The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About95-05214 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. yJ ,- j ) I It ('t .1, f. / \' c..JL 1-1 'Y'---- . -- JOREEN C. GATES and ROBERT GATES, Plaintiffs vs. LAWRENCE CHEVROLET-GEO 6445 Carlisle Pike P. O. Box 510 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 CIVIL ACTION - LAW ,. and GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION CHEVROLET MOTORS DIVISION 851 Duportail Road P. O. Box 9015 Wayne, PA 19087 Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue a writ of summons in the above-captioned action with service to be made by Sheriff on the Defendants at their addresses as captioned above. Respectfully submitted, CLECKNER AND FEAREN A By: Richard W. Cleckner, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 07053 Marc T. Levin, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 70294 31 North Second Street P. O. Box 11847 Harrisburg PA 17108-1847 (717) 238-1731 Dated: 7. ? 7 - 'i S Attorneys for Plaintiffs '" '-':> " LI"l ~ en ~.;- ,I - '-l ,,"') :x: ..1": , '-...! --...... a- l.l, '0 (:!:~ , . ('() C \14') m ('I') I" j \ ~ .~ r" en .:t' 'n 1"- c--J ".., a- " <, ~ 1\, ~ L>' V"l <'\<. ~ ~\ - \::::.J '-.> 0 ; .... Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland Joreen C. G~tes ~nd Robert G~tes Court or Conunoll Pie.. VI. 95-5214 Civil No. ...-___..n.._.nn..n.__....__..n. 19__00 Civil Action - L~w III .---.n..____nn__.._.n_.___.__oon_.n____ Lawrence Chevrolct-GEO 6445 Carlisle Pike POBox 510 Mech~ncisburg PA 17055 General Motors Corporation Chevrolet Motors Division 851 Duport~ll Road POBox 9015 W~yne PA 19087 To ~!'..~:.~!:I.s~..~hr:Y..~!?~~.1;,:9.~2..~..~.~!:I.~:.~ 1 Motors Corp., Chevrolet Motors Div.: You are hereby notified that Joreen C. ~nd Robert Gates .------------------------------------------------.------------------------------------------------ , .. Summons - civil Action - L~w the Plaintiffs have commenced an acUon In n-.-----....oo__.__.....nnn._....__n__nn__._nn_ against you which you are required to derend or a derault judgment may be entered agalnll you, (SEAL) L~wrence E. Welker Date _.__...scpJ:.eIl1hc.r._2.9~oooo_ 19.!l..5 ...-....--...-..-..p~I~~-~~--;y-.....-....-...--.. /tl" _ /. l:., By "'-~-"-~"~io;' tYl~~j-.-.t~~------- , U J ..-l ."" > ,."" U '0 c:: Itl UI 4J .... Itl UI t!l 4J .... . Itl Ut!l c::.... 4J I-< 4J 4J 1-<.0 00 ...,1>: ... ..-l N ltl I ltl en :;i . '. 'Oc:: c:: 0 c:: Itl."" 0 ....."" OitJtIJ f>l 1-<."" t!l0> ~ e-iS 4J 0 ..-lUUI o I-< .. I-< UI 0 " > 1-<.... 4J 0 0 .c::....:E UO :E.... 4J 4J U..-l..-l c:: Itl 0 4J I-< I-< I-< 4J > ) c:: 4J 1tl4J.c:: ..<t!lU I I I I I I .S I UJ ) Itl ..< c:: o ."" .... U .0: ..-l ."" > ."" U ~ ~ it !. I"Ji E li.~ . ~ f~ ~~o ~ ~..,llt _ I .. , ':I!i:IiII,T",; 1i/:'II,IIiH hL! tlJI.t\L CASE NO: 199~-0~~J1 r COl'l/'IOtlWEALTH OF PEtlW"YI.Y,\111 i\: COUNTY OF ClJtIl1EI\LAfIl' riA TF:f:.., ,1(I[0:1'I/. leT At Y'" ,.J. l.A ~R Q!iJLrt. !H5.Y.BQ [.,r:I. GITI -Il11.J1QI.!:!LB!,;JJ:Z__ ________ ____ ".,. She'l"lff III P,;,'puty SIIL>l".lJf ut" " CUMDERLAND (l)unl,', rUnTI:,;!' I V.I01;1, 'tIt-'.1 bL'lnq tiu 1'1 :;W('111 acconJinq to law, 1.1,,-. w, till" I'!!U.L,I)L_,~UnrIC~IF;, W;][J DPrvl~ld 8nyo, upon LA WR EIIC E,_Q1EVRQJ,.JU.::.GEQ,__ ___,_ ,..._______ the defcndan t, H l __~~_:..LL(:~Q_ HOUB~3. orl I.hf.' __~t f:h 1.1;1;' 01 ~~!~.!.pb~:,'X___ __.____________._, 19':15 a t ...,_G'14'U::AIU.J:~;.l-.r::.J:'JJ-;r:"J:'LJ\Q.lL~oJ...l___...,_ M EC H A N r CS f11L!I!2L.-Ef\__I,?~~'!.?__....... __..... ....,,__,..._.. __,______..' ':;lW.!~rH "'A N Q___, County, Pcnnsylv<ln,,,, by hClndlnrj t.o li{\tlr~'L.fJ."]I}[J JJJ')f>HH::gc_t1{1,N~~U'~B__,___ a trul? and <ltl"ute,j "01'>' of tlw _,W,[UT,..9,L,i~,LJiIMJ~W'i,___,__'_"_m'___'..'_________'____' and at tho same timE.) dlr(\ctlrlg Ut~;}. alt.