Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-3364DONALD WEIMAN and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DOROTHY WEIMAN, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. No.: 6L -33`Y Lcv?1 /4/L MARK DICK and TRACY DICK, Defendants : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, 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 S. Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 HANDLER HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By ephen G. Held, Esquire I. D. No. 72663 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-238-2000 DONALD WEIMAN and DOROTHY WEIMAN, Plaintiffs V. MARK DICK and TRACY DICK, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA . No.: : CIVIL ACTION - LAW AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mis adelante an [as siguientes pdginas, debe tomar acci6n dentro de los pr6ximos veinte (20) dias despu6s de la notificaci6n de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecenda escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui an contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar acci6n Como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamaci6n o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin m6s aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO ASU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYAA LASIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTAOFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOME AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO 0 BATO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 S. Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 HANDLER HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By s? t h .Held, Esquire 1. D. No. 72663 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-238-2000 DONALD WEIMAN and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DOROTHY WEIMAN, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. NO: OL - 23Ly l / C >c?? l MARK DICK and TRACY DICK, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Donald Weiman and Dorothy Weiman, by and through their attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by Stephen G. Held, Esquire, and bring forth this Complaint against the Defendants, Mark Dick and Tracy Dick, and aver as follows: 1 2. 3 4. Plaintiffs, Donald Weiman and Dorothy Weiman, are competent adult individuals currently residing at 833 Church Road, Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania 17042. Defendants, Mark Dick and Tracy Dick, are competent adult individuals currently residing at 300 Stone Row Lane, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17070. At all times material hereto, Defendants, Mark Dick and Tracy Dick owned a home located at and known as 300 Stone Row Lane, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17070. On or about August 15, 2005, Plaintiff, Donald Weiman, working as a carpenterfor his employer, Ensminger Builders, Inc., was doing a walk-through of Defendants' home at 300 Stone Row Lane, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17070 (herein after referred to as "Premises") to see what problems needed fixed. 5. Upon arriving at the Premises, Plaintiff, Donald Weiman was provided by the Defendant homeowners, Mark Dick and Tracy Dick, with booties to cover Plaintiffs, Donald Weiman, work boots because the Defendants did not want to get their carpet dirty. 6. Plaintiff, Donald Weiman, complied with Defendant's request that he wear the booties, which Defendant's provided him. 7. At all times material hereto, there were no warnings provided to Plaintiff, Donald Weiman warning him of the potential of slipping associated with wearing the booties provided to him by the Defendants. 8. In the course of the walk through, Plaintiff was caused to slip several times and finally was caused to slip and fall down the final couple steps causing serious personal injuries to the Plaintiff, Donald Weiman. 9. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, Mark Dick and Tracy Dick, Plaintiff, Donald Weiman, sustained extensive and serious personal injuries, as set forth more specifically below. COUNT I- NEGLIGENCE DONALD WEIMAN v. MARK DICK 10. Paragraphs 1 - 8 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 11. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to Plaintiff, Donald Weiman, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of Defendant, Mark Dick, generally and more specifically as set forth below: -2- a. In providing Plaintiff, Donald Weiman, with booties known to be dangerous for the use for which they were supplied in violation of Restatement 2d of Torts § 388; b. In failing to exercise reasonable care to inform Plaintiff of the dangerous condition of the booties supplied to him, in violation of Restatement 2d of Torts § 388; C. In supplying booties to Plaintiff for Plaintiffs use, knowing or having reason to know that the booties were unlikely to be made reasonably safe to use before being put to a use which Defendant should expect them to be put, in violation of Restatement 2d of Torts § 389; d. In supplying booties to Plaintiff to be used for the Defendant's business purpose of getting their house's repairs fixed when the Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to make the booties safe for the use for which they were supplied, in violation of Restatement 2d of Torts § 392; and e. In supplying booties to Plaintiff to be used for the Defendant's business purpose of getting their house's repairs fixed when the Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to discover the booties' dangerous condition or character, and failing to inform Plaintiff of the same, in violation of Restatement 2d of Torts § 392. 