HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-00778
,I
i'
"
"
.1
"
'I
,"
,
"1',
, I
.,'
"
I,
II
,
,
"
I I
"
,
I
I\i
I
n
li."
Ii
"
,
,
, '
",
"
,
I
"
In
,
"
"
,
,I
"
"
"
"
;,'
i:, I
"
'I
"
"
',I
'\ "
I,
"
1'1
!I
11
"
"
:i
"
'1"
"
"
"
,
"
'I
I
"
, ,
I',
I ,
H
,
()O,
Ci
L
,"
Slo~e Ihlll she cullcd his omcc, shorlly utler the ucddent. 10 ll1uke un uppuinlll1enl, We ure
"
prellmlnllrily sutisl1ed Ihlll Dr. Sloke's records woul,1 be udll1issible 10 prove Ihe lUCiOI' u phone
enll.
"
The recul'ds uflhe pluinlifl's second sur~ery ure beinl! reviewed by II defense witness, Dr.
Goudmlll1, Counsel IiII' Ihe dcfcndul11 willmuke Dr, (loodmun's replll'tllvlliluble 10 Ihe plllhltiff
prior 10 II cerluin depositiol1 sctlilr Monduy, Octoher 27. 1997,
Mr, I~osenberl! indicutcd Ihul he would sllpulllte lulhe lIulhenllclty of vurious records in
Ihls cnse bul only atler II reusunahle oppurlunlty IU cxuminc Ihcm,
This case should be ofnu more Ihanlwo dllys' durution, The usuul number of jury
challenges will perluin.
OClober 22. 1997
David II, Roscnberll, Esquire
For Ihe Plllinliff
Mallhcw Gover, Esquire
For Ihe Defendunt
:rlm
"
"
I.,
1'1
, ,
., I
I,
,
,
,'I I
II . AIlOWINT
A. PLAINTUr'S STATIMINTS CONTAINID WITHIN O"IeIR COLI'S
ACCIDINT alPORT SHOULD BI ADHISSIBLI AT TRIAL.
Plaintiff aeeka a preliminary ruling on the admiaaibility of
the police report, or a portion of the police report prepared by
Officer Cole relevant to this collision, In Officer Cola'a report,
he made the following notation, "The operator of #2' later aaid sha
had some nack pain & said aha would seek medical attention on her
own,"
Plaintiff will teatify that she made this statement, however
she also seeks to introduce the police report as evidence that she
complained of neck pain at the Bcene of the colliaion. Ordinarily,
Plaintiff would call the Officer to teatify, however in this
unfortunate aituation, Officer Cole is deceased and therefore
unable to testify.
(1) OfficeZ' Cole'. Z'epoZ't talle within litheZ' the bu.ine..
recoZ'd exoeption or p..t recollection Z'ecorded exoeption
to the he.r..y rule.
Plaintiff aubmits that the police report itaelf would fit
within eithar the busineas records axception to the hearsay rule or
within tha past recollection recorded exception to the hearsay
rule. Police accidant reports are regularly prepared within the
day to day business of polic~ officers, The report in this case
operator number 2 is identified in the police report as being Plaintiff,
Deborah Saphore,
~
was made contemporaneously with the
I
Plaintiff will offer testimony
occurrence of the collision.
at trial from a police
representative as to the record keeping practices and authenticity
of Officer Cole's report.
"Police reports and records can, of course, meet the
requirements for the regularly kept records except.ion to the
hearsay rule. They can also qualify under the hearsay exception
for public records and reports," McCormick on Evidence S 268, p.
272 (4th ed. 1992),
Therefore, Officet' Cole's report should be admissible as a
business record exception to the hearsay rule for satisfying all
the requirements of 42 Pa.C.S.A, 6108,
The police report is also admissible as a past recollection
recorded.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the past
recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule in Commonwealth
v. Cooley, 484 Pa. 14, 398 A.2d 637 (1979) by stating that,
"[blefore the content of a writing becomes admissible under this
excEption, the proponent must lay a foundation to show that four
requirements are metl (1) the witness must have had firsthand
knowledge of the eventl (2) the written statement must be an
original memorandum made at or near the time of the event and while
the witness had a clear and accurate memory of it I (3) the witness
must lack a present recollection of the event, and (4) the witness
must vouch for the accuracy of the written memorandum," ~ Pa. at
21, A.2d at 641, citing McCormick, Evidence S .29 at p, 712 (2d ed.
3
~972) . See also Mi 11er v. Exetel' 80rou<;1h, 366 Pa. 336, 342, 77
A.2d 395, 399 (1951), Christian Moerlein Brewin'iJ Co. v. /l,usch, 272
Pa, 181, 187, 116 A.2d 145, 147 (1922). "If the witness is
unavailable, there must be sufficient evidence on the face of the
statement to infer that the declarant vouched for the accuracy of
the statement." Mark S. Greenberg & Anthony J, Bocchino,
Pennsylvania Evidence, p. 76 (1983),
All of these requirements are meet in the present case.
Officer Cole had first hand knowledge of the events at the time he
prepared the report. The report was prepared on the same date as
the collision and therefore was prepared contemporaneously with the
occurrence of the collision. Office Cole is deceased, therefore he
is unable to testify as to the contents of the report. Although
Office Cole cannot appear at trial and vouch for the accuracy of
the report, R police representative will testify as to the general
accuracy and authenticity of police reports, including reports
prepared by Officer Cole. In addition, officel' Cole identified
himself as the author of the report and indicated that the
investigation was complete on the actual report, Therefore,
Officer Cole vouched for the accuracy of the report when he
prepared and completed the report, Therefore, all the requirements
are satisfied to admit this report under the past recollection
record exception to the hearsay rule,
4
(3) PlaintUf'. .tltllller.t oonta1necS witbin Off10er Cole'e
aooident report Ibould be admi.eible under the pre.ent
phy.ioal ooncS1tion exoeption to the bearlay rule.
The Defendant, however, may argue that the report. is a claosic
caoe of hearsay within hearoay, Even though Plaintiff's otatemont
to Office Cole may be considtlred hearsay, the otutemsnt itself
should be admisoible as a declaration of present bodily condition.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commopwealth v. Coleman, 458
Pa. 112, _ A.2d _, (1974), adopted the following four exceptions
to the hearsay rule. The Court I.ltated, "... we agree that within
the scope of res gestae there exist four distinct exceptions to the
hearsay rule, all possessing dHfo1lrent indicia of reliability I (1)
deo.1arat1on. ot pr...nt bod1.1y aondit1on, (2) declarations of
present mental state and emotion, (3) excited utterances I and (4)
declarations of prf'sent sense impression." .l.IL. at 116,
The Pennsylvania Superior Court in Qs;>mmonwealth v. Blackwell,
Pa.Super. __' 494 A.2d 426 (1985), commented on statement made
by victim to a police officer about his physical condition while en
route to the hospital. The Superior Court, in dicta, stated, "If
the law in Pennoylvania has moved this far, then Mr. Leichter' 0
statements to Off ice Delaney, on the way to the hospital, regarding
his being a heart patient and in need of oxygen, would also be
admissible as statements of present physical condition. However,
we need not now decide this point." ~ at 437.
The superiol' Court found the statements admissible under the
pr..ent phy.1al.1 aond1 tion exalpt10n to the hearsay rule. However,
5
rather than determining whether the lltatements made to the police
officer would be admisllible, the Court determined that the
exception applied to the Ilame statements since they were made to a
nurse who was also present at the time the statements were made.
Although the Superior Court did not expressly hold that the
statements made to the police officer were admissible, the Court
strongly suggested, in dicta, that had it been faced with that
issue, it would have held the statements made to po~ice officer
admissible as well,
Plaintiff's statements contained within Officer Cole's report
should be admissible at trial. Clearly, Plaintiff's statements
were an expression of a present physical condition, "she had neck
pain." This statement squarely fits within the pr...nt pby.i.aal
aondi.t10n exception to the hearsay rule recognized and adopted by
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Coleman, supra. Therefore, for
all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully submits that this
Honorable Court should issue a preliminary ruling that Officer
Cole's report and Plaintiff's statement contained within the report
shall be admissible at trial,
"
6
(3) In the alternative, Plainti"'e atat.ment aontaina4
within OUioer Col.' a report ahould b. edmil.ible a. non-
hear laY.
Although the Defendant lIlay i1l"qU€l tlhlt tho fJt.atoment contained
within Off icer Cole' a report. should not. bo admissible as hearsay
within hearsay, Plaintiff f.lubmits t.hat ahe ia /lOt. offering the
statement for the truth of the matter nsael"ted but rather she is
offering this evidence to prove t.hat the fJt~teme/lt was made.
"An out-of-court. fJtatnment. in not. hoaroay if it. is not offered
to prove the truth (If the lIlilttlll" contil tned therein. Non-hearsay
includes statemento offored (1) t.o uhow tll'J upoakol"s state of mind
when in issue, (oae ~1JllilI..tW.ll1L.Y. Wil~iallllJ, ]()7 Pa, 134, 160 A.
602 (1932)), (2) to explain ,1 COIln.,,) of conduct (Ilee Commonwealth
v. Cruz, 489 Pa. 5lj9, 414 ^.~oI 103~ (1900)), (3) to prove the
statement wall mdCle, (IIn" ClJIIlIllOllll',I,h1lt.h v. Sampson, 454 Pa. 215, 311
A.2d 624 (19'/3)), (~) t.o nhnw tho uffuct the statement had upon the
listenel', (seo CommoU)IIudlth v, Hied, 332 Pa, 540, 3 A,2d 404
(1929)), (5) to illl(lo,1ch t.ho ul'odibility of a witness with his prior
inconsistent st.ntemont, (1'l.1O C~mmlonwenlth v. Hill, 237 Pa.Super.Ct.
543, 35.3 A.2d 0'10 (19'/5)), (6) to corrobornt<'l the witness'
telltimony, (flee !::ommonwoalth v. f'reemun, 295 Pa.Super.Ct. 467, 441
A.2d 1327 (1902),"
Mark s. Greenberg & An thony J. Bocchino,
"ermsylvanlll l~vl<lO/wu, p, 46 (1903),
Plnintitt'n ntutllmunt contained within Officer Cole's report
falls within lit lmHlt. two of the above referenced statements of
non-hearsay. Firat, Plaintiff is offering the statement contained
"
within the police report to corr.oborate her testimony that she made
a statement to Officer Cole at the scene of the collision that her
neck: hurt and that she would be seeking medical treatment on her
own. Second, Plaintiff is offering Officer Cole's report to prove
that she made this statl1ment at the time of the collision.
Clearly, based upon the above definit ions of non-hearsay,
Plaintiff's statement recorded in Officer Cole's report can be
introduced as non-hearsay. Therefore, Plaintiff's respectfully
requests this Honorable Court issue a preliminary ruling that
Plaintiff may introduce a portion of Officer Cole's report to
establish that Plaintiff did make a statement to Officer Cole at
the scene of the accident that she had neck pain and was going to
seek: treatment on her own.
(4) Defendant'. argument tbat Ihe will b, pre~udiaed by the
introduction of Plaintift'. .tatement contained within
Oftioer Cole'. report i. completely without merit,
Defendant argues in her pl'e-triul memorandum that ahe will be
prejudiced if Plaintiff's statement contained within the report is
admissible because she will not have the opportUllity to cross.'
examine the proponent of the statement. This is simply not the
case.
Plaintiff will testify that she made the statement to
Officer Cole at the scene of the collision, Defendant will have
the opportunity to cross-examine Plaintiff, who is the actual
proponent of the statement,
Therefore, Defendant will not be
a
prejudiolld by t.h" lllt'rndur:t..loll of tho portion of Off,l.cer Cole's
ropox't wh.lch rJOIlt.lltllll 1'1.llnt'Hf I tJ lItlltemellt.
Ue!lll\dl1llt' .11 /I" IIII/JIlI.t/l t hilt t.he .1pplicat ion of the exception
to tho hrJoll'UIIY ruIn to llltt'(Jtllwll officer cole's report is in
confl!.ct wIth huw Ih" Illl!ll'tlmo Court viewed this exception in
fill.U;.w...u~i1 v. jjJU:n~, ~O'I [>,1, 155, 165 A.2d 596, 600 (1962).
HoweV'H, .1 olou" r'hllll1.19 ut this case x'eveals that the Supreme
Court ,IGtlhllly uUPllCH'tu P!;lilltiff's proposition to introduce
Officer Colo' u rflpox't \llldex' tho bUfJinflBI3 record exception to the
heal'fluy rule,
In I-:auctlLllia, the Pelllluyl vania Supreme Court was asked to
detormillll whethor m.lll t.ary mod.ical records would be admissible
\ll\lhll' !llthor tho lJnlforln [lulliness Records as Evidence Act or the
F'eduml OftJeinl Heoonln Act, Spec.ifically, the Court was asked to
det.tlrmino whet.her recc,rdo, which were kept in the regular day to
day bUlJillolJfJ of a miUtilx'y infirmary, were admissible even though
tho proponent of tho recordo was not ident.ified or ava,ilable to
tel!lt. ify.
rn I::illI.ILIil.lJ.lLl, t.ho Ponnoylvania Supl'erne Court stated, ".. .the
CUfJtoc!ian toutified that. t.ho entries were made by either the
Ilex'gellllt in dHnge ox' the medical officer.. , [13] urely once of those
individunls mUBt havll hnc.l knOWledge that the appellee complained of
neck alld back pain." [iJ t io extrlilmely unlikely that entries made
on tho utulldlll'd form in a regular fashion pursuant to army
regulations had no baoie .in fact. Hence, we conclude that
!)
the records are admissible under the Uniform Business Records of
Evidence Act." .l.IL. at 159-160.
Certainly, Officer Cole's police report should not be treated
any differently than the Pennsylvania Supreme Court treated
military infirmary records. Unlike the party in Fauceqlia, supra.,
Plaintiff can identify Officer Cole as the author of tne report.
'rhe Police representative wi 1.1 test ify I as the custodian in
Fauceglia testified, as to the day to day record keeping policies
of police officers in preparing police reports and specifically to
the authenticity of Officer Cole's report.
Therefore, the Pefendant' s argument that the pennayl vania
Supreme Court's holding in Fauceqlia is in conE 1 ict with
Plaintiff's assertion of the business record exception to the
hearsay rule is misguided,
Plaintiff further submits that
Defendant's reliance on Palmer vs. Hoffm~n, 318 U,S, 109 (1943),
and Neuman vs. Pittsburgh Railways Companv, 392 Pa. 640, 141 A.2d
581 (1958), is also misguided.
A close reading of these cases
reveals that they are both factually distinguishable from the
present case and that therefore, their holdings are not applicable
to the present situation.
oj
f,:
1
I
li~
" " . _[)ENT II: ';'2 ~ (lIt,. ,
'- ,vi;z-0 . ..--.----
71, IIE~\PONDING EMS AGeNCY
, "'t CCI[)ENT 6i\fE:'~ I~ II'/,2.
7e, MEDICAL 'ACUTY
~1~PLI INFORMATION 0 NAM!, AonnrS5 It I J ~ L M
DCOEF
/ P 21 'I 1 'l ,')Pf},:t'.7t"l': (h~-"'/ ,t'. ,f1' ,(r f. "J ''':'
~,
l- I F 3/ 9 I 7( II II !"J .:; 0 ~ AJ 0 .?
...-t:- 7 I .:t
,
,
-
~ILLUMINATlON m ~AnlEfll 8'1 Illl, DIAGnAM ffi ' : 11
oN
@fIOAD5UI1FACE[[] I"
'" :
1-\, PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOl. D'STIlICT 0
N ' ,
(IF APPlICo'OLE) "" , , " . "'" ,,,,,.. '" ,.",,,,,.,,..,,, "."""" " , . , " ' " " " " " " , " , , ~ '"''
~
15, D1:fi<ORIPTION Of DAMAGED PflOPERTY Vl
15~ 5.,., :
"" ,." ...".., , ,,,,,,,,,,,. ..,,~
QWltIl
:
AOORESS :
--
Pit"". .. ''''''''''''."."~..'''..,,...'''~ : :
liT, 'IDI~~':r,PRiCIP~~~~~?I~~i~rS, CA~~TlDN FAC~~.~ 5iclUE~~E 0, ~-J~~~B,IVITNUS UIINTB, AmrP:'OVIDI ADDITIOIIAL:
!lITA/l! ll.. IN! NCI IN' R TI NO lOC liON 01' TO E VEHILCE IF ,
II 111"";( Ivl/ S 5,tlPF.: IJ SElliN/) SE::i/U:fJL (1),2 S 1"/ jilt;. .
I ~ 00 Ct tx. Ic, tJr /!,1'i:1;)(j.E, ::,-r 7Jt I;: /U r7 Rtl) U6-/;1 r ,4,-
IC, (j S r: ,
7'1ltI ()!If.'tl /(Je t1F (./1.) I r "I Slid) "n!/1r :Sri.! /.')01<6 I) 'i)(),',ml /lN/I
/111/:' Alai 07YINfr II1TDIlItJi\/ ,/o.//leAI :')/h~ RI1AI/Allo -rillS. killlZ. liP
-II/ .
11/6 t'JpE.RfI i(lR.. tJp "2 tllil.K:. <;/I/^ <"116 )I/}J) YI/1~ N6c.K PAl AI.
i~ <)l,dJ !.//t: /(//JI./i../) SC.! 1:- .#tDlc/l'- .4rrI:IJ17d~J .1N 116/!- OI-AlIJ
I
INSUIlANCE COMPANjJ L L oS'ill r.€ ,NSUfl,o\NCE CoMPANY ERIE
INFORM.\ liON INfQflMATlOI'
UNII P':;~" 1)()7!'II'8t:J<lS" UNIT P~~CY(Jn1- J.r;,- /)'/-0:2/:, II
I .
" M"E MX)I1E:S5 PHONE
II,
WINTESSES NAME ^1)tjii~S5 PltON~-
89, V,(JI.ATIONS INOICATED i'JO SlCII(;t< ~'UMHE"S (OI'lL Y If CHAI'OEUI TC mc
-"-- CJlr:fU:.S S ----~. --- -
UNIT I 'DC!J(I ~/{(_._____..._o_._.___ /3($(1 roo
--
UNITI 00
f.!:Y':'OHMllE .V~YPI; ~:J\I.:.iU' 13 []tlOll:,( !J!;JlltOIIAllU. "0'Y1'l ~lttiUlT5 omTEST 9. IPNESTlGAIIOtI
USE TEST o I1HUSE ... U5E ' Tr:5T o flHUSE CoMPLETE 1
UN,T I <0- y.J' 0 _.. ..0.1.0 U"K UNIT ~ 0__% 0 UNK mg')NOO
..__ _..u._____ _ _n_'. .-----.---...----. --_..-.- .--
640, 141 A.2d 581 (1968), Further, the application of this excepllon by
Plalnllff Is In conflict with how the Supreme Court viewed the exception.
See, Eauceglle Vri, Harry, 409 Pa, 166,185 A,2d 698, 600 (1962), The
ilddltlonal arguments made by Plaintiff are premised on the conclusion
that a representative of the New Cumberland Police Department can
testify as to the contents of the statement within Officer Cole's report, The
exceptions to the hearsay rule as set forth by Plaintiff do not encompass
that a different Indlvldufill would be allowed to testify to the hearsay
contained within a report,
Clearly, Defendant Is prejudiced and Is not able to cross examine the
proponent of this statement. As such, the admission of the pollee report
and the statements contained therein should be denied,
IV. IDENTITY OF WITNESSES:
1, Parties to the case
2. Dr, Walter C, Peppleman, as on crOS8 examination
3. Dr, Bruce Goodman ~.
V. LIST OF EXHIBITS/SPECIAL REQUESTS:
The Defendant anticipates Introducing various medical records throughout
the case. Defendant would request a sllpulatlon as to the authenticity of the medical
records 80 as to obviate the need to call a records custodian from any of the various
proViders of the Plaintiff,
then violently impaoted the rear of fillaintiff'lI vehicle. All a
result of the collision, E'laintiff sustained severe injuries. I
II. STAT.MINT 0' 'ACTS AS TO DAMAa.SI
As indicated, plaintiff, Deborah Saphore, lIustained serious
injuries, including but not limited to, injuriell to her neok, back,
right IIhoulder, right arm and hand. Plaintiff sustained disk
herniations at CS-6 and C6-?, whioh required two surgeries.
On April 20, 1993, E'laintiff underwent surgery for an anterior
cervical discetomy and intllr-body fUll ion at the C5-6 area and right
iliac crest bone graft and anterior plating. As a result of this
surgery, Plaintiff was left with a permanent 3 1/2 inch soar over
her C5-6 area as well as permanent soarring on her right hip from
the bone graft. In addition, plaintiff had a plate and screws
inserted in her neck to repair the damaged vertebrae.
Following this surgical procedure, E'laintiff continued to
suffer from neck pain radiating down through her right elbow and
hand. In February 199?, plaintiff underwent a second surgery to
repair a herniation at the C6-?, During this surgery, the plate
from the previous surgery was removed and an anterior cervical
discetomy at C6-? was performed with insertion of a new 4-hole
anterior plate and an iliac crest bone graft. As a result of the
surgeries, Plaintiff is left with permanent scarring on her neok
2
and left hip from the bone graft as \yep II the permanent inllert,iQn
of a plate in her neck.
Plaintiff also sustained a transposing ulnar nerve in her
elbow as a result of the collision. This injury has caused
Plaintiff great discomfort and pain .as well as limited use and
strength in her right arm, Plaintiff continues to have limited
range of motion in her neck and limited use of her right arm.
Plaintiff suffers from chronic pain.
Plaintiff's injuries are permanent in nature and will cause
her considerable pain and discomfort the rest of her life, Her
injuries have caused her humiliation, embarrassment, and mental
anguish.
3
IXX. STATKMINT 0' LlaAL X8SUIS PRISINTID.
A. QUISTXONS PaISINT.Dr
1. WhettleX' Defendant, BreneS. TI'."WIIP, wa. pel'." ee negligent fol'
violating one 01'." mOl'e .tatute. of ttle p.nn.ylvania Notol'
Vehicle CoeSe?
(PI'."Opo..es anewel'." i~ the affil'."mative) .
.. DISCUSSION,
1. D.f.ndant. Brenda Tr~. wa. net' .. n.aliq.nt. .. .h.
violated one 01'." mOl'e ,tatvt.. of the PeQftevlvania Notal'
vehicle Code.
In Hannon v. City of Philadelphia, 587 1\,2d 845 (Pa.Cmwlth.
1991), a motor vehicle negligence case, the court held that
"evidence of a violation of a statute, such as the Vehicle Code
here, may constitut.e negligenGe per ~~, irrespective of the
criminal benalties contained therein or whether there has been a
conviction the:reunder.,"
ThE! Defendant is negligent, as a matter of law, for failing to
px'operly maintain control of her vehicle and keep a proper lookout.
Defendant. I s negligence is particularly evident in view of the
traffic conditions at the time of the collision.
It is well settled lllw in Pennsylvania that a party is
negligent for failing to exercise due care, which has been defined
as the care of the ordinary prudent person in like cas,\s and
circumstances, Kravas v. Poulos, 381 Pa. 358, 113 1\.2d 300 (1955),
4
f'rededckli y. Castera, 241 l'a.Super. 211, 360 A.2d 696 (1976). The
degree of care required by a drivor of a motor vehicle is that of
an ordinarily prudent driver. It follows, therefore, that a driver
is negligent if she fails to exercise the degree of care of the
ordinarily prudent driver.
In the case at bar, Defendant Trump failed to operate her
vehicle with due care, as an ordinarily prudent driver would have
under the same circumstances. By her own admission at the scene of
the collision, Defendant admitted that she was not paying attention
and did not see Plaintiff's vehicle stopped at the red light in
front of her lane of travel.
Det'endant Tr.ump also violated 42 Pa. C,S.A. S 3714 which
reads, "Any person who drives a vehicle in careless disregard for
the safety of persons or property is guilty of careless driving."
It is obvious that Defendant Trump operated her motor vehicle in
careless disregard for the safety of other persons and pl'operty
when she failed to pay attention to the tr.affic conditions there
existing on Bridge Street and impacted the rear of Plaintiff I s
vehicle,
Therefore, under Hannon, supra., Defendant Trump is negligent
per se in violating one or more statutes of the Pennsylvania Mqtor
Vehicle Code.
15
(a) O"ioe~ Cole'. ~.po~t 'all. within .ithe~ the bu.ine..
reoo~d exoeption o~ palt reoolleotion r.oo~ded exoeption
to the be.~.ay ~ule.
Plaintiff submits that the police report itself would fit
within either the buBintlss records exception to the hearsay rule or
within the palllt recollection recorded exception to the hearsay
rule. Police accident reporta are regularly prepared within the
day to day business of police officers. The report in this case
was made contemporaneously with the occurrence of the collision.
Plaintiff will offer testimony at trial from a police
representative as to the record keeping practices and authenticity
of Offioer Cole's report. Therefore, Officer Cole's re~ort should
be admi8sible as a business record exception to the hearsay rule
for satisfying all the requirements of 42 Pa.C.B.A. 6108,
The police report i6 also admissible as a past recollection
recorded.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the past
recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule in Commonwealth
v. Cooley, 484 Pa. 14, 398 A,2d 637 (1979) by stating that,
"[b]efore the content of a writing becomes admissible under this
exception, the proponent must lay a foundation to show that four
requirements are metl (1) the witnesl1 must have had firsthand
knowledge of the event, (2) the written statement must be an
original memorandum made at or near the time ot the eVent and while
the witness had a clear and accurate memory of itl (3) the witness
must lack a present recolleotion of the event, and (4) the witnee.
7
'I
!'
must vouch for the accuracy of the written memorandum." .llL. J?a. at
21, A.2d at 641, citing McCormick, Evidence 8 229 at p. 712 (2d ed.
1972). See also Miller v. Exete!; Borou9h, 366 fila. 336, 342, 77
A.2d 395, 399 (1951) I Christian Moerlein Brewinq Co, v. RUBCh, 272
Pa. 181, 187, 116 A,2d 145, 147 (1922).
Officer Cole had first hand knowledge of the events at the
time he prepared the report, The report was prepared on the same
date BS the collision and therefore was prepared contemporaneously
with the occurrence of the collision.
Office Cole i8
deceased, therefore he is unable to testify as to the contents of
the report. Although Office Cole cannot vouch for the accuracy of
the report, a police representative will testify as to the general
accuracy and authenticity of police reports, including reports
prepared by Officer Cole,
Therefore, all the requirements are
satisfied to admit this report under the past recollection record
exception to the hearsay rule,
(b) Plaintiff '. .tatelllent contained within Officer Cole' e
accident report .hould be admi..ible under tbe pre.ent
phy.ical condition exoeption to the hear.ay rule.
Th", Defendant, however, may argue that the report j,s a classic
case of hearsay within hearsay. Even though Plaintiff's statement
to Office Cole may be considered hearsay, the statement itself
should be admissible as a declaration of present bodily condition.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Coleman, 458
Pa. 112, __ A.2d __, (1974), adopted the following four exoeptions
8
to the hearllay rule. The Court stated, ".. .we agree that within
the scope of res gestae there exillt four distinct exceptions to the
hearuy rule, all possessing different indicia of reliabilityr (1)
de".1arat:ton, ot pre,ent bod:t.1y aond:tt:tonl (2) declarations of
present mental state and emotion; (3) excited utterances I and (4)
declarationll of present sense impression." .I.lL. at 116.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court in Commonwealth v, Blackwell,
Pa.Super. , 494 A.2d 426 (1985), commented on statement made
by victim to a police officer about his physical condition while en
route to the hospital. The Superior Court, in dicta, stated, "If
the law in Pennsylvania has moved this far, then Mr, Leichter's
statements to Office Delaney, on the way to the hospital, regarding
his being a heart patient and in need of oxygen, would also be
admissible as statements of present physical condition. However,
we need not now decide this point." l.sL.. at 437,
The Superior Court found the statements admissible under the
pre,ant phy,:taa.1 aond:tt:ton exaept:ton to the hearsay rule. However,
rather than determining whether the statements made to the police
officer would be admissible, the Court determined that the
exception applied to the same statements since they were made to a
nurse who was also present at the time the statements were made.
Although the Superior Court did not expressly hold that the
statements made to the poliae officer were admissible, the Court
strongly suggested, in dicta, that had it been faced with that
9
illlue, it would have held the Iltatements made to police ofHoer
admill8ibh as well.
Plaintiff1s statements contained within Officer Cole's report
should bll admissible at trial. Clearly, Plaintiff's Iltatements
were an expression of a present physical condition, "she had neck
pain." This statement squarely Cits within the pre".nt pbydaal
condltlon exception to the hearllay rule recognized and adopted by
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Coleman, supra.
Therefore, for
all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully submits that this
Honorable Court should issue a preliminary ruling that Officer
Cole I s report and Plaintiff's statement contained within the report
shall be admissible at trial.
V, XDINTITY 0' WITNIlSSIS I
Plaintiff will call the following witnesses at trialc
1. Eugene Saphore
2. Patty Meyers
3. Or, Walter c. Peppelman - via video deposition.
4. Brenda Trump (as of cross)
5. Deborah saphore
6. Representative of Police Oepartment
7 . Candi Saphore "
9. John Price
10
Plaintiff reserves the right to suppl.ement thh list ..
additional information becomes available.
VI. LIST 0' IXHXIITSI
1. Life expectancy chart,
2. police report of accident.
3. Medical records.
4. Photographs of scarring,
5. Treatment charts.
Plaintitf reserve the right to supplement this list ..
additional information becomes available.
vn. SITTLIMINT NlGOTIA'l'IONSI
Plaintiff's have made a demand for the policy limits of
$100,000.00 to settle this case. Defendant's have made an offer of
$60,000,00 to settle this case,
Respectfully submitted,
It
Datel
to l.0-\ q I
Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff'
11
f'
, " I,
11,1 1,.',) "
, , ,
, ,', "
" ,
, '
r "
, ,
"
" I , ,I ., .,
\ !' ,
, . ,
" I
, , l:/' , I
"
~
S
.
~
IX
lU
Z
i 8 J 8
o~~:2
~ ii~~
IXlo'~
lU~~2~
oJ ~ t
o t
Z
c(
:t
, ,
,.
,.
DI.OaAH IAPKoal,
PlaintUf
IN THI COURT 0' CONNON 'LIA'
CUNllaLAND COUNTY, 'INN8YLVANIA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
v.
NO. 77. CIVIL 1994
CIVIL ACTION . LAW
JURY TRIAL DlNANDID
.aINDA D. TRUNP,
Defendant
C'~TI'ICAT. O' SlaVIC.
'<,
"
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Plaintiff's
Motion In Limine and the Plaintiff's Brief in Support of
Plaintiff's Motion In Limine were served on Brenda D. Trump, the
Defendant, by personally serving a copy of the same to her
counsel of record, Matt Gover, Esq., NEALON &. GOVER, 301 Market
St" 9th Floor, p,O, Box 865, Harrisburg, PA 17108-0865 at the
cumberland county Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania on October
"
:22, 1997,
I
;1
I'
PLL d~1:.?l~l (L
tA) ,~LL
J ' i-J E. <;;S
David Rosenberg, Esq,
Attor y 1.0. *20569
P . 0 , ox 11 77
Har isburg, PA 17108
(717) 238-2000
Attorneys for Plaintiff
HANDLIR AND WIINlR
IJ
By
DATE I IOllZ( '11
+i'
I
,
,"
t {
:a , ,
~ .
~, ,
" ,-
-'1 " 0
'01 ~ \.1) ~)
;, " \e.)
'J Q
.,- Q .f)
.,- I.!l
"::t' \,1'\ ,
':1.:) .1it
-- ::t-
II'!} I "
I'
, '
I"
"il
I,
I
I
"
~
I'
'i ,
" ~
ll)
" "J
.;:~ .~
~ :t~ ,',
~' ~ I I'
"U
~
"
"
, ,
"
I,
, ,
, I
, I
"
, ,
.
I'
'I
,.1 '
1,1
,
, ,
"
, .1'
, ~
I
-
G1J E a
i ~!
!
.1 h~;
~ i . I J ,~
tl
i Q ~ i I.
ClO !
J::: tl
. ~
"
, "
,I
,
I '
" ,
, '
, I
" ,
"
t.
I
.. ,
SHERIFf" S RE'rUrm
COMMONWEALTH OF' PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF' CUMBERLAND
LJeborBh SBphore
VS
Brendll D. Trump
In the Court of Common Pleae ot
Cumberland County, Penneylvnllill
No. 778 Civil Term, 1994
Summone in CivU Action 1,lIW
R. THOMAS KLINE, Sheriff, who being duly sworn lIccording to law,
eaye, that he made diligent enarch and inquiry for the within named
defendant, to wit.
Brenda D. Trump
but wae unable to locate her
deputized the ~heriff of
Dauphin
,
to serve the within
Summons in Civil
On
Apr.il ~, 1994
the at tached return from
Dauphin
Sheriff'e Coets.
Docketing 14;00
Out of County 5.00
Surcharge 2.00
Mileage 9.52
Dauphin Co. 22.50 56.02 Pd.
Sworn and eubecr ibed to) be fore me
thie ~ ( A day of Itl ~l I
I r
19 ql/ A'O"1. i'U
Prot ono~(
'^-- tr. ' ,
'-<:)1 ()
f I
in his bailiwick. He therefore
__ County,
Action Law
Pennsylvania,
. this office was in receipt of
_ County, Penneylvania.
So answers I
.<.., ,,?/t:/
I' .' /"
,.,'. . .-7
/
R. THOMAS KL lNE ,
by Atty. 4-5-94
Sheriff
".....1> "
BII lm '1 Fl" 'S IH':'L'lJHN
N(). 778 Clvil 1994
PAll v: 424
Ii
"1 I
COMMONWEM/l'll OF. PJ;:NNBYLVANII\. I
COUN'l'Y OF DAUPHIN I
I, Williillll H. LIvlngston, Shoriff of t,ho County of Dauphin,
Cornmonwo1l1th of Pennsylvania, do horoby cOI'U.fY nnd'roturn that I made
diU,gont soardl and J.nqlll.ry for Bl:'encln Do Tl:'lII11p
tho def(mdant nl1ll1ed In tho wi Ud,n StJt.t.PNS
and that I alii unablu to f1ncl
Her in tho County of Dauphin and therefore
return salllo NO'!' FOUND thJ.s
31st
March
, 19 94
clay of
So Answers
t./J' (I
.rW;~~I~?t. \JVV\I"-V.€'"
Sheriff of Dauphin county, Penna.
Sworn and R\l.p/lCr i bed to
before InO this 31st dny of
March, 1994
PR,,~'J) ~.. (~~
Shod.ff'S Cost $
'!hOl:'O Ls no slIch nddrcRs nR {l<'r l.owl1l:' PI\xton Post Office
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland
'" "I ':' {' {, i,\'(
H."" ,',.
dh."lM r:"(A)I~'i
, I l ,~' I; \' II., . lIt "1/ I kit""'.'
, , , ~, ':.11 I. ;..~ ~'~'I .
>/',' ~ I 'J'I
,F i/... !" 1", .. ,
IN. ct21.Ji.,,/
;111 ... ,
,,'
/ 'i ill'
il.-lt.1...<->
c<,
(""th/l"'" .~.
Deborah Baphore
(Jourl 01 (;llnUMII PIe....
w.
778 Civil
_.._~._.'_._._..~__M.______._______.__
19.9.~.
No,
Brenda D. TruTp
"02-~ Fourth St.
New ClI1tlerland, PA 17070
In .~.~y!~..~!~~~:~~____.__.___.._.......__.
.
To __~J),_r~._______...._......_...__
You an hereby notlfiecl Illal
..~~_~~J2~~____________._______________.______._~______.....__...._...__....____..__....
tha PIaInrirl h.. .ommenced an action In ..eJ....d,l.lM___._______......._____...__...._....._....
apIl11l you whl.h you In requind 10 defend or .. derault judgment may be entered aplnll you.
(SEAl.)
'e_. __h\l\l'mlJ''''''\, j;..k/!ttls'il.r_., '.. _... _..........
ProthonllulrY
Daa. ...._t~~.l@......u...__l.... 19.~i.
Y") "';1 . /) . (\j,
By _._~ i.l."'A_-f/..{.___(lr.:l..'i..i.~_~..h'I,I,~~.
Deputy tT
,
I
tJ
o i~ I' I' .
I" ,,',r
f[iI I,
, I
. J, I I' ; \
,,'
l ' ~',! I'
, ,',
,
"
. ...3\
.:'~
'~
, "
"
!
11'.T'n'fJ Court ci C:mmc:m ?la::3 or C:.Jr..:";~lc'l=nd C:.Ju';;',''/1 Pannsyl'lt::nl=
~
p,'borah Hllphqre
VS.
llrenda Il. Trump
~o. ,]1U C j v II 't9.!!!L.J.1:!.i,_.._-. :,l..._...
:iowJ
Mtlrch 02, 1994
:9--. r. S:u:~~ Oll' C~~t:S:::'..!.A.'fO CO!"~'=Y. i'A.,. ~o
h=~ c!=FI.I= eM Shc'.:t 01
lJauph In
C.:lWII., to .."tIl<t\l14 :.:is Writ,
::::., -:cp1lC.::Crl ::q =U 1& :ll.t ~ ::eI. :Ul,; of QI: ?!=:i3.
r~~~
ShUlll at Sw:!lUWIO C ~UIIIY. JI:a.
AScIaTit 01 Semca
~ow,
:9
. :.: .
o'.:!c.:i&
~c. 1C">?i
ti:. ~d:.iD
'~'FOa
-,
.
1t
'r:y ~c!!:It to
.I.
<:"I:P1 01 al ona".=J
-
,.
1J:ld ::wio bawn to
:.'a :O:IICl:tS l..'lemi.
So ilAlWc:s..
SI&ai6 01
.
Coll&l'/'. PSo
5WCnl wi llIil1l:ribd belon
=It:.!:ll_=1ol
19_
com
!D.'Vta
)"'U -\01
AltmA v"IT
,
s
.- '-'
DBBORAH SAPHORB,
Plaintiff
v.
IN THB COURT OF COMMON PLBAS
CUMBBRLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA
NO. 778 CIVIL 1994
CIVIL ACTION . LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
BRBNDA D. TRUMP I
Defendant
IINTRY or Al'l'JlAUHC.
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Please enter my appearance on behalt of the Defendant/ Brenda
D. Trump, in the above captioned matter.
Resp~ctfully submitted,
CALDWELL & KEARNS
6 - ~~j<~
Nealon, III, i.quire
I.D. 1146457
for Defendant
By:
J es G.
Attorney
Attorney
3631 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 232-7661
Dated I November 21, 1994
41110.1
, ,
" I
, '
, ,
!I'
I,
, ,
10. As a di'Tect IInd proximate result ot thll negligunuft of
Defsndant, Plaintiff hll8 suffered serious bodily injury.
11. The oocurrence of the aforesaid accident unci the injur ies
to Plaintitf reBulting therefrom were cau~ud dirllctly and
proximately by the negligence of Defendant, <jenerally and more
specifioally as set forth beloWI
(a) In failing to drive in a curetlll manner in
violation of 75 PII.C.S.A. S 3714;
(h) In failing to properly operatl' IWI" vehicle tlY
failing to stop her vehicle before .:ollidinq with
Plaintiff's vehicle I
(c) In failing to keep alert and maintain a proper
lookout for the presence of other vuhicles on the
highway 1
(d) In failing to operate her vehicle with due re<jarrl
for the highway and traff ic cond I t.i()nB that existed
and of which she shOUld have pel'n aW,lre 1
(e) In failing to operate her vehiclo 101 Lth proper and
adequate control in order that. Still could avoid
striking the Plaintiff's vehicl,,;
(f) In failing to operate her vehiel.. in such a manner
80 that she could apply her brilken in Buff ic ient
time to avoid striking the Plaint.iff's vehicle,
3
(9) Xn failing to operate her vehiclu ,I' " speod, and
under suoh control, so as to be "bh. to stop within
tile assured elear distance, in villlation of 75
Pa.C.B.A. S 33611
(h) In failing to travel at a safe speecl;
(i) In failing to exercise reasonabln care in the
operation and control of her vehicle; and,
(h) In driving her vehicle upon the highway in a manner
endangering persons and property and that was
reckless, with careless disregard to the rights and
ufety of others, al!l well as in violation of the
Motor Vehicle Code of the cO~lmonwea1t.h of
Pennsylvania.
12. As a result of the negligenoe of Defendant., Plaintiff has
sustained severe injuries
13. As a result of the negligence of Defendant., P la int iff has
sustained severe injuries, humiliation I embarr.lIsement., and ae II
result thereof, she has suffered, and will cont inu.. to suffer in
the future, pain and agony to her great detriment and loss.
14. As a result of the negligenoe of the Outendant and by
reason of her injuries, Plaintiff has peen and 1'1111 1n the future
be hindered from attending to her usual occupat.lon ,lnd dilily
4
~IFICATION
I, DEBORAH SAPHORE, hereby verity thllt t:he statoments
made in the foreqoing document are true and oorrect. to the best of
my knowledge, information IInd belief. I undllrst<lnd that f;\lae
statements herein are made subject to the penB 1 t.iefl of 111 Pa I C. S.
54904 relating to unsworn falsification to authurities.
.
Dl'TII/J/J;l q'l
,
, ,
, , ./
,
, , ,
'I , ,
I
"
I, '
I
I,
"
, ,
1 "
..
, I
-
I
I
.J
., ,
. I ,
,
)
III
" )
'"
I'
IX
III
Z
III
i a ~
eo~~:a
s Zj~J!
!: ~ ~
~ ~
o
Z
0(
:x:
"
...
I~
II
l~
"
,
I
l,
fil
1,
(
"
i
\
"
,
,
.1
"
"
"
~ ,. 1',\ ,"
11::., ,
"':: " ..
'"
I. "
r-
.-1 'I
,,.., ,
"
-'.r .,
"I
:'i "
.., " "I
,
" "
"
I
I
"
"
, ,
.,
,
"I
..
~
DBBORAH SAPHORB,
PlaintHt
IN THB COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBBRLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA
NO. 778 CIVIL 1994
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
v.
BRENDA D. TRUMP,
Defendant
ANS"..
1-19.
Paragraph 2 is admitted except that Brenda D. Trump
has married and now uses the name Brenda D. French and her current
address is 536 Lewisberry Road, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 170701
it is further admitted that on February 21, 1992, at approximately
2140 p.m., Defendant wall operating a 1991 Honda Civic, owned by
Defendant; the eorrect Pennsylvania Registration No. is TRD 5891
Defendant was operating her motor vehicle on Bridge Street, between
its intersections with 15th and 16th Streets, New Cumberland,
Pennsylvania, when she waf! involved in an aeeident with the
Plaintiff; the remaining averments eontained in the Plaintiff's
Complaint are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e).
Respectfully submitted,
CALDWELL & KEARNS
t ~L<."" '). NR((t6
G. Nealon, III, Bsqu re
At rney I.D. *46457
Attorney for Defendant
3631 North Front Street
Harrisbur.g, PA 17110
(717) 232-7661
Datedl ~ . q ~r;~
41110.1
I
I
t, I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICr;
AND NOW, thll 20th day of May, 1996, I hereby certify that I have .erved the
foregoing Praecipe on the following by depolltlng a true and correct copy of same In the
United Statel mall., postage prepaid, addressed to:
~.
David H. Rosenberg, Elq.
Handler & Wiener
319 Market Street
Harrl.burg, PA 17101
,.
~~ci:
. Jem.. G. Nealon, III, Elqulre
Dated: Mey 19. 1998
"
,II ,
..!,
.,
I'
.'
, '
"
,
li,
'I
~!~ ! I
" 8 i~ ~Ii
~ IIII n
;
~ I ~
( ~
. ~ ~
!
t
,
"
"
"
"
,
,
.'
"
',.
\.1",
i,';
1,1,1' '
(,,':
I',: .
',\,
("e
'"
\,1.
. I,
\L.
I
\-.
~~..
..
I',!
','
"
(. ~;
i'"
\.'1
I.',
,
d i
1"
")
(..l
~"1
~'. j
"...
f.1'
",
II
,
,
.,i
"
'1
"
,.
,
).'
" ,
,
,
.,
"
.\
Iii
"
I'
" 'I
'"
1
"
,
,
, ,
,.1
P~.AECIPE FOR L1STINQ C,ASE FORrRIAL
(MUSI ho typowrlllon and uuhrnillod In dl/pllCilll!)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMUmLAND COUNTY
Please list Itlll following COIIU
(Chock onol
( X 1 for JURY Irlal al Ilw nux 1 lorrll of civil court
for Irlal WlltlOul a jury
.................................................................,.................................."......,....
............................."........."...,....".......
CAPTION OF CASE
(onll,o caption must bo slilllld ill II/III
(chock OIW)
Assumpsll
Trespass
(X) Trespass (Molor Vehlclo)
DEBORAH SAPHOI'lI:,
(Plaintiff)
(other)
vs.
BRENDA D. TRUMP
The Irlalllsl will be callod on 10/14/97
and
(Defendanl)
Trials comrnonce on 11 ILO/97
Pralrlals will bo Iwld on 10/'n-In
(Briefs arr! duo 5 days baloro pr"lrlals.)
va.
(Tho party I'sllng Ihls case 10' Irlal shall provldo
forthwllh a copy 01 Iho praeclpo 10 all counsel,
pursuant to local Aula 214.1.)
Non8 .
Civil
19 94
Indlcalelhe allornay who Wllllry coso for Iho parly who III0s Ihls praoclpo David H Ro!enberg,
ESQ., P.O. 80M 1117, Harrisburg, PA 17110
Indicate trial counsellor olhor pa,tles If known Jame! G, Neel on. Ill, ESQ., P.O. 80M 865
Harrl sburg, PA 17108-0865
This coso Is roady lor lrial.
. /7~~-
S'qno'l I~
Davl Ro!enbero. ESQuire
Prlnl Narnl!
Onlr'
Plalntl ff
AlltllnOV I'll