HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-07020
a
tt
J
;#
.c
-
"7
&
(
\"
~
J I
I
0 i
(') j
~
:[ :t!
-'
(;.J \ "
,) -~ ua.
I) d
.."".. 0- \/
"'''' IJ '~
- I.) It)
-, Ii)
(W '-.I
en !{")
III 0 1/) 'j-
rn 'i- -:t- 'J- 0-.
\<l; ':f a-.
, ~, 91 0 CJ-
..... "'
<.>
~, 'll
'= =f
.j "-
c.J
lo.~
O!:;j ~
~~:.~
p.,"'~j ~
Z I >
o H
~p.,ZU
~~~
00
HU,.:!
~~5
~~ g
I
J
r
I
~
'"
I>
.
...
.
U
~
~
~
.
III
III
Z a ~
- . z _
~ j ~ ~
0( ~ II.
III .. .
C ... ci
<ll t ~ ~
z II m
Z '" t ~
itS P
0( i ~
III f;I
I
LISA C. PARVIN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
.
:
v . CIVIL ACTION - LAW
.
.
.
CHARLES J. KAUFFMAN NO. Qi./-70JO CIVIL 1994
Defendant
COMPLAINT
1.) Plaintiff is an adult individual and a resident of
Silver spring TownShip, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2.) Defendant is an adult individual and a resident of
Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3.) Defendant operates an automobile repair garage under
the name Charlie'S Service Center, in Mechanicsburg,
Pennsylvania.
4.) The fictitious name, Charlie's service Center, has not
been registered by Charles Kauffman.
5.) In February, a 1984 Pontiac Sunbird, owned by
Plaintiff, was taken to Defendant's place of business for repairs
by her husband, Jeff Parvin.
6.) On that date, Jeff Parvin told Defendant he had driven
the car from PittSburgh, that it overheated to the point that it
was necessary to add about four gallons of antifreeze to the
radiator during the trip.
7.) On February 23, 1994, Defendant delivered car to Jeff
Parvin for the Plaintiff with an invoice dated that date in the
amount of $1,558.24 (Exhibit A).
8.) When the vehicle was delivered to Defendant for
repairs, Jeff Parvin told him in detail about the overheating and
the addition of four gallons of antifreeze and was told by the
Defendant there would be no damage to the engine if the
antifreeze mixed with the oil.
9.) The repairs done by Defendant included the installation
of a reconditioned head and an electrical switch which controlled
the temperature at which the radiator cooling fan came on.
10.) After February 23, 1994, the car was driven locally for
a few days at which time it was returned to Defendant because it
overheated and ran rough.
11.) On February 28, 1994, Defendant delivered the car to
Jeff Parvin who was told defective electrical relays were
replaced and this would cure the overheating and rough running
problem; an invoice dated February 28, 1994, was presented in the
amount of $156.84 (Exhibit B).
12.) On February 28, 1994, Defendant paid the total of the
two invoices in the amount of $1,715.08.
13.) On March 10, 1994, the car stopped while Jeff Parvin
was on a business trip near state college, pennsylvania, and it
was towed to Defendant's garage.
14.) Defendant told Jeff Parvin the bearings "went out" and
the engine would have to be replaced.
15.) The engine block was replaced with a reconditioned
lower part of the engine and the car was delivered to Plaintiff
March 23, 1994, at which time an invoice in the amount of
$1,795.94 was tendered and paid (Exhibit C).
16.) On or about March 28, 1994, the car was again returned
to the Defendant because it overheated and ran rough.
17.) Defendant then sent the car to Engines America, Inc.,
at Marysville, Perry County, Pennsylvania, the company which
provided the rebuilt engine to Defendant.
18.) Engines America, Inc. replaced the head, which was
cracked, and block together with a proper electrical switch which
controlled the engine fan and the car thereafter operated
satisfactorily.
19.) Defend~nt failed to repair the car and was responsible
for damage after February 28, 1994, in that:
a.) He failed to diagnose the damage to the engine
when the car was first brought to him in that he did
not protect the engine from damage when he knew or
should have known the antifreeze contaminated the oil.
b.) He failed to make repairs to the engine before he
delivered the car on February 23, 1994, which failure
caused subsequent overheating and necessitated return
of the car for additional repairs.
c.) He failed to warn Plaintiff that the repairs would
not prevent damage to the engine unless the effect of
the oil contamination was counteracted by cleaning the
affected area or replacing the damaged parts. He
failed to test the car after the repairs were made the
first time to assure the repairs which would prevent
the car from overheating.
~
\
~
~ I
3
00
.-l
N
.-l
I
8
~ ~
..)
, J
(..j, u-. ,
, :t-'
') ") ~ r,i
, l." <
~ \" f(> ~ 0
~ ~ ,J ~ 0
(9 ~ w
c..:: .~.:t ~
,'., \f1 It cr
~ 'el! Cl l:l
u. -<
k lll' ~< 0
H
r ~~ ~~ H
~
,~i~6~~ i~1 a
Itl
Itl ~
0: 0
LIJ "
...
I- <(
z_-
LIJ a:z 13
u ~<( ii:
->
LIJ Vl-J 0
-> !3
o QJ(J)....
-..:lCZc:o
> roZCO ~
0: ::;wC?
LIJ Q.ID
en.r:. -'0 ~
'S(!),...
en 00:
. Vl::l
LIJ ru
-In(/)
-' "'0 ((
0:"-
< z
x: :i
u 0
W
r
,
"/
.
Lr1 ~
en ~
- ., ..
:or:: ... , "
-"< 0,
r-- ':? ..
,. ';J
..... ..
,', ,
- ..
- J'.~'
" ,
l.r)
0- "
U :::/
=
""
d
~
~
JUt j 2 u4 PH '95
" I . '1; I.j' _ ~ :. }
l~ . J 'r
'.1 "' \ ,
. .'i'!
~ U'>'
'"" en.
- .'
. ::r='
.."
r-
ef .....
~ ';'.,J
..,
..
II>
~ ........
=-
.~
...
3'
co
r--..
"'"
.....
u..
. '
13
~
u '"
0 0
Ul 8 ...
Ul -
<t ~ ~ " ~
~ "
<tI u "
.: I;j ci
II: " ~
~ 0 cr
l1J 0 II: " :l
11. ~ ~ 0 m
11. ~ x ~ 1Il
<t .. cr
:r: :J ~
Ul .J
Z ~
l1J
.J
.J
<t
Lr>
~ :......
=c
0... 1.1 '
o~ o-
r- .:. fl""'!
N '..~('.)..
N ('.' ----
.,;' _1
,...,
',..' ,
" J
QC " I
~ ~,"-
f:);:S
~~ .-lUl
~ .jJ nl.jJ
~ ~ g~ 1I1
'M ill
.... .jJ 'tl 'M'tl ~
C7\ d ~ ,~ ~ ~
!~ C7\ 'M 4
.-l III ~ 'tl .'tl ~ Ul ~~ p~
.-i .8 ~u~8 .
~ S 110 ~~
I :z:~ a: ~ ~ ~
u ~
f:)~ H il ~~ tJ ~ ~ ~
tJ . ~ci is 2 ~
. . Ul
I :z: Ul > !~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~8 Cl ~ > n
:z: N z ~
o Cl ~~~ i ~ ~
8~ H ... .
~ 110 Ij z
~
~O!:l x
. Ul :.J
.... tJ j
~~ ::l C7\ I~~ 2
~ . ~ B~
i H
tJ ..:I Q~8
"
FIRST COUNT
CHARLES J. KAUFFMAN, Defendant
v.
GUY JEFFREY PARVIN. Additional Defendant
6. Admitted with additional defendant's answer to each
specific paragraph incorporated by reference.
7. It is denied the information pertaining to driving the
car from Pittsburgh in an overheated condition and adding
antifreeze occurred on the third visit and on the contrary it
occurred on the first visit on or about February 23, 1994.
8. It is denied that defendant was not put on notice the
car overheated; the allegation that defendant would have
suspected a cracked block is a self serving statement which
requires no answer. To the extent that an answer is required,
after reasonable investigation, additional defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information sufflcient to form a belief
as to the truth of the averment.
9. It is denied the additional defendant abused the car
and on the contrary it was driven in a careful and customary
manner; it is denied he failed to notify defendant of the
problems with the car as stated in the complaint. Any failure to
diagnose the problem was caused by reasons other than any failure
to describe the symptoms.
10. It is denied the additional defendant abused the car.
Defendant was given a full description of the events leading up
to the delivery of the car to defendant's garage on or about
u-'
(]')
;L ... l-J
... c:: "'
... '"
~ g: l-J 't:I "'
c:: " Z 0
I~:i ... .. " l'
'" ... ;l ~ " ..
.... .. c( ~ 9 0/
Co< <=l
. LLI ~ i IL
I ~I oC w ci
~!~ . .ae~~
~ z 0 m
. Z a: · 1Il
~~~~ I> _ ~ to u
. lo! 4 i z
'"1 c( ~
e ~ . i w u
u ..
~ ~
I!l~ Ii
..:l
u-a
en
-
L..:
,..,
",
,-.-
r",
~
'.,
-,
~)
f:);:S
~! .-lUl
~ .jJ 1ll.jJ ~ ~
40l ~ d d Ul
'M o III ~~
., .jJ 'tl 'M'tl
~~ 01 d d .jJ d ~ 4
Cl'l 'M Q) 'tl "M Q) ~~ 8 ~
.-i III 40l ~ .'tl4ol e ~~~~
1110 .-l . Q) tJ'tl Q)
..:I 110 ~Q :z:-:c <~
~~ ~ H :Z:H
e; . 'H C ~ ~ ~u
Ul lOt ~ ~ ci ~~
tJ . I> ~
o I :z:
~8 ~ CI H il
N ~ ~o
CI ~~ N ~
l"" .
8~ ~ 110 .., OH
UC ~
. i ~~ :;a
., tJ 2
~~ S 01
~ H
. 8~
~ tJ lil H
..:I
.
I ^"^' 11111. I',
MAtH_IN If Mt ( ^\ , 11
.,
did not tell Defendant that he had drlven the car from
pittsburgh in an overheated condition and that he had added
four gallons of antifreeze to the radiator.. He did not relate
this informatlon to Defendant until the third time he brought
the car in for repair, on or after March 10, 1994.
B.
If Additlonal Defendant Guy Jeffrey Parvin had told
Defendant, when he flrst brought the car in for repair on or
about February 23, 1994, that he had driven the car from
Pittsburgh ln an overheated condition and that he had added
four gallons of antlfreeze to the radiator, Defendant would
have had reason to suspect a cracked block and possible
contamination of the oil and he could have acted immediately to
address those problems and make the appropriate repairs as he
did as indlcated on the invoice dated March 23, 1994
(Plaintiff's Exhlblt "CHI.
9.
Additional Defendant Guy Jeffrey Parvin's failure to fully
and timely inform Defendant of his abuse of the car and the
problems he was having prevented Defendant from properly
diagnoslng the problem and maklng the necessary repairs the
flrst two times the car was brought in for repair.
10.
Any unnecessary repairs or expenses incurred prior to
March 10, 1994, were directly caused by Additional Defendant
-3-
'.
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
LISA C. PARVIN
v
CHARLES J. KAUFFMAN
Defendant
NO.
CIVIL 1994
COMPLAINT
1.) Plaintiff is an adult individual and a resident of
Silver spring Township, Cumberland county, Pennsylvania.
2.) Defendant is an adult individual and a resident of
Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3.) Defendant operates an automobile repair garage under
the name Charlie's Service Center, in Mechanicsburg,
Pennsylvania.
4.) The fictitious name, Charlie's Service center, has not
been registered by Charles Kauffman.
5.) In February, a 1984 Pontiac sunbird, owned by
Plaintiff, was taken to Defendant's place of business for repairs
by her husband, Jeff Parvin.
6.) On that date, Jeff Parvin told Defendant he had driven
the car from pittsburgh, that it overheated to the point that it
was necessary to add about four gallons of antifreeze to the
radiator during the trip.
7.) On February 23, 1994, Defendant delivored cor to Jeff
Parvin for the Plaintiff with on invoice dated that date in the
amount of $1,558.24 (Exhibit A).
8.) When the vehicle was delivered to Defendant for
repairs, Jeff Parvin told him in detail about the overheating and
the addition of four gallons of antifreeze and was told by the
Defendant there would be no damage to the engine if the
antifreeze mixed with the oil.
9.) The repairs done by Defendant included the installation
of a reconditioned head and an electrical switch which controlled
the temperature at which the radiator cooling fan came on.
10.) After February 23, 1994, the car was driven locally for
a few days at which time it was returned to Defendant because it
overheated and ran rough.
11.) On February 28, 1994, Defendant delivered the car to
Jeff Parvin who was told defective electrical relays were
replaced and this would cure the overheating and rough running
problem; an invoice dated February 28, 1994, was presented in the
amount of $156.84 (Exhibit B).
12.) On February 28, 1994, Defendant paid the total of the
two invoices in the amount of $1,715.08.
13.) On March 10, 1994, the car stopped while Jeff Parvin
was on a business trip near state college, Pennsylvania, and it
was towed to Defendant's garage.
14.) Defendant told Jeff Parvin the bearings "went out" and
the engine would have to be replaced.
15.) The engine block was replaced with a reconditioned
lower part of the engine and the car was delivered to Plaintiff
March 23, 1994, at which time an invoice in the amount of
$1,795.94 was tendered and paid (Exhibit C).
I, ,'t
16.) On or about March 28, 1994, the car was again returned
to the Defendant because it overheated and ran rough.
17.) Defendant then sent the car to Engines America, Inc.,
at Marysville, Perry County, Pennsylvania, the company which
provided the rebuilt engine to Defendant.
18.) Engines America, Inc. replaced the head, which was
cracked, and block together with a proper electrical switch which
controlled the engine fan and the car thereafter operated
satisfactorily.
19.) Defendant failed to repair the car and was responsible
for damage after February 28, 1994, in that:
a.) He failed to diagnose the damage to the engine
when the car was first brought to him in that he did
not protect the engine from damage when he knew or
should have known the antifreeze contaminated the oil.
b.) He failed to make repairs to the engine before he
delivered the car on February 23, 1994, which failure
caused subsequent overheating and necessitated return
of the car for additional repairs.
c.) He failed to warn Plaintiff that the repairs would
not prevent damage to the engine unless the effect of
the oil contamination was counteracted by cleaning the
affected area or replacing the damaged parts. He
failed to test the car after the repairs were made the
first time to assure the repairs which would prevent
the car from overheating.
"
"
00 )('
~ ....-l \
N .~
\ ....-l ri i
.rI\ ~~:
g~ I
~ I
X .J "I
~ ~ ~
~
~
'\) f',. 'J"
" ....... \l
..... a---
n__ ~~
') 1. ~'K~i
~ ,~ ..J lj't>g
rt '-9 ~
(..;: '~,':\:..
,.; " 'f" ;r
~ 'C: !
t. I.'J ~ C' ~
\\~ ~~t o;-"a
U ' .I;t ~\<'\ ~
~il~(t~<J ~I'.i
i ~ 5 ~u....~
<<I @
-' w
(5 ~
U. UI
o a:
CJi Cl
I- U.
9 0
1Il '
a: (J)
'"
'"
'"
-"
..,
f-
.....
'"
.....
s;,
w
'"
"'-
0:: 0 ,I'
LIJ ....
... -
Z ...:'!
LIJ .. Z
(.) ~ c(
->
LIJ Ul...J
U ->-
",Ul ..
:; ~ZCQ
"'z co
O:::EWQ
LIJ 0..'
(J) -E .~
.A ,,'-'''
v. 00:
ru V):J
_",In
-I _Ul
0:: ..,.!J
< Z
:I: of:
u 5
W
r
(J)
'"
1i:
o
'n
:il
u
u
'"
..J
;!
~
-..l
"4
01 '..,
C> 'f\ CP~
l() ~
! N lf~l'3:
M :1 '__ ....t'.
I . :Ii ~ i ~~ I -
gr( I ~ X ..J
It. f5 ~
~ ~ ~ !l ; I:! \k-
.
~
~I~psi ~
1 ~ h
, iHi~~a
~ ~~~gll ..
x~lll~
.~~li ~~
ill Bjfi~'~
~ ., ., F, ~~~
..J W
6 ~
Iii u. ~F ~a~
a: .~h!h '
Cl
_ u. ~ ojl~! :::l
0 .H~- " , 0 <tl
~ ~h ol~ >- !-<
w e! .....
5 1= 'i:'J! ~I"'" .... <tl
'" - .....
I: ..J '" ~h~ H ~ z: ~
I I I ~~~h!l< a <
::c
. I-
'"
In
a: 0
UJ ,...
I- -
Z _~
L&J lUZ
" Ole(
"" .P>
... Vl...J
~ ->-
U cuVl_
_ .xZco
> ;QZeo
a: :;Iuo
UJ Q..b
(/) ~ "D
:it:),...,
(I) 0 a:
- Vl::l
~U'lm
..... _Vl
a:<r~
c( z
:z: ~
(.) U
UJ
::;:
j
~
-,
(
,
en
IU
1<
o
en
0'
w
u
u
c(
..J
~
o
...
'.
(~
~
\
e.. /..
:I~ o:::t
\ (\J
(V)
.~ .-l
I
g \
~~')
. .
3. ~
~
,
~ \~ >
-; -!\ ~
'I ~ ~ i
1~~I~j i
"-~... *
. ...:: ....~ I q::
4, '"", ~
.....
~ ,~~ ~ ~
.( ( ( r~ g ~ ~
It)
It)
D: 0
ILl ~
... ..:
Z _-
ILl ..z
" ....:
'-' ;.>
ILl "'....
->
U w(f}.....
- ':':Za)
:> roZ~
a:: =:wo
ILl a.'
en.c '"
'S(5~
en 00:
> "'::::l
~lllm
...I_Ill
D: <t!d
<l: z
:r ~
tJ u
u,
::;
---.-..... ..
! : .'(S. . ' ~ ~ ~ &, r-, I~ c- -~
i. :f ~ e; ~I':::- &.1'-,1- .){I ~
, ' ,'-" 1b ~ ~ c.::: t.--
U ,~ ~ W!~J : ~0, !! I ~~ I ~ (~
~ 'I ~ Il~'\.~~'.'~ ~<"-.!, ~. ~ 'y I\~; ~ ~
g ~ ~:-6 ~ ~ \)t'r) II \:) Q
5 0 '~fli'~ ' ~ 1\ 'Q & ~ ~I~na~
!3' \>-b. . -\; '.{;....,l.l~ \ <:::. ........ .....,Js~N1~fi
. !!! ~rv'" . I'~ I.....ri'"t~~...
. 6 ~~.....,.......... ""' !~~ijjj; J
. =i~ : ~~ "Q', ~\ ~ ;~~ii~! ,
~ ~ ~~ ~' ~'Ql' '," ~~ -r'o ~tlalj~~~,.,
~ " -b.... 0 11\<1!/' ~ 1 f~. ~
' 81} ~::' , ~ ~f'" H ~H'\
" '>:. ~ r~~'-b,~ ~ii~ ~ ~IJ~' ijl.B; ~
J -... 5<~J -~~!tii~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ --: :~Plp ~ 8
~ ffi I~.~ '/-.;~~~'1~~~-'''~ ~: g !,.:' H!lii~ ~~~
~! 3 ~ .~ ~~~ C:h I:/"/t!,, f~~~~~b / ~~
~ ~ 0 ~ ~C:::::~II 'X~h1J~1V ....:c
1.-.... A - r~.....1-
I~ ~ ,e.b I~ 1:: I~ '- ~ I~\ I, \
~,~:: ~ ~IG' ~\I~ '. ~~J,
f ,I' :11' -
. 1-' " Ul ii\
" I, \1"1 1', tc,.'
. , ,~ -! \")' '-." .. i ~ \ .
" ,,< ~ ,':' ,~ I, ~\
. ,;-: ~":, - > - ----1- , ~' ::.!;; "",
.: ." ,~, " " ',,--' l:! ~~ 'i ,o-;s
.. _' 0:-'" ~ r" ..... .__tl~ '\
, ; I'! 'l.." ,~'~ ,", >- -::: 11. ".~-, . . ~ 'I--..
\/ ;- '.1 ':'I1\~ ~ "l ~
. t:. L~ I ) -(, --.'1 i -' ,,:J -,
'.... ,(' . J..~' ..., ~j,1-' I-< --:'; 0.;3'-
'. .-.....J "r....J ..1 ("p .:', """-.............~~.. :
, J (', ~>:;, '" ',. ... .....j ~ ~
~, ---~
~ ", - ..,~.- , 'I~
: ' - ~ I ~
,. It
',:. "
, ~ Y".j..l
'Ill
.~ .>- .
.,'" -\1
. '. I .
, ........oJ.
c.:
E-'
...
IX'
...
~
I>J
ffI V
a:
o
Ul
Ul
OJ
U
II
..
-'
g
t-
:;-r-
" \~
~ " ,
;I
.
.
,
;
~
IAWI)lllll'.
the repairs a day or so later.
B. The averments of Paragraph B are denied for the
reasons set forth in Paragraph 6, above, the averments of which
are incorporated herein and made a part hereof by reference
hereto. Defendant did not tell Jeff Parvin there would be no
damage to the engine if the antifreeze mixed with the oil
because he did not know that the antifreeze had mlxed with the
oil.
9. Admitted.
10. Admltted.
11. Admitted. Defendant inspected and tested the car and
could find no problems, but he replaced all switches anyway, as
a precaution.
12. nenied as stated. Defendant did not pay either
invoice.
13. Admitted.
14. Denied as stated. It was at this point that Jeff
Parvin first told the Defendant about driving the car from
Pittsburgh while it was overheated and about adding four
gallons of antifreeze to the radiator. Defendant then advised
Jeff Parvin that he suspected a cracked block but that he would
have to pull the engine in order to be sure.
15. Admltted, except that the car was dellvered to Jeff
Parvin, not to Plaintiff.
16. Admltted.
-2-
IfI....."'.I'I'
17. Admitted, because the rebuilt engine that had been
sold by Engines Amerlca, Inc., to Defendant was obviously
defective and was still under warranty.
18. Admitted, Engines Amerlca, Inc., apparently replaced
what it had previously sold to the Defendant, which was
obviously defective.
19. Defendant did properly repalr the car and is not
responsible for the damages claimed by Plaintlff in that:
(a) He did not know that antifreeze contaminated the
oil when the car was first brought to him for repair
because he could not tell and had no reason to know that
the block was cracked, nor was he told that four gallons of
antifreeze had been added to the radiator. He diagnosed
the problem as best he could from the lnformation provided
to him by Jeff Parvin and by his inspection of the car and
made the appropriate repairs accordingly.
(b) He did make repairs that were appropriate for the
description of the problem given to him by Jeff Parvin and
he believed he had corrected the problem because the car
operated properly after the repalrs.
(c) Defendant could not have warned Plaintiff of the
effect of oil contamination because he did not know of such
contamination. The car was tested and road tested after
each repair and the tests indlcated no problem.
(d) Defendant is not aware of any defective switch.
-3-
l ^W 'Jlllll',
Defendant replaced all swltches as a precaution, after
which the engine was tested and road tested and the tests
indicated no problem.
(e) Defendant made the appropriate repairs each time
he had the car based upon the information that was provided
to hlm by Jeff ~arvin and upon his inspectlon and testing
of the car, The car was running properly each time it was
returned to Jeff p~rvin.
20. Admitted as to the payment by Plaintlff or her
husband. Denied that the car was not repaired, for the reasons
set forth in paragraph 19, above, the averments of which are
incorporated hereln and made a part hereof by reference
thereto. Denied that Defendant's workmanship was defective or
caused any damage to plaintiff. The costs of repair paid to
Defendant resulted solely from Jeff Parvin's abuse of the
vehicle, his failure to properly and completely inform
Defendant of the problems with the car, and from the defective
rebuilt englne sold to Defendant by Engines America, Inc..
WHEREFORE, Defendant demands that judgment be entered in
his favor and agalnst the plaintiff herein.
NEW MATTER
21. All of the matters at issue in this case were
previously declded by District Justice Ronald E. Klair
(Magisterial District No. 09-3-05) in an actlon brought by Jeff
Parvin (also known as Guy Parvin, also known as Guy Jeffery
-4-
o~tW~,af l~' 1\1,~~I~'
Ju ~U , Ii~ ~~ 'S~
CI\i\llf,LE
PElnt~) 't \.V "H IA
n . .-iUl
40l .jJ 1ll-iJ 1I1
40l ~ g ~ Ul ~ ~
'M ~~
.jJ 'tl 'M'tl
B C7\ d d .jJd e ~ ~~~i
:z: C7\ 'M 41 'tl "M 41 ~I
I~ ~ ~ III 40l ~ .'tl4ol ~O
.-i .41 tJ'tlQ)
110 iQ :z:.co
:Z:H ~ ~ bu
. .1-1
III ~ ~~ci ~~
llll tJ . l> ~ Cl ~ d g
0 :z: 'f'
~8 ! Cl 1-1 :2 1101-1 ~o . z co ~
N ~
Cl ~I ~~ ~ Iii -
81 ~ ... . z
110 Ij OH C
UQ M
. I &1Ul ~
., tJ 2
~~ S 01 ..,~
tIC H
. Ul S~
~ tJ 0 H ~~
III ..:I
~
~
~
LAW 11l1"T~.
did not tell Defendant that he had driven the car from
pittsburgh in an overheated condition and that he had added
four gallons of antifreeze to the radiator. He did not relate
this information to Defendant until the third time he brought
the car in for repair, on or after March 10, 1994.
B.
If Additional Defendant Guy Jeffrey Parvin had told
Defendant, when he first brought the car in for repair on or
about February 23, 1994, that he had driven the car from
Pittsburgh ln an overheated condition and that he had added
four gallons of antifreeze to the radiator, Defendant would
have had reason to suspect a cracked block and possible
contamination of the oil and he could have acted immediately to
address those problems and make the approprlate repairs as he
did as indicated on the involce dated March 23, 1994
(plaintiff's Exhibit "e").
9.
Additional Defendant Guy Jeffrey Parvin's failure to fully
and timely lnform Defendant of his abuse of the car and the
problems he was having prevented Defendant from properly
diagnoslng the problem and making the necessary repairs the
first two times the car was brought in for repair.
10.
Any unnecessary repairs or expenses incurred prior to
March 10, 1994, were dlrectly caused by Additional Defendant
-3-
1.'\'0\1 lllflll',
the turbo englne that was designed for this car it was not
capable of properly handling the higher temperatures of a turbo
engine, resultlng in the problems described ln Paragraph l6, of
Plaintiff's complaint;
B. That ln modifying the engine to make it fit in
Plaintiff's car, Additional Defendant Engines America, Inc.,
damaged the rebuilt engine, resulting in the problems described
in Paragraph 16 of plaintiff's complaint.
17.
The repairs described in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiff's
complaint were required solely because of the actions of
Additlonal Defendant Engines America, Inc., as described in
paragraphs 13 through 16, above, the averments of which are
incorporated herein and made a part hereof by reference
thereto.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Charles J. Kauffman demands:
A. Judgment in his favor and against Additional
Defendant Engines America, Inc., together with interest and
costs of suit;
B. Judgment that, if there is any liability to
Plalntiff, Additional Defendant Engines America, Inc., is
solely liable to Plaintiff; or
C. In the event that a verdict is recovered by Plaintiff
agalnst Defendant, that Defendant may have judgment over and
-6-
LISA C. PARVIN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
.
.
.
v . CIVIL ACTION - LAW
.
.
.
.
.
CHARLES J. XAUFFMAN . NO, CIVIL 1994
.
Defendant .
.
COMPLAINT
1.) Plaintiff is an adult individual and a resident of
Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2.) Defendant is an adult individual and a resident of
Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3.) Defendant operates an automobile repair garage under
the name Charlie's Service Center, in Mechanicsburg,
Pennsylvania.
4.) The fictitious name, Charlie's Service Center, has not
been registered by Charles Kauffman.
5.) In February, a 1984 Pontiac Sunbird, owned by
Plaintiff, was taken to Defendant's place of business for repairs
by her husband, Jeff Parvin.
6.) On that date, Jeff Parvin told Defendant he had driven
the car from Pittsburgh, that it overheated to the point that it
was necessary to add about four gallons of antifreeze to the
radiator during the trip.
7.) On February 23, 1994, Defendant delivered car to Jeff
Parvin for the Plaintiff with an invoice dated that date in the
amount of $1,558.24 (Exhibit A) .
8.) When the vehicle was delivered to Defendant for
repairs, Jeff parvin told him in detail about the overheating and
the addition of four gallons of antifreeze and was told by the
Defendant there would be no damage to the engine if the
antifreeze mixed with the oil.
9.) The repairs done by Defendant included the installation
of a reconditioned head and an electrical switch which controlled
the temperature at which the radiator cooling fan came on.
10.) After February 23, 1994, the car was driven locally for
a few days at which time it was returned to Defendant because it
overheated and ran rough.
11.) On February 28, 1994, Defendant delivered the car to
Jeff Parvin who was told defective electrical relays were
replaced and this would cure the overheating and rough running
problem; an invoice dated February 28, 1994, was presented in the
amount of $156.84 (Exhibit B).
12.) On February 28, 1994, Defendant paid the total of the
two invoices in the amount of $1,715.08.
13.) On March 10, 1994, the car stopped while Jeff Parvin
was on a business trip near state college, Pennsylvania, and it
was towed to Defendant's garage.
14.) Defendant told Jeff Parvin the bearings "went out" and
the engine would have to be replaced.
15.) The engine block was replaced with a reconditioned
lower part of the engine and the car was delivered to Plaintiff
March 23, 1994, at which time an invoice in the amount of
$1,795.94 was tendered and paid (Exhibit C).
16.) On or about March 28, 19S4, the car was again returned
to the Defendant because it overheated and ran rough.
17.) Defendant then sent the car to Engines America, Inc.,
at Marysville, Perry County, Pennsylvania, the company which
provided the rebuilt engine to Defendant.
lB.) Engines America, Inc. replaced the head, which was
cracked, and block together with a proper electrical switch which
controlled the engine fan and the car thereafter operated
satisfactorily.
19.) Defendant failed to repair the car and was responsible
for damage after February 28, 1994, in that:
a.) He failed to diagnose the damage to the engine
when the car was first brought to him in that he did
not protect the engine from damage when he knew or
should have known the antifreeze contaminated the oil.
b.) He failed to make repairs to the engine before he
delivered the car on February 23, 1994, which failure
caused subsequent overheating and necessitated return
of the car for additional repairs.
c.) He failed to warn Plaintiff that the repairs would
not prevent damage to the engine unless the effect of
the oil contamination was counteracted by cleaning the
affected area or replacing the damaged parts. He
failed to test the car after the repairs were made the
first time to assure the repairs which would prevent
the car from overheating.
<Y-.
\
.1"'\
g.-<
~ I
a
00
.-l
l:'J
.-l
; ~~ x
3' ~
~
~ PI
" ~; 1 ~
fi4ri~ia
.~; Zi
-... ~hi;1 J
@ :lli!;l "
~ (I
w
Cl III
U. " ~ii p~ "
0 u.
<Ii a: ~a .U~ '~
-' Cl r"jl]~ 1 g
u.
0 IHI~i~ "\~
<Ii
al
'" . "'] I'" \ ' .~
'"
~~i~ ",~! ~
t~ ~ ~3 ....:
nOil" ',-
- 1:1 Ii 1 ..'....,
~ ....
I
~
~
~) r' _ II,-,
" U
c~ 0-.. ;
n" ~~
~ (""...... It' !:
~ 1. "l\,"'!
'::. ," .~~
Ci! .... ..JI ~
<t (~ ~
c.::. .~ '\ "11
'.., t' <I
'~ ,C; J
\l. I.\J~' C", ~
\. ..\./,;, <1' ~
\' .,,' 3
IlJ ' :I';t l-" ~
...., ~ "I' a <J l", ~
r 'I' t 5 ~Q\. g
II>
In
c:: 0
"'-I ::::
I- '"
Z _-
LtJ QJ::
" ..",
....., z>
,.. Ul..J
- ->-
U QJU'J....
- ..:I:Zoa
:> roZCO
O::-.:;WQ
LLJ ..... n. y)
(I)..c "0
:it!) ......
In 00:
. U)::l
~ U100
...J _~
c:: .,.-
c( z
:z: ~
u u
w
r
-
.;
III
IU
rr
o
:Jl
Ul
u
U
0(
..J
~
~
'.
, ')
I _l~
I ~ -..;t L-',>- i! I ; ,~. ! , g ~ ~ &:I~ I~ C- '\'Z
I ~ :;<':1 " ! . I !,~ I · ~ -pc ~ -I~"". - 00 ""
.-l ' . .:' I,,~ ,'-" ~ ~ -- ~ ~ t::: t::
i~ i R~~ 8 ~II ~:~ I~" ~1.~.,." !! i ~; I ~ t~
l~ !! I r~.' ~~.. '.j;' ~:l:\'" 1(' ~: ~ II'''!' " =-
~ 5 , ~ ~~'~~.~'~.~; ~ 1\ <:::. '- _ ~UliB
~ . 17 ~ ......... ~ '~iS!~
l \~ i ~ 6~~Y'i ,\ ,I / !:W!ll
I -, ~ S~a1i833
~~,~ i : =l ,!_.-b~ <<t .~'~ \" Haf"l~a~~
'- ~ ' 0 ~ ~~:l\..b.' ~:~\, ~ ="" \ ~ai ~!~
-:-13 _L ,),.-. "'-b'-b~ '\j l!; ~ · . ,~it ~a~
~ ; _ g ~ (Y\, ~~' . ~ iii 0 ,,~I ) ~. h d a ~
_b-..'-....~ Ie:}: ; <, ~.~) "'"':'_~ .~"" .... I~ ~11g? llLjl... ~-:..jP! 0
~,\~ ~"~. ~L~ iif~~ '~gi~~~,,,.~~
Q.~~ ~ ~ I" ~'~~~)8~_~ ~ ~I ffi .:!l :' ~hi..~J \. '4 ~
t:V(}"~cl~ ~ ~ :l ~ ~ ~ It'"'~~~ <:'( -'1,!}5I~(f5hUi' -:'r\~
. I r5~1~ ~ i D. ~~~ ~ I I . rtnl!;;.'V ~~
~J I::;I~~:~~\'~ ~ I ;~. ~
(.)~;; ~ I~, 1.\". ,,,", ~I'I'~' :3 ~
...Vl.... :\"" ,. .J\~ ' i'- "i ~ ii!
..... ...:> ~ '~I _~, , I " a. . - 0
U l1J U).... "",:' < _ oJ ..-.1... ~,' ,-.oJ I U)
-.:.:zc:o ':... _'" "c:C' ~" en
;::. :;; z co 'C _, /' - - b -' "> uJ
~ ~ ~ ~ ':.. ~ ,.; ,~~ < ,'- '-...;;. ~ ~ u-.. tl
en"" .",' ."j ,:,( ,,',- ~ ",1 _ i- " ,,'I........ ..
':it!).... ,).. ". .,:,.... 'l( ,~'\ r~ .,.:::: I ,:>-... :::
~Jl~ '/. [; !.~ I) ""':(!\,.;.' ,,1-"'- (J.,)'j: J_.J"" g
~ ",Bj , .'1' ,; .~, '- ...,...... Ill~ -: .
..... _ u -;r-, '..... ....".J T""'o. <-? - r .
e::"'- ",,>,"," .-.J rl'. I "~ .:' ,", ,--='" ~
:;: ~ ~ ' . ' 1....:( {'. ......, c.. ,_'" '-. ..... ./ 5 ' 1 I ~
... ~ 'h.. S ,"-
U u ~ ~ ~ !~.
~ j 1-. -.>- ". - ~
~ :. 1/1 ~
~Yr i ~~
. ..~ -
<.:
I
I
.\
t.j\W'iITIl.T',
17. Admitted, because the rebuilt engine that had been
sold by Engines America, Inc., to Defendant was obviously
defective and was still under warranty.
lB. Admitted. Engines America, Inc., apparently replaced
what it had previously sold to the Defendant, which was
obviously defective.
19. Defendant did properly repair the car and is not
responsible for the damages claimed by Plaintiff in that:
(a) He did not know that antifreeze contaminated the
oil when the car was first brought to him for repair
because he could not tell and had no reason to know that
the block was cracked, nor was he told that four gallons of
antifreeze had been added to the radiator. He diagnosed
the problem as best he could from the information provided
to him by Jeff Parvin and by his lnspection of the car and
made the appropriate repairs accordingly.
(b) He did make repairs that were appropriate for the
description of the problem given to him by Jeff Parvin and
he believed he had corrected the problem because the car
operated properly after the repairs.
(c) Defendant could not have warned Plaintiff of the
effect of oil contamination because he did not know of such
contamination. The car was tested and road tested after
each repair and the tests indicated no problem.
(d) Defendant is not aware of any defective switch.
-3-
I.A,^, ""'IIT~.
M^'tLIU n MloC"l.EO
Defendant replaced all switches as a precaution, after
which the engine was tested and road tested and the tests
indicated no problem.
(e) Defendant made the appropriate repairs each time
he had the car based upon the information that was provided
to him by Jeff ~arvin and upon his inspection and testing
of the car. The car was running properly each time it was
returned to Jeff P?rvin.
20. Admitted as to the payment by Plaintiff or her
husband. Denied that the car was not repaired, for the reasons
set forth in Paragraph 19, above, the averments of which are
incorporated herein and made a part hereof by reference
thereto. Denied that Defendant's workmanship was defective or
caused any damage to Plaintiff. The costs of repair paid to
Defendant resulted solely from Jeff Parvin's abuse of the
vehicle, his failure to properly and completely inform
Defendant of the problems with the car, and from the defective
rebuilt engine sold to Defendant by Engines America, Inc..
WHEREFORE, Defendant demands that judgment be entered in
his favor and against the Plaintiff herein.
NEW MATTER
21. All of the matters at issue in this case were
previously decided by District Justice Ronald E. Klair
(Magisterial District No. 09-3-05) ln an action brought by Jeff
Parvin (also Known as Guy Parvin, also known as Guy Jeffery
-4-
....
CHARLIE'S SERVICE CENTER
415 South Market Street
MECHANICSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17055
766,0881
;;iiii\;----iFU d_
~ III _L(}r,..l A L--i (... A
A"'I" Qf2 I.; I '-'iJ
.J!il:. 1<1-
~'~'X( fA- /7 ()~~5"
\""3'::'2:;> -?t,<
1324.
ItOfolEPllOH1
tMJl PtKlHE
(If DAlE PAOUlSlO
'tEAn, ".\1(1 AND WOOU
,.;".\1 , 1 I" ,. I (:UBIl)MtIl60UllfnHUIolIIIIl Ol111fnWIl1II[HII' 1K:(NSl'W",') / ""'; --.'
) 1 2L.",~, ~'" . ,j
'UIOlltfUMlltn , ("" OOOMlllA ')' I-
If' ..(, _u
., ...- . .... .
" J( 0 \V \1. 'U IV; L r 12. ~ ~ 0 LUB! /D CIjO.OIL 0 oa. Fl\.T!A 0 TUN! up. 0 TlWII. 0 00.
., > ".... "'<. A: _ {I 7.' id //. Ii.. A -,,+,.0 ~. rrv ~, I//J~ ~I- '.. I
~;),.l Cl . DI I I ,-' '-'>' "V. ~(" ...... )j . .. .
[./-2,:;,' "JLFILT .L[z> ~-(J8~tf7 c~fj 'ff..4' ...
A,',~ (./f1,',/" ,-", _A~P4 ~ d...f!f!P~ 8.LJJI/tI.J .1 ~J-. -';4"_~ ..' -.
Nel ,v~~ ,~~ ~~.!r-?->~r. Jj:Jf~--1 ~-_.
(,..yKrv',o':V:::. _ _~ ~ ~~ ~{;,7EAj 04;q.-e, . ~ t? _. .
/ ,'i . // ftV1iJr&\k~/1 J... '~/:~ ~15 ex.
/ ~ v / I,~ ~6 ~ lJ..{;l; ,I,.., 'nTD!ll')~ - ,. I,
II) / 0" -':"11" .'tI!-.;7,' In . ,A .. . ..,
i / I. WlLUt '-.. ... IlJ"'c)'./l."8..7>-:;2.-
I r " 1/ (?il,:; ~ ./i)37~ .'
I V) / L1TERSlGALS. OF GAS 0 /--~ TOTALUIOIl ~'lS ~
~.".'CONIU,"ONl\""_1 -.- ----;;!o(} v/n..." .... ....,.,
'I TOTALPAAT8.S 1!~ReroTS.'OFOII 0 .,(..;;.-- / v uv ,OTALMllTI .'JIS ~
, .. T~'CJIJ.~-7~I / ~ ~I~I~.,S?:J Ot
10 _ 'TtA' ?j,~ ad I Ti'.~'.r./ \ 1 ,,,,,}/ '''\. 1/ r&'" 0 ~~~ ~ lit
7 ..s ~ (j OA ~ "..:'r -()u. ~I holOby aulhorllQ Ihe above repolr wolk 10 be done 6UBLETREPAIlI ~
Iv , h~"''''- JnocosulfY malorlal. 'MI and your If"ptoyeel may opGrlle above
~T vehlclo fat pulpoSOI of IOltlng, ~IIp8CUon. or defI....ry a' my ,Ip An
n \ ...... ,.pIO" mechanic' lien I, acknowlodgod on abova \'Ohk:hI1o 1000" .
~""'f famou:nt of ':r.Ir1lhof81D. Ill, alto undctrlloOd lhal you will noc
be old rvlpOOll a lot 1011 CH datMgo 10 C8t1 Of trtlde, IIUIn Uti TAX" ) II
In I. 01 II,., thell or onv othor cau.. ~ )'OOr control. I, '0 ""
TOTAL ACCE8S0RIE8 1,,(2;j:l~ - TC]!AL 179~ qt
C'. T~~ ~'D /710
----"
fiNAl HOUn(A
.
~
<.
I
I
lAW nlll' I',
MMU.IN U Mt I ^LLlI
the repairs a day or so later.
8. The averments of Paragraph 8 are denied for the
reasons set forth in Paragraph 6, above, the averments of which
are incorporated herein and made a part hereof by reference
hereto. Defendant did not tell Jeff parvin there would be no
damage to the engine if the antifreeze mixed with the oil
because he did not know that the antifreeze had mixed with the
oil.
9. Admitted.
10. Admitted.
11. Admitted. Defendant inspected and tested the car and
could find no problems, but he replaced all switches anyway, as
a precaution.
12. Denied as stated. Defendant did not pay either
invoice.
13. Admitted.
14. Denied as stated. It was at this point that Jeff
Parvin first told the Defendant about driving the car from
pittsburgh while it was overheated and about adding four
gallons of antifreeze to the radiator. Defendant then advised
Jeff Parvin that he suspected a cracked block but that he would
have to pull the engine in order to be sure.
15. Admitted, except that the car was delivered to Jeff
parvin, not to Plaintiff.
16. Admitted.
-2-
lAW 11111< I',
MAHLlN H ...11 {','I III
17. Admitted, because the rebuilt engine that had been
sold by Engines America, Inc., to Defendant was obviously
defective and was still under warranty.
18. Admitted. Engines America, Inc., apparently replaced
what it had previously sold to the Defendant, which was
obviously defective.
19. Defendant did properly repair the car and is not
responsible for the damages claimed by Plaintiff in that:
(a) He did not know that antifreeze contaminated the
oil when the car was first brought to him for repair
because he could not tell and had no reason to know that
the block was cracked, nor was he told that four gallons of
antifreeze had been added to the radiator. He diagnosed
the problem as best he could from the information provided
to him by Jeff Parvin and by his inspection of the car and
made the appropriate repairs accordingly.
(b) He did make repairs that were appropriate for the
description of the problem given to him by Jeff Parvin and
he believed he had corrected the problem because the car
operated properly after the repairs.
(c) Defendant could not have warned Plaintiff of the
effect of oil contamination because he did not know of such
contamination. The car was tested and road tested after
each repair and the tests indicated no problem.
(d) Defendant is not aware of any defective switch.
-3-
lAW 011111'.
MMH.lN II Mt 1-,\1 lit
Defendant replaced all switches as a precaution, after
which the engine was tested and road tested and the tests
indicated no problem.
(e) Defendant made the appropriate repairs each time
he had the car based upon the information that was provided
to him by Jeff ~arvin and upon his inspection and testing
of the car. The car was running properly each time it was
returned to Jeff P~rvin.
20. Admitted as to the payment by Plaintiff or her
husband. Denied that the car was not repaired, for the reasons
set forth in Paragraph 19, above, the averments of which are
incorporated herein and made a part hereof by reference
thereto. Denied that Defendant's workmanship was defective or
caused any damage to Plaintiff. The costs of repair paid to
Defendant resulted solely from Jeff Parvin's abuse of the
vehicle, his failure to properly and completely inform
Defendant of the problems with the car, and from the defective
rebuilt engine sold to Defendant by Engines America, Inc..
WHEREFORE, Defendant demands that judgment be entered in
his favor and against the Plaintiff herein.
NEW MATTER
21. All of the matters at issue in this case were
previously decided by District Justice Ronald E. K1air
(Magisterial District No. 09-3-05) in an action brought by Jeff
parvin (also known aa GUY Parvin, also known as GUY Jeffery
-4-
ffi
....
c(
[j ~
10
0 0
III ~ "
III -
c( ~ ~ n ~
'" M
dl u M
ii: ~ C;
0:: ... ~
~ 0 a:
11l 0 0: m :l
11. 3 ~ C lD
11. :l ~ .; Ul
c( Q ~
:t !:!
III .J
Z :i
11l
.J
.J
c(
j","
;^
. .
;.
LISA C. PARVIN,
plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA
v.
NO. 94-7020 CIVIL 1994
CHARLES J. KAUFFMAN,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
o
..~.....,
1-:' ,4
.,~-,
I~' :~',
.r _, "
J,
lJl..
,.;,. . '..;,
. 'Ji.,-,-,
1:":-"7.(') ~
...~. ~L"I" ::a:
1..1., ..1
"Z 1" _
.-I::J' c..Q
""" -< iJ'1
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 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
other rights important to you.
v.
...,
~
':i.
GUY JEFFREY PARVIN and ENGINES
AMERICA, INC.,
Additional Defendants
"-'
~
lSQlEE
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.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT ADMINISTRATOR
4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse
Carlisle, PA 17013
Telephone No: (717) 240-6200
NOTICIA
Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si used quiere
defenderse deestas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes,
usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la
demanda v la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia
escrita 0 en persone 0 per abogado y archivar en la corte en forma
in a vehicle requiring a turbo engines with a minor, routin~ly done
modification. The Defendant made that modification to the
Plaintiff's vehicle without difficulty and was able to install the
engine into the vehicle.
15. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that
the Plaintiff modified a regular engine to make a turbo engine. It
is denied that doing so constituted forcing an engine into a car
for which it was not designed. The two types of engines are
identical in size and shape. Converting one type of engine to the
other is a relatively simple procedure and does not damage the
engine. In fact, newer engines are designed to be interchangeable.
16. A. Denied. The Plaintiff's engine overheated due to a
faulty coolant fan switch. The defendant had converted the regular
engine to a turbo engine and so it was fully capable of properly
handling the higher temperatures.
B. Denied. The engine was damaged when it overheated
due to the faulty coolant fan switch. The modification that
additional Defendant, ENGINES AMERICA, INC., made on the engine was
routine and would not have damaged the engine.
17. Denied. The vehicle required a new engine because
Defendant, CHARLES KAUFFMAN, failed to discover the faulty coolant
fan switch and the engine was allowed to overheat to the point
where it was seriously damaged.
WHEREFORE, Additional Defendant, ENGINES AMERICA, INC.,
requests this Honorable Court to dismiss this action against him.
l ~
~;
..
~!
d t..
~il
m~a
.~I
m It-
z ..
_ t-
CJil
ffi IlS
'%6
~~
a
I
[5
~
~
~
~
L
i
~
r It '::
w
0"
M ..." .. 0: ' . ,.
...... '~ o. I
,~ , ~.
CD ' .. ,
la: ~ I~ :
.... I 0
..." I J~. ..
('I) ~ .
o 8 ~ il i t-:---1
c.
~.~,
I::
t
,.
r.'
----v- I
.L18IHX3
'YVllNoa;:: ",
"" .-:- I"'"~" .
:.... ,...
'. 'i
~ 0', , "f.. ..;- ~ ;'.. ...,
!::.~ ~~ ~. :~,~ ..... '. ;I~ ("'-
....-. 'I ." "....' I
'.[:;~ t~," ~~" .~~;~ .
:-.' '''','. . L ~ 0
0: '. ~.. I ~
:1.,. " Ii
~ \., '.1', i~c ~ \ iI) :0 . r "'''" , ,.,
lCJ ,~ " " 'r."',. ~ ,
~l.'.i.,: . Q , ", I , . '. : ...; :', '.f. '1< ill:
' ", - . ~~, . .,,!,>
. b",', '" , I!... ,., , .";#
~.~...; ';, 'J, , } ,~~,";'." :.:;,~
b ~,~ 'J ~ ; ;_ r ~I " ~. '~"~/.~:
~ Ull\ . l ;....: '". -;: 1ii 12 .., .. 'I "7:t.
~~I'" r:-.' , 'h;; ; ~ ',i! ";. "', :"1..
' - , , . C · "'i ><. . '. . '. l .
: 0 ~ ' ."~ ';. ! "'I ".,~ ,~<
; I. ~ - -; c. i: .,.j:. f i'i, ,:, . ';.::,.,~
" "";c l' . ! .ill! " ' ", ,iI. j)\
o i'- - , ;,--, .. " ~; ! il!'~llfP L rp
.1' r~;: ~ ~ cl ~ ,,;' c- ll!!i'i'~,": ~I;: ~ ~.~ ~:;'. ~
a: \,'.....1 .-;; ;~~I!~i~6...: .c ',~ .:: .' :1',
;; l:: ::l",l: ....! j' _'.. ., ,
J:~I%;Jg~.:.,;.......,~""., ",
- ,Ff' J!'I~l. ~
{. n ~r ..
lfiiit
iJ1tfi ..~
l':IJ' l'i~ '
t. -. i~
~. -r;',
. 1':'11,4,. "h
. nl~, '1..
. ~'l~ff~f~ ~;
f/I bi :~. j
~11l11;', ;" I
;:dn t -
~.",,,,:,,... ~
." "(j\~:"~:~'.;~.5.
"~:"''''''';"{.~j.~':;\ ..~ "~:~~tl~'
,L.':'{:> .\:.~~..,.~:-:....!'., ',', I .
.
c' I
\, I ~,
( . ~ I:
,~v r-!:
S, 'tn~
-:\12
..' ~ 9;
,c t: r
~\I' ~
\11
-('-3'1 r
~ \ ~
(; I t:j
~ '"',
...,;
:! ,.
-
,
I.
i'-;
If
~
-
, :
I
~ ' ,
- :-'r-
.- -. ;
~ .:~ :,
- \,:~~.. .:,;... f; 'r,
, ,~ '-<'~ ' .,.
' ~ir~~
~ ,..\~~('" !
C ~
~ 2," ., ~~ ~
.. 0' ~ j ..;. ~
-
,
J (".
; ';!E ~
~ 1).J)~
I'd , '12
,I';;
~!f l::'
.Il ".. .':" '.
Ir ~., :-.,
..{
(
~
r .
,
\!"',"", ';,~;i~~':";~~:t<;;j:':'~:: '-'
,'~I!i1. ".1 .
.~.. ",' ,
,., ~
~ ~
-, I'
' , f\..
II:
.. . ~ ~
,., \
~ ' J _...
.
'i. ~
l..". " ~ ~
,',1
; " ~
. . Iv)
, ., ,
f.. ~ ". 1 (_t
,
,
,
If
d
r