Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-3585ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. David L. Lutz, Esquire Attorney ID# : 35956 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: dlutz@angino-rovner.com STEVEN WELLER and LAURIE WELLER, Plaintiffs V. TV CABLE CO.; GLENDALE LODGING, L.P. II; and GLENDALE MANAGEMENT COMPANY II, d/b/a HOTEL CARLISLE, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. 311973 ORIGINAL IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 TELEPHONE 717-249-3166 AVISO USTED 14A SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se persentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar acci6n dentro de los pr6ximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificacion de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a , las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar acci6n como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamaci6n o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin orris aviso adicional. Used puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para used. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 TELEFONO 717-249-3166 311973 ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. David L. Lutz, Esquire Attorney ID# : 35956 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: dlutz@angino-rovner.com WELLER and LAURIE WELLER, Plaintiffs V. TV CABLE CO.; GLENDALE LODGING, L.P. II; and GLENDALE MANAGEMENT COMPANY II, d/b/a HOTEL CARLISLE, Defendant IN THE COUKl'ON COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. CL. - RSRS_ l.: n ! U ctTia ? CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiffs Steven Weller and Laurie Weller are citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Mr. and Mrs. Weller reside in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant TV Cable Co. is a Pennsylvania business corporation with a principal place of business at 1310 Holly Pike, P.O. Box 38, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17013. Defendant TV Cable Co. is a general partner with Defendant Glendale Lodging, L.P. II, a Pennsylvania limited partnership, also with a principal place of business at 1310 Holly Pike, P.O. Box 38, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17013. Defendant TV Cable Co. is also in general partnership with Defendant Glendale Management Company II, also a Pennsylvania corporation with a principal place of business at 1310 Holly Pike, P.O. Box 38, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17013. Defendant Glendale Management Company II is the registered fictitious owner of the Hotel Carlisle, a hotel located at 1700 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, 311973 Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. The Defendants will herein be referred collectively as the "Hotel Carlisle." 3. The facts and occurrences hereinafter related took place on or about March 2, 2005, at approximately 3:00 p.m., at the Hotel Carlisle. 4. At that time and place, Plaintiff Steven Weller had been sent by his employer, Bretz & Co., Inc., to repair an air handler located above the ceiling in the Hotel Carlisle's grand ballroom. 5. At all relevant times, Mr. Weller was working within the scope of his employment. 6. After Mr. Weller arrived at the Hotel Carlisle to start the repairs, the Hotel Carlisle's maintenance supervisor directed him to an area above the ceiling of the Hotel Carlisle's grand ballroom. 7. In order to make the necessary repairs, Mr. Weller had to climb a ladder and then crawl across a "cat walk," a wooden platform approximately two feet wide, to reach the air handler that he had to repair. 8. The "cat walk" is located above the ceiling of the Hotel Carlisle's grand ballroom, approximately thirty feet above the ballroom's floor. 9. After crawling across the "cat walk," Mr. Weller realized he needed various tools to make the necessary repairs to the air handler and proceeded to crawl backwards on the "cat walk." 10. Due to the narrow width of the "cat walk," Mr. Weller was unable to turn around. 11. The subject "cat walk" did not have standard safety railings on each side of the wooden platform. 12. While Mr. Weller was crawling backwards, his left foot became tangled in some wires. 13. As Mr. Weller was reaching to untangle his foot, he fell off the "cat walk." 311973 2 14. Mr. Weller fell through the ceiling above the Hotel Carlisle's grand ballroom, and fell approximately thirty feet onto the ballroom's floor. 15. The foregoing fall and all of the injuries and damages set forth hereinafter sustained by Plaintiff Steven Weller are the direct and proximate result of the negligent, careless, wanton and reckless conduct of the Defendants as follows: a) failure to inspect and maintain its premises in accordance with OSHA Walking-Working Surfaces Regulation, 29 C.F.R. §1910.23(c)(1) (2005) ("Every open-sided floor or platform 4 feet or more above adjacent floor or ground level shall be guarded by a standard railing ...."); b) failure to inspect and maintain its premises in accordance with Pennsylvania Department of Industry Regulation, 34 Pa. Code §47.231 (2005) ("Railing shall be installed along the edges of every open-sided floor, working platform, runway or balcony which is 6 feet or more above floor or ground level and along the edges of all other platforms or openings in walls, floors or ground levels where the safety of persons is involved."); c) allowing dangerous conditions to exist in an area used by business invitees, such as repairmen; d) failure to properly inspect the premises for dangerous conditions that might pose a hazard to business invitees of which the Hotel Carlisle was aware or should have been aware; e) failure to properly warn business invitees of the possibility of dangerous conditions and the possibility of injury to business invitees; f) failure to take action and precautions that a reasonably prudent property owner would under the circumstances for the protection of business invitees; g) failure to exercise the high degree of care that a business or landowner owes to business invitees utilizing the premises for its intended purposes; h) failure to properly inspect the said "cat walk" to discover the dangerous condition created by its narrow width and lack of a proper railing and to correct or warn of this dangerous condition; and 311973 i) failure to provide a safe working environment to repairmen that, by necessity, would have to crawl to the subject air handler on a "cat walk" that should have had safety railings. CLAIM I Steven Weller v. TV Cable Co.; Glendale Lodging L.P. II; and Glendale Management Company II d/b/a Hotel Carlisle 16. Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 17. Mr. Weller sustained painful and severe injuries which include but are not limited to a laceration on his left elbow, left intertrochanteric hip fracture, left calcaneus fracture, right shoulder injury, and left pelvis fracture. 18. By reason of the aforesaid injuries sustained by Mr. Weller, he was forced to incur liability for a number of surgeries, medical treatment, medications, hospitalizations, and similar miscellaneous expenses in an effort to restore himself to health, and claim is made therefor. 19. On March 2, 2005, as a direct result of his fall, Mr. Weller underwent open reduction/internal fixation surgery on his left intertrochanteric hip, closed treatment without manipulation surgery on his left pelvis, and surgery where he received a left dynamic hip screw with a 5-hole side plate. 20. On March 7, 2005, as a direct result of his fall, Mr. Weller underwent a closed reduction with percutaneous screw placement into a left calcaneal fracture. 21. On December 1, 2005, as a direct result of his fall, Mr. Weller underwent manipulation of his right shoulder. 22. On January 4, 2006, as a direct result of his fall, Mr. Weller underwent further surgery to remove the orthopedic hardware from his left hip. 311973 4 23. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Mr. Weller has undergone extensive physical therapy and rehabilitation. 24. Because of the nature of his injuries, Mr. Weller has been advised and, therefore, avers that he may be forced to incur similar expenses in the future, and claim is made therefor. 25. Mr. Weller's fall-related medical expenses exceed $68,073.99, and claim is made for all past and future medical expenses. 26. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, Mr. Weller has undergone and in the future may undergo physical and mental suffering, inconvenience in carrying out his daily activities, loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and claim is made therefor. 27. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Mr. Weller has been and in the future may be subject to humiliation and embarrassment, and claim is made therefor. 28. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, Mr. Weller has sustained work loss, loss of opportunity and a permanent diminution of his earning power and capacity, and claim is made therefor. 29. Mr. Weller continues to be plagued by persistent pain and limitation and, therefore, avers that his injuries may be of a permanent nature, causing residual problems for the remainder of his lifetime, and claim is made therefor. 30. As a result of the aforesaid fall and necessary surgery, Mr. Weller has sustained scars which will result in a permanent disfigurement, and claim is made therefor. 311973 5 CLAIM II Laurie Weller v. TV Cable Co.: Glendale Lodaing, L.P. II: and Glendale Management Company 11, d/b/a Hotel Carlisle 29. Paragraphs 1 through 28 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 30. As a result of the aforementioned injuries sustained by her husband, Plaintiff Steven Weller, Plaintiff Laurie Weller has been and may in the future be deprived of the care, companionship, consortium, and society of her husband, all of which will be to her great detriment, and claim is made therefor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Steven Weller and Laurie Weller demand judgment against Defendant Hotel Carlisle in an amount in excess of Thirty-five Thousand Dollars ($35,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. Date: ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. &a. Lutz I.D. No. 35956 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791- phone (717) 238-5610 - fax dlutz@angino-rovner.com Attorney for Plaintiffs 311973 6 VERIFICATION We, Steven Weller and Laurie Weller, Plaintiffs, have read the foregoing COMPLAINT and do hereby swear or affirm that the facts set forth in the foregoing are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. We understand that this Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. WITNESS: Steven Weller Dated: 13 aurie Weller 311973 V2 b r/ Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. Cheryl L. Kovaly, Esquire 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 (717) 233-6633 (telephone) (717) 233-7003 (facsimile) Arty No. PA73693 ckovaly@laverylaw.com Attys for Defendants STEVEN WELLER and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LAURIE WELLER, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. No.: 06-3585 CIVIL TERM TV CABLE CO.; GLENDALE CIVIL ACTION - LAW LODGING, L.P. 11; and GLENDALE MANAGEMENT COMPANY 11, d/b/a JURY TRIAL DEMANDED HOTEL CARLISLE, Defendants ENTRY OF APPEARANCE To: Prothonotary Please enter the appearance of Cheryl L. Kovaly, Esquire, as counsel for all Defendants in the above-referenced matter. DATE: -7 1/-2&'& 1, Respectfully submitted, Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. By: Cheryl L. Kovaly, Esquire 225 Market Street, Suite 3 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 (717) 233-6633 (telephone) (717) 233-7003 (facsimile) Atty No. PA73693 ckovaly@laverylaw.com Attys for Defendants v r' 46 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Blanche A. Morrison, an employee with the law firm of Lavery, Faherty, Young & 61- Patterson, P.C., do hereby certify that on this a 8 day of July, 2006, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance via U.S. First Class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: David L. Lutz, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Attys for Plaintiffs Bl the A. Morrison, Legal Secretary to Cheryl L. Kovaly, Esquire 1 0 Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. Attys for Defendants Cheryl L. Kovaly, Esquire 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 (717) 233-6633 (telephone) (717) 233-7003 (facsimile) Atty No. PA73693 ckovaly@laverylaw.com STEVEN WELLER and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LAURIE WELLER, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. No.: 06-3585 CIVIL TERM TV CABLE CO.; GLENDALE CIVIL ACTION - LAW LODGING, L.P. II; and GLENDALE MANAGEMENT COMPANY II, d/b/a JURY TRIAL DEMANDED HOTEL CARLISLE, Defendants NOTICE TO PLEAD To: Steven Weller and Laurie Weller, c/o David L. Lutz, Esquire You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer with New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. Date: By; -? C eryl L. K valy, Esquire Attorney for Defendants Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. Attys for Defendants Cheryl L. Kovaly, Esquire 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 (717) 233-6633 (telephone) (717) 233-7003 (facsimile) Atty No. PA73693 ckovaly@laverylaw.com STEVEN WELLER and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LAURIE WELLER, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. No.: 06-3585 CIVIL TERM TV CABLE CO.; GLENDALE CIVIL ACTION - LAW LODGING, L.P. H; and GLENDALE MANAGEMENT COMPANY II, d1h1a JURY TRIAL DEMANDED HOTEL CARLISLE, Defendants DEFENDANTS' ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Defendants, TV Cable Company, Glendale Lodging, L.P. II, Glendale Management Company II, d/b/a Hotel Carlisle (hereinafter, collectively referred to as "Defendants"), by and through their attorneys, Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C., and respond to the complaint filed in this matter, and aver as follows: 1. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted only that, upon information and belief, Plaintiffs are citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity of the remaining averments of this paragraph, pertaining to Plaintiffs' residence, which are therefore denied with strict proof demanded. 2 2. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant TV Cable Company is a Pennsylvania Corporation with a principal place of business at the stated address. It is admitted that Defendant TV Cable Company is a general partner with Defendant Glendale Lodging, L.P. II. It is admitted that Defendant Glendale Lodging, L.P. II is a Pennsylvania limited partnership with a principal place of business at the stated address. It is denied that Defendant TV Cable Company is in a general partnership with Defendant Glendale Management Company II. It is admitted that Defendant Glendale Management Company II is a Pennsylvania Corporation with its principal place of business at the stated address. It is denied that Defendant Glendale Management Company II is the registered fictitious owner of the Hotel Carlisle; rather, Defendant Glendale Lodging, L.P. II owns the Hotel Carlisle, and Defendant Glendale Management Company II is the entity that operates the Hotel Carlisle. It is admitted that the Hotel Carlisle is a hotel located at the stated address. 3. Admitted, upon information and belief. 4. Admitted, upon information and belief. 5. Admitted in part. Denied in part. These averments are denied as they are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the same are therefore deemed to be denied. It is admitted only that Weller arrived at the Hotel Carlisle in response to a service call placed to Bretz & Company for repair a malfunctioning air handler located in the mezzanine, above the hotel's Grand Ballroom ceiling. 6. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted only that, upon arriving at the Hotel Carlisle, Mr. Weller and Joseph Gant, his co-worker, responded to the mezzanine area to evaluate and repair the air handler. It is denied that the Hotel Carlisle's maintenance supervisor directed either Mr. Weller or Mr. Gant to the area above the ceiling of the Grand Ballroom. 3 7. Admitted. 8. Denied as stated. It is admitted only that the cat walk is located above the ceiling of the Hotel Carlisle's Grand Ballroom, and that the catwalk is located approximately 25 to 30 feet above the Grand Ballroom floor. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity of the averments set forth in this paragraph, which averments are therefore denied with strict proof demanded. 10. Denied. It is denied that the cat walk is too narrow in width to permit a person utilizing the catwalk from turning around. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity of Mr. Weller's averred perceptions regarding the width of the cat walk, which averments are therefore denied with strict proof demanded. 11. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted only that the cat walk did not have railings affixed to either side. It is denied that the catwalk did not have "standard safety railings," as Defendants do not know what Plaintiffs mean by this term and Defendants are therefore unable to form a belief as to the veracity of this averment, which is denied with strict proof demanded. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity of the averments set forth in this paragraph, which averments are therefore denied with strict proof demanded. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity of the averments set forth in this paragraph, which averments are therefore denied with strict proof demanded. 14. Admitted. 4 15. Denied. These averments are denied as they are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the same are therefore deemed to be denied. To the extent that this paragraph contains averments of fact to which a response is required, such averments are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. a) Denied. These averments are denied as they are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the same are therefore deemed to be denied. To the extent that this paragraph contains averments of fact to which a response is required, such averments are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. b) Denied. These averments are denied as they are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the same are therefore deemed to be denied. To the extent that this paragraph contains averments of fact to which a response is required, such averments are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. C) Denied. These averments are denied as they are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the same are therefore deemed to be denied. To the extent that this paragraph contains averments of fact to which a response is required, such averments are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. d) Denied. These averments are denied as they are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the same are therefore deemed to be denied. To the extent that this paragraph contains 5 averments of fact to which a response is required, such averments are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. e) Denied. These averments are denied as they are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the same are therefore deemed to be denied. To the extent that this paragraph contains averments of fact to which a response is required, such averments are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. f) Denied. These averments are denied as they are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the same are therefore deemed to be denied. To the extent that this paragraph contains averments of fact to which a response is required, such averments