Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-3528MIGUELINA OTERO, § Plaintiff § V. § GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC, § Defendant § IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2006 -.3S'aP L','? CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue a Writ of Summons on the above- named Defendant at the following address: Giant Food Stores, LLC 1149 Harrisburg Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 June 19, 2006 Laura C. Reyes Malo ey, Esqu e Supreme Court I. o.: 78075 Attorney for Plaintiff WRIT OF SUMMONS To the above-named Defendant: You are hereby notified that the above-named Plaintiff has commenced an action against you. onoyq V By: on: J t,&. 2,n -20 Deputy Date 4p4:1.. -? G't U'2 r? ? M1 C Gj F lo? ZARWIN ? BAUM ? DEVITO KAPLAN ? SCHAER ? TODDY ? P.C. By: JOSEPH M. TODDY, ESQUIRE Identification No.: 42484 Suite 1200 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 569-2800 MIGUELINA OTERO Plaintiff, VS. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC Defendant, NO.: 2006-3528 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMAND ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, Giant Food Stores, LLC, in the above-captioned matter. DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL BY A JURY OF TWELVE MEMBERS Defendant, by their undersigned attorney, hereby request trial by a jury of twelve members. ZARWIN BAUM ? DEVITO KAPLAN SCHAER ? TODDY* P.C. B . Y`?q JOSEPH M. TODDY, E . ^° _ ? , `? ?? ZARWIN ? BAUM ? DEVITO KAPLAN ? SCHAER ? TODDY ? P.C. By: JOSEPH M. TODDY, ESQUIRE Identification No.: 42484 Suite 1200 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 569-2800 MIGUELINA OTERO Plaintiff, vs. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC Defendant, NO.: 2006-3528 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMAND PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter a Rule upon Plaintiff to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days hereof or suffer the entry of a Judgment of Non Pros. ZARWIN ? BAUM ? DEVITO KAPLAN ? SCHAER ? TODDY* P.C. BY JOSEPH M. TODDY, E O. RULE TO FILE A COMPLAINT AND NOW, this _M"day of , 2006, a Rule is hereby granted upon Plaintiff to file a Complaint herei within 20 days after service hereof or suffer the entry of a Judgment of Non Pros. & ? - i z P T Y rv? t ; r' t 1 r.? ' { - ?, _> t ?. l ? ?., <: LAGUNA RYES MALONEY, LLP I I 19 NORTH FRONT STREET, HARRISBURG, PA 1 7 1 02 TEL.: (7 1 7) 233-5292 / FAX: (71 7) 233-5394 MIGUELINA OTERO a/k1 MIGUELINA COLLADO, Plaintiff V. GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC, Defendant CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2006 - 3528 - Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Miguelina Otero, by and through her attorneys, Laguna Reyes Maloney, LLP, and represents as follows: 1. The Plaintiff, Miguelina Otero, is an adult individual currently residing at 29-D Meadowbrook Court, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17070-2507. 2. The Defendant, Giant Food Stores, LLC, has a regular place of business atl 149 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 3. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant, Giant Food Stores, LLC, was the operator of the Giant Food Store No. 253, located at 130 Old York Road, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17070. 4. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, Giant Food Stores, LLC, promoted, managed, conducted, and was engaged in the business activity of selling food and other products to the public at Giant Food Store No. 253, located at 130 Old York Road, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17070. 5. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, Giant Food Stores, LLC, was in exclusive possession, management, and control of the property, at Giant Food Store No. 253, located at 130 Old York Road, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17070, individually and through its employees who were acting within the course and scope of their employment by Defendant, Giant Food Stores, LLC, and in furtherance of Defendant's business. 6. The occurrences hereinafter described took place upon the property of Defendant, Giant Food Stores, LLC at Giant Food Store No. 253, located at 130 Old York Road, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17070. 7. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff, Miguelina Otero, was a patron of Giant Food Store No. 253, located at 130 Old York Road, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17070. 8. On or about June 29, 2004, around 9:30 p.m., Plaintiff while shopping for food and other products at Giant Food Stores, LLC, at Giant Food Store No. 253, located at 130 Old York Road, New Cumberland, slipped and fell on a slippery spot in one of the grocery store aisles. 9. On or about June 29, 2004, Plaintiff's boyfriend, Ram6n Collado, immediately reported the incident to the manager of the Giant Food Store No. 253. 10. The accident was caused exclusively and solely by the Defendant's negligence, carelessness, and recklessness. More specifically, the Defendant: a. Failed to make a reasonable inspection of the aforementioned slippery floor of the grocery store aisle which would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed by the aforementioned slippery floor of the grocery store aisle; b. Failed to use reasonable prudence in the care and maintenance of the grocery store aisle; C. Allowed the aforementioned slippery floor of the grocery store aisle to remain in a dangerous and unsafe condition after notice or opportunity for notice; d. Failed to promptly, properly, and adequately ameliorate the aforementioned slippery floor of the grocery store aisle; e. Failed to promptly, properly, and adequately maintain the grocery store aisle to ensure adequate traction and smooth surface; f Caused or permitted the aforementioned slippery floor of the grocery store aisle to remain slippery to a point where it posed an unreasonable risk of injury to Plaintiff, other patrons, and guests; g. Failed to exercise reasonable care to protect Plaintiff, other patrons, and guests at Giant Food Stores, LLC from known risks generated by dangerous conditions on the premises when the Defendant knew or should have known that because of attention arresters or distracting circumstances, patrons or guests were subject of undue risk despite the fact that the danger may have been otherwise known or obvious; h. Failed to give warning of the dangerous condition posed by the slippery floor, erect barricades, or take any other safety precaution to prevent injury to the Plaintiff, other patrons, and guests; and i. Failed to exercise the high degree of care owed to Plaintiff, their patron. It. Solely as a result of Defendant's negligence, carelessness, and recklessness, Plaintiff sustained injuries to her leg, ankle, knee, buttocks, foot and back. 12. The Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that some or all of her injuries are or may be permanent in nature or effect. 13. Solely as a result of Defendant's negligence, carelessness, and recklessness, Plaintiff has and will in the future be obliged to expend monies for medicine and medical care in order to treat and help cure her injuries. 14. Solely as a result of Defendant's negligence, carelessness, and recklessness, Plaintiff has and will in the future be unable to attend to her usual and daily duties and employment, to her financial detriment and loss. 15. Solely as a result of Defendant's negligence, carelessness, and recklessness, Plaintiff has suffered severe physical pain, scarring, mental anguish, humiliation, inconvenience, and the loss of ability to enjoy life and life's pleasures. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in her favor and against Defendant in an amount in excess of thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000.00) plus costs of this suit which sum is in excess of the amount requiring reference to arbitration. submitted, ,Supreme Court I.D. Attorney for Plainti LAGUNA REYES MALONEY, LLP 1119 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717) 233-5292 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. LAGUNA REYES MALONEY, LLP 1 1 19 NORTH FRONT STREET, HARRISBURG, PA 1 7 102 TEL.: (71 7) 233-5292 / FAX: (71 7) 233-5394 MIGUELINA OTERO a/k MIGUELINA COLLADO, Plaintiff V. GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC, Defendant IN THE COURT' OF UUMMUN PLEAN UN CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2006 - 3528 - Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the Complaint upon Defendant's counsel, by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class, addressed as follows: Joseph M. Toddy, Esquire 1515 Market St., 12th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102-1981 Date ALauaraC. Reyes Mal ney, Es uire orney for Plain n ? o l ?. - ril G 3 p t" C_7 w ZARWIN * BAUM * DEVITO KAPLAN * SCHAER * TODDY * P.C. By: JOSEPH M. TODDY, ESQUIRE Identification No.: 42484 Suite 1200 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 569-2800 MIGUELINA OTERO Plaintiff, Vs. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC Defendant, NO.: 2006-3528 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMAND STIPULATION On this c2F5"rday of L)6 2006, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND STIPULATED by and between counsel for Plaintiff, Laura C. Reyes Maloney, Esquire and counsel for Defendant, Joseph M. Toddy, Esquire, that all references to "recklessness" contained in Plaintiff's Complaint are hereby stricken. RA C. REYES MAL NEY, JOSEPH M. TODDY, ATTORNEY FOR PLAI IFF ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT n ? o c_ rn n co SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2006-03528 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND OTERO MIGUELINA VS GIANT FOOD STORES LLC KENNETH GOSSERT , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon GIANT FOOD STORES LLC the DEFENDANT , at 1526:00 HOURS, on the 30th day of June , 2006 at 1149 HARRISBURG PIKE CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to SANDY HAYS, LEGAL DEPT, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: So Answers: Docketing Service 18.00 4.40 I ?-.? Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 R. Thomas Kline .00 32.40,/ 07/05/2006 LAGUNA FEYES MALONEY Sworn and Subscibed to By: before me this day 7 of A.D. .. ZARWIN BAUM * DEVITO KAPLAN SCHAER * TODDY * P.C. By: JOSEPH M. TODDY, ESQUIRE Identification No.: 42484 Suite 1200 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 569-2800 MIGUELINA OTERO Plaintiff, VS. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC Defendant, NO.: 2006-3528 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMAND ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, GIANT FOODS. L.L.C. (incorrectly designated as GIANT FOOD STORES, INC.) TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT W ITH NEW MOTTF R Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC, (incorrectly designated as GIANT FOOD STORES, INC.) by its attorneys Zarwin, Baum, Devito, Kaplan, Schaer & Toddy, P.C. hereby responds to Plaintiffs C omplaint as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and same is, therefore, deemed denied. Moreover, this averment constitutes a conclusion of law to which no further response is required. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and r same is, therefore, deemed denied. Moreover, this averment constitutes a conclusion of law to which no further response is required. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and same is, therefore, deemed denied. Moreover, this averment constitutes a conclusion of law to which no further response is required. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and same is, therefore, deemed denied. Moreover, this averment constitutes a conclusion of law to which no further response is required. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and same is, therefore, deemed denied. Moreover, this averment constitutes a conclusion of law to which no further response is required. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and same is, therefore, deemed denied. Moreover, this averment constitutes a conclusion of law to which no further response is required. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and same is, therefore, deemed denied. Moreover, this averment constitutes a conclusion of law to which no further response is required. 10. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendants, Giant Foods, L.L.C., were in any way negligent or careless. Each and every allegation of negligence and/or careless set forth in Paragraphs 10(a) - (i) are sp ecifically denied to the extent required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, this averment is replete with conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and same are, therefore, deemed denied. Moreover, these averments constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and same are, therefore, deemed denied. Moreover, these averments constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and same are, therefore, deemed denied. Moreover, these averments constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and same are, therefore, deemed denied. Moreover, these averments constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 41 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and same are, therefore, deemed denied. Moreover, these averments constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Giant Foods, L.L.C., hereby demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff. NEW MATTER 16. Plaintiff's Complain t fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 17. Plaintiff was comparatively at fault to such an extent that Plaintiff's comparative fault should bar or limit Plaintiff s recovery. 