HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-04798
--.......r.... ..
.,-
,~ "-.._,........~.......----.;_'...4.
-'" ....
.
.
TAMMY J. ROHRER, . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
.
Plaintiff . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
.
.
.
v. . CIVIL ACTION - LAW
.
.
.
MARCIA G. LEATHERMAN and . NO. 95-4798 CIVIL TERM
.
SHARON L. HENRY, .
.
Defendants . JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
.
DB.BNDAHTS' PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
I
..
,
,
.0:
.
...
2. We instruct you that the mere happening of the accident,
even when a moving vehicle strikes a pedestrian, is not evidence of
negligence and in and of itself does not establish anything.
Flaaiello v. crillv, 409 Pa. 389, 187 A.2d 289.
v
.
.
~
3. If you decide that a witness has deliberately falsified
his testimony on a significant point, you should take this into
consideration in deciding whether or not to believe the rest of his
testimony; and you may refuse to believe the rest of his testimony,
but you are not required to do so. Pa. SSJI (Civl 5.05.
u
~
4. A witness who has special knowledge, skill, experience,
training or education in a particular science, profession or
occupation may give his opinion as an expert as to any matter in
which he is skilled. In determining the weight to be given to his
opinion, you should consider the qualifications and reliability of
the expert and the reasons for his opinion. You are not bound by
an expert's opinion merely because he is an expert; you may accept
it or reject it, as in the case of other witnesses. Give it the
weight, if any, to which you deem it entitled. Pa. SSJI (Civl
2..:J..Q .
(j
S. We instruct you that a pedestrian crossing a roadway at a
place other than at an intersection or crosswalk is under a duty to
continue to look as he proceeds across the highway, even if there
was no approaching traffic visible to him before he undertook to
cross. The failure to continue to look as he crossed the highway
would be negligence as a matter of law. Parker v. Jones, 423 Pa.
15, 223 A.2d 229.
)
8. We instruct you that a motorist is not bound to anticipate
that a person in a place of safety on a sidewalk will suddenly dart
from the side of the street and run across the street immediately
in front of or into the side of the vehicle. Hand v. Hazzard, 95
Dauph. 200 (1972).
~
.
9. Outside of a business or residence district, no person
shall stop, park or stand any vehicle, whether attended or
unattended, upon the roadway when it is practicable to stop, park
or stand the vehicle off the roadway. In the event it is necessary
to stop, park, or stand the vehicle on the roadway or any part of
the roadway, an unobstructed width of the highway opposite the
vehicle shall be left for the free passage of other vehicles and
the vehicle shall be visible from a distance of five hundred feet
in each direction upon the highway. 75 Pa. C.S.A. S 33S1(a).
~) .
.J
:;c;:;'',-_.;,:.t't'',~'';',iiI:+h~ry::<';W>'i.''i-,',q
10. The legal term negligence, otherwise known as
carelessness, is the absence of ordinary care which a reasonably
prudent person would exercise in the circumstances here presented.
Negligent conduct may consist either of an act or an omission to
act when there is a duty to do so. In other words, negligence is
the failure to do something which a reasonably careful person would
do, or the doing of something which a reasonably careful person
would not do, in light of all the surrounding circumstances
established by the evidence in this case. It is for you to
determine how a reasonably careful person would act in those
circumstances. Pa. SSJI (Civl 3.01.
(j
11. ordinary care is the care a reasonably careful person
would use under the circumstances presented in this case. It is
the duty of every person to use ordinary care not only for his own
safety and the protection of his property, but also to avoid injury
to others. What constitutes ordinary care varies according to the
particular circumstances and conditions existing then and there.
The amount of care required by the law must be in keeping with the
degree of danger involved. Pa. SSJI (Civl 3.02.
c
13. Defendants contend that the Plaintiff was comparatively
negligent and that her negligence was a substantial factor in
bringing about her own harm. If you find that Tammy Rohrer was
negligent and that her negligence was a substantial factor in
bringing about her own harm, then you are instructed to apply the
Comparative Negligence Act:
The fact that a plaintiff may have been guilty of
contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery by the
plaintiff where such negligence was not greater than the
causal negligence of the defendant, but any damages
sustained by the plaintiff shall be diminished in
proportion to the amount of negligence attributed to the
plaintiff.
Under this Act, if you find that either of the Defendants were
causally negligent and you find that Tammy Rohrer was also causally
negligent, it is your duty to apportion the relative degree of
causal negligence between the Defendant and the Plaintiff. In
apportioning the causal negligence, you should use your common
sense and experience to arrive at a result that is fair and
reasonable under the facts of this accident as you have determined
them from the evidence.
If you find that the Plaintiff's causal negligence was greater
than the causal negligence of the Defendant, then the Plaintiff is
barred from recovery and you need not consider what damages should
be awarded.
If you find that the Plaintiff's causal negligence was equal
to or less than the causal negligence of the Defendants, then you
must set forth the percentages of causal negligence attributable to
the Plaintiff and the percentage of causal negligence attributable
to the Defendants. The total of these percentages must be 100
percent. You will then determine the amount of damages to which
the Plaintiff would be entitled if she had not been contributorily
negligent; in other words, in finding the amount of damages, you
should not consider the degree, if any, of the Plaintiff's fault.
After you return your verdict, the Court will reduce the amount of
damages you have found in proportion to the amount of causal
negligence which you have attributed to the Plaintiff. Pa. SSJI
(Civl 3.03A.
I)
14. In this case it is claimed that Defendant Marcia
Leatherman, as the owner of the vehicle, should be held responsible
for the alleged negligence of Sharon Henry, the driver. Defendant
Leatherman, as the owner of the vehicle in which she is a
passenger, is chargeable for the negligence, if any, of the driver,
only if you find that:
a) the driver was a servant or employee of the
owner acting as such in operating the vehicle,
or
b) the driver's physical conduct in operating the
vehicle was actually controlled by the
defendant-owner, or
c) the driver and defendant-owner had agreed
upon, were engaged in and actively
participating in carrying out a joint
enterprise of a business or other non-social
nature entered into for mutual gain or profit,
and that the driving was directly related to
that purpose. Pa. SSJI (Civl 4.10
/!
15. Under Pennsylvania law, the Plaintiff may recover pain
and suffering damages in this case if the Plaintiff can show by the
greater weight of the evidence:
(a) Defendant was negligent in one or more ways as I
described to you in my instructions;
(b) Defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in
bringing about injury to the Plaintiff; and
(c) Plaintiff's injury resulted in non-economic damages; and
(d) Plaintiff suffered serious impairment of a body function.
To decide this last and additional element of proof, you must
decide, based upon the evidence:
(a) Whether the injuries sustained by Plaintiff in the
accident impaired one or more body functions; and
(b) Whether that impairment of a body function was serious.
In determining whether the impairment of a body function was
serious, you should consider such factors as the extent of the
impairment, the particular body function impaired, the length of
time the impairment lasted, the treatment required to correct the
impairment, and any other relevant factors.
An impairment need not be permanent to be serious.
The terms "serious", "impairment", and "body function" have no
special or technical meaning in the law and should be considered by
you in the ordinary sense of their common usage.
Pa. SSJI (eivl 6.02D.
4 _'.
\.fJ "1) ~
16. You may find inconsistencies in the evidence. Even
actual contradictions in the testimony of witnesses do not
necessarily mean that any witness has been wilfully false. Poor
memory is not uncommon. Sometimes a witness forgets; sometimes he
remembers incorrectly. It is also true that two persons witnessing
an incident may see or hear it differently.
If different parts of the testimony of any witness or
witnesses appear to be inconsistent, you the jury should try to
reconcile the conflicting statements, whether of the same or of
different witnesses, and you should do so if it can be done fairly
and satisfactorily.
If, however, you decide that there is a genuine and
irreconcilable conflict of testimony, it is your function and duty
to determine which, if any, of the contradictory statements you
will believe. Pa. SSJI (eivl 5.04.
~'
.. ~l'\_l~~'\~'-~'i'~.~~~tii~'f,,""t...,~ .~ ,itJ~r:~A;<',',-" '.~
"""."" . ";',' "_.....-.-~-, '~..,~".\---": -:...... ",.";"
17. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury you are instructed that
you must find in favor of Defendant Marcia Leatherman.
1
.
.
18. Ladies and gentlemen of
you must find that the plaintiff
matter of law.
the jury you are instructed that
Tammy Rohrer was negligent as a
(Y'
...
~
7. In Civil cases such as this one, the plaintilT has the burden of proving those
contentions which entitle him to relief. When a party has the burden of proof on a particular issue,
his contention on that issue must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence, The
evidence establishes a contention by a fair prepondemnce of the evidence if you are persuaded that
it is more probably accumte and true than not.
To put it another way, think, if you will, of an ordinary balance scale, with a pan on each
side. Onto one side of the scale, place all of the evidence favomble to the plaintiff; onto the other,
place all of the evidence favomble to the defendant. If, after considering the compamble weight of
the evidence, you feel that the scales tip, ever so slightly or to the slightest degree, in favor of the
plaintiff, your verdict must be for the plaintiff. If the scales tip in favor of the defendant, or are
equally balanced, your verdict must be for the defendant.
In this case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the following propositions: that the
defendant was negligent, and that negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about the accident.
If, after considering all of the evidence, you feel persuaded thaI these propositions are more probably
true than not true, your verdict must be for the plaintiff, Otherwise, your verdict should be for the
defendant. Pa. SSJI (CIV) 5.50.
~'
7
.
,.
8, You may recall that a number of witnesses gavc testimony as experts, A witness who
has the special knowledge, skill, cxperience, training or education in a particular scicnce or
profession may give his or her opinion as an expert as to any mailer in which he or she is skilled.
In determining the wcight to be given to their opinions, you should consider the qualifications and
reliability of the expert and the reasons given for their opinions. You are not bound by an expert's
opinion merely because he or she is an expert; you may acccpt or reject it, as in the case of other
witnesses. Give the weight, ifnny, to which you find it entitled, Pa. SSJI (Civ) 5.30.
&
8
,
.
10, The fact that an opemtor is driving within the legal speed limit will not excuse him
or her if a condition of or on the highway is such that ordinary prudence would dictate a lower speed.
Winward v. Rhodewalt, 198 Pa. Super, 591,182 A,2d III (1962).
e
10
~
I J. An Act of Assembly of this Commonwealth, in elTect at the time this accident
occurred, provided in part:
No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than
is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and
having regard to the actual and potential hazards then
existing, nor at a speed greater than will permit the
driver to bring his vehicle to 11 stop within the assured
clear distance. 75 Pa, C.S.A. 3361.
This Act dictates the duty of care rcquired of someone in the same situation as the
defendant. If you find that there was a violation of this Act, you must find the defendant negligent
as a matteroflaw. However, before you answer the question of defendant's liability and plaintiffs
right to recover, you must determine whether this negligence was a substantial factor in bringing
about plaintiffs injury. Pa. SSJI (CIV) 3.30.
(;/-
'.,-'~
11
..
12. Members of the jury, the law requires a driver to maintain an assured clear distance
in the roadway before her. That is, the driver at all times must maintain a safe speed, must keep a
lookout for pedestrians,and must be able to stop the car in the clear distance between herselfand any
dangers which present themselves ahead. 75 Pa. C.S.A. Section 3361; Spcarinll v. Starcher, 367 Po.
Super, 22, 532 A,2d 36 (1987),
I\)
12
----'-.
-.....-.::--.. .:} \
~,.,. ..... )
/" ,
/ ' .
.
13. An Act of Assembly of this Commonwealth, in elTect at the time this accident
occurred, provided in part:
Where signs and markings are in place to define a no-passing zone as set no driver
shall at any time drive on the left side of any pavement striping designed to mark a no-passing zone
throughout its length. 75 Pa. C.S.A, Section 3307,
This Act dictates the duty of care required of someone in the some situation as the
defendant. If you find that there was a violation of this Act, you must find the defendant negligent
as a matter of law. However, before you answer the question of defendant's liability and plaintilTs
right to recover, you must determine whether this negligence was a substantial factor in bringing
about plaintilTs injury. Pa. SSJI (CIV) 3.30.
13
.
14. In this case it is claimed that the defendant, Marcia Leatherman as the owner of the
vehicle should be held responsible for the alleged negligence of the driver,
The Defendant,as the owner of the vehicle in which she is a passenger, is responsible
for the negligence (if any) of the driver. If you find that either:
I, The driver as a servant of the owner-defendant and was acting as such in
opemting the vehicle, or
2. The driver's physical conduct in opemting the vehicle was actually controlled
by the Defendant. Pa. SSJI (Civ) 4.10.
14
. __'~__"",","'<",'__'"'''''''<'t-,..",....,."-",...,,:,,,.:... ,~. '''.
-._r.......
,
15, Members of the jury, drivers cannot carelessly inl1ict injuries on pedestrians,
regardless of who has the right of way. Morris v. Moss, 435 A.2d 184 (Pa, Super. (981).
ry
/
15
.
16, The law requires unremitting vigilance at the wheel, cncompassing constant viewing
ofwhnt is ahead; not looking while opemting a motor vehicle that can crash, mangle and cripple all
before it in its path is negligence per se. Kmetz v. Lochiallo, 421 Pa. 363,219 A.2d 588 (1966).
.....,..)
,~ X
16
.
17. Under the testimony you have heard, you may find that at one time or another, even
ifonly momentarily,plaintilT, was within the defendant-driver's line ofvision. Ifdefendant-driver
did not see plaintiff, you may conclude that the driver was not looking; not looking while opemting
a motor vehicle is negligence per se. Kmetz v. Lochiatoo, 421 Pa. 363,219 A,2d 588 (1966).
/9
17
.. ___-eo.....
19. Members of the jury, a pedestrian has the right to rely on the excrcise of reasonable
care by the drivers of automobiles on the highways, Lavely v. Wolota, 253 Pa. Super. 196,384 A,2d
1298 (1978).
')
19
23, Motorists owe pedestrians crossing streets midway between intersections and in plain
view a duty not to injure them. Grebe v. Kliverman, 310 Pa, 60,164 A. 796 (1933).
{5
23
24. An operator of a vehicle has an affirmative duty to be attentive and to discover the
presenceofa pedestrian on the highway ahead within their range of vision and to take precautions
not to injure them. Morris v. Moss, 29 Pa. Super. 587,435 A.2d 184 (1981).
()
24
25. Members of the jury, the law presumes that ifone looks, and has an opportunity to
observe, that a person sees what is there, Ifit appears that Tammy Rohrer, a pedestrian, was prescnt
on the highway a sufficient length of time to be seen by the defendant-driver, the defendant may be
found negligent if she was far enough away to bring her vehicle under control and take action to
avoid colliding with the pedestrian. The defendant.driver's negligence, if any, is determined by
whether she saw or should have seen the pedestrian in time to avoid hitting her, or whether she ought
<-
to have anticipated the acts of the pedestrian who has committed herself to a dangerous position,
The defendant-driver will not be heard to say that she looked for a pedestrian on the highway and J
failed to see one who was visible. Ellerv. Work, 233 Pa. Super. 186,336 A.2d 645 (1975): Millen
v. Miller, 224 Pa, Super, 569, 308 A,2d 115 (1973),
G,
~
25
,.
26. If you decide that a witness has delibemtely falsified his tcstimony on a ~1ignilicant
point, you should take this into consideration in deciding whether or not to believe the .rest of his
testimony; and you may refuse to believe the rest of his testimony, but you are not required to do so,
PA. SSJI (CIV) 5.05.
0;
26
27. The number of witnesses offered by one side or the other does not, in itselfdelermine
the weight of the evidence. It is a factor, but only one of many factors which you should consider.
Whether the witnesses appear to be biased or unbiased; whether they are interested or disinterested
persons, are among the important factors which go to the reliability of their testimony. The
important thing is the quality of the testimony of each witness. In short, the test is not which side
brings the greater number of witnesses or presents the greater quantity of evidence; but which
witness or witnesses, and which evidence you consider most worthy of belief. Even the testimony
of one witness may out-weight that of many, if you have reason to believe her testimony in
preference to theirs, Obviously, however, where the testimony of the witnesses appears to you to
be of the same quality, the weight of numbers assumes particular significance. Pa. SSJI (CIV) 5.03.
c
27
28. You may find inconsistencies in the evidence, Even actual contradictions in the
testimony of witnesses do not necessarily mean that any witness has been willfully false, Poor
memory is not uncommon. Sometimes a witness forgets; sometimes he remembers incorrectly. It
is also true that two persons witnessing an incident may see or hear it differently,
If different parts of the testimony of any witness or witnesses appear to be inconsistent, you
the jury should try to reconcile the conflicting statements, whether of the same or of different
witnesses, and you should do so if it can be done fairly and satisfactorily.
If, however, you decide that there is a genuine and irreconcilable conflict of testimony, it is
your function and duty to determine which, if any, of the contmdictory statements you will believe.
Pa. SSJI (CIV) 5,04,
/
~
28
\
.
30. The object of this action, if you find that the plaintilT proved her case, is to
compensate her in money damages for what she has lost as a result of defendant's negligence. The
loss of well-being is as much a loss as an amputation, The inability to enjoy what one has heretofore
keenly appreciated, is a pain which can be equated with the inniction of a positive hurt. The
conscious loss of the benefit of being free of injury to which one is entitled, hurts as much as a
festering wound. Corcomn v. McNeal, 400 Pa. 14, 161 A.2d 367,373 (1960); DiChiacchio v.
Rockcmft Stone Products Company, 424 Pa. 77,225 A.2d 913, 915,
t\)
.r
30
31. The damages recoverable by plaintilT, Tammy Rohrer, in this case, and the items that
go to make them up, each of which I will discuss separately are as follows:
A. Tammy Rohrer is cntitled to be compensated for the amount of all medical
expenses reasonably incurred for the diagnosis, treatment and cure of her injuries in the past. These
expenses, as alleged by the plaintilTs, amount to $4,154,58. An exhibit will be submitted to you,
with this figure, for your considemtion during your delibemtion. Pa, SSJI (Civ) 60tA.