are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. g) Denied. These averments are denied as they are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the same are therefore deemed to be denied. To the extent that this paragraph contains averments of fact to which a response is required, such averments are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. h) Denied. These averments are denied as they are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the same are therefore deemed to be denied. To the extent that this paragraph contains averments of fact to which a response is required, such averments are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 6 i) Denied. These averments are denied as they are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the same are therefore deemed to be denied. To the extent that this paragraph contains averments of fact to which a response is required, such averments are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Count I Steven Weller v. TV Cable Co.; Glendale Lodging L.P. II, and Glendale Management Company II, d/b/a Hotel Carlisle 16. The averments of the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 15 of this Answer are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in this paragraph of the complaint, and the same are therefore denied with strict proof demanded. lg. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted only that Mr. Weller underwent medical treatment for injuries sustained when he fell. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph of the complaint, and the same are therefore denied with strict proof demanded. 19. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted only that Mr. Weller underwent medical treatment for injuries sustained when he fell. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph of the complaint, and the same are therefore denied with strict proof demanded. 20. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted only that Mr. Weller underwent medical treatment for injuries sustained when he fell. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph of the complaint, and the same are therefore denied with strict proof demanded. 7 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph of the complaint, and the same are therefore denied with strict proof demanded. 22. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted only that Mr. Weller underwent medical treatment for injuries sustained when he fell. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph of the complaint, and the same are therefore denied with strict proof demanded. 23. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted only that Mr. Weller underwent medical treatment for injuries sustained when he fell. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph of the complaint, and the same are therefore denied with strict proof demanded. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph of the complaint, and the same are therefore denied with strict proof demanded. 25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph of the complaint, and the same are therefore denied with strict proof demanded. 26. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph of the complaint, and the same are therefore denied with strict proof demanded. 27. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph of the complaint, and the same are therefore denied with strict proof demanded. 28. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph of the complaint, and the same are therefore denied with strict proof demanded. 8 29. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph of the complaint, and the same are therefore denied with strict proof demanded. 30. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph of the complaint, and the same are therefore denied with strict proof demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor and against the Plaintiffs, and that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Count II Laurie Weller v. TV Cable Co.; Glendale Lodging L.P. Il, and Glendale Management Company II, d/b/a Hotel Carlisle 31. The averments of the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 30 of this Answer are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 32. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph of the complaint, and the same are therefore denied with strict proof demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor and against the Plaintiffs, and that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. NEW MATTER 33. Upon information and belief, the structure currently known as the Hotel Carlisle was constructed in or around 1965, and the Grand Ballroom addition was constructed in or around 1972. 34. Upon information and belief, the ladders, platforms and cat walks providing access to the air handler above the Grand Ballroom ceiling on o? about March 2, 2005, were constructed after the Grand Ballroom was built. 9 35. Defendants do not know who built the ladder, landings and/or cat walk, or when these structures were constructed. 36. The ladder, landings and cat wanks providing access to the Grand Ballroom air handler were already in existence when Defendants assumed ownership of the Hotel Carlisle in or around 1999. 37. Defendants have made no renovations or alterations to the ladder, platforms or cat walks in question since assuming ownership of the Hotel Carlisle. 38. Absent construction, renovation or alteration of a structure, no duty exists to bring such structure into compliance with current building or safety code standards. 39. Defendants were not negligent. 40. Defendants' agents, servants and/or employees were not negligent. 41. In March of 2005, Defendant Glendale Management had in place a maintenance and service contract with Bretz & Company. 42. Bretz & Company was an independent contractor to Defendants. 43. Bretz & Company employed Mr. Weller. 44. Bretz & Company, as Mr. Weller's employer, and Mr. Weller himself were primarily responsible for Mr. Weller's safety. 45. Defendants had no general duty to prepare or maintain a safe building for the benefit of Bretz & Company's employees, including Mr. Weller, who were working in or on the building. 46. Defendants had no duty to protect Mr. Weller from dangers existing upon the Hotel Carlisle premises that were equally open and obvious to Mr. Weller as they were to Defendants. 47. Defendants had no duty to warn Mr. Weller of dangers existing upon the Hotel Carlisle premises that were equally open and obvious to Mr. Weller as they were to Defendants. 