HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-02363
,
~
CAROLLE V. BROWN and IN THE COUR'r OF COMMON PLEAS
FREDERICK BROWN, her husband, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs
vs.
No.
Ii)
...) l{~~ (II ,II (' , )t ( H'-..
DONALD L. ADAMS,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE
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 Notics are served,
by entering a written appearanoe personally or by attorney and
filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objeotions to the
olaims 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 olaimed in ths Complaint or for any other olaim or relief
requested by Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other
rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO
NOT /lAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE
OFFICE SET FORT/l BBLOW TO FIND OUT WHERB YOU CAN GBT LEGAL
/lELPI
COURT ADMINISTRATOR, 4th Floor
CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT/lOUSE
CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013
TELEPHONE I (717) 240-6200
CAROLLE V. BROWN and
FREDERICK BROWN, her husband, :
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
No.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DONALD L. ADAMS,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
AND NOW come the Plaintiffs, Carolle V. Brown and Frederick
Brown, her husband, by and through their attorney, Leslie M.
Fields, and respectfully represent as follows:
Count I
1. Plaintiffs, Carolle V. Brown and Frederick Brown, her
husband, are adult individuals residing at 74 North 17th Street,
Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 17103.
2. Defendant, Donald L. Adams, is an adult individual
residing at 49 Golf View Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania 17011.
3. On or about January IB, 1994, at approximately B:25 a.m.,
Plaintiff, Carolle V. Brown, was a passenger in a 1985 Subaru
automobile operated by her brother, Kenneth J. Henry, which was
travelling on State Street, Borough of Lemoyne, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, and was being closely tailed by a 19BB Ford Bronco
automobile opsrated by Defendant, Donald L. Adams. When the Subaru
slowed down to enter the parking lot of the West Shore Plaza, it
was rsar-ended by Defendant's vehicle.
4. At the aforesaid time and place, Plaintiff, Carolle V.
Brown, was oaused to sustain severe injuries to her person,
hereinafter more fully desoribed.
5. At the aforesaid tims and plaoe, the oollision and
injuries reeulting therefrom were oaused by the negligent, oareless
and/or reckless actions of Defendant, Donald L. Adams, in that hel
(a) failed to oome to a stop before striking
Plaintiff's vuhicle;
(bl followed Plaintiff's vehiole too closely from
behind;
(0) failed to stop before oausing an aooident;
(d) failed to keep a proper lookout;
(e) failed to see what he should havs seen;
(f) failed to notics the imminence of an acoident
and to take the necessary steps to avoid the
same;
(g I failed to maintain hie vehicle under proper
and adequate control; and
(h) aoted wi thout regard for the safety and righte
of Plaintiff.
6. Ae a direot and proximate result of the negligent,
oarele.. and/or reckles. aot. of the Defendant, Donald L. Adam.,
the Plaintiff, Carolle V, UTOwn, has Buffered injuries which were
and are severe, patnful. BIH 10UB tlnd permanent. These in.jurie.
include, bul IHIS not 11",11.11(1 till
(IS I "1I8vera ~J(Jllt-t1 liumaUo right ourvimil thoraoio
.trahll allll
(b) severe post-traumatic subacromial subdeltoid
bursitis.
7. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligent,
careless and/or reckless acts of the Defendant, Donald L. Adams,
the Plaintiff, Carolle V. Brown, has been obligated to receive and
undergo medical attention, care and expsnses for the injuries she
has suffered and may be obligated to continue to incur such
expsnses for an indefinite time in the future.
8. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligent,
careless and/or reckless acts of the Defendant, Donald L. Adams,
the Plaintiff, Carolle V. Brown, has suffered a loss of earnings
and/or impairment of her earning capacity and power.
9. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligent,
careless and/or reckless acts of the Defendant, Donald L. Adams,
the Plaintiff, Carolle V. Brown, has suffered medically
determinable physical impairments which have prevented her from
performing all of the normal acts and duties which constitute her
usual and customary daily activities.
10. As a further direct and proximats result of the
negligent, careless and/or rsckloss acts of the Defendant, Donald
L. Adams, the Plaintiff, Carolle V. Brown, has experienced severe
pain and suffering, mental anguish and humiliation, and in the
future may oontinue to 60 experience.
ll. As a further direct and proximate result of the
negligent, careless and/or reckless acts of the Defendant, Donald
L. Adams, the Plaintiff, Carolle V. Brown, has suffered a loss of
life's pleasures and in the future will continue to suffer a loss
of life's pleasures.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Carolle V. Brown, demands judgment
against Defendant, Donald L. Adams, in an amount in excess of the
compulsory arbitration limits, plus costs and interest as provided
by law.