B, The plaintiff, Tammy Rohrer is entitled to be compensated for all medical
expenses which you find she will reasonably incur in the future for the treatment and care of her
continuing injuries. Pa. SSJI (Civ) 6.018,
C. PlaintilT, Tammy Rohrer, is entitled to be fairly and adequately compensated
for such physical pain, mental anguish, discomfort, inconvenience, and distress as you find she has
endured, from the time of her surgery until today, Pa. SSJI (Civ) 6.01 E.
D, PlaintilT, Tammy Rohrer is entitled to be fairly and adequately compensated
for such physical pain, mental anguish, discomfort, inconvenience and stress as you believe she will
endure in the future as a result of her injuries. Pa, SSJI (Civ) 6.01 F.
E, Plaintiff, Tammy Rohrer, is entitled to be fairly and adequately compensated
for such embarmssmentand humiliation as you believe she has endured and will continue to endure
in the future as a result of her injurics. Pa, SSJI (Civ) 6.0 I G,
F. Plaintiff, Tammy Rohrer, is entitled to fairly and adequately be compensated
for past, present and future loss of her ability to enjoy any of the pleasures of life as a result of her
injuries. Pa, SSJI (Civ) 6,0 I H.
31
G, Plaintiff, Tammy Rohrer, is entitled to fairly and adequately be compensated
for past, present and future loss of his ability to enjoy any of the pleasures of life as a result of his
injuries. Pa. SSJI (Civ) 6.01H.
H. Plaintiff, Tammy Rohrer, is entitled to fairly and adequately be compensated
for the amount of eamings that she has lost up to the time of trial as a result of her injuries this
amount as alleged by Plaintiffamounts to $4,652.82. An exhibit will be submitted to you with this
figure to your considemtion during your deliberation. Pa. SSJI (Civ) 6.01 C.
(j
32
."",-<,_,,....-.-u.,~,
/....
.
33. If you find that plaintill's injuries will continue beyond today, you must
determine her life expectancy. According to statistics complied by the United States Department
of Health, Education and Welfare, the avcmge life expectancy of all persons of the plaintill's age,
sex and mce is 38.9 years, This figure is olTered to you only as a guide, and you are not bound to
accept it if you believe that the plaintilTwould have lived longer or less than the avemge individual
in her category. In reaching this decision you are to consider the plaintill's health prior to the
accident, her manner of living, her personal habits and other factors that may have affected the
duration of her life. Pa. SSJI (CIV) 6,21.
Respectfully submitted,
VILLARI & GOLOMB, P,C.
Dated:
BY:
JOHN E, KUSTURlSS, JR, ESQUIRE
Attorney for PlaintilT
wi ~
'f-!J ..
{~
~\)
,
\.()
~f
J
34
VILLARI & GOLOMB, P.C,
BY: John E. Kusturiss, Jr" Esquire
Identification No, 28271
121 S, Broad Street, Suite 910
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 985-9177
Anomey for PlaintilTs
TAMMY J. ROHRER
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LA W
v.
MARCIA G, LEATHERMAN and
SHARON HENRY
NO. 95-4798
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDER
AND NOW, this
Day of
, 1997, after consideration ofPlaintilrs Motion in
Limine and any Reply of Defendants thereto. it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that Plaintiffs
Motion is GRANTED.
It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants shall not make any use ofthe attached November 25,
1994 accident report of Plaintiffs employer, or any opinions contained therein, at the trial ofthis
maller, nor may they submit any testimony or other evidence referencing said report or opinions in any
way.
It is further ORDERED that Defendants shall not make any use of the November 9, 1994
meeting minutes allached hereto at the trial of this maller, nor may they submit any testimony or other
evidence referencing said report or opinions in any way,
BY THE COURT
J,
VILLARI & GOLOMB, P.e-
BY: John E, Kusturiss, Jr" Esquire
Identification No, 28271
121 S. Broad Street, Suite 910
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 985-9177
Allomey for PlaintilTs
TAMMY J. ROHRER
COURT OF C')MMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LA W
MARCIA G, LEATHERMAN and
SHARON HENRY
NO. 95-4798
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE USE OF EMPLOYER' ACCIDENT
REPORT, AND MEETING MINUTES, AT TRIAL
Plaintiff, by and through her counsel. avers as follows, and moves this Court to exclude the
evidence set forth herein, for the reasons stated:
I. It is believed, based on a perusal of Defendants' Pretrial ivlemorandum, that Defendants intend
to utilize an accident report (attached hereto as Exhibit "A"), and the opinions contained therein, as
trial evidence demonstmting the accident from which the instant case arises was not fully or partially
the fault of Defendants,
2, It is believed that Defendants will also seek to admit the minutes of a safety meeting held
November 9, 1994 (attached hereto as Exhibit "B") as well as testimony containing said minutes, for a
similar purpose.
3. These documents, and any rcferences thereto. should properly be excluded because they are
not relevant and becausc they constitute impropcr opinion tcstimony.
WHEREFORE, PlainlitTrespectfully requests that this Court enter the attached Order requiring
that Defendants refrain from any use of the 11-24-94 accident report or 11-9-94 meeting minutes of
Plaintitrs employer.
F/('- ip
Date
VILLARI & GOLOMB, P.C.
BY: John E, Kusturiss, Jr., Esquire
Identification No, 28271
121 S. Broad Street, Suite 910
Philadelphia. PA 19106
(215) 985-9177
Allomey for PlaintllTs
TAMMY J. ROHRER
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
CIVIL ACTION. LA W
MARCIA G. LEATHERMAN and
SHARON HENRY
NO, 95-4798
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE USE OF EMPLOYER'S ACCIDENT
REPORT. AND MEETING MINUTES. AT TRIAL
As noted in the attached Motion, It is believed, based on Plaintiff's perusal of Defendants'
Pretrial Memomndum, that Defendants intend to utilize an accident report (attached hereto as Exhibit
"A"), and the opinions contained therein, as trial evidence demonstmtlng the accident from which the
instant case arises was not fully or partially the fault of Defendants. It is further believed that
Defendants will also seek to admit the minutes ofa safety meeting held November 9, 1994 (attached
hereto as Exhibit "B") as well as testimony containing said minutes, for a similar purpose.
Page 2 of the accident report attached as Exhibit "A" contains the following statement by Jack
Wagner:
I visited the accident site and therc was 4' of room for [Plaintifi] to pull the
[truck) of the road to the right side, She should have been able to see the approaching
auto and either stay in the [truck) or move to the front or rear of the [truck), standing
alongside a truck in that position is asking for trouble.
See allached Exhibit "A", page 2 of2.
The statements set forth above from Exhibit "B" should be excluded for reasons similar to
331 A.2d 797 (1974 )(opinion that defendant could not avoid accident excluded); Strelll.rser v. Strunk.
222 Pa. Super. 537, 295 A,2d 168 {I 972)(concurrence stating that answer to question as to why
witness did not see person on road was impermissible opinion and properly excluded).
Similarly, the opinion statements in Exhibit "A" are inadmissible because layl witnesses are to
testify to/acts. not opin/om. See, e.g.. C'O"IIIIOIII\'eCllth v. GClllmvClY, 336 Pa. Super. 225, 485 A.2d 776
(1984). Wagner's's statements in Exhibit "A" far exceed the bounds ofaeceptable fact testimony and
cross perilously (and impermissibly) into the realm of improper opinion.
those set forth in addressing the opinions in Exhibit "A". The statements set forth in the meeting
minutes to which Plaintiff objects are no more than opinions: the opinions of "Jack" that an accident
will always be a driver's fault if they are across a yellow line and the admonition that" . , , trucks are
not allowed in the middle of the road."3 Neither of these statements represents a universal truism.
Like the statements in Exhibit "A", they are impermissible opinions, and should be excluded.
B. THE SUBJECT DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED BECAUSE THEY ARE
tRRELEVANT
Relevant evidence has been defined as evidence that" . . . tends to establish some fact material
to the case, or which tends to make a fact at issue more or less probable, . ,". Gregg v. F/scher. 377
Pa, 445, 454, \ 02 A.2d 105, \10 (1954).
Commentators on the field of evidence have suggested an inquiry that assists in analyzing the
relevance of the subject accident report and meeting minutes to which the instant Motion is addressed.
1 It is undisputed Jack Wagner is not an expert witness in the area of accident reconstruction.
Even assuming he were such a witness, Defendants have not identificd him as an cxpert in their
Pretrial Memorandum or provided an cxpert rcport by him.
31t is submitted therc is no cvidcncc of any kind in this case showing that Plaintilrs truck was
not on the proper side of the road, in any cvcnt
".'c,~",.,; "_'.~".~_-'-
....."."..IG.......m... t.--". ",e"Ull'l @
.' -
R~qEIVEO 1I0Y ,a l~~ n n .l ~
, . \).\U'(' 'VI L\
f ,......""',
. ~ .
3:3 . TIM.E ~ :I{i) fNl' ..
TRUCK NO q/~
iU j;~1' PeA. It') ~o,.." . 1::. ~
.
;UPERVISOR'S INVESTIGATlm' '.1EPORT
::H'I'L:>YEE' N1\HE ...J"a.M,,^Y .:r. R~ k"e(" ..' AGE
lATE --4-1 ~5 I "II( DIVISION K4Lc!ft.. k-,,) ! J2L
.OCATION OF INCIDE~T/!\CeIDE~T/INJURY .1i.1J. (""-1-.....
.
:HECK ONE: . . '. .
CUSTOMER COMPLAINT
MOTORIST COMPLAINT .", .'
PROPERTY DAMAGE
EQUIPMENT DAMAGE
TRUCK FIRE
. -',..'
PARKED VEH. DAMAGE
S^FETY VIOLATION
EQUIPMENT ABUSE'
MINOR ACCIDENT
SPEEDING VIOLATION
X'
F,MP. l.NJlIRY:
TOTER DAMAGE'
OTHER:
nlhT HAPPENED? (DESCRIBE WHAT TOOK PLACE OR WH~T CAUSED.YOU TO MAKE THIS
:NVE5TIGATION) \;:--7 k..J st~ ....~ ..f tk -\?..,~\, QA. 11:.. biv..rs 9Jt... 5- -M.f
sk. "",.../~ ie I. .' =,..< ....I. s'-. h..l ,....f-. J r...: ~ i. -tl....,. s
,,~ ~.... -rh.--t" 10- ~c.:t ,'>l.ro. "" -th... ::/../1..." sM,'<" ;.. -tl... ,..,.J. A "..1.;,1..' J,.;,..,.. k...
;k"'I\ H..."... f~.<..d ~:;J' -n.... .("I'-^T 't..{T wk.t -t 4... ".1:,(.. ~ o~ T..~, {....'t.
brc..~ I b:>^Lo ;^ \....r l..:It {","T. A\~ T"J 41"r...J. /..u. {'.,J. ...,...:....f- Tk. C#" (f"H;L)
"^~ 1M) ;;.j.~..",,: "",..J c., . . cdJ_ .-\ -rt.... M:JJI" .(~.,. .f +L.. ,.,1..;
nlY DID IT HAPPEN? (GET ALL THE FACTS BY STUDYING THE JOB AND SITUATIONS INVOLVE!
IllY - - I~HERE -- ~IHEN -- 111I0 -- he-Ii.."... i'h..-r -tJ... rlri.Jcr.. f 1k. c.....
110___ ",~"',i&t'\T- c..t+C4. ~ l...- UCot J,.,".J,;.., 7 Q (. .,./..." ~,'''' ..~" ."
~ (:II"",,,~^, :,'T~""l"< ~1"..+_-f ~-t ~L- f....\ 5=>'1teA d:-^,.f~,..,,{.,. ~...cc.. ..",.{
.J'" .-t....J.;.. .." -.L \/.11.._> 1;...<.. ;" -rk r:>~. T~ .t..... f..,) '"".1' i.l""/~..I J:>"':>fl iT,;
7 7. " 'l;;J. ,
'''~\'\7 "'^ \:l~) -r~.-( ,/... ........IJ r.... /.....J. .-" ,..,J.. .... wI -tl~-f .,.t.;.. CR- =011..\ r"" 0,,_
,.~ (n"l'. a) J:.f d-.- ,,-1 j.....+- j"....p...l ~~1" ,,{ -rk ~.....L, Tt..... l:>'Jr c.:l::u(J h___ ~UJ
r""' ...) ~:>...IJ "-- b~ . str..,J.... - ;.,. ~ 1t?'1" ; b"..__ ~v., c./".....l rt-..' -t", -rL...
)ci,~......-t ...) 1k 4,....:<1;,.". 1" 111,. ./-l'""7 Tk4 sl.. ......J -d... ot/-v. 3 1....'''''$"''' ...;
- ...J...::"\.o ",,".J"'f'. -t..1 l:.;;;.1 ~I I'>~ '0 j" .../"..J ;" -tk. """",,,,.-tr,,,,, TL.-f ~t..... ..,~
''''''..,),~ <S~ -tk 'ip......J .J "<I"" ,,~;..(..
! iHhT SHOULD BE DONE TO ELIMINATE THE PROBLEM?",) ~v~ ~/I ......,1:>:;=.. -(".,.
'''' 0/tr........17 C&.....T~...' .,~L.-. ~. '1I~ -c; "';"1.. " DI" 1\_ -tr_fL'..
OVER
rn CC(It~ /1 - 2.9-91
I
\
.,
'.
."
\CTION TAKEN THUS FAR (TAKb 0R RECOMMEND ACTION, DEPEN~~NG UPON YOUR AUTHORtTYI '
LH",-f,-e:..J .k.~; ..W,)rV' Df' :..c.~J .....of .
;L.EJ1"tAJ. .,' ,~';r7 6.~ '7:..._, e ",s'p:'f-hf.. :
i\ ob r.;", eJ. , i... Cl'_~ 0 f ~~.. dr... .r..f vJ.:..l.. ..,1...... /.. J1'"r.>c.t t:'~'i
5 f...:r., /'I. H U\ IJ' '
10'3;1.. FIO,J....... L~...
lY\",,)',,}", II c... , ~ 17::>":3
(117') q>7 ~ ',3),..,
T",s..r--- ,.....f,. : St'c."t"e. \="c.r"" JVl..t-.....\ :r:;.,..C6,
~.I~'7;j. (,")7-11fn-c"I- 3fi,E
Ir>~ t': "b...~ (YT, Ll &l"" ;r,:,
,
h....,1'v&r .
Mea.c.;", l..&4-rl,.....M_
'19'71./ .H~.. c.'V\~
VIii: "H6 E.r' III p~ ti )5'" .1\"75
L:........ ~ C!~) All ~ - (0).\
I OWNER OF DAMAGED 'PROPERTY I CUSTOMER NhHE
I NAME' "Tc;M"",,y j-; "'1,,,",:...r ,
, ADDRESS . .,.
I '. .....
r
I
i DESCRIPl'ION OF DAMAGE brol", b"",-~
PHONE
: ",;JJ/, ("S"'" t";~t" ,..;..\.
Ic.h {:I)"t"
fEE." cfJ fuJ~ Ire.,
01/-6 c..J ~ ~ ~ 7)ht-1' Ph.:l t</Jt-:!;, A-f /J ~ /J~ /.1L./t/~)
. .. ~.. .
INVESTIGATED" BY .c:;:..:... bzi-J,;;. .
REVIEWED BY '. .... " ~....J
CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN (J c. .
C Iftte.(, ~t..6 - r V J ~I n::o . -nI-C ha/067+T :J' 1"f"1:". A-}./ 1/ -pIe-tU 4J ~ "I d r-' Roo,., I<
Iktz. "TO PvU 7716 '1/<- OFF' 0': ~ ~HTf7 ro TJ}6R/611r'~/or:f". ~J1..6 :J/h;dp~8t!~
re U5 ;t) .'5' b5- 77hS' A-PP/!u Ik./h JJ~ tiu 10 1-11 0 e,1"7.tI'nt-;j 'fJJ-y I}/ 71:/-'C ~ O',e ~.
~ c:t ~ ~ ~-::~~~=;'TjJJ ,~,,'" _~S!".,: ;..~
COMMENTS ...(:1; J...'t7 .,..-t. \ .sa..... b7 n.tl1"'I..... SF~ \.rl .
i^'""">1'r~ ~j' P..-tr:;(""",,,,-' P1ic.h.:..(' C~-t-t"", : E P......,., P.l>.
- 2 ,9 0
.. ,.
DATE
'DATE
\I I
/2. I
,.~' I '5'1'
0.5 I 9 Cf " ,
D
'.
safety Meeting November 1994
11/9/94
4:03 pm - 5:24 pm
Attendees: sterling Rosenberry, Mike Ohliger, Gregory Myers,
Stephanie Fahs, Gary Keller, Al McClintock, Paul Williams, Molly
Wallace, John Polli, Dwayne Riley, Jeff Bemiller, Joey RUdd, 'Ed
Miller
Presenter: Jack Wagner
THe ~lJ8Jcc;;t:s J-L pTCC> 8tJ'LI'..u w~
DI ~ c.v~:;6'P Ii r vcR-I<.- L....t:j HC.~~ 1;- mr;C.IMNI
/ ' I BeJl'
~
Items discussed:
. . ,
1, John Kotich (Kinsley's Safety Director) discussed the importance
of providing MSDS to ahy employee(s) inquiring, Employee's' have
express a concern regarding the inhalation of paint fumes in the
paint shop, OSHA came to Kinsley's paint shop on November 9, lSJl4,
They performed a ventilation test, The results showed ther,i ~ere
no problems with the ventilation with or without respiratory
protection.
2,Jack stressed if an accident occurs when a driver is across the
yellow line he/she is considered to be partially at fault for
crossing the line.
3,Frontload trucks now have warning lights in the cabs that tell
the drivers when the lids are not fully closed, Please stress to
drivers to remember to 'check and make sure the lights are working
properly during their pre/post trips, '
4,There has been an increase in backing accidents,
S,Remind drivers to have the loaders assist them when backing,
6, Trucks are not allowed in the middle of the road,
drive/park on the right side of the road,
Always
7,There was some feedback from the employee's regarding the safety
incentive program, Most of the feedback was negative in the York
rear load division, The employee's felt that the period of time was
too long, They were also concerned about what the reward would be
upon completing more that 1 year of safe service, The committee
again stressed that in one year the program will be re-evaluated,
8,Stressed the importance of placing the cans in safe areas.