48. The absence of railings on the sides of the cat walks and/or platforms providing access to the air handler above the Grand Ballroom ceiling cbnstituted an open and obvious danger. I 10 49. This open and obvious danger posed by the unguarded landings and/or cat walks was at least as obvious to Mr. Weller as it was to Defendants and/or their employees. 50. The access system existing above= the Grand Ballroom ceiling is not atypical of structures of similar age and type existing in this geographical area. 51. The use of such an access system is not an uncommon practice for heating, ventilation and air conditioning repair technicians such as Mr. Weller. 52. The hazards posed by the ladder, (landings and cat walks located above the Grand Ballroom ceiling were within the usual and ordinary risk associated with the construction, installation and/or repair of heating, ventilation and/or air conditioning systems. 53. The cat walk from which Mr. Weller allegedly fell was not too narrow for an employee utilizing same to turn around. 54. The existence of side rails on the cat walk in question may not have prevented Mr. Weller's fall, depending upon the manner in which this accident actually occurred. 55. Defendants were entitled to assume that Mr. Weller possessed sufficient skill and specialized knowledge to recognize the dangers involved with the air handler access system, and to adjust his methods of work accordingly. 56. Upon information and belief, Mr. Weller was feeling ill and consumed cold medication prior to commencing work at the Hotel Carlisle on March 2, 2005. 57. The effects of said illness, cold medications and/or other controlled substance may have caused or contributed to Mr. Weller's fall. 58. Mr. Weller assumed the risk of injury. 59. Mr. Weller's accident and injuries may have been the result of Mr. Weller's failure to exercise appropriate attention to his path of travel. 60. Mr. Weller's accident and injuries may have been the result of Mr. Weller's failure to act in a reasonably prudent fashion while u ilizing the landing and/or cat walk system. 11 61. Mr. Weller was contributorily negligent. 62. Mr. Weller's negligence exceeds that of Defendants and/or Defendants' agents, servants and/or employees, if such negligence) is proven. 63. The incident, injuries and/or damages alleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiffs were not proximately caused by Defendants. 64. Any acts or omissions of Defendants and/or Defendants' agents, servants and/or employees alleged to constitute negligence Were not substantial causes or factors of the subject incident and/or did not result in the injuries arid/or losses alleged by the Plaintiffs. 65. The negligent acts or omissions of other individuals and/or entities may have constituted intervening, superseding causes of the damages and/or injuries alleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiffs. 66. Plaintiffs may not have properly mitigated their alleged damages. 67. The complaint fails to assert a claim or cause of action for which relief may be granted against Defendants TV Cable Company, Glendale Lodging, L.P. II, and/or Glendale Management Company II, d/b/a Hotel Carlisle, as a matter of law. 68. The claims asserted in the plalintiffs' complaint may be barred and/or limited by accord and satisfaction, payment and/or release. 69. The claims asserted in the plaintiffs' complaint may be barred and/or limited by the statute of limitations. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor and against the Plaintiffs, and that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. 12 Respectfully submitted, DATE: ?- Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. By: Cheryl L. Ko aly, Esquire 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 (717) 233-6633 (telephone) (717) 233-7003 (facsimile) Atty No. PA73693 ckovaly@laverylaw.com Attys for Defendants 13 VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer are based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the defense of this lawsuit. The language of the Answer is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Answer and to the extent that the Answer is based upon information which I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the Answer are that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this verification. The undersigned also understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. CO Dater By: GLEND LODG G ,P.II Dater By: GLENDALE MANAGEMENT COMPANY 11, T1A MCARLJS4 Date: 7 d By, 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Blanche A. Morrison, an employee with the law firm of Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C., do hereby certify that on this -q day of July, 2006, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer with New Matter via U.S. First Class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: David L. Lutz, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Counsel for Plaintiffs Bl the A. Morrison, Legal Secretary to Cheryl L. Kovaly, Esquire 15 - ?:, C> _a -, ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. David L. Lutz, Esquire Attomey ID# : 35956 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110.1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: dlutz@angino-rovner.com STEVEN WELLER and LAURIE WELLER, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 06-3585 CIVIL TERM V. TV CABLE CO.; GLENDALE LODGING, L.P. II; and GLENDALE MANAGEMENT COMPANY II, d/b/a HOTEL CARLISLE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER 33. The Plaintiffs are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to when the Hotel Carlisle was constructed and/or when the Grand Ballroom was constructed. 34. The Plaintiffs are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to when the subject platforms and cat walks providing access to the air handler above the Grand Ballroom ceiling was constructed. 35. No response necessary. 332520 36. It is admitted that the Defendants, as the owner of the Hotel Carlisle, were responsible for the safety of business invitees that would be utilizing the ladder, landings, and cat walks providing access to the Defendants' Grand Ballroom air handler. 37. Plaintiffs can neither admit and/or deny that Defendants made no renovations or alterations to the ladder, platform, or cat walks in question, but the Plaintiffs do admit that the Defendants, as owners of the Hotel Carlisle, were responsible for the safety with regard to the ladder, platform, and cat walks on its property. 