18. Plaintiffs alle ged injuries and damages, if any, were caused in whole or in part by the contributory negligence and/or assumption of the risk on the part of parties to this action other than Answering Defendant and such contributory negligence and/or assumption of the risk would preclude the Plaintiff from any recovery against Answering Defendant and/or would reduce the amount of any such recovery against Answering Defendant. 19. Plaintiff assumed the risk of any of the conditions that she alleges to be dangerous or hazardous in the Complaint by voluntarily proceeding forward despite her recognition of the potential dangers of any of the conditions that she alleges to be dangerous or hazardous. 20. It is believed and, therefore, averred that the Plaintiff had an alternative route of which she could have availed herself but chose not to and, • therefore, the Plaintiff's claim is barred or Ii mited by operation of Pennsylvania law. 21. Plaintiff failed to mitigate damages. 22. It is believed and, therefore, averred that if a defective and dangerous condition did then and there exist on the premises controlled by Defendant (the existence of which is hereby specifically denied), then the dangerous and defective condition was open and obvious and should have been seen by the Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff's cl aim is barred and/or limited. 23. It is believed and, therefore, averred that Plaintiff had significant pre-existing conditions which are not related to this accident. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Giant Foods, L.L.C., hereby demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff. ZARWIN, BAUM, DeVITO, KAPLAN, SCHAER & TODDY, P.C. 2 BY: JOSEPH M. TODDY ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, GIANT FOODS, L.L.C. w VERIFICATION JOSEPH M. TODDY, ESQUIRE hereby states that he is the attorney for the Defendant, Giant Foods, L.L.C., in this action and verifies that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to Complaint with New Matter are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements made therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 PAC.S. Section 4909 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ZARWIN ? BAUM ? DEVITO KAPLAN ? SCHAER ? TODDY* P.C. Dated: BY: JOSEPH M. TODDY, ESQUIRE o Cif :-9 rn Ul C) 1. - i k % ZARWIN ? BAUM ? DEVITO KAPLAN ? SCHAER ? TODDY ? P.C. By: JOSEPH M. TODDY, ESQUIRE Identification No.: 42484 Suite 1200 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 569-2800 MIGUELINA OTERO COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY vs. GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC NO.: 2006-3528 Defendant, CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMAND PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE VERIFICATION To The Prothonotary: Kindly substitute the attached Verification for the attorney verification which was originally filed with Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint. ZARWIN BAUM * DEVITO KAPLAN SCHAER * TODDY* P.C. BY: J v#WH M. TODDY VERIFICATION Libby Christman, hereby states that she is the Director of Risk Management of Giant Foods, Inc. in this action and verifies that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint with New Matter are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements made therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 PAC.S Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Lib y C stman, Director of Risk Management DATE: ???? !) CD CZA ? s_ f7) C-D Cl) :-3 -< LAGUNA REYES MALONEY, LLP 1 1 19 NORTH FRONT STREET, HARRISBURG, PA 1 7 1 02 TEL.: (71 7) 233-5292 / FAX: (7 1 7) 233-5394 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF MIGUELINA OTERO a/k/a § IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MIGUELINA COLLADO, § CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff § V. § NO. 2006 - 3528 - Civil Term GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC, § CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant § PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Miguelina Otero, by and through her attorneys, Laguna Reyes Maloney, LLP, and responds to Defendant's New Matter as follows: 16. Denied. 17. Denied. 18. Denied. 19. Denied. By way of further response, Plaintiff was unaware of any dangers since Defendant failed to give any warning of the dangerous condition posed by the slippery floor, such as erecting barricades, or taking any other safety precaution to prevent injury to the Plaintiff, Defendant's other patrons, and guests. 20. Denied. 21. Denied. 22. Denied. By way of further response, Defendant failed to inform or warn Plaintiff, Defendant's other patrons, and guests of the dangerous condition posed by the slippery floor by erecting barricades or taking any other safety precaution to make the dangerous condition "open and obvious". 23. Denied. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in her favor and against Defendant in an amount in excess of thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000.00) plus costs of this suit which sum is in excess of the amount requiring reference to arbitration. Respectfully submitted, Vura C. Reyes Maloney, squire upreme Court I.D. 075 Attorney for Plaintiff LAGUNA REYES MALONEY, LLP 1119 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717) 233-5292 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Plaintiff's Answer to Defendant's New Matter are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Mi elina Otero, a/k/a Miguelina Collado, Plaintiff .. LAGUNA REYES MALONEY, LLP I I 19 NORTH FRONT STREET, HARRISBURG, PA 1 7 102 TEL.: (7 1 7) 233-5292 / FAX: (71 7) 233-5394 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF MIGUELINA OTERO a/k/a § IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MIGUELINA COLLADO, § CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff § V. § NO. 2006 - 3528 - Civil Term GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC, § CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant § CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Answer to Defendant's New Matter upon Defendant's counsel, by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class, addressed as follows: Joseph M. Toddy, Esquire 1515 Market St., 12'hFloor Philadelphia, PA 19102-1981 a? D Ate Laura C. Reyes Mal ey, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff u CA r-n cc ? 7 N ) 'A+ i^ _ n ZARWIN ? BAUM ? DEVITO KAPLAN ? SCHAER ? TODDY ? P.C. By: JOSEPH M. TODDY, ESQUIRE Identification No.: 42484 Suite 1200 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 569-2800 MIGUELINA OTERO Plaintiff, vs. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC Defendant, NO.: 2006-3528 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMAND DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant, Giant Food Stores, LLC, by and through their attorneys, Zarwin, Baum, DeVito, Kaplan, Schaer, Toddy, P.C., hereby move for an entry of an Order granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. In support thereof, Defendant, Giant Food Stores, LLC aver the following: 1. On or about November 15, 2006, Plaintiff, Miguelina Otero filed a Complaint against Giant Food Stores, LLC, Giant Carlisle and Giant Food Store #123. 2. Plaintiffs claims against Giant Food Stores, LLC sound in theories of negligence seek damages for serious, severe and ongoing personal injuries arising out of an alleged fall that occurred at the Giant Food Store located at 130 Old York Road, New Cumberland, PA on June 29, 2004. (See copy of Plaintiffs Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"). 3. Defendant, Giant Food Stores, LLC, timely filed its Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint. (See a copy of Defendant's Answer attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "B"). 4. For the purposes of this Motion for Summary Judgment only, Defendant, Giant Food Stores, LLC admits that it was responsible for the maintenance of the Giant Food Store location at issue. It is also admitted for purposes of this Motion that Plaintiff, Miguelina Otero, was a business invitee on the property at the time of her alleged fall. 1. PLAINTIFF CANNOT ESTABLISH CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE 5. On or about April 26, 2007 and May 22, 2007, respectively, Plaintiff, Miguelina Otero gave a deposition concerning her alleged fall. 6. Plaintiff claims that she was walking down an aisle of the Giant Food Store when she slipped and fell. (See Plaintiff's May 22, 2007 deposition transcript, Volume Il, portions of which are attached hereto as Exhibit "C" at Page 18). 7. Plaintiff claims that this incident occurred in the soap or shampoo aisle within the Giant Food Store. (See copy of Plaintiffs April 26, 2007 deposition transcript, Volume I, portions of which are attached hereto as Exhibit "D" at page 57). 8. Plaintiff does not know how far she walked within the soap or shampoo aisle before this incident occurred. (See Exhibit "C" at page 18). 9. Plaintiff does not know where within the soap or shampoo aisle she fell. See Exhibit "C" at page 19). ? f 10. Plaintiff does know how long she was in the Giant Food Store before this incident occurred. (See Exhibit "D" at page 56). 11. Plaintiff did not pass the soap or shampoo aisle prior to the incident. (See Exhibit "C", at Page 22). 12. The shampoo or soap aisle was well lit and very bright when plaintiff fell. (See Exhibit "C" at page 25). 13. Plaintiff testified that she does not know what caused her to fall. (See Exhibit "C" at page 26). 14. Even after she fell, Plaintiff still did not know what caused her to fall. (See Exhibit "C", at Page 29). 15. However, Plaintiff testified that she believes that she fell on soap or shampoo because that's what her husband told her. (See Exhibit "C", at Page 33- 34). 16. Plaintiff does not know if she stepped on soap or shampoo. See Exhibit "C", at page 29). 17. After plaintiff fell, she saw a clear liquid on the aisle floor. (See Exhibit "A" at page 32). 18. The liquid was clear, light colored. (See Exhibit "C", at page 32-33). 19. It was clear liquid soap or shampoo on the aisle floor. (See copy of Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's Interrogatories at paragraph 20 (a), and 22 (a) respectively, attached hereto as Exhibit "E" 20. 20. Plaintiff did not smell any type of odor within the aisle after she fell. Exhibit "C" at page 33). + 6 21. Plaintiff admitted that she does not know how much soap or shampoo she saw on the aisle floor after she fell. (See Exhibit "C", at page 34- 35). 22 Plaintiff admits that she does not know how far this liquid on the floor extended but it was in one spot, and she saw was no patches. (See Exhibit "C" at Page 34). 23. Plaintiff did not see any broken shampoo bottles, or soap containers within the soap or shampoo aisle to determine where this liquid may have come from. (See Exhibit "C" at page 36-37). 24. Plaintiff does not know how long the soap or shampoo was on the aisle floor before she fell. (See Exhibit "C" at page 36). 25. Plaintiff has not produced, nor can she produce, any evidence that Defendant had actual notice of the presence of this liquid in the area in which Plaintiff allegedly fell. 26. Similarly, Plaintiff has not produced any evidence that as a matter of law that demonstrates those Defendants possessed constructed notice of the liquid that allegedly caused Plaintiff to fall. 27. Under Pennsylvania Law, the mere existence of a harmful condition in a public place of business or the mere happening of an accident due to such condition is not negligence in a "slip and fall" type case. Lanni v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 371 Pa. 106, 88 A.2d 887 (1952); Meyers v. Penn Traffic Company, 414 Pa. Super. 181, 606 A.2d, 926 (1992); Moultry v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 281 Pa. Super 525, 422 A.2d, 593 (1980); Harclerode v. G.C. Murphy, Inc., 207 Pa. Super 400, 217 A.2d 778. Moreover, the owner of a store is not an insurer of the safety of it s customers. Myers v. Penn Traffic Company, 414 Pa. Super 181, 606 A.2d 926 (1992). 28. To recover damages in a slip and fall case, where the invitee is injured in a store, the invitee must present evidence which proves that the store owner deviated in some way from his duty of reasonable care under the existing circumstances. Zito v. Merit Outlet Stores, 436 Pa. Super 213, 217, 647 A.2d, 573, 575 (Pa. Super. 1994) citing Moultry supra. 29. The evidence must show that the proprietor knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known of the existence of the harmful condition. Id. 30. The invitee is required to prove either the store owner participated in creating the harmful condition or that the owner had actual or constructive notice of the condition. Restatement (second) of Torts §343. 