Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14-3146 e � Supreme C n nsylvania Cou(�r' pIil leas For Prothonotary Use Only: ?' t Docket No: C4( Cu. Ian }� County IV/ A J The information collected on this form is used solely for court administration purposes. This form does not supplement or replace the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law or rules of court. Commencement of Action: S ® Complaint 0 Writ of Summons ® Petition E ® Transfer from Another Jurisdiction ® Declaration of Taking C Lead Plaintiff's Name: Lead Defendant's Name: T Daniel Baker Joao L. Goncalves I Are money damages requested? 0 Yes ® No Dollar Amount Requested: ®within arbitration limits 0 (check one) ®x outside arbitration limits N Is this a Class Action Suit? ®Yes El No Is this an MDJAppeal? 13 Yes El No A Name of Plaintiff/Appellant's Attorney: Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire ® Check here if you have no attorney(are a Self-Represented [Pro Se] Litigant) Nature of the Case: Place an"X"to the left of the ONE case category that most accurately describes your PRIMARY CASE. If you are making more than one type of claim,check the one that you consider most important. TORT(do not inchide Mass Tort) CONTRACT(do not inchide Judgments) CIVIL APPEALS ® Intentional ® Buyer Plaintiff Administrative Agencies ® Malicious Prosecution 0 Debt Collection: Credit Card 13 Board of Assessment ®x Motor Vehicle ® Debt Collection:Other ® Board of Elections ® Nuisance Dept.of Transportation ® Premises Liability B Statutory Appeal:Other S ® Product Liability(does not include E mass tort) ® Employment Dispute: Slander/Libel/Defamation Discrimination C ® Other: ® Employment Dispute:Other ® Zoning Board T Other: i I l3 Other: O MASS TORT © Asbestos N ® Tobacco ® Toxic Tort-DES l3 Toxic Tort-Implant REAL PROPERTY MISCELLANEOUS Toxic Waste ® Other: 13 Ejectment [3 Common Law/Statutory Arbitration B 0 Eminent Domain/Condemnation ® Declaratory Judgment ® Ground Rent ® Mandamus 0 Landlord/Tenant Dispute 13 Non-Domestic Relations ' © Mortgage Foreclosure:Residential Restraining Order PROFESSIONAL LIABLITY ® Mortgage Foreclosure:Commercial ®Quo Warranto ® Dental ® Partition ®Replevin ® Legal ® Quiet Title l3 Other: ® Medical ® Other: Other Professional: Updated 1/112011 f/ jV IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS � t 23e r u f CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 'UP','BERLAI,ti11 lP PL�ltqS)'LVAF 1A*NO. )Y-3PU i CIVIL ACTION—LAW DANIEL BAKER and ASHLEY BAKER, JOAO L. GONCALVES Individually and as Husband and Wife, 49650 S. Glacier 1167 Black Gap Road Northville, MI 48168-6828 Fayetteville, PA 17222 -and- FAMILY FORD OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC. t/d/b/a FAMILY FORD 170 York Road Carlisle, PA 17013 -and- FORD MOTOR COMPANY Office of General Counsel 1 American Road Dearborn, MI 48126 Plaintiff(s)& Defendant(s) Address(es) Address(es) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly issue a Writ of Summons against Defendants, Joao L. Goncalves; Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford; and Ford Motor Company. The Writ of Summons should be issued and one (1) copy should be delivered to the Sheriff of Cumberland County for service upon Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford at the address listed above. The other copy should be returned to Plaintiffs' counsel for out-of-state service upon Defendants, Joao L. Goncalves and Ford Motor Company. S C",54902]-1 4 1 41 METZGER CKERSHAM,KNA S E ,P.C. By Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire I.D. No. 307410 Zachary D. Campbell, Esquire I.D. No. 93177 2321 Paxton Church Road P.O. Box 69200 Harrisburg, PA 17106-9200 (717) 238-8187 Date: ' 2014 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 549021-1 METZGER, WICKERSHAM, P.C. By: Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire Attorney 1.D. No. 307410 By: Zachary D. Campbell, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 93177 2321 Paxton Church Road P.O. Box 69200 Harrisburg, PA 17106-9200 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, (717)238-8187 Daniel Baker and Ashley Baker DANIEL BAKER and ASHLEY BAKER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Individually and as Husband and Wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENN Plaintiffs NO. lut vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOAO L. GONCALVES; FAMILY FORD OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., T/D/B/A FAMILY FORD; and FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED WRIT OF SUMMONS TO: Joao L. Goncalves 49650 S. Glacier Northville, MI 48168 Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford 170 York Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Ford Motor Company Office of General Counsel 1 American Road Dearborn, MI 48126 You are hereby notified that Plaintiffs, Daniel Baker and Ashley Baker, have commenced an action against you. Date: 0_, 2014 Prothonotary c 549021-1 CAMPBELL CAMPBELL EDWARDS & CONROY, P.C. By: William J. Conroy, Esquire Tiffany M. Alexander, Esquire Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire Attorney I.D. Nos. 36433/88681/90343 1205 Westlakes Drive, Suite 330 Berwyn PA 19312 Phone: 610-964-1900 Fax: 610-964-1981 DANIEL BAKER and ASHLEY BAKER, Individually and as Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs v. JOAO L. GONCALVES; FAMILY F OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., T/D/B/A FAMILY FORD; and FORD MOTOR COMPANY Attorneys for Defendant, Ford Motor Company rn rn r... C -v c>� C:) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No.: 14-3146 — Civil CIVIL ACTION - LAW ORD Defendants ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND JURY DEMAND Kindly enter the appearances of William J. Conroy, Esquire, Tiffany M. Alexander, Esquire, and Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire as counsel on behalf of Defendant, Ford Motor Company in the above -captioned matter A jury of twelve is demanded William J. Conroy, Esquire Tiffany M. Alexander, Esquire Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire Dated: July 2, 2014 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire, hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance and Jury Demand to be served via U.S. First Class Mail, postage prepaid, upon the following persons at the address and the date set forth below: Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire Zachary D. Campbell, Esquire Metzger Wickersham, P.C. 2321 Paxton Church Road PO Box 69200 Harrisburg PA 17106-9200 Date: July 2, 2014 avros, Esquire GREGORY E. CASSIMATIS, Esquire Attorney I.D. # 49619 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 791-0400 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT Family Ford of Pennsylvania, t/d/b/a Family Ford DANIEL BAKER and ASHLEY BAKER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Individually and as Husband and Wife, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. : NO.: 14-3146 CIVIL JOAO L. GONCALVES, FAMILY FORD : CIVIL ACTION - LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., T/D/B/A FAMILY FORD and FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford in the above matter. Date: 7'.2S -/i/ By: Gregor,Cassimatis, Esquire Attorney for Defendant Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ),..0 -day of July, 2014, I, Gregory E. Cassimatis, Esquire, Attorney for Defendant Family Ford of Pennsylvania, t/d/b/a Family Ford hereby certify that I served a copy of the within Defendant's Praecipe for Entry of Appearance by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire Zachary D. Campbell, Esquire METZGER, WICKERSHAM, P.C. 2321 Paxton Church Road PO Box 69200 Harrisburg, PA 17106-9200 (Attorney for Plaintiffs) Joao L. Goncalves 49650 S. Glacier Northville, MI 48168 (Defendant) William J. Conroy, Esquire Tiffany M. Alexander, Esquire Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC 1205 West Lakes Drive, Suite 230 Berwyn, PA 19312 (Attorneys for Ford Motor Company) (Defendant) By: Greg6ry'E. Cassimatis, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 791-0400 Attorney I.D. # 49619 METZGER, WICKERSHAM, P.C. By: Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 307410 By: Zachary D. Campbell, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 93177 2321 Paxton Church Road P.O. Box 69200 Harrisburg, PA 17106-9200 (717) 238-8187 CSF l• v8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Daniel Baker and Ashley Baker DANIEL BAKER and ASHLEY BAKER, : Individually and as Husband and Wife, . Plaintiffs vs. JOAO L. GONCALVES; FAMILY FORD OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., T/D/B/A FAMILY FORD; and FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 14-3146 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF WRIT UPON DEFENDANT JOAO L. GONCALVES I, Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiffs in the above captioned action, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Writ of Summons was served upon Defendant Joao L. Goncalves on July 17, 2014 at 12:48 p.m. CDG-) m CD Co The Defendant was served at the place and in the manner set forth in the Proof of Service prepared by James Clark, Process Server, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 558096-1 In addition, the Defendant was served by certified mail, return receipt requested on July 19, 2014. See, letter and green return receipt attached hereto as Exhibit "B". This Affidavit is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 558096-1 , 2014 METZGE WICKERSHAM, KNASS & ERB, P.C. By Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire I.D. No. 307410 2321 Paxton Church Road P.O. Box 69200 Harrisburg, PA 17106-9200 (717) 238-8187 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Exhibit A AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE State of MICHIGAN Case Number: 14-3146 Court Date: 7/4/2014 Plaintiff: DANIEL BAKER vs. Defendant: JOAO L GONCALVES For: Andrea Cohick METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS & ERB 2321 Paxton Church Rd P.O Box 69200 Harrisburg, PA 17106 County of Received by Premier Process Serving, L.L.C. on the 13th day of June, 2014 at 11:25 am to be served on JOAO L GONCALVES, 49650 S GLACIER, NORTHVILLE, MI 48168. I, James Clark, being duly sworn, depose and say that on the 17th day of July, 2014 at 12:48 pm, I: Court INDIVIDUALLY/PERSONALLY served by delivering a true copy of the Summons and Complaint with the date and hour of service endorsed thereon by me, to: JOAO L GONCALVES at the address of: 49650 S GLACIER, NORTHVILLE, Ml 48168, and informed said person of the contents therein, in compliance with state statutes. Additional Information pertaining to this Service: 7/17/2014 12:48 pm Attempted service at 49650 S GLACIER, NORTHVILLE, MI 48168, The defendants wife accepted service on his behalf Description of Person Served: Age: 46, Sex: F, Race/Skin Color: White, Height: 57", Weight: 185, Hair: Black, Glasses: N I certify that I am over the age of 18, have no interest in the above action, and am a Process Server, in good standing, in the judicial circuit in which the process was served. Subscribed and Sworn to beforeme on the 30th day of July, 2014 by the affia personally known to me. - TARY PUBLIC JACKIE MORTON NOTARY PUBLIC - STATE OF MICHIGAN COUNTY OF MACOMB My Commission Expires January 6, 2021 ACTING IN THE COUNTY OF MACOMff Premier Process Serving, L.L.C. 43622 Elizabeth Rd Clinton Twp, MI 48036 (586) 783-1200 Our Job Serial Number: PJC -2014003071 Service Fee: $.00 right 01992-2011 Database Services, Inc. - Process Servers Toolbox V6.5n Exhibit B SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Top,0 L 6.0w CAku-25 qQc So S 6"--ei \6 L talc . IN (7 81 A COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signa re X B. R: "eive.' • Printed Name) ❑ Agent ❑ Addressee C. Date of Delivery D. Is delivery address different from item .1? . ' ❑ Yes If YES, enter delivery address blow ` ` 0 No ,C_ JUL � 10 \ 20i4)) ❑ 3. Servjee Type /Certified Mail ❑ Registered 0 Insured Mail Expes Mail rU.Riturn Receipt for Merchandise 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7010 0780 0001 7127 6025 PS Form 3811, February 2004 0780 0001 7127 D ra Domestic Return Receipt U.S. Postal ServiceTM CERTIFIED MAIL,. RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.coma Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees 102595-02•M=154' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, I, Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire, of Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiffs, hereby certify that I served an Affidavit of Service this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Defendant Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford c/o Gregory E. Cassimatis, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Defendant Ford Motor Company c/o Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy 1205 Westlakes Drive, Suite 330 Berwyn, PA 19312 Date: 558096-1 , 2014 Andre. M. Cohick, Esquire METZGER, WICKERSHAM, P.C. By: Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 307410 By: Zachary D. Campbell, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 93177 2321 Paxton Church Road P.O. Box 69200 Harrisburg, PA 17106-9200 (717) 238-8187 OF THE Ifr� Z 'iy AUG I Ar iI: CtitY1BERLf a PENNS ANsr•1 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Daniel Baker and Ashley Baker DANIEL BAKER and ASHLEY BAKER, : Individually and as Husband and Wife, : Plaintiffs vs. JOAO L. GONCALVES; FAMILY FORD OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., T/D/B/A FAMILY FORD; and FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendants TO: Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 14-3146 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within Twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by 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, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-3166 549021-1 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomaraccion dentro de los proximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificacion de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado.una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar accion como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamacion o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME 0 VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO 0 BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-3166 549021-1 METZGER, WICKERSHAM, P.C. By: Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 307410 By: Zachary D. Campbell, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 93177 2321 Paxton Church Road P.O. Box 69200 Harrisburg, PA 17106-9200 (717) 238-8187 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Daniel Baker and Ashley Baker DANIEL BAKER and ASHLEY BAKER, : Individually and as Husband and Wife, : Plaintiffs vs. JOAO L. GONCALVES; FAMILY FORD OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., T/D/B/A FAMILY FORD; and FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 14-3146 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Daniel Baker and Ashley Baker, by and through their attorneys, Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, and respectfully represent the following: FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS 1. Plaintiffs, Daniel Baker and Ashley Baker, husband and wife, are adult individuals who reside at 1167 Black Gap Road, Fayetteville, Franklin County, Pennsylvania, 17222. 