38. Denied. This averment is denied as it is a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs' factual allegations contained in the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 39. Denied. This averment is denied as it is a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs' factual allegations contained in the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 40. Denied. This averment is denied as it is a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs' factual allegations contained in the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 41. The Plaintiffs can neither admit and/or deny that Defendant Glendale Management had a maintenance service contract with Bretz & Company. 42. The Plaintiffs can neither admit and/or deny that Defendant Glendale Management had a maintenance service contract with Bretz & Company. 43. Admitted. 44. through 55. Denied. All averments contained in paragraphs 44 through 55 are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil 332520 2 Procedure. The factual allegations contained in Plaintiffs' Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 56. and 57. It is admitted that Plaintiff Steven Weller had a "head cold" on March 2, 2005, but did not take any cold medication on the day of the fall. It is further admitted that the sole cause of Plaintiff Steven Weller's fall was the Defendants' negligence. 58. through 69. Denied. This averment is denied as it is a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The factual allegations contained in Plaintiffs' Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Defendants' New Matter be dismissed. Date: U / ? /, w ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. O David L. Lutz I.D. No. 35956 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 -phone (717) 238-5610 - fax dlutz@angino-rovner.com Attorney for Plaintiffs 332520 3 u . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary T. Geraets, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of the PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER upon all counsel of record via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Cheryl L. Kovaly, Esquire Lavery, Faherty, et al. 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 Attorney for Defendants Dated: G / 1,O-L 332520 . ? ?;- SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2006-03585 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND WELLER STEVEN ET AL VS TV CABLE CO ET AL MICHAEL BARRICK Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE TV CABLE CO DEFENDANT the , at 0855:00 HOURS, on the 10th day of July , 2006 at 1700 HARRISBURG PIKE CARLISLE, PA 17013 was served upon by handing to MORGAN DAWSON, REGIONAL MANAGER, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: So Answers: Docketing 18.00 Service 4.40 Postage .39 Surcharge 10.00 R. Thomas Kline nn 32.79,? 07/10/2006 qw_ 7/x/04 ANGINO & ROVNER Sworn and Subscibed to ( By: before me this day Deputy S eriff of A.D. V . 1 CASE NO: 2006-03585 P SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND WELLER STEVEN ET AL VS TV CABLE CO ET AL MICHAEL BARRICK Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon GLENDALE LODGING LP II the DEFENDANT , at 0855:00 HOURS, on the 10th day of July , 2006 at 1700 HARRISBURG PIKE CARLISLE, PA 17013 MORGAN DAWSON, REGIONAL by handing to MANAGER, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: So Answers: Docketing 6.00 i, Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 R. Thomas Kline 16.00,,/ 07/10/2006 /?p4 ANGINO & ROVNER Sworn and Subscibed to B before me this day Deputy Sheriff of A. D. CASE NO: 2006-03585 P SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND WELLER STEVEN ET AL VS TV CABLE CO ET AL MICHAEL BARRICK , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon GLENDALE MANAGEMENT COMPANY II D/B/A HOTEL CARLISLE the DEFENDANT , at 0855:00 HOURS, on the 10th day of July , 2006 at 1700 HARRISBURG PIKE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to MORGAN DAWSON, REGIONAL MANAGER, ADULT IN CHARGE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge Sworn and Subscibed to before me this of So Answers: 6.00 .00?r._?? ^., .00 10.00 R. Thomas Kline .00 16.00 v-"0711012006 ANGINO & ROVNER By: day eputy her ff A. D. ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. David L. Lutz, Esquire Attorney ID# : 35956 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: dlutz@angino-rovner.com STEVEN WELLER and LAURIE WELLER, Plaintiffs V. TV CABLE CO.; GLENDALE LODGING, L.P. II; and GLENDALE MANAGEMENT COMPANY II, d/b/a HOTEL CARLISLE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 06-3585 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANTS - SET NO. 1 To: Defendants, by and through counsel, Cheryl Kovaly, Esquire Please take notice that you are hereby required, pursuant to Rule 4014 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 36), to serve upon the undersigned within thirty (30) days from service, your response to the admission(s) requested herein: 1. Do you admit that Defendant Glendale Lodging, L.P. II owns the Hotel Carlisle located at 1700 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania? Admit Deny 337508 2. Do you admit that on March 2, 2005, at approximately 3:00 p.m. at the Hotel Carlisle, Steven Weller was sent by his employer, Bretz & Company, Inc., to repair an air handler located above the ceiling in the Hotel Carlisle's Grand Ballroom? Admit Deny 3. Do you admit that in order to make the necessary repairs to the air handler, Mr. Weller had to climb a ladder and then crawl across a "cat walk," a wooden platform approximately two feet wide, to reach the air handler that he had to repair? Admit Deny 4. Do you admit that the cat walk is located above the ceiling of the Hotel Carlisle's Grand Ballroom and that the cat walk is located approximately 25 to 30 feet above the Grand Ballroom floor? Admit Deny 5. Do you admit that the cat walk did not have railing affixed to either side? Admit Deny 6. Do you admit that Mr. Weller fell through the ceiling above the Hotel Carlisle's Grand Ballroom and fell approximately 30 feet onto the Ballroom's floor? Admit Deny ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. David L. Lutz I.D. No. 35956 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 -phone (717) 238-5610 - fax dlutz@angino-rovner.com Attorney for Plaintiffs Date: 337508 II, ' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary T. Geraets, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of the PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANTS - SET NO. 1 upon all counsel of record via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Cheryl L. Kovaly, Esquire Lavery, Faherty, et al. 