(....nl~oll to th.... contents thereot. Sheriff'G Coele: Dor::l~et 1 no ServicE' - Affidav1t Su rch., r'Jc' Co -Ul"::-W "'r"" ~ ' . " L ~. .-..-"'r.;: . .T ^'.:4" ,./' ' ,.,',' Hi. lilt') 5. (~l'l . \')0 ~~. L"O R. Tll.:I-I!I-;~lS 'l: 1 T r~j:-:;~4-"Srl-f'; i:I rru,-,-om_-~----- ':,:::'S;-G(1"'cu':n:lII':1\ F. 1 "1/ r,l-~ 11'."'-11'1 jJ'.() (. ,_. , , .. . ",oJ. '- hi' FEAI\I::rl i~~r~~ ZI n,//J,?, ji",y;'IPI tY'" Sworn arid :jUb:':(~I.lPC.,j to 11";'11.')1-' 1\1"; thi~, _.1~_ d ,:I '.' ')1 "11..~.t. - 1 ') ..,9:;, '" A. I'. "".,q,u- ~; ,11Tbll~'" , ~;lIl-:li[I'T':; HFTllldl lil,ll IIV Ii fI JIlT I' r:A~_:;E UO: 1l3~1:1-("~.l..~1.1 p CDtIN11I1WEt.L,TII OF PFtltISYl.VM1] A: COlHlTY UF UJtlllEr,l.AlILl r~~,If;,~ ..J.'1J1.E.I;n ,..C.._ELi\L". 'Ie e>. 6,1\ Wr},~n~:E.._'::.m:SJ<,(JLF:T: G.EQ _B.!__JJ!.'2-~_rrY!-.!ilin.~:......~._-------,".____n__' Sht'r-il1, ....hl,) b~~'ll'IiJ dl.ll Y .:',wurn ij':c()rdin~} to law, S(1YB, that hE' rJli]d.~' ,i dillg.:'nl nr):lI-cll .:l[v3 lllqllllY f.ot' the 'W'ilhin named d(:,II:ndanl, tel ....1 t : ,..GI';W,:lil\k, MQTCIR~..t;':Im!.'.QR AJJSLlL,. 0!!J~SnQ1- ~L!'1QJ'9Ii?-PlY..U:'J.Qtl_.._.., -...- ._-~------- -- .------.---.----- but was unnble to locate ______I!!!2.!!!___ Jtl his baillwick. He thcar.:fore d.:puti=ed thp sh(.-'J'_iff of +~_.____SJlE..8E'L__..__.______ COUJ1ly, r~lnnL.:;ylvania. to 8l'1"Vl' t.h,,, within _l'I.B.ILDL..'?,lJ!1J'1.Q1:l:L,.........-,..._.._--,._-,.._.........--,......, _~.."..___.__..______...___.~_-_-._.-..._-__~ ."H~ _._..__.____~~..______~ On _~~E:J_~!!?~.[______2_J~~~tL.._J_~.~~_!__""._n__..___..'.' t.hIn oJfic,,! was in l-f='ceipt of the LltttlcIH:.d n.::>t..lJrn from ______.._.....~-:Jt~_?I~n_____.___._____.. Cuunty. Pl-'Ilflsylvania. Sh~riff's Costs: ~.:ln D.n:Jwl.:..>r~''";:.7 ,. ./""..' 0 ,<,,~ ,_/ '~;..) ,( .''''-~.! t2".~ R',---1'l ii~'; !rl.;-~:x.T:-rri-li:;;--SFI."~.l~.rrr------ [locket.inn Cltlt. nf C(~'UIlI.y Surchal-no cm';:';TER - CfJlJIITY h.(1(i ':l, \,1(' :~, ~W) 11\. Of, '~J,,':('fF: <,'LECI\IIE1, ,'. FEAHEll t 1.:') / ~T'j i 1 (n'-, Sworn clll,J ~--;ub::':jl'~!-lb+;".1 !.n b'~'J'-'l'f-' :11" t. hi:'; _,,J, ~,L <,I" Y r< i '7t.v-<-.....tu- lC]__,9,{,_, fl. P. n n. ~ ,0lF1' ...~'r;:;~"_III_lll')f.,i:I.:; ...; ....."'"";.................. .......d.';......h.;/.,h ..... . "'. """ '.,'., , . t., 'riie Court ci C:;mmO:1 ple:::s or C:Jr:::=:.:It'l::nd C'::L::O~'Y, Panr:syl'lc::r.i= Joreen C. Gates and Robert Gates General Motors Cor!{aration Chevrolet Motors Division :'fa. 95-5214 S;.ivil 1'erm .~ ---t ..- ~ow, October 3, 1995 :9_ I, S:~..!:~ O? C~r.E::::?...!..A.'fD COt..~TY. ?o\.., co h=-..!Jy c!..;:UC::: t!:.:: Sb.::'S or Chester C"u:ty 10 e::..-:'~tC ::is W:::, :::s L-puc:cn !:~ -..~- ~t ~ ~ ::d :=..1k of :he p'..:-a. r~~~~ Sll..~ ot C::::=uI.&d C~u:1t.,. ?:l. . ~ ..:Uiida.vit or Se:-nc:ll ~ow, & ~. / I . !';}..2.L;:.: I P(/1- o'dea ,;r:) ~c. 1:".-= :::: W\= C'~~ ~v~ ~POI: d / I - ~':: ~./";/ r?'''/Y' Ur rJ kff 4lffd'"t 5 ~t 'lfr / Pr;ptfl-/c" I /2 c! {;) by ==c:il:1i:.o tIr'~ p,' ~..)o '//<y I. CPr at ::c o:-=~-." 2nd -,,:. lr:::owu :0 _ :.:.: .:::1:=::1 .:....-. _.......1. Nolan.:lISf:ill ..10.:\0 P. B"n"\i:~'n, 1'1~'1ry PlJl~ W\l:.ICl1l.-:! 'f' pt....c. CIll',....C.itlll!y MyCO:lHIl,ji:.Ko~l{:...j.;'" II, '9'J7 So a::uw=, ~U~~..q. ,. Swot:: :tnd r~l:=-.1:d be;'on: ,(, =: :.!:.!s L2- 6y or /.p~, ."" j /:J /) , / ~,I.V /': /.~ ,t.;>-v,!../,n-.:.:.,j"""YL' c/ / !9L2 COSTS S:E.~:VI c::: ~au:.-\G;:: "".::!DAVIT s .0.