Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-4154JOHN PINE and DOROTHEA RINE, his wife, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiffs SHIRLEY CARTER J. BERKELEY and FAYE WILLIAMS BERKELEY, Defendants : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : 2002- CIVIL TERM CML ACTION - LAW .PRAECIPE FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF SUMMON~ TO CURTIS R. LONG, PROTHONOTARY: Please issue a Writ of Summons against the defendant, Shirley Carter J. Berkeley and Faye Williams Berkeley, and enter my appearance on behalf of the plaintiffs, John Rine and Dorothea Rine, his wife. Please direct the Shcriffto serve the defendants as follows: Ms. Shirley Carter J. Berkeley 107 Oak Crest Drive Statesboro, GA 30458 Ms. Faye Williams Berkeley 107 Oak Crest Drive Statesboro, GA 30458 Respectfully submitted, August 29, 2002 By: IRWIN, McKN~HT & H~ES 60 West P'omfret Street, C'"girlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2353 Supreme Court I.D. No: 25476 To: SHIRLEY CARTER J. BERKELEY and FAYE WILLIAMS BERKELEY Oate:~X~ ,~O , 2002 You are hereby notified that John Rine and Dorothea A. Rine, his wife, plaintiffs, has commenced an action against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you. PROTH'ONOT iRyJ C SHERIFF'S RETURN - CASE NO: 2002-04154 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVA/qIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND RINE JOHN ET AL VS. BERKELEY SHIRLEY CARTER J ETAL U.S. CERTIFIED MAIL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law served the within named DEFENDANT ,BERKELEY SHIRLEY CARTER J , by United States Certified Mail postage prepaid, on the 6th day of September,2002 at 0000:00 HOURS at 107 OAK CREST DRIVE STATESBORO, GA 30458 and attested copy of with the attached WRIT OF SUMMONS a true Together receipt card was signed by S C BERKELEY 09/18/2002 Additional Comments: The returned on Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Cert Mail 4.65 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 32.65 Paid by IRWIN MCKNIGHT HUGHES Sworn and subscribed to before me this ~'~ day of ~ ~2~A.D. tP~othonotary , Sheriff of Cumberland County on 09/24/2002 SHERIFF'S RETURN - CASE NO: 2002-04154 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND RINE JOHN ET AL VS. BERKELEY SHIRLEY CARTER J ETAL U.S. CERTIFIED MAIL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law served the within named DEFENDANT ,BERKELEY FAYE WILLIAMS , prepaid, on the 6th day of 107 OAK CREST DRIVE by United States Certified Mail postage September,2002 at 0000:00 HOURS at STATESBORO, GA 30458 and attested copy of the attached WRIT OF SUMMONS with a true Together receipt card was signed by FAYE WILLIAMS BERKELEY 09/11/2002 Additional Comments: The returned on Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Cert Mail 4.65 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 20.65 Paid by IRWIN MCKNIGHT HUGHES Sworn and subscribed to before me this -/~ day of ~L~ ~2~L A.D. ~r~thon6tary ' Sheriff of Cumberland County on 09/24/2002 item Print 70~k C~- ~e~ke.~ey 3U458 ~ Prinl Sh~cley Cart ' ~ 30458 MerChandise JOHN RINE and : EN 'I'HE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DOROTHEA RINE, his wife, Plaintiffs SHIRLEY CARTER J. BERKELY and FAYE WILLIAMS BERKELEY, Defendants : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2002-4154 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE TO DEFEND 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 a~er this complaint, order and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attomey and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims 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 money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the 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 HAVE A LAWYER, OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 1-800-990-9108 JOHN RINE and DOROTHEA RINE, his wife, Plaintiffs SHIRLEY CARTER J. BERKELY and FAYE WILLIAMs BERKELEY, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2002-4154 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT AND NOW, this 12th day of November 2003, come the Plaintiffs, JOHN R1NE and DOROTHEA RINE, his wife, by their attorneys, Irwin & McKnight, and makes the following Complaint against the Defendants, SHIRLEY CARTER J. BERKLEY, JR. and FAY WILLIAMS BERKELEY: The Plaintiffs are John Rine and Dorothea Rine, his wife, adult individuals residing at 2212 Pine Road, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17241. The Defendants are Shirley Carter J. Berkeley, Jr. and Faye Williams Berkeley, adult individuals residing at 107 Oak Crest Drive, Statesboro, Georgia 30458. On September 23, 2000, at approximately 3:47 p.m., the Plaintiff, Dorothea Rine was operating her 1992 Dodge Spirit automobile. She was travelling north on State Route 15 south of the intersection with West Lisburn Road. The road conditions ware dry and the day was sunny and clear. The collision occurred as the Plaintiff, Dorothea Rine, was stopped behind traffc lined up for the red traffic signal. The Defendant, Shirley Carter J. Berkeley, Jr., driving a 1997 Ford F- I 50 truck towing a camper and owned by Faye Williams Berkeley, rammed into the rear of the Plaintiff's stopped vehicle while travelling at a high rate of speed. The