31. The Plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant, Giant Food Stores, LLC, knew or should have known of the existence of the condition that establishes negligence. Martino v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 419 Pa. 229, 213 A.2d, 608 (1965). 32. It is not the mere presence of water or even refuge on a floor that shows negligence, for such a condition may arise temporarily in any store though the proprietor has exercised due care. It is such a party's failure to remove such materials as may create an unsafe condition after he knows or should have known of same that establishes negligence. Id. 33. Moreover, the length of time that a condition existed becomes immaterial where the defect is only observable by exacting a high degree of care from the occupier of the land. De Else v. Wilf Brothers Appliances„ 168 Pa. Super 81, 76 A.2d 651 (1950). 34. Since Plaintiff cannot satisfy the notice requirement, Plaintiffs Complaint must be dismissed with prejudice as a matter of law. 35. Moreover, at all material times, Plaintiff has not produced any evidence that Defendant did not exercise reasonable care under the circumstances. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Giant Food Stores, LLC, respectfully request this Court to grant its Motion for Summary Judgment and dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice. ZARWIN ? BAUM ? DEVITO KAPLAN ? SCHAER ? TODDY P.C. BY: JO M. TODDY, ZARWIN ? BAUM ? DEVITO KAPLAN ? SCHAER ? TODDY ? P.C. By: JOSEPH M. TODDY, ESQUIRE Identification No.: 42484 Suite 1200 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 569-2800 MIGUELINA OTERO Plaintiff, vs. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC Defendant, MEMORANDU' DEFENDANT'S MOl 1. FACTUAL BACKGROUND NO.: 2006-3528 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMAND On or about November 15, 2006, Plaintiff, Miguelina Otero filed a Complaint against Giant Food Stores, LLC, Giant Carlisle and Giant Food Store #123. Plaintiffs claims against Giant Food Stores, LLC sound in theories of negligence seek damages for serious, severe and ongoing personal injuries arising out of an alleged fall that occurred at the Giant Food Store located at 130 Old York Road, New Cumberland, PA on June 29, 2004. (See copy of Plaintiffs Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"). Defendant, Giant Food Stores, LLC, timely filed its Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint. (See a copy of Defendant's Answer attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "B"). For the purposes of this Motion for Summary Judgment only, Defendant, Giant Food Stores, LLC admits that it was responsible for the maintenance of the Giant Food Store location at issue. It is also admitted for purposes of this Motion that Plaintiff, Miguelina Otero, was a business invitee on the property at the time of her alleged fall. For the purposes of this Motion for Summary Judgment only, Defendant, Giant Food Stores, LLC admits that it was responsible for the maintenance of the Giant Food Store location at issue. It is also admitted for purposes of this Motion that Plaintiff, Miguelina Otero, was a business invitee on the property at the time of her alleged fall. 1. PLAINTIFF CANNOT ESTABLISH CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE On or about April 26, 2007 and May 22, 2007, respectively, Plaintiff, Miguelina Otero gave a deposition concerning her alleged fall. Plaintiff claims that she was walking down an aisle of the Giant Food Store when she slipped and fell. (See Plaintiffs deposition transcript, portions of which are attached hereto as Exhibit "C" at Page 18). Plaintiff claims that this incident occurred in the soap or shampoo aisle within the Giant Food Store. (See Exhibit "C" at page 57). Plaintiff does not know how far she walked within the soap or shampoo aisle before this incident occurred. (See Exhibit "C" at page 18). Plaintiff does not know where within the soap or shampoo aisle she fell. See Exhibit "C" at page 19). Plaintiff does know how long she was in the Giant Food Store before this incident occurred. (See Exhibit "D" at page 56). Plaintiff did not pass the soap or shampoo aisle prior to the incident. (See Exhibit "C", at Page 22). The shampoo or soap aisle was well lit and very bright when plaintiff fell. (See Exhibit "C" at page 25). Plaintiff testified that she does not know what caused her to fall. (See Exhibit "C" at page 26). Even after she fell, Plaintiff still did not know what caused her to fall. (See Exhibit "C", at Page 29). However, Plaintiff testified that she believes that she fell on soap or shampoo because that's what her husband told her. (See Exhibit "C", at Page 33-34). Plaintiff does not know if she stepped on soap or shampoo. See Exhibit "C", at page 29). After plaintiff fell, she saw a clear liquid on the aisle floor. (See Exhibit "C" at page 32). The liquid was clear, light colored. (See Exhibit "C", at page 32-33). It was clear liquid soap or shampoo on the aisle floor. (See copy of Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's Interrogatories at paragraph 20 (a), and 22 (a) respectively, attached hereto as Exhibit "E" 20). Plaintiff did not smell any type of odor within the aisle after she fell. Exhibit "C" at page 33). Plaintiff admitted that she does not know how much soap or shampoo she saw on the aisle floor after she fell. See Exhibit "C", at page 34- 35). Plaintiff admits that she does not know how far this liquid on the floor extended but it was in one spot, and she saw was no patches. See Exhibit "C" at Page 34). Plaintiff did not see any broken shampoo bottles, or soap containers within the soap or shampoo aisle to determine where this liquid may have come from. (See Exhibit "C" at page 36-37). Plaintiff does not know how long the soap or shampoo was on the aisle floor before she fell. (See Exhibit "C" at page 36). Plaintiff has not produced, nor can she produce, any evidence that Defendant had actual notice of the presence of this liquid in the area in which Plaintiff allegedly fell. i Similarly, Plaintiff has not produced any evidence that as a matter of law that demonstrates those Defendants possessed constructed notice of the liquid that allegedly caused Plaintiff to fall. Plaintiff has not produced, nor can she produce, any evidence that Defendant had actual notice of the presence of the water in the area in which Plaintiff allegedly fell. Similarly, Plaintiff has not produced any evidence that as a matter of law that demonstrates those Defendants had constructed notice of the water that allegedly caused Plaintiff to fall. Under Pennsylvania Law, the mere existence of a harmful condition in a public place of business or the mere happening of an accident due to such condition is not negligence in a "slip and fall" type case. Lanni v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 371 Pa. 106, 88 A.2d 887 (1952); Meyers v. Penn Traffic Company, 414 Pa. Super. 181, 606 A.2d, 926 (1992); Moultry v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 281 Pa. Super 525, 422 A.2d, 593 (1980); Harclerode v. G.C. Murphy, Inc., 207 Pa. Super 400, 217 A.2d 778. Moreover, the owner of a store is not an insurer of the safety of it s customers. Myers v. Penn Traffic Company, 414 Pa. Super 181, 606 A.2d 926 (1992). To recover damages in a slip and fall case, where the invitee is injured in a store, the invitee must present evidence which proves that the store owner deviated in some way from his duty of reasonable care under the existing circumstances. Zito v. Merit Outlet Stores, 436 Pa. Super 213, 217, 647 A.2d, 573, 575 (Pa. Super. 1994) citing Moultry supra. The evidence must show that the proprietor knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known of the existence of the harmful condition. Id. The invitee is required to prove either the store owner participated in creating the harmful condition or that the owner had actual or constructive notice of the condition. Restatement (second) of Torts §343. The Plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant, Giant Food Stores, LLC, knew or should have known of the existence of the condition that establishes negligence. Martino v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 419 Pa. 229, 213 A.2d, 608 (1965). It is not the mere presence of water or even refuge on a floor that shows negligence, for such a condition may arise temporarily in any store though the proprietor has exercised due care. It is such a party's failure to remove such materials as may create an unsafe condition after he knows or should have known of same that establishes negligence. Id. Moreover, the length of time that a condition existed becomes immaterial where the defect is only observable by exacting a high degree of care from the occupier of the land. De Else v. Wilf Brothers Appliances„ 168 Pa. Super 81, 76 A.2d 651 (1950). Since Plaintiff cannot satisfy the notice requirement, Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed with prejudice as a matter of law. Moreover, at all material times hereto Defendant exercised reasonable care under the circumstances. There is no evidence in the record which suggest otherwise. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed with prejudice. II. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. Summary Judgment Standard The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure authorize the entry of summary judgment in two circumstances: "After the relative pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to unreasonably delay trial, any party may move for summary judgment in whole or in part as a matter of law... (1) whenever there is no genuine issue of material fact as to a necessary element of the cause of action or defense which could be established by additional discovery or expert report, or (2) if, after completion of discovery relevant to the motion, ...an adverse party who will bear the burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the cause of action ...which in a jury trial would require the issue to be submitted to a jury." Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1035.2 In other words, summary judgment must be entered after the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions together with the supporting affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Meriwether v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 453 Pa. Super. 464, 684 A.2d 137 (1996); Snyder v. Specialty Glass Products, Inc., 441 Pa. Super. 613, 658 A.2d 366 (1995); Demil v. Security of America Life Insurance Company, 404 Pa. Super. 205, 598 2d 352 (1991). A summary judgment is also appropriate when a party is unable to produce evidence sufficient to permit a jury to find facts essential to its cause of action. See Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1035.2, ("exclamatory comment" "citing Godlewski v. Pars Mfg. Company, 408 Pa. Super. 425, 597 A.2d 106 (1991)). Pursuant to subparagraph (2) of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1035.2, if the record contains insufficient evidence and facts to make out a prima facie case, then there is no issue to be submitted to a jury and the moving party is entitled to a summary judgment as a matter of law. Id. B. PLAINTIFF CANNOT ESTABLISH ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE Defendant admits that Plaintiff, Miguelina Otero, was a business invitee on the date of this incident of September 8, 2004. Pennsylvania has adopted Restatement (second) of Torts §343 (1965) which describes to what duties a possessor of land owes a business invitee. Moultry v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 281 Pa. Super. 525, 422 A.2d, 593, 595 (1980). §343 provides: A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition on the land if, but only if, he: (a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care will discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and (b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and (c) fails to exercise care to protect them against the danger. See Myers v. Penn Traffic Company, 606 A.2d 926, 928 (Pa. Super. 1992). Moreover, Plaintiff must show that the landlord had notice of the dangerous condition on the land and that the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm. the Plaintiff must demonstrate that the landlord actually knew the dangerous condition, or can establish that the landlord had constructive notice by introducing facts that can be used to infer that the landlord should have known of the condition. Although constructive notice varies from case to case, fact indicating notice can include the previous occurrences of the condition or length of time the condition exists. Katz v. John Wanamaker, Philadelphia, Inc., 381 Pa. 477, 112 A.2d 65, 67 (1955); Moran v. Valley Forge Drive-In Theatre, 431 Pa. 432, 246 A.2d 875 (1968). However, someone other than the landlord or persons for who is accountable creates a dangerous situation, the Plaintiff must "prove that the owner had actual notice of a condition or that the condition existed for such a length of time that in the exercise or reasonable care, the owner should have known of it." Moult 422 A.2d at 595. There has been no evidence offered by Plaintiff that Defendant, Giant Food Stores, LLC created the alleged dangerous situation. To the contrary, Plaintiff has admitted that the water on the floor of the aisle did not come from the freezers contained within Defendant's Giant Food Store. See Exhibit "C", Page 128. Moreover, there has been no evidence offered that Defendants had actual notice of the condition. At best, there is simply evidence water may have been on the aisle floor at the time of the alleged incident. However, Plaintiff cannot offer any evidence as to how the dangerous condition was created or how long it was there, Plaintiff cannot make the requisite showing of constructive notice. Myers v. Penn Traffic Company, 414, Pa. Super. 