Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-03938 f <... ~ .V) - ~ c o 3. j '. , "'- '" 00 \0 ()- CY)f " ,I' \ FOLJL.KROD, REYNOL.DB II< HAVAS AT1Oft......... AND COUNM\.~. At LAw 101 PHI .'"U' ,.0 .011 1t3a ~j ~~)) SEP 2 3 199~ dJ" ",~.~""C~"I"" H...............dI. ,..Nt4'I'LIo'A,...... 17101.0D3R TnlftHONl: 111'71 .all.3800 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY v. I No. 3938 civil 1994 I I I CIVIL ACTION - LAW LARRY W. SAMPSON, Plainti ff ROBERT WILLIAM KEISTER, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED BRIEF OF DEFENDANT, ROBERT WILLIAM KEISTER, IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT I. Historv of the Case On April 4, 1993, Plaintiff, Larry W. Sampson ("Plaintiff"), and Defendant, william Keister ("Mr. Keister"), were involved in a motor vehicle accident. On July 18, 1994, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for injuries allegedly sustained in the motor vehicle accident. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Keister's passenger died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident and that Mr. Keister was charged with failure to yield at a stop sign while the Plaintiff did not receive any oitations. Plaintiff also requests punitive damages for the alleged reckless conduct of Mr. Keister. Mr. Keister has filed preliminary Objections to these allegations and claims and this Brief is offered to support those objection~. II. statement of the Q~stions Invo~ A. Whether the allegation that Mr. Keister's passenger died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident is properlY strioken as scandalouB or impertinent matter pursuant to Pa,R,C.P. No. 1028(a) (2)? [suggested answer in the affirmative.] I B. Whether reference to Mr, KeiBter's summary violation is properly Btricken from the complaint pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a) (2)? [Suggested anBwer in the affirmative.] C. Whether Plaintiff' B claim for punitive damageB iB properly stricken by reason of inBufficient allegations that Defendant I s conduct was outrageouB, vindictive, with a bad motive and with reckleBs indifference to the rights and Bafety of others? [suggested answer in the affirmative,] III. ArQUment A. The allegation that Mr, paBBenger died as a reBult sustained in the accident strioken as scandalous or matter pursuant to No. 1028 (a) (2) . KeiBter's of injuries is properly impertinent Pa.R.C.P. Under the Pennsylvania RuleB of civil Procedure, an allegation that inoludes a scandalous or impertinent matter creates a ground for a preliminary objection in the form of a motion to strike. Pa.R.C.P. No, 1028(a)(2), To determine whether material - 2 - is soandalous or impertinent an inqui ry must be made as to "whether allegations are immaterial and therefore inappropriate to proof of cause of aotion," Com. Dept. E.n, v. Peqs Run Coal co., 55 Pa,Commw. 312, 423 A,2d 765 (1980). A scandalous allegation is one that is reproachful and not material to any issue in the case, For example, it has been held that designating an individual as an officer of a corporation when he was being sued in his individual capacity was Boandalous. nricker v. FlatQh, 3 D, & C. 2d 20 (Bucks Co. 1955). In Bricker, ths allegation waB scandalous because it was misleading, In our case, the allegation that Mr. Keisterls passengers died is also totally irrelevant and prejudicial because it makes reference to damages and injuries not germane to the plaintiff' B cause of action. Furthermore, such allegations are undoubtedly included to suggest speed, negligence and seriousness of impact, none of which necessarily follow. In addition to the scandalouB nature of this allegation, it is alBO impertinent. When alleging that a matter is impertinent, it must be proven that the matter is not only immaterial but also prejudicial. Goehring v, lfarleVBvUle Mut, Cas. Co., 73 D. & C, 2d (1976). In the instant case, the allegation that Mr. Keister's passenger died haB no evidentiary value to Plaintiff' B negligence cauae of action, and is therefore clearly immaterial and impertinent. Moreover, it has been held that factors introducing invalid elements of damage are impertinent and prejudicial, Finkler v. KnQftlg, 9 Ches. Co. Rep. 242 (1960). - 3 - In Finkler, the plaintiff sued for damages relating to her prenatal carel however, she did not make a claim for the emotional distress caused after she discovered her child had birth defects (Downs syndrome child). Therefore, although the child's defects were ultimately related to the mother's negligence suit, the Court held that an allegation referring to the Downs syndrome child opened the door to the introduction of damages relating to the child, and thus any allegation referring to or describing the child's defects were "impertinent and prejudicial to the defendant". I!L. at 244. All allegations that Mr. Keister's passenger died as a result of the accident stricken Pa.R.C.P. to pursuant are properly No. 102B(a) (2). B. Reference to Mr. Keister I s summary violation is properly stricken from the Complaint pursuant to Pa,R.C.P. No. 102B(a) (2). According to Pa.R.C.P. No. 102B(a)(2), a pleading must conform to rule of law. The law governing the admission of summary convictions is clear. The supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled that "evidence of the conviction of a traffic violation or of small misdemeanors is not admissible in a civil suit for damages arising out of the same traffic violation or lesser misdemeanors." Louqhner v. Schmelzer, 21B A.2d 76B (pa. 1966). See~, Folino v, Young, 56B A.2d 171, 17J (pa. 1990). (Convictions for summary offenses by themselves, where the accused is not entitled to a jury trial, are inadmissible.) since the law clearly prohibits the - 4 - admission of a summary conviction, the allegation is paragraph 11 referring to the summary conviction must be stricken pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(2). C. Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages is properly stricken by reason of insufficient allegations that Dsfendant' s conduct was outrageous, vindictive, with a bad motive and with reckless indifference to the rights and safety of others. plaintiff has made a claim against Mr. Keister for punitive damages. This claim is based upon the following allegation contained in paragraph 21 of Plaintiff's Complaintl Defendant's reckless conduct did result in the death of his own passenger and serious injury to Larry Sampson. The standard for punitive damages is well settled. Plaintiff must allege that defendant committed such acts of "malice, vindictiveness and wanton disregard" to encompass that kind of conduct which is wholly reckless of another's rights." Golomb v. Korus, 396 A.2d 430 (1978) (citing Richette v. Pa. R.R., 410 Pat 6, at 187 A.2d 910 (1963)). Plaintiff has alleged only that Defendant's conduct was reckless. In Evans V. Phila., 212 A.2d 440, 443 (pa. 1965), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the complaint must clearly show that "the actor has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a risk known to him or so - 5 - LARRY W, SAMPSON, Plaintiff IN TilE COURT 0.- COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v, CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 3938 - 1994 ROBEnT WILLIAM KEISTER, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ROBERT WILLIAM KEISTER'S PRELIMINARY O~JECTIONS I. Counterstatement of the Casel As stated in the Complaint, this case arises from an automobile accident occurring when Defendant Keister, driving a high performance Camaro drove through a stop sign at the intersection of the Mt. Holly Pike and Route 174. Plaintiff and three neutral witnesses observed Keister approach the intersection at a speed well above the speed limit, Plaintiff and three neutral witnesses observed that Keister made no effort whatsoever to brake at the stop sign, but rather barreled through the intersection with his speed undiminished directly into plaintiff's lane of travel. The coll ision that resulted was of such force that both vehicles were totalled, Plaintiff's vehicle was forced off the road into a telephone pole and the passenger in Keister's car suffered multiple injuries causing her death. Defendant now comes before this Court to deny the reality of the accident. Keister's Counsel asks this Court to strike allegations concerning the death of his passenger as II impertinent." Keister further claims that running through a stop sign at a high rate of speed across a state highway into the path of a clearly ~3901/HHP visible, oncoming vehicle, without even attempting to brake or observe for oncoming traffic somehow fails to meet the standard necessary to plead punitive damages. Defendant is wrong on both counts. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's preliminary Objections should be denied. II. Counterstatement of the Issue: A. WHERE IN THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ALLEGES MATTERS WHICH MAY PROVE TO BE RELEVANT TO THE ACTION, AND WHOSE INCLUSION CREATES NO PREJUDICE WHATSOEVER TO DEFENDANTS, SHOULD THE COURT STRIKE THE ALLEGATIONS AS IMPERTINENT AND SCANDALOUS? Suggested Answer: No. B. IS DRIVING THROUGH A STOP SIGN AT A HIGH RATE OF SPEED INTO THE PATH OF CLEARLY VISIBLE VEHICLE WITHOUT STOPPING AT A STOP SIGN AT YOUR DIRECTION, NOR EVEN SLOWING DOWN TO OBSERVE ONCOMING TRAFFIC, CONDUCT OF AN UNREASONABLE CHARACTER IN DISREGARD OF A RISK KNOWN TO THE DRIVER OR SO OBVIOUS THAT HE MUST BE AWARE OF THE RISK THAT SUCH CONDUCT HAS A HIGH PROBABILITY OF CAUSING HARM TO OTHERS, THEREBY MEETING THE STANDARD FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES UNDER PENNSYLVANIA LAW? Suggested Answer: The standard has been met. I II. Argument I A. WHERE IN THE PLEADING STAGE PLAINTIFF ALLEGES MATTERS WHICH MAY PROVE TO BE RELEVANT TO THE ACTION, AND WHOSE INCLUSION CREATES NO PREJUDICE WHATSOEVER TO DEFENDANTS, THE COURT SHOULD NOT STRIKE THE ALLEGATIONS AS IMPERTINENT AND SCANDALOUS. Pleadings are intended to initiate a case, not end it. The question of "impertinence" is essentially one of relevance or materiality. As neither the Court nor the parties have a true grasp of the full relevancy of factual averments to the issues that will Ultimately be tried, at the pleading stage, Pennsylvania Courts have held: [T]he right of a court to strike impertinent matter should be sparingly exarcised and ~ when a party can affirmatively show prejudice, Commonwealth of Pennsvlvania. Deoartment of Environmental Rssources v. Hartford Accident Indemnity Co., 40 Pa, Cmw1th. 133, 396 A.2d 885, 888 (1979). (Emphasis added) Generally, even if the matter alleged is impertinent, if it is not injurious, it should be treated as surplusage rather than stricken. 2 Goodrich-Amram 2d 1017(b):16. Defendant seeks to exclude the allegation in the complaint alleging that Defendant's passenger was killed by the collision, At this stage of the litigation, no one can state with certainty whether the death of the passenger is or is not relevant, The broken bones and internal damage to the people in a car can be as probative of the angle and speed of impact as the bent sheet Inetal and frame damage to the car itself, Expert testimony may well find the death of the passenger relevant to issues of speed anu causation. Does this Court doubt that if Mr. Sampson's car had limited damage and his front seat passenger suffered no injury whatsoever, that Defendant would not consider those fact relevant to causation? Additionnl1y, Plaintiff has made punitive damages claim that Keister's conduct constituted reckless indifference to the high probability of causing serious harm to others. Surely, the fact that the accident itself actually did involve a death has some relevance to the issue of whether Keister was at the time of the accident acting in /I manner which could cause serious harm to others. Impertinence in a pleading is a factual averment which is so irrelevant to the action that whether admitted or denied, it still would have no influence on the result of the jUdicial inquiry. When the allegations are not who11v irrelevant in every particular, the allegation will not be stricken for impertinence, Rather, the objecting party bears the burden of proof in establishing the manner in which the allegation is impertinent and the actual prejudice arising therefrom. Lawn1ite Co, v. Coleman, 38 North. 