9. starting January 1, 1995 the safety meetings will comprise of the
following:
a. Totals for all locations and damages in dollars will
continue to be discussed,
b. Major accidents will continue to be discussed,
c, Employee representative's will now attend safety meetings,
d, Supervisor's will rotate being the presenter,,'
10,A trainer will be coming to train frontload drivers on the new
frontload trucks, also a trainer will be training the mechanics on
the maintenance of the new trucks,
.
6 Hoffer
TAMMY J, ROHRER,
Plainti ff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
V.
MARCIA G. LEATHERMAN and
SHARON HENRY,
Defendants
95-4798 CIVIL TERM
l1LRE: PRETR1I\L_CQNfEREN.C.E
A pretrial conference was held before the HOhorable
George E, Hoffer, Judge, on Wednesday, April 30, 1997.
In this vehicle occident case, Peter Villari, ESQuire,
represents the plointiff, and Girard E. Rickards, ESQuire,
represents both defendants,
Harvey Freedenberg, ESQuire, represents the excess
insurance carrier, but was not present for the pretrial
conference, nor will he actively participate in the trial of the
case.
Plaintiff was on employee of York Waste Disposal as 0
hondler of gorbage to be picked UP and loaded on to the truck on
daily rounds. She claims she was negligently injured by Sharon
Henry, who was driving Marcia Leatherman's vehicle. Liability
is clearly contested. Rohrer suffered various broken bones and
has lost woges.
Defense counsel stipulates that the amount of
. '
95-4798 Civil Term
$4.097.97 was a fair and reasonable cost for medicol expenses
plaintiff incurred. Each side has examined the witness list of
the other side and indicates no serious problem. except that
even plaintiff admits that he is having problems contacting
Witness Houser and Witness Weaver, and indicates that these
witnesses may not be called for trial. Should plaintiff's
counsel receive any information from these witnesses between now
and the dote of the trial. they are directed to immediately
share that information with defense counsel.
This is a Jury trial estimated to take two and a half
days to try with four challenges on each side.
Counsel indicate the Jury interrogatories will be
negligence. substantial factor. and pain and suffering; also
contributory negligence. In addition. there will be separate
lines for wage loss and medical loss on the Jury interrogatory
form. with an appropriate Jury instruction.
By the Court.
Peter M. Villari. Esquire
121 South Broad Street, Suite 910
Philadelphia. Pa. 19107
For the Plaintiff
Court Administrator
Girard E. Rickards. Esq,
4705 Duke Street
Harrisburg. Pa. 17109
For the Defennant
Prothonotary
OF TH~~j?ff6%lTIV1Y
97 HAY ~6 PH 3: , 0
CUME::ii~:;"IjJ CCUNlY
PENNSYLVANIA
TAMMY J. ROHRER,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO, 95-4798 CIVIL TERM
v.
MARCIA G. LEATHERMAN and
SHARON L, HENRY,
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DBPBNDANT'S PRB~TRIAL MEMORANDUM
I. FACTS OF LIABILITY
On November 25, 1994, while the Plaintiff, Tammy Rohrer, was
in the scope of her employment with York Waste Disposal, she was
driving a truck northbound on Center Street in East Pennsboro
Township, Pennsylvania, Although there was substantial room to her
right, Ms, Rohrer stopped the garbage truck very near. the center
line. She jumped out of the truck and into the path of a
southbound vehicle operated by Defendant, Sharon Henry. The
vehicle driven by Ms. Henry ran over Ms, Rohrer's foot,
Additionally, Ms. Rohrer struck her finger on the mirror of Ms,
Henry'S vehicle.
II. FACTS OF DAMAGE
Ms. Rohrer sustained broken bones in her foot and a broken
finger on her left hand, She had surgery to repair her foot
fracture. She has had a good recovery.
Ms. Rohrer additionally is claiming that she lost wages and
sustained recoverable medical expenses,
Ms. Rohrer has selected the limited tort option on her
personal automobile insurance policy.
III, ISSUES
1. Negligence of Defendant Henry,
2. Negligence of Plaintiff Rohrer,
3, Whether the Plaintiff was "an occupant" of the York Waste
Disposal Vehicle?
4. Whether the Plaintiff's injuries constitute a serious
impairment?
S. Amount of Damages?
IV, SPECIAL EVIDENTIARY ISSUES
None,
V. WITNESSES
Tammy Rohrer (as on cross) r-'\I~,
Sharon Henry ~ ~\:
Marcia Leatherman
Jack Wagner
Sam Derden
Linda Keene, Comprehensive Rehabilitation Associates, Inc.
Patrolman Michael Cotton
Defendant reserves the right to call records custodians from
any of the Plaintiff's treating health care providers or employers.
Defendant reserves the right to call as witnesses any individual
listed in the Plaintiff's Pre-Trial Memorandum,
VI. EXHIBITS
Scene photos
Vehicle photos
Plaintiff's medical records
Plaintiff's employment records
2
"
. ~ I."
"
"
.
~6
JAPR ?51~91^,
"
. ,
,".:--.c....-
,.....
'-".."'.,"
(I 1CjO"{
!I'~ " ' . .-,
," I' , ',,- ,I i1'-
j ; , -}
LLARI
& LOMB
, Richard M. Golomb
PettrM. Villari
. John E. K~luriss, Jr,
JamtS M, DeSanlo
WajTIt A. E~
. Nathan M. Mur~
lIisa J. Smukltr
ofCMld
Roberta G. Diamond, R.N.
\11,'lnq\ J.11"..
\ 1'1.. t I ~.. I.' n d I \. ,II p.' r d lh' n
121 South Broad Street
Suite 910
Phila., PA 19107
215 985.9177
fax: 215 9854169
May 5, 1997
, Aho_NrooJow,S.
Thomas E. Chellins, Court Administmtor
Cumberland County Courthouse
1 Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013-3387
RE: Tammy Rohrer v, Marcia G. Leatherman and Sharon L, Henry
CCP, Cumberland County, No, 95-4798 Civil Term
Dear Mr. Chellins:
Enclosed please find an original and two copies of Plain tilT's Amended Pre-Trial
Memorandum to be filed in the above-captioned matter. Please clock-in one copy and return it to
me in the envelope provided,
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Very truly yours,
PETER M, VILLARI
PMlmps
encls.
cc: Gimrd E, Rickards, Esquire, w/enc,
Via Fax No.: (717) 652-6290
Debm P. Fourlas, Esquire, w/enc.
Via Fax No.: (717) 237-5300
Bellefonte, PA . Harrisburg, PA . Hazleton, PA · Haddonlield, NJ · Washington, DC
/'II
VILLARI & GOLOMB, P,C,
BY: Peter M. Villari, Esquire
Identification No. 26875
121 S. Broad Street, Suite 910
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 985.9177
Attorney for PlaintilT
TAMMY J, ROHRER
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LA W
MARCIA G. LEATHERMAN and
SHARON HENRY
NO, 95-4798
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM
PlaintilThereby amends its original Pre-Trial Memorandum by adding the following
information thereto:
5) IDENTITY OF WITNESSES TO BE CALLED
11, Scott Erney, State Farm Adjustcr
To testify as to the contents of his file
12, Patrolman Michacl Cotton
To testify regarding the results of his accident investigation
6) LIST OF EXHIBITS WITH BRIEF IDENTIFICATION OF EACH
P-IS Not-to-scale diagrum of accident site with measurcmenb of highway noted thereon
P-16 Manufacturer's information/writings selling forth width, length and hcight of defendants'
motor vehicle,
Respectfully Submilled.
VILLARI & GOLOMB
BY:
-'
_0
PETER M. VILLARI
does not necessarily mean said individual will be called as a witness. PlaintilT reserves the right
to add to or delete from this list), For the convenience of counsel and the Court, PlaintilT also
provides a brief description of the testimony to be provided by each witness, but is not limited to
the descriptions set forth herein, as Local Rule 212 requires no such description.
I, Plaintiff, Tammy Rohrer
To testify regarding the facts of the accident and the damages she has suffercd as a result
thereof.
2, Bernard Zellger, D,O, (To provide fact and expert testImony via videotape
depositIon)
PlaintilT's treating physician, to testify to the nature and extent of her injuries and all
other facts regarding treatment, as well as to testify as an expert witness regarding care,
treatment, causation. and effect of Plain tilT's injuries. Dr. Zeliger's expert testimony will be
consistent with the reports already provided to dcfcnse counsel. ()o
, Barry Hauser t}) - ~ 'b rr~
o the facts of the accident (this individual was with PlaintilTat the accident
B,t\YW~,,, ()) - ~ ~ p{ .
To tes . 0 the facts of the accident (this individual was with Plaintiff at the accident
scene),
5, Sam Derden
Geneml Manager of PlaintilT's employer. To testify regarding the facts surrounding the
accident. PlaintilT's damages, and the company investigution of the accident he conducted, Said
testimony is outlined in this witnesses' deposition.
. .
. .
3(d)),
P-4 Supervisor's Investigation Report of Sam Derden detailing facts of accident and
implicating Defendants as liable therefor.
P-5 Plaintifrs tax returns, pay stubs, and other income information.
P-6 Supplemental Agreement for Worker's Compensation.
P-7 Transcript of 11-26-94 recorded statement of Defendant Marcia Leatherman,
P-8 September 9, 1996 Deposition transcript of Defendant Marcia Leatherman.
P-9 September 9, 1996 Deposition transcript of Defendant Sharon Henry.
P-IO September 9, 1996 Deposition Transcript of Sam Derden,
P.II Police accident report,
P-12 Insurance claim file of Defendants' insurer (turned over to Plaintiff in Defendants'
Response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents),
P-13 Interrogatory Answers of Defendants.
P-14 Any and all exhibits listed for possible use by Defendants (whether or not actually
utilized by either Defendant at trial).
7) CURRENT STATUS OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
To date, there have been no serious settlement negotiations, as Defendants have flatly
denied liability for the injuries they caused Plaintiff. PlaintilT will supplement this section if
negotiations result in any progress whatsoever before the Pretrial Conference.
J/!.:JJJ5J
,
Date
BY:
Respectfully submitted,
~~.
Peter M. Villari. Esquire
Attomey for PlaintilT
4
,
Ii
~
ij
'I'
i
I
~
1
~
i '
,
~
~
Ii
Ii
..
p
~
~
~
Ij
h
~
o
r
J
Ii
il
I ,
Ii
I
"
i!
Ii
r
I'
,I
~
!
~
Ii
~
Ii
Ii
TAMMY ROHRER
IN THE COURT COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
vs,
NO, 95-4798 Civil Term
MARCIA G, LEATHERMAN and
SHARON L, HENRY
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
REPLY TO NEW MATTER
AND NOW, come Plaintiff, Tammy Rohrer, by and through her
attorney, Royce L, Morris, Esquire, and Replies to Defendants' New
Matter as follows:
24, Paragraph 24 is a legal conclusion to which no responsive
pleading is required, To the extent it maKes any factual allegation
it is specifically denied,
25, Paragraph 25 is a legal conclusion to which no responsive
pleading is required, To the extent it maKes any factual allegation
it is specifically denied.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff request that this Honorable Court deny
Defendants' New Matter and enter judgment against Defendants and
grant the relief requested in the complaint,
Respectfully submitted,
"
it
II
~
Ii
j'
J
~
Ii
Ii
li
"
f
J
II
i:
i!
!i
~I
Royc , re
ROBI SON & GE
Attorney I,D, No. 64310
4407 North Front Street
P,O, Box 5320
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110
(717) 232-8525
Attorney for Plaintiff
II
"
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in the Reply to New Matter are
true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made
subject to the penalties of 18 Pa,C,S, Section 4904, relating to
unsworn falsification to authorities,
~:1r.untlff
.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Royce L. Morris, Esquire, do hereby certify that on the ~~h
day of October 1995, I caused a true and correct copy of the Rep~r 0
New Matter to be served upon the following counsel of record by f rst
class mail by depositing same in the United States Mail, postage
prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania:
Richard H, Wix, Esquire
Wix, Wenger & Weidner
4705 Duke street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania l7l09-3099
ROBINSON & GERALDO,
By
Royce
ROBIN & GERAL
4407 North Fron~Street
P,O, Box 5320 '
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania l7ll0
Attorney I,D, No, 64310
Attorney for Plaintiff
~
~
I
I
,
I
f
~
'I
~
"
~
.
TAMMY J. ROHRER,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MARCIA G, LEATHERMAN and
SHARON L, HENRY,
Defendants
NO, 95-4798 CIVIL TERM
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO: Stephen E, Farina, Prothonotary:
Please enter our appearance as attorneys for Defendant
Sharon L, Henry in the above action; reserving, however, the
right to plead in response to Plaintiff's Complaint.
NURICK
Freed
Atto~ ey I , 23152
100 pine S
P,O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
(717) 237-5267
January ~ ' 1996
JI
.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that on this date a true
and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Entry of
Appearance was served by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon
the following:
Royce L. Morris, Esquire
Robinson & Geraldo
P,O, Box 5320
Harrisburg, PA 17110-5320
Girard E, Rickards, Esquire
Wix, Wenger & Weidner
4705 Duke Street
Harrisburg, PA 17109-3099
January Z' , 1996
,
c'
~ N E;:'
~ M
.. ~,.
~~? N 5~
n :0:: 'u."
It-~ CL. .."
~r:7 R~
C) en 30
r...:.'
"- N i';"~
eeL', :!:: ~g~
r:: --;r.
-. "'<
I.t. <.t) =>
0 en U
. .
.
-. -...
" .
~
,
..... r- .
i!; -
i=-.;' In ':;
UJt-:- N _ni......
c;.. .)3)
EP 0::... _J;:'~
t'- .~~~
'.
r ':/)
~r ','.;.-.-
U;!' 10, -.,'iiQ
;:.: ~ ! iJ..
It. I') :-:>
(.; ~" ,J
.
.
.
'.
...
TAMMY J. ROHRER, . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
.
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
.
.
v. . CIVIL ACTION - LAW
.
.
.
MARCIA G. LEATHERMAN and . NO. 95-4798 CIVIL TERM
.
SHARON L. HENRY, .
.
Defendants . JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
.
DEPBNDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
1. This action arises from an automobile-pedestrian accident
that occurred on November 25, 1994 in East pennsboro Township,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. This lawsuit was commenced on September 7, 1995 by
Complaint that was served on Defendants on or about September 11,
1995.
J. On September 20, 1995 Defendants Leatherman and Henry
served upon the Plaintiff Sets I and II Interrogatories and a
Request for a Production of Documents. A true and correct copy of
the Defendants' discovery requests are attached hereto as Exhibits
"A", "B" and "e" respectively.
4. As of this date, the plaintiff has failed to serve either
responses to the discovery requests or objections to those
requests.
5. The Plaintiff's Answers to Interrogatories and Response
to Request for Production of Documents are overdue.
,
..
-.
..
...
WHEREFORE, Defendants, Marcia G. Leatherman and Sharon L.
Henry, respectfully request Your Honorable eourt to enter an Order
compelling the Plaintiff to provide full and complete Answers to
Interrogatories, Sets I and II and provide the documents requested
in the Defendants' Request for Production of Documents by a date
certain or suffer sanctions.
Respectfully submitted,
WIX, WENGER & WEIDNER
B~.~_.~ Ji!r ~.
chard H. Wix, Esqu re
I.D. 107274
4705 Duke Street
Harrisburg, PA 17109
(717) 652-8455
2
--
.
~
.
TAMMY J. ROHRER,
plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND eOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
.
.
: eIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
.
.
: NO. 95-4798 eIVIL TERM
MAReIA G. LEATHERMAN and
SHARON L. HENRY,
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANTS' INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF
SET - I
TO: Tammy J. Rohrer; and
ROyeE L. MORRIS, ESQUIRE, Attorney for Plaintiff
PLEASE TAKE NOTleE that yo~ are hereby required pursuant
to Pennsylvania Rules of eivil procedure, Rules 4005 and 4006, as
amended, to file the original and serve upon the undersigned a
copy of your Answers and Objections, if any, in writing and under
oath to the following Interrogatories within thirty (30) days
after service of the Interrogatories. The Answers shall be
inserted in the space provided. If there is insufficient space
to answer an Interrogatory, the remainder of the Answer shall
follow on a supplemental sheet.
These shall be deemed to be continuing Interrogatories.
If, between the time of your Answers and the time of trial of
this case, you, or anyone acting in your behalf, learn of any
further information not contained in your Answers, you shall
promptly furnish said information to the undersigned by
supplemental Answers.
WIX, WENGER & WEIDNER
BY~ - 1 )J. Jv - ~
Attorneys for Defendants
4705 Duke Street
Harrisburg, PA 17109-3099
(717) 652-8455
Dated: September 20, 1995
Exhibit "A"
4. If you were involved in an accident previous or
subsequent to the accident complained of in this action, state where
and when the accident took place: the nature and extent of your
injuries and conditions resulting from such accident, including
whether or not the injuries or conditions were temporary or
permanent, and the names and addresses of the doctors who attended
you.
ANSWER:
5. If you have ever filed an action against any person
for damages for personal injuries, other than this action, state the
caption of the case, including the name of the person you sued, the
name of the Court, and term and number of the action.
ANSWER:
6. State the names and addresses of each employer or
business for whom you have worked during the five year period
preceding this accident, including the nature of your duties and the
dates when you were engaged in such employment.
ANSWER:
- 2 -
.
.
7. What were your gross and net earnings for the five
year period preceding this accident, and the years subsequent to
this accident, on a weekly or monthly basis?
ANSWER:
8. Set forth in detail any and all expenses, and losses
which you claim resulted from the accident, which form the basis of
this suit, stating the nature of the same and the names and
addresses of the parties to whom the bills were incurred.
ANSWER:
9. State the name and last known address of all persons
from whom you or anyone acting on your behalf has obtained any
report, statement, memorandum or testimony concerning the accident
or damages resulting therefrom which is involved in this cause of
action.
ANSWER:
- 3 -
10. State the names, addresses and relation of any
persons who are financially dependent upon you, in whole or in part
for their support, giving the ages of all such persons and
relationship to you.