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 Attorney for Defendants Dated: \? ? rS Mary T Geraets i 337508 CD y _ E- J Co 4 9 ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. David L. Lutz, Esquire Attorney ID# : 35956 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: dlutz@angino-rovner.com STEVEN WELLER and LAURIE WELLER, Plaintiffs V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 06-3585 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants I JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS! ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANTS - SET NO. I TV CABLE CO.; GLENDALE LODGING, L.P. II; and GLENDALE MANAGEMENT COMPANY II, d/b/a HOTEL CARLISLE, To: Defendants, by and through counsel, Cheryl Kovaly, Esquire Please take notice that you are hereby required, pursuant to Rule 4014 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 36), to serve upon the undersigned within thirty (30) days from service, your response to the admission(s) requested herein: 1. Do you admit that Defendant Glendale Lodging, L.P. II owns the Hotel Carlisle located at 1700 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania? Admit X Deny 337508 1 fi 2. Do you admit that on March 2, 2005, at approximately 3:00 p.m. at the Hotel Carlisle, Steven Weller was sent by his employer, Bretz & Company, Inc., to repair an air handler located above the ceiling in the Hotel Carlisle's Grand Ballroom? Admit Deny X (See ktt?ched sheet.) 3. Do you admit that in order to make the necessary repairs to the air handler, Mr. Weller had to climb a ladder and then crawl across a "cat walk," a wooden platform approximately two feet wide, to reach the air handler that he had to repair? Admit Deny X (See attached sheet.) 4. Do you admit that the cat walk is located above the ceiling of the Hotel Carlisle's Grand Ballroom and that the cat walk is located approximately 25 to 30 feet above the Grand Ballroom floor? Admit X% Deny 5. Do you admit that the cat walk did not have railing affixed to either side? Admit X Deny 6. Do you admit that Mr. Weller fell through the ceiling above the Hotel Carlisle's Grand Ballroom and fell approximately 30 feet onto the Ballroom's floor? Admit. x Date: ?? . f\ Deny ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. David L. Lutz I.D. No. 35956 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 -phone (717) 238-5610 - fax dlutz@angino-rovner.com Attorney for Plaintiffs 337508 Attachment to Defendant's Answers to Plaintiff's Request for Admissions to Defendants - Set No.1 2. 3 Deny. It is admitted only that, on March 2, 2005, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Steven Weller was present at the Hotel Carlisle and that he was, upon information and belief, employed by Bretz & Company, Inc., at the time. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny that Weller was sent by Bretz & Company to repair the air handler located above the ceiling of the Hotel Carlisle's Grand Ballroom. Deny. It is denied that the ladder and catwalk had to be used to reach the air handler. The Defendants had available on site a mechanical lift that had previously been offered to Bretz & Company employees for use in accessing the air handler in question, which offers had been declined. The mechanical lift may have provided access to the area of the air handler on which repairs were to be made on March 2, 2005. DATE: Respecttfully submitted, Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. By: Cheryl 1 Kovaly, Esq r 225 Market Street, Suite 04 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 (717) 233-6633 (telephone) (717) 233-7003 (facsimile) Atty No. PA73693 ckovaly@laverylaw.com Attys for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary T. Geraets, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of the PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANTS - SET NO. 1 upon all counsel of record via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Cheryl L. Kovaly, Esquire Lavery, Faherty, et al. 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 Attorney for Defendants Dated: i 337508 Oct 25 06 09:13a Waymaker (717) 245-9277 P•1 VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answers to Request for Admissions - Set No. 1 are based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the defense of this lawsuit. The language of the Answer is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Answer and to the extent that the Answer is based upon information which I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the Answer are that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this verification. The undersigned also understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. TV C O P Date:_ By: GLEND I , L.P Date: !a Ofo By: i GLENDALE MANAGEMENT COMPANY 11, T/VHOI IS Date: aZ gdG By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Blanche A. Morrison, an employee with the law firm of Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C., do hereby certify that on this day of October, 2006, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answers to Request for Admissions, via U.S. First Class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: David L. Lutz, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Counsel for Plaintiffs Blanche A. Morrison, Legal Secretary to Cheryl L. Kovaly, Esquire C? ? C al a c' } 1? s-s? ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. David L. Lutz, Esquire Attorney ID# : 35956 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: dlutz@angino-rovner.com STEVEN WELLER and LAURIE WELLER, Plaintiffs V. TV CABLE CO.; GLENDALE LODGING, L.P. II; and GLENDALE MANAGEMENT COMPANY II, d/b/a HOTEL CARLISLE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 06-3585 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANTS - SET NO.2 To: Defendants, by and through counsel, Cheryl Kovaly, Esquire Please take notice that you are hereby required, pursuant to Rule 4014 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 36), to serve upon the undersigned within thirty (30) days from service, your response to the admission(s) requested herein: I . Do you admit that the catwalk located above the ceiling of the Hotel Carlisle's grand ballroom was a platform more than four feet above the ground level, but it was not guarded by a standard railing? Admit Deny 343257 2. Do you admit that the catwalk located above the ceiling of the Hotel Carlisle's grand ballroom was a working platform six or more feet above the ground level where railings were not installed along the edges of the working platform? Admit Deny 3. Do you admit that on March 2, 2005, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Steve Weller was present at the Hotel Carlisle and that he was employed by Bretz & Company, Inc., at the time? Admit Deny 4. Do you admit that a representative of the Defendant entered into a preventative maintenance contract with Bretz & Company that was applicable as of March 2, 2005? Admit Deny ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. rl?