Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-2717Kelly Ray & Sandra Louise Hockenberry, Administrator and Administratrix of Estate of Nathan M. Hockenberry, Plaintiff V. West Pennsboro Township and Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO, 06 - 13l1 C,J"l +c,M CIVIL ACTION - LAW A.D. NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following Complaint, 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 Phone: (717) 249-3166 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. Kelly Ray & Sandra Louise Hockenberry, Administrator and Administratrix of Estate of Nathan M. Hockenberry, Plaintiff V. West Pennsboro Township and Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA eco?f Tu„ Yee . O 4 - .11717 CIVIL ACTION - LAW A.D. COMPLAINT AND NOW comes the Plaintiff, Kelly Ray & Sandra Louise Hockenberry, Administrator and Administratrix of the Estate of Nathan M. Hockenberry, deceased, through their attorney, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, and for cause action against the Defendants sets forth the following: 1. The Plaintiffs are Kelly Ray and Sandra Louise Hockenberry, Administrates of the Estate of Nathan M. Hockenberry, deceased, duly appointed by the Register of Wills of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania on May 28, 2004, and they bring these actions under and by virtue of Section 8301 (Wrongful Death) and 8302 (Survival Action) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 101 et seq. 2. Plaintiffs are adult individuals living and residing at 15 Rehobeth Road, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257. 3. Defendant, West Pennsboro Borough Township is a municipal entity in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and maintains an office at 2150 Newville Road, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17241. 4. Defendant, Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (hereinafter referred to as "PennDOT") is an agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and maintains an office at the Keystone Building, 400 North Street, 9`s Floor, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101. 5. The decedent Nathan M. Hockenberry was, at all times relevant to this action, a resident of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, residing at 15 Rehobeth Road, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257 with his parents, Plaintiffs, Kelly Ray and Sandra Louise Hockenberry. 6. At the time of his death on May 14, 2004, decendent, Nathan M. Hockenberry, was nineteen, having been bom on February 22, 1985. 7. Decedent did not, in his lifetime, bring an action against the Defendants for the injuries causing his death. 8. On May 14, 2004, at approximately 1:56 p.m., the decendent was operating a 2001 Chevrolet Blazer automobile owned by Barbara McMullen. 9. On said date and time, the said vehicle was being operated in a southerly direction on State Route 11 in West Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, with the vehicle following the flow of traffic. 10. On said date and time, Darlene Hall was operating a 2003 Hummer H2 automobile in a westerly direction on State Route 233 in West Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, near its intersection with State Route 11 11. As decendent, Nathan M. Hockenberry, came upon the intersection he, in the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, was justified in believing that Ms. Hall, who was approaching the intersection, would stop at the posted stop sign, and remain there until he cleared the intersection. 12. The vehicle operated by decedent, Nathan M. Hockenberry, crossed two lanes of west and east bound traffic on SR 233, the westbound right turn lane on SR 233 and was partially clear of the eastbound lane of SR 233 when the Hockenberry's vehicle was struck by the Hall's vehicle. 13. The collision above alleged resulted in Nathan M. Hockenberry being ejected from his vehicle causing critical injuries to Nathan M. Hockeberry who died at the scene. 14. At all relevant times, State Route 11 and State Route 233 in West Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, were state highways with the Defendant, PennDOT, and also highways controlled by Defendant, West Pennsboro Township, both having the responsibilities for ownership, design, construction, supervision and maintenance of the said highways, the intersection of said highways and all areas in the right-of- way of the highways. COUNT ONE-WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION Kelly Ray & Sandra Louise Hockenberry, Administrator and Administratrix of Estate of Nathan M. Hockenberry, Plaintiff V. West Pennsboro Township, Defendant 15. Paragraphs 1 through 14 of Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full. 16. The intersection of State Routes 11 and 233 has been the site of numerous accidents prior to the Hockenberry/Hall accident and had been the subject of traffic and/or engineering studies by Defendant, West Pennsboro Township, prior said accident. 17. Said intersection constitutes a dangerous and hazardous roadway of which Defendant, West Pennsboro Township, knew or had reason to know of prior to the occurrence of the accident which is the subject of this action. 18. Defendant, West Pennsboro Township, was negligent in its ownership, custody, control and maintenance of the intersection of State Routes 11 and 233 in one or more of the following particulars: a. In failing to place a traffic light at said intersection; b. In failing to properly and adequately design and maintain said intersection so as to assure that it was safe for motorists traveling thereon and c. In failing to warn motorists of the dangerous condition of said intersection. d. In removing or allowing to be removed rumble strips which guarded the entrance to the intersection and which would have warned Hall as she approached, that a dangerous intersection was ahead. 19. The negligence, carelessness and recklessness of Defendant, West Pennsboro Township, as described created a dangerous condition of Municipal-owned real estate and highways within purview of 45 Pa.C.S.A. 8522(4), at said intersection of which West Pennsboro Township had knowledge and/or notice prior to this accident. 20. Notice of this action, pursuant to statute, was timely provided to Defendant, West Pennsboro Township. (Attached as Exhibit "A") 21. As a result of the decedent's death, West Pennsboro Township, is liable for the following damages: a. Funeral expenses for decedent; b. Expenses of Administration relating to decedent's injuries; c. Loss of the support, consortium, comfort, counsel, aid, association, care and services of the decedent sustained by his parents, Kelly Ray and Sandra Louise Hockenberry and his daughter, Lariah-Ann Marie Wilson; and d. Such other damages as are permissible in a wrongful death action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Kelly Ray and Sandra Louise, Administrator and Administratrix of the Estate of Nathan M. Hockenberry, demands judgment against the Defendant, West Pennsboro Township, in an amount excess of the mandatory arbitration limits and costs of suit. COUNT TWO-SURVIVAL ACTION Kelly Ray & Sandra Louise Hockenberry, Administrator and Administratrix of Estate of Nathan M. Hockenberry, Plaintiff V. West Pennsboro Township, Defendant 22. Paragraphs 1 through 21 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full. 23. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid collision, Defendant, West Pennsboro Township, is liable to the Plaintiff for the following damages: a. Decedent's emotional distress between the time immediately before the collision and the time of death; b. Decedent's pain and suffering from the of his injuries and the time of death; c. Decedent's future earnings and earning capacity during the period of his work life expectancy; d. Decedent's other financial losses suffered as a result of death; and e. Decedent's loss of enjoyment of life. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Kelly Ray and Sandra Louise, Administrator and Administratrix of the Estate of Nathan M. Hockenbeny, demands judgment against the Defendant, West Pennsboro Township, in an amount excess of the mandatory arbitration limits and costs of suit. COUNT THREE-WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION Kelly Ray & Sandra Louise Hockenberry, Administrator and Administratrix of Estate of Nathan M. Hockenberry, Plaintiff V. Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Defendant 24. Paragraphs 1 through 23 of Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full. 25. The intersection of State Routes 11 and 233 has been the site of numerous accidents prior to the Hockenberry/Hall accident and had been the subject of traffic and/or engineering studies by Defendant, Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, prior said accident. 26. Said intersection constitutes a dangerous and hazardous roadway of which Defendant, Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, knew or had reason to know of prior to the occurrence of the accident which is the subject of this action. 27. Defendant, Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, was negligent in its ownership, custody, control and maintenance of the intersection of State Routes 11 and 233 in one or more of the following particulars: a. In failing to place a traffic light at said intersection; b. In failing to properly and adequately design and maintain said intersection so as to assure that it was safe for motorists traveling thereon and c. In failing to warn motorists of the dangerous condition of said intersection. 28. The negligence, carelessness and recklessness of Defendant, Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as described created a dangerous condition of Commonwealth-owned real estate and highways within purview of 45 Pa.C.S.A. 8522(4), at said intersection of which Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania had knowledge and/or notice prior to this accident. 29. Notice of this action, pursuant to statute, was timely provided to Defendant, Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (Exhibit "A") 30. As a result of the decedent's death, Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, is liable for the following damages: e. Funeral expenses for decedent; f. Expenses of Administration relating to decedent's injuries; g. Loss of the support, consortium, comfort, counsel, aid, association, care and services of the decedent sustained by his parents, Kelly Ray and Sandra Louise Hockenber y and his daughter, Lariah-Ann Marie Wilson; and h. Such other damages as are permissible in a wrongful death action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Kelly Ray and Sandra Louise, Administrator and Administratrix of the Estate of Nathan M. Hockenberry, demands judgment against the Defendant, West Pennsboro Township, in an amount excess of the mandatory arbitration limits and costs of suit. COUNT FOUR-SURVIVAL ACTION Kelly Ray & Sandra Louise Hockenberry, Administrator and Administratrix of Estate of Nathan M. Hockenberry, Plaintiff V. Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Defendant 31. Paragraphs 1 through 30 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid collision, Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, is liable to the Plaintiff for the following damages: f. Decedent's emotional distress between the time immediately before the collision and the time of death; g. Decedent's pain and suffering from the of his injuries and the time of death; h. Decedent's future earnings and earning capacity during the period of his work life expectancy; i. Decedent's other financial losses suffered as a result of death; and j. Decedent's loss of enjoyment of life. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Kelly Ray and Sandra Louise, Administrator and Administratrix of the Estate of Nathan M. Hockenberry, demands judgment against the Defendant, West Pennsboro Township, in an amount excess of the mandatory arbitration limits and costs of suit. Respectfully Submitted, ROMINGER & WHARE Date: '1141 12 Mb BY: Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorney I.D. #81924 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Kelly Ray & Sandra Louise Hockenberry, Administrator and Administratrix of Estate of Nathan M. Hockenberry, Plaintiff V. West Pennsboro Township and Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW A.D. ATTORNEY VERIFICATION KARL E. ROMINGER., ESQUIRE, states that he is the attorney for the Plaintiffs in this action; that he makes this affidavit as attorney because he has sufficient knowledge or information and belief, based upon his investigation of the matters averred or denied in the foregoing document; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date:' G? /21 2f)66 Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff A6?r?l cxev C?;4 cejl- W41-40ree law@romingerlaw.com www.romingerlaw.com KARL E. ROMINGER, ESQ. MARK F. BAYLEY, ESQ. MICHAEL J. WHARE, ESQ. West Pennsboro Township Board of Supevisors 2150 Newville Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Cumberland County Commissioners One Courthouse Square Carlis 1, PA 17013 LAW OFFICES July 26, 2004 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Deputy Secretary for Highway Administration Keystone Building, 400 North Street Harrisburg, PA 17120 RE: NATHAN HOCKENBERRRY DATE OF DEATH: MAY 14, 2004 Dear Board of Supervisors: FILE COPY TEL: 717.241.6070 FAX: 717.241.6878 This letter is to inform you that we are representing the Estate of Nathan Hockenberry who was tragically killed in a motor vehicle accident on May 14, 2004, on the Ritner Highway in West Pennsboro Township in Cumberland County. We intend to name all responsible parties in a lawsuit, and hereby give you notice that we believe you may be an appropriate defendant. Therefore, consider this letter our six (6) month notice of our intent to bring any and all applicable causes of action in a Court of competent jurisdiction. Sincerely, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire KER/Ijj cc. Estate of Nathan Hockenber y EXHIBIT "A" ADVOCACY - ADVICE - ANSWERS 155 SOUTH HANOVER STREET CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013 Tb J -?Q ?'c F N c? ? a C rs T T Y R rn P I 1 Steven C. Gould Senior Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15`" Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Direct Dial: 717-783-3105 E-Mail: sgould(aattorney eg neral ov KELLY RAY & SANDRA LOUISE HOCKENBERRY, Administrator and Administratrix of ESTATE OF NATHAN M.HOCKENBERRY Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL LAW V. WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and NO. 06-2717 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Defendants ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Please enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS W. CORBETT, JR. Attorney General By: St-even-C. Gould, I.D. #80156 Senior Deputy Attorney General DATED: May 24, 2006 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving the Commonwealth Defendant's Entry of Appearance upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Rominger & Whare 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Attorney for Plaintiffs) West Pennsboro Borough Township 2150 Newville Road Carlisle, PA 17013 By: STEVEN C. GOULD #80156 Senior Deputy Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-783-8035 - Direct Dial DATED: May 24, 2006 .-- r? o c ? „_ ?`:' R? -ry{.? LPt ? ?C_ i .- 'l'S -i i y.C_ N ' ?ni = .. i -`1 ;17 .."" "? Steven C. Gould Senior Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15`h Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Direct Dial: 717-783-3105 E-Mail: s>o? uldgattorneygeneral.gov KELLY RAY & SANDRA LOUISE HOCKENBERRY, Administrator and Administratrix of ESTATE OF NATHAN M.HOCKENBERRY Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL LAW WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and NO. 06-2717 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Defendants NOTICE TO PLEAD TO PLAINTIFFS: YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED to respond to the within Preliminary Objections within twenty (20) days of the date of service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, By: THOMAS W. CORBETT, JR. Attorney General STEVEN C. GOULD ID Senior Deputy Attorney General/ DATED: June 8, 2006 Steven C. Gould Senior Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15`h Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Direct Dial: 717-783-3105 E-Mail: s ould ,attorney general. go KELLY RAY & SANDRA LOUISE HOCKENBERRY, Administrator and Administratrix of ESTATE OF NATHAN M.HOCKENBERRY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Plaintiff CIVIL LAW V. WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NO. 06-2717 Defendants THE COMMONWEALTH DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, (hereinafter, "Commonwealth Defendant"), by and through the Office of the Attorney General, hereby files these Preliminary Objections to the above-captioned Complaint pursuant to Rule 1028 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028, and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. On or about May 12, 2006, Plaintiffs, Kelly Ray Hockenberry and Sandra Lousie Hockenberry, (hereinafter collectively, "Plaintiffs"), Administrates of the Estate of Nathan M. Hockenberry, deceased, commenced this action by filing a Complaint against the West Pennsboro Township and the Commonwealth Defendant in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. According to Plaintiffs' Complaint, Nathan M. Hockenberry (hereinafter, 'Decedent"), was fatally injured in a two-vehicle accident on May 14, 2004, at the intersection of State Route 11 and State Route 233, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. (See, Complaint ¶ 9). 3. According to Plaintiffs' Complaint, Darlene Hall was operating a 2003 Hummer H2 westbound on S.R. 233 and collided with a 2001 Chevy Blazer operated by Decedent, which was traveling in a southerly direction on S.R. 11. (See, Complaint ¶¶ 11 -13). 1. MOTION FOR MORE SPECIFIC PLEADING PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) AND PA. R.C.P. 1028(a)(3) 4. The Commonwealth Defendant hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-3 of these Preliminary Objections by reference as though set forth herein at length. 5. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, is a "Commonwealth party" as defined in 42 Pa. C.S. §8501. 6. Commonwealth parties are immune from suit except as specifically waived by the General Assembly. See, 1 Pa.C.S. § 2310; 42 Pa.C.S. § 8501 et seq. 7. In order to state a cause of action against the Commonwealth Defendant, the Plaintiffs must allege that the acts complained of fall within one of the exceptions to sovereign immunity set forth in sections 8522(b)(1) through (9) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8522(b)(1)-(9). 8. In the instant case, the only exception to sovereign immunity which could apply is the real estate exception, which provides: (4) Commonwealth real estate, highways and sidewalks.-A dangerous condition of Commonwealth agency real estate and sidewalks, including the Commonwealth-owned real property, lease holds in the possession of a Commonwealth agency and Commonwealth-owned real property leased by a Commonwealth agency to private persons, and highways under the jurisdiction of a Commonwealth agency, except conditions described in paragraph (5). (emphasis added). See, 42 Pa. C.S. §8522(6)(4). 9. Sovereign immunity is only waived when a defect of the roadway itself causes a plaintiff's injuries. Kiley v. City of Phila., 645 A.2d 184 (1994). 10. According to Plaintiffs' Complaint, "said intersection constitutes a dangerous and hazardous roadway of which Defendant, Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, knew or had reason to know of prior to the occurrence of the accident which is the subject of this action." (See, Complaint 126). 11. The specific negligence allegations against the Commonwealth Defendant, are stated in Paragraph 27, as follows: "27. Defendant, Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, was negligent in its ownership, custody, control and maintenance of the intersection of State Routes 11 and 233 in one or more of the following particulars: (a) In failing to place a traffic light at said intersection; (b) In failing to properly and adequately design and maintain said intersection so as to assure that it was safe for motorists traveling thereon and (c) In failing to warn motorists of the dangerous condition of said intersection." (See, Complaint ¶27). 12. According to Rule 1019(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs must specifically plead each material fact upon which a claim is based. (Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a)). 13. In violation of Rule 1019 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs failed to plead any material facts that Decedent's accident was caused by a dangerous condition of the intersection of S.R. 11 and S.R. 233. 14. In Paragraph 27 (b), Plaintiffs failed to plead material facts to identify how the Commonwealth Defendant failed "to properly and adequately design and maintain said intersection". (See, Complaint, ¶ 27(b)). 15. In Paragraph 27(c), Plaintiffs failed to plead material facts to identify what constitutes the "dangerous condition" that the Commonwealth Defendant allegedly failed to warn motorists of. (See, Complaint, ¶ 27(c)). 16. In Paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Plaintiff fails to identify the "dangerous condition", that the Commonwealth Defendant knew or had reason to know of prior to the occurrence of the accident. (See, Complaint, ¶ 27(c)). 17. Simply stated, other than the alleged failure to place a traffic light at said intersection, Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to specifically identify any other defect, dangerous and/or unsafe condition of the intersection of State Route I 1 and State Route 223 that allegedly caused Decedent's fatal injuries. 18. Plaintiffs' Complaint contains no material facts revealing whether the allegations of Paragraphs 26 and 27(b) &(c) fall within an exception to Sovereign Immunity or alerting the Commonwealth Defendant to what it must defend. 19. Rather than pleading specific facts, the Plaintiffs have elected to plead general, open-ended and vague accusations leaving both the Commonwealth Defendant and this Court uninformed as to all basis of Plaintiffs' claims. 20. The aforementioned allegations fail to conform to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and must be stricken or, in the alternative, a more specific Complaint must be filed. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order striking paragraphs 26, and 27(b) and (c), or in the alternative, requiring Plaintiffs to file a more specific Complaint. II. MOTION TO STRIKE FOR FAILURE TO CONFORM TO LAW PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 1028(a)(2). 21. The Commonwealth Defendant hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-20 of these Preliminary Objections by reference as though set forth herein at length. 22. Plaintiffs Complaint, in Paragraph 28, sets forth "negligence, carelessness and recklessness" on the part of the Commonwealth Defendant. (See, Complaint 128). 23. The Pennsylvania Legislature, in relevant part, has created exceptions to sovereign immunity for "...damages arising out of a negligent act..." See, 42 Pa. C.S. §8522(a). 24. Allegations of conduct that are alleged to be anything other than "negligent" constitute "scandalous or impertinent matter" in violation of Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(2). WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order striking "recklessness" from Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2). III. MOTION TO STRIKE FOR INCLUSION OF SCANDALOUS OR IMPERTINENT MATTER PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2). 25. The Commonwealth Defendant hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-24 of these Preliminary Objections by reference as though set forth herein at length. 26. The Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges in Paragraph 25, that the intersection of S.R. 11 and S.R. 223 "...has been the subject of traffic and/or engineering studies by Defendant [PennDOT], prior said accident." (See, Complaint, 125). 27. Paragraph 25 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges information, which if true, would be privileged and confidential pursuant to Pennsylvania statutory law. 75 Pa.C.S. §3754(6). 28. 75 Pa.C.S. § 3754(b) states in pertinent part; "In-depth accident investigations and safety studies and information, records and reports used in their preparation shall not be discoverable nor admissible as evidence in any legal action or other proceeding, nor shall officers or employees or the agencies charged with the development, procurement or custody of in-depth accident investigations and safety study records and reports be required to give depositions or evidence pertaining to anything contained in such in-depth accident investigations or safety study records or reports in any legal action or other proceeding." 75 Pa.C.S. §3754(b) (2005). 29. The Commonwealth Defendant cannot in good faith respond to Paragraph 25 in the affirmative or in the negative because an affirmative response would be a judicial admission which would be admissible at the time of trial and a negative response may be untruthful. 