Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-00843 " '., I " ;," 1'1 ,Il 'I, , , " I, I' , " J.?d) '\' "'j 11.1 I!OI.fTfl :iHfRHl lIf'; (]lId MARTY'; HJ 1111 Cl)lllll (H COMMON "UA:; OF AUTO SAlJS, IN(., till COMIIFI<I Mil COIJNIY, I)FNW;YI VANIA BUY-RITE MOTORS, P 10 III I: 1 f I' V~ I NO, 'jll..8LI3 C IV II TERM SAMUEL V. SCICCHITANO, JR" ond SANDRA M, SCICCHITANO, IN TRESPASS CM,V,) lJp.fflnclonts IN RE; PRETRIAL CONFERENCE; In ttlis outo occidant COSQ, W.lll10m p, Douglas, ESQI)ire, represents ttle plo1ntl ff, and Dnvld Fitzsimons, Esquire, represents ttle (jefendant, Ttlfl plointlff wos operatl,ng tlP.I velll.cle on Winding Hill Rood In Mp.dlOtllcsllllrg nreo wl1tHl slw ottempterl to turn Into 0 YOS station, Defenc!ont, WlIS In tile gOG stotlan, ottenmt1ng to exl t tile :itntlOtl, (]i1cJ plaint[ ff claIms defendant exited Improper ly In front of tile ploint1 f f causing the collIsIon. IJefrncJnnt cl01m5 01: least contributory negligence, I f not marl!, Tile medical injuries ore of thll 50ft tIssue vn,"j ety, Tlw depos 1.t ion of the treating physician will be tnken ~y ngreement or ttle portles on November 3, It Is (] jury trIol f!st1moted to take 0 dny to 0 day and 0 110lf to try ond no cOlHlsel rn!SflS ony scheduling prOblems or Judicial conflicts, By tlH! (OlJr t, 7- ~r ;" .,. :-=: I",., l.1 0...;.'-'1.' .r Will ~m :~P:~":d01l9105, Fsquire For ~e Plo1i1t Iff C OlJ r~Adllltn'/~ t rot 0 r ..... ". ~ Dovlc1 A, Flt7.s1mons, ESQ, For I:he lJerendonts : III t f J"j )'''f" 'II .'1 I, ,,' , " ) ,'i' I , T";' i"il 'I , " "".,' ',,-.' ,1 f'd I, f'f J. , "1 I '-'''1'' '?',"'f"I"'f)''-.';~'\:'" ,'1 ';('1' ,i-I~'{l'~kWii~.{~~lil~ ;;lfNr~:;^~fr. ;",i.' .:":1), '- .,'"1(''''''::''' "'H,II'1.d ','I' c, """I' II .II', ' ',,' .(','l,' 1 ': 'I.', d,:'.I.;.' 1 I 1/,,1 ':'1:, .", ''','-f., " ,I" .. i ',' '1.1,,"_.. ","", 1'1',: \.~ f' ,'11} :; "i.'jl; I Jf'l)'''''I,I, "/1" '.1,1 ".,1,,;:'(("/'(': 1"j1 " """\"'II'e Iii' ",1'it'io,l,'IJ'H/,t./' ::~ " " II ,," I I' , , " " , , " ., " , " , I , , , Ii. 'Jj, " ,,, (i I " " '.') " , , I , " I, " " " ,', I '011 Alt. MUrlU It, 'JUlltf I) '0 "" .. IlIItIUr" "til,O,.,1 ,,) Ht' "'.noun IIltHI" ,"',,,,, I'ln n..,,, ,,,,,,. IU ItV)r., In'lro, I). " JUM,'ltrNr /II"', It """'fO .01"'" 'r)IJ ., DOI/C,t.AG DOUOCAG r. UO\J(\I "~i II I I I WIl)l) IfUHIl' P'''II' ".A' 1111 WHIHH 1'1 A tnlJl UtrJ(()/f,nc, F;Ut.~ or 'H' OftIlJI'W, 'UJI) IN )'111.1 "CIIOH, .. AII'-HlI,r ~tl .., 1/'1\'1 . ..,.... "'1+. ~'"'' , "'111"',,0\ ""c)l,.n Ani In II, r'1~1'1 '\" ").//1,1. ~rll)l"H" WiII/,1I11 /', P,ms'".. E.q. 511prtl'''' emll/I.Cl,t .1T91D Pdt/II/"" PuliS'''. {f PIli/H'''' 21 W, 1/illh 51, 1'0/1 261 e",li", "" 17111,1 T",ph"", 717-24.1-1 7~1I Sherri l1.es-and Marty's-A-il'to- Sales, Inc., tla Buy-Rite Motors -In' the-e-ourtof -CommonPleas- Y~)fk County Pennsylvania v No. 94 - 843 Civil Samuel V. Scicchitano Civil Action Law ___J!!!y_!!'Ji'l d~manded Trial Brief of Plaintiff 81705 Election of Tort Options (d) Limited tort alternative - . . .Unless the Injury sustained Is a serious Injury, each person who Is bound by the limited tort election shall be precluded bom maintaining an action for any non economic IOS8, except thatt (1) An Individual otherwise bound by the limited tort election who sustains damages In a motor vehicle accident as the consequence of the fault of another person may recC)ver damages 18 If the Individual damaged had elected the full tort alternative whenever the person at fault: (ll) Is operating a motor vehicle ri!glstered In another state, A resident of New Jersey Is not bound by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Financial Responsibility Law. However, for the sake <If argument In this case, assume they where, they are entitled to full tort due to the above caption provision. 11\ the present case the pli\ll\t1ff, was a New Jersey resident operating a car that was not registered In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, As a result of this scenario she was not eligible for first party benefits under S1711, Sl714 or S1715. Due to the fact that plaintiff i8 prncluded from benefit81t logically follow8 that shll cannot be 8ubject to a preclu8ion of recovering that which 8he i8 ineligible h) receive, 81719 Coordination of Benefits (I) General Rule - Ellcept for workers' compen8atlon, a policy of Insurance Issued or delivered pursuant to this subchapter shall be primary. Any program, group contract or other arrangement for payment ofbenefits such II described In section 1711 (relating to required benefits) 1712(1) and (2) (relating to availability of benefits) or 1715 relating to availability of adequate limits) Ihall be construed to contain a provision that all benefits provided therein shall be In I1lcess of an not In duplication of any valid and collectible first party benefits provided In section 1711, 1712 or 1715 or work en' compensation. (b) Definition - A8 used In this section the term "proBram, group contract or other arranBement" Includes, but Is not lhnlled to, benefits payable by a hospital plan corporation or a professional health service corporation subject to 40 Pa,C,S.A. Ch. 61 (relatlnB to hOlpltal plan corporation) or 63 (relatlnB to professional health services plan corporations). 81722 Preclusion of recovering required benefits In any action for damages against a tortfeasor, or In any uninsured or underlnsured motorist proceedlnB1arlslng out of the maintenance or use of I motor vehicle, a person who Is eligible to receive beneflts under the coverage set forth In this chapter, or workers compensation, or any program, group contract or other anangement for payment of benefits as defined In section 1719 (relating to coordination of benefits) shan be precluded from recovering the amount of benefits paid or payable under this subchapterf or workers compenullon, or any program, group contract or other arrangement for payment of benefits II defined In section 1719.. This preclusion applies only to the amount of benefits set forth In section 1711 and 1715(a)(I.1), The phrase, 'persons eligible to receive benefits" as used In this section refers to all persons who operate motor vehicles registered in Pennsylvania and who are subject to the requirements that they purchase Insurance pursuant the Pennsylvania MVFRl.. Rl'I'der v YrlUl% 48 D&C Jtl4J2 (988), There were preliminary objections to an uninsured person seeking the first $10,000,00 In medical bills and the first $-;,000,00 in work 108s, In sustaining the preliminary objection, Lycoming County President Judge Thomas L. Raup stated: "The issue before this Court is whether a person who has failed to purchase minimum insurance (or to qualify as self insured) may recover from a third party tl'>rtfeuor the amount of 81711 benefits which he should have provided for himself, This question requires us to decipher the phrase, 'a person who Is eligible to receive benefits' under Section 1722, Defendant's position is that lmly a person who has actually purchased insurance is 'eligible to receive benefits', and therefore thll 81722 preclusion Is inapplicable, Plaintiffs, on the other hand, argue that 'persons eligible' Include anyone who operates a motor vehicle, as distinct (rom those who are statutorily ineligible for such benefits (e,g, those operating vehicles not Intended for highway use, motorcycles, motor driven cycles or motori;zed pedalcycles)," "The construction advanced by defendant Is Inconsistent with the legislative scheme requiring that automobile owners l'urchase insurance or qualify as self insurers, It is Inconceivable to us that the legislature would have intended that only those who fall to Insure themselves would be able to recover the minimum 81711 first party benefits from a third party tortfeasor, We therefore hold that the phrase, 'person eligible to receive benefits' as used In Section 1722 means persons who are sublect to the re ulrement that the purchase insurance, The phrase encom asses (sic) <;:omlnonw..1th and wJlo would be ea)tltled to receive benefit. under the Ad. when Injured as the result of the use and maintenance of an automobile," Riider v, Yaung, L!lCl)ml/l,~ Ca" No, 87.00367, TIllie 17/1988 To be Eligible for First Party Benllflts under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act, the Vehicle must be of a type required to be registered, and the vehicle must adually be registered In the Commonwealth. Plaintiff, a resident of Maryland, was Involved in an April 5, 1985, motor vehicle accident in Pennsylvania, His insurance carrier paid him his $2,500.00 policy limit for first party coverage under his Maryland Insurance contract, He then sought Pennsylvania first party benefits, as we have a minimum limit of $10,000,00 in medicals and $5,000,00 in income loss, The Superior Court pointed out that the pertinent section of our Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act is Secllon 1711, which provides: "An insurer issuing or dellve,ing liability insurance policies covering any motor vehicle of the type required to be registered under this title, except recreational vehicles not Intended for highway use, motorcycles, motor driven cycles or moturl;zed pedakycles or like type vehicles, registered and operated In this Commonwealth, shall include coverage providing a medical benefit In the aDlount of $10,000,00, an Income loss benefit up to a monthly maximum of $1,000,00 up to a maximum benefit of $5,000,00 and a funeral benefilln the amount of $1,500,00,,,(Emphasis theirs)," The Lower Court could not accept the Insurance carrier's contention that a motor vehicle must, be both registered and operated in this Commonwealth for our Act to apply, although one other County Court had so held In Ke/lle L, Curtis v. Peerless Insurance Comptmy, No, 3235 S 1987 (DllUphlll Coullty). In reversing the York County Court, the Superior Court pointed out, that undl/r our Act, "...there are two requlrllmentslor determining an Insured's entltleme/lt to recover IIrst party benellts: (1) the Insured vehicle must be a vehicle 01 the type required to be registered, such as an automobile, and (2) the Insured vehicle must actually be registered In the Commonwealth." Pugh v. Goverllment Employees Insurance Com",my, 380 Pa. Super. 606, 552 A2d 708 (1989). I Th. minimum llm1ts of flr.t party benefit. under the motor vehicle financlal r..ponl.bUlty act apply only to vehicle "gl.tered In penn.ylvanla. On Ohio couple were operating their motor vehicle In Pennsylvania In August of 198.5, when the wife was seriously Injured In a motor vehicle accident, They sought, Irom their own Insurance company, Pennsylvania IIrst party benellts under 75 Pa. C.S, 1711, which are higher than Ohio benellts. Judge Schaffner concluded: "To us, the plain language 01 this section makes Its application pertinent to motor vehicles that are registered and operated In the Commonwealth. Thus, the minimum provisions of this section are not applicable to the plaintiffs' Ohio policy and Ohio registered automobile." Curt{s v, PeerlesB Insumnce Company, Dauphin Co" No, 3235 S 1987, August 17, 1988, A plaintiff, who I, Ineligible for Pennlylvanla flllt party beneflll, il entitled to collect from the first lfollar of medical bUls and work 1011 In the tort action. The plaintiff, who was Injured In an October 31,1986, motor vehicle accident, was the owner of a registered, uninsured vehicle, This meant that he was Ineligible for first party benefits, When he sued the tortleasor, the tortleasor flied a motion for partial summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff was precluded Irom recovering the first SI0,000.00 In medical bills, and the first 55,000.00 In lost Income, In accordance with Retcler v. Young, 48 D&C 3d 432 (Lycomlng Co" 1988). However, Judge Morrison lollowed Frye v, Pierotti, 50 Fayette L.,. 124 (1986), and Mmvery v, Prudential Insurance ComP.t'ny, 369 Pa. Super, 494, 535 A.2d 658 (1987), In holding that the plaintiff was entitled to collect from the first dollar of medical bllls and lost Income In the tort action, since he was not eligible lor first party benellts. Zangari v, P,Y.A. Monarch, Inc" Dauphin County, No, 1556 S 1988, October 31,1990. Therefore, because Sherrllzes Is Ineligible to receive Pennsylvania bene Ills she Is permllled to recover her medical bills Irom the first dollar, . -. William P. Doug s, Esq. Allorney lor Sherrllzes conalu.ion thllt the vehlcla Ihe WIS driving WIS registered in New J'rley and Pleintlff ~IS offered no evidenoe to that effect. Plaintiff's medical bills were submittlld to her New Jersey no-flult firllt-party benefits oarrler IInd pllid IIccording to the term. of her insurence oontrllct. To allow Pllintiff to present and Igain recover those medlcllll would be contury to Pennsylvlnia's 90al to eliminate such double recoveries, Our legislllture enacted 75 PII.C,S,A. 51722 to abolish ..,. the practice which allowed I pllllntiff to recover firlt-plrty insurance benefits'from his insurer as well II ilpechl dllmagee from the tortfeasor," CarIBoll.lJ.. gubaBl&, _ Po, Super. -/ 639 A,2d 458 (1994). The fact thllt Plaintiff lives in Naw Jersey Ihould not warrant her double recovery, Plaintiff's medioals are not probative of "pain and IUff,ring.. The Court in CArlAOn upheld the trial court'. grant of a motion in linUna by defendant which precluded Introduction into evidence of plaintiff's medical bills and ezpenlel for the purpose of showing eztent of. plin Ind IUffering, The Carlson court noted that there were not any - 2 N c.... int.rpretln9 81722 with regard to th.t i..u. and turned to MJutJIl.ll....S.oblDlIJl1.602Pa.418,466A.2d102U1983J. In HuUn, the SupreMe Court, under the lince-repe.led No-f.ult Motor V.hlcle In.urlnc. Act held that the IImount of money expended on medical tr.ltment and related .xpen.e. ha. no relevance or correlation to the Ixtent of pain Ind .ufferlng. Cllrl~on at 461, Thil il particularly apt to the instant caae where Pllllntiff Will treated by her family phYlician for several montha with the application of heat packl, electric Itimullltion, ultralound and som. physical therapy for a totlll expenditure of in exceaa of '8,900,00, No di,gnoatic teats such aa x-raya or MRII were ev.r performed. Purthermor., in Bddition to those benefits pllid aa d.scribed in 15 Pa,C,S,A 51722, any remaining unpaid billl remlin payable under the coverage provided by the owner of the vehicle Plaintiff was driving, There has been no evidence d.velop.d on this record which would eatablish that the vehicle operated by Plaintiff was not registered in Pennaylvania .nd/or was not inlur.d, Plaintiff cites CII.. under the propo.ition thtt a plrty oper.ting a vehicle not regiltered in Penn.ylvani, il - 3 - p" e I ineligible for firat-party b.n.fitl und.r 7~ Pa.C.B.A, 81711 Ind, ther.for., cannot be pr.clud.d from recov.ry agllnlt the tortf.alor of all medical ..p.ns'I, Plaintiffl, und.r the 01..1 cit.d by Plaintiff, are, however, attempting to recover first-party benefits frum their own inauttl. ~~ad,ru. Yo~ Lycomtllll COUllty, No, 87.00367, ,/ulle 17, 1988; fUlllV. GoverJWJI,I' EmplD.Ylu. !J1.uralu;L!JQJ1JPDIlY. 380 Pa. Super. 606, 552 A.2d 708 (1989). Likewi 18, iI\ Curti.v. P"rllB' 1116UlllJjJ:L.CQJJ!IJD/~ Daupht/l County, No, 3235 S 1987, Augu,t 1~ 1988, an Ohio couple insured and registered in Ohio sought from their own carrier Pannsylvlnia first-party benefits under 51711 which are higher than the minimum Ohio benefits. In Za"6ari v. P. Y.A. Monorc/~, file.. Dauphin County, No. 1556 S 1988, Octob~r 31, 1990, the plaintiff was the owner of a reoiatered but unlnsurad vehicle, To allow Plaintiff to plead, present and recover her already paid or payable medical e.penses would result in the apecific double recovery abolished under 51722, Further, to Illow this number to be introduced to the jury would be of no probative value in ~etermination II to the appropriate monetary nompenlation to ba awarded, aaa, Mlrtin at 423, 466 A,2d at lOa5, Dr. Mingione's trial testimony at page 9, line 24 throuoh page 11, line ~ should be e.cluded at trial. - 4 - B. PJal.awrClllll Pft*IllllO lftedJcalteBtimvrelaUDI UIe ,11epd 1JlllI'lIU81D~ ~ tnqJl8lltt21 ~.u. ~ to till ud IDJ IIICb teBtimon PlaInwr ahauId tie pfteluded, pllintiff will present expert testimony Robert MingiOn~ M,O., her trellting physician, relllting her neck and back~.~Jj , injurlel to the incident at bar, At no timlJ during ~/' ,--'1 . Dr. Mlngione'l testimony did he testify thllt he treated her f~~-~ migraines or that the migraines were relllted to this accident. Absent competent medical testimony to that effect, luch evidence il properly excluded from consideration by the jury. Yowar,lr.y v. CI/JUltt.ShHn CompQ1Jy...11J(.. 404 Pa, 643, 172 A.2d 822 (1961) . c, AbIent reImm& IIIId IIIbnluible t.eltimony to the CIIlIylllld ~ or I"IINIbw to lbe veblde PJaiDWFwu operaUDI,llVid- oll.be repair COIY to the vehlele ...nn~ be lIIImilt.ed, Plaintiff's Complaint faill to specify a figure claimed for al1898d damages to the vehicle, An invoice or estimate ha. been provided during discovery which would indicate that thele damages exceed .4,000,00. Thllt invoice contains numerous references to repairs and work which indicate that th8 work wal not reasonably related to the incident at bar, Plaintiff's own photo'iJraphs do not indicate damage in some of the areal ~L Nxt- H- ~. .# ~\ ~ \;-,,;' . '. . '. Deflndant, Samuel V. Sciachitano ("Scicchitano"), Will operating hil Nillan pathfinder intendlnq to make a left hand turn out of the Atlantic service Station onto Winding Hill Road. scicch!.tano had filled the vehicle II waB hiB ulual praatlce at thi. Itation and was proceeding to hiB employment at the united States poatal Service, The caption to this action name. Samuel V, Scicchitano, Jr. as Defendant. This milidontUicatlon was Bubsequently..addreued by Stipulation filed on July 15, 1994 which corrects Defendant'lI idontity to his father, samuel V, Scicchitano, Izes, apparently unfamiliar with the length and width of the vehicle she was operatillg, clipped the left front b\1mper of Scicchitano'. pathfinder with the left rear quarter panel of her Lincoln Continental. Scicchitano proceeded with Izes to the auto auction site where employees of Marty'S were located, voiced reqret that the incident had occurred and left to proceed to work, Plaintiffs made a telephone nnd accident report with the Upper Allon Township police. Scicchitano was interviewed by the police and no charges were filed against either party. - 2 - - (.... , " . .. ~ . , 11. &I'1'A!l"IUBNT or ,AC'1'S AS '1'0 D11lAGIla At the time of the incident And At the auction aite, Ize. made no complaint of InjUry, discomfort or pain, APparently, within 24 hours of this incident, Izes appeared at her local hospital near Philadelphia complaining of baCK and necK problems. Izes had been involved sometime previous to this lncident in an accident which had caused some baCK injury. III. fRINCIPAL ISSUES OF LIABILITY AND D1MA.GBS J.iBbil.l.U Izes and Scicchitano present irreconcilable perspectives of the liability portion of this CBse. Scicchitano maintains that contrary to Izes' I!.Bsertions, his vehicle did not "rear-end" hers and, in fact, Scicchitano was not moving when the continental cut Bcross his field of vision contacting the front right of hi,s vehicle with its left rear fender. gDJ.llJ,l9..ll!l with regard to personal injuries, Izes has treated principally with Dr. Mingione whose medical treatment bills - 3 - (." .""": (' ',1',' '.....' . . , , approach $8,000 tor appro~lmate1Y one year ot treatmont tor a' d18qnosl1 ot whiplash. Scicohitano diBputell the lnjuries dooumented in Dr. MinQione's records and is still seeking complete sets of Izes' medical recordll. Because Dr, Minqione il a New Jerley physician, Defendant has forwarded to plaintiff's oounlel medical records authorizations for use ln obtaining complete let. of plaintiff'. medical records. As ot thil writing, Defendants are stilL,waiting for their return. with regard to vehicle damage, sandra Scicchitano, the owner of Defendant'S vehicle, has crossclaimed against Plaintiff Izes for the $694,03 repair cost, Defendants may dispute the degree of damage allegedly incurred by plaintiff's Lincoln continental, contingent upon review of actual photoqraph prints of the damage, rather than photocopies. IV. e"llllARY OP J..BGAL ISSUES ~he parties have filed a Stipulation correcting the identity of Samuel V. Scicchitano as a proper Defendant in this action. sandra M. Scicchitano, the titled owner of the vehicle driven by Samuel V. Scicchitano has been retained improperly as a Defendant and Defendants will make a motion to striko Sandra M. Scicchitano as II proper party Defendant to thiB suit. - 4 - '" r:.,.... . ." I AI o! thil wr1tlnv, D.!en4ant. wl1l move to exclu4e the ult11l1Ony of Dr. M1n910ne. To date, no expert Interrogator!el hive bien anlwered Ilhd no report from that doctor hili been provlded. Further, blcau.e plaintitf il treated outs1de of Plnnlylvan1a'l jurildiction, Cumberland County CCP .ubpoenas II'I ineUectlve in obtll.inin'iJ medical recordl. Defendant. have forwarded to plalntltt's counsel medical records Authorization. w1th the hope that Plaintiff would Aiqn the.e authorizationl and return them 10 the Defendant. can obtain full .et. ot her record.. Plaintiff has not, to dat~, cooperated in thele .ffortl. If the.. authorizations are not provided to Detendant. ln time t,o pJ:epll.re for trial, DefendAnts will move for the exclulion of Dr. Kingione's testimony regarding plaintiff'S injuries, Plaintiff wa. involved in A prior accident which resulted in a .ettlement and hAS failed to provide Defendants with reque.ted lntormation which would reasonably allow Defendants to inve.tigAte and obtAin the basis of that prior accident and prior injuries. Appropriate motions regarding discovery of plaintiff'S prior medical condition will be presented prior to tr iIll. - 5 - . , CNIJ .. . . 1. V. IQINTITY 0' WI~SSIS Plaintlff Sherri I~es, al of cros., A repre.entative of Marty's Auto Sales, a. ot croll, Defendant Samuel V, Scicchitano, and Defendant Crossclaim PlAintiff, Sandra M. Sclcchitano. Defendant reserves the right to call witnel..1 named by Plaintiffs and to supplement thil lilt contingent upon a. of yet incomplete dilcovery relponle. from Plaintiff. 2. 3. 4. 5. , VI. I,IST OP BXHJBITS 1. Photographs of the Iaes vehicle, 2. Repair invoices for both vehicles, 3. Medical records of Sherri Iaes, 4. Interrogatory rssponses by Plaintiff Sherri Iael' and 5, Diagram of the accident scene. VII. CURRENT STATUS OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS No demand has been made of Defendants and, as of this writing/ no offer has been made in settlement. Respectfully eubmitted, METTE, EVANS , WOODSIDE , ) By}. '- ' -reI DAYJD A. NS / ESQUIRE Sup. Ct. I. 0, '41722 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717) 232-5000 DATED I ~.uG I I 199~ Attorneys for Defendants . , ~ .....:. ,....,. , .. ,.. . . , C.RTJPIpAT' Q, SlaVIC. I hereby certify that I em this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the perlon(e) and in the manner indicated below, which .ervice aoti.fies th. requirement. of the Pennlylvania Rule. for Civil Procedure, by depoliting a copy of lame in the United States Hail, Harrisburg, Pennlylvania, First Cla.s Mail, postage prepaid, as folloWl1 .' George F. Douglas, Jr" ~squire DOUGUS, DOUGLAS . DOUGLAS 27 We.t High Street P.O. Box 261 Carliele, PA 17013 I' ,I METTE, EVANS . WOODSIDE 'I Qf . ./tr A.V D A, FI'I'ZS ONS, ESQUIRE Sup eme Court I.D. .41722 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717) 232-5000 Attorneys Lor Defendants DATED I AUG I I 1994 .. 'I " .! 'I ti 1 ~;,i ~~t " <I :1'." r' 1,1 !1' I' , I, " , , 1._' !, I 1 rlj " ., \' ." , " I' ,: , I, " " , , . ,I \ !' 'I, " " " \- -,1,\ ., \ " \, 1 , I,' " , ,I, -, ..- .. " n.j. ~ ". (, I( 'Ill no II"''''' c"mrv tlt~1 1111 I \ WIfHIM '" ~';.lJf At',,"CQItfI'C l' r.r)"Y ).. 0' 'HI QllUGIHlL JIL' n I" TlU~ :~""H 0 G r 21 l~JU/j "TlOnlln YOU UI "'}tIMY ItIQUII"n ,0,M ~ Wltl'-tl 1\1 .("~IHn' ,I) !Iff .,tCLQIllI) \#f If Ill,. 1''11'"'' lUll nAVIl ,1iI0MUlt';If.' ItlIIlO' 0" ~ lun..",,"' 11II"" IU .".11 nl n AllAIN" YOl}, .. DOUGLA!I_.or,lUG~^5 {, OOUOL!\O H10lHIII1'''I;'' ,toW "",1."1...."..'1 r,,A.I\U'IlI' I" tlll',n \I,"HI(\ ~nC'l."" .. . SHBRRI IZIlS and MARTY'S AUTO SALES, INC., tla BUY.RlTE MOTORS V. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : Cl1MBERLANDCOUNTY,PA. CIVIL AcrION. J.AW NO, 843 CIVIL 1994 SAMUEL y, SCICCHITANO : and SANDRA M. SCICCHITANO: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAIN11FFS I)RE.TRIAJ.. MEMOMNDUM 1. A statement of tb.v.basic fact. aSlp lIDIill.Ux, On June 25, 1992, at Noon, the plaintiff was operating her vehicle on Winding HUl Road, Mechal\lcsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, al\d she attempted to lurn Into an Atlantic service station. At the same time and place, the defendant, who was In the gas sllltlon, Illlempled 10 exit Ihe gas station, and collided wilh the plaintiff's vehicle. 2. A statement of the basic facts of damalJe. The plaintiff suffered a cervical InJury, a back Injury, and Injury to her legs. She has also had frequent headaches. 3. r1Inclpall~sues. Negligence. 4. LlllJallssues. 5. Negligence. :~::~::lff !.( It fAA fJ'I\ Larry Aust V"',r Dr. RIchard A, Mlnglone --- ~ Randall M. Brown, Physical Therapist - I' -- 0" . 2mUill1. t ( .. '-{ ..<1 \.{ 6. None. ~ " 7. fII1.llmw1l. None, 1\' I . ~.pecttuUy submitted, DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS. DOUGLAS Jk ,(to By. . .t.'.~ r G, '''-fA Attorney for Plaintiff I' I ., , , , ", I' " \ " , , 1\ ., ,il ;.1 " I JIlt', I ,,.j,~ "',1, Defendant, Samuel V. Scicchitano ("Scicchlt,mo"), wa. operatlng hil Nillan Pathfinder intending to make a left hand turn out of the Atlantic Service Station onto Winding Hl11 Road. Scicchitano had filled the vehicle al wal hie ulual practice It thil station and was proceeding to hi. employment at the United Statel Po. tal Service. The caption to thil action namel Samuel V. Scicchitano, Jr. al Defendant. Thil milldentification was Bublequently addre81ed by Stipulation filad on July 15, 1994 which correct. Oefendant'l identity to h11 father, Samuel V, Scicchitano. Izel, apparently unfamiliar with the length and width of the vehicle Ihe wa. operating, clipped the left front bumper of Scicchitano'l Pathfinder with the left rear quarter panel of her Lincoln Continental. Scicchitano proceeded with Izel to the auto auction .ite where employeel of MartY'1 were located, voiced regret that the incident had occurred and left to proceed to work. Plaintiff. made a telephone and accident report w1th the Upper Allen Townlhip Police. Scicchitano was Interviewed by the police and no charge I were fllad a'iJainst either party. - :2 - II . 8"A'1"~1I'1' o. nCT" ,., 'I'D n..uQ.S At the time of the lncident and at the auction lit., I... mad. no complaint of injury, dl.comfort or pain. Apparently, wlthin 24 hourI of thi. incident, I.e. appeared It her local hOlpltal near Philadelphia comp1ainin~ of back and neok probleml. I.es had been involved lometime previouI to thi. Incldent in an accident which had cau.ed aome back injury. III. PRINCIPAL IRRUBS or LIABILITY MID DAllAQIilS LillbiJ1ty Ilel and Scicchitano present irreconcilable perlp.otive. of the liability portion of this caBe. Scicchitano maintain. that contrary to lIes' auertlon., hie vehJ.cle did not "rear-end" herl and, in fact, Scicchitano WIIB not movinq when the Contlnenta1 out acro.. hil field of vision contacting the front right of hil vehicle with it. left rear fender. D_aqee I With regard to pereonal injurle., Ilel hal treated principally with Dr. Mingione whOle medical treatment billa - 3 - I approach $0,000 for apprcxlmately one y.ar ~f treatment for a diagnoll1 of whlplalh. Sclcchltano di.put'l the injuri.~ documented in Dr. Ming10n"1 recordl and il Itl11 I.eking comp1et. let I of lIe.' m.dica1 r.cordl. B.cauI. Dr. Kingione 11 a N.w Jerl.y phy.iclan, Defendllnt hal forwarded to Plaintlff'. counlel medical recordl authori.ation. for ut. ln obtdnlng complete ut. of Plaintiff' I medical record.. AI of thl1 writlnv, Defendantl lire etlll waiting for their return. With rogard to vehicle damage, Sandra Scicchitllno, the owner of Defendant'l vehicle, hat crollclaimed agalnlt Plaintiff I.el for the $694.03 repair COlt. Defendants may dllpute the degree of damage allegedly incurred by Plaintiff'l Lincoln Continental, contingent upon review of actual photograph prints of the damage, rather than photocopiel. IV. B~Y or LBGAL 188UBS The partie. have fUed a Stipulation correcting the Identity of Samuel V. Scicchitano al a proper Defendant In thl1 aotion. Sandra M. Scicchitano, the titled owner. of the vehicle drlven by Samuel V. Scicchitano hae been retained improperly al a Defendant and Defendant. will mak$ a motion to Itrike Sandra M. Scicchitano al a proper party Defendant to thi. luit. - 4 - , " A. of thl. wrltlnq, D.fendantl will move to exclude the te.timony of Dr. Kinqion.. To date, no expert Interroqatorie. hive been Inawered and no report from that doctor hll beGn provided. further, becau.e Plaintiff i. treated out.lde of Pennly1vanla'. juri.dlction, Cumberland County CCP lubpo.nal .1" in.ffective in obtaining med1cal recordl, Defendant. have forwarded to Plaintiff'. counsel medical recordl authori.atlonl with the hope that Plll1ntlff would liqn thele authori.ationl and return them so the Defendant. can obtain full lets of her recorda, Plaintiff has not, to date, cooperated in the.e effort.. If these authori.ation. are not provided to Oefendantl in time to prepare for trial, Defendant. will move for the exclulion of Or, Kingione's testimony regardinq Plaintlff'l lnjurieR, Plaintiff wal involved in a prior accident which relu1ted In a lettlement and hal failed to provide Oefendantl with requ..ted information which would realonably allow Oefendantl to involtigate and obtain the ba.is of that prior accident and prior injurie.. Appropriate motions reqardinq dilcovery of P1aintiff'I prior medical condition will be prelented prior to trill. - 5 . V. IDltI'l'J'l'Y OP JJTII1881' 1. Plaintiff Sh.rrl I.e., a. of crOll' :I . A repre..ntative of MartY'1 Auto Sale., a. of cro.., Defendant Samuel V. SCicohitano, and Defendant Crollolaim Plaintiff, Sandra M. Scioohitano. Defendant relerve. the right to call witn....1 namGd by Plaintiffl and to .upplement thil lilt oontlngent upon a. of yet incomplete dllooverr re.pon.el from Plalnt1tt . 3. 4. 15. VI. LIST 01' BI~IBI'l'8 1. Photographl of the lie. vehicle, :I. R.pAir invoicel for both vehicl.., 3. Hedica1 recordl of Shlrri Ilel, ... Interrogatory I'8lpOnll1 by Plaintiff Sherd I.e., and IS . Diagram of the ace ideot scene. VII. "IRRIH'l' STATUS or SB'l"l'LIllIlI'l' NIGO'l'IA'l'ION8 No demand ha. been made of Defendantl and, II of thil writing, no offer has been made in settlement. Relpeotfully Bubmitted, .ITTB, IVANS . WOODSIDI l~-- . ) ()(I\~''J BYI"'~' .L;:,... .(;r D~ 0 A, rITISI NS! ESQUIRE Sup. Ct. 1. D. .417012 3401 North Front Str80t P. O. Box 5950 HarriBburg, PA 17110-09150 (717) 232-5000 DATID t AUG I I 19q~ , AttorneYI for Defendants " , " , - Yf}tl 11,.. HI "1'41 I., 1)IIIPttl' II) .ILt II wnnnN "I ',,"l"!!\! ,II nl~ Hlrt t'l'l I II W,,",..,..-I'''''IIIII r,A,.. rlI1t"r.t,'VI.;1 11I11In, nit ,. wn,,".lrlll MH III ,It",.,,,, ,111)111"8' 'I'll}, 0' ""O.h~ W , , II 'i , , '" , , I, I: I. 'I , II' I' I, , , I, 'I " " " 'I 'I , , " , , 'I, I I, I 'I , I I , " ., , , " , I' II , , , " , . nOUr')L^~1 Qounl.I\~.; F" [)Ol)(;LA',i ,. III I' ~ I '" I 'III'~ I r '\ 11 ," >'I 'I", Ill) 1I1,1n1l' "1111'1 "'0\1 n', WIIIHPlI1" I~III IlNI) C'lI/IH r. , rJi'. ')" "II. O"'OINA!. "LlII 11'1 11m Ar;n'Jf1, !Ill I i ,I<'II! " "I,nl 0\ .1'111,'. ., I' Illll)n"" ".", ~II H a HI:' r SHERRI IZES and MARTY'S AUTO SALES, INC., t;o BUY-,RITf MOTORS, IN TH~ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plqlnti rr VS SAMUEL V, SCICCHITANO, JR., ancl SANDRA M, SC ICCH ITAND, Defellrjonts CIVTL ACTION - LAW NO, 91HJ84.3 CIVIL TERM IN RE; CONfINUANU AND NOW, August 17, 1994, by ogreelllllnt' of both parties, the cose is continued and eIttH!r counsel desirIng so con rel1st it for tl-1.o1 In tile next term of court. fly t1w(ourt, " . HofftJr, '. Gedrge F, Douglas, Jr, ,Esquire For the Plaintiff David A. Fitzsimons, EsqUire For the Defendnnt Court Admlnistrotor :01 t f , ' i' I, I " " 'I I I I " " )" I, I' il I I, I, I{ I , I 'I, .,. , ;~ " I I ~- ...., " " I':: 11.1 ".., ~. , ;r U.U.., :ilt ""~ ~) l":') '. " I.:.-~ .r.;~ N 0"1) I"r '> ~ .1111111 CO . - ,) ~ ~'o. I" ,.,. ,) JI ~c.> I, "I , I I , , I, - "~ I~ r "_1 ' L 1 ..~ .., ') . \ ~ ) (~ 15 )-') 1 'I l'} , " (I b ., ~ \~ " ,.. .. ~ I , -r . t' I ~ I I, 'I' I' '- ~ .' ',,' "1:' " " , ,',) , " n') ~. 'Ii )- l'-""J IA " " ',., ~ I ," 1.11 " ILl " , I 'I Ii " 1,1 :' I, (, .fJII Ur HU'.., IUQIJI"'O YO m.1I A 'A'ltlrr," 1t''''r'lHll ,ll IH., INCLOtU.l) "'mil". rYwfNJV l'atIH.1I 'ltOM ftUV!I:' lUlfft" l,)1t A ,Uf)tPUNl MAY '" UHr~lD "UINIf .'tOU.. "' OOU<1lAS DOUGLAS .s. OOUGLNI ""flt1'4I"i,',L/Io''r .. I ~" ..,,'.. "t," , , pl1 ,,,,..,.. '~Af1II~JLr, P~I'.1j :'.I....Ar.li. 'I , 'I " ", " I I 1'1 , 'I I , :, " w,. PI) IHItI'IlV ('rlll1n nUT nu Wtlll,~ I~ .. n{\Jt' 4NfH.1".n,( r Cl),t '" "tH. dnl,wUL rlU'D IN ,.m Af.ft')N, n. ...IH)nrtrY GEORGE F. DOUGLAS, JR. ATTY. 1.0.1#06270 DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS & DOUGLAS 27 WEST HIGH STREET P.O. BOX 261 CARLISLE, P A. 17013 717-243-1790 ATIORNEY FOP. PLAINTIFF SHERRX IZES and MARTY'S AUTO SALES, INC., tla BUY-RITE MCYrORS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA. . . : CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. , , : NO. r, 'I.J CIVIL 1994 SAMUEL V. SCICCHITANO, JR. : and SANDRA M. SCICCHITANO: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED I' NanCE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN TWENTY DAYS AFI'ER THIS COMPLAINT AND NCYrICE ARE SERVED, BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO 00 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 Of HER RIGHTS IMPORT ANT TO YOU. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WFIERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Court Administrator Fourth Floor Cumberland County Court House Carlisle PA 17013 717-240-6200 OOU<f~AS, _ By ':#~ Attorney r Plaintiff corporation, havlnglh principal placo of bUllneMK at 1106 Elllt Llllcoln Highway, Langhorne, Buck. CQunty, Pennsylvania. 2, [)efendant Samuel V, Scicchitano, Jr" II an Individual and c\tI~on of the Commonwealth of Penn.ylvanla who relldel therein at 42^ W, Wlndlllg Hut Road, Mechanlcsburg, Cumberland County, Pennlylvanla, 3, Dofendant Sandra M, Sclcchltnno II an Individual and cltl~en of the Commonwealth of Pennlylvanla who resides theroin at 42^ W, Winding HIli Rood, Mechanlcsburll, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 4. At all limos material to plaintiffs' causo of ocllon, defendant Samuel V, Scicchitano, Jr., was the owner, 'lperator, pORsossor, maintainer nnd/or In control of a certain motor vehicle belnll then and there operated by said defendant, II, At all limes material to plaintiffs' COURe of acllon, defendant Sandra M, Scicchitano was the owner, operator, posse~sor, maintainer and/or In control ofn certain motor vehicle being then and there operated by defendant Samuel V, Scicchitano, Jr. 6, At all limes material to plaintiffs' couse of ocllon, defendant Samuel V, Scicchitano, Jr" was tho agent, servant, workman and/or employee ef defendant Sandra M, Scicchitano, then and there acting within tho course and scope of his authority nnd omployment for and oIl behalf of said defendant. 'I, On or about June 211, 1092, ot or about 12:00 noon, plalntllT Sherri hes was operating a vehicle on Wlndinl1 Hill Road, Mechonicsburll, Cumberland County, PennRylvanla, and as sh'e approached an Atlantic Service Stallon, she stopped waiting to turn left into the service station, When oncoming traffic cleared, she proceeded to turn left into tho sorvlce stollon, AR she ontered the driveway Into the service station, the vehicle belngoperntod by dofendont, In 0 negligent nnd careless and manner, suddenly and without warning exited the service stetlon and began his Illft hand turn onto Winding Hill Rood and :2 :/ violently .truck plalntill'a vehicle in tho reft rear, Au a result of the nel/Ill/ence of the dufl\lldant, plaintilT .ulTered .erlou., painful and permenent perlonal injuries au more particularly de~cribed below, 8. The nel/lIgence and carele88ne'8 of the defendant. consilte,! of the following: (a) Falling to maintain a proper lookout, (b) Falling to yield the right of wny, Ie) I"ullinll to havo hla vehicle unn')r preper and adequate c1mtrol, (d) Operating his vehicle at a high and elr,CeSSiVll rate of speed under the clrcum.tancea; (e) Failing to regard tho rights, safety nnd position of th" plalntifTat the pqlnt afore.aid. (I) Falling tll maintain tho assured clear distances ahead; And I (g) Violating tho 8tatutes of the Commonwealth of PennsYlvania and the ordinances and rOllUlntions of'the local area whoro the occident occurred pertaining to the operation of motor vehicle. undor the circumstances, FIMT COIJNT Shorri hes vs. Defendl\nts 9, PlalntilT Sherri he8 horeby incorporate8 by referoncll parall'l'nphs 1 through 8, inclu.ive, al fully a8 though the same were 8et forth here at. lenl/lh. 10. As a result of the afore8ald, plaintiff 8u8tained Injurle8 to her head, neck, back, body and limb8, their bone8, cell8, nerves, ti88UOI, mU8cles and functions, Including but nIlt limited to cervical 8traln with my08itl81 chronJc lumbo8acrnl8traln with my081ti8, togother with a 8evero 8hock to her nerV88 and nerVOU8 .yat.em, some or all of which plalntilT hu been advi8ed are 8erloU8 and may be permanent In 3 nature, 11, As a result of the accident aforesald/lhe plaintiff has undorgone llToat physical pain an dmental aniUish and sho will continue to endul'o th same for an Indoflnito tlmo in the future, to her lP'eat detriment and lOll. 12, ABa rosult ofthoaccldont afor08ald, Iho plaintlffhaB been compelled tlloxpend large sums of money for medlclno ond medical core ol\d llttllntlon in LInd about an offol't to ollect a cure Ill' her aforesaid InJurios, and she wlll be compellod to continue to expend such Bums fOl' the Bame purposeB for an indeflnlte time In tho futuro, 10 her great detriment B11<1108s. 13, AB a reBult of tho occldent oforoBaid, tho plalntllT hOB been unable te ottend to his usual and dally duties and occupation, and Bhe will be unablo to nttend to the somo for anlndeflnlto time In the futuro, to hor flrOllt detriment nnd 10BB. 14. As II furthcr reBult of the aforeBllld, plaintiff hnB sulTered 0 10BB and depreciation of her earnings nnd earning power, which Buch 10SB of income lIIuJ/or hnpalrmont 1)1' hOl' earning cnpllclty or power, nnd she may continuo to Buffer samo for on indeflnlto timo in tho futuro to hor groat detriment nnd loss, WHERflFORE, ph:intiff Sherri IzeB clnlms d'lmnges of defendallt In an amount in excess of $10,000, and in exceBB of the omount requiring compulsory referral to arbitratora under t~o lucal rulea ut cuurt. SECOND CQIJH'I Marty's Auto Sales. Inc.. tlaBuy-Rllo Motors VB, Defendnnta 111, Plaintiff Marty's Auto Salce, Inc" tin Buy-Ulte Motora hereby Incol'porntee by reference peragraphe 1 through 8, IncluBive, aB fully nB though tho Homo wer'l 80t forth horo at length, 16, As 0 furthor reBult of this accident, plaintiff .uatained domago to ItB motor vehicle In tho lum of [wo noed estimnto to complotB thle pnrngraph with dollar nmountj, 4 8HIRRX I.IS and MARTY'S AUTO I IH THE COURT or COMMON PLIAS SALIS, INC. t/a BUY-RITI I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PIlNNSYLVANIA MOTORS, I PlaJ.ntlU I I . V. I NO. 843 Clvll 199" I 8ANUIL V. SCICCHITANO, JR. I Ind SANDRA K. SCICCHITANO, I CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendantl I JURY TRIAL DEMANDID ARB.la .ITH H'. KATT.R AND NOW come thl Defendantl, Samull V. Scicchitano (improperly Identified al Samuel V. Scicchitano, Jr.) and Sandra L. Sc1cchitano (lmproperly 1dlntified al Sandra K. Scicchitano) by their attorneYI, Mettl, Bvanl , Woodelde, and aver the following In re.ponae to Plaintiffl' Complaint I . 'II ,I 1. Denied, After realonable Inveatigatlon, Defendant. are wlthout knowledge or information lufticlent to form a ballef a. to the truth of the averment. of Paragraph 1. Said Ivermentl therefore are denied and Itrict proof thereof i. dlmanded at trial. ., t 2. Denlad. After realonable inve.tigation, Defendante Ire without knowledge or informatlon lufficient to form a bellef al to the truth of the avermentl of Paragraph 2. Sald Ivermentl therefora are denied and Itrlct proof thereof 1. dlmandad at trlal. ,.... "...", 2.(eicl Denied. There are two Para~raphl numbered 2 on 'laintiffl' complaint. It 11 .pecifically denied that Samuel V. Scicahltano, Jr. rei idee at 425 Windin~ Hill Road, NechlniclburV' Samuel V. Scicchitano, Jr. re.lde. in Lltltl, 'ennlylvanla and il the .on of Samuel V. Scicohitano who relldel at 425 Windln9 Hill Road, Mechanlclbur9. 3. Admitted in part and denied ill part. The correct name of the Defendant il Sandra L. Scicchitano. 4. Admitted in part and denied in part. It il denied . that Defendant Samuel V, Scicchitano, Jr. wa. in any way involved in the eventl lubject in Plaintiffs' Complaint. To the contrary, hil father Samuel V. Scicchitano wal, at all timel material to Plaintiff.' caule of IIction, the operator of a certaln motor vehicle identified al a 1988 Nillan 'athfinder. It il Ipecifically denied that Defendant Samuel V. Scicchitano, Jr. or hi. father, Samuel V, Soiochitano WII lilted al an owner of laid vehicle. 5. Admltted in part and denied in part. It il admitted only that Defendant Sandra L. Scicchitano wal the owner of the motor vehicle bein~ operated by Samuel V. Scicchitano and - 2 - Identified II a 1988 Pathfinder. It i. Ipecificllly denied thlt lira. Scicchitano WII IctuaUy "In control" of the vehicle becaule Ihe wa. not in tha vehicle or at the acene at any time material to Plaintiffl' caule of action. ,: 6. Denied. The avermenta of paragraph 6 conltitute concluaionl of law to whioh no relponlive pleading i. required by the Pa.R.C.P. To the extent a relponle il doemed required, It la apeolfically denied that Defendant Samuel V, Scicchitano, Jr. wa. in any manner involved in the eventl alleged ln the Complaint, or ~hat hl. father, Samuel V, Sc1cchitano wa. the agent, .ervant, workman and/or employee of Defendant Sandra L. Scicohitano acting within the cour.e end Icope of hil authority on b.ha1f of the laid Sandra L, Scicchltano. To the contrary, Samuel V, Scicchitano il an employee of the United Statel Poata1 Service and wal on hil way to work at the time of the Incldent elle'iJed in Plaintiffl' Complalnt, Sandra L. Scicchitano il Mr. Scicchitano'. wife and the titled owner of the vehlcle that Mr. Scicchltano wel operating, with the permilaion of Mra. Soicchitano, at the time of the accident. Any further Inference alleving liability on the part of Mr.. Scicchltano i. hereby Ipecifica1ly denied for the realona .tated in thil paragraph. , 1', " .i I , - 3 . , . ,. genied. The aVe~mentl of Parlqraph 7 con.titute oonclu.ionl of law to which no relponllve pleadin; 1. required by the Pa.R.C.P. To the extent a re.pcnle i. deemed required, it 11 admitted only thlt on or about 12100 Noon on June 25, 1992, P1alntiff I.el wa. operatinq a vehicle on Windinq 8111 Road. Mr. Soicchitano ha. no knowledqe of whether the Plalntlff Itopped prior to making a left turn into the Atlantic Servic. Station in the manner de.oribed in the Complaint and that alleqation il therefore denied. It 1. Ipecifically denied thlt al Plaintiff entered the dr.iveway Into the lervlce .tltion, the vehicle operated by Samuel V. Scicohitano wal operated neqllqently and carelellly, and without warninq exited the lervloe .tation, be'iJinninq a left turn onto Windlnq 8111 Road and violently struck Plaintiffs' vehicle in the left rear. To the contrary, Samuel V. Scicchitano brouqht hi. vehicle to a halt off the travelled portion of Winding Hill Road and wa. liqnallin'iJ and waitin'iJ his opportunity to make a left turn when Plaintiff's vehicle, in the course of turninq into the lervlce Itation, struck the left front corner of the Scicchitano vehicle with the left rear quarter-panel of the P11intiff'I car. Scicohitano'l vehicle wa. not movinq at the tlme of oontact by Plaintiff'l vehiole. It i8 further .peoifioally denJ.ed that the impact between the two velllclel wal violent. To the oontrary, tha contllct wal . .. - mino~. It il fu~the~ .peciflcll1y denied thlt Plaintiff luffe~ed injurie. a. a relult of any n~gli'iJence of the Defendant, ..ld negliqence belnq .plciflcBlly denled. 8. Denied. The ave~mentl of para'iJraph 8 aonltitute conclu.lonl of law to which no re.pcn.ive pleadinq i. ~equlr.d by the Pa.R.C.P. To the extent a re.pon.e J" d.emed required, It il Ipeciflca1ly denied that Defendant.. (a) Failing to malntain a proper lookout. Defendant. Sand~a L. Scicchitano and Samuel V. SC icchi tano, Jr. were not in \ any way involved in thi. accident, and I Samuel V. Scicchitano, at all timel ~, relevant to Plaintiff.' Complaint , maintained a proper lookout, (I (D) fliling to yield the riyht-of.way, " i Defendant8 Sandra L. Sc cchitano and I, Samuel V. Scicchitano, Jr. were not in any way involved in thil accident, and Samuel V. Suicchitano, at all time. relevant to Plaintiff.' Complaint did yield the right.of-waYJ (c) falling to have hi. vehicle under ~roper and ade3uate control. efendantl San ~a L. Scicchitano and SamuIl V. Scicchitano, Jr, were not in ~, any wly involved in thi. accident, and Samuel V. Scicchitano, at all timel 'i relevant to Plaintiff8' Complaint did have hi. vehicle under proper and d f adequate control, (d) Operating hil vehic Ie at a hlqh and : exce..lve rate of .peed under the , \ Ii \\, .5- r i, ,\ " , ,JPlT co~ ~r,l ,.., v. D8f.ndant. 9. The averment. of paragraphl 1 throuvh 8 of thla An.we~ with New Hatter are h~reby incorporated by r~ference al If fully let forth. 10.-14. Denied. The averment. of Para9rapha 10 through 14 oqnltitute conoluaionB of law to .whioh no relponlive plead1n9 11 required by the Pa.R.C.P, To the extent a relponle i. deemed required, Defendant., upon rell.cnab1e inve.tigation, are without knowledge or information 8ufficlent to form a belief aa to the truth of the averments of para'iJraph. 10 through 14, Said averment. therefore are denied and Itriot proof thereof i. demanded at trial. WHlRlroRJ, Defendantl, Samuel V. Sciochitano, Jr. and Sandra L. Scicchitano, re.peotfully requelt that thil Court dilmils Plaintiff.' complaint with prejudice and enter judlj/lllent in'their favor and against the Plaintiffs, to'iJether wlth an award of luoh co.ts, interest and other relief 41 the court deems ju.t 4nd reasonable. - 1- S.CQNP COUNT M,r~l. Auto &al'_f loa. tla .~-Rlte Motor, v. Dlf.~~Dt. . 15. The averment I of para9raphl 1 throu'iJh 8 of thi. An.we~ with New Matter are hereby Incorporated by reference a. if fully .et forth. 16. Denied. The avermentl of Parllgraph 16 conatitute conclu.ion. of law to which no relpon.ive pleadin9 il required by the Pa.R.C.P. To the extent a re.ponle i. deemed required, Defendantl, upon realonab1e inveltiqatlon, ere without knowled98 or information eufflcient to form a belief a. to the truth of the avermentl of paraqraph 16. Said averment I therefore are den1ed and strict proof thereof il demanded at trlal. WHlRlrORl, Defendant., Samuel V, Scicchitano, Jr. and Sandra L. Scicchitano, re.pectfu1ly requelt that thil Court diIMl.. Plaintiffl' Complaint with prejudice and enter jud9lllent in their favor and again8t the Plaintiffl, t0gether wlth an award of luch cOltl, interelt and other relief &1 the Court delMI jUlt and rea80nable. - 8 - a2. At all time. relevant to thelComplaint, Plaintiff SherriII.1 wa. the agent, .ervant, workman and/or employee of Plalntiff Harty'l Auto Salel, Inc. t/a Buy-Rite Motorl. a3. The Complaint fai11 to Itate a olllim upon which relief aan be qrant.d. 24, If the Plaintiffl have luffered any injuriel and/or damaqel, which potential finding il hereby exprellly den1ed, then luch claiml are prohibited and/or barred and/or reduced pur.uant to the proviBion. of the Motor Vehicle Financial Reeponlibi1ity Law 75 PII.C.B.A, 51701, ~ liQ., and more particularly 51705 and 81722, any liability or relponlibillty on the part of the Defendantl beinq hereby exprel8ly denied. a5. If the Plaintiffl IU8tained the injuriel or damagel al1eqed in the Complaint, which potential finding il hereby exprellly denled, then luch clalml are prohibited and/or barred and/or reduced purluant to and by virtue of the doctrine of contributory neqligence or comparative negligence, al the cale may be, and/or tha doctrine of al8umption of the rilk, luch al may be deterMined during dilcovery and trial of thil action and for the realonl let forth in thll1 Hew Matter. - 10 - 26. If the P1alntiffl have luffered any 1njurie. and/or damave., whlch potential finding 11 hereby expre..ly denied, thin it 11 believed that there WII an interveninq clu.e or cau.e. leld1ng to laid lnjuriel and/or damage. and, a. .uch, any action on the part of the Defendant. Will not the proximate and/or competent producing caule of the Plllintiff'l lnjurie.. 27. If the Plaintiff. have luffered any injurle. and/or damaqel, which potential finding i. hereby expre.lly denled, then it il believed that lome or all of the al1eved 1njuriel and/or damagel were or may have been cau.ed and/or contributed In whole or In part by the nevligence and/or related actionl of one or more third per.onl for whOle conduct the Defendantl are not relponlible, or with whom the Defendant. have no 1eqal re1atlon, WHlRIlrORll, Defendantl, Samuel V, Scicchitano, Jr. and Sandra L, Scicchitano relpectfully requeat that this Court dilml.1 Plaintiff'. Complaint with prejudice and enter jUdgment in lte favor and againlt the Plaintiffa, together with an award of luch coatI, intereat and'other relief a. the Cuurt deem. ju~t and realonable. - 11 - HI. MATTIR AGAINST PLAINTI" SHIRR I IllS PURSUANT TO ,a.R.C.P. .2~02(4) I '28. The Iverment. of Paragraph I 1 through 16 of Plaintiff.' Complaint are incorporated herein by refex.nc. without IIdoption, and aelerted again.t Plllintlff Sh.xrl I.... 29. Th. averm.ntl of Paragraphl 1 through 27 of thl1 An.wer with New Hatter of Def.ndantl ar~ reaffirmld and r.a...rt.d ae if fully aet forth herein. 30. Plaintiff, Sherri Ilel' operation of her vehlcle ~a. n.'iJ1igent and carelell and the proximate caule of the contact with the Scicchitano vehicle, laid negligence and carelelln... oonli.t.d of the following I (a) (b) (a) (d) (.) ( f ) failing to maintain a proper lookout, failing to yield the right-of-way, fai1in'iJ to have her vehicle und.r proper and adequate control, operating her vehicl. at a high and excellive rate of .peed under the clrcuMltancel' falling to xaqard the right., lafetr and pOlition of the Scicchitano veh ole at the point aforelaid, fall1ng to maintain the a.lured clear diltance ahead, and - 12 - -:r S/l ::".1" " ,I' , I. " " , I 'I '1 " , " I I II,} " / , , 'I , , I', I , ", , I .' I , " " I, ,I, I , " , I , , " "I. I, ,I " ,I II , , II 1,1, " ., 'II I, , ,I " \' if :/ " , , 'I , , " I 'Ii " I " " I , , " , , , i ,I ." I' ", r: " I, ~:v:: -'1.1 " ., 1_1 - ',j/,', " 1,\ ",<, " 1,1 '!J 1',',11._, " I f," I , , (") , I I Iii , I III'. " 'I = 'I,.) i-' I~. ,.~ " " .. ': , ,:1 , I , ,I , ',: , I , " " " I , " " , " , " 'I , " " " " I, ~ - I ,', " I , " " 'I " ;.' I I Ii ii, I ..' , " ,")!I Alii HntllU .,,,ullun '0 PlH A WIlHtl,. III '>I'/H'" .'} fUr HU:LOlHll ""I I lIlt, I ,^,IIHY .1111 nll\'1 , "r)llt UIlYI';' III II! In \)11 " lIIn.\M' HI Iu., lit I Nil, ,110 An" "nr ~I)ll "' DOUr,lI.AS OOUOLA!l F. DOUGLAS "', n'lIJ", 'WI': DO Hilt' laY eu "" tHAY 'HI WItHIN III A fltur ANI) lOlt'UCr c.,~y D, "HI tIltJlutdL ,1Lr:n I" THIS Actlohl, 0' . "Qiti,., Ml Ullfjf \'1\ '" .....w ~ 7 ~ ""H' ~l ,I, r , ""I),U,." , .' . SHBRRlIZES and MARTY/S AUTO SALBS, INC., t/a BUY-RITB MOTORS V. IN THB COURT OF COMMON PLBAS Of' I CUMBl!RLAND COUNTY, PA. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 8f3 CIVIL 1994 SAMUBL V.SCICCHITANO,JR.: and SANDRA M. SCICCHITANO: JURY TRIAL DBMANDBD REPLY 17. The averment. of paragraphs 1 through 16 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference thereto. 18. Since Samuel V. Scicchitano admit. operation of the vehicle involved in the acdden~, we can have a stipulation to change the name of the defendant in the caption of thl. ca.e to Samuel V. Scicchitano. 19. Admitted. 20. Denied. At this point, the plaintiff does not know the miaaion, if any, that Samuel V. Scicchitano wa. on at the time of the coUl810n. 21. Admitted. 22. Denied. Sherrl Ize. Wit operating a vehicle owned by the other plaintiff, but Wit not operating that vehicle as the agent, servant, or employee of Marty's Auto Sal.., Inc. tl a Buy-Rite Motors. 23. Denied. themselves. The averments In the Complaint speak for 24. Denied. The only re.trktlOI\ on the plaintiff/a recovery la the fir.t $5,000.00 of her medical bUls, and whatever medkal bl1l. were paid by a collateral source. 25. Denied. It Is denied that there was any contributory negligence or comparative negligence on the part of the plaintiff. 26. Denied. The injuries .ustalned by the plaintiff were as a re.ult of the negligence of the defendant, Samuel V. Scicchitano. 27. Denied. reference thereto. The answer to paragraph 26 is Incorporated herein by pRAECIPE FQR L1l!mNG CASE FORJRIAL (Mue' be typewrlllen and llIubmllled In duplloate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY n;.c: ;".. .... r-J Plea Ie lIetlhe lollowlng oue: (Chllok one) ( x) lor ,JURY Irlol at the nexl lorm 01 olvll oourl. ,. '. I'l I: .' ~ "-U ) for Irlal wllhoul a Jury, '\. ':; :;l ~ .1" ................".................,...............................,.....................................................................f~.~....,...!i'..,............. CAPTION OF CASE (enllre oapllon musl be elaled In full) (qheok one) Aeeumpsll Trelllpaes SHERR I IUS and HARTY'S AUTO SAUS, INC., t/o BUY-RITE MOTORS, ( II) Trespaes (Molar Vehlqle) (Plalnll") (olher) ve. The Irlal IIel will be called on _._______ SAMUEL V. SCICCHITANO, JR., and SANDRA H. SCICCHITANO lIJIldc _,.._Ma~_,2A_._19_2/L __________,__,,_______, Trials commence on _.luna..W_f-' 1'19" (Defendanl) Pretrlllls will be held on -..JUlUl-ul-.-~, (Brlofs oro duo 5 days bolore pretrials,) (Tho party Ilslll1g Ihls caee for Irlal shall provide forthwllh a copy 01 the praecipe 10 ell couneel, pursuanllo locol Rule 214.1.) , va. No, ,843,___ Civil _u_________Ul_"__ 19 -~4 Indloate thelltlorney who will try clISe for the parly who Illes Ihls praeolpe: _____ aeorge F. Douglas, Jr., E~q. ------.-._._...~.._._.____.__ '.. _____.._..___ ...__.._________n__._.___ Indloate trial oOllneel lor other parlles II known: ___,,__l~~\lld ,/\ -,_~~~_lIlmons, Esq. , for Detendsnt8 --..-----,.--..---..---. -----..--.--.-.-.-. --._~_...-.._.__..--------~._~-~_._---- .-.-----.---- --.-.- .__._-- -~_._--_.__._-....-._-_..__.-...---.---_.~-_. Thle coee Ie ready lor trial, D()U~LAs, DO~AS & DOUGI.AS Signed: ,__~_/:....../-!.g.!.~ Print Name: ___~!?I&I_.J:LJ1.11l1~J.I. AlIorney for: _._.flll.LnU1L r" , i Date: May 2 J-.!J 94_________ ~ /, , ! " " HAl 31 3 511 PH '9~ (:f 1 L 1;111. " l'l;'li fir;!. , 'd\lli r.\I. t ",' d 1:< ,,', J Y ,')'1 ',q,I.\ " , I I' '" " I I, " " " , , , " 1.'lt"I,'+f,>'" If' g' · J G ORGI!! 1'. DQUGL S J ., I!!SQUIR Sup. Ct. 1.0. '06 70 l)OUOIoU, DOUGloA8 . DOUGLAS 27 Weat Hlgh Street P.O. Box 261 Carllalet PA 11013 (717) 24J-1190 (AttorneII for Sherr I.ea Sale., Ino. P1alntiff and Marty' a Auto . t/~ Buy-Rite Motorl) DAnDa JUl I 11 1994 D~' /1'_/+30., I , , " , ", I" " ' " '\ :1 I, , , " , " 'I ',' 'I , " , , I ., 1'1 , ' ,I, " " ~ .. ~ "~I ").) F't -'J ;', r ,~ "~I h 'I' , " i' " " I " III ,) ," 'I, " , , , I " " , 'I I , , " , , I , " , , L"j " , ' , I'! 'I ;':) , , " I, II , ' llj Hof for SHFRHT IIf:S 01111 M/\fnY"; AUf 0 S/\LfS, INr" till flUY-rUIT MOTORS, IN THF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CIIM[\f ''I /\NO COUNl y, PFNNSYLVANI/\ PloJnttf'f' vs CrVfl ACTION - LAW SAMUEL V SCICCHlIANO, ,)R" and SANDR/\ M, SCICCHITANO, Ilf!fenuonts ,. NO, 91\..08113 CIVIL TERM IN RE:. PHETfUAL CONfERENCE. A nretriol conference was held before the HonorClbleGeorge f, Hoffor, .Judge, on We(JneseJay, August 17, 1994, In tllis outo OCC i dent cose, Gellrgtl F, Douglas, .)r" ESQulrf!, reprtlsents tile pluintiff; ond David A, Fitzsimons, , Esquire, represents the defendant, PlaIntiff Is u rHsident of NOH .Jersey and was treotlid by her doctor tllere, The (Ioctor hos not responded yet Wltll his medicol reconJs and no deposition [\ClS been even scheduled wi th him, By ogreernenl of hoth PClrties, the case 1s continued ond either counsel desIring so can relist it for trial in the next term of court, By the Court, George F, Douglas, Jr"Esqulre For the Plaintiff David A, Fitzsimons, EsquIre For the Defendant Court AdmInistrator P r I) 1.1'\ ono tn r y : Illtf .,. e ~ N " I , I , 1 , ,j " " ,Ii ", , , , " " " " ,I Ii ., ,~ - ~r: "" ,. :l'~' ,~.t, \.. .I IJ ~ ,-, ... .:: I ~. .. ,n , '" ~ ,,, ~ll/' , ~ '.r. '''hI ;' ',',1\ \ ".J '''t,:\ '0 j " JI I' " \ \,\ " ,I " \, " III , , " , I " , , ,I I' ..') 'I " " I , " ,I , , ~ 'I II " " :00:: S:-I_... '\" . '11 ',0) II " , , :-~ II , , , , , ',' " ,I , .1"' \ , "