Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-01763 "" <"';' .j ,g c.5 ~ .t ........ ;r ~ QI 0: ,.; I \ \ \ ; ,. .~ .. I ~ I J I I i , I I 1 ; i I , , 'JJl t)i~.: ,.~..ti.' ~-~ ~; t,"'Il ",,-1;,'. 7:"';' ~ 'l,f"~ ~'?~_i ~~'! r:'-' YOST & TRETTA BY: RICHARD W. YOST IDENTIFICATION NO. 37941 Four Penn Cenler Plaza Suile 1401 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (21S) 972-6600 !, \. I, I , " I I ATIORNEY FOR: Plaintiff, Fint Presbyterian Chun;h or Carlisle FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF CARLISLE 2A North Hanover Street carlisle, PA 17013 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY : v. . . . . . . . . RICHARD RANDOLPH COOK 323 East Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 and POLY-TRUCKING, INC. 2000 West Marshall Drive Grand Prairie, Texas 7505l . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . NO. COMPLAINT Plaintiff, First presbyterian Church of Carlisle, by and through its counsel, Yost & Tretta, hereby files the within complaint and in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff, First Presbyterian Church of Carlisle, is a non- profit, religious entity, organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of pennsylvania, with its premises located at 2A North Hanover street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 2. Defendant, Richard Randolph cook, is an adult individual and citizen of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing at 323 East YOST & TRETTA . FOUR PENN CENTER PlAZA. SUITE 1401 . teoo JOHN F, KENNEDY BOULEVARD. PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 Louther street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 3. Defendant, Pcly-Trucking, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Texas, with a business address of 2000 West Marshall Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas 75051. 4. At all times relevant hereto, defendant, Poly-Trucking, Inc., conducted business throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including Cumberland County. 5. At all times relevant hereto, defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, was employed by defendant, POly-Trucking, Inc., and acted as the agent, servant and/or workman of Poly-Trucking, Inc. 6. On or about september 7, 1993, at approximately 5:00 p.m., defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, operated a 1993 Freightliner tractor, owned by defendant, Poly-Trucking, Inc., in an easterly direction on West High street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. 7. As said Defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, executed a left turn from West High street onto North Hanover street, he crossed into the southbound lane of North Hanover Street and struck a Chevrolet I " j " ; ~ ~ I, I' II " iJ I !: 'I fi I' " I' , , j! j1 II Ii \ h i I' Ii , I i , I I I, i I , I ! Blazer, which was operated by Mark Alan Thies. 8. After the defendants I vehicle collided with the vehicle driven by Thies, it continued to travel onto the plaintiff's property, knocked down a wrought iron fence and shrubbery, collided with a tree and came to rest against the First Presbyterian Church of Carlisle. 9. As a result of the defendants' conduct, the plaintiff has sustained damage to its real and personal property not in excess of $25,000.00, as well as related losses in the form of loss of use and inconvenience for which defendants, their agents, servants and/or -2- YOST & TRETTA . FOUR PENN CENTER PlAZA. SUITE 1401 . UlOO JOHN F, KENNEDY BOULEVARD. PHILADELPHIA, PA IglOO workmen, are solely liable. COUNT I - NEGLIGBNCB PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT. RICHARD RANDOLPH COOK 10. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs one through nine of this complaint as if same were fully set forth at length herein. 11. The motor vehicle accident and resultant damages referred to above were caused by the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, his agents, servants and/or workmen, in: (a) operating his vehicle at high and excessive rates of speed which were in violation of the laws and statutes of Pennsylvania; (b) failing to have his vehicle under proper and adequate control; (c) failing to execute and complete a proper left turn; (d) crossing the center line into opposing traffic; (e) failing to maintain an assured clear distance between his vehicle and those about his; (f) driving too fast for the conditions then and there present, including but not limited to weather, road and traffic conditions, and the respective sizes of the vehicles; (g) being inattentive and failing to maintain a careful, cautious and prudent lookout upon the public highways; (h) operating his vehicle without due regard for the rights and safety of the plaintiff; (i) driving his vehicle without proper and adequate training; (j) operating his vehicle at a speed in excess of that which would permit a driver to execute and complete a proper left turn; -3- YOST & TRETTA . FOUR PENN CENTER PLAZA. SUITE 1401 . 1000 JOHN F, KENNEDY BOULEVARD. PHILADELPHIA. PA \;103 (k) operating his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or illegal drugs; (l) failing to exercise that reasonable degree of care, skill and foresight in accordance with the standards of licensed drivers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and (m) otherwise failing to exercise due care and caution under the circumstances. 12. The aforementioned negligence, carelessness and recklessness of defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, his agents, servants and/or workmen, caused substantial and severe damage to the plaintiff's real and personal property, as well as the loss of use of same, and therefore, defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, is liable to the plaintiff for the damages sustained in the loss. 13. As a direct and proximate cause of the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, his agents, servants and/or workmen, plaintiff has sustained damage to its real and personal property not in excess of $25,000.00, along with related losses in the form of loss of use and inconvenience. WHEREFORE, plaintiff, First Presbyterian Church of Carlisle, demands that judgment be entered in its favor and against defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, in an amount not in excess of $25,000.00, together with interest, costs and delay damages. COUNT II - PUNITIVE DAMAGES PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT. RICHARD RANDOLPH COOK 14. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs one through thirteen of this Complaint as if same were fully set forth at length herein. 15. On or about September 7, 1993, defendant, Richard Randolph -4- YOST & TREllA. FOUR PENN CENTER PLAZA. SUITE 1401 . 1600 JOHN F, KENNEDY BOULEVARD. PHILADELPHIA. PA lQl03 Cook, consumed alcoholic beverages and/or ingested illegal drugs. 16. The consumption of alcoholic beverages and/or ingestion of illegal drugs by the defendant rendered him unfit to drive on the roadways of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 17. Defendant, Richard Randolph cook, knew or should have known that the consumption of alcoholic beverages and/or ingestion of illegal drugs would render him unfit to drive. 18. Despite being aware that the consumption of alcoholic beverages and/or ingestion of drugs would interfere with his ability to drive, defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, did drive his vehicle, thereby endangering all drivers and passengers of other vehicles on the roadway, as well as all pedestrians and/or property owners in his path of travel. 19. Defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, acted willfully, wantonly and recklessly in: (a) consuming alcoholic beverages and/or ingesting illegal drugs; (b) consuming alcoholic beverages and/or ingesting illegal drugs, despite being aware that it would render him unfit to drive; (c) driving his vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages and/or illegal drugs; (d) driving his vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages and/or illegal drugs, despite being aware that his ability to drive had been affected; (e) acting with a reckless indifference to the interests of the plaintiff and others similarly situated; and (f) otherwise acting willfully, wantonly and/or recklessly under the circumstances. 20. The aforementioned willful, wanton and/or reckless conduct of -5- YOST & TREllA. FOUR PENN CENTER PLAZA . SUITE 1401 . l!lOO JOHN F, KENNEDY BOULEVARD. PHILADELPHIA, PA Igto3 the defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, caused substantial and severe damage to the plaintiff's real and personal property as well as the loss of use of same, and therefore, defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, is liable to the plaintiff for the damages sustained. 21. As a direct and proximate result of the willful, wanton and reckless conduct of defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, his agents, servants and/or workmen, the plaintiff has sustained damage to its real and personal property not in excess of $25,000.00, along with related losses in the form of loss of use and inconvenience. WHEREFORE, plaintiff, First Presbyterian Church of Carlisle, demands that judgment be entered in its favor and against defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, in an amount not in excess of $25,000.00, together with interest, costs, punitive damages and delay damages. COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT. POLY-TRUCKING. INC. 22. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs one through twenty-one of this Complaint as if same were fully set forth at length herein. 23. On September 7, 1993, defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, was employed by defendant, poly-Trucking, Inc., and at all times relevant hereto, acted as the agent, servant and/or workman of POly-Trucking, Inc. 24. On September 7, 1993, defendant, Poly-Trucking, Inc., owned the tractor being driven by defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, and consented to said use. 25. Defendant, pOly-Trucking, Inc., at all times relevant hereto, -6- YOST & TRETTA . FOUR PENN CENTER PLAZA. SUITE 1401 . 11500 JOHN F. KENNEDY BOULEVARD. PHILADELPHIA, PA IglOO knew or should have known that defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, would operate its tractor in a negligent, reckless, careless, willful and wanton manner. 26. Defendant, POly-Trucking, Inc., at all times relevant hereto, knew or should have known that defendant, Richard Randolph cook, would operate the vehicle owned by POly-Trucking, Inc. while under the influence of alcohol and/or illegal drugs. 27. Defendant, POly-Trucking, Inc., at all times relevant hereto, entrusted its vehicle to defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, who defendant knew or should have known was unfit to operate a vehicle on the roadways of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 28. The motor vehicle accident and resultant damages referred to above were caused by the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of defendant, Poly-Trucking, Inc., its agents, servants and/or workmen in: (a) entrusting its tractor to defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, despite its knowledge that Richard Randolph Cook would operate the tractor in a negligent, careless, willful and/or wanton manner; (b) entrusting its tractor to defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, despite its knowledge or constructive knowledge that Richard Randolph Cook would operate the tractor under the influence of alcohol and/or illegal drugs; (c) failing to properly hire, train and/or supervise defendant, Richard Randolph Cook; (d) allowing defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, to operate its tractor in a negligent, reckless, careless, willful and/or wanton manner; (e) allowing defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, to operate its tractor, despite its knowledge that he would operate the tractor in a negligent, reckless, careless, willful and/or wanton manner; and (f) otherwise failing to exercise due care and caution under the circumstances. -7- YOST & TRETTA. FOUR PENN CENTER PlAZA. SUITE 1401 . 11500 JOHN F, KENNEDY BOULEVARD. PHILADELPHIA, PA 1;103 LM en - '" '-'l ~. , -::r--"1 ~., ...- ::c :~ .~ a.- 1.:.1 ~;) ."~ ~ ~~~'~~ C"") ~~::?~'~ <>:: .... '<X: <.0 . r~: ~~~' ~(:.; C\...J ~ i'- ~ ~ ~ ~J@ '"'q:' 4-.-~ ~ YOST & TRETTA BY: RICHARO W. YOST IOENTIFICATION NO.: 37941 FOUR PENN CENTER PLAZA, SUITE 1401 1600 JOHN F. KENNEDY BOULEVARD PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 972-6600 ATTORNEY FOR: Plaintiff, First presbyterian Church of Carlisle FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF CARLISLE 2A North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY v. RICHARD RANDOLPH COOK 323 East Louther Street carlisle, PA 17013 and POLY-TRUCKING, INC. 2000 West Marshall Drive Grand Prairie, Texas 75051 95 - !7lP3 ~-J1.AtI^--- NO. COMPLAINT NOTICE 'Iou have b..n sued in court. If you wish to defend .9.1.i"I' the clAims set forth in the following pAges, you musllA.. action within .......nty (20) day. afte, this complaint and noliee art urved. by .nt.ring a Wlitt," lapp.atane. personalty or by altorn-v and filing in writing with the COUf' your d,f,n... or objKtionllo thl claims ut forth againll you. You .r. warned thall' you tail to do 10 thl cu. mAy ptoc..d without you and a judgment mAy b, entered agAInst you by the court Without furth., notice ro, any mon.v claim.d in the complaint or for any othl' claim or f,li,f Itquuttd by the plalnliH. You may Iou mont)' or property or other tighls important to you. you SHOULO TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWVER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAI'NER DR CANNOT AFFORD ONE. GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIIID OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP, AVila It han demandado. u,fftf en 'a eort.. $1 Ulttd qui.,. defend'r..d, "IAS dtmandu .xPUtltas In las paginu Itguianl", ul&,td II.". valnl. (20) diu d, plazo ..I partir d, I. fKha d, I. demand.. V III notiftcAclon. Hac. falt. "Inlat una competanet. ..elit. 0 In p.rsona 0 con un abogado y antraga, a I. co,t. In forma ..clIl3. IUI dal.nul 0 IUI oblecion.. a 1M d.mandu In contra d, au persona. S.. Ivisado qua II ulled no I' dtfitnd.. 'a cart. pueda dtcldi, . fAVOt d.1 demandanl. Y fltqui.,. qUI ust,d cumpl. con todu Iu provision,. d, uta demand.. Usl,d pultdt petdt, din.to 0 IUI proplectAd" U otrOI det.chOI impo'tanl'~ piua utl.d. LLeVE ESTA DEMANDA A UII ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE, SI NO nENE ABDOADO 0 51 NO nENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVlCIO, VAVA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCIDN SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE COI'SEGUIR ASISTEI'CIA LEGAL, COURT ADMINISTRATOR CUMBERLAND CO COURTHOUSE 4th FLOOR 1 COURTHOUSE SQUARE f1l1I1f PROM R~LISLE PA 17013 3387 . .. I--unlt"mr~) 240 6200 ",--. -. .. of at CIItiIII, fIlL_ {(, '19 4'1 .. YO;N.T~ FOUR PENN CENTER PLAZA. SUITE 1401.,1500 JOHN F, KENNEDY BOULEVARD . PHILADELPHIA, PA ,;,03 Louther street, carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 3. Defendant, poly-Trucking, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Texas, with a business address of 2000 West Marshall Drive, Grand prairie, Texas 75051. 4. At all times relevant hereto, defendant, poly-Trucking, Inc., conducted business throughout the Commonwealth of pennsylvania, including cumberland county. 5. At all times relevant hereto, defendant, Richard Randolph COOK, was employed by defendant, poly-Trucking, Inc., and acted as the agent, servant and/or workman of poly-Trucking, Inc. 6. On or about september 7, 1993, at approximatelY 5:00 p.m., defendant, Richard Randolph cook, operated a 1993 Freightliner tractor, owned by defendant, poly-Trucking, Inc., in an easterly direction on West High street, Carlisle, pennsylvania. 7. As said Defendant, Richard Randolph cook, executed a left turn from West High street onto North Hanover street, he crossed into the southbound lane of North Hanover street and struck a Chevrolet Blazer, which was operated by Mark Alan Thies. 8. After the defendants I vehicle collided with the vehicle driven by Thies, it continued to travel onto the plainti~f's property, Knocked down a wrought iron fence and shrubbery, collided with a tree and came to rest against the First preSbyterian Church of carlisle. 9. As a result of the defendants I conduct, the plaintiff has sustained damage to its real and personal property not in excess of $25,000.00, as well as related losses in the form of loss of use and inconvenience for which defendants, their agents, servants and/or -2- YOST & TRETTA . FOUR PENN CENTER PlAZA . SUITE \40' . .eoo JOHN F, KENNEDY BOULEVARD' PHIlJ\DELPHIA, PA 19103 workmen, are solely liable. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT. RICHARD RANDOLPH COOK 10. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs one through nine of this Complaint as if same were fully set forth at length herein. 11. The motor vehicle accident and resultant damages referred to above were caused by the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, his agents, servants and/or workmen, in: (a) operating his vehicle at high and excessive rates of speed which were in violation of the laws and statutes of Pennsylvania; (b) failing to have his vehicle under proper and adequate control; (c) failing to execute and complete a proper left turn; (d) crossing the center line into opposing traffic; (e) failing to maintain an assured clear distance between his vehicle and those about his; (f) driving too fast for the conditions then and there present, including but not limited to weather, road and traffic conditions, and the respective sizes of the vehicles; . (g) being inattentive and failing to maintain a careful, cautious and prudent lookout upon the public highways; (h) operating his vehicle without due regard for the rights and safety of the plaintiff; (i) driving his vehicle without proper and adequate training; (j) operating his vehicle at a speed in excess of that which would permit a driver to execute and complete a proper left turn; -3- YOST & TRETTA . FOUR PENN CENTER PLAZA. SUITE '401 . 1600 JOHN F, KENNEDY BOULEVARD. PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (k) operating his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or illegal drugs; (1) failing to exercise that reasonable degree of care, skill and foresight in accordance with the standards of licensed drivers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and (m) otherwise failing to exercise due care and caution under the circumstances. 12. The aforementioned negligence, carelessness and recklessness of defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, his agents, servants and/or workmen, caused substantial and severe damage to the plaintiff's real and personal property, as well as the loss of use of same, and therefore, defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, is liable to the plaintiff for the damages sustained in the loss. 13. As a direct and proximate cause of the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, his agents, servants and/or workmen, plaintiff has sustained damage to its real and personal property not in excess of $25,000.00, along with related losses in the form of loss of use and inconvenience. WHEREFORE, plaintiff, First Presbyterian Church of Carlisle, demands that judgment be entered in its favor and against defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, in an amount not in excess of $25,000.00, . together with interest, costs and delay damages. COUNT II - PUNITIVE DAMAGES PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT. RICHARD RANDOLPH COOK 14. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs one through thirteen of this Complaint as if same were fully set forth at length herein. 15. On or about September 7, 1993, defendant, Richard Randolph -4- YOST & TRETTA . FOUR PENN CENTER PlAZA. SUITE 1401 . 1600 JOHN F, KENNEDY BOULEVARD. PHILADELPHIA. PA 19103 Cook, consumed alcoholic beverages and/or ingested illegal drugs. 16. The consumption of alcoholic beverages and/or ingestion of illegal drugs by the defendant rendered him unfit to drive on the roadways of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 17. Defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, knew or should have known that the consumption of alcoholic beverages and/or ingestion of illegal drugs would render him unfit to drive. 18. Despite being aware that the consumption of alcoholic beverages and/or ingestion of drugs would interfere with his ability to drive, defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, did drive his vehicle, thereby endangering all drivers and passengers of other vehicles on the roadway, as well as all pedestrians and/or property owners in his path of travel. 19. Defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, acted willfully, wantonly and recklessly in: (a) consuming alcoholic beverages and/or ingesting illegal drugs: (b) consuming alcoholic beverages and/or ingesting illegal drugs, despite being aware that it would render him unfit to drive: driving his vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages and/or illegal drugs: (d) driving his vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages and/or illegal drugs, despite being aware that his ability to drive had been affected: (c) (e) acting with a reckless indifference to the interests of the plaintiff and others similarly situated: and (f) otherwise acting willfully, wantonly and/or recklessly under the circumstances. 20. The aforementioned willful, wanton and/or reckless conduct of -5- YOST & TRETTA . FOUR PENN CENTER PlAZA . SUITE 140' . '600 JOHN F, KENNEDY BOULEVARD. PHILADELPHIA, PA '9103 the defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, caused substantial and severe damage to the plaintiff's real and personal property as well as the loss of use of same, and therefore, defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, is liable to the plaintiff for the damages sustained. 21. As a direct and proximate result of the willful, wanton and reckless conduct of defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, his agents, servants and/or workmen, the plaintiff has sustained damage to its real and personal property not in excess of $25,000.00, along with related losses in the form of loss of use and inconvenience. WHEREFORE, plaintiff, First Presbyterian Church of Carlisle, demands that judgment be entered in its favor and against defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, in an amount not in excess of $25,000.00, together with interest, costs, punitive damages and delay damages. COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT. POLY-TRUCKING. INC. 22. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs one through twenty-one of this Complaint as if same were fully set forth at length herein. 23. On September 7, 1993, defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, was employed by defendant, POly-Trucking, Inc., and at all cimes relevant hereto, acted as the agent, servant and/or workman of POly-Trucking, Inc. 24. On September 7, 1993, defendant, POly-Trucking, Inc., owned the tractor being driven by defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, and consented to said use. 25. Defendant, Poly-TruCking, Inc., at all times relevant hereto, -6- YOST & TRETTA . FOUR PENN CENTER PlAZA. SUITE 1401 . 11500 JOHN F, KENNEDY BOULEVARD. PHILADELPHIA. PA 1;103 knew or should have known that defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, would operate its tractor in a negligent, reckless, careless, willful and wanton manner. 26. Defendant, Poly-Trucking, Inc., at all times relevant hereto, knew or should have known that defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, would operate the vehicle owned by Poly-Trucking, Inc. while under the influence of alcohol and/or illegal drugs. 27. Defendant, Poly-Trucking, Inc., at all times relevant hereto, entrusted its vehicle to defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, who defendant knew or should have known was unfit to operate a vehicle on the roadways of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 28. The motor vehicle accident and resultant damages referred to above were caused by the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of defendant, Poly-Trucking, Inc., its agents, servants and/or workmen in: (a) entrusting its tractor to defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, despite its knowledge that Richard Randolph Cook would operate the tractor in a negligent, careless, willful and/or wanton manner; (b) entrusting its tractor to defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, despite its knowledge or constructive knowledge that Richard Randolph Cook would operate the tractor under the influence of alcohol and/or illegal drugs; (c) failing to properly hire, train and/or supervise defendant, Richard Randolph Cook; (d) allowing defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, to operate its tractor in a negligent, reckless, careless, willful and/or wanton manner; (e) allowing defendant, Richard Randolph Cook, to operate its tractor, despite its knowledge that he would operate the tractor in a negligent, reckless, careless, willful and/or wanton manner; and (f) otherwise failing to exercise due care and caution under the circumstances. -7- YOST & TRETTA . FOUR PENN CENTER PLAZA. SUITE \401 . 1600 JOHN F, KENNEDY BOULEVARD. PHILADELPHIA. PA 19103 29. The aforementioned negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of defendant, poly-Trucking, Inc., its agents, servants and/or workmen, caused substantial and severe damage to the plaintiff's real and personal property, as well as the loss of use of same, and therefore, defendant, poly-Trucking, Inc., is liable to the plaintiff for the damages sustained in the loss. 30. As a direct and proximate cause of the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of defendant, poly-Trucking, Inc., its agents, servants and/or workmen, plaintiff has sustained damage to its real and personal property not in excess of $25,000.00, along with related losses in the form of loss of use and inconvenience. WHEREFORE, plaintiff, First presbyterian Church of Carlisle, demands that judgment be entered in its favor and against defendant, poly-Trucking, Inc., in an amount not in excess of $25,000.00, together with interest, costs, punitive and delay da~ages. YOST &'T~TTA I " J. ; L.....__ BY: ,h':L'..:t ,: }\.) " \ RiChard W. Yost \ Au~orney for Plainti~f, ~i~~~preSbyterian chfrch ,/car le : . ", \. "~ of -8- YOST & TRETTA . FOUR PENN CENTER PU\ZA. SUITE 1401 . 1600 JOHN F, KENNEDY BOULEVARD' PHILADELPHIA, PA 1;'03 i; It VERIFICATION Joan Miller, who is Property Chairperson of First Presbyterian Church of Carlisle and acknowledges that she has the authority to execute this Verification in behalf of First Presbyterian Church of Carlisle certifies that the foregoing Complaint is based upon information which has been gathered by my counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language of this Complaint is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the document and to the extent that the Complaint is based upon information which I have given to my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the Complaint is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this Verification. This statement and Verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if I make knowingly false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. , . . First Presbyterian Church of Carlisle bm{ };~ . BRITT, HANKINS, SCHArBLE , MOUGHAN BYa Joseph M. Hankins, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 20052 Elizabeth S. Gallard, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 63258 Two Penn Center Plaza Suite 515 Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 569-6900 Attorneys for Defendant POLY-TRUCKING, INC. FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF CARLISLE . . . . COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY . . . . v. . . . . NO. 95-1763 RICHARD RANDOLPH COOK and POLY-TRUCKING, INC. : . . : ENTRY OP APPEARANCB TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of the defendant, Poly- TruCking, Inc., in the above-referenced matter. BRITT, HANKINS, SCHAIBLE & MOUGHAN BY: '4' ~~ e M. Hank ns, Esqu re Elizabeth S. Gallard, Esquire Attorneys for Defendant POLY-TRUCKING, INC. Dated: ,;/1/ 4~ , JURY 'l'RrAL DEMANDED 5. Denied. To the contrary, co-defendant was not acting as the agent, servant or workman of answering defendant at the time set forth in the Complaint. To the contrary, co-defendant was acting on his own business at the time of the alleged incident. 6-9. Answering defendant denies any allegations or implica- tions set forth in these paragraphs that co-defendant was acting as its agent, servant or workman at the time of the accident. To the contrary, co-defendant was on his own business at the time of the alleged incident. Admi tted only that a tractor owned by Poly- Trucking, Inc. was involved in the incident. The remaining allegations of paragraphs 6 through 9 are denied. COUNT 1: 10. Answering defendant incorporates by reference each and every answer to paragraphs 1 through 9 su~ra as though fully set forth at length. 11-13. Answering defendant specifically denies any allegations or implications contained in these paragraphs that co- defendant was acting as its agent, servant or workman at the time of the alleged incident. To the contrary. co-defendant was on his own business. Likewise, answering defendant specifically denies any allegations that it was acting as the agent, servant or workman of co-defendant at the time of the alleged incident. The remaining allegations contained in paragraphs 11 through 13 are denied. WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands judgment dismissing Count I of Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice, together with costs of suit and attorneys' fees. COUNT II 14. Answering defendant incorporates by reference each and every answer to paragraphs 1 through 13 supra as though fully set forth at length. 15-21. Answering defendant denies any allegations or implications contained in these paragraphs that it was acting as anyone else's agent, servant or workman at the time of the accident or that co-defendant was acting as its agent, servant or workman at the time of the alleged incident. To the contrary, co-defendant was on his own business at the time of the accident. With respect to the remaining allegations contained in these paragraphs, answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments and strict proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands judgment dismissing Count II of Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice, together with costs of suit and attorneys' fees. COUNT III 22. Answering defendant incorporates by reference each and every answer to paragraphs 1 through 21 sunra as though fully set forth at length. 23. Denied. To the contrary, co-defendant was on his own business at the time of the accident. 24. Admitted that answering defendant owned the tractor. It is specifically denied that co-defendant had given its consent to co-defendant to use the tractor in question, on the date in question and for the purpose in question. 25-30. Answering defendant specifically denies any allegetions or implications contained in these paragraphs that co- defendant was acting as its agent, servant or workman at the time of the alleged accident. To the contrary, co-defendant was on his own business at the time of the accident. The remaining allega- tions contained in paragraphs 25 through 30 are denied. WHEREFORE, answering defendant demands judgment dismissing Count ILl of Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice, together with costs of suit and attorneys' fees. NEW MATTER 31. No action or failure to act on the part of answering defendant caused plaintiff to sustain any injuries. 32. Co-defendant, Richard Cook, was not acting as the agent, servant or workman of answering defendant at the time of the alleged accident. Therefore, answering defendant can have no responsibility to plaintiff. 33. Answering defendant had not given its permission to co- defendant Cook to use the tractor on the date in question, in the manner in question and for the purpose in question. 34. Any damages claimed by plaintiff may have been related to natural conditions and/or wear and tear conditions at the property in question rather than having been caused by any direct impact by any vehicle involved in the accident. ...... en ~:.,.- . ~;- I - 7" ; ~t ~. , = _1: r"" ,-'" ,'-:;' f"'-'" ;,,"") ~ ~, . , ~. , YOST , TRETTA BYa Richard W. Yost IDBNTIFICATION NO. 37941 FOUR PENN CENTER PLAZA SUITE 1401 1600 JOHN F. KENNEDY BOULBVARD PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 972-6600 ATTORNEY FORa plaintiff, First presbyterian Church of carlisle FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF CARLISLE . . . . . . COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY v. . . . . RICHARD RANDOLPH COOK and POLY-TRUCKING, INC. NO. 95-1763 CIVIL TERM . . RESPONSE OF FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, PLAINTIFF, TO THE NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT. POLY-TRUCKING. INC. Plaintiff, First Presbyterian Church of Carlisle, by and through its counsel, Yost & Tretta, hereby responds to the New Matter of defendant, Poly-Trucking, Inc., as follows: 31-34. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraphs 31 through 34 of the New Matter of defendant, POly-Trucking, Inc., are denied as they represent conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent said allegations are not conclusions of law, they are denied for the reason that after reasonable investigation, plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained therein. It is specifically denied that Richard Randolph cook was not acting as the agent, servant or workman of Poly- YOST & TRETTA. FOUR PENN CENTER PlAZA' SUITE 140. . 1600 JOHN F, KENNEDY BOULEVARD. PHILADELPHIA, PA 19'03 Trucking, Inc. WHEREFORE, plaintiff, First Presbyterian Church of Carlisle, demands that judgment be entered in its favor and against the defendants in an amount not in excess of twenty-five thousand ($25,000.00) dollars, together with interest, cost and delay damages. , TRETTA tiff, Church -2- YOST & TRffiA . FOUR PENN CENTER PLAZA. SUITE 1401 . IllOO JOHN F, KENNEDY BOULEVARD. PHILADELPHIA. PA lDI03 VERIFICATION RICHARD W. YOST, ESQUIRE, states that he is the attorney for the defendant herein; that he is acquainted with the facts set forth in the foregoing Response to New Matter; that the same are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief; and that this statement is made bject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. S4904 relating to unsworn ification to authorities. ! dwibJ YOST & TRETTA . FOUR PENN CENTER PLAZA. SUITE 1401 . 1600 JOHN F. KENNEDY BOULEVARD. PHILADELPHIA. PA 1;103 YOST , TRBTTA BYI Riohard W. Yost IDBNTIrICATION NO. 37941 FOUR PBNN CBNTBR PLAZA SUITB 1401 1600 JOHN r. KENNEDY BOULEVARD PHILADBLPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 972-6600 ATTORNBY rORI plaintiff, rirat pre.byterian Churoh of Carlisle FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF CARLISLE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY v. RICHARD RANDOLPH COOK and POLY-TRUCKING, INC. . : NO. 95-1763 CIVIL TERM . . ORDBR TO SBTTLB. DISCONTINUE AND BND TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly mark the above-captioned matter settled, discontinued and ended upon payment of your costs only. BY: I W. YOS torney for aintiff, First Presbyterian Church of Carlisle YOST & TRETTA . FOUR PENN CENTER PLAZA. SUITE 1401 . lllOO JOHN F. KENNEDY BOULEVARD. PHILADELPHIA, PA 1;103 YOST , TRBTTA BYI Rioha~d w. Yoat IDBNTI~ICATION NO. 37941 ~OUR PENN CBNTBR PLAZA SUZTE 1401 1600 JOHN ~. KENNEDY BOULBVARD PHILADBLPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 972-&600 ATTORNBY ~ORI plaintiff, ~i~at pr.a~yt.rian Chu~oh of Ca~lial. FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF CARLISLE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY v. RICHARD RANDOLPH COOK and POLY-TRUCKING, INC. NO. 95-1763 CIVIL TERM ORDER TO SBTTLB. DISCONTINUE AND BND TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly mark the above-captioned matter settled, discontinued and ended upon payment of your costs only. BY: I W. YOS torney for aintiff, First presbyterian Church of Carlisle YOST & TRETTA . FOUR PENN CENTER PLAZA. SUITE 1401 . 11lOO JOHN F. KENNEDY BOULEVARD. PHILADELPHIA, PI. 111103