7 C-o Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 43530 Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 78735 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-0999 (717) 237-7119 FAX (717) 237-7105 E-Mail: soeduldim?tthlaw.com JOYCE D. PINERO, Plaintiff V. WEIS MARKETS, INC. and APEX ASPHALT PAVING CORP., Defendants Attorneys for Defendant: WEIS MARKETS, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-310 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TO: Plaintiff and counsel: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: :358350.2 STEPHEN E. GEDULDIG, ESQUIR / Attorney I.D. No. 43530 Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire Attorney Z.D. No. 78735 Attorneys fox- Defendant, WEIS MARKETS, INC. Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 43530 Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 78735 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-0999 (717) 237-7119 FAX (717) 237-7105 E-Mail: soeduldo(a)tthlaw.com JOYCE D. PINERO, Plaintiff V. WEIS MARKETS, INC. and APEX ASPHALT PAVING CORP., Defendants Attorneys for Defendant: WEIS MARKETS, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-310 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Ida TO: Defendant Apex Asphalt Paving Co., and counsel: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED COUNTERCLAIM WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. G A0 -1 /a i - By: :358350. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire Attorney I.D.. No. 78735 Attorneys for Defendant, WEIS MARKETS„ INC. Attorney I.D. No. 43530 Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 43530 Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 78735 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-0999 (717) 237-7119 FAX (717) 237-7105 E-Mail: saeduldia®tthlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant: WEIS MARKETS, INC. JOYCE D. PINERO, Plaintiff V. WEIS MARKETS, INC. and APEX ASPHALT PAVING CORP., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-310 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AND NOW, comes Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc. ("Defendant"), by and through undersigned counsel, Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire, and Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire, of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, and files the following Answer, New Matter and Cross Claim to Plaintiff's Complaint: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient. to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same are deemed denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 2. Admitted. 3. This paragraph is directed to a defendant other than Answering Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, the allegations in this paragraph are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 4. Admitted in part and denied in part. To the extent that this paragraph contains allegations that are conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact, no response is required. To the extent an answer is deemed necessary, Answering Defendant admits only that Defendant Weis Markets, Inc. was the owner of the property located at and known as Weis Markets, 5140 Simpson Ferry Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055. PL11 remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 5. To the extent that this paragraph contains allegations that are conclusions of law as opposed to :statements of fact, no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, it is admitted only that to Answering Defendant's knowledge, Plaintiff, Joyce Pinero, had just completed her shopping at the aforementioned Weis Markets. 6. Denied as a legal conclusion and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). Strict proof of said allegations is demanded at the time of trial. 7. Admitted. 2 8. Denied as a legal conclusion and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). Strict proof of said allegations is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant Weis Markets, Inc., respectfully requests that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and judgment entered in its favor. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE JOYCE D. PINERO v. WEIS MARKETS, INC. 9. No response is required as this is a paragraph of incorporation. 10. To the extent that this paragraph contains allegations that are conclusions of law as opposed to :statements of fact, no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, it is admitted only that Defendant Weis Markets, Inc. was the owner of the property located at and known as Weis Markets, 5140 Simpson Ferry Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055. The remaining allegations contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint are denied as legal conclusions and/or pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial as to same. 11(a-o) Denied as a legal conclusion and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, to the extent that "agents, servants, workmen or employees" in this paragraph is not identified in Plaintiff's Complaint, Answering Defendant is unable 3 to admit or deny these allegations of agency, and thus same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. at the time of trial. 12. Denied as a legal conclusion and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 13. Denied as a legal conclusion and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 14. Denied as a legal conclusion and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 15. Denied as a legal conclusion and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 16. Denied as a legal conclusion and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 17. Denied as a legal conclusion and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 18. Denied as a legal conclusion and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 19. Denied as a legal conclusion and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant Weis Markets, Inc., respectfully requests that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and judgment entered in its favor. 4 COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE JOYCE D. PINERO v. APEX ASPHALT PAVING CO. 20. No response is required as this is a paragraph of incorporation. 