Plaintiffs' vehicle was then pushed forward into a 1998 Dodge Stratus driven by Sherri Sterner who was also stopped at the red traffic signal. The Plaintiff, John Rine, was a passenger in the vehicle driven and owned by the Plaintiff, Dorothea Rine, his wife. Both Plaintiffs were restrained by seatbelts. The force of the impact caused the Plaintiff's vehicle to slide in a northerly direction, hitting the stopped vehicle in fi'ont of her and coming to a stop facing in the northerly direction. The fi'ont of the Defendants' vehicle was jammed into the back end of the Plaintiffs' vehicle. There was moderate damage to the Defendants' vehicle and severe damage to the back and fi'ont of the Plaintiffs' vehicle. There was also damage to the vehicle owned and operated by Sherri Sterner. The Plaintiff, Dorothea Rine, suffered injuries to the left side of her chest, left shin, lower back and right elbow. These injuries caused severe pain to her chest, left shin, lower back, and right elbow. She sustained a cracked sternum and a cracked rib and herniated discs in her back. 4 The Plaintiff, John Rine, a passenger in the vehicle driven by his wife, Plaintiff, Dorothea Rine, hit his head on the passenger side of the front windshield breaking the windshield upon impact. His ribs on his left side were bruised as well as abrasions to his face. His elbow was also bruised as result of the accident. He also sustained a badly bruised spleen. 10. The Plaintiffs, Dorothea Rine and John Rine, were taken by ambulance to Holy Spirit Hospital, in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, for emergency treatment of their injuries. 11. The Defendant, Shirley Carter J. Berkeley, Jr., was cited by the Pennsylvania State Police for failure to drive his vehicle at a safe speed. 12. The injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs were caused by the negligence and careless actions of the Defendant, Shirley Carter, J. Berkeley, Jr. 13. The Defendant, Shirley Carter J. Berkeley, Jr., was negligent and careless as follows: a. He failed to maintain his vehicle under proper control in an effort to avoid a collision; He was operating his vehicle at an unsafe manner; He was not paying attention to traffic on the highway; and He failed to drive his vehicle at a safe speed. He failed to properly cause his vehicle to stop for the traffic control signal. 5 14. The negligent actions of the Defendant, Shirley Carter J. Berkeley, Jr., were the proximate cause of the injuries to the Plaintiffs, John Rine and Dorothea Rine. 15. At the time of the accident, the Defendant, Shirley Carter J. Berkeley, Jr. was acting on behalf of Faye Williams Berkeley, as her agent. In the alternative, said Faye Williams Berkeley negligently entrusted the vehicle to Defendant, Shirley Carter J. Berkeley, Jr. She is therefore liable for the negligent actions of the Defendant, Shirley Carter J. Berkeley, Jr. 16. The Plaintiffs, John Rine and Dorothea Rine, seek compensation for the pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of life's pleasures since the date of the accident as well as compensation for future losses they will incur in these areas. 17. The Plaintiffs, John Rine and Dorothea Rine, seek compensation for the medical expenses which they have incurred and may incur in the future to treat their injuries which occurred as a result of the injuries they sustained in the accident. 18. The Plaintiff, Dorothea Rine, also seeks compensation for the serious and permanent injuries she has sustained which has caused extensive pain and suffering. 19. The Plaintiff, John Rine, seeks compensation for loss of companionship and society as a consequence of the injuries sustained by his wife, Dorothea Rine. 6 20. The Plaintiff, Dorothea Rine, seeks compensation for loss of companionship and society as a consequence of the injuries sustained by her husband, John Rine. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, John Rine and Dorothea Rine, requests compensation and damages from the Defendants in the amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand and no/100 ($25,000.00) Dollars with interest as permitted by law and the costs of this litigation. Date: November 12, 2003 By: Respectfully submitted, IRW/N &~NIGHq 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 170t~ 3 (717) 249-2353 Supreme Court I.D. No. 25476 Attorney for plaintiffs VERIFICATION The foregoing document is based upon information which has been gathered by counsel and us in the preparation of this action. We have read the statements made in this document and they are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. We understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. '--70HN RINE DOROTHEA R1NE Date: II-l .-o 3 JOHN RINE and DOROTHEA R1NE, his wife, Plaintiffs SmRLEY CARTER J. BERKELY and FAYE WILLIAMS BERKELEY, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 2002-4154 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Marcus A. McKnight, Iii, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of attached document was served upon the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States mail, First Class, postage prepaid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on the date referenced below and addressed as follows: Brian Carroll, Field Adjuster GMAC INSURANCE 304 Main Avenue, Suite 204 Norwalk, CT 06851 Shirley Carter J. Berkeley Faye Williams Berkeley 107 Oak Crest Drive Statesboro, GA 30458 Karla Berger, Claims Adjuster NATIONWIDE INSURANCE Harrisburg Service Center P. O. Box 2655 Harrisburg, PA 17105-2655 By: IRWIN & McKNIGHT '~60a~ pA~omM~etI~q,gh[, ' I ~', E[,E~q uire 0 West Pomfret Street ~ Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2353 Supreme Court I.D. No. 25476 Date: November 13, 2003 SWEENEY & SHEEHAN, P.C. By: Guy Mercogliano, Esquire Identification No. 39766 1515 Market Street Nineteenth Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 .