ANSWER:
ll. State the names, ages, present addresses and
occupations of all of your children and your spouse.
ANSWER:
l2. State specifically each and every area of your body
that was physically injured in the accident referred to in your
Complaint, including a complete description of each such injury and
your present condition as to each such injury.
ANSWER:
l3. If you still suffer pain from any of your injuries
and conditions resulting from the accident referred to in your
- 4 -
.
Complaint, state specifically the frequency and nature of the pain
and the injuries from which it emanates.
ANSWER:
14. Set forth the manner in which any of your
disabilities resulting from the accident referred to in your
Complaint have or will affect your earning capacity in the future.
ANSWER:
l5. What is the name and last known address and present
whereabouts, if known, of each person whom you or anyone acting in
your behalf knows or believes to have witnessed said accident.
ANSWER:
l6. What is the name, last known address and prsent
whereabouts, if known, of each person whom you or anyone acting in
- 5 -
-
TAMMY J. ROHRER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
.
v. . CIVIL ACTION - LAW
.
MAReIA G. LEATHERMAN and . NO. 95-4798 eIVIL TERM
.
SHARON L. HENRY,
Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANTS' INTERROGATORIES DIREeTED TO PLAINTIFF
SET - II
TO: Tammy J. Rohrer; and
ROYCE L. MORRIS, ESQUIRE, Attorney for Plaintiff
PLEASE TAKE NOTleE that you are hereby required pursuant
to Pennsylvania Rules of eivil Procedure, Rules 4005 and 4006, as
amended, to file the original and serve upon the undersigned a
copy of your Answers and Objections, if any, in writing and under
oath to the following Interrogatories within thirty (30) days
after service of the Interrogatories. The Answers shall be
inserted in the space provided. If there is insufficient space
to answer an Interrogatory, the remainder of the Answer shall
follow on a supplemental sheet.
These shall be deemed to be continuing Interrogatories.
If, between the time of your Answers and the time of trial of
this case, you, or anyone acting in your behalf, learn of any
further information not contained in your Answers, you shall
promptly furnish said information to the undersigned by
supplemental Answers.
WIX, WENGER & WEIDNER
B~ -- <)J.~
A orneys for Defendants
4705 Duke Street
Harrisburg, PA 17109-3099
(717) 652-8455
Dated: September 20, 1995
Exhibit "B"
INTERROGATORIES - SET II (MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS)
1. If you are a named insured under any policy of motor
vehicle insurance, state the name and address of the insurer, the
policy number and your tort selection.
ANSWER:
2. If the vehicle in which you were an occupant was insured
under a policy of motor vehicle insurance, state the name and
address of the insurer, the policy number and the tort selection of
the named insured.
ANSWER:
.-:'"....
3. At the time of the accident referred to in your
Complaint, state whether you or vour SDouse were the titled owner
of any motor vehicle.
ANSWER:
4. If you answered "yes" to Interrogatory No.3, for each
vehicle state:
a)
b)
c)
d)
each vehicle;
e) Whether any of the vehicles were D2t insured at the
time of the accident referred to in your Complaint.
ANSWER:
The titled owner of the vehicle;
The year, make and model of the vehicle;
The V.I.N. number of each vehicle;
The motor vehicle insurance policy applicable to
. .
. .
5. If you are, or were, eligible to receive benefits for
medical expenses or income loss under any policy or motor vehicle
insurance, Workers' eompensation, social Security Disability,
Medicare, Medicaid, or any program, group contract or other
arrangement for payment of benefits for any pecuniary loss for
which you are making a claim, state the following:
a) The name and address of the insurer and the policy
number, plan number or group contract number;
b) The amount of any benefits paid to you or on your
behalf for medical expenses and/or income loss.
ANSWER:
TAMMY J. ROHRER, : IN THE eOURT OF COMMON PLEAS
plaintiff . eUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
.
v. . CIVIL AeTION - LAW
.
MARCIA G. LEATHERMAN and NO. 95-4798 CIVIL TERM
SHARON L. HENRY,
Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
FIRST REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
TO: Tammy J. Rohrer; and
ROYCE L. MORRIS, ESQUIRE, Attorney for Plaintiff
AND NOW, this 20th day of september, 1995, pursuant to
. Pennsylvania Rules of civil Procedure 4009, as amended, come(s)
the Defendant by his/her/their counsel, WIX, WENGER & WEIDNER,
and request(s) said party to produce for inspection, examination
and copying, at the law office of counsel for the requesting
party, not later than thirty (30) days after service of this
Request, the following documents:
1. All statements, signed statements, transcripts of
recorded statements, interviews or affidavits of any person or
witness relating to, referring to, or describing any of the
events surrounding the alleged accident in question as referred
to in plaintiff's Complaint, including those relating to the
happening of the accident or to Plaintiff's. injuries or losses.
2. All expert opinions, expert reports, expert summaries
or other writings of experts in your custody or control or in the
custody or control of your attorney, insurer, or anyone else
Exhibi t "c"
, ' .
. '. .
. " ,
acting on your behalf, which relate to any aspect of the subject
matter of this litigation.
3. All reports, opinions, records, correspondence of all
physicians, osteopaths, chiropractors, or other practitioners of
the healing arts who have treated, examined or consulted with you
'from the date of the accident until the present time, relating to
injuries or conditions allegedly arising from the accident in
question.
4. All hospital records for you from the date of the
accident up to the present time, in connection with treatment of
injuries allegedly sustained in the accident in question which is
the subject matter of this litigation.
5. All bills, invoices or statements of charges from all
physicians, osteopaths, chiropractors, hospitals, medical
associates, or other medical practitioners, relating to
treatment, examination or consultation of you, associated with
injuries or conditions allegedly sustained in the accident in
question which is the subject matter of this litigation.
6. All written records or writings of whatsoever kind in
your care, custody or control or in the care, custody or care of
your (Plaintiff's) employer, evidencing or dealing with lost
wages, lost income or reduced earning capacity allegedly
sustained by you as a result of the accident in question which is
the subject matter of this litigation.
."
. ' .
. " .
. . , .
7. All photographs, plans, drawings, sketches or
diagrams in your possession, custody or control, or in the
possession, custody or control of your attorney, your insurer, or
anyone else acting on your behalf, dealing with any aspect of
this litigation, including but not limited to the vehicles,
'instrumentalities, or accident site, involved in the accident in
question which is the subject of this litigation, including
injuries sustained by you. Such documents shall include any
documents made or prepared up through the present time, with the
exclusion of the mental impressions of you attorney or his
conclusions, opinions, memoranda, notes or summaries, legal
research or legal theories, and those documents prepared in
anticipation of litigation by your representative which would
disclose the representative's mental impressions, conclusions or
opinions respecting the value or merit of a claim or defense.
8. All documents prepared by you, or by any insurer,
representative, agent or anyone else acting on your behalf,
except your attorney, during or as part of an investigation of
the accident in question which is the subject matter of this
litigation, including injuries sustained by you. Such documents
shall include any documents made or prepared up through the
present time, with the exclusion of the mental impressions of
your attorney or his conclusions, opinions, memoranda, notes or
summaries, legal research or legal theories, and those documents
I . . .
. . . .
, . . .
prepared in anticipation of litigation by your representative
which would disclose the representative's mental impressions,
conclusions or opinions respecting the value or merit of a claim
or defense.
9. eopies of your Federal Income Tax Returns for the
.five (5) years preceding the date of your accident up to the
present time.
(~: As referred to herein, "documents"
includes written, printed, typed, recorded, or
graphic matter, however produced or reproduced,
including correspondence, telegrams, or written
communications, data processing storage units,
tapes, contracts, agreements, notes, memoranda,
analyses, projections, diaries, calendars, films,
photographs, diagrams, drawings, minutes of
meetings, or any other writing (including copies
of any of the foregoing, regardless of whether
you are now in the possession, custody or control
of the original) now in the possession, custody
or control of you, your former or present
counsel, agents, employees, officers, insurers,
or any other person acting on your behalf).
* In a death case, all references herein to Plaintiff's losses,
injuries, etc. shall mean Plaintiff's decedent's losses,
injuries, etc.
WIX, WENGER & WEIDNER
BY~ - - --..( /J.~ /'
orneys for Defendants
4705 Duke street
Harrisburg, PA 17109-3099
(717) 652-8455
. . . .
. . . .
. . I .
CBRTIPICATB OP SBRVICB
this /-M.
AND NOW, u:>
day of ~ 4J..J.-.
, 1996, I, Richard H.
Wix, Esquire, of the firm of wix, Wenger & Weidner, hereby certify
that I have served a copy of Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery
on this date, by depositing a copy of the same in the United states
mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania addressed as
follows:
Royce L. Morris, Esquire
Robinson & Geraldo
P. O. Box 5320
Harrisburg, PA 17110-5320
Harvey Freedenberg, Esquire
McNees, Wallace & Nurick
100 pine street
P. O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
WIX, WENGER & WEIDNER
BY:~) -~ R-iIr ~.
R rd H. w1x, Esqu re
I.D. 107274
4705 Duke street
Harrisburg, PA 17109-3099
(717) 652-8455
KREITHEN, BARON, VILLARI & GOLOMB
BYI STUART A. CARPBY, ESQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION NO.1 49490
10TH FLOOR
1201 CHESTNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
(215) 563-8286
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
TAMMY J. ROHRER,
Plaintiff
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MARCIA G. LEATHERMAN and
SHARON L. HENRY,
NO. 95-4798 CIVIL TERM
Defendants
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AS CO-COUNSEL
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly enter my appearance as co-counsel for Plaintiff, Tammy
J. Rohrer, in the above captioned matter.
KREITHEN, BARON, VILLARI & GOLOMB
BY:
'.. n
i. (,r;.
! .. .<
It , ~ '"'
ii:;, "
t'._ , - ~j
c ; :'.:~
, (::")
'-' ,
(t' , C"~_;
, C ,.J
L L1..
.
, l.'-I >
, - (... ~.)
n ~::;
,..--,-.'"
':j i"1'_<:
,.
'.'~'.'
,I
(, "', ~ ~ . . I '''',
I',. !:~
Ii ..... ,'!oJ
....J...... . .......11
F~l'~: '\\'; :C',': '.~ .~A
f.
TAMMY J. ROHRER,
Plaintiff
v.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MARCIA G. LEATHERMAN and
SHARON L. HENRY,
Defendants
NO. 95-4798 CIVIL TERM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PETITION TO hAKE RULE ABSOLUTE
1. On March 8, 1996, Defendants, Marcia G. Leatherman and
Sharon L. Henry filed a Motion to Compel Discovery.
2. On March 11, 1995, the Honorable Kevin A. Hess entered an
Order compelling Plaintiff, Tammy J. Rohrer, to show cause why the
Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery should not be granted. The
Rule was returnable twenty (20) days after service. A true and
copy of the Rule to Show Cause is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"
and incorporated herein by reference.
3. On March 14, 1996, defense counsel served upon Royce L.
Morris, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiff Rohrer, the Rule to Show
Cause by first class mail. A true and correct copy of the cover
letter of March 14, 1996 is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and
incorporated herein by reference.
4. As of this date, the Plaintiff has not responded to the
Rule to Show Cause dated March 11, 1995.
5. As of this date, the Plaintiff has not served responses
or objections to the discovery requested by Defendants.
WHEREFORE, Defendants, Marcia G. Leatherman and Sharon L.
TAMMY J. ROHRER, . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
.
Plaintiff . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
.
:
v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW
:
MARCIA G. LEATHERMAN and . NO. 95-4798 eIVIL TERM
.
SHARON L. HENRY, .
.
Defendants . JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
.
RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
AND NOW, this
II tJ... day of
, 1995, upon
'7'J1 ttA-d.....
consideration of the Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that the Tammy J. Rohrer, show cause why said Motion
should not be granted.
RULE RETURNABLE
.;l. 0 days after service.
BY THE COURT:
Isl ~ a.. tJ.,__.J
J.
TRUE COpy FROM RECORD
I" : "IT'O" . h r. ~'. I h..rc t:~t, s.;1 my hand
d. ~ .h~ s:al 01 H:d Courl at Carlisle, Pa.
Th;.l.I\~, day of ..~.~~., 19.9.,".
~ -...LJ ~
,.......... ... . . ._r_
.. , ':'~~ih~~~~~dJ........
Exhibit "A"
CBRTIPICATB OP SBRVICB
AND NOW, this ~ day of nlaq
, 1996, I, Richard H.
Wix, Esquire, of the firm of Wix, Wenger & Weidner, hereby certify
that I have served a copy of Defendants' Petition to Make Rule
Absolute on this date, by depositing a copy of the same in the
United states mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
addressed as follows:
Royce L. Morris, Esquire
Robinson & Geraldo
P. O. Box 5320
Harrisburg, Pa 17110-5320
stuart A. Carpey, Esquire
Kreithen, Baron, Villari & Golomb
Tenth Floor
1201 Chestnut street
Philadelphia, PA 19107-4179
Harvey Freedenberg, Esquire
McNees, Wallace & Nurick
100 Pine street
P. O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
WIX, WENGER & WEIDNER
By: ~ ." -/../ A ~ .
(~ H. Wix, I.D~ Ro.'07214
4705 Duke street
Harrisburg, PA 17109-3099
(717) 652-8455
TAMMY J. ROHRER,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
MARCIA G. LEATHERMAN and
SHARON L. HENRY,
Defendants
NO. 95-4798 CIVIL TERM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE POR APPEARANCE
TO: Lawrence E. Welker, Prothonotary
Please enter the appearance of Richard H. Wix, Esquire,
of the firm of wix, Wenger & Weidner, on behalf of Defendants
Marcia G. Leatherman and Sharon L. Henry in the above-captioned
matter.
WIX, WENGER & WEIDNER
. .,'
2c2 .J ~
By -", ~ . J( J. ./ /"
Richard H. Wix, I.D. 107274 <
Attorneys for Defendants
4705 Duke Street
Harrisburg, PA 17109-3099
(717) 652-8455
Dated: September 20, 1995
\., The Court or C.:mmon ?is::s or C:.Jr.::..-:~d:md C-=u:--;~'YI ?snr:syl'lc:r:i=
Tammy J. Rohrer
'vs.
Marcia G.Leatherman and Sharon Henry
~o.
95-4798
Civil
:?-
----.
~ow,
September 29
95
~_ !. S:~..!::: O~ C~G:E:.='..!...A.'TD COt.i1':'? ?\... co
==:by c...:=t1= 6: .s~.:i oi
Dauphin
Cwu:ty :0 =::-.:t: -~;'1 \V:::,
... .. . ... :::d .. .
.-.. 'C--::u:::cu ':~"!P -...-- n :..:: :"'::r.1:::t -- :":.!K or.
. -, ..
:.:e
:''':-::5.
~r;~~
.,,- "/.'
1
~t'
".,~:f.~
Slll~..~ of C:""':'u'..u:d C~u::Q'. ?~
.
Affida.vit or Se..-nc::!
:Sow, !9 -. o' .:!cc ',r. 1=-.~
:.:: ~,:...:"
'.1pan
:1t
by ==cil:1i :0
3- c:py at == :2:::-=-'"
...
:Inti -!I':. !=rwa :0 :.:.: .:=:::::s :::::i.
So =we::,
~;,~ .1
CaWlCT. :'.
---'-----
.
Swot: :md sul:sc-:ix:d bdcm: .
== :!::s cy or
cosrs
.'::.c..-<.v"ICZ
~au..-\.GE
,-\.: : llJA ..,.n'
.3
12_
s
1- "-4
, II-A
SHERIFF'S RETURN
NO. 95-4798 Civil
PAGE 5
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA I
COUNTY OF DAUPHIN I
I, William H. Livingston, Sheriff of the County of Dauphin,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, do hereby certify and return that I made
diligent search and inquiry for Sharon L. Henry
the defendant named in th9 within Complaint
and that I am unable to find her in the County of Dauphin and therefore
,
return same NOT FOUND this 3tU
Oct.
, 19 95
day of
Its the wrong Sharon L. Henry
So Answers
1~~~Rw;'-?(. . ~~~
Sheriff of Dauphin eounty, Penna.
Sworn and subscribed to
before me this 3tU
day of Oct. 1995
0t~ C!-. ~0AUuV .
PROTHONOTARY
Sheriff I s Cost $ ;9-11';-
"
---
TAMMY J. ROHRER
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff,
VS.
96- -
NO.
1-/ f! Q ~l-L~t d_L.t'w--
1995
MARCIA G. LEATHERMAN, and
SHARON L. HENRY,
.
.
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants. CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NOT I C E
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 Notice are served by
entering a written appearance personally or by attorney 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 notice for any money claimed in the Amended
Complaint or for any claim or relief requested by the Plaintiffs.
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 LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE
Court Administrator
Cumberland County Courthouse
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(BOO) 240-6200
TRUE COpy FROM RECORD
In Tesllmony wherelJ!, I hero unto ~ct my hillld
;,~d ihc scal 01 said Court ..\ Carlisle, P
.BIll! :f1... day. 01 '. 19
UtI. . 't;t.... 'I.. .
</l
...
-..
_J
w
.....
u>
-n
::>.:
-
c.o
c..n
~
~
N 0 T I C I A
La presente es para notificarle que usted ha sido demandado en
el Tribunal de Justicia. Si usted desca defenderse de las
alegaciones a la demanda expuerstas en las siguientes paginas, usted
tiene un plazo de veinte (20) dias a partir de la fecha del
emplazamiento y notificacion de la demanda. Usted puede comparecer
por y escrito personalmente 0 atraves de su obogado, exponiendo sus
defensas u objeciones alas alegaciones en su contra. Se la advierte
que do no cumplir con lo antes expuesto se continuara con los
procedimientos y se podrio dictar sentencia en su contra pot el
tribunal sin aviso 0 notificacion, por cualquier reclamacion en
dinero solicitada en la demanda 0 cualquier otro remedio solicitado
par la parte demanda 0 cualquier otro remedio solicitado por la parte
demandante. Se le advierte que usted puede perder dinero u otros
derechos importantes.