2. Defendant, Joao L. Goncalves, is an adult individual with a last known address of 49650 South Glacier, Northville, Michigan, 48168. 549021-1 3. Defendant Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford is a corporation organized and operating under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business located at 170 York Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. Defendant, Ford Motor Company, is a corporation organized and operating under the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of business located at 1 American Road, Dearborn, Michigan, 48126. 5. The facts and circumstances hereinafter set forth occurred on June 2, 2012, at or about 9:49 a.m. at or near the intersection of North Pitt Street and "1-1" Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6. At the aforesaid time and place, Plaintiff, Daniel Baker, was the passenger in a 2013 Ford Flex, bearing Pennsylvania Registration No. H02720H. 7. At the aforesaid time and place, Defendant Goncalves was the operator of the 2013 Ford Flex occupied by Plaintiff, which was owned by Defendants, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford and/or Ford Motor Company. 8. At the aforesaid time and place, Defendant Goncalves was operating the 2013 Ford Flex within the course and scope of employment, contract and/or agency with Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford and/or Ford Motor Company and was then acting as the agent, servant, employee, contractor and/or representative of Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford and/or Ford Motor Company. 9. At the aforesaid time and place, the vehicle occupied by Plaintiff, Daniel Baker, was traveling westbound on "H" Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania and they were subject to a properly posted stop sign at the intersection of "H" Street and Pitt Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 549021-1 10. At the aforesaid time and place, the Defendant, Joao L. Goncalves, failed to stop at the stop sign and entered the intersection directly into the path of a vehicle being operated by Joel Hicks, who was traveling northbound on Pitt Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and who had the right-of-way. 11. Because of the careless actions of the Defendant, Joao L. Goncalves, a violent collision occurred between the two vehicles. COUNT I DANIEL BAKER v. JOAO L. GONCALVES 12. Paragraphs 1 through 11 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 13. Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiff, Daniel Baker, and other lawful users of the roadways in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to operate the vehicle he was driving in such a way as not to cause harm or damage to said other persons and to the Plaintiff in particular. 14. The aforesaid collision was the direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Joao L. Goncalves, either individually and/or jointly and severally, in operating the 2013 Ford Flex in a careless and negligent manner as follows: (a) Failing to stop his vehicle at a clearly marked stop line before entering the intersection in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. §3323(b) and applicable law; (b) Failing to stop his vehicle at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where he had a clear view of approaching traffic on that intersecting roadway before entering it in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. §3323(b) and applicable law; (c) Failing to slowly pull forward from a stopped position to a point where he had a clear view of approaching traffic after stopping at a crosswalk or clearly marked stop line in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. §3323(b) and applicable law; 549021-1 (d) Failing to yield the right-of-way to another vehicle in the intersection or approaching the intersection in a manner contrary to a preferential right- of-way stop sign placed at the intersection or junction of roadways during the time that he was moving his vehicle across or within the intersection or junction of roadways in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. §3323(b) and applicable law; (e) Failing to slow or stop the vehicle he was operating so as to avoid a collision; (f) Failing to yield to the vehicle being operated by Joel Hicks; (g) Moving his vehicle when it was not safe to do so in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. §3333 and applicable law; (h) In operating the vehicle at an excessive rate of speed under the circumstances; (i) In failing to yield the right-of-way to traffic already upon the roadway; (j) Failing to obey traffic control devices in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. §3111 and applicable law; (k) Failing to yield the right-of-way in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. §3321 and applicable law; (1) Driving at an unsafe speed in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. 3361 and applicable law; (m) In driving the vehicle he was operating onto Pitt Street directly into the path of Joel Hicks' vehicle; (n) Operating his vehicle in careless disregard for the safety of persons and/or property in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. §3714 and applicable law; (o) In failing to apply the brakes to the vehicle he was operating or take other evasive action to avoid a collision with Joel Hicks' vehicle; (p) In failing to give warning to Plaintiff, Daniel Baker, of his impending collision with Joel Hicks' vehicle; (q) In failing to observe Joel Hicks' vehicle and other vehicles on the highway; (r) In failing to operate his vehicle in accordance with existing traffic conditions and traffic controls; 549021-1 (s) In failing to exercise the high degree of care required of a motorist entering an intersection; (t) In failing to keep alert and maintain a proper lookout for the presence of other motor vehicles on the streets and highways; (u) In failing to familiarize himself with the roadways and his surroundings; (v) In not paying attention to his surroundings; (w) In failing to keep his vehicle under proper and adequate control so as not to expose other users to an unreasonable risk of harm; (x) Colliding into Joel Hicks' vehicle; and (y) Proceeding without clearance from a stop sign. 15. As a direct and proximate result of the collision and the negligent and careless conduct of Defendant, Joao L. Goncalves, Plaintiff, Daniel Baker, sustained and in the future may sustain, serious and debilitating injuries, some of which are or may be permanent, an aggravation and/or exacerbation of pre-existing conditions, and which include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Low back pain/injury; (b) Right disc protrusion at L4-L5; (c) Small disc bulges at L3-L4 and L5-S1; (d) Lumbar radiculopathy; (e) Nerve damage; (f) Chronic pain syndrome; (g) Acute cervical strain; (h) Cervical spine tenderness; (i) Acute lumbar strain/sprain; (j) Neck pain/stiffness; (k) Elevated blood pressure; (1) Lower back pain that radiates down the right leg into the foot; (m) Right leg sciatica with radiculopathy; (n) Right thigh pain/tingling that radiates into the knee; (o) Neck pain/injury. 16. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid collision, negligence, and carelessness of Defendant, Plaintiff, Daniel Baker, has undergone and in the future will undergo 549021-1 physical pain, mental anguish, discomfort, inconvenience, distress, embarrassment and humiliation, past, present and future loss of his ability to enjoy the pleasures of life and limitations in his pursuit of daily activities all to his great loss and detriment for which damages are claimed. 17. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid collision, negligence and carelessness of Defendant, Joao L. Goncalves, Plaintiff, Daniel Baker, has and/or may in the future incur expenses for medical treatment and rehabilitation for which damages are claimed. 18. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid collision, negligence and carelessness of Defendant, Joao L. Goncalves, Plaintiff, Daniel Baker, has and/or may in the future incur a loss of wages, a loss of earning capacity, loss of household services and other economic damages for which damages are claimed. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid collision and the negligence and carelessness of Defendant, Joao L. Goncalves, Plaintiff, Daniel Baker, sustained incidental costs and losses to include, but not limited to, past and future medication costs and medical appliances. 20. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid collision and the negligence and carelessness of Defendant, Joao L. Goncalves, Plaintiff, Daniel Baker, has sustained or in the future may sustain scarring and disfigurement for which damages are claimed. 21. Plaintiffs were the named insureds on a policy of insurance issued to them by GEICO Insurance Company which was in effect on the date of the above referenced collision. Plaintiffs selected the limited tort option regarding that policy; however, Plaintiff, Daniel Baker, was a passenger in a commercial vehicle at the time and not a private passenger motor vehicle. Further, Plaintiff's injuries exceed the limited tort threshold. Therefore, Daniel Baker, remains 549021-1 eligible to claim compensation for non economic loss and economic loss sustained in this collision pursuant to applicable tort law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Daniel Baker, demands judgment in his favor and against the Defendant, Joao L. Goncalves, either individually and jointly and severally, for the aforesaid damages in an amount in excess of the limits of compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania plus interest and/or damages for delay and costs for prosecution. COUNT II DANIEL BAKER V. FAMILY FORD OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., T/D/B/A FAMILY FORD 22. Paragraphs 1 through 21 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 23. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Goncalves was an employee, servant, workman, agent, contractor and/or apparent agent of Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford, and was acting within the scope of his employment, contract or agency with Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford, and Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford, either individually and/or jointly and severally, is vicariously liable for his acts, commissions or omissions as though it performed the acts, commissions or omissions itself and is subject to the doctrine of respondeat superior. 24. In addition to being vicariously liable for the acts of its employee, servant, workman, contractor and/or agent, Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford, was also negligent and careless as follows: a. Failing to properly train their employees, servants, workmen, contractors and/or agents in the safe operation of vehicles; b. Failing to provide its employees, servants, workmen, contractors and/or agents with proper directions before allowing them the use of a vehicle; 549021-1 c. Failing to ensure that its employees, servants, workmen, contractors and/or agents are familiar with the roadways and route of travel before allowing them to operate a vehicle; d. Failing to properly supervise or control its employees, servants, workmen, contractors and/or agents while they are operating a vehicle; e. Hiring and/or retaining employees, servants, workmen, contractors and/or agents who may be unfit or incompetent to operate a vehicle; f. Failing to have in place proper procedures, rules, regulations, protocols or safety measures to ensure that other motorists are not endangered by its employees, servants, workmen, contractors and/or agents while operating a vehicle; g. Sending out its employee, servant, workman, contractor and/or agent for an errand or job without proper instructions, directions and guidance; h. Failing to take proper precautions to protect Plaintiff and other lawful users of the roadway from the negligent and careless actions of its employees, servants, workmen, contractors and/or agents. 