(215) 563-9811 Attorneys for: Defendant, Ira D. Carmel JOHN R1NE and DOROTHEA R1NE, h/w Plaintiffs SHIRLEY CARTER J. BERKELEY and FAYE WILLIAMS BERKELEY Defendants COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION LAW NO. 2002-4154 CIVIL TERM ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAl, TO THE PROTHONOTARy: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, Shirley Carter J. Berkeley and Faye Williams Berkeley, in the above captioned matter. Defendant requests a Jury at the time of trial in this matter. SWEENEY &SHEEHAN Guy ~Ier~ogliano DATE: December 12, 2003 SWEENEY & SHEEHAN, P.C. By: Guy Mercogliano, Esquire Identification No. 39766 1515 Market Street Nineteenth Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 563-9811 JOHN KINE and DOROTHEA RINE, h/w Plaintiffs SHIRLEY CARTER J. BERKELEY and FAYE WILLIAMS BERKELEY Defendants Attorneys for: Defendants, Shirley Carter J. Berkeley and Faye Williams Berkeley COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY CWIL ACTION LAW NO. 2002-4154 CWILTERM DEFENDANTS, SHIRLEY CARTER J. BERKELEY AND FAYE WILLIAMS BERKELEY'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND COMES NOW, Defendants, Shirley Carter J. Berkeley and Faye Williams Berkeley, and files this their Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint and in support thereof aver as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to either affirm or deny the averments of this paragraph and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to either affirm or deny the averments of this paragraph and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to either affirm or deny the averments of this paragraph and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to either affirm or deny the averments of this paragraph and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. For further answer, the averments contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to either affirm or deny the averments of this paragraph and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. For further answer, the averments contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to either affirm or deny the averments of this paragraph and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. For further answer, the averments contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to either affirm or deny the averments of this paragraph and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. For further answer, the averments contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to either affirm or deny the averments of this paragraph and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. For further answer, the averments contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to either affirm or deny the averments of this paragraph and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. For further answer, the averments contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to either affirm or deny the averments of this paragraph and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to either affirm or deny the averments of this paragraph and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. For further answer, the averments contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to either affirm or deny the averments of this paragraph and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. For further answer, the averments contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to either affirm or deny the averments of this paragraph and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. For further answer, the averments contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to either affirm or deny the averments of this paragraph and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. For further answer, the averments contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to either affirm or deny the averments of this paragraph and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. For further answer, the averments contained in this paragraph ~onstitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. For further answer, it is 'specifically denied that Defendant, Shirley Carter Berkeley was acting on behalf of Defendant, Faye Williams Berkeley as her agent. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to either affirm or deny the averments of this paragraph and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. For further answer, the averments contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to either affirm or deny the averments of this paragraph and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. For further answer, the averments contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to either affirm or deny the averments of this paragraph and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. For further answer, the averments contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to either afftrm or deny the averments of this paragraph and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. For further answer, the averments contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to either affirm or deny the averments of this paragraph and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. For further answer, the averments contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand judgement be entered in their favor and against Plaintiff together with all reasonable interest, expenses, counsel fees and costs. NEW MATTER 21. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 20, above, as if the same were set forth fully at length herein. 22. The provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 17 P.S. Sections 2101 and 2102 apply to this case to limit or bar PlaintifFs cause of action. 23. The provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financially Responsibility Law 75 Pa. C.S.A. Section 1701, et. seq. apply in this case and limit or bar plaintiff's cause of action. 24. Plaintiffs assumed the risk of their own conduct. 25. Plaintiffs' cause of action is barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. 26. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the within action. 27. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28. Plaintiffs' injuries, if any, were caused by the negligence and/or liability producing acts or omissions of parties or other entities over whom Answering Defendant neither has control nor the ability to control. 29. Plaintiffs failed to mitigate damages, if any. 30. Plaintiffs' cause of action must fail due to the Sudden Emergency Doctrine. 31. Plaintiffs' cause of action must fail due to the defense of Fraud. 32. Plaintiffs' cause of action must fail due to the Doctrine of Release. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand judgement be entered in their favor and against Plaintiff together with all reasonable interest, expenses, counsel fees and costs. SWEENEY & SHEEHAN - Gut~ Mercogliano Stephen J. Parisi Attorney for Defendants, Shirley Carter J. Berkeley and Faye Williams Berkeley DATE: December 29, 2003 ~VERIFICATION STEPHEN J. PARISI, ESQUIRE verifies and says that he is an attorney-at-law in the offices of SWEENEY & SHEEHAN; that he is authorized to make this Verification; and, that the facts set forth in the foregoing ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. This statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 PA. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~~ PARISI n l }iEN J. DATE: December 29, 2003 SWEENEY & SHEEHAN, P.C- By: Guy Mercogliano, Esquire Identification No. 39766 1515 Market Street Nineteenth Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 ~21.~_~563-9811 JOHN RINE and DOROTHEA RINE, h/w Plaintiffs SHIRLEY CARTER J. BERKELEY and FAYE WILLIAMS BERKELEY De~ndants Attorneys for: Defendants, Shirley Carter J. Berkeley and COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION LAW NO. 2002-4154 CIVILTERM C~ERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that service of a true and correct copy of the within Defendants, Shirley Carter j. Berkeley and Faye Wdhams Berkeley Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint with New Matter was made on December 29, 2003 to all counsel of record via facsimile and United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid. SWEENEY & SHEEHAN BY:~ ,ji~ Ste~J~n J. Par/si JOHN RINE and DOROTHEA RINE, his wife, Plaintiffs SHIRLEY CARTER J. BERKELY and FAYE WILLIAMS BERKELEY, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2002-4154 CIVIL TERM : CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE TO SETTLE AND DISCONTINUE To Curtis R. Long, Prothonotary: Please mark the above-captioned case settled and discontinued and issue a Settlement Certificate to Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire, at 60 West Pomfret Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. Respectfully submitted, IRWIN &/3~cKNIG~{ tMarcu~/A. McKniglhl~, Esquire 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-2353 Date: March 8, 2004 JOHN RINE and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DOROTHEA RINE, his wife, Plaintiffs SHIRLEY CARTER J. BERKELY and FAYE WILLIAMS BERKELEY, Defendants : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 2002-4154 CIVIL TERM : CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Marcus A. McKnight, 11/, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of attached Praecipe to Settle and Discontinue was served upon the following by depositing a true and correct copy of thc same in the United States mail, First Class, postage prepaid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on the date referenced below and addressed as follows: Brian Carroll, Field Adjuster GMAC Insurance 304 Maine Avenue, Suite 204 Norwalk, CT 06851 Shirley Carter J. Berkeley Ms. Faye Williams Berkely 107 Oak Crest Drive Statesboro, GA 30458 By: / Marcug/A. McKni~/i~,, Esq. 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2353 Supreme Court I.D. No. 25476 Date: March 8, 2004