Usted debe llavar esta demanda a un obogado inmediatamente. Si
usted no tiene obagado 0 no puede pagar por sus servicios, vaya en
persona 0 llame por telefono a la siguiente oficina para obtener
informacion sobre como consequir asistencia legal.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE
Court Administrator
Cumberland County Courthouse
Carlisle, Pennsylvania l70l3
(800) 240-6200
~
~
TAMMY J. ROHRER
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff,
vs.
NO.
1995
MARCIA G. LEATHERMAN, and
SHARON L. HENRY,
Defendants.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, TAMMY ROHRER, by and through her
attorney, Royce L. Morris, Esquire, and in support of her Complaint
avers as follows:
l. Plaintiff, Tammy Rohrer, is an adult individual residing at
147 Marbeth Avenue, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. Defendant, Marcia Leatherman, is an adult individual
residing at 1032 Flowers Lane, Marysville, Perry eounty, Pennsylvania.
3. Defendant, Sharon Henry, is an adult individual residing at
427 Duke Street, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
4. Venue is conferred upon this Court by Rule 1006(c) of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
COUNT I--NEGLIGENCE
Tammv Rohrer v. Sharon Henrv
5. Paragraphs one through four are incorporated by reference as
though fully set forth herein.
6. On or about November 25, 1994, Plaintiff operated a
recycling truck owned by York Waste Disposal, Inc. of 1110 East
Princess Street, York, Pennsylvania.
~
~
7. On or about November 25, 1994, Defendant Sharon Henry
operated a 1994 Honda Civic owned by Defendant Leatherman.
8. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Leatherman owned the
1994 Honda Civic bearing registration plate APX6021.
9. At all times relevant hereto and at the location of the
accident, SR 1015 (Center Street) was a straight, two lane public
highway divided by two solid yellow lines. Further, SR 1015 (Center
Street) was, and is, located in East pennsboro Township, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania.
10. On or about November 25, 1994, at approximately 6:25 p.m.,
Plaintiff drove her vehicle in the northbound lane of SR l015 (Center
Street) when she lawfully stopped her vehicle approximately one-half
mile north of Creekside Drive in order to collect recyclable
materials for York Waste.
11. On or about November 25, 1994, after Plaintiff stopped her
vehicle, Plaintiff opened the driver's side door and alighted from
the vehicle landing on the yellow dividing line. Plaintiff then
closed the vehicle door and remained stationary on the yellow line.
l2. On or about November 25, 1994, at approximately 6:25 p.m.,
Defendant Sharon Henry drove Defendant Leatherman's vehicle in the
southbound lane of SR 1015 (Center Street) and as her vehicle passed
by Plaintiff's vehicle, she ran over Plaintiff's two feet and struck
Plaintiff's right hand middle finger. The Plaintiff had remained
stationary at the time of the accident.
l3. At the time of the accident described herein, no adverse
weather conditions existed.
I .
--
,...
l4. Defendant, Sharon Henry directly and proximately caused the
accident by committing the following acts of negligence:
a. Defendant Sharon Henry operated a motor vehicle
in a careless, reckless and negligent manner.
b. Defendant Sharon Henry operated a motor vehicle
without due regard to the rights, safety, and
position of Plaintiff.
c. Defendant Sharon Henry failed to keep a proper
lookout of the traffic conditions then existing.
d. Defendant Sharon Henry failed to notice Plaintiff's
stopped motor vehicle.
e. Defendant Sharon Henry failed to apply the brakes
in sufficient time to avoid striking Plaintiff's
body.
f. Defendant Sharon Henry failed to take evasive action
in order to avoid striking Plaintiff.
Defendant Sharon Henry operated the motor vehicle
at an excessive rate of speed under the circumstances
then existing.
h. Defendant Sharon Henry operated the vehicle with
no warning of approach.
g.
l5. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Henry's
negligence, Plaintiff sustained a fractured left foot and other
injuries as the result of being struck by the Leatherman vehicle.
l6. As a direct and proximate result of the collision,
Plaintiff experienced immediate and severe left foot pain which
increased in intensity and duration.
l7. As a direct and proximate result of the collision and the
injuries sustained, Plaintiff has incurred medical costs and may be
compelled to expend monies for additional medical treatment and
medicines.
.
~
lB. As a direct and proximate result of the collision and the
injuries sustained, Plaintiff has been deprived, and/or is deprived,
and may continue to be deprived of the ordinary pleasures of life.
19. As a direct and proximate result of the collision and the
injuries sustained, Plaintiff has suffered and may continue to suffer
from physical and/or mental anxiety, pain, suffering and
inconvenience.
20. As a direct and proximate result of the collision and the
injuries sustained, Plaintiff has suffered wage losses from her
position with York Waste and other losses associated with her
employment such as accrued sick leave, entitled benefits and interest.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Sharon
Henry for compensatory and consequential damages in an amount in
excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) DOllars, plus interest, court
costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and such other relief as this Court
deems just and proper.
COUNT II-NEGLIGENCE
Tammv Rohrer v. Marcia Leatherman
21. Paragraphs one through twenty are incorporated by reference
as though fully set forth herein.
22. Defendant Leatherman is liable for Plaintiff Tammy Rohrer's
injuries resulting from the negligent entrustment of the vehicle to
Defendant Sharon Henry.
~
~
23. Defendant Leatherman is liable for Plaintiff Tammy Rohrer's
injuries resulting from the negligent and reckless conduct of
Defendant Sharon Henry, inasmuch as Sharon Henry acted as the agent
or representative of Defendant Leatherman at the time and place of
the accident.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Tammy Rohrer, demands judgment against
Defendant Leatherman for compensatory and consequential damages in an
amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, plus
interest, court costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and such other
relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully Submitted,
171l0-5320
~
~
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are
true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made
subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to
unsworn falsification to authorities.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
VILLARI & GOLOMB, P.C.
BY: PETER M. VILLARI, ESQUIRE
Identification No. 26875
BY: WAYNEA. ELY. ESQUIRE
Identification No. 69670
North American Building
121 South Broad Street, Suite 910
Philadelphia. PA 19107
TAMMY J. ROHRER,
Plaintiff.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MARCIA G. LEATHERMAN and
SHARON L. HENRY,
No. 95- 4798 CIVIL TERM
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
DEFENDANT MARCIA G. LEATHERMAN
I. Admitted.
2-3. Moving Defendant's eharacterizations of the averments of Plain tilTs Complaint are
specifically denied, as that document, being in writing and a matter of record, speaks for itself.
5. The averments of this paragmph are specifically denied as conclusions oflaw to which no
4. Admitted.
responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
6-1 I. Moving Defendant's characterizations of her own deposition testimony in paragmphs 6
through I I, inclusive, are specifically denied, as that testimony, being a matter of record and
transcribed in writing, speaks for itself.
12. Admitted.
13-14. Moving Defendant's characterizations of the deposition testimony of Defendant Sharon
Henry in paragmphs 13 and 14 are specifically denied, as that testimony. being a matter of record
and transcribed in writing. speaks for itself.
15. Moving Defendant's chamcterizations of the interrogatory answers of Defendant Sharon
Henry in this paragraph are specifically denied, as those answers, being a matter of record and in
writing, speak for themselves.
16-17. The averments ofpamgmphs 16 and 17 are specifically denied as conclusions of law to
which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
18. It is admitted that Moving Defendant was a passenger in her own vehicle, which was
being operated by Defendant Sharon Henry, at the time of the subject accident. By way of
further answer, this does not merit the granting of summary judgment for Moving Defendant.
19-20. It is denied that Plaintiff has not presented or will be unable to present no evidence that
Defendant Henry was acting as the agent, servant, work person, and/or employee of Moving
Defendant. Genuine issues of material fact exist given the evidence adduced to date. Further,
such issues also exist because the causes of action in this case are dependent upon the credibility
and demeanor of the witnesses who will testify at trial. Additionally, as to Moving Defendant's
averments regarding the alleged lack of evidence that Defendant Henry was an incompetent
driver, discovery is not yet complete. By way of further answer, the only support provided by
Moving Defendant for her Summary Judgment Motion is the testimony of herself and Defendant
Henry. This testimony may not support the entry of summary judgment due to the Nanty-Glo
role. See attached Brief, which is fully incorpomted herein and made a part hereof.
21. The averments of this paragmph are specifically denied as conclusions of law to which
no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court deny Moving Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment for the reasons set forth in the attached Brief.
BY:
~o
4;:/
Wayn /i y, Esquire"
'/
BY:
VILLARI & GOLOMB, P.C.
BY: PETER M. VILLARI, ESQUIRE
Identification No. 26875
BY: WAYNE A. EL Y, ESQUIRE
Identification No. 69670
North American Building
121 South Broad Street, Suite 910
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Attorneys for Plaintiff
TAMMY J. ROHRER,
Plaintiff,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
MARCIA G. LEATHERMAN and
SHARON L. HENRY,
.
No. 95- 4798 CIVIL TERM
Defendants.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies he served a troe and correct copy of the attached response and
. brief upon the below-listed counsel, by Federal Express overnight maill, postage prepaid, on the
i
,
t
I
r
;
date indicated:
Richard H. Wix, Esquire
4705 Duke Street
Harrisburg, PA 17109.3099
/2.-~,qt
Date
"'\'
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT
(Must be typewritten and subnitted in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Please list the within matter for the next Argunent Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAPTION OF eASE
(entire caption must be stated in full)
(') ,-0 0
c: ...n "'I'
:.:,. ;zo: :::.I
-of7j .-=- l;l~
D't~", I <:
,",~:l i 1
-;*r n~
Uj ~.~ -l j.
f;C:.l ~
"". ;5
~:c' -
....._,-, >"
-,."H' :a om
,.-.c~ -I
:3. t:* -.
:I:l
.-1 ....
TAMMY J. ROHRER,
( Plaintiff)
VB.
MARCIA G. LEATHERMAN and
SHARON L. HENRY,
( Defendant)
No.
4798
Civil.
1995
I. State matter to be argued (Le., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's
denurrer to canplaint, etc.):
Motion For Summary Judgment of Defendant Marcia G. Leatherman.
2. Identify counsel who will argue case:
(a) for plaintiff: Royce L. Morris, Esq.
~s: 4407 North Front St., Harrisburg, PA l7ll0
Stuart A. Carpey, Esq.; lOth Floor, l201 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19l07
(b) for defendant: Girard E. Rickards, Esquire
~s: 4705 Duke Street
Harrisburg, PA l7l09
3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has
been listed for argurent.
4. ArguTent Court Date:
December ll, 1996
Dated: November 5, 1996
~ I
(/.~"'/r~~
/ ./c'l- -,P""? -~
-Attorney for Defendant,Marcia G. Leatherman
TAMMY J. ROHRER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
.
.
.
v. . CIVIL ACTION - LAW
.
MARCIA G. LEATHERMAN and . NO. 95-4798 civil Term
.
SHARON L. HENRY, .
.
Defendant . JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
.
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: Tammy J. Rohrer; and
ROYCE L. MORRIS, ESQUIRE, Attorney for Plaintiff
You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New
Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default
judgment may be entered against you.
WIX, WENGER & WEIDNER
B~~' .(.. .JJ_~I/'
chard H. Wix, I.D. 107274
Attorneys for Defendants
4705 Duke Street
HarriSburg, PA 17109-3099
(717) 652-S455
Dated: 14i"~
~
Complaint are denied as stated. It is admitted that Defendant
Henry's vehicle made contact with the Plaintiff after the
Plaintiff had alighted from her vehicle and had jumped into the
Defendant's lane of traffic, and proof to ,the contrary is
demanded at the time of trial.
13. Admitted.
14. The allegations of paragraph 14 of Plaintiff's
eomplaint are denied. specifically, it is denied that Defendant
Sharon Henry operated her vehicle in a careless, reckless and
negligent manner, or that she operated her vehicle without due
regard for the plaintiff's rights, or that she failed to keep a
proper lookout, or that she failed to apply her brakes in a
timely manner, or that she failed to take evasive action, or that
she operated her vehicle at an excessive ~ate of speed, and proof
to the contrary is demanded at the time of trial.
15. It is denied that the Plaintiff sustained any
injuries as the result of any negligence on the part of Defendant
Henry, and proof to the contrary is demanded at the time of
trial.
16. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without
- 3 -
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the averments of paragraph 16 of plaintiff's Complaint,
and proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
17. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the averments of paragraph 17 of Plaintiff's Complaint,
and proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
18. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the averments of paragraph 18 of plaintiff's Complaint,
and proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
19. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the averments of paragraph 19 of Plaintiff's Complaint,
and proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
20. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the averments of paragraph 20 of Plaintiff's Complaint,
and proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
- 4 -
COUNT II - NBGLIGBNCB
TaMmy Rohr.r v. Maroia L.atherman
21. Defendants incorporate herein by reference their
answers to paragraphs 1 through 20 of Plaintiff's complaint.
22. The allegations of paragraph 22 set forth a legal
conclusion to which no answer is required. However, it is denied
that Defendant Leatherman was in any way negligent in entrusting
her vehicle to Defendant Henry, and proof to the contrary is
demanded at the time of trial.
23. It is denied that Defendant Henry was the agent,
servant or employee of Defendant Leatherman, and proof to the
contrary is demanded at the time of trial.
NEW MATTER
24. The accident referred to in Plaintiff's Complaint
was caused solely by the negligence of the Plaintiff, and her
cause of action is barred by provisions of the Pennsylvania
Comparative Negligence Act.
25. The Plaintiff's claim is barred in whole or in part
by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial
Responsibility Law.
- 5 -
"
WHEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment against the
Plaintiff, together with costs of this action.
Respectfully submitted,
WIX, WENGER & WEIDNER
Bn d -. ", IJ.:;U /-
Richard H. Wix, I.D. 107274'
Attorneys for Defendants
4705 Duke street
Harrisburg, PA 17109-3099
(717) 652-8455
- 6 -
VERIJ'ICATION
I, Sharon L. Henry, am the Defendant in this action, and I
verify that the facts contained in the foregoing Answer with New
Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief.
The undersigned understands that her
statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.
C.S.A. section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
3v.u..O'O rP tiC' J 1 I .~
Sharon L. Henry
IO/'4\QS-
Date
Plaintiff,
rrr-I/79t (lL(LCC. .....tH'-
NO. 1995
TAMMY J. ROHRER
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS.
MARCIA G. LEATHERMAN, and
SHARON L. HENRY,
Defendants.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NOT ICE
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 Notice are served by
entering a written appearance personally or by attorney 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 notice for any money claimed in the Amended
Complaint or for any claim or relief requested by the Plaintiffs.
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 LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE
Court Administrator
Cumberland countr Courthouse
Carlisle, pennsy vania l7013
(800) 240-6200
NOT I C I A
La presente es para notificarle que usted ha sido demandado en
el Tribunal de Justicia. Si usted desca defenderse de 1as
alegaciones a la demand a expuerstas en las siguientes paginas, usted
tiene un plazo de veinte (20) dias a partir de la fecha del
emp1azamiento y notificacion de la demanda. Usted puede comparecer
por y escrito personalmente 0 atraves de su obogado, exponiendo sus
defensas u objeciones alas alegaciones en su contra. Se la advierte
que do no cumplir con lo antes expuesto se continuara con los
procedimientos y se podrio dictar sentencia en su contra por e1
tribunal sin aviso 0 notificacion, por cualquier reclamacion en
dinero solicitada en la demanda 0 cualquier otro remedio solicitado
por la parte demanda 0 cualquier otro remedio solicitado por la parte
demandante. Se le advierte que usted puede perder dinero u otros
derechos importantes.
Usted debe llavar esta demanda a un obogado inmediatamente. Si
usted no tiene obagado 0 no puede pagar por BUS servicios, vaya en
persona 0 llame por telefono a la siguiente oficina para obtener
informacion sobre como consequir asistencia legal.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE
Court Administrator
Cumberland County Courthouse
Carlisle, Pennsylvania l7013
(800) 240-6200
, \
TAMMY J. ROHRER
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff,
vs.
NO.
1995
MARCIA G. LEATHERMAN, and
SHARON L. HENRY,
Defendants.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, TAMMY ROHRER, by and through her
attorney, Royce L. Morris, Esquire, and in support of her Complaint
avers as follows:
1. Plaintiff, Tammy Rohrer, is an adult individual residing at
147 Marbeth Avenue, Carlisle, Cumberland County, penneylvania.
2. Defendant, Marcia Leatherman, is an adult individual
residing at 1032 Flowers Lane, Marysville, Perry County, Pennsylvania.
3. Defendant, Sharon Henry, is an adult individual residing at
427 Duke Street, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
.
4. Venue is conferred upon this Court by Rule 1006(c) of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
COUNT I--NEGLIGENCE
Tammv Rohrer v. Sharon Henrv
5. Paragraphs one through four are incorporated by reference as
though fully set forth herein.
6. On or about November 25, 1994, Plaintiff operated a
recycling truck owned by York Waste Disposal, Inc. of 1110 East
Princess Street, York, Pennsylvania.
7. On or about November 25, 1994, Defendant Sharon Henry
operated a 1994 Honda Civic owned by Defendant Leatherman.
8. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Leatherman owned the
1994 Honda Civic bearing registration plate APX6021.
9. At all times relevant hereto and at the location of the
accident, SR lOl5 (Center street) was a straight, two lane public
highway divided by two solid yellow lines. Further, SR l015 (Center
Street) was, and is, located in East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania.
lO. On or about November 25, 1994, at approximately 6:25 p.m.,
Plaintiff drove her vehicle in the northbound lane of SR lOl5 (Center
Street) when she lawfully stopped her vehicle approximately one-half
mile north of Creekside Drive in order to collect recyclable
materials for York Waste.
ll. On or about November 25, 1994, after Plaintiff stopped her
vehicle, Plaintiff opened the driver's side door and alighted from
the vehicle landing on the yellow dividing line. Plaintiff then
closed the vehicle door and remained stationary on the yellow line.
l2. On or about November 25, 1994, at approximately 6:25 p.m.,
Defendant Sharon Henry drove Defendant Leatherman's vehicle in the
southbound lane of SR l015 (Center Street) and as her vehicle passed
by Plaintiff's vehicle, she ran over Plaintiff's two feet and struck
Plaintiff's right hand middle finger. The Plaintiff had remained
stationary at the time of the accident.
l3. At the time of the accident described herein, no adverse
weather conditions existed.