12. Defendant, Mark Dick, had actual knowledge or should have known through the exercise of ordinary care and diligence that the booties were dangerous for their intended use. 13. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Mark Dick, Plaintiff, -3- Donald Weiman, sustained serious injuries including, but not limited to, a fracture to his right leg which later required a fifteen inch rod. 14. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Mark Dick, Plaintiff, Donald Weiman, has undergone great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish and he will continue to enure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his great detriment and loss, physically, emotionally and financially. 15. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Mark Dick, Plaintiff, Donald Weiman, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to his daily duties to his great detriment, loss, humiliation and embarrassment. 16. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Mark Dick, Plaintiff, Donald Weiman, has, and will in the future, suffer a loss of life's pleasures. 17. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Mark Dick, Plaintiff, Donald Weiman, has suffered a loss of wages/income and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 18. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Mark Dick, Plaintiff, Donald Weiman, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention, and will be required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Donald Weiman, seeks damages from Defendant, Mark Dick, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County and demands a trial by jury. -4- COUNT II - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM DOROTHY WEIMAN v. MARK DICK 19. Paragraphs 1-18 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 20. At all times material hereto Plaintiffs, Donald Weiman and Dorothy Weiman were married. 21. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Mark Dick, Plaintiff, Dorothy Weiman, has suffered a loss of consortium, society and comfort from her husband, and she may continue to suffer similar loss in the future. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Mark Dick, Plaintiff, Dorothy Weiman, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for her husband's injuries, to expend money for medicine and medical attention, and may be required to expend money for the same purposes in the future, to her great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Dorothy Weiman, seeks damages from the Defendant, Mark Dick, in an amount in excess of compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County. COUNT III- NEGLIGENCE DONALD WEIMAN v. TRACY DICK 23. Paragraphs 1 - 22 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 24. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to Plaintiff, Donald Weiman, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of Defendant, Tracy Dick, generally and more specifically as set forth below: a. In providing Plaintiff, Donald Weiman, with booties known to be dangerous for the use for which they were supplied in violation of Restatement 2d of -5- Torts § 388; b. In failing to exercise reasonable care to inform Plaintiff of the dangerous condition of the booties supplied to him, in violation of Restatement 2d of Torts § 388; C. In supplying booties to Plaintiff for Plaintiffs use, knowing or having reason to know that the booties were unlikely to be made reasonably safe to use before being put to a use which Defendant should expect them to be put, in violation of Restatement 2d of Torts § 389; d. In supplying booties to Plaintiff to be used for the Defendant's business purpose of getting their house's repairs fixed when the Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to make the booties safe for the use forwhich they were supplied, in violation of Restatement 2d of Torts § 392; and e. In supplying booties to Plaintiff to be used for the Defendant's business purpose of getting their house's repairs fixed when the Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to discover the booties' dangerous condition or character, and failing to inform Plaintiff of the same, in violation of Restatement 2d of Torts § 392. 25. Defendant, Tracy Dick, had actual knowledge or should have known through the exercise of ordinary care and diligence that the booties were dangerous for their intended use. 26. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Tracy Dick, Plaintiff, Donald Weiman, sustained serious injuries including, but not limited to, a fracture to his right leg which later required a twelve inch rod. -6- 27. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Tracy Dick, Plaintiff, Donald Weiman, has undergone great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish and he will continue to enure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his great detriment and loss, physically, emotionally and financially. 28. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Tracy Dick, Plaintiff, Donald Weiman, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to his daily duties to his great detriment, loss, humiliation and embarrassment. 29. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Tracy Dick, Plaintiff, Donald Weiman, has, and will in the future, suffer a loss of life's pleasures. 30. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Tracy Dick, Plaintiff, Donald Weiman, has suffered a loss of wages/income and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 31. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Tracy Dick, Plaintiff, Donald Weiman, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention, and will be required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Donald Weiman, seeks damages from Defendant, Tracy Dick, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County and demands a trial by jury. -7- COUNT IV - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM DOROTHY WEIMAN v. TRACY DICK 32. Paragraphs 1-31 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 33. At all times material hereto Plaintiffs, Donald Weiman and Dorothy Weiman were married. 34. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Tracy Dick, Plaintiff, Dorothy Weiman, has suffered a loss of consortium, society and comfort from her husband, and she may continue to suffer similar loss in the future. 35. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Tracy Dick, Plaintiff, Dorothy Weiman, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for her husband's injuries, to expend money for medicine and medical attention, and may be required to expend money for the same purposes in the future, to her great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Dorothy Weiman, seeks damages from the Defendant, Tracy Dick, in an amount in excess of compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County. Respectfully submitted, Date: f 6 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By: Stephen G. Held, Esquire I.D. #72663 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiffs -8- VERIFICATION THE UNDERSIGNED hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing document are based on information that was gathered by counsel in preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the above-named document is of counsel and not my own. I have read the said document and, to the extent that it is based on information that I gave to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. To the extent that the contents of the said document is that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in preparing this Verification. THE UNDERSIGNED also understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ,] Q 6. -1a v6?L__ . 7_. Donald Weiman, Jr. THE UNDERSIGNED hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing document are based on information that was gathered by counsel in preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the above-named document is of counsel and not my own. 1 have read the said document and, to the extent that it is based on information that I gave to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. To the extent that the contents of the said document is that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in preparing this Verification. THE UNDERSIGNED also understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: D rothy Weim n ? ?. ? ? ? ? ' ll ?J ? < '? :" ?!-? ? i -_ - .: ?. r_ _.. '.: b; `? 4.. Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 jjs@jdsw.com Attorneys for Defendants DONALD WEIMAN and DOROTHY WEIMAN Plaintiffs V. MARK DICK and TRACY DICK Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 06-3364 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NEW MATTER NOTICE TO: Stephen Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorneys for Plaintiffs You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days from the date of service. , DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER Date: F/A/0(p Pefferson J. Shipman, Esquire Attorneys I.D. #: 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com Attorneys for Defendants Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540 hs@jdsw.com DONALD WEIMAN and DOROTHY WEIMAN Plaintiffs V. MARK DICK and TRACY DICK Defendants Attorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 06-3364 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS AND NOW come the Defendants, Mark Dick and Tracy Dick, by and through their attorney Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire and Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner, and file the following Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff was doing a walk-through of Defendants' home on August 15, 2005. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 4 and the same are therefore denied. 5. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants provided Plaintiff with booties to cover his work boots. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments in Paragraph 5 and the same are therefore denied. 6. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff wore the booties provided by Defendants. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 6 and the same are therefore denied. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 7 and the same are therefore denied. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 8 and the same are therefore denied. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 9 relating to Plaintiffs injuries, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE DONALD WOMAN V. MARK DICK The Defendants incorporate herein by reference their answers to Paragraphs 1-9 above as though set forth in full. 10. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 12 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 11 and the same are therefore denied. 12. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 12 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 13 relating to Plaintiffs injuries, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 14 relating to Plaintiffs injuries, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 15. Denied. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 15 relating to Plaintiffs injuries, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 16 relating to Plaintiffs injuries, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 17 relating to Plaintiffs injuries, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 18 relating to Plaintiffs injuries, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant Mark Dick, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in his favor and that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. COUNT II - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM DOROTHY WEIMAN V. MARK DICK 19. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 19 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 20. Admitted. 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 21 relating to Plaintiffs injuries, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 22 relating to Plaintiffs injuries, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant Mark Dick, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in his favor and that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. COUNT 111- NEGLIGENCE DONALD WEIMAN V. TRACY DICK 23. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 23 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 24 and the same are therefore denied. 25. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 25 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 26. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 26 relating to Plaintiffs injuries, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 27. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 27 relating to Plaintiffs injuries, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 28. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 28 relating to Plaintiffs injuries, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 29. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 29 relating to Plaintiffs injuries, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 30. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 30 relating to Plaintiffs injuries, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 31. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 31 relating to Plaintiffs injuries, and the some are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, the Defendant Tracy Dick, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in her favor and that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. COUNT IV - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM DOROTHY WEIMAN V. TRACY DICK 32. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 32 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 33. Admitted. 34. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 34 relating to Plaintiffs injuries, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 35. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 35 relating to Plaintiffs injuries, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant Tracy Dick, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in his favor and that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. NEW MATTER By way of additional answer, the Defendants interpose the following New Matter Defenses: 36. The Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action for which relief may be granted. 37. The answering Defendants were in no way negligent. 