The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About94-07016 Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 94-7016 CIVIL ACTION - LAW WILLIAM DOWNS, v. JOHN and CLAIRE MESSIMER Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE AND NOW, comes plaintiff William Downs, by and through his attorneys, Post & Schell, P.C. and files the following Motion to Make Rule Absolute: 1. On May 21, 1997, Plaintiff filed a Petition in the above- captioned case requesting a Rule to Show Cause why Defendant John Messimer should not be dismissed as a party Defendant. Plaintiff's petition was served upon Defendant Claire Messimer and counsel Defendant for John Messimer at that time. 2. On May 29, 1997, the Honorable Kevin A. Hess issued a Rule to Show Cause why Plaintiff's Petition should not be granted. A true and correct copy of this Rule is attached hereto. 3. On June 2, 1997, counsel for plaintiff sent by Certified Mail to Defendant Claire Messimer, a copy of the Rule signed by the Court. A true and correct copy of the time-stamped Certificate of Service with Receipt for Certified Mail is attached hereto. A copy was also sent to counsel for Defendant John Messimer via Regular Mail. 4. Twenty days have passed since Defendants' receipt of the Rule and no further responses have been received from Defendants. fi:: o. ,. ~ c. l1.1r) - , (J' Fe 5:'; ", f," c', " _ J c. ., Il: ' I, , F' (,"; ~-j ~ r- (II W ~ !~ iE fi! Ci:iJ; 15 "- '-II * I\-) IS ~ :~ ,.. ~ :s::. ~ -'" :.: ::' ~ r- .. " ~ J ;r. ";) 0">' Cl .< / . Ifl J') "- ... ~ ~ co (; / :::1~ ().~ 0:::; .;1 N !~l ?i ~(;1 ['T! ;:; '!.li'- !.Dt!~ :j (J a. :r: 000: r_, hJ "" If' U, WILLIAM DOWNS, I IN THE COURT OP COmlOM PLEAS I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff I I NO. 94-7016 v. I I CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOHN and CLAIRE MESSIMER I I Defendants I JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM OP PLAINTIPP. WILLIAM DOWNS I. BASIC PACTS AS TO LIABILITY This is a property damage claim where the Plaintiff is pursuing the Defendant for damages to the Plaintiff's vehicle received in a parking lot accident. Just prior to the impact, the Plaintiff was entering a circular shaped parking lot in an effort to park his vehicle. At the same time, the defendant was in the process of backing her vehicle from a parking stall. The accident occurred when the defendant failed to notice the Plaintiff traveling to the rear of the Defendant. Thereafter the Defendant backed directly into the Plaintiff's vehicle. The Defendant has resisted payment of the Plaintiff's damages to date based on their feeling that the Plaintiff was partially at fault for this accident. This position is based on the Plaintiff driving against directional arrows at the entrance to the parking lot. II. FACTS REGARDING DAMAGES Plaintiff is seeking reimbursement for the damage to his vehicle ($1,244.64). III. ISSUES 1. Whether the defendant was responsible for the Plaintiff damages. 2. Whether the Plaintiff's actions contributed in any way to this loss. IV. EVIDENTIAL ISSUES Whether the Plaintiff will be required to list and call the individuals responsible for preparing the estimate for the repair of the Plaintiff's vehicle. V. WITNESSES 1. William Downs - Plaintiff 2. If necessary - individual necessary for preparing estimate concerning the damages to the Plaintiffs vehicle. 3. Any witnesses listed or called by Defendant. VI. EXHIBITS 1. Diagram of scene of accident. 2. Photographs of scene of accident (already inspected by defendant at arbitration). 3. Estimates concerning damage to Plaintiff's vehicle and related expenses. 2 ~ Around this time, the Defendant was attempting to back her vehicle out of a parking space on the Highlands Garden parking lot. This accident occurred after the Defendant backed her vehicle into the rear passenger portion of the Plaintiffs van. The Plaintiff submits this accident was caused by the defendants failure to keep a proper lookout, for vehicles driving on the lot, when she was driving in reverse. In a statement taken after this accident the Defendant stated she did not see the Plaintiff until the jmpact occurred. The Plaintiff anticipates the defense will argue that the Plaintiff was driving his vehicle against the "usual" flow of traffic for this parking lot. The Plaintiff believes this line of thinking is misplaced. This accident occurred on a privately maintained lot and therefore not controlled by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle COde, 75 Pa C.S.A. ~102. Moreover, the Defendants post accident statement confirmed that the lower Allen township police considered the incident as a non reportable accident because it happened on private property. Given the above, the Plaintiff submits this dispute should be resolved with the use of general principals of negligence and "common sense". ","' ","' ,. - ,I: %' _. ",. " "" ("T')' c.D " <>= <>- ~ ~ ~ ) ....; ~ "( ~ -s - '0 'i'- ~ ~ .",. en - r .. " "" N :0 , .., L> u..o = -. r~ --\, -~ 'n '-.l " f' ~ ..,J ~ 1 ("\-'-- - ,UIIIII/O .m,lu6!s \'..., "" ~ ~ (j ~ - - ~ -::::r- N1 --.. - - ~~ "" .E2. \J .,-.....' '-61' uo sOJ!dxa uOIstlWWOO A.-. I"="IJOJO '/lIJ OjIllUlIil!~ llAI1PI/JII WOI/M /JJ0/8q I"'JIIJO jO .mlfu",s -61 . jO AVO SIHJ. 31^l 3~O~3S a3SIH:Jssns aNI/ (03v-lHljjl/) NHOMS OIO.JOq palpollo ld!u30J s,Japu9s '1!OW (paJalSI6aJ) (pail'pao) Aq 0 DO!AJOS 18uosJOd Aq 0 -61 . UO pOSSOJppO SOA' OlnH 041 w04MOI (s)aalladda a4\ uodn '80ddl/ 10 aO!lON OAOqO a41 UUlAuedwoooe IUIOlduJO:J e Ollj 01 OI"H 041 pOAJasI 181j\ J041'"1 pUO 0 'O\9J04 pa40BUU Id!9:l0J s,Japuos 'HoW (pOJOlSl6aJ) (pa!I!lJo:J),.l;q 0 O:lI^JOS jl1uOSJod Aq U 6\ I uo I (Otul1u) 'iltlllUddu 04l uodn pun 'O',U04 P04:lUH& IdIO:lQJ '.Japuas '118w (paJ91S,6oJ) (p911IP90) Aq 0 OO!AJOS 18uoSJad Aq 0 '-61 . (90/M.s/0 .'8p) uo UloJ041 pal8u61s0P oO!lsnr P!lISIO 04\ uodn . oN seold UOlUWO:J ',80ddl/ 10 OOlloN Olj\ 10 Adoo 8 0 pOAJD. 11841 WJIIIO JO mOMS AqoJ04 I :1IA'lfOI:f:f'lf II , ~O UNnO::l YINV^1ASNN3d ~O H! lV3MNOlllillO::l (s..oq 0lQ8"ldde ~'O~:JI..dd.IO .OII0U .'il fiUlI'1 !i]l~V SA va (01/ NJl NIl-111M 0.11101 'H11SnW e',^Jos/o }oOJd ./~l) 1NI'lf1dWOO 311:1 01 31n~ ON'lf 1'lf3ddlf :f0 30110N :f0 301^~3S :10 :lOO~d ", , >- 0 G- i -( ..:J' .0 1-"; t?:.J ~ -i.:.. wl":"; (,J;::' , ,-. -- _.I: It[:'- u... ~;j ~C C" m " ~, '.0 J J.,' .- -.. u.:1} , c..:. . -, !~Ij l~ l.LJ \', LL . . ~ ,..... Lt_ \!'l :.::i ,-) (, . U I tl!i ,t., ChA I) ('''(-<-L..-~.t.'1 v ~ C}t.iYl C( {Yiu.!! 1t:'MJ.n-U.{ ,/ IJe do solamnly swear (or affirm) the Conatitution of the United States wealth and that we will discharge the ',. en r.; i. -' U.l~ ~~ (. "1___ . , ..- 1':'- '., "- '1), - In (_~ t . ll..!" I ill f i t.'_ ". ", (,', ! .; I..' lid ',!:.'- .J '.J ./ ) ) 1 ) ) ) \ In The Court of C~nmon Pleas of Cumberland County, ?ennsylvania 9 ''/. . 7tl/{, 19 ~o. OATH that we will support, obey and defend and the Cvnstitution or this Co~on- duties of our office with fidelitv. !!- ,-'.(~7 AWARD We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed), make the following award: (Note: If damages for delay are awarded, they shall be separately stated.) , ,z.- ..........,. ,. <<..u,' _-( /.' .-, . 1./ . C, /~1' /l-LU J I-J-L.tA /1 /2. rr. tS-:- applicable. ) Date of Reari."g: .2 - 'I. 1(:: :late of Award: ;l . '/ - 'It.. " ) I",.~d". (/ /-..1 "'/ / Arbitrator, dissents. (Insert name if ~OTIC! OF ENTRY OF AWARD ~ov, the 1'.J-!'day or :J..{ lLLt L,( L (I ,19..&.., at _, ~:I., the above avard vas entered upon the docket andlftotice :hereof given by mail to the ?arties or their at:o~eys. /-.LL\('L-t\. tL lrVe I (!t.,. Arbitrators' coapensation :0 be paid upon aspeal: $ -.1.(f c' ( 3y: \, ~ 11- .- ....., () (1 f'" >- ". j. - -. ~ C. ,.~ U ~, I.lJ. . ..,. O. ~1 R:! ',' : ~ .' , .;:.. c'- '-'- 1". .1 j 11 0" CJ .. a L..,' I :. ~! rt::. --., L.:.:f" r- .; -tI . . ,"j ,. !:.i.. cJ I'.. ", C ..> li: .J . . WILLIAM DOWNS, I IN THE COURT OF COHMOM PLEAS I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff I I NO. 94-7016 v. I I CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOHN and CLAIRE MESSIMER I I Defendants I JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSB WHY DBFENDANT JOHN MESSIMER SHOULD NOT BE DISCONTINUBD AS A PARTY DEFENDANT plaintiff, William Downs, by his attorneys, Post & Schell, P.C., files the following Petition, and sets forth the following: 1. Plaintiff, William Downs, is an adult individual residing at 4407F Carlisle Pike, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011, and was the operator of a 1989 Dodge van. 2. On January 4, 1995, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against John and Claire Messimer, husband and wife, in the above-captioned action. 3. This case involves property damage resulting from an automobile accident on June 10, 1990. 4. Based on Plaintiff's ongoing investigation, there is no liability on the part of Defendant John Messimer regarding the facts of this action. 5. Pursuant to Rule 229 (b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, a Plaintiff is unable to discontinue an action against less than all defendants without prior written consent of l'~ ~, " ~ l.ri 1 it F ~ >- r-. ll; \r. .' ~ 1-. oo '.' UJ(' - \ ~ .:l U. -: ': ft' -. l... i ~i .- I. ~':I.; ,. N lJ.JL ~.~~ l ,.. \ I ~I L.L... ., .,'~ F z.: u. r- .' () Cl' d , . . WILLIAM DOWNS, Plain tift IN THE COURT OF COHHOH PLEAS CtJHllERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I I I I : I I I I JURY TRIAL DEHANDB'il .. i:...' L~ NO. 94-7016 v. (' CIVIL ACTION - LAW r: .D 0 -l '" :It -j ~... :;::'] ... N '~g .:< :~~ .~~ Ji") - lTI '.J .. ., :Jl :~ .-.1 JOHN and CLAIRE HBSSIHBR "-'1'. '.1.; Detendants ~, PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT JOHN HBSSIHBR SHOULD NOT BE DISCONTINUED AS A PARTY DEFENDANT Plaintiff, William Downs, by his attorneys, Post & Schell, P.C., files the following Petition, and sets forth the following: 1. Plaintiff, William Downs, is an adult individual residing at 4407F Carlisle Pike, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011, and was the operator of a 1989 Dodge van. 2. On January 4, 1995, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against John and Claire Messimer, husband and wife, in the above-captioned action. 3. This case involves property damage resulting from an automobile accident on June 10, 1990. 4. Based on Plaintiff's ongoing investigation, there is no liability on the part of Defendant John Messimer regarding the facts of this action. 5. Pursuant to Rule 229 (b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, a Plaintiff is unable to discontinue an action against less than all defendants without prior written consent of >c ,-' C, L. ~. Ul .. ). . t'" . . " . j (~.' : :-~ (: ,. ? L ':lJ I t...;. r-- , U l." ,)