Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-3202IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No.(IS- 2-J 0 Civil Action - (XX) Caw- ( ) Equity TANYA PECHART RONALD BARRICK 17 Mayfield Road RUTH BARRICK Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 26 Lonesome Road Newville, PA 17241 versus Plaintiff(s) & Defendant(s) & Address(es) Address(es) PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue A Writ of Summons in the above-captioned action. X Writ of Summons Shall be issued and forwarded to ( Attorney (XX)Sheriff David H Rosenberg, Esquire 1300 Linglestown Road Signature f Attorney Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Supreme Court ID No. 20569 Name/Address/Telephone No. of Attorney Date: 06/14/2005 WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HM/HA VE A EDI ED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. / Protho otary Date: ?.. 1 ^2 , ?U 5 by Deputy ( ) Check here if reverse is used for additional information PROTHON.-55 ,. \ ? N ?? ? ? T ?V ? f Z rn N ?° ?" " ? _ t ct O ? N? ? - -, r"3 ? Q ? WWW : ::_.? Q _ f? 1 :?J ?, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA TANYA PECHART, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, NO. 05-3202 v. PRAECIPE FOR RULE RONALD BARRICK and TO FILE COMPLAINT RUTH BARRICK, Defendants. (Jury Trial Demanded) Filed on Behalf of the Defendants Counsel of Record for This Party: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Pa. I.D. #83058 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, 0 GUTHRIE and SKEEL, L.L.P. Firm #911 5 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300 `?' ?' Lemoyne, PA 17043 c:- n7 (717) 901-5916 0 -? w J 0 #13695 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA TANYA PECHART, Plaintiff, V. RONALD BARRICK and RUTH BARRICK, Defendants. CIVIL DIVISION NO. 05-3202 (Jury Trial Demanded) PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO: The Prothonotary Kindly rule the Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart, to file a Complaint in Civil Action within twenty (20) days. Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, L.L.P. By: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Counsel for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, thislag day of `- 2005. David H. Rosenberg, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 SUMMERS, MCDONNEL.L, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, L.L.P. By. `f_ .V Kelvin D. Rauch, Esquire Counsel for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA TANYA PECHART, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION v. RONALD BARRICK and RUTH BARRICK, Defendants. NO. 05-3202 (Jury Trial Demanded) RULE AND NOW, this day of 2005, upon consideration of Defendants' Praecipe for Rule to File a Complaint, a Rule is hereby granted upon Plaintiff to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days of service, or suffer judgment Non Pros. Rule issued this day of 2005. Prothonotary Q <n G y L ?? 4 N IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA TANYA PECHART, Plaintiff, v. RONALD BARRICK and RUTH BARRICK, Defendants. CIVIL DIVISION NO. 05-3202 (Jury Trial Demanded) RULE AND NOW, this J` day of 2005, upon consideration of Defendants' Praecipe for Rule t File a omplaint, a Rule is hereby granted upon Plaintiff to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days of service, or suffer judgment Non Pros. Rule issued this J day of 2005. Cam, t 1c. oZ°a-n.o, / , Prothonotary ?Gnc G?? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA TANYA PECHART, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, NO. 05-3202 V. PRAECIPE: FOR APPEARANCE RONALD BARRICK and RUTH BARRICK, (Jury Trial (Demanded) Defendants. Filed on Behalf of the Defendants Counsel of Record for This Party: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Pa. I.D. #83058 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE and SKEEL, L.L.P. Firm #911 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 901-5916 #13895 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA TANYA PECHART, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, V. NO. 05-32,02 RONALD BARRICK and (Jury Trial Demanded) RUTH BARRICK, Defendants. PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE TO: THE PROTHONOTARY Kindly enter the Appearance of the undersigned, Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire, of the law firm of Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P., on behalf of the Defendants, Ronald Barrick and Ruth Barrick, in the above case. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNE'LL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, L.L.P. I By: Kevin D. Rauc, Esquire Counsel for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, thi day of ` tiL 2005. David H. Rosenberg, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, L.L.P. By: K vin D. Rauch, Esquire Counsel for Defendants n rr i ;.' r ( T 7 n .t -? W SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2005-03202 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND PECHART TANYA VS BARRICK RONALD ET AL RICHARD SMITH , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon BARRICK the DEFENDANT , at 2008:00 HOURS, on the 29th day of June 2005 at 26 LONESOME ROAD NEWVILLE, PA 17241 by handing to RUTH BARRICK a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service 7.40 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 23.40 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this /Zw_ day of ?OUnn A. D. }} Prothonotary So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 06/30/2005 HANDLER HENNI RO 11 BERG By: 17eputy Sheriff SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2005-03202 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND T TANYA VS BARRICK RONALD ET AL SGT JODY SMITH , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS RONALD DEFENDANT was served upon the , at 1202:00 HOURS, on the 29th day of June , 2005 at CUMBERLAND CO SHERIFF'S OFFICE ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to RONALD BARRICK a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 28.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this /2 `= day of ?j A. D. Prot onotary So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 06/30/2005 HANDLER HENNING ROSENBERG By. L4 Deputy Sheriff TANYA PECHART, Plaintiff V. RONALD BARRICK, and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-3202 CIVIL ACTION - LAW RUTH BARRICK, Defendants NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone 717-249-3166 or 800-990-9108 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By V1 David H I. D. #20 1300 Lit berg, Esq. Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff TANYA PECHART, Plaintiff V. RONALD BARRICK, and RUTH BARRICK, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-3202 CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart, by and through her attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by David H Rosenberg, Esquire, and makes the within Complaint against the Defendants, Ronald Barrick, and Ruth Barrick, as follows: 1 2 3 4 5. 6. Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart, is a competent adult individual currently residing at 17 Mayfield Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. Defendant, Ronald Barrick, is a competent adult individual currently residing at 26 Lonesome Road, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17241. Defendant, Ruth Barrick, is a competent adult individual currently residing at 26 Lonesome Road, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17241. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart, was the operator of a 1994 Dodge, owned by Terry Pechart, bearing Pennsylvania Registration Plate Number ERL5772 (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiffs vehicle"). At all times material hereto, Defendant, Ronald Barrick, was the operator of a 1991 GMC, owned by Ruth Barrick, bearing Pennsylvania Registration Plate Number EWA8192 (hereinafter referred to as "Defendants' vehicle"). At the time of the collision, Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart, was insured under a motor vehicle policythrough Allstate Insurance Company. Plaintiff was covered bythe Full Tort Option. 7. On or about July 8, 2003, at approximately 5:02pm, Plaintiffs vehicle, was traveling from North Salem Church Road onto Route 11 North, Carlisle Pike, Hampden Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 8. On or about July 8, 2003, at approximately 5:02pm, Defendants' vehicle, was traveling Route 11 South approaching the intersection of North Salem Church Road, Hampden Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 9. At all times material hereto, a traffic signal controlled the intersection of Route 11 and North Salem Church Road. 10. At approximately the same time and place, as Plaintiffs vehicle received a green light and was traveling from North Salem Church Road onto Route 11 North, Defendants' vehicle, failed to stop at the red signal and suddenly and without warning drove into the path of and violently collided with Plaintiffs vehicle. 11. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, the Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart, sustained serious and extensive injuries as set forth more specifically below. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE TANYA PECHART v. RONALD BARRICK 12. Paragraphs 1 through 11 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 13. The occurrence of the aforesaid collision and the resultant injuries to Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of Defendant, Ronald Barrick, more specifically, as set forth below: a. In failing to yield the right-of-way to Plaintiffs vehicle which lawfully -2- approached and entered the intersection, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3322; b. In failing to be reasonably vigilant to observe Plaintiffs vehicle; C. In failing to properly and adequately observe the traffic conditions then and there existing; d. In driving in a careless manner in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3714; e. In failing to operate her vehicle in such a manner that would allow him to apply the brakes and stop before striking Plaintiffs vehicle; f. In failing to operate her vehicle under proper and adequate control so that he could avoid striking Plaintiffs vehicle; g. In failing to yield the right-of-way to Plaintiffs vehicle which was already in the intersection, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3324; h. In failing to operate her vehicle at a speed at which he could stop within the assured clear distance ahead, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3361; i. In driving her vehicle upon a roadway in a manner endangering persons and property and in a manner with careless disregard to the rights and safety of others in violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; In failing stop at a red signal before entering the intersection and remain stopped until green was shown, in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3112(a)(3)(1); k. In failing to exercise the high degree of care required of a motorist -3- entering an intersection; and 1. In failing to be reasonably vigilant to observe the road and traffic conditions then and there existing. 14. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Ronald Barrick, Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart, sustained severe injuries, including, but not limited to, chest wall contusion, left hip and a left knee injury. 15. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the negligence of Defendant, Ronald Barrick, Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart, has suffered great physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and she will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 16. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Ronald Barrick, Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart, has suffered lost wages and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 17. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Ronald Barrick, Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to spend money for medicine and/or medical attention, and will be required to expend money for the same purposes in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 18. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Ronald Barrick, Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart, has been, and probably will in the future be, hindered from attending to her daily duties, to her great detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. -4- 19. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Ronald Barrick, Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures, and will continue to endure the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 20. Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart, believes and, therefore, avers that her injuries are permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart, seeks damages from Defendant, Ronald Barrick, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT II - NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT TANYA PECHART v. RUTH BARRICK 21. Paragraphs 1 through 20 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 22. Defendant, Ruth Barrick, was the owner of the 1991 GMC, which Defendant, Ronald Barrick, was operating with Defendant, Ruth Barrick's permission at the time of the collision. 23. Defendant, Ruth Barrick, knew, or should have known, that Defendant, Ronald Barrick, would be operating the aforementioned vehicle without reasonable care and safety. 24. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence Defendant, Ruth Barrick, Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart, has suffered serious bodily injury as set forth in full herein. 25. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and all of the resultant injuries to Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart, are the direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness of the Defendant, Ruth Barrick, generally and -5- more specifically, as set forth below: a. In allowing Ronald Barrick to fail to be reasonably vigilant to observe Plaintiffs vehicle; b. In allowing Ronald Barrick to fail to be reasonably vigilant so as to observe vehicles lawfully proceeding at the intersection of North Salem Church Road and Carlisle Pike; C. In allowing Ronald Barrick to fail to properly and adequately observe the traffic conditions then and there existing; d. In allowing Ronald Barrick to drive in a careless manner, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3714; e. In allowing Ronald Barrick to fail to operate Defendants' vehicle under proper and adequate control in order to avoid striking Plaintiffs vehicle; f. In allowing Ronald Barrick to fail to operate a motor vehicle under proper and adequate control in order to avoid a collision; g. In allowing Ronald Barrick to fail to exercise reasonable care in the operation and control of a motor vehicle, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3309; h. In allowing Ronald Barrick to fail to exercise the high degree of care required of an operator of a motor vehicle; and In allowing Ronald Barrick to fail to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3105. 26. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Ruth Barrick, -6- Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart, sustained severe injuries including, but not limited to, chest wall contusion, left hip and a left knee injury. 27. As a result of the negligence of Defendant, Ruth Barrick, Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation and from attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation and embarrassment. 28. As a result of the negligence Defendant, Ruth Barrick, Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart, has suffered great physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 29. As a result of the negligence of Defendant, Ruth Barrick, Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart, has suffered lost wages and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 30. As a result of the negligence of Defendant, Ruth Barrick, Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to spend money for medicine and/or medical attention, and will be required to expend money for the same purposes in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 31. As a result of the negligence of Defendant, Ruth Barrick, Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures, and will continue to endure the same in the future to her great detriment and loss. 32. Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart, believes and therefore, avers that her injuries are permanent in nature. -7- WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart, seeks damages from Defendant, Ruth Barrick, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP Date: By: David H Rosenberg, Esquire I.D. #20569 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff -8- TANYA PECHART, Plaintiff V. RONALD BARRICK, and RUTH BARRICK, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 05-3202 CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On the July 21, 2005, 1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Complaint was served upon the following by depositing in U.S. Mail; -7 Z-7k- DATE Kevin D. Rauch, Esq. Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, LLP 1017 Mumma Road Suite 300 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP David'H Ros berg, Esquire I.D. #2056 1300 Lin estown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing document are based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the document is of counsel and not my own. i have read the document and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the document are that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this Verification. The undersigned also understands that the statements made therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Tanya Pechart Date:---f ra ) ' r.> C7 ( 1 ' ' 0 -t1 f ? ? T" -,-1 r1 r_ 4 3 T ' ?? ; ?, t. 1 r? ? . L, ? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA TANYA PECHART, Plaintiff, V. RONALD BARRICK and RUTH BARRICK, Defendants. TO: Plaintiff You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer and New Matter within twenty (20) days from sejvice hereof or a judgment may b>i enters"gainpt you. Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P. NO. 05-3202 CIVIL DIVISION ANSWER AND NEW MATTER (Jury Trial Demanded) Filed on Behalf of the Defendants Counsel of Record for This Party: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Pa. I.D. #83058 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE and SKEEL, L.L.P. Firm #911 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 901-5916 #13895 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA TANYA PECHART, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, V. NO. 05-3202 RONALD BARRICK and (Jury Trial Demanded) RUTH BARRICK, Defendants. ANSWER AND NEW MATTER AND NOW, come the Defendants, Ronald Barrick and Ruth Barrick, by and through their counsel, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P., and Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire, and file the following Answer and New Matter and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants have insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants have insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 7. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants have insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that an impact occurred on the time, date, and place in question. The remainder of the allegations in paragraph 10 are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 11. Paragraph 11 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE TANYA PECHART v. RONALD BARRICK 12. In response to paragraph 12, the Defendants reiterate and repeat all their responses in paragraphs 1 through 11 as if fully set forth at length herein. 13. Paragraph 13 and all of its subparts state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 14. Paragraph 14 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 15. Paragraph 15 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 16. Paragraph 16 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 17. Paragraph 17 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 18. Paragraph 18 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 19. Paragraph 19 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 20. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants have insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Ronald Barrick and Ruth Barrick, respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiff with costs and prejudice imposed. COUNT II - NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT TANYA PECHART v. RUTH BARRICK 21. In response to paragraph 21, the Defendants reiterate and repeat all their responses in paragraphs 1 through 20 as if fully set forth at length herein. 22. Admitted. 23. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 23 are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 24. Paragraph 24 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 25. Paragraph 25 and all of its subparts state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Ruth Barrick acted in a negligent, careless, and/or reckless manner. To the contrary, Ms. Barrick acted in a reasonable and prudent manner at all times. 26. Paragraph 26 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 27. Paragraph 27 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 28. Paragraph 28 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 29. Paragraph 29 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 30. Paragraph 30 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 31. Paragraph 31 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 32. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants have insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Ronald Barrick and Ruth Barrick, respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiff with costs and prejudice imposed. NEW MATTER 33. The motor vehicle accident in controversy is subject to the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility law and these Defendants assert, as affirmative defenses, all rights, privileges and/or immunities accruing pursuant to said statute. 34. Some and/or all of Plaintiffs claims for damages are items of economic detriment which are or could be compensable pursuant to either the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility law and/or other collateral sources and same may not be duplicated in the present lawsuit. 35. To the extent that the Plaintiff has selected the limited tort option or is deemed to have selected the limited tort option then these Defendants set forth the relevant provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law as a bar to the Plaintiffs ability to recover non-economic damages. 36. These Defendants plead any and all applicable statutes of limitation under Pennsylvania law as a complete or partial bar to any recovery by Plaintiff in this action. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Ronald Barrick and Ruth Barrick, respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiff with costs and prejudice imposed. Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, L.L.P. By: vi auch, Esquire Counsel for Defendants VERIFICATION Defendant verifies that he is the Defendant in the foregoing action; that the foregoing ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is based upon information which he has furnished to his counsel and information which has been gathered by his counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language of the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is that of counsel and not of the Defendant. Defendant has read the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER and to the extent that the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is based upon information which he has given to his counsel, it is true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is that of counsel, he has relied upon counsel in making this Affidavit. Defendant understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: / O 14 ? Ronald Barrack #13895 Defendant verges that she is the Defendant in the foregoing action; that the foregoing ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is based upon information which she has furnished to her counsel and information which has been gathered by her counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language of the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is that of counsel and not of the Defendant. Defendant has read the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER and to the extent that the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is based upon information which she has given to her counsel, it is true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is that of counsel, she has relied upon counsel in making this Affidavit. Defendant understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ell /U -5- ? f Y ' Ruth Barrick #13895 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER AND NEW MATTER has been mailed by U.S. ail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this day of 2005. David H. Rosenberg, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, L.L.P. By: Kelvin-D. Raucfl-,Es-quire Counsel for Defendants -n G) C%1 I (J C.J 'a YECEIVED AUG 0 3 2005 ROBERT O. GOULD, JR., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. NO. 05-32712 LISA J. McGREARY, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant CUSTODY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 4`t day of A 0 6, 2005, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that the Stipulation for an Agreed Order of Custody Modification attached hereto be entered as an order of Court in the above referenced custody case. b? BY ORDER OF THE COURT: to h f r.UJL I t f,1jV TANYA PECHART, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 05-3202 RONALD BARRICK, and : CIVIL ACTION - LAW RUTH BARRICK, Defendants REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart, by and through her attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by David H Rosenberg, Esquire, and replies as follows: 33. Denied. This is a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. If a response is required, this is specifically denied. 