-__ s '_-_I LAVIN, COLEMAN, FINARELLI& GRAY BY: Franeis J. Grey, Jr. I Peter W. Lee Attorney 1.0. No.: 56145 170627 510 Walnut Street, Suite 1000 Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 627.0303 Attorney(s) for Defendant, General Motors Corporation JOREEN C. GATES and ROBERT GATES CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS v. LAWRENCE CHEVROLET.GEO and GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, CHEVROLET MOTORS DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 95-5214 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of the undersigned and this law firm in the above.captioned case on behalf of defendant, General Motors Corporation. Jury trial is hcreby demanded in the above-entitled case by defendant, General Motors Corporation. LAVIN. COLEMAN, F1NARELLl & GRAY BY: /) ~ (//1 ~ - [IJ l I{ / ~ g 11.._, FRANCIS J. GREY, JR. PETER W. LEE Attorncy(s) for defendant, General Motors Corporation ,- ":l ~- [" j'; - (~j , '11f."; ,;- , ( ~.. . , fI:' '.. (:- ". ~ '-f' :':1 9, f"- (,") @; <'-I o!;'.; U:!' ("". , :":] I" I.. L,_ '-. ", \on ",.J ',; C , I~J JOREEN C. GATES and ROBERT GATES, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 95-5214 v. CIVIL TERM LAWRENCE CHEVROLET-GEO, INC., and GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, CHEVROLET MOTORS DIVISION, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, this :;l,'::)'l? day of ~\ , 1996, come the Plaintiffs, Joreen C. Gates and Robert Gates, by their attorneys, Cleckner and Fearen, and file the within Complaint and in support thereof aver as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs are Robert Gates and Joreen C. Gates, his wife, both adult individuals who at the time of the initiation of this action resided at 2308 Edgewood Road, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, 17104, and who currently reside at 16388 Indianwood Circle, Indiantown, Florida, 34956. 2. Defendant, Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo, Inc. (hereinafter "Defendant Lawrence"), is a Pennsylvania corporation having a place of business at 6445 Carlisle Pike, P. O. Box 510, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17055. 3. Defendant, General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet Motors Division (hereinafter "Defendant GM"), is a Delaware corporation, having a place of business at 851 Duportail Road, P. O. Box 9015, Wayne, Pennsylvania, 19087-9015. 4. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant GM was, inter ftlia, a manufacturer of Chevrolet automobiles and trucks, as well as parts relating to said vehicles. 5. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Lawrence was, inter.a..JJ...g, an authorized Chevrolet dealer for Defendant GM engaged in the sales and service of Chevrolet automobiles and trucks. 6. On or about February 21, 1994, Plaintiff Robert W. Gates purchased a new 1994 Chevrolet 4 x 4 Series Pick-Up truck (herein. after the "truck") bearing a VIN #IGCDT19Z4RK145558 from Defendant Lawrence. 7. Defendant Lawrence had acquired the truck from Defendant GM, which had designed, manufactured and sold it. 8. In mid-May, 1994, Plaintiff, Robert Gates, delivered the truck to Defendant Lawrence for repair of the passenger seat on the truck. 9. Defendant Lawrence returned the truck to Plaintiffs the same day it was delivered for repairs and advised Plaintiffs that it had repaired the passenger seat on the truck. 10. After Plaintiffs picked up the truck from Defendant Lawrence following its completion of the repair of the passenger seat, they noticed a piece of hardware lying on the driver's side floor of the truck. 11. Plaintiffs returned to Defendant Lawrence and spoke to the service manager and another member of the service department of Defendant Lawrence, showed him the piece of hardware and inquired - 2 . regarding why the piece of hardware was lying on the driver's side floor of the truck and whether it presented a mechanical or safety problem in operating the truck. 12. Defendant Lawrence's service manager and the other member of its service department advised Plaintiffs that the piece of hardware was of no importance and would not affect the proper and safe operation of the truck. They further assured Plaintiffs that there was nothing mechanically wrong with the truck. 