Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout87-0063 St. Johnsbury Trucking Company, Inc. In the Court of Common Pleas of -vs- Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Anthony H. Ladner and New Penn Trucking No. 63 Civil 1987 Company Civil Action Law Complaint William K. Beck, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says he ~de diligent search and inquiry for one of the within named defendants to Wit: Anthony H.Ladner, but was unable to locate him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of Allegheny County to serve the within Civil Action Law Complaint according to law. ALLEGHENY COUNTY RETURN: Now, January 27, 1987 at 11:30 o'clock A.M. served the within Complaint upon Anthony Ladnor at 101 Pennfield Place, Greentree, PA. by handing to Anthony personally and made known to him the contents thereof. So answers: Eugene Coon, Sheriff of Alelgehny County Allegheny County return is hereto attached. William K. Beck. S~eriff, who being duly s~orn according to law, says he made diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant to wit: New Penn Trucking Company, but was unable to locate, them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of Lebanon County to serve the within Civil action Law Complaint according to law. LEBANON COUNTY RETURN: Charles E. Forinash, Deputy Sheriff, being duly sworn~.. according to law deposes and says that he served the within Civil Action Law ~omplaint upon New Penn Trucking Co., the within named defendant, by handing to A1 Hershey, Controller, on January 14,1987 at 3:00 o'clock at the office, 625 South Fifth Avenue, Lebanon, (South Lebanon Township), Lebanon County, Pennsylvania a true and attested copy thereof and by making known to him the contents of the same. So answers: Clifford Rollands, Sheriff Lebanon County,Pennsylvania Lebanon County return is hereto attached. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Out of County 10.00 So answers: ~ · Surcharge 4.00 ~~j j~ ~. ~~ Lebanon County 19.00 // ~ ~ ~ ~z~ .... ~ ~. j~ ~ ~ Allegheny County 23.25 .~ William K. Beck, Sher~f~ $ 74.25 pd. by ~ atty 3-13-87 Sworn and Subscribed To Before Me This /~ Day Of 1987, A.D. /~~ Prothonotary page 77 n The C~urt c{ C~mmcrt P~ec~ c{~ Cumbertcnd C~unty, P~nns¥{vcnic St. Johnsbury Trucking Company, Inc. Anthony H. Ladn~ 63 Civil 87 Jan 27 87 11:30 a Now, :9_.__.., ~e w~ comp.! aint Anthony H~Ladner 101 Penefield Place, Greentree, PA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,,, ,,, him ~. c:n:~ ~e~. Deputy SHV!~a, R i BRiaN. NOiAR'i PUgLICA~__,~ 2. O0 PI~TSBURGtl, ALLEGHE,~, COUNTY' * 2 3 2 5 MY CQMMLS$10N EX~IRES MAY ]6, !98g · ST. JOHNSBURY TRUCKING : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COMPANY, INC. : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANI~ : CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED : ANTHONY H. LADNER and : NO. ~ ~3 ~ /~7 NEW PENN TRUCKING COMPANY : NOTICE TO DEFEND You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend aginst the claims set forth against you in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Cc~plaint 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 default judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Cc~plaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LA~A~R AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TMr.K~HONE THE OFFICE SAT FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL FMIP. COURT ADMINISTRATOR OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Cumberland County Court House Hanover & High Streets Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone No.: 249-1133 ST. JOHNSBURY TRUCKING : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COMPANY, INC. : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANiIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED : ANTHONY H. LADNER and : NEW PENN TRUCKING COMPANY : NO. 87- COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff, St. Johnsbury Trucking Company, Inc., is a corporation with offices located at 119 Jeffrey Avenue, ~Holliston Massachusetts, 01746. 2. Defendant, Anthony H. Ladner, is an adult individual residin~ at 101 Pennfield Place, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvani~ 3. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant, New Penn Trucking Company, is a corporation with offices located at 625 South Fifth Avenue, P. O. Box 630, Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania. 4. On January 22, 1986, Dana R. Field, was the operator of a 1985 International Tractor with New Hampshire registration HF-37 and a Theurer trailer with New Jersey registration 872-TTC. Both tractor and trailer were owned by Plaintiff, St. Johnsbury Company, Inc. On January 22, 1986, Defendant, Anthony H. Ladner, was the operator of a 1985 Mack Tractor with Pennsylvania registration -1- AA-45977. Said tractor was owned by New Penn Trucking Company, Inc., 625 South Fifth Avenue, P. O. Box 630, Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania. 6. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, Anthony H. Ladner was an agent, servant or employee of the Defendant, New Penn Trucking Company, and at all times relevant hereto, was working within the course and scope of his employment. 7. On January 22, 1986, at approximately 11:30 p.m., Plaintiff, Dana R. Field was travelling on Terminal Street and had stopped at the intersection of Terminal Street and Industrial Park Road, when he looked both ways, did not see any traffic coming, and out of Terminal Street onto Industrial Park Road. At that same time, Defendant, Anthony H. Ladner, was travelling west bound on Industrial Park Road without lights on at a high rate of speed, and struck the vehicle being operated by the Plaintiff on the ri¢ side, causing the injuries and damages to the Plaintiff as set forth hereinafter. 