34. Denied. This is a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. If a response is required, this is specifically denied. 35. Denied. Ms. Pechart chose the Full Tort option under her insurance policy. 36. Denied. This Complaint was filed within the Statute of Limitations. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart, seeks damages from Defendant, Ruth Barrick, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. DATE Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP Davi H Rosenberg, Esquire I. D. 20569 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiffs TANYA PECHART, Plaintiff V. RONALD BARRICK, and RUTH BARRICK, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 05-3202 CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On the August 12, 2005, 1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Reply To New Matter was served upon the following by depositing in U.S. Mail; Kevin D. Rauch, Esq. Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, LLP 1017 Mumma Road Suite 300 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Respectfully submitted, vGZ? r DATE HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP David H R senberg, Esquire I. D. #205 9 1300; Lin lestown Road Harrib rg, PA 17110 71 Attorney for Plaintiff VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing document are based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the document is of counsel and not my own. I have read the document and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the document are that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this Verification. The undersigned also understands that the statements made therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Tanya Pecha Date: 30 N ? T 1 -? { .? ? ??=i ???? ? zm O ? s-c? Z w ? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA TANYA PECHART CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, No. 05-3202 V. RONALD BARRICK, RUTH BARRICK, Defendants, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 23`d day of August 2005, I hereby certify that I have, on this date, served the within Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart's, Answers to Defendants' Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents addressed to Plaintiff, via first class mail by sending a true and correct copy of same to their attorney and including copies to all parties of interest as follows: Defendant Ruth & Ronald Barrick c/o Kevin D. Rauch, Esq. Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeet, LLP 1017 Mumma Road Suite 300 Lemoyne, PA 17043 HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By:. David Rosenberg, Esquire Atto y ID# 20569 1300 inalestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717)238-2000 Date: g1a310S C"7 ??-"??s ?? C- cn ?? C= _ 4 s?> `??L _?.? ,l ? _ ? ? _' Y? i J? Ll: ?? ?' ?V ? ? ;? 1 t P IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA TANYA PECHART CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, . No. 05-3202 V. RONALD BARRICK, . RUTH BARRICK, Defendants, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 7' day of September 2006, I hereby certify that I have, on this date, served the within Plaintiff, Tanya Pechart's, Answers to Defendants' Supplemental Interrogatories, via first class mail by sending a true and correct copy of same to their attorney and including copies to all parties of interest as follows: Defendant Ruth & Ronald Barrick c/o Kevin D. Rauch, Esq. Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, LLP 1017 Mumma Road Suite 300 Lemoyne, PA 17043 HANDLER, HEJ?NING & ROSENBERG, LLP By: senberg, Esquire David H Ye" Attorne ID# 20569 1300 inglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717)238-2000 Date: O 11 lob I 4 DEC 2 6 2007 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA TANYA PECHART, CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, NO. 05-3202 V. STIPULATION FOR REMOVAL OF RONALD BARRICK and DEFENDANT, RUTH BARRICK RUTH BARRICK, Defendants. (Jury Trial Demanded) Filed on Behalf of the Defendants Counsel of Record for This Party: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Pa. I.D. #83058 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE and SKEEL, L.L.P. Firm #911 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 901-5916 #13895 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA TANYA PECHART, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION V. RONALD BARRICK and RUTH BARRICK, Defendants. NO. 05-3202 (Jury Trial Demanded) STIPULATION FOR REMOVAL OF DEFENDANT, RUTH BARRICK AND NOW, come the Defendants, Ronald Barrick and Ruth Barrick, by and through their attorneys, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P., and Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire, and files the following Stipulation. The undersigned parties hereby stipulate and agree that Ruth Barrick is dismissed from the above-captioned case with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By: David H. Rosen rg, Esquire Counsel for PI ntiff Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIEXSKSaL. LJ!.P. By: Jig ._ Rauch, Esquire unsel for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing STIPULATION FOR REMOVAL OF DEFENDANT, RUTH BARRICK has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this 4th day of January, 2008. David H. Rosenberg, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SK,EEL, L.L.P. ,- By: rz Ke in D. Rauch, Esqui C unsel for Defendants CDC> ` O 71 ' a t- ` c co TANYA PECHART, Plaintiff V. RONALD BARRICK, and RUTH BARRICK, Defendants TO THE PROTHONOTARY: : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 05-3202 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE Please mark the Docket in the above captioned matter as Settled, Discontinued and Satisfied. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP Date: /r1o,? By David H Rosenberg, Esquire I. D. #32 98 1300 Li glestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff ? ?a -a? ? cn ?'?` `? ? ?? :, i7 c ? i C? .A? ? - .?" , ?fT? ,.,? ?