The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About94-02547 ~ ~ - C' -:x- to <0 JULIE S. LAHR, 1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff 1 CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . . v. 1 CIVIL ACTION - LAW 1 . NO. . RICHARD GARDNER, Defendant . JURY TRIAL DEMANDED . COIIPLaIn 1. Plaintiff, Julie S. Lahr, i. a citizen of the co..onwealth of Pennsylvania, and an adult individual who re.ides at R.D. '1, Box 6910, Miller.burg, Dauphin county, penn.ylvania. 2. Defendant, Richard Gardner, i. an adult individual and citizen of the Couonwealth of Pennsylvania who reside. at 111 Clark street, Laaoyne, cu.berland county, Pennsylvania. 3. The fact. and occurrence. hereinafter rel.ted took place on or about Noveaber 2, 1992, at .pproxiaately 8130 a.a. at the intereection of Third and Market Street., La.oyne, cu.berland county, Penn.ylvania. 4. Plaintiff, Julie S. Lahr, was operating her vehicle on Market street. 5. At that ti.e and pl.ce, Julie Lahr brought her vehicle to a full and coaplete stop, due to . .topped .... transit bu. in front of her that was picking up passengers, after having .ade a left turn, at the .toplight. 1 6. At th.t ti.e .nd pl.ce, Defendant, Richard Gardner, wa. oper.ting hi. vehicle in the .... direction .. Pl.intiff, Julie S. Lahr. 7. At th.t ti.e and pl.ce, Defend.nt, Richard Gardner, oper.ted hi. vehicle .t an unre..on.ble rate of .peed, .nd .truck the Lahr vehicle in . rear end fa.hion. The front of Gardner'. vehicle collided with the rear of Lahr'. vehicle. The front of Lahr'. vehicle collided with the .... tr.n.it bu.. 8. The foregoing accident and all of the injuries .nd da..ge. .et forth hereinafter .uetained by Plaintiff, Julie S. Lahr, are the direct .nd proxiaate re.ult of the negligent aanner in which Defend.nt, Rich.rd Gardner, operated hi. .otor vehicle .. follow. : a. f.ilure to h.ve hi. vehicle under .uch control.. to be .ble to .top within the ...ured clear diet.nce ahe.d, b. f.ilure to keep .lert .nd .aint.in . proper w.tch for the pre.ence of other .otor vehicle. on the hiqhway, c. failure to .pply his brake. in sufficient ti.e to .void etrikinq the rear portion of the Lahr vehicle, d. failure to travel at a eafe speed, e. f.ilure to drive hie vehicle with due regard for the hiqhway and traffic condition. which he was or .hould h.ve been .ware, and f. failure to keep proper and adequate control over hie vehicle, 2 9. A. a diract and proxi.ata ra.ult at tha accidant, Plaintitt, Julia s. Llhr, su.tainad paintul and .avara injuria., which includa, but ara not li.itad to, .u.cla .pa.. at tha ba.a at tha carvical spine at the trapaziu. carvical .pina .u.cular junction, para.pinal .u.culatura on tha riqht .ida at tha carvical .pine, bicipital tandiniti. with .nappinq ot tha bicap tandon and lateral epicondylitis ot the tor.ara. 10. By raa.on ot tha atora.aid injurie. su.tainad by Plaintift, Julia s. Llhr, .ha was torcad to incur liability tor ..dical tr.at..nt, ..dications, .edical ta.tinq and si.ilar .iscallanaou. axpense. in an attort to r.stora har.alt to health, and clai. i. aada tharator. 11. Becaus. ot tha natura ot h.r injuria., Plaintitt, Julia S. Llhr, has be.n advi.ed and, th.retore, av.rs that sha .ay be torcad to incur .i.ilar axpan.a. in tha tutura, and clai. is ..d. tharator. 12. As a result at the atore..ntioned injurie., Plaintitt, Julia s. Llhr, has underqone and in the future will underqo qraat physical and .ental sutfarinq, qraat inconv.ni.nce in carryinq out her daily activiti.., loss ot life's pleasur.s and enjoyaent, and clai. i. .ade theretor. 13. A. a r.sult ot tha afora..ntion.d injuri.., Plaintift, JUlia s. Lahr, has b..n and in the future will b. .ubj.ct to qraat huailiation and .abarra....nt, and clai. i. .ade th.r.tor. 3 In The Court ci c.~mmOr1 P!a:s or C:.Jr,;:'~~lt';=nd C,::u:-;':y, Pannsylvc:nio . ~, Julie s. [,ahr 'is. Richard Gardner ~o, Q.d.?1;47 ri\li 1 Tp,rm ---> :~..- ::-law, M1lY 2(,. 1 qq4 '9 T S'-"'--- 0- ('......"""':"":IT "...... ca.....'..." :I" .. .---.-t .-:..:.....:...:~ :'......l.:).:..._on..'U ~.,_....~~Q hc:-.!ly ci..-pue:: r.!:: Sh='S of Vnrk CtJl1:ty :0 e."::':'".1tC ::is ',V:!:., :.!:!s ":epuc:cn b:bt -.,~- ~t :::: ~ ::d :We "f :.!:: ?!3i:::i. r~~' Sile.~ at C".....uW:d C~W1t1', p,- . Affida.vit or Sem~ ~OW, June 6 !!?94 :.: 11 : 30 . :.:= wicl::n ('orrplaint & Notice 'JfOB Richard Gardner 11 33 North Seasons Drive, Dillsburq, PA a'.:!cc A' ~[. l:".-d '--.. . I .. :y.:.:u:~:o Richard Gardner : I. True & Attested c:pr ci ::1: ori~.::.:U rn",,1.~in~ 1. Nnt.in~ " lDd _!t~. cown :0 Richard Gardner ::: ':::1tc::s :.~:::::i. Sa ilmWc::3. ~~~,~~ Shc:'.5 at York COWln.. h. ) 1r:J. oUId l'JI:sc:-J:d been: ft;IJ: I~ ~.l: COSTS SE:tYICZ 1!?-2.4 ~m.!.AGC: NOTARIAl. BEAl. A': : A ..-IT WAUIB W. RHINE, Nole1'/ Public Yar1l. VOIlI ClllJnry, p.nnsylvarlll MV Conmnlcl1 EltP/,OI Mart/12', 199, ~ --~-_._--. s '-'~ . v. * IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS * CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA * * No.: 94-2547 . CIVIL ACTION - LAW . . . JURY TRIAL DEMANDED JULIE S. LAHR, Plaintiff RICHARD GARDNER, Defendant ANSWER WITH NEW MATTBR OP DBPENDANT PROPOUNDED UPON PLAINTIPP 1. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 1 and the same are therefore denied and proof thereof demanded, 2, It is admitted, as alleged in paragraph 2, that the Defendant is an adult individual and a citizen of the Commonwealth, However, his present address is incorrect as stated and, on the contrary, it is 33 North Seasons Drive, Dillsburg, Pennsylvania, 17019. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted upon information and belief. 5. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 5 and the same are therefore denied and proof thereof demanded. 6. Admitted. 7. The averments of paragraph 7 are admitted and denied, While it is admitted that the front portion of the Defendant's vehicle came in contact with the rear of the Plaintiff's vehicle ". and that, thereafter, the Plaintiff's vehicle made contact with the rear portion of a bUB, the remaining averments of paragraph 7 are denied as legal conclusions to which no response is necessary and they are deemed to be denied. 8, While it is admitted, aB alleged in paragraph 8, that the answering Defendant failed to keep a lookout on the roadway as his attention was diverted within his automobile, after reasonable investigation the answering Defendant is without knowledge or information suf.ficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments that all or some of the contended injuries or damages set forth by the Plaintiff are a direct and proximate cause of the contended negligent manner of the operation of the Gardner vehicle, the same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof demanded, if relevant at time of trial. 9. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 9 and the same are therefore denied and proof thereof demanded, the averments are or may be further subject to ~1722 of the Motor Vehicle Financial and Responsibility Law, as more fully hereinafter set forth in New Matter. 10. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 10 and the same are therefore denied and proof thereof demanded, the averments are or may be further subject to ~1722 of the Motor Vehicle Financial and 2 Responsibility Law, aB more fully hereinafter set forth in New Matter, 11. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 11 and the same are therefore denied and proof thereof demanded, the averments are or may be further subject to ~1722 of the Motor Vehicle Financial and Responsibility Law, as more fully hereinafter set forth in New Matter. 12, After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 12 and the same are therefore denied and proof thereof demanded, the averments are or may be further subject to ~1722 of the Motor Vehicle Financial and Responsibility Law, as more fully hereinafter set forth in New Matter. 13, After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 13 and the same are therefore denied and proof thereof demanded, the averments are or may be further subject to ~1722 of the Motor Vehicle Financial and Responsibility Law, as more fully hereinafter set forth in New Matter. 14. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 14 and the same are 3 ther~fore denied and proof thereof demanded, the averments are or may be further subject to !il722 of the Motor Vehicle Financial and ResponBibility Law, as more fully hereinafter set forth in New Matter, 15, After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 15 and the same are therefore denied and proof thereof demanded, the averments are or may be further subject to ~1722 of the Motor Vehicle Financial and Responsibility Law, as more fully hereinafter set forth in New Matter. WHEREFORE, Defendant Richard Gardner demands that the Complaint be dismissed and judgment entered in his favor and against all parties without cost to him but together with such costs, expenses and attorney's fees as authorized by law and which the Court deems necessary, just and appropriate under the circumstances. NEW MATTER 16. ~1722 of the Motor Vehicle Financial and Responsibility Law further reduces, sets off and/or precludes the Plaintiff from re-recovering certain expenses and/or losses which are covered by a group plan or other arrangements for the payment of benefits to the extent they are paid or payable and, therefore, !il722 is pleaded to the extent it applies to some of the Plaintiff's claims. WHEREFORE, Defendant Richard Gardner demands that the Complaint be dismissed and judgment entered in his favor and 4 JULIE S. LAHR, I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintirt CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I v. I CIVIL ACTION - LAW I I NO. 94-2547 RICHARD GARDNER, I Defendant I JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE Plaa.e mark the above-captioned matter settled, aatisUad, and discontinued. Respectfully Submitted, ANGINO , ROVNER, Datedl /' \ \ lq~~ HIC I.D. 4503 Nor h Harrisbu g PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 Attorneys for Plaintiff 6nnmll