13. On May 26, 1994 at approximately 5:00 p.m. while Plaintiff, Joreen Gates, was driving the truck and attempting to back it into Plaintiffs' driveway at 2308 Edgewood Road, the brakes on the truck failed. As a result, the truck went over a steep embankment and hit the stone wall side of Plaintiffs' neighbors' carport where it came to rest. 14. At the time of the accident in May, 1994, the truck had been driven less than 4,000 miles. 15. Subsequent to the accident in May, 1994, Plaintiffs have been advised by a representative of Defendants Lawrence and GM that the piece of hardware which was found lying on the floor of the truck following repair of the passenger seat was a "retainer" which was an integral part of the hydraulic brake assembly of the truck. 16. The accident to the truck on May 26, 1994 was caused by the failure of its brakes to function, despite Plaintiff Joreen Gates' attempts to apply them. 17. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid - 3 . accident, Plaintiffs' and their neighbor's landscaping and wall suffered physical damage. estimated at $1,755.00. The cost to repair those damages is 18. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid accident, Plaintiff, Joreen Gates, sustained the following physical injuries: (1) Shortness of breath and chest pains caused by situational stress; (2) Aggravation of a pre-existing heart condition which made coronary artery by-pass surgery necessary. (3) Aggravation of pre-existing angina pain; (4) Extreme anxiety which has precipitated flashbacks; nightmares; loss of sleep; fear of driving and other loss of life's pleasures. 19. Plaintiff, Joreen Gates' pain and suffering and loss of life's pleasures as a direct and proximate result of her injuries in the aforesaid accident are ongoing. 20. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid accident, Plaintiffs incurred significant medical expenses as follows: (1) Harrisburg Hospital (2) A, Z. Ritzman Associates $54,613.76 57.00 (3) Shaffer Cardiovascular Assoc. 7,165.00 (4) Glamm Anesthesia Assoc. (5) Moffitt, Pease & Linn Assoc. (6) Colonial Park Family Practice 1,650.00 9,380.00 90.00 $72,955.76 - 4 - COUNT I STRICT LIABILITY Plaintiffs v. Lawrence Chevralet-Geo, Inc. and General Motors COrDoration. Chevrolet Motors Division 21. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-20 above as though the same were set forth herein at length. 22. Upon information and belief, the accident of May 26, 1994, wherein Plaintiff, Joreen Gates, was injured, was caused by the defective nature of the brakes in the truck, which defect existed at the time the truck left Defendants' care, custody and control, and rendered the truck unreasonably dangerous for its intended use. 23. As the result of the defective nature of the brakes, which caused said brakes to fail to function, Defendants are strictly liable to Plaintiffs pursuant to ~402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts for the following reasons: (a) failing to properly and adequately design the braking system; (b) failing to properly and adequately manufacture the braking system; (c) failing to warn Plaintiffs of the dangerous nature of the braking system. 24. As a direct and proximate result of the defects in the braking system as described above, Plaintiffs suffered property damage and Plaintiff, Joreen Gates, suffered severe personal injuries as more fully described above. . 5 . WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered against both Defendants and for Plaintiffs in an amount in excess of $30,000.00, which exceeds the jurisdictional amount requiring arbitration referral by local rule. COUNT II BREACH OF WARRANTY Plaintiffs v. Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo, Inc. and General Motors Corooration. Chevrolet Motors Division 25. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-24 above as though the same were set forth herein at length. 26. At the time Defendant Lawrence sold the truck, both Defendants warranted, both expressly and impliedly, that the truck was free from defects, and was safe and suitable for the uses for which it was intended. 27. Defendants breached the aforesaid warranties, both express and implied, by providing Plaintiffs with a truck in which the brakes were defective as more fully described above, and which was neither adequate nor suitable for the uses for which it was intended. 28. As the direct result of Defendants' breach of their express and implied warranties, Plaintiffs suffered property damage and plaintiff, Joreen Gates, suffered severe personal injuries as more fully described above. - 6 - WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered against both Defendants and for the Plaintiffs in an amount in excess of $30,000.00, which exceeds the jurisdictional amount requiring arbitration referral by local rule. COUNT I II BREACH OF WARRANTY Plaintiffs v. Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo, Inc. and General Motors COrDoration. Chevrolet Motors Division 29. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 28 as though the same were set forth herein at length. 30. Defendant Lawrence warranted, either expressly or impliedly, that the work of its service department with respect to the truck would be performed in a proper and workmanlike manner. 31. Defendants breached the aforesaid warranties by failing to perform service work in a proper and workmanlike manner as follows: (1) Failing to properly replace the retainer which was dislodged from the braking system. (2) Failing to inspect the braking system to assure it would function properly. (3) Failing to respond adequately and in a proper manner to Plaintiffs' inquiry regarding finding the retainer on the floor of the truck. 32. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Lawrence was the actual or ostensible agent of Defendant GM in connection with its service work on the truck, and Defendant GM is responsible for the . 7 . actions and conduct of its agent in the performance of service work. 33. As the direct resul t of Defendants' breach of their express and implied warranties, Plaintiffs suffered property damage and Plaintiff, Joreen Gates, suffered severe personal injuries as more fully described above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered against both Defendants and for the Plaintiffs in an amount in excess of $30,000.00, which exceeds the jurisdictional amount requiring arbitration referral by local rule. COUNT IV NEGLIGENCE Plaintiffs v. Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo, Inc. and General Motors Corooration. Chevrolet Motors Division 34. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 33 as though the same were set forth herein at length. 35. Defendant GM was negligent in its design and manufacture of the truck, which negligence consisted of: (1) Designing a hydraulic brake subject to total failure dislodging of a retainer; (2) Failing to properly assemble the braking system of the truck; assembly which as the resul t was of (3) Failing to provide warnings of the potential for brake failure given the design of the braking system in the truck. - 8 - 36. Defendant Lawrence was negligent in its preparation, maintenance and sezvice of the truck, which negligence consisted of: (1) Failing to properly assemble the braking system of the truck. (2) Failing to discover that the retainer had been dislodged from the braking system and to replace it. (3) Failing to discover and be aware that the braking system would not function properly and safely without the installation of the retainer. (4) Failing to recognize the retainer as an integral part of the hydraulic braking system of the truck. (5) Failing to properly test the hydraulic braking system of the truck when P1aintiffs asked about the retainer found on the floor of the truck. (6) Failing to discover and be aware the hydraulic braking system Plaintiffs thereof. of a problem with and to advise 37. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Lawrence was the actual or ostensible agent of Defendant GM, acting within the scope of its authority, and Defendant GM is responsible for the actions and conduct of its agent in this matter. 38. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs relied upon the skill and competence of Defendant Lawrence and its principal, Defendant GM, to properly manufacture, prepare, maintain and service the truck. 39. As a direct result of the negligence of Defendants as described above, Plaintiffs suffered property damage and Plaintiff, Joreen Gates, suffered severe personal injuries as more fully - 9 . described above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered against both Defendants and for Plaintiffs in an amount in excess of $30,000.00, which exceeds the jurisdictional amount requiring arbitration referral by local rule. COUNT V LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Robert Gates v. Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo, Inc. and General Motors Corooration. Chevrolet Motors Division 40. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-39 above as though the same were set forth herein at length. 41. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff, Robert Gates, has been deprived of the comfort, companionship, services and assistances of his wife and will be deprived of such consortium of his wife in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Robert Gates, demands a judgment of damages against both Defendants in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration referral by local rule. Respectfully submitted, CLECKNER AND FEAREN ./~ By ,,,.(..., ichard . Cleckner, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 07053 31 North Second Street P. O. Box 11847 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1847 (717)238-1731 Attorneys for Plaintiffs - 10 - the VERIFICATION I hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. }j c2 LtJu~ C. GATES Date: L,I!;l.,S I 'lip, CBRTIPICATB OP SBRVICB I, RICHARD W. CLECKNER, ESQUIRE, certify that I have this 25th day of April, 1996, served the foregoing Complaint upon the Defendants in this action by depositing true and correct copies of the s~me in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Peter W. Lee, Esquire Lavin, Coleman, Finarelli & Gray Suite 1000 Penn Mutual Tower 510 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo, Inc. 6445 Carlisle Pike P. O. Box 510 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 ..;Yd:~, . .' . TO: Plllollff. You ore hereby nnlinclJ to I1Ic:od to the cnclosc:d New MIUer wlthi" l"e"IY (20) days of service Ihereof or u dcfuuJ mcnl may centered agal"sl yo LAVIN, COLEMAN, FINARELLI & GRAY BY: Francis J. Grey, Jr. / Peter W. Lee Attorney J.D. No.: 56145/70627 510 Walnut Street, Suite 1000 Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 627-0303 Attorney(s) for Defendant, General Motors Corporation JOREEN C. GATES and ROBERT GATES CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS v. LAWRENCE CHEVROLET-GEO and GENERAL MOTORS CORPORA TJON, CHEVROLET MOTORS DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 95-5214 ANSWER WITH NEW MATIER OF DEFENDANT, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT I. After reasonable investigation, Ilnswering defendant, General Motors Corporation (hereinafter "GM"), is without knowledge or information sullicient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph (I) of plaintiffs' Complaint; henee, those averments are denied. 2. As the averments set forth in paragraph (2) of plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to a party other than GM, no response is required to the applicable Pcnnsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. Denied us statcd. General Motors admits only that it is a corporation ineorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal placc of business located in the city of Detroit, Wayne County, Michigan. Ilnd that it is authorized to conduct business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 4. Denied as stated. OM admits only that it designs, manufactures in part, assembles, distributes and markets motor vehicles bearing the Chevrolet nameplllte. 5. OM admits as a general proposition that Lllwrence Chevrolct-Oeo, Inc., is an authorized dealer of motor vehicles bearing the Chevrolet nameplate. 6. As the averments set forth in paragraph (6) of plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to a party other than OM, no response is required pursuant to the applieable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 7. Denied as stated. OM admits as a general proposition that it designed, manufactured in part, and sold a truck bearing VIN #IOCDTI9Z4RKI45558 to Lawrence Chevrolet-Oeo, Inc. 8. After reasonable investigation, OM is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph (8) of plaintiffs' Complaint; hence, those averments are denied. 9. After reasonable investigation, OM is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph (9) of plaintiffs' Complaint; hence, those averments are denied. 10. After reasonable investigation, OM is without knowledge or infonnation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph (10) of plaintiffs' Complaint; hence, those avennents are denied. 11. After reasonable invt'stigation, OM is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph (11) of plaintiffs' Complaint; hence, those averments are denied. - 2 - 1..\l'J~. OJl,tMA~. fl~ARI:U,1 '" (.RAI" ArroRNEI'S AT J"IIV 12, After reasonable investigation, OM is without knowledge or infonnation sufficient to fonn a belief as to the troth of the Ilvennenls set forth in puragrnph (12) of plaintiffs' Complaint; hence, those averments are denied. 13. After reasonllble investigation, OM is without knowledgc or infonnation sufficlentto fonn a belief as to the truth of the Ilvennents set forth in parugruph (13) of plaintiffs' Complaint; henee, those averments are denied. 14. After reasonllble investigation, OM is without knowledge or infonnation sufficient to fonn a belief as to the troth of the avennents set forth in pllragraph (14) of plaintiffs' Complaint; henee, those averments are denied. 15. After reasonable investigation, OM is without knowledge or infonnation sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the avennenls set forth in paragraph (15) of plaintiffs' Complaint; henee, those avennents are denied. 16. After reasonable investiglltion, OM is without knowledge or infonnation suffieientto form a belief as to the troth of the avennents set forth in paragrnph (16) of plaintiffs' Complaint; hence, those averments are denied. 17. After reasonable investigation, OM is without knowledge or infonnation suffieientto form a belief as to the troth of the avennents setlbrth in paragraph (17) of plaintiffs' Complaint; hence, those averments are denied. 