38. The Plaintiffs alleged cause of action may be barred in whole or in part by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 39. That the Plaintiffs comparative negligence included, without limitation, the following: a. In wearing booties, which Plaintiff knew or should have known were dangerous for the manner in which they were being used; b. In failing to exercise reasonable care while using the booties supplied to him by Defendants; C. In failing to exercise reasonable care to discover the bootie's dangerous condition or character; d. In failing to remove the booties after discovering that they created a slip hazard; e. In failing to exercise reasonable care once the dangerous condition of the booties was discovered by Plaintiff; f. In failing to watch where he was walking and stepping; g. Walking and stepping in a hurried or otherwise inappropriate manner; and h. Failing to hold onto the handrail. 40. That the Plaintiffs comparative negligence was a substantial factor, or factual cause, in the alleged accident and injuries. 41. That if it should be found that the Defendants were negligent, which is denied, then Defendants' negligence was not a substantial factor, nor factual cause of Plaintiffs alleged injuries. 42. That Plaintiffs' alleged cause of action may be barred by the doctrine of assumption of risk. 43. That Plaintiffs injuries may have been caused by a third parties or entities not presently involved in this case. WHEREFORE, the Defendants, Mark Dick and Tracy Dick, respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, NS N, DUFFIE STEWAF T & WEIDNER efferson J. Ship n, Esquire L Attorneys I.D. #: 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Date: Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com Attorneys for Defendants 279407 VERIFICATION I, Mark Dick, have read the foregoing Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint and hereby affirm that it is true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, or information and belief. This Verification and statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities; I verify that all the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct and that false statements may subject me to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904. Mark Dick DATE: 280272 VERIFICATION 1, Tracy Griffin-Dick, have read the foregoing Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint and hereby affirm that it is true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, or information and belief. This Verification and statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities; I verify that all the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct and that false statements may subject me to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904. 111t3) A.Q AL-?? Tracy Griffin-Dicl DATE: 280272 Stephen G. Held, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 72663 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tele: (717) 238-2000 Fax: (717) 233-3029 HELDOHHRLAW.COM Attorney for Plaintiff DONALD WEIMAN and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DOROTHY WEIMAN, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. NO: 06-3364 MARK DICK and TRACY DICK, : Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Donald Weiman and Dorothy Weiman, his wife, in their own right, by and through their attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by Stephen G. Held, Esquire, who answers Defendants' New Matter as follows: 36. The averment of this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiffs have stated a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. 37. The averment of this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, Answering Defendants were negligent. 38. The averment of this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it 10 is hereby denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiff was in no way negligent. As such, Plaintiffs' claim is not barred in whole or in part by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 39. The averment of this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiff generally and specifically denies: a. That Plaintiff was negligent in wearing booties in a dangerous manner; b. That Plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care; C. That Plaintiff was negligent in exercising reasonable care to discover the booties' dangerous condition or character; d. That Plaintiff was negligent in failing to remove the booties after they created a slip hazard; e. That Plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care once the dangerous condition of the booties were discovered by Plaintiff; f. That Plaintiff failed to watch where he was going; g. That Plaintiff was walking and stepping in a hurried or otherwise inappropriate manner; h. That Plaintiff failed to hold on to the handrail. 40. The averment of this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, it is denied that Plaintiff was comparatively negligent and it is denied that Plaintiffs comparative negligence was a substantial factor or factual cause in the accident and injuries. 41. The averment of this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, Defendants' negligence was a substantial factor or a factual cause of Plaintiffs injuries. 