181, 606 A.2d 926, 930 (1992). On the issue of constructive notice, a couple of cases are instructive. In Swift v. Northeastern Hospital of Philadelphia, 456 Pa. Super. 330, 690 A.2d 719 (1987), the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently considered a slip and fall case involving the issue of notice. In Swift, Plaintiff slipped and fell in a restroom, on water on the floor, at Northeastern Hospital after being discharged from the emergency room following a fall from a ladder. Plaintiff suffered a fractured femur in the hospital fall, underwent surgical reproduction and died two days after the operation from Sepsis. The case brought against the hospital by the estate was dismissed when the trial judge granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, finding there is no material fact on the issue of notice. The Superior Court affirmed the Trial Court's decision. The Superior Court first noted that a business invitee must prove "either the proprietor of the land had a hand in creating the harmful condition or he had actual or constructive notice of such condition. (Citation omitted). " Swift at 722. The Court then reviewed the evidence of notice presented by the estate which included no evidence as to how the water got on the floor or proof of actual notice. The estate tried to introduce evidence of constructive notice. It introduced the fact that the janitorial employee responsible for maintaining the bathroom where decedent fell had left the hospital four (4) hours before the fall. The estate argued that the janitor's four (4) hour absence, along with the inference that no other employee inspected the premises, caused the dangerous condition of water on the floor to exist, thereby satisfying the notice requirement since the land owner had a hand in creating the condition. The Court rejected this argument, noting that the estate presented no evidence that the area was not monitored by some other hospital employee. The case of Parker v. McCrory's Stores Corporation, 376 Pa. 122, 101 A.2d, 377 (1954) is also instructive. In Parker, Plaintiff entered the store of Defendant as a perspective customer. He had been snowing intermittently during the day and some of the snow had been carried into the store and melted there. Plaintiff entered the store, walked about six feet, slipped and fell sustaining severe injuries. At trial, the Court granted a non-suit. In upholding the non-suit, The Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated: "No Court has ever held that five minutes is sufficient in constructive notice of a dangerous condition; to do so would be to make the Defendant an insurer. If that were the law, then every time it rained or snowed, the owner of a large department would have to employ a great many extra people for the sole purpose of inspecting every minute or every five minutes every entrance, aisle, corridor and stairway in the store in order to constantly clean up and eliminate every wet or possibly slippery or possibly dangerous condition and every puddle which may be found to exist anywhere in the store. Such a standard is not only unreasonable and unsupported by any authority, but is so absurd that it would bankruptcy every large store owner in Pennsylvania." Id. 101 A.2d at 378. The Pennsylvania Superior Court relied upon the Parker decision in Harclerode v. G.C. Murphy Company, 207 Pa. Super. 400, 217 A.2d 778 (1966). The facts are substantially similar to this case. In Harclerode, Plaintiff slipped and fell in a store. At no time before she fell did Plaintiff notice any water on the floor but when she was helped to her feet, her clothing was wet and a witness testified that the floor was wet. The store manager had passed the area minutes before Plaintiff fell and was standing about six feet off the area when Plaintiff fell but saw no water on the floor before or after the accident. A jury verdict was entered in favor of Plaintiff. A judgment n.o.v. was entered for defendant because of plaintiffs failure to establish that the negligence of the defendant caused her injuries. Plaintiff appealed. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the judgment n.o.v. and found as a matter of law, that the evidence of constructive notice presented by the Plaintiff was not sufficient to go the jury. The Court found that without evidence to describe the water and the condition it created, it cannot be said that this defendant knew of the existence of the dangerous condition or should have known of it soley because its manager had passed the area minutes before and was still within six feet of t at the time plaintiff fell. The Court, quoting Martino v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, supra, that it is not the mere presence of water or even refuse on a floor that shows negligence, for such a condition may arise temporarily in any store though the proprietor has exercised due care. It is such a party's failure to remove such materials as may create an unsafe condition after he knows or should have known of same that establishes negligence. Id at 403, 217 A.2d at 780. Moreover, the Court relied on Parker v. McCrory Stores Corporation, supra in stating that In the absence of any evidence to indicate that defendant was actively negligent in creating the condition or had actual knowledge of its existence, plaintiff's case must be supported by evidence to prove that the condition was unsafe and that defendant had constructive notice of it, the burden of proof of which was on the plaintiff. Id at 403, 217 A.2d at 779. In Loeb v. Allegheny County, 394 Pa. 433, 147 A.2d, 336 (1959), the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas granted the Defendant's Motion for Judgment n.o.v. in a case where the Plaintiff claims to have fallen on a liquid spot in a stairway of a county building. The Pennsylvania Superior Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirm. The Supreme Court pointed out that Plaintiff came forth with no proof of what the liquid was, who had placed it there or how long it had been there. In light of Plaintiffs inability to demonstrate any of the foregoing, the Court ruled that a jury is not permitted to speculate or guess; conjecture, guess or suspicion do not amount to proof. Id. 147 A.2d at 338. In Myers v. Penn Traffic Company, supra. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the Trial Court's grant of Summary Judgment in favor of the store owner. In this case one of the Plaintiffs theories was that she had slipped on a grape in the produce aisle. She was unable to prove how the grape to be on the floor. However, in opposition to the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, she contended that the cause of the grape to be on the floor was a question of fact for the jury. The Superior Court disagreed noting that the Plaintiffs lack of any evidence as to the source of the grapes existence would cause a jury to merely speculate or guess as to its source and this is impermissible. The Court that held that it was the duty of the Trial Court to make certain the jury does not engage in this type of speculation. The Pennsylvania Superior Court specifically noted that in a supermarket slip and fall case it is still incumbent upon the plaintiff to allege sufficient facts and present sufficient evidence to sustain a cause of action against the store owner. Finally, what will amount to constructive notice of a defective or dangerous condition existing upon a Defendant's premises necessarily varies on the circumstances of each case. Some of the factors affecting the question in addition to the time lapsing between the origin of the defect and the accident are the size and physical condition of the premises, the nature of the business using the premises and frequency of such use, the nature of the defect and its location on the premises its probable cause and opportunity which Defendant, as a reasonably prudent person had to remedy it. Lanni v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 88 A.2d, 887, 371 Pa. 106 (Pa. 1952). In the present case, Plaintiff has not produced any evidence to indicate how the condition on the aisle floor was created or how long the condition had been there. We simply have testimony that there was some clear liquid on the aisle floor. There is no evidence to suggest that Defendant, Giant Food Stores, LLC and/or its employees were involved in the creation of the condition. Plaintiff has not been able to show that the Defendant possessed actual or even constructive notice of the condition. III. CONCLUSION Wherefore, the reasons set forth above, Defendant, Giant Food Stores, LLC respectfully request that the Court grant its Motion for Summary Judgment and dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice. ZARWIN ? BAUM ? DEVITO KAPLAN ? SCHAER ? TODDY* P.C. BY: 'd im L4ujz?l JO M. TODDY, Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" ZARWIN + BAUM + DEVITO KAPLAN + SCHAER + TODDY + P.C. By: JOSEPH M. TODDY, ESQUIRE Identification No.: 42484 Suite 1200 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 569-2800 MIGUELINA OTERO Plaintiff, vs. GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC Defendant, '.= C) COURT OF COMMON PL- EAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY 1 G- A NO.: 2006-3528 K CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMAND ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GIANT FOODS LLC (incorrectly designated as GIANT FOOD STORES, INC) TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT W ITH NEW MATTER Defendant Giant Food Stores, LLC, (incorrectly designated as GIANT FOOD STORES, INC.) by its attorneys Zarwin, Baum, Devito, Kaplan, Schaer & Toddy, P.C. hereby responds to Plaintiffs C omplaint as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and same is, therefore, deemed denied. Moreover, this averment constitutes a conclusion of law to which no further response is required. 2. Admitted. 10 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and same is, therefore, deemed denied. Moreover, this averment constitutes a conclusion of law to which no further response is required. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and same is, therefore, deemed denied. Moreover, this averment constitutes a conclusion of law to which no further response is required. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and same is, therefore, deemed denied. Moreover, this averment constitutes a conclusion of law to which no further response is required. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and same is, therefore, deemed denied. Moreover, this averment constitutes a conclusion of law to which no further response is required. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and same is, therefore, deemed denied. Moreover, this averment constitutes a conclusion of law to which no further response is required. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and same is, therefore, deemed denied. Moreover, this averment constitutes a conclusion of law to which no further response is required. 10. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendants, Giant Foods, L.L.C., were in any way negligent or careless. Each and every allegation of negligence and/or careless set forth in Paragraphs 10(a) - (i) are sp ecifically denied to the extent required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, this averment is replete with conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and same are, therefore, deemed denied. Moreover, these averments constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and same are, therefore, deemed denied. Moreover, these averments constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and same are, therefore, deemed denied. Moreover, these averments constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and same are, therefore, deemed denied. Moreover, these averments constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and same are, therefore, deemed denied. Moreover, these averments constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Giant Foods, L.L.C., hereby demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff. NEW MATTER 16. Plaintiffs Complain t fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 17. Plaintiff was comparatively at fault to such an extent that Plaintiffs comparative fault should bar or limit Plaintiff' s recovery. 18. Plaintiffs alle ged injuries and damages, if any, were caused in whole or in part by the contributory negligence and/or assumption of the risk on the part of parties to this action other than Answering Defendant and such contributory negligence and/or assumption of the risk would preclude the Plaintiff from any recovery against Answering Defendant and/or would reduce the amount of any such recovery against Answering Defendant. 19. Plaintiff assumed the risk of any of the conditions that she alleges to be dangerous or hazardous in the Complaint by voluntarily proceeding forward despite her recognition of the potential dangers of any of the conditions that she alleges to be dangerous or hazardous. 