25. As a result of the aforesaid negligence and carelessness of Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford, either individually, vicariously and/or jointly and severally, Plaintiff Daniel Baker sustained the aforesaid damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Daniel Baker demands judgment in his favor and against the Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford, either individually, vicariously and/or jointly and severally, for the aforesaid damages in an amount in excess of the limits of compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania plus interest and/or damages for delay and costs for prosecution. COUNT III DANIEL BAKER V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 26. Paragraphs 1 through 25 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 549021-1 27. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Goncalves was an employee, servant, workman, agent, contractor and/or apparent agent of Defendant, Ford Motor Company, and was acting within the scope of his employment, contract or agency with Defendant, Ford Motor Company, and Defendant, Ford Motor Company, either individually and/or jointly and severally, is vicariously liable for his acts, commissions or omissions as though it performed the acts, commissions or omissions itself and is subject to the doctrine of respondeat superior. 28. In addition to being vicariously liable for the acts of its employee, servant, workman, contractor and/or agent, Defendant, Ford Motor Company, was also negligent and careless as follows: a. Failing to properly train their employees, servants, workmen, contractors and/or agents in the safe operation of vehicles; b. Failing to provide its employees, servants, workmen, contractors and/or agents with proper directions before allowing them the use of a vehicle; c. Failing to ensure that its employees, servants, workmen, contractors and/or agents are familiar with the roadways and route of travel before allowing them to operate a vehicle; d. Failing to properly supervise or control its employees, servants, workmen, contractors and/or agents while they are operating a vehicle; e. Hiring and/or retaining employees, servants, workmen, contractors and/or agents who may be unfit or incompetent to operate a vehicle; f. Failing to have in place proper procedures, rules, regulations, protocols or safety measures to ensure that other motorists are not endangered by its employees, servants, workmen, contractors and/or agents while operating a vehicle; g. Sending out its employee, servant, workman, contractor and/or agent for an errand or job without proper instructions, directions and guidance; h. Failing to take proper precautions to protect Plaintiff and other lawful users of the roadway from the negligent and careless actions of its employees, servants, workmen, contractors and/or agents. 549021-1 29. As a result of the aforesaid negligence and carelessness of Defendant Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford, either individually, vicariously and/or jointly and severally, Plaintiff Daniel Baker sustained the aforesaid damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Daniel Baker demands judgment in his favor and against the Defendant Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford, either individually, vicariously and/or jointly and severally, for the aforesaid damages in an amount in excess of the limits of compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania plus interest and/or damages for delay and costs for prosecution. COUNT IV ASHLEY BAKER V. DEFENDANT, JOAO L. GONCALVES 30. Paragraphs 1 through 29 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 31. During all relevant times Plaintiffs, Daniel Baker and Ashley Baker, were husband and wife, and solely as a result of the collision, the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and recklessness of Defendant, Joao L. Goncalves, and as a result of the injuries to Plaintiff, Daniel Baker, the Plaintiff, Daniel Baker, has been deprived of the assistance, companionship, consortium and society of her husband and has lost his services to her which may continue indefinitely. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Ashley Baker, demands judgment in her favor and against Defendant, Joao L. Goncalves, either individually and/or jointly and severally, for the aforesaid damages in an amount in excess of the limits of compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania plus interest and/or damages for delay and costs for prosecution. 549021-1 COUNT V ASHLEY BAKER V. DEFENDANT, FAMILY FORD OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., T/D/B/A FAMILY FORD 32. Paragraphs 1 through 31 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 33. During all relevant times Plaintiffs, Daniel Baker and Ashley Baker, were husband and wife, and solely as a result of the collision, the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and recklessness of Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford, and as a result of the injuries to Plaintiff, Daniel Baker, the Plaintiff, Ashley Baker, has been deprived of the assistance, companionship, consortium and society of her husband and has lost his services to her which may continue indefinitely. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Ashley Baker, demands judgment in her favor and against Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford, either individually and/or jointly and severally, for the aforesaid damages in an amount in excess of the limits of compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania plus interest and/or damages for delay and costs for prosecution. COUNT VI ASHLEY BAKER V. DEFENDANT, FORD MOTOR COMPANY 34. Paragraphs 1 through 33 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 35. During all relevant times Plaintiffs, Daniel Baker and Ashley Baker, were husband and wife, and solely as a result of the collision, the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and recklessness of Defendant, Ford Motor Company, and as a result of the injuries to Plaintiff, Daniel Baker, the Plaintiff, Ashley Baker, has been deprived of the assistance, companionship, 549021-1 consortium and society of her husband and has lost his services to her which may continue indefinitely. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Ashley Baker, demands judgment in her favor and against Defendant, Ford Motor Company, either individually and/or jointly and severally, for the aforesaid damages in an amount in excess of the limits of compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania plus interest and/or damages for delay and costs for prosecution. Date: 549021-1 , 2014 METZGERWICKERSHA By K AUS & ERB, P.C. Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire I.D. No. 307410 Zachary D. Campbell, Esquire I.D. No. 93177 2321 Paxton Church Road P.O. Box 69200 Harrisburg, PA 17106-9200 (717) 238-8187 Attorneys for Plaintiffs VERIFICATION I, Daniel Baker, hereby certify that the following is correct: The facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are based upon information which I have furnished to counsel, as well as upon information which has been gathered by counsel and/or others acting on my behalf in this matter. The language of the Complaint is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Complaint, and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. To the extent that the content of the Complaint is that of counsel, I have relied upon such counsel in making this Verification. I hereby acknowledge that the facts set forth in the aforesaid Complaint are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: VA' 554261-1 Daniel Baker VERIFICATION I, Ashley Baker, hereby certify that the following is correct: The facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are based upon information which I have furnished to counsel, as well as upon information which has been gathered by counsel and/or others acting on my behalf in this matter. The language of the Complaint is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Complaint, and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. To the extent that the content of the Complaint is that of counsel, I have relied upon such counsel in making this Verification. I hereby acknowledge that the facts set forth in the aforesaid Complaint are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: SfA{ �( 554261-1 Ashley Baker lacukt& CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire, of the law firm of Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Complaint with reference to the foregoing action by first class mail, postage prepaid, this ka day of 2014 on the following: VIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND REGULAR MAIL Defendant Joao L. Goncalves 49650 S. Glacier Northville, MI 48168 VIA REGULAR MAIL Defendant Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford c/o Gregory E. Cassimatis, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Defendant Ford Motor Company c/o William J. Conroy, Esquire Tiffany M. Alexander, Esquire Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire Campbell Campbell Edwards & Conroy, P.C. 1205 Westlakes Drive, Suite 330 Berwyn, PA 19312 .nN/rVI� Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire 549021-1 CAMPBELL CAMPBELL EDWARDS & CONROY, P.C. By: William J. Conroy, Esquire Tiffany M. Alexander, Esquire Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire Attorney I.D. Nos. 36433/88681/90343 1205 Westlakes Drive, Suite 330 Berwyn PA 19312 Phone: 610-964-1900 Fax: 610-964-1981 Attorneys for Defendant, Ford Motor Company and Joao L. Goncalves DANIEL BAKER and ASHLEY BAKER, I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS i Individually and as Husband and Wife, I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs ' No.: 14-3146 — Civil v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOAO L. GONCALVES; FAMILY FORD OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., T/D/B/A 1 rri m FAMILY FORD; and FORD MOTOR i -0 COMPANY --<> ui > CD C) Defendants „.. ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND JURY DEMAND Kindly enter the appearances of William J. Conroy, Esquire, Tiffany M. Alexander, Esquire, and Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire as counsel on behalf of Defendant, Joao L. Goncalves in the above -captioned matter A jury of twelve is demanded CAMPBELL BE Ejrd S & CONROY, PC By: Dated: September 3, 2014 William J. Co • , Esquire Tiffany M. Alexander, Esquire Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire, hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance and Jury Demand to be served via U.S. First Class Mail, postage prepaid, upon the following persons at the address and the date set forth below: Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire Zachary D. Campbell, Esquire Metzger Wickersham, P.C. 2321 Paxton Church Road PO Box 69200 Harrisburg PA 17106-9200 Gregory E. Cassimatis, Esquire 49999 Louis Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg PA 17055 Christopher G. Mavros, E) . re Date: September 3, 2014 TO: ALL PARTIES YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HERETO 0 DGMENT MAY BE ENTD AGA Christopher G. Mavros, squire Attomey for Defendants CAMPBELL CAMPBELL EDWARDS & CONROY, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant, By: William J. Conroy, Esquire Tiffany M. Alexander, Esquire Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire Attorney I.D. Nos. 36433/88681/90343 1205 Westlakes Drive, Suite 330 Berwyn PA 19312 Phone: 610-964-1900 Fax: 610-964-1981 Ford Motor Company DANIEL BAKER and ASHLEY BAKER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Individually and as Husband and Wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. No.: 14-3146 – Civil CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOAO L. GONCALVES; FAMILY FORD OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., T/D/B/A FAMILY FORD; and FORD MOTOR COMPANY Defendants C-) -v a Fri cap cn - 74- cp r- (4,_ DEFENDANTS, FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND JOAO GONCALVES' ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT And Now, the undersigned counsel, on behalf of the Defendants, Ford Motor Company and Joao Goncalves (hereinafter "Answering Defendants"), set forth the following Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Admitted. 3. Denied. The allegations in this averment are directed to parties other than Answering Defendants. Accordingly, Answering Defendants deny those allegations, as they are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 8. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Answering 2 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response all averments of agency are specifically denied. 9. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 10. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 11. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. COUNT I DANIEL BAKER v. JOAO L. GONCAVES 12. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 — 11 of its Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 13. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 14(a) -(y). Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph, including each and every sub set, are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 15(a) -(o). Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph, including each and every sub set, are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, Answering Defendants specifically deny any such allegations as they are without sufficient knowledge or information as to what, if any, injuries or damages Plaintiff sustained. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 4 16. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, Answering Defendants specifically deny any such allegations as they are without sufficient knowledge or information as to what, if any, injuries or damages Plaintiff sustained. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 17. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are, conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, Answering Defendants specifically deny any such allegations as they are without sufficient knowledge or information as to what, if any, injuries or damages Plaintiff sustained. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 18. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, Answering Defendants specifically deny any such allegations as they are without sufficient knowledge or infoimation as to what, if any, injuries or damages Plaintiff sustained. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 5 19. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, Answering Defendants specifically deny any such allegations as they are without sufficient knowledge or information as to what, if any, injuries or damages Plaintiff sustained. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 20. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, Answering Defendants specifically deny any such allegations as they are without sufficient knowledge or information as to what, if any, injuries or damages Plaintiff sustained. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 21. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, Answering Defendants specifically deny any such allegations as they are without sufficient knowledge or information as to what, if any, injuries or damages Plaintiff sustained. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 6 WHEREFORE, Defendants, Joao Goncalves and Ford Motor Company, hereby demand judgment in their favor and against all other parties, along with costs of suit and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. COUNT II DANIEL BAKER v. FAMILY FORD OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., T/D/B/A FAMILY FORD 22. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 — 21 of its Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 23. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are directed to parties other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, no response is required from these Answering Defendants. To the extent a response is required from these Answering Defendants, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, all averments of agency are specifically denied. 24(a) -(h). Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph, including each and every sub set, are directed to parties other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, no response is required from these Answering Defendants. To the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants deny such allegations, including the sub paragraphs, as they are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Answering 7 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, Answering Defendants specifically deny any and all averments of agency in this paragraph, including sub sets. 25. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are directed to parties other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, no response is required from these Answering Defendants. To the extent a response is required from these Answering Defendants, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, Answering Defendants specifically deny any such allegations as they are without sufficient knowledge or information as to what, if any, injuries or damages Plaintiff sustained. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, all averments of agency are specifically denied. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Joao Goncalves and Ford Motor Company, hereby demand judgment in their favor and against all other parties, along with costs of suit and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. COUNT III DANIEL BAKER v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 26. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 — 25 of its Answer to Plaintiff s Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 27. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent these 8 allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 28(a) -(h). Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph, including each and every sub set, are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, all averments of agency are specifically denied. 29. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, Answering Defendants specifically deny any such allegations as they are without sufficient knowledge or information as to what, if any, injuries or damages Plaintiff sustained. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, all averments of agency are specifically denied. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Joao Goncalves and Ford Motor Company, hereby demand judgment in their favor and against all other parties, along with costs of suit and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. 9 COUNT IV ASHLEY BAKER v. JOAO L. GONCAVES 30, Answering Defendants hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 — 29 of its Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 31. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, Answering Defendants specifically deny any such allegations as they are without sufficient knowledge or information as to what, if any, injuries or damages Plaintiff sustained. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Joao Goncalves and Ford Motor Company, hereby demand judgment in their favor and against all other parties, along with costs of suit and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. COUNT V ASHLEY BAKER v. FAMILY FORD OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., T/D/B/A FAMILY FORD 32. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 — 31 of its Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 33. Denied. The allegations in this paragraph are directed to parties other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, no response is required from these Answering Defendants. To the extent a response is required from these Answering Defendants, the allegations contained 10 in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, Answering Defendants specifically deny any such allegations as they are without sufficient knowledge or information as to what, if any, injuries or damages Plaintiff sustained. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, all averments of agency are specifically denied. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Joao Goncalves and Ford Motor Company, hereby demand judgment in their favor and against all other parties, along with costs of suit and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. COUNT VI ASHLEY BAKER v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 34. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 — 33 of its Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 35. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, Answering Defendants specifically deny any such allegations as they are without sufficient knowledge or information as to what, if any, injuries or damages Plaintiff sustained. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 11 WHEREFORE, Defendants, Joao Goncalves and Ford Motor Company, hereby demand judgment in their favor and against all other parties, along with costs of suit and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. NEW MATTER 36. Answering Defendants incorporate, by this reference, paragraphs 1 through 35, inclusive of its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint, as fully as though the same were herein set forth at length. 37. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to set forth a claim upon which relief can be granted. 38. Plaintiffs' allegations may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 39. Defendants performed each and every duty, if any, owed to Plaintiff. 40. Plaintiff is barred from any recovery because Plaintiffs' alleged damages were caused by the acts or omissions of third persons over whom Defendants exercised no control and for whose conduct Defendants bear no responsibility. 41. No act or omission on the part of Defendants was the proximate legal direct cause of, or a substantial contributing factor to, Plaintiff's alleged damages. 42. Plaintiffs are barred from recovery in whole or in part because Plaintiffs' alleged damages were caused by Plaintiffs own negligent conduct. 43. Plaintiffs may have assumed the risk of the activities and/or the risk of a known danger. 44. The acts or omissions of individuals or entities beyond the control of Defendants may have constituted intervening, superseding causes of the alleged incident and claimed damages. 12 45. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred either in full or in part by Plaintiffs' comparative fault, contributory negligence, recklessness and/or carelessness. 46. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the doctrine of spoliation of evidence. 47. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the doctrine of release. 48. Plaintiffs are barred from any recovery because Plaintiffs' conduct, considered alone or in conjunction with that of other third -parties over whom Defendants have no control, was the sole proximate cause of Plaintiffs' alleged injuries and damages. 49. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages. 50. Defendants were not negligent. 51. Defendants did not breach any duties allegedly owed to Plaintiffs. 52. Plaintiffs failed to join an indispensable party and/or indispensable parties. 53. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the provisions of Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 54. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or substantially limited by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 55. Plaintiff's claims are barred and/or limited by the limited tort option which may have been selected pursuant to the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S.A. 1705. 56. Plaintiffs may not recover any item of damages paid or payable by provisions prescribed and set forth in the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 13 WHEREFORE, Defendants, Joao Goncalves and Ford Motor Company, hereby demand judgment in their favor and against all other parties, along with costs of suit and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, CAMPBE4.vP,4110B., .t_svi By: Dated: September 3, 2014 CONROY, PC . Conroy, Esquire Tiffany M. Alexander, Esquire Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire Attorneys for Defendants, Joao Goncalves and Ford Motor Company 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire, hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants, Ford Motor Company and Joao Goncalves' Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint to be served via U.S. First Class Mail, postage prepaid, upon the following persons at the address and the date set forth below: Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire Zachary D. Campbell, Esquire Metzger Wickersham, P.C. 2321 Paxton Church Road PO Box 69200 Harrisburg PA 17106-9200 Gregory E. Cassimatis, Esquire 49999 Louis Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg PA 17055 Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire Date: September 3, 2014 VERIFICATION , hereby depose and state that I am ck D L. 6iva4 wz3' of 1 ,LO d o/012_ Gv—, I am/ authorized to make this Verification on its behalf, and that the statements made in the foregoing ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Dated: 013 12Y 'ZU/ JESSICA CLARK Notary Public, State of Michigan County of Wayne 19 My Commission Expires .3`f7� Acting In the County of DAMIAN PORCH, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is an authorized agent of Ford Motor Company, and that he verifies the foregoing Defendants Ford Motor Company And Joao Goncalves' Answer With New Matter To Plaintiff's Complaint, for and on behalf of Ford Motor Company, that the matters stated therein are not within the personal knowledge of deponent; that the facts stated therein have been assembled by authorized employees and counsel of Ford Motor Company, and deponent is informed that the facts stated therein are true. Sub t 6• - II t b f re me / / 4 c . , -4 2014. I' t No LINDA G. SINGH NOTARY PUBLIC -STATE My Commission Acting in rub C 7 DAMIAN PORCARI GREGORY E. CASSIMATIS, Esquire Attorney I.D. # 49619 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 791-0400 DANIEL BAKER and ASHLEY BAKER, Individually and as Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs v. JOAO L. GONCALVES, FAMILY FORD OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., T/D/B/A FAMILY FORD and FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant (-) ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDAN...4 Family Ford of Pennsylvania, t Family Ford cin -<> r- ,; dc.. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA cr f..'I cr.; : NO.: 14-3146 CIVIL : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VDU OE oidki A WRITTENAMMaTLIFLE ENCLOSED WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FRO I SERVICE HEREOF OR AJUDDIENT MAY SO ENTERED MANN MIL DEFENDANT'S FAMILY FORD OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC. t/d/b/a FAMILY FORD'S ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 1031.1 TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford by and through its counsel and files the following Answer with New Matter and New Matter Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 to Plaintiffs' Complaint and avers as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and the same are being denied and strict proof thereof demanded. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and the same are being denied and strict proof thereof demanded. 3. Admitted 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the avelinents in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and the same are being denied and strict proof thereof demanded. 5. Admitted on infoiiiiation and belief. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to for iii a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and the same are being denied and strict proof thereof demanded. 7. It is admitted on infoimation and belief that Defendant, Goncalves was the operator of the 2013 Ford Flex occupied by Plaintiff. It is specifically denied that, at the aforesaid time and place, Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc. t/d/b/a Family Ford was the legal owner of the 2013 Ford Flex drop shipped to Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford for the purpose of Defendant, Ford Motor Company's use and/or display at the 2012 Carlisle Ford Nationals Event in Carlisle, PA. On the contrary, it is believed and therefore averred that, at the aforesaid time and place, Defendant, Ford Motor Company was the legal owner of the 2013 Ford Flex drop shipped to Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford for the purpose of Defendant, Ford Motor Company's use and/or display at the 2012 Carlisle Ford Nationals Event in Carlisle, PA. 8. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff's Complaint constitute legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Goncalves was operating the 2013 Ford Flex within the course and scope of employment, contract and/or agency with Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc. t/d/b/a Family Ford and it is specifically denied that Defendant, Goncalves was acting as the agent, servant, employee, contractor and/or representative of Defendant, Family Ford Of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford. By way of further Answer, Defendant Goncalves, at the aforesaid time and place, was the agent, servant and employee of Defendant, Ford Motor Company. 9. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) and as a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. 10. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) and as a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. 11. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) and as a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. COUNT I DANIEL BAKER v. JOAO L. GONCALVES 12.-21. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 12-21 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendant and, therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc. t/d/b/a Family Ford demands judgment in its favor and against all other parties, together with costs of suit. COUNT II DANIEL BAKER v. FAMILY FORD OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC. t/d/b/a FAMILY FORD 22. The Answering Defendant incorporates its Answers to Paragraphs 1-21 above, by reference, as if fully set forth at length. 23. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, it is specifically denied that at all times relevant hereto, Defendant, Goncalves was an employee, servant, workman, agent, contractor and/or apparent agent of Defendant Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc. t/d/b/a Family Ford and was acting within the course and scope of his employment, contract or agency with Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc. t/d/b/a Family Ford. On the contrary, at all times relevant herein, Defendant, Goncalves was the agent, servant and employee of Defendant, Ford Motor Company. 24. (a) -(h) Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) and as a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. • 25. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) and as a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc. t/d/b/a Family Ford demands judgment in its favor and against all other parties, together with costs of suit. COUNT III DANIEL BAKER v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 26.-29! The allegations contained in Paragraphs 26-29 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendant and, therefore, no response is required.. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc. t/d/b/a Family Ford demands judgment in its favor and against all other parties, together with costs of suit. COUNT IV ASHLEY BAKER v. JOAO L. GONCALVES 30.-31. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 30-31 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendant and, therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc. t/d/b/a Family Ford demands judgment in its favor and against all other parties, together with costs of suit. COUNT V ASHLEY BAKER v. FAMILY FORD OF PENNSYLANIA, INC. t/d/b/a FAMILY FORD 32. The Answering Defendant incorporates its Answers to Paragraphs 1-32 above, by reference, as if fully set forth at length. 33. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) and as a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc. t/d/b/a Family Ford demands judgment in its favor and against all other parties, together with costs of suit. COUNT VI ASHLEY BAKER v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 34.-35. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 34-35 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendant and, therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc. t/d/b/a Family Ford demands judgment in its favor and against all other parties, together with costs of suit. NEW MATTER 36. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to set forth a cause of action upon which relief can be granted against the Answering Defendant. 37. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole, or in part, by application of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and the Answering Defendant asserts as affirmative defenses, all rights, privileges and/or immunities pursuant to said Statute. 38. Plaintiffs have selected the limited tort option or is deemed to have selected the limited tort option pursuant to 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1705 and the Answering Defendant sets forth the relevant provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law as far as the Plaintiffs' ability to recover non -economic damages. 39. Plaintiffs are barred from any recovery because Plaintiffs' alleged damages were caused by the acts or omissions of third persons over whom the Answering Defendant exercised no control and for whose conduct the Answering Defendant bears no responsibility. 40. Plaintiffs are barred from recovery in whole or in part pursuant to the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 41. Plaintiff may have assumed the risk of the activities and/or the risk of a known danger. 42. The acts or omissions of individuals or entities beyond the control of the Answering Defendant may have constituted intervening, superseding causes of the alleged incident and claimed damages. 43. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred either in whole or in part by Plaintiff's comparative fault, contributory negligence, recklessness and/or carelessness. 44. Plaintiffs are barred from any recovery because Plaintiff's conduct, considered alone or in conjunction with that of other third -parties over whom the Answering Defendant has or had no control. 45. Plaintiffs failed to join a necessary and indispensable party or parties to this litigation. 46. The Answering Defendant was not negligent. 47. The Answering Defendant did not breach any duties allegedly owed to Plaintiffs. 48. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages. 49. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. 50. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the doctrine of Release. 51. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, Joao L. Goncalves was not the employee, servant, workman, agent or contractor of Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc. t/d/b/a Family Ford. 52. Any acts or omissions of the Answering Defendant alleged to constitute negligence were not factual causes of the subject incident and/or did not result in the injuries and/or losses of Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc. t/d/b/a Family Ford demands judgment in its favor and against all other parties, together with costs of suit. NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 FAMILY FORD OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC. t/d/b/a FAMILY FORD v. JOAO L. GONCALVES AND FORD MOTOR COMPANY 53. Paragraphs 1-52 of the Answering Defendant's Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 54. The Answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference all well pleaded averments and causes of action as stated by Plaintiffs in their Complaint. The Answering Defendant denies all averments of liability, but if, upon adjudication of Plaintiffs' cause of action, it is judicially determined that said Defendant is liable to the Plaintiffs, said liability being expressly denied, then said liability would have been caused or contributed to by the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of Co -Defendants, Joao L. Goncalves and Ford Motor Company, for which claim is hereby made for contribution and/or indemnity. 55. As the direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Defendants, Joao L. Goncalves and Ford Motor Company are alone liable to Plaintiffs or liable over to the Answering Defendant or jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc. t/d/b/a Family Ford demands indemnity and/or contribution as the Court would deem appropriate in its favor and against Defendants, Joao L. Goncalves and Ford Motor Company and demands that said Defendants be found solely liable to the Plaintiffs, jointly and severally liable with the Answering Defendant or liable over to the Answering Defendant as in contribution or indemnity. Date: /5"---/Y By: Gregory Attorney for Defendant Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford assimatis, Esquire VERIFICATION I, Mark Danowitz, President, Family Ford, a Defendant herein, verify that 1 am authorized to execute this Verification and verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Defendant's Answer with New Matter and New Matter Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 to PlaintiffsComplaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. To the extent that the contents of the Defendant's Answer with New Matter and New Matter Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 to Plaintiffs' Complaint are that of counsel, 1 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 =sworn falsification to authorities. ark Danowitz, Presi CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 15'h day of September, 2014, I, Gregory E. Cassimatis, Esquire, Attorney for Defendant Family Ford of Pennsylvania, t/d/b/a Family Ford hereby certify that I served a copy of the within Defendant's Answer with New Matter by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire Zachary D. Campbell, Esquire METZGER, WICKERSHAM, P.C. 2321 Paxton Church Road PO Box 69200 Harrisburg, PA 17106-9200 (Attorney for Plaintiffs) William J. Conroy, Esquire Tiffany M. Alexander, Esquire Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC 1205 West Lakes Drive, Suite 230 Berwyn, PA 19312 (Attorneys for Joao L. Goncalves and Ford Motor Company) By: Gregy1. Cassimatis, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 791-0400 Attorney LD. # 49619 METZGER, WICKERSHAM, P.C. By: Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 307410 By: Zachary D. Campbell, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 93177 2321 Paxton Church Road P.O. Box 69200 Harrisburg, PA 17106-9200 (717) 238-8187 1 F.'LED-OFFICE HE PRO THONO TAR( 21.114 SEP 22 PM !:G CUMBEF\IA NO COUNTY PENNS YLVA Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Daniel Baker and Ashley Baker DANIEL BAKER and ASHLEY BAKER, : Individually and as Husband and Wife, : Plaintiffs vs. JOAO L. GONCALVES; FAMILY FORD OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., T/D/B/A FAMILY FORD; and FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 14-3146 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Defendants Joao L. Goncalves and Ford Motor Company Oo Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy 1205 Westlakes Drive, Suite 330 Berwyn, PA 19312 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Plaintiffs' Preliminary Objections to Defendants' Answer With New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or judgment may be entered against you. 561499-1 METZGE , WICKERSHAM, SS ERB, P.C. By Andrea M. Cohick, 'squire I.D. No. 307410 2321 Paxton Church Road P.O. Box 69200 Harrisburg, PA 171006-9200 (717) 238-8187 Date: 111 Y Vi,l, I D , 2014 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 561499-1 METZGER, WICKERSHAM, P.C. By: Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire Attorney T.D. No. 307410 By: Zachary D. Campbell, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 93177 2321 Paxton Church Road P.O. Box 69200 Harrisburg, PA 17106-9200 (717) 238-8187 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Daniel Baker and Ashley Baker DANIEL BAKER and ASHLEY BAKER, : Individually and as Husband and Wife, : Plaintiffs vs. JOAO L. GONCALVES; FAMILY FORD OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., T/D/B/A FAMILY FORD; and FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 14-3146 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS, DANIEL BAKER AND ASHLEY BAKER, TO DEFENDANTS, FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND JOAO GONCALVES' ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Plaintiffs, Daniel Baker and Ashley Baker, Individually and as Husband and Wife, by and through their counsel, Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, and preliminarily objects to Defendants, Ford Motor Company and Joao Goncalves' Answer With New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint, and avers the following in support thereof: 561499-1 1 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. Plaintiff initiated the above -captioned action by the filing of a Praecipe for Writ of Summons and a Writ was issued on May 23, 2014 for injuries Plaintiff, Daniel Baker, sustained in a motor vehicle collision on June 2, 2012 (see, Writ attached as Exhibit "A"). 2. Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford was served with the issued Writ by the Cumberland County Sheriff on May 28, 2014. 3. Defendant, Ford Motor Company, was served with the Writ by certified mail through the United States Postal Service on June 5, 2014. 4. Gregory Cassimatis, Esquire entered his appearance on behalf of Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford on July 25, 2014. 5. The law offices of Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, P.C. entered their appearance on behalf of the Defendant, Ford Motor Company, on July 2, 2014. 6. Defendant, Joao L. Goncalves, was served by a process server from the State of Michigan on July 17, 2014. 7. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint with the Cumberland County Prothonotary's office on August 14, 2014 (see, Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit "A"). 8. On or about September 3, 2014, the law offices of Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, P.C. entered their appearance on behalf of the Defendant, Joao L. Goncalves. 9. Counsel for Defendants Ford Motor Company and Joao L. Goncalves filed their Answer With New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint on September 3, 2014 (see, Answer With New Matter attached hereto as Exhibit "B"). 561499-1 2 10. Plaintiffs file the following Preliminary Objections to Defendants, Ford Motor Company and Joao L. Goncalves' Answer With New Matter pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 1028 and applicable law. II. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS' ANSWER, PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. NO. 1019, CONTENTS OF PLEADINGS/GENERAL AND SPECIFIC AVERMENTS, PA. R.C.P. NO. 1028(a)(2), FAILURE OF A PLEADING TO CONFORM TO LAW OR RULE OF COURT AND PA. R.C.P. NO. 1028(a)(3), INSUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY IN A PLEADING. 11. The averments contained in Paragraphs 1 through 10 are incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in their entirety. 12. In their Answer With New Matter, Defendants use general denials of all the averments in the Complaint including paragraphs 5-11, 13-21, 27-29, 31 and 35 which relate to ownership and operation of the motor vehicle, dates, times and facts surrounding the accident and agency or employment. 13. Plaintiffs preliminarily object to the use of general denials because they are not sufficiently specific and do not adequately inform the Plaintiffs as to the Defendants' position on the basic facts of the accident. 14. Pennsylvania is a fact pleading jurisdiction and Pa. R.C.P. No. 1019(a) requires that the material facts upon which a defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form. 561499-1 3 15. An Answer does not comport with Pa. R.C.P. 1029(b) and/or Pa. R.C.P. 1019(a) if the denial is patently insufficient since it is clear that the defendant must know whether or not a particular allegation is true or not. Cercone v. Cercone, 254 Pa. Super. 381, 386 A.2d 1 (1978). 16. Pa, R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) allows preliminary objections to be filed for failure of a pleading to conform to law or rule of court. 17. Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) requires that in actions "seeking monetary relief for bodily injury...averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required may be denied generally except the following averments of fact which must be denied specifically: (a) averments relating to the identity of the person by whom a material act was committed, the agency or employment of such person and the ownership, possession or control of the property or instrumentality involved." (emphasis supplied) 18. The answers in question are general denials which are impermissible and contrary to the rules and law. 19. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has emphasized the paramount importance of specificity in a complaint in Connor v. Allegheny General Hospital, 501 Pa. 306, 461 A.2d 600 (1983) and it is Plaintiffs' position that Defendants' Answer should likewise be held to the same standards established in Connor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court issue an Order requiring Defendants to more specifically plead, in accordance with the Rules and law, paragraphs 5-11, 13-21, 27-29, 31 and 35 of their Answer. 561499-1 4 III. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER, PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. NO. 1028(a)(3), INSUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY IN A PLEADING. 20. The averments contained in Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in their entirety. 21. Defendants' New Matter contained in paragraphs 37-56 of their response contains no factual averments and are simply legal conclusory statements. 22. Pa. R.C.P. 1019(a) requires that a party state in a concise and summary form the material facts upon which a cause of action or defense is based. 23. Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) and (3) states as follows: (a) Preliminary Objections may be filed by any party to any pleading and are limited to the following grounds: (2) failure of a pleading to conform to law or rule of court or inclusion of scandalous or impertinent matter; (3) insufficient specificity in a pleading. 24. Paragraphs 38, 42, 45, 46, 48, 52, 54 and 55 of Defendant's Answer With New Matter raise an affirmative defense that is unsupported by any factual averments or attached writings, and is in fact plainly false in light of evidence on the record. Those paragraphs state: 38. Plaintiffs' allegations may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 561499-1 42. Plaintiffs are barred from recovery in whole or in part because Plaintiffs' alleged damages were caused by Plaintiff's own negligent conduct. 5 45. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred either in full or in part by Plaintiffs' comparative fault, contributory negligence, recklessness and/or carelessness. 46. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the doctrine of spoliation of evidence. 48. Plaintiffs are barred from any recovery because Plaintiffs' conduct, considered alone or in conjection with that of other third -parties over whom Defendants have no control, was the sole proximate cause of Plaintiffs' alleged injuries and damages. 52. Plaintiffs failed to join an indispensable party and/or indispensable parties. 54. Plaintiff's claims are barred and/or substantially limited by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 55. Plaintiff's claims are barred and/or limited by the limited tort option which may have been selected pursuant to the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. c.S.A. 1705. 25. The accident in the within matter occurred on June 2, 2012. Plaintiffs filed suit on May 23, 2014 and the Defendants were properly served under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 26. In Plaintiffs' Complaint, Plaintiff, Daniel Baker, advised that even though he selected the limited tort option on his GEICO Insurance Company policy, he was a passenger in a commercial vehicle at the time and not a private passenger motor vehicle. Further, Plaintiff, Daniel Baker's injuries exceed the limited tort threshold. 27. Defendants have not provided any factual averments whatsoever supporting their claim that the Statute of Limitations have expired, that Plaintiff is bound by the limited tort option, how he was negligent in this accident since he was a passenger, and how he failed to name indispensable parties to the action. 561499-1 6 28. The absence of any factual averments in Paragraphs 38, 42, 45, 46, 48, 52, 54 and 55 of Defendants' New Matter clearly violates Rule 1019(a). Thus, Paragraphs 38, 42, 45, 46, 48, 52, 54 and 55 of Defendants' New Matter is subject to a Motion to Strike. 29. Paragraphs 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 47, 49, 50, 51, 53 and 56 of Defendant's New Matter raises alleged affirmative defenses, but fail to set forth any material facts giving rise to such defenses as required by Rule 1019(a). Those paragraphs state as follows: 37. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to set forth a claim upon which relief can be granted. 39. Defendants performed each and every duty, if any, owed to Plaintiff. 40. Plaintiff is barred from any recovery because Plaintiffs' alleged damages were caused by the acts or omissions of third persons over whom Defendants exercised no control and for whose conduct Defendants bear no responsibility. 41. No act or omission on the part of Defendants was the proximate legal direct cause of, or a substantial contributing factor to, Plaintiffs' alleged damages. 43. Plaintiffs may have assumed the risk of the activities and/or the risk of a known danger. 44. The acts or omissions of individuals or entities beyond the control of Defendants may have constituted intervening, superseding causes of the alleged incident and claimed damages. 47. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the doctrine of release. 49. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages. 50. Defendants were not negligent. 51. Defendants did not breach any duties allegedly owed to Plaintiffs. 53. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the provisions of Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 56. Plaintiffs may not recover any item of damages paid or payable by provisions prescribed and set forth in the Pennsylvania motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 30. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's holding in Connor v. Allegheny General Hospital, 461 A.2d 600 (1983), stands for the proposition that preliminary objections should remedy general averments in pleadings. To deny plaintiffs this relief would in effect force a 561499-1 7 plaintiff to engage in extensive discovery to disprove a factually unsupported allegation. Id. Rather, the court should place this burden of proof upon the defendant who wishes to assert the allegation. Id. (citing Allen, 8 Pa. D. & C.4th 393). The Connor holding has been equally applied to defendants with regard to pleading proposed defenses. 31. The absence of any factual averments in Paragraphs 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 47, 49, 50, 51, 53 and 56 of Defendants's New Matter clearly violates Rule 1019(a). Thus, Paragraphs 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 47, 49, 50, 51, 53 and 56 of Defendants' New Matter are subject to a Motion to Strike. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court issue an Order striking paragraphs 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 47, 49, 50, 51, 53 and 56 of Defendants' New Matter and/or require Defendants to more specifically plead, in accordance with the Rules and law, their New Matter. Date: 561499-1 METZG By NAUSS E a M. Cohick, Esqui e I.D. No. 307410 2321 Paxton Church Road P.O. Box 69200 Harrisburg, PA 17106-9200 (717) 238-8187 2014 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 8 , P.C. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, I, Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire, of Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiffs, hereby certify that I served a Plaintiffs' Preliminary Objections to Defendants, Ford Motor Company and Joao Goncalves' Answer With New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Defendant Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford c/o Gregory E. Cassimatis, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Defendant Ford Motor Company Defendant Joao L. Goncalves c/o Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy 1205 Westlakes Drive, Suite 330 Berwyn, PA 19312 Date: 561499-1 , 2014 Cart Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire 9 METZGER, WICKERSHAM, P.C. By: Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 307410 By: Zachary D. Campbell, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 93177 2321 Paxton Church Road P.O. Box 69200 Harrisburg, PA 17106-9200 (717) 238-8187 ' OCT -I P1112 27 CUMBERLAND IQ PENNSYLVANIA Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Daniel Baker and Ashley Baker DANIEL BAKER and ASHLEY BAKER, : Individually and as Husband and Wife, : Plaintiffs vs. JOAO L. GONCALVES; FAMILY FORD OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., T/D/B/A FAMILY FORD; and FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 14-3146 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT FAMILY FORD OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., T/DB/A FAMILY FORD 53. Paragraph 53 is an incorporationparagraph and no reply required. To the extent a reply is required, Defendants' Answer is admitted to the extent that it admits the allegations contained in Plaintiff's Complaint. Defendants' Answer is denied to the extent that it denies the allegations contained in Plaintiff's Complaint. 