30. This Court has already held that such language constitutes scandalous or impertinent matters in violation of Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) and should be stricken from a complaint against the Commonwealth Defendant. South v. Murphy, 21 Pa. D. & CAth 183 (Pa.Com.Pl. 1993). WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order striking Paragraph 25 from Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2). IV. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN THE NATURE OF A DEMURRER PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 1028(a)(4)AND Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED. 31. The Commonwealth Defendant hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-30 of these Preliminary Objections as though set forth herein at length. 32. In Paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs' Complaint, Plaintiffs claim that the Commonwealth Defendant is "liable for the following damages: e.[sic] Funeral expenses for decedent f [sic] Expenses of Administration relating to decedent's injuries: g.[sic] Loss of the support, consortium, comfort, counsel aid, association, care and services of the decedent sustained by his parents, Kelly Ray and Sandra Louise Hockenberry and his daughter, Lariah-Ann Marie Wilson; and h.[sic] Such other damages as are permissible in a wrongful death action." (See, Complaint ¶ 30). 33. Limitations on a Commonwealth Defendant's liability for damages are set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. §8528, which provides as follows: "(c) Types of damages recoverable.-- Damages shall be recoverable only for: (1) Past and future loss of earnings and earning capacity. (2) Pain and suffering. (3) Medical and dental expenses ... (4) Loss of consortium. (5) Property losses, except that property losses shall not be recoverable in claims brought pursuant to section 8522(b)(5)(relating to potholes and other dangerous conditions)." 34. Pursuant to Section 8528, funeral expenses and costs of estate administration are not recoverable against the Commonwealth Defendant. See, Huda v. Kirk, 551 A.2d 637 at 639 (1988). 35. Pursuant to Section 8528, Plaintiffs' alleged damages for "loss of the support, consortium, comfort, counsel, aid, association, care and services" are not recoverable against the Commonwealth Defendant by Decedents' parents. Department of Public Welfare v. Schultz, 855 A.2d 753, 756 (Pa. 2004). 36. Plaintiffs' request for "such other damages as are permissible in a wrongful death action", are not recoverable unless they are within Section 8528. (See, Complaint, ¶30(c)). WHEREFORE, the Defendant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant its Preliminary Objection and strike paragraph 30, subsections (e), (f), (h), and subsection (g) as pertaining to the damages sustained by Kelly Ray Hockenber y and Sandra Louise Hockenberry, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted since such damages are not recoverable against the Commonwealth Defendant. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS W. CORBETT, JR. ATTORNEY GENERAL By: Steven C. Gould, I.D. #80156 Senior Deputy Attorney General DATED: June 8, 2006 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving the Commonwealth Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Rominger & Whare 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Attorney for Plaintiffs) West Pennsboro Borough Township 2150 Newville Road Carlisle, PA 17013 By: Kay cKinney, Special vestigator Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-783-8035 - Direct Dial DATED: June 8, 2006 C r9 "I r' rlo ,A,-- "A Steven C. Gould Senior Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15"' Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Direct Dial: 717-783-3105 E-Mail: s ouldraattorney eig Zeral. ov KELLY RAY & SANDRA LOUISE HOCKENBERRY, Administrator and Administratrix of ESTATE OF NATHAN M. HOCKENBERRY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Plaintiff V. : CIVIL LAW WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and NO. 06-2717 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Defendants PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT TO: CURT LONG, PROTHONTOARY Please issue a Writ of Summons upon Darlene Hall, 7435 State Route 160, Bidwell, Ohio 4:,614, as an Additional Defendant in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted THOMAS W. CORBETT ATTORNEY GENERAL By: teven C. Gould, I.D. 80156 Senior Deputy Atto ey General Dated: July 5, 2006 r- Z CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a Praecipe for Writ of Summons to Join Additional Defendant, Darlene Hall upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Rominger & Whare 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Attorney for Plaintiffs) West Pennsboro Borough Township 2150 Newville Road Carlisle, PA 17013 By: Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-783-8035 - Direct Dial Senior Deputy DATED: July 5, 2006 .ow y KELLY RAY & SANDRA LOUISE HOCKENBERRY, Administrator and Administratrix of ESTATE OF NATHAN M. HOCKENBERRY Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL LAW WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and NO. 06-2717 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Defendants W R I T OF SUMMONS TO: DARLENE HALL 7435 State Route 160 Bidwell, Ohio 45614 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, has joined you as an Additional Defendant in the above-captioned action which you are required to defend. DATED: U BY THE PROTHONOTARY: ?UZ,2L ouo PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court. KELLY RAY & SANDRA LOUISE HOCKENBERRY, Administrator and Administratrix of ESTATE OF NATHAN M.14OCKENBERRY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Plaintiff V. WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Defendants DARLENE HALL Additional Defendant CIVIL LAW NO. 06-2717 State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial defendant's demurrer to Complaint, etc.): The Commonwealth Defendant's Preliminary Objections. 2. Identify counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiff: Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Rominger & Whare 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (b) for defendant: Steven C. Gould, Esquire Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15s` Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 3. 1 will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: September 6, By: Dated: August 4, 2006 Senior Deputy Attorney General Attorney for the Commonwealth Defendant I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a Praecipe for Listing Case for Argument upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Rominger & Whare 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 (Attorney for Plaintiffs) West Pennsboro Borough Township 2150 Newville Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Darlene Hall 7435 State Route 160 Bidwell, OH 45614 By: Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-783-8035 - Direct Dial SEEN C. GOULD ID # l56 Senior Deputy Attorney Gene al DATED: August 4, 2006 ?? mt; _?: ?. U7 ,:; ?r A ? s ? ?: ??? s KELLY RAY & SANDRA LOUISE HOCKENBERRY, Administrator and Administratrix of ESTATE OF NATHAN M.HOCKENBERRY Plaintiff V. WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Defendants DARLENE HALL Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL LAW NO. 06-2717 ORDER AND NOW, this day of September, 2006, upon consideration of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation's Preliminary Objections, and upon agreement of the Plaintiffs, it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED, as follows: 1. The Commonwealth Defendant's Preliminary Objections are GRANTED. 2. Paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is STRICKEN. 3. All allegations of "recklessness" on the part of the Commonwealth Defendant are STRICKEN. 4. Paragraph 30, subsections, (e), (f), (g), & (h) of Plaintiffs' Complaint are STRICKEN. 5. Paragraphs 26 and 27 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are STRICKEN as they appear in the Complaint. 6. Paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is amended to read as follows: "26. Said intersection constitutes a dangerous and hazardous roadway of which the Defendant, Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, knew or had reason to know of prior to the occurrence of ti the accident which is the subject of this action, as described in paragraph 27, and which would constitute a basis for liability under 42 Pa.C.S. §8522(b) (4). Paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is amended to read as follows: "27. Defendant, Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, was negligent in its ownership, custody, control and maintenance of the intersection of State Routes 11 and 233 in one or more of the following particulars, all of which were a cause in full or in part of the accident complained of: a. In failing to place a traffic light at said intersection. b. In failing to maintain rumble strips on the Route 233 approach to Route 11. C. In failing to adequately post signs warning of a dangerous intersection to motorists approaching the intersection. d. In failing to make the intersection a four way stop. e. In failing to make the intersection a two way stop. f. By allowing the removal and paving over of rumble strips existing on route 233 prior to the accident. g. By failing to maintain the rumble strips on 233. The Commonwealth Defendant is granted twenty (20) days from the date of this Order to file an Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint. Distribution: Karl E. er, Esquire ? Steven C. . Gould, Esquire West Pennsboro Township ' 44-;y of Darlene Hall ,- "1 4 d9c ap- n N " cr. n n7 S -rr ?C-3 co M J -g:- n _A Steven C. Gould Senior Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15`h Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Direct Dial: 717-783-3105 E-Mail: sgould?attorneyg neral. ov KELLY RAY & SANDRA LOUISE HOCKENBERRY, Administrator and Administratrix of ESTATE OF NATHAN M. HOCKENBERRY Plaintiff V. WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Defendants DARLENE HALL Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL LAW NO. 06-2717 NOTICE TO PLEAD TO ALL PARTIES: YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED to respond to the within New Matter and New Matter Pursuant to Rule 2252(d) within twenty (20) days of the date of service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W Corbett, Jr. Aeral By: C. GOULD, ID #$"56 Senior Deputy Attorney General DATED: September 25, 2006 Steven C. Gould Senior Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Direct Dial: 717-783-3105 E-Mail: sgould,rrattol•neyg?eneral.gov KELLY RAY & SANDRA LOUISE HOCKENBERRY, Administrator and Administratrix of ESTATE OF NATHAN M. HOCKENBERRY Plaintiff V. WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Defendants DARLENE HALL Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL LAW NO. 06-2717 THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTION'S ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO 2252(d) AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation (hereinafter, "Commonwealth Defendant"), by and through the Office of Attorney General, and files the following Answer and New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint: 1. Denied. The allegations set forth in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 1 could be construed as factual allegations, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, Paragraph 1 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, Paragraph 2 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, Paragraph 5 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, Paragraph 6 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, Paragraph 7 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 8. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted, based solely on information obtained from the police accident report, that on May 14, 2004, decedent, Nathan Hockenberry, 2 was operating a 2001 Chevrolet Blazer automobile owned by Barbara McMullen. As to the remaining allegations, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, Paragraph 8 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 9. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted, based solely on information obtained from the police accident report, that on May 14, 2004, decedent, Nathan Hockenberry, was traveling in a southerly direction on State Route 11 in West Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. As to the remaining allegations, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, Paragraph 9 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 10. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted, based solely on information obtained from the police accident report, that on May 14, 2004, Additional Defendant, Darlene Hall, was operating a 2003 Hummer H2 in a westerly direction on State Route 233 in West Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. As to the remaining allegations, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, Paragraph 10 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(c). 