8. Said accident resUlted solely from the negligence and r~ ness of the Defendant, Anthony H. Ladner, and neither Plaintiff, nor Dana R. Field, was in any way negligent for the happening of .... ~'~ ....... ~"~' this accident. The negligence and recklessness of the Defendants consisted -2- the following: a) Failure to properly operate and control his motor vehicle; b) Failure to keep alert and maintain a proper lookout for the presence of other motor vehicles on the streets and highways; c) Driving at an excessive rate of speed under the circum- stances in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. Section. 3361; d) Operating his vehicle after dusk without operating lights on the vehicle, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4302; e) Such other acts of negligence as more fully set forth herein. 10. Solely as a result of the negligence of the Defendant, Plaintiff has sustained property damage to it's vehicle in the amount of $4,289.42. 11. Solely as a result of the negligence of the Defendant, Plaintiff was forced to incur rental expenses to replace the truck involved in the accident, with said rental expenses being in the amount of $990.15. 12. This matter is alleged to exceed the applicable limits of arbitration. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment against the Defendant in an amount of $5,279.59, plus costs and interest as allowed by law. Respectfully s~mitted, ~D~ E. $~.~tine, Esquire -4- VERIFICATION I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am Insurance Risk Manager of St. Johnsbury Trucking Company, Inc.; that as such I am authorized to make this verification; and that the information set forth in the foregoing Complaint is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements contained herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, i~~' ' WILLIAM MILASCHEWSKI, CPCU New Penn Trucking Compa~y 63 Civil ~0. ~, January~ 13 ,,, , ~ ~~ ~ ST. JOHNSBURY TRUCKING : IN THE COURT OF COMI~ON PLEAS COMPANY, INC. : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW VS. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANTHONY H. LADNER and : NEW PENN TRUCKING COMPANY : NO. 63 CIVIL 1987 TO: ST. JOHNSBURY TRUCKING COMPANY, INC., PLAINTIFF; and DALE E. ANSTINE, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed Answer with New Matter and Crossclaim of New Penn Trucking Company within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. THOMAS & THOMAS James K. Thomas, II 212 Locust Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717)255-7617 Attorneys for Defendant New Penn Trucking Company DATED: '~\\ ~ ~'~ ST. JOHNSBURY TRUCKING : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COMPANY, INC. : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW VS. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANTHONY H. LADNER and : NEW PENN TRUCKING COMPANY : NO. 63 CIVIL 1987 ANSWER WITH NEWHATTER AND CROSSCLAIH OF NEW PENN ~RUCKING CONPANY 1. Because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of adverse parties, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and proof thereof is demanded. 2. Admitted. 3. Denied as stated. The Defendant's proper corporate name is New Penn Motor Express, Inc. It does have a place of business in Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania. 4. Denied. It is admitted that on January 22, 1986 Dana R. Field was the operator of a 1985 International Tractor. Because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of adverse parties, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 4, and proof thereof is demanded. 5. Admitted. 6. Denied. 7. Denied. It is admitted that on January 22, 1986 at approximately 11:30 p.m. an accident occurred at the intersection of Industrial Park Road and Terminal Street. It is denied that Defendant Anthony H. Ladner was operating at a high rate of speed without lights or struck the vehicle operated by the Plaintiff. On the contrary, Dana R. Field failed to make a proper and adequate observation of traffic at the intersection, entered the intersection without ascertaining that the movement could be made safely, and negligently collided with the vehicle operated by Defendant Anthony H. Ladner. Because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of adverse parties, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 7, and proof thereof is demanded. 8. Denied. On the contrary, Defendant Anthony H. Ladner was not negligent or reckless, and the accident was caused by the negligence of Dana R. Field. 9. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant failed to operate or control his motor vehicle, failed to keep alert or maintain proper lookout for the presence of other vehicles on the streets and highways, drove at an excessive rate of speed, operated after dusk without operating lights on the vehicle, or was negligent in any other manner. 10 - 12. Because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of adverse parties, Defendant is unable to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraphs 10 through 12, and proof thereof is demanded. ~EW MA~'TER 13. On January 22, 1986, Dana R. Field was operating a 1985 International Tractor with New Hampshire registration AF-3705 and a Theurer trailer with New Jersey registration 872-T~C as the agent, servant or employee of St. Johnsbury Trucking Company, Inc. 14. Plaintiff, through its servant, workman or employee was contributorily negligent which bars or reduces any recovery to which Plaintiff is otherwise entitled. 