42. The averment of this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiffs claims are not barred by the Doctrine of Assumption of the Risk. 43. The averment of this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, it is denied that Plaintiffs injuries were caused by third parties or entities not presently involved in this case. Furthermore, all of Plaintiffs injuries were caused by Instant Defendants. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray this Honorable Court dismiss Defendants' New Matter and Answer and enter judgment in their favor. Respectfully submitted, Date: U HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By: t p en Id, Esquire I.D. # 72663 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO PA R.C.P. NO. 1024 (c) STEPHEN G. HELD, ESQUIRE, states that he is the attorney for the party filing the foregoing document; that he makes this affidavit as an attorney, because the party he represents lacks sufficient knowledge or information upon which to make a verification and/or because he has greater personal knowledge of the information and belief than that of the party for whom he makes this affidavit; and that 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. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: S ( )() ST H . H D, ESQUIRE 0 Stephen G. Held, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 72663 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tele: (717) 238-2000 Fax: (717) 233-3029 HELD(7a HHRLAW.COM Attorney for Plaintiff DONALD WEIMAN and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DOROTHY WEIMAN, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. MARK DICK and TRACY DICK, Defendants NO: 06-3364 CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 3V' day of August, 2006, 1 hereby certify that I have served the within document upon Counsel of Record by sending a true and correct copy of the same to them via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: First Class U.S. Mail. Jefferson J. Shipman, Esq. Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, P.C. 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 'mil Y) n n. ak. 4 XP -Q2.1> Maria Wells, Legal Secretary to Stephen G. Held, Esquire n c= w ?``! rn n M F= SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2006-03364 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND WEIMAN DONALD ET AL VS DICK MARK ET AL R. Thomas Kline Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: DICK MARK but was unable to locate Him deputized the sheriff of YORK in his bailiwick. He therefore serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE County, Pennsylvania, to On July 13th , 2006 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from YORK Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 Dep York County 68.38 Postage 2.46 So answers R. Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County 107.84 07/13/2006 HANDLER HENNING ROSENBERG Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of A. D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2006-03364 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND WEIMAN DONALD ET AL VS DICK MARK ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT DICK TRACY to wit: but was unable to locate Her deputized the sheriff of YORK serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE On July 13th , 2006 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from YORK Sheriff's Costs: So answers Docketing Out of County .00 _„?----- Surcharge 10.00 R. Thomas Kline .00 Sheriff of Cumberland County .00 16. 00 ? 1 ?/a y/oC 07/13/2006 HANDLER HENNING ROSEN13ERG Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of , in his bailiwick. He therefore County, Pennsylvania, to A. D. YORKTOWNE BUSINESS FORMS, INC. Ph. (717) 845-5955 Fax (717) 84&8936 email: ybf@blazenet.net COUNTY OF YORK OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF 45 N. GEORGE ST., YORK, PA 17401 4 SERVICE CALL. (717) 771-9601 SHERIFF SERVICE MTtrl XTIOM PROCESS RECEIPT and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN ? 00 ONLY L? 1 THRU 12 : T' MACH ANY COPES 1 PLAINTIFF/S/ 2 COURT NUMBER Donald Weiman et al 4_ E Vi6m4-1 PLAINT 3 DEFENDANTISI N OT I .C E& CSI C P Mark Dick et al Notice and cmplaint SERVE 5 NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY, CORPORATION, ETC TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEVIED, ATTACHED, UK JULU Mark Dick 6 ADDRESS (STREET OR RFO WITH BOX NUMBER, APT NO , CITY, BORO. TWP. STATE AND ZIP CODE) AT 300 Stone Row Lane New Cmberland, PA 17070 7 INDICATE SERVICE' U PERSONAL U PERSON IN CHARGE U DEPUTIZE ' CE T MIIIIL a U 1ST CLASS MAIL U POSTED U OTHER NOW June 20 , 2006 I, SHERIFF OF '?iifR COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the sheriff of York COUNTY to execute thi make returryoyl"? according to law. This deputization being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff., ?? - .0' '- SHERIFF OF COUNTY 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSI&tyXP, ITI tla,SE%WC.,E Cmberland ADVANCE FEE PAID BY ATTY. Please mail return of service to CLanberland County Sheriff. Thank you. NOTE: ONLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN - Any deputy sheriff levying upon or attaching any property under within writ may leave same without a watchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession, after notifying person of levy or attachment, without lability, on the part of such deputy or the sheriff to any plaintiff herein for any loss, destruction, or removal of any property before sheriffs sale thereof 9. TYPE NAME and ADDRESS of ATTORNEY / ORIGINATOR and SIGNATURE . 