HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-02064
]
J
cJ
c
I
[
...~
~
J
"t-
~
g
i
~
DYANNE SEYMORE and WILLIAM SEYMORE, l IN TilE COURT OF COMMON
guardians ad lltem for ) PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND
KRISTINE M. SEYMORE, ) COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintltfs )
)
vs. l CIVIL ACTION - LAW
. l
DAVID McFARI,AND and CIIRISTI McFARLAND ) NO. CIVIL 1995
Defendants )
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, Andes, Vaughn & Bangs, and
files this Complaint based upon the following:
1. Plaintiffs, Dyanne Seymore and William Seymore are adult individuals and the
natural parents and guardians ad litem for Kristine M. Seymore and reside at 714 Kent
Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. Defendants, David McFarland and Christi McFarland are adult individuals who
reside at 880 Acri Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3. The Defendants were the owners of a dog in April of 1993, said dog residing
with them at their address set out above.
4. On or about April 21, 1993, Plaintiffs were walking down the street in front
of Defendants' residence when Defendants' dog viciously attacked them, injuring their
minor (~hi1d, Kristine.
5. Defendants' dog was not properlY restrained in that it broke free from its
yard and attacked Plaintiffs in the street in front of Defendants' house.
6. Defendants were aware that their dog had a tendency toward aggressive behavior
in that it had displayed those aggressive tendencies on one or more occasions prior to
APril 21, 1993.
'I. Defendants had a dULl' to ensure that their dog was properl y restrained so that
it could not break free from their residence and attack the general public who were
2
walking down a public street.
8. Defendants breached their duty of ensuring that their dog was properly
restrained in that the dog broke free from that restraint and attacked Plaintiffs
causing injuries and damages to the Plaintiffs' minor child, Kristine.
9. Defendants were negligent in failing to adequately restrain their dog so as to
prevent its unprovoked attack upon Plaintiff, Kristine Seymore. As a result 01 the
negligence of the Defendants in failing to properly restrain their dog who had
displayed previous vicious propensities, Plaintiff, Kristine Seymore, suffered the
following injuries:
A. A puncture, bite wound to the right thigh which required medical
treatment;
B. Bruising and abrasions around the right thigh area;
C. Mental anguish, discomfort, inconvenience and distress from the
attack;
D. Permanent disfigurement and scarring on the right thigh and
embarrassment and humiliation from the disfigurement and permanent scarring
from the injuries;
E. The loss of enjoyment of life as a result of the disfigurement,
inconvenience, distress and mental anguish caused by the attack from the dog;
F. The future mental anguish, discomfort, inconvenience and distress
suffered as a result of the vicious attack by the dog; .
G. Physical pain and suffering associated with the bite mark from the
dog.
10. Plaintiffs also were damaged in that they incurred medical expenses for the
treatment of the injuries suffered by Plaintiff, Kristine Seymore and will incur future
3
. ,
,
, I
-.
!
I
I- f
. i
i
<n
u,
.'
~ .'
,
:r.: ',I ~~
<>- u- .
r:'J $'1
II
---..
,'..j ('.
= 1
I"~
"J'
.-
n)
~ 4
r:
III
o
7-
... ~
~ ~ ~
ell :s ~
~ ~ ~
.< ~ ~
... 0 ..
_ .. 0
III ~ z
~ ~
x
-<
~
!::
<
~
" ~
!! ~
~ III
lQ ~
d ~
0; Ilo
Jlf
~
o
):
~
.
.-.;".'"
I "
, - )
/'
! DYANNB SEYMORE and WILLIAM SEYMORE,
guardians ad litem for
KRISTINB M. SBYMORB,
Plaintiffs
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IN THB COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND
COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA
i V8.
I
I'DAVID McPARLAND and CHRISTI HcFARI,AND
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 95-2064 CIVIL TERM
I
,
I
I:
I
I
PETITION TO WITHDRAW liB COUNSEL
AND NOV, comes Michael L. Bangs and the law firm of Andes, Vaughn' Bangs, and
file a Petition to withdraw as counsel based upon the following:
1. On or about April 27, 1993, Plaintiffs consulted with Samuel L. Andes,
I
I, Esquire, concerning a dog bite incident occurring with their minor daughter.
2. on November 22, 1993, Samuel Andes, Esquire contacted Plaintiffs and requested
certain information concerning the dog bite so that the case could be moved forward.
~. The Plaintiffs had no contact with Samuel IIndes, Esquire until the spring of
,
,
! 1995. on April 18, 1995, Plaintiffs had a consultation with Michael L. Bangs, Esquire
I
I concerning the dog bite incident. This consultation occurred three (3) days before the
I
i running of the statute of limitations.
4. During the ,course of the consultation, Michael I.. Bangs, Esquire, indicated to
Plaintiffs that he was not willing to represent them on a contingency fee basis, but
would accept the case on an hourly basis.
5. Because of the impending statute of limitations, Michael L. Bangs, Bsquire,
filed a Complaint to preserve this action.
6. Michael L. Bangs, Esquire, requested a retainer from the Plaintiffs to pay for
the legal expenses and costs associated with representation of this case. lis of this
date, the Plaintiffs have failed to provide Michael L. Bangs, Esquire, with the full
I
i
i DYANNB SEYMORB and WILLIAM SBYMORB,
guardians ad litem for
KRISTINB M. SBYMORE,
plaintiffs
I vs.
I
I
. DAVID McPARLAND and CHRISTI McPARI,AND
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IN THB COURT OP COMMON
PLEAS OP CUMBERLAND
COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 95-2064 CIVIL TERM
PBTITION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
AND NOll, c~es Michael L. Bangs and the law firm of Andes, Vaughn' Bangs, and
file a Petition to withdraw as counsel based upon the fOllowing:
1. on or about April 37, 1993, Plaintiffs consulted with Samuel L. Andes,
I: Esquire, concerning a dog bite incident occurring with their minor daughter.
2. on Noveaber 23, 1993, Samuel Andes, Bsquire contacted plaintiffs and requested
, certain information concerning the dog bite so that the case could be MOved forward.
I
~. The Plaintiffs had no contact with Samuel Andes, Bsquire until the spring of
,
.
1995. On April 18, 1995, Plaintiffs had a consultation with Kichael L. Bangs, Bsquire
I concerning the dog bite incident. This consultation occurred three (3) days before the
; running of the statute of lillitations.
4. During the ,course of the consultation, Michael I,. Bangs, Bsquire, indicated to
plaintiffs that he was not willing to represent them on a contingency fee basis, but
would accept the case on an hourly basis.
5. Because of the impending statute of limitations, Michael L. Bangs, Esquire,
filed a C~plaint to preserve this action.
6. Michael L. Bangs, Bsquire, requested a retainer from the Plaintiffs to pay for
the legal expenses and costs associated with representation of this case. As of this
date, the Plaintiffs have failed to provide Hichael L. Bangs, Esquire, with the full