20. It is believed and, therefore, averred that the Plaintiff had an alternative route of which she could have availed herself but chose not to and, therefore, the Plaintiff's claim is barred or Ii mited by operation of Pennsylvania law. 21. Plaintiff failed to mitigate damages. 22. It is believed and, therefore, averred that if a defective and dangerous condition did then and there exist on the premises controlled by Defendant (the existence of which is hereby specifically denied), then the dangerous and defective condition was open and obvious and should have been seen by the Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiffs cl aim is barred and/or limited. 23. It is believed and, therefore, averred that Plaintiff had significant pre-existing conditions which are not related to this accident. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Giant Foods, L.L.C., hereby demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff. ZARWIN, BAUM, DeVITO, KAPLAN, SCHAER & TODDY, P.C. BY: JOSEPH M. TODDY ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, GIANT FOODS, L.L.C. VERIFICATION JOSEPH M. TODDY, ESQUIRE hereby states that he is the attorney for the Defendant, Giant Foods, L.L.C., in this action and verifies that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to Complaint with New Matter are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements made therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 PAC.S. Section 4909 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ZARWIN ? BAUM ? DEVITO KAPLAN ? SCHAER ? TODDY* P.C. Dated: BY: / JOSEPH M. TODDY, ESQUIRE Exhibit "C" 1 1, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ------------------------------- MIGUELINA OTERO a/k/a MIGUELINA COLLADO, Plaintiff, -vs- GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC, Defendant. No. 2006-3528 Civil Action - Law Volume II Deposition Testimony of Miguelina Otero Translated by Jaime Mas 1119 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA May 22, 2007 10:11 a.m. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed that the sealing of the within transcript is waived; IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED and agreed that all objections except as to the form of the question are reserved to the time of trial. ERSA COURT REPORTERS 30 South 17th Street United Plaza, Suite 1520 Philadelpha, PA 19103 (215) 564-1233 C160py MIGUELINA OTERO 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES: LAGUNA REYES MALONEY, LLP 1119 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 BY: LAURA C. REYES MALONEY, ESQ. (717) 233-5292 For the Plaintiff ZARWIN, BAUM, DEVITO, KAPLAN, SCHAER & TODDY 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 BY: JOSEPH LONGO, ESQ. (215) 569-2800 For the Defendant ALSO PRESENT: Jaime Mas, Interpreter ELECTRONIC REPORTING STENOGRAPHIC AFFILIATES MIGUELINA OTERO 18 1 Q. Did you see this white lady prior to your fall? 2 A. I don't remember. 3 Q. Did you see anyone else in the shampoo or 4 soap aisle other than this lady either before or after 5 you fell? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Do you recall what happened as you were walking 8 through the shampoo or soap aisle? 9 A. If I remember, no. Can you please repeat the 10 question? 11 Q. Sure. 12 Do you recall what, if anything, happened to you 13 as you were walking through the shampoo or soap aisle of 14 the Giant Food Store? 15 A. When I was walking, all I remember is I slipped 16 and fell. 17 Q. How far were you walking within the shampoo or 18 soap aisle before you slipped and fell? 19 A. I don't know. 20 Q. Well, when you slipped and fell, did you fall 21 at the beginning of the aisle, in the middle of the I 22 aisle or toward the end of the aisle? Do you recall 23 the location of the aisle on which you fell? 24 A. No, I don't remember. First I was more towards 25 the center of it. ELECTRONIC REPORTING STENOGRAPHIC AFFILIATES MIGUELINA OTERO 19 1 Q. Well, you say at first you were more toward 2 the center of the aisle. Was there a point at which 3 you changed from the center of the aisle? 4 A. Can you please repeat? 5 Q. Sure. You remember just stating that at first 6 you recall being in the center of the aisle? 7 A. I don't understand. 8 Q. I'm just trying to get an idea as to where you 9 fell within the shampoo and soap aisle; do you understand 10 that? 11 A. Can you please repeat? I don't understand. 12 Q. I'm just trying to get an idea as to where 13 you fell within the soap and shampoo ill. Do you 14 understand that? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. If I heard you correctly, I think you testified 17 that you recall being in the center of the aisle after 18 you slipped and fell, is that fair? 19 A. No, I don't remember. I don't know. 20 Q. So then is it fair to say then you don't know 21 where within the shampoo or soap aisle you fell? 22 A. No. Like all I can say is like I just said a 23 moment ago, is that it wasn't right at the start. I had 24 already gone a little ways inside the aisle. 25 Q. When you say you had gone a little ways I have ELECTRONIC REPORTING STENOGRAPHIC AFFILIATES MIGUELINA OTERO 22 1 1 Q. Did your husband go with you to the milk area? 2 A. I don't remember. 3 Q. When you went to the milk area, did you have to 4 pass by the shampoo and soap aisle? 5 A. I don't remember. 6 Q. Prior to this incident, do you recall if you 7 passed the shampoo and soap aisle? 8 A. I don't think so because I went to the milk, I 9 went to get something. 10 Q. When you went to the milk area, did you pick 11 up a quart of milk, a gallon of milk or any type of 12 container of milk? 13 A. All I know is that I picked up milk. I don't 14 know how much the quantity was, whether it was half a 15 gallon, a gallon, I don't know. 16 Q. Were you holding this half a gallon of milk, or 17 whatever size container of milk that you picked up, when 18 you fell within the soap and shampoo aisle? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Well, what did you do with the milk that you 21 picked u p from the milk area? 22 A. All I know is that our boy was with us and I 23 know tha t when I picked up whatever I picked up, the milk 24 or whate ver I picked up, he would just take them and 25 put them in either the cart or the basket, whatever it ELECTRONIC REPORTING STENOGRAPHIC AFFILIATES MIGUELINA OTERO r r 25 1 1 fell within the shampoo and soap aisle? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Do you think it was five minutes, ten minutes, 4 an hour ? Are you able to estimate for me at all? 5 A. I don't know. 6 Q. Can you describe the lighting conditions for me 7 within the soap and shampoo aisle? 8 A. The light? It was light. 9 Q. Is there overhead lighting within the shampoo 10 or soap aisle? 11 A. You mean like lights? 12 Q. Yes. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Would you describe that area of the soap and 15 shampoo aisle as being bright, dull, dim, dark? How 16 would you describe it? 17 A. All I know is that there was light. It was 18 bright. 19 Q. Do you know what caused you to fall as you 20 were walking within the shampoo or soap aisle? 21 A. and ;.;?;c No, I just know that I was walking I 7 22 just -- when I just had a slip -- a very long slip and 23 I fell. 24 Q. What do you mean by a very long slip? 25 A. First I went like this. How am I going to say? ELECTRONIC REPORTING STENOGRAPHIC AFFILIATES MIGUELINA OTERO 26 1 That I slipped a good bit. I mean, I slipped a good bit 2 like this and then I fell. 3 Q. When you say you slipped like this, you're 4 indicating that you slipped forward, is that correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you know what caused you to fall? 7 A. No. 8 Q. I know you testified that you fell forward. 9 At some point did you fall to the ground, to the floor, 10 the aisle floor? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. What part of your body, if any, landed on the 13 aisle floor? 14 A. I fell like -- I gave with my knee -- I fell 15 like a little to the side with my foot underneath me -- 16 I don't know how to say. I fell a little on the side 17 with my foot underneath. 18 Q. Which side did you fall a little onto? 19 THE INTERPRETER: May I ask -- may I ask her 20 to clarify something? 21 MR. LONGO: Sure. J»Gt tolI Me l-at Sue said 22 first. 23 THE INTERPRETER: Which side do you mean when 24 you said I fell? 25 I want to clarify what she means. ELECTRONIC REPORTING STENOGRAPHIC AFFILIATES MIGUELINA OTERO 29 1 1 Q. What color is the aisle floor? 2 A. I don't know. I see a light color, white, a 3 light color. 4 Q. How long did you remain on the aisle floor 5 after you fell? 6 A. I don't remember. 7 Q. Did you see what, if anything, caused you to 8 fall? 9 A. No. 20 Q. Do you know why you fell? 11 A. Because I stepped on either the soap or the 12 shampoo which is what made me fall. 13 Q. When you say soap or shampoo, do you know one 14 way or another whether you fell on soap or on shampoo? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Did you see this soap or shampoo before you 17 fell? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Where were you looking before you fell? 20 A. I was looking in front of me. I was walking 21 and looking in front of Me. 22 Q. You were looking straight when you fell? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Were you distracted at all before you fell? 25 A. No, I was walking along. ELECTRONIC REPORTING STENOGRAPHIC AFFILIATES MIGUELINA OTERO . 1 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I don't know. Look also soap, baby soap for babies. Q. When you say baby soap, did you see, was it a bar of soap that you saw? A. No, I mean liquid. Q. The liquids that you saw, were they all the same color; that is, were they just clear? A._ The liquid was clear. Q. It was all the same color? A. Yes. Q. Did you smell any type of odor? A. No. If there was any, I don't remember. Q. Where was this liquid located that you saw? A. I don't understand. Q. Well, I understand that you said you saw liquid after you fell, right? A. Yes. Q. Where was it? A. I was seated there I fell on top of it after I slipped. Q. Where was it within the aisle? A. I don't know. All I know is that it was there on the aisle. Q. Was it in the center of the aisle, was it toward the shelves of the aisle? Do you have any ELECTRONIC REPORTING STENOGRAPHIC AFFILIATES MIGUELINA OTERO 34 I 1 idea where this liquid was that you saw? 2 A. No. 3 Q. When you say liquid, what makes you think that 4 this liquid was shampoo or baby soap? 5 A. We call it shampoo or soap because my husband 6 and also manager, they said that it was shampoo or soap. 7 But they don't know exactly what it was, whether it was 8 shampoo or whether it was soap. 9 Q. Before your husband or the store manager said 10 that it was shampoo or soap, did you have any idea what 11 this sub stance or liquid was? 12 A. No, all I could see, it was a liquid there. But 13 I wasn't giving it much attention because I had a lot of 14 pain at that moment. I don't know. 15 Q. How much of this liquid was on the aisle floor? 16 A. I don't know how much. 17 Q. Do you know how far this liquid on the floor 18 extended through the aisle? 19 A. No, I don't. 20 Q. Was this liquid that you saw on the aisle floor, 21 was it j ust contained in one spot? 22 A. I don't know. All I know is that I slipped and 23 I fell. I don't know how much quantity there was and 24 how -- 25 Q. So you don't know how much liquid you saw on the ELECTRONIC REPORTING STENOGRAPHIC AFFILIATES MIGUELINA OTERO 32 1 1 don't remember. 2 Q. What were you shouting? 3 A. I was just crying, I say crying from the pain. 4 I don't know. 5 Q. How far were you from this liquid that you saw? 6 A. I don't understand. 7 Q. You testified previously that you saw this soap 8 or shampoo as you were sitting on the aisle floor; do you 9 remembe r that? 10 A. Well, I said once I was able to sit down I saw 11 that th ere was a liquid. 12 Q. How far were you from the liquid at that point? 13 A. I don't know. 14 Q. When you say liquid, what do you mean by liquid? 15 A. I call it liquid because it was a clear thing. 16 Q. Can you describe it for me? 17 A. I don't understand. Describe how? 18 Q. Well, what did it look like? 19 A. Like shampoo or soap, I don't know. Just all I 20 could tell is that it was clear. 21 Q. What color was the shampoo or soap? 22 A. It was something clear or light, light-colored, 23 clear. 24 Q. When you say soap, did you actually see a bar of 25 soap on the aisle floor? ELECTRONIC REPORTING STENOGRAPHIC AFFILIATES MIGUELINA OTERO 35 1 1 aisle floor after you fell? 2 A. No, I don't know. 3 Q. Did you see any patches of this liquid on the 4 floor of the aisle? 5 A. No. All I saw was the slip where I had fallen. 6 I didn't see. I couldn't see. 7 Like I told you, I wasn't well enough to be able 8 to see. All I saw was the slip and that was it. 9 MR. LONGO: All she saw was the slip? 10 MS. MALONEY: The what? 11 MR. LONGO: The slip? 12 (Discussion off the record.) 13 MR. LONGO: What did she say? 14 THE INTERPRETER: It was marked -- there was a 15 mark -- made a mark like this. (Indicating) 16 MS. MALONEY: From the slip? 17 A. When I was able to sit down I was able to see 18 the slip mark on the side -- 19 BY MR. L ONGO: 20 Q. What are you referring to? When you say the 21 slip mar k on the side, what are you referring to? 22 A. I don't understand. 