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and 3 therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, Paragraph 11 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, Paragraph 12 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, Paragraph 13 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 14. It is admitted only that State Route 11 and State Route 233 in West Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, are state-designated highways and that the Commonwealth Defendant has those legal duties and responsibilities for said highways as prescribed by applicable state law and regulation. COUNT I - WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION Kelly Ray & Sandra Louise Hockenberry, Administrator and Administratrix of Estate of Nathan M. Hockenberry, Plaintiff V. West Pennsboro Township, Defendant 15. The Commonwealth Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 14 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 4 16.-21. The averments of these paragraphs and subparagraphs thereto are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the Commonwealth Defendant. WHEREFORE, Defendant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. COUNT II - SURVIVAL ACTION Kelly Ray & Sandra Louise Hockenberry, Administrator and Administratrix of Estate of Nathan M. Hockenberry, Plaintiff V. West Pennsboro Township, Defendant 22. The Commonwealth Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 21 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 23. The averments of this paragraph and subparagraphs thereto are directed to another party, and, accordingly no response is required by the Commonwealth Defendant. WHEREFORE, Defendant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. 5 COUNT III - WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION Kelly Ray & Sandra Louise Hockenberry, Administrator and Administratrix of Estate of Nathan M. Hockenberry, Plaintiff V. Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Defendant 24. The Commonwealth Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 23 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 25. By Order of this Court, Paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs' Complaint has been stricken. 26. Denied. The allegations set forth in Paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs' Complaint, constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 26 could be construed as factual allegations, said allegations are deemed to be denied and at issue pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). By way of further answer, by Order of this Court, Paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs' Complaint has been amended. 27. Denied. The allegations set forth in Paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs' Complaint, including subparagraphs "a." through "g.", constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 27, including subparagraphs "a." through "g.", could be construed as 6 factual allegations, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded at the time of trial. In further answer, it is specifically denied that intersection of State Route 11 and State Route 233 where Plaintiffs' decedent's collision occurred constituted a dangerous condition. In further answer, it is specifically denied that the condition of the intersection of State Route 11 and State Route 233 was a cause, cause and effect or proximate cause of Plaintiffs' decedent's accident. In further answer, it is specifically denied that the Commonwealth Defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiffs' alleg--d cause of action or that the Commonwealth Defendant was a cause, cause and effect or proximate cause of Plaintiffs' decedent's accident. By way of further answer, the Commonwealth Defendant affirmatively avers that the intersection of State Route 1 I and State Route 233 was in a reasonable safe condition for use by reasonable prudent motorists. By way of further answer, Paragraph 27, including subparagraphs "a." through "g." are denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, by Order of this Court, Paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs' Complaint has been amended. 28. Denied. The allegations set forth in Paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs' Complaint, constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 28 could be construed as factual allegations, said allegations are deemed to be denied and at issue pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 7 In further answer, it is specifically denied that intersection of State Route 11 and State Route 233 where Plaintiffs' decedent's collision occurred constituted a dangerous condition of Commonwealth-owned real estate and highways. In further answer, it is specifically denied that the Commonwealth Defendant was negligent or careless in any manner with respect to Plaintiffs' alleged cause of action. By way of further answer, the Commonwealth Defendant affirmatively avers that the intersection of State Route I 1 and State Route 233 was in a reasonable safe condition for use by reasonable prudent motorists. By way of further answer, Paragraph 28 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, by Order of this Court, the allegation of "recklessness" in Paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs' Complaint has been stricken. 29. The Commonwealth Defendant admits only that they received letters from the Plaintiffs purporting to be a notice of the accident but denies, as a legal conclusion, whether such notice was the requisite notice in accordance with 42 Pa. C.S.A. §5522. 30. Denied. The allegations set forth in Paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 30 could be construed as factual allegations, it is specifically denied that the Commonwealth Defendant is liable for damages as a result of Plaintiffs' decedent's death. By way of further answer, paragraph 30 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 8 By way of further answer, by Order of this Court, Paragraph 30, subsections, e, f, g, & h, of Plaintiffs' Complaint have been stricken. WHEREFORE, Defendant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. COUNT IV - SURVIVAL ACTION Kelly Ray & Sandra Louise Hockenberry, Administrator and Administratrix of Estate of Nathan M. Hockenberry, Plaintiff V. Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Defendant 31. The Commonwealth Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 30 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 32. Denied. The allegations set forth in Paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that portions of Paragraph 32 could be construed as factual allegations, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that the Commonwealth Defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiffs' alleged 9 cause of action or that the Commonwealth Defendant was a cause, cause and effect or proximate cause of proximate cause of Plaintiffs' decedent's fatal injuries. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments regarding Plaintiffs' alleged damages, injuries and/or losses, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, Paragraph 32 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). NEW MATTER The Commonwealth Defendant hereby raises the following New Matter: 33. The present action is controlled by the provisions of 1 Pa. C. S. §2310 and Act No. 1980-142, set forth in 42 Pa. C.S. §§8501, et seq., which Acts are incorporated herein and pled by reference. The Commonwealth Defendant asserts all the defenses contained therein. 34. Liability on the part of the Commonwealth Defendant is specifically denied. 35. The Commonwealth Defendant is specifically entitled to the defenses set forth in 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8524, which section is incorporated herein and pled by reference. 36. The Commonwealth Defendant invokes any and all common law defenses available to it pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. §8524. 37. The Commonwealth Defendant is immune from suit, and therefore Plaintiffs' action is barred. 38. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against the Commonwealth Defendant. 39. This action is not within any of the exceptions to immunity as set forth in 42 Pa. 10 C.S. §8522, and therefore is barred. 40. The Commonwealth Defendant did not have notice, written or otherwise, of the allegedly dangerous condition, or in the alternative, if said, notice was received, it was not received in sufficient time prior to the alleged accident for the Commonwealth Defendant to have corrected or to have warned the Plaintiffs' decedent of the allegedly dangerous condition. 41. The alleged dangerous condition(s) does not "derive, originate from, or have as its source Commonwealth realty," and therefore, the Commonwealth Defendant is immune from suit. 42. The Commonwealth Defendant avers that recovery may not be had against it for alleged failures to redesign, change or update designs of state-designated highways, rights-of- ways or fixtures or structures affixed thereto or located thereon. 43. The Commonwealth Defendant is not liable for negligence related to discretionary acts, and therefore this action is barred. 44. The Commonwealth Defendant is not liable for the exercise or non-exercise of authorized discretion. 45. If the accident occurred as alleged, then the condition complained of did not cause the accident or the damages, injuries and/or losses complained of. 46. Should liability be found on the part of the Commonwealth Defendant, the amounts and types of damages recoverable in the present action are limited and controlled by 42 Pa. C.S. §8528. 47. The Judicial Code at 42 Pa. C.S. §5522(a), which section is incorporated herein and pled by reference, provides that the Commonwealth and the Attorney General must have 11 received written notice of intent to sue within six (6) months from the date the cause of action accrues. In the absence of such notice, this action is barred. 48. The Commonwealth Defendant asserts all defenses available to it under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1701, et seq., and any successor statute and claims any defenses which may be available pursuant to said Act. 49. The alleged conduct of the Commonwealth Defendant, standing alone, did not cause the Plaintiffs' decedent's harm, therefore, the Commonwealth Defendant cannot be held liable for the Plaintiffs' alleged damages and/or losses. 50. The Commonwealth Defendant avers that if negligence is found to exist on its part, said negligence was not the proximate cause of Plaintiffs' decedent's alleged damages, injuries and/or losses. 51. If the accident occurred as alleged, then the condition complained of did not create a reasonably foreseeable risk of the accident or the injuries complained of. 52. The Commonwealth Defendant is absolved from liability because any negligence alleged on its part merely facilitated the Plaintiffs' decedent's alleged damages, injuries and/or losses injuries. 53. Plaintiffs' Complaint requests no relief from the Commonwealth Defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiffs may not recover damages from the Commonwealth Defendant, as a matter of law. 54. Plaintiffs' decedent's injuries, as alleged, were caused by other persons or parties which were contributory and/or intervening, superseding causes of Plaintiffs' decedent's alleged injuries. 12 55. If the Plaintiff is entitled to recover for any or all of the damages set forth in the Plaintiffs' Complaint, which is specifically denied, then the responsibility for said damages rests with persons over whom the Commonwealth Defendant has no control and for whom the Commonwealth Defendant are not legally responsible. 56. Plaintiffs' alleged damages and/or losses were caused by the actions or inactions of other persons or entities and accordingly, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §7102 is a bar to recovery against the Commonwealth Defendant; or, in the alternative, the Commonwealth Defendant avers that any recovery arising from this action must be diminished in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 57. There is no cause of action based upon a failure to inspect or improper inspection in that sovereign immunity has not been waived for such claims. 58. At all times material to the happening of the events set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint, the Commonwealth Defendant avers that the intersection of State Route 11 and State Route 233 and/or roadways in question were in a reasonably safe condition for use by reasonably prudent motorists. 