"
14. Defendant, Sharon Henry directly and proximately caused the
accident by committing the following acts of negligence:
15.
a.
Defendant Sharon Henry operated a motor vehicle
in a careless, reckless and negligent manner.
Defendant Sharon Henry operated a motor vehicle
without due regard to the rights, safety, and
position of Plaintiff.
Defendant Sharon Henry failed to keep a proper
lookout of the traffic conditions then existing.
Defendant Sharon Henry failed to notice Plaintiff's
stopped motor vehicle.
Defendant Sharon Henry failed to apply the brakes
in sufficient time to avoid striking Plaintiff's
body.
Defendant Sharon Henry failed to take evasive action
in order to avoid str king Plaintiff.
Defendant Sharon Henry operated the motor vehicle
at an excessive rate of speed under the circumstances
then existing.
Defendant Sharon Henry operated the vehicle with
no warning of approach.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Henry's
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
negligence, Plaintiff sustained a fractured left foot and other
injuries as the result of being struck by the Leatherman vehicle.
16. As a direct and proximate result of the collision,
Plaintiff experienced immediate and severe left foot pain which
increased in intensity and duration.
17. As a direct and proximate result of the collision and the
injuries sustained, Plaintiff has incurred medical costs and may be
cOffipelled to expend monies for additional medical treatment and
medicines.
l8. As a direct and proximate result of the collision and the
injuries sustained, Plaintiff has been deprived, and/or is deprived,
and may continue to be deprived of the ordinary pleasures of life.
19. As a direct and proximate result of the collision and the
injuries sustained, Plaintiff has suffered and may continue to suffer
from physical and/or mental anxiety, pain, suffering and
inconvenience.
20. As a direct and proximate result of the collision and the
injuries sustained, Plaintiff has suffered wage losses from her
position with York Waste and other losses associated with her
employment such as accrued sick leave, entitled benefits and interest.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Sharon
Henry for compensatory and consequential damages in an amount in
excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) DOllars, plus interest, court
costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and such other relief as this Court
deems just and proper.
COUNT II-NEGLIGENCE
Tammv Rohrer v. Marcia Leatherman
2l. Paragraphs one through twenty are incorporated by reference
as though fully set forth herein.
22. Defendant Leatherman is liable for Plaintiff Tammy Rohrer's
injuries resulting from the negligent entrustment of the vehicle to
Defendant Sharon Henry.
23. Defendant Leatherman is liable for Plaintiff Tammy Rohrer's
injuries resulting from tne negligent and reckless conduct of
Defendant Sharon Henry, inasmuch as Sharon Henry acted as the agent
or representative of Defendant Leatherman at the time and place of
the accident.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Tammy Rohrer, demands judgment against
Defendant Leatherman for compensatory and consequential damages in an
amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, plus
interest, court costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and such other
relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully Submitted,
By
Royc .
ROBI SON & GERAL
Attorney I.D. N . 64310
4407 North Fron Street
P.O. Box 5320
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-5320
(717) 232-8525
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are
true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made
subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to
unsworn falsification to authorities.
.
.
.
TAMMY J. ROHRER,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 95-4798 CIVIL TERM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
v.
.
.
MARCIA G. LEATHERMAN and
SHARON L. HENRY,
Defendants
MOTION POR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OP
DBFENDANT MARCIA G. LEATHERMAN
1. The present action arises out of an automObile-pedestrian
accident involving Defendant Marcia G. Leatherman's vehicle and
the Plaintiff which occurred on or about November 25, 1994 on SR
1015 (Center Street) in East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania.
2. In Count II of her Complaint, which was filed on or about
September 7, 1995, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
"A", Plaintiff Tammy J. Rohrer alleged that Defendant Leatherman
is liable for the Plaintiff's injuries resulting from negligent
entrustment of Defendant Leatherman's vehicle to Defendant Sharon
Henry.
3. In addition, the Plaintiff alleged in Count II of her
Complaint that Defendant Leatherman is "liable for Plaintiff
Tammy Rohrer's injuries resulting from the negligent and reckless
conduct of Defendant Sharon Henry, inasmuch as Sharon Henry acted
as the agent or representative of Defendant Leatherman at the
time and place of the accident." (Exhibit "A", p. 7).
oJ"
J
~
~
.
,
.
.,
4. At the time of accident, Defendant Sharon Henry was
operating a white, 1994 Honda civic owned by Defendant
Leatherman. (Exhibit "A", p. 4).
5. Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2, effective July 1, 1996, provides that a
party may move for summary judgment in whole or in part as a
matter of law
(1) whenever there is no genuine issue of any
material fact as to a necessary element of the
cause of action or defense which could be
by additional discovery or expert report, or
(2) if, after the completion of discovery relevant
to the motion, including the production of expert
reports, an adverse party who will bear the burden
or proof at trial has failed to produce evidence
or facts essential to the cause of action or
derense which in a jury trial would require the
issues to be submitted to a jury.
(Emphasis Supplied)
6. In her deposition taken by the Plaintiff's counsel on
september 9, 1996, excerpts of which are attached hereto as
Exhibit "B", Plaintiff's counsel asked Defendant Leatherman if
she could tell him why Defendant Sharon Henry was driving Ms.
Leatherman's vehicle on the day of the accident, to which
Defendant Leatherman responded, "Yes, I had requested her to
drive because she likes to drive and she's a good driver."
(EXhibit "B", p. 4).
7. Defendant Leatherman testified in her deposition,
excerpts of which are attached hereto as Exhibit "B", that she
2
.
~
.
J"
.
~
and Defendant Sharon Henry shared a residence at the time of the
accident.
8. Plaintiff's counsel also noted that Defendant Leatherman
was sitting in the front passenger's seat of the vehicle driven
by Defendant Henry on the day of the accident, to which Defendant
Leatherman answered, "Right." (Exhibit "B", p. 4).
9. Also, in her deposition, Defendant Leatherman was asked
if she worked together with Defendant Henry, to which Defendant
Leatherman answered, "No." (Exhibit "B", p. 5).
10. Furthermore, Plaintiff's counsel asked Defendant
Leatherman during her deposition, "other than because you knew
she liked to drive, was there any other reason you let her
(meaning Sharon Henry) drive?"; Defendant Leatherman responded,
"No", to this question. (Exhibit "B", p. 8).
11. Plaintiff's counsel, in addition, asked Defendant
Leatherman during her deposition whether to her knowledge,
Defendant Henry had had any accidents prior to the date of the
accident in question, or if Defendant Henry had been involved in
any motor vehicle incident that would have caused Defendant
Leatherman to question Ms. Henry's safety behind the wheel;
Defendant Leatherman answered "No" to these questions. (Exhibit
"B", p. 9).
12. On September 9, 1996, Plaintiff Rohrer's counsel also
3
.
,
.
..,
took the deposition of Defendant Sharon Henry, excerpted portions
of which are attached hereto as Exhibit "C".
13. Referring to Defendant Leatherman's deposition testimony
on that date, plaintiff's counsel asked Defendant Henry the
fOllowing questions (with Defendant Henry's answers provided):
Q: You heard her (Defendant Leatherman) say that she
asked you to drive because she knew you liked driving?
A: Yes.
Q: Is that accurate?
A: Yes.
QI Was there any other reason, to your knowledge or
recollection, that she asked you to drive that day?
AI No.
(Emphasis Supplied). (EXhibit "C", p. 2).
14. Defendant Henry was also asked by Plaintiff's counsel
during the deposition, "Was your (driver's) license in good
condition that day? It wasn't suspended?"; in response to these
questions, Defendant Henry answered, "No." (Exhibit "C", p. 10).
15. In her response to the plaintiff's Interrogatories,
Question #14, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "D"
and the pertinent part of which asked Defendant Henry to state
the purpose of the trip or journey in which Defendant Henry was
involved at the time of the incident in question, Defendant Henry
stated the following:
4
Ji'
.
,
~
I was going to Mechanicsburg to meet friends to drive
together to Atlantic City to see a com[e]dy show
later that night. Ms. Leatherman and I picked up
Ms. Galic and Ms. Rosenella around 2:00 p.m. or
so in Enola to head to Mechanicsburg to meet our
friends. We were going to visit there for a while
prior to leaving for Atlantic City since the show
didn't start until 10:00 p.m.
16. The Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled that in order
to impose liability on a person for an injury which results from
the operation of a motor vehicle, except where liability is shown
to be imposed by statute, that person must either be in actual
operation of the vehicle or in control of the vehicle, or stand
in a relation of master or principal to the person whose conduct
causes the alleged injury. Jahn v. O'Neill, 327 Pa. Super. 357,
475 A.2d 837, 838 (1984).
17. Moreover, under a theory of negligent entrustment, the
owner of a vehicle "may be found liable for negligence in
entrusting the vehicle's use to an incompetent driver, to a
driver who is prohibited by law from operating the vehicle, or to
a driver who is intoxicated or known to be a careless or reckless
driver." Zarick v. Knoll, 68 Northumberland L.J. 1, 3
(1995) [citing Meyer, Law of Vehicle Negligence in Pennsylvania, S
16.07 (1970), with case citations omitted].
18. As the facts noted above indicate, Defendant Marcia
Leatherman was a passenger, not the driver, of Defendant
Leatherman's vehicle--the vehicle involved in the accident with
5
-1
..r,"',"",C"'.-, '}:'~,..;,.._
.
.
J'
.
Plaintiff Rohrer.
19. The Plaintiff has presented no evidence that Defendant
Henry was acting as the agent, servant, work person and/or
employee of Defendant Leatherman, Defendant Henry's roommate, at
the time of the accident; to the contrary, Defendant Leatherman
testified in her deposition that she permitted Defendant Henry to
drive because she, Defendant Leatherman, knew that Defendant
Henry enjoyed driving.
20. Additionally, the Plaintiff has failed to produce
evidence showing that Defendant Henry was an incompetent driver,
prohibited by law from operating Defendant Leatherman's vehicle,
intoxicated or known to be a careless or reckless driver.
21. Based on the facts presented previously and the legal
requirements as set forth in ~ and Zarick, Defendant
Leatherman is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Marcia G. Leatherman respectfully requests
your Honorable Court to enter summary judgment in her favor and
against Plaintiff Tammy J. Rohrer.
Respectfully submitted,
WIX, WENGER & WEIDNER
B~~_O -~ -I-l ~~
Richard H. Wix, I.b. No. 07274
4705 Duke street
Harrisburg, PA 17109-3099
(717) 652-8455
6
. ._'J..au.~/ p.S
I
: I
,
FR) 10_: 17 FAX 7 H 2111
srnE F\Rll (L.AJl)
~002
r
. .
~
.'
I
I
I
I
'I
TAMMY J. ROHIlER
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
I CUMBE~LAND COUNTY, ',PENNSYLVANIA
: ")
PlaintHf,
Q"1r a 0 ;"~..)U--I...J
1995
VB.
7'6'-
NO.
MARCIA G. LE^TIIER"'.AI~, and
,SH!.>RON L. HENRY,
,
I
I
,
'I
!,
il
~
JURY TRIAL CE~~NDED
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendants.
NOT I c....g
YOU HAVE BEEn SL'ED IN COURT. If j'o'.J wish to defend against the
claims set forth in the follcwlng paqas, you must take action within
twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served by
entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing 1n
writing with the Court yo~r defenses 0: objections to the claims set
forth against you. You ~re warned that if you fail to do so the case
may proceed without )'ou and II judgment ffiay be enterGQ against you by
the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Amended
Complaint or for-any clailO or relief request$d by the Plaintiffs.
You may lose money 0: property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD 'I'AKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAliYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO
NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CAltNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE
SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
CUMBERLANn COUNTY LAWYER REF,RRAL SERVICE
Court Administrator
Cumberland county Courthouse
Carlisle, F~nnsy vania 17013
I . . (800) 240-6200
'fflUE COpy FROM RECORD .
I Ih testimony Whereof, I h"'~1: \::::1\ ~el my hanlS
II arid the" f 0" lfAc'm':l C2rllslll. Pa. _
/' T .: "". d' ~,Ilfn, f9 7' .
a.~. ~_
I ( . <==;5;hO -
Exhibit A
__l,~,:l.~'{'S FRJ II): B F.n ;;~ Zll~
I
srnE F'.\R~1 (l.\DI
:.1
!
.'
.;
No'rTCt~
I
I
II
I
:j
Ii
.1
La presenta es para nctificarla que usted ha sido demandado en
a1 Tribun~l de JUdt.icia. Si usted desca defenderse de la!
alegacio~es a la demanda expuerstas en las siguientes paqinas, usted
tiene un pl!~o de veinte (20) dlas a partir de 14 fecha ael
emp1azamiento y notificQclon d~ 1a demanda. Usted puede comparecer
por y escrito personalrnente 0 atraves de su obogado, exponiendo SUB
defensas u objeciones alas alegaciones on su contr~. Se la advlerte
que do no cumplir con 10 ~ntes expueato sa continuara con 106
procedimlentos r se podrio dlctar sentencla en su contra por el
tribunal sin av so 0 notiflcecion, ~or cualqu19r raclamaclon en
dinero solicitada an 1a domanda 0 cualquler otro remedio sollcitado
por la parte demands 0 caalquler otro remedio solicitado por la parte
demandante. Se 1e advierte que usted puecQ perder dinero u otros
derechos importantes.
Usted debe llavar esta demanda a un obogado inmediatamento. Si
usted no tiene obagado 0 no pueda pagar por sus servicios, vaya en
persona 0 llame per telefono a la siguiente oficin4 para obtener
informacion sobre como ccnsequir asistencia legal.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY ~hWYER REFERRAL SERVICE
Court Administrator
Cumberl~nd County Courthouse
Carlisle! Pennsylvania 17013
(900) 240-6200
rJll,'~.S.~,S FR! 111:1,$ F.n iH ~1J)
SB1E B~~I CUI:.I
..
'l'AIIIM'i J. ROHRER
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CU1~BE"LAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
Plaint! ff,
!
I
I
I.
I
~I
I
NO.
1995
MARCIA G. LEM'IfElUolAN, and
SHARON L. HENRY,
Defendant:! .
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
COMPI,ATN1Z
AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, TA~U~Y ~CHRER, ~y and through her
attorney, Royce L. Herris, Esquire, And in support of her Complaint
avers as follews:
1. Plaintiff, Tar.~y Rohrer, is an adult individ~al residing at
147 Marbeth Avenue, Carlisle, Cumberl~nd Co~nty, Pennsylvania.
2. Defendant, Marcia Laatherman, is an adult individual
residing at 1032 Flcwers L~ne, Marysvll1e, Perry County, Pennsylvania.
3. De!e"~ant, Sharon Henry, Is an adult Individual residing at
427 Duke Street, &nola, Cumbarland County, Pen~sylvania.
4. Venue is conferred upon this Court by Rule I006(c) of the
Pennsylvania Rules 0' Civil Procedure.
COUNT I~-NEGLIGENCE
I
II
I'
I
I
~mmv Rohrer ~. Sharon Henry
5. Paragraph3 one tnrough four are incorporated by reference as
though fully set torth herein.
6. On or about Hovember 25, 1994, Plaintiff operated a
recycling truck owned by York Wasta Disposal, Inc. of 1110 East
Princess Streot, York, Pennsylvania.
U9'1~'P5 FRI lU:l0 FAX Jl~ ~11J
STHE F.,R'I CL\OI
~OO,5
II
7, On or about November 25, 1994, nef~ndant Sharon Henry
operated II 1994 Honda Civic c'~nod by Defandane Leatho!rman.
9. At all times relevant hereto, Oefendant Leatherman owned the
1994 HOnda Civic be^rinq registration plate APX6021.
9. At all ti~es r~levant hereto and at the location of the
I accident, SR 1015 (Center Street) w~s a str~i9ht, two lane public
~. highway dividad by two solid yellow lines. Further, SR 1015 (Center
Street) was, and is, located in East Penn~boro Township, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania.
lO. On or about Novewber 25, 19~4, at approximately 6:25 p.m.,
Plaintiff drove her vehicle In the northbound lane of SR 1015 (Center
Street) when she la~fully stcpp~a her vehicle approximately one-half
mile north of Creekside Drive in order to collect recyclable
materials for York Weste.
"
I.
.
I
r
I
I
I
I,
,I
j
I
I
,
"
I,
II
11. On or abcwt Nov6mber 25, IS94, after Plaintiff stopped her
vehicle, Plaintiff open~d the driver'S side door and alighted from
the vehicle landing on the yellow dividing line. ~laintiff then
closed the vehicle door and remained stationary on the yellow line.
12. On or about November 25, 1994, ~t approximately 6:25 p.m.,
Defendant Sharon Henry drove Defendant Leatherman's vehicle in the
southbound lana of SR 1015 (Center Street) and as her vehicle passed
by Plaintiff's vehicle, Sh9 ran over Plaintiff's two feet and struck
Plaintiff's right hand middle finger. The Plaintiff had remained
stationary, at the time of the accident.
13. At the time ~f the accident described herein, no adverse
weather conditions existed.
.
.1
"
14.
Defendant, Sharon Henry directly and proximately caused the
accident by committing tho following acts of nCiglJ.gencel
a. Defendant Sh~ron Henry oporatod a ~otor vehicle
in a c~reless, rockless and negligent manner.
b. Defendant Shdron Henry operatod a motOr vehicle
without due regard to the rights, safety, and
position of Plaintiff.
c. Defendant Sh~ron Henry failed to keap a proper
lookout of tho traffic conditions then exiBting.
d. Defendant Sharon Henry failed to notice Plaintiff's
stopped motor vehicle.
11
Ii
Defendant Sharon Henry failed to ~pply the brakeA
in sufficient tiMe to av~id striking Plaintiff's
body.
Defendant Sharon ~enry failed to take evasive action
in order to avoid striking Plaintiff.
De C-,ndant SIHlron Henry operated the motor vehicle
at an excessive rate of speed under the circumstances
then exJ.stinq.
De!endan~ Sharon Honry operated the vehicle with
no warning of approach.