21. No response is required as these allegations are directed to Defendants other than Answering Defendant. To the extent that a response is deemed required, it is believed that Apex Asphalt Paving Co. was under contract with Answering Defendant for the removal of snow and ice from Answering Defendant's premises. 22(a-h) No response is required as these allegations are directed to Defendants other than Answering Defendant. 23. No response is required as these allegations are directed to Defendants other than Answering Defendant. 24. No response is required as these allegations are directed to Defendants other than Answering Defendant. 25. No response is required as these allegations are directed to Defendants other than Answering Defendant. 26. No response is required as these allegations are directed to Defendants other than Answering Defendant. 27. No response is required as these allegations are directed to Defendants other than Answering Defendant. 28. No response is required as these allegations are directed to Defendants other than Answering Defendant. 5 29. No response is required as these allegations are directed to Defendants other than Answering Defendant. 30. No response is required as these allegations are directed to Defendants other than Answerincl Defendant. WHEREFORE, Defendant Weis Markets, Inc., respectfully requests that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and judgment entered in its favor. COUNT III - BREACH OF C019TRACT JOYCE D. PINERO v. APEX ASPHALT PAVING CO. 31. No response is required as this is a paragraph of incorporation. 32. No response is required as these allegations are directed to Defendants other than Answering Defendant. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, it is admitted that the property located at and known as Weis Markets, 5140 Simpson Ferry Road, Mechanicsburg, PA, 17055, is a grocery store and private parking lot, 33. No response is required as these allegations are directed to Defendants other than Answering Defendant and/or they contain legal conclusions. 34. No response is required as these allegations are directed to Defendants other than Answering Defendant and/or they contain legal conclusions. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, it is admitted that Apex Asphalt Paving Co. 6 contracted with Weis Markets, Inc. for removal of snow and ice from premises at Weis Markets, 5140 Simpson Ferry Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. 35. No response is required as these allegations are directed to Defendants other than Answering Defendant and/or said allegations contain legal conclusions. 36. No response is required as these allegations are directed to Defendants other than Answering Defendant and/or said allegations contain legal conclusions. 37. No response is required as these allegations are directed to Defendants other than Answering Defendant and/or said allegations contain legal conclusions. WHEREFORE, Defendant Weis Markets, Inc., respectfully requests that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and judgment entered in its favor. NEW MATTER 38. Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc., incorporates herein by reference, as if fully set forth at length, Paragraphs 1 through 37 of its Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. 39. No act or omission on the part of Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc., its agents, employees or servants, caused the Plaintiff's injuries. 40. Plaintiff may have been comparatively negligent and/or assumed the risk of her alleged harm. 7 41. Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc., may not have owed any duty to Plaintiff in general, and in particular because any condition, denied as aforesaid, which was allegedly involved in this accident, was open and obvious to the Plaintiff or to any reasonable person similarly situated. 42. Plaintiff may have failed to mitigate her injuries and/or damages. 43. In the event it is determined that a hazard existed at the area of Plaintiff's alleged fall, which is specifically denied, then Plaintiff was negligent in that she failed to properly observe and avoid a condition which was open and obvious and reasonably ascertainable through reasonable vigilance and ordinary care on the part of the Plaintiff. 44. Plaintiff was negligent and careless as follows: (a) she failed to keep a proper lookout; (b) she failed to be alert and attentive; (c) she failed to avoid, or otherwise react to, an open and obvious condition; (d) she failed to use reasonable caution in walking, stepping or standing; (e) she failed to watch where she was walking, stepping or standing; (f) Plaintiff failed to use an alternative, available, choice of ways; and (g) Plaintiff failed to use appropriate footwear under the circumstances then. and there existing. 8 45. Alternatively, if there were any hazardous condition of the parking lot, which is specifically denied as aforesaid, Defendant had no actual or constructive notice of same, to have taken reasonable corrective measures. 46. If any hazardous condition existed, which is denied as aforesaid, Plaintiff failed to exercise her last clear chance to avoid the known or reasonably discoverable condition to which she exposed herself. 47. Plaintiff's conduct, as specified above, constitutes a knowing assumption of the risk, which bars Plaintiff's recovery. 48. Defendant pleads a credit for any medical expenses or wage loss benefits which may have been advanced to the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc., respectfully requests that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and judgment entered in its favor. CROSS CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT APEX ASPHALT PAVING CO. 49. Paragraphs 1-48, above, are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 50. If the averments contained in the Plaintiff's Complaint are established, said averments being specifically denied as they may relate to Defendant Weis Markets, Inc., then the injuries and damages complained of were caused solely by the Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Co. 9 51. Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Co., has been joined herein to protect Defendant's, Weis Markets, Inc., rights of indemnity and contribution, and Defendant Weis Markets, Inc. avers that Defendant Apex Asphalt Paving Co., is alone liable to the Plaintiff, or in the alternative, that Apex: Asphalt Paving Co., is liable over to Weis Markets, Inc., or jointly and severally liable on the Plaintiff's causes of action. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc., demands judgment against Defendant Apex Asphalt Paving Co. for indemnity and/or contribution of any amounts which may be awarded to Plaintiff plus the costs of defense. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: :358350 STE HE E. GEDULDIG, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 43530 Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 78735 Attorneys for Defendant, WEIS MARKETS, INC. 10 VERIFICATION I, Bart Shaffer , hereby verify that the averments made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. B a fer CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on the a 3 r day of June, 2005, on all counsel of record as follows: W. Scott Henning, Esquire HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENFELD, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorneys for Plaintiff Gregory E. Cassimatis Attorney at Law 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorneys for Co-Defendant Apex Asphalt Paving Corp THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Steph nie L. Hersp rger, squ re 339674.1 -.a r•, o ,. 'n r ----{1 T - .. .. _.:. s'` n r;1"r' ?y _,:, ? :.::..? .. ? . -r !'- ?; i:J _ .. -.i ' ti _.._ G:` JOYCE D. PINERO, Plaintiff V. WEIS MARKETS, INC. and APEX ASPHALT PAVING CORP., Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAIVD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO: 05-310 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL (DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, by and through her attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by W. Scott Henning, Esquire, and replies as follows: 38. Denied. Paragraph 38 is an incorporation paragraph to which no responsive pleading is required. 39. Denied. It is denied that there were no acts or omissions on the part of the Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc., that caused the Plaintiffs fall and resulting injuries, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 40. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 40 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiff was contributorily or comparatively negligent and it is further denied that the Plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risk of falling and being injured. By way of further answer, the Plaintiff asserts that the Doctrine of the Assumption of the Risk is not applicable to the subject cause of action in view of the passage of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act and recent Court Decisions that have more or less abrogated the Assumption of the Risk Doctrine. 41. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 41 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, the Plaintiff incorporates her reply to Paragraph 40 as though fully set forth herein. 42. Denied. It is denied that the Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her injuries and/or damages, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 43. Denied. Plaintiff incorporates her response to Paragraph 40 as though fully set forth herein. 44. Denied. It is denied that the Plaintiff was negligent in any of the particular manners as set forth in sub-paragraphs (a) through (g), and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. By way of further answer, Plaintiff asserts that at all times material to this cause of action, she was acting in a careful and reasonable manner. 45. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 45 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Defendant did not have actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition of its parking lot. Clearly, the Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc., either was aware or should have been aware of the hazardous condition of the parking lot by the exercise of reasonable care and reasonable periodic inspections. 46. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 46 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required . By way of further answer, Plaintiff incorporates her reply to Paragraph 40 as though fully set forth herein. 47. Denied. Plaintiff incorporates her response to Paragraph 40 as though fully set forth herein. 48. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 48 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, the Plaintiff acknowledges that she will be bound by any collateral source rules that the Honorable Court deems properly applicable to the subject cause of action. 49-51. Denied. Paragraphs 49-51 are allegations of a cross claim against co-Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Co., and to that extent, no responsive pleading is required from the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc., for the relief set forth in her Complaint. DATE Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, ROSENBERG,LLP I. Scott Henn D. #32298 1300 Lingl'estown , Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff JOYCE D. PINERO, Plaintiff V. WEIS MARKETS, INC. and APEX ASPHALT PAVING CORP., Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO: 05-310 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW RY TRIAL (DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On the 301n day of June, 2005, 1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Reply To New Matter was served upon the following by depositing in U.S. Mail; Stephanie Hersperger, Esq. Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N. Front Street PO Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 DATE Gregory E. Cassimatis, Esq. 4999 Louise Drive Suite 103 Mechanisburg, PA 17055 Respectfully submitted, W. Scott Henning, EsqL I.D. #32298 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-238-2000 LLP Attorney for Plaintiff VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO PA R.C.P. NO. 1024 c W. SCOTT HENNING, ESQUIRE, states that he is the attorney for the party filing the foregoing document; that he makes this affidavit as an attorney, because the party he represents lacks sufficient knowledge or information upon which to make a verification and/or because he has greater personal knowledge of the information and belief than that of the party for whom he makes this affidavit; and that he has sufficient knowledge or information and belief, based upon his investigation of the matters averred or denied in the foregoing document; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to author Date: 6 " 30 -? ? o a C ° -n ? ._ -rtm } T _ _ T _ i % 7=• ? ? m J -i (3i JOYCE D. PINERO, Plaintiff V. WEIS MARKETS, INC. and APEX ASPHALT PAVING CORP., Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO: 05-310 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Joyce D. Pinero, by and through her attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by W. Scott Henning, Esquire, and replies as follows: 38. Denied. Paragraph 38 is an incorporation paragraph to which no responsive pleading is required. 39. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 39 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 40. Denied. It is denied that the work performed by Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Corporation was performed in a proper and workman like manner or that it was performed in accordance with the terms and specifications of its contract with co-defendant, Weis Markets, Inc., and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 41. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment contained in Paragraph 41, and hence, Plaintiff demands proof of the allegation set forth in Paragraph 41. 42. Denied. It is denied that there were no deficiencies or defects in the materials and/or workmanship performed by the Answering Defendant, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 43. Denied. It is denied that the Plaintiffs injuries and damages were caused solely and directly as a result of her negligence, carelessness & recklessness or failure to exercise ordinary care for her own safety, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 44. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 44 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Assumption of the Risk Doctrine is applicable to the subject cause of action. By way of further answer, the Plaintiff denies that she knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk of injury or traversed over an open and obvious condition, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 45. Denied. Plaintiff incorporates her response to Paragraph 44 as though fully set forth herein. 46. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 46 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiff was in any way contributorily or comparatively negligent pursuant to the terms of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this 47. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 47 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the damages and injuries sustained by the Plaintiff were caused solely and primarily by the carelessness, recklessness and negligence of third parties unknown to the Answering Defendant and over whom the Answering Defendant had no control or right to control, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 48. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 48 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, the Plaintiff denies that her Complaint fails to set forth a cause of action against the Answering Defendant for Breach of Contract, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. 49.-56. Denied. Paragraphs 49 through 56 are allegations of New Matter in the nature of a Cross Claim against the co-Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc., and to that extent, no responsive pleading is required by the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving, Corp. for the relief set forth in her Complaint. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP DATE , W. Scdtt'Herh I. D. #32298 ES, 1300 Linglestown Ro-, Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiffs JOYCE D. PINERO, Plaintiff V. WEIS MARKETS, INC. and APEX ASPHALT PAVING CORP., Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO: 05-310 CIVIL : CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL CERTIFICATE OF On the 5th day of July, 2005, 1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Reply To New Matter was served upon the following by depositing in U.S. Mail; Stephanie Hersperger, Esq. Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N. Front Street PO Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 Gregory E. Cassimatis, Esq. 4999 Louise Drive Suite 103 Mechanisburg, PA 17055 Respectfully submitted, 7-? a? DATE HANDLER, HENNKG & ROSENBERG, LLP W. Scott H "n, Eoy I.D. #32296 V 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff PURSUANT TO PA R.C.P. NO. 1024 (c) W. SCOTT HENNING, ESQUIRE, states that he is the attorney for the party filing the foregoing document; that he makes this affidavit as an ;attorney, because the party he represents lacks sufficient knowledge or information upon which to make a verification and/or because he has greater personal knowledge of the information and belief than that of the party for whom he makes this affidavit; and that he has sufficient knowledge or information and belief, based upon his investigation of the matters averred or denied in the foregoing document; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 7-- 2 o? W. SGO F1 H C> N O C- r -n ' co T - cv CD GREGORY E. CASSIMATIS, ESQUIRE 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-791-0400 Attorney I.D. # 49619 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, Apex Asphalt Paving Corp. JOYCE D. PINERO Plaintiff V. WEIS MARKETS, INC. and APEX, ASPHALT PAVING CORP., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 05-310 DEFENDANT, APEX ASPHALT PAVING CORPORATION'S REPLY TO CROSSCLAIM OF DEFENDANT, WEIS MARKETS, INC. 49 50-51 The Answering Defendant incorporates its Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff s Complaint by reference as if fully set forth at length. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 50 and 51 of the Crossclaim of Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc. contain legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required and the same are deemed denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Corporation demands judgment against Weis Markets, Inc. for indemnity and/or contribution of any amounts which may be awarded to the Plaintiffs, plus costs of defense. Respectfully Submitted, Date: 2-A/-42?