The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About94-00384 1,'1 ,,' , \ 'I', ~ ~ 4, I '" ", 'I 'I ,j ,I ,i" J " 'til " , " I 'I 'I., . ? i,1 " " , I' ''I ,I , , '" 'a ~ , 'II " I' Ij "1 " 't, 'I,' .. , ' ii, I " ilt, , I , " I 'I ., il f ...... " II J , " iI " ,I " .. 'I' " " , , " " (j , , \ " , ~.-. I / J , FRANr.r~ MOIlAN/1II1d VIOlA MORAN, tlls I'll fl), P1Cllnt.l ffs #1 IN !llf COUfn OF COMMON PI FA~ OF CllMllffll ANn COIJNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V, EXfl. LOGISTIC S. rNC,. (I ARK EOUIPMENT COMPANY, HFRSHFY , CHOCOl.ATE USA, HERSHEY FOODS: CORPORATION, InrHVlrluollv and t/d/h/o HERSHEY CHOCOI ATE USA, DAUTFC ASSOCIATE~ LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, onc] FORK!. IFTS INC, , CIVIl ACTION", lAW Defenrlonts NO. 38/1 CIVIl. 1991~ PRETRIAL CONFERENCE At n pr'lltriol conference Ilelrl DIlCf'IlIber 27, 1995, before Edgar f\, Bayley, Judge, present for the plaintiffs was Dennis R, Sheaffer, Esquire, one! for till! IlfJfendont E:<el l.oglstics, Inr." 6eol'ge 1\, Follel', .Jr" FSQulre, Plolntiff, Fronds Mol'CJn, 0 Ir',lck rlrIVPI'" wos picking UP product ot 0 woreholF,e In New KUlgstnwll wllAn Ile wos struck by (] forklift operotecj by RY(Jn (jlfls~,1wr, fin PIJl[)IOYf11' of rlefendunt, EXPol I nylstlcs, Inc, Plolnt1 ff dolln" tlll]l tl'll! Ileg[Jgent oPPI'ot,lon or till! ro!"kJ I ft ('(J115(HI lIlli' II S[II-lollS (']n~,r!(1 IlfHlr! Injury, tll! r.lolms to suffer f, 0111 Ilypel"Snnlll!n ~11'Ilcll 1.s 0 condl linn tliflt l'eslI]t~l In 111.m fnllllHJ nslt!f'p n 101. HI? part1e~ ngrpp flllll tl'le cost! ~.II 1 1 PI"OCfll!(1 If) 0 jlllY (HJotnst Exel I Of) I ~ 1[0. Tnc" onlY, Fvon t11011yh Ilefl!fH1\Jt1t Ilelljr~; Itot)jllty, 11' hns puId plolnttrf OPp,-oxll11o1'p]Y$?O.OOO,r)O III IIIPIIIr.nls rlfld $RS,OOO,OO in lost WC1(}l!S Pl(ltntlfr ';flf\~.S !.IPIlPI'nl (JrJm()!Jf~s, flltllre lost woues onrt loss of eCJl'nlny clIllllr!ty, l'1.nlnt,l.ff Iwllf!Vf!5 thut 5f!POrote IntpnO(jol'orh", 51)011111 I'll' IHfI".f!lltfld to l'llt' jlll'Y rOI IIIpdjrol flXPfltlSeS to dnlf.' oncl 100,t ~/og"s 1<1 <'IntI' nnd tllot I'Iw jlJry should . . t.lll told ttHlt dlltel1llol1t 110S nol<l tlJ()<f! OllIlIUI1I', Ill' f P III I 011 t mo1nt.o1.ns t !HlI 110 1 11 frll'lll,] I tOil I (!Ul/r Ii I II\) I Ill! PXpfHl';I!S 01" poymfmts should he mode 10 II'II! jllfY IJIII nlturrllltl'lely, 11 1nterrogotor lor, nn' sut)/1I1 tfflll, IIw Jury ';Ill)! I 1(1 nol 1)1) tol(J thot defenrlont IHls pold tllOSf} ":~PI!II',eS, PlollIll If Cr;rei!S thol rJefenrJont wOlllrl ff!celvf! n nllrlJ I ngotnst ony nWOI"O for lost WOgllS ond IlIIHjJenl f)XPIHI!;,", to <Inti'. Illnt rlt'lf!rHlnnt 1111S olreodY pOid, Defel1rJont rJgrp.es f:hnl no mot tl~r whnt fhr~ Jllry verdict 15. 1 t woulrl not tJe l'nll t.lerl 10 /'I!U!JVf! Ilnek nny 01 Illosp. poyments, DeffHl(jont sholl provtrle nil outslnnd1ny l!xpnrl' IlIIHl1col report to pjn1.nt J rr Ilot lntpl" IlllHl ,Jnlluory ~, 1 'j9O, F.st.1mated t.1 m e 0 r t r 1 0 l. I won 11 d (J II<J 1 f I () I 11 f I} f! rI 0 Y s , C rJlIrISI' j sllIIll ',11111111 I n 1')1' 1 l'f 10 tile I I' I n I J urJue on the 1.SSIJIJ of I III' PI'oper woy 10 Illl II 01 L f! I lIe lIledJcnl Ol1rJ lost. wages lsslJe, flt!fendnlll's clo 1 illS of r I Cf) out of wl)tetl lile pl1yment.s were mode t ~l In MJ.nnesolo, anrl (Il! fendon I S UU(lf'~ I S lt1Cl t M 1. rllw S 0 to low opp] ,Jes to 011:, I S~IJH, Tillll' rlOHs nol I1Ppeor' COI"I'I!r:1 to this .Ju(Jge; tlOweVlJ1', tile Issue ~llOlIl(i tJe tJrJ,llfed ) / ,~../-> U'/ FrigoI' B. ~ni1Jy, ,j, \, / Denn1.s r~, Sl1eoffer. FSQu1I'e For Plo1nt".1 ffs George B, Faller, .Jr" FsquJ.re For Defendant Fxel loglstlcs / 1'1 :prs ., , Ii I, ~ Cr; -, ~.:.f LIt' ~,! ( (" I, ., ( If,' f11: ~J! ' ,:.- /, ", I, II! C:~ N ~j ~': 1"" r"i ;',);',. I.)."), ..,,' i .... , , ~:' ,l't- t.; 'i:'1-1 ~ I ) 1.1 .. t.-i (,/ , , -./.: l1' N r, ", ~:~ In .1'\ 11 'I I' " ! ." " , , , , , " '" " " " '.', <Ii " , ,'.; 1 i " " i' "'1 /1 ' 'i " " , " , , , I , " ,:1 , , " 'I 'I !; I I: ;' , I' . , " , , ,,' 'I' I ~ I :I ~ 0:: ~ e'-' ~ I h !~Lq~ !t Pi I == III I " II ,.;' , ~ "':;.::J ,~ P? . "LII'\ol~C:CU1 "ffJffIIl,,,.,m,/!'J.'J'J.IJ,'Jh/J v, , t IN THE COURT OF COMMON i'Lli1AS t CUMBERLAND COUNTY, i'ENNSYLVANIA I I NO. JB4 CIVIL 1994 I I CIVIL ACTION - LAW I I I t t t t FRANCIS MORAN and VIOLA MORAN, his wife, i'laintiffs EXEL LOGISTICS, INC., CLARK EQUli'MENT COMi'ANY, HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA, HERSHEY FOODS CORi'ORATION, Individually and t/d/b/a HERSHEY C~OCOLATE USA, DAUTEC ASSOCIATES LIMITED i'ARTNERSHIP, and FORKLIFTS, INC., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTI,rs' PR..TRIAL MEMORANDUM I, Statement of r.at. a. to Liability On January 29, 1992, Plaintiff Francis Moran was an owner/operator truck driver who leased hIs rig to Trailwood Transportation. He was picking up a load of products at. a warehouse at New Kingstown, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, which was operated by Defendant E:xel Logistics, Inc. As Mr. Moran was counting his load as required by Exel l,ogist;icB, Inc., he was struck from behind by a forklift operated by Ryan Glessner. Mr, Moran had no warning as to the approach of the forklift and the forklift operator failed to look behind him in all required directions prior to backing in the direction of Mr. Moran. Mr. Glessner was an employee of Exel Logistics at the time of the accident, Further, Mt'. Glessner admitt.ed that there were no obstructions of his view of Mr. Mqran. He simply did not look in subsequent to the accident, Mr. Moran went locally to the Holy Spirit Hospital, was released and eventually drove his vehicle back to Minnesota. Mr. Moran lives in Minnesota and had to haul his load to Minnesota. After completing that trip, Mr. Moran was no longer able to continue his operation as an independent owner /operator truck driver, SubsequeI\t to finishing the return 2 Ptl/lllIHlIa/ ",.,,,.,,,,.,,,";'~.11"IY,t. I all directions all he was trained and instructed to do. Also, looking in all directions, especially in the direction of operation, was required by the operator's manual for the for.klift in question, There were no backup warning signals on the forklift, As a result. of the impact, plaintiff Fr.ancis Moran was knocked several feet onto the concr.ete warehouse floor, sustaining injuries to a vast majority of his body, but most importantly to his right shoulder and head, Mr. Moran was unconscious for a period of time as a result of the impact. II. "ale raeta aa to D-.-o.. As a result of the accident, Mr, Moran sustained a closed., head injury and traumatic brain injury with post-concussion syndrome, He has accompanying persistent pSYChological problems associated with the traumatic brain injury. He further sustained a severe injury to his right shoulder, as well as various other contusions and abrasions. '~'AllIHq~/ ",,,,,,,,,,,,"/'~.~~.'I.';'/. trip to Minnesota, Mr, Moran has not worked since the date of the aCQident eXGept for in a part-time, temporary job since March 1995. Mr. Moran continued to treat for his cloaed-head injury and right shoulder injury in Minnesota, His care was directed by agents of Defendant Exel Logistics, and the medical expenses incurred for the care of his accident-related injuries were paid for by the insurance carrier for Defendant Exel Logistics. Defendant Exel Logistics, through its insurance carrier, did continue to pay Mr, Moran compensation for the ongoing income loss that he experienced for a period of time, Defendant Exel Logistics will be able to present the exact figures as the costs of medical expenses paid and the amount of income replacement payments made. As a result of being unable to work as a truck driver, Mr. Moran eventually lost the truck he had owned and sustained loss of earnings and earning capacity in an amount over $350,000.00. III. Stat.m.nt a. to principal I..u.. of Liability and Damaa.. It is the Plaintiffs' position that liability is clear and that the Defendant/s employee was negligent in failing to properly back the forklift and failing to maintain a lookout for Mr. Moran. 3 t~.APIHQ81 """,'.,",'m./I~,~~.rl'i/,f, 3, Trailwood Transportation's records, 4, I'hotogr.aphs of t he area of the' accident. 5, Wage loss and loss of earning capacity exhibit, VXX. etatua of S.ttlement N.aotiatio~. Plaintiffs have made a demand of $700,000,00 and Defendant Exel Logistics has made no offer at the present, Plaintiff has stipulated to the dismissal of all Defendants except for Exel Logistics, Inc,. and the matters are concluded a/3 to those Defendants, Plaintiffs, therefore, request that the caption in this case be revised to reflect only Exel Logi,stios, Ino" as the remaining Defendant. Respectfully submitted, HEPFORD, SWARTZ & MORGAN Datel I,,: '';I,p....''5'- ;:~ --r~" /.l j;j By I "f:::::;P . ~:-. Dennis R; Saffer Attorney I,D. ~39182 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 88 9 Harrisburg, PA 1.7108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS , , 5 .. 'HI,Un 1l^'....IIIf,IH.AVI~H ./\ WD I'IM 11.& 1"Uhl.IIJIJlI"'IIIIOHAM .'''lull 1Z"U,'HIlI 1'111 IJM )11'111\111) FRANCIS MORAN and VIOLA MORAN. his wife, Plaintilfs IN nm COURT OF COMMON PLl!AS OJI CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v, EXEL LOGISTICS, INC.. CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY. HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA. HERSHEY FOODS CORPORATlON.lndividuallyand t/d/b/a HERSHEY CHOCOLATE lISA. DAU1J\~ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. and FORKLIFTS, INC,. CIVIL ACTION. LAW NO, 3114 CIVIL 1994 Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRE.TRIAI. MEMORANDUM OF DEFENDANTS EXEL I.OGlSTlCS. INC. HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA. HERSHEY FOODS CORPORATION Individually and t/d/b/Il HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA AND DAUTEC ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP I, BASIC FACTS AS TO LIABILITY On January 20. 1992. the Plabuilf. an independent owner/operator, was preparing to load his tractor trailer at the Exel Logistics facility in New Kingston. Cumberland County, At that time, a forklift operated by an Exel Logistics employee backed out of another tractor trailer and struck Mr, Moran. knocking him to the ground, Neither the forklift operator or the Plaintiff saw or heard each other prior to the accident. Mr, Moran was treated and released at Holy Spirit Hospital. He returned to his tractor trailer. slept In his truck overnight and then returned to Holy Spirit Hospital the next morning and proceeded to take his load back to Minnesota 1\, BASIC FACTS AS TO DAMAGES Mr, Moran is claiming a head injury and as to the particulars of the results of that head injury, see Plaintitfs' Memorandum, He is also claiming to have sutlered a shoulder Injury as a result of this accident, Plaintltl's' most slgnit1cant claim Is that the PlalntllT sulTers from a post. traumatic hypersomnia. an organic sleep disorder. and has therefore been unable and will be unable to continue his employment as a tractor trailer driver, I, \II, PRINCIPAL ISSUES I A, Nellllllence of Defendant Exel and comparative nellllllence of the Plaintilf, and I), The dismissal of all parties other than Exel LOllistlcs, Inc, IV, LPOAL ISS1Jf!S: The Defendahts' insurance carrier Initially paid MI', Moran's medical bills as well as $1.713.11 bi-weekly for lost walles since he had no workmen's compensation coverage, These payments totaled $85,840,24, Plalntll1's are therefore precluded from pleading, provlnll or admittinll into evidence these amoullls of damages, In addition, Plaintill's' counsel has indicated that he will attempt to notifY the jury or advise the jury that the Plaintit1' was referred to his treating physicians or sent to his treating physicians by representatives of the Defendants or the Defendants' insurance carrier, This information is irrelevant and even If tangentially relevant, highly prejudicial, and Defendants will be filing a motion In limine in this regard, V, WITNESSES: A, Plaintill's as on cross-examination; 8, Ryan Glessner; C, Paul Schnitzer; D, Gordon Danner; E, Forklift operator that was preparing to load Mr, Moran's truck If he can be Identified; F, Dock manager whom the Defendants are attempting to identity; G, Plaintiffs treating physicians in Minnesota; H, Abram Hostetter, IME Psychiatrist; I. Representative ofTrallwood Transportation; and 1. All witnesses listed by Plaintil1's, VI, EXHIBITS: A, Diagram orthe plant; 8, Photographs of the plant and the forklift involved; C, Plaintill's medical records; 0, Plaintiffs driving records; , , ' " GEORGE F. DOUGLAS, JR. ATTY,I,D, _ 06270 DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS 1& DOUGLAS 27 WEST HIGH STREBT p,O, BOX 261 CARLlSLE, PA. 17013 717-243-1790 ATTORNEY FOR DBFBNDANT, FORKUFI'S, INC, FRANCIS MORAN and VIOLA MORAN V. : IN THB COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : Cl1MBBRLAND COUNTY, PA, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW EXEL LOGISTICS, INC'i CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY, HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USAi HBRSHBY FOODS CORPORATION, Individually and tldlbla HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA, DAlTrEC ASSOCIATES LIMITED P ARTNBRSHIPi FORKLlFl'S,INC, , , : NO, 384 CIVIL 1994 , , : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED D~FBNDJ\1IIT. FORKLlFl'S.llIiC!S. AN5WBB 1. Admitted, ',I 2, Admitted. 3, Admitted, 4, Admitted. !S. Admitted, " 6, Admitted. 7, Admitted, 8. Admitted, 9. Admitted, 10. To the belt of the knowledlJe of the defendanl, Forkllftl, Inc" t~ accident happened at loadlnlJ dock no, 46, rather than nl), 45, 1'1, Admitted, 12, Admitted, COVNT I fRA.NCJS MORAN V, EXJlJ.. LOGIS1JC6. ~ NEGJ..IGBN(;Q , 13,.~, This count applies to another defendant, COUNJ: D FRAlIi~Ii.MO~ V, DAUTEC ~I~ES. ~ 26. - 30, This count applies to another defendant, COUNJ: III fMNCI$MO~ v, HERBijay FOQDSCO~ 31, .3,5, This count applies to another defendant. COUNT IY ~CIS MORAN V, HIlRBJjEY CHOCQLA'[B 36, . 40, This count applies to another defendant. COUNT Y ~QRAN V, CLARK EQUIPMENT CQMPAl>iX ~LIGENCR 41, . 46, This count applies to another defendant, hI) Denied, The answers to paragraphs 61 (a), (b), and (c) are Incorporated herein by reference thereto, I (I) Denied, The answlIrs to paragraphs 61 (a), (b), and (c) are Incorporated herein by refl/rence thereto. (g) Denied, The answers to paragraphs 61 (a), (b), and (c) I are Incorporated herein by referllnce thereto, 62, Denied, Negligence, recklessness, and carelessness are all specifically denied by the defendant, Forklifts, Inc, The answer to paragraph 61 I. Incorporated herein by reference thereto, COU/IjT IX I1Ml'L<;JS MORAN v, FQRKLlFTS. Jflle. STRICT LIABILITY 63. The answer~ to paragraphs 1 through 62 are Incorporated herein by reference thereto, 64, Admitted, 68. Denied, The answer to paragraph 61 Is Incorporated herein by reference thereto, The cause of this accident was the failure of Ryan Glessner, an employee of the defendant, Exel Logistics, Inc., In famng to look behind him before he backed the forklift out of the trailer and onto the loading dock. 66, Denied, The answers to paragraphs 61 and 65 are Incorporated herein by reference thereto. 67, Admitted, 68, Denied, The proximate cause of this accident was the fallur. to look behind him on the part of Ryan Glessner, an employee of the defendant, Ilx.l Logistics, Inc" before backing the said forklift out of the trailer and onto the loading dock. lie did not know that he had struck the plaintiff, Francis Moran, until he heard the plaintiff moaning. I' COJJJf[1~ fUNCI~ MQRAN V. FORKPFI'S. ~NC. DJlAC;;H OF W ARBN'lTY 69, The alUlwerl to paragraphs 1 through 68 are incorporated herein by reference thereto. 70, Admitted, 71, DeNed, The answer. to paragraphs 61 and 65 ar.lncorporated herein by reference thereto. ' 72, Denied. reference thereto. The answer to paragraph 68 is Incorporated herein by COUNT XI YIQJ,A MORAN V. E2SJU, LOGISTIC;;S.INC. 73, . 74, This count applle. to another defendant, COlIJ'lT XlI YJOLA ~OR6N V, DAUTEC ASSOCIATES 75. . 76, This count applies to another defendant. COUIIoj'T XlII YIOLA h{ORAN V. HB6SIjEY FOODS CORPOM'JlQN 77. . 78, This count applies to another defendant, COUNT XlV VIOLA tdQRAN V. HERSHEY CijOCOLATB 19, . 80. This count applies to another defendant, COMMONWEALTH Oil PENNSYLV ANJA ) I 88. COUNTY OP CUMBERLAND ) ~E(Hl6f!: V. L.flIN'-E' . being duly sworn according to law, d.poee. and .ay. that heltfte-I. the '-J\(IC ~Sl.~ of Forklifts, Inc., and that the averments In the within Answer are true and correct, to the be.t of signer'. knowledge, Infonnatlon, and belief. q~!L ") .-0.\ ~l zJ~I.t.~ Sworn and .ubscrlbed to before me this 0' ('I.., ~ day of April, 1994. qd.l'M L '-t'h. l'id..'ll'~ Notary NOIARIAL SIAl. /,INn M. LAY NOIARY 'UllIC CARlISll IORO, CUMB!RLANO COUN" MYeOM ISSIOH miRES HI , I' I' I ii" li1 " , I , ' IN TH. COU~T or COMMON PLlAS or CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ~CIS HORAN, and VIOLA HORAN, Ihi. wit. I Plaintiff., No.384 Civil 1994 v. IXIL LOGISTICI, INC. CLAR~ IQUIPMINT COMPANY, HI~HIY CHOCOLATI USA HIRlHIY rOODS CORPO~TION, Individually and t/d/b/a HIIUIHIY CHOCOLATI USA CAUTIC ASSOCIATES LIMITEC P~TNIR8HIP, and fOR~LIrTS, INC. Defendant.. Civil Action ~ Law PRA.CIPZ paR INTRY OF APPEARANCE PURSUANT TP Pa.R.~.P. 101~ 7P THE PROTHONO'l'ABI.t ~indly enter the appearance of Robert A. Lerman, lequire, and Ann Mar9ar.t Grab, lequire, ot Griffith, Strickler, Larman, Solymol , calkine, ae attorneye tor the Defendante, Herehey foodl corporation, t/d/b/a Herehey Chooolate USA, Herehey Chooolate USA and Cauteo A.eooiat'l Limit.d Partnerehip, in the .bove~oaptioned matter and mark the dooket accordingly. GRIffITH, STRICKLER, LIRMAN, SOLYMOS , CALKINS BY~ II .~ J-I2 ~ rIJB~LERMAN Supreme Court 1.D. No. 07490 " , BYI (1 o Supreme court I.C. No. 55916 Attorney. tor Dauteo, Herthey rood. and Her.hey chooolate 110 South Northern way York, PA 1740:1 Telephone No. (717) 757-760:1 I. " '. 1.'1, I' ,I. I' ,II " " -I 'I , I " -, Ii . I I' " , I' I) 'I 'I ,I , , ;,j .1 ,- ,- " f I I " ,I -, ,Iii I' moran,c....,/J'JO'94/.I. . F~ANCIR MORAN and VIOLA MORAN, his wife, Plaintiff.ll v. EXEL LOGISTICS, INC., CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY, HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA, HERSHEY FOODS CORPORATION, Individually and t/d/b/a HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA', DAUTEC ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and FORKLIFTS, INC., Defendantn I IN 'rilE COUR1' OF COMMON PLEAS I CUMl\ERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I I NO. 384 CIVIL 1994 I I CIVIL ACTION - LAW I I I I I I I I I I I JURY TRIAL DEMANDED llil'li.Q&"'_'ffi DEFEND AND CL~IM RIGHTS YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COUR1'. If you wish to defend against the claims Bet 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 tiling in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you tail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU 00 NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE '1'HE OFFICE SET f'ORTH BELOW TO FIND ou'r WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. COURT ADMINISTRATOR 4th Floor, cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 IiQ'rJ~ll1 Le han demandado a usted en La corte. si usted quiere defenderse de eetas demandan expueetan en las paquinas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias do plaza al partir de la fecha de la demanda y La notificacion. Ustod debo prosentar una apariencia . mqrln,comp/3-l9'94/.I. .. 101 Pearl street, Hartford, CT 06103. The agent for servioe is Willard F. ~inney, Jr., located at 128 Belltown Road, South Qlastonbury, CT 06073. Defendant Dautec owns real estate in and regularly does business in Cumberland county, Pennsylvania. 4. Hershey k"oods Corporation, to/d/b/a Hershey Chocolate USA (hereinafter "Hershey Foods") is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business located at 14 East Chocolate Avenue, Herllhey, Pennsylvania 17033. Defendant Hershey Foods regularly does business in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 5. Hershey Chocolate USA (hereinafter "Hershey Chocolate") is a division of Hershey Foods with a principal place of business located at 19 East Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, Pennsylvania 17033. Detendant Hershey Chocolate regularly does business in Cumberland county, Pennsylvania. 6. Defendant Forklifts, Inc. (hereinafter "Forklifts") is a Pennsylvania corporation with a principal place of business at 3925 Trindle Road, camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011. Defendant Forklifts regularly does bUsiness in Cumberland county, Pennsylvania. 2 .' mor.n.con~/1'~9'94/.1. . " 7. Defendant Cla);'k ~quipment compllny (hereinatter "Clark") is a Delaware corporation with II principal place of pusint,lss I located at 100 North Michigan street, Box 7008, South Bend, Indiana 46634. Defendant Clark regularly doaf! business in Cumberland county, Pennsylvania. 8. On January 29, 1992, Plaintiff Francis Moran was self- employed as the owner/operator of a truck which was leased to Trailwood Transportation. 9. on January 29, 1992, Plaintiff Francis Moran, whilo in the course of his self-employment, was at the warehouse located at New Kingstown, Cumberland county, Pennsylvania, whic:h was operated, maintained and leased by Defendant Exel, Def.endant Dautec, Dofendant Hershey Foods, and/or Defendant Hershey Chocolate and owned by Defendant Exel, Defendant Dautec, Defendant Hershey Foods, and/or Defendant Hershey Chocolate. 10. On January 29, 1992, Plaintiff Francis Moran was at said warehouse to pick up freight and was instructed by agents and employees of Defendant Exel, Defendant Dautec, Hershey Foods and/or Hershey Chocolate to report to a staging area for loading dock *45 to examine and count his freight. 3 p morln.comp/).29'94/olo . ,. 11. On said date and at said p~ace, while in the prooe.. of oount.ing the freight as instructed, Plaintift Franois Moran was suddenly and without warning hit by a forklift operated by an employee of Defendant Exel, Defendant Dautec, Defendant Hershey Foods and/or Defendant Hershey Choco~ate. 12. At all times relevant hereto, all employees of Defendants Exel, Dautec, Hershey Foods or Hershey Chocolate were acting within the soope of employment and/or acting within the authority granted to them by their employer and acting on its behalf. COUNT I ,RANCmS MORAN v. mXIL LOGISTI08. IN~ Neql1q.noe 13. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Exel was engaged in, among other enterprises, the maintenance, use and operation of a warehouse owned by Defendant Dautec, Defendant Hershey Foods and/or Defendant Hershey Chocolate located at New Kingstown, Cumberland county, Pennsylvania. 14. Defendant Exel owed a duty to Plaintiffs to maintain, use and operate said warehouse in such a manner so as to avoid the intliction of personal injury to guests and/or business invitees, 4 . mqrln.,omp/3'29'94/ol. . . , and partioularly to plaintiff Franois Moran. 15. Detendant Ex~l breached its dJty ot oare tQ Plaintiff Francis Moran and was negligent, careless and reckless by and through its agents, employees or servants as followSI a. failing to hire an employee oompetent to operate the forklift in question, b. failing to properly supervise the employee driviny the forklift that struck Plaintiff Francis Moran, c. instructing Plaintiff Francis Moran to proceed to an area where there would be forklift trattic without adequate warning, notice or protection, d. instructing Plaintiff Francis Moran to go to an area where there was inherently dangerous activity taking place without adequate warning, notice or protection, e. failing to maintain the forklift so as to have it in proper working condition, t. by its employee failing to keep a proper and adequate lookout while operating the forklift that , struck Plaintiff Francis Moran, g. by not purchasing and/or maintaining a forklift that ~ad appropriate warning signals or devices 80 as to warn individuals in Plaintiff Francis Moran's 5 OQrln.comp/J'Z9'94/,11 , . situatiqn, of its approllch, LJL., warninq beU., signals, beepers, buzzers, lights, eta. h. by removing or disconnecting the wa~nlng devioe. of the torkllft that struck Plaintitt Francis Moran, i. by its employee failing to take any evasive aot10n to avoid hitting Plaintift Francis Moran, j. by its employee failing to provide any warning to Plaintiff Francis Moran of the forklift's approaoh, r k. by its employee failing to propel'ly aotivate, maintain or use any warning bells, signals, beepers, buzzers or lights, by its employee failing to personally communicate any warning to Plaintiff Francis Moran ot his approach; by its employee operating the forklift at a speed Ilj, [, I! . " 1 . I' I hI Ii L" o , ' m. unreasonable under the circumstances, n. by its employee failing to operate the torklift at a speed at which he would be able to stop in time to avoid hitting Plaintiff Francis Moran. 'I' I. !," .1 \1 " 16. The aforesaid negligence, recklessness and carelessness, ot the Defendants, was a direct and proximate cause of various severe and permanent injuries sustained by Plaintitf Francis Moran. I, I. I .. I I " I" I 6 mqrln.oomp/3'l9-94/11. . . 17. The accident in question and the injuries whioh Plaintitf Franois Moran suotained were not due to any actions or failure to act on his part and were, in fact, the sole result at the ne9ligence of the Defendanto as stated herein. la. As a direct and proximate result of being struck by the torklift as stated above, Plaintiff Francis Moran suffered various severe and permanent injuries which include, but are not limited to, the following: a. traumatic brain injury with post-conoussion syndrome I b. persistent psychological problems related to the brain injury with accompanying anxiety and depresaion; c. right rotator cuff damage and tendonitis I d. various other contusions and abrasions. 19. As a result of the injuries sustained by PlIIintitt Francis Moran, he continues to suf fer aleeplessness, aphasia, which is characterized by stuttering and stammering, head pain, intense fear of driving, as well as panic attacks. 20. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned accident, Plaintiff Francis Moran endured and continues to endure 7 "'In. ."",,!l' 29'9~1.1. 26. AM a direct and proximate result ot the atoremention.d accident and injuries, Plaintiff Franc is Mann hu inourred or hereinatter may incur other financial expenses or losses whioh he may not otherwise be entitled to recover. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Francis Moran demands judgment againet Defendant Exel in an amount in excess of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000), plus interest and costs of this proceeding. ~JrLU 'RAHCI' MORAN V. DAUTIC ASSOCIATIS. IHCL 26. Paragraphs 1 through 25 are incorporated herein by reference thereto as if set forth in their entirety. 27. At a 11 timeR pertinent hereto, Defendant Dautec was engaged in, among other enterprises, the ownership, maintenance, use and operation of a warehouse located at New Kingstown, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 28. Defendant Dautec owed a duty to Plaintiffs to maintain, use and operate the warehouse in such a manner so as to avoid the infliction of personal injury to Plaintiff Francis Moran. 9 mor.n"omp/$'2Y-Y4/olo 29. Detendant Dautec breaohed ita duty of care to Plaintiff Francis Mor.,n and was negligent, careless and reQkless by and through its agents, employees or servants as tollowsl a. failing to hire un employee oompetent to operate the forklift in question, b. failing to properly supervise the employee drivin'1 the forklift that struck Plaintiff Francis Moran, o. instructing Plaintiff Francis Moran to proceed to an area whet'e there would be forkl i ft traft ic without adequate warning, notice or protection, d. .instructing Plaintiff Francis Moran to '10 to an area where there was inherently dangerous activity takin'1 place without adElqunte warnJ.ng, notice or protection, e. failing to maintain the forklift so as to have it in proper working condition, f. by its employee failing to keep a proper and adeqUate lookout while operating the forklift that struck Plaintiff Francis Moran, '1. by not purchasing and/or maintaining a forklift that had appropriate warning signals or devices so as to warn individuals in Plaintiff Francis Moran's situation of its approach, L..L., warning bells, signals, beepers, buzzers, lights, etc., 10 mortn.cqmp/J'Z9'94/tl. . . , I h. by removing or disoonnecting the warning devio.. ot the forklift that struck Plaintift Francie Moran, i~ by ita employee tailing to take any evasive action to avoid hitting Plaintiff Francis Moran1 j . by its employee tailing to provide any warning to Plaintiff Francis Moran of the forklitt's approaoh, k. by ita employee failing to properly activate, maintain or use any warning bells, signals, beepers, buzzers or lights, 1. by its employee failing to personally communicate any warning to Plaintiff Francis Moran of his approach, m. by its employee operating the forklitt at a epeed unreasonable under the circumetances, n. by its employee failing to operate the torklitt at a speed at which he would be able to stop in time to avoid hitting Plaintiff Francis Moran. 30. The aforesaid negligence, recklessness and carelessness, ot Oetendant Dautec was a direct and proximate cause of various severe and permanent injuries by Plaintiff Francis Moran. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Francis Moran demands judgment against Defendant Dautec in an amount in excess of Twenty Thousand Dollars 11 "fr~n,'~/J'29'94/.1. maohinery in question, b. failing to properly supervise the employee driving the forklift that struck Plaintitf Franois Moran, o. instructing Plaintiff Franois Moran to prooeed to an area where there would be forklift tratfio without adequate warning, notice or protection, d. instructinq Plaintiff f'rancis Moran to g'1 to an area where there was inherently dangerous activity taking place, e. failing to maintain the forklift so as to have it in proper working condition, t. by its emp 1 oyee fa i li ng to keep a proper and adequate lookout while operating the forklift that struck Plaintiff Francis Moran, g. by not. purchasing and/or maintaining a forklift that had appropriate warning signals or devices so as to warn individuals in Plaintiff Francis Moran's situation of its appr.oach, L...!L.., warning bells, signals, beepers, buzzers, lights, etc. I h. by removing or disconnecting the warning devices of tho forklift that struck Plaintiff Francis Moran, i. by its employee failing to take any evasive action to avoid hitting Plaintiff Francis Moran, j. by its employee fail. Ing to provide any warning to 11 mQr.".con~I"~9'941~1. , ,Plaintitt Francis Moran of the torklitt's approaoh/ k. by ita employee tailing tc properly aotivate, maintain or use any warning bells, signals, beep.r., buzzers or lights, 1. by its employee failing to personally oomml.nicate any warning to plaintiff Francis Moran ot hi. approach I m. by its employee operating the forklift at a speed unreasonable under the circumstances, n. by its employee failing to operate the forklitt at a speed at which he would be able to stop in time to avoid hitting plaintiff rrancis Moran. 3~.The aforesaid negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Detendant Hershey Foods was a direct and proximate cause ot various severe and permanent injuries by Plaintiff Francia Moran. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Francis, Moran demands judgment against Detendant Hershey Foods corporation in an amount in exoess of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000), plus interest and coata of this prooeeding. 14 mor.n.<omp/J'29'91/.I. COUll., IV .aAIICI. NORAII_V. H.~'H.Y CHoaoLA." 36. Paragraphs 1 through 35 are incorporated herein by reterenoe thereto as if set forth in their entirety. 37. At all timee pertinent hereto, Defendant Hershey Chocolate was engaged in, among other enterprises, the leasing ot, maintenance, use and op~ration of a warehouse owned by Defendant Dautec, Defendant Hlilrshey f'oodfJ and/or Defendant Hershey Chocolate, looated at New Kingstown, Cumberl and County, Pennsylvania. 38. Defendant Hershey Chocolate owed a duty to Plaintitts to maintain, use and operate said warehouse in such a manner so as to avoid the infliction of personal injury to guests and/or business invitees, and particularly to Plaintiff Francis Moran. 39. Defendant Hershey Chocolate was negligent, careless and reckless by and through its agents, employees or ser.vants who were operating the forklift that struck Plaintiff f'rancis Moran as follows I a. fail ing to h it'e all employee competent to operate the machinery in questionl b. failing to properly supervise the employee drivinq 15 ~r.n""",,/3.~9.94/.1. the forklift that struok Plaintiff Franci. Moranl o. instruoting plaintiff Franois Mpran to prooeed to an area where there would be torklift tratfio without adequate war.ning, notlcfl or proteotionl d. instructing Plaintiff Francis Moran to go to an area where t.here was inherently dangerous activity taking place, e. failing to maintain the forklift so as to have it in proper working condition, f.. by its employee failing to keep a proper and adequate lookout while operating the forklift that struck Plaintiff Francis Moran, g. by not purchasing and/or maintaining a torklift that had appropriate warning signals or devices so AS to warn individuals in Plaintiff Francis Moran'. situation of its approach, L..lL.., warning bells, signala, beepers, bu?zers, lights, etc., h. by removing or disconnecting the warning devices of the forklift that struck Plaintiff Francis Moran, i. by its employee failing to take any evasive action to avoid hitting Plaintiff Francia Moran, j. by its employee failing to provide any warning to Plaintiff. Francis Moran of the forklift's approach, k. by its employee failing to properly activate, 16 ~r.n,~~I~'a9'941.1. I maintain or use any warning belli, signal., beeper., buzzors or lights, 1. ,by its employee tailing to personally communioate any warning 1;0 Plaintiff Francis Moran ot hi. approach, m. by its employee operating the torklitt at a spited unreasonable under the circumatances, n. by its employee failing to operate the forklitt at a speed at which he would be able to stop in time to avoid hitting Plaintiff Francie Moran. 40. The aforesaid negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant Hershey Chocolate was a direct and proximate cause of various severe and permanent injuries by Plaintitf Francis Moran. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Francis Moran demands judgment against Detendllnt Hershey Chocola.te in an amount in excess of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000), plus interest and costs ot this proceeding. ", , , 17 ~r.n.'~/3'29'94/.1. or in a manner reasonably tQresesable. 45. Detend~nt Clark was negligent and breached its d~ty to the Plalntitts in numerous ways, including, but not limited to the tollqwing: a. tailing to use reasonable care in marketing, rentJ.ng, leasing and/or providing for use said forklJ.ft, and in maintaining said forklitt, so as to eliminate all risks of harm or injury which were unreasonable and foreseeable, b. marketing, renting, leasing and/or providing tor use a forklift which was defectively designed and was unreasonably dangerous and unfit when used in the manner intended or in any manner reasonably foresellabler o. marketing, renting, leasing and/or providing for use a forklift which was defective and unreasonably dangerous because of a lack of adequate warnings, a lack of adequate safety devices, and a tailure to prov ide for backup wa rning dev ices, d. failing to properly inspect, repair or maintain the forklift in order to discover dangerous conditions, including the lack of adequate safety devicesl e. failing to warn as to the dangers of which they knew 19 m:>r.n, ~"""i3'l9' 94/.1. I ,I or ot which they, in exercise ot due dUigenoe, should have known, t. ~aU inq to install the forklitt with ndequate sat.toy devices, taking into account that the circumstanoe. under which it walll to be uaed, when the circumstances were known or, in the exercise of due diligence, should have been known/ q. designing, manufacturing and marketing a forklift without tho benefit of adequate safety devices when Defendant had available to it knowlodge of the feasible device that would have prevented the injuries BUffered by Plaintiff Francis Moran. 46. The aforesaid negligence, recklesaness and carelessness, , as well as the breach of duties of Defendant Clark, was a direot and proximate cause of various severe and permanent injuries by Plaintiff Francis Moran. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Francis Moran demando judgment ~gainBt Defendant Clark in an amount in excess of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000), plus interest and costs of this proceeding. 20 ,/ mor.".con~/!'29'94/~1. . , COU"., VI l~MCl. MORAN v. CLARK IOUIPMINT QOMPANY striot Liabilit! 47. Paragraphs 1 through 46 are incQrporated her.ein by reference thereto as if set forth in their entirety. 48. Defendant Clark had a duty to provide a product that was not detective, that is, to provide its product with every element necesBary to make it Bafe for its intended use and without any condition that made it unsufe for its intended use. 49. The forkl Ht that struck Plaintiff Francis Moran was defective and unreasonably dangerous, and Defendant Clark breached its aforestated duty in 'that the forkl Ht was not safe for its intended use and was unreasonably dangerous, in the tollowing particulars, among others: a. lack of adequate warnings and/or instructions I b. lack of adequate safety devices for backing, and c. lack of backup bells, buzzers, lights, etc. 50. The defects in said forkllft existed at the time it left Defendant Clark's control. 21 ~'.n,c~/J.29'9'1.1. 51. Defendant clark placec;l the forkUtt in the stream ot commerce with the intention and expectation that it would reaoh a class ot users and consumers such as it did. 52. The defect in said forklift was a proximate cause of the injury to Francis Moran, and of the damages suffered by the plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Francis Moran demands judgment against Defendant Clark in an amount in excess of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000), plus interest and costs of this proceeding. COUNT Vll ,nN9IS MORAN v. CLARK 1l0UIPMIlNT OOMPANY ~~ of Implied wArranty. 153. Paragraphs 1 thl"Ough 52 are incorporated herein by reterenoe thereto as if set forth in their entirety. 54. There existed an implied warranty from Defendant Clark that said forklift was safe and fit for its intended use. 22 ~r."..omp/3'19'9'1.1. !)6. Detendant clllrk llreached ita implied warranty in that the torklitt waa not allfe and fit for ita intended uae when it left Detendant Clllrk'B control becauae of the tollowing, among other reaaons I a. lack of adequate warnings and/or instructions/ b. lack of adequate safety devicea tor baoking/ and c. lack of backup bella, buzzers, lights, etc. 56. Defendant Clark's breach of warranty was a proximate cause ot the accident in question and the injury to Francis Moran, and of the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Francis Moran demands judgment against Defendant Clark in an amount in excess of Twenty Thousand Dollarlil ($20,000), plus interest and costs of this proceeding. ~-'llll 'RANCIS MORAIl~RKLIrTS. INC. If.Igliaena. 57. Paragraphs 1 through 56 are incorporated herein by reference thereto as if set forth in their entirety. 23 ~r.n,comp/3'29'94/.l. 5a. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Forklitts was engaged in, among other enterprises, the manufaoture, assembly, leasing, sales, maintenance, deeign, and/or otherwise placing into the stream of commerce of forklifts. 59. The forklift that struck Plaintiff Francis Monn was manutactured, assembled, sold, leased, designed and/or plaoed in the stream of commerce by Defendant Forklifts. 60. Defendant Forklift.s owed a duty to Plaintitts to use reasonable care in marketing, renting, leasing, selling, providing tor the use and/or maintaining the forklift in question so as to eliminate all risk of harm or injury which were unreasonable and foreseeable. Defendant Forklifts owed a duty to Plaintiff Francis Moran to market, rent, lease, sell, prov idfj for use and/or maintain a forklift which was not defectively designed and which was not unreasonablY dangerous and unfit when used in the manner intended or in a manner reasonably foreseeable. 61. Defendant Forklifts was negligent and breached its duty to the Plaintiffs in numerous ways, including, but ndt limited to the following I a. failing renting, to use reasonable care in marketing, leas 1.ng and/or provid ing for UDe said 24 ~r.n.c~/I'19'94/.L. forklift, and in maintaining said forklift, so a. to eliminate all risks of h$rm or injury whioh ware unreasonable and foreseeable, j). marketing, renting, leasing and/or providing for use a forklift which was defectively designed and wa. unreasonably dangarous and unfit when used in the manner intended or in any manner reasonably toreseeable, o. market ing, renting, leasing and/or prov id.i.ng for use a forklift. was defective and unreasonably dangorous because of a lack of adequate warnings, a laok ot adequate safety devices, and a failure to provids for backup warning devices/ d. failing to properly inspect, repair or maintain the forklift in order to dimcover dangerous conditions, including the lack of adequate safety devices, e. failing to warn as to the dangllrs of which they knew or of which they, in exercise of due dil igence, should have known/ t. failing to install the forklift with adequate safety devicoB, taking into account that the circumstanc.s under which it was to be used, when the circumstances were known'or, in the exercise of du. diligence, should have been knownl 25 ''',,,.n,oompl3'19.94/ll. by the plaintitfll. WHEREFORE, plaintiff Francis Moran demandll jud9ment aqainet Detendant Forklifts, Inc. in an amount in exces.s of Twenty Thoueand Dollars ($20,000), plus interest and costs ot this prooeeding. COUNT Xl VIOLA MORAN v. EIIL L0018TICB. It&.. 73. Paragraphs 1 through 72 are incorporated herein by reterenee thereto as if set forth in their entirety. 74. By reasons of aforesaid Defendant's negligence, plaintiff Viola Moran has been deprived of the assistance, society, oervice and consortium of her husband, Francis Moran, all of which has been to her great financial damage and loss, WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Viola Moran demands judgment against Defendant Exel in an amount in excess of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000), plus interest and costs of this proceeding. 29 ~r.n,Q~/3'29'941'1' COUN'l' XI;J VIOLA KORAN v. DAUTIO A..OOIATI, 75. Paragraphs 1 through 74 are inccrporate~ herein by reterenoe thereto as it set forth in thsir entirety. 76. By reasons of aforesaid Defendant's negligence, Plaintitf Viola Moran has been deprived of the assistance, society, servioe and oonsortium of her husband, Francis Moran, all of which has been to her great financial damage and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff viola Moran demands judgment against Detendant Dautec in an amount in excess of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000), plus interest and costs of this proceeding. <lQ.YJf.T XII I VIOLA MORAN v. HERSHIY,rOODS CORPORATION 77. Paragraphs 1 through 76 are incorporated herein by reteranoe thereto as if set forth in their entirety. 78. By t'easons of aforesaid Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff Viola Moran has been deprived of the assistance, society, service and consortium of her husnand, Francis Moran, all of which has been 30 mpr.n.'~/5'29'94/.1. to her great tinancial damage and loaa. WHEREFORE, Pl.lJ.nt.itf Viol.a Moran deJllanda judgment aqa1nst Detendant Herahey Fooda corporation in an amount in exces. of Twenty Thouaand DollarD ($20,000), plua interest and costs of thi. proceeding. COUNT XIV ~LA H9~N v. HERSHEY CHOCOLATE 79. Paragraphs 1 through 78 are inoorporated herein ~y reference thereto as if set forth in their entirety. I ';) 80. By reasons of' aforesaid Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff Viola Moran has been deprived of the assistanoe, society, service and consortium of her husband, Francis Moran, allot which has been to her great financial damage and loss. ;'\, WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Viola Moran demands jUdgment against Defendant Hershey Chocolate in an amount in excess ot Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000), plus interest and costs of this proceeding. I , ., 31 , . mqrln,eomp/J'29'94/111 hUlband, Francis Moran, 1\11 of whioh haa been to h.r 9r.at financial damage and loss. WHEREFOkE/ Plaintiff Viola Morlln demands judgment againet Oetendant Forklifts, Inc. in an amount in excess ot Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000), plus interest and costs ot this proceeding. Respectfully submitted, HEPF'ORO, SWARTZ & MORGAN BYI2~~ Attorney 1.0. *39182 111 North Front street P. O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 Date I 3/;t,Ar ~ , ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFa " 1"1 " . '/ " '/ , , ,I 33 VIlRIFICM'JOli I, rrancia Moran, verify that the faota .tatad in tha tore9oin9 docu.ent are true and correot to the beat of my knowled98, intQrmation and beliet. I underetand that any talee etatemente herein ere made lubjeat to the penaltiee of l~ Pa.C.S. - 4904 relatin9 to unlworn talaifioation to authoriti.e. / .,~ ~/ ' "P' "'" A. -L~"'~ n-anch Moran '--/t//~~dA1 . " , , I, " ,,' , Ii 'I' II " I ',1 , , I, ',;. " I ", ," '" I, , i" V'RIrIC~TIQ~ I, Viola Moran, verity that the tact. Itated in the forevoin9 dooument are true and oorreot to the be.t ot my knowledqe, int~rmation and belief. I understand that any talle .tatementl herein are made IUbjeot to the penal tie. of 18 Pa.c.S. ~ 4904 relatinq to unlworn tal.ifioation to authoritie.. ~.~ Viola Moran 'I il " , I" ,I " . I I ii, 'I d , , , , " . , 1.1 . f 1.'1, , Ii , II, . , "'1 ii" 4. Inasmuoh as the allegations of this paragraph refer to a party other than answering defendant, no response J.s required under the Pennsylvania Rules of civil prooedure. s, Inasmuoh as the allegations of this paragraph refer to a party other than answering defendant, no response is required under the pennsylvania Rules of Civil Prooedure. 6. Inasmuoh as the allegations of this paragraph refer to a party other than answering defendant, no response is required under the PennsylvanJ.a Rules of Civil Procedure. 7. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that defendant, Clark Equipment company, is a Delaware corporation with a principle place of businees located at 100 North Michigan Street, Box 7008, South Bend, Indiana 46634, It is denied that defendant, Clark, regularly does business in cumberland County, Pennsylvania, however, it is admitted that answering defendant is registered to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and conducts business in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 8. Denied. Aner 'reasonable investigation, ar.llwering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph .~, therefore, they are denied. Strict proof is dflmanded at trial . 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief aD to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph . -2- " ,.., , I 9, tl'lerefore I tl'ley are denied. Strict proof is demanded at trial. 10. Denied, After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 10, therefore, they are denied, Strict proof is demanded at trial. 11. Denied, After reasonable investigation, it is specifically denied that on the date and place described in plaint i Us' complaint, while in the process of counting the freight as instructed, that plaintiff, Francis Moran, was suddenly and without warning hit by a forklift Operated by an employee of defendant, Exel, defendant, Dautec, defendant, Hershey Foods, and/or defendant, Hershey Chocolate. Strict proof is demanded at trial, 12, Inasmuch as the allegations of this paragraph refer to a party other than answering defendant, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. COUH'l' I 'RANCI8 NOlAN v. IXIL LOQISTICS, INC. Neglig.noe 13 - 25. Inasmuch as the allegations of paragraphs 13 through 25, inclusive, refer to a party other than answering defendant, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, , -3- ';\ I, fil I WHEREFORE, anawerin~ defendant, C~arK Equipment Company, demanda judgment in its favor and against plaintiff on Count I of plaintiffs' Complaint together with coata and attorneys fees, COmrr....n .RAHCI, KORAN v. DAUT.C A..OCIA~'.. INC. 26. Answering defendant incorporates by reference ita response a to paragraphs 1 through 25 of plaintiffs' Complaint as though set forth herein at length, 27-30, Inasmuch as the allegations of these paragraphs 27 through 30, inclusive, refer to a party other than answering defendant, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, WHEREFORE, answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, demands judgment in its favor and against plaintiff on Count II of plaintiffs' Complaint together with costs and attorneys fees. COUNT III rRAHCIS MORAN v. H.R8H.Y rOODS CORPORATI9N 31. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1 through 30 of plaintif.fs' Complaint as though set forth at length herein. 32-35, Inasmuch as the allegations of paragraphs 32 through 35 pertain to a party other than answering defendant, no response is requireQ under the Pen~sylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, demands judgment in its favor and against plaintiff on -4- . . Count III of plaintiffs' Complaint together with costs and attorneys fees, COtIHT IV raANCIf NQ_.u v. H...HIY CHOCO~ 36. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1 through 35 of plaintiffs' Complaint as though set forth at length herein. 37-40. Inasmuch as the allegations of paragraphs 37 through 40, inclusive, refer to a party other than answering defendant, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, answering defendant, Clark Rquipment Company, demands judgment in its favor and against plaintiff on Count IV of plaintiffs' Complaint together with costs and attorneys fees. COtIHT V lJtANCI8 NOJtAN v. CLUJ: IOUIPMIH'1' COMPANY Neal.l.qena, 41, Answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1 through 40 of plaintif.f8' Complaint as though set forth at length herein, 42, Admitted in part; denied in part, It is admitted that answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, at all times material hereto is engaged in the design, manufacturo, assembly and sale of industrial material handling equipment to include products such a8 forklifts. However, it is denied that at all -5- time pertinent hereto, defendant, Clark, was engaged .in, among other enterprises, the manufacture, assembly, leasing, sales, maintenance, design, and otherwise placing into the stream of commerce, of forklifts. 43. Denied, After reasonable investigation, it is I specifically d~nied that the forklift that struck plaintiff, Francis Morall, was manufactured, assembled, sold, dosigned and placed in the stream of commerce by answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, inasmuch as plaintiffo' Complaint fails to describe with specificity the forklift that struck plaintiff, to wit, by supplying a model number and serial number and/or by supplying proof of sale by answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company. By way of further response, if the plaintiff was struck by a product manufactured by answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, which is specifically denied, it is specifically denied that the condition of the product aD it existed at the time it left the possession and control of the answering defendant caused or contributed to the cause of the alleged incident, If the plaintiff has and/or will sustain injuries, damages and/or losses as alleged, then the answering defendant denies any and all liability for same. Strict proof is demanded at trial. 44. Denied. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 44 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, By way of further response, it is specifically denied that answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, owed a -6- duty to plaintiffs to use reasonable case in marketing, renting, leasing, selling, providing tor the use and/or maintaining the forklift in question as to eliminate all risk of harm or injury which were unrea90nable and foreseeable, It is further specifically denied that d~fendant, Clark, owed a duty to plaintiff, Francis Moran, to market, rent, lease, sell, provide for use and/or maintain a forklift which was not defectively designed, and which was not unreasonably dangerous and unfit when used in the manner intended or in a manner reasonably foreseeable. Further, it the product described in plaintiffs' Complaint proves to be that of answel'ing defendant, which is specifically denied, it is specifically denied that the condition of the product as it existed at the time it left the possession and control of the answering defendant, caused or contributed to the cause of the alleged incident. At the time of marketing, the subject prodUct contained every element necessary to make it safe and was, further, safe for all reasonably foreseeable and intended uses. Strict proof is demanded at trial. 45. Denied, To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 45 (a through g, inclusive) constitute conclusions of law, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, By way of further response, it is specifically dsnied that answerin9 defendant, Clark Equipment Company, was negligent and breached its duty to the plaintiffs in numerous ways, and it is specifically denied that answering defendant wes -7- neg~igent, careless, and/or reckless at any time material hereto, including, but not limited to the tollowingl (a) It is specifically denied that answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, tailed to use reasonable care in marketing, renting, leasing and/or providing for use said forklift and in maintaining said forklift so as to eliminate all risks of harm or injury which were unreasonable and foreseeable I (b) It is speoifically denied that answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, marketed, rented, leased and/or provided for use a forklift which was defectively designed and was unreasonably dangerous and unfit when used in the manner intended or any manner reasonably foreseeable I (c) It is specifically denied that answering d~fendant, Clark Equipment Company, marketed, rented, leased and/or provided for use a forklift whioh was defective and unreasonably dangerous because of a lack of adequate warnings, a lack of adequate safety devices, and the failure to provide for back-up warning devicesl (d) It is specifically denied that answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, failed to properly inspect, repair and/or maintain tho forklift described in plaintiffs' Complaint in order to discover dangerous conditions, including the lack of adequate safety devices I (e) It is specifically denied that answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, failed to warn as to the -8- dangers of whidh they knQw or of which they, ill t.he Ilxerr;lille of due dJ.ligence, should have known I (f) It is specifically denied t.hat anllwering defendant, Clark. Equipment Company, failed to inlltall the fork.lift with adequate lJafety devices, t.aking into account that the circumstances under which it was to be used, when the circumstances were known or, in the exercille of due diligenoll, should have been known; (g) It is specifically denied t.hat answering defendant, Clark Equipment company, designcd, manufactured and marketed a forklift without the benefit. of adequate safety devices when answering defendnnt had i1Vll.l iuble t.o it. knowledge of the feasible device that would have preventud the injuries suffered by plaintiff, Franci~l Morlln, By way of further responso, tho P I i~ int if f wao using a forklift of anllwering defemillnt, which 1n specifically denied, it is specifically denied that tho w'lII<lll.lon of. tho product as it existed at the time it loft tho Po~ull"uion Bnd control of answering defendant, cllune'\ or cont dklutod to t.he cause of the alleged incident, inarllntlGh i~U at the t imf! of marketing, any forklift placed in the RU'll.lnl of commorce by answering defendant contained all necessary dllvicon, wilrnings and instructions necessary for rellsonnb 1 y forenollahl fl ilnd intended usage and operation, and eVfll'V oll'l",ollt Illl<!'HlllilI'Y to make it aafe. If the plaintiff haa, and/or wi II '1IlIltnill Injuries aa alleged, answering -9- defendant denies any and all liability for same. Strict proof of the foregoing allegations is demanded at trial, 46. Denied. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 46 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of I 'law, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of. Civil Procedure, By way of further response, it is specifically denied t,hat answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, was negligent, reckless and/or careless at any time material hereto, and it is specifically denied that answering defendant breached any duty to plaintiff. By way of further response, denying all negligence, recklessness and carelessness alleged by plaintiff, it is specifically denied that any conduct of answering defendant was a direct and/or proximate cause of varioull severe and permanent injuries suffered by plaintiff, Francis Moran, If the plaintiff has and/or will sustain jnjuries, damages and/or lOSS811 as alleged, answering defendant denies any and all liability for same, Strict proof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, demands judgment in its favor and against plaintiff on Count V of plaintiffs' Complaint together with costs and attorneys fees, \1 , " -10- 'I gQJlft....Yl '.~UQl. ~~ V, Q~.._JQUlIM.KT aO~'AHY 1i~1-Li~ilitr 47. Answerin!1 d"hllldllut inIHJI'pllt'lIt.oll by x'uference its responll!ls to paragraphs 1 thro\JlIh 46 of pliJlntiUs' Complaint as thQugh Iset forth at lenut.h heX'flin, 48. Denied, "0 the oxtent the .111egations set forth in pa~agraph 48 of plaintiff"' Complaint constitute conclusions of law, no response io roquired undor the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, By way of furt.her response, inasmuch as plaintiff has failod to describe with specificity the forklift allegedly involved in the accident described in plaintiffs' Complaint, it is specifically denied that the forklift involved in the aforeoaid accident wao designed, manufaotured and/or placed in the stream of commerce by answering defendant, If the plaintiff wao involv"d in IIn accident involving a forklift designed, mllnufllctllx'lld and/or placed in the stream of comme~'ce by answering defendant, which ia apecifically denied, it is speoifically denifld that the condition of the produot as it existed Ilt thl'! time it Illtt the posllt'lssion arId control of the answering d~fendant caused, or contributed to the cause of the alleged incident inasmuch as, at the time of marketing, any forkl.lft placed in tile stream of commerce by anewering defendant oontained all nocausury components, warnings and instructions necessary for 1ts rellsonable and foreseeable intended usage. -11- ,! 11+ 1,(' Therefore, it is specifioally denied that if the produot involved 1n the aooident desoribed in plaintiffs' complaint was that of answering defendant, and it is specifically denied that suoh produot laoked any element necesdary to make it safe for its intended usage. Strict proof is demanded at trial. 49. Denied, To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 49 of plaintiffs' complaint oonstitute conolusions of law, no response is required. By way of further response, inasmuoh as plaintiff has failed to identify the forklift as a forklift manufaotured by answering defendant, it is specifically denied that the forklift that struck plaintiff, Francis Moran, was a forklift manufactured by answering defendant. Further, if the forklift that struck plaintiff, Franois Mor.an, was designed, manufactured and/or sold by answering defendant, it is specifically denied that the forklift was defective and unreasonably dangerous, and it is specifioally denied that defendant, Clark, breaohed any duty to plaintiff and that the forklift was not safe for its intended use and was unreasonably dangerous, Moreover, it is specifically denied that the forklift desoribed in plaintiffs' Complaint was not safe for its intended use and was unreasonably dangerous in the following particulars, among othersl (a) It is speoifically denied that the forklift described in plaintiffs' complaint was not safe for its intended -12- use and was unreasonably dangerous for lack of ~dequate warnings and/or instructions/ (b) It is specifically deni6d that the forklift described in plaintiffs' Complaint was not safe for its intended use and was unreasonably dangerous for a lack of adequate safety devices for backing/ and (c) It is specifically denied that the forklift described in plaintiffs' Complaint was not safe for its intended use and was unreasonably dangerous for a lack of back-up bells, buzzers, lights, and/or lack of other componentry, Strict proof of the foregoing allegations is demanded at trial. 50. Denied, To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 50 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further response, if the plaintiff was involved in an accident with a forklift manufactured by answering defendant, which is specifically denied, it is specifically denied that the forklift described in plaintiffs' Complaint contained any defects at the time it left answering defendant's control. Strict proof is demanded at trial, 51, Denied. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 51 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of CiVil Procedure. By way of further response, if answering defendant placed in the stream of commerce a forklift described in plaintiffs' Complaint, it is specifically denied that -13- ansW6ring defendant plaoed the product in the stream 9f commerce without containing all necessary componentD, warnings, inBtructions, neoessary for the reasonably foreseeable and intended use of the forklift with the intention and expectation that it would reach a Glass of users and consumers such as it did and would be operated with due care and in accord with well reoognized principles of safe industrial material handling equipment operation. Strict proof is demanded at trial, 52. Penied, To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 52 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conolusions of law, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules o~ Civil Procedure. By way of further response, if the plaintiff was involved in an accident with a product manufactured by answering defendant, which is specifically denied, it is specifically denied that such product was defective in any manner whatsoever and it is !specifically denied that the defect in such product was the proximate cause of any injury sustained by plaintiff, Francis Moran. If the plaintiff has and/or will sustain injuries and/or losses as alleged, then answering defendant denies any and all liability for same. Strict proof is demanded at trial, WHEREFORE, answering defendant, Clark Equipment company, demands judgment in its favor and againot plaintiff on Count VI of plaintiffs' Complaint together with costs and attorneys fess. -14- 'OUH1 v:p: ,..v9I' KQ~ v. CLAaX .QU%'~ COKP~ lEJach of Implied ~arranty 53. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1 through 52 of plaintiffs' Complaint as though set forth at length herein, 54, Denied, To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 54 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law, no response is required under the Pennsylvania RUles of Civil Prooed~re. By way of further response, to nhe extent that plaintiff has failed to identify with specificity the forklift alleged to have been involved in the accident described in plaintiffs' Complaint, it is specifically denied that there existed an implied warranty from defendant, Clar~, that said forklift was safe and fit for its intended use, Strict proof is demanded at trial, 55. Denied, To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 55 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, By way of further response, if the forklift described in plaintiffs' Complaint was designed, manufactured and/or sold by answering defendant, which is specifically denied, it is specifically denied that the forklift was not safe and fit for its intended use when it left defendant's control. It is specifically denied that answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, breached any warranty and, specifically, any implied -15- warranty relative to the forklift described in plaintiffs' Complaint because of the following, among other 1'8asonSI (a) It is specifically denied that defendant, Clark, breached its implied warranty in that the forklift described in plaintiffs' Complaint wao not safe and tit for its intended ule when it left answering defendant's control bAoause of a laok of adequate warnings and/or instructions; (b) It is speoifically denied that defendant, Clark, breached its implied warranty in that the forklift described in pJ,aintiffs' Complaint was not safe and fit for its intended use when it left answering defendant'o control because of a lack of adequate safety devices for backing; and (c) It is specifically denied that defendant, Clark, bre~ched its implied warranty in that the forklift described in plaintiffs' Complaint was not safe and fit for its intended use when it left answering defendant's control because of a lack of back-up bells, buzzers, lights, etc, By way of further response, if the forklift described in plaintiffs' Complaint was placed in the stream of commerce by answering defendant, which is specifically denied, answering defendant placed such produqt in the stream of commerce containing every element necessary for its reasonably foreseeable and intended usage and, therefore, safe and fit for its intended use, Strict proof of the foregoing allegations is demanded at trial, -16- 56. Denied, To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 56 of plaintitfs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Prooedure, By way of further response, it is Bpecitioally denied that answering defendant extended any warranties resulting in injury to Franois Moran and it is further specifically denied that answering defendant breached any warranty, and that such breaoh was a proximate cause of the injuries sustained by plaintiff, Francis Moran, and the damages suffered by plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs have and/or will sustain injuries as alleged, then answering defendant denies any and all liability for same. Strict proof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, demands judgment in its favor and against plaintiff on Count VII of plaintiffs' Complaint together with costs and attorneys fees. COUNT VIII rlANCII NORAH v. PORXLI'TS. INC. N.alia.na. 57. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1 through 56 of plaintiffs' Complaint as though set forth at length herein. 58-62. Inasmuch as the allegations set forth in paragraphs 58 through 62 of plaintiffs' Complaint refer to a party other than answering defendant, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. -17- WHEREFORE, answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, demands judgment in its favor and against plaintitf on Count VIII , ot plaintiffs' Complaint together with co~ts and attorneys fees, COUNT IX lBABCII NORAN VI .O.KLI.TI~ INC. Itriat Liabili~y 63. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1 through 62 of plaintiffs' Complaint as thQugh set forth at length herein. 64-68, inclusive. Inasmuch as the allegations set forth in paragraphs 64 through 68, inclusive, of plaintiffs' Complaint refer to a party other than answering defendant, no response is x'equired under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, demands judgment in its favor and against plaintiff on Count IX of plaintiffs' Complaint together with costs and attorneys fees, ~ .RANCIB NORAN v. .ORKLI.TB. INC. areach of Warrantv 69. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1 through 68 of plaintiffs' Complaint as though set forth at length herein. 70-72, inclusive, Inasmuch as the allegations set forth in paragraphs 70 through 72, inclusive, refer to a party other than answering defendant, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, -18- f'( I n It WHEREFORE, answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, demands judgment in its favor and against plaintiff on Count X of plaintiffs' Complaint together with costs and attlorneys fus. COUH'l' X! ! VJOLA KORAN v. .XIL Loal.TICS. ~ I Answering defendant incorpprates by reference its 73, 'I' ! responses to paragraphs 1 through 72 of plaintiffs' Complaint as though set forth at length herein, 74. Inasmuch as the allegations set forth in paragraph 74 of plaintiffs' Complaint refer to a party other than answering defendant, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules qf Civil Procedure, WHEREFORE, answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, demands judgment in its favor and against plaintiff on Count XI of plaintiffs' Complaint together with costs and attorneys fees. , J i 'II I, I , I"~ I' COUNT XII VIQLA NOlAN v. DAUT.C AISOCIAT.8 75. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1 through 74 of plaintiffs' Complaint as though set forth at length herein, 76. Inasmuch as the allegations of paragraph 76 of plaintiffs' Complaint. refer to a party other than answering defendant, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Prooedure. -19- WHEREFORE, answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, demands judgment in its favor and against plaintiff on Count XII of plaintiffs' Complaint together with 'losts and attorneys fees, COUNT XUI VIOLA KORAN v. HI.SHIY .OOD' COa'QaATION 77 AnllwerJ,ng defendant incorporates by reference its responsell to paragraphs 1 through 76 of plaintiffs' Complaint all though set forth at length herein. 78 Inasmuch as the allegations of paragraph 78 refer to a party other than answering defendant, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, demands judgment in its favor and against plaintiff on Count XIII o~ plaintiffs' Complaint together with costs and attorneys feell. COUNT XIV VIOLA NO~ v. HI.SHIY CHOCOLAT. 79. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its rellponlles to paragraphll 1 through 78 of plaintiffs' Complaint all though set forth at length herein, 80. Inasmuoh as the allegations in paragraph 80 of plaintiffs' Complaint refer to a party other than answering defendant, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, WHEREFORE, answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, demands judgment in its favor and against plaintiff on Count XIV of plaintiffs' Complaint together with costs and attorneys fees. -20- 90UH'l' XV V;EOLA IIQIlAIf v. CLAlIt 81. Answering defendant incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1 through 80 of plaintiffs' Complaint as though set forth ~t length herein. 82. Denied, Inasmuch as the allegationo set forth in paragraph 82 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, By way of further response, answering defendant incorporate by reference its responses to the allegations set forth in plaintiffs' Complaint pertaining to answering defendant, Clark Equipment company, and specifically denies that answering defendant was negligent, careless and/or reckless at any time material hereto, and further, answering defendant specifically denies that answering defendant is strictly liable to plaintiff or breached any warranty to plaintiff, Therefore, it is specifically denied that answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, is liable under any theory whatsoever to plaintiff, Viola Moran. Moreover, by way of further reaponse, after reasonable investigation, it is specifically denied that plaintiff, Viola Moran, has been deprived of the assistance, society, service and consortium of her husband, Francis Moran, all of which has been to her great financial damage and lOBS. Strict proof is demanded at trial. . -21- WHEREFORJi1, answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, demands judgment in its favor and against plaintiff on Count XV of plaintiffs' Complaint together with costs and attorneys fees, ~O. XV~ VIOLA KORAN v. .O..LI.T'I INq. 83, Answering defendant incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1 through 82 of plaintiffs' Complaint as though set forth at length herein. 84, Inasmuch as the allegations of paragraph 84 refer to a party other than answering defendant, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, WHEREFORE, answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, demands judgment in its favor and against plaintiff on Count XVI of plaintiffs' Complaint together with costs and attorneys fees. NIW MATTIR 85, Plaintiffs' complaint fails to state a cause of action upon wh.i.ch re)..ief may be granted. 86. Plaintiff was negligent, 87. Defendant was not negligent. 88. The conduct of plaintiff was the sole cause of the subject incident and any resultant damages, injuries, and/or losses, 89, The actions and/or omissions or persons, parties, and/or entities other than answering defendant constituted an intervening, superseding act of negligence which caused the subject incident and resultant damages, injuries and/or 108888. -22- 90. Answering defendant denies that it was negligent in any manner whatsoever, Should it be determined to the contrary, then and in that event, the negligence of defendant attributable to plaintiff's injuries is less than plaintiff's causing plaintiff.'s claims to be barred or reduced pursuant to the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 91. Plaintiff's claims are barred or reduced pursuant to the Comparative Negligence Act. 92, While answering defendant denies all negligence, should it be determined to t~e contrary, then the negligence of plaintiff is compax'atively greater than that of answering defendant, 93. Any product produced and/or sold by answering defendant was not in a defectJ,ve condition when it left defendant' s possession and control and incorporated all elements to make it safe for its intended and normal use, 94, If the product was that of the answering defendant, answering defendant provided all reasonable, necessary warnings and instructions with the subject product at the time of sale. 95, Any product produced or sold by answering defendant nlay have been substantially changed in its con?ition after it left defendant's possession and control, 96. Plaintiff assumed the risk of a known and/or open and obvious danger. 97. Plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. -23- I' ." 98. The ~ubject product may have peen abnormally used, miGuled, and/or abused and/or improperly inspected and maintained. 99. Any product produced and/or sold by answering defendant, as that prc)duct existed when it left defendant's possession and control, did not cause or contribute to the cause of the subject incident and any resultant injuries, damages, and/or losses. 100. rhe acts and/or omissiono of other parties, persons and/or entities other than answering defendant were the sole cause of the subject incident and resultant damages, injuries, and/or losses specifically including but not limited to the yet to be identified operator of the forklift and/or premises holder. 101, Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, in whole or in part. 102. The venue of this action is improper, 103. Pa.R.C,P. 238 is unconstitutional under the State and Federal Constitution, 104. Pa.R.C,P, 238 providing for delay damages is inapplicable as a matter of law. 105, Answering defendaht respectfully reserves its rigpt to amend its New Matter. WHEREFORE, answering defendant, Clark EqlJipment Company, requests this Court to enter judgment in its favor and against plaintiffs, with costs. -24- \ ~ ~TT~. 'yaIU~ TO 'A...C.P. 2~!2Idl P!..qT.n 10 OJ.~AMT'. ~I'~ LOQJ,T!Q.. !NQ.. a..,RIY t:JIoaPLA~.tid'~~IJ~.::~'ci~~~~:!~:;..!=Y!DUALLY ~VT.C AIIOQ!~~~I LJN!TRD 'Al~.'HJP 106, Answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, incorporates by reference its Answer and New Matter to plaintiffs' Complaint as if all allegations of the Answer and New Matter were fully set forth at length herein. 107. Plaintiff's alleged injuries were caused by the negligence, carelessness, recklessness, otrict liability, breach of contract, breach of warranty, express ana/or implied, and/or other liability producing conduct of Exel Logistics, Inc" ijershey Chocolate USA, Hershey Foods Corporation, Individually and t/d/b/a Hershey Chocolate USA, and Dautec ASSodiates Limited Partnership and/or their respective agents, servants and/or employees. If plaintiffs, Francis MQran and Viola Moran, suffered injuries, the same being specifically denied, then those injuries were sustained as a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned liability producing conduct of Exel Logistics, Inc., Hershey Chocolate USA, Hershey Foods Corporation, Individually and t/d/b/a Hershey Chocolate USA, and Dautec Associates Limited Partnership, who are alone liable to plaintiffs, Francis Moran and Viola Moran, and/or are jointly and severally liable with Clark Equipment Company to plaintiffs, Francis Moran and Viola Moran, and/or are liable over to Clark Eq.uipment company by way of contribution and/or indemnity. " " I 1 'I ,( I , I, I, I ~. j,', I i' I!I Ji , , I' , Ii, I '1/ ,I " , !! i ',I -25- I I I, , ' I WHEREFORE, defendant, Clark Equipment Company, demand8 judgment acoordin~ly in its favor, together with C08t8 a~ain8t mxel Lo~i8tic8, Inc., Hershey Chocolate USA, Her8hey Food8 Corporation, Individually and t/d/b/a Hershey Chooolate USA, and Dautec A88ociate8 Limited Partnership. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN BYI / QUIRE SWAYZE, 111/ ESQUIRE Attorneys for Defendant, Clark Equipment Company 1845 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-4717 (215) !$75-2600 , " , " It i' , ' I' ; ,. 'i' .,.1 , , , . , I, '. , I " " i' ','1i, ' " ~211- VERIne... 'fIQN I, VA V/lJ C, FIELD, d't'la" that 111m th, hou,,, mum" for Clark Equipment Company, and that I am executlns the /orlsolns Answer of VI/endant, Clark /i.'qulpment Company, to Plaintiffs' Compllllnt with N,w Mall" and N,w Maller In the Nature of a Cros"clalm Pursuant to Pa, R, C.I'. 22'2(d) lor anti on b,ha(f oj said VI/endant. and that I am duly authorlz,d to do so, Thatth, malllrS stat,d In th, fo"golng "spons,s aff not within my personal knowledge and I am Iflform,d thatthlre is no officer of VI/,ndant who has p"sonol knowl,dge of such maller"" that the facts staled in said responses have been aswnbled "y authorized employees and counsel (if Vefendant. and I am informed by said couns,lthat the facts stated in said responses arl true. I d,clare, under penally of perjury. under the laws of ,'he State of Kentucky. that the foregoing is 'rue and correct. Executed this the 25 day of April , 1994 all.exlnguJ/I. Kentucky. CLAR]. QUIPMENT COMPANY ,() I ') BY,' (\ V W DA VlD C. FlEL STATE OF KENTUCKY , , : COUNTYOFFAYE1TE .. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me by DA VlD C, FIELD attorney for Clark Equlpm,nt Company, this 25 day of April . 1994, My Commission expires,' July 16. 1995 ?(~.. I. i. .\. ...S'. (~':)r-i..-O- L Notary Public / State-al-wrge, Kentuc~ . MARSHA~~, D~NN~H~Y, WARNER CO~EMAN & GOGGIN BYI L WA TER H, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Defendant, Clark Equipment Company 1845 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-4717 (215) 575-2600 '" ',," l,j , , I I,; " " 'I 'I 'I 1 . " , . , , 'I ,I 1 " d I. , I, ,I, 1 , 1\ . ' , - Commonwealth of PeMlylvanla ! County of Cumberland PRANCIS MORAN AND VIOLA MORAN 1004 3rd Ave., NW Austin, MN 55912 VB. EXit LOGISTICS, INC, CLARK IQUIPMBNT COMPANYI Court or Commoll PllU No, ___J!t_~__________~!X!}n______.__. 19..~~ HRRBHIY CHOCOLATIl USA , In ______________c:~_'!tL~~_t_!9}L~!I.!__.._... HBRBHIY FOODB CORPORATION, DAUTIC ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, FORnI FTS, INC. (Se. attached tor addresseB) To _,]'!!lLWSt~'!Uf_'!L_JJl.Su_f.~\!flU~9!tiJn1!!J1t co., Hershey Chocolate USA, Hershey Foods CorporatIon, DMJTEC Associates Ltd. Portnership, f'orklifts, Inc. You are hereby no tilled thlt ... -- r.~~!l~,- ~~ _~J;:~!.'U!}ll}_~tq!!l_.t1'.m'ln ___. _ _ __,___ n __ u __ _ ____ ____ _ _ m ___... u nu _ _.. n ___.. the Plllnrin s have commenced an Iclion In ._______.u___.Sj.y"~L!~~~ _____..____...______.._ 'n__'n aptnll you which you IIf requllfd 10 defend or a derauh Ju<l8'lllent may be antared aplnll you, (S!AL) D'te .._.....~!g!\.!-!.4n'...2.~............. 19...21 ,..._~!,Il"!.l1lJ~.!!. .~l_!l!!!.<!l.r....._. _... u. .m..... Prothonotary By _./.JI.'" ~/~-!.f:.:._d.,_.)y1t.~.... F~ DfIpuly , .'1 I i I I 'I' , , II I i ., I I ",' . I'l, 'i I ./ ' ,'I 'j ; I, I , I I I "I J 'J I , ',' i I 1'; I , , , " ,1'1 , ;1 " i"\, , , I " "" , ; I " 'I' I,' , I' , , OJ i " I" ,I I' , , . , , 1',' ~ . J i .. ~!~J .. ~ ~ ~! ~ ~ .. J ~ ~~.~ I ,i Uld~ il~~~ ~ (j · Jf~ I ~~u~1 j!S' g ,~ (j ~ . , \ , .- , Franoie Moran and Viola Moran -ve. Ill,el Logiltiol, Ino. Clark Equipment Company, Hershey Cho~olate UaA/ Hershey Foode Corporation/Cautee ABeooiatee Limited PartnerBhipIForklifts Ino. III the Court of Cqmmon Pleas ot Cumberland County, Pennsylvanio No. 384 Civil 1994 ' SummonB in civil Aotion Law Donald Harper, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn aooording to law, lays on February 1 1994 at 3100 o'clock P.M.E.S.T.,he served a true cqpy of Summqne in Civil Action Law, in the above entitled action upon one of the within named defendants to witl Exel Logistics, Inc., by making known unto Harold Anderson, Vice President of Excel Logietice at 260 Salem Chu~ch Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania its contente and at the same time handing to him personally tho said true ~nd attested copy of the eame. R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says he made diligent search and inquiry for one of the within named defendants to witl Clark Equipment Company, but was unable to locate them in hie bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of Philadlephia County to eerve the within Summons according to law. See attched return from Philadelphia County. R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, eaye he made diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendante to witl Hershey Chocolate USA and lIershey Foods Corporation, but was unable to locate them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the ~heriff of Dauphin County to serve the within named defendants according to law. DAUPIIIN COUNTY RETURN I and now February 3rd l.994 at 9115 A.M. served the within Writ of Summons in Civil Action upon Hershey Choclate USA and Herehey FoordB Corp. individually and t/d/b/a Hershey Chocolate USA by personally handing to Carl Arnold, Legal Officer and person in charge at time of service two attested copies of the original Writ of Summons in Civil Action and making known unto him the contents thereof at their place of businesQ, Crystal A Drive, Her~hey, PA So answersl Wil.liam II. Livingston Sheriff Dauphin County Return is hereto attached. Donald lIarper, Deputy Sheriff who being duly eworn according to law Bays on February 1, 1994 at 12130 o'clock P.M.E.S.T., he served a true copy of Summonm in Civil Action Law, in the above entitled action upon one of the within named defendanta to witl Forklifts, Inc., by making known unto Karen Brown, Secretary and General Manager at Forklifts Inc. 3925 Trindle Road, camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and attested copies of the same. sop~~ R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff /'!~' By ,j<;....... (;, ' '~' ,/ Deputy's f Sheriff'. COltel DooleeUna Servioe 8uroh.r~e Out .of County Dauphin county Philadelphia County 30.00 6.16 10.00 ~.OO 29.!\0 ~9.~ $ IW.'66 pd. 2.7.94 tly atty 'I " Sworn and SubBcribed To Before Me ThiB 10 Cf Day of 1,1..;.;, ';~1 " 1994, A.D. \.. ~ ...'. . () / , Prothonotary ntJiJJ.... I ~ " I, " , " I , ,," , , " " , " , " I ;'1 i' I' " , .11 " .\ , " II' " ,',1 " I IM.,Il"" .e?lIllN - .IIMMON,/COM"t..AINT &JI1B~Rt..RUP lb, IF -3'l21if- 9r- FR/JAItJ/!i tI J;/tJJ./I HtJRfitl I COMMON "I.IAI NO, OOIlNTV COI)IlT VIIlIIII TlIlM, .. NO, CP - /19~' Oll/IL . ~I C!J./J/ZK. t:4Jv/ fflE)./J. &;. tjh e. f t?twp SyI3 SERVED AND MADE KNOWN TO -'!..LE1~,J;..QillEHJl!J.l tJD. o D.I.ndant ~ D.I.ndant Company by handin" a true and aUested copy 01 the within Summons/Complaint, Issued In the abov. captlon.d mall.r on --EI;13 I~ __, 19 Jl!/.- . atjJ1B!.'J/clock. PM" E,S,T./DIfIIf: at ::.> r-_l.L~a,.u_._..._---_._--_ , in th. County 01 Philad.lphia, Stat. 01 P.nn.ylvooia, to -------- -.,.,.-- -.-.----.--- -.--.-- o (1) the alor'laid delendant, personally; o (2) an adult m.mber 01 the lamily 01 sold delendant, with whom sold delendant r..ld.., who .tat.d that hi./her r.latlonshlp to .ald defendant Is that 01 _____ o (3) an adult p.r.on In charq. 01 defendant's residence; the sold adult p.rlon having r.lull>'], upon r.. quut, to "iv. hls/h.r nome and r.latlonshlp to sold def~ndant; the mana"er/clerk 01 the ploce ollodqlnq In which sold d.fendant r..ld..; 0(4) ~ (5) o (6) th. ag.nt or per.on for the time beinq In charge 01 defendant's ollie. or ulual plac. 01 bUlin.ls. and officer 01 sold delendant Company; l!.t. &flp f4S -l1fiRIA CHfJ1113t7?3 So Answers, (O\,' " I" I ",'" ( \... f"',' - # ',~,"C ,J,,' I' 1..1.\ ..' I, ...' . '. FEB 2 B 1994 , t I :. r ' ~ I " .f ~tJ~ --. H,r', I : . .,1. JOHN D. ......N, Sh.,1II By: ' L...L. SolA' ."'..../:Inri .11'. NoI,uy flUe "':'c~,'k'iJlll", flll!nr1r~l.) r'JIJIlIy "'1 ;.onlflt''''''' f:.....nft .11..,-1. 1004 1 11 '. I'" " '. "1. " L/ I' " i' I, " " " i' . " ," , 1.1 1,11 I" '" . " 'I I ~\",,""'r"~ f\rn(:V n',ILlt .~' ..' I ,I ,,' , 9\, fEr. ~(1 P\I 317.6 1\', '11 I' , .1 ,I VI v ~ ...,J ..-f; 1 ~ "i\ , . " ,I,l I 'I ,I .1 iI , ,I " " I I II ;'1 I' \)' .1 ,,' 'i " 'I 1M Tnt Court or C.:mmQiI Pla=~ or C:,JI'..~.;.w!::nd c,:.Jf.J';;',',/, ?lnihuyl'lc:nla Francis and Viola Moran 'IS. Hsrshey Chocolate UHA . :-JQ, _ lUd. civ.ii trnr'll...llU.._.--, :~..._._. ~ow.. ~anuBry ]1. 1994 :9_ I, SEZ~'F 0; C~~13ZR!,A.'m Cot.:~':'Y, ~A... <:\0 lllnby dCjl1l= lll.II !ll="JI' 01 naunhin ColWlI'f :0 1:.'111I:'':&0 = Writ, :.!:.!.a a.pIlCl:l.on bti.:l.c ::=.lId. ~c l.':.t raqucn :l.:lli :iak ot :!If ?!.1i.::!H. ".1 ,//,;' "'l-"'~',1"'" .,';, "I- ,.;./. .,.,-. ( '. ",-' ~ ",.' ,.~t /" <t" .,,' L,',.,.., ,_, ,,~.,.'~, " ,',po,' ('.. . - $llenll ot t;':WIllla.rWlG C~\lIlr", l':I. . ASciavlt 01 Semce ~ow, :9 .. o.:.!CQ ~c. Ic:-.-ri .. .. , =t witlilia 'JFOlI n ;y I..~",il"'r :.0 & ~PT ot :!:t o r: r.:ual - ,. U1d ::wit Iaaawa :0 :lu :=lste::tS :.'l==i. So 1I.ZIIWcn. ShlII/6 01 . ,Cour,. '110 5wol'll AIIIl IUbc::rOlId beIOft el. :hla u'f 01 11_ com SDVlCl ~"' ..l.G1 AFnDAVIT -.I rll s .-..... /" ..';" I 11,-' :IN TH. COUJT 0' COIOlON PLIA. CUKI..LAND COUNTY, PINNIYLVAN:lA FRANCIS MORAN and VIOLA MORAN, his wife Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO, 384 Civil 1994 VS, EXEL LOGISTICS, INC" CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY, HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA, HERSHEY FOOpS CORPORATION, DAUTEC ASSOCIATES LIMITED and FORKLIFTS, INC. Defendants DaMAND 'OR A TRIAL BY A JUly or TNWLVI M~..8 , Defendant, by the undersigned attorney, heroby requests a trial by a jury of twelve (12) members pluD two alternates, trial to proceed as long as there are twelve (12) r.\embers available. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN BYI~t~t~ LOUIS BELL, ESQUI Attorney for Defendant, Clark Equipment Company DATED I February 22, 1994 ' ~ if: '" t.......1 m ..... " 1'1' ,., ~~ ,~-: ., ~ , I ~. ~, J '~c,... I ~ " i:\ " "" " " I, 'II 'I' " " ,"1' "I 11',1 " .' " " i " " " 'ii 'I 'i, I -"'il , "I' I 'I " , , I " ;1 " ii " , I I " . ' . r!~r'r*~,n,:;, :, I Ii 'I , \\ 1 XN Tal COUllT or COHlCON 'LlA8 CUNI..LAND COUNTY, 'INN8YLVANXA I '. FRANCIS MORAN and VIOLA MORAN, his wife Plaintiffs NO. 3S4 Civil 1994 CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. EXEL LOGISTICS, INC., CLARK EQUIPM~NT COMPANY, HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA, HERSHEY FOODS CORPORATION, DAUTEC ASSOC!ATfflS LIMITED and FORKLIFTS, INC, Defendants DlMAND .OR JURY TRIAL TO THE PROTHONOTARY I 'Jury trial io hereby demanded in the above-entitled case by the Defendant, Clark Equipment company, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN Bye DATEDe February 22, i994 ,-.." , , " ,") " " " 'I, 1 , , I I , , 'I 'I '. I, " ,!I " " " 1 I 'I . , 'II, I" I, , " i: " ,F I!!': ~ ~Io' ':f,-.-, 1-, '.., ~ .~; :'j -,. tfI I~, " " " "'II '., .' " , I , ',' 'I IN TNI COURT 0' CONNON 'LIA. CUHlIILAND COUNTy, .INN.YLVANIA FRANCIS MORAN and VIOLA MORAN, his wife Ji'laintiHs CIVIL ACTION - ,LAW NO, 384 Ci,vil 1994 VS, EXEL LOGISTICS, INC" CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY, HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA, HERSHEY FOODS CORPORATION, DAUTEC ASSOCIATES LIMITED and FORKLIFTS, INC, Defendants ENTRY OF APPEARANCE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TO THE PROTHONOTARY; Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, Clark Equipment Company, in the above-captioned matter. DATED I Feb~uary 22, 1994 MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN AND GOGGIN . J.7 <~ t.(A.J t;u:t;~ o IS BELL, ESQU RE Attorney for Defendant, Clark Equipment Company BY , " ~ ".. Fl 1,47 a71 3010 ~ Rec.lpt fer , Certified Mall I Nil !rHIlUlHlI:U CO\lO'O\)41 P'Il'tIlllJl' "'1 .<<n 011 lint \ltUI Illr 11I1./HHIIIIHlIll MI)II 1611I1 UIIVlUlIlJl ,',7,-;'-"',;;1''''' "nw'''''rTr tnr:or .!!!l1!!!.f.1.4'JI J'k./J,/!J.'.'f!/'!'.I'!:{_ t "~" .', 'II ill"",;'" I' "_it ..il.ILlt ".._.__.t.:.:.J..U!'__. 'So~~Ii.jJIti1i~.~} 1,-<'T,,(1(, if 1""'1' 'J' ." ".".I",!., ',.,","1," "," hO",I,,,IHII.!",,,\ ," , , :n Ilnll,'" I',." '" ,I"" I 'i 0) !"I/.I" ". '" ""h' 1, ,,, 01 ~ ~ - S U- K' _f) ~.'" .J 11'.1"""""'101'1., '1"'\\' ,I t",,1,, I,,'" ,,'/"'d" " 1111f111'..d.I'i' ..."" $ ;) .:) '-"1111,,,.,..,1,,10 I' / -,,?f' 'Ii "I . IDAU'fICNIOCIAT.. LIMIT. " I' 'iRI....IP 0/0 ' '.!,i., .~Il. ' , ',' >>zllifl' i! . , I' J'Qa' '..YI~I , ,;; a "IL, M~ " .. ,.uay CT , .' " , , , I,., lI' ii' f II " " . " ,I , >]'1 '. ,) '" " Ii \ " " .' ilk :t,.. .. ..~ ~r= " e '" I ,.1, it , ",~, J,. ':1 ~ , 'I I I, " " .'- ,., , " , '; .-.,... ></ "..j ,. " ~ " ./ , ,'" '~.' " " " , " ii' I], " '.1 'I , " '1-..,,, ., " r.... , \ " , , 'I ., " , , I "I ,. . .x_ t.: .' ., ,,' " , ., '.' .--. "1 ., , , . " , '. , \ , '" ,t , ., ~ if; N ::r (Y) Jl . , ., ,_ 1_,' CBRTIflCATB QF SBRVlCQ I horeby cortlfy that a copy of tho forelolnl Praecipe wa~ served this date by dc:poslllnl samo In tho Post Offlco at Carlisi,"" PA, fint class mall, poslaae prepaid, addressed as follows: Dennis R. Sheaffer, Bsqulre HEPFORD, SWARTZ & MORGAN III Nonh Front Street Harrisburl, PA 17101 Louis Bell, Esquire MARSHALL, DENNBHBY, W ARNBR, COLEMAN & GOGGIN 184' Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-4717 Roben A. Lennan, Bsqulre GRlFFmI, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS 110 S. Nonhern Way York, PA 17402 Georae F. Doullas, Ir., Esquire DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS & DOUGLAS 27 W. Hlah Street Carlisle, PA 17013 MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WlLUAMS & arm .' , By I,,'" Georao B. F ler,lr., Ton Bast High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 , .' Allorneys for Defendant Excel logistics, Inc. o.ted: May II, 1994 IN THI COURT OF COMMON PLlAS or CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA rlANCIS MOlAN and VIOLA MORAN, hi. wite Plaintift. , No.384 civil lii4 v. IXIL LOGISTICS, INC. CLAR~ IQUIPMINT COMPANY, HIRlHIY rOODS CORPORATION, Individually and t/d/b/a HIRlHEY CHOCOLATE USA DAUTIC ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and FORKLIFTS, INC. Detendant.. civil Action - Law usna. ow D'fUa &lID CaqSSCLAIII AND NOW, comee the Detandant., Her.hey rood. corporation, Individually and t/d/b/a Her.hey Chocolate USA, by and through it. attorney., Griffith, strickllr, Lerman, solymo. , calkin., and Robert A. Lerman, E.quire and Ann Margaret Grab, E.quire and tile. this Anewer and New Matter in re.pon.e to Plaintitt.' Complaint, and .tate. a. tollowa. 1. Denied. Atter rea.onable inve.tigation, Detendant i. without knowledge or intormation sutticient to torm a beliet a. to the truth or veracity ot the allegationa contained in paragraph 1 ot Plaintifta I Complaint and aame are denied and atrict proof thereot demanded. :I. Denied. After reaaonable inve.tigation, Detendant i. without knowledge or intormation .utticient to torm a beliet a. to the truth or veracity ot the allegation. contained in paragraph :I 1 of 'ldntUt.' co.plaint and .... an d.nied .nd .triot proof thereot d...nd.d. 3. Denied. Atter re..onabl. invI.U9aUc!n, Deflndant i. without knowledve 01' information .uttioient to tora a beli.f a. to , the truth or ver.oity ot the all.q.tion. containld in paravraph 3 of JllaintUf'. co.plaint and .... an d.nied .nd .trict proof ther.of dl.and.d. 4. M.itted. II. D.ni.d. It i. .p.cificlllY d.nied that H.nhey Chooolatl USA (h.reinaft.r "H.reh.y Chocolat.") i. a divieion ot H.nhlY rood. with a prinoipal plac. ot bu.ine.. loc.t.d at 19 ...t Choool.t. Avenu., H.r.h.y, penneylv.ni. 17033. D.f.ndant, H.r.h.y Choool.t. r.vularly doe. buein... in cullb.rlan~ county, 'enn.ylv.nia. on the contrary, it ia av.rr.d that at all ti... rel.vant h.r.to, .n.werin9 Detendant, Her.hey Chooolat. USA 1e an unincorporat.d diviaion ot Herehey rood. with a principal plac. of bu.ine.. locat.d at 19 ...t Chocolat. Avenu., Herehey, Jlenn.ylvani. 17033. 