15. As a dir~ct and proximate result of Defendant Henry's
e.
f.
q.
II
h.
i
I!
.,
neqligen~e, ?laintiff sU6t~ined a fractured left foot and other
injuries as the result of being struck by the Leatherman vehicle.
16. As a direct ar.d proximate res~lt of the collision,
Plaintiff experienced i~~ediate and ~evere lef~ foot pain which
increased in intensity and duration.
17. As a direct and proximate result of th~ collision and the
injuries sustained, Plaintiff ha9 incurred medical costs and may be
compelled to expend monies for additional medical treatment and
medicines.
IIV,'15. {I.~
.---
.
111:~~ fAX 77~ ~111
5JAj~ tAhM lLAIM
18. As a direct and pr~xim~te result of the collision And the
injuries sustained, Pl~intitf h~s baen deprive~, and/or Is deprived,
and may continue to be deprived of the ordinary pleasures of lifs.
19. AG a direct and proxImate result of the collision and the
injuries sUGtained, Plaintiff h~s Au!!ered and may continua to suffer
I. from physical and/or mental Anxiety, pain, suffering and
incOnvl:niencft.
II
I'
,I
Ii
,I
I
I
20. A~ a direct and proximate result of the collision and the
injuries sustained, Plaintiff has suffered wage losses from her
posit!~n w~th York Waste end other losses associated with her
employment su~h as accrued sick leave, entitled benefits and interest.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Sharon
Henry for c~rnp~nRatory and co~se~~ent1al damages in an amount in
excess of Fifty Thousan~ (~50,OOO.OO) O.,llars, plus interest, court
costs, reason~ble ~ttorn~ys' f~QS and su~h ether reli~f as this Court
deems just and proper.
COUNT II-NEGLIGENCE
Tar:unv R.s;hrer v. l'~arc ia Leatherrnan
21. Paragraphs one through twonty are incorporated by re!Qrence
as though fully set forth herein.
22. Defendant Leatherman is lieble for Plaintiff Tammy Rohrer's
injuries resultinq fro~ the nQgligent entrustment of the vehicle to
Defendant Sh~ron Henry.
.-,
"
'.
. .
.'
"
I
I'
II
I
,I
23. Defendant Leatherman is liable (or Plainelf( T^mmy Rohr.r's
injuries resultl~g from the negligcnt ar.d reckless conduct of
Oefendant Sharon Henry, ina!much as Sharon H&nry acted as the agent
or represent~tive of Defendant Leatherman at ehe tirna and placa of
the accident.
WHEREFCRE, PlaIntiff, Tammy Rohrer, demands judgment against
Defendant Leatherman for co~per.s~tory and consequential dam~ges in an
amount in ~xces~ of Fifty Tncus4nd ($50,000.00) DOllars, plus
inter~st, court costs, reasonable attor~eya' fees and such other
rellef as this Court deems just and proper.
'Respectfully S~bmittQd,
I
I
Ii
/'-' .../ ~ .
5y ({ .:){x( ./) , L'~-
Ro~orrls, ~'qUlre
ROBINSON & GERA10
Attorney I.D. N . 64310
4407 North Fron Streee
P.O. Box 5320 '
Harrisburg, pennsylvania l7l10-5320
(717) 232-8525
3
1 STIPULATION
2 It is hereby stipulated by and between counsel
3 for the respective parties that reading, signing, sealing,
4 certification and filing are hereby waived: and that all
5 objections except as to the form of the question are
6 reserved to the time of trial.
7 MARCIA LEATHERMAN, called as a witness, being
8 duly sworn, testified as follows:
9 DIRECT EXAMINATION
10 BY MR. VILLARI:
11 Q May I have your name, please.
12 A Yes, Marcia Leatherman.
13 Q Marcia, where do you live?
14 A I live in Marysville.
15 Q What county is that in?
16 A That is in Perry County.
17 Q What's your date of birth?
18 A 2/7/67.
19 Q My name is Peter villari, which you know from how
20 we were sitting around this table, I represent the injured
21 party. I'm going to ask you some questions about the
22 accident that occurred on 11/25/94. I understand you were
23 present in the car involved in that accident?
24 A That's correct.
25 Q All right. If you don't hear me or understand
Exhibit B
1
1 me, let me know.
2 A (Nods head up and down.)
3 Q Yes?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Okay. You have to speak up. This young lady is
6 not clairvoyant, and she can't put nods down, okay? So I
7 don't mean to be rude, but I'm going to remind you if you
8 don't, okay? If you do answer, I am going to assume when I
9 read this deposition at some time in the future that you
10 heard me, that you understood me, and that you gave your
11 best response. Is that fair?
12 A That's fair.
13 Q All right. If for some reason you don't
14 understand anything I say, you have the right to tell me to
15 repeat it. Don't be intimidated by the fact that I'm
16 sitting here with a tie on. That means nothing. We're
17 going to have a chat about the accident, and I want you to
18 make sure you understand me, okay?
19 A Okay.
20 Q Are you on any medication today or are you
21 affected by any illness or disability that would affect your
22 ability to hear me, understand me or answer clearly?
23 A No.
24 Q All right. Let me focus your attention on the
25 date in question, 11/25/94. I understand you were the owner
4
1 of the car involved?
2 A Yes, that's correct.
3 Q What kind of car was that?
4 A That's a Honda civic.
5 Q What year?
6 A '94.
7 Q What color?
8 A White.
9 Q Was it a solid white car?
10 A Yes.
11 Q No vinyl roof or anything?
12 A No.
13 Q Four-door? Two-door?
14 A Two-door.
15 Q How many mimes were on it?
16 A 38,000.
17 Q Was it in generally good operating condition?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Was there anything wrong with the car that day
20 mechanically that you believe may have contributed to the
21 accident?
22 A No.
23 Q Horn worked?
24 A Yes.
25 Q The lights worked?
5
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
6
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
Yes.
Mirrors were all on the car?
Yes.
Tires in good condition as far as you know?
Yes.
Can you tell me why Sharon Henry was driving that
7 day?
8 A Yes, I had requested her to drive because she
9 likes to drive and she's a good driver.
10 Q Okay. Were you tired?
11 A No.
12 Q All right. But it was specifically at your
13 request that she did drive?
14 A That's correct.
15 Q You were sitting in the passenger's seat front?
16 A Right.
17 Q Were all the people in your car belted as far as
18 you know?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Now, a Honda Civic, if I know my cars, is
21 considered a compact car. Back in '94, you said it was?
22 A Yes. Possibly a midsized car.
23 Q Possibly a midsize, okay. It didn't have tinted
24 glass, did it?
25 A No.
.
4
, .......,......
. ...-....
7
1 Q Just standard factory glass?
2 A Right.
3 Q Where did the conversation take place where you
4 asked Sharon to drive?
5 A Before we left my house on that day.
6 Q Was anyone present when you asked her to drive?
7 A I don't remember.
8 Q Did anyone you said it was at your house?
9 A (Nods head up and down.)
10 Q Did Sharon live at the same house?
11 A Yes.
12 Q You shared a residence?
13 A Yes.
14 Q How long had you shared a residence together?
l5 A For about five years.
16 Q How long had you known Sharon up until November
17 25th of '94?
18 A About five and a half years.
19 Q How did you meet her?
20 A I met her through some other acquaintances.
21 Q Okay. Did you work together?
22 A No.
23 Q No, all right. Was the sharing of the house a
24 financial accommodation for the both of you?
25 A Mostly.
5
.
8
1 Q Mostly, okay. Again, not to go back over, but no
2 one was present when the conversation took place about
3 asking her to drive?
4 A No.
S Q Okay. Did she drive from your house all the way
6 up until the time of the accident?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Were there any stops between leaving your house
9 and getting to the point of the accident?
10 A I don't recall.
11 Q Did you have to pick other people up or did they
12 come to your house?
13 A I don't recall.
14 Q Okay. other people were with you?
lS A Yes.
16 Q Who were they?
17 A Lisa Galic and Deb Rosenella.
18 Q How did you know Lisa and Debra?
19 A They've been good friends for a long time with
20 Lisa, and knew Deb for a short time.
21 Q How long were you good friends with Lisa prior to
22 the day of the accident?
23 A About five and a half years.
24 Q Okay. And how long had you known Debra?
25 A Probably about four months.
6
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q Or with your attorneys?
A (Shakes head from side to side.)
Q No?
A No.
Q Okay. Have you given any statement where you
were asked to write something out or fill in blanks and sign
it?
A No.
Q Did State Farm ever send you a written
questionnaire asking you how the accident happened and with
diagram on it aSking you how to put the vehicles and all?
They never sent that to you?
A I don't remember.
Q You don't remember? All right. There were no
other phone statements?
A No.
Q This trip to the casino was something that
benefited you as well?
A Can you ask that again?
Q Sure. It was for you as well, the trip. You
were doing it for yourself?
A Correct.
Q And you asked Sharon to drive for you?
A Yes.
Q All right. So she was doing, in so many words,
7
40
1 an errand for you?
2 A No.
3 Q No, all right. How would you describe what she
4 was doing for you? A favor?
5 A No.
6 Q No? Well, what would you call it?
7 A I don't understand what your point is.
8 Q All right. I'm just basically trying to
9 understand. You were all going to the same place together?
10 A Correct.
11 Q And you asked her to drive for you.
12 A Yes.
13 Q That's a fair way to say it?
14 A She likes to drive.
1S Q Okay. Were you capable of driving that day?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Other than because you knew she liked to drive,
18 was there any other reason you let her drive?
19 A No.
20 Q Or asked her to drive?
21 A No.
22 Q How long had she had her license up until that
23 point? Did you know?
24 A Yos.
25 Q Okay. How long had she had it?
8
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,
25
41
1 A She's had it since she was 16, and she is -- she
2 was 26 at the time, I believe.
3 Q So she had it a long time. To your knowledge,
4 had she had any accidents prior to that day?
A No.
Q To your knowledge, had she been involved in any
motor vehicle incident that would have caused you to
question her safety behind the wheel --
A No.
Q -- as a driver?
A No.
Q No, okay.
MR. VILLARI: I think that's all I have. Thanks
for your patience.
(Whereupon, the deposition was concluded at 12:29
p.m.)
9
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
STIPULATION
It is hereby stipulated by and between counsel
for the respective parties that reading, signing, sealing,
certification and filing are hereby waived; and that all
objections except as to the form of the question are
reserved to the time of trial.
SHARON L. HENRY, called as a witness, being duly
sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. VILLARI:
Q Good morning.
A Hi.
Q You know who I am.
A Yes.
Q I think you sat through Marcia's deposition, is
that correct?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember the instructions I gave her or
would you like me to repeat them for you?
A I remember, yes.
Q Okay. Most importantly, if you don't hear me or
understand me, you have every right and I'm encouraging you
to stop me, okay?
A Yes.
Q All right. We all know you were the driver of
1
Exhibit C
4
1 the car that day?
2 A Yes.
3 Q And Marcia indicated that she asked you to drive,
4 is that correct?
5 A Yes.
6 Q You heard her say that she asked you to drive
7 because she knew you liked driving?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Is that accurate?
10 A Yes.
II Q Was there any other reason, to your knowledge or
12 recollection, that she asked you to drive that day?
13 A
14 Q
15 A
16 Q
17 A
18 Q
19 A
20 Q
21 show?
No.
Had you two been up late the night before?
No.
Had she been out late the night before?
No.
Was she tired?
No.
No, okay. When did you guys decide to go to the
22 A I don't recall the exact date. It was a Rosie
23 O'Donnell comedian concert so we had to secure tickets in
24 advance. So it wasn't a last minute item, but I can't tell
25 you the exact date.
2
5
1
Q
Okay. Do you and Marcia still live at the same
2 residence to share a house?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Is it a house or an apartment?
5 A It's a house, yes.
6 Q Do you own it together?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Okay. How long have you owned it together?
9 A It will be three years in -- I believe the
10 settlement was February. It will be three years in
II February.
12 Q Did anyone live there with the two of you?
13 A Yes, Lisa, who was also a passenger in the car
14 moved in the accident happened in November of '94. She
15 moved in in January of '95 and lived there for three
16 quarters of the year. I don't recall exactly when she moved
17 out. She moved there. She was temporarily relocating and
18 was in a lease situation and moved in.
19 Q So she is not there today?
20 A No.
21 Q Do you have a better address for Lisa or Debra?
22 A I do not know where Debra Rosenella is. She's a
23 friend of Lisa's, and I had only met her briefly before.
24 She just went along with us. Lisa's address is something
25 State Road in Duncannon.
~
3
6
1 Q Do you know her phone number?
2 A Yes.
3 Q What is it?
4 A 957-3754.
5 Q Are you still in contact with her?
6 A Yes.
7 Q You guys are still friends, socialize?
8 A Yes.
9 Q When I say you guys, I mean the three of you.
10 A That's okay.
11 Q Okay. Did you own a car on that day?
12 A Yes, I did.
13 Q What kind of car did you own on November 25th
14 of '94?
15
16
17
18
19
20
A A 1993 Jeep Wrangler.
Q Is that a small Jeep as opposed to the longer
one?
A Yes.
Q You didn't take that to Atlantic city because it
was too small?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Was that a manual or automatic?
23 A It's an automatic. Or, I'm sorry, it's a manuaL
24 Q Manual. Is that the one out in the parking lot?
25 A Yes.
4
, .
7
1 Q It's red, I believe?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Is that a five speed?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Marcia indicated you two knew each other for
6 about five and a half years?
7 A Yes. We -- I don't think she was correct with
8 her dates. She said from the time of the accident. We've
9 known each other five and a half years, period. So that
10 would make it about three and a half years from the time of
11 the accident.
12 Q Okay. Is there anything else you heard her say
13 about dates of knowing each other that you want to correct?
14 A There were a few that were in reference to that
15 time period. I think there were a few dates that she
16 answered and in reference to today. I don't recall exactly
17 what they were. That was one of them.
18 Q Okay. How did you meet?
19 A We met through some friends of mine, just through
20 common friends.
21 Q Do you recall where Lisa and Debbie or Debra
22 joined the group that day? Was it at your house or did you
23 pick them up?
24 A We picked them up at Lisa'S apartment in Enola.
25 Q Can you tell me how you got from your house to
5
,. " .
8
1 Lisa's apartment in Enola, just the roads you took?
2 A The road or route?
3 Q The route.
4 A I came down 850 to 11 and 15, and I'm not sure of
5 the road I turned off to go in off of II and 5. It's right
6 before you go into Summerdale. I turned right to go back to
7 her place, and she lived maybe half mile off of 11 and 15.
8 Q I assume you took the Honda to get there?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Did you notice anything about the Honda that was
11 unusual that day?
12 A No.
13 Q It was operating fine?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Brakes were good?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Do you know if the horn worked? Had you had to
18 use it yet that day?
19 A No, I had not used it.
20 Q Okay. Turn signals worked?
21 A Yes.
22 Q The windshield wasn't cracked or dirty?
23 A No.
24 Q You had good visibility through the windshield?
25 A Yes.
6
. .. .
9
1 Q From Enola, tell me how you got from Lisa's
2 apartment to that left-hand turn in the road just before
3 where the truck was.
4 A I can't give you exact roads. There were some
5 back roads that lead from Enola into Camp Hill.
6 Q Just the best way you can call it, okay?
7 Whatever you remember. Give me names where you can.
8 Otherwise, just say you don't remember.
9 A I don't remember any names at all.
10 Q Do you remember any major roads?
11 A There were no major roads. It's all back roads.
12 Q It's all back country roads?
13 A Um-hum.
14 Q How long did it take timewise to get from Enola
15 to get to that left-hand turn in the road just before where
16 the truck was parked?
17 A I don't know.
18 Q Was it less than an hour?
19 A Oh, yes, definitely.
20 Q Did you have any time that you had to be down at
21 Atlantic city?
22 A I don't recall when the concert was. We had said
23 that we would meet somewhere between 3 and 3:30 in
24 Mechanicsburg.
25 Q Okay. And the concert was about 10 if I
7
.' .
.. .
10
1 remember?
2 A It was late in the evening, yes.
3 Q Okay. And how long did you anticipate the trip
4 would take from, let's say your house to Atlantic city
5 normally, timewise.
6 A I don't know because we were meeting with friends
7 in Mechanicsburg and they were driving down. I had never
8 been there before.
9 Q Okay. It was your intention to drive the car to
10 Atlantic city in the Honda?
11 A We weren't sure how we were going to go. We were
12 going to meet and take two vehicles, and I was going to
13 follow somebody down.
14 Q Did you wind up going to the concert that night?
15 A Yes, and we ended up not taking two vehicles.
16 Instead, we ended up getting a van of a friend's because we
17 were too shaken after the accident.
18 Q All right. And you did not drive any further?
19 You left the accident scene. Were you driving?
20 A I don't recall. No, I don't remember.
21 Q But you didn't finish the trip to Atlantic City?
22 A No.
23 Q At some point, somebody else drove?
24 A Yes.
25 Q All right. Marcia indicated to us that, to her
8
.' .
II
1 knowledge, you had no prior accidents. Is that correct?
2 A That's correct, yes.
3 Q And did you have any moving violations, traffic
4 violations, prior to that day?
5 A Yes.
6 Q What were they?
7 A Shortly after I turned 16, I'm not sure what the
8 year was, I was pulled over in Carlisle on a back road in
9 Carlisle for going over the speed limit.
10 Q Nasty cops in Carlisle. I went to school there.
II All right. And did you get ticketed?
12 A Yes, I did.
13 Q Was that the only moving violation you had?
14 A In Pennsylvania, yes.
15 Q And outside of pennsylvania, what ones have you
16 had?
17 A In Ohio last year.
18 Q Speeding?
19 A So they claim, yes.
20 Q Okay. Are they the only moving violations
21 anywhere in the continental United states that you had prior
22 to the accident?
23 A Florida.
24 Q Or up until now? Florida, what was that one for?
25 A Same thing.
.. .
9
. .. .
, .
. .. .
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q Speeding. Did you plead guilty to all of them,
just sign the ticket and send in the fine?
A Yes.
Q Did you fight any of them?
A I wanted to fight two of them, but I did not.
