Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14-5466 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas For Prothonotary Use Only: Civil Cover Sheet Docket No: CUr.116ERLAND County J Il Sy� The information collected on this form is used solely for court administration purposes. This form does not supplement or replace thefiling and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law or rules of court. Commencement of Action: S IM Complaint [3 Writ of Summons O Petition E Transfer from Another Jurisdiction 0 Declaration of Taking C Lead Plaintiff's Name: Lead Defendant's Name: T Steven Calaman Jones Harvesting, LLC a/k/a Jones Harvesting LLC I Are money damages requested? El Dollar Amount Requested: O within arbitration limits Yes ❑ No O (check one) El outside arbitration limits N Is this a Class Action Suit? ❑Yes El No Is this an MDJAppeal? [3 Yes El No A Name of Plaintiff/Appellant's Attorney: Whitney S. Graham, 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 include Mass Tort) CONTRACT(do not include Judgments) CIVIL APPEALS ❑ Intentional ❑ Buyer Plaintiff Administrative Agencies 0 Malicious Prosecution ❑ Debt Collection:Credit Card ❑ Board of Assessment ❑ Motor Vehicle ❑ Debt Collection:Other ❑ Board of Elections ❑Nuisance Dept.of Transportation 0 Premises Liability 8 Statutory Appeal:Other S ❑ Product Liability(does not include ® Employment Dispute: E mass tort) Slander/Libel/Defamation Discrimination 0 C ❑ Other: ❑ Employment Dispute:Other ❑ Zoning Board T ® Other: I [3Other: 0 MASS TORT 0 Asbestos N 0 Tobacco ❑ Toxic Tort-DES Toxic Tort-Implant [3 Toxic Waste REAL PROPERTY MISCELLANEOUS Other: Ejectment ❑ Common Law/Statutory Arbitration B ❑ Eminent Domain/Condemnation ❑ Declaratory Judgment © Ground Rent Mandamus ® Landlord/Tenant Dispute Non-Domestic Relations ® Mortgage Foreclosure:Residential Restraining Order PROFESSIONAL LIABLITY [3Mortgage Foreclosure:Commercial ❑Quo Warranto ® Dental ❑ Partition ❑Replevin ❑ Legal ❑ Quiet Title ❑Other: ❑ Medical ❑ Other: ❑ Other Professional: Updated 1/1/2011 GRAHAM&MAUER, P.C. _�, n Ronald M. Graham, Esquire 2 E;11 V` =P [ �- '� �0: 5 1 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Attorney I.D. 64483 r 1=- r,N 1 ;°-1 Whitney S. Graham, Esquire ` h�} )S I Ad r\ Attorney I.D. 312145 Suite 7, P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 (610)933-3333 STEVEN CALAMAN and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS KATHY CALAMAN h/w : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 1085 Grahams Wood Road Newville, PA 17241 Plaintiffs vs. : NO.: JONES HARVESTING, LLC a/k/a JONES HARVESTING LLC : CIVIL ACTION - LAW 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and GERALD P. JONES 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and MARJORIE L. JONES 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and CABIN HOLLOW BUTCHER SHOP, INC. : a/k/a WARRINGTON FARM MEATS 156 Old Cabin Hollow Road Dillsburg, PA 17019 and DARRYL E.JONES d/b/a JONES AND : 6D MARTIN AUCTION SERVICES II 544 Mohawk Road l l�.-7 s Q QVa Newville, PA 17241 and GERALD JONES, Jr. 699 Burnt House Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and WAYNE JONES 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and GERALD JONES & SONS, INC. a/k/a GERALD JONES & SONS TRUCKING INC. 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and KEITH JONES 424 Old Mill Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Defendants NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claim 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 GRAHAM&MAUER, P.C. Ronald M. Graham, Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiffs Attorney I.D. 64483 Whitney S. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 312145 Suite 7, P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 (610)933-3333 STEVEN CALAMAN-and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS KATHY CALAMAN h/w : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 1085 Grahams Wood Road Newville, PA 17241 Plaintiffs vs. : NO.. JONES HARVESTING, LLC a/k/a JONES HARVESTING LLC : CIVIL ACTION - LAW 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and GERALD P. JONES 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and MARJORIE L. JONES 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and CABIN HOLLOW BUTCHER SHOP, INC. : a/k/a WARRINGTON FARM MEATS 156 Old Cabin Hollow Road Dillsburg, PA 17019 and -DARRYL E. JONES d/b/a JONES AND MARTIN AUCTION SERVICES 544 Mohawk Road Newville, PA 17241 and GERALD JONES, Jr. 699 Burnt House Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and WAYNE JONES 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and GERALD JONES & SONS, INC. a/k/a GERALD JONES & SONS TRUCKING INC. 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and KEITH JONES 424 Old Mill Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Defendants COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiffs Steven and Kathy Calaman are adult individuals residing at 1085 Grahams Wood Road,Newville, PA 17241. 2• At all times pertinent hereto, Steven and Kathy Calaman are husband and wife. 3. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC -2- a/k/a Jones Harvesting LLC is a Pennsylvania corporation with a business address of 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA 17015. 4. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Gerald P. Jones is an adult individual with an address of 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA 17015. 5. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Marjorie L. Jones is an adult individual with an address of 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA 17015. 6. On information and belief,at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop, Inc. a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats is a Pennsylvania corporation with a business address of 156 Old Cabin Hollow Road, Dillsburg, PA 17015. 7. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Darryl E. Jones d/b/a Jones and Martin Auction Services is an adult individual with an address of 544 Mohawk Road,Newville, PA 17241. 8. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Gerald Jones, Jr. is an adult individual with an address of 699 Burnt House Road, Carlisle, PA 17015. 9. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Wayne Jones is an . adult individual with an address of 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA 17015. 10. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Gerald Jones & Sons, Inc. a/k/a Gerald Jones & Sons Trucking Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with a business address of 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA 17015. 11. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Keith Jones is an adult individual with an address of 424 Old Mill Road, Carlisle, PA 17015. 12. Defendants are in the business of raising, handling,transporting and/or butchering cattle. -3- 13. On or about September 28, 2012, Plaintiff Steven Calaman was a business invitee on the premises of Defendants' at 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA 17015. 14. At said time and place, action at the request of one or more of the Defendants, after receiving no training and/or instruction and/or assistance from Defendants or Defendants' employees or agents., Plaintiff Steven Calaman entered the cattle shipping pen and/or enclosure as he had seen others do. 15. At said time and place, Plaintiff Steven Calaman attempted to close a gate which would contain the cattle in a trailer for transport. 16. Defendants, and/or Defendants' representatives, allowed the cattle to be unsecured in and about the areas where Plaintiff Steven Calaman and others were expected to be. 17. Suddenly and without warning, while not restrained, a bull or steer charged and repeatedly struck Plaintiff Steven Calaman. 18. Prior to attacking Plaintiff Steven Calaman, said bull or steer had been identified by one or more of the Defendants as having aggressive and/or dangerous and/or unsafe propensities. 19. Upon information and belief, Defendant Gerald Jones, Jr. had identified said bull or steer as having aggressive and/or dangerous and/or unsafe propensities, but failed to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of said propensities. 20. Despite having known of the aggressive and/or dangerous and/or unsafe propensities of said bull or steer, Defendants and/or Defendants' representatives failed to warn and/or notify handlers and/or invitees of said dangers. 21. Despite having known of the aggressive and/or dangerous and/or unsafe propensities of -4- said cattle, Defendants and/or Defendants' representatives failed to shut down or halt the operation. 22. Despite having known of the aggressive and/or dangerous and/or unsafe propensities of said cattle, Defendants and/or Defendants' representatives failed to segregate said cattle. 23. The aforesaid incident and resulting injuries and/or damages were in no way caused by any act or failure to act on the part of Plaintiff Steven Calaman. 24. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned incident, Plaintiff Steven Calaman suffered severed and painful injuries including, but not limited to, a fractured shoulder, as well as other injuries to his connective tissue,nerves, and nervous system. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries and/or damages, Plaintiff Steven Calaman has been compelled, and/or may be compelled to spend money for medical and surgical aide, medications and similar medical and medically related treatments, instrumentalities and modalities. 26. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned incident and resulting injuries and/or damages, the integrity,resilience,resistance to injury of Plaintiff Steven Calaman has been compromised so the Plaintiff Steven Calaman is more susceptible to injury and may have earlier onset of degenerative and other problems than Plaintiff Steven Calaman would have suffered had the above-mentioned injuries not occurred. 27. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries and/or damages, Plaintiff Steven Calaman has suffered and/or suffers and/or will suffer from physical and mental anguish,pain, inconvenience, emotional distress and/or scarring. -5- 28. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned incident and resulting injuries and/or damages, Plaintiff Steven Calaman has suffered and/or continues to suffer and/or may in the future suffer the loss of earnings and/or earning capacity. COUNT I-NEGLIGENCE STEVEN CALAMAN v. DEFENDANT JONES HARVESTING LLC a/k/a JONES HARVESTING LLC 29• Paragraphs 1 through 28 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length 30. The aforementioned incident and resulting injuries and damages, as set forth herein, were the direct and proximate result of the carelessness, and negligence of Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC a/k/a Jones Harvesting LLC for the following reasons: a• Disregarding the rights and safety of persons lawfully upon the premises on which the unsafe and dangerous conditions existed; b• Permitting and allowing business invitees, including Plaintiff Steven Calamanto enter the cattle shipping pen without adequate safety precautions, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; C. Failure to properly restrain the cattle around business invitees; d• Failure to have said bull or steer under control; e• Failure to warn business invitees of said bull or steer's previously identified and subsequently known, aggressive and/or dangerous propensities; f• Failure to properly confine said bull or steer so that said cattle could not injure business invitees; -6- g• Failing to provide adequate,prudent and reasonable safeguards to prevent injury to business invitees in and about the cattle shipping pen and/or cattle enclosure; h• Failing to implement adequate safety standards,policies,procedures and regulations to prevent business invitees, such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman, from encountering cattle in a dangerous manner; i• Failing to properly design, construct and/or maintain appropriate safety devices and/or enclosures and/or facilities to prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by cattle; j• Failing to properly design, construct and in appropriate cattle enclosures to prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by cattle; k• Failing to properly hire, train and/or supervise employees, agents, servants and/or representatives in the course of those employees employment; 1• Failing to properly and safely operate the cattle enclosure; in. Failing to exercise due care under the circumstances; n• Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing upon Defendant's premises; o• Failing to provide adequate supervision to business invitees in and about the cattle enclosure area; A Failing to provide sufficient safety devices, instruction and/or training to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; A. Failing to provide and/or enforce minimal safety equipment,policies and Procedures which were required to provide a reasonably safe environment for -7- business invitees such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman; r• Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing as a result of the negligent mishandling of the Defendant facilitynd a equipment; S. Failing to provide and/or employ sufficient safety devices such as proper fencing, g and/or proper pens, and/or proper gates, and/or man-gates, and/or duck shrouds for safety; t• Failing to enforce existing safety policies,procedures, rules, regulations, and standards which were necessary for the safe operation of Defendant's facility; U. Placing the corporate profit motive ahead of the safety of business invitees including Plaintiff Steven Calaman by way of not providing safety instruction and/or safety equipment and/or a safe premises; V• Disregarding and/or contravening known industry safety precautions,procedures, Policies, regulations and/or standards, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did, result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven. Calaman; W. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safe conduct by employees and/or business invitees; X. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safety. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Steven Calaman demands.judgment in his favor and against Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC a/k/a Jones Harvesting LLC in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limitation requiring arbitration,plus interest, costs and punitive damages in -8- addition to such relief as the Court may deem just and proper. COUNT II- NEGLIGENCE STEVEN CALAMAN v. DEFENDANT GERALD P. JONES 31. Paragraphs 1 through 30 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 32. The aforementioned incident and resulting injuries and damages, as set forth herein, were the direct and proximate result of the carelessness, and negligence of Defendant Gerald P. Jones for the following reasons: a. Disregarding the rights and safety of persons lawfully upon the premises on which the unsafe and dangerous conditions existed; b. Permitting and allowing business invitees, including Plaintiff Steven Calaman,to enter the cattle shipping pen without adequate safety precautions, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; C. Failure to properly restrain the cattle around business invitees; d. Failure to have said bull or steer under control; e. Failure to warn business invitees of said bull or steer's previously identified and subsequently known, aggressive and/or dangerous propensities; f. Failure to properly confine said bull or steer so that said cattle could not injure business invitees; g. Failing to provide adequate,prudent and reasonable safeguards to prevent injury to business invitees in and about the cattle shipping pen and/or cattle enclosure; -9- h. Failing to implement adequate safety standards,policies, procedures and regulations to prevent business invitees, such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman, from encountering cattle in a dangerous manner; i. Failing to properly design, construct and/or maintain appropriate safety devices and/or enclosures and/or facilities to prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by cattle; j. Failing to properly design, construct and/or maintain appropriate cattle enclosures to prevent injury of handlers or invitees by cattle; k. Failing to properly hire, train and/or supervise employees, agents, servants and/or representatives in the course of those employees employment; 1. Failing to properly and safely operate the cattle enclosure; In. Failing to exercise due care under the circumstances; n. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing upon Defendant's premises; o. Failing to provide adequate supervision to business invitees in and about the cattle enclosure area; P. Failing to provide sufficient safety devices, instruction and/or training to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; q. Failing to provide and/or enforce minimal safety equipment,policies and procedures which were required to provide a reasonably safe environment for business invitees such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman; r. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition -10- then existing as a result of the negligent mishandling of the Defendant facility and equipment; S. Failing to provide and/or employ sufficient safety devices such as proper fencing, and/or proper pens, and/or proper gates, and/or man-gates, and/or duck shrouds for safety; t. Failing to enforce existing safety policies,procedures, rules, regulations, and standards which were necessary for the safe operation of Defendant's facility; U. Placing the corporate profit motive ahead of the safety of business invitees including Plaintiff Steven Calaman by way of not providing safety instruction and/or safety equipment and/or a safe premises; V. Disregarding and/or contravening known industry safety precautions, procedures, policies, regulations and/or standards, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did, result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; W. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safe conduct by employees and/or business invitees; X. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safety. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Steven Calaman demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant Gerald P. Jones in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limitation requiring arbitration,plus interest, costs and punitive damages in addition to such relief as the Court may deem just and proper. -11- COUNT III -NEGLIGENCE STEVEN CALAMAN v. DEFENDANT MARJORIE L. JONES 33. Paragraphs 1 through 32 are incorporated herein'by reference as if set forth at length. 34. The aforementioned incident and resulting injuries and damages, as set forth herein, were the direct and proximate result of the carelessness, and negligence of Defendant Marjorie L. Jones for the following reasons: a. Disregarding the rights and safety of persons lawfully upon the premises on which the unsafe and dangerous conditions existed; b. Permitting and allowing business invitees, including Plaintiff Steven Calaman, to enter the cattle shipping pen without adequate safety precautions, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; C. Failure to properly restrain the cattle around business invitees; d. Failure to have said bull or steer under control; e. Failure to warn business invitees of said bull or steer's previously identified and subsequently known, aggressive and/or dangerous propensities; f. Failure to properly confine said bull or steer so that said cattle could not injure business invitees; g. Failing to provide adequate,prudent and reasonable safeguards to prevent injury to business invitees in and about the cattle shipping pen and/or cattle enclosure; h. Failing to implement adequate safety standards,policies,procedures and regulations to prevent business invitees, such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman, from -12- encountering cattle in a dangerous manner; i. Failing to properly design, construct and/or maintain appropriate safety devices and/or enclosures and/or facilities to prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by cattle; j. Failing to properly design, construct and/or maintain appropriate cattle enclosures to prevent injury of handlers or invitees by cattle; k. Failing to properly hire, train and/or supervise employees, agents, servants and/or representatives in the course of those employees employment; 1. Failing to properly and safely operate the cattle enclosure; M. Failing to exercise due care under the circumstances; n. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing upon Defendant's premises; o. Failing to provide adequate supervision to business invitees in and about the cattle enclosure area; p. Failing to provide sufficient safety devices, instruction and/or training to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; q. Failing to provide and/or enforce minimal safety equipment,policies and procedures which were required to provide a reasonably safe environment for business invitees such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman; r. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing as a result of the negligent mishandling of the Defendant facility and equipment; -13- S. Failing to provide and/or employ sufficient safety devices such as proper fencing, and/or proper pens, and/or proper gates, and/or man-gates, and/or duck shrouds for safety; t. Failing to enforce existing safety policies,procedures, rules, regulations, and standards which were necessary for the safe operation of Defendant's facility; U. Placing the corporate profit motive ahead of the safety of business invitees including Plaintiff Steven Calaman by way of not providing safety instruction and/or safety equipment and/or a safe premises; V. Disregarding and/or contravening known industry safety precautions,procedures, policies, regulations and/or standards, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely'to, and in fact did, result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; W. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safe conduct by employees and/or business invitees; X. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safety. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Steven Calaman demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant Marjorie L. Jones in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limitation requiring arbitration,plus interest, costs and punitive damages in addition to such relief as the Court may deem just and proper. -14- COUNT IV-NEGLIGENCE STEVEN CALAMAN v. DEFENDANT CABIN HOLLOW BUTCHER SHOP INC. a/k/a WARRINGTON FARM MEATS 35. Paragraphs 1 through 34 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length 36. The aforementioned incident and resulting injuries and damages, as set forth herein, were the direct and proximate result of the carelessness, and negligence of Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop, Inc. a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats for the following reasons: a. Disregarding the rights and safety of persons lawfully upon the premises on which the unsafe and dangerous conditions existed; b. Permitting and allowing business invitees, including Plaintiff Steven Calaman,to enter the cattle shipping pen without adequate safety precautions, where Defendant knew that failure to'do so was likely to, and in fact did result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; C. Failure to properly restrain the cattle around business invitees; d. Failure to have said bull or steer under control; e. Failure to warn business invitees of said bull or steer's previously identified and subsequently known, aggressive and/or dangerous propensities; f. Failure to properly confine said bull or steer so that said cattle could not injure business invitees; g. Failing to provide adequate,prudent and reasonable safeguards to prevent injury to business invitees in and about the cattle shipping peri and/or cattle enclosure; h. Failing to implement adequate safety standards,policies,procedures and -15- regulations to prevent business invitees, such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman, from . encountering cattle in a dangerous manner; i. Failing to properly design, construct and/or maintain appropriate safety devices and/or enclosures and/or facilities to prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by cattle; j. Failing to properly design, construct and maintain appropriate cattle enclosures to prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by cattle; k. Failing to properly hire, train and/or supervise employees, agents, servants and/or representatives in the course of those employees employment; 1. Failing to properly and safely operate the cattle enclosure; in. Failing to exercise due care under the circumstances; n. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing upon Defendant's premises; o. Failing to provide adequate supervision to business invitees in and about the cattle enclosure area; A Failing to provide sufficient safety devices, instruction and/or training to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; q. Failing to provide and/or enforce minimal safety equipment,policies and procedures which were required to provide a reasonably safe environment for business invitees such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman; r. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing as a result of the negligent mishandling of the Defendant facility and -16- equipment; S. Failing to provide and/or employ sufficient safety devices such as proper fencing, and/or proper pens, and/or proper gates, and/or man-gates, and/or duck shrouds for safety; t. Failing to enforce existing safety policies, procedures, rules, regulations, and standards which were necessary for the safe operation of Defendant's facility; U. Placing the corporate profit motive ahead of the safety of business invitees . including Plaintiff Steven Calaman by way of not providing safety instruction and/or safety equipment and/or a safe premises; V. Disregarding and/or contravening known industry safety precautions,procedures, policies, regulations and/or standards, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did, result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; W. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safe conduct by employees and/or business invitees; X. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safety. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Steven Calaman demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop, Inc. a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limitation requiring arbitration,plus interest, costs and punitive damages in addition to such relief as the Court may deem just and proper. -17- COUNT V-NEGLIGENCE STEVEN CALAMAN v. DEFENDANT DARRYL E. JONES d/b/a JONES AND MARTIN AUCTION SERVICES 37. Paragraphs 1 through 36 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 38. The aforementioned incident and resulting injuries and damages, as set forth herein, were the direct and proximate result of the carelessness, and negligence of Defendant Darryl E. Jones d/b/a Jones And Martin Auction Services for the following reasons: a. Disregarding the rights and safety of persons lawfully upon the premises on which the unsafe and dangerous conditions existed; b. Permitting and all business invitees, including Plaintiff Steven Calaman, to enter the cattle shipping pen without adequate safety precautions, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; C. Failure to properly restrain the cattle around business invitees; d. Failure to have said bull or steer under control; e. Failure to warn business invitees of said bull or steer's previously identified and subsequently known, aggressive and/or dangerous propensities; f. Failure to properly confine said bull or steer so that said cattle could not injure business invitees; g. Failing to provide adequate, prudent and reasonable safeguards to prevent injury to business invitees in and about the cattle shipping pen and/or cattle enclosure; h. Failing to implement adequate safety standards, policies,procedures and -18- regulations to prevent business invitees, such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman, from encountering cattle in a dangerous manner; i. Failing to properly design, construct and/or maintain appropriate safety devices and/or enclosures and/or facilities to prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by cattle; j. Failing to properly design, construct and/or maintain appropriate cattle enclosures to prevent injury of handlers or invitees by cattle; k. Failing to properly hire, train and/or supervise employees, agents, servants and/or representatives in the course of those employees employment; 1. Failing to properly and safely operate the cattle enclosure; M. Failing to exercise due care under the circumstances; n. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing upon Defendant's premises; o. Failing to provide adequate supervision to business invitees in and about the cattle enclosure area; P-. Failing to provide sufficient safety devices, instruction and/or training to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; q. Failing to provide and/or enforce minimal safety equipment,policies and procedures which were required to provide a reasonably safe environment for business invitees such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman; r. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing as a result of the negligent mishandling of the Defendant facility and -19- equipment; S. Failing to provide and/or employ sufficient safety devices such as proper fencing, and/or proper pens, and/or proper gates, and/or man-gates, and/or duck shrouds for safety; t. Failing to enforce existing safety policies,procedures, rules,regulations, and standards which were necessary for the safe operation of Defendant's facility; U. Placing the corporate profit motive ahead of the safety of business invitees including'Plaintiff Steven Calaman by way of not providing safety instruction and/or safety equipment and/or a safe premises; V. Disregarding and/or contravening known industry safety precautions,procedures, policies; regulations and/or standards, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did, result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; W. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safe conduct by employees and/or business invitees; X. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safety. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Steven Calaman demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant Darryl E. Jones d/b/a Jones And Martin Auction Services in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limitation requiring arbitration,plus interest, costs and punitive damages in addition to such relief as the Court may deem just and proper. -20- COUNT VI -NEGLIGENCE STEVEN CALAMAN v. DEFENDANT GERALD JONES Jr. 39. Paragraphs 1 through 38 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length 40. The aforementioned incident and resulting injuries and damages, as set forth herein, were the direct and proximate result of the carelessness, and negligence of Defendant Gerald Jones, Jr. for the following reasons: a. Disregarding the rights and safety of persons lawfully upon the premises on which the unsafe and dangerous conditions existed; b. Permitting and allowing business invitees, including Plaintiff Steven Calaman, to enter the cattle shipping pen without adequate safety precautions, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; C. Failure to properly restrain the cattle around business invitees; d. Failure to have said bull or steer under control; e. Failure to warn business invitees of said bull or steer's previously identified and subsequently known, aggressive and/or dangerous propensities; f. Failure to properly confine said bull or steer so that said cattle could not injure business invitees; g. Failing to provide adequate,prudent and reasonable safeguards to prevent injury to business invitees in and about the cattle shipping pen and/or cattle enclosure; h. Failing to implement adequate safety standards, policies,procedures and regulations to prevent business invitees, such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman, from -21- encountering cattle in a dangerous manner; i. Failing to properly design, construct and/or maintain appropriate safety devices and/or enclosures and/or facilities to prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by cattle; J. Failing to properly design, construct and/or maintain appropriate cattle enclosures to prevent injury of handlers or invitees by cattle; k. Failing to properly hire,train and/or supervise employees, agents, servants and/or representatives in the course of those employees employment; 1. Failing to properly and safely operate the cattle enclosure; In. Failing to exercise due care under the circumstances; n. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing upon Defendant's premises; o. Failing to provide adequate supervision to business invitees in and about the cattle enclosure area; p. Failing to provide sufficient safety devices, instruction and/or training to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; q. Failing to provide and/or enforce minimal safety equipment, policies and procedures which were required to provide a reasonably safe environment for business invitees such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman; r. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing as a result of the negligent mishandling of the Defendant facility and equipment; -22- S. Failing to provide and/or employ sufficient safety devices such as proper fencing, and/or proper pens, and/or proper gates, and/or man-gates, and/or duck shrouds for safety; t. Failing to enforce existing safety policies,procedures, rules, regulations, and standards which were necessary for the safe operation of Defendant's facility; U. Placing the corporate profit motive ahead of the safety of business invitees including Plaintiff Steven Calaman by way of not providing safety instruction and/or safety equipment and/or a safe premises; V. Disregarding and/or contravening known industry safety precautions,procedures, policies, regulations and/or standards, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did, result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; W. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safe conduct by employees and/or business invitees; X. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safety. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Steven Calaman demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant Gerald Jones, Jr. in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limitation requiring arbitration,plus interest, costs and punitive damages in addition to such relief as the Court may deem just and proper. COUNT VII -NEGLIGENCE STEVEN CALAMAN v. DEFENDANT WAYNE JONES 41. Paragraphs 1 through 40 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length -23- r 42. The aforementioned incident and resulting injuries and damages, as set forth herein, were the direct and proximate result of the carelessness, and negligence of Defendant Wayne Jones for the following reasons: a. Disregarding the rights and safety of persons lawfully upon the premises on which the unsafe and dangerous conditions existed; b. Permitting and allowing business invitees, including Plaintiff Steven Calaman, to enter the cattle shipping pen without adequate safety precautions, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; C. Failure to properly restrain the cattle around business invitees; d. Failure to have said bull or steer under control; e. Failure to warn business invitees of said bull or steer's previously identified and subsequently known, aggressive and/or dangerous propensities; f. Failure to properly confine said bull or steer so that said cattle could not injure business invitees; g. Failing to provide adequate,prudent and reasonable safeguards to prevent injury to business invitees in and about the cattle shipping pen and/or cattle enclosure; h. Failing to implement adequate safety standards, policies,procedures and regulations to prevent business invitees, such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman, from encountering cattle in a dangerous manner; i. Failing to properly design, construct and/or maintain appropriate safety devices and/or enclosures and/or facilities to prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by -24- cattle; j. Failing to properly design, construct and maintain appropriate cattle enclosures to prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by cattle; k. Failing to properly hire, train and/or supervise employees, agents, servants and/or representatives in the course of those employees employment; 1. Failing to properly and safely operate the cattle enclosure; M. Failing to exercise due care under the circumstances; n. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing upon Defendant's premises; o. Failing to provide adequate supervision to business invitees in and about the cattle enclosure area; P. Failing to provide sufficient safety devices, instruction and/or training to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; q. Failing to provide and/or enforce minimal safety equipment,policies and procedures which were required to provide a reasonable safe environment for business invitees such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman; r. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe*and dangerous condition then existing as a result of the negligent mishandling of the Defendant facility and equipment; S. Failing to provide and/or employ sufficient safety devices such as proper fencing, and/or proper pens, and/or proper gates, and/or man-gates, and/or duck shrouds for safety; -25- t. Failing to enforce existing safety policies,procedures,rules, regulations, and standards which were necessary for the safe operation of Defendant's facility; U. Placing the corporate profit motive ahead of the safety of business invitees including Plaintiff Steven Calaman by way of not providing safety instruction and/or safety equipment and/or a safe premises; V. Disregarding and/or contravening known industry safety precautions,procedures, policies, regulations and/or standards, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did, result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; W. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safe conduct by employees and/or business invitees; X. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safety. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Steven Calaman demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant Wayne Jones in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limitation requiring arbitration,plus interest, costs and punitive damages in addition to such relief as the Court may deem just and proper. COUNT VIII-NEGLIGENCE STEVEN CALAMAN v. DEFENDANT GERALD JONES & SONS INC. a/k/a GERALD JONES & SONS TRUCKING INC. 43. Paragraphs 1 through 42 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length 44. The aforementioned incident and resulting injuries and damages, as set forth herein, were the direct and proximate result of the carelessness, and negligence of Defendant Gerald -26- Jones& Sons, Inc. a/k/a Gerald Jones& Sons Trucking Inc for the following reasons: a. Disregarding the rights and safety of persons lawfully upon the premises on which the unsafe and dangerous conditions existed; b. Permitting and allowing business invitees, including Plaintiff Steven Calaman, to enter the cattle shipping pen without adequate safety precautions, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; C. Failure.to properly restrain the cattle around business invitees; d. Failure to have said bull or steer under control; e. Failure to warn business invitees of said bull or steer's previously identified and subsequently known, aggressive and/or dangerous propensities; f. Failure to properly confine said bull or steer so that said cattle could not injure business invitees; g. Failing to provide adequate,prudent and reasonable safeguards to prevent injury to business invitees in and about the cattle shipping pen and/or cattle enclosure; h. Failing to implement adequate safety standards,policies,procedures and regulations to prevent business invitees, such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman, from encountering cattle in a dangerous manner; i. Failing to properly design, construct and/or maintain appropriate safety devices and/or enclosures and/or facilities to prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by cattle; j. Failing to properly design, construct and maintain appropriate cattle enclosures to -27- prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by cattle; k. Failing to properly hire, train and/or supervise employees, agents, servants and/or representatives in the course of those employees employment; 1. Failing to properly and safely operate the cattle enclosure; in. Failing to exercise due care under the circumstances; n. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing upon Defendant's premises; o. Failing to provide adequate supervision to business invitees in and about the cattle enclosure area; P. Failing to provide sufficient safety devices, instruction and/or training to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; q. Failing to provide and/or enforce minimal safety equipment,policies and procedures which were required to provide a reasonably safe environment for business invitees such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman; r. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing as a result of the negligent mishandling of the Defendant facility and equipment; S. Failing to provide and/or employ sufficient safety devices such as proper fencing, and/or proper pens, and/or proper gates, and/or man-gates, and/or duck.shrouds for safety; t. Failing to enforce existing safety policies, procedures, rules, regulations, and standards which were necessary for the safe operation of Defendant's facility; -28- U. Placing the corporate profit motive ahead of the safety of business invitees including Plaintiff Steven Calaman by way of not providing safety instruction and/or safety equipment and/or a safe premises; V. Disregarding and/or contravening known industry safety precautions,procedures, policies, regulations and/or standards, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did,result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; W. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safe conduct by employees and/or business invitees; X. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safety. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Steven Calaman demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant Gerald Jones & Sons, Inc. a/k/a Gerald Jones & Sons Trucking Inc. in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limitation requiring arbitration, plus interest, costs and punitive damages in addition to such relief as the Court may deem just and proper. COUNT IX-.NEGLIGENCE STEVEN CALAMAN v. DEFENDANT KEITH JONES 45. Paragraphs 1 through 44 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length 46. The aforementioned incident and resulting injuries and damages, as set forth herein, were the direct and proximate result of the carelessness, and negligence of Defendant Keith Jones for the following reasons: a. Disregarding the rights and safety of persons lawfully upon the premises.on which the unsafe and dangerous conditions existed; -29- b. Permitting and allowing business invitees, including Plaintiff Steven Calaman, to enter the cattle shipping pen without adequate safety precautions, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; C. Failure to properly restrain the cattle around business invitees; d. Failure to have said bull or steer under control; e. Failure to warn business invitees of said bull or steer's previously identified and subsequently known, aggressive and/or dangerous propensities; f. Failure to properly confine said bull or steer so that said cattle:could not injure business invitees; g. Failing to provide adequate,prudent and reasonable safeguards to Prevent injury to business invitees in and about the cattle shipping pen and/or cattle enclosure; h. Failing to implement adequate safety standards, policies,procedures and regulations to prevent business invitees, such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman, from encountering cattle in a dangerous manner; i. Failing to properly design, construct and/or maintain appropriate safety devices and/or enclosures and/or facilities to prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by cattle; j. Failing to properly design, construct.and maintain appropriate cattle enclosures to prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by cattle; k. Failing to properly hire, train and/or supervise employees, agents, servants and/or representatives in the course of those employees employment; -30- 1. Failing to properly and safely operate the cattle enclosure; m.. Failing to exercise due care under the circumstances; n. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing upon Defendant's premises; o. Failing to provide adequate supervision to business invitees in and about the cattle enclosure area; p. Failing to provide sufficient safety devices, instruction and/or training to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; q. Failing to provide and/or enforce minimal safety equipment,policies and procedures which were required to provide a reasonably safe environment for business invitees such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman; r. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing as a result of the negligent mishandling of the Defendant facility and equipment; S. Failing to provide and/or employ sufficient safety devices'such as proper fencing, and/or proper pens, and/or proper gates, and/or man-gates, and/or duck shrouds for safety; t. Failing to enforce existing safety policies,procedures, rules, regulations, and standards which were necessary for the safe operation of Defendant's facility; U. Placing the corporate profit motive ahead of the safety of business invitees including Plaintiff Steven Calaman by way of not providing safety instruction and/or safety equipment and/or a safe premises; -31- r V. Disregarding and/or contravening known industry safety precautions,procedures, policies, regulations and/or standards, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did, result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; W. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safe conduct by employees and/or business invitees; X. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safety. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Steven Calaman demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant Keith Jones in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limitation requiring arbitration,plus interest, costs and punitive damages in addition to such relief as the Court may deem just and proper. COUNT X -LOSS OF CONSORTIUM KATHY CAL AMAN v. JONES HARVESTING LLC a/k/a JONES HARVESTING LLC GERALD P. JONES MARJORIE L. JONES CABIN HOLLOW BUTCHER SHOP INC. a/k/a WARRINGTON FARM MEATS DARRYL E.JONES d/b/a JONES AND MARTIN AUCTION SERVICES GERALD JONES Jr. WAYNE JONES GERALD JONES & SONS INC. a/k/a GERALD JONES & SONS TRUCKING INC. and KEITH JONES 47. Paragraphs 1 through 48 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 48. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiffs Steven Calaman and Kathy Calaman were living together as husband and wife. 49. As a result of the carelessness, and negligence of all Defendants resulting in the above injuries, damages and losses to,her husband, Plaintiff Kathy Calaman has been and may in the future be deprived of the assistance, comfort, support, services, society and -32- companionship of her husband, all of which is to her great detriment and loss. 50. As a result of the carelessness, and negligence of all Defendants, Plaintiff Kathy Calaman has been compelled and/or may be compelled to spend money for medical and surgical aide, medications and similar medical and medically related treatments, instrumentalities and modalities for her husband, Plaintiff Steven Calaman. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Kathy Calaman demands judgment in her favor and against all Defendants in an amount that exceeds the jurisdictional limit for arbitration. Respectful Sub d, By: Whitney S. Graham, Esquire GRAHAM& MAUER, P.C. Attorney for Plaintiffs • Date: aJ ��5 -33- 4 VERIFICATION I, Steven Calaman, hereby state that I am the Plaintiff in this Action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Steven Calaman 5 jzti. �,� Ft.e 1..L.JL%� •3�,:. GRAHAM&MAUER, P.C. {ji` 1U TP��t�� 1�frt Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ronald M. Graham, Esquire AA Attorney I.D. 64483 1l SEP Whitney S. Graham, Esquire ,U�, , �i� Attorney I.D. 312145 1' " � � � D C Suite 7, P.O. Box 987 PE?0' s YLIVANIA C.UN�r r Valley Forge, PA 19482 (610)933-3333 STEVEN CALAMAN and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS KATHY CALAMAN h/w : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 1085 Grahams Wood Road Newville, PA 17241 Plaintiffs - vs. : NO.. JONES HARVESTING, LLC a/k/a JONES HARVESTING LLC : CIVIL ACTION-LAW 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and GERALD P. JONES 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and MARJORIE L. JONES 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and CABIN HOLLOW BUTCHER SHOP, INC. : a/k/a WARRINGTON FARM MEATS 156 Old Cabin Hollow Road Dillsburg, PA 17019 and DARRYL E. JONES d/b/a JONES AND MARTIN AUCTION SERVICES 544 Mohawk Road Newville, PA 17241 and GERALD JONES, Jr. 699 Burnt House Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and WAYNE JONES 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 ' and GERALD JONES & SONS, INC. a/k/a GERALD JONES & SONS TRUCKING INC. 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and KEITH JONES 424 Old Mill Road Carlisle,PA 17015 Defendants ENTRY OF APPEARANCE To: The Prothonotary Kindly enter the appearance of Whitney S. the above-captioned case. Graham, Esquire on behalf of the Plaintiffs' in GRAHA &MA P.C. By: l l Witney S. Graham, Esquire Date: / / Attorney for Plaintiffs David L. Schwalm, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP I.D. No. 32574 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 255-7643 dschwalme.tthlaw.com STEVEN CALAMAN AND KATHY CALAMAN, Plaintiffs V. • • , -4t THE FILED:7,0FFic pt3r, .ut101.ii 0 TAR Y 2844 OCT -7 Ani f ::;,,c.titilBERLAND COO -,--L-!PENttsy TY hi!„. LAM uounser foi*Jefelidnts nes Harvesting, Gerald Jones, Marjorie Jones, Gerald Jones, Jr., and Keith Jones JONES HARVESTING, LLC, GERALD P. JONES, MARJORIE L. JONES, CABIN HOLLOW BUTCHER SHOP, INC. a/k/a WARRINGTON FARM MEATS, DARRYL E. JONES d/b/a JONES AND MARTIN AUCTION SERVICES, GERALD JONES, JR., WAYNE JONES, GERALD JONES & SONS, INC.a/k/a GERALD JONES & SONS TRUCKING, INC. AND KEITH JONES, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 14-5466 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION — LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter4he appearance of David L. Schwalm, Esquire, Joshua J. Bovender,. Esquire Esquire and Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP on behalf of Defendants Jones Harvesting, Gerald Jones, Marjorie Jones, Gerald Jones, Jr., and Keith Jones in the above matter. Respectfully submitted, TTH.MAS, T 0 AS & HAFER, LLP David L. Schwalm, Esquire I.D. No. 32574 Joshua J. Bovender, Esquire I.D. No. 314001 POB 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 255-7643 AND NOW, this CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE day of , 201 IA I, Coleen M. Polek, of the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, hereby certify that I sent a true and correct copy of the foregoing document by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Ronald M. Graham, Esquire Whitney S. Graham, Esquire Graham & Mauer, P.C. Suite 7 P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 Coleen M. Polek 1587750.1 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP David L. Schwalm, Esquire I.D. No, 32574 Joshua J. Bovender, Esquire I.D. No. 314001 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 255-7643 dschwalm@tthlaw.com jbovender@tthiaw.com STEVEN CALAMAN AND KATHY CALAMAN, Plaintiffs v. JONES HARVESTING, LLC, GERALD P. JONES, MARJORIE L. JONES, CABIN HOLLOW BUTCHER SHOP, INC. a/k/a WARRINGTON FARM MEATS, DARRYL E. JONES d/b/a JONES AND MARTIN AUCTION SERVICES, GERALD JONES, JR., WAYNE JONES, GERALD JONES & SONS, INC. a/k/a GERALD JONES & SONS TRUCKING, INC. AND KEITH JONES, Defendants FILED -OFFICE OF THE PROTHONOTARY 2014 OCT -9 AM 10: 57 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Counsel for Defendants Jones Harvesting, Gerald Jones, Marjorie Jones, Gerald Jones, Jr., and Keith Jones IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 14-5466 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION — LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT Defendants Jones Harvesting, LLC, Gerald Jones, Marjorie Jones, Gerald Jones, Jr., and Keith Jones (collectively, "Objecting Defendants"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby file Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows: 1. This negligence action arises from a September 28, 2012 accident in which Plaintiff Steven Calaman was injured by a steer in a cattle pen. (Complaint, ¶¶ 14-17).1 2. Plaintiffs assert claims for negligence and loss of consortium against each of the nine named Defendants. (Id., Counts I -X). 3. Plaintiffs also seek to recover punitive damages. (Id., Wherefore Clauses, Counts I -X). 4. Pennsylvania's Rules of Civil Procedure provide that any party may object to a pleading if it Tacks sufficient specificity or is legally insufficient. Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4),(5). 5. The Rules further provide that "[t]he material facts on which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form." Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a). PRELIMINARY OBJECTION PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 1019(a) AND 1028(a)(3) 6. It is axiomatic that the particular involvement of each named Defendant in a premises liability claim constitutes a "material fact" upon which the claim is based. 