10. TELEPHONE NUMBER 111 DATE FILED 1300 LINGLESTOWN ROAD, HARRISBURG, PA 17110 17-238-2000 6/13/2006 12. SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW (This area must be completed d notice is b be marled) CUMBERLAND CO. SHERIFF SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF THE SffRFF - DO NM ? I?1QW THS UK 13. 1 acknowledge receipt of the writ 14. DATE RECEIVED 15 Expiration/Hearing Date or complaint as indicated above. M J M C G I L L Y C S G V/21/20015 17/13/2OC6 16. HOW SERVED: PERSONAL ( ) RESIDENCE ( POSTED( ) POE ( ) SHERIFF'S OFFICE ( ) OTHE SEE REMARKS BELOW c 17. O 1 hereby certiy and return a NOT FOUND because I am unable to locate the individual, company, etc. named above. (See remarks below.) 18. N A M D TITLE OF IN SE? spip D / IST ADDRESS HERE IF NOT SHOWN ABOVE (Relation to Defdrdant) 19 Date of Service 20 Ti f Service ilk ck -S=o .5'i? 21. ATTEMPTS Ole Time e Mi t. Date Time Milos Int Date Time Miles Int. Date Time kit Date Time Miles Int. Date Time Miles Int. A L1.1 I 22. REMARKS 23 Advance Costs 21 Service Costs 25 N/F 26 Mileage 27. Postage 1W.3gi b Total 29. Pound 30 Notary 31. Surchg. 3 T . C s 3pue nd 125.00 . A 3? .QD pN (P lc 34. Foreign County Costs 35. Advance Costs 36 Service Costs 37 Notary Cert. 38. Mileage/PostagalNot Found 39 Total Costs 40 Costs Due or Refund ?1.AFFIRMEDa?rid'llL?sl6f61 INSYl7t I))jA a 44. Signature of 45 TEi 42 day of X 20 44 aa Dep. Sheriff ` " LISA L. BOb'MAAN, N 1^+t1eRY 46. Signature of Yak 47 DATE CITY OF YORK, YORK COUNTY County Sheriff MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 12, 2009 WILLIAM M HOS ' SHERIFF 7/7/06 48 Signature of Foreign 49 DATE 1 OF 2 YORKTOWNE BUSINESS FORMS, INC. Ph. (717) 845,41955 Fax'(717) 848-8936 email: ybf@blazenet.net COUNTY OF YORK r c 4 , OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF 45 N. GEORGE ST., YORK, PA 17401 4 SERVICE CALL, (717) 771-4601 SHER,frF SERVICE PROCESS RECEIPT and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN 1 PLAINTIFF/SI Donaid weiman et al 3. DEFENDANTIS/ Mark Dick et al 4. TYPE OF WRITrORFFCOMPLAIIINTT pp NoticeOaTi-ilcl" ?t&iplaSjit' SERVE 5 NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY, CORPORATION, ETC TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEVIED, ATTACHED, OR SOLD Tracy Dick 6 ADDRESS (STREET OR RFO WITH BOX NUMBER. APT NO. CITY, BORO. TWP. STATE AND ZIP CODE) AT 300 Stone Row Lane New Cumberland, PA 17070 7 INDICATE SERVICE O PERSONAL U PERSON IN CHARGE U DEPUTIZE U CERT MAIL U 1ST CLASS MAIL U POSTED -I OTHER NOW June 20 20 06 I, SHERIFF LINTY, PA, do hereby deputize the sheriff of York COUNTY to execute this make retur ? cording to law. This deputization being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff. SHERIFF OF COUNTY 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE T 0 F C 0 U N T Y Cumberland ADVANCE FEE FiAID EY ATTY. Please mail return of service to Cumberland County Sheriff. Thank you. NOTE: ONLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN - Any deputy sheriff levying upon or attaching any property under within writ may leave same without a watchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession, after notifying person of levy or attachment, without liability on the part of such deputy or the sheriff to any plaintiff herein for any loss, destruction, or removal of any property before sheriff's sale thereof. 9. TYPE NAME and ADDRESS of ATTORNEY / ORIGINATOR and SIGNATUR? T E P H E N G. H E L G 10. TELEPHONE NUMBER I 1 DATE FILED 1300 LINGLE!)*TOV1N ROAD, HARRISEIII;C,, PA 17110 1717-238-2000 6/1.3/20CE 12. SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW: (This area must be completed d notice is to be mailed) CUMBEF,LEIND CO. SHERI.FI SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF THE Sl f - DO NOT WRITE .EIMOW,TRS LNIE 13. 1 acknowledge receipt of the writ 14. DATE RECEIVED 15 Expiration/Hearing Date or complaint as indicated above. ha a N C G I L 1- Y C S O 16/21/2006 7/ 13 / 2 0 C 6 16. HOW SERVED' PERSONAL RESIDENC ( POSTED( ) POE ( ) SHERIFF'S OFFICE ( ) OTHER( ) SEE REMARKS BELOW 17. O I hereby cerbty and return a NOT FOUND because I am unable to locate the individual, company, etc named above. (See remarks below.) 8. AND TILE OF UAL SE VED LIST ADDRESS HERE IF NOT SHOWN ABOVE (R 6onship to Defendant) 19. Date of Service 20 Time Service 5 21. ATTEMPTS Dale Time s Int. Date Time Miles Int. Date Time Miles Int Date Time Miles Int Date Time Miles Int. Date Time Miles Int. 22. REMARKS: 23. Advance Costs 24 Service Costs 25 N/F 26 Mileage 127 Postage 28. Sub Total 29. Pound 30 Notary 31 Surchg. 