Q Okay. Any other moving violations anywhere
anytime?
A No.
Q Was your license in good condition that day? It
wasn't suspended?
A No.
Q It wasn't restricted in any way?
A No.
Q Do you need glasses to drive?
A No.
Q No lenses at all?
A No.
Q 20/20 vision?
A Yes.
Q Uncorrected?
A Yes.
Q Was it unusual that you would drive whenever you
and Marcia went places?
A Was it unusual?
Q Yes.
10
, .' .
.. .
. . I .
13
1 A No, it was not unusual.
2 Q Was it more likely that you would drive?
3 A No.
4 Q No, okay.
5 A No.
6 Q All right. Let's take you to that left-hand
7 corner. You know the one I mean?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A Yes.
Q coming around that left-hand bend and you're
heading straight. When did you first take notice of the
trash truck after you came around that left-hand turn?
A I noticed the truck was parked in the lane
immediately after I came around the turn.
Q Was the truck totally within the left lane?
A Yes.
Q Was any part of the truck tires on the double
yellow line?
A I don't recall that.
Q Could you see the double yellow line when you
first saw the truck? You could see it ahead of you?
A I could see the line ahead of me. I don't recall
what was right at the truck's tires.
Q Okay, that's fair. That's what I was going to
ask you next. What do you recall, if anything, about the
lights on the truck?
11
.' II
.. .
. . I .
14. state the purpose of the trip or journey in which you
involved at the time of the incident in question, including the
time and point of departure, destination and the time and place
all stops and departures.
were
exact
of
I
I
i
I
I,
Ii
II
!l
II
I
!
I
"
1I
II
'I
II
II
I
,
I
I
I
I
I was going to Mechanicsburg to meet friends to drive together to Atlantic
City to see a comdy show later that night. Ms. Leatherman and I picked up
Ms. Galic and Ms. Rosenella around 2:00 p.m. or so in Enola to head to
Mechanicsburg to meet our friends. We were going to visit there for a while
prior to leaving for Atlantic City since the show didn't start until
10:00 p.m.
-18-
Exhibit D
. " .
. ,'~
. . t .
CBRTII'ICATB 01' SBRVICB
M
AND NOW, this & day of November, 1996, I, Richard H.
Wix, Esquire, of the firm of Wix, Wenger & Weidner, hereby
certify that I have served a copy of the Motion For Summary
JUdgment of Defendant Marcia G. Leatherman on this date, by
depositing a copy of the same in the United states mail, postage
prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania addressed as follows:
Royce L. Morris, Esquire
ROBINSON & GERALDO
4407 North Front street
P. O. Box 5320
Harrisburg, PA 17110
stuart A. Carpey, Esquire
KREITHEN, BARON, VILLARI & GOLOMB
lOth Floor
1201 Chestnut street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
WIX, WENGER & WEIDNER
.
By:
-
07274
4705 Duke Street
Harrisburg, PA 17109-3099
(717) 652-8455
,. -'::.
~ '. ,.:
..
tIll"
e! '
(~. l ....:....,
(!":'
<:I~ :
C-" I
l~,' '
-.!, c.::
l~." l..;
j:.- b_
u. r-
Cl 0'
. ~ ~ ~
. . ~
; . .:~
-.
~~ .J
" .
..~ i: ~ ~
';.IJ
"
, ~ ...." A:J
',,)
C/] J ~
(
\J
~ ( ~
f( :j
ft ~
't:
.-.~ ~- '.,
FiLEO-DFACE
OF T]r r:rnT1-'C~OTMY
97 ~FR -7 Pi'! ~: OS
CU' fl.'," ":' f'L"U~J1Y
If... ....J\\;..J '"" ' I
PG\;NSYLVANIA
.
95-4798 CIVIL TERM
and master-servanVprlnclpal-agent relationship. (Complaint at 1111 22, 23.)
The defendants flied an Answer with New Matter on October 10, 1995. On
October 26, 1995, the plaintiff flied a Reply to the Defendants' New Matter. From
September 1995 to May 1996, the parties each flied and responded to
Interrogatories and requests for production of documents. On September 9, 1996,
the depositions of defendants Leatherman and Henry were taken by plaintiff's
counsel. The deposition of the plaintiff was taken on the same day by the
defendants' counsel.
Defendant Marcia Leatherman flied a Motion for Summary Judgment. The
case was listed for argument and briefs were flied. We address this motion.
DISCUSSION
Defendant Leatherman alleges that summary judgment should be granted
In her favor on the issues of negligent entrustment and master-servanVprlnclpal-
agent relationship because plaintiff Rohrer has failed to produce evidence to show
that defendant Leatherman. as owner of the vehicle, either: (1) knew at the time
of the accident that defendant Henry was Incompetent, prohibited by law from
driving the vehicle, Intoxicated or a careless or reckless driver; (2) was the master
or principal of defendant Henry at the time of the accident; or (3) was operating or
In control of the vehicle being driven by defendant Henry at the time of the
2
95.4798 CIVIL TERM
accident.
Defendant Leatherman attempts to demonstrate the nonexistence of a
genuine Issue of a material fact by relying upon her deposition testimony and the
deposition testimony and Interrogatory answers of defendant Henry. ~
defendant Leatherman's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion") and Brief In
Support of the Motion.) Defendant Leatherman cites to her own deposition
testimony to explain why defendant Henry was driving the vehicle, (Motion at 11 6,
Brief at p. 6), to deny the existence of an agency relationship, (Motion at 11 9, 10,
Brief at p. 6, 8), and to deny the existence of any facts that would give rise to a
negligent entrustment claim. (Motion at 1111, Brief at p. 9.) Defendant Leatherman
cites to defendant Henry's deposition testimony to explain why defendant Henry
was driving the vehicle, (Motion at 11 13, Brief at p. 7), and to deny the existence
of any facts that would give rise to a negligent entrustment claim. (Motion at 1114,
Brief at p. 10.) Rnally, defendant Leatherman relies on defendant Henry's
response to one of the plaintiffs interrogatories to explain the purpose of the trip.
(Motion at 1115, Brief at p. 7.)
In determining the existence or non-existence of a genuine Issue of material
fact, courts are bound to adhere to the rule of Nanty-Glo Borouah v. Amerl2m}
Surety Co., 309 Pa. 236, 163 A. 523 (1932), which holds that a court may not
3
.
95-4798 CIVIL TERM
summarily enter a judgment where the evidence depends solely upon oral
testimony. In ,Nanty-GI2. the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held, in reversing the
granting of a directed verdict despite the fact that testimony of the plaintiffs
witnesses was uncontradicted by the defendant at the trial. that however clear and
Indisputable may be the proof, when it depends on oral testimony it is nevertheless
the province of the jury to decide. 309 Pa. at 238, 163 A. at 524. This rule has
been applied to summary judgment motions. ~ penn Center t10use Inc.. v.
.I:iQffmm}, 520 Pa. 171. 553 A.2d 900 (1989). The ~anty-GIQ rule means that
summary judgment should not be granted where It requires the acceptance of the
testimony of the moving party's witnesses because the credibility of the witnesses
is an Issue of fact which is exclusively a matter for the jury. ld.
Summary judgment may not be granted solely on the basis of the oral
deposition testimony presented on behalf of the moving party, even if such
testimony is uncontradicted. Goodrlch-Amram 2d. ~ 1035 (b) :15 at p. 322-23.
Accordingly. we deny defendant Leatherman's motion for summary judgment since
defendant Leatherman provides no supporting evidence for the motion beyond her
own deposition testimony and the deposition testimony and answers to
interrogatories of her co-defendant.
4
vs.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 95-4798 CIVIL TERM
TAMMY J. ROHRER,
Plaintiff
MARCIA G. LEATHERMAN and
SHARON HENRY,
Defendants
CIVILACfION - LAW
ORDER
AND NOW, this
.lS - day of May, 1997, the jury having found that the total
damages in the above captioned case to be $13.807.40, and having found the percentage of causal
negligence attributable to the defendant to be 51 %, said findings shall be molded and a verdict is
herewith entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, Sharon Henry. in the amount
of $7,041.77.
The motion for a directed verdict in favor of the defendant, Marcia G. I..catherman, is
GRANTED.
BY THE COURT,
John E. "",...do, Jo" ",n'" 7H,:!,JL
For the Plaintiff _ c...~~ IY>~ s/.).sjq'l.
..&.~
Girard E. Rickards, Esquire
For the Defendants
:rlm
01' ~D.O:~r ,"1:
1......_ ,. J_
r-.' ~ "'-~-' ""'~T'ru
~,. :'. ",...... ~ !\'\l
('71"'/ ?::: ., II' 18
> ..., '- - !.:-. .
CU::,,:.:'. . .._,:,~i I
pa~;\~;Y~//',,~'~~~\
If you answer Question 4 .Yes," proceed to Question 5. If you answer Question 4 "No," proceed
to Question 6.
QUESTION 5: Taking the combined negligence that was a substantial factor in
bringing about the plaintiffs harm as 100 percent, what percentage of that causal negligence was
attributable to the defendant and what percentage was attributable to the plaintifr!
Percentage of causal negligence attributable to Defendant 5 I %
Percentage of causal negligence attributable to Plaintiff 4-9 %
TOTAL 100%
. If you have found the plaintiffs causal negligence to be greater than 50 percent, then the plaintiff
eannot recover and you should not answer Question 6 and should return to the courtroom.
QUESTION 6: State the amount of damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff as
a result of the aceident, without regard to and without reduction by the percentage of causal
negligence, if any, that you have attrib~ted to the plaintiff.
Medical Expenses:
$ l.f-/5Lf. 5CJ
$ 4-f5) 'l:J-
$ ~(}O(). 00
$ /S.9tJ7.c.fD
,
Lost Wages:
Pain & Suffering:
e"'~l
TOTAL:
After you return your answers to these questions on the verdict form, signed by
your foreman, the Court will determine the amount to be awarded to the plaintiff, if any. by
reducing the amount of damages found by you in proportion to the percentage of the plaintiffs
causal contributory negligence, if any. I again caution you that you arc not to make this
reduction yourselves in reaching the amount of the plaintifrs damages, as set forth by you in
answer to Question 6.
Date: 5/;'o/Q7
Foreman:
. MTf.: 6';.;)1 ,f/) ~ N). &
aJJR'I'RXM . Jj
00. tl5 - 'I?!lJ CIVIL ..:::Je~....
7.' c.. ~
o ~ l\" 1:f.L1 111 i0, 7}, J< ,',/.{ ~""'" )".; <A
~:~:;1 ~~ b-~' 1:~1;~~V~l:
a1 ll. B ...!J ") Sh A.- L 1/ r' 13ttt.; 6L we
12.' 4~
13.1 ~ 8' -0. aa wJ
14.' 1sLL ~ arl/~; c:...
,f115.' 5 ~
1.' l'l
2.' a'1
1,0'1.. 3.' ~
, 4.1 ~
5.' ~J.J
;o~
; 16.'
J 1'1
Dbflit~'\J Sh; 1/0
(~W~ L,G~J\~L,
~'(#'~/'~ ~~~~
(Lu IA. II()&~
Ie II (f.(n,
L. ('rIo<.. eL,.
I<. no 1/
7) . 'A dlN/u
ffJ1,' lIe-v
1)(.71...1'.-(./ _L,',<Lc..-
h \R. .H- ft., 0 ff-o
Ph7..
f3 lB.'
19.' ~lo_--GeO\..r- Sf-a?n/~tt.u.;/.,
20.' JJ_g_~Lv.v;:uLl. ~ .
21.' .-1J '5. ~ha,wn ~1'C.I<,~
:::.' _'-l'i~ ~ ~lIe'J- rl
24.'
25.' ___a,~ a././d'''-r
26.. _____
27.'
,\
"
.
SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY
CASE NOI 1993-04198 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA I
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
ROHRER TAMMY J
VS.
LEATHERMAN MARCIA G ET AL
R. Thomas Kline . Sheriff, who being duly sworn according
to law, says, that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within
named defendant, to witl ERNEY SCOTT (WITNESS)
CLAIMS REP STATE FARM INS CO
but was unablo to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore
deputized the sheriff of YORK COUNTY
to serve the within SUBPOENA
County, Pennsylvania.
On Mav
29th.
1991
. this office was in receipt of
YORK COUNTY County, Pennsylvania.
the attached return from
Sheriff's Costs I
Docketing
Out of County
surcharBe
YORK CO NTY
6.00
9.00
2.00
47.28
So answers I .
} ~
<r/-~~. ~
R{"T oma. Kline, heri:!:!' .
~64.28 VILLARI & GOLOMB
OS/29/1991
Sworn and subscribed to before me
......
this J. 'I - day of ~,
19 Cf 1 A. D.
~ G. ),A :j ~ I AJ.rtj ,
--~rothonOfary
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NOI 1993-04798 ?
CO""ONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA I
COUNTY OF CU"BERLAND
ROIIRER TA""Y J
VS.
I.EATIIER"AN "ARCIA G I):T AL
_TIMOTHY REITZ
CU"BERLAND County, Pennsylvania, who
to law, says, the within liY>>POENA.~
upon PATROL"AN "ICHAEL COTTON (WITNESS)
de~endant, at 1240100 HOURS, on the ~~ day
19~~ at EAST PENNSBORO TWO POLICE 98 SOUTH
f._NOL~A 1702:5
. Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
being duly sworn according
was served
thIP
County, Pennsylvania, by handing to PTL RYNARD
of !lilY.
ENOLA ROAD
.CUMB~RLAND
P~m:!N IN CHARGE
.
.
AT TI"E OF SERVICE
a true and attIPsted copy of the SUBPOENA
and at the same time directing His attIPntion to the contents thereof.
.
Sheriff's Costs I
Docketing
Service
Affidavit
Surcharge
6.00
6.20
.00
2.00
So answers:
H. ~~rref4~~
VILLARI & GOLO"B~fd y~
OS/29/1997 __;, -
by d.~ .
pu y 5her
.~4.~'"
Sworn and subscribed to before me
......
this ~ 'I - day of ~
19 ..; 1 _ A. D.
q I~ . J OAe
.....JlL- lA.... )",...il.c.-..... ~I_
- 7 prothonohrt. -
SHERIn"s RETURN - R~:GUI.AR
CASE NOI 1993-04798 P
COKKONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA I
COUNTY OF CUKBERLAND
ROHRER TAKKY J
VS.
LEATHERKAN KARCIA G ET AL
KRISTEN 0 KERTZ
CUKBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, who
to law, says, the within 'SUBPOENA
upon HAUSER BARRY CWITNf;SS)
defendant, at 1054100 HOURS, on the
1997 at X YORK WASTE DISPOSAL 987
I1F.CHANICSBURG. f.fL_
, Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
being duly sworn according
was served
the
J.~ day of Kav
WEST TRINDLE ROAD
.CUKBERLAND
County, Pennsylvania, by handing to HELEN KC~ILL. B~LJ~G
.
.
o\.DKIliLSTRATOR
a truo and attosted copy of the _..5ubpClena___,__,,_ .
and at tho same time directing IDL,- attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's CoStSI
Docketing
Service
Affidavit
Surcharge
18.00
5.58
.00
2.00
So ans~^,J~~
R. "Ih mas ne, ::iIh r
52:).:18
~ILLATI & GDLDKB
OS/29/1997
by
(1I/J"t.:L () . ~
ueputy rill
Sworn and subscribed to before me
e.
this ..1'1- day of ~
19 CfI A.D. ,
n Q. rv....i~ ~.
~rotnonotary'
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NOI 1993-04798 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA I
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
ROHRER TAMMY J
VS.
I.EAT.HERMAN MARCIA G ET AL
KIHSTEN D. MERTZ
CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, vho
to lav, says, the vithin SUBPOENA'
upon DERDEN SAMMY (WITNESS)
defendant, at 1034100 HOURS, on
192Z at X YORK WASTER DISPOSAL
~ECHANICSBURG. PA 17035
. Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
being duly svorn according
vas served
the
the ~ day of Mav
987 WEST TRINDLE ROAD
. CUMBERLAND
County, Pennsylvania, by handing to HELEN MCGILL, BILLING
.
.
ADMINISTRATOR
a true and attested copy of the SUBPOENA .
and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's CoStSI
Docketing
Service
Affidavit
Surcharge
6.00
9.30
.00
2.00
So ansvers I _~. ,~ / A
,/)~v ""-"'a;-'
-1'~~"""~/~<.!-f'~
H. Th~ma. K~1n., 5hRri%%
~l/.~~ ~ILLARI & GOLOMB
OS/29/1997
by ~lIJ4;;p~;~u
Svorn and subscribed to before me
.-
this ~ q .-_ day of ~7---
19 91 A.D.
OL-r'-<. r ) IL...l C"".. J I\.S,>.t;
'::=:f-, ~othonotary
In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
Tammy J, Rohrer
VS.
Marcia Leatherman and Sharon Henry
SERVE: Scott Erney
No. 95
4798 Civil
19_
Now, May 8
York
19 97.1 SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA do hereby deputize the Sherllrof
County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at lhe request and risk orthe Plalnlllr.
SherllrofCumherland Coun!)'. Po.
Affidavit of Service
N May 19 19 97 9:50
ow, , ,at
within Subooena and Witness C'heck
upon Scott Erney, C'laims Representative
at 11 C; J,ilTlPki In Rnad. New C'urrberland. PA
by handing to Scott Erney
attested copy of the original at same as above
him lhe conlents thereof.
o'clock A'M. served the
a Irue and
and made known 10
So answers,
//u~
Sf.;llr of York
County, Po.
o
""
""
c,'.P
\"1'\ (1'
!?~
"-
.L
."'l.lf'
'. r:;
.
~
...
'P
COSTS
, .
_.'
...... '
~ ,
?) -
~J"...;... $
~ - ....,
C ?'-
.-0 c;. ~
'V" cJl '!1.>
f1\
r--'
Sworn and subscribed before
melhl.
SERVICE
1\1ILEAGE
AFFIDAVIT
5 18.00
27.28
2.00
,. . .al
m.n... J. Gros.. Notary Publlo
M Yolk. YOlk County
Y Comml..lon E 'pi'.. April 20. 1008
47.28
s
.,
,',