19 (1966) . In the case at bar, Defendant has not borne its burden of showing that the alleged facts are wholly irrelevant nor their actual prejudice. Defendant also claims that the allegation of the passenger's death is somehow "scandalous." Defendant, of course, ignores the fact the allegation is not only true but has already been made a matter of public record in both proceedings in front of a District Justice and in the local newspapers. Plaintiff, therefore, is unable to grasp what "scandal" can arises from stating a truthful allegation in the Complaint about a matter Which has already appeared in the newspaper. Defendant also requests the Court to strike the allegation that Defendant had been criminally charged with failing to yield at a stop sign as "contrary to a rule of law." Defendant misconstrues the nature of this Preliminary objaction. An Objection to an averment as "contrary to a rule of law" app1 ies only where Plaintiff has alleged a fact which is outside of the claimed cause of action, e.g., pleading punitive damages under a statute which does not permit punitive awards, e,g, Berkebile v. Nationwide Ins. ~, 6 Pat D. & C. 3d 243 (C.P. Somer. 1977) I ~ Ala2, 2 Goodrich- Amram, 2d 1017(b)112. Here Defendant's objsction rests on a claim that Plaintiff has plead evidence which may (or may not) prove to be inadmissible at trial. While Defendant may prove to be right at trial, pennsylvania Courts have generally held that pleading evidence does not justify striking an averment but rather treats it as surplusage, Behrend v, Bell Te1eohone Co., 53 Pat D. & C. 2d 421 (C.P. Allegheny 1971). B, DRIVING THROUGH A STOP SIGN AT A HIGH RATE OF SPEED INTO THE PATH OF A CLEARLY VISIBLE CAR, WITHOUT STOPPING AT A STOP SIGN AT YOUR DIRECTION, OR EVEN SLOWING DOWN TO OBSERVE ONCOMING TRAFFIC, IS CONDUCT OF AN UNREASONABLE CHARACTER IN DISREGARD OF A RISK KNOWN TO THE DRIVER OR SO OBVIOUS THAT THE DRIVER MUST BE AWARE OF THE RISK THAT SUCH CONDUCT HAS A HIGH PROBABILITY OF CAUSING SERIOUS HARM TO OTHERS, THEREBY MEETING THE STANDARD FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES UNDER PENNSYLVANIA LAW, 'I'he Pennsylvania Courts have used a number of different verbal formulas in stating the standard for punitive damages. However, all formulas bear. the same essential elements in common. Whether labeled "wanton misconduct" or "reckless or malicious misconduct" punitive damages arise out of conduct in which the actor knows, or is indifferent to the fact his actions have a high probability of causing serious harm to others, yet proceeds with the conduct. Perhaps the best statement of the standard can be found in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Evans v. Phil. Trans, co., 418 Pat 567, 221 A.2d 440 (1965) which held: "Wanton misconduot means that the aotor has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable charaoter, in disregard of a risk known to him or so obvious that he must be taken to have been aware of it, and so great as to make it hioh1v Drobab1e that harm would follow. (Emphasis Added). Further, Pennsylvania Courts have adopted ~500 of the Restatement of Torts (Second) which provides: The actor's conduct is in reckless disregard of the safety of another if he does an act intentionally .0' knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable man to realize, not only that his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another, but also such risk is SUbstantially greater than that which is necessary to make is conduct negligent. Quoted affirmatively in Stubbs v, Frazer, 308 Pat Super. 257, 454 A.2d 119, 120 (1982). In an intersection accident, ordinary negligence would include the run of the mill accidents where a driver stops at the stop sign, but does not see oncoming traffic or slows down but does not bring his car to a complete stop. It might well include a driver, who approaches the intersection with a degree of caution, but somehow does not see the stop sign. The facts at bar go well beyond these typical negligence scenarios. According to three neutral witnesses, Defendant Robert Keister raced through the intersection without any effort whatsoever to slow down. /Ie did not simply miss the stop sign but ran through it while travelling well in excess of the speed limit. The accident was after dark (9:30 p.m.) making Mr. Sampson's headlights visible, Mt, /lolly Pike is a heavily traveled highway. . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 30th day of September, 1994, I, Michelle M. prucna1, an employee of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF I~ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ROBERT WILLIAM KEISTER'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS in the United States mail, postage prepaid at Harrisburq, Pennsylvania, addressed as fol10WSl Stephen L. Banko, Jr., Esquire FOULKROD, REYNOLDS & HAVAS 101 pine Street Harrisburg, PA 17108-0932 Attorney for Defendant li 65 E ~~~i N -0-" ,... ....:a:t')> ~t-~"'" N IO.t; .:.1': -'. 11"'_11.'_ I w- "" ; "''''Ie '..r:x .I ~8 ~ ~ ! ij olI ,~ ~ ~ q I!! ~ !I I-~ E . . . 5. Nowhere in Plaintiffls complaint is there an allegation that Dsfendant's conduot was outrageous, ma1ioious or vindictive. 6. Acoordingly, Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages as set forth in Count II of his complaint is properly strioken pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a) (2) for failure to comply with rule of law. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Robert william Keister, prays this Honorable Court enter an Order striking Count II of Plaintiff's complaint for failure to comply with rule of law pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a) (2). B. Motion to strike Pa.R.C.P. No, 1028(al(21 7. The averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 6 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 8. In paragraphs 10 and 23 of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's passenger died as a result of injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident. such allegations have no bearing on or relevance in the instant action and therefore, should be stricken as "scandalous or impertinent", pursuant to Pa.R,C.P. No, 1028(a) (2). 9. similarly, in paragraph 11 of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that: - 2 - Defendant Reister was oharged with failure to yield at a stop sign. plaintiff Larry Sampson received no oitation arising from the accidsnt. Again, such averments constitute "scandalous or impertinent" matter and should be stricken pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a) (2). WHEREFORE, Defendant, Robert William Keister, prays this Honorable Court enter an Order striking the second sentence of paragraph 10, paragraph II and paragraph 23 of Plaintiff's Complaint as "scandalous or impertinent" pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028 (a) (2) . FOULKROD, REYNOLDS , HAVAS A Professional corporation . Banko, Jr. 1.0. 841727 101 Pine Street HarriSburg, PA 17108-0932 (717) 236-3200 D,t., \*'I~i By, Counsel for Defendant, Robert William Reister .. 3 .. '; .,""""'.',,., Exhibit A " (.) . " . .. LARRY W, SAMPSONl PlaintlU I Ilf '!'HB COURT OF COMMON PLEAS I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I I cnn ACTION - LAW ...1 : NO'14-J93! ~~,J~' I JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTIC'i YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. It you wish to de tend against v. ROBERT WILLIAM REISTER, Datanciant the olaims set forth in ths following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days attar this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and tilinq in writing with the Court YOIll" defonses or objections to tho claims Bot forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do 80 the clIse llIay proceed without you and a judqment may bo entered aqainst you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed 1n the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You llIay 1080 money or property or other right. important to you, YOU SHOULD TARE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFOllD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Court ~dlllinistr8tor;'-4th- Fl. CUllIberland County Courthouse Ono Courthoulle Square carlisle, PA 17013 240-6200 , .. 4m7!*' TRUEOOPV FROM RECO'AD In Testtmonywh8reol I here unlO set m~ hJlld and the I of Id !t Carlisle, I~ T 'd 19.!ilk- - tr "" -- , (: ., , ,"": .. - ; -- ", -~ '-~ " .., L..' ,~ , -. -. " tr~ - c:x51' 6 II' . .1 t HOTICIA Le han d_mandado a usted en la corte, 8i u.tecS qulere dGfenderso de estaB de~andal expu..ta8 en la. paglna. .iqulent.., usted tien. vi.nte (30) dia8 de plalo al partir de la fecha da la demanda y la notiticacion, Ustad debe pre8entar una aparlencla .scrita 0 on persona 0 pOl' abogado Y archlvar en la aorta .n forma ..crite sUI defenlae 0 sue objectione8 a 1~8 ~empnda. en contra de IU persona. Sea avlsado que .1 usted no ._ detlende, 1. aorte tomara medidas y puedo antral' una orden contra usted .1n prevlo avlso 0 notlficacion Y pOl' cualquier queja 0 al1vio que 'II: pedido en la peticion de doanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus propledades 0 otros derechos importantoa para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABO[IAGO INMEDIATAMENTA. 91 NO TlENE ABOOAGO 0 SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUr:rCIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR 'I'E~FONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DlRECCION 6E ENCUEN'l'RA EBeRI'!'A AB"-lO PARA AV}:RIGUAR DONOE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. court Administrator, 4th Fl. cumberland County Courthouse One Courth~use Square carli.le, fA 17~13 240-fi200 2 , " " 1111\.' , " . v. I III THE COURT OF CoMMON PLEAS I ct1MBERl..AND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I I CXVIL ACTION - LAW I NO. LANRY w. SAMPSONl Plaint U ROBERT WILLIAM KEISTER, Defendant . . I JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAfN~C 1. Plaintiff Larry w. Samplon il an adult relid!n; in "to Holly springl, CUmberland County, Pennlylvania. 2. Dofendant WilUam Rebter is an adult residinq in Lewisberry, York County, Pennsylvania. 3. The accident giving r11e to this lawsuit occurred on April 4, 1993, at approximately 9130 p.m. at the juncture of Old York Road and Route 34 in South Middleton Townsh1p, cumborland County, ponnaylvania. 4. At that time anll place, Larry Samplon WBS driving in a south on Route 34 toward I Nt. Holly. 5. Route 34 was the through Routo at that interleotion having no traffio control. Route 34 has a 65 m1le an hour spoed limit in the diroct1on and location where Larry sampson was travelling. 6. At the time of the aeeidEtnt, WilHam E. Reister was driving a 1984 Chevrolet camaro 1n a westerly direction on Old Y~rk Road. Old York Road is controlled by a Ate)) sign 1n the direction Defendant Keister was travellinq. 7. Aooordinq to the toet1lllc,ny of three neutral witnesses and Plaintiff, Defendant Jl:ehter approllched Old York Road and Route 34 at a very high spe.d and hUed in any way to yield right-ot-way to oncolllinq traffio. II" '-' . ,'.. 8. Defendant Roister's vehicle appeared in plaintiff's lane creating a Budden emergency. 9. Unable to avoid the oncoming Keister vehicle, Mr. Sampson did oollide with the vehiole in bis own lane of traffic with suffioient force to drive both vehioles across the highway into a utility pole. 10. Both vehioles were totaUed in the accident. Melody Smyser, a passenger in Defendant Keister's vehicle, was killed in the accident. 11. Defendant Reister was charllled with failure to yield at a stop eign. Plaintiff Larry sampson received no oitation arising from the accident. 12. No obstruction oxisted be,tween the roadway on Old York Road and the stop sign at the interseotion of Route 34, 13. As a direct result of tho accident, Larry SalIlp80n was flown by life lion helicopter to Hershey Medical Center's trauma unit where be was diagnosed with a lose of conllciousness and amnosia, pain in bis left shoulder, back pain, a large laceration over bie left temporal area and a disp1acod comminuted frilcture of bis left radius. 14. On the day after'tullllisBil)n, Larry was tak~n t~ surgery for an open reduction of the left radius fracture including the insertion of a six holo compression plato anl1 Bcrews. 15. As a direot nsu1t of his injuries, Larry Sampson bas incurred medical expenses in eXCelJ8 of any first-party coverage or otber insurance payments of over $12,000, 4 "-, 1 ,., "'1.'11 Illi '. 11_' lilt . 16, A. a direct re.ult cf the accident and injuri.. therein, Larry sa~pson .uffered uncompensat.d wage 10.... in exc... of $7,000. 17. Larry Sampson'a injuries are or may be pe~.n8nt. He hi', therefore, .uffered a permanent diminution of his earning capacity. 18. Aa a direct result of the. high impact acoident and injudes he sustained therein, Mr. sampson has in the past and will in the future, undergo lignificant pain, suffering an an~1.ty. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE LARRY If. SAMPSON V. ROBERT WILLIAM KEISTER 19, Paragraphs 1 through 17 are incorporated herein by reference. :10. Robert Rel8te!:' is liable to Plaintiff for the injuries alleged herein which were the result of Defendant'. negligence in. (a) fai1inq to yield at a stop s1gnl (b) failing to stop at a stop signl (c) failing to exorcise caution when approaohing the intersection, (d) tailing to observe clncoming traffic pdor to leavinq an intorsection controlled by a atop slgnl _, , (e) failing to keep his vehiole under suftioient control as to be able to stop, (l) colliding with the onooming Sampson vehicle: (9) driving too taat for the circumstances, (h) drivinq at speeds in eKe... of the ep.ed limit, 5 ,., lIlt. 11.1 (1) tailing to exercise duo care vhen he approached the inter..cHon and as he enterel! the inter88otion troll a secondary route. (j) driving hle vehicle into plaintiff'S lane of traffic when it was unsafe to do .0' (k) operating biB vehlcle in IUch a way a. to cause the accident, WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judqment against Defendant in an IlIIIOWlt in exceos of TWenty 'l'hoURafld ($20,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and oosts, and in eXCI,SS of any juriclHetional 1UD0W\t requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT II - PUlII'I'IVE DAMAGES 21. If the neutral witnesstl. are to be believed, Defendant Keieter approached Route 174 at a very high rate of sp.ed and lIade no effort to stop at the stop sign. 22. Driving a vehlcle on a stlcondary road, ignoring a stop sign then driving directly across a heavily travelled through highway without lIakinq any attempt to obsllrve for oncoming traffic or avoid same, constitutes 18CkleEiB disregard tor the likelihood ot cauBing .. '. .erious bodily harm to persons on the highway. 23. Detondant' e rockless conduct did result in the death of his own passonger and serious injury to lrarry Sampson. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays Defendant be hold liable for such " II ., j '.' ,,'.,1111','. '1,1. I ,~, . . exemplary dlllllllQ.. all the jury deamll appropriate. ANOINO , ROVNER/ P.c. r. -, '~H 't' """-.'.i. " 7 . .' , Vl!:RIPII::.\TlON I, LARRY SAMPSON, do hereby .wear and affirm that the tact. .et forth in the foregoing docUllent are true and correot to the be.t of my knowledge, information and belief. I und8r8tan~ that this vorification i& made sUbject to the penalties ot 18 Pa.C.B. I 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. WITNESS I (J7tllt16.1Y1~'~ Datedl ..,11Ij~ ~,~~ .,. ..,- I, !" CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served a true and oorreot copy of the foregoing document on all counsel of record by plaoinq the same in the united states Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the ~(~ day of August, 1994, addressed as follows I Terry S. Hyman, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C, 4503 North Front street HarriSburg, Pennsylvania 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiff) FOULKROD, REYNOLDS & HAVAS A Professional corporation BYI .. I'RAECII'E rOlt LISTING C,\SE FOlt "HGU~IENT (Musllle lypcwrlllclIlIllu SUllllllllCU ill uupllcate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY/OF CUMUERLANLJ COUNTY: Please 1I1l1he wlllun mailer for the nexl: o l're.Trllll Ngument Courl ill Argumenl Court ---------------------------------------------------------------------- CAPTION OF CASE (enUre caplion mUll be Ilaled In full) LARRY W. SAMPSON, (PlainUfI) VI. ROBERT WILLIAM KEISTER (Defendant) VI. No. 3938 Civil 19.94- I. Slale mailer 10 be alBucu (I, e,. plalnUfl'lmoUon for new 11111I. defendanl" demuIICllo complaint, ele,): Preliminary Objections of Defendant William Keister to Plaintiff's Complaint 2. luenllfy eoullIel who wUl argue cale; (a) fOI rli1lnlllf: Terry S. l1yman, Esq., 4503 N. Front St.. I1bg., PA 17110 (b) fOI ueiendanl: Stephen L. Banko I Jr., 101 PI ne Street I I1bg, , PA 17108 3. I wlll noUfy 11I1 parUclllI wlIUng wllhln IWU uaYllhallhls calC has becn IhltU fOI argument,_ 7 / /~ ~y i /Plalnt1ff cc: Stephen L. Banko, Jr,. Esquire Daled: 9/6/94 " _l .';!~ SEP 6 2 36 PH '9~ , , ., [, 01 fief or 1111. f "(\IHOHOfA~~ CQIlb{ H AI. 0 OO';/l1Y I'EI.~S!I.\lA~14 I 1 , ,. - -,~~.', ',,'.. .''''-.,..., ,. ,-,.. , . , ..";... '! < -- ~., 1":,, \< '._ ~;f' .'i -,'\.. . -. ~ . M... C rl . C -\ ,. ~ " ~, p I I... u cr -\.,.,m....~l r .::l_-_':: ~r I .... ., .\~'l"''''''' I ... '~''''I n . ,e 0 _t.I aU ,-" _ _ '-~\. ..... ..... -, 1-" "wI"''-, II I I ' a:1r:sy '/c:ni::: Larry W. Sampson 'IS. Robert William Keister ~Ol 94-3938 Civil :~..__. ---. :-;ow, July 15, '9 94 T 5'--":1--- 0- ,.....,..,,'::'?T · '"" CO.""...v :;)-' ~ .. --..t .-:..:...~~ ~ .....,...L.:;)__^"'U .....1..' ....... \,00 h=by cic;:ue:: rh: Sh='.:i' oi C"u:.ty :0 c.-:::"Jt:: t:i.s ',V:i:, Vnrk ~ ci.."7uc:cn !:ebr -!to:. ~t ~ ::qucn =d :-=.!Ic of :.!:: ?!3l::H. . ~' ../.... {'..;' v.../. . :l'''>,f..1;.,','J:'':<' ~ Shen:f at C=!:erW:d C ~Wll", i':Io Affida.vit or SemI::! ~OWt July 20 t9 94 .. 1:45 o'dea ,P ~r. 1::-.-d , -. , 'I..' C'OIlplaint :e ~c:n 'Jpoa Robert t.. Keister 1t 719 Pleasant View Rd"Lewisberry, PA by !::u:~ :0 Robert Keister ~ True and Attested C-:OT oi , :2r.~"'." C'oflillaint .. == Robert L. ((eister " :md -~~. bowu :0 :h= :::1t:::s :.L:::::i. So ;UUW~, /jl!(~(/).//))<~/A . She'S 0' York COIlACT. i':I. SWCl':1 :me! rJb..-!i:d bdore ::= ~ ~ C.".y of July 1~2.L . ',//, , /,(, I~/J). COSTS SUv'1CZ ~a:u.-\GZ A::iDA....-rr oS ---.....---.---. 5 f_ "__ Nolarlsl Sesl Mell... J, OIOSS. Nol~ry PUblic YOlk, York County My Commlulon E.piro! AP11l20, 100e - ---~- - - LARRY W. SAMPSON, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON P CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 0{ '- :/(.j e ;1 L-L-t 1 ,) /, (J (u.. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) 1.L11\..... ROBERT WILLIAM KEISTER, Defendant NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or Objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may procsed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Court Administrator, 4th Fl. Cumberland county courthouse One courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 240-6200 4n87/HMP NOTICIA Le han demand ado a usted en la corte. Bi usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en laB paginas siquientes, usted tiene viente (30) dias de p1azo al partir de 1a fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita 0 en perBona 0 por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita BUS defensaB 0 SUB objectiones a laB demandas en contra de BU perBona. Sea aviBado que Bi usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra uBted Bin previo aviBo 0 notificacion y por cua1quier queja 0 a1ivio que eB pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 BUS propiedadeB 0 otroB derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO INMEDIATAMENTA. BI NO TIENE ABODAGO 0 BI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION BE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONBEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Court AdminiBtrator, 4th Fl. Cumberland County CourthouBe One CourthouBe Square Carlisle, PA 17013 240-6200 2 v. I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I I CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED LARRY W. SAMPSON, Plaintiff ROBERT WILLIAM KEISTER, Defendant COMPLAINT I. Plaintiff Larry W, Sampson is an adult residing in Mt. Holly springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant William Keister is an adult residing in Lewisberry, York County, Pennsylvania. 3. The accident giving rise to this lawsuit occurred on April 4, 1993, at approximately 9130 p.m. at the juncture of Old York Road and Route 34 in South Middleton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. At that time and place, Larry Sampson was driving in a south on Route 34 towards Mt, Holly. 5. Route 34 was the through Route at that intersection having no traffic control. Route 34 has a 55 mile an hour speed limit in the direction and location where Larry Sampson was travelling. 6. At the time of the accident, william E. Keister was driving a 1984 Chevrolet Camaro in a westerly direction on Old York Road. Old York Road is controlled by a stop sign in the direction Defendant Keister was travelling, 7. According to the testimony of three neutral witnesses and Plaintiff, Defendnnt Keister approached Old York Road and Route 34 at a very high speed and failed in any way to yield right-of-way to oncoming traffic, 8. Defendant Keister's vehiole appeared in Plaintiff's lane creating a sudden emergency. 9. Unable to avoid the oncoming Keister vehio1e, Mr. Sampson did collide with the vehiole in his own lane of traffio with sufficient force to drive both vehicles acrose the highway into a utility pole. 10. Both vehicles were totalled in the accident. Melody Smyser, a passenger in Defendant Keister's vehiole, was killed in the accident. 11. Defendant Keister was charged with failure to yield at a stop sign. Plaintiff Larry Sampson received no citation arising from the accident. 12. No obstruction existed between the roadway on Old York Road and the stop sign at the intersection of Route 34. 13. As a direct result of the accident, Larry Sampson was flown by life lion helicopter to Hershey Medical Center's trauma unit where he was diagnosed with a loss of consciousness and amnesia, pain in his left shoulder, back pain, a large laceration over his left temporal area and a displaced comminuted fracture of his left radius. 14. On the day after admission, Larry was taken to surgery for an open reduction of the left radius fracture including the insertion of a six hole compression plate and screws. 15. As a direot result of his inj uries / Larry Sampson has incurred medical expenses in excess of any first-party ooverage or other insurance payments of over $12/000, 4 16. As a direct result ot the accident and injuries therein, Larry Sampson sutfered uncompensated wage losses in excess of $7,000. 17. Larry Sampson's injuries are or may be permanent. He has, therefore, suffered a permanent diminution of his earning cap~city. lB. As a direct result of the high impact accident and injuries he sustained therein, Mr. Sampson has in the past and will in the future, undergo significant pain, SUffering an anxiety. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE LARRY W. SAMPSON V. ROBERT WILLIAM KEISTER reference. 19. Paragraphs I through 17 are incorporated herein by 20. Robert Keister is liable to Plaintiff for the injuries alleged herein which were the result of Defendant's negligence in: (a) failing to yield at a stop sign, (b) failing to stop at a stop sign, (c) failing to exercise caution when approaching the intersection, (d) failing to observe oncoming traffic prior to leaving an intersection controlled by a stop sign, (e) failing to keep his vehicle under sufficient control as to be able to stop; (f) colliding with the oncoming Sampson vehiclel (g) driving too fast for the circumstances, (h) driving at speeds in excess of the speed limit; 5 (i) failing to exeroise due care when he approaohed the intersection and as he entered the intersection from a secondary route. (j) driving his vehicle into plaintiff's lane of traffic when it was unsafe to do SOl (k) operating his vehicle in such a way as to cause the accident; WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant in an amount in excess of Twenty Thousand ($20,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT II - PUNITIVE DAMAGES 21. If the neutral witnesses are to be believed, Defendant Keister approached Route 174 at a very high rate of speed and made no effort to stop at the stop sign. 22. Driving a vehicle on a secondary road, ignoring a stop sign then driving directly across a heavily travelled through highway without making any attempt to observe for oncoming traffic or avoid same, constitutes reckless disregard for the likelihood of causing serious bodily harm to persons on the highway. 23, Defendant's reckless conduct did result in the death of his own passenger and serious injury to Larry Sampson. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays Defendant be held liable for such 6 VERIFICATION I, LARRY SAMPSON, do hereby swear and affirm that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that this verification i6 made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. t 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. WITNESS: }17tdl1 [1m. ldu u\t{ -1//I/'1 t...,.~jty. ~~ , '{, PSON Dated: 'rc,.."_,,,,"""""f-""''''''.l_''n''''_O''!.Jt,,,,,,,._-.'''_-'-''''''''h.<.c~--,'. (f\ JUL III 2 Q'/ rH '9~ rlni \j.,.~ i! HiW,H.I\Y I;P<;'t' r,' V :,'il~ Ith'i'H.,;;.L\ d at;) 4gY. --r; 61) a~, 8S0' ~ I J(O 7 (j) J. i 83 ""'",~'-;i-"&!o,,'~,",-""""""-'-" w,-._'--'lt- J' ,0. .,._-'".... >',."".....,......'....,." ~". -,,0''''' , .~~"..7.T'_W_:~~.!"7"'-rT:~.. . F'f" \ . r i I: , . , . ,,10,' i "".~' -I" " PRAECIPE FOR L1STI:-'c'; USE FOH TRIAL (~IUSI be l~pewril1en Jlld lulJmil1etl ill dupllcJIC) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CDIBERL\.'iD COL'~TY Plem 1111 the lollow,"~ em, I Check ')lIel ( X) (or JU\y tri31 31 the next ~W:l Ji :t.u ~ourl. ( ) (or Inal whhoUI 3 jUry, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- CAPTION OF CASE (enUIl c3pllon mull be SIIud In full) (check one) ( Allum,11I ( Trespm LARRY W. SAMPSON ( X) Trnpul (~Iolor \'ehlc!e) ( ) (olher) (PlaU1UfI) '{S. The trial list will be called on Dec. 27. 1994 ~~xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Tria Is commence on Jan. 23, 1995 ROBERT WILLIAM KEISTER (Otrendanl) Pretrials will be held on Jan. 4, 1995. (Briefs are due 5 days before pre- trials. ) (The party listing this case for trial shall provide forthwith a copy of the praecipe to all counsel, pursuant to local Rule 214-1.) . , YI, ~o, 3938 ClvU 19 ..2L Indlme Ihe 3110rn')' who 11"111 It)' :311 ior Ihe ?3rt, ..ho 11Ies :hll ?mtlpe: Terry S. Hyman, ESQu1re, 4503 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110 lndlme trial tounltl for olher partill Ii knOWII: Stephen L. Banko, Jr, , 101 Pine Street, Harr1 sburg, PA 17108-0932 this em II rndy for lri:U, Om: 10/31/94 Att~rn.:~ r~r: ee: Stephen L, IInnko, Esquire Nor 2 2 12 PH '9~ lilt G OfrtcE Of THl r;,OT"ONn4~Y OUHUfAL4ND COllNTY PENNSYLVANIA ,I .' -1 "--'i:;"i~'J.l'-~W+.J$"\\;,,it~#'~"'- ;"",;'._,~""'~.""''''.;''''''~,.,-.,~ """ , f . . I . , . . , - . , ...--- j-l JtH 5 8 5l flM '95 " ..,' -'-Il\ ,k"!"M\'l .. .n ':l H ~ ,,,"f:! t t ,;', I'HAECll'E FOR LlSTI:-'I,j (:.\51: FUR THI.\L \~IUSI be typewritten Jlld lubmlmd 111 duplicate) TO THE PROTHo.";OTARY OF CUIUERU....D COl:-' ry Pin.. Iill \h. 10llo"lnj ;m I Ch.ck ')1,11 ( X) for JI. RY 1::11 It I~,' !\tx\ '''~l J( ::d ~outl. (or 1":11 without I ;ury ---------------------------------------------------------------------- C,iJ>T10N OF CASE (.nllre capItan mUll bl mud In fulll r~hlck ani) \ AlIUnlpl1l ( Ttllplll ( X) TruplIl (~lotor V.hlcll) LARRY W. SAMPSON (other) (PlatnUfI) II, The trial list will be called on ~u~ ROBERT WILLIAM KEISTER (D.f.ndant) Trials commence on March 20, 1995 Pre tria ls wi II be he ld onMarc:h 1, 1995. (Briefs are due 5 days before pre- tri41s. ) (The party listing this case for trial shall provide forthwith a copy of the praecipe to all counsel, pursuant to Local Rule 214-1.) . VI, ~o, 3936 (in! 19 ..!lL Indl.m thl WorMY who ...,11 :t)' m. f;r thl ?ltly 'ho ::1" :hll ,!mipe: Terry S, lJyman , Esq.. 4503 N. Front St. , Ilbg. , PA 17110 Indlclt. trial counl.1 for other pm:.. ii known: Stephen L. Banko, Jr. , 101 Pi ne Street , Ilbg., PA 171OB-0932 Thll mill rndy for 10:11, ----~ ,/ ./ ../ ./ SIIr.ed A j ) Pont ~ ;;';---;errv 5, ~yman Dm: 1-17-95 Allain" lor Pl a I nt i ff it E"'J'"", JAM 10 3 ~5 I)H '95 :iflln Of ~, '1I1(H( lAfoY COP'H ;,~ ,\1iO C:lJI11V f l'i!j"'..Atil/, ., f" . . , ~. .>:'.... ,L,.";v,.._ .. ." - '.... ~. ,~".."._' .-,.',..;-"..~-"-k' ~'""":,, c.,..,;..;",.,~~..,,'"~,.,_ ':''-~'' .., . , , . , " " ----- ',t '1' I m \.000 ~ R ~ I ~ I ~jlJ~1 ~ 9 If ~ \ . \ CONKONWBALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF CONKON PLEAs OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY LARRY W. SAMPSON, Plaintiff I No. 3938 civil 1994 I I I CIVIL ACTION - LAW I I I JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. ROBERT WILLIAM KEISTER, Defendant NOTICE TO pr,F.AD TOI Larry W. Sampson, Plaintiff 0/0 Terry S. Hyman, Esquire, oounsel for Plaintiff Anqino , Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to plead to the enolosed ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, ROBERT WILLIAM KEISTER, within twenty (20) days from servioe hereof, or a default judCJlllent may be entered aqainst you. Respectfully submitted, REYNOLDS' HAVAS A Professional Corporation Datel 2-/1 \/)1!::.- BYl L. Banko, Jr. ey I.D. '41727 101 pine Street Harrisburq, PA 17108-0932 (717) 236-3200 Counsel for Defendant, Robert William Keister COMMONWEALTH or PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY LARRY W. SAMPSON, I No. 3938 civil 1994 Plaintiff I I v. I CIVIL ACTION - LAW I ROBERT WILLIAM KEISTER, . . Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MA'I"l'ER OF DEFENDANT, ROBERT WILLIAM KEISTER, TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1. Denied. After reasonable investiqation Defendant, Robert william Keister ("Defendant"), is without know1edqe or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paraqraph and, therefore, they are denied. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Denied. Defendant is unable to admit or deny the oharaoterization that eyewitnesses to the acoident are "neutral". After reasonable investiqation Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments and, therefore, they are denied. By way of further answer, with respect to what such eyewitnesses would say at the time of tri~l, after reasonable investigation Defendant is without knowledge or information suffioient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments and, therefore, they are denied. B. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. By way of further answer, with respect to any allegation or implication that there was a "sudden emergency" or that Plaintiff was unable to avoid the collision by taking reasonable steps, after reasonable investigation Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments and, therefore, they are denied. 9. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 8 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. By way of further answer, with respect to what happened after initial impact between the vehicles, Defendant is without knowledge or information eufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments and, therefore, they are denied. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted in part and denied in part. With respect to whether or not Plaintiff received a oitation, after reasonable investigation Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averment and, therefore, it is denied. 12. Admitted. 13. Admitted in part and denied in part. with respect to the injuries sustained by Plaintiff, if any, after reasonable - 2 - investigation Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments and, therefore, they are denied. 14. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 13 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. 15. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 13 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. 16. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 13 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. 17. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 13 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. 18. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 13 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if eet forth in its entirety. Count I -- Negligence 19. The answers contained in paragraphs 1 through 18 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. - 3 - 20(a) - (k). Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Robert William Reister, demands jUdgment in his favor and against Plaintiff. Count II -- Punitive Damages 21. Denied. The answer contained in paragraph 7 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. 22. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. 23. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, they are denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Robert William Reister, demands judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff. NEW MATTER 24. The answers contained in paragraphs 1 through 23 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 25. Plaintiff was contributorily negligent and such negligence consisted, inter AliA, of failing to avoid the collision - 4 - with Defendant's motor vehicle when he was or should have been able to avoid such accident. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Robert William Keister, demands judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff. REYNOLDS' HAVAS A Professional corporation -- Date I '- \ \~\(1') BYI n L. Banko, Jr. ey l.D. '41727 101 pine street Harrisburg, PA 17108-0932 (717) 236-3200 Counsel for Defendant, Robert william Keister - II - . VERIFICATION I, Robert W. Keister, depose and say, subj ect to the penalties of 18 Pa.c.S.A., Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, that the facts Bet forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. .J 0 IJ 7 /'J~/ , te !.!Ia.,ti ,It %.:zq Robe W. Keister v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 3938 CIVIL 1994 LARRY W. SAMPSON, Plaintiff ROBERT WILLIAM KEISTER, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER 25. This paragraph statss a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. 26. Denied that Plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Plaintiff did not have sufficient time to avoid said collision. ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Ter . Hyman, Esqu re I . 36807 4 . Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 Counsel for Plaintiff 62615/1414P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA I I SS. COUNTY OF DAUPHIN I I, TERRY S. HYMAN, ESQUIRE, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and states that I am counsel for Plaintiffs, that I am authorized to make this Affidavit on behalf of said Plaintiff, and that the facts set forth in the foregoing Plaintiff's Response to New Matter, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. an, Esqu re Sworn to and subscribed borore me this f)./~ day of ~, 1995. Jku G. S1t(U:f?-S/...~ Notary PUbt!llC My commission Expiresl 4480/HHP .. , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ).IS~ay of February, 1994, I, Michelle M. prucnal, an employee of Angina & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER in the United States mail, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Stephen L. Banko, Jr., Esquire FOULKROD, REYNOLDS & HAVAS 101 Pine Street HarriSburg, PA 17108-0932 Attorney for Defendant ., .t: ~~If1u~ M chelle M. Prucnal - ,.,-:J,tr~}~{~ ",,- .", Fe. ZZ 1130 lM'9S OF T~N~~~~~'36mY CUMel!(I~AlltJ MUHTV PEHHSYlVAIIll "' . Y" I . . ," J , - . .., : .,"/:::'... 1 il;. ; , ~" ..' ..... . .. j/ ,. , - ------. " ....~ '.. v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 3938 CIVIL 1994 LARIIY W. SAMPSON, Plaintiff 1I0DERT WILLIAM KEISTER, Defendant I JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR DISCONTINUANCE TO TilE PROTHONOTARY I Please mark the docket settled, satisfied and discontinued in the above-captioned action. ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. T . Hyman, Esqu re .0. N . 36807 503 N. Front street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 Counsel for Plaintiff DATEl CCl stephen L. Banko, Jr., Esquire HAl 19 211m '95 ,1 i \( I <'~i'\ n., ~ I \ Y \ I " . t' " . . . . ( -"-