Count II
12. The allegations oontained in Paragraphs 1 through 11 are
inoorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
13. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff, Carolle V.
Brown, and Plaintiff, Frederiok Brown, were lawfully married.
14. As a direot and proximate result of the negligent,
oareless and/or reckless acts of the Defendant, Donald L. Adams,
the Plaintiff, Frederick Brown, has suffp.~ed a loss of consortium
of his wife, Plaintiff, Carolle V. Brown.
( :-~.
,
'9-
,_, : ,/ J
I) ((!,/)
J ' ji
II () .
,~.
1j- Jl
(II- j(!f?
')
j (ij/ .:J l/ 71; 'I
() ) I .>))
COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
831 MARKET STREET
LEMOYNE. PENNSYLVANIA 17043
, :-11\ ; ,~ ,
,tj
l ~ ) ,\ i f< ~ I :, I \
i\:' '.\
! ~!
if:
q.:\,
"
, , , ,
)j i ! "I
.j! I . ..
"
'i1,11
, ,
,i'
'.
..
!l( ;
! t
, , , l
" , ! , , 'I
, ! -~ I , , Ii i
"
I ~ t lIt
,I>;
"
1\ ~-1 t
,.
"
i"
'\1
'.
f'
..l<.
n_
,) ~
-j< '1" '-' C
i '.... !'
..
'j..
"}ll~'1
11(..('(.....
,
!.
L .1
-
L\'i"'1
, ,
\,;; ; I,
, ,
j,
Jt'l
"
~ i
'11"(
,. /
. :/
(/
I/U, '.
" /.- (
II
"
r'
~.;
, ,
",
~ I
;\ tit
,.,11
il
I ii';
" of.
'.. .~
,
/
l'7V'- .
,/. .'
.It
a.,
j.,,' I'. -~
>, / ~ f
v
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Carolle V. Brown and,
Frederick Brown, her husband,
Plaintiff
civil Action - Law
vs.
No. 95-2363
Donald L. Adams,
Defendant
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 1012
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly enter the appearance of Charles B. Calkins, Esquire,
of Griffith, strickler, Lerman, Solymos & calkins, as attorneys for
the Defendant, Donald L. Adams, in the above-captioned matter and
mark the docket accordingly.
I
GRIE IT STR K ER LERMAN,
OL OS & CA KI S
BY
/
Dat.. --1J7D f q (
lll/lGIF (
C s
Attorney for th Defendant
ID836208
110 South Northern Way
York, PA 17402
Telephone: (717) 757-7602
IN TilE COURT 01' COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Carolle V. Brown and,
Frederick Brown, her husband,
Plaintiff
civil Action - Law
vs.
No. 95-2363
Donald L. Adams,
Defendant
VS,
Kenneth L. Henry,
Additional Defendant
NonCE TO PLEAD
TOI Carolle V. Brown and
Frederick Brown, her husband
c/o Leslie M. Fields, Esquire
831 Market Street
P.O. Box 222
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Kenneth J. Henry
525 North 16th Street
lIarrisburg, PA 17103
'You are hereby notified to fUe a written response to the
enclosed New Matter and crossclaim within twenty (20) days from
service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you.
GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN,
SOLYMOS & CALKINS
l H
INEK, ESQUIRE
supreme C rt 1.0, #55741
110 S. Northern Way
York, I'A 17402
Attorney for Defendant Adams
Telephone No. I (717) 757-7602
dko/ laVa
state street, Dorough of Lemoyne, Cumberland county, Pennsylvania.
After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or
sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity
of the statement that the automobile was operated by her brother.
Further, it is specifically denied that the Subaru was being
closely tailed by a 1988 Ford Bronco operated by Defendant, Donald
L. Adams.
It is also specifically denied that when the Subaru
slowed down to enter the parking lot of the West Shore Plaza, and
then it was rear-ended by Defendant's vehicle. Defendant, Donald
L. Adams, vehicle did strike the Subaru automobile in the rear
portion of the vehicle, however, this was caused by the vehicle's
sudden change in direction which created a sudden energency by the
driver of the Subaru, not by any negligence by Donald L. Adams.
4.
Denied.
After reasonable investigation, Defendant is
without knowledge or information eUfficient to form a belief as to
the truth or veracity of the statements contained in Paragraph 4.
5.
Denied.
The allegations contained in paragraph 5 of
Plaintiff's complaint contain a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. To the extent that the pleading
alleges facts, these facts are specifically denied.