- By: Gregory ' assimatis, Esquire Attorney for Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Corp. VERIFICATION I, Gregory E. Cassimatis, Esquire, counsel for Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Corporation, verify that I am authorized to execute this verification and verify that the facts set forth in the Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Corporation's Reply to Crossclaim of Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc. is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. This statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Date: ?S Name: f?4?- Gregorl? assimatis, Esquire Attorney for Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Corporation CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ( J/Aday of J X 2005, I, Gregory E. Cassimatis, Esquire, Attorney for Defendant, Apex Asphalt Paving Corp., hereby certify that I served a copy of the within Defendant's Reply to Crossclaim of Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc. on this date by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 W. Scott Henning, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 By: Gregory simatis, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 791-0400 Attorney I.D. # 49619 r7 o O ?- cn L -r f[l? T cn .' ? Cii Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 43530 Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 78735 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-0999 (717) 237-7119 FAX (717) 237-7105 E-Mail: sgeduldiok@tthlaw corn Attorneys for Defendant: WEIS MARKETS, INC. JOYCE D. PINERO, Plaintiff V. WEIS MARKETS, INC. and APEX ASPHALT PAVING CORP., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-310 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED through its undersigned counsel, Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire, and Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, and files the following Response to Defendant Apex Asphalt Corporation's New Matter and Cross Claim to Plaintiff's Complaint: ANSWER TO NEW MATTER 38. No response is required as this is a paragraph of incorporation. 39. No response is required as this paragraph is directed at someone other than Answering Defendant. AND NOW, comes Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc., by and 40. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 41. After a reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph of Apex Asphalt Paving Corporation's New Matter, and thus, said allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial, 42. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 43. No response is required as this paragraph is directed at someone other than Answering Defendant. 44. No response is required as this paragraph is directed at someone other than Answering Defendant. 45. No response is required as this paragraph is directed at someone other than Answering Defendant. 46. No response is required as this paragraph is directed at someone other than Answering Defendant, 47. No response is required as this paragraph is directed at someone other than Answering Defendant. 48. No response is required as this paragraph is directed at someone other than Answering Defendant. 2 RESPONSE OF DEFENDANT WEIS MARKETS, INC. TO DEFENDANT'S, APEX ASPHALT PAVING CORPORATION, CROSS CLAIM PURSUANT TO Pa. R.C.P. 2252 (d) 49. No response is required as this is a paragraph of incorporation. 50. No response is required as this is a paragraph of incorporation. 51. After a reasonable investigation, Defendant presently is without sufficient information or knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph of Apex Asphalt Paving Corporation's New Matter, and thus, said allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 52. After a reasonable investigation, Defendant presently is without sufficient information or knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph of Apex Asphalt Paving Corporation's New Matter, and thus, said allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 53. Denied as a legal conclusion and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 54. Denied as a legal conclusion and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 3 55. Denied as a legal conclusion and pursuant to Pa 1029(e). 56. Denied as a legal conclusion and pursuant to Pa 1029(e). /.? By : :358350.4 Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP STEPHEN E. GEDULDIG, ES Attorney I.D. No. 43530 R.C.P. R.C.P. Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 78735 Attorneys for Defendant, WEIS MARKETS, INC. 4 Subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, I hereby certify that I have acquired knowledge of the alleged facts and circumstances giving rise to this claim and am authorized to execute this verification on behalf of Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc.; and further, that I have provided the answers set forth in the foregoing document based upon that knowledge and the answers set forth herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. a k Stephahie L. Hersperger, Esquire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on the 0?*77-L- day of July, 2005, on all counsel of record as follows: W. Scott Henning, Esquire HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENFELD, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorneys for Plaintiff Gregory E. Cassimatis Attorney at Law 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorneys for Co-Defendant Apex Asphalt Paving Corp THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 2 Steph nie L. Hersperger, Esquire 339874.1 T? t-1 11 ? 4.. ^l ? _ l -i^- .._7 r? r,?? c r JOYCE D. PINERO, Plaintiff V. WEIS MARKETS, INC. and APEX ASPHALT PAVING CORP., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-310 CIVIL : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO SETTLE, DISCONTINUE AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above case settled, discontinued and ended with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, By: W. Scott Henning, )i HANDLER, HENNING Counsel for Plaintiff LLP Date: 6 - -26f,,7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ashleigh E. Anglemeyer, an employee of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the following, by enclosing a true and correct copy in an envelope addressed as follows, postage prepaid: W. Scott Henning, Esquire HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Gregory E. Cassimatis Attorney at Law 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP AshleigVE.g r C? C=JP D F ra rv t...,? r= F't7