54. Conclusions of law, no reply required. If a reply is required, the averments are 562053-1 specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029(e). By way of further reply, Defendants were negligent, and their negligence was a substantial factor or factual cause or legal cause or the proximate cause in the happening of the accident and Plaintiff's injuries as set forth in the Complaint filed in this action which is incorporated herein by reference. 55. Conclusions of law, no reply required. If a reply is required, the averments are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029(e). By way of further reply, Defendants were negligent, and their negligence was a substantial factor or factual cause or legal cause or the proximate cause in the happening of the accident and Plaintiffs injuries as set forth in the Complaint filed in this action which is incorporated herein by reference. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Daniel Baker and Ashley Baker, respectfully requests that Defendant Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford's New Matter be dismissed and that judgment be entered in its favor and against Defendants as requested in the Complaint filed in this action. METZG ICKERSHAM, KNA SS & ERB, P.C. By Date: 562053-1 ii\_,1), I, L ilo An rea M. Cohick, Esq re I.D. No. 307410 2321 Paxton Church Road P.O. Box 69200 Harrisburg, PA 17106-9200 (717) 238-8187 Attorneys for Plaintiffs VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby certifies that she is the attorney for the Plaintiffs, Daniel Baker and Ashley Baker, and that the facts in the foregoing Plaintiffs' Reply to New Matter of Defendants are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information and belief, and that said matters relating to the Plaintiffs' Reply to New Matter of Defendants are as known to the undersigned as to the clients, Plaintiffs, Daniel Baker and Ashley Baker, said knowledge being based upon information contained in the attorney's files in this matter, and further states that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: 561648-1 , 2014 L)i Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, I, Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire, of Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiffs, hereby certify that I served a Plaintiffs' Reply to New Matter of Defendant Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Defendant Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford do Gregory E. Cassimatis, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Defendant Ford Motor Company Defendant Joao L. Goncalves c/o Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy 1205 Westlakes Drive, Suite 330 Berwyn, PA 19312 562053-1 , 2014 Cohick, squire • CAMPBELL CAMPBELL EDWARDS & CONROY,P.C. Attorneys for Defendant,-'a By: William J. Conroy, Esquire Ford Motor Company ' Tiffany M. Alexander, Esquire %` Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire V . Attorney I.D. Nos. 36433/88681/90343 1205 Westlakes Drive, Suite 330 Berwyn PA 19312 Phone: 610-964-1900 Fax: 610-964-1981 DANIEL BAKER and ASHLEY BAKER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Individually and as Husband and Wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs No.: 14-3146 -Civil v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOAO L. GONCALVES; FAMILY FORD OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., T/D/B/A FAMILY FORD; and FORD MOTOR COMPANY Defendants DEFENDANTS, FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND JOAO GONCALVES' REPLY TO DEFENDANT, FAMILY FORD OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC. t/d/b/a FAMILY FORD'S NEW MATTER CROSS CLAIM And Now, the undersigned counsel, on behalf of the Defendants, Ford Motor Company and Joao Goncalves (hereinafter "Answering Defendants"), set forth the following Reply to Defendants' New Matter Cross Claim: 53. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate its Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 54. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent these allegations are deemed factual, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendants acted negligently, carelessly, or recklessly and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. It is also specifically denied that Answering Defendants are liable to, or jointly and severally liable with, any defendant or party and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. By way of further response all averments of agency are specifically denied. Furthermore, Answering Defendants hereby incorporate its Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 55. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent these allegations are deemed factual, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendants acted negligently, carelessly, or recklessly and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. It is also specifically denied that Answering Defendants are liable to, or jointly and severally liable with, any defendant or party and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. By way of further response all averments of agency are specifically denied. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Ford Motor Company and Joao Goncalves, demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant, Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc. t/d/b/a Family Ford on its Cross Claims. Respectfully Submitted, CAMPBEL 'BELL ARDS & CONROY,PC By: W. iam J. Conroy, ' squire Tiffany M. Alexander, Esquire Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire Attorneys for Defendants, Joao Goncalves and Ford Motor Company Dated: September 30, 2014 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire, hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants, Ford Motor Company and Joao Goncalves' Reply to Defendant's New Matter Cross Claim to be served via U.S. First Class Mail, postage prepaid, upon the following persons at the address and the date set forth below: Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire Zachary D. Campbell, Esquire Metzger Wickersham, P.C. 2321 Paxton Church Road PO Box 69200 Harrisburg PA 17106-9200 Gregory E. Cassimatis, Esquire 49999 Louis Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg PA 17055 Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire Dated: September 30, 2014 3 TO: ALL PARTIES YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED PLEADING WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVI E HERET!-aR A JUDGMENT MAY BE EN71E Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire Attorney for Defendants CAMPBELL CAMPBELL EDWARDS & CONROY, P.C. By: William J. Conroy, Esquire Tiffany M. Alexander, Esquire Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire Attorney I.D. Nos. 36433/88681/90343 1205 Westlakes Drive, Suite 330 Berwyn PA 19312 Phone: 610-964-1900 Fax: 610-964-1981 Attorneys for Defendant, Ford Motor Company And Joao Goncalves DANIEL BAKER and ASHLEY BAKER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Individually and as Husband and Wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. I No.: 14-3146 — Civil CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOAO L. GONCALVES; FAMILY FORD OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., T/D/B/A FAMILY FORD; and FORD MOTOR COMPANY Defendants r-� rritv r— > A —i Wd L-13041 DEFENDANTS, FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND JOAO GONCALVES' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS Defendants, Ford Motor Company and Joao Goncalves ("Answering Defendants"), by and through its attorneys, Campbell Campbell Edwards & Conroy, P.C., hereby respond to Plaintiffs' Preliminary Objections, as follows: I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. Admitted only that such a pleading was filed. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted only that such a pleading was filed. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent these allegations are deemed factual, Answering Defendants hereby incorporate their Response to Plaintiffs' Preliminary Objections as if fully set forth herein. II. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS PURSUANT TO PA R. CP 1019, 1028(a)(2) AND 1028(a)(3) 11. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate their responses to paragraphs 1 — 10 as if fully set forth herein. 12. Denied. Answering Defendants did not use general denials in responding to the paragraphs of the Complaint cited by Plaintiffs.' Instead, Answering Defendants respond to the cited allegations in compliance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. It is important to note that pursuant to Pa. R. C.P. 1029(e), in an action seeking monetary relief for bodily injury, averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required may be denied generally. Specific denials must only be used for a pleading seeking additional relief other than monetary, averments in preliminary objections, and averments of the identity of a person by whom a material act was committed, the agency or employment of such person and the ownership, possession or control of the property involved. 2 For paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of Plaintiffs' Complaint, Answering Defendants respond by denying the allegations contained therein because after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments. This response has the effect of a denial, pursuant to Rule 1029(c) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. These allegations address the location and time of accident, whether Plaintiff was a passenger in the vehicle and alleges that Ford Motor Company or Co-Defendant, Family Ford, owned the vehicle. At this time, Answering Defendants are not in possession of the police report, have no way to confirm that Plaintiff was actually a passenger in the vehicle he alleges was involved in an accident, and are unable to respond to an allegation that either Ford or Family Ford owned the subject vehicle without finding out from Family Ford through discovery what ownership documents or agreements existed relating to the subject vehicle. These facts, if true, will be established during the course of discovery, but at this early stage of the case, Answering Defendants denied these paragraphs because of the lack of sufficient information. For the remaining paragraphs cited by Plaintiff, Answering Defendants deny said allegations because they are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Allegations to which no response is required are deemed to be denied. See Pa. R. C.P. 1029(d). See also Rohrer v. Pope, 918 A.2d 122, 129 (Pa. Super. 2007) (stating that conclusions of law do not compel a response). Indeed, virtually every allegation in Plaintiffs' Complaint contains a legal conclusion, to which no response is required. As such, Plaintiffs' Preliminary Objections fail as a matter of law for that reason alone. 3 13. Denied. Answering Defendants deny that general denials were used in responding to Plaintiffs' Complaint, as outlined in its response to paragraph 12. Moreover, Plaintiffs fail to mention that general denials to their Complaint are allowed here, pursuant to Pa. R. C.P. 1029(e). The few limited exceptions where a specific denial is required have been adequately addressed by Answering Defendants, especially since Plaintiffs' allegations as worded in this regard are conclusions of law. 14. Admitted that Plaintiffs correctly cite the rule of procedure. 15. Plaintiff s characterization of the cited case law is denied. In fact, in Cercone v. Cercone, the Court found that a defendant's reliance on Rule 1029(c)(1) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure was proper. 254 Pa. Super. 381, 392 (Pa. Super. 1978). It is important to note that the subject pleadings in Cercone did not include a response that the allegations were legal conclusions to which no response is required, as is the case here. Furthermore, the Court in Cercone noted that the pleadings as a whole should be examined when determining whether a defendant admits material allegations and that: (t)he rules (of civil procedure) shall be liberally construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding to which they are applicable. The court at every stage of any such action or proceeding may disregard any error or defect or procedure which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. 254 Pa. Super. at 391. In this case, a review of the pleadings as a whole indicates that Answering Defendants' reliance on Pa. R. C.P. 1029(c)(1) is indeed appropriate. It appears Plaintiffs' argument is that Answering Defendants should clearly possess certain information about the accident in order to admit or deny allegations of the Complaint. Unfortunately, that is not the case, particularly as the allegations of the Complaint are worded. Answering Defendants do not know the exact time 4 of the accident without referring to the police report. Answering Defendants do not know whether Plaintiff was actually a passenger in the vehicle without the police report, as neither Ford Motor Company or Mr. Goncalves personally knew Plaintiff prior to or after the accident. Plaintiffs' Complaint also contains many allegations that attempt to establish ownership, agency and other elements on all defendants, which in itself is improper for its compound nature. Regardless, Answering Defendants responded to each and every allegation in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 16. Admitted only that the rule of procedure is correctly cited. 17. Admitted only that the rule of procedure is corrected cited, in part. 18. Denied. It is impossible to determine which averments Plaintiffs are referring to in this paragraph and the allegations of this paragraph contain legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs fail to specify which denials should be admitted; fail to explain how these unspecified denials should be pled with more specificity, especially in the face of Pennsylvania case law that provides, ". . . the rights of litigants should not be made to depend on the skill of the pleaders, but rather on the justice of their claims." See Kappe Associates, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 234 Pa. Super. 627, 633 (Pa. Super. 1975); and fails to explain how these unspecified denials are insufficient when the pleadings are viewed as a whole. See Kappe Associates, 234 Pa. Super. at 633. See also Cercone, 234 Pa. Super. at 391. Accordingly, Answering Defendants' denials are proper and Plaintiffs' motion is without merit. Furthermore, Answering Defendants deny that the paragraphs Plaintiffs cite of the Complaint and Answer all relate to ownership and agency. Moreover, Answering Defendants properly responded to allegations of ownership and agency because as worded, those allegations 5 are conclusions of law to which no response is required, which has the effect of a denial. The exchange of discovery and depositions, especially with Co -Defendant, Family Ford, will help clarify these issues, to which Answering Defendants are unable to respond at this time without said discovery and depositions. 19. Denied. Plaintiffs' argument is misplaced, as the cited case pertains to the allegations of a Complaint. Moreover, Plaintiffs provide no basis for their argument. Answering Defendants have sufficiently responded to Plaintiffs' Complaint, as worded, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Ford Motor Company and Joao Goncalves, respectfully request this Honorable Court deny Plaintiffs' Preliminary Objections, with prejudice. III. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS PURSUANT TO 1028(a)(3) 20. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate their responses to paragraphs 1 — 19 as if fully set forth herein. 21. Denied. The New Matter contained in Answering Defendants' Answer is properly pled, pursuant to Pa. R. C.P. 1030. Moreover, it is not necessary to include factual averments for affirmative defenses unless they are extrinsic to the facts averred in the Complaint. See Watson v. Green, 231 Pa. Super. 115 (Pa. Super. 1974). In this case, Answering Defendants' New Matter does not rely on facts extrinsic to the Complaint and are proper. 22. Admitted only that the rule of procedure is cited correctly. 23. Admitted only that the rule of procedure is cited correctly, in part. 24. Denied. Plaintiffs' position on New Matter is mere argument. Despite Plaintiffs' position, Answering Defendants' New Matter preserves its affirmative defenses subject to waiver 6 and all are subject to the facts alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint, as none rely on facts extrinsic to the Complaint. 25. Admitted, but Plaintiffs fail to cover every scenario under which the statute of limitations may apply. There are a number of possibilities where it will be necessary for Answering Defendants to invoke the affirmative defense of the expiration of statute of limitations, and as a result, have preserved that right in their New Matter. Some of these scenarios include Plaintiffs attempting to amend their Complaint to include additional parties or causes of action, or other entities attempting to join the action, or if discovery reveals a different time period for accidents or injuries alleged here; Answering Defendants preserve their right to raise this affirmative defense and have properly done so. 26. Denied. Plaintiffs' argument that Mr. Baker's injuries exceed the limited tort threshold, and even that he was a passenger of a commercial vehicle, are issues of fact. No medical records have been exchanged, no evidence whatsoever has been disclosed that would establish whether the vehicle involved in the accident can be considered commercial and no documents of Plaintiffs' motor vehicle insurance have been exchanged. As such, Plaintiffs are only arguing their allegations without any meaningful discovery taking place. The New Matter is pled pursuant to Pa. R. C.P. 1030 and is based on facts alleged in the Complaint, making all defenses proper. 27. Denied. The New Matter is pled pursuant to Pa. R. C.P. 1030 and is not based on facts extrinsic to the Complaint, making all defenses proper. By way of further response, Answering Defendants incorporate paragraphs 25 and 26 of its Response as if fully set forth herein. 7 28. Denied. The New Matter is pled pursuant to Pa. R. C.P. 1030 and is not based on facts extrinsic to the Complaint, making all defenses proper. By way of further response, Answering Defendants incorporate paragraphs 21, 25 and 26 of its Response as if fully set forth herein. 29. The New Matter is pled pursuant to Pa. R. C.P. 1030 and is not based on facts extrinsic to the Complaint, making all defenses proper. By way of further response, Answering Defendants incorporate paragraphs 21, 25 and 26 of its Response as if fully set forth herein. 30. Denied. Plaintiffs' argument is misplaced, as the cited case pertains to the allegations of a Complaint. Moreover, Allen v. Lipson, cited by Plaintiffs, admits that Pa. R. C.P. 1030 does not require New Matter to contain factual averments. 8 Pa. D. & C.4th 393, 394 (Lycoming Cty. 1990). Although the Court in Allen finds that New Matter needs to be factually supported, it does not state whether the New Matter defenses relied on facts extrinsic to the Complaint. Here, Answering Defendants' New Matter does not rely on facts extrinsic to the Complaint and as such, has properly set forth its New Matter defenses. 31. Denied. The New Matter is pled pursuant to Pa. R. C.P. 1030 and is not based on facts extrinsic to the Complaint, making all defenses proper. By way of further response, Plaintiffs' cited case law supports Answering Defendants' position, admitting that Pa. R. C.P. 1030 does not require factual averments in New Matter. 8 Pa. D. & C.4th 393, 394 (Lycoming Cty. 1990). Although the Court in Allen finds that New Matter needs to be factually supported, it does not state whether the New Matter defenses relied on facts extrinsic to the Complaint. Here, Answering Defendants' New Matter does not rely on facts extrinsic to the Complaint and as such, has properly set forth its New Matter defenses. 8 WHEREFORE, Defendants, Ford Motor Company and Joao Goncalves, respectfully request this Honorable Court deny Plaintiffs' Preliminary Objections, with prejudice. Respectfully Submitted, CAMPBELL CAMPBEL By: Dated: October 7, 2014 CONROY, PC William J. Conroy, Esquire Tiffany M. Alexander, Esquire Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire Attorneys for Defendants, Joao Goncalves and Ford Motor Company 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire, hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants, Ford Motor Company and Joao Goncalves' Response to Plaintiffs' Preliminary Objections to be served via U.S. First Class Mail, postage prepaid, upon the following persons at the address and the date set forth below: Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire Zachary D. Campbell, Esquire Metzger Wickersham, P.C. 2321 Paxton Church Road PO Box 69200 Harrisburg PA 17106-9200 Gregory E. Cassimatis, Esquire 49999 Louis Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg PA 17055 Christopher G. Mav Dated: October 7, 2014 os, Esquire METZGER, WICKERSHAM, P.C. By: Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 307410 By: Zachary D. Campbell, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 93177 2321 Paxton Church Road P.O. Box 69200 Harrisburg, PA 17106-9200 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, (717) 238-8187 Daniel Baker and Ashley Baker DANIEL BAKER and ASHLEY BAKER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Individually and as Husband and Wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. Plaintiffs NO. 14-3146 vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOAO L. GONCALVES; FAMILY FORD OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., T/D/B/A FAMILY FORD; and FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE VERIFICATION TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please substitute the attached Verifications for the Verification of counsel on Plaintiffs' Reply to Answer and New Matter of Defendants that was filed with your office on October 1, 2014. 562958-1 METZG , WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS &ERB,P.C. By �1 X�' An rea M. Conick, Esquire I.D. No. 307410 2321 Paxton Church Road P.O. Box 69200 Harrisburg, PA 17106-9200 rl (717)238-8187 Date: �( , 2014 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 562958-1 VERIFICATION I,Daniel Baker,hereby certify that the following is correct: The facts set forth in the foregoing Reply to New Matter are based upon information which I have furnished to counsel,as well as upon information which has been gathered by counsel and/or others acting on my behalf in this matter. The language of the Reply to New Matter is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Reply to New Matter, and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to counsel,it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. To the extent that the content of the Reply to New Matter is that of counsel, I have relied upon such counsel in making this Verification. I hereby acknowledge that the facts set forth in the aforesaid Reply to New Matter are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: 'q Daniel Baker 554261-1 VERIFICATION I,Ashley Baker,hereby certify that the following is correct: The facts set forth in the foregoing Reply to New Matter are based upon information which I have furnished to counsel, as well as upon information which has been gathered by counsel and/or others acting on my behalf in this matter. The language of the Reply to New Matter is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Reply to New Matter,and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. To the extent that the content of the Reply to New Matter is that of counsel, I have relied upon such counsel in making this Verification. I hereby acknowledge that the facts set forth in the aforesaid Reply to New Matter are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: ��t ' en-k�� Ashley Bake 554261-1 r CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, I, Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire, of Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiffs, hereby certify that I served a Praecipe to Substitute Verification this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Defendant Family Ford of Pennsylvania, Inc., t/d/b/a Family Ford c/o Gregory E. Cassimatis, Esquire 4999 Louise Drive, Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Defendant Ford Motor Company Defendant Joao L. Goncalves c/o Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy 1205 Westlakes Drive, Suite 330 Berwyn, PA 19312 Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire Date: ' 2014 562958-1 PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Argument Court.) CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) C4 v4_.�9. C-3 r, (List the within matter fort 'e ext c_. CA -r - Daniel Baker and Ashley Baker, Individually and as Husband and Wife vs. Joao L. Goncalves; Family Ford of PennsyI) ria, Inc. , t/d/b/a Family Ford; and Ford Motor Company No.14-3146 Civil Term 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiffs motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Plaintiffs' Preliminary Objections to Defendants, Ford Motor Company and Joao Conceives' Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: Andrea M. Cohick, Esquire, Metzger, Wickersham, (Name and Address) 2321 Paxton Church Road, PO Box 69200, Harrisburg, PA 17106. (b) for defendants: Christopher G. Mavros, Esquire; William J. Conroy, Esquire; Tiffany M. Alexander, Esquire (Name and Address) 1205 Westlakes Drive, Suite 330, Berwyn,' PA 19312. 3. I will notify 'all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: February 6, 2015 Date: January , 2015 ) IL/ (allj Signature Andrea M. Cohick Print your name Plaintiffs Attorney for INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Original and two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) before argument. 2. The moving party shall file and serve their brief 14 days prior to argument. 3. The responding party shall file their brief 7 days prior to argument. 4. If argument is continued new briefs must be filed with the COURT 1r. ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) after the case'is relisted. 44(Q •s ? CK 7Ld7C) p4 ,3/slso Cid` r