15. Plaintiff through its agent, servant or employee assumed the risk of injury which bars any recovery. NEW lqATTER IN ~HE NATURE OF A COUNTERCLAIM 16. On January 22, 1986 at approximately 11:30 p.m., an accident occurred at the intersection of Terminal Street and Industrial Park Road in Hampton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 17. The accident resulted solely from the negligence of Dana R. Field acting in his capacity as an agent, servant or employee for St. Johnsbury Trucking Company, Inc. 18. The negligence of Dana R. Field and St. Johnsbury Trucking consisted of the following: a. Failure to operate and control his motor vehicle; b. Failure to keep alert and maintain a proper lookout for the presence of other motor vehicles on the streets and highways; c. Entering an intersection without first making adequate observation to make certain that the movement could be made safely; d. Failing to yield the right of way to a vehicle on the through street; and e. Such other acts of negligence as may subsequently appear by discovery. 19. Solely as a result of the negligence of Dana R. Field and St. Johnsbury Trucking, the 1985 Fruehauf Company trailer, registration no. TM94411, sustained damages in the amount of $2,760.49. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment against the Plaintiff in the amount of $2,760.49 plus costs and interest as allowed by law. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS & THOMAS P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorneys for Defendant New Penn Trucking Company VERIFICATION I, KAREN M. BUCH, on behalf of New Penn Motor Express, have read the foregoing Answer with New Matter and Crossclaim of New Penn Trucking Company and hereby affirm that it is true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, information and belief. This Verification and statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities; I verify that all the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct and that false statements may subject me to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904. M. BUCH~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JAMES K. THOMAS, II, of the law firm of Thomas & Thomas, do hereby certify that on this day I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer with New Matter and Crossclaim on the following, by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Dale E. Anstine, Esquire DALE E. ANSTINE, P.C. 2 West Market Street P.O. Box 47 York, PA 17405 THOMAS & THOMAS James K. Thomas, II 212 Locust Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 DATED: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY~ PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW /q 7 DAB?A R. FIELD, : NO.: ~ Civil ~ Plaintiff .. : VS. : : ANTHONY H. LADNER and NEW : PENN TRUCKING COMPANY, : Defendants .- JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND CROSSCLAIM Plaintiff, Dana R. Field, :by his attorney, John M. Sofilka, Esquire, respectfully submits the following to This Honorable Court by way of his Answer to New Matter and Cross- claim of Defendant, New Penn Trucking Company: 13. Admitted. 14. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff, Dana R. Field, was contributorily negligent in any way whatsoever in relation to the transaction which forms the subject matter of the case at bar, whether in his capacity as a servant, workman or employee of St. Johnsbury Truck Company, Inc., or in any other capacity. It is furthermore specifically denied that any recovery to which Claimant is otherwise entitled is barred or reduced, whether due to a theory of contributory negligence or on any other basis. Said assertion is furthermore '~ ..... ~'~'~ ....."'~' specifically denied as a conclusion of law. 15. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff assumed the risk of any injury in regard to the transaction which forms the subject of the case at bar, whether in his capacity as an agent, servant or employee of St. Johnsbury Trucking Company, Inc. or in any other capacity. It is furthermore specifically denied that any recovery to which Plaintiff is otherwise entitled is barred, whether under the doctrine of assumption of risks, or on any other basis. Said assertion is furthermore denied as a conclusion of law. ANSWER TO NEW MATTER IN THE NATURE OF A 'COUNTERCLAIM 16. Admitted. 17. Denied. It is denied that the accident of January 22, 1986, which forms the substance of the case at bar, resulted solely, primarily or partly from any negligence whatso- ever of the Plaintiff, Dana R. Field, whether in his capacity as an agent, servant or employee of the St. Johnsbury Trucking Company, Inc., or in any other capacity. It is furthermore specifically averred that the accident of January 22, 1986, was due solely and exclusively to the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the Defendants, Anthony H. Ladner and New Penn Trucking Company. 18. Denied. It is denied that the accident of January 22, 1986, which forms the substance of the case at bar, - 2 - resulted solely, primarily or partly from any negligence whatso- ever of the Plaintiff, Dana R. Field, whether in his capacity as an agent, servant or employee of the St. Johnsbury Trucking Company, Inc., or in any other capacity. It is furthermore specifically averred that the accident of January 22, 1986, was due solely and eXclusively to the negligence, carele$~n¢$s and recklessness of the Defendants, Anthony H. Ladner and New Penn Trucking Company. It is furthermore specifically denied that: a. Plaintiff, Dana R. Field failed in any manner to operate his motor vehicle in accordance with the laws and statutes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; b. That Plaintiff, Dana R. Field failed in any way to keep alert and maintain a proper lookout for the presence of other motor vehicles on the streets and highways; c. That Plaintiff, Dana R. Field failed to enter an intersection without first making adequate observation to make certain that the movement could be made safely; d. That Plaintiff, Dana R. Field failed to yield a right of way to a vehicle on the through street; 19. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff, Dana R. Field was guilty of negligence in any manner whatsoever in regard to the accident of January 22, 1986, and it therefore specifically denied that Plaintiff, Dana R. Field bears any - 3 - responsibility, whether in law or in equity, for any losses sustained by the o~er of the 1985 Freuhauf Company trailer, registration number TM94411. Plaintiff is unable to respond as to the truth or falsity of Defendant's assertion that St. Johnsbury Trucking Company, Inc. was guilty of negligence in regard to the case at bar, and proofs of said alleged negligence being in control of parties other than the Plaintiff at this time and proof, if any, is demanded at the time of trial. Plaintiff is furthe~ore unable to respond to the allegation of Defendants that the 1985 Fruehauf Company trailer sustained damages in the amount of mo Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Dollars and Forty-Nine Cents ($2,760.49), all proofs of said alleged damages being in the control of parties other than the Plaintiff. Strict proof, if any, is demanded at the time of trial. ~EREFORE, Plaintiff, Dana R. Field respectfully requests that This Honorable Court dismiss the New Matter and Counterclaim of Defendant, New Penn Trucking Company, with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICE OF DUE E. ANSTINE, P.C. A rney I.D. #29488 P.O. Box 952 York, Pennsylvania 17405 (717) 846-0606 - 4 - VERIFICATION I HEREBY VERIFY that the information set forth in the foregoir.g Reply to New Matter is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements contained herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DANA R ' ~FIELD CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this2~day of ~~ , 1987, I, John M. Sofilka, Esquire, hereby certify that I have, this date, served a copy of the within PLAINTIFF'S ~SWER WITH NEW ~TTER AND CROSSCLAIM, by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: James K. Thomas, II, Esquire THO~S & THO~S 212 Locust Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 A~orne~~y i~'#29488 Jo~M. Sofilka~E~ Two West Market Street P.O. Box 952 York, Pennsylvania 17405 (717) 846-0606 ST. JOHNSBURY TRUCKING COMPANY, INC., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW ANTHONY H. LADNER and : NO. 63 CIVIL 1987 NEW PENN TRUCKING COMPANY, : Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED REPLY TO ST. JOHNSBUR¥ TRUCKING COMPANY, INC.'S NEW MATTER 20. In answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiff's Reply, Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 19 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 21. The allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiff's New Matter is a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants request that Plaintiff's New Matter be denied. THOMAS & THOMAS James K. Thomas, II 212 Locust Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 VERIFICATION I, JAMES K. THOMAS, II, have read the foregoing Reply to St. Johnsbury Trucking Company, Inc's New Matter and hereby affirm that it is true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, information and belief. This Verification and statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities; I verify that all the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct and that false statements may subject me to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904. JAMES K. THOMAS, II CgR?IFICATE OF SERVICE I, JAMES K. THOMAS, II, of the law firm of Thomas & Thomas, do hereby certify that on this day I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to New Matter on the following, by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Daniel K. Deardorff, Esquire MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 John M. Sofilka, Esquire DALE E. ANSTINE, P.C. Two West Market Street P.O. Box 47 York, PA 17405 THOMAS & THOMAS James K. Thomas, II 212 Locust Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717)255-7617 DATED: 1[/~7 PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERL.&ND COUNTY P:ea~e !ist :he foilcwing case: (Check ene) ( X ) tbr JURY mai at the next term of :ivil court. ( ) fer :rial without a iury., ro · CAPT!ON OF CASE ca:> (entir~ caption must be stated in full) (check one) ( ) Assumps~t ( ) Yrespa~ ST. JOHNSBURY TRUCKING (X) Trespass (Motor Vehicle) COMPANY ( ) (other) (Plamtif0 vs. The trial list will be called on ANTHONY H. LADNER and NEW PENN and . TRUCKING COMPANY Trials commence on . Pretrials will be held on '. (Defendant) (Briefs are due 5 days before pre- vs. tria Is. ) (The party listing this case for trial shall provide forthwith a copy of the p. raecipe to all coumse!, .Dursuan~ to iocal Rule 214-1.) No. 63 ¢ivd t~7 Indicate the attorney who will try case for the part;,' who ,,lies ~ia praeclpe: Peter J. Speaker, Esquire Daniel K. Deardorff, Esquire Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: Signed: ?tint Name:fpe¢/5 f Speaker, Esquire Date: .~O /3~/~. A t:orney for:Ladner and N ewPenn Trucking Co. / ' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, PETER J. SPEAKER, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document on the following person by placing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid on the ay of ') ' , 1988: Daniel K. Deardorff, Esquire MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 THOMAS & THOMAS PETER J. S~EAK~R, ESQUIR~ J 212 Locust Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 255-7644 ST. JOHNSBURY TRUCKING : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COMPANY, INC., : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. : : NO. 63 CIVIL 1987 ANTHONY H. LADNER and : NEW PENN TRUCKING COMPANY, : Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ST. JOHNSBURY TRUCKING COMPANY, INC¥'S RESPONSE TO NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM OF DEFENDANTS 13. The averment that Dana R. Field was the agent, servant or employee of St. Johnsbury Trucking Company, Inc. is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required that averment is denied. The remaining averments of paragraph 13 are admitted. 14. Denied. On the contrary, the accident was solely a result of the negligence of the Defendants Anthony H. Ladner and New Penn Trucking Company. 15. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that any response is required this averment is denied. RESPONSE TO COUNTERCLAIM 16. Admitted, except that the township should be Hampden Township. 17. Denied. On the contrary, the accident resulted solely from the negligence of Anthony H. Ladner acting as an agent, servant or employee of Defendant New Penn Trucking Company. 18. Denied that Dana R. Field or St. Johnbury Trucking were negligent. LAW OFFICES- MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO (a) It is denied that Dana R. Field failed to operate and control his vehicle. On the contrary, he was operating his vehicle and he had it under control. (b) It is denied that Dana R. Field failed to keep alert and- maintain a proper lookout. On the contrary, he was at all times alert and on the lookout for Dther motor vehicles. (c) It is denied that Dana R. Field entered the intersection without first making adequate observations. On the contrary, Dana R. Field made adequate observations but did not see the Defendant Anthony H. Ladner because he was travelling without his headlights on at 11:30 PM and this was the cause of the accident. (d) This averment is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required the averment is denied. (e) This averment is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required this averment is denied. 19. It is denied that Dana R. Field or St. Johnsbury Trucking Company, Inc. were negligent. As to remaining averments of paragraph 19 St. Johnsbury Trucking Company, Inc. is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to its truth or falsity. Strict proof is therefore demanded. LAW OFFICES ~ MABTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO WHEREFORE, St. Johnsbury Trucking Company, Inc. respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor against the Defendant in the amount of $5,279.59 plus costs and interest as requested in its Complaint and that Anthony Ladner and New Penn Trucking Company's crossclaim be dismissed with prejudice. NEW MATTER TO COUNTERCLAIM 20. The Plaintiff and counterclaim Defendant, Defendant St. Johnsbury Trucking Company, Inc., hereby incorporate by reference the averments constrained in paragraphs 1 - 19 of its Complaint and Response. 21. The Defendant's counterclaim is barred or reduced by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and counterclaim Defendant, St. Johnsbury Trucking Company, Inc., demand judgment in their favor. MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO Daniel K. Deardorff, E~ire Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Plaintiff St. Johnsbury Trucking Company, Inc. LAW OFFICES- MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing St. Johnsbury Truckinq Company, Inc.'s Response to New Matter and Counterclaim of Defendants was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: James K. Thomas, II, Esquire P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO Daniel K. Deardorff, Es~re Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorneys for Plaintiff St. Johnsbury Trucking Company, Inc. Dated: September 28, 1987 LAW OFFICES- MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO VERIFICATION The foregoing St. Johnsbury Trucking Company, Inc.'s Response to New Matter and Counterclaim of Defendants is based upon information which has been gathered by my counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language of the document is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the St. Johnsbury Trucking Company, Inc.'s Response to New Matter and Counterclaim of Defendant~ ~nd to the extent that the document is based upon information which I have given to my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the document is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this verification. This statement and verification are made subject to the penalties of Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if I make knowingly false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. / i ~t2flY~ Mil~schewski ~Director of Insurance St. Johnsbury Trucking Company, Inc. LAW OFFICES -- MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO