HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-07034
.
j i E
.
....'tl .
r:i c c ell ~
QJ ill
ill EM ;. ij~ ;~
f-t Po;' .S ill
'M 0 ...:l
.-i ::Ill::
'M >. tl' J I
> ill I"l'tl
"M .l( - >. c
u 'tl 00 0 iH~f~
0 ....M 'M
., ll:: ::l...:l ....
M ..: 0
0 . M ..:
r- l%l QJ ill
I o ill M i ~o ~
., ill H..c: 'M
'" M co > ~/"11< !::.
ill O'M 'M
i 0 :E:E U
"-" .;-
P 016 2110 744
'C'_..____."!I
~ Receipt for
Certified Mall
.. No In.ur.nee Covel age Provided
- 00 not u.. 'or Intlrnatlonll Mill
JaU:'r:.& (5.. Rlvl,..1
POIlIgI $
Clf\,r..dF..
Sp.,'" o.lovefy fl,
RUlf"lld o.lIv"'t f..
en A.lu," RKI.p1 5hO""lnQ
'" 10 Whom Ii Dill o.llYtllld
- AIlu," fl'(I~1 ShQ....1tIQ 10 Whom,
~ 0111, end Addr....', Adm...
-. TOTAL Po'ltgl $
I' 6 r...
Postmark Of 0.11 .'i.[ \
t- I c,
~& k t'.j
Ie --,-"""
..-
....
- f . C~t.;ttme 1 and/or 2 'qr IddIUonel "'Me". . '_
f . - Compa.fI lieI'M 3. tnd ... I b.
.- PNnI your n.tmlt .nd Iddtn, on tht ,..,.,.. 0' tN, 'onn 10 the. we un
- return U'" Nld to you.
:. ACUCh .hI, fomt to the 'ront' of the m~pltc.. Dr on 1M bee. If apl"
........1_... .
1-' W"'''R.turn''tc*ptR~tld''CN'lthtmlilpit':'betowlh..rtfdtnumbef 2. OR..tllcted Olllv,ry
. ,.... ".-urn"~ wiIIlhow to whom tM ,rUde w.. ftII"'*'..... thti da'l
S -, COllOutl 011m"1" '0' III,
3, Artlcl. Addr~ 10:!'\ .. .., rIICtl Numbs, .
'Ml~e..l l. ~\W () ~
Ii ' -. II.. . .b. ",vles TVPl
~ 51 ~ Vv\~a.~ ~ u t=:~:~.d. g ~:ed
l:! ~ .~. \l ~ 1 d., '1 s 0 ~~'..a,~tApll 0 Rltum R"f"lpl 10'
8 ~ ~tlU- t> 7, Oato 01 Oillvlry
<C
Z
tf:
- '---_..~_..............~--
,
I
"
JI
Ii
,
J
.
I ~I.o wl.h. 10 '"c"lv.' lho
lollowlng .Irvlcal flo, an axu.
IH):
1. . 0 Addl.._'. Add....
s~
Ignatu,a IAg.nll
"'."GPO: '---'114 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
6. At all times material to this action there were no
adverse weather or road conditions.
7. On or about February 10, 1993, at approximately 9: 20
a,m., Plaintiff was travelling eastbound on Industrial Park Road
and approaching the intersection at Terminal Street in Hampden
Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
B. On or about February 10, 1993, at approximately 9:20
a,m., Defendant Rowland was easing out of a stop sign at Terminal
Street to go west on Industrial Park Road in Hampden Township,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
9. On or about February 10, 1993, at approximately 9: 20
a,m" Defendant Rowland, who was looking eastward as he entered the
intersection, suddenly and without any warning struck Plaintiff as
he approached from the west.
10. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of
Defendants Rowland and Monroe, Plaintiff has suffered serious
bodily injury as Bet forth in full hereinafter.
COUNT I
Dale B. Rodkev v. Michael L. Rowland
11. Plaintiff incorporates and makes a part of this Count
paragraphs 1 through 10 of this Complaint as if fully set forth.
12. The occurrence of the aforesaid accident and the injuries
to Plaintiff were caused directly and proximately by the negligence
of Defendant Rowland, generally and more specifically as set forth
below:
(a) In failing to yield the legal right of way to
vehicles approaching on Industrial Park Road while
at a stop sign, in violation of 75 Pa, C.I3.A, !i
3323 (b);
(b) In failing to operate his vehicle at a speed and
under such control as to be able to stop within the
assured clear distance ahead, in violation of !i
3361;
(c) In failing to be reasonably vigilant to observe the
vehicle Plaintiff was operating;
(d) In failing to operate his vehicle under proper and
adequate control in order to avoid striking the
vehicle Plaintiff was operating;
(e) In failing to operate his vehicle in such a manner
so that he could apply his brakes to avoid striking
the vehicle Plaintiff was operating;
(f) In failing to keep a reasonable lookout for
vehicles lawfully on Industrial Park Road;
(g) In proceeding to turn onto Industrial Park Road
when such movement could not be made in safety;
(hi In operating his vehicle so as to create a
dangerous situation for other vehicles lawfully on
Industrial Park Road;
(i) In failing to maintain proper and adequate
observation of the traffic conditions then and
there existing;
(j) In failing to exercise reasonable care in the
operation and control of his vehicle.
13. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of
Defendant Rowland, Plaintiff sustained serious injuries, including
but not limil:ed to multiple cervical subluxation, cervicalgia,
lumbar subluxation, subluxation at C1, and disc protrusion.
14. As a result of the negligence of Defendant Rowland,
Plaintiff has suffered and probably will in the future continue to
suffer pain and agony, to his great detriment and loss,
15, As a result of the negligence of Defendant Rowland,
Plaintiff has incurred lost wages from employment in the lunch
wagon business and probably will continue to lose wages to his
great detriment and financial loss.
16. As a result of the negligence of Defendant Rowland,
Plaintiff has been forced to give up his lunch wagon business and
had incurred significant lost profits to his great detriment and
financial loss.
17. As a result of the negligence of Defendant Rowland,
Plaintiff has undergone physical pain, discomfort and mental
anguish, and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite
period of time in the future, to his great physical, emotional, and
financial detriment and loss.
18. As a result of the negligence of Defendant Rowland,
Plaintiff has and probably will in the future suffer a loss of
life's pleasures, and a claim is made therefore.
19. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that his injuries
are permanent in nature.
20. As a result of the negligence of Defendant Rowland,
Plaintiff has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for said
injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical
attention.
21, Plaintiff continues to receive and incur medical expenses
for said injuries and will continue to do so in the future to his
great detriment and loss,
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks damages from Defendant Rowland, in
an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000),
which is greater than the statutory arbitration limit and demands
a trial by jury,
COUNT II
Dale Rodkev v. Monroe Auto EauiDment
22. Plaintiff incorporates and makes a part of this Count,
paragraphs 1 through 21 of this Complaint as if fully set forth.
23, At all times material hereto, Defendant Rowland was an
agent, servant, and/or employee of Defendant Monroe and was acting
in and upon the business of said Defendant and while in the course
and scope of his employment with the said Defendant.
24. Defendant Monroe, and its agents, servants, and/or
employees were negligent and/or carelellS in some or all of the
following particulars:
(a) In failing to yield the legal right of way to
vehicles approaching on Industrial Park Road while
at a stop sign, in violation of 75 Pa. C.B.A. ~
3323 (b);
(b) In failing to operate said vehicle at a speed and
under such control as to be able to stop within the
assured clear distance ahead, in violation of ~
3361;
(c) In failing to be reasonably vigilant to observe the
vehicle Plaintiff was operating;
(d) In failing to operate said vehicle under proper and
adequate control in order to avoid striking the
vehicle Plaintiff was operating;
(e) In failing to operate said vehicle in such a manner
so as to apply the brakes to avoid striking the
vehicle Plaintiff was operating;
(f) In failing to keep a reasonable lookout for
vehicles lawfully on Industrial Park Road;
(g) In proceeding to turn onto Industrial Park Road
when such movement could not be made in safety;
(h) In operating said vehicle so as to create a
dangerous situation for other vehicles lawfully on
Industrial Park Road;
(i) In failing to maintain proper and
observation of the traffic conditions
there existing;
(j) In failing to exercise reasonable care in the
operation and control of said vehicle.
25. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of
Defendant Monroe, Plaintiff sustained serious injuries, including
but not limited to multiple cervical subluxation, cervicalgia,
lumbar subluxation, subluxation at C1, and disc protrusion,
adequate
then and
26. As a result of the negligence of Defendant Monroe,
Plaintiff has suffered and probably will in the future continue to
suffer pain and ag~ny, to his great detriment and loss,
27. As a result of the negligence of Defendant Monroe,
Plaintiff has incurred lost wages from employment in the lunch
wagon business, and probably will continue to lose wages to his
great detriment and financial loss.
28, As a result of the negligence of Defendant Monroe,
Plaintiff has been forced to give up his lunch wagon business and
had incurred significant lost profits to his great detriment and
financial loss.
29. As a result of the negligence of Defendant Monroe,
Plaintiff has undergone physical pain, discomfort and mental
anguish, and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite
period of time in the future, to his great physical, emotional, and
financial detriment and loss.
30. As a result of the negligence of Defendant Monroe,
Plaintiff has and probably will in the future suffer a loss of
life's pleasures, and a claim is made therefore.
31. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that his injuries
are permanent in nature.
32. As a result of the negligence of Defendant Monroe,
Plaintiff has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for said
injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical
attention.
33. Plaintiff continues to receive and incur medical expenses
'"
;!:
Ln ~
en >.:',po- 13
- ..
~. .'"': a
= '- -. ~
(...- ;.. >- .,
- ~~ >- I ~
N'
~ -- ~ ~ i ~
"-1 ~ ~. " ~ '! ~
,'" 0; >
, ~ ~ . ~
m 5~U
'"
::n ri
~ .
,;
~
it
5
Corporation, whose principle place of business is One International
Drive, Monroe, Michigan 48161.
4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth or veracity of the allegations c~ntained in paragraph 4
of Plaintiff I s complaint and same are denied and strict proof
thereof demanded.
5. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that
at all times material to this action, Defendant, Rowland was
operating a 1992 Freight Line Tractor Trailer bearing Arkansas
registration number K722761. It is specifically denied that said
tractor trailer was owned by Defendant Monroe. On the contrary,
said tractor trailer was leo.lsed by Monroe from Penske Truck
Leasing, Inc., 600 Parsippany Road, Parsippany, New Jersey 07054.
6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 6
of Plaintiff's Complaint and same are denied and strict proof
thereof demanded.
7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 7
of Plaintiff I s Complaint and same are denied and strict proof
thereof demanded.
8. Denied. It is specifically denied that on or about
February 10, 1993 at approximately 9:20 a.m. Defendant Rowland was
easing out of a stop sign at Terminal street to go west on
Industrial Park Road in Hampton Township, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania. On the contrary, it is averred that at all times
relevant hereto, answering Defendant, Michael L. Rowland, acted
carefully, lawfully, and prudently,
9. Denied. It is specifically denied that on or about
February 10, 1993, at approximately 9:20, Defendant Rowland, who
was looking eastward as he entered the intersection, suddenly and
without warning, struck plaintiff, as he approached from the west.
On the contrary, it is averred that at all times relevant hereto,
Answering Defendant, Michael L. Rowland, acted carefully, lawfully
and prudently.
10. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant,
Michael L. Rowland and Monroe Auto Equipment were negligent. The
remaining allegations of paragraph 10 are denied in that answering
Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegations contained
in paragraph 10 of Plaintiff's Complaint.
COUNT I
Dale B. Rodkev v. Michael L. Rowland
11. Paragraphs 1 through 10 are incorporated herein as though
fully set forth at length.
12. Denied. It is specifically denied that the occurrence
of the aforesaid accident and the injuries to Plaintiff were caused
directly and proximately by the negligence of Defendant Rowland,
generally and more specifically, as set forth below:
A. In failing to yield the legal right of way to
vehicles approaching on Industrial Park Road while at a atop sign,
in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. ~3323(b);
B. In failing to operate his vehicle at a speed and
under such control as to be able to stop within the assured clear
distance ahead, in violation of S3361;
C. In failing to be reasonably vigilant to observe the
vehicle Plaintiff was operating;
D. In failing to operate his vehicle under proper and
adequate control in order to avoid striking the vehicle Plaintiff
was operating;
E. In failing to operate his vehicle in such a manner
so that he could apply his brakes to avoid striking the vehicle
Plaintiff was operating;
F. In failing to keep a reasonable lookout for vehicles
lawfully on Industrial Park Road;
G. In proceeding to turn onto Industrial Park Road when
such movement could not be made in safety;
H. In operating his vehicle so as to create a dangerous
situation for other vehicles lawfully on Industrial Park Road;
I. In failing to maintain proper and adequate
observation of the traffic condition then and there existing;
J. In failing to exercise reasonable care in the
operation and control of his vehicle.
On the contrary, it is averred that at all times relevant hereto,
answering Defendant, Michael L. Rowland, acted carefully, lawfully,
and prudently and in full compliance with the Pennsylvania Motor
Vehicle Code.
13. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant,
Michael L. Rowland, was negligent. The remaining allegations of
paragraph 13 are denied in that answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of
plaintiff's Complaint.
14. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant,
Michael L. Rowland, was negligent. The remaining allegations of
paragraph 14 are denied in that answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of
plaintiff's complaint.
15. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant,
Michael L. Rowland, was negligent. The remaining allegations of
paragraph 15 are denied in that answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of
Plaintiff's Complaint.
16. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant,
Michael L. Rowland, was negligent. The remaining allegations of
paragraph 16 are denied in that answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of
plaintiff's complaint.
17. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant,
Michael L. Rowland, was negligent. The remaining allegations of
paragraph 17 are denied in that answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of
Plaintiff's Complaint.
18. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant,
Michael L. Rowland, was negligent. The remaining allegations of
paragraph 18 are denied in that answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of
Plaintiff's Complaint.
19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 19
of Plaintiff's Complaint and same are denied and strict proof
thereof demanded.
20. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant
Michael L. Rowland was negligent. The remaining allegations of
paragraph 20 are denied in that answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of
Plaintiff's Complaint.
21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 21
of Plaintiff I s Complaint and same are denied and strict proof
thereof demanded.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Michael L. Rowland, demands judgment in
hie favor and against the Plaintiff together with interest and
costs of suit.
COUNT II
Dale Rodkev v. Monroe Auto Eauioment
22. Paragraphs 1 through 21 are incorporated herein as though
fully set forth at length.
23. Denied. It is specifically denied that at all times
material hereto, Defendant Rowland was an agent, servant, and/or
employee of Defendant Monroe and was acting in and upon the
business of said Defendant and while in the course and scope of his
smployment with said Defendant. On the contrary, it is averred
that at all times relevant hereto Defendant, Michael Rowland was
an employee of Trans Fleet Enterprises, Inc., a Missouri
Corporation with a principle place of business at 1900 North
Providence, Columbia, Missouri 65202 and was leased to Answering
Defendant Monroe Auto Equipment Company.
24. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant
Monroe Auto Equipment and its agents, servants, and/or employees
were negligent and/or careless and some or all of the following
particulars:
A. In failing to yield the legal right of way to
vehicles approaching on Industrial Park Road while at a stop Rign,
in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. ~3323(b);
B. In failing to operate his vehicle at a speed and
under such control as to be able to stop within the assured clear
distance ahead, in violation of S3361;
C. In failing to be reasonably vigilant to observe the
vehicle Plaintiff was operating;
D. In failing to operate his vehicle under proper and
adequate control in order to avoid striking the vehicle Plaintiff
was operating:
E. In failing t,o operate his vehicle in such a manner
so that he could apply his brakes to avoid striking the vehicle
plaintiff was operating:
F. In failing to keep a reasonable lookout for vehicles
lawfully on Industrial Park Road;
G. In proceeding to turn onto Industrial Park Road when
such movement could not be made in safety;
H. In operating his vehicle so as to create a dangerous
situation for other vehicles lawfully on Industrial Park Road:
I. In failing to maintain proper and adequate
observation of the traffic condition then and there existing:
J. In failing to exercise reasonable care in the
operation and control of his vehicle.
On the contrary, it is averred that at all times relevant hereto,
answering Defendant, Monroe Auto Equipment and its agents,
servants, and/or employees acted carefully, lawfully, and prudently
and in full compliance with the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code.
25. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant
Monroe Auto Equipment was negligent. The remaining allegations of
paragraph 25 are denied in that answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of
plaintiff's Complaint.
26. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant
Monroe Auto Equipment was negligent. The remaining allegations of
paragraph 26 are denied in that answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information suf.ficient to form a belief as to the
truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of
Plaintiff's Complaint.
27. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant
Monroe Auto Equipment was negligent. The remaining allegations of
paragraph 27 are denied in that answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 27 of
Plaintiff's Complaint.
28. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant
Monroe Auto Equipment was negligent. The remaining allegations of
paragraph 28 are denied in that answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 28 of
Plaintiff's Complaint.
29. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant
Monroe Auto Equipment was negligent. The remaining allegations of
paragraph 29 are denied in that answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 29 of
Plaintiff's Complaint.
30. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant
Monroe Auto Equipment was negligent. The remaining allegations of
paragraph 30 are d':nied in that answering Defendant is without
knowledge or infon:ation sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 30 of
Plaintiff's Complaint.
31. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 31
of Plaintiff's complaint and same are denied and strict proof
thereof demanded.
32. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant
Monroe Auto Equipment was negligent. The remaining allegations of
paragraph 32 are denied in that answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 32 of
Plaintiff's Complaint.
33. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth or veracity of the allegations contained in paragraph 33
of Plaintiff's Complaint and same are denied and strict proof
thereof demanded.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Monroe Auto Equipment and Michael L.
Rowland demand judgment in their favor together with interest and
cost of suit.
NEW MATTER
34. Paragraphs 1 through 33 of Defendants' Answer are
incorporated herein as though fully set forth at length.
35. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a cause of action
against Answering Defendants, Michael L. Rowland and Monroe Auto
Equipment, upon which relief can be granted.
36. Plaintiff's, alleged injuries and damages were the result
of his own sole negligence.
37. Plaintiff, Dale Rodkey, was contributorily and or
comparatively negligent, which contributory and/or comparative
negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about his alleged
injuries and damages.
38. Plaintiff Dale E. Rodkey's alleged injuries and da~ages
may have been the result of acts or omissions of third parties over
whom Answering Defendants, have no legal responsibility or control.
39. Plaintiff Dale E. Rodkey failed to mitigate his damages.
40. No act or failure to act on the part of Answering
Defendant Michael L. Rowland and/or Monroe Auto Equipment was a
substantial factor in bringing about Plaintiff's alleged injuries
and damages.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Mir-hael L. Rowland and Monroe Auto
Equipment demand judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiff
together with interest and costs of suit.
GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN,
SOLYMOS & CALKINS
~ J' j " /'
BY ('1 ll'i...,. [-\1.i'. _..-oJ_
RO ERT A. LERMAN, ESQUIRE
supreme Court I.D. #07490