23 Q. You just said after you fell you were able to 24 see the slip mark on the side. I don't understand what 25 you mean by that. ELECTRONIC REPORTING STENOGRAPHIC AFFILIATES MIGUELINA OTERO 36 1 Can you explain that for me? 2 A. When I fell -- so when I fell I was able to 3 sit down and I sat facing where the liquid was and I 4 saw the slip mark there. 5 Q. When you say slip mark, it's the marks that you 6 made whe n you fell; is that what you're referring to? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. When you were sitting and looking at this liquid 9 and you saw the marks that you made when you fell, did 10 you see any other marks in this liquid? 11 A. No, I didn't see anything else. All I know 12 is that I opened my eyes and I saw that slip there, 13 that slip mark there, and that's all. I don't know. 14 Q. Well, when you say you opened your eyes, at 15 some poi nt did you close your eyes? 16 A. When I opened my eyes, I mean, because since -- 17 THE INTERPRETER: And the expression -- 18 A. -- that since I was crying I could not -- I did 19 not noti ce anything. 20 Q. Do you know how long that liquid had been on the 21 aisle floor within the shampoo and soap a;slr-o 22 A. Before I fell? 23 Q. (Counsel, nodding head.) 24 A. No. 25 Q. At any point while you were within the shampoo ELECTRONIC REPORTING STENOGRAPHIC AFFILIATES MIGUELINA OTERO 37 1 1 and soap aisle, did you see any broken shampoo bottles 2 or a soap container or anything from which you could 3 determine that this shampoo or soap may have come from? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Did you have any of this liquid on any of your 6 clothes or your flip-flops after you fell? 7 A. I got some stuck on the skin where I touched 8 the flo or. 9 Q. I'm just asking about your clothes and your 10 flip-fl ops right now. Did you have any of the liquid on 11 your cl othes or your flip-flops after you fell? 12 A. The sandals had -- the flip-flops had some 13 liquid and back here. (Indicating) 14 Q. And what? 15 A. Back here. (Indicating) On the shorts, the rear 16 of the shorts. 17 Q. How much liquid was on your flip-flops? 18 A. I don't know because somebody took them. 19 I don't know -- somebody took them, I don't know. So I 20 don't k now that. 21 Q. Someone took your flip-flops? 22 A. I did not put them back on again. Somebody took 23 them. 24 When I fell, one of the flip-flops came off on 25 the foot that I hurt myself, and the other one I still ELECTRONIC REPORTING STENOGRAPHIC AFFILIATES Exhibit "D" IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL MIGUELINA OTERO a/k/a MIGUELINA COLLADO, Plaintiffs, vs. GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC, Defendant. No. 2006-3528 Civil Deposition of: Miguelina Otero Taken by Joseph Longo, Esquire Before Rhonda A. Adams, RMR Date April 26, 2007, 11:40 a.m. At Laguna, Reyes, Maloney, LLP 1119 North Front St. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania F CAPITAL REPORTING 1431 LOMBARD STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19146 (215) 732-0800 Miguelina Otero April 26, 2007 Page 57 1 one -- how many like entrances or exits are there? 2 A. No, I can't say. I don't know how many there 3 are. 4 Q. Is there more than one exit -- or strike that. 5 Is there more than one entrance to get into the Giant 6 Food Store? 7 A. No, only one entrance. 8 Q. And when you went into the entrance of the 9 Giant Food Store, did you get a cart, a shopping cart? 10 A. Yes, but my husband was the one who was 11 carrying the shopping cart. 12 Q. Did your husband get the cart before you went 13 into the Giant Food Store or when you got into the food 14 store? 15 A. Before. 16 Q. Did you pick up any type of shopping basket or 17 anything in addition to your husband having the shopping 18 cart when you got into the Giant Food Store? 19 A. No, I don't have anything. 20 Q. Do you recall what aisle inside the Giant Food 21 Store that the incident occurred? 22 A. I was in the aisle of shampoo, soap. 23 Q. Let me ask you this. When you arrived at the 24 store and you, your husband and your son walked in, CAPITAL REPORTING (215) 732-0800 Miguelina Otero April 26, 2007 Page 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 L0 L1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. What was the purpose of going to the Giant Food Store? A. I went to go shopping for home, some items that I missing. Q. Had you worked on June 29th, 2004 prior to going to the Giant Food Store? A. I don't remember if I worked that day. Q. Do you recall what, if anything, you did that day prior to going to the Giant Food Store? A. No. I just recall that we went out of home to that store to go shopping. It was at night. Q. Did you have any alcoholic beverages to drink on June 29th, 2004 prior to going to the Giant Food Store? A. No. Q. How long were you at the Giant Food Store before this incident occurred? A. I don't remember. I don't recall how long. just had picked up some groceries. Q. Well, you testified a few minutes ago that you are familiar with this store, right? A. Yes, because I go there to go shopping. Q. Can you describe the layout of the store for me? I mean specifically like when you go in, is it CAPITAL REPORTING (215) 732-0800 I Exhibit "E" Joseph M. Toddy, Esquire Identification Number: 42484 Zarwin, Baum, DeVito, Kaplan, Schaer & Toddy, P.C. 1515 Market Street, Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 569-2800 - Phone (215) 569-1606 - Fax MIGUELINA OTERO COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY VS. NO. 2006-3528 CIVIL TERM GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC INTERROGATORIES OF DEFENDANT, GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC, ADDRESSED TO PLAINTIFF Defendant(s) hereby make demand that the Plaintiffs answer the following Interrogatories pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 4001 et seq. These Interrogatories must be answered as provided in Pa. R.C.P. 4006 and the Answers must be served on all other parties within thirty (30) days after the Interrogatories are deemed served. These Interrogatories are deemed to be continuing as to require the filing of Supplemental Answers promptly in the event Plaintiffs or their representatives (including counsel) learn additional facts not set forth in its original Answers or discover that information provided in the Answers is erroneous. Such Supplemental Answers may be filed from time to time, but not later than 30 days after such further information is received, pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4007.4. These Interrogatories are addressed to you as a party to this action; your answers shall be based upon information known to you or in the possession, custody or control of you, your attorney or other representative acting on your behalf whether in preparation for litigation or otherwise. These Interrogatories must be answered completely and specifically by you in writing and must be verified. The fact that investigation is continuing or that discovery is not complete shall not be used as an excuse for failure to answer each interrogatory as completely as possible. The omission of any name, fact, or other item of information from the Answers shall be deemed a representation that such name, fact, or other item was not known to Plaintiffs, their counsel, or other representatives at the time of service of the answers. 1. Please state when the alleged occurrence happened, giving the date, hour and minute as nearly as possible. June 29, 2004 at approximately 9:30 p.m. at Giant Food Store, No.253. 2. Please describe as fully as possible the location of the alleged occurrence including the distances in feet to fixed objects or boundaries by which the location may be identified. Plaintiff, while shoppingfor food and other products at Giant Food Store, LLC, at Giant Food Store No. 253, slipped and fell on a slippery spot in one of the grocery store ai4l es. 3. Please state fully the location of all property, objects or items which you observed within ten feet of the location of the alleged occurrence. There were items on the shelves. 4. Please state exactly where the occurrence happened, giving names of cities or towns, names and numbers of streets, other named or readily identifiable landmarks, buildings or objects. The incident occurred at the Giant Food Store No. 253 located at 130 Old York Road, New Cumberland, PA 17070. 5. Please describe the general neighborhood containing the place where the alleged occurrence took place, including whether it was a residential or business district, and whether it was sparsely or thickly settled. Business district. 6. What were you doing on the premises on the date of the alleged occurrence? I was shopping for food and other products. 7. Why were you on the defendant's premises at the time of the alleged occurrence? See Interrogatory #6. 8. If the defendant, or anyone on the defendant's behalf, directly or by implication, invited you onto the defendant's premises, please give full details of each such invitation. Defendant's place of business is open to the public at all times. 9. Please set forth fully the facts which form the basis for whatever legal relationship you claim that you had with the defendant at the time of the alleged occurrence, indicating whether tenant, invitee of the tenant, social guest, business invitee or otherwise. I was a customer of Grant Food Store No. 253 at the time bf the incident. 10. Had you at any time had any relationship with the defendant through a third party? If so, please, describe each such relationship in complete detail, identifying such third party by name, address, and relationship to you and relationship to you and to the defendant. No. 11. Please describe the alleged occurrence in complete chronological detail, stating everything that you did and everything that happened to you: a) from the time a few minutes immediately preceding the alleged occurrence to and including the time of the alleged occurrence; Plaintiff was shopping for food and other products when walking down an aisle and slipped and fell on a slippery spot not seen by Plaintiff in the grocery store aisle. Plaintiff yelled for her boyfriend. b) from the time of the alleged occurrence until you reached your home or received medical treatment. Plaintiff's boyfriend, Ramon Collado, immediately reported the incident to the manager of Giant Food Store No. 253. The manager called for an ambulance and Plaintiff was transported to Holy Spirit Hospital. 12. Please identify and describe the appearance of each person who observed, or was present in the vicinity of, the alleged occurrence, giving the name and address of each person if known to you. 1. Ramon Collado, boyfriend 2. Store Manager, woman, 30-40 years old, white and had a name tag 13. if any person listed in the answer to the preceding Interrogatory are agents or employees of the defendant, please: a) Describe in complete detail everything that was seen or noticed by each such agent or employee; Vie. store manager observed Plaintiff on the floor of the aisle and the store manager telephoned for the ambulance. b) state where in relation to the alleged point of the occurrence each such agent or employee was at the time of such occurrence. The manager was in the Giant at the time of the occurrence. 14. As to each person listed in the two previous answers, please: a) describe in complete detail everything that was seen or heard by each such person, which had any bearing on, or relation to, the alleged occurrence; 1. Ramon Collado heard Plaintiff yell for his help when he was in the next ai11e over. 2. Managert,,,7as informed or fall by Mr. Collado and observed Plaintiff on the floor. b) describe everything that was done by each such person, before, during and after the alleged occurrence which had any bearing on, or relation to, the alleged occurrence; Ramon Collado seen Plaintiff on the floor and he went to get the store manager. The store manager went to Plaintiff and called for an ambulance. C) state where, in relation to the place of the alleged occurrence, each such person was at the time of the alleged occurrence; Ramon Collado Was in the next ai54e over and the manager of the store was elsewhere. d) state why each such person was present in the area at the time of the alleged occurrence; Plaintiff's boyfriend, Ramon Collado, was present because he was shopping with her. The manager was present because Mr.Collado notified her of Plaintiff's fall. 15. Please identify each person who observed, was involved in, or was present in the vicinity of, the alleged occurrence, giving the following information; a) The name and address of each such person; Ramon Collado 29 D Meadowbrook Ct.,New Cumberland, PA 17070 Manager of Giant Store Name and address unknown b) A physical description of each such person; Ramon, Hispanic male 35 years old See 12(2) C) The relationship of each such person to the defendant; Ramon Collado - patron Manager - manager d) the relationship of each such person to the plaintiff, Ramon - boyfriend Manager - none 16. As to each person listed in the answer to the preceding Interrogatory, please state: a) everything that was seen or heard by each such person which has any relationship to the alleged occurrence; Ramon Collado heard Plaintiff scream from the next aisle over and ran to see what happened, b) everything that was done by each such person which has any relationship to the alleged occurrence; Ramon Collado went and reported accident to store manager. C) where, in relation to the location of the alleged occurrence, each such person was at the time of such occurrence; Ramon:_Collado was in the next aisle over Manager was in the store, not sure of exabt location. d) why each such person was present in the area at the time of the alleged occurrence. Please see Interogatory 14(d). 