59. The causal negligence of the Plaintiff's decedent was greater than any negligence on the part of the Commonwealth Defendant, and Plaintiff's recovery is therefore barred, or, in the alternative, must be diminished in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. §7102. 60. Plaintiff's decedent was negligent per se based on her violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. §3361. 13 61. If the accident occurred as alleged, then the accident was caused by the negligent and careless conduct of, Plaintiff's decedent, Nathan Hockenberry, which consisted of the following: A. Operating his vehicle at a speed which was too fast for conditions then and there existing; B. Operating his vehicle at a speed which was greater than would permit him to bring his vehicle to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead; C. Operating his vehicle carelessly and recklessly; D. Failing to keep a proper lookout; and E. Failing to operate his vehicle with due care under existing circumstances. 62. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 63. Plaintiffs' claim may be barred by the Doctrine of Release. 64. Plaintiffs' failed to mitigate their claimed damages, thereby limiting and/or barring any recovery. 65. The Commonwealth Defendant does not have a duty to install and/or erect traffic control signals or other traffic control devices. 66. All affirmative defenses under Pa. R.C.P. §1030 are asserted and incorporated by reference as if set forth herein at length. 67. The accident as pleaded, if true, was caused by the negligence of Additional Defendant, Darlene Hall, as more fully set forth within the Joinder Complaint, which is incorporated herein by reference. WHEREFORE, Defendant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against all other parties. 14 2252(d) CROSSCLAIM DIRECTED TO DEFENDANT, WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP 68. The factual averments of the Plaintiffs' Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length without admission or adoption. 69. Liability on the part of the Commonwealth Defendant is specifically denied. 70. If the averments contained in the Plaintiffs' Complaint are established, said averments being specifically denied, as they may relate to the Commonwealth Defendant, then Plaintiffs' alleged injuries, damages and/or losses complained of were caused solely by Defendant, West Pennsboro Township. 71. Defendant, West Pennsboro Township, has been joined herein to protect the Commonwealth Defendant's rights of indemnity and contribution, and the Commonwealth Defendant avers that the above-said Defendant is alone liable to the Plaintiffs, or in the alternative, that the above-said Defendant is liable over to the Commonwealth Defendant, or jointly and severally liable on the Plaintiffs' alleged causes of action. WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against Defendant, West Pennsboro Township. Respectfully submitted, THO S W. CORBETT, JR. O E RAL By ven C. Gould, I.D. 156 Senior Deputy Attorney General Dated: September 25, 2006 15 VERIFICATION I, Linda Kauffman, hereby verify that I am a representative of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, in the foregoing action, and also verify that the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that any of the foregoing statements are based upon an understanding or an application of law, I have relied upon counsel in making this verification. I understand that I am subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities for any false statements knowingly made herein. DATED: YA- Z o2©o,6 Ld?? -) Linda Kauffinan CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving the Commonwealth Defendant's Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint and New Matter Pursuant to 2252(d) upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Rominger & Whare 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 West Pennsboro Borough Township 2150 Newville Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Darlene Hall 7435 State Route 160 Bidwell, Ohio 45614 By: Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-783-8035 - Direct Dial Senior Deputy Attorney DATED: September 25, 2006 1 Lo Kelly Ray & Sandra Louise Hockenberry, Administrator and Administratrix of Estate of Nathan M. Hockenberry, Plaintiff V. West Pennsboro Township and Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 06-2717 PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDAN'TS NEW MATTER 33. This averment is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 34. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, this is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 35. This averment is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 36. This averment is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 37. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, this is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 38. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, this is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 39. This averment is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 40. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, this is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 41. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, this is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 42. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, this is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 43. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, this is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 44. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, this is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 45. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, this is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 46. This averment is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 47. This averment is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. By the way of further answer adequate notice was sent. 48. This averment is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 49. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, this is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 50. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, this is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 51. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, this is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 52. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, this is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 53. This averment is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 54. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, this is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 55. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, this is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 56. This averment is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 57. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, this is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 58. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, this is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 59. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, this is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 60. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, this is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 61. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, this is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 62. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, this is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 63. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, this is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 64. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, this is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 65. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, this is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 66. This averment is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. 67. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, this is a conclusion of law and requires no answer. Respectfully Submitted, ROMINGER & WHARE Date: 0 C j ,7 Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Tel: (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 81924 Attorney for Plaintiff Kelly Ray & Sandra Louise Hockenberry, Administrator and Administratrix of Estate of Nathan M. Hockenberry, Plaintiff V. West Pennsboro Township and Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 06-2717 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiff, do hereby certify that I this day served a copy of the Answer to New Matter, upon the following by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Steven Gould Senior Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15t` Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Date: V L fG L C Respectfully submitted, ROMINGER & WHARE Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Tel: (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 81924 Attorney for Plaintiff ',"'' .? ??_ r - ?..., _ ., C`..? --µ, '-- ?:f ^-- E.? .. .,_? ?? BARRY A. KRONTHAL, ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I.D. No. 55672 SHAUN J. MUMFORD, ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I.D. No. 84176 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 975-8114 Facsimile: (717) 975-8124 E-Mail: bkronthal@margolisedelstein.com KELLY RAY AND SANDRA LOUISE HOCKENBERRY, ADMINISTRATOR AND ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF NATHAN M. HOCKENBERRY VS. WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP AND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE COMMONWELATH OF PENNSYLVANIA VS. DARLENE HALL Attorneys for Defendant File#38500.4-00078 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 06-2717 CIVIL ACTION-LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD To: Kelly Ray and Sandra Louise Hockenberry Administrator and Administratrix of the Estate of Nathan M. Hockenberry c/o Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania c/o Steven C. Gould, Esquire Deputy Attorney General Torts Litigation Section Strawberry Square, 15`h Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120 Darlene Hall 7435 State Route 160 Bidwell, OH 45614 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to plead to the enclosed PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT, WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP, TO THE COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS within twenty (20) days from service hereof, or a default judgment may be entered against you. DATE: <:;?-/ / q/0 -? By: MARGOVE EDELSTEIN Barry A'$ronthal, Esquire Attorney No. 55672 Shaun J. Mumford, Esquire Attorney No, 84176 3 510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 717-975-8114 BARRY A. KRONTHAL, ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I.D. No. 55672 SHAUN J. MUMFORD, ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I.D. No. 84176 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 975-8114 Facsimile: (717) 975-8124 E-Mail: bkronthal@margolisedelstein.com KELLY RAY AND SANDRA LOUISE HOCKENBERRY, ADMINJSTRATOR AND ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF NATHAN M. HOCKENBERRY VS. WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP AND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE COMMONWELATH OF PENNSYLVANIA VS. DARLENE HALL Attorneys for Defendant File#38500.4-00078 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 06-2717 CIVIL ACTION-LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT, WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP, TO THE COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS AND NOW, comes Defendant, West Pennsboro Township ("Township"), by and through its counsel, Margolis Edelstein, to preliminarily object to the Complaint of Plaintiffs, Kelly Ray and Sandra Lewis Hockenberry (collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs"), Administrator and Administratrix of the Estate of Nathan M. Hockenberry ("Decedent"), pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a), and aver the following in support thereof: 1. The above-captioned matter was commenced by Plaintiffs with the filing of a Complaint on May 12, 2006, against the Township and Co-Defendant, Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ("PennDOT"). A copy of Plaintiffs' Complaint is attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked as Exhibit "A". 2. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Decedent perished in a motor vehicle accident which took place on May 14, 2004, at the intersection of State Routes 11 and 233, in West Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. See Exhibit "A," at paragraphs 8 through 13. 