It i8
specifically denied that the collision and alleged injuriss
resulting therefrom were caused by the negligent, careless and/or
reckless actions of Defendant, Donald L. Adams, in that hel
a. failed to come to a stop before striking Plaintiff's
vehicle;
b. followed Plaintiff's vehicle too closely from behlndt
c, failed to sop before causing an accldentt
2
d. failed to keep a proper lookout:
0, failed to see what he should have seent
f. failed to notice the imminence of an accident and to
take the necessary steps to avoid the samel
g. failed to maintain his vehicle under proper and adequate
controlt and
h, acted without regard for the safety and rights of
Plaintiff,
Further, at all times Defendant, Donald L. Adams, acted
reasonably and carefully in the operation of his automobile.
6,
Denied.
After reasonable investigation, Defendant is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth and veracity of the statements contained in Paragraph 6
of plaintiff's complaint and the same are denied and strict proof
thereof is demanded.
7,
Denied.
After reasonable investigation, Defendant is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth and veracity of the statements contained in Paragraph 7
of plaintiff's Complaint and the same are denied and strict proof
thereof is demanded,
8.
Denied,
After reasonable investigation, Defendant is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth and verncl t y of t he statements conta ined in Paragraph 8
of I'lalntllt'u clJmplnlnt nnd the same are denied and strict proof
theraof I II llemall<led,
9,
Uenled,
After rOiHlOnahle Investigation, Defendant is
without knuwledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
]
the truth and veracity of the statements contained in Paragraph 9
of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same are denied and strict proof
thereof is demanded.
10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth and veracity of the statements contained in Paragraph 10
of Plaintiff's complaint and the same are denied and strict proof
thereof is demanded.
11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth and veracity of the statements contained in Paragraph 11
of Plaintifft~ complaint and the same are denied and strict proof
thereof is demanded.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Donald L. Adams, demands judgment
against Plaintiff, Carolle V. Brown, together with costs of suit.
COUNT II
12. Paragraphs 1 through 11 of Defendant's Answer are
incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth at
length.
13. Denied, After reasonable investigation, 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 Plaintiffs' Complaint and the same are denied
and strict proof thereof is demanded.
14, Denied, This paragraph states legal conclusions to which
4
no response is required. To the extent that this paragraph states
facts, it is specifically denied that Defendant was negligent,
careless and/or reckless in the operation of his automobile which
was involved in an accident.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Donald L, Adams, demands judgment
against plaintiff, Frederick Brown, together with costs of suit.
NEW MATTER
15. Paragraphs 1 through 14 are incorporated herein by
reference as though fully set forth at length Paragraphs 1 through
14 of Defendant's Answer.
16. Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant are barred and/or
prohibited and/or reduced by virtue of the Sudden Emergency
Doctrine.
17. Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant are prohibited
and/or barred and/or reduced by virtue thereof and pursuant to the
Doctrines of contributory Damages and/or comparative Negligence.
18. plaintiffs, carolle V. Brown and Donald L. Brown,
negligently entrusted their vehicle to be operated by Additional
Defendant, Kenneth J. Henry,
19. Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant are
and/or barred and/or reduced by virtue of the
Assumption of Risk,
WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment against plaintiffs,
Carolle V, Brown and Frederick Brown, together with costs of suit.
prohibited
Doctrine of
5
NEW HATTER IN THE NATURE OF A
CROSS CLAIM PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 22521dl
Donald L. Adams v. Kenneth J. Henry
20. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated herein by
reference as though fully set forth at length of Defendant I s
Answer.
21. Additional Defendant, Kenneth J. Henry. is an adult
individual residing at 525 North sixteenth btreet, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania 17103.
22. As Defendant, Donald L. Adams, was operating his vehicle
on State street,
Dorough of Lemoyne,
Cumberland county,
Pennsylvania, Kenneth J, lIenry, driver of the 1985 Subaru, while
operating his vehicle, suddenly and without warning turned his
vehicle to the left after oignaling to go into the parking lot of
tho West Shore Plaza.
23, Additional Defendant, Kenneth J, Henry, was negligent in
that hel
a. failed to remain ulert as to the conditions of the
highwaYI
b. suddenly chanqed directions alter signaling IS right turn,
c. failed to utilize necessary skill and care in operating
1'I motor vehiclu.
24, Au tI reIJ111 t 01 Ad,lit lon.11 Delon(lant, Kenneth J, lIenry'lI,
ntHJllqence, De/snltant, Dontl!(t I.. Adamll, tried to avoid the Budden
{,
emergency and swerved in an attempt to avoid hitting Henry's
vehicle.
25. As a result of Additional Defendant Henry's negligence,
Defendant Adams' vehicle contacted the vehicle driven by Henry.
26. If the Plaintiff is entitled to recover for any and all
damages set forth in the Complaint, which is specifically denied,
then Additional Defendant, Kenneth J. Henry, is alone liable to the
Plaintiffs, carolle V, Brown and Frederick Brown, therefore, but
in the alternative, if it is found that Defendant Adams and
Additional Defendant Henry are responsible for any and all damages
alleged in the Plaintiffs' complaint, which finding is specifically
denied, then the Additional Defendant Henry, is liable over to
Defendant Adams 0. is jointly or severally liable to the Plaintiffs
or is liable to Defendant Adams directly.
27. Defendant Adams, joints Additional Defendant, Kenneth J.
Henry via Cross Claim to protect his right of contribution,
indemnif ication, or both in the event that it is judicially
determined that Defendant Adams is jointly or severally or
otherwise liable to the Plaintiffs, the existence of any liability
on the part of Defendant Adams being expressly denied.
7
WHEREFORE, Defendant Adams demands judgment against Additional
Defendant Henry, for all sums which may be adjudged against
Defendant Adams in favor for the Plaintiffs.
GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN,
SOLYMOS h?~NS .
BY t).Miu ~ J. tt-~
CHARLES B. CALKINS, ESQUIRE
10#36208
By
Datel
7-Itl-C,1)
dko/1GVO
!l
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this /O-cJ.- day of 9--7 , 1995, I, Charles B.
Calkins, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER,
LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, Esquires, hereby certify that I have,
this date, served a copy of Defendant, Donald L. Adams, Answer, New
Matter and Cross Claim by United States Mail, addressed to the
party or attorney of record as follows:
Leslie M. Fields, Esquire
COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS
B31 Market Street P.O, Box 222
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Kenneth J. Henry
525 North 16th Street
Harrisburg, PA 17103
GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN,
SOLYMOS & CALKINS
NEK, ESQUIRE
r Defendant Adams
urt 1.0. #55741
110 South Northern Way
York, Pennsylvania 17402
Telephonel (717) 757-7602
dko/IGVO
'J
\./
JUl 12
2 5~ f'ij '95
Cf i
rtq.; ;
I,cr
iJ~ ,: Ak\
If)
,',I,"
, 1.
LAW omell
GftIlfITH.llftIC<<lEA. LEAIIAH. 8llL VMllS . CAlkINS
ItOlOUfHfOIMMWAY
YO'Ut, PfNNIYl.VAHIA "402.3117
. ,I., tht!.l Court ci C~mmC;-1 rl=:::s :;r C:.J:..;.;",:'l:::1d (.':;W:-;','Y, Pa:1r:syl'lc:r:i::
Donald t.. I\dams
'is.
KEnneth L. lIenry, I\ddit.innal Defendant
:-10.
95-2363 Ci .lL"'nr
_ _ _ _ _ _ Y. ...t..>i.h!lL_.._---.
:?...-.-.
:iow,
Julv }3, }')95
:9_ !, S:~?~'F O~ C:"~G~..!..A..'ID COt.~':"? ?~ co
!:=by ci:;:ue:: 6= 3h:='E oi
Dauphin
C,,"u.::ry ::J :.."'::::"..1t.: ~ 'tV=-!:..
:.::.s d.:pu=:cn :::i:1t _".l_ 3t ~ :-:qu=t ::d ~ oi ::: ?!.1.i::.::i'.
..r(" ,/' ,~..(~
1-~ .~:~ .,.;....," (. /~.
...~.~~ .............-
SlI..."1:! of C~er'..u:d C'WllT. ::1.
Affidavit or Se:-ri~
:--fOWl
~9
o'.:!cci
't[. l=:-:ei
~t .
t::e ~thin
'Jp<JlI
1t
by:.u:cili1r:a
"
c:py ci :':'0 :]r.F..::U
.'
1nd _'!II.... COWU :0
:.:.: ':::::::::':1 ~~:::::i.
So u:.sw=.
31='.6 ot
Co....."'. h.
5wern md rJI:sc..-;bd bdol"lll
COSTS
SUv'1CZ _
~(!U..AGZ
1
=:~_c.,.yol.
.0
.--
.-\..:t'ID r\ .y 17
---.-~-_.__.....
!
1...- "_,
-
,
I
,
"
I '
(j.
~ '
It...
u'1
"-;..4
~
-,~ '"
\
GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN,
SOLYMOS & CALKINS
BY I a;;V r1' ~~~JJ
OHN F. YANINEK, ESQUIRE
supreme(~ourt 1.0. " 55741
Attorney'for Defendant
110 South Northern Way
York, Pennsylvania 17402
Telephone I (717) 757-7602
CCI Leslie Fields, Esquire
dko/1HB7
"
~"'~
,~~(I
Jli 2/
, .C,S
\.-! i. j i i'j tJ
lAW omen
GRlrmH, stRICkLER. ltAMAN. $01. 'tMOS' CAt UNS
l'OS{)lJTiI~()fl'HIMN WAY
y()fl.~. PlNNIi'1'l VAN~ 114023']1
T t ...:... ~
COMMON\~EAW II OF I'i':NtWVI,VAN 1 A
IN TilE COUIIT OF CO~lMON PLEAt! OF CIJMBEIIIJ\NU COUN'J'V
CAROLLE V. IlIWWN llnd I"HEUEIIJ CI<
DROWN, her husband,
I'laintlffll
v.
DONALD L. ADAMS,
Defendant
v,
KENNETII I" IIENRV,
Additional llofondilnt
110, 2J6J civil 19911
CIV1J, AC'I'JOII - J.AW
,JlJIlV '1'111 AI, lllcMMlDED
HEI'LV OF AllDl'I'lONAt. llEFEIWAU'J',
KI::IHlI::1'1I J. IIEtHlV, TO Imw MATTEIl
IN TilE NA'I'lJIIE OF A CIIOLlU CJ.AIM
B.1.ill.i!lliliLTIL1'1l, ~,U,~,j~ L ,l~ ~~. (11).
20. Denied,
By wny of further answer,
it ill
specifically donied that 1\ "croun lJIaim pUl"llUant to Pa.R.C.P.
2252 (d)" is tho appl~opdllto muehllnlllm by which to join IIn
additional defendant who III not .1 pill'ty to tho odqinal action.
Obviously, a crooll cltllm "1'pllulI 10 IllJIHlIonll who ill nlroady a party
to the litigation,
I'I'iol' I" Ihl/l '111n'l, Additional lloCendant,
Kenneth .1. lIonny, who I B In 1,,-1 <\"111 I' Ind In I ho e'lpt Ion as Konneth
,J. lIenl~Y, WilD not ol pOlr-I)' III thlll ,\1:11011.
Wllhout wlllltlnCj the
court's time and ilv<ddll\fJ .Itldll I "n,ll <lnd unnocollu"ry expenso,
MI'. lIonny anllWflPl UIU 'ollowlll'l IIll"'I<1llon/l /Ill 'oJJown,
21 , Arlm j II u<\ .
22. Il"Jdl'd.
;n (.,) - (,,) .
/)"1111.,1.
24. Denied,
25. Denied,
26. Denied.
27. Denied,
WHEREFORE, Additional Defendant, Kenneth J. Henny,
demands judgment in his favor and against Defendant.
Datel \ b\'\~~
REYNOLDS & HAVAS
A Professional corporation
By' !lJi~ L. .'oko, J,.
~~ney 1.0. #41727
101 pine street
Harrisburg, PA 1710a-0932
(717) 236-3200
counsel for Additional Defendant,
Kenneth L. Henny
- 2 -
DCI 'I
J 1[, ['M 195
Ilf,'
.'; .',11)
011
"
REYNOLDS & HAVAS
A Pltl.I'...U......, CI".....ln..IHIN
Al11ll\Nl'Y6 ANn C()lJNaElnns Al LAW
101 PIN~ Bwu:
f~.O, Bo.. 932
HA'4nIlUUmu PtNNU....1VAt"I. 11108.0932
'.llfPIU)Nt-
111712363200
==-,""C'_...'=='..
IN THB COURT OP COMMON PLEAS OP CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CAROLLB V. BROWN and PRBDERICK I civil Action - Law
BROWN , her husband, I
Plaintiffs, I
I
VB. I No. 2363 Civil 1995
I
DONALD L, ADAMS, I
Defendant, I
I
VB. I
I
KENNETH L. HENRY, I
Add I 1. Deft. I Jury Trial Demanded
CERTIPICATB OP SERVICE
AND NOW, this ~day of
J)t a;
, 1996,
I, John F. Yaninek, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH,
STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, Esquires, hereby certify that
I have, this date, served a copy of Interrogatories/Request For
Production of Documents of Defendant to Plaintiff by United States
Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows:
Leslie M, Fields, Esquire
Costopoulos, Foster & Fields
831 Market Street
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222
Attorney for Plaintiff
l'I{AEl'II'E FOil L1STlNli l',\SE FOil T1UAL
(MIISI b~ IYI'~wrillclI nnd ~lIblllitl,'d III dllplknl~J
TO TIlE I'IWTIIONOTAI{Y /OF (U~lllElllANIJ COUNTY
PIL'a~l' 1i,,1 thl' lolhmlll~ l.:J!il':
I(,h". llll~)
x
hll jliHY Ilial at till:' 1IL'~1 Il'II1I1I1 d\'1I w:ourl.
(:- I'" .')
. ,,' I
Ill' trial .Hhml! a )IIIY.
-"
'lJ
'I
(',\1' IIllS or ('"st.
(CUlill' l:al'IItJIl lllust he !itatl.'ll in lull)
(dlL'lk OIlL')
.
.'
'.1
'I
J
ItL,
:
)
,Iii
I
. ,~
.,
i
Anum}l!iil
'J
..,
'I a'\paSII
f< '11<'l'a" I Mlll'" Vehill<,
Carole V. Brown and Frederick
Brown, her ImnliliWd
(,.Ihc. )
\'S.
Donald L. Adams
oJ
kll'\fl~'\t, I-+I:/"'t
t{o. Cf r:, - 2. 3~3
II ldclldallll
\'S,
..., ".
"" ,I' "
'., ....3./27.... ,'9.7, 1....'.dnJ 019,10 ^.M.
. '. ' ".....1/ '1/97 ..
s,,;!J{j)
('1,,1
q~~
IIJ~
IlIdl(;IIl.' the i1111.l1Ill'~ \\1111 \\111 lr~ ,,',I\L' ILl! I Ill' J'iJlI~ \\Ii" 1i1L'!! thi\ 11IJl'I,:ipl'
Leslie M.- Fields, Esquire
Indllilll' 111;11 ltlllll\r1 1\11 l'llll'l 1',Hlll" II kllll" 11
John 1". Y,H11Iwk, Esquire
'..>ic.tJhCh _~, J,l.,
Ihl\ l,.I~\' h ".1,1\ 1.'1 IILLI
c. " ' I
It,lh'
1 J t 'Ill-
\!ILlllll\ l,'f
/ < ., ).
~ '\ . L..... . {(. v r --
) Lesllu M. FluIds
1'1" 11111 f f s
_"1;1 fd
1'111,1 \,1111\'
"
.
passenger In her own vehicle; there Is no Issue as 10 her ncgllgcncc.
II. BASIC PACTS 01' DAMAGES: Carolle Brown was Initially prescribed pain and allll-
inflaoullatory mcdlcatlons; she Ihcn bcgan treatmcnt with Dr. Eshbach, who objectively verified her
problems, as evidenced by limited range of mol ion In a number of areas; he prescribed slrong pain
medication and a reglmcn of physical therapy. Despite this, she dcvclped radlculopathy from the rlghl
perlscapular area down to the upper arm and elbow. At that POIIll, Ihc doc lor restricted Carolle to a 4
106 hour workday and ordcred her not 10 work any overtime. Even with the physical therapy three limes
a week, she had decreased strength. She COllllnued to work, but was In pain on a virtually constalll basis;
the rlghtllde neck and shoulder pain would not Improve. Next, she was given Injections In the joints.
Dr. Eshbach referred her to Dr. Cannon, who diagnosed posltraumallc rlllht cervical thoracic main with
trlllller polntl at the right C-I and right T-I region and subacromial subdeltoid bursitis; physlcallherapy
and antl-Innanullatoriel continued Inlo December of 1994 with no real Improvement. Ilecause of her
finances, Carolle allempted to work sume overtime; however, that Increased her pain and tenderneu.
She was senl for more physical therapy 3 times a week, which allaln revealed the problems In Ihe right
cervical paravertebralmusdes, rhomboids, upper trapezius, supraspinatus, Insertion, and bleeps tendon
areas. She also had lrlllller polntl and tlShtnen III the rlghl levator scapula and upper Irapezla /Clllon,
as well althe right Inner scapular musdes, lIer lanse of motion was lestrlcted; her IIrlp i1renllth had
been severely affected. She was plesellhed a TENS unit III use al WOlk,
Inl'ehruary 01 11JlJ~, ('alolle ended Ihat \'lIUlse olphyskaltherapy, She found Ihat resUlcllon
on her wOIk houlI was the only way 1II lessen the l1ale ups She sllll did e~elcises al home, used the
TENS unit with hetjueney, and le'lIll1e,l her home slIlvilies suhllBllllally AI wOlk, she hesanullnll
her len arm lather Ihan her IISht IlIr mllSI III her wOlk. hilt non 111l'1I, she had levere flstll sillellncck
and mId hack pain when she IIled IlIlIIe hel IISIII allll "'"mlhell 1I11. she slIlIply avnillrd usillS Ihal
ann.
Subsequenl examinations continued to reveallendellless over the trapezius and upper as well as
mid scapular musculature on the right. For a few days, she tried a part time job as a cashier, but even
It caused the pain to increase and recur. Now she also had numbness going down Into lhe fingers of Ihe
rlghl hand; It appeared that she had developed thoracic oUllet syndrome which was objectively verified
as was Ihe cervical compression. Again, she was sent back for physical therapy 3 times a week. Again,
she increased her use of lhe TENS uolt.
By June of 1995, ahnost 18 months after Ihe crash, she compleled yet another Intensive course
of physical therapy , but she was stili using the TENS unit. The right upper extremity was still very
limited. Dr. Cannon suggested more injections, this lime wilh steroids.
lIy Seplember of 1995, Carolle was relying more heavily on the TENS unit; the pain and
weakness on the right shoulder continued. lIy December of 1995, 23 months after lhe Incident, Carolle
was stili In severe pain; any attempts to Increase her work functions caused a flare up. She was pUI on
Skelaxln, 6 lablels a day. Also, headaches associaled with the in upper back pain had returned with a
vengeance. Since that time, she has relied on co-workers to help her perform some of Ihe normal work
acllvltles and essentially remains unchanged since the auto incident almost three years ago. And there
appears to be 110 end In sight. This Is, In substance, conceded by the doctor who performed an 1ME at
defendanl's request.
III. PRINCIPLE ISSUES:
Liability of tbe Defendants; amount of damagl:s.
IV. LEGAL ISSUES:
None.
V. WITNESSES: I'laillliffs anliclpate calling the f(lilowing: Plainllffs and Ihelr children,
,
II. BASIC FACTS or DAMAGf:S:
Plaintiff, Carol Ie 13rown,
objective findings. She made
sustained a soft tissue injury with no
no complaints of injury at the accident
scene.
Ill. I'HINCIPAI, ISSUES:
Liability of lho Plainlllf and Dpfenrlunts; ilmount of damages.
IV. LEGAL ISSUES:
rlaintiff intC!nds to mako a claim for past wage loss and loss of
future earninq c<1paci ty. However, Plainti ff has not retained a
vocational expert to substantiate a past or future Wd<Je loss claim.
Defendant admits that there is medical evidence to indicate Plaintiff may
be unable to work beyond 40 hours a week. However, since Plaintiff
cannot substantiate what overtime would be available at her present job
or the value of the loss beyond her abi Illy to work 40 hours a week, her
claim is speculative and inadmissible.
V. WITNESSES:
Defendant intends to call the lollowing:
(I) Plaintij f as on noss-examination;
(2) Additiollal Defendant as on cross-examination;
13) !Jt'fendant Pr. Ponald I.. Adams;
(4) I~(')belt Wnlf, vocatiollal ('xpl"'rt;
(5) Dr. .Jasull .J. LittPlli ,Uld
161 any witn,,,",,,,!; id"llt i I i..<I by Plaint i rr or Addlt ional Defendant.
VI. EXHIBII:.i:
Pp'.."danl ant j.-iI',it..S Ih..' ,,,, may \1St' photos and/or diagrams of the
al..'l'idplIl ~;I'PIIP, ITlpdll'iil IPt'(JldH of tllP 1'laintl1f, charts, diagrams and
WI'tql' and I tiX I pI lit n..,.
2
V II. SETTLEMENT:
Plaintiff's demand is SI05,OOO.00. Defendant has offer $12,000.00.
Additional Defendant has not made an offer of settlement..
Respectfully submitted,
GRIFFITH, STRICKLEH, LERMAN,
SOLYMOS & CALKINS
BY:
~
'K, ESQUIRE
orney for Jefendant
preme Court 1.0. No. 55741
110 South Northern Way
York, Pennsylvania 17402
(717) 757-7602
1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 23rd day of Decembor, 1996, 1, John F. Yaninek,
Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS &
CALKINS, Esquires, hereby certify that 1 have, this date, served a copy
of DEFENDANT DONALD L. ADAMS' PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM, by United States
Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows:
Leslie M. Fields, Esquire
831 Market Street
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222
Stephen L. Banko, Esquire
Reynolds & Havas
101 Pine Street
P.O. Box 932
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0932
GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN,
SOLYMOS & CALKINS
tmc/adams.ptm
4
COMMONWEALTII ot" PENNSYINANIA
IN TilE COURT ot" COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBEHLANU COUNTY
CAROLLE V. BROWN and I No. 2363 civil 1995
FREDERICK BROWN, her husband, I
Plaintiffs I
I
V. I
I
DONALD L. ADAMS, I CIVIL ACTION - I..AW
Defendant I
I
V. I
I
KENNETII L. HENNY, I
Additional Defendant I JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE MEMOIlANDUM
OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT. KENNE1'II L. HENNY
1. Statement of Facts 8S to-LlAbllity
This action arises out of a rearend motor vehiole
aocident whioh occurred on January 19, 1994, on state street in the
Borough of Lemoyne, Cumberland county, at approximately 8125 a.m.
The Additional Defendant, was operating a vehicle owned by ht.
brother-in-law in a westerly direction on Rtate street, intending
to turn right into the West Shore Pla~a.
Hi. lIister, the
Plaintiff, was a right front passenger. Twenty to thirty feet
behind them in another vehicle wall the orllJinal Defendant, O.
l,eslle Adams, M.D. ("orlIJinal lJofendant"). All Allcllliulltll Defendant
attempted to turn IlIto tho West: /lhore !'Iua, he BIIII anll waB ulJllble
to complete the right turn. As h.. wall sllllllllJ, OrllJ I lilt I Defendallt
applied hill brllkell IInd ollrl IlItu the ID.1l of tha Altttilional
Defendant's vehlclo, 1111111JiHlly "I1I1BIII'J Injury tn !'llllnt Iff.
II. statement of the Facts as to Damaoes
Plaintiff alleges orthopaedic injuries to her neck and
right shoulder. She contends that these injuries permit her to
work no more than 40 hours per week as a result of which she has
lost $8,500 in earnings, per year. It is the defense contention
that Plaintiff sustained no injury and currently, exhibits no
objective sign of any injury.
Any restriction placed upon
Plaintiff has been done on the basis of subjective complaints.
III. statement of Issues
A. Whether Defendant Adams was negligent?
B.
Whether
factor
harm?
such negligence was a substantial
in bringing about Plaintiff's
C. Whether Additional Defendant lIenny was
negligent?
D.
Whether
factor
harm?
such negligence was a substantial
in bringing about Plaintiff's
E. Apportionment of llability and assignment
of damages.
IV. Summary of Leoal Issues
There are no unusual legal iSBUes involved in thie caee.
- 2 -
V. List of witnesses
Additional Defendant may call one or more of the
following witnesses:
A. Plaintiff, as on cross examination I
B. Original Defendant as on cross examination;
c. Additional Defendant;
D. Ted Eshbach, M.D.; and
E. Jason J. Litton, M.D.
Additional Defendant further reserves the right to call
any other person(s) identified in the other parties' Pre-trial
Memoranda or witnesses necessary for rebuttal.
VI. List of Exhibits
Additional Defendant may utilize one or more of the
following exhibits 1
A. Transcripts of recorded statements of the
parties;
B. Transcripts of the parties' depositions I
c. A magnetic board to illustrate the
happening of the accident; and
D. plaintiff's medical records.
Additional Defendant further reserves the right to
utilize any exhibit(s) listed in any of the other parties'
Pre-trial Memoranda, or as necessary for the purpose of rebuttal.
- 3 -
~ ~
j ~
~ f ~ !!
~! i~1 ~
~.rl '
C?~)
tV- f '\.
,'\
.<Hl~
/
",
"
....
,__ __I
'---~
CAROLLE V. BROWN and
FREDERICK BROWN, her huaband,
Pleintifh
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
va.
No. 95-2363
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DONALD L. ADAMS,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
"
va.
KENNETH DENNY, :
Aiditional Defendant:
PRAECIPE TO BETTLE. DISCONTINUE AND END
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please mark the above-captioned matter settled, discontinued
and ended,
Respectfully submitted,
'\ l' (I. !, ~~
David J. Fos~er, Esquire
J.D. No: 23151
COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS
831 Market Street/P.O. Box 222
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043
Phone I (717) 761-2121
ATTORNEY FOR TilE PLAINTIFFS
Oatedl
I-...;;ll-~-/
('ji ';'"\ (-j'I,}:
". ,
'j
') r I
'-"II' ,...\
I _I . ,'.,:,
j,
COSTOPOULOS. FOSTER & FIELDS
ATTOANIVI AT LAW
131 MAN<ET lTAEET
LEMOYNE. PENNSYLVANIA 17043