6. Denied. Atter rea.onable inve.tiqation, Def.ndant i. without knowledV. or l.ntormation autticient to form. b.a.t a. to the truth or v.raoity ot the alleqation. contained in paravraph 6 of Plaintiff.' co.plaint and e6m. are d.ni.d and .triot proot th.reot d..and.d. 7. Denied. After reaoonable inv..tlqation, D.t.ndant i. without knowl.dg. or information autticiant to torm a b.llet a. to th. truth or veracity of the all.qatlona oontain.d ln paravraph 7 :I of 'lainti".. Co.plaint and .... .... d.ni.d and .triot proof ther.ot de.anded. .. Denied. Aft.r r.a.on.bl. inv..ti9aUon, D.t.ndant b without knowl.dv. or intora.tion .uftici.nt to torm . b.li.f a. to the truth 01' veracity ot the allegation. contain.d in p.ragraph 8 of Plaintiff.' co.plaint .nd .am. are dani.d and .trict proof theraot d..and.d. .. Deni.d. It i. .p.cifically d.ni.d that on January :Ii, 1":1, PlaintUt Fl'ancie Moran, while in the courea ot hi. ..It- ..ploya.nt w.. at the war.hou.. located at N.w King.ton, CUmb.rland county, P.nn.ylvania, which was op.rated, maint.in.d, and l.a..d by Def.ndant Ix.l, D.t.ndant Daut.c, D.t.ndant H.r.h.y Foode, and/or- Det.ndant H.reh.y Chocolat. and own.d by D.f.ndant Ex.l, Def.nd.nt Daut.c, D.fendant Her.h.y rood., and/or D.t.ndant H.r.h.y Choool.t.. On the contrary, it i. averred that at all tim.. rel.vant h.r.to the .fore1d.ntiti.d war.hou.. was l....el by An.w.ring D.t.ndant Her.h.y rOOd8. The r.maining all.gation. of paragraph 9 are d.ni.d in that an.werinq D.f.ndant i. without know1edv. or intoraaUon .ufficient to torm a b.li.f ae to the truth or v.r.city of the all.gation. contained in paragraph i of Pl.i~titfe' complaint. 10. Deni.d. It i. .p.cifically deni.d that on January ai, 19':1, plaintitt, rranci. Moran was at .aid war.hou.. to pick up freight and wee in.truct.d by ag.nt. and employe.. of Def.ndant Ixel, Def.ndant Daut.o, H.rmhay rood. and/or H.r.h.y Chocolat. to report to a .taginq ar.a for loadinq dock number 45 to examine and 3 .1 I'" '..,.,. - /..~" OOllnt hi. h.ivht. On the oontrary, it b aVIrrld that at aU ti... r.levant h.r.to, An.w.dnv Detendlnt HerahlV rood., who l....d thtl eforeid.nUUld warehou.. had no I.ployee. pre..nt who.. job it would have b..n to in.truot individuII. on the pre.h.. .uoh .. the Plaintift. Th. re.aining all.vation. ot p1ravraph 10 .1'. dlniad in that an.wlring D.f.ndent ia without knowledv. or intonation .utUoient to tora a beliet a. to the truth or v.raoity of the aU.gation. contained in para9uph 10 of Plaintiff '. Co.plaint. 11. Deni.d. It ia .p.oificallY denied that on .aid dati, and at .aid place, whih in the pror.leee of counting the freivht a. in.truoted, Plaintiff rranoia Moran wa. .uddenly and without warning hit by a torkl1ft operated by an emploYle of Defendant Dauteo, Det.ndant Herahey rood. and/or Deflndant H.rshey Chocolat.. On thl contrary, it i. averr.d that at all time. rel.vant her.to the atore1d.ntiUed warehou.e wa. lea.ed by Her.hey Food., how.v.r, H.nh.y rood. did not e.ploy any forklitt operatora at that looation. Th. rlmaining all.gation. of paragraph 11 are d.ni.d in that an.vlring Det.ndlnt i. without knowledge or intormation .uttioi.nt to fora a belief a. to the truth or veraoity ot the allagation. oontained in paravraph 11 of Plaintiff'e complaint. 12. Deni.d. It i. .p.oificallY deni.d that at aU tim.. ralevant hereto, all employee. ot Defendant Exel, Dauteo, Her.h.y rood. or Hlr.hey Chocolate w.r. acting within the .oopa ot th.ir I.ployaent and/or acting within the authority grant.d to the. by their e.ployer and acting n it. behalf. On the contrary, it ia 4 averr.d th.t at aU ti.e. rel.vant her.to anaw.rin9 defendant, "e~.h.y rood. and/or H.r.hey Chooolate did not have eny agent., .erYant. or e.ploy". operatinv equipment .uoh a. a torklift or di~ectin9 the operation. ot a forklift operator or a truok drivel'. The r..aininv aU'Vation. of paragraph 12 are d.nied in that an.v.rin9 Dat.ndant i. without knowledge or intormation auffioient to fora a belief a. to th. truth or veracity ot the all'Vationa oontain.d in paravraph 12 ot plaintitf'a complaint. aopll'l I .....".. MO..... 9.. V.L J.Ocllllfloa. 1.0. . 1JII1i1.1l~-- 13. paravraph 13 i. denied inaotar .. it alleg,e that Defendant, H.r.h.y Food. and/or Herahey Chocolate had an ownerahip inter..t in the warehou... To the oontrary, it ie av.rred that an.wedn" defendant, Herahey rood. and/or Herahey Chooolate had l....d the warehouae. 14-15. Paragraph. 14 - 1~ do not pertain to anawering d.fendant, Herahey rood. and/or Herehey Chocolate and therefore no re.pon.e ia ~o...ary and none i. made. 16. Denied. Xt i. .pecifically denied that the dore.aid , n."ligenoe, reokle.ane.. and carele.aneaa of the Detendante, inoludinq H.r.h.y rood. and/or Her.hey chooolate, wa. a direct and proximata oau.e of variou. and ..vere and permanent injurie. .u.tained by Plaintiff Francie Moran. On the contrary, it b averred that at aU time. relevant hereto, an.wering Defendant., H.r.hey rood. and/or Herahey Chooolate acted carefully, lawtully and prudently. ~ " 17, Dan~ed.. It i. Ipegifioelly denied that the acoident in que.~ion Ind the injuri.. whioh pllintitf, rrlngi. Moran .uatained were not due to any action. or failure to act on hil part and were in fact the lole reault ot the nevllvence ot the Defendant. .. .tated herein. On the oon~rary, it i. averred that at all ti.e. relevant hereto, In.werin9 Defendant., Her.hey Food. and/or Herehey Chogolatl aoted care tully , llwfully Ind prudently. actld carefully, lawfully, Ind prudently. 11. Denied. After rea.onabll inve.tivation, Detendant ie without knowledge or information .ufficient to torm a belief a. to t~a truth or veracity of the alle9ation. contained in para9raph 18 ot plaintiffil' COlIIplaint and .allle are denied and .trict proof thereof demanded. . U. Denied. "ftir re..onable inve.tivation, Detendlnt i. without knowledge or information .ufficient to torm a belief I. to the truth 01' veracity of the Ille9ationa contained in paravraph Ii ot plaintiff.' complaint and .ame are denied and .triot proof thereof de.anded. 20. Denied. After re..onable inv..ti9ation, Defendant i. without knowledge or information .ufficient to torm a belief I. to the truth or veracity of the aUa9ation. contained in paravraph 20 ot plaintiff.' COlllplaint and .aml ar.e denied and .trict proot thereof demanded. 21. Denied. After rea.onable inve.tiCJation, DGfendant ie without knowledge or information lufficient to form a blliet a. to the truth or veracity of the allegation. contained in paragrlph 21 6 01 Plaintiff.' Complaint and 88.e are deJhed aod .triot proot thereof de.anded. 22. Denied. Atter rea.onable inve.tigation, Detendant i. without knowledve or intormat:ion .uftioient to torm a beliet .. to the truth 01' veracity of the allegationa oontained in paragraph 22 ot PlainUUa' Complaint and .a.e are denied and .triot proof thareot de.anded. 33. Denhd. Aftar reaaonable inve.tigation, Defendant 18 without knowl.edge or information aufUoient to fom a beUet a. to tha truth or veracity ot the allegationa oontained in paragraph 23 ot PlaintU.t.' Co.plaint and .ame are denied and atrict proot thereat dlmanded. :24. Denied. Attar reaaonable inve.tigation, Detendant 18 without knowledve or inforlDatJ.on autUoient to fora a beUef .. to the truth or veraoity ot the allegationa oontained in paragraph 24 of Plaintiff.' Complaint and .ame are denied and atrict proot thereot de.anded. 211. Denied. Attar reaaonable inv..Uqation, Defendant 18 without knowledge or intormation aUfficient to forlll a belief aa to tha truth or veracity ot the allegationa oontained in paragraph 2& of 'laintiff.' Co.plaint and ea.e are denied and .trict proof thereot de.anded. WIII.BrORI, Anawering Defendant., Herllhey rooda and/or Herahey Chocolatl, USA de.and jUdqment in their favor and against tha Pllintitf together with intere.t. and coate of .uit. 7 oolUl7 II .-~~,. IIO"~?, OU"IO U8QCIA'f'., l,O, 26. paravr:aph. 1 throu9h 215 are incorporatl<l her. in .. thouvh tUlly ..t torth at llngth. 21. Paravraph. 21 - 30 'do not p.rtain to anawer.1nq De,en1lant Her.hey Food. and/or Her.hey Chocolat. .nd ther.tor. no r..pon.e i. n.o....r:y and none i. made. ooun In '''''(118 aw-." Y. .auIIY JOQp. CIO.~U'1'IOII 31. Paragraphe 1 through 215 are incorporated her.in .. though fully .et forth .t length. 32.' Denied. It ia .peoifically denied that at all time. plrtinent h.reto Defendant Hershey rood. wa. engaged in, a.ong other enterpri.e., the lea.ing ot, lIIaintenance, u.e and operation of a warehou.e owned by Detendant Dautec, Detendant Herah.y rood. and/or Her.hey Chocolate looated at New Kingston, Cumb.rland County, P.nn.ylvania. On the contrary, it i. averr.d that at all tim.. relev.nt her.to, an.wering Defendant, Her.hey rood. and/or Her.h.y Chocolate lea.ed the afor.identified warehou.e from Dautec. 33. D.nied. Paragraph 33 con.titut.. a oonclueion ot law to which no re.pon.ive pleading ia nece.sary and aam. ia de..ed denied. In the event a reapon.e i. deemed nece..ary, it i. av.rred that .t all ti.e. r.levant hereto, anawerinq detendant, H.r.hey Food., .oted carefully lawfully and prudently. 34. Denied. It ia .pecifically deni.d that Defendant Her.h.y Food. br..chad it. duty of oare to Plaintiff Francie Moran and we. 8 na,U,ent, oarele.. and reckl... by .nd through it. a,ent., e.plo~ee. 01' .erYant. who ware operatinv the forklift that .truck 'ldntUf rrancie Mflren a. follow.. A. FaiUn, to hire an employee competent to operate the forklift in queation, I. 'ailing to properly aupervi.e the employee drivin9 the forklift that .truck Plaintiff Pranci. Moran, c. Inatrl.lct1nv Plaintiff Francie Moran to proceed to an are. whlre thlre would b. torkl!tt traffic without adequate warnin" notice or protection, D. Inatructin9 Plaintift Pranci. Moran to 90 to an area where thare waa inherently dang.rou. activity taking place without adequate warning, notice or protection, I. raiUng to maintain the forklift .0 .. to have it in proper workin9 condition, r. By ita employee failing to ke.p a proper and adequate lookout while operating the forklift that atruck Plaintift rranci. Moran, G. By not purcha.ing and/or lIIaintaining a forklitt that had appropriate warning eignal. or device. .0 a. to warn individual. in Plaintiff Franci. Morane .ituaUon of it. approach, i.e., warnin9 bill., aignal., beeper., buzzera, light., eto., H. by removing or di.oonnecting the warning device. ot the torklitt that atruck Plaintitt Franci. Moran, I. By it. employee failing to take any eva.ive aotion to avoid hitting Plaintitt Franoi. Moran, 9 J. Iy ita e.ployee faUinv to provide any warninv to Plaintiff rranoia Moran ot tha torklift'. approaoh, It. Iy it. e.ployee fdJlin9 to properly aotivlte, .aintain or u.e any warning bell., .ivnal., beeper., bUI.er. or liVht., L. Iy it. e.ployee failinv to pareonally QOlDIDunioate any warnin9 to Plaintlft rrancie Moran of it. approaoh, M. Iy it. e.ployee operaUnv the forklUt at a .peed unrla.onebl~ under thl oircum.tanoe., N. Iy ita e.ployee failing to operate the forklift at a .plld at whioh he would be able to etop in time to avoid hittin9 'ldntUt. On tha contrary, it 18 averred that at all ti.e. relevant hlreto, an.werinv Defendant, Her.hey Food. did not elllploy a forkUtt operator at th18 warehou.e and .turther that an.werinv defendant Her.hey rood. aoted at all tilll.. relevant h.reto carefully, lawfully and prud.ntly. 35. Denied. It ie .peciUcally denied that the afore.aid nlgligence, reoklee.na.. and oarele..n... of Defendant Her.hey rood. we. a direct and prClxilllat. cau.. of various .evere and peraanent injuri.. by Plaintiff Franci. Moran. On the contrary, it i. averred that. at ~ll tim.. relevant hereto, An.werinv Defendant Herehay rood. acted carefully, lawtully and prUdently. WHIRlrORI, An.warinq Defendant., Herehey Food. and/or Henhey chocol~te demand jUdqaent in their favor and again.t the Plaintitf totether with intere.t. and oo.t. of .uit. 10 'I OQIJIII1I IV ...MCI, MD.~' y. ,.....Y C.OClOLa', 3.. Paragraph. 1 through 2~ and 32 throu9h 3~ ar. , incorporat.d h.r.in a. though fully .et torth at length. 37. Denied. It b .~ecUical1y denied that at all ti.... pertin.nt h.reto, Detendant Her.hrlY Chocolate wa. anc;Jaged in, a.on9 other enterpri..., the .lea.inq of, .aintenanc., U.e and op.ration ot a warehou.e owned by Defendant Dauteo, Defendant H.r.h.y Food. and/or Det.ndaait Her.hey ChOCOlate, looated at New ~ing.ton, CUab.rland County, P.nn.ylvania. on the contrary, it i. averred that at all time. relevant herato, an.wering Defendant, Henh.y Chooolate wa. involvad only in the leaainq of the aforaidentifi.d warehoU.e trom Dautac. 38. Denied. Paragraph 38 con.titute. a conclu.ion of law to which no re.poneive pleadinq ia nece..ary and eam. i. dee..d denied. In the event a re.pon.e i. deelllad nece..ary, it i. av.rr.d that an.w.ring Defendant, Henhey Chocolat. aoted at all tim.. rel.vant hereto oarefully, lawfully and prud.ntly. 39. Denied. It ia .peoUically denied that Defendant Her.h.y Chocolate' negU,ent, oarde.. and recklee. by and through it. av.nt., Imploy... or .ervant. who were operating the torklift that .truck plaintitt Franoi. Moran a. follow'l A. FaiUng to hire an employee competent to opuate the forklitt in que.tion, B. Failing to properly .uparvi.a the alllployee driving the forklitt that .truck Plaintitt Franoi. Moran, 11 C. Inatructinv Plaintiff rrancia Moran to prooeec2 to an area whlre there would be forkl:fft traffic without adequate warning, notioe or proteotion, D. In.tructing Plaintiff Franci. Moran to VO to an area whlre therl wa. inherently dangeroue activity taking plaoe without adlquate warning, notioe or protection, .. reUing to maintain the forklift .0 a. to hev. it in proper workin9 oondition, r. By it. employee failing to keep a proper and adequate lookout while operaUng thl forkUft that etruck plaintiff Franoi. Moran, G. By not purchaainq and/or maintaininq a forklift that had appropriate warning .iqnal. or device. .0 a. to warn indivic2ual. in Plaintiff Francie Moran. .ituation of ita approaoh, i.e., warning bell., eiqnal., beeper., buzzer., light., etc., H. by ramovinv or di.connecting the warning devioe. of the torklitt that .truck Plaintiff Francie Moran, I. By ita 'IDploy.e failinq to take any evaeiv. aotion to avoid hitting Plaintitf Francis Moran, J. By ita employe. failing to provide any warning to Plaintitf Franoi. Moran of the forklift'. approaoh, , K. By it. employ.e failing to proparly aotivate, maintain or u.. any ~arning belle, .ignal., beepera, buzzer. or lighte, L. By ite employee faUing to personally communioate any warning to Plaintiff Franci. Moran of it. approach, 12 \-_. ."lIi M. Iy 1h ..ploy.a operating the forklUt at a .p..d unrla.onabl. undar the oircum.tance., N. Iy it. ..ploya. faUing to OPllratl the forklitt at a ,plld at whioh h. would be able to .top in ti.e to avoid hittinv JlldnUtf. On the oontrary, it i. avur.d that at all Um.. relevant herlto, an.w.ring Dltendant, Hlr.hlY Chocolat. did not own a forklift, nor did it employ a forklift op.rator at the .toreid.ntiti.d wanhou.. .nd further that .n.w.ring defendant H.r.h.y Chocol.te act.d at all t1111.. rel.vant h.nto oarefl.llly, lawfully .nd prudently. 40. D.ni.d. It ie Ipaoifioally dani.d that the afor...id na9Ugence, reckl...n..., and carele..ne.. ot Hauhey chocolate wa. a dir.ot .nd proximate r..ult of various liver. and peraanent injurie. by Plaintitt Moran. On the contrary, it i. av.rrad that at all ti.e. r.l.vant hereto, an.wering Det.nd.nt, H.r.hey Chocolat. .ct.d oar.fully, lawtully .nd prudently. WHIRIFORI, An.w.ring D.tendallt., H.uhey Chocolate dl.and. jud9ll.nt in it. tavor and a9ain.t the plaintUf tog.ther with inter..t. and co.t. of .uit. 001Dl'l '9, ...VftI8 110... ..a~tt::a:~U!~MT COII'AXY 41-46. Paraguph. 41 - 46 do not pertain to an.w.rin9 there tore no re.pon.ive pleading 1. n.c....ry and non. dlf.ndant. , 11 .ade. u gppn VI. .......:'14' 1ID..~IP~lt~.... cOII..n 47-53. 'aravraph. 47 - 52 do not p.rtain to anaw.lL'inv defendant., ther.fore no ra.pon.iv. pl.edin9 i. nao...ary and non. i. .ada. C9Q11'1 VII. '..lIcn .:::; :, ~=fa:O:~W':y COIIPUY 53-56. paravraph. 153 - 156 do not p.rtain to anewaring detendant., thar.tare no re.pon.iva plaading i. n.c....ry and non. i. ..d.. QQUII'l' vn I. .....cn ~9:~a:O.KLI.'l'. 57-63. par.graph. 157 - 62 do not p.rtain to anew.ring d.t.nd.nta, tharetor. no reapon.iva pleadinlJ ie nece.eery and non. i. ..da. ...11"18 OOIJll'l' I.. ~if:~9~i::f~t~;'l'8. !lip. 63-61. paragraph. 63 - 68 do not pertain to anaw.rinlJ d.fandant., ther.tor. no ra.pon.iv. pl..dinlJ b naca.eary and nona i. .ade. 14 i." .,.< " qGmrr Jl, '~'.~I. JQ,.. y. ~'.LI.", IMG, Iraaa~ " .,~,.aty .e-72. paravraph. 69 - 72 do not pertain to an.werinv d.fendant., th.r.fore no re.ponaiv. pl.ading i. n.c....ry .nd non. i. .ade, coon .1. 'IOLa lID'" ,. ".1I J.QClU'flql. I.e. 73"'74. 'araqraph. 73 - 74 do not partain to an.w.rinv thlr.fora no r..pon.iv. pleading i. n.oe..ary and none defend.nt., ie ..de. comrr JlIL. YIOLa lID... ". D&UIfIlG UIOGI&If.1 15.-76. Paragraph. 75 throuqh 76 do not p.rtain to' an.w.ring . d.fend.nt., H.r.h.y rood. .nd/or H.r.hey ChQoloate th.r.tor. no r..pon.iv. pl.ading i. n.ce..ary and none i. mad.. m:nnl" .111. ,10La lID... Y. ..u..v ~DI GOallOD.UOM 77. Par.graph. 1 through 25 and 35-40 of An.werinv Def.ndant.' An.w.r are inoorporat.d harein a. thouqh fully ..t t~rth .t l.ngth. 7.. D.nied. It i. .p.oitically deni.d that An.w.rinv Defendant Her.h.y Food. corporation wa. naglig.nt. Thl r..aininq allegation. of paragraph 78 are deni~d in that an.w.ring D.t.ndant i. without knowledga or intormation .ufficient to form a bali.t a. 15 aqUft .IV. YIQ~ 110"" 'f I ......Jly aKOCOLA'I'. to tha ~l'Uth or veraoity of thl all.Vation. oontained in para9raph ,. ot 'laintitf" co.plaint. WHIR'rORI, An.warin9 Daf.ndant., Her.h.y rood. and/or H.r.h.y Chooolat, d..and judg.ent in thlir tavor and again.t thl plaintiff t~ethar with int.re.t. and coat. of .uit. 7.. paragraph. 1 through :115 and 315-40 and 75-71 of Def.ndant.' An.w.r ara inoorporat.d her. in .. thouVh tully ..t forth at length. 10. Denied. It: i. IpacificallY denied that An.w.rinq Defendant Her.h.y Chooolatl wa. n.glig.nt. The r..a1nin9 allegation. at paragraph 80 are denild in that an.wering Defendant i. without knowledge or information aufficient to torm e blli.t a. to the truth or v.racity of the alligation. contain.d in paragraph 10 of Plaintitt.' coaplaint. WHIRlFORI, An.w.ring Defendant., Her.h.y rood. and/or H.r.h.y Chocolate d..and judgment in their favor and again.t the plaintitt toglther with int.rl.t. and co.t. ot .uit. qODft n. VIOLa MO.". 'I. a~.. 11..12. paravraph. 81 - 82 do not pertain to an.w.ring d.t.ndant., th.r.for. no r..ponliv. pl.ading i. n.o....ry .nd non. b .ael.. 16 . ,II 00"" nl. 'JOLa IIO~~P' ,. cr.... U. -14. ,aravraph. 13 . 84 do not pertain to an.werin9 defe~dant., therefo~e no re.pon.ive pleadinv i. nlce..ary and nQne i. .ade. .... 8'1'1.. IS. Plainti~f.' Complaint tail. to .tate a cau.e of aotion avain.t An.wering Detendant, Her.hey Food. and Her.hey Chocolate upon which reliet cen be granted. 16. No ect or failure to act on the part of An.werinv Defendant., Kerehey Food or Herahey Chocolate we. the proximate oau.e ot Plaintitf.' alleged injurie. and damage.. 17. Plain~itf Franci. Moran'. alleged injurie. and damage. were the re.ult of hi. own, .ole negligence and were due in no .anner to any act or tailure to act on the part ot An.wering Detendlnte/ Her.hey Food. or Her.hey Chocolate. II. Plaintiff Franoi. Moran was contributorily and/or oomparatively ne91ivent which contributory and/or cOlllparative neglivenoe wa. the lub.tantial factor in bringing about hi. alleged injuril. end damage.. Ig. Pllintitf ha. not .u.tained a .eriou. injury I. detined by Aot 18g0-6, 75 Pa.C.S.A. 11702. 80. Pllintift.' claim for non-economic damago. may be barred bleau.e Plaintitf ha. elected a limited tort option a. .at to~th in Act 1880-6,75 Pa.C.S.A. 11705(b)(3)(d). 17 " '1. Plaint!ff.' alleged injurie. and damage. may have been the rl.ult ot acta or omhaion. ot third partie. over whom ~.wlrin, Deflndant., Hlr.hey rood. and Hlrahey Chooolate have no le,al re.F.onaibUity or C1ontrQl. a~..aL&l. q, ...... o. D~..~~.. .,....v rqaD &KD '~~~'J ~ODLA'f. ,p~u'" ~ ~a...C.~. ..III~>> AGAl.., ...~ LQCl18'flc. t2. It the averaenta of plaintifta' COlllplaint are proven true and oorreot at thl tillle of trial, Plaintiffe' alleqed injurie. and da.age. were cau.ld in whole or in part by the aota, omi.eion., or product. ot Exel Loqi.tic., Inc. g3. Ixel Legi.tic., Ino. i. aolely liable, or jointly and/or .everally liable or liable over to Her.hey Foode, and/or Herahey Chooolate tor any injurie. or damage. which lIIay have been autfered by th. Plaintift.. g4. If Her.hey rooda and/or Herehey Chocolate ia held liable to the plaintiff for all or part of .uch injuri.. or dalllagee a. Plaintitt allage. to haVe euttered, Exel Logiatice, Inc. i. liable to Hlr.hey roodl and/or Her.h.y Chocolate by way ot contribution or indlmnity. WHIRlFOal, Anewering Defendant., Herehey Fooda and/or Herahey Chooolate de.and that judCJ1llent be entered in their favor and avainet the Plaintitf. Alternatively, An.wering Defendant., Her.hey Foode and Her.hey Chocolate demand that in the event they are found liable to the Plaintitt or any party on any theory ot liability, that jUdCJllent be entered in their favor and aqain.t 18 I' Detel'ldant Ixll Lo\lbUo., Ino. tor oontribution and/or inde.niUoaUon to the tuU extent of any UabiUty an.werinv defendant, Herahey food .nd Herehey chocolate lIIight havI to .ny other perty to this proceedinq. MOQ un 1 q~..aL&!M O. AM.". O. D...M~.. ......y .,IUIII, OIOgclLA'f1: ,u.,uU'r 'l'O '....0. P. IUI141 O~..I .QU!....., cOK'AMY aGAI..." U. It the averments ot Plaintitf.' Compl.aint are proven true .nd oorreot .t the time ot trial, plaintiffe' a~leged injurie. and de.aql. were cau.ed i" whole or in part by the acte, omi..ion., or product. ot Clark Iquiplllent company U. Clark lquiplllent company 11 eolely liable, or jointly and/or .ever.lly liable or liable over to Hershey Foode, and/or Her.hey Choool.te for any injurie. or damage. whioh lIIay have been suttered by the Plaintiff.. g7. It Her.hey Food. and/or Her.hey Chocolate i. held liable to the plaintift for all or part ot .uch injuriee or damages a. . Plaintiff aUeg.s to have suffered, Clark Equipment COlllpany 11 liable to Her.hey Food. and/or Herehey Chocolate by way of oontribution or indemnity. WHER.fORI, Anewering De~endant., Herehey Foods and/or Her.hey Chooolate demand that judqlllent be entered in their ravor and avain.t the Plaintiff. Alternatively, An.werinq Defendant., Her.hey Food. and Her.hey Chooolate dlllland that in the eVlnt they are tound li.ble to the Plaintift or any party on any theory of Uability, that judql\lent be elltered in their favor and aqain.t 19 Detendant Clark lquipmant indaanUioaUon to the tull Company tor contribution and/or extant of any liability an.wering detendant, Herehey rood and Hershey Chooolate might have to any other party to thi. prooeedinq. cao..cLaIIl o. .....~ O. Q~".DU'f.. .IJI..V I'GaD &lID ......v amaoLa.lf. ItUUUAll'l' 'fO .....a... 1111'.' ..ClAI..... ftt..I.!J~... I.a. 12. It the avement. ot Plaintifte' COlllplaint rre proven true and oorreot at the time of trial, plaintiff.' alleged injurie. and da.ave. were oau.ed in whole or in part by the act., omie.i?n., or produot. of Forklitt., Inc. '3. Ixel Logietic., Inc. ie aolely liable, or jointly and/or .everally liable or liable over to Her.hey Fooda, and/or Her.hey Chooolate tor any injuriee or damave. which may have been .utfered by the Plaintiff.. 14. It Her.hey Foode and/or Herahey Chocolate i. held liable to the Plaintiff for all or part of .uch injuries or damage. .. Plaintift allage. to have .utfered, Forklitta, Inc. i. liable to Her.hey Fooda and/or Herahey Chocolate by way ot contribution or indemnity. WHIRlroRI, Anawering Defendant., Herahay Food. and/or Her.hey Chocolate demand that jud9lllent be entered in their favor and again.t the Plaintiff. Alternatively, Anewerinq Detendanta, Herahey Food a and Herehey Chocolate demand that in the event they are tound liable to the Plaintift or any party on any theory ot liability, that jUd9lllent be entered in their favor and again.t 20 Defendant 'orklitt., Ino. for contribution and/or inde.nitioation to the full extent ot any liability anawerinv defendant, Her.hey 'ood and Her.hey Chooolate .ight have to any othlr party to thi. prooeadin9. GRIfFITH, STRICKLlR, LlRMAN, SOLYMOS , CA~INS .YI~~-- Supreme Court I.D. No. 074110 lbbt BY1xm m ~L ANN GARr.T GRAB Supreme Court I. D. No. !l5986 Attorney. for Her.hay Food. and Her.hey Chooolate 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 Telephone No. (717) 757-7602 'I ,:\ 1 . ., , , , . ., , " h " . " :\1 " " , , , I' I I' '1 "'I 'I '., , , ,',i ,I I " .. ~ Ii a.i I'. ! i i " . ". " !Ii ;g=: ., ID ~ I i I .... i.' -' I ! ~ l:l') , " - ,.'.- I I, ( ... '..' , .., 1:: " II ;" , , , ' ,. I' " " , I. , , " Iq " , , , ' , , . . , ! "I , IN TJlI COURT or COMMON PLEAS or CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PINNSY1NANXA raANCI8 MOItAN, and V19~ MORAN, hi. wit. PlaintUt., No.384 Civil 1994 v. I 1 ;J i ,i .~ II :1 II !i IXIL LQOI8TIC8, INC. CLAa~ IQUIPMINT COMPANY, HlaBHEY rOODS CORPORATION, Individually and t/d/b/a HIRlHIY CHOCOLATE USA . DAUTIC ASSOCIATIS LIMITEP PARTNIRBHIP, and FOR~LIFTS, INC. Defendant.. Civil Aotion - Law NOTICII TO PLEAD i " I' i TOa Franoi. Moran and Viola Moran, hie wife c/o Denni. R. Sheaffer, Esq. 111 North rront street P.O. Box 8Sg Harri.burg, PA 17108-0889 Ii ," You are hereby notified to tile a written re.pon.e to the enclo.ed New Matter and cro..olaim within twenty (20) day. from eervice hereot or a jud9l\lent IIIIY be entered again.t you. GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, I.ERMAN, SOLYMOS , CALKINS i BY a-ittN.GA1tlT ~ Supreme Court I.D. No. !l5ge, Attorney. for Dautec, 110 South Northern Way YOrk, PA 17402 Te .phone No. (717) 757-7602 , ' , '.1 >I. I' 'r' ., IN THI COURT or COMMON PLIAS or CUMBIRLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA r~ct~ MORAN, and VIOLA MORAN, hb wit. Plaintiff., NQ.384 Civil IVV4 v. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I civil Action - Law IXIL LOGISTICS INC. CLAl~ IQUIPMIKT COMPANY, HIUHIY rOODS CORPORATION, Individually and t/d/b/a HIRlHIY t;HOCOLATE USA DAUTIC ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNIRSHIP, and rOR~LIrTS, INC. Defendant.. wn.. ... 1IA'f'f" &liD Qao..q~lll o. D~U'f.c &..Q01&'1'.. L1III'l'.D.'..'l'.....I. AND NOW, COli.. the Defendant, Dauteo A..ooiat.. Li..it.d partnarahip by anc1 through it. attorneye, Griffith, strickl.r, Leraan, lolyao. , Calkin., and Robert A. Lerman, E.quire and Ann Margarat arab, I.quire and file. th!a An.wer and New Matter in r.epon.a to Plaintiffe' Complaint, and .tat.. a. tollow_. 1.. Deni.d. Aft.r rea.onable inv..tigation, Det.ndant i. without knowl.dqa or intormation .uffioi.nt to form a bali.f a. to the truth or veracity of the allegation. contain.d in paraqraph 1 ot Plaintiff.' co..plaint and eame are denied and etr iot proof ther.of d....nd.d. 2. Deni.d. Aft.r reaeonable inv..Uqation, Def.ndant i. without knowledqe or intormation .utfioi.nt to torm a beli.f a. to the truth or veracity ot the .ll_qation. contained in paraqraph 2 1 of 'ldntUt.' COllpldnt and .allle are denied Ind .trict proot the~.or de.anded. 3. Adaitted in part and denied in part. It b admitted that Defendant, Dautec A..Qoiate. Limited partner.hip (hereafter "DlutIO") 11 a lill1ted par:tnerahip with a principal plaoe ot bu.ine.. locat.d It 101 Pearl street, Hartford, CT 06103. The avent tor ..rvice i. Willard F. pinney, Jr., looated at 128 BeUtown Road, South Glaatonbury, CT 06073. It i. turther Id.itted that Defendant Dauteo own. real ..tate in Culllberland County, Penn.ylvania. It ia .pecifically denied that an.werinv derendent Dlutec regularly doee budne.. in Culllberland county, Penn.ylvania. 4. Denied. After rea.onable inveetigation, Defendant ie without knowledge or information .uffioient to form a baliet aa to the truth ~r veracity of the allegatione oontained in paragraph 4 ot Plaintiff'. complaint and eame are denied and .trict proot thereof demanded. 5. Denhd. After reuonable inve.tigation, Defendant i. without knowledge or information .ufficient to form a belief a. to the truth or veracity of the allegation. contained in paragraph 5 ot plaintiff'. complaint and eame are denied and etrict proof thereof demanded. e. OInhd. After rea.onable inv..tigation, Defendant i. without knowledge or information .utficient to form a belief a. to the truth or veracity of the allegation. contained in paragraph 6 2 ot Plaintiff.' Complaint and .allle are d.nhd and .trict proof thereot dem.nde~. 7. Denied. Atter reuQnabll inveltiqaUon, Detendclnt i. without knowl.dge or information auffioient to form a beliet a. to the truth or veracity of the .llegation. contain.d in para9raph 7 ot Plaintiff'. Complaint and ..lIIe are d.niel1 and .triot proof ther.of d.manded. .. Denied. After rea.onable inve.tigation, Defendant i. without knowl.dqe o~ intorlllation .ufticient to torlll a b.liet a. to the truth or veracity of the allegations oontained in paragraph 8 of Plaintiff.' Complaint and sallie are denied and strict proot th.r.ot demanded. g. D.nied. It is .pecifically denied that on January 29, 199a, Plaintitt Franci. Moran, while in the cour.e of hi. .elf- employment was at a warehou.e located at New ~ingston, Cumberl.nd County, p.nn.ylvania, which was operated, lIIaintained, and l....d by D.fendant Exel, D.t.ndant Daut.c, Defendant Henh.y Foods, and/or Detendant Hersh.y Chocolate and owned by Defendant EXel, Detendant Dautec, D.fendant Hershey Foods, and/or Defendant Henhey Chooolate. On the contrary, it ie averred that at all tilll.. relevant: heret:o add war.houee was owned by An.wering Defendant Dauteo. The remaining allegation. of paragraph 9 are d.nied in that an.wering Defendant ie without knowledge or information lutUcient to tOrtll a belief al to the truth or veraoity ot the all.gation. contain.d in paragraph 9 of Plaintiff.' Complaint. 3 10. Denied. It i. .peoifioally denied that on January a" 1"2, Plaintitf, rrenoi. Moran was at .aid warehou.e to pick up frlight Ind wa. in.tructed by ugenh and employee. ot Defendant IXI1, Deflndant Dautec, Detendant Her.hlY Food. and/or Defendant HerahlY Chooolate to report to a ataginv area for loading dock nuaber 45 to examine and count hi. treight. On the contrary, it i. averrld that at all time. relevant hereto, An.wering Defendant Dlutec owned the warehou.e although Dauteo had no employee., .Irvant. or agent. on the premiae.. The relllaining allegation. ot paravraph 10 are denied in that an.wering Defendant ia without knowledge or information .Ufficient to form a beUet a. to the truth or veraoity ot the allegation. oontained in paragraph lOot Plaintitf'. Complaint. 11. Denied. It ia apeoitically denied that on .aid liate, and at .aid plaoe, while in the proce.. ot counting the freight a. in.tructed, Plaintitt Francia Moran wa. 8udlienly anli without warnin9 hit by a torklift operated by an elllployee ot Defendant Ixel, Detenliant Dautec, Defenliant Hershey FOode and/or Defendant Her.hey Chooolate. On the contrary, it ie averred that at all time. rllevant hereto an.wering detendant Dautec owned the atoreidentitied warehoule, but that it did not have any employee., nor did it own any equipment located therein. 12. Denied. It i. .pecifically denied that at all tim.. rllevant hereto, all employee. ot Defendant. Exel, Dautec, Herehey rood. or Her.hey Chocolate were acting within the Icope ot their Imployment and/or actin'll within the authority 'llranted to them by 4 their e.ploYlr and aotinv on it. behalf. On the oontrary, it i. averred that at all U.e. relevant hereto an.wering defendant, Dauteo, the owner ot the warehou.. did not havlI any agent., .ervant. or e.ploYle. at .aid warehou.e. COUll'l' 1 ....11111. JO."" V. IJIL LOClI..,lc.. 1110., 18qliUllU 13. Denied. After re..onabla inveeUgation, Defendant J.a without knowledge or information .ufficient to forlll a belief a. to the truth or veracity of the allegation. contained in paragraph 13 of Plaintiff'. Co.plaint and .allle are denied and .trict proot therlof de.anded. 14-1!S. Paragraph. 14 - 16 do not pertain to an.wering defendant, Dautec, Herehey Food. and/or Her.hey Chccolate and therefore no re.pon.e i. neoe..ary and none i. lIIade. 16. Denied. It ie .pecifically denied that the afor..aid negligence, reckle..neee and carele..ne.. of the Defendant., wa. a direct and proximate cau.e ot various and .even permanent injurie. .u.tained by Plaintiff Franci. Moran. On the contrary, it i. aVerred that at all tilll.. relevant hereto, An.werin9 Defendant Dautec acted carefully, lawfully and prudently. acted carefully, lawfully, and prudently. 17. Denied. It i. .pecifically denied that the accident in que.tion and the injurie. which Plaintitt, Franci. Moran .u.tained wera not due to any action. or tailure to act on hi. part and were in fact the .ole re.ult of the negligence ot the Defendants a. .tatld herein. On the contrary, it i. averred that at all time. !S relevant hlreto, an.wering Defendant Dautec aoted carefully, laWfully and prudently. 18. Denied. Atter reuonable inve.Ugrtion, Dltendant i. without knowledge or information .uftioient to form a beliet a. to the truth or veraoity of the allegation. contained in paragraph 1. of Plaintift.' cOlllplaint and aame are denied and atriot proot thereot de.anded. n. Denied. After reaeonable inve.Uqation, Detendant ie without knowledge or information aufticient to form a beliet a. to the truth or veracity ot the allegation. contained in paragraph 19 of Plaintifte' Complaint and 88l11e are denied and .triot proof thereof demanded. 20. Denied. Atter reaaonable inve.tigation, Dltendant i. without knowledge or information 8uffioient to form a belief a. to the truth or veraoity ot the allegationa contained in paragraph 20 of Plaintiff.' COlllplaint and eame are denied and etrict proot thereof demanded. 21. Denied. Atter rea.onable inve.tigation, Defendant i. without knowledge or intormation autticient to form a belief a. to the truth or veracity of the allegationa contained in paragraph 21 ot Plaintiff.' Complaint and IIlme aX'e denied and .triot proot thereof demanded. 22. Denied. Atter rea80nable inve.tiqation, Defendant i. without knowledge or intormation autticient to form a balief a. to the truth or veraoity of the allegations oontained in paragraph 22 15 of 'laintUfI' Complaint and 88l11e are denied and .trlct proof thereof d..~nded. 23. Denild. After reaaonable inv..tigation, Defendant i. without knowlldV. or intormation aufficient to torm a beUet aa to the truth or vnacity ot the alleqat!one oontained in paragraph 33 of PlaintUf., Complaint and .... are denied and atrict proof thereof de.andld. 24. Denied. After reaaonable inveatigation, D.fendant i. without knowlldge or intorlllation sufficient to fora a b.U.t .. to the trllth or vlraoity of the allegatioftll contained in paragraph 34 ot PlaintUte' Complaint and ..lIIe are denied and strict prcof thereof demandld. 2!1. Denild. After reaeonable invelltlgation, Defendant il without knowlldqe or information autticient to torm a b.lief a. to the truth or veraoity of t.he allegatione oontained in paragraph 35 of Plaintifte' Complaint and aame are denied and atrict proof thereof demanded. WHEREFORE, Answering Detendant Dauteo demand. judglllent in it. tavor and aqainet the Plaintitt together with intereata and ooat. ot .uit. COUll'l' n 'aHa.. NO'" V. D&UTla &..OOI&T... I.a. 26. Paragraphe 1 through 2!1 are incorporated herein.. though fully eet forth at length. 27. Denild. It 18 ap.cU ically denied that at all Umll pertinent herlto, D.fendant Dautec w.. engaged in, among other 7 entex-pri..., thl ownenhip, maintenancI, u.e and operation ot . wanhou.e looated at New ~ing.ton, Culllberlanll County, Penn.Ylvania. On the oontrary, it i. averred that at all tillle. rllevant hereto, an.wer:inq Defendant, DIUtec owned the warehou.e looated in New ~in9.ton, Culllberland County, penn.ylvania, but was not in any way involved in it. .aint.nanoe, u.e and/or operation, and further it i. averred that at all time. relevant hereto an.werin9 defendant aoted oarefully, lawfully, and prudently. 28. Denied. Paragraph 28 oon.titut.. a oonclusion of law to whioh no re.pon.ive pleading ie n.ce..ary and ea.e ie deemed denied. In the event a re.pon.e ill dee.ed necell.ary, it ie averred that an.wering defendant Dauteo acted at all time. relevant hereto oaretully, lawfully and prudently. 2g. Denied. It i. .peoitically d~nied that Defenllant Dauteo bre.ohed it. duty of oare to plaintiff Franoie Moran and wae neglivent, oarele.. and reckle.. by and through it. agent., employee. or .ervant. a. follow.r A. Pa,~Ung to hire an elllployee OOlllpetont to operate the torklirt in qu..tion, B. Failing to properly .upervi.e the elllployee driving the forklift that .truok Plaintiff Franci. Moran, C. Inetruoting Plaintiff Francie Mor.an to proceed to an area where there woulll be torklift tratfic without adequate warning, notioe or protection, 8 D. In.tructin9 plaint.ift rranci. Moran to go to an area where thel'e waa inherently dangerou. aotivit.)' takin9 Pl,o. without adequate warnin9, notioe or proteotionl I. raUin9 to aaintain the forklift .0 a. to hlv. it in prop.r working oondition, I r. Iy it. e.ployee failing to k.ep a proper and IdeCJuate lookout while opel'ating the torklitt that .truok flaintiff Franci. Moran I G. Iy not purch..ing and/or maintaining a forklift that had appropriate wlrning .ignal. 01' devioe. .0 a. to warn individual. in Plaintiff rranch Moran. aituation ot it. approach, i..., warninq bell., aignal., beepera, bUllera, light., .tC.1 H. by r..ovinq or di.oonneoting the warning devic.. ot the forklitt that .truok plaintitf Franci. Moranl I. By it. employe. tailing to take any evaaiv. action to I .void hitting plaintiff Franoi. Moran, J. By ita e.ploy" failing to provide any warning to Plaintiff rrancia Moran ot the forklift'. approach I Ie. By it. employe. t.ailing to properly activate, maintain or u.. any warnin9 bella, .iqnale, b.eper., buzler. or light., L. By it. employe. tailing to p.r.onally cOJllJllunicate any warninv to Plaintitf Franci. Moran of it. approach I M. By it. e.ploy.e operating the torklitt at a .p..d unrea.onable under the circum.tanoeel 9 H. By ita employee tailinCJ to operate the forklift at a .peed at which he would be able to .top in tilDe to avoid hittinCJ Plaintiff . On the contrary, it i. averred that at all ti.e. relevant hereto, Anawering Defendant Dautec had no e.ployee. at the warehou.e and did not own any equipment at the warehou.e. Further, it i. averred that an.wering D.fendant acted car.fully, lawtully and prudently at all time. r.l.vant hereto. 30. Denied. It ie apecifically d.nied that the afore.aid negligenc., reckl...no.. and car.le..nea. ot D.fendant Daut.c was a direot and proximate re.uI t of various aever. and p.rmanent injurie. by Plaintiff Francis Moran. On the contrary, it i. averred that at all time. r.levant hereto, anawering Det.ndant, Dautec acted carefully, lawfully and prudently. WHEREFORE, Anawering Defendant, Dautec demand. judgment in it. favor and again.t the Plaintiff tog.ther with intere.t and coahof .uit. COUll'l' I~I raDcI. IlOI1Af V. .I..BIY rOOD. CO.POllAnOIl 31-315. Paragraph. 31 through 35 do not pertain to An.wering Detendant Dautec and therefore no reapon.iv. pleading i. n.c....ry and none i. ..de. 10 ,,"m 1'( ,~.~t!J' IIO"~ v. ."..1' a~cOLA'fI 36..40. Par.avraph. 36 through 40 do not pertain to An.waring Dat.ndant Daut.o and thentore no n.pon.e pllading i. neoe..ary and non. ie a.d.. COtJll'll v. '~.Ma!. MO... V..:~:D:~UJ"'MT GO~'AM~ 41-4&. Par.graph. 41 - 46 do not p.rtain to an.w.ring det.ndant., th.refore no r..pon.ive ple'ding i. n.c...ary and non. b .ad.. oolUft' 'If. ,..M,"!. MO..~a~I.~~...1I'1' GONJAIIY 47-!l2 . P.ragraph. 47 ~ 52 do not pertain to an.w.ring d.t.ndant., there tor. no r..ponaiv. pleading i. nece..ary .nd non. b .ad.. OOIJlllll VII. '...0111:= :i ~=f.:o:~:::txCOIIJAIIY 53-56. paraqraph. 53 - 56 do not p.rtain to anew. ring d.tendant., th.r.tor. no re.pon.ive pl.ading i. n.c....ry and non. b .ad.. COIIII'I '1111. ,auCI. =::ffq:~a:O..L!'~' 11 ,I 57-02. '.ra9raph. 157 - 62 do not pertain to an.we..1n'l defend.nt., therltore no re.pon.ive pl..din9 i. n.c....ry .nd none i. .ade. ....11(11. COIJllll' I. . =t' ~i:;fflli".' ~ 63-68. PU'9:nph. 63 - 68 do not p.rtain to an.wering defend.nt., th.r.for. no re.ponaive pleadinq i. n.c....ry .nd non. i. .ad.. GODM'l' .. ~ ...''''11 JWO."'" V. .a..LI.If.. 1110. .~..ab af ..~~.aty 69-72. Paragraph. 69 - 72 do not pertain to an.wering det.nd.nt., ther.fore no reaponaive pl~adinq i. nece..ary and non. ia .ade. CODll'1' :II. VIOLa MD..~ v. ...L LOGI.~Ja.. IMO. 73-74. Paraqrapha "/3 - 74 do not pertain to an.wering defendanta, ther.fore no re.pon.ive pl.ading i. nec...ary and non. ia made. COUB .II~ YIOI.& maD Y. D&noIO ".Ocl&'l'I. 75. Paragraph. 1 through 3Q of An.w.ring Detendant'. An.wer are inoorporated herein a. though fully .et torth at len'lth. 12 7'. Denied. It 1. .pecitically deni.d that An.wer~ng Detendant Dautec wa. n.gUgent. Th. r.lllaining all.gation. of parag..aph 7. are denied in that .n.waring Detendant 1. without knowledge or inforaation .uttioi.nt to form a beU.t a. to the truth or veraoity ot the allegation. contained in paragraph 76 ot Plaintitt.' Complaint. WHIRErORI, An.werin9 Def.ndant Dauteo demand. jUd91lent in it. tavor and again.t the Plaintitt tog.th.r with inter..t. and co.t. ot .uit. OOQII'1' JEIII. 'lOLl. IIO.~. V. .IUIIY .OOD' cOallOo.'1'108 77. -78. Paragrapha 77 - 78 do not pertain to l\n.wering detendant, theretore no re.pon.iv. pl.ading i. n.c...ary and none i. .ad.. COQII'1' JEIV. VIOLA MD... V. .IU.IY OHOcOLA'f1 7g. -80. paragraph. 79 -80 do not pertain to an.wering Detendant, ther.for. no r..ponaive pleading i8 nec...ary and none i. ..d.. cOIUl'1' zv. VIOLA 110... V. CLaaR 81. -82. Para9raph. 81 - 82 do not pertain to anawerinv detend.nt, ther.tore no ....pon.iv. pleading i. n.c....ry .nd non. i. .ade. 13 I, i " i ... Oft.. oaV17 ftl. "OLa 1ItI.... ". 01...' '3.-14. Plra9raph. 83 - 84 do not pertain to an.werinv defendant., therefore nQ re.pon.ive pleadinv i. nece..ary and none b .Ide. " , '5. Plaintift.' CQlllplaint fail. to .tate I olu.e of aotion a9ain.t An.wering Defendlnt, Dauteo, upon which relief can be 9ranted. 16. No act or failure to aot on the part of An.wering Detlndant, Dautec, was the proximate cau.e ot plaintitf.' alleged injurie. and damage.. I? plaintiff Franci. Moran'. alleged injurie. and dlma9.. were the re.ult of hie own, .ole neql1gence and were due in no manner to any act or failure to aot on the part of An.werinq Detendant Dauteo. II. Plaintiff Francie Moran wa. contributorily and/or oomparatively neg11gent which contributory and/or oomparative naqlivence was the .ub.tantial tactor in brinqing about hie aUeqed injurie. and damage.. eg. plaintift ha. not .u.tained a .eriou. injury a. detined by Aot 1990-6, 75 P..C.S.A. 11702. 90. plaintiff.' claim for non-economic damage. may bl barred bacau.e plaintiff ha. elected a limited tort option a. .et torth in Act 1990-6, 75 Pa.C.B.A. 11705(b) (3)(d). " , i "'j \1 I :'1 '. ,'1 'I, 14 81. Plaintitf.' alleved injurie. and damave. .ay havI been the r..ult ot Ict. or om1.don. of third partie. oVlr whoa An.werlnv Detendant Dautec hae no legal re.pondbllity or control. aJlD..auJr..~ r:.";,- Y~..IID~ D~D:'.~. ....111.' ...~ II *. Db '1'0 ..0. 1'1 fd) ga. It the averment. of Plaintiffa' Complaint are proven true and correot at thl tillle of trial, Plaintiff.' alleged injurie. and da.ave. were cau.ed in whole or in part by the act., ollli..ion., or produot. of Exel Logi.tic., Inc. g3. Exel Logi.tic., Inc. ie solely liable, or jointly and/or .everally liable or liable over to Dautec for any injude. or damage. which .ay have been .uttered by the Plaintitt.. g4. If Dautec i. held liable to the Plaintiff for all or part ot .uch injurie. or damage. I. Plaintift Illege. to hIve .uffered, Ixel Logi.tic., Inc. ia liable to Dautec by way of contribution or indelllnity. WHEREFORE, Anewering Detendant Dautec demand. that judg.ent be entered in it. favor and againet th~ Plaintitt. Alternatively, An.wering Defendant Dautec dellllnd. that in the event they ar.e tound liable to the plaintift or any party on any theory ot liability, that jUd9lllent be entered in it. tavor and again.t Detendant Ixel Logietic., Inc. for contribution and/or indellll\itication to the full extent of any liability an.wering detendant Dautec might have to any other party to thi. proceedinv. 15 q,q"CLAIII Q' "'0- O' D.'~'DU"', DAU'IIC, to .a.J,g"1 IU114>> ~AI.'" c"~'" ,0Unlllll'l COII'UI 1111. It t~e averment. ot PlaintiU.' complaint are proven true .nd corrlct at the time ot trial, Plaintift.' all,ged injurie. and d..age. were aau.ed in whole or in part by the aot., omi..ion., or product. ot Clark Equipment company 116. Clark Equiplllent cOlllpany i. .olely liable, or jointly and/or eeverally liable or liable over to Dautec for any injurie. or d..agl. which lIIay have been .utfered by the Plaintift.. g7. If Dauteo i. held liable to the plaintift for all or part ot .uoh injurie. or damage. a. Plaintitf allege. to have .uttered, Clark Equipment cOlllpany ie liable to Dautec by way ot contribution or indemnity. WHEREFORE, An.werinq Detendant Dautec dellland. that judqment be entered in their favor and aqainet the PlaintiU. Alternatively, An.wering Detendant Dautec demand. that in the event they are tound liable to the Plaintiff or any party on any theory ot liability, that jud9lllent be entered in their tavor and again.t Detendant Clark Equiplllent cOlllpany for oontribution and/or indemnification to the full extent of any liability an.wering detendant Dautec miqht have to any other party to thi. proceedinq. Cao..cLAIM O' a..... o' D....DAMT.. DAU".C 'U..U~ " 0 .....0... 111114' AaAI.." .OIILI.".. I.C. 92. It the avermente ot Plaintift.' Complaint are proven true and correct at the time ot trial, plaintift.' alleged injurie. and 16 d'.'Ve. wer. olu.ed in whole or in part by the aatl, omi..ion., or produot. ot Forklift., Inc. 83. Ix.l LogieticI, Inc. i. .olely liable, or jointly and/or ..verally lilble or liable over to Dautec tor Iny injurie. or dl.IVe. whioh .ay hive been .utfered by the Plaintitt.. 84. It DautBQ ie held liable to the PlaintUt tor all or part 01 .uoh injurie. or damage. a. Plaintiff allege. to hive .uttered, Forklift., Inc. ie liable to Dautec by way ot contribution or indemnity. WHEREFORE, Anewerinq Defendant., Dautec demand that judqment ba entered in their favor and aqainet the plaintiff. Alternatively, Anewering Defendant., Dautec dellland that in the event they are tound liable to the Plaintift or any party on any theory of liability, that judglllent be entered in their tavor and Iqdn.t Defendant Forklift., Inc. for contribution and/or indemnifioation to the tull extant of any liability anewerinq detendant, Dautec miqht have to any other party to thie proceedinq. GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS , CALKINS BYI~~LI~~ Suprame Court 1.0. No. 07480 ,,' ale I /IAo-.. m ~ Atiif~O B Supreme Court 1.0. No. !l!lU6 Attorney. for Dautec 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 Telephone No. (717) 7157-7602 17 V..JnCA'l'IOY' I, Ann Mar9aret Grab, I.quire, do hereby verifY that I a. the attorney of reoord tor the pleadin'l party herein, and that the taot. .et torth in the toregoinv pleading are true to the be.t ot .y knowledge, information and belief, upon information aupplied. I undaratand that fale. .tatement. made herein are .ade .ubjeot to the penaltie. of 18 Pa.C.S.A. . 4g04 relating to uneworn tal.itioation to authoritie.. GRIFFITH, STRICRLlR, LlRMAN, 80LYMOS , CALKINS Dated I ~.y~ BYI~ I'rI ~4l Ann Marqaret Grab, I.quire Supre.e Court 1.0. '55986 110 South Northern Way York! penn.ylvania 17402 (7171 757-7602 I i' ,I ' I' J 11 " , fi ' ' I I I I ! GRIFfITH, STRICKLER, LIRMAN, SOLYMOS , CALKINS C'RTI'IC~TE or 8ZRVICI AlfD HOW, thl. 11th of May , UII4, I, Ann Marvuet Grab, ..quire, a ..abel' ot the t1ra of GRIrrITH, STRICICLlR, LlRMAN, IOLYMO' . CALIlINS, Ilqu1r.., her.by certUy th.t I hIV., thi. dat., .Irved . ClOpy of AIIlwer, NIW Matter and cro..olaim ot Dat.ndant DauteQ by unit.d state. Mail, .ddr....d to the party or .ttorn.y of reoord a. follOWl1 Dannia R. Sh..tt.r, laq. 111 North Front street P.O. Box 889 Harr1aburg, PA 17108-0889 Louia 1.1IL laq. H.nhaU, oenn.h.y, Warner col..an , a0991n 130 LoCluat str..t Harr1.burV, PA 17101 a.or9a r. DOUlifl", Jr., IIlq. DoU9la., Dougla. , DouCJl.. 27 .,a.t High stre.t carliale, PA 17013 a.or9. I. Fallar, lI.q. Hartaon, Deardorff, William. Tan la.t Hi9h strllt car11.l., PA 17013 . otto BYI IlA1A'l yYl ~ ANN MARGARIlT G suprlme court 1.0. No. 55986 Attorneya tor Dautec, Herahay Foodl and Herah.y Chocolat. 110 south Northern W.y York, PA 17402 T.llphone No. (717) 7!l7-7602 law a; ,. ,. . ~ '1' " ..,. ;::J" , (;., .-. ,.f 'I"':: , " , ., " " \, " " ',11 , 'I' ".1 I " " '" :1' ., .! " I Id 1111 ~ II IE. I IN THI COURT or COMMON 'LIAS or CUMBIR~D COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 'RANCI' MO~, end VIOLA MORAN, hia wU. I PlaintiU., NO.3.4 Civil 1~g4 v. IXIL LOGI8TICS, INC. CLAR~ IQUIPMINT cOMPANY, HIRlHIY rOODS CORPORATION, Individually and t/d/b/a HI..HIY CHOCOLATI USA DAUTIC A880CIATIS LIMITID PARTNE~HIP, and FORKLIFTS, INC. Defendant. . civil Aotion - Law =.~~~: ~~&n:.c:~~c~~:.~~~:~"C~'=::=~~ 106. The An.wer and New Matter of Anlwerinq Defendant Dauteo A..ooiate. Limited partner.hip is inoorporated herein a. though tully .et torth at length. 107. Denied. Paragraph 107 con.titute. a conolueion of law to which no re.pone1ve pleading i. neoee.ary and lallle ia cSeemecS dlniecS. In the event a re.pon.e 1a deellled neoe..ary, it ie averred that Daubc A..ooiate. LilIIited Partnership aoted at all time. relevant hereto, care tully , lawfully and prucSently and cSid not breaoh any implied and/or expre.. warranties or contract.. Further, it ie averrecS that Anawering DefencSant i. not alone liable, jointly and or eeverally liable, or liable over to Clark .quip.ent or any other party to thie action tor contribution or inde.nity on any theory ot liability. WHIR.FORI, Anewerinq Defendant, Dautec A..ociatea LimitaC1 Partner.hip demand. jUdqlllent in ita tavor and aqain.t the plaintitt or alt.rnaUvel)' a9ain.t: clark lquipment toveth.r with intere.t. and ooaia of auit. QRIrrITH, 8TRIC~Lla, LlRMAN, 80LYM08 . CA~INS ".... ~'41. t-,,~/1 IYI .,~. -~ aOlbT A. - Supre\ll' court. I.D. No. 014tO . , BYI~/~' ~.' ~~ I 10 . 1I1.\pre\lle Court 1.0. No. 5511I6 Attorney. for Dauteo 110 South Northern way York, PA 11402 Telephone No. (111) 157-7602 lbtq I' " ;,1 . ,. ., " , ' , " 'I " ;I' .' 'I I . , , ,., ,I iI " .1 ' I' ,! i'! ,t iI I" - " . , I . V.RI.lpAT~O~ . I i. I verify that the fcragoing faot. are true, upon my perlonal knowladge or information and belief. This veritioation i. made lubject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. I 4904, relating to un.worn falsifioation to authorities. , I \ ~ , Ii Datedl DAUTEC ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNBRSHIP , . " I,' .,' . , ,if ' , '\ 'I" ". . . I I I I, , , :' 1>1 " , ,'I; , I '. ,'I . ~ I I i.' C'~TI'I?ATE Qf SERVJq. AND NOW, thi. d 4. of YI.~/ , ue4, I Al!n Mar9aret Grab, I.qurn;- a ii.~ei' ot the 11m of aRI,rITH/ ''l'IlXCICLlIl, UllMAN, S01.YMOS , CA~ItfS, I.quire., henby certify thu I have thi. date, ..rv.d a oopy ot Reply of Dauhc A..ociatl. l.i.ited partner.hip '. R.ply to Clark lquipment '. An.Wlr, New Mattar by United state. MaU, addr....d to the party or attorney ot reoord a. tolloWBI Danni. R. 8h$affer, ..q. 111 North rront Stre.t P.O. lox .U Herri.bur9, PA 17108-0889 (Coun.el tor the Plaintift) Loui. lell, I.q. Mar.hall, Dennehey, Warn.r Cole.an . Govgin 130 Locu.t Street Harri.burg, PA 17101 (Coun.el tor Clark Equipment) , ' , ;' , , aeorye r. Douqla., Jr., !.q. Dou9 a., Oougla. , Dougla. 27 W..t High Street carli.le, PA 17013 (Coun.el for rorklitt., Ino.) IXll Logi.tic., Inc. 5023 Trindle Road Mechanic.burg, PA 17055 GRIrrIT", S'l'RICICLlR, URMAN, SOLYMOB , CA~INS llY I 0dJ. ':I YJ }-,)J,,-- ~ mOAR!'!' Gn~ Supre.. Court I. D. No. 55n6 Attorney. for Dautec 110 south Northern Way York, PA 17402 Telepholle No. (717) 151-1602 1btll I , ~ ..". ~r:' ~ ),. ~'.r '."J -- -...,. , ~ ", ',J -- .,-r.~ . '" " " " " i " ., , " ' "I " , i " 'I,' 'I 1"1 I .' ~ " I I. II I 'I II, . 'I , I . I, , , " " ., " , , ;11 '.j " .-' " I' ., " , , , Ii . . 1< IN THI COURT or COMMON PLlAS OF qUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAHI~ rJANCXS MORAN, and VIQLA'MORAN, hi. wite PlainUft. , No.384 Civil ~9g4 v. ~~~~~~~:t ~~~PANY, H_alHIY rOODS CORPORATION, Individually and t/d/b/a HlalHIY CHQCOLATI USA DAUTIC ASSOCIATIS LIMITED PARTNIRSHIP, and FOR~LIrTS, INC. Detendant.. civil Action - Law -:'~" o. ..:xn ~~~: CO.~:':~.c rIllDl::~V~l\\ &lID I 1/1 .1. XIY OK C LATI 8 1.1.. II D -1& '. HI. ~'f'f'~ Cao',CL1111 106. The Answer and New Matter ot An.wering Defendant Her.hey roode Oorporation t/d/b/a Henhey Chocolate USA ia incorporated herein a. though tully set forth at length. 107. Denied. paragraph 107 constitutes a conclu.ion ot law to which no respon.ive pleadinq is nece..ary and sallie ie deemed uenied. In the event a response is deellled nece..ary, it i. averred that Hershey Food. t/d/b/a Henhey Chocolate USA acted at all Ume. l'elevant hereto, care tully , lawfully and prudently and did not breach any implied and/or expre.. warranties or contract.. rurther, it ie averred that Anewering Detendant ie not alone liable, jointly and or .everally liable, or liable over to Clark IquiplIIent or any other party to thia action for contribution or indemnity on any theory of liability. WHIRIFORI, Answerinq Detendant, Hershey Food. t/d/b/a Her.hey Chocolate USA demand. jUdgtllent in its tavor and again.t the I':r, ""'.',. 'laintitf Or alternatively a91inat Clark Iquip.ent toqather with int.r..t and oo.t. of .uit. GRIFFITH, STRIC~LlR, LlRMAN, SOLYMOS . CAUCINS BYI~2VA~~ J Supra.e Court I. D. No. 07490 , " BYIQ~J}") t)~" GARI'JVGRAB Suprame Court: 1.0. No. 55986 Attorney. tor Herahey Food. and Her.hey C~ocol.te 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 Telephon. No. (717) 757-7602 lbllt , 'ii .1 ' " '\ ! " . " , I \-1 il , , I ' I , , " I" , II' II' 'I , III , , I,) . " ,. . V..trl~A'1'ION I varity that the tore90inv taot. Icnowledv. or intorllaUon and beU.f. .Ubjlot to the penalties ot 18 PI.C.S. tal.itioation to authoriti... Ire true, upon .y per.ona~ Thi. verifioation i. .adl . 4g04, rel.tinV to un.Worn Dahl S" 1;(0 h~ HERSHEY rOODS CORPORATION, Individually and t/d/b/a HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA BYI , 1 I, I " I , , ' ," " " " .} , ,i, I I , I, ',i :i " '" I , 'I' I' , I' 'I. , , , I " , , " " I' '1 " 'I I ,'; ,I , I '.I ., , ' " 1;' 'I I ,I , .1 'I, , II I, r I ; ',II I ! I-I I 1111 '\1 :1 [, ',r~i, ':fr 1',1 '~i\! 1) 1..( t (\~; ~'1" 11' 'I, 'I' dI; .. :il::: ..:l... 1'1 !I) ~~:1 .n , , 'III :,I" >. ,I~ I. I~I, ." 'I ~'~ " "" ,..... ~'"., , - :;V:1 .1 , I' .\ " "I '" ': , , I: '., 'I )" " '.' ;1 I 'I ,.." " " ., I' I" ,,' I " I' '1, :, ,.. , I' , i I \} Il' " , .il :1'\/ ,1l "Ii " r ',1 , .,,'1). i j 'I~ I,; 'H .:..j VERIFICATIO~ I ver~fy that the foregoing facts are true, upon my personal knowledge or information and belief. This verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. S 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Datedl DAUTEC ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP partner 1 '1 1 ;");, ;'1 . : I, , ", , I, , , , I' -I ~ I i'i' :\ I ;I )' " \' , , CERTIFICATE Of SERVICE AND NOW, thh 24th ot May, lU4, I, Ann Mall'varet arab, ..quirl, a .ellWer of the till'1D of GRIFfITH, STRICICLlR, LIRMAN, SOx..YMQ8 . CALI(INS, I.quire., hereby certify that I have, thia date, sened a oopy of Praeoipe to substitute VerUioation of Dauteo As.ooiate. Li.ited Partner.hip'. An.wer and New Matter by Un1ted Itate. Man, adclre..ed to the party or attorney ot record a. tolloWl1 Danni. R. Sheaffer, E.q. Ul North rll'ont str.et . '.0. lox "' Harll'i.bur9, PA 17108-088g (coun.el tor the Plaintiff) Lo~i. .ell, Esq. Mar.h.l1, Dennehey, Warner Cole.ln . 00991n 130 Locuat street Harri.bu~9, PA 17101 (Counlel tor Clark Equipment) Oeorge P. Dougla., Jr., E.q. Oou9la., Douvla. , Dougla. 27 We.t H19h Str.et Carli.le, PA 170~3 (Coun.ll for Forkiitt., Inc.) George.. Faller, Jr., mlq. Mart.on, Oeardortf, Willialll. , Otto Ten I..t Hi9h street Carlille, PA 17013 (Coun.el tor Excel Logi.tic., Inc.) " GRIFfITH, STRICKLIR, LERMAN, SOLYMOS , CALKINS BYI (Jh-IJ/) ~~({ ANN MARG KET ()RA . SUprellle Court 1.0. No. 55986 Attorneys tor Dautec 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 . Telephone No. (717) 757.7602 lbip , , , , , , FRANCIS MORAN and VIOL, A MORAN V. I IN THB COURT OF COMMON PL~AS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA. I CIVIL ACTION. LAW BXBL LOGISTiCS, INC.; CL~ EQUIPMENT COMPANY,HERSHBY CHOCOLATE USA; HBRSHEY FOODS CORPORATION, Individually and t/d/b/a HERSHBY CHOCOLATE! USA, DAUTBC ASSOCIATBS LIMlTBD P ARTNBRSHlP; FORJ<:LIFI'S, INC. . . I NO. 384 CIVIL 1994 . . : JURY TRIAL DEMAND~D DIlFBNDANT. FORKpFrS.INC!S. RJlrJ.. Y TO THE CROSSCLAlM OF DEFIaNDANT. D.AUTEC ASSQCIATJlS LJMl1JlD PAR1NE~HIr 92. Denied. The allegations of the answer of the defendant, Forklifta, Inc., is incorporated herein by reference thereto. 93. Denied. It is denied that there Is any Uablltty on the part of the defendant, Forklifts, Inc. 94. Denied. reference thel'eto. The answer to paragraph 93 is Incorporated herein by WHEREFORE, It Is prayed that there Is no lIablltty on the part of the defendant, Forkllfta, Inc. DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS &c DOUGLAS By /{k Attorney for Defendant, or , , "~ ., .;~ , ., 'I \ , 'I' .",. " en 'I :'.'I'::: ". lJ.... I' I,:' .i' I I, , ":r I , t') .~.. I'i, ~, , :J'"; " I, 'I, :' I' ,., '"' W')II ""I IHIIIII' III ,;111"'11 I'l rill" .....1111.1'1 III '\1'1111'" ,) Ill' lilt Ill' '" VI' II "'" '\ltl' Il" 'II II ~ ~', r t! 'll<l "I 11 V II' I' III ul In .~tI " PIll', 'II II t t-l. ~ III 1111111'11 "!l~ql~1 ~'ll' '" " , " , , , , I'i ,', "ll',}ll.,j,' ~ ,I nrlt/I;I ^,_; 1)'-'HJ(,I,^"1 !, Il, i'l d,\', '" " , " '\ , ' 'I , '1 , I i I " I' I' ., .1 , I ;,1 .1 I" , , , i' , 'I; I I '. ., I" , , WI' Dn 11I111 tly ,'Iillln ,h"1 ,",llnu "," Ihlll AW1':'Hlln <I III 'III .jrtlfdtiA, 111"1 It. "',.II'lN, II, ArtrJllIlft' ., :1 I , IIOj ,;i', 11111 , FRANCIS MORAN and VIOLA MORAN V. : IN THB COURT OF COMMON PLBAS OF : CUMBBRLAND COUNTY, PA. : CIVIL ACTION. LAW EXBl, LOGISl1CS, INC,; CLARK BQlnPMENT COMPANY, HBRSHBY CHOCOLATB USA; HBRSI-JEY FOODS CORPORATION, Individually and t/d/b/a HERSHEY CHOCOLATB USA, DAlITEC ASSOCIATBS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; FORKLlFI'S,lNC. . . : NO, 384 CIVIL1994 . . : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT. FQRKLlFI'S, lNC!S. REPLY TO TI-IJ! CROSSCLAI~ OF Q~FBNDANT. JiBRSljJ;lY POODS AND HERSHEY CHOCOLATE 92. Denied. Ills denied that there was any liability on the part of Forklifts, Inc., for the plalntlffs' inJuries. 93. Denied. The crosscJalrn refers to EXIlI Logistics and then Forklifts, Inc. However, the Reply to paragraph 92 Is Incorporated herein by reference thereto. 94. Denied. reference thereto. The Reply to paragraph 92 Is Incorporated herein by WHBREFORE, the crosscJalm against Forklifts, Inc., should be dismissed. OOUGLAS, DOUGLAS &: DOUGLAS By )k,'~ ( ~~tJ Attorney for Defendant, orlOlfta, Inc. I' ;r; " w l,f ~, .'''': " 'I ," . ., ~, .' , I , , , ('-I '1,1' , ,,-oJ I , " , , ~ .-, :' <. ',I i = 1- s...~li~ !sLtp: !rp 1:1: " .. " . INTI. COUlT or COJIMOJr 'LIAS CUIII..LAND COUNTY, .JDnfSYLVANIA ,RANCIS MORAN and IN tfHE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS VIOLA MORAN, his wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs I NO. 384 CIVIL 1994 I If . I I IXIL LOGISTICS, INC., CLARK I CIVIL ACTION - LAW BQUIPMBNT COMPANY, HERSHEY I CHOCOLATE USA, HERSHEY FOODS I CORPORATION, OAUTBC ASSOCIATES I LIMITED PARTNBRSHIP, and FORKLIFTS, INC., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDBD PLAIHTI"S' I.PLY TO DIl'IIHDANT CLARK 10UIPIIDT COIIPANY' S HI" 1011''1'Il'' 85. Denied as a conclusion of law. 86. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff was negligent in any manner through his action or inaction so as to contribute to the accident in question, To the contrary, the Plaintiff USi!d all reasonable care under the circumstances to prolfide fcr his own safety. 87. Denied. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all the all~gations set forth in their Complaint against Defendant Clark. 88. Denied. It is denied that the Plaintiff's conduct caused or was a contributing cause to the accident or his resulting injuries and damages. To the contrary, the Plaintitfs hereby incorporate their Reply to Paragraph 86 above and the allegationa of negligence aa to each of the Detendants as set forth in their Complaint. 89. Denied as a conclusion of law. By way ot further denial, aa alleged in Plaintifts' Complaint, while the other Defendants' actions or omissions may have contributed to the accident, said actions were not intervening or superseding acts of negligence so as to relieve Defendant Clark from liability. It is further alleged that Defendant Clar.k's negligence was a substantial an.d proximate cause of the accident and the Plaintiff's resuilting injuries and damages. 90. Denied as a conclusion of law that the Plaintiffs' claims are barred or reduced by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. To the contrary, it is specifically denied that the Plaintiff was in any manner comparatively negligent, but rather he used reasonable care under the circumstances and did not act or fail to act so as to be negligent or contribute to the accident in question. 91. Denied as a conclusion of law. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate their Reply to Paragraph 90 above. 92. Denied. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate their Reply to Paragraph 90 above. Alternatively, if the Plaintiff is found to be contributorily negligent then it is specifically denied that .aid negligence was comparatively greater than Detendant Clark', negligence. I 93. Denied. It is specifically denied that Detendant Clark's product was not in a defective condition when it lett Defendant Clark's possession and control. To the contrary, it is alleged that said prcduct was detective when it lett Detendant Clark'. control, as set forth in Plaint-it fs' CompJ.aint. 94. Denied. Defendant Clark did not provide all reasonabla warnings and instructions with regard to the product in question as set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint. 95. Denied. It is believed that the product produced and sold by Defendant Clark was in substantially the same condition as it was at the time of the accident as when it lett Defendant Clark's possession and control. 96. Denied as a conclusion of law. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff assumed any known risk at or before the time of the accident in question. 97. Denied. It is specifically denied as set forth above that Plaintift' s actions or lack of action was negligent and/or caused the accident in question or Plaintitf's resulting injurie. and damages. \' ill 105. No response required, 106.-107. The allegations set forth in these Para~raphs are directed to parties other than the Plaintiffs and alii such no response is required by the Plaintiffs. WHERBFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court t,o dismiss Defendant ClarJ< Equipment company's New Matter and, enter judgment in their favor in accordance with their prayer for relief in their Complaint. Respectfully submitted, HEPFORD, SWARTZ & MORGAN ~ ., By: ~ :- 'fl. St:. 01 nl.-:1. Sheaffer ~ 1.0. No. 39182 Datedl 5/27/94 111 North Front Street P. O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-088 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS I J .,1, I I " , , , , " " , , , " VllHnc~'fIQN ; !' t. I I, rranoi. Moran, verity that the facta atatld in the torevoinq doouaent are true Ind oorrect to the b..t of .y knowled9., lnto....ticJn end bIU.t. I underatand that any fal.. .tatl.ent. herein .ra .ad. aUbject to the p.naltie. of 18 Pa.C.S. - 4904 relatinq to un.WOrn falsification to authoritie.. " I: ,. \ I \. I i" i,', ,&:;;;;: c-<W...~ ,- I" '/I !~, f~ i i'-.- ,', '1. ,., ,'i ;1, I vii' '.1 ,I; , . , - \, II , ., ,I, I" " , , ,I i , I , ill ". '1 1,1 .1 , ' , I \, , , I, I: I ij' ;1 \1 " VIJlIFICATION I, Viola Moran, verify that the tact. ,tAted hi the foravoinv docu.ent are true and correot to the be.t of .y knowledqe, 1nfor.ation and belief. I under.tand that any false atatelllent. herein are .ade 8ubjeot to the penalties of 18 PI.C.S. - 4904 relatinq to un.worn tal.itioation to authoritie.. C~j~ I//~.,~ viola Moran 'I !.', ,\ , .>1, " , ! I i ~ I' , '!, I I \1 I \ ' " , " ' " , ," I , " e; . :.<<:1 0__ IT' ..... ('J ;.. ., f- .'1 I' II:" ','1 '. ) , ,~ ' 1/ -, " , '-I', , . ", , , '1., <.::) " '" _,'I, " " -~ r I ~ ". Ii ,. ~~ I'I i' . , , , ".",...."LL, DtINN....y. "'''''N.'', COLlMAN. 00001" e."......LIt".., ..... . ....,...... ."...n..., IN THI COURT 0' COKNON .LIAS CUMJIRLAND COUNTy, .INN.YLVANIA FRANCIS MORAN and VIOLA MORAN, hiB wife Plaint if fB CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 384 Civil 1994 VB. EXEL LOGISTICS, INC., CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY, HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA, HERSHEY FOODS CORPORATION, DAUTEC ASSOCIATES LIMITED and FORKLIFTS, INC. DefendantB RIPLY 0' DI'INDAN'l'. CLARK IOUnMlNT COIIPANY. TO THI CJ.OI,C:LAIM O. DI'INQ~. HI..HIY 'OODI COR'OIlA'J'ION. INDIVQqi!~LY Mjp rrlQ/J1lo HIRSHIY CHOCOU'r1 U~ COMES NOW, defendant, Clark Equipment Company, by and throu~h itB attorneys in response to the crossclaim of co- defendants, Hershey Foods Corporation, Individually and t/d/b/a Hershey Chocolate USA, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d). Answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, fully incorporates by reference its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint with New Matter and Crossclaims as though set forth at length herein. 95. Denied. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 95 of the Crossclaim of defendants, Hershey Food and Hershey Chocolate, constitute conclusions of law, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that, if the averments in Plaintiffs' Complaint are proven true and correct at the time of trial, plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages were caused in whole or in part by the acts, omissions, or products of Clark Equipment Company. Moreover, to the extent that plaintiff and co-defendant have failed to set forth with speqificity the forklift described in Plaintiffs' Complaint, to wit, by supplying full and complete designations and descriptions of the forklift itself, and all of the compon~nts, subcomponents, parts and subparts equipped on the subject forklift at the time of marketing, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant specifically denies that the forklift at issue is manufactured by and designed by Clark Equipment Company. If the product was a product designed, manufactured and/or sold by Clark Equipment Company, which is specifically denied, the produot contained every element necessary to make it safe and, if plaintiff has and/or will sustain damages as alleged, answering defendant denies any al~ all liability for same. Strict proof is demanded at trial. 96. Denied. To the extent that the allegations set forth in paragraph 96 of the Crossclaim of defendants, Hershey Food and Hershey Chocolate, constitute conclusions of law, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Clark Equipment Company is solely liable or jointly and/or severally liable, or liable over to Hershey Food and/or Hershey Chocolate for any injuries or damages suffered by the plaintiffs. If plaintiff has and/or will sustain damages, injuries and/or losses -2- as alle~ed, enswering defendant denies any and all liability for same. Strict proof is demanded at trial. 97. Denied. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 97 of the Crossclaim of defendants, Hershey Food and Hershey Chocolate, constitute conclusions of law, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By waY of further response, it is specifically denied that if Hershey Food and/or Hershey Chocolate is held liable to the plaintiff for all or part of such injuries or damages as plaintiff alleges to have suffered, Clark Equipment Company is liable to Hershey Food and/or Hershey Chocolate by way of contribution or indemnity. By way of further response and without admitting any liability whatsoever on behalf of answering defendant, it is specifically denied that answering defendant is liable to plaintiff and, furthermore, it is specifically denied that answering defendant is liable to co-defendants, Hershey Food and/or Hershey Chocolate, by way of contribution and/or indemnity pursuant to contractual or common law grounds therefor, Strict proof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss the Crossclaim of defendants, Hershey Food and Hershey Chooolate, and -3- tN THI COU.T 0' COMMQN 'LIAI CUMlI.LAND COUNTY, .INNIYLVANIA FRANCIS MORAN and VIOLA MORAN, his wife Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 384 Civil 1994 vs. EXEL LOGISTICS, INC., CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY, HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA, HERSHEY FOODS CORPORATION, DAUTEC ASSOCIATES LIMITED and FORKLIFTS, INC. I Defendants CIRTI'IC~TIOH O' SI.VICI I hereby certify that I have filed with the Court Reply of Defendant, Clark Equipment Company, to the Crossclaim of Defendants, Hershey Foods Corporation, Individually and t/d/b/a/ Hershey Chocolate USA, in the above-captioned matter, and served true and correct copies upon all parties as listed below on this date via First Class Mail. I Dennis R. Sheaffer, Esquire Hepford, Swartz & Morgan 111 North Front Street P. O. 90x 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Plaintiffs George F. Douglas, Jr., Esquire Douglas, Douglas & douglas 27 West High Street ~. O. Box 261 carlisle, PA 17013-0261 Attorney for Defendant, Forklifts, Inc, ~obert A. Lerman, Esquire Ann Margaret arab, Esquire Griffith, Striokler, Lerman Solymos & Calkins 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402-3737 Attorneys for Defendants, Hershey Foods corporation, Individually and t/d/b/a Hershey chooolate USA, and Dautec Associates Limited Partnership George 9. Faller, Jr., Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant, Excel Logistics, Inc. BYI R . At rney fot; Clark Equipme t company 1845 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-4717 (215) 575-2823 DATED I Juna~, 1994 'I , , " , '1 I. 'I , , " . 'L' , , " \ 'I ,L'I , , I., ., IN THI COURT 0' COMMON 'LIA' CVMlI.LAND COUNTY, .IHNSYLVANXA FRANCIS MORAN and VIOLA MORAN, his wife Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 384 Civil 1994 vs. EXEL LOGISTICS, INC., CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY, HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA, HERSHEY FOODS CORPORATION, DA~rEG ASSOCIATES LIMITED and FORKLIFTS, INC. Defendants alPLY or DlrIHDANT. CLARk IOUIPMINT COMPANY. TO ~I CR08&CLAJ~ or DlrIHDANT. DAUTIC A880CIATI. LIMITID PARTNlR8HIP COMES NOW, defendant, Clark Equipment Company, by and through its attorneys in response to the crossclaim of co- defendant, Dautec Associates Limited Partnership, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d). Answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, fully incorporates by reference its Answer to Plaintiffs' complaint with New Matter and CroBsclaims as though set forth at length herein. 95. Denied. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 95 of the Crossclaim of defendant, Dautec Associates Limited Partnership, constitute conclusions of law, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of civil Procedure. By way of further response, it iA specifically denied that, if the averments in Plaintiffs' Complaint are proven true and correct at the time of trial, plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages were oaused in whole or in part by the acts, omissions, or produots of Clark Equipment Company. Moreover, to the extent that plaintiff and co-defendant have failed tCI set forth with specificity the forklift dflllcribed in Plaintiff.s' Complaint, to wit, by sl\pplying full and complete designations and descriptions of the forklift itself, and all of: the components, subcomponents, parts and subparts equipped on the subject forklift at the time of I marketing, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant specifically denies that the forklift at issue is manufactured by and designed by Clark Equipment Company. If the product was a product designed, manufactured and/or sold by Clark Equipment Company, which is specifically denied, the product contained every element necessary to make it safe and, if plaintiff has and/or will sustain damages as alleged, answering defendant denies any and all liability for aame. Strict proof is demanded at tX'ial. 96. Denied. To the extent that the allegations set foX'th in paragraph 96 of the Crossclaim of defendants, Dautec Associates Limited Partnership, constitute conclusions of law, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Clark Equipment Company is solely liable or jointly and/or severally liable, or liable over to Dautec Associates l,imited Partnership for any injuries or damages suffered by the plaintiffs. If plaintiff has and/or will sustain damages, -2- injurieo and/or losses as alleged, answQring defendant denies any and all liability for same. Strict proof is demanded at trial. 97. Denied. To the extent the allQgations set forth in paragraph 97 of the Crossclaim of defendant, Dautec Associates Limited Partnership, constitute conclusions of law, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of civil Procedure. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that if DautQc Associates timited partnership is held liable to the plaintiff for all or part of such injuries or damages as plaintiff alleges to have suffered, Clark Equipment Company is liable to Dautec Associates Limited Partnership by way of contribution or indemnity. By way of further response and without admitting any liability whatsoever on behalf of answering defendant, it is specifically denied that answering defendant is liable to plaintiff and, furthermore, it is specifically denied that answering defendant is liable to co-defendant, Dautec Associates Limited Partnership, by way of contribution and/or indemnity pursuant to contractual or common law grounds therefor. Strict proof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, answering defendant, Clark Equipment Company, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss the crossclaim of defendant, Dautec Associates Limited Partnership, *3. enter judgment in its favor on the Crossclaim of Dautec A.soaiates Limited partnershi~. BYI TE Attorney Clark Equ pment Company 1845 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-4717 (~15) 575-2823 ~ I; I 'I " " 'I I' II !i -4- I I, ~: VERIFICATION WALTER H. SWAYZ~, III, ~SQUIRE, Attorney for Defendant, CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY, verifie~ that the fact~ ~et forth in the REPLY TO TH~ CROSSC~AIM OF DEFENDANT, DAUTEC ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, are true to the be~t of his knowledge, information and belief. If the above statements are not true, the deponent is subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. S4904 relating to unsworn fal~ification to authoritie~. .. ,\ WA . A Attorney for Clark Equipmfln DATil I June 2, 1994 . , II , , , " , ' I, . '! I ':1 , , I . , ,," . :EN Tal COt1aT or COMMON 'LIAS CUNllaLAHD COUNTy, 'INHSYLVANXA FRANCIS MORAN and VIOLA MORAN, his wife Plaintiffll CIVIL ACTION . LAW NO. 384 Civil 1994 vs. , I \ EXEL LOGISTICS, INC., CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY, HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA, HERSHEY FOODS CORPORATION, DAUTEC ASSOCIATES LIMITED and FORKLIFTS, INC. ! l , Defendants ,. ClaTI.ICATION o. 8IaVIC~ I hereby certify that I have filed with the Court Reply of Defendant, Clark Equipment Company, to the Crossclaim of Defendant, Dautec Associates Limited Partnership, in the above- captioned matter, and served true and correct copies upon all parties as listed below on thin date via First Class Mail. Dennis R. Sheaffer, Esquire Ilepford, Swartz & Moraan III North Front Street P. O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Plaintiffs George F. Douglas, Jr., Esquire Douglas, Douglas & douglas 27 West High Street P. O. Box 261 Carlisle, PA 17013-0261 Attorney for Defsndant, Forklifts, Inc. .1 -,,. II ('f') " .. " , !, .1 " , ,1" " , , 'I I ,II ,I ., q ., " I ii' , " 'll "./ " " ." ,I " '.1 ',I I 'J' 'I ,I '! " I, " I.i 'I I-I' IIII I i\1' " I! . , ( , , , I' 'I '<" i" ,'I " '.1 , , I' ',' , , ,I ,. , I' , ' \, Ii 'I " ;1 " . . . I. ". eou., or OONNON 'L'A' O. CUN...LAND CQUNTY, '....'LV..IA .Ullel. NOUII/ aDel YIOLA IIOUII, Db wU. n.bUU., No.". Oivil i... v. ..e.L LOGI"le., INC. eLD. .OVUMlNT COM'''', ......, ,00D. OO.JOJA'ION, IDelivieluallJ aDd t/el/b/a ......, C~COLA,. V'A DAV"C A"OOIA'" LIMITID ...'.....1., anel .O..LI"., INO. Defendant.. Civil AotioD . Law C.R~I.!OAT. O. ...vle. Ii' AND NOW, t~i. Jbh of Jul.y, 1994, I, Ann Margaret arab, I.quire, a melllber ot the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, 80LYMOS , CALKINS, E.quir.., hereby certify that I have, thb date, eerved a copy of D.t.ndant, Her.h.y Chocolate USA, Hereh.y Food. Corporation'. and Dautec'. Answere to Interrogatorie. of Defendant, Clark Iquiplllent Company Direoted to Co-Oetendanta, Excel Log1etice, Inc., Her.hey Chocolate USA, Her.hey Foode Corporation and Dautec A..ociate. Limited, by Unitud States Mail, addre...d to the party or attorney of record a. follows. Dennie R. Sh.after, Esq. 111 North Front street P.O. Box 889 Harrieburg, PA 17108-0889 (Coun.el tor the Plaintiff) Loui. B.1I, E.q. Mar.hall, Dennehey, Warner Coleman , Goggin 1845 Walnut street Philadslphia, PA 19103 (Coun.el for Clark EqUipment) ,. I 1,1 ,,;1'1 'I,t " " 'I' " I " ., .. 010x-9. B. r.llex-, Jr.! ..q. Mlrt.on, ce.x-dortt, W1111am. , otto Tin I.'~ H19h Itx-,et clrli.le, PA 17013 (coun..l tox- Ixoel ~9i.tlo., Ino.) GRIffITH, 8TRICILlR, LlRMAN, SOLYM08 , CALlINI BYI~ )JI ~ N OAD'.\' ORAB supreme Court I.D. No. 55"6 Attorney. for Her.hey rood. corp., tter.hey chooolate USA and cauteo A..oolate. Llmited partnlrahlp 110 south Northern way York, PA 17402 'I'elephone No. (717) 757"'1602 10", 'I , , " ,I " I, , 1;1 'I I'; , ' " " I ' I' t, 'I , '.j " q I l " " "{' , ! " , , ,'I, 'I ,! " I' " I, " '!' ~ ~;. r: '1:::1 ,',,1 ~r .:~ " . ',.~ '} " , ~I '. "" " I' rt. ", , ,.' /"1 ", " f-1 " '-J , !!J ,~I ", ..,., , , " I 'i' fi'l l' r I " . , , " , " , " " I '1'1 " ;'1:1 I~", U',I :/1 11',' Iii' " 'I ill , ., .,' , " '. , 1';1 " 'I ,I I. I ", ,,' , , , . . , . " ',', . , ',':;\ ,.,1 , 'I F.p 'F 'r'f ,'J "~ '.'ilil 'I, , , " " /, L , , ',\, 'I . . , " I. I ,. 1,1 ,III ::':tr 111:: ., - I.... 14JL' ::" i:l I,,~' ':j' . ! I I ..,.' I"'.; , , (I') , . i!~ ~I , , L !? " I ." " \. ,I I .. I' I ", t " I. I-, .. I' 'II " " , " '01 , " I") " " , , , . . . I · Oaorge I. rlller, JJ:'.! ..q. Hart.~n, Dalrdortt, W1l11ama , otto Tan .~.~ K19h stre.t carll.la, PA 17013 (Coun.el for Ixoal Lo91atlo., Ino.) ORIrrXTH, STRICILlR, LlRHAN, SOLYNOS , CALIINS BYI ~ IP. hJ- AN ARIT on. suprame Court I. C. No. 55916 Attorney. tor Her.hay rood. Corp., Hlr.hay Chocolllta USA and Cautio A..oolate. Ll1ll1ted Plrtnarahlp 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 Telephone No. (717) 757-7602 I , larK , " , , 'I ," 'I ,-I I 'I I' , I ';\ l ;' , \ I-I " I' I', ;-" I" , ," ' 'I " " I., I, " , " , :1 " " IN THI UNITIO STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THI MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSVLV ANIA vs. No. 1.CV-94-403 ~~'~~" (Judlle Sy 1 v 1 ambo>-, ." . ...,. I . I . . ~, . .._~ i r~~'~7 1994 ~ !' I FRANCIS MORAN and VIOLA MORAN. his wife Plaintiffs EXEL LOGISTICS. INC.. CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY, HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA. HERSHEY FOODS CORPORATION. DAUTEC ASSOCIATES LIMITED and FORKLIFTS. INC, '- Defendan18 CIVIL ACTION - LAW. Ii q 4. 3 S4 ('t'o It.-7-jur--- STIPULATION It is hereby STIPULATED and AGREED by and between attorney for Plaintiffs, Francis and Viola Moran, Dennis R. SheatTer, Esquire, and nttomey for Defendant, Clark Equipment Company, Louis Bell, Esquire. that upon detennlnlnathere is nlllCk of diversity of citizenship and, therefore, a lack of subject matter jurisdiction In the above Court, the above-lided Federal Coun llClion is hereby voluntarily discontinued and remanded, without me1udicll. lUtd the nbove-tilled llCtlon wUl proceed where orlalnally mild in Ihe Court of Common Pleaa 01' Cumberland (;~II~d 'r~{itl rlle,lllt I Oiatu j_,:-J!":) 'il. :).1._.___._ ....~ fi. WII~on, CftItrk^ ~ ,.. t:fi&n ~L' 74~ ,ty , iii \ CQunly, Commonwealth of Pennaylvllllia, prior 10 beinll Removed by delend"nl, Cllllk Equipment CompllllY, ell!' ~'/f' ~ S~affer,E"lqulre Attorney for PlalnlitT. I. Esqu Attorney for Defendant, Cll11k Equipment CompllllY APPROVED BY THE COURT: ~ .1,(-/- ~1 ~TE: /i/..JI../tJfi J. ,;-,,' 1 ':;: ......~ .) '.' ~,.. .... .,~! ~r_!: ;~~.~ PIlI'! HMPI~!)~J"'(J :;:, .___4 -....-. ,:~c'Jr',. ';,.0."':< --_.....__1 " , 01 I,' , , " ';1 .1, I , '" I, 1 , I ,I I, " W.'I , " " , I /! I , " " :1 " " " , " I I " , " Jil; ~ \ : ;'" IIII t". "~-'I <I .. " ~' a:J,,,,," I' r- " " I . ..;,. , ,......, " ~l I' "- ,.,1 , , ( , ,I 1'.1, " " 1'1 L:"';l , , , I q, I I, " I' " '" 'I, , ;1 'Ji " , ,I' .,'1 , "I I, <" j.1 " .' . . " . IN THI COURT or COMMON 'LlAS or CUMBERLAND COUNTY, 'ENNSYLVANIA No.384 clvll 1994 rRANCI' MORAN, and VJOLA HOlAN, hl. wU. 'laint1ft., v. IXCIL LOGISTICS, INC. CLARI _QUIPHINT COMPANY, HIRSHIY rOODS CORPORATION, Indlvldullly and t/d/b/a "IRSHIY CHOCOLATI USA cAUTEC AI'OCIAT.. LIHITlc PARTNI~HIP, and rORILIrTS, D.t.ndant.. INC. clvll Aotion - Law fRAICI~E FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE , ~ THE PROTHONOTARYl ~lndly withdraw the app.ara~Q' ot ROBERT A. LE~~/_ ISQUIRI, ANN MAROARIT GRAB, ESQUIRE AND GRIFFITH, STRICI<LER, LEIUIAlf, SOLYHOS , CALlINS II attorn.y tor DEFlNDANTS HERSHEY CHOCOLATB USA, HIRSHIY rOODS CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND T/D/B/A HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA, AND DAUTEC ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ln the abova-antitled .att.r and Illark the dook.t aooordlngly. GRIFFITH, STRICILER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS , CALIINS BYl '~e.~j ~_~ ROB RT A. LERMAN Supr.m. Court I.D. No. 07490 '1 , I , BYl a-~I'r. yrl. JJ4. ANN MARGARE'r ORAB -- Supr.m. Court 1.0. No. !l!l9811 110 South North.rn Way York, PA 17402 T.lephon. No. (717) 757-7602 PRAICIP. rOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Pl.I.. .nt.r the app.arano. of GEORGE B. FALLER;>r.ESQUIRE AN~ MARTSONl. DEUDaR", "ILX,IAMS , OTTO on b.half of DEFlNcANTS HIlRIIHIY CHOCOLATI USA, HERSHEY rOODS CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND T/D/B/A HIRSH.Y CHOCOLATE USA AND DAUTEC ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNIRSHIP. i' , .,.;, IfARTSON, , DIARDORJ'f , o WI LLIAJIB 1)'1 aeort. er, Ten la. Hlth carl18le, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 "'1 'I I 'I 'I " , " " , " " ., " , , , CHRTIIt~ICATE OF SE,VICIl I hereby certifY that a copy oflhe forellolnll Praecipe was served Ihis dale by deposillnllsame in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA. I1rsl class mail, poslalle prepaid, addreued as follows: Rob.rt A, Lerman. Esquire Ann Marllarel Grab, Esquire ORIFFITH. STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOL YMOS " CALKINS 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 Waller H, Sway~e. Esquire Louis Bell. Esquire MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN" GOOGlN 1845 Walnut Streel Philadelphia. PA 19103 (Counsel for Clark Equlpmenl) Dennis R. Sheaffer. Esquire III North Fronl Street P,O. BOll 889 Harrisburg, P A 171 08-0889 (Counsel for PlalndO) Oeorlle F, Doulllas. Jr" Esquire DOUQL,AS. DOUOLAS " DOUGLAS 27 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for Forklifts. Inc,) MARTSON. DEARDORFF. )NJLLlAMS " OTTO . ' , (" '-'\', "1 By. ~ (,j I. ~/( aeL. ',J _ 006rse B faller. Jr.. Esquire ' Ten East Hlllh Street Carlisle. PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 " Auomeys for Defendants Exel Loglsllcs. Inc., Hershey Foods Corporation, Individually and IId/b/a Hershey Chocolate USA and Dautec Associates Limited Partnership Dated: 'Hillary 6. 1995 I" ,t d I, . I' tl'" ,', ",.jt ",1 IL ,FI , " " , ':;' , " :' Ii , ,,' i,ll , " '0' , ", ,,, I fi 'Ii, " <: II h' ,;,' , I,' '\ It! ,," .11" '" ,/,1'" , '1'\ II '1,'\1/< " ,,' :;'1;"- '/1 ',;" " I", 1,'", " I' \" ."', >, 'II ," Iii f ~', .1." T'-' '.'1, , 'I,' , I' ' d~ ltJB, I I II " ' I, :' ,I "1,' .. II , '-I " '11'" ,'1' "., ,,' :, i,j , " ,\) , , \, ',' , " ,),1 ,I , I ,",I,~ . ',~ : f I d~/l, II' .It ,~I~;\\I '!I " III"\II'~Ii,'~i'~~~ .jf, , : '111'1:, ';"il",,),!,tlll\ilJIi . :,1',' {1'!JtilNitltl~l~ 1'\' ',' ,1'1 .""J ""111" ,', ti"I~,,'.I,\~f,~t~.~f~\~rr ~,~ , ,,,;,,,. {~): 1,":~~111\1.~~1~ <j '~' tfiir"'t1iil1;'iW , :'. ! ,',I ' I i~ I,'" ~IJ~;\ ~'l\ill' I> 11{ "'lll~\Jt',"J1}(lj1<1,1('J:;~, ",II, ,< .~g:,'~'.;I~"~!'~'I!lj~'~t " I I II " "I' j I ~ ,~~ ' " J' ,tl M, II ~ " " , \ ~il " 1 'J ,',_ I '\ I". !! ,I, 1[ I' 't.1J' I ','1 ",'.' ~ t I 1 ~I j~' I ',',," ,'11.11,''I'''',f:'HJ'I' ~j 1 I I,,' '/'\ {II ltHIT.l ~ -Ii III >,{ \\Jijllrij1hil.', ~1 I ') j . .I "'1"'\ l. "I, I" ,11/ j '\\'ltr,~ \ . II l" ,t.,,~' J 'ta I f l; \'" ~ "II'ff;:{ ;t\'''lic;J'lt;l~~'i: ~ \ . ,j I I'! ..' J,T I, , " l' j 'I"' Il 1 ~.'1 I ~ I, I' f!" ,t "',+\..,1,-'1,'J1 ,t'll " , ,\J'~' , , L', ,~". , ; I',",,',', ',,",;""l"f," 1;1 II~ i' II_l,'Y\d \', ",; .I',,'.t- I\i>,it:,;: ';'1 ,1_, L " I , " , , I " ".' ,i "",t' , " !\; ,I " I !.'J ~ , . ,I o.'l"i'" ') "~';L1/":U:',\t ll'''_''\';'lt~~l1r/ ;,;' ,I,.,",' " ",\'i;'_i):' II \lill.~Jj'I)MAtlII.h\rlt^V 11l1l"l,1"n ANH1J1d l'jr.t'IIONI<lfll111<lOUAM ~u~I...1 1I~1'1;<l' Ill,n H AM FRANCIS MORAN and VIOLA MORAN, his wife, Plaintiffil IN nm COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PIlNNSYL VANIA CIVIL ACTION. LAW v, NO, 3114 CIVIL 1994 EXEL LOGISTICS, INC., CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY, HERSHEY CHOCOLATE liSA, HERSHEY FOODS CORPORATION,lndividuallyand t/dlb/a HERSHEY CHOCOLATE liSA, DAUTEC ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and FORKLIFTS, INC., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND CROSS.CLAIM OF DEFENDANT. EXEI. LOGISTICS INC TO: Francis and Viola Moran, Plaintill's, and their allorney, Dennis R, SheaITer, Esquire, Clark Equlpmenl Company, Delbndant, and its allorney, Louis Bell, Esquire, Forklifts, Inc" Defendanl, and itsallorney, William P, Douglas, Esquire YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER AND CROSS.CLAIM WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAYBE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. AND NOW, comes Ihe Defendant, Exel Loglsllcs, Inc" by and through its attorneys, MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO and hereby responds to Plaintll1's Complainl as follows: I, Admitted, 2, Admitted. 3.7, Admitted upon Inlimllation received, 8. The balance of this averment constitutes a conclusion oflaw and therefore requires no responsive pleading, To the extent a response may be deemed required the avermenl is denied, 9. It Is admitled only thaI Plaintiff was at a warehouse localed in New Kingstown, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania on January 29, 1992, The balance of this averment conslltutes il~1 ' a ~on~luslon uf law and thureforll requires no resplmslve pleadinll, To Ihe extenl a response may be deemed re1lulrod Ihe avermenlls denied 10. It Is admllled only Ihat on January 29, 1992. PJainlllTwas at the aforesaid warehouso al luadinll do~k 4~. The balan~e of this averment conslitutes a conclusion of law and thereforo requires no responsive pleadinll' To Ihe extent a response may be deemed required the avermenlls denied, II, It is admitled only Ihat on January 29, 11)92. Ihe Plalnlift' was stru~k by . forklift, The balan~e oflhls averment conslitutes a conclusion of law and Iherefore requires no responsive pleading, To Ihe extent a response may be deemed required Ihe avermenlls denied, 12, The balance orlhis averment conslitutes a conclusion of law and therefore requires no responsive pleadln!!. To Ihe extent a response may be deemed required the averment Is denied, COUNT I .. NEGLIGENCE Francis Moran v ~xel LOllisllcs. Inc 13 Admilled. 14, The balance oflhis avermenl conslitules a cuncluslon of law and therefore requires no responsive pleading, To Ihe extent B response may be deemed required Ihe averment is denied, I~, This avemlent constitutes a conclusion of law requlrin!! no responsive pleadlnll' To Ihe exlent Ihat a responsive plead in!! may be deemed required. it I. speclllc.lly denied Ihol Defendanl. Exel Loglslics, Inc,. breached any dUly of care owed 10 PlainlilT, II is further denied Ihat Defendant, Exul Logistics, Inc" or its a!!enlS, servants, or employees was nellli/ilenlly. carelessly or re~klessly : a. Failed to hire an employee competent to operate the forklift In questlun; b. Failed 10 properly supervise the ,,\Ie!!ed employee drivin!! the forklift Ihat allegedly struck Plaint Ill; c, Instrucled PlaJntllTto proceed 10 an area where there would be forklift Irafflc wilhoul adequate warnin!!. notice or protection; d. Instru~led PlalntilT to go to an area where there was allegedly Inherenlly dangerous aCllvity laking place without adequate warning. notice or proleclion; e, Failed to maintain Ihe forklift In question so as 10 have It In proper worklnll condition, ; f. Failed 10 keep a proper and adequate look oul while llperalinllthe forklift that allelledly struck Plalnlil1; II, Purchaled and/or maintained a forklift that had appropriate warnlnllslllnals or devicel 10 al to warn Individuals In Plainlill's sltualion of Its approach, I.e" warnlnll bells, slllnals, beepers, buzlers, IIjhls, etc,; h. Removed or disconnected Ihe warnlnj devices of the forklift that allejedly struck Plalntiw' I. Failed to lake any evasive aclion 10 avoid hiltlnj PlalnliW, j. Failed to provide any warnlnl! to PlaintitT of the forklift's approach; k, Failed to properly aCllvale, mainlain or use any warning bells, slllnals, beepers, buzzers or Iil!hts; 1. Failed 10 persllnally communicale any warnlnl! 10 Plalntlt1' of his or her approach; m, Operated Ihe forklift at a speed unreasonable under Ihe circumstances; and n, Failed 10 operale the forklift at a speed which he would be able to stop In time to avoid hiltinl! Plalntil1~ 16, It Is denied Ihat answering Defendant was negligent, reckless or careless. The balance of this averment conslltutes a conclusion of law and therefore requires no responsive pleldln8, To Ihe extent a response may be deemed required Ihe averment is denied, 17, Denied, This averment conslltutes a conclusion of law requirln8 no responsive pleading, To the extentlhat a responsive pleading may be required, it is specltlcally denied that the alleged accidenl in question and the injuries allegedly sustained by PlainlitT were not due to any actions or failure 10 acl on Plalntill's part, It is further denied that Ihe accident and alleged Injuries were Ihe sole result of the alleged negligence oflhe answering Defendant. To the contrary, see Ihe allegalions under Ihe heading New MaUer, 18, The answering Defendant I" WlthllUt knowledge or infonl1allon sufficient tll form an opinion as 10 Ihe truth or falsity oflhese avennents, The averments are therefore deemed denied and proof Is demanded 11).25, The balance llfthls avermenl conslltutesa conclusion of law and Iherefore requires no responsive pleading, To the extent a response may be deemed required the aVerment is denied, i Ii WHEREFORE. Delondant. Exel LOjlatica. Inc,. demands that PlalntlWs Complaint be di.mllled with preJudice, COUNT II Francia Mn~an v Dautli!c Allndah:!4r I~c 26-30. These parajraphs are directed 10 a party other Ihan the answerlnll Defendant and Iherefore require no responsive pleadinj, WHEREFORE. Defendanl, Exel LOjlstlcs. Inc,. demands Ihat PlalntlWs Complaint be dismiued with prejudice, cor JNT III Francia MOl:an v Her~h~y FondA COqloration " 3 I-JS. These paragraphs are direcled to a party other Ihan the answering Defendanl and therefore require no responsive pleading, WHEREFORE, Defendant, Exel Loglslics. Inc" demands Ihat PlalntilFs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, COUNT IV Francis Moran v. Heflh~y Chocolate 36-40, Theae paragraphs are directed to a party other than the answering Defendant and Iherefore require no responsive pleadin(!, WHEREFORE, Defendant, Exel Logistics, Inc,. demands thaI PlainliWs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, COUNT V - NEGLIGENCE Francia Moran v Clark Rqv-'p.,.,.lQnt Company 41-46. These paragraphs are directed to a party other than the answerln(! Defendant and therefore require no responsive pleadin(!, WHEREFORE. Defendanl, Exel Logistics, Inc,. demands Ihat PlaintllFs Complaint be dismissed wilh prejudice. COUNT VI . STRICT LIABILITY Francia MOJ:an v Clark Equipment CnmpaJ\Y 47-S2, These paragraphs are direcled to a party other Ihan the answering Defendant Ind therefore require no responsive pleadinll. , 'I' I' WHEREFORE. Defendant, EKel LOllistlcs. Jnc" demands that Plaintll1'a Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, CQ11N1 VII. BREACH QF APPLIED W ARRANTV Fran~il ~Qran y CI~frk E:Q~ipml!lnt Comp"l\)' 53.56, These paragraphs are directed to a party other than the answering Delcndant and therefore require no responsive pleading, WHEREFORE, Defendant, EKel LOllistlcs, Jnc" demands that Plaintlll's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. COllNT VIII - NEGLIGENCE Fr"nds Moran v Forkliftl. Inc. 57-62. These paragraphs lire direcled to a party olher Ihan the answering Delcndant and Iherefore require no responsive pleading, WHEREFORE, Defendant, Exel Logistics, Jnc" demands that Plalntlll's Complalnl be dismissed with prejudice. COUNT IX - STRICT LIABILITY Francis Mara.n v. Forklifts. Inc 63-68, These paragraphs are directed to a party other Ihan Ihe answerlnll Delcndant and therefore require no responsive pleading, WHEREFORE. Defendanl, EKel Logistics. Jnc,. demands that Plalntlll's Cllmplalnt he dismissed with prejudice, COUNT X - BREACH OF WARRANTY f,andl Moran v Forklif\~ Inc. 69.72. These paragraphs are directed to a party other Ihan Ihe answerinlll>efendlllu and therefore require no responsive pleading, WHEREFORE, Defendant. Exel Logistics. Jne,. demands Ihat 11laintll1's ('lImplRint be dismissed with prejudice, COUNT Xl Viola Moran v. Exel LQW'.ticll Inc. 73. The answers ofparagrRphs 1.72 of this answer are Incorporated herein by reference. 74. It is denied Ihat the answering Defendant was negligent, reckless or carelen, As tll the remaining averments. the answering Defendant Is without knllwledlle IIr information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth or falsity of said averment, The averments are therefore deemed denied and prooflhereofis demanaed, WHEREFORE, Defendant. Exel Logistics. Inc,. demands that Ihe Plainlill's Complaint be dismilled without prejudice. COUNT X;II Viola ~oran v Dautec A~~oc~ate8 7S.76. Those paragraphs are directed to a party other than Ihe answering Defendant and Iherefore require no responsive pleading, WHEREFORE. Defendant, Exel Logistics. Inc. demands Ihat Plaindll's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, COUNT XIII Viola MQran v Hersh~y Foods Co(poration 77.78, These paragraphs are directed to a parly other than Ihe answering Defendant and therefore require no responsive pleading, WHEREFORE, Defendant. Exel Logistics. Inc" demands that Plaindll's Complaint bo dismilled with prejudice. COUNT XIV Viola Moran v Herlh~y Chocolate 79-80. These paragraphs are directed to a party olher than the answering Defendant and theretore require no responsive pleadinll' WHEREFORE, Defendant. Exel Logistics. Inc,. demands Ihat Plaindll's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. COllNT XV Viola Moran v. Clark EqJ.lipment Company 81-82, These paragraphs are directed to a party other than the answering Defendant and therefore require no responsive pleading, WHEREFORE, Defendant. Exel Logistics, Inc,. demands that Plalndll's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, COUNT XVI YIQla Mpran V~liftl Inc. 83.84, Thele parayraphl are directed to a party olher thun the anlwerlny nelimdanl and Iherefore require no relponslve pleadiny, WHEREFORE, Defe~dant, E"el LOlIlstlcs, Inc" demands that Plalnlll1'. Complaint he dismilsed with prejudice, NRW MATT~R 8S, Plaint lIT has failed 10 plead a cause of action upon which relief lIIay be ILIranled aaainsl Defendant, E"el Logistics, Inc. 86, PlaintilTs' claim is barred by the aPllllcable statule of IImllatlons, 87, Plaintln:,' alleged damages are barred or reduced by Ihe doclI'lnes of contributory and comparallve negligence, 88, Plalntlffs' alleged damages are barred by thll doclrlne of voluntary assumptlun ufthe risk. 89. Plalntlffs' claims may be barred by Ihe Pennsylvania Wmken' Cmnpenlatlun Acl. 90, Plaintlffs' damages may be barred or reduced due hllllalntll1\1' IlIlIurlltu mlllyalll such alleied damages, 91. Should It be delermlned Ihat I'lalntll}' did Indeed sul1er damayes In Ihll caNe, said damages were cause and/or contribuled conduct by entllles and/or Individuals olher Ihan Ihe answeling Defendant. 92. Plaintiff has nOllllltained a serious Injury as del1nl!d by ACI Il)l)().(i, 75 I'll, (',SA Section 1702. 93, Plaintift's claim for non.econumic dllmal!lls mllY bll harred because Illaintll}, may have elected a limited lort option as setlilrlh in Acl II)l)O.6, n Ila ('S A /lecllon 170S (b)(3)(d) WHEREFORE, Defendanl, Ji"lll l.ulllsllcs, Inc, demands Ihal Ihe Plalnlll1'. Complainl be dismissed wilh prejudice. CROSS.CLAIM OF OF-PE.NDANT HXlIl L(J{US'I'ICS. IN~ . J)URSUAN'I'1'O I'll R C P 2252 Cd) AGAINST CLARK EQUIPMli.NT COMPANY AND )101"1 IFTS. INC. 94, Iflhe avermenls of Plain 11111' CUlllplalnl arc pHlven InlIl IIllhe lime uflrial, Plalntitl's allelled damalles were caused in whole or in part by the acts, omissions or products of Defendants, Clark Equipment Company, Hershey Chocolate U,S,A" Hershey Foods Corporation, Dautec Associates Limited Partnership, and Forklifts. Inc. 95. Should II be found that Plainliff Is entitled to recovery In this action which Is specifically denied, It Is hereby averred Ihat the aforesaid Defendants are solely liable, jointly liable, and/Qr liable over 10 Defendanl, Exel Logistics, Inc,. lor any damages which may have been sull'ered by Plaintiffs. 96, If Defendant, Exel Logistics, Inc., is held liable 10 the Plaintiffs for all or part of Plaintiffs' alleged damages, the aforesaid Defendanls are liable 10 Exel Logistics, Inc,. by way of contrlbutlc n or Indemnity, WHEREFORE, Defendant, Exel Logistics. Inc., demands that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed and in the alternative, demands that In the event that it is found liable 10 Ihe Plaintiffs or any party on any theory of liability, that judgment be entered in its favor and against Defendants, Clark Equipment Company and Forklifts, Inc., for contribution and/or indemnification to the full extent of any liability that Defendant, Exel Logistics, Inc,. might have 10 any olher party in thi~ proceeding, Respectfully submllled, MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WII)JAMS & OTTO '\ ( . I 'I ~otiei'F~rter, Jr.~ E~~~i:~ \. (I i Ten East High Street Carlisle. PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant Exel Logistics, Inc, Oate: May 15, 1995 r. MARTSON. DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO ) '\ ,',- ,. \ ...' I 8y {. ('.,~" '~)' (. \. C( ''\ Georse B, Fall,... Jr., Esquire ' Ten East HlSh Street . , . Carll.le. PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 ". .!'!'ij~),'l i;, , . . , , 1 hereby cenllY that a copy of the foreiolnl& Anlwer with New Matter and Crol.-Clalm Wal lerved thil date by depolltlni same In the po.t Office at Carlisle, P A. t\nt cia.. mall. pOltaie prepaid. addreued II follows', eJ!.R.'fIFIC.A.'fE OF SER.VIC.E Dennl. R, ShealTer. E.qulre HEPFORD. SWARTZ & MORGAN III North Front Street HarrlsburS, PA 17101 Louis Be\l, Esquire MARSHALL. DENNEHEY. WARNER. COLEMAN &. GOGOIN 1845 Walnut Street Philadelphia. PA 19103-4717 WIlliam P. Doul&las. Esquire DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS &. DOUGLAS 27 W, High Street Carlisle. PA 17013 " " Attorneys for Defendant Exel LOlllstlcs. Inc, I.. Dlt~: ~y l!l, 199!1 . I 'q " , ~t ~ " . ,-' ,. " "3 " ~, ,>') .l. , , en ..~~I , I " ,.. I, :~ , " id, Jij~~! .s~.E~JI .~ d i= J~ = " ' , ...",.,,,.~,.';j.'1.yJl,t FRANCIS MORAN and VIOLA MORAN, hl. wlte, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY I PENNSYLV~IA NO. 384 CIVIL 1994 CIVIL AGTION - LAW v. ~xmL LOGISTICS, INC" CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY, HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA, HERSHEY FOODS CORPORATION, Individually and t/d!b/a HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA, DAUTEC ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and FORKLIFTS, INC. I Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIrrS' alPLY TO NIW MATTIR AND CROll-CLAIM 0' DI'INDAHT IXIL LOQISTICS. INC. 95, Denied as a conclusion of law. 86. Denied as a conclusion of law, 87. Denied as a conclusion of law, By way of further denial, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff Francis Moran was in any way negligent by reason of his actions or inaction. 88. Denied as a conclusion of law. By way of further denial, it ls specifically denied that Plaintiff Francis Moran knew or was aware of any specific risk that he allegedly voluntarily assumed that resulted in the injuries and damages that he sustaJ.ned. To the contrary I there is no known risk that Plaintiff Francis Moran I ...",.,,,,~.../".'7.9J1.t I " was aware of that he assumed that resulted ln hlslnjurles and damagel. U. Denied as a concluslon of law. The Pennsylvanla Workmen's Compensation Act ls not applicable in thls case. 90. Denied as a conclusion of law. By way of further denlal, It 1. specifically denied that Plaintiff Francis Moran has failed I, to mltigate any of his injuries or damage. To the contrary, I \1 Plaintiff Francis Moran has made diligent efforts to attempt to mltigate any and all of the damages that he has sustained by seeking and obtaining appropriate medioal care and attention and making extensive efforts to obtain employment within his capabilities. 91. Denied. Other than the parties alleged in the Plalntiffs' Complaint, aft.er reasonable investigation, the Plalntiffs are without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny said allegation and, as such, the Bame is denied and strict proof ls demanded thereof at the time of trial. By way of further denial, no specific entity or individual ill identified by Defendant Exel and, as such, the allegation is ambiguous, and consequently the Plaintiffs are unable to respond to this allegation with arty specificity. 2 VIlurlCATIOII I, the under.iyned, FrancLa Moran, do hereby certlfy that I am one of the Plaintiffs in the for9yoiny action and that the statementa made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the beBt of my knowledge, information and bellef. I underetand that any falae BtatementB made to thiB verification are Bubject to the ~enaltiea of 18 Pa, C.B.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authoritieH. "//, ~A..I ~/,~~ anc a Moran ", " , I " I " ;, , " , ,i I " , ' , '/I " , '1'1, i , II 'II co~, or CONNO. 'LIAI CUKlllLaMD COUIII, .1..,VL,..xa rllANCI8 MORAN and VIOLA MORAN, hl. wlfe Plalntitta CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 3$4 clvll 1994 v.. IXIL LOGISTICS, INC., CLARX IQUIPMENT COMPANY, HIRSHIY CHOCOLATI USA HIRSHIY roocs CORPOPA~ION, I cAUTIC ASSOCIATES LIMITED and rOULIrTS, INC. Defendanh ....011.. O. D...'DAII'l'. pr.... .QUIIP,11l1 COIIU.'. '0 'II C.O..~~~:':: ~~.:~~:.~.:~I~~f.TIC.. IIIC.. Defendlnt, Clark Equlpment company, by and throu9h It. attorney., Mlrlhall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman' Goqqln, r..pond II tollow. to the Cro..olalm of Defendant, Ixel Loql.tlo., Inc., pur.uant to Pa.R.c.P. 22~2(d) aqalnet Clark Equlpment company and fork11ft., Inc., lncorporatlnq by referenoe the Anlwer wlth New Mltter anc.t New Mattar cro.eclalm. of Defendant, Clark Equlplllent company, .1 thouqh ,et torth at lan9th heralnl 94. cenled. To the extent the allegation. .et torth in plra9raph 94 of the Cro..olallll of Detendant, Exel Loql.tloa, Ino., conltltute oonclu.lonl of law, no re.ponle 11 requlred unc.ter the Pennly1vanla Rule. of Clvll Prooedure. By way or , furthar r..pone., It 1. Ipeclflcal1y denied that lt the avarlllent. at Plaintiff" Complaint re proven true and the time ot trial, whloh 11 .peclfloally c.ten ed, lt 1. .peolrlcally c.tenled that ~ I I plllntlttl' alleged damage. werl oaueec.t in whole or in part by the lot. or omi.elon. of Defendant, Clark Equipment company. Striot proof 11 c.temanded at trlal. 95. Denled. To the extlnt the alleqatlonl .et torth ln plrl9rlph 115 of the Cro..clalm of Defenc.tant, Exel Loglltiol, Inc., oonltltute oonoluslonl of law, no respon.e 1. required under the Penn.ylvania Rule. of civil Prooedure. By way of turther re.ponle, lt i. epeoifloally den led that ehould It be tound thlt plalntlff is entltled to recovery in thle aotlon, lt 1. Ipeoltloally denled that anlwering Defendant, Clark Equipment Company, 1. .olely llable, jolntly 11able, anc.t/or llable over to cetendant, Exel Logiltioa, Ino., for any damage. whioh may have been lutterec.t by plaintlff., all of whlch are speclfioally denlec.t. Plalntlff anc.t oo-deflndant are left to thelr proof. and Itrlot proot le demanded at trlal. 911. Denlec.t. To the extent thl alllgatlonl set forth ln parl9raph 1I11 of the cro'lolaim of Olfenc.tant, Exel Loqlltlol, Ino., oon.tltute conoluslonl of law, no response 1. requlred under the Pennsylvania Rulee of Clvil Prooedurl. By way ot turther re.ponle, it le Ipeolfloally denied that lf Defendant, Ixel Logl.tlo., Inc., 1. held 11able to plalntlftl for all or pert of plalntlffl' allagec.t damaqe., lt 1. Ipeolflcally c.tenlec.t thet anlwerlnq c.tltendant 1. 11able to Exel LoqletloB, Inc. by way of contrlbutlon or indlmnlty. striot proof le c.temanc.ted at trlal. WHEREfORE, anewarlng Defendant, Clark Equlpment Company, c.te.lnd. juc.tgment ln it. favor and aqalnlt Oltanc.tant, Exel LOql.tlo., Inc., on the Croeeclalm of Defenc.tant, Exel Loglltlo., Inc. pur.uant to Pa.R.C.P. 2353(d) aqain.t Cllrk Iqulp.ent Co.plny. Re.peottully .ubmltted, MARSHALL, DINNIHIV, WARNIR COLlMAN . GOOOXN Z'd '" .. . ./ ./ ..,/,-, IYyl. - ... ~:1:rtlt[) 'i'l . LOu18. '" .' r WALTIR H. SWAYZ., In Attorney. for Detendant, Clark Iquipment Company 1145 WIlnut Stre.t Philadelphla, PA 111103 (215) 575-21100 DATil ~;~~~'-~ /7.> , '. 'I ... , , , , \ . , , , .. . I I ,1 ,d 'II ,,' , " I II, " , '. ' , , ' , , Ii ,1 , , V..J.IOa'l'IO. Loui. .ell, I.qulre, Attorney tor Detendant, Clark Iqulp.ant Co.plny, varltle. that the facta let torth lnthe Re.pon.e ot Dafendlnt, Clerk Iqulpmlnt Company, to the cro'lolalm ot Dafandant, Ixel L091.tla., Ino., pur.uant to Pa,R.C.P. 2252(d), ara true to the belt of hl. knowledqe, lntormatlon and bellet. It the above .tatement. are not true, the deponent 1. lubjeot to tha penaltie. ot 11 Pe.C.s. 54904 relatlnq to un.worn tal.ltloatlon to authorltle.. / ,.. ) ..'1 (---j:jtt ~t::/ . Lou-rlf . , - r Attorney tor cetendant, Clark Iqulpment COlllpany DATil 6,?~~~s..- ,,' I" , , ',I '" , , " "I, ,I ,1'1 I + " ,', 'I, ,) " " I' " , , ,I " i I I " ,I ~obert A. Lerman, I.qijlre Ann Marv.rat Grab, Ilqulra G~lrrITH, 8TRICI~IR, LERMAN 'OLYMO' , CA~IINS 110 'outh Northern Way York, PA 1740a-3737 MAR'HALL, cENNIHIY, WARNIR OOLIMAN . GOGGIN // . J2,' "/- / /," Byr ~6!ffiif ~ J(:" // WA~IR H. SWAYZI, III Attorney. tor Oetendant, clark Iqulplllent company 1845 WIlnut street Philadelphia, PA 1~103 (215) 575-21100 DATil :::/'>(:'<//5'- ,'I I , , 'I 'I I :' I' 'I , . , , I ' 'i I , I I , " , , " ,'! " d ' ,I .: ' I I , .1 . , ' '. I ," " lA " ,. " ..- /~ ::'Ii ;.t. ,. " 1." t:l ._-t.,,' [ , '1,<'" -, " , 9 -I ,'t' "~I' Q:l '" , Ii, . " ~ , ::~ I" " , '" I , ,- .' " ,,' " " 'I " ,II '. -I I, , " -, " . , YO" u. "tltn, IUQUIItU '0 nU " WltlT"N IU ~,.f)""1 ,I) III'. 'NCLOIIlJ WI''''" hUN" 111t1 nAU '!tOM 1I''''VICr .....ro. Olt A jlJnl~MrN' JIll"" IW 1""lnD 10"INII YOll. .. DOUOI.As. DOUGLAS & OOUOI.AS "T1CIHU""I'" I,,,"W ~ I " " ,',,, '\" I' r "" n,.,', """."., (;Afll.I' rHI',Y\ ',Aln,' '1,'1 II , , Ii "I' WI DO "..,,,,,, Cllltfl" ,It,," 'HI WITHI" 18" '"111 "Pin CQUler cn', rl' THi 4ltllllNAL '11.1 n IN JlWI ""TlCIt, . . ., Ar1'O""" , . " DQUGLAS, DI)UGI,AS II J)()lJ(lI,,\S J1 W, HlllH ST. PI). 261 CAMUS.../; PA 110a;\ TF.J.t:PHONr. 1J1.J4J.I190 WI1.l.IAM 1', I>Ol1CIl.AS, ENQ. SUl'r~me ('oUII U),II .\7~2^ ()f!()RClfl II, IlOum.AN, III, ENQ, Suprclllu ('ourl UU ^18M^ "flran'as"'~i:)ra'n"'i\na"". ....,..,.....,.....""."....................... """''l'n''Ule''(:i;urf'i;l''clj'inm(li,''plea'ij'"ol''''''' Vlula Moran, his wife Cumberland County Pennsylvania Plaintiff vs Exel Logistics, Inc., Clark Equipment Company, Hershey Chocolate USA, Hershey Foods Curporation, Individually and t/ d/b/ a Hershey C;:hocolate USA, Dautec Associates limited Partnership, and Furklifts, Inc, No. 38. Civil 199. Civil Action Law ......,""."".,,,................,",,.............,,,..,....,,.....,....,,,,I?,~,f.~~.~.~,!~,~",....."..""",,......!..~~~t:.!..,~~.~~...I.?~~.~.~.~t~.~...............""..".. FORKLIFTS. INCS ANSWER TO CRQSS CLAIM OF EXEL LQGISTlCS. INC. 94. Denied as a legal conclusion tu which no response is necessary. 95. Denied as a legal conclusiun to which no response is necessary. 96. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. WIiEREFORE, it is prayed that the Cross Claim of Exel Logistics be dismissed. DOUGLAS, DOUGL ~. William P Douglas, Esqu e Attorney for Forklifts, In . By: * I' , f:'"AEC!'P_E.f'Q,R.~I.rIN9 9AI$E FO" T."'A.L (Musl he typow,llIen and suhmllllld In duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBEfllAND COUNTY l.... t; t1', Please IIsllhu loll owing case: " (Check ono) ( X) lor JURY 1,101 allho ne.lllllfn 0' civil c6u,.. w ," ,tl ( ) lor Irlal without a Jury, - . '," ,;, -./ \1. '1" .1-' ......................,.............................,................... .........................................-............................I,...j........Mt:........... ./ aA . " or ~f. CAPTION OF CASE (enllrO capllon musl be slaled In 'ulI) (check one) Assumpsll FlWCIS I<<lAAN and VIOlA M:>AAN, his wife, ( X) Trespass Treapass (Motor Vehicle) (Plalnll") (olher)'- "_UO"_ vs. ElXEL UXlISTICS, I~., ClAro< EXJ1IPMENl' CGll'ANY, HERSHEY CJKX:OIA'l'E USA, tlEllSHEY FOCOS CORPOOATlOO, IooividllAlly and t/d/b/a HERSHEY ctrXX>IA'lll USA, DAt1l'EX:: J\SSOCI1l'lllS LTD. PARmmIlHIP, and FORI<LIF'l'S, me., (Delendanl) The t,lalllst will be called onQ;;tQW.JJ,..199:> and... T,lals commence on_~~J]"..!9.~~__ ' Pretrials will be held on~~1:__2.5.L!?.?.5..". (Briefs are due!> days belo,e prelrlals.) (The party listing Ihls case for Irlal Ihall p,ovlde forlhwlth a copy 01 Ihe p,aeclpe to all counsel, pursuant to local Rule 214.1,) vs. No, .3.8.4.. . Civil . 1994. Indlolto Ihe allolllOY who wllll,y case for Ihe pa,ty who Illes this praecipe: ___.-h___._. .,DeMi. R. S~(fer,. ~!ICl\Iir;e Indicate trial counsol for olher partlds If known:WsJwr lJ. sway~e, J!ll!qUir." . .Wil11llln.1'. DoUglas, f:lI';l\lire, /1.1>> George il. . F.al.ler. . Jr ., Esqu~re This COSO Is ready lor Irlal, Signed: Q./f. Print Name: Date: . ... 9/22/95 . Attorney lor: Plaintiffs " George B, Faller, Jr., Esquire MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTrO Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for Exel Logistics, Inc., Hershey Chocolate USA, Hershey Foods Corporation and Dautec Associates Llmited Partnerehip) HEPFORD, SWARTZ & MORGAN Oatel q/.).~ I'~ BYI ~ ~tt~etary to Dennis R. Sheaffer 111 North Front Street P. O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS I, " "I I, I' , , I \'1' I' ,I , " ,I , , 40. FRANCIS MORAN AND VIOLA MORAN, HIS WIFE V IN THE COURT OF COMMON pLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I EXEL LOGISTICS, INC., CLARK NO. 84-384 CIVIL TERM EQUIPMENT COMPANY, HERSHEY : CHOCOl..nE USA, HERSHEY FOODS: CORPORATION, INDIV. AND TIDIBIA : HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA, DAUTEC ASSOC. LTD. PARTNERSHIP AND FORKLIFTS, INC. QJmIfI OF COUlll AND NOW, OCTOBER 18, 19911, atth. requ'lt of defendant Ex.1 LoglltlClI, the above-Cllptloned mllllr la hereby continued from thl NOVEMBER, 19911 trial term untlllha January 1896 trlaltarm. Prothonotary la directed to lilt for January 1888 trial term. No furthlr continuance will be granted. By the Court. Dennll R. Sh.aff.r, elq, For th. Plaintiff .~1 o:,~1' . v.~ )~, cl'1>-' -~ 0" 1<' , Walter H. Swayze, Elq. William P. Douglal, Elq. Martlon, Deardorff, William I & 0110 George 8, Faller, Jr., Elq, For the Defendantl " Court Admlnlltrator :br ('\,,! ~l j, ,I \'"'t.~ ,.1 .\ l' , ;' " f. r OCT {l q llf" ,~~ I II; " " 'I, J' I H'I. ",\,,'\ '~ y' ,\ " " " I, ',t., " I ,,, " " I , , " 'I " 'I 'Ii " " I, 1 I I" " " " " " I , " ,1 "\ ... ..... " , , '" I ,. " ,,'1 ,.1 ,,' I I, " " " ',< , ~, I " ... I. ',1 I ~ '.or r ll'~ II'" " I . " ' ' 0 ), , Ii 0 ,,, , tt II" il t ! " " " 'J j; . , {.t.\~ ~ en ," , :j~ :,., , , , '" ','1 Il()- , . ~ I' 'I,) 'I, I } 1,1 , Iii 'I l ' , i', . , , , , -, 1 , <. - f~ , " . .... Ii ' il I '\ i.i " I WI 1: !'It ,'I') ~, ~,r I'~ " Itl.t 'j;'~, ;~r ... _., \to. rr ~ " O~ 'i ,..j , .t~' ",?,I. .f,n Ul(' .i' ~ 1",1111or. T ,~III..1 I' 1'~~ :> ;'V " i 'I " , I '''',I ... FRANCIS MORAN and VIOlA MORAN, his wife, Plaintiffs IN TIm COURT Ofl COMMON PUlAS Of C:UMIlf:!RLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs, CIVIL ACrJON. LAW Jf1 ell) \ l /(/'I"! EXEL LOGISTICS, INC" CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY, HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA, HERSHEY FOODS CORP,. Individually and I/d/b/a HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA, DAUTEC ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, IInd FORKlifTS, INC" Defendllnts JURY TRIAL DEMANDEP l1'i.l\e: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR CQNTINUANCE OR PROTECTIVE ORDER ORDER AND NOW, Ihis II t' day of JIII\Ullry, 1996, following lelephone conference wilh c(lunscl, Ihe motion of Ihe defendllnls for II continullnce is GRANTED. The Prolhonolary Is dlreeled lolistlhls case for Ihc Mllrch ICl'm, Ills also ordered thatlhere bc no furlhcr dlscovcry nor dlsclosurc of trial wltnesscs afler February 1. 1996, Argumenlon Ihe pending motion 10 compel Is hercwlth set for Thursduy, February I, 1996, al 3:00 p,m. in Courlroom Number 4, Cumberland Counly Courlhouse, Carlisle, PA, BY THE COURT, Ar./-.- , Dennis She Bffe I' , Esquire ~JI For Ihe Phlinliffs ~t George B, Faller, Jr" Esquire " \~.. For Ihe Defendanls . . " ". l~.l' 1"1.:;,', i~l, , " ,I! :~ 't' '1")'.'/ "'( '" I)r\ II''' II ...,..,. I I" l 0'" ,'~ : I , ~) ('I I' I' "1.') ,. ' I I' 'f'( )IJh, .' \ 'j',',' {),J..i\ I,":"\"~')'I'I"",: 1/\ 1,:1,1".. ,1/11;, ., " I" , ,Ii 'I ,I , , Ii [' 'j' , , '. PRANCIS MORAN and VIOLA MORAN, his wife. Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS OP CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v, EXEl, l.OOISTlCS. INC., CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY. HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA. HERSHEY POODS CORPORATION. Individually and tld/bla HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA, DAUTEC ASSOCIATES I_IMITED PARTNERSHIP, and FORKLIFTS, INC,. CIVIL ACTION. LAW NO. 384 CIVil. 1994 Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE QR PROTECTIVE ORCEIl I, The above captioned case arises out of an incident that occurred at Exel Logistics' Distribution Center In New Kingstown, Cumberland County. in January of 1992, Suit was not filed until January of 1994, 2, The ca~e is listed for the trial term scheduled to commence Tuesday, January 16, 1996, 3. Plaintiff s alleged injuries include a traumatically induced somnolence which causes him 10 fall asleep and allegedly disables him from his employmenl as an over-the-road truck driver. 4, Plaintiffs treating psychiatrist from his ho~ne In Minnesota has relocaled to Buffalo. New York, and on January 4, 1996, Plaintiff scheduled the video deposition of the trllatlng psychiatrist for Tuesday, January 9, 1996 in his office in Buffalo ( a r.opy of that Deposition Notice is hereby allached as Exhlbll "A"), S, This deposition was canceled due to severe weather conditions, 6, Plaintiff has now allempted to schedule the deposition of the treating psychiatrist, M,S, Mogerman, M,D" for Monday, January IS, 1996 at 10:30 a,m, in his office in Buffalo, New York (a copy of that Deposition Notice and correspondence trom PlaintilT's counsel to defense counsel Is hereby all ached as Exhibit "8"), , . 7, The deposition of the Defendant's IME psychiatrist, [)r, Abram HOltetter, of Hershey, Pennsylvania, was scheduled for 3:30 'm Wednesday, January 10, 1996 and was also cancllled due to Iho Inclement weather conditions and roadways In the central Pennsylvania area, 8. The next available date which Dr, Abram Hostetter has available lor a deposition Is Fooruary 26, 1996 al 3:30 p,m. (a copy oflhe correspondence w!lich was faxed from Dr, H08teller is hereby allached a8 Exhibit ''C''). 9. Plaintiff'has also attempted to schedule the deposition of Ron Bower80x, an employee of Defendanl Exel Logistlc8, who was only recently Identified as an eyewilne88 10 Ihe occurrence. (A copy of that Deposition Notice and corrcspondence I..orn Plaintitrs cOllnselto defense counsel Is hereby attached as Exhibit "D"), That deposilion wasnoliced for January II. 1996 at S:OO p,m. in Ihe office ofPlalntitrs counsel in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, 10. Plaintiff has also Indicated that he desires to obtain a complete, unredacted copy of the claims l1Ie oflhe Del\mdant and its Insurer, II , In conjunction wilh obtaining a complete copy of the unredacted claims me of Ihe Defendanl and its insurer, Plaintitl' has indicaled he wishes 10 lake three addilional faclual discovery depositions, . These depositions were originally scheduled for Wednesday, January 10, 1996; however, these depositions were canceled due to the Inclemelll weather, In addilion, Defendanl's counsel had advised Plaintiff's counsel that he would not voluntarily provide an unredacted copy of the claims ille, 12, On January 10, 1996, the PlalntifTscheduled the deposition qf Patricia Wanner, Il representative of the Plaintiff's former employer, to take place on Thursday, January II, 1996, al 3:00 p,m. central time, 4:00 p,m, ellllem time, In her office in Mounds View, Minnesota (a copy of Ihal Deposition Notice Is hereby allached as Exhlbll "E"), 13, Plaintltfhas also noticed the deposilloll oflhe Plalntltrs Ireatlng orthopedic surgeon, James R, Gates, M,D" for Friday, January 12, 1996, al Dr. Gates' office In Austin, Mlnnesola (a copy of that Deposition Notice is hereby all ached as Exhibit "F"), 14. Defense counsel has made t1Ighlarrangements to allend the deposition of Dr. Gates on January 12, 1996 (a copy of the t1ightltlnerary 15 hereby IIttached as Exhlbil"G"), I"...'.!.,.'I',... i , , WHEREfORE, iPven the IIChedulinll problems with the Ireathlll physician, Ihe unavailability of Defendant's 1MB physician and all the oulslandinll discovery which Plaintiff desires and Defendsnt requesls a protective order prohlbitlnM any further discovery or deposition of Dr, MOMerman which is scheduled for Monday, January I~, 1996~ in the allernative, requests a continuance until the March term of Court, or any other such relief the Court may deem appropriate, Respecll\Jlly submitted, By_ George Ten Eas lih Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243.3341 Attorneys for Defendanls Exel Logistics. Inc., Hershey Chocolate USA, Hershey Foods Corporation, individually and tJdlb/a Hershey Chocolate USA and Dautec Anodatea Limited' Partnership Dated: January II, 1996 " , ., liJil " ,I i , ' I' ii- " I, ;,1 " IJlNbIl A I'i ",' .. "' I " I .. 'i :' , I I 'I, " " , " , 'I I , " '" , , , , "II I 'I " " 'I, ,I, ,'I , I 10) , i " .MlIIft' . 'WV"'" ~'1t1 i '. - -.,.. ... .... .., .'"'~ ...,..... thlt you .tlall bring with you any anc1 all aUtallentl, c1oQumentl, oorre.pondenoe, and report. dealing with or reflrrint to the matter. 1n the ebove.llept1oned elltlon. HIPPORD. 8l1u:rz . MOIl.Uf .":.lJt# I,g, lIU .2 1~1 North '~ont .treet P.O. Box In Ha~rlaburg, 'A 17~O'-Q"8 (717) 234-4123- Attorney. for Plaintiff. I, ,I , , , I ,I " 'I I' . " " " " Ii, ii, " 'i\ " ' .1 , " " ," , I I , , , 'I " '1 " , , ;1' ;1, " , .x..... c " I' " " , ;il , " 'I ',1 " IXHII., D -, ..',.. ..".. .., .. ....' If". '. liI.W>>,Q mm..L- ~ H 111'I11" H~"~ r,c: LJI C, .wAITJ' I~M" C), Mllaa,\~ ", '~~PM L. MQI.mN 5It""~ M, O"'CIIII ", lliN~Ji .. 't'l~"" L\,CtlANII Ii, l'I~(11I MI~IIM\. H 'AN' MDIIIIY II, tMIN~N I1M/1.IY H,I/I11I1. ~COl:NII1. !.,\wllmtIA ~ln~lry 10, 1... ...,.... III NOlI" 'KlNUIIIII ',0,__ IIM'~U~'AI~ V!~ '&e'!~L. '()In".", _,,, CIVlll'~. """'''''~II,''''N.,."..... """'.. ~ 'lth A~I.UI'" TKI_ n1->>401m oeorl'l. 'Iller, Jr., '.q~~:r. ..., 01, DIlUDQI", "XLLZAIC. a ono ~C I..t Hl,b 8~re.t carli11., A 1.'70U ,~ 1I1oW-MQI -. 1\llI. "II M>>W.'''' 1$\ 1'1 'r...A. No~I., .. ux. Y. ..el LO,i..Lo., ..,.~. 0lIM.1'1.... 0.0.'. MOl J" aivU U'. Il.ar a.org'l YOII indioat.d to Ill' that Ilon lowar.ox vae .Ull .mploy.4 with lled LOllhtioe and that you I;re.c.t to produce Mr. lawnlox for h1. d.polit.1on in thh matter without: the n.a...ity of a .ubpo.na. Therafore, :r hlVII .no10..d a I).poeition Notio. cU.noe'lS to Ron Boveuox 'cheduling hh depo.ltion for Thul:Iday, ,J'lnuuy 11, nu, t.o Uk, pl&o, at 5100 p.m. Thank you for your antioipat.d ooop.ration wit.h th1. mltttr, v.ry tr\ll.~ :youn, HlPPOIUl, 'WAlTZ Q MOIlCJM ff2:.~ ~ Oll'/olk Indo'lIr.. LA.,_ \)f'1C1i "101/111 MAIH ,"RUT , .,1 - '0, Ik\a Nto7 I ,-- r.l,,"I'tIWN, '^ 11O<Mo<lM1 TlUIIIIlN. 1If~ EXHIBIT "0" ........,wl YV? ,IlANCU NOlAN IAcI VZOLA HOlIAN, hie wU., naiAIIi.U. v. ZN '1'HI COURT 0' COMMON 'LIAS ctlMliRLAND COUNTY, '.NN'YLVMZA NO, 184 CXVIL 1"4 CIVn. AcrZON . LAW IXU :'OO:l:l'1'%C', lNC.. CWlK laU! '"IJIT COMPANY I HlRIHIY CIIOC:OLATI: USA. HIRSHIY 'OOD. COR'OlATION, IndivUI.lIJ.ly.nd t/./~/. HII'Hay CHOCO%.ATI U'A, ~IC A"CCIAr.. ~JMI'1'ID 'AaTNIRIHI', .nd fORKLI'T., fNC. , 1:I,"n"nt. JURY TIUAl/);lllMANJ:lID TO, aON IOIfIRIIOX 0/0 o.or,. I. '1111r, Jr., I.qui". MIUl'l'OIf, DIAIlZION', wtr.UAIUII' O'l'TO 10 ...t Ki,b 8tr..t CI"l:l..l., PA 17013 , \ .OT:I~. C. D..O..lIflt'OM Pl.... takl noUo. I:n.1: l:lenni. Il. Shl,".r, l.ql.ll.ll'I. 'ttofnlY for Pl.inti'!, will take the d.polition on oral .xlminlcioA of Ron Bowu'lox. };l,'or. I oourt reporter .ut:hcrh,d to Idm:l.n:l..t.lI' o.th. w:l.chin the ~ud.diction of thi. Court.. Id4 l:l.poa!tion will Uk. pl.o. on Thl.lr.day, Janu.ry 11. 1"6, .t: 5,00 p.M. .1: the Law Offio.. of H.pfer!!, Swane " Mor;.n loa.t.d .t 111 Nonb hont 8tr..t, Hlrl'hbur!J, "enn.ylv.ntaat wh:l.oh time .nd Pl.a. you are necUhd to .pp.ar . , I 111 Nortn ':ront 8tnet P.O. lox In H.rri.bur" PA 17101-011' (717) U4-41:a Attorn.y. for PlaintU!fa , , , , I " " " " , I, " 'J " 'I I' I' , ' I' " , " I' I ...." . lI'l.li/,Y ....,. ..' A' .~. ,,~. I,'" .., .1" "" ~""a/oq. ~ m&u..I.- .M.Qlg}l.I I H IOIII'W HlI'IUIID p,C 1M C, 'WAIITI' lNo4ill (J. ~CIIl.IH, J' 'AI'lHlA L. r.w~rOH '1Ir14IH /01, ewc".,."" llIHNII,t IHlA'''' IlItllAIC A, II'ACl~ MlCIW~ H, PAil AHfIIlIlW 1(, IMII\IAN toT AHUV H "'.(~L 01 ccu~" 10\. ClfrlClol -- III NCIIlTII ,,,'"UT.II' 07lftlllry 10, U.. ',0. IInII ... Hl\NIlIIIUII ,^ 171U1WlNt V%Jl.. Jl.t!. 'fIn'L11 'OIlM,...." CI.-& TIIAI "lIwI'""'ftn..H""lOfl\l, ~"lfIIT.""AM'OC~l - ,,","ONI m.!.\<H121 O.OIS' 8. '111.r, Jr., '.qlllr. NUllO., DIAII)OI,r, WZ:r.J.IAIfI . O'l''IO 10 la.t Hlf.h ,.,..t earll,l., A 17043 ,,,. ,17.alI1lIW.n Tal.i. '11I1 lll>>aII7..o11JI ~ a.. '..uoh ....an, .t II.. Y. I..i Z...i,UClI, .. a1. ChaMedull c.C... Ifo. u. CiYU U.. D.lr Mr. ,.ll.r, 'rhil lItt.r will confirm that the t.l.phon. dlpodtiol\ of 'atriaia M. Wann.r hu b..n lobeaulae! for TIaIl.....V, "lAlla.., 11,1"', to b.,in.t 3.00 p.m. Central Tlll1. (.100 p.m. I"tern Tim.) .nd to talc. plao. It ber ofUo. looated at Tr.ilvood Tr.n.portltion, .825 Mllltang Circl., MOun~ View, Minn..ot. 55112. (M.. Wannar'a t.lephon. nUmb.r ie na-?u.UU) Inolol.d pl.... flnd . O.po.ltlol\ Notia. direot.c.t to 'atrici. M, W'MU folt your r'Yhw .nd fU.. I would allo like to confirm that our ofUo. wl11 Obtain the oourt reporter fol' the Illloy. lohedulad 4epo.ition. It th.r. Ihou14 b. any qu..tion. or pl'obl.me with Iny of the Illlove, pl.... contloc me. Tha~ you !or your Itt.ntion to thie mltt.r. Very ClNly your., HlPrOM, .IlUTZ , MOIGAN @,I!y C.nni. I, 'Ih.afhr '.....'.,..".,.ll..,rl\ CIS/elk Inoloeure It Iolml M.\JN I'11lUl eCI '- T'~ano. L, M.anv. 'aquire (w/anol.) Kirby A. Kann.dy , Auoelat.. Iw/enel.) -, ,o.lIcll...' I.l_,~^ ~7 TlLlIIUlNI Tl70241->>1it EXHIBIT "E" I' 'I , , , I "I 1,1 .1" IX HIIlIT G , !,. " " ,jl, , , /, I " "I' . " I, " '1 " " , , I " , " " 'I ~V HARRle~URG~~DT AR MINNEA'OLU/STPAUL 14:~ 1 Y OK SNACK , UTOP JET 16-A 'Ul!OARtJ ~IG PASS SSUEDII,II FALL.ER/OEORGE I'1R UNITEtI 1216~ IlK OSTOF' 7'37 14-A '1llIlElOARD NG PASS SSUEDIIII FALLER/GEOROE I'1R UNITED ::lUll OK SNACt< OSTOP 727 11-F IIIIElOARD NG PASS SIIUEDIUI FALL.ER/GEOROE I'IR A FR 12JAN LV MINNEAPOL.S/STPAUL. 300P AR CHICAGO-OHARE 41QP IIEAT A FR 12JAN LV CHICAGO-OHARE ezop AR HARRISBURG-~D1 7e1P SEAT TICK T NU~ltE <S)I 001104e 17003 AIR FARE TAX TOTAL AIR FAR AMOUNT DUE THAN YOU FO YOUR IUIIINEB 790.00 6.00 796.00 796.00 DtICLAlMI": AAA Trlvel AQtncy ,."..."1, _.,.~ I' tn. 11."1 'or c.f1l1n Carl1lr.L'!.n.porta,lon .camp.nln, loUr oJMrllOJf, note", wt'lMlal'rI Ind "r'YI4' compan'-t .. w111e~ ""ndtpt~d'~l, d'ICIll," pl1~"pI", AAA Trav" Aoin., ,,~ct ,..po~"bla... a~, ~OOI",", ..t or ..",0'011 bV a~, <II 'h'" ......'UtI011.. I I EXIIIBIT "0" , , . ., , I II . CRRTIPICA.1E OF SERVIC'I! I hereby lXIi'llI)' thai" copy of the forel!olng Dllfendant's MOlioll tor a COlllilluallce or Protective Order WI' served this dale via facsimile as follows: Dellnis R. Sheaffer. Esquire HEPFORD, SWARTZ &. MORGAN III North Frollt Street Harrisburg. PA 17101 (232-6802) MARTSO ,DEARDORFF. WILLIAMS &. OTTO By George B, 1\ . Jr.. Esquire Tell Easl High Streel Carlisle. PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Allomeys for Defendant Elle1 Logiillcs. Illc, Daled: Jlnuary 11. 1996 " , .. " ,., " 't;, i';'i' 'I ", ':i " t,: " r:i ~. ..IJ', I f'" ~~. ,.!; !" I" ti 'r" , ;;.~ (': , 'I.... II,: ( ,) ~ ,I "~I ."'r', .' (. ,'. ' o' " N c;... 6'> " ii', \~I ;l\i~ !Il' (.- II t' .- ,i" . or' ~. . i I ',ll..\. r-:; .,',) U ,1'1 , I, I'. , I'" " ~ Ij la J~I~~~ "' !~j~jl . ~ = I ~ = III r" , , , " " I I'. . ~ -, ....----.--,----.---. _'_..._~._T._______._________. I JAN J I :ClGSI ,',I PL.AIlINQ8/...""",/,,,"'//./I).'JtJ.f, FRANCIS MORAN and VIOLA MORAN, his wife, Plaint if f s IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 3S4 CIVIL 1994 v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW EXEL LOGISTICS, INC" CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY, HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA, HERSHEY FOODS CORPORATION, Individually and t/d/b/a HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA, DAUTEC ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and FORKLIFTS, INC., I' Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIWWS' MOTION TO COMP.L AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs by and through their Counsel, HEPFORD, SWARTZ & MORGAN, and move this Honorable Court for a Motion to Compel Defendant Exel Logistics, Inc. (here,t.nafter Dehndant Exel) to provide witnesses and discovery, and in support thereof allege as followsl 1. This case arises out of a forklift accident that occurred on January 29, 1992, at the Defendant Exel's warehouse in New Kingstown, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Francis Moran was struck from behind by a forklift operated by Def~ndant Exel's employee, 2. The Travelers Insurance Company, Defendant Exel's liability insurance carrier, paid medical expenses on behalf of the Plaintiff in an amount in excess of Thirteen Thousand Dollars ($13,000.00) and also paid over Seventy Thousand Dollars "~IJNlIH~SI ~",~,,,,,,,,;,,'()Jlo!.t ($70,000.00) of income loss to the Plaintiff from the date of the aocident for approximately two years. 3, Plaintiffs intended to introduoe into evidence at the trial of this case, which is scheduled for the week of January 16, 1996, the amount of paymentll that were made by The Travelers on behalf of Defendant Exel to the Plaintiff and for the Plaintiff's benefit. 4, At the pre-trial conference before the Honorable Edgar B~yleY, counsel for Defendant, George Faller, Jr., indicated that the Defendant would object to the admission of the said payments, 5, As such, counsel for Plaintiffs, Dennis R. Sheaffer, had requested to depose the insurance adjusters involved to determine facts that would support the admission of said payments in light of an agreement between The Travelers on behalf of its insured, Defendant Exel, and the Plaintiff. Said agreement would act as admission of liability and acceptance of responsibility for the payment of the medical expenses and the ongoing loss of income Plaintiff experienced. Said agreement also would permit the admission into evidence of the facts concernJ.ng the payments. 6. Counsel for Defendant has advised counsel for the plaintiffs that he will not voluntarily provide an unredacted copy 2 ~~IIW JNQS I m..""../, ,,,.,,/,,, 0-'1(/'1, of the complete insurance file as requested by Plaiptiffs' counsel and, further, that he would not voluntarily provide the insurance adjuBters who had direct conversations with the Plaintiff and that the adjusters would not be permitted to answer any queBtions regarding their evaluation of the liability of this case. ? Defendant Exel continues to maintain that, even in light of over Eighty-rive Thousand Dollars ($85,000.00) of. payments to the Plainti f f and on Plaintiff's behalf, that there was not an agreement with the Plaintiff to accept liability. 8. It is the Plaintiffs' position that the unredacted insurance file contains evidence that would support Plaintiffs' position that there was an agreement and, if not direct evidence, at least circumstantial evidence rflgarding the communications between the adjuBt.ere and the Plaintiff and the adjusters' evaluation of the liability regarding the claim, 9. r.t is further the Plaintiffs' contention that the adjuBters themselves should be required to respond as to their thought processes and reasons for making said payments and their evaluation of liability in the case ae that would be evidence in support of Plaintiffs' position that, in fact, there wae an agreement to accept liability for the accident in question. 3 PL.NlIIIOS! m",m"",,,,..!'-W'IMf, 10. Pursuant to 42 Pa, C, S . A. 86141, said payments by Defendant Exel are admissible in a personal injury case if there was an agreement between the parties, as there is in the present case. Therefore, Plaintiffs need the requested discovery to provide a factual baais for the Court to determine the admissibil i ty of said payments at the trial to take place beginning the week of January 16, 1996. I WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter an Order compelling Defendant Exel to produce the entire unredacted Travelers insurance file and produce the insurance adjusters involved to discuss the file, their evaluation of the liability and thought process in arranging for and making payments to the Plaintiff, as well as their conversations with the Plaintiff . Respectfully submitted, HEPFORD, SWARTZ & MORGAN " , I BYI UJ~.Y<1/~- D~n~ ~ sfi~fer Attorney 1.0. #39182 111 North Front Street p, O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS Date I /-II"'}6 4 " ~LINlltlqk/"",,,,,,,,..!I,'(}.l16I.t CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ~ day of ~Y"""L~I Sharon L, Smith, for the firm of Hep(jrd, sw~i-tz 1996, I, & Morgan, hereby certify that a GOPy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel was nerved by ~'acsimile and first-class U. S, Mail, postage prepaid, to the following, George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILIJIAMS & OTTO Ten Easl High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Counsel for Exel Logistics, Inc., Hershey ChoCJolate USA, Hershey Foods, corporation and Dalltec Associates Limited Partn~rship) >:"VI;t\AOu,,-.x ,~tl. Sharon L. Smith " , ' Ii' , I , , ,;1 , , 5 111111 PU I.l:~~ II !i.t;J191U2d_'- -, .~w.MJ-ZI~"-,,. MO,lillM:L------ lA\\'\l'IIr.U '~.--'--'---+ -...---... -. IH N",'~f11 ~ltr.'Nr "Rill -- ,..--,.-.- ..--.------. I~ 0, I\.'~ MlI . --_.~_._- IIMl.'.,I\lJfl';', r:\ JlI"...,.,:\I.'/) -_._-_..-_.~ r..lrlll'lNl 717'7."""I~1 .-..-,_._-_.._-~-- 'A~ /II,'I)'/,M11 . ..._~-_.,---.._..-..._._.....- Il'LL ~RU i".,,).'}~7-4121 l~ 11\\I"Ilny,'_"lO",(:u . ......,. ____.__.._~~_.~_._h._-.. I-I. \I,'I:rll MAIN ~I"." "1.. l ,,~,~ l"l,,' \t.WI"..,,,,,.I',\ 1i(\.HUfI"" ._.. .......-.....- trl,..mINt 11/1.\/1-.1\11.1 '071T 2,12 l\,~IJ2 1I,"j~ll lilli, 1',\ filllll I FACSIMILE COVE" LiTTER UATF; _JlJ1lU1LY 1J....1I)I1L ' - I PLEASE DELIVER IMMEDIA TEL Y II JIl"U'tl thpfl,)llU. It,C.: In C. :.\Ullft' IAMh (,. :\1l11i1,,^~.1'1 f..\NIJIo'.A I. Ml.{1I)'" . ~;nIIHl~, M GIlH(')lfR lit 1.\.1\"'1'. It ~'I\",'"'Jl 1tI01\ttD ^ F.,l '~~l~,' MlltlAl~ H. I"fl~ 'A\CJItI\\ k 1j1'.,TiM~N -.....-- " TO' . O,c/!Ill.I.llGhpff1oll,f,,gYII MDJj~\frlli2!..------ ADDKE5BI::t'R FAA, .JUt) :1.,.Q.1J4e2_---~_-_ FHOM:DFl.llOJ' R_3!1!l.ll/l,;u:.J;.'QIl1rL'l,.. _.- SENLJE'R: ,611fllillJ_SmillL-, - --- TOTAL fJAOES (INCI.UOINO 1 HIS COVI,n LEllER) .JL IF yOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL..8 . PAGES, PLEASE CALL THE SENDER tMMEDIA TEL V lELEPHONr. ("111) 1.34 4121 FACSIMILE: (711) 232(\1102 !i,"NLlY II ~ra.C.I~ l,)' C".\'L'Mll ',"unmr jl 1(,,'\ '~II' \:lI('(Pl.' 1111 :\!.'..'I"'~' tl.IHfljll t..~l'U'\,~ _I' COMMENTS: RE: Moran v. EKe! Logistic., It al. . No, 384 Civil 10e4 , , " 'I I " " mr IN~QIlM^110N C:ON1AINFtl IN THIS F^C5IMILI! ME8MClE 1$ ArTOANEV PRIVILE:OFrl ANLl (;ONnnFNTIAL INHmMATION INTFNlll:ll ONLY FOR THf use Of' THE INn/VIDUAl. OR INT/TY NAMED ABOVE, I~ THF fU:AOFR 01' 1 HIl; MF5GAOl! IfI Ncrr 111L INTLNLlt:n HlCIPIF,N I, YOU AHF HlRF.RV NOTI~IEO ltlAT ANV DIS$FMINATION, UI!jIRIIIlJlIl"lN Oil cory 01 THI~; COMMlJNICAllON IS ~TRlcn.v ~ROtIIlIlTl'n I\' VOl) II^VF HLCrlVr.tl Iliff. COMMl)~IICATION IN FRRon, PLEASE IMMFnlAlllY NO III Y \IS lIY TFI.LI-'IIONF. ANU HFllJllN THE: OHIGINAI MFUUM1F 10 II!! A I THF AL10VF ALlLll~F:i:; VI^ Tile us. f'>(HHAI ~;LHVlc:r..IH^NK vnu I I \ I 1I1110~ 13: ~1 0111 2,12 ~~1I2 II,,'I&M 111I" "\ . H&r.FqJUL .SYlMIU.. ..-_ .M.2.'.~(l^N.____ II l'hI"" It..'IONII r,1; 1.11 C ')IUIU/,' I.4MI~ G MUII(,,,\, III 't.Mm,,^ l.. .\llIl,\J\ 'illl'ltr..... M '~MU\III11, I' ~).,~.\'I'i R, HlIlu,,, UKIIAI" A F\I.(1" MlntAll It rAI' ANIIII" I< ~T1,Irz.tA' SIANIIY II, 'f1~U 0, (;OI/N"I .'anl,Jllry '1 L, l\l\l6 ....... ClI"'" --'-"-' III N(llno fl'WI ~'''"' .-..------- r,() tol MIl '(IIJl/I". ",. (,\I ',",H AI,...,...."" tHI N~IIIJ\\L .,.._t)~\f hl'l A(.I\\' I" --.-...-'-"-'---' H...'ltU,O,I'A "Uy',(lM/I BJ:tn '\'() h"DlUlirJUIolJrl ('/1'/) ~'I(). (,U~ '. N:ln A'i'T()IUI~l( Pi't.t"m . ('/1'1) H3.1IJ50 . VIA t'jY~(W01.~i Mm _UW: ..cJ,i\IIJ'LJW~, MI\ ~J! - -.------ ----- nllrllChl 717':1,.\.\- 41t1~1 ,., 71Hl1-f>t\C.Y.l T()l.Il,fft~2."'7"'1i1 'f}!Ilr"o'.c (:hllrt\.tlll., ':(hlt' fulfl\il"III:".'Jt,ot CumlJlul,md C;olllll,y COUl'" of C.'lnlnOll 1'!l)ulI Cumu(:);lIHld C'O\lllty CO\ll"l.housc Oml C"u~'th(,)III1" 1I(IUAre Cadinlu, VI\ 17013-3387 ~ NIJr'"'' v. lilxlIl J.ogi..t.iCD. .1: nl. No. 304 Ci.vil 1,t4 CWDbedand County Court of COlllllon 1'18,'" Oellr Mr. ClIl!LL in~' Rill Inolollull phl\l80 f I lid for f,( Illl9 wi.th thn FAXlld letter n 1LliAAnt)J.tJL,",fH;w'U .tlLll!:J "nda'1~..:.IL.JlliJ.l.limJQ! C:ulltJJ,l1I!in~t'!. 2l I'r()t;~(\";~,ivI:'...!ll:ililj' ill r.h" fllJov,,-rchrc,nG~,,1 matter, With t'fw "opy of r}li" Iftt:tCl' sent hy U, S. Mall an. toe orIB!Il"l 1111<1 t.wo COpiOCl 01 tlll:t 1Il,linr.- nOCJlIllIflllt, (lleEllle rt\tllr'lI one clock'Jd-in c~'I?Y t.ll my ,,(ficc, in t,hll "nclo!lBCI nt.acnpcd. 'HI I , -,,>Ju~"'(J"',,1 "nv..h,p'~, 'l'hllllk ymJ (01; YCllJr 'Ulfli"t<ll"'U In thl.tl matt.er.. V"'I:Y I'.nd,y your.., JlRPFOIW, SW1>RT7, & MOllC"AN ci}r./f. &,..fi. D.mnls (-/31kl(.'f I eu ORS/ulf1 EnclclClllt(i1ll lit. O'.'o,.q" [\. ~'...llcl:, .rr" lilqu.l.r,,' (w/'l/III1,) ~",,5TOWN Orrlr.:u ..~ $t)UTIl M\I,.. $"uu '. '. "0 "", tJh7 1.",moWN p^ l1t,).Wo.v.l .-.......,....-...-- 'fLU'HONa nl.'o4I)..)U13 ~flfI~ IJ I 11. flU 13 I H 0717 2:)~ l\';II~ fl. ~~~ IlliG 1'.\ Il.lAUJHOtil /9tMlI...,,,J.,.",J,., ,,'ul,t FRANCHI MOHAN ,111/,\ VWr.,A MCJIlJIN, hlt4 witr:, J'lillnUIIII I IN "IlE COURT 01' COMMON PI.I::A!.> r:UMFlr.rll,/lNI) I.:OlJNTY. L'lr:NNI:l'il,NI\NJ/\ NO. ~U'I crvIl. J. 1)')<1 CTIIl!. AC,:'1'LCJN - J.J\W v, EXEl. t."rHI1'l'ICS, tNe" Cl.AltK F/,JIH PI"':b~N'l' Cl:MI'i\ln', H~ll.,.W~V CHOCCl/.A'l'r.; U!:l^, lIERklH~:Y fO(IOS <.'ORl'i.lII,Jl'l' rON, Indt\'ldut,lly /lllll I:/d/b/;, HE:H:;1I8Y CHCiCO I.^,l'f.: IJflP I O/lU'1'E:C MSOCIA'l'W, LIM1'1'I.!:LI L'AH'l'NtilRSIlII', LInd I'Ol'\l<l,tl'TI1, TNC.. De f l!llldllllt II .TIIRY "I'HAI, m:MANLlJ::D PLAINTIFFS' ANIIWJ:R 'l'C) 1)J:nlNPNIT'S MOTION ~!l~N.c:;,:O/{ PRO.UG'l'lV1J)RDll\ 1, Aclmltt.'.HI. 2. IIdmitt.IJu, Additionally, tht f1 mlltr....l" Wll~1 ox'iginlllly li.t<!ld tor tr~Il' f'1r r.hn Nov,:mb,.'r. l~~~ tl'l'm ,~nd ":olltlllll.,,,.l ul tho request. of Uofallr.tnnl: /J ill 01'.1,,1' t,') ,.,bt.,~ i II ",xp"r:!. '.'xlIminllt ionll l\lld exp'.'rt repOl"tf;. rllt'! lllmordb '''' 110 r:c.lld I,:. Sheeley o'IntflHld un Or'clAr- at r:tIAr: t.im/l indlc,.t.lIl'-l tho!. lh'~l"~ w,:>uld bo'l IW fUn.tlf.ll' contillUlIrlCet4 (II"'''' Onlllr ilLt:'lChr.'d hf~l.'~to 1041k..<I F.xhlblt. nAn). 3 . lulrnit. Loti . ". Adml.ttl.ld. "'.. I !I, Admitt'ld, I , I., 'I " /" ""''';'''1 III 11 flU I ~ : ~ 1 0111 ~.11 \I.\"~ 1I..'i~~1 IIUI, 1', "'l,f,AllUffJ5/.,."mll Itll"ltltll(., '.'1N", 6, IIdmit.t.l':'Il, 1l hi furt.h()~' dllrlf.il~d eh"r. thn l'!aintitf." hilVII nQt ill.oml,'>!;.tu.t ll) IwliLIIlulll the dllpo~itt.'11, ~.lut in tlllJt him l1wJJ.l. NO, 7. ^c;lmHl.od ill P,Ht, d"lIli...d il\ plll.t, It j,l;I admil.t...tl thai: thA i)E:f.~n(.h~dt'a TM~ pl'i'chi~\';'r.illl, !}..., ~~.\I,'d~" H',,,nJ21,'t"'"JT., of Ht1lH}\\":Y, PrlOllt'ly1vl.lnin, WIll; uLlh...<1ul..<1 for' ~:,10 p.m, on Wcdncllduy, JUllU,l['Y 10, l!l!16, It.lll dmdt'td that th,~ Wf~ulh'.'l" l:llll,IILillllfl or I.he r'1lldwaY8 in clint-rill l'enllIJylv""ld w,H'" In l'lllr.:h condition to r.oqulnl t;hll cl'lncellatIon of 811id depc.HJltic)ll. lIy W,IY nf f\lrt:ht'l~ dl~l\ial, /.lui.tl dcpo.itioll C.:.ll~ii l'1 Y n()\l1 cl h"-Vfl bncn p'.'['LIJ['llif.,.j by t ,.1 '''llbmll'', rli nee both ,~()\u\flel hvd mild" It 1.0 thld t. ')ffic'-'~I thlll; rit,y, 1"llr't.hor. 1.'1Ilintl!!'J' cOIIrIlI"l WMI abl(, to ~Ict '.nto hili office on TUl'lsdny, JallualY '>. l'H16, 'I'll,,, nli.ld I:OllclJl.lllllfJ In t.h., HlIrri.burg nI"~U WAl'1'l riot uuch lh,lI.. C:(}lllHl~!1 c'1uld nol U'~L l<.> l!(IulhHY l'.O l'fll'f<n:nI the deposit ion, By w"Y ,,( 'Ul'thCl' <'\'miu I, I t. III b,.,) i.~vo'ld Lt.,...t: Or, HOlll'.l'lttl'll.' dJ.d not 1;(lJlcr~l I.h... d',I/lC)IIil.il'Jf1 d,\(: to his innbilit.y t.O pi'll' fnrm r.h<'l depo9itilJll, IJ. n,uded, P11\1ntJ.tf. JIl Wilh""l klJ()wl",cl~:Jfl or tl\f.ormllti'JII sufficient t'.l [onll .. b.lll..r 'HI I.,') tIll, l;t'l.\t.h o[ tho nllllll,'jt,lollfl in ['lI['dlgraph I) tine!, ,HI :lllch, Ltl" 'Mille M"'~ r,\r;>n.t oc\. ". :l 11 OU I,): ~~ D717 ~:I~ O~,,~ 1I,~MI . IIUI. r.\ P~'~I"q~J ...."..."....,v/., ,.,,61,1, !l, Adm i Ie I. .,,1 i II I'd r t, chHlIl.ld il'l parL. it; i.s oftdmitt,ed thut l.tIJLl()qd I. i Oil 0 t' nOli nowlI r.'cIQX, the 1"1.. i.1I1 \ t I II h,1l1 HdlUlhll11d lll'.l employ"'l/I (If D<lhllldolllll, !::x" I r,oSJlat I <11.1. II. ill turther admitted that. th.l OUt:'lfIdillll.. <)Illy l...\~:onlly identiti"d MI'. llowenlt',x .lfl iHl tl:l-y't.'lWir;.nC:4t4 1;(,) :.: Ill'.' (.\(~CI.U':"(:l"l:'e. :'". it: (1t'11l1r;<l t.hat: Nl", knwot~nox eh':'l\lld ''''I: 11 "Vl' bolt "'11 pr...viollllly 1<I,,"llrl,,<I by l1etend.'.lIt. M\', (\n','orBO;";' h~H~ \'I!f'll oIli "'llp);'l"jr':.' f,)f Ih,(nt1,.l'I".l: ,,-)1')1';'" r,h(~ ,'L'lt,l: ('j( IJ~B llcddenl: ,111d illllfl! i i' 1"11 CJperator, t,c.lrklitt hy t.h..' WII!t'j Ryan cJ!elJlJn...r, in hifJ d'~posit ion of 1\un\l1l1. .10. 1""", Cill CUI indivlclu"l who wall Oil l.lio ..'r:'.,"I~ uttf.'l: the accid"nt. put walll never lcl.ml.. if iud by 1>... fnlldnnt. liB a witnoss to Ithe accident, Ne')\: until .1E1mlnry S, 199/j, did the Deflmdallt'll COUIHlo'll ,~,lv\ll~ P1illnt..lfCll' .:o\m~el that Nr. BOW<,l'.1'lX, ii1 (,1<':1., di,'l Wll.lIRlIlI till! ;H.:dd....lIl. :I lid , ,If) L1uch, l'iuinl HifJ' coulH"11 n.ltUl.'al.l Y woHll.eu to UtlPUUl:l Mr, 1<\()Wflft.<,)X. (Il",,,, ,H.tht:hecl 1:1)PY oi l'il'.lI.J 43 ot Deposition 'l'nmscripL of RYlln Ol'JIJlJlIe1:',) 1L J.e> ndmittcd thilt r.h.1 dflpon I t i CHI lloLle/1'! WAll for. Junuury 11, 1~)%, nt !l,QO p.llI. n\11''''n(l,~1l1. hun Hivml 110 rfllUlClll why .L1id d"positi.ol1 could !lOt. l)onnltJly 1.1Ik" pluo'.' at thf~ tim..' nt. which it. ill t';c':hedlllocl. Further, COl.llHld fl1l' the n""l"l'!ndant indi<;'lIt.;d L'iJ.l1l~'.' Ml". l\(JWI~I'f"')X III Ill. i. 1 I dll ,~rnpl()Y'J'" of ~:"f.!J 1,l,lq:lfJl.h:fI that tU.l wl.llllcl vl.lll.lfll.o!'Uy ,"uk,,:, Mr. n\~wr.:1'm')x .lv"t.1.,ble flJx' dOJllCJIJ I. t 1')11 W ll. II'Jut. I. h,.' "',1,.,d ':If l:lubP':lCI111. I 10. Adml r.1:f!d. -"l, :I filJII1I3 fI,'i~\1 111I1,1'.\ , , Pl,."'JlHn/J/I~J'\I" "'41 ,~,.JI'-II.,)Il." I " wHh a dopOllitj.r.lll llfi it. WI:\Ii ,Whft.LI.1l1. 'l'h,ll. r!nJlm>lltion l;mlJlj hay. I, UIlIm lHll'f~)r'rn(),1 ~'" ,1;o1l1l(lry 1.'), l,99G, ul ~I~O p.m, ), ~'h~lr.<l III not 1I11Y ()tl~tlt,:IIH.Hn'J r.I.i.r,lC,'<.lVII11'Y whi.ch flt.lillt.,iffu dIJl\Ir.~ t.~. VeT'I,.,,'rn. 'l'h',' r,t"I\(.HlllJ,Il:1I1 r.llat. "l'lI tlCll"dul"c1 ;IPI fcor ll~l" .H, 1.1'11:.1, <'l1l(:t:11t (,',,: I.h,', i"rll.rllll":" ,,'ljlllll'''!tl, .,nd t.hut ,",OfIU !t.l the F.;"j,dcntiilty .t:HllIC r,r! : tl" rd'"I.')h\hU,I'.~' f.'!. (:.n;t.:~\J.r~ pa>""'e....r..:i. A~ .uch, thn l'leintittlil Wi/'lh r.l1 prop.'Ir<'l ,. l'..,':nnl tor th.! COllrt: to rnndflllO u dr.><,!i"i~'n '.HI th" ndmilllllbility I,t CC1"tllin peymllntfl m..c11l by !-I tht: Dcflmd..nt l.() ,1Ild nn I>..h,.l f or tll... P1..illl.i.ff, That ia thl! DlIbj..":1 or il "'111.-1,.11'" MoLlon 1,1,) Cl,IIII(J.,!l I.hul hUll tJ'JlIlI fillld by the PLlIntlfflJ l',l "01111',,1 I.h" dl,'I.ll,l/J.lt,i'.ltllJ ulId lhl: 1?1'ovilioll of the, i11!l\ll',) net': f. 1.1,~ , <I, FinAlly, r.b" Oflffllldllnr, h,\n r1<'lt >liwlIl ,my rA 11 II III I why t.h.. /Ir:hllduJ'HI dOlJlO/l1t.llll1l1 CoIWlnl l.akll pIll"" 111\ I.IdlCdulf!:r.I, lIer.endullt h./lfJ b~l')n "WEll:" fl'om r.h,", til1l~ nf. r,h,) pr'l': .trill1 ":OIl(tlr'CrIUl' I.hul. Ih\id wir:ll<'ll!Jl'ltl" were rr()ill~1 to b,~ prMll'lnl:l'l,i ,n. 1:r"i,.l Illlll, ,ltll' 1:0 l:hAi,.. dilltoillCO'!, wllulrl 11"""'"1011 Ily b,' c"ll"rt by r111Pl\I.lll..l',>rI, l'.I.aJ,lIr.ifffl' ':')lllllJel r;lfJilHJd ..II ',hll.'.'I! lIlId llme,) wHh L1IJfelldnnt'lI <':,'lll'llllli'IJ off 1<:'" liei'm" ndll'l,hll i WJ UI<l <I1'111lllllt. i 01111, 'I ...., ~ .' ,\ n .f O~ I,):~fl 0717 ~.1~ 1l~1I~ /I "~~,, filII, ".~ ~L_J"Q'I..."~ "",,,,v', I/,VI;'/. 5, lJufAlldunt hu/) Ilot x'l)ud II Y OX' l 111",,1 Y pr,w1dlld !nfonnllt.JcllI rO(JiJK"dJll!j I1I\IMfl, urlllrl'l/lfIlU' And ,.,t.lh.to.\ulin'i/ ~,! wlt.m.f!'H'l. lind, A' 8\lch, hUI~ ~lillHlled /lilY illl.lllllVlmlllll(;tlI thut rl<,lW ttxltlt.. 6, TiI" IlQllot.'l1b"" 11,Il"ol>'J F;, flhoA: "Y onlu'flcl on e,;t.Oll.n 1,0, 19~5, that t.hnn. w"J\lld bo ll'J fllTt.h",,. corll, .l1ll1l1fl::1l1l I,t thit4 C,l/J'I, U"'~lH.\"~. I U 1 '1 'y' ~i'llr:-i"it;. t nc:l, 1IP.F'FOIlL>, I,MAIl'!.'?, Ii MOROAN PAte l--.d!:i!..~__ fly ,~~'). 4'., .d..~../f..~~ nemfrRfificf't't: fl r Att.CWlIflY I,D, "'.191/1:1 111 Nmt,h Front I:ltrQf;\t: p, 0, Ut.)X AR,) lInxrl,sburq, 1'1\ 171QlI.0869 (717) ~:.l1-IjDl 1\TTORN~YI3 FOR l'LAIN'J'n'FS " il' , I " " '_,, ....... ., ' " " , , " , , I,.. i. "I 11.1111 '0117 ~.1~ II\"~ II, ~~ll 111I', I' \ 'Ltr/IIlI""" _u.....ooi/f./I,'!/I,t r;w~.r.M'il, ..cJ.!::_!i!:LHY I CI.: ANO NOW, r.hill ..J.UI" day <.>t 5~'''''J.~''':1 Shllron (.. ~mith, /,,' tho!) ti~'''' d BOlli/rd. I.;'>ir'l'.'. ." , 1~96, ;r, 10 ~1()~'911n, hnrdby cerr,Uy ttwt .\ (I"py .')f the fr\ll.,~.')\n\j 1'1"11\1. iCf.f!' Anl.lwl,lf 'ro Oef.endurlt. fJ ~k)L: LoJll 1>'''1 \:,'JIlt ill:.l/ltll:'. '" r'1:,:,tCt,:1 I VI! ('lL'd",r ~I(HJ "'Jr"llCl by fnC:C1imil<l uud flL"'lt 1.:1"'1/1 [J, ('J, Mull, pOfltl:l!)'C l)rllllnirl, to th.. following: Oeor<Jll 11, FillltJr, Jx,. El'lquin' M1\RTHON, 1lF.^RnORFF, WILl. T I\MS 60 0'1"1'0 Ton Rllflt H1nh Rtr"<'lt ClIrlln1/'l, 1'11. 170U (CIJIHI"..l f<:ll,- 1':x..1 r,ogl.ticu, )'1\"" Ht..rfJh"y <:h('\<:'<.1laI.II Im/\, Hcrull'JY P"odll COXlll,Hdl'.ion llnd I)aur,<'l(; I\s9ot;iul.lJII L,l.mit','d VM't.IW1:/$h I p) '1::1:7 ~ '-:.:;)" \' '-' t -. . - . ,try\. Pl. ". ... , 'r.'d ~ _.. .".. ,f,J... rJJIUlrHl I., flmith I II I, i I; ., ., IJ, ' ,I I, 'II I " ''''l, .: , " , J: ,ljIll,'INI"U~II,'\TlAVIIC)l' ....\Wl'j.AN.1 I''''''' OllllftlOI HII,M I...f\ OI/IINtOI ~lU'M FRANCIS MORAN and VIOLA MORAN. hi. wile. Plaintltls IN TtIE! COURT Of COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION. LAW v. NO. 3114 CIVIL 1994 EXEL 1.00ISTlCS,INC" CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY, HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA, HERSHEY FOODS CORPORATION. Individually and t/dlb/a HERSUEY CHOCOLATE USA. DAlITEC ASSOClAntS LlMI1'ED PARTNERSUlP, and FORKLIFTS, INC" Defendanl8 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DE~ENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' MQTION TO COMPEL I. Admitted, 2, Admitted, 3.4. It is admitted thaI PlaintUTs for the flrstllme at the pre-trial conference Indicated to opposing counsel that they believed and intended to introduce into evidence the fact that the Defendant's insurance carrier had made payment to PlalntilT for his medical bills and wage loss, The Defendant had previously supplied Plaintiffs with an itemization of the speclflc amounts of the payments which had been made a8 well a8 a redacted copy of the claims flIe. 5, It is denied that the deposillons would be proper; however, PIIlintlffs' counsel never requested these depositions until approximately one week before trial. 42 Pa, C,S,A. Section 6141 speciflcally provides that the payment of the medical bills and lost walles do not constitute an admission absent an agreement between the parties, Plaintiffs have presented no evidence that there was such an agreement or made the allegation that such an agreement exists, Defendant denies that such an agreement ever existed, In any event, the existence of such an agreement would be a mailer for the Court to decide either in camera or by way of a discovery motion and Plaintiffs should be prohibited from Introducing that evidence due to waiting flve days before trial to flle that mollon. 6, Admilled, 7. Admitted 8. Denied. To the contrary, Defendant'~ counsel was not aware of any authority that would allow Plaintll1i to receive a redacted copy of the in~uran.:e clalm~ me. At be~t, the Plaintllf~ may have been entitled if the mOlion would have been timely llIed to an in camera review by the Court or perhaps a ~pecial ma~ter which could have been appointed by the Court to review the claims llIe to determine ifany such a1lreement exl~ted, 9. Denied, To the contrary, the thou1lht proce~~ of Defendant's adjusters I~ irrelevant as there either was an a1lreementor there wa~ not. Plair,tilf~ have produced no evidence that there was such an agreement. 10, It is admitted thaI pur~uant to 42 Pa, c.S.A, Section 6141 said payment~ by the Defendant i~ admissible In a personal injury ca~e if there wa~ an agreement between the parties. It is denied that there wa~ an agreement in the present and there ha~ been no evidence of ~uch an agreement provided. WHEREFORE, Defendant reque~u th~t this Court deny PlaintitT~' Motion to Compel or in the ,alternative continue the case and review the records, the unredacted claims llIe in camera, or appoint a special master to conduct the review at the expense of the Plaintiffs, Respectfully submitted, MARTSON, DEARDORFF. WILLIAMS & OTTO L By )- Oeorje 8, lIer, Jr" re 1.0, No.4 13 Ten Ea~t Hlllh Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3093 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendants Exel LOllistics, Inc" Hershey Chocolate USA, Hershey Foods Corporation, individually and tldlb/a Hershey Chocolate USA and Dautec Associates Limited Partnership Date: Janu.ry II. 1996 . ~~ I'" ...... , r. /' , ..'" _,I:' (.::t .. . .1 . . ~ Ilj{? ~- () .~~-~ ( ;S,', .1.; l,nJ", [1"1 -- I.'] ~~'.~ l,Jl', 1.;',' , 1:., .,j .'. 'I' -. I." LI'" .,.,. j, j t~j ().!" .. L ;' J.. .. r, .- ! ~j tr) :.:\ <.I, u - ',., " , , ~ I i ~ E ~ oIlI >Il It ~ III ls!ip !~j~il ~= l~ = PL.lWIHO./..."'......".tI,., ',961.1. FRANCIS MORAN and VIOLA MORAN, his wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 384 CIVIL 1994 v, CIVIL ACTION - LAW EXEL LOGISTICS, INC" CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY, HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA, HERSHEY FOODS CORPORATION, Individually and t/d/b/a HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA, DAUTEC ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and FORKLIFTS, INC" Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANPED PLAINTIrJ'B' ANBWIIR TO DI...NDANT' B NOTION 'OR CONTINUANCI OR PROTICTIV. ORDIR 1, Admitted, 2, Admitted, Additiollally, this matter was originally listed for trial for the November 1995 term and continued at the request of Defelldants in order to obtain expert examinations and expert reports, The HOllorable Harold E, Sheeley entered an Order at that time indicating that there would be no further continuances (see Order attached hereto marked Exhibit "A"). 3 , Admi tted, 4, Admitted, 5, Admitted, '~.NJIHQI/........",....tll.1I rlfll,t 6, Admit: 1;()c1, It I~ further clarified that the Plaintiffs have not o~temptmj to uCJhlldllle the depos.\.tion, put ill fact hu ~ 80. 'I, Adm\.th,d LlI Ii/ut, cilflll\.ed in part, It is admitted that thl) Defend/lllt'u 1Mb: Jlllychlatdflt, Dr, Abt'am Hostetter, of Hershey, Psnll"ylvallia, Wfll'I achlldulod for 3130 p,m, 011 Wednesday, January 10, 1996, It La denied th,lt t.he weather conditions or the roadways in oentnl l'ellnsylv/mia were ill such cOllditioll to require the oancellation of said depoaitioll, By way of further denial, said depo/Jitioll dearly could have been performed by telephone, since both CloulIllel hud made it t.o their offices that day, Further, l'lal.lItl.ffu' c()l.lIllle1 wall nble to get into his office on Tueaday, , ,1/lnuary 9, 1996, The road cOllditiolls in the Harriaburg area were not Iluc:h that counse I could not get. to Hershey to perform the depolILtion, By way of ~urther dellial, it is believed that Dr, Hostetter dJ.d not cancel the depouitioll due to his inability to perfot'm t.he deposIt lOll. e. Dellied, Plailltlff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in PlIrllgrllph 8 and, as D\ICh, the same are denied. 2 P~.IUlXNQa/.....,.",....,VI-II"I6!.t 9, Admitted In part, dell,J.ed ill part, It is admitted that the Plailltiffs had scheduled the depollition of Ron Bowersox, employee of Defendant Exel Logistics, It is further admitted that the Defendant only recently identified Mr, Bowersox as an eyewitness to the occurrellce, It is denied that Mr, Bowerl\lox should not have been previously identified by Defendant, Mr, Bowersox has been an employee of Defendant since the date of the accidellt and wall identif ied by the forklift operator, Ryan Glessner, ill his depositioll of August. 30, 1995, as an individual who was on the scene after the accident, but was never identified by Defendallt as a witness to the accident. Not until January 5, 1996, did the Defendallt's counsel advise Plaintiffs' counsel that Mr, Bowersox, in fact, did witness the accident and, as such, Plaintiffs' counsel lIaturally wanted to depose Mr, Bowersox, (See attached copy of Page 43 of Deposition Transcript of Ryan Glessner.) It is admitted that the deposition notice was for January 11, 1996, at 5;00 p.m. Defendant has given no reason why said deposition could 1I0t possibly take place at the time at which it is scheduled, F'urther, counsel for the Defendant indicated since Mr, Bowersox is still an employee of Exel Logistics that he would voluntarily make Mr. Bowersox available for deposition without the need of Subpoena, 10, Admitted, 3 P".NlINQ'/...""...J"O.V,,//.'J6/../. 11. Admitted. 12, Admitted, By further answer, the deposition of Patricia Wanner is to be performed by telephone and al.l arrangemel1ts have been made. Defelldant does not indicate why said depositioll could not possibly take place, Said depositioll is for use at trial and not a discovery deposition. 13. Admitted. 14, Admitted. WHEREFORE, the Plailltiffs respectfully request this Honorable Cour~ to deny Defendallt's Motion for Continuance and for Protective Order for the following reasons I 1, There is 110 problem with scheduling the treating psychiatrist, M, S, Magerman, M,D" as that problem has been taken care of, and the deposition can alld will be performed by telephone, 2, The ulIavailability of the Deflllldant's IME physician came about as a result of Defendant's counsel/s choice not to go ahead 4 I f~"\lll"a'I...,,,.. .... ".,;,-""HJ.1. 5, Defendant has not readily or timlllly provided info.'mation regarding lIamos, IlddreSlles alld fJchedul i1l9 of witnesses and, 8S such, hall caused allY inconveniellce that now exist II , 6. The Honorable Harold E. Sheeley ordered 011 October 18, 1995, that there would be no further cOlltinuancell of this case, Respectfully submitted, HEPFORD, SWARTZ & MORGAN BYI ~ /!':~ Denn s R, S e .er Attorney I,D. #39182 !' Datel IJI,IJ,~ 111 North Front Street P. 0, Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS , I "\ " ,',' ,! I ,I. I, I", , , , ii, ., , , I!, \ I 6' I 40, FRANCIS '~ORAN AND VIOLA MORAN, HIS WIFE V IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . . EXEL LOGISTICa, INC., CLARK : NO, 1l4.384 CIVIL TERM EQUIPMENT COMPANY, HERSHEY : CHOCOLATE USA, I-fERSHEY FOODS: CORPORATION, INOIV. AND T/O/B/A : HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA, DAUTEC A8S0C. LTD. PARTNERSHIP AND FORKLIFTS, INC, QRQlfJ OF CQUBI AND NOW, OCTOBER 18, 1995, at the requ..t of defendant Exll l.oglltlO', th. abovHaplloned mailer II hereby continued from the NOVEMBER, 1885 trial term untlllh. Januaty 1998 trlaltlnn. Prothonotary I. directed to lI.t for Janul/Y 18915 trial tenn. No further contlnuanc. will be granted. By the Court, I " ,1 11-.. J{? .~ ~h"IY, p, , Dennl. R. Sh.affer, E.q. For the PlaIntiff waner H. Swayze, Esq. William P. Douglal, E.q, Martlon, O.ardorff, William. & Otto George 8, Faller, Jr" esq, For the Oefendants . I Court Admlnl.trator ;br .... IOOIIBIT II A" - mc.emr::d r~~ -oilv-:.!.s: J ," '~'M!lICl'I...~,.. "./"..II',".9";'/' AND NOW, this Sharon L. Smith, for CERTIFICAT~ O~ SERVIQ~ }Id day of ~'....vr.'1, . <-r the firm of Hep rd, Swartz 1996, I, & Morgan, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Answer To Defendant's Motion For Continuance or Protective Order waa served by facsimile and firat-class U. S, Mail, poatage prepaid, to the following I George II, Faller, Jr, I Esquire M1IRTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO Ten East High Street Carliale, J?A 17013 (CoulIael for Exel Logistics, Inc" Hex'llhey Chocolate USA, Hershey Foods Corporation and Dautec Associates Limited Partnership) ~ ~ lL''t\ ~," . . S aron L. smith I ' , " .1 I . " I.' ,p ~~ In ,'-: f" L,') ..., " I ,. ~(' 1"/ " , , , f1"' , , .. I , ii, , I r:'1 , 'I l' I , Ii , " ''\1/ '.' ., r" 'I:-J i ,~ I', , I I ~..... , " I'. Ul , 1_: 1.11 1~.J ~ !da a~~i i~ ~~lj ~ ~ j~Jfll ~' ~ ~ ~ - I'" , , = 10: Il',1 ,., . . ,. '" '. ..".,..J",f2,7.'I(/,f, FRANCIS MORAN and VIOLA MORAN, hili wHa, Plaintiffo IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 384 CIVIL 1994 I v. CIVIl, ACTION - I,AW EXEL LOGISTICS, INC" CLARK EOtlI PMENT COMPANY, HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA, HERSHEY FOODS CORPORATION, Individually and t/d/b/a HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA, DAUTEC ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and FORKLIFTS,INC" JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendallts fRAIClf. rOR DISCONTINUANCI ,', TO THE PROTHONOTARY, Please mark the above-captioned case settled and discontinued, HEPFORD, SWARTZ & MORGAN Dated, J'jl a-I'I (I By. (':: -j /( ~;-- ~~(;h~~r Attorney I,D, #39182 111 North Front Street P. 0, Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS 1'0R PLAINTIFFS ... . ~ ~ ANP NOW, I this -'2i1k:day of February, 1996, I, CERTIFICATE OF BERV~CE Cathy A. Kohr, I :( , , 1:) i' , ~ ' for the firm of Hepford, Swart~ & Morgan, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Discontinual)ce was served by hand-delivery to the follqwing, I' George B. Faller, Jr" Esquire MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO Ten East High Street Carlisler PA 17013 :', ca~1.'1Kl J{~ ':\ I' '" . . " :,1\ I:' " 'I 1\'\ i" )' " " " .1 " I, , , " " , , , ~ ., .. , , ., , , " , " '. 1 . I 1 , ' ., "