3. While Plaintiffs' Complaint has been properly served on PennDOT, no such service has occurred with regard to the Township. 4. Plaintiff's counsel did, however, by a letter dated May 12, 2006, send a certified copy of the Complaint to the solicitor for the Township, along with an acceptance of service form. However, the solicitor did not execute, nor return, the acceptance of service. A copy of the May 12, 2006, letter is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked as Exhibit "B." Since that time, Plaintiffs' claims have gone forward against PennDOT, including preliminary objections followed by an Answer with New Matter filed by PennDOT. In addition, PennDOT also joined as an Additional Defendant, Darlene Hall, who was the other driver involved in the subject motor vehicle accident. The Township has not been involved in the litigation at all. 6. As evidenced by the docket sheet attached hereto as Exhibit "C," during the approximately eight (8) months since Plaintiffs commenced the action, the Complaint has never been delivered to the Cumberland County Sheriff's Department for service upon the Township, nor has the Complaint been reinstated to do the same. A certified copy of the Cumberland County docket sheet for the instant action is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked as Exhibit "C." 7. Since the subject motor vehicle accident took place on May 14, 2004, the two- year statute of limitations has long since run. 8. The Township has assumed that Plaintiffs' apparent lack of interest in serving the Township with the Complaint stems from its understanding that the Township has no responsibilities or duties with regard to the intersection of two state routes. 9. Pa. R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(1) states that: (a) Preliminary objections may be filed by any party to any pleading and are limited to the following grounds: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action or the person of the defendant, improper venue, or improper form or service of a writ of summons or a complaint;. . . . Id (emphasis added). 9. In order to close its file, however, the Township files the instant Preliminary Objections, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(1), for improper service of a Complaint. 10. The Township argues, by way of the instant Preliminary Objections, that it is clear that Plaintiffs have failed to properly serve the Township within the two-year statute of limitations and, therefore, the case against the Township must be dismissed, with prejudice. WHEREFORE, Defendant West Pennsboro Township, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court sustain the instant Preliminary Objections and issue an Order dismissing any and all claims against the Township, with prejudice. DATE a?(c) /o-7 i By: Barry A. Kr nthal, Esquire Attorney No. 55672 Shaun J. Mumford, Esquire Attorney No, 84176 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 717-975-8114 I Xw1 f ?4 ub/22/2006 13:34 FAX 2155631410 THOMAS P.FAY 90018 18803 ON WX11 SZ:9l IUJ 900Z/9l/90 Kelly .day & Sandra Loufsc : IN THE COURT OF CONMON PLEAS Hookenberry, Administrator and ; CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Admi.ristratrix of Estate of Nat =a M. Hockenbeay, n?_ (j b ' 7 7 G1 ( u,M. Plaintiff l? V. : CI'V'IL ACTION - LAW West Pennsboro Townsbip and : A.D. Department of Transportation of the . Conumawcalth of Petmsylvania, , Defendant NIQUM29 YOU HAVE BEEI4 SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend agaiwt the clams ? forth Ir. the following ComplaiM you must take attioa within twenty (20) days after this Complaint snd Notioc are scivcd, by entar4ng a written aMea um pacsonally or by ==cy and fang m waning with the Court your defeasws or objections to the claftas set forth against you. Si: ou are warned that if you 6A to do to, the we may proceed without you and ,& judgmaat may ha =t=d against you by the Court whbout further notice t'br any money ciaimacl in the Complaint or for any other claim or rellef requested by the Plaice You may 1033 money or propertr or other 49bts bnportant to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, 00 TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE Wr FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH RVORMATTION ABOUT NUUNO A LAVMR. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH WFORMATION ABOUT AQENt W THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PF"ONS AT A REDtr-**M nE OR NO M. Cumberland County Bar Association 3? South Bedford Streei Carlisle, ?A 17013 Phone. (717) 249.3166 AMERICANS RUTH DISABIL TIES ACT OF 1990 0009/0#5 The Chart of Common Please of C.umbe&W County is requited by law to comply with-the Amexicaas with Disabilities Act of 1990. For iafar:aadon about accenz'ble fad vies and reasomble ac commodadosts available to disabled individuals having businew before the covet please contact our office. AU aninpments mast be made at IeaA 721aoun prior to any bean * orbusines betbre the court. You must attend the sehedulod conference or YAM ccw7r Y " a`111'-A..U. ! 420ft t1tra PA am 14M ft" Sod PAW" .4 calo" CZO/900 3dY1S A'I'IIHd YV3 X0'[3 ZT9ZOC90T9 YYa 9C:9T 900Z/9T/90 06/22/2006 13:35 FAX 2155631410 THOMAS P.FAY LOOFA 18609 ON XVX1] 6Z:9L IUA 900Z/9L/90 Kelly Ray & Sandra Louisa Hockanbarry, Administrator and Adtai:nistratrix of Estate of Nathan M. Hoekenberry, Plaintiff V. West . ?ennsboro Township and Department of Transportation of the Comnnonwtidth of Pcwwylvania, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS m-NOMU AND COUNTY. PA CIVIL ACTION -LAW A.D. COM PLAlll+1T AND NOW comes the Plaind±? Kelly' Ray & Saudm Lotdse Hockenberry, Administrator and Admialsvarrix of the Estate of Nafl= Ni Hockeaerry, deceased, through them' attorr4y, Karl E. Rptninger, Esquire, and for cause action against the Defendants sets forth the follovv* : 1. The Plaintim are belly Ray and Sandra Louise Hockenberry, Aduxini rotas of the Rstate of Nathan M. Hoeksnbery, deceased, deify appointed by the Register of Wills of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania on May 28, 2004,.and they bring these actions under and by virtue of Section 8301 (WrOA&A l Deatb) and 8302 (SuNival Action) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S,A. Section 101 et seq, 2. Plaintiffs are adult individuals ltving and residing at 15 Rehobeth Road, C=bedmd County, Pennsylvania 17257. 3. Defendant, West Pc=bozo Borough. Township is a municipal entity in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and maintains an office at 2150 Newwllle RD&d. Ctmiberland County, Pennsylvania 17241. 2010/025 CZO/L00In &IVIS A IIHI +- Iva SNIV'ID ZT9Z0C90T9 IVd 9C:9T 900Z/9T/90 UU/22/2006 13:35 FAX 2155631410 THOMAS P.FAY 80012 186VS ON )a/X11 6Z:9L IHJ 9002/9L/90 4. Defendant, Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (hereiufter referred to as "Per aDOT') is an agency of the Commonwealth of Peansylvaola and niaiAtains an dffce at the Keystone Building, 400 Notch St=4 9`i' Floor, Harrisburg, Pei nsylvania 17101. 5. The decedent Nathan M. Rockenberry was, at all times relevant to this auction, a resltlent of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, residiog at 15 Rehobeth Road, Shippensburg, Cumbarland County, Pennsylvania 17257 with his parrots, Plaintiffs, Kelly Ray and Sandra Louise Hock=berry. 6. At the time of his death on May 14, 2004, decendent, Nathan M. Rockenberry, was nineteen, ha-Yng been both on February x2,1985. 7. Decedent did not, in his lifetime, bring an action against the Defendants for the injuries oausing his death. 8. On. MAY 14, 2004, at approximately 1:56 p.m., the decenftt was operating a 2001 Chevrolet Blazer automobile owned by Barbara McMu11en, 9. On said date scud time, the said vebiOle was being operated in a southerly ditectiion on State Route 11 in West Pennsbm Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, with the vchUc. following the flow of traffic. 10. On said date and time, Darlene Hall w= operating a 2003 Mummer H2 automobile In a weedy direction on Stato pouts 233 is West Pennsboso Township, Cumbedand County, Fensylvania, new its intersection with state Route l 1 2011/025 £ZO/80ogj &IVIS AI'IIHd YVd SHIV'IO ZT990£SOT9 YVd 9£:9T 9009/9T/90 FAX 2155631410 THOMAS P.FAY 800 Z 18809 ON X8/X11 GZ:51 I8j 900Z/9l/90 11. As deco dent, Nathan M. Hookenbcny, came upon the intersection he, in the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, was justified in believing that Ms. Hall, who was approacbing the intersection, would stop at die' posted stop sib, and remain there until he cleared the intersection. 12. The vehicle operated by decedent, Nathan M. Hoekenberry, crossed two lanes of west and east bound traffic on SR 233, the westbound right ttun lane on SR 233 and was partially clear of the eastbound lane of SR 233 WE= the Hockenberry's vehicle was struck by the Hall's vehicle. 13. The collision above alleged resulted in Nathan M. Hockenberry being ejected from his vehicle causing critical injurica to Nathan M. Hoekeberry who died at the scene. 14. At all relevant times, State Paute 11 and State Route 233 in Vest Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pamsylvanis, wem state highways with the defendant, PemDOT, and atso high-A%ys controlled by defendant, West Pennsboro Township, both having the responsibilities for ownership, design, consb ucdoa, supervision and maintenance of the said highways, the intersection of said highways and all areas in the right-of- way of the highways. 2012/025 CZO/600 Z 33vss AnIHd 4- YVd SNIVIY ZT9Z0C50T9 YVd SC 9T 900Z T/90 19 06/22/2006 13:35 FAX 2155631410 THOMAS P.FAY OLO0 186b9 ON XJ/X11 6Z:91 INA 900Z/9l/90 COUNT' OME-'WRONGFUL DEATH ACTYON Kelly' tay & Sandra Louise Hockenberry, Administrator and Mmir.1stratrix of Bstare of Nathan M. Hockenbarry, Plaintiff V. West tennsboro Township, Defendant IS. Paragraphs 1 through 14 of Plaintiffs Cocnpl.aint are incorporated by rcfereace herein as if set forth in full. 16. Tbo intersection of Stan Routes I 1 and 233 bas been the site of numerous accidents prior to the HockenberryAW accident and had been the subject of traffic and/or engineering studies by Defendwa, West Penusboro Township, prioz said accideut. 17. Said intersection constitutes a daugerous and hazardous roadway of whiob Defendant. West Penasboro Township, knew or had reason to know of prior to the occurmace of th&wcideut which is the subjact of this action. 18. Defendant, Wrest Pennsboto Township, was negligent in its ownership, custody, control and maintcmame of the intersection of State Routes 11 and 233 in one or more of the following particular's: a. In Bailing to place a traffic light at said intersection; Z013/025 cZ0/Ot lh d.Mis A77IHd XVd GRIV't3 ZT9ZOC50T9 YVd 5C 9T 900Z/9t/90 06/22/2006 13:36 FAX 2155631410 THOMAS P.$AY ll1018 [86b9 ON Ya/X11 SZ:9L I8J 900Z/9L/90 b. Itt failing to properly and adequately dasign, and mairrtain said intersection so as to assure that it was safe far motorlsu traveling thereon and e, in failing to warn motorists of the dangerous condition of said intersection. CL in removing or allowing to be removed rumble strips which guarded the entrance to the intersection and which would lava warned W as she approached, that a dangerous intersection was ahead. 19. The neglige=, carelessness and recidessness of D6&ndent, Wft9t Pc=sboro Township, as described created a dangerous condition of Munio4ml-owned real estate end highwsys within purview of 45 PaLC.S.A. 8522(4), at said intersection of which West Pannsboro Township bsd knowledge and/or zotice prior to this-acoident. 20. Notice of this action, pursuant to statute, was . timely provided to Deftndaat, West Peansboro Township. (Attached as Exhibit "Al 21. As a result of the decedent's death, West Pe=boro TowwWp, is liable for the following damages: a. Funeral cgmu ea for decedent; b. Expenses of Administration relating to decedew's injuries; 0014/025 CZO/TTOI?jj a.IVZS A'I'IIHd Iva SNIV'I0 -zt9ZOc9oT9 YV3 4c:9t 90oZ/9T190 uOle"IZUUb 13:36 FAX 2155631410 THOMAS P.FAY ZIOIE 186ti9 ON Xl/X11 8Z:51 Illy 900Z/9l/90 c. Los% of the support, consortium, comfort, counsel, aid, association, care and services of the decedent sustained by his parents, Kelly Ray and Sandra Louise Hockenberry and his daughter, Lariah-Ann Marie Wilson; and d. Such other damages as are permissible in a wrongful death action. *UEA EPORE, PlaintiM, Kelly Ray and Sandra Louise, Administrator and Admix of the ?state of Naihaa M. Hockenbezry, demands judgment against the Defenc-ant, West Peansboro Township, in au amount excess of the mandatory arbitration limits wid costs of suit. Z015/025 CZ0/ZT0&M 4-1VSS X'I'IIHd .- YVd SRIV'TS- ZT9ZOCSOt9 YV3 8C:9t 900Z/9T/90 06/22/2006 13:36 FAX 2155631410 THOMAS P.FAY 80De (809 ON )a/X11 6Z:91 IUA 9002/St/90 COU.W TYPO-SURVIVA[. ACTION Kelly ; tay & Sandra Louise Hockenberry, Administrator and A,dmir3tstratrk of Estate of Nathan K HockcabcM. Plaintiff Y. West rennsboro Township, Defendant 22. Paragraphs 1 though 21 of the PIWAdffs Complaint are incorporated by refemce herdn as if set forth in full, 23. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid collision, Defendant, West Pennsboro Towa?sblp, is liable to the Plaintiff for the following damagtx: a. D=cd=V s emotional distress between the time immediately before d3x coUlsion and the time of death; b. Decedent's Vgin and suffering from the of his igjuries and the time of death; c. Decedent's fbo re eamiur and eamIng capacity during the period of his work life expectancy; d. Decedent's other financial losses suffered as a result of death; and e. Decedent's lass of enjoyment of M. Z016/025 czo/clo En 3JYJS 7LTIIHd .- YYA SNIr73 ZfMMOt9 YY3 S£ 7 St 9002/9t/90 uaizzi2006 13:36 FAX 2155631410 THOMAS P.FAY VIOII 1809 ON )a/Xll 6Z=q1 I8A 900Z/94/90 WHnIEFO'RE, PEaiatiff , Kelly Ray and Sandra Louise, AdmWmrabor and Admix stratrix of the Estate of Lathan A Hockenberry, detsnd-s judPunt against the Defemi mt, 'W'est Peaasbam TowashiP, in an amount excess of tl& mw3datory arbitrat[on limits- and costs of suit. COUNT TgpJMWJt0NGFT3L DEATH ACTION r,any Ray & Sandra Louise Hock mberry, Mmiz isir ar,and AdznlnisftvAiX of Estata of Nathan M. Hookenb YIt V. Dcpattment of Transportation of the Comnonwealth of pWmyhVnia, - Defendant . Z017/025 24. PamgraPhs 1 lbrough• 23 of Plaintiffs ComPlaait are incorporated by refemm heroin as if sat Earth in W. 25. The intersection of State Ranter 11 and 233 has been the site of tta=mus amidents prior to the HockenbcrrY6W acaidcnt and lied been the subject of traffic =&of ettgineering studies by Defettdaat. DcPa= t of Traasportation of the Commonwealth of Pwmyl vauia, prior said accident 26. Said intersection constitutm a dangerous and hazardous roadvm of which Defcndaat, Depnrtmcnt of T=3P0rtati0n of tha C©mmouwcalth Of penn yMmia, knew or had reason to- lmow of prlar to the occurrence of the accident which is the subject of this action C90/VT0 Z &IVZS AZ'IIHJ - YVA SNIV'IO ZT93OC20TO YV37-§C:2T '900Z/9T/90 5631410 THOMAS P.FAY 91aZ 196179 ON X f/X11 8Z: 9L INJ 900Z/9l/90 27. Defendant; Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, was negligent in its ownership, custody, control and maintc ante of-the intersection of Staft Routes I I and 233 In one or more of the following particulars. a In failing to place a trade tight at said intersection; b. In failing to properly and adequately design and a intain said intersection so as to assure that it was safe for amorists tm-mling tbereon and c. In failing to warm motorists of the dangerous condition of said intersection. 28. The negligence, carelessness and recZesmess of Defendant, Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Peunsytvan* as described orCated a dangerous condition of Commonwealth-owned real estate and highways within. purview of 45 Pa.C.S.A. 8522(4), at said intersection of which Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania had knowledge and/or notice prior'to this accident. 29. Notice of this action, puMant to sta#uu, was timely provided to Defendant, Depar nu= of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pa=ylvania. (Exhibit "A') 30. As a result of the decedent's death, Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pannsylvaiiia, is liable for the following dauca$es: e. Funeral expenses for dceedent; lj 018/025 CZO/9T0?] d.3VIS A'TIIHd YVd SHIV'IO -- ZT*9Z0C2OT9 YVd 9C:9T 90OZ/9T/90 /ZZ/2006 13:37 FAX 2155631410 THOMAS P.FAY 9LO@ 18609 ON XIIXII sz:gL Iaj 900Z/9L/90 f. Expenses of Administration relating to decedent's injuries; g. Loss of the support, consortium, comfort# counsel, aid, association, care and services of the decadent sustained by his parents, Kelly Ray and Sandra Louise Hockenberry and his daughter, Lnrish-Anri Marie Wilson; and h. Such other damages as are permissible in a wrongful death action. WEiE142FOM Plaintiffs, Kelly RAY and Sandra Louise, Administrator and Admir.isttatix of the Estate of Nathm M, Hoakcnberry, demands judgment against the Defendant, West Pewisboro Township, in an amount excess of the mandatory arbitration limits and costs of suit Z019/025 CZO/9TO @j a.IV.LS A'I'IIHd .- YVx Dx VY ZT9Z0CSOT9 rV 9C: ST 900Z/9T/90 122/2006 13:37 FAX 2155631410 THOMAS P.FAY kLQZ [8609 ON X8/X11 6Z:9i I8J 900Z/9l/90 COUNT FOUR41LrRV I'VAYr ACTION Z020/025 Kelly Lay &Sandra Louise Hoctwnberry, Adtni d=amr and Administratrix of Estate of Nalhar M. Hockeabexry, Plaintiff V. Deparkn ont of Transportation of the Conu onwealth of Pennsylvania, Defendant - 31. Paragraphs 1 through 30 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid collision, Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, is liable to the Maintiff for the fallowing damages: f. - Decedent's emotional distress between the time Immediately before the collision and the time of death; g. Decedent's pain and suffering from the of his inivrles and tho time of death; L Decedent's facture earnings and eaming capacity during the period of his work life expectancy; i, Decedent's other financial losses sufferod as a result of death; and j. Decedent's loss of enjoyment of life. CZO/LTO(E 11VIS ?ITURd ?-S?gIV 3 - ZTOZOC20T9 rVd 9C:ST 9002/9T/90 uo/zz/zuub 13:37 FAX 2155631410 THOMAS P.FAY Sl0 IA 18809 ON XJ/Xll BZ:4l INJ 900Z/9L/90 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Kell} Ray and Sandra Louise, Admini6uwor and A.dmiaistmtrix of the Estate of Nathan M. Hockenberry, demands judgment Against the Defencant, West Pcnnsbaro Township, in an amount excess of the mandatory arbitration limits ;and costs of suit. Respacfftlly Submitted, RObWGER & WHARF Date: 4 121 Z CIO6 1 sx: Karl E. Romi ow, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorney LD. #81924 155 Seutb Hanover Street Cartisle, -PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 0021/025 £ZO/8TOZ aIVIS 2VIIIHd IV3 SRIV'13? ZT9Z6C40T9 XVa 9C:9T 900Z/9T/90 2006 13:37 FAX 2155631410 THOMAS P.FAY 6l0 0 18809 ON X!/X11 6Z:51 Iaj 900Z/9L/90 Kelly Fay & Sandra Louise Hock=berry, Atdniir?rator and A.dmin,.,sa-atrix of Estate of Nathan M. Hockenbary, Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUU:BERI,AND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW West P..nnsboro Township and ? A.D. Departnew of Transportation of the Comaaonwealth of Pmnsylvaws, Defendant &UQRM 3%_U =AnON KARL E. ROIvlNOM, ESQUME, stains that he is the attorney for the Plaintiffs in this action; that he makes this affidavit as attomoy because he has sufficient knowledge or info zmation and belist based upon his investigation of the matters averred or denied in the foregoing document; and that this statomcat is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. P i.C.S. §4904, relating to =swom falsification to a%a&oritia. Date: ? ! c ?J 12/ 2- 04 02 Karl 8.• Romingor, Esquire Attorney fbr.plaintiff 2022/025 CZO/6TO [n 3 iVIS IVA SNIV'IO ZTOZOC40T9 YV3 9£ : 2T 900Z/9T/90 ?x??d;f !3 uo/LL/ZUU6 13:38 FAX 2155631410 THOMAS P.FAY l ZD fj [8609 ON XI/X11 6Z: Sr l Ia9 9002/91 /90 I?.?MIN'GER & W HARB Z024/025 MAY -15 2m Attorneys at Law Karl ]?, RomiuW bOcba d J. Where Macy 12, 2006 Paul 7,odgler, IFA quim Solichar for Wed Penmboro Townsblp 300 Br4& $U=t 2°d Fla:x .P.a..BOx B New Gumbeiund, PA 17070 Michael 0. Palermo, Yr I. mlie A- Tomeo* "ALSO AdW=d is 1NW-TWXY ?t THM?N 'H0CXMERRRY DATE OF DEATH: MAN 14, 2054 Deaf 1 &ttorne'y Gould. ' As you ]mow my office'ls representing the Estate ofNacthan Hockenberry who visa tragically killed in a motor vehicle uecident on May 14, 2004, on the Ritner Mgh^way In•West Peaasbom TosvnAhip In Qimberland County. This totter Is to inform you that my b$Ice W Sled suit in this muter and a cerdfied copy hu bean enclosed, along with an .Acceptance of Somme vMch may be rstmmad In the enclosed self-addrassed eavel*96, Siamely. ROUNMR and WHARF Y1d E. R,ominger, Esquire Enclosure Imtjrm 155 oatb Haaovcr 9tcW Cadjac. pCmrAvmj& ' TCL. (717) 2414070 - Tsx (711) 2414898 ADVOCACY • ADVICE • A14SWERS Czo/TZO - a.tv .- .- - __ - ? ?I ZS ATIIHd IVa SNIV'IO ZT9Z0C20T9 IVS 9C-2T 9002/9T/90. ???1'? PYS511 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Page 1 Civil Case Print 2006-02717 HOCKENBERRY KELLY RAY ET AL (vs) WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP ET AL Reference No... Filed......... 5/12/2006 Case Ty e...... COMPLAINT Judgmen?......: 00 Time..... ..: Execution Date 11:16 0/00/0000 Judge Assigned: BAYLEY EDGAR B Jury Trial.... Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. 0/00/0000 ------------ Case Comments - ------------ Higher Crt 1.: Higher Crt 2.: ***************************** *************************************************** General Index Attorney Info HOCKENBERRY KELLY RAY PLAINTIFF ROMINGER KARL E 15 REHOBETH ROAD SHIPPENSBURG PA 17257 HOCKENBERRY SANDRA LOUISE PLAINTIFF ROMINGER KARL E 15 REHOBETH ROAD SHIPPENSBURG PA 17257 HOCKENBERRY NATHAN M PLAINTIFF ROMINGER KARL E 15 REHOBETH ROAD SHIPPENSBURG PA 17257 WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP DEFENDANT 2150 NEWVILLE ROAD NEWVILLLE PA 17241 PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF DEFENDANT GOULD STEVEN C DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION KEYSTONE BUILDING 400 NORTH STREET 9TH FLOOR HARRISBURG PA 17101 HALL DARLENE DEFENDANT 7435 SATE ROUTE 160 BIDWELL OH 45614 ******************************************************************************** * Date Entries ******************************************************************************** - - - - - - - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5/12/2006 COMPLAINT - CIVIL ACTION ------------------------------------------------------------------- 5/25/2006 PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE - BY STEVEN C GOULD SENIOR DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6/08/2006 THE COMMONWEALTH DEFT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLFFS' COMPLAINT - BY STEVEN C GOULD SR DPTY ATTY GENERAL ------------------------------------------------------------------- 7/10/2006 PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFT DARLENE HALL BY STEVEN C GOULD ATTY FOR COMMONWEALTH OF PA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION ------------------------------------------------------------------- 8/07/2006 PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT - THE COMMONWEALTH DEFT'S PARELIMINARY OBJECTIONS - BY STEVEN C GOULD SR DPTY ATTY GENERAL ------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/06/2006 ORDER - 09-06-06 - IN RE: ORDERED: 1.COMMONWEALTH DEFT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS ARE GRANTED 2.PARAGRAPH 25 OF PLFFS' COMPLAINT IS STRICKEN 3.ALL ALLEGATION OF RECKLESSNESS ON THE PART OF THE COMM DEFT ARE STRICKEN 4.PARAGRAPH 30 SUBSECTIONS E R G & H OF PLFFS COMPLAINT ARE STRI CKEN 5.PARAGARAPHS 26 & 27 OF PLFFS' COMPLAINT ARE STRICKEN AS THEY AP PEAR IN THE COMPLAINT 6.PARAGRAPH 26 OF PLFFS' COMPLAINT IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: 26. SAID INTERXECTION CONSTITUTES A DANGEROUS AND HAZARDOUS ROA DWAY OF WHICH THE DEFT-DEFT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE COMM OF PA-KNO W OR HAD REASON TO KNOW OF PRIOR TO THE OCCURRENCE OF THE ACCIDENT WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS ACTION AS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 27 AN D WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE A BASIS FOR LIABILITY UNDER PA CS 8522B-4 7.PARAGRAPH 27 OF PLFFS' COMPLAINT IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: 27. DEFT-DEPT OF TRANS OF THE COMM OF PA-WAS NEGLIGENT IN ITS PYS511 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Page 2 Civil Case Print 2006-02717 HOCKENBERRY KELLY RAY ET AL (vs) WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP ET AL Reference No... Filed......... 5/12/2006 Case Ty e..... . COMPLAINT Time..... ..: 11.16 Judgment......: 00 Execution Date 0/00/0000 Judge Assigned: BAYLEY EDGAR B Jury Trial.... Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. 