7. Plaintiffs, however, make the blanket allegation that all "Defendants are in the business of raising, handling, transporting and/or butchering cattle," without providing any further specificity as to the particular involvement of the nine Defendants. �¶12). 1 Pursuant to the applicable standard of review, Objecting Defendants make no admissions or adoptions of the allegations of Plaintiffs Complaint. 2 8. Plaintiffs' Complaint names nine separate individual and corporate entities as Defendants. (Complaint, ¶¶ 3-11). 9. The Defendants include six individuals and three corporate entities. 10. Of the corporate entity Defendants, two are identified as incorporated businesses and one is identified as a limited liability corporation; one Defendant is also identified as both an individual trading and doing business as an unidentified business entity. (Id., 713-11). 11. Plaintiffs do not allege in what capacity the individual Defendants are being sued vis-a-vis their potential relationship(s) to one another, to the property in question, to the ownership of the subject steer, or to the numerous corporate entities identified in the Complaint. 12. Plaintiffs do not allege whether any of the Defendants owned the property on which the accident is alleged to have occurred. 13. Plaintiffs do not allege whether any of the individual Defendants were acting within the course and scope of their employment with the corporate entity Defendants. 14. Plaintiffs do not allege whether any of the individual Defendants were officers or principals of any of the named corporate entities at the time of the alleged accident. 15. Instead, Plaintiffs repetitiously refer to "Defendants and/or Defendants' representatives" as having acted or failed to act in such a way as to cause Plaintiffs' harm. (Id., ¶¶ 14, 16, 18, 20). 3 16. As a result, Plaintiffs do not allege any particularized involvement of the Defendants. 17. As a result of the total absence of any information relating to the above issues, Objecting Defendants are prejudiced as they are unable to prepare a defense. 18. Objecting Defendants therefore request that Plaintiffs' Complaint be stricken without prejudice and Plaintiffs be directed to file an Amended Complaint to allege with the requisite specificity pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a) the particularized involvement of each named Defendant. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 1019(a) AND 1028(a)(4) 19. Plaintiffs seek to recover punitive damages, however, the claim is factually unfounded. 20. Plaintiffs do not allege any wanton, reckless, or willful misconduct on the part of Objecting Defendants. 21. Under Pennsylvania law, recklessness or wantonness requires a showing that the actor knew or had reason to know of facts which created a high degree of risk of physical harm to another and that the actor deliberately proceeded to act, or failed to act,in conscious disregard of, or indifference to, that risk. SHV Coal, Inc. v. Cont'I Grain Co., 587 A.2d 702, 704 (Pa. 1991) (discussing the type of recklessness that must be shown for a finding of punitive damages under Pennsylvania law). 22. An actor's conduct is in reckless disregard of the safety of another if he does an act or intentionally fails to do an act which it is his duty to the other to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable man to realize, not only that his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to 4 another, but also that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct negligent. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Elitzky, 517 A.2d 982, 989-90 (Pa. Super. 1986) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 500). 23. Plaintiffs allege no factual support for a punitive damages claim, and instead include boilerplate language in each of the ten Wherefore clauses seeking the imposition of same. 24. As a result, Plaintiffs fail to plead any factual basis, as required under Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a), to support a claim for punitive damages against Objecting Defendants. WHEREFORE, Defendants Jones Harvesting, LLC, Gerald Jones, Marjorie Jones, Gerald Jones, Jr., and Keith Jones respectfully request that this Court dismiss -Plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages, strike Plaintiffs' Complaint, and Order Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint specifically alleging the particular involvement of each named Defendant as required under Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a). Date: Iu (1#t By: 5 Respectfully submitted, THOMAS THOMAS & HAFER, LLP L. Sc Ti esquire . No. 32574 Joshua J. Bovender, Esquire I.D. No. 314001 P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 255-7643 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 9th day of October 2014, I, Gwen M. Cleck, of the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, hereby certify that I sent a true and correct copy of the foregoing document by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Ronald M. Graham, Esquire Whitney S. Graham, Esquire Graham & Mauer, P.C. Suite 7 P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 wuv Gwen M. Cleck 1589095.1 6 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STEVEN CALAMAN and KATHY CALAMAN, h/w, Plaintiffs, vs. JONES HARVESTING, LLC, a/k/a JONES HARVESTING LLC, GERALD P. JONES, MARJORIE L. JONES, CABIN HOLLOW BUTCHER SHOP, INC., a/k/a WARRINGTON FARM MEATS, DARRYL E. JONES a/k/a JONES AND MARTIN AUCTION SERVICES, GERALD JONES, JR., WAYNE JONES, GERALD JONES & SONS, INC., a/k/a GERALD JONES & SONS TRUCKING, INC., and KEITH JONES, DOCKET NO. 14-5466 CIVIL ACTION — LAW JFFICE or THEFRO MONO TA 20 OCTIL pj 2:05 CUM3ERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants. PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance for the Defendant, Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop, Inc., a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats, in the above captioned action. Respecjfu y su. itted, Date /69/0 OLL, ESQUIRE orney I.D. No. 47243 orney for Defendant, CABIN HOLLOW BUTCHER SHOP, INC. a/k/a WARRINGTON FARM MEATS 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 975-8114 Direct: (717) 760-7502 Fax: (717) 975-8124 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on all counsel of record by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the /0 day of October, 2014, and addressed as follows: Ronald M. Graham, Esquire Graham & Mauer, P.C. Suite 7, PO box 987 Valley Forge, PA 17241 Attorney for Plaintiff David L. Schwalm, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 North Front Street PO Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Defendants Jones Harvesting, Gerald Jones, Marjorie Jones, Gerald Jones, Jr., and Keith Jones MARG• S DELSTEIN 1/ BY: PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter for the next Argument Court.) STEVEN CALAMAN AND KATHY CALAMAN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 14-5466 CIVIL JONES HARVESTING, LLC, GERALD P. CIVIL ACTION — LAW JONES, MARJORIE L. JONES, CABIN HOLLOW BUTCHER SHOP, INC. a/k/a WARRINGTON FARM MEATS, DARRYL E. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED r -� JONES d/b/a JONES AND MARTIN AUCTION SERVICES, GERALD JONES, JR., WAYNE JONES, GERALD JONES & SONS, 5 INC. a/k/a GERALD JONES & SONS TRUCKING, INC. AND KEITH JONES, Defendants No. 14-5466 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiffs motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint 2. Identify all counsel who will argue: (a) for Defendants Jones Harvesting, Gerald Jones, Majorie L. Jones, Gerald Jones, Jr. and Keith Jones David L. Schwalm, Esquire and Joshua J. Bovender, Esquire, Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108 (Name and Address) (b) for Plaintiffs: Ronald M. Graham, Esquire, and Whitney S. Graham, Esquire, Graham & Maurer, P.C., Suite 7, P.O. Box 987, Valley Forge, PA 19482 (Name and Address) 3. 1 will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. Joshua J. Bovender, Esquire, Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108 4. Argument Court Date: November 14 2014 natur Joshua J. Bovender, Esquire Print your name Attorney for Defendants Jones Harvesting, Gerald Jones, Majorie L. Jones, Gerald Jones, Jr. and Keith O► Jones g�q,lS cit Date: 10/13/14 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STEVEN CALAMAN and KATHY CALAMAN, h/w, Plaintiffs, vs. JONES HARVESTING, LLC, a/k/a JONES HARVESTING LLC, GERALD P. JONES, MARJORIE L. JONES, CABIN HOLLOW BUTCHER SHOP, INC., a/k/a WARRINGTON FARM MEATS, DARRYL E. JONES a/k/a JONES AND MARTIN AUCTION SERVICES, GERALD JONES, JR., WAYNE JONES, GERALD JONES & SONS, INC., a/k/a GERALD JONES & SONS TRUCKING, INC., and KEITH JONES, Defendants. DOCKET NO. 14-5466 CIVIL ACTION — LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED C7 rn )77 CD 7:71, CD -- ' C) 71: c -T1 37* .-J PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT, CABIN HOLLOW BUTCHER SHOP, INC., A/K/A WARRINGTON FARM MEATS TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, come Defendants Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop, Inc., a/k/a Warrington Farms Meats, ("Moving Defendants") by and through their counsel, to assert Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows: 1 Plaintiffs commenced this negligence action by Complaint filed with this Honorable Court on or about September 28, 2012, asserting that Plaintiff, Steven Calaman ("plaintiff') was injured by a steer in a cattle pen. See, Plaintiffs Complaint at Paragraphs 14-17. 2. Plaintiffs generally assert negligence claims against each of the nine named defendants. See Counts I -X. Page 2 of 6 3. In each of these counts against each named Defendant, Plaintiffs seek punitive damages. 4. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may preliminarily object to a pleading if it is factually or legally insufficient. See, Pa.R.C.P. Nos. 1028(a)(4) and (5). 5. Pennsylvania is a fact pleading state. In accordance with Rule 1019, the "material facts upon which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form." Pa.R.C.P. No. 1019(a). PRELIMINARY OBJECTION PURSUANT TO PARCP 1019(a) AND 1028(a)(3). 6. Despite the requirement set forth in Rule 1019, Plaintiffs' claims against each named Defendant are general and uniform. 7. Rather than individuate the role that each Defendant played in bringing about Plaintiffs' injuries, Plaintiffs make a general allegation that all Defendants are "in the business of raising, handling, transporting and/or butchering cattle," without providing any specificity with respect to the involvement of each individual defendant in Plaintiffs' claims. 8. It is clear from the face of Plaintiffs' Complaint that there are nine separate entities named as Defendants, six individuals and three corporations. 9. Nowhere in Plaintiffs' Complaint do Plaintiffs allege, as required by Rule 1019, the material facts upon which their claim against each individual is based. Instead, Plaintiffs simply presumed that, collectively, all Defendants joined in the harm occasioned to Plaintiffs and did so negligently. Page 3 of 6 10. Plaintiffs do not specify which of the named Defendants owned the property on which the accident occurred nor do Plaintiffs allege which of the individual Defendants owned the steer in question. 11. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1023.1, Plaintiffs have an obligation to investigate the claims against each individual named Defendant before asserting a claim. Instead, Plaintiffs simply refer to "Defendants and/or Defendants' representatives" as actors that caused Plaintiffs harm. See Plaintiffs' Complaint at Paragraphs 14-20. As a direct consequence of Plaintiffs failure and refusal to provide any of the above -referenced information, Defendants are without knowledge as to the specific claims against them in violation of Rules 1019 and 1023.1. WHEREFORE, Moving Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order striking Plaintiffs' Complaint for failure to conform to Pennsylvania law and Rule of Court. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. NO. 1019(a) AND 1028(a)(4). 12. As noted above, Plaintiffs seek to recover punitive damages from each named Defendant. 13. Also as set forth above, nowhere in Plaintiffs' Complaint is any differentiation found to suggest that any individual defendant engaged in any particular conduct that was either wanton, reckless or willful sufficient to state a claim for punitive damages. 14. Under Pennsylvania law, recklessness or wantonness requires acknowledge knowledge of facts which created a high risk of physical harm to another and that, with such knowledge, the actor deliberately proceeded in conscious disregard to the risk at issue. Page 4 of 6 15. In this instance, Plaintiffs fail to allege a single fact that would support a reckless indifference to Plaintiffs' rights and instead rely upon boilerplate language against each of the named defendants. 16. As a function of Plaintiffs' failure to allege any facts in support of a claim for recklessness, Plaintiffs' claim is both factually and legally deficient and should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as a matter of law. WHEREFORE, Defendants Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop Inc., a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order dismissing Plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages and striking Plaintiffs' Complaint for failure to conform to Pennsylvania law and rule of court. Furthermore, Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiffs to conform their Amended Complaint to Rule 1019(a) by alleging the particular involvement of each named Defendant. Date: Respect miffed, D LS OLL, SQUIRE orney I.D. No. 47243 ey for Defendant, C :IN HOLLOW BUTCHER SHOP, INC. a/k/a WARRINGTON FARM MEATS 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 975-8114 Direct: (717) 760-7502 Fax: (717) 975-8124 Page 5 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on all counsel of record by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the Ronald M. Graham, Esquire Graham & Mauer, P.C. Suite 7, PO box 987 Valley Forge, PA 17241 Attorney for Plaintiff day of October, 2014, and addressed as follows: David L. Schwalm, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 North Front Street PO Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Defendants Jones Harvesting, Gerald Jones, Marjorie Jones, Gerald Jones, Jr., and Keith Jones MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN BY: 07C ---- Page 6 of 6 BLAZICK LAW FIRM Michael T. Blazick, I.D. No. 82511,».: Two Public Square, Suite 102 Wilkes -Bane, PA 18701 > ; EJ 'li Phone: (570) 829-0945 Fax: (570) 829-0947 PO :FE t Attorney for Defendant, Darryl E. Jones d/b/a Jones and Martin Auction Services STEVEN CALAMAN and KATHY CALAMAN h/w 1085 Grahams Wood Road Newville, PA 17241 Plaintiffs v. JONES HARVESTING, LLC a/k/a JONES HARVESTING LLC 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and GERALD P. JONES 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and MARJORIE L. JONES 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and CABIN HOLLOW BUTCHER SHOP, INC. a/k/a WARRINGTON FARM MEATS 156 Old Cabin Hollow Road Dillsburg, PA 17019 and DARRYL E. JONES d/b/a JONES AND MARTIN AUCTION SERVICES 544 Mohawk Road Newville, PA 17241 and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 14 -CV -5466 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GERALD JONES, JR. 699 Burnt House Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and WAYNE JONES 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and GERALD JONES & SONS, INC. a/k/a GERALD JONES & SONS TRUCKING INC. 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and KEITH JONES 424 Old Mill Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Defendants ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO: PROTHONOTARY Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of Defendant, DARRYL E. JONES d/b/a JONES AND MARTIN AUCTION SERVICES, in the above matter. By: T E BL ZICK LAW FIRM MICHAEL T. BLAZI C , ESQUIRE` ?!` BLAZICK LAW FIRM 0 IA Michael T. Blazick, I.D. No. Two Public Square, Suite 10 11: Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701 PEI:;•::‘,: -!IA Phone: (570) 829-0945 !SYLY Fax: (570) 829-0947 Attorney for Defendant, Darryl E. Jones d/b/a Jones and Martin Auction Services STEVEN CALAMAN and KATHY CALAMAN h/w 1085 Grahams Wood Road Newville, PA 17241 Plaintiffs V. JONES HARVESTING, LLC a/k/a JONES HARVESTING LLC 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and GERALD P. JONES 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and MARJORIE L. JONES 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and CABIN HOLLOW BUTCHER SHOP, INC. a/k/a WARRINGTON FARM MEATS 156 Old -Cabin Hollow Road Dillsburg, PA 17019 and DARRYL E. JONES d/b/a JONES AND MARTIN AUCTION SERVICES 544 Mohawk Road Newville, PA 17241 and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 14 -CV -5466 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GERALD JONES, JR. 699 Burnt House Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and WAYNE JONES 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and GERALD JONES & SONS, INC. a/k/a GERALD JONES & SONS TRUCKING INC. 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 and KEITH JONES 424 Old Mill Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michael T. Blazick, Esquire, hereby certify that on the 1th day of October 2014, I served a true and correct copy of my Entry of Appearance on behalf of Defendant, Darryl E. Jones d/b/a Jones and Martin Auction Services, via first-class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Whitney Graham, Esquire Suite 7, PO Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 Rolf E. Kroll, Esquire 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 David L. Schwalm, Esquire 305 N Front Street PO Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 By: THE BLAZICK LAW FIRM A a M CHAEL T. BLAZ K, ESQUIRE GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. Ronald M. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 64483 Whitney S. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 312145 Suite 7, P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 (610)933-3333 r•t+ i ELS: COT STEVEN CALAMAN and KATHY CALAMAN h/w 1085 Grahams Wood Road Newville, PA 17241 Plaintiffs vs. JONES HARVESTING, LLC a/k/a et. al. JONES HARVESTING LLC 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Defendants ` Attorneys for Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO.: 14-5466 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiffs Steven and Kathy Calaman are adult individuals residing at 1085 Grahams Wood Road, Newville, PA 17241. 2. At all times pertinent hereto, Steven and Kathy Calaman are husband and wife. 3. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendants Gerald P. Jones and Marjorie L. Jones owned the property located at 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA 17015. 4. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC a/k/a Jones Harvesting LLC is a Pennsylvania corporation with a business address of 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA 17015. Page 1 Y 5. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Gerald P. Jones is an adult individual with an address of 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA 17015. 6. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Marjorie L. Jones is an adult individual with an address of 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA 17015. 7. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop, Inc. a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats is a Pennsylvania corporation with a business address of 156 Old Cabin Hollow Road, Dillsburg, PA 17015. 8. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Darryl E. Jones d/b/a Jones and Martin Auction Services is an adult individual with an address of 544 Mohawk Road, Newville, PA 17241. 9. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Gerald Jones, Jr. is an adult individual with an address of 699 Burnt House Road, Carlisle, PA 17015. 10. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Wayne Jones is an adult individual with an address of 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA 17015. 11. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Gerald Jones & Sons, Inc. a/k/a Gerald Jones & Sons Trucking Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with a business address of 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA 17015. 12. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Keith Jones is an adult individual with an address of 424 Old Mill Road, Carlisle, PA .17015. 13. Defendants are in the business of raising, handling, transporting and/or butchering cattle. 14. On or about September 28, 2012, Plaintiff Steven Calaman was a business invitee on the premises of Defendants' at 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA 17015. Page 2 15. At said time and place, and at the request of one or more of the Defendants, after receiving no training and/or instruction and/or assistance from some or all of Defendants or Defendants' employees or agents, Plaintiff Steven Calaman entered the cattle shipping pen and/or enclosure as he had seen others do. 16. At said time and place, Plaintiff Steven Calaman attempted to close a gate which would contain the cattle in a trailer for transport. 17. Some or all of Defendants, and/or Defendants' representatives, allowed the cattle to be unsecured in and about the areas where Plaintiff Steven Calaman and others were expected to be. 18. Suddenly and without warning, while not restrained, a bull or steer charged and repeatedly struck Plaintiff Steven Calaman. 19. Prior to attacking Plaintiff Steven Calaman, said bull or steer had been identified by one or more of the Defendants as having aggressive and/or dangerous and/or unsafe propensities. 20. Upon information and belief, Defendant Gerald Jones, Jr. had identified said bull or steer as having aggressive and/or dangerous and/or unsafe propensities, but failed to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of said propensities. 21. Despite having known of the aggressive and/or dangerous and/or unsafe propensities of said bull or steer, some or all of Defendants and/or Defendants' representatives failed to warn and/or notify handlers and/or invitees of said dangers. 22. Despite having known of the aggressive and/or dangerous and/or unsafe propensities of said cattle, some or all of Defendants and/or Defendants' representatives failed to shut Page 3 down or halt the operation. 23. Despite having known of the aggressive and/or dangerous and/or unsafe propensities of said cattle, one or more Defendants and/or Defendants' representatives failed to segregate said cattle. 24. The aforesaid incident and resulting injuries and/or damages were in no way caused by any act or failure to act on the part of Plaintiff Steven Calaman. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned incident, Plaintiff Steven Calaman suffered severed and painful injuries including, but not limited to, a fractured shoulder, as well as other injuries to his connective tissue, nerves, and nervous system. 26. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries and/or damages, Plaintiff Steven Calaman has been compelled, and/or may be compelled to spend money for medical and surgical aide, medications and similar medical and medically related treatments, instrumentalities and modalities. 27. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned incident and resulting injuries and/or damages, the integrity, resilience, resistance to injury of Plaintiff Steven Calaman has been compromised so the Plaintiff Steven Calaman is more susceptible to injury and may have earlier onset of degenerative and other problems than Plaintiff Steven Calaman would have suffered had the above-mentioned injuries not occurred. 28. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries and/or damages, Plaintiff Steven Calaman has suffered and/or suffers and/or will suffer from physical and mental anguish, pain, inconvenience, emotional distress and/or scarring. - Page 4 29. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned incident and resulting injuries and/or damages, Plaintiff Steven Calaman has suffered and/or continues to suffer and/or may in the future suffer the loss of earnings and/or earning capacity. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE STEVEN CALAMAN v. DEFENDANT JONES HARVESTING, LLC a/k/a JONES HARVESTING LLC 30. Paragraphs 1 through 29 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 31. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC a/k/a Jones Harvesting LLC owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the premises of 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA 17015. 32. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC a/k/a Jones Harvesting LLC owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the subject bull or steer. 33. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC a/k/a Jones Harvesting LLC owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the cattle pen and/or cattle loading area. 34. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC a/k/a Jones Harvesting LLC owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the subject trailer. 35. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC a/k/a Jones Harvesting LLC acted and/or failed to act by and through their officers, directors, employees, agents, Page 5 servants, workman and/or representatives who were acting within the course and scope of their employment and on the behalf of said Defendant. 36. The aforementioned incident and resulting injuries and damages, as set forth herein, were the direct and proximate result of the carelessness, and negligence of Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC a/k/a Jones Harvesting LLC for the following reasons: a. Disregarding the rights and safety of persons lawfully upon the premises on which the unsafe and dangerous conditions existed; b. Permitting and allowing business invitees, including Plaintiff Steven Calaman, to enter the cattle shipping pen without adequate safety precautions, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; c. Failure to properly restrain the cattle around business invitees; d. Failure to have said bull or steer under control; e. Failure to warn business invitees of said bull or steer's previously identified and subsequently known, aggressive and/or dangerous propensities; f. Failure to properly confine said bull or steer so that said cattle could not injure business invitees; g. Failing to provide adequate, prudent and reasonable safeguards to prevent injury to business invitees in and about the cattle shipping pen and/or cattle enclosure; h. Failing to implement adequate safety standards, policies, procedures and regulations to prevent business invitees, such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman, from encountering cattle in a dangerous manner; Page 6 i. Failing to properly design, construct and/or maintain appropriate safety devices and/or enclosures and/or facilities to prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by cattle; j. Failing to properly design, construct and maintain appropriate cattle enclosures to prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by cattle; k. Failing to properly hire, train and/or supervise employees, agents, servants and/or representatives in the course of those employees employment; 1. Failing to properly and safely operate the cattle enclosure; m. Failing to exercise due care under the circumstances; n. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing upon Defendant's premises; o. Failing to provide adequate supervision to business invitees in and about the cattle enclosure area; p. Failing to provide sufficient safety devices, instruction and/or training to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; q. Failing to provide and/or enforce minimal safety equipment, policies and procedures which were required to provide a reasonably safe environment for business invitees such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman; r. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing as a result of the negligent mishandling of the Defendant facility and equipment; s. Failing to provide and/or employ sufficient safety devices such as proper fencing, Page 7 and/or proper pens, and/or proper gates, and/or man -gates, and/or duck shrouds for safety; t. Failing to enforce existing safety policies, procedures, rules, regulations, and standards which were necessary for the safe operation of Defendant's facility; u. Placing the corporate profit motive ahead of the safety of business invitees including Plaintiff Steven Calaman by way of not providing safety instruction and/or safety equipment and/or a safe premises; v. Disregarding and/or contravening known industry safety precautions, procedures, policies, regulations and/or standards, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did, result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; w. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safe conduct by employees and/or business invitees; x. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safety. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Steven Calaman demands judgment in his favor and against • Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC a/k/a Jones Harvesting LLC in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limitation requiring arbitration, plus interest, and costs in addition to such relief as the Court may deem just and proper. COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE STEVEN CALAMAN v. DEFENDANT GERALD P. JONES 37. Paragraphs 1 through 36 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. Page 8 38. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Gerald P. Jones owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the premises of 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA 17015. 39. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Gerald P. Jones owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the subject bull or steer. 40. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Gerald P. Jones owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the cattle pen and/or cattle loading area. 41. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Gerald P. Jones owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the subject trailer. 42. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Gerald P. Jones was a corporate officer of Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC a/k/a Jones Harvesting LLC. 43. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Gerald P. Jones was a corporate officer of Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop, Inc. a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats. 44. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Gerald P. Jones was a corporate officer of Defendant Gerald Jones & Sons, Inc. a/k/a Gerald Jones & Sons Trucking Inc. 45. The aforementioned incident and resulting injuries and damages, as set forth herein, were Page 9 the direct and proximate result of the carelessness, and negligence of Defendant Gerald P. Jones for the following reasons: a. Disregarding the rights and safety of persons lawfully upon the premises on which the unsafe and dangerous conditions existed; b. Permitting and allowing business invitees, including Plaintiff Steven Calaman, to enter the cattle shipping pen without adequate safety precautions, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; c. Failure to properly restrain the cattle around business invitees; d. Failure to have said bull or steer under control; e. Failure to warn business invitees of said bull or steer's previously identified and subsequently known, aggressive and/or dangerous propensities; f Failure to properly confine said bull or steer so that said cattle could not injure business invitees; g. Failing to provide adequate, prudent and reasonable safeguards to prevent injury to business invitees in and about the cattle shipping pen and/or cattle enclosure; h. Failing to implement adequate safety standards, policies, procedures and regulations to prevent business invitees, such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman, from encountering cattle in a dangerous manner; i. Failing to properly design, construct and/or maintain appropriate safety devices and/or enclosures and/or facilities to prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by cattle; Page 10 j. Failing to properly design, construct and/or maintain appropriate cattle enclosures to prevent injury of handlers or invitees by cattle; k. Failing to properly hire, train and/or supervise employees, agents, servants and/or representatives in the course of those employees employment; 1. Failing to properly and safely operate the cattle enclosure; m. Failing to exercise due care under the circumstances; n. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing upon Defendant's premises; - o. Failing to provide adequate supervision to business invitees in and about the cattle enclosure area; p. Failing to provide sufficient safety devices, instruction and/or training to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; q. Failing to provide and/or enforce minimal safety equipment, policies and procedures which were required to provide a reasonably safe environment for business invitees such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman; r. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing as a result of the negligent mishandling of the Defendant facility and equipment; s. Failing to provide and/or employ sufficient safety devices such as proper fencing, and/or proper pens, and/or proper gates, and/or man-gates, and/or duck shrouds for safety; t. Failing to enforce existing safety policies, procedures, rules, regulations, and Page 11 standards which were necessary for the safe operation of Defendant's facility; u. Placing the corporate profit motive ahead of the safety of business invitees including Plaintiff Steven Calaman by way of not providing safety instruction and/or safety equipment and/or a safe premises; v. Disregarding and/or contravening known industry safety precautions, procedures, policies, regulations and/or standards, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did, result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; w. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safe conduct by employees and/or business invitees; x. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safety. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Steven Calaman demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant Gerald P. Jones in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limitation requiring arbitration, plus interest, and costs in addition to such relief as the Court may deem just and proper. COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE STEVEN CALAMAN v. DEFENDANT MARJORIE L. JONES 46. Paragraphs 1 through 45 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 47. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Marjorie L. Jones owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the premises of 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA 17015. Page 12 48. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Marjorie L. Jones owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the subject bull. 49. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Marjorie L. Jones owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the cattle pen and/or cattle loading area. 50. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Marjorie L. Jones owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the subject trailer. 51. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Marjorie L. Jones was a corporate officer of Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC a/k/a Jones Harvesting LLC. 52. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Marjorie L. Jones was a corporate officer of Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop, Inc. a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats. 53. The aforementioned incident and resulting injuries and damages, as set forth herein, were the direct and proximate result of the carelessness, and negligence of Defendant Marjorie L. Jones for the following reasons: a. Disregarding the rights and safety of persons lawfully upon the premises on which the unsafe and dangerous conditions existed; b. Permitting and allowing business invitees, including Plaintiff Steven Calaman, to enter the cattle shipping pen without adequate safety precautions, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did result in Page 13 substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; c. Failure to properly restrain the cattle around business invitees;. d. Failure to have said bull or steer under control; e. Failure to warn business invitees of said bull or steer's previously identified and subsequently known, aggressive and/or dangerous propensities; f. Failure to properly confine said bull or steer so that said cattle could not injure business invitees; g. Failing to provide adequate, prudent and reasonable safeguards to prevent injury to business invitees in and about the cattle shipping pen and/or cattle enclosure; h. Failing to implement adequate safety standards, policies, procedures and regulations to prevent business invitees, such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman, from encountering cattle in a dangerous manner; i. Failing to properly design, construct and/or maintain appropriate safety devices and/or enclosures and/or facilities to prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by cattle; j. Failing to properly design, construct and/or maintain appropriate cattle enclosures to prevent injury of handlers or invitees by cattle; k. Failing to properly hire, train and/or supervise employees, agents, servants and/or representatives in the course of those employees employment; 1. Failing to properly and safely operate the cattle enclosure; m. Failing to exercise due care under the circumstances; n. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition Page 14 then existing upon Defendant's premises; o. Failing to provide adequate supervision to business invitees in and about the cattle enclosure area; p. Failing to provide sufficient safety devices, instruction and/or training to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; q. Failing to provide and/or enforce minimal safety equipment, policies and procedures which were required to provide a reasonably safe environment for business invitees such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman; r. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing as a result of the negligent mishandling of the Defendant facility and equipment; s. Failing to provide and/or employ sufficient safety devices such as proper fencing, and/or proper pens, and/or proper gates, and/or man-gates, and/or duck shrouds for safety; t. Failing to enforce existing safety policies, procedures, rules, regulations, and standards which were necessary for the safe operation of Defendant's facility; u. Placing the corporate profit motive ahead of the safety of business invitees including Plaintiff Steven Calaman by way of not providing safety instruction and/or safety equipment and/or a safe premises; v. Disregarding and/or contravening known industry safety precautions, procedures, policies, regulations and/or standards, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did, result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Page 15 Calaman; w. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safe conduct by employees and/or business invitees; x. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safety. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Steven Calaman demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant Marjorie L. Jones in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limitation requiring arbitration, plus interest, and costs in addition to such relief as the Court may deem just and proper. COUNT IV - NEGLIGENCE STEVEN CALAMAN v. DEFENDANT CABIN HOLLOW BUTCHER SHOP, INC. a/k/a WARRINGTON FARM MEATS 54. Paragraphs 1 through 53 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 55. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop, Inc. a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the subject bull. 56. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop, Inc. a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the cattle pen'and/or cattle loading area and/or equipment. 57. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop, Inc. a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats owned, leased, operated,. possessed, Page 16 maintained and/or otherwise controlled the subject trailer. 58. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop, Inc. a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats acted and/or failed to act by and through their officers, directors, employees, agents, servants, workman and/or representatives who were acting within the course and scope of their employment and on the behalf of said Defendant. 59. On information and belief, at all time pertinent hereto, Defendant Gerald P. Jones was a corporate officer of Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop, Inc. a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats. 60. On information and belief, at all time pertinent hereto, Defendant Marjorie L. Jones was a corporate officer of Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop, Inc. a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats. 61. The aforementioned incident and resulting injuries and damages, as set forth herein, were the direct and proximate result of the carelessness, and negligence of Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop, Inc. a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats for the following reasons: a. Disregarding the rights and safety of persons lawfully upon the premises on which the unsafe and dangerous conditions existed; b. Permitting and allowing business invitees, including Plaintiff Steven Calaman, to enter the cattle shipping pen without adequate safety precautions, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; c. Failure to properly restrain the cattle around business invitees; d. Failure to have said bull or steer under control; Page 17 e. Failure to warn business invitees of said bull or steer's previously identified and subsequently known, aggressive and/or dangerous propensities; f. Failure to properly confine said bull or steer so that said cattle could not injure business invitees; g. Failing to provide adequate, prudent and reasonable safeguards to prevent injury to business invitees in and about the cattle shipping pen and/or cattle enclosure; h. Failing to implement adequate safety standards, policies, procedures and regulations to prevent business invitees, such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman, from encountering cattle in a dangerous manner; i. Failing to properly design, construct and/or maintain appropriate safety devices and/or enclosures and/or facilities to prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by cattle; j. Failing to properly design, construct and maintain appropriate cattle enclosures to prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by cattle; k. Failing to properly hire, train and/or supervise employees, agents, servants and/or representatives in the course of those employees employment; 1. Failing to properly and safely operate the cattle enclosure; m. Failing to exercise due care under the circumstances; n. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition - then existing upon Defendant's premises; o. Failing to provide adequate supervision to business invitees in and about the cattle enclosure area; Page 18 P. Failing to provide sufficient safety devices, instruction and/or training to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; q. Failing to provide and/or enforce minimal safety equipment, policies and procedures which were required to provide a reasonably safe environment for business invitees such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman; r. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing as a result of the negligent mishandling of the Defendant facility and equipment; s. Failing to provide and/or employ sufficient safety devices such as proper fencing, and/or proper pens, and/or proper gates, and/or man -gates, and/or duck shrouds for safety; t. Failing to enforce existing safety policies, procedures, rules, regulations, and standards which were necessary for the safe operation of Defendant's facility; u. Placing the corporate profit motive ahead of the safety of business invitees including Plaintiff Steven Calaman by way of not providing safety instruction and/or safety equipment and/or a safe premises; v. Disregarding and/or contravening known industry safety precautions, procedures, policies, regulations and/or standards, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did, result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; w. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safe conduct by employees and/or business invitees; Page 19 x. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safety. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Steven Calaman demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop, Inc. a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limitation requiring arbitration, plus interest, and costs in addition to such relief as the Court may deem just and proper. COUNT V - NEGLIGENCE STEVEN CALAMAN v. DEFENDANT DARRYL E. JONES d/b/a JONES AND MARTIN AUCTION SERVICES 62. Paragraphs 1 through 61 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 63. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Darryl E. Jones d/b/a Jones and Martin Auction Services owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the subject bull. 64. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Darryl E. Jones d/b/a Jones and Martin Auction Services owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the cattle pen and/or cattle loading area and/or equipment. 65. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Darryl E. Jones d/b/a Jones and Martin Auction Services owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the subject trailer. 66. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Darryl E. Jones d/b/a Jones and Martin Auction Services acted and/or failed to act by and through their officers, directors, employees, agents, servants, workman and/or representatives who were acting within the course and Page 20 scope of their employment and on the behalf of said Defendant. 67. On information and belief, Defendant Darryle E. Jones was an employee and/or agent and/or servant of Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC a/k/a Jones Harvesting LLC. 68. The aforementioned incident and resulting injuries and damages, as set forth herein, were the direct and proximate result of the carelessness, and negligence of Defendant Darryl E. Jones d/b/a Jones And Martin Auction Services for the following reasons: a. Disregarding the rights and safety of persons lawfully upon the premises on which the unsafe and dangerous conditions existed; b. Permitting and allowing business invitees, including Plaintiff Steven Calaman, to enter the cattle shipping pen without adequate safety precautions, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; c. Failure to properly restrain the cattle around business invitees; d. Failure to have said bull or steer under control; e. Failure to warn business invitees of said bull or steer's previously identified and subsequently known, aggressive and/or dangerous propensities; f. Failure to properly confine said bull or steer so that said cattle could not injure business invitees; g. Failing to provide adequate, prudent and reasonable safeguards to prevent injury to business invitees in and about the cattle shipping pen and/or cattle enclosure; h. Failing to implement adequate safety standards, policies, procedures and regulations to prevent business invitees, such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman, from Page 21 encountering cattle in a dangerous manner; i. Failing to properly design, construct and/or maintain appropriate safety devices and/or enclosures and/or facilities to prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by cattle; j. Failing to properly design, construct and/or maintain appropriate cattle enclosures to prevent injury of handlers or invitees by cattle; k. Failing to properly hire, train and/or supervise employees, agents, servants and/or representatives in the course of those employees employment; 1. Failing to properly and safely operate the cattle enclosure; m. Failing to exercise due care under the circumstances; n. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing upon Defendant's premises; o. Failing to provide adequate supervision to business invitees in and about the cattle enclosure area; p. Failing to provide sufficient safety devices, instruction and/or training to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; q. Failing to provide and/or enforce minimal safety equipment, policies and procedures which were required to provide a reasonably safe environment for business invitees such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman; r. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing as a result of the negligent mishandling of the Defendant facility and equipment; Page 22 s. Failing to provide and/or employ sufficient safety devices such as proper fencing, and/or proper pens, and/or proper gates, and/or man -gates, and/or duck shrouds for safety; t. Failing to enforce existing safety policies, procedures, rules, regulations, and standards which were necessary for the safe operation of Defendant's facility; u. Placing the corporate profit motive ahead of the safety of business invitees including Plaintiff Steven Calaman by way of not providing safety instruction and/or safety equipmentand/or a safe premises; v. Disregarding and/or contravening known industry safety precautions, procedures, policies, regulations and/or standards, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did, result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; w. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safe conduct by employees and/or business invitees; x. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safety. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Steven Calaman demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant Darryl E. Jones d/b/a Jones And Martin Auction Services in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limitation requiring arbitration, plus interest, costs and damages in addition to such relief as the Court may deem just and proper. COUNT VI - NEGLIGENCE STEVEN CALAMAN v. DEFENDANT GERALD JONES, Jr. Page 23 69. Paragraphs 1 through 68 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 70. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Gerald Jones Jr. owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the premises of 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA 17015. 71. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Gerald Jones Jr. owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the subject bull. 72. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Gerald Jones Jr. owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the cattle pen and/or cattle loading area. 73. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Gerald Jones Jr. owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the subject trailer. 74. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Gerald Jones Jr. was a an employee, and/or agent and/or servant of Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC a/k/a Jones Harvesting LLC. 75. Upon information and belief, Defendant Gerald Jones, Jr. during the course of his employment by Jones Harvesting, LLC a/k/a Jones Harvesting LLC, had identified said bull or steer as having aggressive and/or dangerous and/or unsafe propensities, but failed to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of said propensities. 76. The aforementioned incident and resulting injuries and damages, as set forth herein, were the direct and proximate result of the carelessness, and negligence of Defendant Gerald Page 24 Jones, Jr. for the following reasons: a. Disregarding the rights and safety of persons lawfully upon the premises on which the unsafe and dangerous conditions existed; b. Permitting and allowing business invitees, including Plaintiff Steven Calaman, to enter the cattle shipping pen without adequate safety precautions, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; c. Failure to properly restrain the cattle around business invitees; d. Failure to have said bull or steer under control; e. Failure to warn business invitees of said bull or steer's previously identified and subsequently known, aggressive and/or dangerous propensities; f. Failure to properly confine said bull or steer so that said cattle could not injure business invitees; g. Failing to provide adequate, prudent and reasonable safeguards to prevent injury to business invitees in and about the cattle shipping pen and/or cattle enclosure; h. Failing to implement adequate safety standards, policies, procedures and regulations to prevent business invitees, such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman, from encountering cattle in a dangerous manner; i. Failing to properly design, construct and/or maintain appropriate safety devices and/or enclosures and/or facilities to prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by cattle; j. Failing to properly design, construct and/or maintain appropriate cattle enclosures Page 25 to prevent injury of handlers or invitees by cattle; k. Failing to properly hire, train and/or supervise employees, agents, servants and/or - representatives in the course of those employees employment; 1. Failing to properly and safely operate the cattle enclosure; m. Failing to exercise due care under the circumstances; n. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing upon Defendant's premises; o. Failing to provide adequate supervision to business invitees in and about the cattle enclosure area; p. Failing to provide sufficient safety devices, instruction and/or training to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; q. Failing to provide and/or enforce minimal safety equipment, policies and procedures which were required to provide a reasonably safe environment for business invitees such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman; r Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing as a result of the negligent mishandling of the Defendant facility and equipment; s. Failing to provide and/or employ sufficient safety devices such as proper fencing, and/or proper pens, and/or proper gates, and/or man-gates, and/or duck shrouds for safety; t. Failing to enforce existing safety policies, procedures, rules, regulations, and standards which were necessary for the safe operation of Defendant's facility; Page 26 u. Placing the corporate profit motive ahead of the safety of business invitees including Plaintiff Steven Calaman by way of not providing safety instruction and/or safety equipment and/or a safe premises; v. Disregarding and/or contravening known industry safety precautions, procedures, policies, regulations and/or standards, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did, result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; w. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safe conduct by employees and/or business invitees; x. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safety. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Steven Calaman demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant Gerald Jones, Jr. in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limitation requiring arbitration, plus interest, and costs in addition to such relief as the Court may deem just and proper. COUNT VII - NEGLIGENCE STEVEN CALAMAN v. DEFENDANT WAYNE JONES 77. Paragraphs 1 through 76 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 78. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Wayne Jones owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the premises of 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA 17015. 79. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Wayne Jones owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the subject bull. Page 27 80. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Wayne Jones owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the cattle pen and/or cattle loading area. 81. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Wayne Jones owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the subject trailer. 82. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Wayne Jones was a an employee, and/or agent and/or servant of Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC a/k/a Jones Harvesting LLC. 83. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Wayne Jones was a an employee, and/or agent and/or servant and/or corporate officer of Defendant Gerald Jones & Sons, Inc. a/k/a Gerald Jones & Sons Trucking Inc. 84. The aforementioned incident and resulting injuries and damages, as set forth herein, were the direct and proximate result of the carelessness, and negligence of Defendant Wayne Jones for the following reasons: a. Disregarding the rights and safety of persons lawfully upon the premises on which the unsafe and dangerous conditions existed; b. Permitting and allowing business invitees, including Plaintiff Steven Calaman, to enter the cattle shipping pen without adequate safety precautions, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; c. Failure to properly restrain the cattle around business invitees; d. Failure to have said bull or steer under control; Page 28 e. Failure to warn business invitees of said bull or steer's previously identified and subsequently known, aggressive and/or dangerous propensities; f. Failure to properly confine said bull or steer so that said cattle could not injure business invitees; g. Failing to provide adequate, prudent and reasonable safeguards to prevent injury to business invitees in and about the cattle shipping pen and/or cattle enclosure; h. Failing to implement adequate safety standards, policies, procedures and regulations to prevent business invitees, such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman, from encountering cattle in a dangerous manner; i. Failing to properly design, construct and/or maintain appropriate safety devices and/or enclosures and/or facilities to prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by cattle; j. Failing to properly design, construct and maintain appropriate cattle enclosures to prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by cattle; k. Failing to properly hire, train and/or supervise employees, agents, servants and/or representatives in the course of those employees employment; 1. Failing to properly and safely operate the cattle enclosure; m. Failing to exercise due care under the circumstances; n. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing upon Defendant's premises; o. Failing to provide adequate supervision to business invitees in and about the cattle enclosure area; Page 29 P. Failing to provide sufficient safety devices, instruction and/or training to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; q. Failing to provide and/or enforce minimal safety equipment, policies and procedures which were required to provide a reasonable safe environment for business invitees such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman; r. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing as a result of the negligent mishandling of the Defendant facility and equipment; s. Failing to provide and/or employ sufficient safety devices such as proper fencing, and/or proper pens, and/or proper gates, and/or man -gates, and/or duck shrouds for safety; t. Failing to enforce existing safety policies, procedures, rules, regulations, and standards which were necessary for the safe operation of Defendant's facility; u. Placing the corporate profit motive ahead of the safety of business invitees including Plaintiff Steven Calaman by way of not providing safety instruction and/or safety equipment and/or a safe premises; v. Disregarding and/or contravening known industry safety precautions, procedures, policies, regulations and/or standards, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did, result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; w. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safe conduct by employees and/or business invitees; Page 30 x. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safety. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Steven Calaman demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant Wayne Jones in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limitation requiring arbitration, plus interest, and costs in addition to such relief as the Court may deem just and proper. COUNT VIII - NEGLIGENCE STEVEN CALAMAN v. DEFENDANT GERALD JONES & SONS, INC. a/k/a GERALD JONES & SONS TRUCKING INC. 85. Paragraphs 1 through 84 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 86. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Gerald Jones & Sons, Inc. a/k/a Gerald Jones & Sons Trucking Inc. owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the premises of 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA 17015. 87. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Gerald Jones & Sons, Inc. a/k/a Gerald Jones & Sons Trucking Inc. owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the subject bull. 88. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Gerald Jones & Sons, Inc. a/k/a Gerald Jones & Sons Trucking Inc. owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the cattle pen and/or. cattle loading area. 89. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Gerald Jones & Sons, Inc. a/k/a Gerald Jones & Sons Trucking Inc. owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained Page 31 and/or otherwise controlled the subject trailer. 90. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Gerald Jones & Sons, Inc. a/k/a Gerald Jones & Sons Trucking Inc. acted and/or failed to act by and through their officers, directors, employees, agents, servants, workman and/or representatives who were acting within the course and scope of their employment and on the behalf of said Defendant. 91. On information and belief, Defendant Gerald P. Jones is a corporate officer of Defendant Gerald Jones & Sons, Inc. a/k/a Gerald Jones & Sons Trucking Inc. 92. On information and belief, Defendant Wayne Jones is a corporate officer of Defendant Gerald Jones & Sons, Inc. a/k/a Gerald Jones & Sons Trucking Inc. 93. The aforementioned incident and resulting injuries and damages, as set forth herein, were the direct and proximate result of the carelessness, and negligence of Defendant Gerald Jones & Sons, Inc. a/k/a Gerald Jones & Sons Trucking Inc for the following reasons: a. Disregarding the rights and safety of persons lawfully upon the premises on which the unsafe and dangerous conditions existed; b. Permitting and allowing business invitees, including Plaintiff Steven Calaman, to enter the cattle shipping pen without adequate safety precautions, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; c. Failure to properly restrain the cattle around business invitees; d. Failure to have said bull or steer under control; e. Failure to warn business invitees of said bull or steer's previously identified and subsequently known, aggressive and/or dangerous propensities; Page 32 f. Failure to properly confine said bull or steer so that said cattle could not injure business invitees; g. Failing to provide adequate, prudent and reasonable safeguards to prevent injury to business invitees in and about the cattle shipping pen and/or cattle enclosure; h. Failing to implement adequate safety standards, policies, procedures and regulations to prevent business invitees, such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman, from encountering cattle in a dangerous manner; i. Failing to properly design, construct and/or maintain appropriate safety devices and/or enclosures and/or facilities to prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by cattle; j. Failing to properly design, construct and maintain appropriate cattle enclosures to prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by cattle; k. Failing to properly hire, train and/or supervise employees, agents, servants and/or representatives in the course of those employees employment; 1. Failing to properly and safely operate the cattle enclosure; m. Failing to exercise due care under the circumstances; n. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing upon Defendant's premises; o. Failing to provide adequate supervision to business invitees in and about the cattle enclosure area; P. Failing to provide sufficient safety devices, instruction and/or training to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; Page 33 w q. Failing to provide and/or enforce minimal safety equipment, policies and procedures which were required to provide a reasonably safe environment for business invitees such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman; r. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing as a result of the negligent mishandling of the Defendant facility and equipment; s. Failing to provide and/or employ sufficient safety devices such as proper fencing, and/or proper pens, and/or proper gates, and/or man -gates, and/or duck shrouds for safety; t. Failing to enforce existing safety policies, procedures, rules, regulations, and standards which were necessary for the safe operation of Defendant's facility; u. Placing the corporate profit motive ahead of the safety of business invitees including Plaintiff Steven Calaman by way of not providing safety instruction and/or safety equipment and/or a safe premises; v. Disregarding and/or contravening known industry safety precautions, procedures, policies, regulations and/or standards, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did, result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; w. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safe conduct by employees and/or business invitees; x. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safety. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Steven Calaman demands judgment in his favor and against Page 34 ?' R Defendant Gerald Jones & Sons, Inc. a/k/a Gerald Jones & Sons Trucking Inc. in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limitation requiring arbitration, plus interest, and costs in addition to such relief as the Court may deem just and proper. COUNT IX - NEGLIGENCE STEVEN CALAMAN v. DEFENDANT KEITH JONES 94. Paragraphs 1 through 93 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 95. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Keith Jones owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the premises of 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA 17015. 96. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Keith Jones owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the subject bull. 97. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Keith Jones owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the cattle pen and/or cattle loading area. 98. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Keith Jones owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the subject trailer. 99. On information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Keith Jones was a an employee, and/or agent and/or servant of Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC a/k/a Jones Harvesting LLC. 100. The aforementioned incident and resulting injuries and damages, as set forth herein, were the direct and proximate result of the carelessness, and negligence of Defendant Keith Page 35 C Jones for the following reasons: a. Disregarding the rights and safety of persons lawfully upon the premises on which the unsafe and dangerous conditions existed; b. Permitting and allowing business invitees, including Plaintiff Steven Calaman, to enter the cattle shipping pen without adequate safety precautions, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; c. Failure to properly restrain the cattle around business invitees; d. Failure to have said bull or steer under control; e. Failure to warn business invitees of said bull or steer's previously identified and subsequently known, aggressive and/or dangerous propensities; f. Failure to properly confine said bull or steer so that said cattle could not injure business invitees; g. Failing to provide adequate, prudent and reasonable safeguards to prevent injury to business invitees in and about the cattle shipping pen and/or cattle enclosure; h. Failing to implement adequate safety standards, policies, procedures and regulations to prevent business invitees, such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman, from encountering cattle in a dangerous manner; i. Failing to properly design, construct and/or maintain appropriate safety devices and/or enclosures and/or facilities to prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by cattle; j. Failing to properly design, construct and maintain appropriate cattle enclosures to Page 36 prevent injury of handlers and/or invitees by cattle; k. Failing to properly hire, train and/or supervise employees, agents, servants and/or representatives in the course of those employees employment; 1. Failing to properly and safely operate the cattle enclosure; m. Failing to exercise due care under the circumstances; n. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing upon Defendant's premises; o. Failing to provide adequate supervision to business invitees in and about the cattle enclosure area; P. Failing to provide sufficient safety devices, instruction and/or training to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; q. Failing to provide and/or enforce minimal safety equipment, policies and procedures which were required to provide a reasonably safe environment for business invitees such as Plaintiff Steven Calaman; r. Failing to warn Plaintiff Steven Calaman of the unsafe and dangerous condition then existing as a result of the negligent mishandling of the Defendant facility and equipment; s. Failing to provide and/or employ sufficient safety devices such as proper fencing, and/or proper pens, and/or proper gates, and/or man -gates, and/or duck shrouds for safety; t. Failing to enforce existing safety policies,. procedures, rules, regulations, and standards which were necessary for the safe operation of Defendant's facility; Page 37 u. Placing the corporate profit motive ahead of the safety of business invitees including Plaintiff Steven Calaman by way of not providing safety instruction and/or safety equipment and/or a safe premises; v. Disregarding and/or contravening known industry safety precautions, procedures, policies, regulations and/or standards, where Defendant knew that failure to do so was likely to, and in fact did, result in substantial harm to Plaintiff Steven Calaman; w. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safe conduct by employees and/or business invitees; x. Failure to maintain minimal standards of safety. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Steven Calaman demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant Keith Jones in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limitation requiring arbitration, plus interest, and costs in addition to such relief as the Court may deem just and proper. COUNT X - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM KATHY CALAMAN v. JONES HARVESTING, LLC a/k/a JONES HARVESTING LLC, GERALD P. JONES, MARJORIE L. JONES, CABIN HOLLOW BUTCHER SHOP, INC. a/k/a WARRINGTON FARM MEATS, DARRYL E. JONES d/b/a JONES AND MARTIN AUCTION SERVICES, GERALD JONES, Jr., WAYNE JONES, GERALD JONES & SONS, INC. a/k/a GERALD JONES & SONS TRUCKING INC, and KEITH JONES 101. Paragraphs 1 through 48 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 102. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiffs Steven Calaman and Kathy Calaman were living together as husband and wife. Page 38 103. As a result of the carelessness, and negligence of all Defendants resulting in the above injuries, damages and losses to her husband, Plaintiff Kathy Calaman has been and may in the future be deprived of the assistance, comfort, support, services, society and companionship of her husband, all of which is to her great detriment and loss. 104. As a result of the carelessness, and negligence of all Defendants, Plaintiff Kathy Calaman has been compelled and/or may be compelled to spend money for medical and surgical aide, medications and similar medical and medically related treatments, instrumentalities and modalities for her husband, Plaintiff Steven Calaman. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Kathy Calaman demands judgment in her favor and against all Defendants in an amount that exceeds the jurisdictional limit for arbitration. Date: 1 36 • j By: Page 39 Respectful Sub ► 'tted, Whitney S. Graham, Esquire GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. Attorney for Plaintiffs VERIFICATION I, Steven Calaman, hereby state that I am the Plaintiff in this Action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Steven Calaman GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. Ronald M. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 64483 Whitney S. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 312145 Suite 7, P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 (610)933-3333 STEVEN CALAMAN and KATHY CALAMAN h/w 1085 Grahams Wood Road Newville, PA 17241 Plaintiffs vs. JONES HARVESTING, LLC a/k/a et. al. JONES HARVESTING LLC 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Defendants .Attorneys for Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO.: 14-5466 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Whitney S. Graham, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiffs, hereby certify that on this, of October, 2014, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint was sent via first class mail, postage pre -paid to the following counsel of records: Michael W. Wagman, Esquire Bennett, Bricklin & Saltzburg LLC 222 E. Orange Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2915 Joshua J. Bovender, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 North Front Street, 6th Floor PO Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Michael Blazick, Esquire The Blazick Law Firm 2 Public Square, Suite 102 Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701 By: Whitney S. Graham, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. Ronald M. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 64483 Whitney S. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 312145 Suite 7, P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 (610)933-3333 ,-- . rs," ,..,,t,.;•F ili,,-i ---"''' ' \I, {.- l P., Attorneys for, Plaintiffs STEVEN CALAMAN and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS KATHY CALAMAN h/w : CUMBERLAND COUNTY,. PENNSYLVANIA 1085 Grahams Wood Road Newville, PA 17241 Plaintiffs • vs. : NO.: 14-5466 JONES HARVESTING, LLC a/k/a et. al. : JONES HARVESTING LLC : CIVIL ACTION - LAW 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Defendants PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS JONES HARVESTING, GERALD JONES, MARJORIE JONES, GERALD JONES, Jr., and KEITH JONES' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT On Thursday October 30, 2014, Plaintiffs Steven and Kathy Calaman, by and through their counsel, sent for filing with the Cumberland County Prothonotary Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs believe that filing said Amended Complaint obviates the need for further discussion of the original Complaint, and the need for oral argument as previously scheduled for November 14, 2014. Date: By: Whitney S. Graham Attorney for Plaintiffs GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. Ronald M. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 64483 Whitney S. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 312145 Suite 7, P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 (610)933-3333 STEVEN CALAMAN and KATHY CALAMAN h/w 1085 Grahams Wood Road Newville,, PA 17241 Plaintiffs vs. : NO.: 14-5466 tomeys for Plaintiffs 22 : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JONES HARVESTING, LLC a/k/a et. al. : JONES HARVESTING LLC : CIVIL ACTION - LAW 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Whitney S. Graham, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiffs, hereby certify that on this day of November, 2014, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants Jones Harvesting, Gerald Jones, Marjorie Jones, Gerald Jones, Jr., and Keith Jones' Brief in Support of Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint, was sent via first class mail, postage pre -paid to the following counsel of records: Michael W. Wagman, Esquire Bennett, Bricklin & Saltzburg LLC 222 E. Orange Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2915 Joshua J. Bovender, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 North Front Street, 6th Floor PO Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Michael Blazick, Esquire The Blazick Law Firm 2 Public Square, Suite 102 Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701 By: GRAHA UER, P.C. tney S. Graham, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs Ronny R Anderson Sheriff Jody S Smith Chief Deputy Richard W Stewart Solicitor SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY � �DOFF\ r��_,A��oT/\A� ~«�� �T�Fp�U\.. '`~' '` � _ U\bNOV 13 pM 3:11 ". ...- u�TY RL AND COUNT �U �'-��\� yEmNS/L~'' "!,,�'���� Steve Calaman vs. Jones Harvesting, LLC a/k/a Jones Harvesting LLC (et al.) Case Number 2014-5466 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 09/17/2014 Sheriff Ronny R Anderon.beingdulyowornocoo»dingto|mw.utateohemodediUgontsoarohandinquiry for the within named Defendant to wit: Cabin HoIIow Butcher Shop aIkIa Warrington Farm Meats, but was unable to locate the Defendant in the Sheriffs bailiwick. The Sheriff therefore deputizes the Sheriff of York. Pennsylvania to serve the within Complaint & Notice according to law. 09/18/2014 07:43 PM - Deputy Jason Kinu|er, being duly sworn according to |aw, served the requested Complaint & Notice handing a true coto a person representing themselves to be Amanda Jones, Wfe, who accepted as "Adult Person in Charge" for Gerald Jones, Jr. at 699 Burnt House Road, Dickinson Township, Cadiu|o, PA 17015. EPUTY , 09/18/2014 08:21 PM - Deputy Dawn Kell, being duly sworn according to law, served the requested Complaint & Notice by handing a true copy to a person representing thke Michele Jones, Wife, who accepted as "Adult Person in Charge" for Keith Jones at 424 Old d, Lower Frankford Township, Carlisle, PA 17015. DAWN KELL, DEPUTY 09/18C2014 08:42 PM - DeputDawn Kell, being duly sworn according to law, served the requested Complaint & Notice by handing a true copy to a person representing themselves to be Travis Jones, San, who accepted as "Adult Person in Charge" for Marjorie Jones at 75 Goodyear Road, West Pennsboro, Carlisle, PA 17015. DAWN KELL, DEPUTY 09/18/2014 08:42 PM - Deputy Dawn Kell, being duly sworn according to law, served the requested Complaint & Notice handing a true coto a person representing themselves to be Josh Jones, Owner, who accepted as "Adult Person in Charge" for Jones Harvesting, LLC a Jones Harvesting LLC at 75 Goodyear Road, WesPennsboro, Carlisle, PA 17015. 08/18C2014 08:42 PM - Deputy Dawn Kell, being duly sworn according to law, served the requested Complaint & Notice Partner in Corpoomon, who accepted as "Adult Person in Charge' for Gerald Jones & Sons, Inc. a/k/a Gerald Jones and Sons Trucking Inc. at 75 Goodyear Road, West Pennsboro, Carlisle, PA 17015. (c) CountySuite Sheriff, Toieosoff, Inc. DAVVN KELL, DEPU j(Q-') 09/102014 08:42 PM Deputy Dawn Kell, being duly sworn according to law, served the requested Complaint & Notice handing a true copy to a person representing themselves to be Travis Jones, Son, who accepted as "Adult Person in Charge" for Gerald P Jones at 75 Goodye..oad, oad, West Pennsboro, Carlisle, PA17O15. CtiLM1 DAWN KELL, DEPU i6e 09/18/2014 08:42 PM - Deputy Dawn Kell, being duty sworn according to law, served the requested Complaint & Notice by handing a true copy to a person representing themselves to be Travis Jones, Brother, who accepted as "Adult Person in Charge" for Wayne Jones at 75 Goodyear Road, West Pennsboro, Carlisle, PA 17015. 00/24/2014 01:06 PM - Deputy Dennis Fry, being duly sworn according to law, served the requested Complaint & Notice handing a true copy to a person representing themselves to be Melanie Jones, wife, who accepted as "Adult Person in Charge" for Darryl E Jones d/b/a Jones and Marting Auctio Services ot544 Mowhawk Road, Upper Frankford, Newwi||e. PA 17241. 'cry ^./3,0.2.4m- 09/30/2014 03:00 PM - The requested Complaint & Notice served by the Sheri who accepted for Cabin HoIIow Butcher Shop a/kJ a Warringtori Fa Road, Dillsburg, PA 17019. Richard Keuerleber, Sheriff, Return of the within. record. ounty upon @AcceptedBy, s, at 156 Old Cabin Hollow ice attached to and made part of SHERIFF COST: $199.39 SO ANSWERS, October 21.2O14 RONRANDERSON, SHERIFF Richard P Keuerleber Sheriff Michael S. Hose Chief Deputy, Operations SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF YORK COUNTY PETER J. MANGAN, ESQ. Solicitor Richard E Rice, II Chief Deputy, Administration STEVEN CALAMAN vs. CABIN HOLLOW BUTCHER SHOP, INC. AKA WARRINGTON FARM MEATS Case Number 14-5466 CIVIL SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 09/30/2014 03:00 PM - DEPUTY TYLER STEPANCHICK, BEING DULY SWORN ACCORDING TO LAW, SERVED THE REQUESTED COMPLAINT & NOTICE BY HANDING A TRUE COPY TO A PERSON REPRESENTING THEMSELVES TO BE GERALD JONES, OWNER, WHO ACCEPTED AS "ADULT PERSON IN CHARGE" FOR CABIN HOLLOW BUTCHER SHOP, INC. AKA WARRINGTON FARM MEATS AT 156 OLD CABIN ROAD, DILLSBURG, PA 17019. TYLER STEPANCHICK,''ED PUTY SHERIFF COST: $47.08 SO ANSWERS, October 09, 2014 RICHARD P KEU EBER, SHERIFF COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Notarial Seal Sheila E. Cook, Notary Public City of York, York County My Commission Expires Feb. 1, 2017 MEMSER, PENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION OF NOTARIES Affirmed and subscribed to before me this 9TH day of OCTOBER NOTARY 2014 (c) CounlySuite Sheriff, Telecsoll, Inc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA S I EVEN CALAMAN and KATHY CALAMAN, h/w, Plaintiffs, vs. JONES HARVESTING, LLC, a/lc/a JONES HARVESTING LLC, GERALD P. JONES, MARJORIE L. JONES, CABIN HOLLOW BUTCHER SHOP, INC., a/k/a WARRINGTON FARM MEATS, DARRYL E. JONES a/k/a JONES AND MARTIN AUCTION SERVICES, GERALD JONES, JR., WAYNE JONES, GERALD JONES & SONS, INC., a/k/a GERALD JONES & SONS TRUCKING, INC., and KEITH JONES, Defendants. DOCKET NO. 14-5466 CIVIL ACTION — LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT, CABIN HOLLOW BUTCHER SHOP, INC., A/K/A WARRINGTON FARM MEATS TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, come Defendants Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop, Inc., a/k/a Warrington Farms Meats, ("Moving Defendants") by and through their counsel, to assert Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint as follows: 1 Plaintiffs commenced this negligence action by Complaint filed with this Honorable Court on or about September 28, 2012, asserting that Plaintiff, Steven Calaman ("Plaintiff') was injured by a steer in a cattle pen. See, Plaintiffs' Complaint at Paragraphs 14-17. 2. On or about October 20, 2014, Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop, Inc., a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats, served Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint. Page 2 of 7 1 3. On or about October 31, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint. A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, obtained from the Cumberland County Prothonotary Weblink Docketing System, is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit "A." 4. The undersigned entered his appearance as counsel for Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop, Inc., a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats (hereinafter "Cabin Hollow"), on or about October 14, 2014. A true and correct copy of the undersigned's time stamped Entry of Appearance is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit "B." 5. Despite the undersigned having entered appearance on behalf of Cabin Hollow, Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was not served upon Cabin Hollow, nor was it served upon the undersigned as counsel for Cabin Hollow. See Exhibit "A," Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, Certificate of Service. 6. At the request of the undersigned's office, counsel for Plaintiffs served an undated First Amended Complaint upon the undersigned, sans Certificate of Service, with a handwritten note on the signature page stating, "Resent to Margolis Edelstein on Nov 14, 2014." A true and correct copy of the First Amended Complaint served upon counsel for Cabin Hollow is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit "C." PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION TO STRIKE FOR FAILURE TO CONFORM TO LAW AND RULES OF COURT PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. Nos. 1018.1, 1019, 1023.1 and 1028(a)(2). 7. Cabin Hollow hereby incorporates the previous paragraphs of these Preliminary Objections by reference as though set forth herein at length. 8. In violation of Pa.R.C.P. 1018.1, Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is lacking the required Notice to Defend. Page 3 of 7 9. Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint attempts to cure the defects in the original Complaint by asserting all negligence allegations, albeit in separate counts, against each individual defendant regardless how broad or applicable to the claim the allegations may be. In effect, Plaintiffs have provided no further specificity or factual guidance regarding the claims against each individual Defendant than they had in their prior complaint. 10. Despite the requirement set forth in Rule 1019, Plaintiffs' claims against each named Defendant are general and uniform. 11. Rather than individuate the role that each Defendant played in bringing about Plaintiffs' injuries, Plaintiffs make a general allegation that all Defendants are "in the business of raising, handling, transporting and/or butchering cattle," without providing any specificity with respect to the involvement of each individual defendant in Plaintiffs' claims. 12. It is clear from the face of Plaintiffs' Complaint that there are nine separate entities named as Defendants, six individuals and three corporations. 13. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1020(a) provides "[t]he plaintiff may state in the complaint more than one cause of action cognizable in a civil action against the same defendant. Each cause of action and any special damage related thereto shall be stated in a separate count containing a demand for relief." Both the letter and the spirit of this rule, contemplate a specific claim against a specific defendant. Here, Plaintiffs have simply filed general claims against all defendants in specific counts. 14. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019 requires that averments of mistake be averred with particularity. Additionally, averments of time and place shall be specifically stated. Rule 1023.1 requires a reasonable investigation before filing a complaint. Page 4 of 7 15. Other than identifying Defendants Gerald P. Jones and Marjorie L. Jones as officers of Cabin Hollow, Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is utterly devoid of a single factual reference to any conduct on the part of Defendant Cabin Hollow that might be unique to Defendant Cabin Hollow. It is respectfully submitted that this failure amounts to a violation of the letter and spirit of Pa. R.C.P. Nos. 1019,1020,and 1023.1 as Plaintiffs are required to set forth, with at least a measure of factual specificity, each cause of action against each defendant in a separate count under a separate heading. 16. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may preliminarily object to a pleading if it is factually or legally insufficient. See, Pa.R.C.P. Nos. 1028(a)(4) and (5). 17. Pennsylvania is a fact pleading state. In accordance with Rule 1019, the "material facts upon which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form." Pa.R.C.P. No. 1019(a). WHEREFORE, Defendants Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop Inc., a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order striking Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint for failure to confoun to Pennsylvania law and rule of court. Furthermore, Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiffs to conform their First Amended Complaint to Rule 1019(a) by alleging the particular involvement of each named Defendant. Page 5 of 7 Date: Respectfully su mitted, 1\4RGOLIS DE S EIN S. k L' ,ESQUIRE o ey I.D. No. 47243 A 9fney for Defendant, CABIN HOLLOW BUTCHER SHOP, INC. ailda WARRINGTON FARM MEATS 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 975-8114 Direct: (717) 760-7502 Fax: (717) 975-8124 Page 6 of 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on all counsel of record by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the gik day of November, 2014, and addressed as follows: Ronald M. Graham, Esquire Whitney Graham, Esquire Graham & Mauer, P.C. Suite 7, PO box 987 Valley Forge, PA 17241 David L. Schwalm, Esquire Joshua J. Bovender, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 North Front Street PO Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Michael Blazick, Esquire The Blazick Law Firm 2 Public Square, Suite 102 Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701 Michael W. Wagman, Esquire Bennett, Bricklin & Saltzburg, LLC 222 E. Orange Street Lancaster, PA 17602 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN BY: Page 7 of 7 BLAZICK LAW FIRM Michael T. Blazick, I.D. No. 82511 Two Public Square, Suite 102 Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701 Phone: (570) 829-0945 Fax: (570) 829-0947 Attorney for Defendant, Darryl E. Jones d/b/a Jones and Martin Auction Services STEVEN CALAMAN and KATHY CALAMAN h/w 1085 Grahams Wood Road Newville, PA 17241 Plaintiffs v. JONES HARVESTING, LLC a/k/a JONES HARVESTING LLC, GERALD JONES, • MARJORIE L. JONES, CABIN HOLLOW BUTCHER : SHOP, INC., DARRYL E. JONES d/b/a JONES AND MARTIN AUCTION SERVICES, GERALD • JONES, JR, WAYNE JONES, GERALD JONES & • SONS, INC. a/k/a GERALD JONES & SONS TRUCKING, INC., and KEITH JONES Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 14 -CV -5466 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: PLAINTIFF c/o Whitney S. Graham, Esquire C7 r^-, w --k. 3 ri ca r - N' �,, 9 -<r--T.r"_...>:'7--:) c:D. C7 (7) ._i -z -G YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED AND REQUIRED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. By: THE BLAZICK LAW FIRM CHAEL T. BLAZIC ,-' QUIRE Attorney for Defendants BLAZICK LAW FIRM Michael T. Blazick, I.D. No. 82511 Two Public Square, Suite 102 Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701 Phone: (570) 829-0945 Fax: (570) 829-0947 Attorney for Defendant, Darryl E. Jones d/b/a Jones and Martin Auction Services STEVEN CALAMAN and KATHY CALAMAN h/w 1085 Grahams Wood Road Newville, PA 17241 Plaintiffs v. JONES HARVESTING, LLC a/k/a JONES HARVESTING LLC, GERALD JONES, • MARJORIE L. JONES, CABIN HOLLOW BUTCHER : SHOP, INC., DARRYL E. JONES d/b/a JONES AND MARTIN AUCTION SERVICES, GERALD • JONES, JR., WAYNE JONES, GERALD JONES & • SONS, INC. a/k/a GERALD JONES & SONS TRUCKING, INC., and KEITH JONES Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 14 -CV -5466 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT DARRYL E. JONES ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant Darryl E. Jones, improperly identified as Darryl E. Jones d/b/a Jones and Martin Auction Services, by and through his counsel THE BLAZICK LAW FIRM answers Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters asserted in this Paragraph. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters asserted in this Paragraph. 3. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the answering Defendant. Accordingly, no response is required. 4. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the answering Defendant. Accordingly, no response is required. 5. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the answering Defendant. Accordingly, no response is required. 6. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the answering Defendant. Accordingly, no response is required. 7. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the answering Defendant. Accordingly, no response is required. 8. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Answering Defendant Darryl E. Jones is an adult individual with an address of 544 Mohawk Road, Newville, PA 17241. It is expressly denied that Answering Defendant Darryl E. Jones is doing business as Jones and Martin Auction Services. By way of further response, Jones and Martin Auction Services, LLC is a Pennsylvania limited liability corporation with an address of 544 Mohawk Road, Newville, PA 17241. 9. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the answering Defendant. Accordingly, no response is required. 10. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the answering Defendant. Accordingly, no response is required. 11. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the answering Defendant. Accordingly, no response is required. 12. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the answering Defendant. Accordingly, no response is required. 13. Denied. It is expressly denied that Answering Defendant Darryl E. Jones is doing business as Jones and Martin Auction Services. By way of further response, Jones and Martin Auction Services, LLC is a Pennsylvania limited liability corporation with an address of 544 Mohawk Road, Newville, PA 17241. It is expressly denied that Jones and Martin Auction Services LLC is in the business of raising, handling transporting and/or butchering cattle. Jones and Martin Auction Services LLC is in the business of conducting real estate and estate auctions. By way of further response, the Defendant Darryl Jones and Jones and Martin Auction Services, LLC are improperly named defendants. 14. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, Answering Defendant does not own or conduct any operations on the premises at 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA 17015. 15. Denied. It is expressly denied that the Answering Defendant requested Plaintiff Steven Calaman to enter the cattle shipping pen and/or enclosure. It is also expressly denied that Answering Defendant was responsible for training, instructing or providing assistance to Plaintiff Steven Calaman. By way of further response, Answering Defendant does not own or conduct any operations on the premises located at 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA and had no involvement in any of the activities or operations alleged in the Complaint. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters asserted in this Paragraph. 17. Denied. It is expressly denied that Answering Defendant or his representatives allowed the cattle to be unsecured in and about the areas where Plaintiff Steven Calaman and others were expected to be. By way of further response, Answering Defendant does not own or conduct any operations on the premises located at 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA and had no involvement in any of the activities or operations alleged in the Complaint. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters asserted in this Paragraph. 19. Denied. It is expressly denied that Answering Defendant identified the bull or steer as having aggressive and/or dangerous and/or unsafe propensities. By way of further response, Answering Defendant does not own or conduct any operations on the premises located at 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA and had no involvement in any of the activities or operations alleged in the Complaint. 20. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the answering Defendant. Accordingly, no response is required. 21. Denied. It is expressly denied that Answering Defendant knew of the aggressive and/or dangerous and/or unsafe propensities of said bull or steer. It is also expressly denied that Answering Defendant had a duty to warn and/or notify handlers and/or invitees of said dangers. By way of further response, Answering Defendant does not own or conduct any operations on the premises located at 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA and had no involvement in any of the activities or operations alleged in the Complaint. 22. Denied. It is expressly denied that Answering Defendant knew of the aggressive and/or dangerous and/or unsafe propensities of said cattle. It is expressly denied that Answering Defendant failed to shut down or halt operation. By way of further response, Answering Defendant does not own or conduct any operations on the premises located at 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA and had no involvement in any of the activities or operations alleged in the Complaint. 23. Denied. It is expressly denied that Answering Defendant knew of the aggressive and/or dangerous and/or unsafe propensities of said cattle and/or failed to segregate said cattle. By way of further response, Answering Defendant does not own or conduct any operations on the premises located at 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA andhad no involvement in any of the activities or operations alleged in the Complaint. - 24. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Moreover, the allegations of this Paragraph are denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 25. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Moreover, the allegations of this Paragraph are denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 26. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Moreover, the allegations of this Paragraph are denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 27. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Moreover, the allegations of this Paragraph are denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 28. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Moreover, the allegations of this Paragraph are denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 29. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. Moreover, the allegations of this Paragraph are denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). COUNT I NEGLIGENCE STEVEN CALAMAN V. DEFENDANT JONES HARVESTING, LLC a/k/a JONES HARVESTING LLC 30. Answering Defendant incorporates by references his responses to the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 31.-36. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the answering Defendant. Accordingly, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment in his favor together with costs and any other relief this Court deems just and equitable. COUNT II NEGLIGENCE STEVEN CALAMAN V. DEFENDANT GERALD P. JONES 37. Answering Defendant incorporates by references his responses to the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 38.-45. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the answering Defendant. Accordingly, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment in his favor together with costs and any other relief this Court deems just and equitable. COUNT III — NEGLIGENCE SEVEN CALAMAN V. DEFENDANT MARJORIE L. JONES 46. Answering Defendant incorporates by references his responses to the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 47.-53. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the answering Defendant. Accordingly, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment in his favor together with costs and any other relief this Court deems just and equitable. COUNT IV — NEGLIGENCE STEVEN CALAMAN V. DEFENDANT CABIN HOLLOW BUTHER SHOP, INC. a/k/a WARRINGTON FARM MEATS 54. Answering Defendant incorporates by references his responses to the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 55-61. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the answering Defendant. Accordingly, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment in his favor together with costs and any other relief this Court deems just and equitable. COUNT V — NEGLIGENCE STEVEN CALAMAN V. DEFENDANT DARRYL E. JONES d/b/a JONES AND MARTIN AUCTION SERVICES 62. Answering Defendant incorporates by references his responses to the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 63. Denied. It is expressly denied that Answering Defendant owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the subject bull. By way of further response, Answering Defendant does not own or conduct any operations on the premises located at 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA and had no involvement in any of the activities or operations or the bull referenced in the Complaint. 64. Denied. It is expressly denied that Answering Defendant owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the cattle pen and/or cattle loading area and/or equipment. By way of further response, Answering Defendant does not own or conduct any operations on the premises located at 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA and had no involvement in any of the activities or operations or the bull referenced in the Complaint. 65. Denied. It is expressly denied that Answering Defendant owned, leased, operated, possessed, maintained and/or otherwise controlled the subject trailer. By way of further response, Answering Defendant does not own or conduct any operations on the premises located at 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA and had no involvement in any of the activities or operations or the bull referenced in the Complaint. 66. Denied. It is expressly denied that Answering Defendant acted and/or failed to act by and through his officers, directors, employees, agents, servants, workman and/or representatives who were acting within the course and scope of their employment and on behalf of Answering Defendants. Moreover, the allegations of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, Answering Defendant does not own or conduct any operations on the premises located at 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA and had no involvement in any of the activities or operations or the bull referenced in the Complaint. 67. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is expressly denied that Answering Defendant was an employee and/or agent and/or servant of Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC a/k/a Jones Harvesting LLC. 68. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph are denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, the allegations of this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Answering Defendant expressly denied that he acted negligently or carelessly in any manner. By way of further response, Answering Defendant does not own or conduct any operations on the premises located at 75 Goodyear Road, Carlisle, PA and had no involvement in any of the activities or operations or the bull referenced in the Complaint. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment in his favor together with costs and any other relief this Court deems just and equitable. COUNT VI — NEGLIGENCE STEVEN CALAMAN V. DEFENDANT GERALD JONES, JR. 69. Answering Defendant incorporates by references his responses to the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 70.-76. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the answering Defendant. Accordingly, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment in his favor together with costs and any other relief this Court deems just and equitable. COUNT VH — NEGLIGENCE STEVEN CALAMAN V. DEFENDANT WAYNE JONES 77. Answering Defendant incorporates by references his responses to the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 78.-84. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the answering Defendant. Accordingly, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment in his favor together with costs and any other relief this Court deems just and equitable. COUNT VIII — NEGLIGENCE STEVEN CALAMAN V. DEFENDANT GERALD JONES & SONS, INC. a/k/a GERALD JONES & SONS TRUCKING, INC. 85. Answering Defendant incorporates by references his responses to the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 86-93. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the answering Defendant. Accordingly, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment in his favor together with costs and any other relief this Court deems just and equitable. COUNT IX — NEGLIGENCE STEVEN CALAMAN V. DEFENDANT KEITH JONES 94. Answering Defendant incorporates by references his responses to the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 95.-100. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than the answering Defendant. Accordingly, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment in his favor together with costs and any other relief this Court deems just and equitable. COUNT X LOSS OF CONSORTIUM KATHY CALAMAN V. JONES HARVESTING LLC ET AL 101. Answering Defendant incorporates by references his responses to the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 102. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of this Paragraph. 103. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph are denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, the allegations of this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. 104. Denied. The allegations of this Paragraph are denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, the allegations of this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment in his favor together with costs and any other relief this Court deems just and equitable. NEW MATTER 105. The Defendant Darryl Jones is an improperly named Defendant. Darryl Jones does not own or have any involvement in the operations and/or the bull as alleged in the Complaint. 106. The Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim against Answering Defendant upon which relief can be granted. 107. Plaintiff's alleged damages, if any, were proximately caused and/or contributed to by a superseding and/or intervening cause or causes, and not by any act or omission on the part of Answering Defendant. 108. Answering Defendant denies that it breached or otherwise violated any duty to Plaintiffs if any such duty is found to have existed. 109. Answering Defendant asserts the affirmative defense of assumption of the risk. 110. If Plaintiffs suffered from any of the damages alleged in the Amended Complaint, such damages were caused solely by the conduct of persons, firms, entities and/or corporations other than Answering Defendant. Answering Defendant cannot be held liable for the acts or omissions of such persons, firms, entities or corporations. 111. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the Plaintiff's comparative or contributory negligence, fault, and deliberate intent or his willful, wanton and intentional acts. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment in his favor together with costs and any other relief this Court deems just and equitable. THE BLAZICK LAW FIRM Attorney for Defendant Darryl Jones YERLFICATTOJ 1, Darryl Jones, verify that the statements contained in the foregoing Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, infolinatin and belief. I understand that the statements made herein are made subject to the penalty of 18 'Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 regarding unsworn falsification to authorities. Insofar as the language herein is that of counsel, 1 have relied upon counsel in making this verification. By: BLAZICK LAW FIRM Michael T. Blazick, I.D. No. 82511 Two Public Square, Suite 102 Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701 Phone: (570) 829-0945 Fax: (570) 829-0947 Attorney for Defendant, Darryl E. Jones d/b/a Jones and Martin Auction Services STEVEN CALAMAN and KATHY CALAMAN h/w 1085 Grahams Wood Road Newville, PA 17241 Plaintiffs v. JONES HARVESTING, LLC a/k/a JONES HARVESTING LLC, GERALD JONES,• MARJORIE L. JONES, CABIN HOLLOW BUTCHER : SHOP, INC., DARRYL E. JONES d/b/a JONES AND MARTIN AUCTION SERVICES, GERALD JONES, JR., WAYNE JONES, GERALD JONES & SONS, INC. a/k/a GERALD JONES & SONS TRUCKING, INC., and KEITH JONES Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 14 -CV -5466 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michael T. Blazick, Esquire, hereby certify that on the 24th day of November 2014, I served a true and correct copy of Defendant, Darryl E. Jones d/b/a Jones and Martin Auction Services, Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint via first-class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Whitney Graham, Esquire Suite 7, PO Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 David L. Schwalm, Esquire 305 N Front Street PO Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 Rolf E. Kroll, Esquire 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Gerald Jones & Sons, Inc. 75 Goodyear Rd. Carlisle, PA 17015 Mr. Wayne Jones 75 Goodyear Rd. Carlisle, PA 17015 By: THE BLAZICK LAW FIRM MICHAEL T. BLAZIC 7i/ ESQUIRE GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. Ronald M. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 64483 Whitney S. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 312145 Suite 7, P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 (610)933-3333 r: 1 L 1 '63 STEVEN CALAMAN and KATHY CALAMAN h/w 1085 Grahams Wood Road Newville, PA 17241 Plaintiffs vs. Attorneys for Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 7-- • : NO.: 14-5466 JONES HARVESTING, LLC a/k/a et. al. : JONES HARVESTING LLC : CIVIL ACTION - LAW 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Defendants PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT DARRYL E. JONES 105. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the matter asserted in the corresponding paragraph of Defendant Darryl E. Jones' New Matter. 106. Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law o which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. To the extent, however, a reply may be required, Plaintiff specifically denies that he has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, but rather has plead several claims in his Complaint which is incorporated herein by reference. 107. Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. To the extent, however, a reply may be required, Plaintiff specifically denies that his injuries were caused by superseding and/or intervening causes, but rather by the negligent management of the cattle at issue, as well as other negligent acts as stated in Plaintiff s Complaint, incorporated herein by reference. 108. Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the matter asserted in the corresponding paragraph of Defendant Darryl E. Jones' New Matter, and requires further discovery to determine Defendant Darryl E. Jones' role in the subject incident. 109. Denied. The corresponding paragraph of Defendant's New Matter asserts a defense, and as such requires no response. To the extent, however, that a reply may be required, it is denied that Plaintiff subjectively assumed the risk of the subject incident and injury. 110. Denied as stated. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffis without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the matter asserted in the corresponding paragraph of Defendant Darryl E. Jones' New Matter. 111. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff was comparatively negligent, or that any action or inaction of Plaintiff's part contributed in any way to his injuries. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Steven Calaman demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant Darryl E. Jones d/b/a Jones And Martin Auction Services in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limitation requiring arbitration, plus interest, costs and damages in addition to such relief as the Court may deem just and proper. By: Date: 12 - - GRAHA ER, P.C. Whitney S. Graham Attorney for Plaintiffs GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. Ronald M. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 64483 Whitney S. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 312145 Suite 7, P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 (610)933-3333 STEVEN CALAMAN and KATHY CALAMAN h/w 1085 Grahams Wood Road Newville, PA 17241 • Plaintiffs vs. JONES HARVESTING, LLC a/k/a et. al. JONES HARVESTING LLC 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Defendants Attorneys for Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO.: 14-5466 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Whitney S. Graham, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiffs, hereby certify that on this 9Aiay of December, 2014, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Reply to New Matter of Defendant Darryl E. Jones was sent via first class mail, postage pre -paid to the following counsel of record: Michael W. Wagman, Esquire Bennett, Bricklin & Saltzburg LLC 222 E. Orange Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2915 Joshua J. Bovender, Esquire David L. Schwalm, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 North Front Street, 6th Floor PO Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Michael Blazick, Esquire The Blazick Law Firm 2 Public Square, Suite 102 Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701 Rolf E. Kroll, Esquire Margolis Edelstein 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 1.7011 By: Whitney S. Graham, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP David L. Schwalm, Esquire I.D. No. 32574 Joshua J. Bovender, Esquire I.D. No. 314001 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 237-7153 dschwalm@tthlaw.com jovender@tthlaw.com STEVEN CALAMAN AND KATHY CALAMAN, Plaintiffs v. C: 0 L;1 o . \" �1 V.>, A JONES HARVESTING, LLC, GERALD P. JONES, MARJORIE L. JONES, CABIN HOLLOW BUTCHER SHOP, INC. a/k/a WARRINGTON FARM MEATS, DARRYL E. JONES d/b/a JONES AND MARTIN AUCTION SERVICES, GERALD JONES, JR., WAYNE JONES, GERALD JONES & SONS, INC. a/k/a GERALD JONES & SONS TRUCKING, INC. AND KEITH JONES, Defendants Counsel for. Defendants Jones Harvesting, LLC, Gerald Jones, Marjorie Jones, Gerald Jones, Jr., and Keith Jones IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 14-5466 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION — LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: ALL PARTIES: You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof -or a default judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, by: Date: I1ltb TH THOMAS HAFER, LLP L ScMPAIGTRF Joshua J. Bovender, e squire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP David L. Schwalm, Esquire I.D. No. 32574 Joshua J. Bovender, Esquire I.D. No. 314001 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 237-7153 dschwalm@tthlaw.com jbovender@tthlaw.com STEVEN CALAMAN AND KATHY CALAMAN, Plaintiffs v. JONES HARVESTING, LLC, GERALD P. JONES, MARJORIE L. JONES, CABIN HOLLOW BUTCHER SHOP, INC. a/k/a WARRINGTON FARM MEATS, DARRYL E. JONES d/b/a JONES AND MARTIN AUCTION SERVICES, GERALD JONES, JR., WAYNE JONES, GERALD JONES & SONS, INC. a/k/a GERALD JONES & SONS TRUCKING, INC. AND KEITH JONES, Defendants Counsel for Defendants Jones Harvesting, LLC, Gerald Jones, Marjorie Jones, Gerald Jones, Jr., and Keith Jones IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 14-5466 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION — LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER, NEW MATTER AND CROSSCLAIMS OF DEFENDANTS JONES HARVESTING, LLC, GERALD JONES, MARJORIE JONES, GERALD JONES, JR., AND KEITH JONES TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, Defendants Jones Harvesting, LLC, Gerald Jones, Marjorie Jones, Gerald Jones, Jr., and Keith Jones (collectively "Answering Defendants"), by and through their attorneys, Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, file their Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, as follows: 1. Upon information and belief, admitted. 2. Upon information and belief, admitted. 3. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants Gerald P. Jones and Marjorie Jones owned the real property located at said address. It is denied that Defendants Gerald P. Jones and Marjorie Jones' ownership of the real property caused any of the injuries alleged in Plaintiff's complaint. 4-9. Admitted. 10. Denied. 11-12. Admitted. 13. Denied as stated. It is denied that each named Defendant is in the business of raising, handling, transporting and/or butchering cattle. It is admitted that Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC is a Cumberland County farming business and that Defendants Gerald Jones, Marjorie Jones, Gerald Jones, Jr., and Keith Jones are members of Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC. The balance of the allegations contained in this paragraph is denied and strict proof thereof is demand at trial. 14. Denied. This paragraph represents a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, this paragraph is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 15. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted, upon information and belief, that Plaintiff, Steven Calaman, entered the cattle shipping pen prior to the occurrence of the accident alleged in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff Steven Calaman had been requested to do so by any of Answering Defendants or their employees or agents. 2 16. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 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. This paragraph is therefore denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c) and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 17. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 18. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 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. This paragraph is therefore denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c) and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 19-23. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 24. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). This paragraph represents a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, this paragraph is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 25-29. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 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. This paragraph is therefore denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c) and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. By way of further response, Answering Defendants specifically deny causing any of the injuries alleged in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. 3 COUNT I — NEGLIGENCE Steven Calaman v. Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC a/k/a Jones Harvesting 30. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 29 as if fully set forth herein. 31. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC operated, possessed, maintained, and/or controlled the real property. It is further admitted that Jones Harvesting, LLC, leased the real property from Marjorie Jones and Gerald Jones pursuant to an oral lease agreement. It is specifically denied that Jones Harvesting, LLC owned the real property. It is further denied that Jones Harvesting, LLC's possession or control of the property caused Plaintiffs' injuries in any way. The balance of the allegations contained in this paragraph is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 32. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC owned, possessed and controlled the subject bull or steer. It is further denied that Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC's ownership, possession, or control of the subject bull or steer caused Plaintiffs' injuries in any way. The balance of the allegations contained in this paragraph is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 33. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC possessed and controlled the subject cattle pen and/or cattle loading area. It is denied that any such operation, possession, maintenance, or control caused Plaintiffs' injuries in any way. Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC further denies possession or control of the subject premises at the time of Plaintiffs' injuries as Plaintiff Steven Calaman was not authorized to act in the manner alleged in Plaintiffs Amended 4 Complaint. The balance of the allegations contained in this paragraph is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 34. Denied. Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC specifically denies owning, possessing or controlling the subject trailer. Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC further denies possession or control of the subject trailer at the time of the accident alleged in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint .as Plaintiff Steven Calaman was not authorized to act in the manner alleged in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. 35. Denied. Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC specifically denies acting and/or having failed to act by and through its officers, directors, employees, agents, servants, workmen and/or representatives in such a way to have caused Plaintiff's injuries. 36(a) -(x). Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). This paragraph and its subparts represent conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC specifically denies causing any of the injuries alleged in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC respectfully requests that Count I of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint be dismissed without cost to it. COUNT II — NEGLIGENCE Steven Calaman v. Defendant Gerald P. Jones 37. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 36 as if fully set forth herein. 38. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Gerald P. Jones owned the subject real property. Defendant Gerald P. Jones specifically denies the balance of the allegations contained in this paragraph as Defendant Jones 5 Harvesting, LLC operated, possessed, maintained and/or controlled the premises. It is further denied that Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC's operation, possession, maintenance, or control of the premises caused Plaintiffs' injuries in any way. Defendant Gerald P. Jones further denies possession or control of the subject premises at the time of Plaintiffs' injuries as Plaintiff Steven Calaman was not authorized to act in the manner alleged in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. 39. Denied. Defendant Gerald P. Jones specifically denies the allegations contained in this paragraph as Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC owned, possessed and controlled the subject bull or steer. It is further denied that Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC's ownership, possession, or control of the subject bull or steer caused Plaintiffs' injuries in any way. The balance of the allegations contained in this paragraph is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 40. Denied. Defendant Gerald P. Jones specifically denies the allegations contained in this paragraph as Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC owned, possessed and controlled the subject cattle pen and/or loading area. It is further denied that Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC's operation, possession, maintenance, or control of the subject cattle pen and/or loading area caused Plaintiffs' injuries in any way. 41. Denied. Defendant Gerald P. Jones denies owning, possessing, or controlling the subject trailer and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 42-44. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Gerald P. Jones was a corporate officer of Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC and Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop, and Gerald Jones & Sons, Inc. It is denied that Gerald P. Jones 6 can be held liable in this matter based upon his,position as a corporate officer of any of the entities alleged in these paragraphs. 45(a) -(x). Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). This paragraph and its subparts represent conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Gerald. P. Jones specifically denies causing any of the injuries alleged in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendant Gerald P. Jones respectfully requests that Count 11 of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint be dismissed without cost to him. COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE Steven Calaman v. Defendant Marjorie L. Jones 46. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 45 as if fully set forth herein. 47. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Marjorie Jones owned the real property. Defendant Marjorie Jones specifically denies the balance of the allegations contained in this paragraph as Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC operated, possessed, maintained and/or controlled the premises. It is further denied that Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC's operation, possession, maintenance, or control of the premises caused Plaintiffs' injuries in any way. 48. Denied. Defendant Marjorie Jones specifically denies the allegations contained in this paragraph as Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC owned, possessed and controlled the subject bull or steer. It is further denied that Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC's operation, possession, maintenance, or control of the subject bull or steer caused Plaintiffs' injuries in any way. 7 49. Denied. - Defendant Marjorie Jones specifically denies the allegations contained in this paragraph as Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC owned, possessed and controlled the subject cattle pen and/or loading area. It is further denied that Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC's operation, possession, maintenance, or control of the subject cattle pen and/or loading area caused Plaintiffs' injuries in any way. 50. Denied. Defendant Marjorie Jones denies owning, possessing, or controlling the subject trailer. 51-52. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Marjorie L. Jones was a corporate officer of Jones Harvesting, LLC and Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop. It is denied that Marjorie Jones may be found liable in this matter based on her position as a corporate officer. 53(a) -(x). Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). This paragraph and its subparts represent conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Marjorie L. Jones specifically denies causing any of the injuries alleged in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendant Marjorie L. Jones respectfully requests that Count III of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint be dismissed without cost to her. COUNT IV — NEGLIGENCE Steven Calaman v. Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop, Inc. a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats 54. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 53 as if fully set forth herein. 8 55-61. The allegations contained in these paragraphs are directed to parties other than Answering Defendants. To the extent a response is required, the allegations contained in these paragraphs are denied. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully requests that Count IV of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint be dismissed without cost to them. COUNT V — NEGLIGENCE Steven Calaman v. Defendant Darryl E. Jones d/b/a Jones and Martin Auction Services 62. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 61 as if fully set forth herein. 63-68. The allegations contained in these paragraphs are directed to parties other than Answering Defendants. To the extent a response is required, the allegations contained in these paragraphs are denied. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully requests that Count V of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint be dismissed without cost to them. COUNT VI — NEGLIGENCE Steven Calaman v. ,Defendant Gerald Jones, Jr. 69. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 68 as if fully set forth herein. 70. Denied. Defendant Gerald Jones, Jr. specifically denies owning the subject real property. Defendant Gerald Jones, Jr. also denies possession or control of the subject premises at the time of Plaintiffs' injuries as Plaintiff Steven Calaman was not authorized to act in the manner alleged in Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. Defendant Gerald Jones, Jr. denies causing Plaintiffs' injuries in any way. 9 71. Denied. Defendant Gerald Jones, Jr. specifically denies theallegations set forth in this paragraph as Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC, owned, possessed, and controlled the subject bull or steer. It is denied that. Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC's ownership, possession, or control of the subject bull or steer caused Plaintiff's injuries in any way. Defendant Gerald Jones, Jr. further denies control of the subject bull or steer at the time of the accident alleged in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint as Plaintiff Steven Calaman was not authorized to act in the manner alleged in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. 72. Denied. Defendant Gerald Jones, Jr. specifically denies the allegations set forth in this paragraph as Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC, owned, possessed, and controlled the subject cattle pen and/or loading area. It is denied that Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC's ownership, possession, or control of the subject cattle pen and/or loading area caused Plaintiff's injuries in any way. Defendant Gerald Jones, Jr. further denies control of the subject cattle pen and/or loading area at the time of the accident alleged in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint as Plaintiff Steven Calaman was not authorized to act in the manner alleged in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. 73. Denied. Defendant Gerald Jones, Jr. specifically denies owning, possessing or controlling the subject trailer. Defendant Gerald Jones, Jr. further denies possession or control of the subject trailer at the time of the accident alleged in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint as Plaintiff Steven Calaman was not authorized to act in the manner alleged in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. 74. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Gerald Jones, Jr. is a member of Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC. The balance of the 10 allegations contained in this paragraph are specifically denied. It is further denied that Defendant Gerald Jones, Jr. may be found liable in this matter based on his position as a corporate officer. 75. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 76(a) -(x). Denied. This paragraph and its subparts represent conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Gerald Jones, Jr. denies causing any of the injuries alleged in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendant Gerald Jones, Jr. respectfully requests that Count VI of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint be dismissed without cost to him. COUNT VII Steven Calaman v. Defendant Wayne Jones 77. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 76 as if fully set forth herein. 78-84. Denied. The allegations contained in these paragraphs are directed to parties other than Answering Defendants. To the extent a response is required, the allegations contained in these paragraphs are denied. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully requests that Count VII of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint be dismissed without cost to them. COUNT VIII - NEGLIGENCE Steven Calaman v. Defendant Gerald, Jones and Sons, Inc. a/k/a Gerald Jones and Sons Trucking, Inc. 85. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 84 as if fully set forth herein. 11 86-93. Denied. The allegations contained in these paragraphs are directed to parties other than Answering Defendants. To the extent a response is required, the allegations contained in these paragraphs are denied. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully requests that Count VIII of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint be dismissed without cost to them. COUNT IX — NEGLIENCE Steven Calaman v. Defendant Keith Jones 94. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if fully set forth herein. 95. Denied. Defendant Keith Jones specifically denies owning the subject real property. Defendant Keith Jones also denies possession or control of the subject premises at the time of Plaintiffs' injuries as Plaintiff Steven Calaman was not authorized to act in the manner alleged in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Defendant Keith Jones denies causing Plaintiffs' injuries in any way. 96. Denied. Defendant Keith Jones specifically denies the allegations set forth in this paragraph as Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC, owned, possessed, and controlled the subject bull or steer. It is denied that Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC's ownership, possession, or control of the subject bull or steer caused Plaintiffs' injuries in any way. Defendant Keith Jones further denies control of the subject bullorsteer at the time of the accident alleged in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint as Plaintiff Steven Calaman was not authorized to act in the manner alleged in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. 97. Denied. Defendant Keith Jones specifically denies the allegations set forth in this paragraph as Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC, owned, possessed, and 12 controlled the subject cattle pen and/or loading area. It is denied that Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC's ownership, possession, or control of the subject cattle pen and/or loading area caused Plaintiffs' injuries in any way. Defendant Keith Jones further denies control of the subject cattle pen and/or loading area at the time of the accident alleged in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint as Plaintiff Steven Calaman was not authorized to act in the manner alleged in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. 98. Denied. Defendant Keith Jones specifically denies owning, possessing or controlling the subject trailer. Defendant Keith Jones further denies possession or control of the subject trailer at the time of the accident alleged in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint as Plaintiff. Steven Calaman was not authorized to act in the manner alleged in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. 99. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Keith Jones is a member of Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC. The balance of the allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. It is further denied that Defendant Keith Jones is a member of Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC. 100(a) -(x). Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). The allegations contained in this paragraph and its subparts are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations contained in these paragraphs are denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant Keith Jones respectfully requests that Count IX of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint be dismissed without cost to him. 13 COUNT X — LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Kathy Calaman v. Jones Harvesting, LLC a/k/a Jones Harvesting; LLC, Gerald P. Jones, Marjorie L. Jones, Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop, Inc. a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats, Darryl E. Jones d/b/a Jones and Martin Auction Services, Gerald Jones, Jr., Wayne Jones, Gerald Jones and Sons, Inc. a/k/a Gerald Jones and Sons Trucking, Inc. and Keith Jones 101. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 100 as if fully set forth herein. 102. 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. This paragraph is therefore denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c) and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 103-104. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph represent conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Answering Defendants specifically deny causing any of the injuries alleged in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the loss of consortium or medical expenses alleged in these paragraphs and proof thereof is demanded. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request that Count X of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint be dismissed without cost to them. NEW MATTER 105. Answering Defendants incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were set forth herein. 106. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by operation of Plaintiff Steven Calaman's comparative negligence. 14 107. Plaintiffs' claims are barred, in whole or in part, by operation of Pennsylvania's Fair Share Act. 108. If it is determined that Plaintiff Steven Calaman was an employee of Answering Defendants at the time of the incident alleged in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, then Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the provisions of Pennsylvania's Workers Compensation Act. 109. If it is factually determined that Plaintiff Steven Calaman was an independent contractor, Answering Defendants owed no duty to Plaintiffs as a matter of , law. 110. Plaintiffs' claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations. 111. Plaintiffs' injuries were preexisting and therefore not caused by Answering Defendants. 112. Answering Defendants owed no legal duty to Plaintiff Steven Calaman at the time of the incident alleged in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. 113. Plaintiffs' injuries were caused by persons or instrumentalities not under the direction, control, or supervision of Answering Defendants. 114. Plaintiffs' claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the provisions of Pennsylvania's Comparative Negligence Act. 115. Discovery may bear that Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the Affirmative Defenses set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 1030(a). 116. Answering Defendants' conduct did not play a substantial or proximate role in causing Plaintiffs' injuries and/or damages. 15 117. To the extent liability is established against Defendant Jones Harvesting, LLC, said liability having been expressly denied, Defendants Gerald Jones, Marjorie Jones, Gerald Jones, Jr. or Keith Jones cannot be liable as members of the corporation as no claim has been made to pierce the corporate veil of any of the corporate defendants. 118. Plaintiffs' claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the provisions of Pennsylvania's Business Corporations Law. 119. Plaintiffs' claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the provisions of 15 Pa.C.S. §§ 8923-8991. WHEREFORE, Defendants Jones Harvesting, LLC, Gerald Jones, Marjorie Jones, Gerald Jones, Jr., and Keith Jones respectfully request that Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint be dismissed without cost to them. Respectfully submitted, by: Date:I2 i(4114 6 T •e)H0 a - : HAFER, LLP t/ tilsquire .D. No. 32574 Joshua J. Bovender, Esquire I.D. No. 314001 POB 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 255-7643 16 VERIFICATION I, Gerald Jones, Jr., individually and in my capacity as a member of Jones Harvesting, LLC, have read the foregoing Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint which has been drafted by my counsel. The factual statements contained in this document are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, information and belief, although the language is that of my counsel, and, to the extent that the content of this document is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this Verification. This statement and verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that, if I knowingly make false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. DATE: P//. // VERIFICATION I, Marjorie Jones, individually and in my capacity as a member of Jones Harvesting, LLC, have read the foregoing Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint which has been drafted by my counsel. The factual statements contained in this document are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, information and belief, although the language is that of my counsel, and, to the extent that the content of this document is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this Verification_ This statement and verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that, if I knowingly make false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. DAIE: /27/2//i/ VERIFICATION I, Gerald Jones, individually and in my capacity as a member of Jones Harvesting, LLC, have read the foregoing Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint which has been drafted by my counsel. The factual statements contained in this document are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, information and belief, although the language is that of my counsel, and, to the extent that the content of this document is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this Verification. This statement and verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that, if I knowingly make false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. DATE: 0- / VERIFICATION 1, Keith Jones, individually and in my capacity as a member ofJones Harvesting, LLC, have read the foregoing Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint which has been drafted by my counsel. The factual statements contained in this document are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, information and belief, although the language is that of my counsel, and, to the extent that the content of this document is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this Verification. This statement and verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that, if I knowingly make false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. DATE: /2//2-//Y CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this dU day of tJSLC.4� , 2014, I, Gwen M. Cleck, of the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, hereby certify that I sent a true and correct copy of the foregoing document by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Ronald M. Graham, Esquire Whitney S. Graham, Esquire Graham & Mauer, P.C. P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 Counsel for Plaintiffs Michael T. Blazick, Esquire The Blazick Law Firm Two Public Square, Suite 102 Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701 Counsel for Darryl Jones and Jones & Martin Auction Services Mr. Wayne Jones 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Defendant Pro Se Gw M. Cleck, Legal Assistant 1611266.1 Rolf E. Kroll, Esquire Margolis Edelstein 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Counsel for Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop, Inc./Warrington Farm Meats Gerald Jones & Sons, Inc. a/k/a Gerald Jones & Sons Trucking, Inc. 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Defendant Pro Se 17 GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. Ronald M. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 64483 Whitney S. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 312145 Suite 7, P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 (610)933-3333 STEVEN CALAMAN and KATHY CALAMAN h/w. 1085 Grahams Wood Road Newville, PA 17241 Plaintiffs vs. : NO.: 14-5466 Attorneys for Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JONES HARVESTING, LLC a/k/a et. al. JONES HARVESTING LLC 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Defendants To: The Prothonotary : CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE FOR DETERMINATION Kindly file and forward the enclosed Plaintiffs' Response to Preliminary Objections of Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop to a Judge for determination. Date: /2 //'!1/ By: Whitney S. Graham Attorney for Plaintiffs GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. Ronald M. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 64483 Whitney S. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 312145 Suite 7, P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 (610)933-3333 L. ac In r 2: STEVEN CALAMAN and KATHY CALAMAN h/w 1085 Grahams Wood Road Newville, PA 17241 Plaintiffs vs. Attorneys for Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO.: 14-5466 JONES HARVESTING, LLC a/k/a et. al. : JONES HARVESTING LLC : CIVIL ACTION - LAW 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Defendants PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT CABIN HOLLOW BUTCHER SHOP, INC., a/k/a WARRINGTON FARM MEATS TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, come Plaintiffs Steven and Kathy Calaman (hereinafter "Plaintiffs") by and through their counsel, Graham & Mauer, P.C., to answer the Preliminary Objections of Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop, INC., a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats (hereinafter "Defendant Cabin Hollow"), and aver as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, incorporated herein by reference. It is denied that a copy of said Amended Complaint is attached to the Preliminary Objections of Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop Inc., a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats dated November 25, 2014 served upon Plaintiffs. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot confirm or deny whether "Exhibit A" is as purported in the corresponding paragraph of the Preliminary Objections of Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop Inc., a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats. 4. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that counsel for Defendant Cabin Hollow entered his appearance on or about October 14, 2014. It is denied that a copy of said Entry of Appearance is attached to the Preliminary Objections of Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop Inc., a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats dated November 25, 2014 served upon Plaintiffs. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot confirm or deny whether "Exhibit B" is as purported in the corresponding paragraph of the Preliminary Objections of Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop Inc., a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats. 5. Denied as stated. Exhibit A is not attached to the Preliminary Objections of Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop Inc., a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats dated November 25, 2014 served upon Plaintiffs, therefore Plaintiffs cannot reference "Exhibit A." However, after being contacted by the office of counsel for Defendant and asked for a copy of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs forwarded a copy of the First Amended Complaint to Mr. Kroll's office on November 14, 2014. 6. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs forwarded a copy of the First Amended Complaint to Mr. Kroll's office on November 14, 2014. It is denied that a copy of said document is attached to the Preliminary Objections of Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop Inc., a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats dated November 25, 2014 served upon Plaintiffs. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot confirm or deny whether "Exhibit C" is as purported. 7. No response necessary. 8. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint lacked the proper notice to defend. It is denied that Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint will continue to lack a notice to defend, however, because Plaintiffs filed a praecipe to attach a notice to defendant with the Cumberland County Prothonotary, thereby curing any such defect. See Exhibit A attached. 9. Denied as stated. Pa.R.C.P. 1020(c) states that "causes of action and defenses may be pleaded in the alternative." Unsure which of the defendants caused each and every aspect of the harm to the Plaintiff Steven Calaman, but knowing that one or all of the defendants was responsible for the cause of said harm, Plaintiffs plead both the Complaint and Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint in the alternative against all defendants. This is clearly permissible under the scope of Pa.R.C.P. 1020(c). 10. Denied as stated. Pa.R.C.P. 1020(c) states that "causes of action and defenses may be pleaded in the alternative." Unsure which of the defendants caused each aspect of the harm to the Plaintiff Steven Calaman, but knowing that one or all of the defendants was responsible for the cause of said harm, Plaintiffs plead both the Complaint, and Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint in the alternative against all defendants. This is clearly permissible under the scope of Pa.R.C.P. 1020(c). 11. Denied as stated. Pa.R.C.P. 1020(c) states that "causes of action and defenses may be pleaded in the alternative." Again, Defendant claims that Plaintiffs' assertions concerning the business of the defendants are too broad and general. To the contrary, Plaintiffs are pleading in the alternative, as allowed under the rules of civil procedure, against the various defendants. The simple solution for Defendant is to deny the allegations contained in the First Amended Complaint which do not pertain to Defendant. To insinuate however, that Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is not properly plead because it pleads the same allegations, in the alterative against different defendants, is not in keeping with the rules of civil procedure or common practice. 12. Admitted. 13. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the corresponding paragraph of the Preliminary Objections of Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop Inc., a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats contains an accurate quote from Pa.R.C.P.1020(a). It is denied that Pa.R.C.P.1020(a) supports Defendant's contention that the "letter and spirit of this rule, contemplate a specific claim against a specific defendant." See Preliminary Objections of Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop Inc., a/k/a Warrington Faun Meats paragraph 13. To the contrary, the "spirit" cif Pa.R.C.P.1020(a) appears to direct potential plaintiffs that additional causes of action may be brought against the same defendant and the format for doing so. 14. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs are alleging fraud or mistake in the instant case. Therefore Pa.R.C.P. 1019(b) is inapplicable to the instant case. Further, it is specifically denied that Plaintiffs did not perform a reasonable investigation, but to the contrary, did investigate the incident and potential defendants prior to filing the Complaint, however, some information at the time of filing was known only to defendants. Therefore, Plaintiffs are permitted to plead in the alternative under the rules, and gain additional information regarding the defendants' actions during the discovery process. 15. Denied as stated. It is denied that Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is devoid of factual references to conduct of Defendant Cabin Hollow. To the contrary, Plaintiffs plead in the alternative against multiple defendants in the instant case, as allowed under Pa.R.C.P. 1020(c), because, after reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs were unable to determine which negligent conduct was caused by Defendant Cabin Hollow alone, and which was caused by other defendants and/or multiple defendants. Only defendants, at the time of filing Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint were in possession of certain information, therefore Plaintiffs plead in the alternative, confident that if Defendant Cabin Hollow was not involved in a specific allegation then Defendant Cabin Hollow would answer with a denial. 16. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the corresponding paragraph of the Preliminary Objections of Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop Inc., a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats contains an accurate legal concept. It is denied that Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is factually or legally insufficient. 17. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the corresponding paragraph of the Preliminary Objections of Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop Inc., a/k/a Warrington Farm Meats contains an accurate quote from Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a). Itis denied that the facts of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint were not plead in a "concise and summary form." See Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Steven and Kathy Calaman hereby respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order overrruling Defendant Cabin Hollow's preliminary objections, and directing Defendant Cabin Hollow to answer Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. Date: /2///' By: Respectful Sub ' rtt&d, hitney S. Graham Attorney for Plaintiffs GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. Ronald M. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 64483 Whitney S. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 312145 Suite 7, P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 (610)933-3333 STEVEN CALAMAN and KATHY CALAMAN h/w 1085 Grahams Wood Road Newville, PA 17241 Plaintiffs vs. 11 Tl_.! r;,r)T-:, -• • ;..)Attorrieys for Plaintiffs 211h LL I 33 CI;;;E11.1:,flD COUNTY PENSYLVANIA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 14-5466 JONES HARVESTING, LLC a/lcia et. al, : JONES HARVESTING LLC : CIVIL ACTION - LAW 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Whitney S. Graham, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiffs, hereby certify that on this day of December, 2014, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Response to Preliminary Objections of Defendant Cabin Hollow Butcher Shop was sent via first class mail, postage pre- paid to the following: Michael W. Wagman, Esquire Bennett, Bricklin & Saltzburg LLC 222 E. Orange Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2915 Joshua J. Bovender, Esquire David L. Schwalm, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 North Front Street, 6th Floor PO Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Michael Blazick, Esquire The Blazick Law Firm 2 Public Square, Suite 102 Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701 Rolf E. Kroll, Esquire Margolis Edelstein 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 WAYNE JONES 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 GERALD JONES & SONS, INC. a/k/a GERALD JONES AND SONS TRUCKING INC. 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 By: Whitney S. Graham, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. Ronald M. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 64483 Whitney S. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 312145 Suite 7, P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 (610)933-3333 :ily DEC 22t QPM 1: 1 9 UUMtr3E \Li�l.'4J PENNSYLVANIA STEVEN CALAMAN and KATHY CALAMAN h/w 1085 Grahams Wood Road Newville, PA 17241 Plaintiffs vs. Attorneys for Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO.: 14-5466 JONES HARVESTING, LLC a/k/a et. al. JONES HARVESTING LLC : CIVIL ACTION - LAW 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Defendants PRAECIPE TO ATTACH NOTICE TO DEFEND To: The Prothonotary Kindly attach the enclosed Notice to Defend to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint in the above -captioned matter. By: Date: 12.1t• Whitney S. Graham Attorney for Plaintiffs GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. Ronald M. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 64483 Whitney S. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 312145 Suite 7, P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 (610)933-3333 STEVEN CALAMAN and KATHY CALAMAN h/w 1085 Grahams Wood Road Newville, PA 17241 Plaintiffs vs. JONES HARVESTING, LLC a/k/a et. al. JONES HARVESTING LLC 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Defendants Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO.: 14-5466 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW 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 OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH THE INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING 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 RATE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 717-249-3166 4 GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. Ronald M. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 64483 Whitney S. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 312145 Suite 7, P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 (610)933-3333 Attorneys for Plaintiffs STEVEN CALAMAN and KATHY CALAMAN h/w 1085 Grahams Wood Road Newville, PA 17241 Plaintiffs vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO.: 14-5466 JONES HARVESTING, LLC a/k/a et. al. JONES HARVESTING LLC : CIVIL ACTION - LAW 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Defendants PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS JONES HARVESTING, GERALD JONES, MARJORIE JONES, GERALD JONES, JR., AND KEITH JONES 105. No response required. 106. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff's claims are barred by operation of Plaintiff Steven Calaman's comparative negligence. On the contrary, all of Plaintiffs' claims and damages were solely and proximately caused by one or more defendants names in Plaintiffs' Complaint with is incorporated herein by reference. 107. Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. 108. Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. 109. Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. 110. Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. To the extent however a reply may be required, Plaintiffs specifically deny that any of their claims are barred in whole or in part by any statute of limitations. On the contrary, Plaintiffs claim was timely filed. 111. Denied. Plaintiff specifically denies that Plaintiffs injuries were pre-existing and therefore not caused by answering Defendants. On the contrary, Plaintiffs injuries were solely and proximately caused by as set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint. 112. Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. 113. Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. 114 Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required.. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. To the extent however a reply may be required, Plaintiffs specifically deny that Plaintiffs' claims are barred in any manner by the provisions of Pennsylvania's Comparative Negligence Act. 115. Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of. Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. 116. Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. To the extent however a reply may be required, Plaintiffs specifically deny that Defendants' conduct did not play a substantial or proximate role in causing Plaintiffs' injuries and/or damages. On the contrary, Plaintiffs' injuries were proximately caused by one or more of defendants named in Plaintiffs' Complaint 117. Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. To the extent however a reply may be required, Plaintiffs specifically deny that Defendants Gerald Jones, Marjorie Jones, Gerald Jones Jr., Keith Jones cannot be held liable as members of the corporation as no claim made to pierce the corporate veil of any of the corporate defendants. On the contrary, each of the above-mentioned individual defendants may be held liable as a result of their individual and independent participation in the negligence alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint. 118. Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. 119. Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by counsel.and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Steven and Kathy Calaman demand judgment in their favor and against Defendants in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limitation requiring arbitration, plus interest, costs and damages in addition to such relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Date: By: Whitney S. Graham Attorney for Plaintiffs GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. Ronald M. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 64483 Whitney S. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 312145 Suite 7, P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 (610)933-3333 •2Pt1 DEC 22 PM !:2O CUP i 1: T iA j i CO UN tdriSYLVA}l STEVEN CALAMAN and KATHY CALAMAN h/w 1085 Grahams Wood Road Newville, PA 17241 Plaintiffs vs. Attorneys for Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO.: 14-5466 JONES HARVESTING, LLC a/k/a et. al. : JONES HARVESTING LLC 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Defendants : CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Whitney S. Graham, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiffs, hereby certify that on this IF day of December, 2014, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice to Defend and Praecipe to Attach was sent via first class mail, postage pre -paid to the following: Michael W. Wagman, Esquire Bennett, Bricklin & Saltzburg LLC 222 E. Orange Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2915 Joshua J. Bovender, Esquire David L. Schwalm, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 North Front Street, 6th Floor PO Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Michael Blazick, Esquire The Blazick Law Firm 2 Public Square, Suite 102 Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701 Rolf E. Kroll, Esquire Margolis Edelstein 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 WAYNE JONES 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 GERALD JONES & SONS, INC. a/k/a GERALD JONES AND SONS TRUCKING INC. 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 By: GRAH & UER, P.C. Whitney S. Graham, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. Ronald M. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 64483 Whitney S. Graham, Esquire Attorney I.D. 312145 Suite 7, P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 (610)933-3333 STEVEN CALAMAN and KATHY CALAMAN h/w 1085 Grahams Wood Road Newville, PA 17241 Plaintiffs vs. JONES HARVESTING, LLC a/k/a . et. al. JONES HARVESTING LLC 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Defendants Attorneys for Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO.: 14-5466 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Whitney S. Graham, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiffs, hereby certify that on this 19th day of December, 2014, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Reply to New Matter of Defendants Jones Harvesting, Gerald Jones, Marjorie Jones, Gerald Jones Jr., and Keith Jones was sent via first class mail, postage pre -paid to the following counsel of record: Joshua J. Bovender, Esquire David L. Schwalm, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 North Front Street, 6th Floor PO Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Michael Blazick, Esquire The Blazick Law Firm 2 Public Square, Suite 102 Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701 Rolf E. Kroll, Esquire Margolis Edelstein 3510 Trindle Road - Camp Hill, PA 17011 WAYNE JONES 75 Goodyear Road Carlisle, PA 17015 GERALD JONES & SONS, INC. a/k/a GERALD JONES AND SONS TRUCKING INC. 75 Goodyear Rad Carlisle, PA 17015 By: UER, Whitney S. Graham, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs