HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-04752
il
..
'"
"
I'
, ,
\
"
b
~
"d5
,
,
".,
, I
,
,.
i'j
,
I'll'
'.
-J
"
~
t
I),
"
,I
,
,
~,
I
1,[
, ,
,
.-
,,,......
, ,
~ ,
,
J "
,
"
~
~ i
I
,
I
-:::t-
I
,:
.'
MARY WAGNBR, and TYRONE
WAGNBR, her husband,
Plaintifh,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLBAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA
vs.
No.
LBON H. STOHLER, and
CUMBBRLAND VALLEY MOTORS,
INC. ,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DBMANDED
COHPLAIIIT
NOW COME Plaintiffs, Mary Wagner and Tyrone Wagner, her
husband, by and through their attorneys, IRA H. WEINSTOCK, P.C.,
and files the following Complaint against Defendants, Leon H.
Stohler and Cumberland Valley Motors, Inc., averring as follows:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiffs, Mary Wagner and Tyrone Wagner, her
husband, are adult individualB currently residing at 4475 Kile
Drive, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17025.
2. Defendant, Leon H. Stohler, is an adult individual
currently residing at 7 West Springville Road, Boiling Springs,
Cumberland County, PennBylvania, l7007.
3. Defendant, Cumberland Valley Motors, Inc., is a
corporation duly authorized and existing under the laws of the
Commonwealth of penneylvania, said corporation having its princi-
pal place of businese at 6720 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, l7055.
VlIIU.
4. Venue i. proper in thil judicial diltriot purluant
to Rule NOI. 1006 and 2179 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil
Procedure.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
5. On September 10, 1993, at approximately 4:35 p.m.,
Plaintiff, Mary Wagner, was operating a motor vehicle in a
westbound direction SR 11, near its intersection with Silver
Spring Road, Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County, Pennsyl-
vania.
6. On that same date and time, Defendant, Leon H.
Stohler, was operating a motor vehicle in a westbound direction
SR 11, near its intersection with Silver Spring Road, Silver
Spring Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
7. As Plaintiff, Mary Wagner, was stopped at a
traffic signal just prior to the aforementioned intersection, she
was suddenly and unexpectedly Btruck in the rear by the motor
vehicle operated by Defendant, Leon Stohler.
COUNT I
NEGLIGENCE
{Plaintiff. Marv Waaner v. Defendantsl
8. The allegations set forth in each and every
preceding paragraph is incorporated herein by reference.
- 2 -
9. At the time of the aforementioned collision,
Defendant, Leon H. stohler, was an employee, agent and servant of
D~fendant, Cumberland Valley Motors, Inc.
10. At the time of the aforementioned collision,
Defendant, Leon H. Stohler, was acting for the benefit of and
within the scope and course of his employment with Defendant,
Cumberland Valley Motors, Inc.
11. The aforementioned collision occurred solely as
the result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of
Defendant, Leon H. Stohler, and was due in no manner whatsoever
to any act or failure to act on the part of Plaintiff, Mary
Wagner.
12. The aforementioned negligence, recklessness and
carelessness of Defendant, Leon H. Stohler, consisted of the
following:
(a) Operating a motor vehicle in willful and wanton
disregard for the safety of persons and property of others in
violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. Section 3736(a);
(b) Operating a motor vehicle in a reckless manner in
violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. Section 3736(a);
(c) Operating a motor vehicle without regard to
traffic control signals in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. S 3ll1(a);
(d) Operating a motor vehicle at an unsafe speed in
violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. S 3361;
- 3 -
(e) Following another vehicle more closely than ia
reaaonable and prudent in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. S 3310, and
(f) Failing to operate a motor vehicle in auch a
manner as to avoid cauaing a collision.
14. As a direct and proximate result of the aforemen-
tioned collision, Platntiff, Mary Wagner, has suffered the
following injuries, some or all of which may be permanent:
(a) Severe cervical, dorsal and lumbar sprain,
(b) Severe cervical, dorsal and lumbar pain,
(c) Radiating right arm and buttocks pain, and tender-
ness around the mid dorsal region I and
(d) Miscellaneous aches and bruises.
15. As a direct and proximate result of the aforemen-
tioned collision, Plaintiff, Mary Wagner, has required medical
treatment and has incurred expenBes in connection therewith for
medicines, medical care, hospitalization and other medical
services for which a claim is hereby made.
16. As a direct and proximate result of the aforemen-
tioned collision, Plaintiff, Mary Wagner, has suffered in the
past and may in the future continue to suffer excruciating and
agonizing aches, pains, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrass-
ment, disfigurement and deformities for which a claim is hereby
made.
17. As a direct and proximate result of the aforemen-
tioned collision, Plaintiff, Mary Wagner, has in the past been
- 4 -
and may in the future be dilabled from performing her u.ual
dutie., occupations, and avocationl with a conlequent 10.. of
.arning., earning power and earning potential for which a claim
ie hereby made.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Mary Wagner, demands damage. of
Defendants, Leon H. Stohler and Cumberland Valley Motors, Inc.,
in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00),
plu. cost. of suit, interest and delay damages.
COUNT II
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
(Plainti~f. Tvrone Waqner v. Defendants I
18. The allegations set forth in each and every
preceding paragraph is incorporated herein by reference.
19. As a direct and proximate result of the above
described negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendant,
Leon H. Stohler, Plaintiff, Tyrone Wagner, has in the past been
and may in the future be denied the consortium and services of
his wife, Plaintiff, Mary Wagner, for which a claim is hereby
made.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Tyrone Wagner, demands damage. of
Defendants, Leon H. Stohler and Cumberland Valley Motors, Inc.,
in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00),
plus costs of suit, interest and delay damages.
- 5 -
ae.pectfully .ubmitted,
IRA.. KlI..TOCK, P.C.
800 North Second Street
Harri.burg, penn.ylvania 17102
Phone I 717-238-1657
By: ". _ h ~ II. l\' ( l \I..d II k/ L
IRA H. WEINSTOCK 10
By:
.,
- 15 -
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
In The Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
No. 94-4752 Civil Term
Complaint in Civil Action Law
and Notice
Mary Wagner and Tyrone Wagner
her husband
VS
Leon H. Stohler and
Cumberland Valley MotorB, Inc.
Michael Barrick, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to
law, says that on AUgUBt 26, 1994 at 9:11 o'clock A.M., E.D.S.T., he served a
true copy of the within Complaint in Civil Action Law and Notice, in the above
entitled action, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Leon H. Stohler, by
making known unto Mary Barrick, Adult Girlfriend of Leon H. Stohler, at 7 West
Springville Road, 80iling Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, its
contents and at the same time handing to her person~Ily the said true and
attested copy of the same.
Wesley Cook, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law,
says that on August 31, 1994 at 9:30 o'clock A.M., E.D.S.T., he served a true
copy of the within Complaint in Civil Action Law and Notice, in the above
entitled action, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Cumberland Valley
Motors, Inc., by making known unto Monique Ullom, General Manager of Rental
and Leasing, at 6720 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, its contents and atthe same time handing to her personally the
said true and attested copy of the same.
Sheriff's
Docketing
Service
Surcharge
Costs:
18.00
7.84
4.00
29.84
So ~~s~s: ,y(~
,~~></...:.>?"_"..:: ~~
r ..~~:.. '1'~
R. Thomas Kline, ~/
BY -~~ -
'Deputy Sheritf
Pd. by Atty.
9-01-94
"
Sworn and f.ubscribed to BEfore Me
This
J ''I:.
,
Day of ~" L_
I
I 1 " ,
4.,1 t.- Li J;. i 1,1'" ~
ilrbthonotary ,
~
/~' ,
1994,
A.D.
hlY.rIlm I. Ihlptnln. IlMf,ulrt
I.D. No, 51715
lilII.llRV.Kll, KA,../.MAN II SllIl'IItAN, ".C.
J It) M..k" 5.",,,
PO. 8," IlOK
Il,,",hor~, PA 1710K-llOK
AUlIrnn (or Od.ndlnl.. lIun H, 5lohl.r ."~ Cumb.rl.nd V.lln MOWn. lnI; ,
MARY WAGNB. and I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
TYRONI WAGNIR, her husband, I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs I
I CIVIL ACTION - LAW
LION R. .TOBLIR
and CUKBlaLAND VALLIY
MOTORS, INC.,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
v.
I NO. '4-4752 CIVIL TIRN
Defendants
NOTICII
TO: MARY WAGNIIR and TYRONI WAGNla, Plaintiffs
c/o IRA II. WZINSTOCK, IISQUIal and
HICHAIIL A. KORANDA, ESQUIRE
Ira E. Weinstock, P.C.
800 North Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
YOU ARE REQUIRED to plead to the within Answer with New
Matter within twenty (20) days of service hereof, or a default
judgment may be entered against you.
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C.
DATED: 10/'/ '1
By: h'...... ,
son . Sh man, Esqu re
torney I. D. No. 51785
320 Market Street
Strawberry Square
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
Attorney 1.0. No.
Attorneys for Defendants
Leon H. Stohler and
Cumberland Valley Motors, Inc.
11. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 11 are
conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a
response is deemed to be required, the averments contained
therein are specifically denied.
12. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 12(a)
through (f) are legal conclusions to which no response is
required. If a response is deemed to be required, the
averments contained therein are specifically denied.
(a) It is specifically denied that Leon stohlflr operated
a motor vehicle in willful and wanton disregard for
the safety of persons and property of others in
violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. Section 3736(a);
(b) It is specifically denied that Leon Stohler operated
a motor vehicle in a reckless manner in violation of
75 Pa. C.S.A. section 3736(a);
(c) It is specifically denied that Leon Stohler operated
a motor vehicle without regard to traffic control
signals in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. 53111(a);
(d) It is specifically denied that Leon Stohler operated
a motor vehicle at an unsafe speed in violation of
75 Pa. C.S.A. S3361;
(e) It is specifically denied that Leon Stohler was
following another vehicle more closely than was
3
reasonable and prudent in violation of 75 Pa. C.B.A.
53310; and
(f) It is specifically denied that Leon Stohler failed
to operated a motor vehicle in such a manner as to
avoid causing a collision.
14. Denied. Defendants Leon Stohler and Cumberland
Valley Motors are without sufficient knowledge or information
to form a belief as to the whether or not the Plaintiff, Mary
Wagner, suffered any injuries as a result of this accident.
strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
15. Denied. Defendants Leon Stohler and Cumberland
Valley Motors are without sufficient knowledge or information
to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in
paragraph 15 and the same are therefore specifically denied.
Strict proof is demanded at time of trial.
16. Denied. Defendants Leon Stohler and Cumberland
Valley Motors are without sufficient knowledge or information
to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in
paragraph 16 and the same are therefore specifically denied.
Strict proof is demanded at time of trial.
4
17. Denied. Defendants Leon Stohler and Cumberland
Valley Motors are without sufficient knowledge or information
to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in
paragraph 17 and the same are therefore specifically denied.
strict proof is demanded at time of trial.
WHEREFORE, the Defendants, Leon stohler and Cumberland
Valley Motors respectfully request that judgment be entered in
their favor and that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed with
prejudice.
COUNT II
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
Tyrone .aaner v. Defendants
18. Defendants Leon Stohler and Cumberland Valley Motors
incorporate herein by reference their answers to paragraphs 1
through 17 above as though fully set forth herein at length.
19. Denied. Defendants Leon Stohler and Cumberland
Valley Motors are without sufficient knowledge or information
to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in
paragraph 19 and the same are therefore specifically denied.
strict proof is demanded at time of trial.
5
~ )"->"
~ .~ f . "
iE 1" .,
0,) ",
... "
N
r-~
... , ,
'.. '.';"i
Q
, II
, '
. . .
,
,
, ,
"
en
~ ~ 1 . t
rn ClI: rn
~. .... (Il ~ +'
"'< .... ~~ I:: r...;)
~ffi .... III
~ +' 'tl &l ~ III
I:: UH I::
~~ o . .... IV Eo< ',}j !i
~"g III 'tl . 'lo< Eo< :..:
~ ... I:: en IV ~ ~ IUI
u>o E-t~ '" nli:>: Q
Eo< 0
~~ 'tl rn . ~:H; ~
I I:: ::J III
0 Ill'<: > 0-1:E Z
~UN ~ == :S~il~
ClI: 10< ~~ ~
~~H ~.1l
8 !;PJ ~~ >0 = j .:
1< ~~ 0-1 . ..!
ral .. ==> II< ~
== .,.,~ >o!ll ~
E-t~ H ~~
:z d~ ~~
HU:ZU
, '.
c;..~~'
-.t-.'
MARY WAGNER and TYRONE
WAGNER, her husband,
Plaintiffs,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS.
No. 94-4752
LEON H. STOHLER and
CQMBER~ND VALLEY MOTORS,
INC.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
RIlPLY TO HEW MATTER
NOW COME Plaintiffs, Mary Wagner and Tyrone Wagner, her
hu.band, by and through their attorneys, IRA H. WEINSTOCK, P.C.,
and files the following Reply to New Matter of Defendant., Leon
H. Stohler and Cumberland Valley Motors, Inc., averring a.
follows:
20. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph No.
20 of Defendants' New Matter are legal conclusion. to which no
response is required. If a response is deemsd to be required,
the averments contained therein are specificlllly denied.
21. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph No.
21 of Defendants' New Matter are legal conclu.ion. to which no
response is required. If a response is deemed to be required,
the averments oontained therein are deniod.
22. Denied. The averment. containsd in ParagrAph No.
22 of Defendants' New Matter are legal conclu.iono to which no
response is required. If It reoponoe is deemed to be required,
the averments contained therein are .peoificllly denied.
23. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph No.
23 of Defendants' New Matter are legal conclusions to which no
response is required. If a response is deemed to be required,
the averments contained therein are specifically denied. By way
of further response, ~ Paragraph Nos. 14 - 17 and 19 of the
Compleint.
24. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs
did not suffer any injuries or damages as a result of the acci-
dent. By way of further response, se~ Paragraph Nos. 14 - 17 and
19 of the Complaint.
25. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph No.
25 of Defendants' New Matter are legal conclusions to which no
response is required. If a response is deemed to be required,
the averments contained therein are specifically denied. By way
of further response, ~ Paragraph Nos. 14 - 17 and 19 of the
Complaint.
26. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph No.
26 of Defendants' New Matter are legal conclusions to which no
response is required. If a response is deemed to be required,
the averments contained therein are specifically denied. By way
of further response, see Paragraph No. 11 of the Complaint.
27. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph No.
26 of Defendants' New Matter are legal conclusions to which no
response is required. If a response is deemed to be required,
the averments contained therein are specifically denied. By way
- 2 -
of further responle, aAR Paragraph NOI. 11, l4 - 17 and 19 of the
Complaint.
WHEREFORB, Plaintiffs, Mary Wagner and Tyrone Wagner,
her hUlband, demands damages of Defendants, Leon H. Stohler and
Cumberland Valley Motors, Inc., in an amount in excess of Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), plus costs of suit, interest and
delay damagel.
Respectfully submitted,
IRA B. WlINSTOCK, P.C.
800 North Second Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102
Phone I 717-238-1657
Bye
J} (0_ fl. L",;( ("L ){o'/L
IRA H. WBIN T K
Bye
MICHAEL A. KORANDA
- 3 -
.
.'
,.
..
,.IT...,," J, Shlpman.l!Iqulrt
1,1), N", mu
GOUIDI;P,I;. KATZMAN" SIIJI'IIIAN. ".c.
no Mark'l SI..<I
P.o. RIlll 126M
Itltnilllurv. PA 171lUH2MI
AlIllrlhlV lilr DflilmJ.nl..lvtJlI t(. Slllhlvr and Cumh-i'rland V.lI,v Moton. In.:.
MARY WAGNER and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
TYRONE WAGNER, her husband, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 94-4752 CIVIL TERM
LEON H. STOHLIlR
and CUMBERLAND VALLEY
MOTORS, INC.,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants
OBJIlCTIONS OF DEFENDANTS. LEON H. STOHLER AND
CUMBERLAND VALLBY MOTORS. INC. TO
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORlD
41-51.
Objection. Interrogatories 41 through 51 are
objected to on the basis of Cumberland County Rule of Court
4005-1 limiting the number of interrogatories to 40.
Respectfully submitted,
GOLDBERG, KATZMAN , SHIPMAN, P.C.
By:
n J. Sh an, Esqu re
orney I.D. No. 51785
320 Market street
Strawberry Square
P.O. Box 1268
HarriSburg, PA 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
DATED: II/I I"y.
Attorneys for Defendants,
Leon H. Stohler and
Cumberland Valley Motors, Inc.
."l..~ ~ "J ..
r
c.::..:.
, (~~
~',' ,t .i
I.,. ,
/{'
..' "
'-, ,I
....:'
f..;
('. ,,}
L r' r
'if]
, ", I
, \..1