32 Tot. Costs 33 Costs Due or Refund Check No. 34. Foreign County Costs 35. Advance Costs 36 Service Costs 37 Notary Cert. 36. Mileage/PostageJNot Found 39 Total Costs 40 Costs Due or Refund 41. AFFIRMED Kl%k dedtq Uus THe RS , 45. AT 42 day of p? NOTARIAL NOTARY 46. Signature of Y 47 DATE LLIA L. BOWMAN, NOTARY PUBLIC County Sheriff A CITY OF YORK, YORK COUNTY WILLIAM M HOSE, SHERIFF 7/7/06 Of4iv11SS!ON EXPIRES AUG. 12, 2009 48 Signature of Foreign 49 DATE -°- County Sheriff INSTRUCTIONS PLEASE TYPE ONLY LNE 1 THRU 12 DO NOT DETACH ANY COPIES 2 COURT NUMBER . y PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case: (X) for JURY trial at the next term of civil court ( ) for trial without a jury CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) (check one) (X) Civil Action - Law ( ) Appeal from Arbitration (other) DONALD WEIMAN and DOROTHY WEIMAN, (Plaintiffs) VS. MARK DICK and TRACY DICK, (Defendants) VS. The trial list will be called on August 19, 2008, and Trials commence on September 15, 2008. Pre-trials will beheld on August 27, 2008. (Briefs are due S days before pre-trials.) No. 2006-3364, Civil Term Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire, Johnson Duffie, P.O. Box 109, Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: Stephen Held, Esquire, Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP, 1300 Linglestown Road, Harrisburg, PA 17110 This case is ready for trial. Signed. Print Nam : Jefferson J. Shipman Date: May 7, 2008 Attorney for Defendants 331841 . . I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a copy of the PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL upon the person(s) indicated below by depositing a copy of the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on May _, 2008: Stephen Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorneys for Plaintiffs JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER B erson J. Shipman, squire Attorney I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendants , ?a ?. i ? o?. N ? t ? r`' '?:? it ?,? r?: ? ?', -err ??. < ? t'a ., fi_ - d`^ J " "? 413 4t IA 1 l i s-f DONALD WEIMAN & DOROTHY WEIMAN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V 2006-3364 CIVIL MARK DICK & TRACY DICK, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED C=n IN RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER OF COURT t' co (D AND NOW, this 27th day of August, 2008, aft-Ar.pre`kri4r5 conference in the above referenced case, IT IS HEREBY 0IERFrIt7 Aa;D c < DIRECTED: 1. Trial counsel in this case shall be Stephen G. Held, Esquire, for Plaintiffs, and Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire, for the Defendants. 2. Counsel have indicated this is a one day trial. 3. Each party will be granted four peremptory challenges. 4. Given the brief nature of the case, court and counsel have agreed that jurors will not be allowed to take notes. 5. Both parties have been directed to prepare an exhibit list pursuant to the example attached. Two copies of this exhibit list shall be provided to the Court prior to the commencement of trial. All visual aids used in the case shall be disclosed to the opposing party. 6. Counsel for each party is directed to file with the Court on or before 12:00 p.m. on September 12, 2008, a list of the numbered standard jury instructions the party is requesting. If a party is proposing a unique jury instruction or • - --. 2006-3364 Civil In Re: Pretrial conference Page 2 requesting significant modification of a standard instruction it shall provide the full text of the proposed instruction to the Court. 7. On or before 12:00 p.m. on September 12, 2008, the parties will provide a proposed verdict slip to the Court for review. 8. Counsel for.the Defendants, Jefferson Shipman, Esquire, has indicated that he has a mediation ordered by Judge Clark of Dauphin County on September 16, 2008, and will therefore not be available for trial that day. The Court indicated that we will keep the case on the trial list and hope to begin it on Monday, September 15, 2008. If it does not finish on the first day, it will be continued on Wednesday, September 17, 2008. If the case does not start on Monday, then it will be scheduled to begin on Wednesday, the 17th day of September. By the Court, -? ??4 'k M. L. Ebert, Jr., Stephen G. Held, Esquire 1300 Linglestown Rd. Harrisburg, Pa. 17110 For the Plaintiffs Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pa. 17043-0109 For the Defendants Court Administrator's Office .mtf DONALD WEIMAN and DOROTHY WEIMAN Plaintiffs V. MARK DICK and TRACY DICK Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 06-3364 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: PLEASE mark the above-captioned matter settled and discontinued with prejudice. Date: HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By: 90 Steph G. Weld, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 72663 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff 345774 ? C ra ' . .r ?'J r f?,_. "_ ? +? ?1 1r`` i. _- ? I4?? .. •• -'r"