0/00/0000 ------------ Case Comments ------------- Higher Crt 1.: Higher Crt 2.: OWNERSHIP CUSTODY CONTROL AND MAINTENANCE OF THE INTERSECTION STATE RTS 11 & 233 IN ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING PARTICULARS ALL OF WHICH WERE A CAUSE IN FULL OR IN PART OF THE ACCIDENT COMPLAINED OF: A. IN FAILING TO PLACE A TRAFFIC LIGHT AT SAID INTERSECTION B. IN FAILING TO MAINTAIN RUMBLE STRIPS ON THE RTE 233 APPROACH TO RTE 11 C. IN FAILING TO ADEQUATELY POST SIGNS WARNING OF A DANGEROUS INTERSECTION TO MOTORISTS APPROACHING THE INTERSECTION D. IN FAILING TO MAKE THE INTERSECTION A FOUR WAY STOP E. IN FAILING TO MAKE THE INTERSECTION A TWO WAY STOP F. BY ALLOWING THE REMOVAL AND PAVING OVER OF RUMBLE STRIPS EXISTING ON RTE 233 PRIOR TO THE ACCIDENT G. BY FAILING TO MAINTAIN THE RUMBE STRIPS ON 233 8. COMM DEFT IS GRANTED 20 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER TO FILE AN ANSWER TO PLFFS' COMPLAINT - BY EDGAR B BAYLEY J - COPIES MAILED AND GIVEN PERSONALLY 09-06-06 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/26/2006 THE COMMONWEALTH OF PA-DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION'S ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLFFS' COMPLAINT AND NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO 2252D - BY STEVEN C GOULD ATTY FOR DEFT-COMMONWEALTH OF PA-DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION ------------------------------------------------------------------- 10/16/2006 PLFFS ANSWER TO DEFT'S NEW MATTER - BY KARL E ROMINGER ATTY FOR PLFF - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ******************************************************************************** * Escrow Information * Fees & Debits Be*Bal***Pymts/Ad End Bal ******************************** **** ****** ******************************* COMPLAINT 35.00 35.00 .00 TAX ON CMPLT .50 .50 .00 SETTLEMENT 5.00 5.00 .00 AUTOMATION 5.00 5.00 .00 JCP FEE 10.00 10.00 .00 ------------------------ ------------ 55.50 55.50 .00 ******************************************************************************** * End of Case Information ******************************************************************************** CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that I have this M-Aay of-W.) 2007, served a true and correct copy of the following upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: Service by First Class Mail, Postage Prepaid, Addressed as Follows: Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Steven C. Gould, Esquire Deputy Attorney General Torts Litigation Section Strawberry Square, 15'h Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120 Darlene Hall 7435 State Route 160 Bidwell, OH 45614 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN By:Ica - Carol Moose Wnidirl Selective Insurance\38500.4-00078\P1eads\POs.12-29-06.wpd "? ? O c:. ? `? .-? _ ?? ? r .-Y t ?.. ? , ?,.i - a . r _ _ -? s ?'? C? .,. ... ? PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next -------------------------------------------------- KELLY RAY AND SANDRA LOUISE HOCKENBERRY, ADMINISTRATOR. AND ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF NATHAN M. HOCKENBERRY 4rgument Court: ----------------------------------------------------- COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 06-2717 VS. WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP AND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE COMMONWELATH OF PENNSYLVANIA VS. DARLENE HALL CIVIL ACTION-LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiffs motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Preliminary Objections of Defendant, West Pennsboro Township, to the Complaint of Plaintiffs. 2. Identify counsel who will argue the case: (a) Plaintiff(s): Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, 155 S. Hanover Street, Carlisle, PA, 17013 (b) Defendants(s): Barry A. Kronthal, Esquire, 3510 Trindle Road, Camp Hill, PA, 17011 Steven C. Gould, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Torts Litigation Section, Strawberry Square, 15`' Floor, Harrisburg, PA, 17120 Darlene Hall, 7435 State Route 160, Bidwell, OH, 45614 3. I will notify all parties that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court DataBg[y &nthal. June 5, 2007 ui e (717 975-8114 Date Attorney f O Plaintiff Phone Number (X) Defendant -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE f I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that I have this Si?ay of tJU4u 2007, served a true and correct copy of the following upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: Service by First Class Mail, Postage Prepaid. Addressed as Follows: Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Steven C. Gould, Esquire Deputy Attorney General Torts Litigation Section Strawberry Square, 15' Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120 Darlene Hall 7435 State Route 160 Bidwell, OH 45614 By: MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN Carol Moose M:V dir\l Selective Insurance\38500.4-00078\P1eads\PRAE FOR LSTNG CASE FOR ARGUMNT.wpd -3- ? r-.l Q CrN #19 KELLY RAY AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF SANDRA LOUISE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA HOCKENBERRY, ADMINISTRATOR AND ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF NATHAN HOCKENBERRY: NO. 2006 - 2717 CIVIL TERM V. WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP AND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA V. DARLENE HALL CIVIL ACTION -LAW IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP BEFORE BAYLEY, GUIDO, JJ. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 17TH day of JULY, 2007, Plaintiffs' counsel having indicated that he does not object thereto, the Preliminary Objection of Defendant West Pennsboro Township is SUSTAINED and the complaint is STRICKEN as to .ear1 E. Rominger, Esquire even C. Gould, Esquire ,,garlene Hall Court Administrator G J the Court, Edward E. Guido, J. ?fL? t l' 'i r) Kelly Ray & Sandra Louise Hockenberry, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Administrator and Administratrix of the : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Estate of Nathan M. Hockenberry, Plaintiffs NO. 06-2717 V. West Pennsboro Township and Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, V. Darlene Hall, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, Darlene Hall, with regard to the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, NESTICO, DRUBY & HILDABRAND, LLP arl R. Hildabrand, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 30102 840 East Chocolate Avenue i Hershey, PA 17033 Date: ( (717) 533-5406 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Karl R. Hildabrand, of the law firm of Nestico, Druby & Hildabrand, L.L.P., hereby certify that on the S day of November 2007, a copy of the foregoing document was sent via First Class U.S. Mail, postage paid, to the following: Barry Kronthal, Esquire Margolis Edelstein 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Karl R. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Steven C. Gould, Esquire Deputy Attorney General Torts Litigation Section Strawberry Square, 15th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120 C Hildabrand rti,> r7i ?t C?3 -Ti s KELLY RAY & SANDRA LOUISE HOCKENBERRY, Administrator and Administratrix of the Estate of NATHAN M. HOCKENBERRY, Plaintiffs VS. :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 06-2717 WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PA, VS. . DARLENE HALL, Defendants PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance for Defendant, DARLENE HALL, in the above case and designate 540 Court Street, P. O. Box 542, Reading, Pennsylvania 19603, as the place notices and papers other than original process may be served. Respectfully submitted, FORRY ULLMAN By: RA T. BURCH, ESQUIRE Dated: March 20, 2009 . KELLY RAY & SANDRA LOUISE HOCKENBERRY, Administrator and Administratrix of the Estate of NATHAN M. HOCKENBERRY, Plaintiffs :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 06-2717 VS. WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PA, VS. DARLENE HALL, Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, RANDY T. BURCH, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Entry of Appearance was mailed by first-class mail, addressed as follows: BARRY KRONTHAL, ESQUIRE Margolis Edelstein 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 KARL R. ROMINGER, ESQUIRE 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 STEVEN C. GOULD, ESQUIRE Deputy Attorney General Torts Litigation Section Strawberry Square, 15'' Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120 DATE: March 20, 2009 2Z, -7 zz--e RAND . BURCH, ESQUIRE C CY ° -rt 71 . v hiM AV I- KELLY RAY & SANDRA LOUISE : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF HOCKENBERRY, Administrator and: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Administratrix of the Estate of: Nathan M. Hockenberry Plaintiffs V. NO. 06-2717 WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP AND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF: THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: V. DARLENE HALL, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR WITSDRMML OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw the appearance of Karl R. Hildabrand, Esquire and the law firm of Nestico, Druby & Hildabrand, LLP, as counsel for Defendant, Darlene Hall, in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, Nestico, Druby & Hildabrand, LLP BY: ?P<?! RL R. HILDABRAND, ESQUIRE Dated: 3 -Z d _Q KELLY RAY & SANDRA LOUISE :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HOCKENBERRY, Administrator and: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Administratrix of the Estate of NATHAN M. HOCKENBERRY, Plaintiffs NO. 06-2717 Vs. WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PA, VS. DARLENE HALL, Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, RANDY T. BURCH, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Withdrawal of Appearance was mailed by first- class mail, addressed as follows: BARRY KRONTHAL, ESQUIRE KARL R. ROMINGER, ESQUIRE Margolis Edelstein 155 South Hanover Street 3510 Trindle Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Camp Hill, PA 17011 STEVEN C. GOULD, ESQUIRE Deputy Attorney General Torts Litigation Section Strawberry Square, 15th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120 DATE: March 25, 2009 ;?< - X BURCH, ESQUIRE RAND r• ? ..J - -4 t t' f ? Kelly Ray & Sandra Louise Hockenberry, Administrator and Administratrix of Estate of Nathan M. Hockenberry, Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW West Pennsboro Township and : NO. 06-2717 Department of Transportation of the r, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ,- o Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED .: --? -7 . ` -, Cn STATEMENT OF INTENTION TO PROCEE D : TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please note that the Plaintiff intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, Rominger & Associates Date: October 16, 2012 Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court I.D. # 81924 Attorney for Plaintiff Kelly Ray & Sandra Louise Hockenberry, Administrator and Administratrix of Estate of Nathan M. Hockenberry, Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW West Pennsboro Township and : NO. 06-2717 Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiff, do hereby certify that I this day served a copy of the Statement of Intention to Proceed upon the following by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Steven Gould Senior Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15'h Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Respectfully submitted, Rominger & Associates Date: October 16, 2012 arl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court I.D. # 81924 Attorney for Plaintiff Christina A. Israel Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15t'' Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg,, PA 17120 Direct Dial: 717-783-1464 KELLY RAY & SANDRA LOUISE HOCKENBERRY, Administrator and Administratrix of ESTATE OF NATHAN M. HOCKENBERRY Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY., PA CIVIL LAW v. WEST PENNSBORO TOWNSHIP and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NO. 06-2717 Defendants v. DARLENE HALL Additional Defendant SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL WITHOUT LEAVE; OF COURT, PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 1012(b)(2)(iiy To the Prothonotary: Please enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, in the above-captioned matter. I hereby certify that this change is not intended to, nor will it, delay this proceeding to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Respectfully submitted, LIND L. KE LY AT EY ~iENE L ' ~~ Dated: October 11, 2012 hr"sfYha A. I~ra~l; LD! #20894 D uty Attorney General PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 1012(b)(2)(ii) Please withdraw my appearance on behalf of Defendant, :Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, LINDA L. KELLY ATTORNEY GENERAL ?7 B ~( y' -~ Dated: ~~~/ /? - _ Steven C. Gould, I.D. 0156 Senior Deputy Attorn y General CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving the Commonwealth Defendant's Substitution of Counsel upon the person(s) and in tree manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Karl E. Rominger., Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 1701.3 (Attorney for Plaintiffs) Randy "1'. Burch, Esquire 540 Court Street P.O. Box 542 Reading, PA 196(13 (Attorney for Darlene Hall) ~, ~~ ~' ~_ J ,,/' By: ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~,•, Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-7'$3-1464 - Dir ct Dial ~s . ~ fl DATF;D: