HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-03020
\
!
.
."
"7
:J
~
~
/
(
'-
~
J
0,
<0:
~i
I
I !
l()l
0";
12. Aner regronlng con8Clousnell8, PWnUIT proceeded to the front door In order to lock and
secure the residence, however, due to the dRmRge done to the front door, PWntl/TW88ullAble to lock and
secure the residence,
13. Aner Rllempllng to secure the front door, 1'1n1n11/T proceeded to Ihe bathroom to allend
. to his bruises.
il
II
Ii
If
I!
II
I
1
I
I
14,
While In the bathroom, Defendants re-entered the residence and proceeded to the
bathroom where I'laInUIT wna wnahlng his wounds.
15.
Defendants ngaIn beat Plalntl/T about the head, face, back, arms, and right side.
16.
BomeUme during the 8888u1t, Plalntl/T again lost consclousnellll,
17.
Aner regaining consclousnellll the second time, Plalntl/T drove his vehicle to the
Pennsylvania Blate Police Barracks, located in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania and spoke to
Trooper JRJJles R. WUson.
18. Trooper Wilson called an Rmbulance and P1alnUIT W811 trllll8ported from the Carllale
Barracks to Carlisle Hospital.
19. As an immediate result of the 8.II8Rult, P1alntl/T sulTered bruises, contusions, hematolll88,
and laceraUons on his lip requiring five sUkhes and lacerations above his right eye requiring four stitches.
20. In April 1995, Defendants, Corey W. Chestnut and Kevin L. H8I'1'ison, ellCh pled guilty to
I coun18 of criminal trespa88 8IId simple 8888n1t In the Court of Common Ple8.11 of Cumberland County,
,I
, Pennaylv8llla regarding this nal!8ult and tresp8.lll.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTIONI NEGLIGENCE
21. 1'he allegntions of l'arlljll'aphs 1.20 are Incorporated by reference.
22. Defendants were guilty of negligence, grOM negligence, 8Ild willful, wanton, 8Ild reckle!18
mi8Conduct In that:
II
"
!I
"
'I
A. They kicked in the front door of 171 Beetem I (allow Road In order to confront8lld
8IIMult Pll\lnUIT;
B, They kicked In PWnUlrs bedroom door, entered l'laintilrs bedroom, 8Ild pulled
I'lalnUIT frum his he,l; and
I
I
I
I
!
I
,
I
I work from Augu8t 20, 1904 through September I, 1904 which led to /I 1088 In JIIIY In the nmount of $192,00.
,
I
,I
II
tl
,.
ii
I.
,
I!
I
,.
q
II
I
II
II
C.
'l11ey fnlled to exercl8e due C/II'e nnd control over their /lctions when they bellftl1
repentedly 8trlklng l'1t1intllT nbout the hend, f/lce, bock, orms, nnd right side couslng
unwnrrnnted nnd unneces8l\ry Irllurles to l'lIIlntilT.
23.
M the result of the negligent ncts nnd omissions of DefenMnts, PlnlntilT WR8 unoble to
PlnlntilT IUUllncurred medlcnl bUl8, expended to Mte, In exce88 of $700.00 due to the It\lurles he sustained
to hl8 person during the August 20, 1004 Incident with Corey W. Che8tnut nnd Kevin L. Hormon.
PlnlntilT sulTered BlIxlety, humUlntion, depre88ion, BlId other mental dl8tre8s BlId 8u1Terlng. Some of his
it\lurle8 nnd their resldu/l1 elTects ore permanent.
WHEREFORE. Jerry L. McKee, PlnlntllT, demands judgment lIglIin8t, Corey W. Che8tnut lII1d
Kevin L. Horrison, Defendants, for n 8um In exce88 of '25,000,00 for compellll/ltory BlId punitive damages.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: ASSAULT
24. The RlleJllltlons of Porfllll'aph8 1.23 ore Incorpor/lted by reference.
25. DefendBll18, Corey W. Che8tnut BlId Kevin L. Hnrrl80n, committed an _utt upon
PlnlntilT In that they Intentionnlly /\Cted in 8uch B way R8 to couse /I harmful or olTenslve conlllct with
PlnlntllT, Jerry L, McKee nnd thereby placed PlnlntilT In Imminent /lpprehension by:
A. Kicking In the front door or 171 Deetem HoUow Road in order to confront and
/l881\ult PlnlntilT:
n. KIcking In l'lnlntllT'8 bedroom door, entering l'lnlnt1lr8 bedroom, BlId puUlng
PlnlntilT from his bed; BlIII
C. Striking l'lnlntin' about the he/ld, fnce, bock, orm8, lII1d right side cau81ng
unwnrrnnled nnd unnece8snry It\lury to l'lIIlntilT.
26. M n re8ult of the Intentional ncts nnd omissions of Derendnnt8, PlnlntilT WR8 unoble to
work from August 20, 1004 through September I, 1094 which led to n 10811 in JIIIY In the RIlIount or$192,OO.
PlnlntilT hM Incurred medlrnl bUls, expended to dnte, In exceS8 or '700,00 due to the It\lurles he 8u8tnined
to his per80n during the Augu8t 20, 1004 incident with Corey W. Che8tnut allll Kevin 1" Harrison.
Jerry L, McKee wit hout IIcen.e or privilege to do .0 nnd a harmful eonlnct with PlnintiIT directly resulted
from DefendAnts;
"
::
A.
Kicking In the front door of 171 Beetem Hollow Rood in order to confront And
1Ill8llult PlalntilT;
!;
,
I'
.,
Il
Kicking In PlninWrs bedroom door, entering PlnlntilT's bedroom, nnd pulllflg
iI
ii
;1
"
i:
11
!i
II
Ii
:1
ii
I'
Ii work from August 20, 1004 through September 1, 1004 which led to a loss of pay In the amount oftI92.00.
l!
:: PlalntilT IlIIlllncurred medlcnl blUs, expended to date, in excess of t700,OO due to the ll\luries he sustained
:1
lito his person during the August 20, 1004 incident with Corey W. Chestnut nnd Kevin L. Harrlaon.
'i
I PlalntilT suITered anxiety, humlllntion, depre..lon, and other mental distress and sulTerlng. Some of hla
I
I
i iI\luries and their residunl eITeets are permAnent.
,I
I'
,I
Ii Kevin L, Harrison, Defendants, for a surn In excess of U5,000,OO for compenllBtory and punitive da/naa'C8.
1
II
.. HespectfuJly Submitted,
Ii
'I
II
'I
I
'I 6-5 '1L:>
I Date
II
II
il
II
il
I:
'1
Plaintiff from his bed; and
C.
Striking PlaintilT about the head, face, back, arms, nnd right side causiflg
unwarrAnted and unneces8l\ry il\lury to PlnlntilT.
n.
Causing unwarranted and unneee.sary dRll1llged to P1alntilT's property.
32.
As a result of the Intentionnl nets and omissions of Defendants, P1alntiIT W08 unable to
WIIEHEFORE, Jerry L. McKee, PWntiff, demands Judgment against Corey W. Cheetnut and
TilE LAW OFFICES OF HON TURO
---sh)~rl ~ X~'
Dnvld J, Spotts. ~ quire
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 245-0688
Attorney for PlnlnUIT
'j!
, .,
r~-~~~
f ~'V
)l'~
/~;;
Ill.<
l.)..r.,
/
')1
\.-/"1'-'-- (,' ) 1t.L',',-<, , .tL(117
7""
(J~
t; ..;
'-).1"'" U. 7IW"'-~ I rJi'7
JERRY L. MCKEE, IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff CUHBERLANDCOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs_ NO. 95-3020 civil Term
COREY W. CHESTNUT
and CIVIL ACTION - LAW
KEVIN L. HARRISON,
Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATB or SERVIce
I, Michael D. Rentschler, Esquire, hereby certify that on the
date set forth below I served a true and correct copy of the
foregoing Praecipe upon the following persons by First Class
United States mail addressed as follows:
David J. spotts, Esquire
32 S. Bedford Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Plaintiff
Greg Abeln, Esquire
22 W. Pomfret street
Carlisle, PA 17013-3216
Attorney for Defendant Harrison
DateYI'~!?' 1<;'/",- ;n::~ii~R~;~~~ESqUire
28 North 32nd Street
camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 975-9129
Supreme Court I.D. #45836
JERRY L. MCKEE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY
. PENNSYLVANIA
.
v. NO. 95-3020 Civil Term
COREY W. CHESTNUT and CIVIL ACTION - LAW
KEVIN 1. HARRISON,
Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEPENDANT COREY.. CHESTNUT'8 PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
TO PLAIKTIPP'8 COMPLAINT
AND NOW, this 10M. day Of~, 1995, comes Defendant
corey W. Chestnut, by and throu~ his attorney, Michael D.
Rentschler, who files the within Prelimillary Objections to the
Plaintiff's complaint and avers in support thereof as follows,
NOTION POR NOR. 8PICIPIC STATEME~
1. Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants Chestnut
and Harrison and merely refers to the actions of "the Defsndants"
collectively and does not aver specifically the actions alleged to
have been committed by each respective Defendant.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Honorable
Court order that Plaintiff be required to amend the Complaint to
state specificallY the actions alleged to have been committed by
each Defendant separately.
NOTION TO 8TRII.
1. Paragraph 22 of Plaintiff's Complaint purports to speoify
the alleged negligence of Defendants in three (3) designated
paragraphs. Following the enumeration of various points of alleged
negligence, Plaintiff pleads in Paragraph 22(C) that "They failed
to exercise due care and control over their actions".
2. Paragraphs 23, 29, and 32 of Plaintiff'. Complaint allege
that Plaintiff suffered damage. a. a result of the "negligent act.
and omissions of Dsfendants" without describing what the Defendants
failed to do, which constitutes an omission against Plaintiff.
3. Paragraphs 29 and 12 of Plaintiff's Complaint allsge that
Plaintiff suffered damages "As a result of the intentional act. and
oIDissions of Defendants" without identifying what the Defendant.
failed to do, which constitutes an oIDission against Plaintiff.
4. Tha languags "they failed to exerciso due care and control
over their actions" contained in Puragraph 22 (C) should be stricken
for lack of conformity to PA. Rule of civil Procedure No. 1019(a).
5. The language of "intentional acts and omissions" and
"negligent acts and omissions," contained in Paragraphs 23, 26, 29,
and 32 of Plaintiff's Complaint, respectively, should be stricken
for lack of conformity to PA. Rule of civil Procedure No. 1019(a).
WHEREFORE, Defendant corey W. Chestnut respectfully requests
that this Honorable Court strike that portion of Paragraph 22(C)
which alleges that the Defendant "failed to exercise due care and
control over their actions", that the language "negligent acts and
omiseions of Defendants" contained in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiff's
complaint, be .tr icken, that the language "intentional a-:::t. and
oIDissions of Defendants" contained in Paragraph 26 of Plaintiff's
Complaint be stricken, that the language "intentional acta and
omis.ions of Defendants" contained in Paragraph 29 of Plaintiff's
complaint be strickenl and that the language of "intentional acts
and omissione of Defendants" contained in Paragraph 32 of
Plaintiff'. Complaint be strickenl all for failure to conform to
applicable rules of law, and to aWllrd costs IInd reasonabls
attorney's fee to Defendant corey W, Chestnut, herein.
2
NOTION TO STRIEI
1. Plaintiff alleges in Paragraph J1(D) of hi. Complaint that
the Defendants caused " . . . unwarranted and unnecessary damaged
(sic) to Plaintiff's property,"
2. Pursuant to PA. Rule of civil Procedure 1019(a), all items
of special damages are to be specifically pleaded.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Honorable
Court strike Paragraph J1(D) of Plaintiff's complaint for failure
to conform to PA. Rule of civil Procedure 1019(a), or, in the
alternative, order Plaintiff to amend hi. Complaint to allege the
damages with the proper specificity.
NOTION TO STRIEI
1. Plaintiff concludes in his first cause of action that the
Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for punitive damages.
Plaintiff has not alleged any specific material facts which would
support a claim for punitive damages. In the absence of such
claims, the punitive damages should be stricken.
2. Mere allegations or averments of claims of negligence,
gross negligence, and willful, wanton, and reckless misconduct
which is alleged in Plaintiff's first cause of action will not
support a claim for punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, Defendant corey W. Chestnut respectfully requests
that this Honorable Court grant this Preliminary objection and
strike punitive damages from Plaintiff's first cause of action.
3
MOTION TO 8TRIK.
1. Plaintiff concludes in his second, third and fourth cause
of actions that the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for
punitive damages. Plaintiff has not alleged any specific material
facts which would support a claim for punitive damages. In the
absence of such claims, the punitive damages should be stricken.
2, Here language of intentional actions in such a way as
"intentional actions in such a way as to cause a harmful or
offensive contact with the Plaintiff" will not support a claim for
punitive damages as alleged in Plaintiff's second and third cause
of action.
3. Here allegations of "intentionally, knowingly or
recklessly entering property of or under the control of Plaintiff
without license or privilege to do so and a harmful contact of
Plaintiff" will not support a claim for punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests that this
Honorable Court grant corey W, Chestnut's Preliminary Objections
and strike the punitive damage claims contained in the first,
second, third, and fourth cause of action of Plaintiff's Complaint.
Respectfully SUbmitted,
Date
/
.,r ,/ ) / ...-
,
~
. . . >",:t. ,~/
-' ".... r_ ~-1.0-...""....--
Mlcnail D. Rentschler
28 N. Thirty-Second Street
camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 975-9129
Supreme Court 101 45836
4
JERRY L. MCKEE, I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
plaintiff I CUMBERLAND COUNTY
I PENNSYLVANIA
v. I NO. 95-3020 civil Term
I
COREY W. CHESTNUT and I CIVIL ACTION - LAW
KEVIN 1. HARRISON, I
Defendants I JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CIRTlrICATI or ...VICI
I, Michael D. Rentschler, Esquire, hereby certify that on the
date set forth below I served a true and correot copy of the
foregoing dooument upon the attorney for the plaintiff and the
attorney for Defendant Kevin L. Harrison, by First Class United
states mail addressed as followsl
David J. spotts, Esquire
32 South Bedford street
carlisle, PA 17103
Attorney for Plaintiff
Datel
Greg Abeln, Esquire
37 East Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013-3313
Attorney for Defendant Kevin L. Harrison
.,..- ,
M;;h~f D:.:'~,;~k',
Esquire
/{//{)/7(
I t
JERRY L. MCKEE, IN THE COUHT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v, NO, 95-3020 CIVIL TERM
COREY W. CHESTNUT and CIVIL ACTION - LAW
KEVIN L. HARRISON,
Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANT KEVIN L. HARRISON'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONB
TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
TO THE HONORABLE, JUDGE OF THE SAID COURT,
AND NOW, comes Defendant Kevin L. IIsrrlson, by and throu'ilh his
counsel, Gregory Barton Abeln, Esquire, who files the within
Preliminary Objections to the Plaintlff'D Complaint and avers ao
follows.
MOTION FOR MORE SPECIFIC STATEMENT
1, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants CheDtnuL
and Harrison which merely refers to the actions of "the Defendants"
collectively and doe 0 not aver specifically the acLlonD alle'iled to
have been committed by each respective Defendant.
WHEREFORE, 1t Is reDpectfully requested that thiD Ilonorablll
Court Order Plaintiff be required to amend the Complaint lo Dlate
specifically the actions alleged to have beell committed by each
Defendant separately.
I
:'.;:
"-
"
MOTION TO STRIKE
1, Paragraph 22 of Plaintiff' D Complaint purportD to specify
the alleged negligence of Defendants in three (3) designated
paragraphD. Following the enumerat ion of various pointD of alleged
negligence, Plaintiff pleads in Paragraph 22(CI that "They failed
to exercise due care and control over their actions."
2. Paragraphs 23, 29, and 32 of Plaintiff's Complaint allege
that Plaintiff suffered damageD as a result of the "negligent acts
and omissions of Defendants" without describing what the Defendants
failed to do, which cunstitutes an omission against the Plaintiff,
3. Paragraphs 29 and 32 of Plaintiff's Complaint allege that
Plaintiff suffered damages "As a result of the intentional acts and
omissions of Defendants" without identifying what the Defendants
failed to do, which constitutes an omission against Plaintiff,
4. The language "they failed to exercise due care and
control over their actions" contained in Paragraph 22(C) should be
stricken for lack of conformity to Pa.R,C,P. 1019(a).
5. The language of "intentional acts and omissions,"
contained in Paragraphs 23, 26, 29, and 32 of Plaintiff's
Complaint. respectively, should be stricken fOl' lack of conformity
to Pa.R.C.P,1019(a).
2
WHEREFOHE, Defenllallt Knvlll [., lI'lIlllJoIl I "UI'l!,'Uully I nqu"utll
that this Honorable COUlt etr Iku Ultll pUI t lOll 01 l'tll uYlllph ;~;' p')
which alleo;;Jes that till> Dufendant "lllllml tu ,'Xllll'llIl! <lIIU I.'tlll! BIIlI
control over their acl1ons", that the lonyuayf' "lIllyllyunt tlctu and
omlDsloll of Defendants "Colltallwd III 1'/lIl\1,/lflph ,'101 I'lfllnt.llt 'Il
Complaint, be stricken, that the lanyualJ" "llltunllullul ..11'\ II lUIlI
omissions of Dllfendantll "contatne<J III l'al'I<JI/il'h ;'J <II I'lnllatltf'u
Complaint, be strlckenl that the lano;;JuBye "Intentlollul (\1'111 tlll,1
omlsslollB of DefendantD" cOlltalnel1 III Palllyl 01'11 ;'1. ol I'1!t11l\11 t 'II
Complaint be stricken, that the lano;;Juaye "Intentioni'll ods allll
oloisslons of DefendantD" contalnll(j In PaltlYlopll ~\I 01 1'11\lnll1f'lI
Complaint be strlckenl and t.hat the lanyu/1''/'' 01 "Intentlunal Bctl
and omissions ot DefelldantD" cOlltnllltJ,j In l'nl11YI /It'h J~ III
Plalntlff's Conlplalnt be str lcken, all for tal lUI u In I'nllfol m to
applicable rUleD of law, and to dlMIII l'UUl1l 1111,1 I ullbunl\IJlu
attorney's fee to Detendant Kevin L. 11/1111 son, 11111 ull\.
HOl' ION 1'0 111'111 K K
1. Pl/11ntltt /1l1eyea III Pala'Jlaph JIIII) <It hlil l.'ompl/1lnt
that the Defen(jantD 1.',11l1J1!l1 II 11 W'II I /111\..,1 f1ll11 IIl1l1ltl'UUllftl Y
damaQed (SiC) to Plalnllfl',; pIlll'..lly."
~. Puruuftllt III 1'<..1<,,',1'.1111'11111, 'Ill It,-,",, III 111'''''181
damaQes I5te to be S(Hll:lfll:nlly 1'1 "...I"d,
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Honorable
Court strike Paragraph 31(D) of Plaintiff's Complaint for failure
to conform to Pa,R,C,P, 1019(a), or, in the alternative, order
Plaintiff to amend his Complaint to allege the damages with proper
specificity.
MOTION TO STRIKE
1, Plaintiff concludes in his first cause of action that the
Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for puni tive damages.
Plaintiff has not alleged any specific material facts which would
support a claim for puni t i ve damages. In the absence of such
claims, the punitive damages should be stricken,
2, Mere allegations or averments of claims of negligence,
gross negligence, and will ful, wanton, and reckless misconduct
which is alleged in Plaint iff's first cause of action will not
support a claim for punitive damageD,
WHEREFORE, Defendant Kevin L. Harrison respectfully requests
that this Honorable Court grant the Preliminary Objection and
strike punitive damages from Plaintiff's first cause of action,
MOTION TO STRIKE
1, Plaintiff concludes in his second, third and fourth cause
of actions that the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for
punitive damages, Plaintiff has not alleged any specific material
facts which would support a claim for punitive damages. In the
4
absence of such claims, the punitive dama~es should be stricken.
2. Mere lan~ua'ile of intentional actions in Duch a way as
"intentional actions in such a way as to cause a harmful or
offensive contact with the Plaintiff" will not support a claim for
punitive dama'iles as a11e'iled in Plaintiff's second and third cause
of action.
3,
Mere alle'ilations of
"intentionally. knowingly or
recklessly entering property of or under the control of Plaintiff
without license or privilege to do so and a harmful contact of
Plaintiff" will not support a claim for punitive damages.
WHEREFORE. the Defendant respectfully requests that this
Honorable Cour t grant Corey W. Chestnut's Pre l1minary Objections
and strike the punitive damage claims contained in the first,
second, third. and fourth cause of action of Plaintiff's Complaint.
Date
f$ld J ~,~-
, ,
Respectfully submitted,
~1@:'~
By' ~ ^
Gregory Barton Abeln'-'
ID . 35,960
Attorney for Defendant
Kevin L. lIarrison
37 East Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013-3313
717/ 245-2851
5
v.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 95-3020 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
JERRY L. MCKEE,
Plaintiff
COREY W, CIlIJ:STNUT and
KEVIN L. HARRISON,
Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have thiD day served the foregoing
DRFBNDANT KRVIN I., IlARRISON' 8 PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF' 8
COMPLAINT by depositing in the United States mail, first class,
postage pre-paid, a true and exact copy addressed to the following,
David J. SpottD, Esquire
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Plaintiff
Michael D. RentDchler, Esquire
28 N. 32nd Street
Camp Ilill, PA 17011
Attorney for Defendant Corey W. Chestnut
Respectfully submitted,
Date
lJ1'1 hJ
,
ABErN LAW OFF~CE8
By \,_/111 ({ ( ~ dr,l/(
Jill A, Gillette
Legal Assistant
37 East Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013-3313
7171 245-2851
t~ :
..)
-
.1:..~
~
."
.4
, ....,
" ::.;
~ < .
~