17. Did you or your agents, employees, or other representative ever take or receive any statement, either oral or in writing, from any person, including parties, who had any information or knowledge relating to the alleged occurrence? No. 18. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative, please state as to each such person; a) his or her identity, including name and address; N/A b) the date of each such statement; N/A C) the substance of each such statement; N/A d) if such statement was in writing, either attach a copy to the answers to these Interrogatories or indicate where and when such statement may be examined by counsel; N/A 19. Do you claim that any defect, detective condition or foreign substance or object on the defendant's premises caused or contributed to cause the alleged occurrence? Yes 20. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative, please state: a) a complete description of each such defect, condition, substance or object indicating size, shape, color, and visibility; clear liquid soap or shampoo on shiny aisle floor. b) a complete description of the location of each such defect, condition, substance or object, including distances in feet to fixed objects or boundaries by which the location may be identified; On aisle floor. C) the date and exact time when you first saw each such defect, condition, substance or object; When Plaintiff fell on June 29, 2004 at 9:30 p.m. d) a complete description of each change in the appearance of each such defect, condition, substance or object immediately after the alleged occurrence; N/A 21. Do you allege or contend that the alleged occurrence was due to or caused in any way by any condition or situation for which this defendant was responsible. Yes. 22. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative, please state: a) a complete description of each such defect, condition, substance or object indicating size, shape, color, and visibility; Clear liquid soap or shampoo in shiny aisle. Not noticable to patrons in store, no caution signs posted to warn patrons of defect. b) a complete description of the location of each such defect, condition, substance or object, including distances in feet to fixed objects or boundaries by which the location may be identified; In the grocery store aisle. C) the date and exact time when you first saw each such defect, condition, substance or object; June 29, 2004 at 9:30 p.m. when incident occurred. d) a complete description of each change in the appearance of each such defect, condition, substance or object immediately after the alleged occurrence; N/A 23. Please list all factors or events which you believe contributed to cause the alleged occurrence. Defendants failed to make reasonable inspection of slippery floor which would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition. Failed to use reasonable prudence in the care and maintenance of grocery store aisles and allowed the slippery floor to remain in a dangerous and unsafe condition. 24. Please describe completely the surface condition at the site of the alleged occurrence when such occurrence took place, including whether it was in good condition, in need of repair in some places, in need of repair throughout the area, or otherwise. The surface of the grocery store aisle was in a dangerous condition. The floor was slippery and had a clear liquid soap spill on the shiny aisle floor. 25. Did you know of the existence of the alleged defect or defective condition prior to the alleged occurrence? No. 26. if the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative, please state: a) how you acquired such knowledge; N/A b) how long prior to the alleged occurrence you knew that the alleged defect or defective condition had existed. N/A 27. How did the defendant, or its agents, or employees know, or how should they had known, of the existence of any defect or defective condition prior to the alleged occurrence. The Defendants have a duty to inspect and give notice and warning of the dangerous condition.by erecting barricades, or takeny other safety precautions to prevent injury to Plaintiff, otFier patrons and guests. 28. Please state in complete detail exactly what you claim the defendant did prior to the time of the alleged occurrence that had any bearing on such occurrence. See Interrogatory #27. 29. Please describe the actions and activities of the defendant from the time of the occurrence until the defendant was completely out of your view. The manager of the store called the ambulance. The Defendants failed to use reasonable prudence in the care and maintenance of the grocery store aisle. 30. Please state everything you saw any agent or employee of the defendant to which had any bearing on the alleged occurrences See above answers. 31. Do you claim or contend that any agent or employee of the defendant engaged in any action or activity which caused or contributed to cause the alleged occurrence. Yes. 32. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative, please state: a) a full description of each such agent or employee including name and address and other identification; Unknown. b) a full description of such action or activity; failure to inspect and notify patrons and failed to correct the dangerous condition. C) a full explanation of how such action or activity caused or contributed to cause the alleged occurrence. See 11(a) 33. If any of the defendant's agents or employees came to your assistance immediately following the alleged occurrence, please state: See 11(b) a) a complete description of each such agent or employee; See 12(2) defendant; b) the name and address of each such agent or employee of the Unknown. C) exactly what assistance was rendered to you; See 11(b) d) for how long a period such assistance was furnished. G;clu 4- ac - -3 M ? ;??e3 34. Please state everything that plaintiff and defendant did after the occurrence until Plaintiff left the scene of the occurrence. Manager brought chair for Plaintiff to sit in the aisle until ambulance arrived. 35. Do you claim or contend that the defendant, or any agent or employee of the defendant, violated any statute, ordinance, law or regulation? Yes. 36. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative, please: a) identify each such statute, ordinance, law or regulation; Negligence. See Complaint. b) describe all facts which form the basis for your contention. See Complaint. 37. Please describe your movements during the one minute just prior to the time of the alleged occurrence. Plaintiff was walking down the grocery store aisle shopping. 38. Please give a complete account of what you were doing at the precise moment of the alleged occurrence. See Interrogatory #37. 39. Please describe fully and chronologically all that you did to avoid the alleged occurrence. Plaintiff couldn't avoid the situation because she did not see the clear soapy liquid on thb shiny aisle floor. 40. With regard to the position of your body at the moment of the alleged occurrence, please state: a) what position your body was in, whether sitting, standing, lying down or otherwise; See Interrogatory #37 41. Please state as of the time of the alleged occurrence where you were coming from, and where you were going. See Interrogatory #37 42. Please describe what you did with all objects you brought onto the premises and describe what happened to each such object during the course of the alleged occurrence. None. 43. Were you accompanied by or joined by any other person while you were on the premises involved in the alleged occurrence? If so, please identify each such person? Yes. Ramon Collado, Plaintiff's boyfriend. 44. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative, please describe all conversations you had with each such person, and all actions of each such person while on the premises. Plaintiff was in one aisle and her boyfriend wasin the next aisle over and when Plaintiff slipped and fell, she yelled for her boyfriend and he came over and then went to get the store manager. 45. Were you alone at the time of the alleged occurrence? Yes. 46. If you were carrying or holding anything at the time of your alleged occurrence, please describe each such object or property in complete detail, including weight and size. N/A. 47. During approximately the last 100 feet of your approach to the place of the alleged occurrence were you engaged in any actions or activities which involved using your arms or hands in any way? See Interrogatory No. 37. 48. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative, please state: a) a complete description of all such actions and activities; See Interrogatory No. 37 b) exactly how long you had been engaged in such actions or activities prior to the alleged occurrence. About 1 - 2 minutes. • 49. Please describe exactly where you were standing at the time of the alleged occurrence, including distances in feet to fixed objects or boundaries by which the location may be identified. Approximately halfway in the grocery store aisle. 50. Please give a precise description of the shoes you were wearing at the time of the alleged occurrence, including the type, style, size and material composition of the heel and shoe. Sandals/Tongs, flip-flops with j" high sole. 51. Do you contend that you failed to see the area of your alleged occurrence because your attention was distracted or diverted? No. 52. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative, please state: a) a full description of the view, object or person causing such distraction or diversion of attention; N/A b) the distance in feet that you were from the point of the alleged occurrence when your attention was first diverted or distracted; N/A c) the duration of time in seconds that your attention was distracted or diverted; N/A d) the distance in feet that you were from the point of the alleged occurrence when your attention was no longer distracted or diverted and you returned your view to the area ahead. N/A 53. Please give the substance of all conversations, if any, which occurred immediately following the alleged occurrence in the presence of any agent or employee of the defendant. Plaintiff's boyfriend went to inform the store manager and the store manager called for the ambulance. 54. Did the plaintiff at the time just prior to the alleged occurrence observe anything on the premises of the defendant that aroused the plaintiff s curiosity or otherwise made the plaintiff decide to enter the premises? No. 55. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in -the affirmative, please describe in complete detail what the plaintiff observed on the premises. N/A 56. Did the plaintiff have to overcome any physical barriers in order to enter the premises? No. 57. At the time of the alleged occurrence, was the plaintiff afflicted with or suffering from any medical condition, including illness, injury ailment, or disability? No 58. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative-, please state as to each such condition; a) the nature, extent and severity of the condition; N/A b) the nature and extent of any medical or hospital examination, treatment, or care the plaintiff has received for the condition; N/A C) the names and addresses of any doctor, physician, practitioner, hospital, clinic or institution involved with examination, treatment or care of the condition; N/A d) the dates of each such examination, treatment or care; e) the date on which the condition began; N/A 0 the date on which the condition ceased or first subsided, even temporarily; N/A g) the outward manifestations or appearances of the condition; N/A h) any restrictions imposed by the conditions upon the plaintiffs school or employment activities. .N/A 59. Did you purchase or consume any alcoholic drink during the ten hours prior to the alleged occurrence? No. 60. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative, please state: a) the precise nature and quantity of each alcoholic drink consumed; N/A b) where each alcoholic drink was consumed; N/A C) by whom each alcoholic drink was purchased. N/A d) in whose presence each alcoholic drink was consumed; N/A e) when each alcoholic drink was consumed. N/A 61. At the time of the alleged occurrence, was the plaintiff familiar with the place where the alleged occurrence took place? Yes. 62. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative-, please state the nature and extent of such familiarity, indicating the number of times the plaintiff had visited such place during the previous year. Plaintiff shops there on a regular basis. She had visited the place approximately 24 times. 63. Had the plaintiff ever been injured on anyone else's property? If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative, please state for each such injury: No. a) the date; N/A b) the nature and extent of the injury; N/A c) the street address of the place of the injury; N/A d) a description of how the injury occurred. N/A 64. Had you done any act, taken any action or given any indication that could have been interpreted as agreeing to, consenting to, or assuming the risk of the alleged occurrence? No. 65. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is m the affirmative, please set forth in complete detail; a) each act or omission which could be interpreted as indicating agreement, consent, or assumption; N/A b) to whom each such action or indication was directed; N/A C) the date of-each such act action or indication. N/A . 66. Please describe the extent of your vision just before the occurrence, both corrected and uncorrected. Plaintiff has no vision problems. 67. Were you wearing eyeglasses or other corrective lenses at the time of the alleged occurrence? No. 68. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative, please state: a) the location of your eyeglasses at the present time; N/A b) where your eyeglasses may be examined; N/A C) the names and addresses of the doctor who prescribed your eyeglasses; N/A d) the date of the prescription for your eyeglasses; N/A e) the prescription for your eyeglasses; N/A 69. At the time of the alleged occurrence were you wearing dark, colored or sunglasses. No. 70. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative, please state: a) a full description of such glasses; N/A b) whether or not such glasses were prescription glasses; N/A C) where such glasses may be examined; N/A 71. At the time of the alleged occurrence did you own any eyeglasses or other corrective lenses? No. 72. If at the time of the alleged occurrence you were not wearing your eyeglasses, please explain in full detail why you were not. N/A 73. Were you carrying a cane, or other type of stick commonly carried by a blind person, or being guided by a seeing-eye dog, at the time of the alleged occurrence? No. 74. If the plaintiff s hearing in either ear at the time of the alleged occurrence was below normal without the use of a hearing aid, please state: a) the nature and extent of the limitation of hearing in the plaintiff s right ear: N/A b) the nature and extent of the limitation of hearing in the plaintiff s left ear: N/A 75. Was the plaintiff wearing a hearing aid at the time of the alleged occurrence? No. 76. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory was in the affirmative, please state: a) the name and address of the doctor who prescribed the hearing aid; N/A b) the date of the prescription of the hearing aid; N/A C) the prescription for the hearing aid; N/A 77. If at the time of the alleged occurrence the plaintiff was not wearing a hearing aid, please explain in full detail why not. N/A 78. With respect to the alleged condition or situation, please state in which direction you were going at the time of the alleged occurrence. See Interrogatory No.37 79. Please state where you had been just prior to the alleged occurrence. Plaintiff was in the next aisle over. 80. Please state how the defendant or its agents or employees knew or should have known of the existence of each defect, defective condition, foreign substance or object prior to the alleged occurrence. See Complaint. 81. At the time of the alleged occurrence, was the plaintiff familiar with the location where the alleged occurrence took place? Yes. 82. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory was in the affirmative-, please state the nature and extent of such familiarity, indicating the number of times during the previous year the plaintiff had visited the location where the alleged occurrence happened. See Interrogatory No. 62 83. Please state what precautions, if any, you took to obtain a better view, with reference to any obstructions to your view, just prior to and at the time of the alleged occurrence. N/A 84. Please describe all safety equipment plaintiff used in an attempt to avoid the alleged occurrence. N/A 85. Please describe all protective clothing plaintiff wore in an attempt to avoid the alleged occurrence. N/A 86. Did you observe any sign or other notice relating to the use of the premises? No. 87. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory was in the affirmative, please state: a) how long before the alleged occurrence when you saw each such sign or notice; N/A b) the substance of the message or writing of each such sign or notice; N/A 88. As you approached the location of the alleged occurrence, did you see any warning signs or devices of any kind? No. 89. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory was in the affirmative, please describe such warning signs or devices in complete detail. N/A 90. Please describe in detail just what the defendant did, if anything, in an attempt to avoid the alleged occurrence. Nothing. 91. If you claim that the negligence of any other person or persons contributed to cause the alleged occurrence, please state their names and the manner in which each contributed to cause the alleged occurrence. 92. Did any person or persons other than the defendant or any agent or employee of the defendant contribute to cause the alleged occurrence? No. 93. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative, please state: a) the full identity of each such person, including names, address and a complete physical description; N/A b) how each such person contributed to cause the alleged occurrence; N/A C) whether, in what manner, and with what success the plaintiff had made, or intends to make, an effort to be compensated by each such person for the alleged injuries. N/A 94. Please describe completely the lighting conditions at the time and place of the alleged occurrence, including the amount of natural light and the amount of artificial lighting. 100/ artificial light. 95. With respect to the lighting conditions at the time and place of the alleged occurrence, including the amount of natural light and the amount of artificial lighting; a) describe the lighting conditions as fully and completely as you can; The aisle was artificially lit. b) state whether the lighting conditions included artificial or natural light, or both, indicating which. Artificial. 96. Please describe in complete detail the weather conditions which prevailed during the 24-hour period prior to the alleged occurrence at the place of such occurrence, including details of temperature, humidity, wind velocity and precipitation and including a description of any accumulation of any type of precipitation up to the time of the alleged occurrence. warm/nice outside. 97. Please describe the appearance of the sun at the time of the alleged occurrence, including whether it was shining brightly, shining not cloudy, overcast, or otherwise. N/A. occurrence was indoors. 98. Please describe the surface condition at the time and place of the alleged occurrence as to moisture or wetness, stating whether it was dry, damp, wet in patches, completely wet, or otherwise. slippery shiny aisle floor ("wet in patches") 99. At the time of the alleged occurrence, was it, or had it just previously been snowing or sleeting? No. 100. Did adverse or less than ideal weather conditions play any part in the alleged occurrence? No. 101. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative. please describe in complete detail such weather conditions and state in what way they played any part in the alleged occurrence. N/A 102. Have you or anyone acting for you secured or obtained, or do you have any knowledge of, any statement in writing made by any person who claimed to have any knowledge whatsoever with regard to any statement or conversation made by any agent or employee of the defendant pertaining in any way to the alleged occurrence? No. 103. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative, please state; a) the name and address of each such person; N/A b) the name and address of each such agent or employee of the defendant; N/A C) the date and time of each such statement or conversation made by any agent or employee of the defendant; N/A d) the date of the recording of each statement in writing, made by each such person or witness: N/A e) the substance of content of each such statement; N/A 104. Please state the date and method of your first notification to the defendant regarding this occurrence, such as by letter, telephone call or in person. In person, at the time of the occurrence and the Defendant's store manager telephoned the ambulance. 105. Will it be claimed that any agent or employee of the defendant caused or contributed to cause the alleged occurrence? Yes. .0 0 106. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, please set forth the plaintiffs contentions as to each of the following: a) a description of each act or omission which caused or contributed to cause the alleged occurrence; See Complaint. b) the name and title of each person who committed each act or omission set forth in response to subsection (a) above; See 106(a) C) exactly how each such act or omission caused or contributed to cause the alleged occurrence; See 106(a) d) the date and place of each such act or omission; See 106(a) e) in connection with each such act or omission, the statute, rule, regulation, or procedure on which the plaintiff will rely. See 106(a) 107. Does the Plaintiffs claim or contend that negligent supervision by any agent or employee of the defendant caused or contributed to cause the alleged occurrence? Yes. 108. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory was in the affirmative, please identify the name and address of each such agent or employee and explain the grounds for such contention. See Complaint. 109. Does the Plaintiffs allege or contend that the defendant or any agent or employee of the defendant engage in any action, activity or omission which caused or contributed to cause the alleged occurrence? Yes. 110. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative, please identify the name and address of each such agent or employee and explain the grounds for such contention See Complaint. 111. Does the Plaintiffs contend that the defendant is absolutely liable for the plaintiffs' injuries and damages; Yes. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative, please set forth in complete detail; liability; a) what act or omission of the defendant gives rise to absolute See Complaint. b) why such act or omission gives rise to absolute liability; See Complaint. C) why the Plaintiffs injuries are included within the scope of absolute liability. See Complaint. ZARWIN, BAUM, DeVITO, KAPLAN, SCHAER & TODDY, P.C. BY: )//. S H M. TODDY TTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT + VERIFICATION % I certify that the statements made in these Interrogatories and any attached schedules are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Miguelina Otero ZARWIN ? BAUM ? DEVITO KAPLAN ? SCHAER ? TODDY ? P.C. By: JOSEPH M TODDY, ESQUIRE Identification No.: 42484 Suite 1200 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 569-2800 MIGUELINA OTERO Plaintiff, vs. GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC Defendant, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO.: 2006-3528 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMAND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 26th day of June, 2008, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants Giant Food Stores, Motion for Summary Judgment was served, via first class mail, postage prepaid, to: Laura C. Reyes Maloney, Esq. Law Offices of Laguna Reyes Maloney 1119 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Zarwin Baum DeVito Kaplan Schaer Toddy, P.C. s°-? `-?1 C'? ..-? .- ,_:a ?- ..r-s K 4F?? ? S . ??? i^ y f?_ "" s ?S LAGUNA REYES MALONEY, LLP 1 1 19 NORTH FRONT STREET, HARRISBURG, PA 1 7 1 02 TEL.: (71 7) 233-5292 / FAX: (71 7) 233-5394 LR M@ STAN FO R DALU M N I.O R G ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF MIGUELINA OTERO a/k/a § IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MIGUELINA COLLADO, § CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff § V. § NO. 2006 - 3528 - Civil Term GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC, § CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant § PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please discontinue the above-captioned matter with prejudice. The claims raised in this matter have been resolved by agreement of the parties. Respectfully submitted, 9-a3 Date La C. Reyes Mpreme Court Attorney for Pls t n Esquire No.: 075 LAGUNA REYES MALONEY, LLP 1119 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717) 233-5292 LAGUNA REYES MALONEY, LLP 1 1 1 9 NORTH FRONT STREET, HARRISBURG, PA 1 7 1 02 TEL.: (7 1 7) 233-5292 / FAx: (7 1 7) 233-5394 L R M @STA N FO R DA LU M N I.0 R G ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF MIGUELINA OTERO a/k/a § IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MIGUELINA COLLADO, § CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff § V. § NO. 2006 - 3528 - Civil Term GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC, § CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant § CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Discontinue upon the Defendant's counsel via first-class U. S. mail, addressed as follows: Joseph F. Longo, Esquire Joseph M. Toddy, Esquire 1515 Market St., 12'h Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102-1981 I- a3-0 Date ra C. Reyes M o , Esquire r?a - A mac. -wo