_ Da v*`. Lutz I.D. No. 35956 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 -phone (717) 238-5610 - fax dlutz@angino-rovner.com Attorney for Plaintiffs Date: 1 343257 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary T. Geraets, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of the PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANTS - SET NO. 2 upon all counsel of record via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Cheryl L. Kovaly, Esquire Lavery, Faherty, et al. 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 Attorney for Defendants Dated: ? ? !) ^ V Wry T. Geraets 343257 c:' ?-P -=- c? ._;. : . ?;. , ".;;? .?? ? ? Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. Cheryl L. Kovaly, Esquire 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 (717) 233-6633 (telephone) (717) 233-7003 (facsimile) Atty No. PA73693 ckovaly@laverylaw.com Attys for Defendants STEVEN WELLER and LAURIE WELLER, Plaintiffs V. TV CABLE CO.; GLENDALE LODGING, L.P. II; and GLENDALE MANAGEMENT COMPANY II, d/b/a HOTEL CARLISLE, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No.: 06-3585 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, the Defendants hereby certify that. 1. a notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty (20) days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served; 2. a copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to this certificate; 3. no objection to the subpoena has been received; and 4. the subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. DATE: J/ / /0-7 Respectfully submitted, Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. By: Cheryl L. ovaly Atty No. 73693 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 Attys for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kelly Mazer, an employee QQof the law firm of Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C., do hereby certify that on thisy day of January 2007, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Certificate Prerequisite to Service of Subpoenas Pursuant to Rule 4009.22 via U.S. First Class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: David L. Lutz, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Kelly M. 94azer Paralegal to Cheryl L. Kovaly f Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. Cheryl L. Kovaly, Esquire 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 (717) 233-6633 (telephone) (717) 233-7003 (facsimile) Atty No. PA73693 ckovaly@laverylaw.com STEVEN WELLER and LAURIE WELLER, Plaintiffs V. No.: 06-3585 CIVIL TERM TV CABLE CO.; GLENDALE CIVIL ACTION - LAW LODGING, L.P. II; and GLENDALE MANAGEMENT COMPANY 11, d/b/a JURY TRIAL DEMANDED HOTEL CARLISLE, Defendants NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. RULE NO. 4009.21 TO: COUNSEL/PARTIES OF RECORD Defendant, TV Cable Company, Glendale Lodging, L.P. II, Glendale Management Company 11, d/b/a Hotel Carlisle intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made, the subpoena may be served. Respectfully submitted, Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. Date: %?.k? 74,C, Attys for Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA r1 By: ?/ 4L1 ' . `' Cheryl l- Kovaly, Es ire Atty No. 73693 225 Market Street, Suite P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 Attorney for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kelly M. Mazer, an employee with the law firm of Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C., do hereby certify that on this day of December, 2006, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Intent to Serve a Subpoena via U.S. First Class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: David L. Lutz, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Kelly M. azer Paralegal to Cheryl L. Kovaly CONLMONWEALT-H OF PENNSY"LV:4N24 COU?Nrry OF C JNMERL_AND STEVEN WELLER and LAURIE WELLER, Plaintiffs V File No. 06-3585 TV CABLE CO.; GLENDALE LODGING, L.P. II; and GLENDALE MANAGEMENT COMPANY H, d/b/a HOTEL CARLISLE, Defendants SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Dr. Shannen /Internists of Central PA (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all medical records including but not limited to the entire medical - chart-',-' corresponderiee, hurses_notes, progress reports, radiology repcrts and any other documentation pertaining to Steven Weller. at Iavery,Faherty,Young & Patteson, P.C., 225 Market St. Suite 304, Hbg. PA 17101 (Address) You may deliver or mail Legible copies of the documents or produce Things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies of producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days afterits service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT TEE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Cheryl L. Kovaly, Esquire ADDRESS: PO Box 1245 Hazriskurg,. PA 17108 TELEPHONE: ( 717 ) 2 3 3-6633 SUPREME COURT ID #-7 3 693 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendants D ate: Seal of the Court BY THE COURT: Prothonotary, Civil Division Deputy Q ? TJ L7? p„ rTiE' ? co 0. 1 < P- ,, ? ? (:-? W C) - C C- ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. David L. Lutz, Esquire Attorney ID# : 35956 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: dlutz@angino-rovner.com STEVEN WELLER and LAURIE WELLER, Plaintiffs V. TV CABLE CO.; GLENDALE LODGING, L.P. II; and GLENDALE MANAGEMENT COMPANY II, d/b/a HOTEL CARLISLE, Defendants To the Prothonotary of Cumberland County: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 06-3585 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE Please mark the above-captioned action settled, satisfied, and discontinued. ANG O & ROVNER, P.C. David L. Lutz I.D. No. 35956 Date: -j .-( ? .-0 329683 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791- phone (717) 238-5610 - fax dlutz@angino-rovner.com Attorney for Plaintiffs ORIGINAL -.I- • T CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary T. Geraets, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of the PRAECIPE upon all counsel of record via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Cheryl L. Kovaly, Esquire Lavery, Faherty, et al. 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 Attorney for Defendants Dated: . Ge ets 329683 i