18. After reasonable investigation, OM is without knowledge or infonnation suffieientto fonn a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph (18) and subparagraphs (I) through (4) of plaintiffs' Complaint; he nee, those averments are dcnied. - 3 - I."'IN. ('OU:M,IN, nN,IHI:J.I.1 & (;H,\\'. ,I'I'HlHNI:\'S AT UW 19. Denied us a conclusion oflaw. To the extent that purngraph (19) of plaintiffs' Complaint contains avennents of fact. answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form II belief as to the truth of the said averments; hence, those averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 20. After reasonable investigation, OM is without knowledge or informlltion sufficient to form n belief us to the truth of the averments set lorth in paragraph (16) of plaintiffs' Complaint; hence. those averments are denied. COUNT I 21. OM ineorporates by referenee its responses to paragraphs (I) through (20) of plaintiffs' Complaint as though the same were set forth fully herein. 22. Denied. 23. Denied. 24. Denied. WHEREFORE, OM speeifically denies that the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment against it, individually or jointly and/or severally, for any amount whatsoever and, in turn, demands judgment in its favur. COUNT II 25. OM incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs (I) through (24) of plaintiffs' Complnint us though the same were set forth fully herein. 26. Denied. 27. Denied. 28. Denied. - 4 - I.AVIN. COU:M,\N. "'N,\HI:I,I.I ol (;H,\\" ,\rroHNI:\'S AT I_\W WHEREFORE, GM specifically denies that the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment against it, individually or jointly and/or severally, for any amount whatsoever and, in turn, demands judgment in its favor. COUNT III 29. GM incorporates by refcrcnee its rcsponscs to paragraphs (I) through (28) of plaintiffs' Complaint as though the slime were set forth fully herein, 30. As the averments contained in paragraph (30) of plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to n party other than OM, no response is required pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 31. Denied. 32. OM denies that Lawrence Chevrolet-Gco, Inc.. acted us OM's agent, actual or ostensible, in connection with any service work performed on the truck, and denies that OM is responsible for the aetions and conduct of Lawrenee Chevrolet-Oco in connection with the performance of serviee work. 33. Denied. WHEREFORE, OM speeilieally denies that the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment against it, individually or jointly and/or severally, for any amount whatsoever and. in turn, demands judgment in its favor. COUNT IV 34. OM ineorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs (I) through (33) of plaintiffs' Complaint as though the same werc set forth fully herein. 35. Denied. 36. As the avenllcnts contllined in paragraph (36) of plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to a party other than OM, no response is required pursuant to thc llPplicllble Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. - 5 - I.\I'IN. COU:UIN.I'IN'\IU:U,I '" liR,\I" ,\'!TllRNHS AT U\l' 37. OM denies that Lawrence Chevrolet-Oeo, Inc.. acted as OM's agent, aetual or ostensible, within the scope of its authority, in connection with any of the malleI'S described in plaintiffs' Complaint, and denies that OM is responsible for the aetions and conduct of Lawrence Chevrolet-Oeo in conneetion therewith. 38. Aller reasonable investigation, OM is without knowledge or infonnation suflieient to fonn a belief as to the truth of the avennents sct forth in paragraph (38) of plaintiffs' Complaint; hence, those avennents arc denied. To the extent said averments purport to establish an agency relationship between OM and co-defendant Lawrence Chevrolet-Oeo, OM incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs (32) and (37) above. 39. Denied. WHEREFORE, OM specifically denies that the plllintiffs are entitled to judgment against it, individually or jointly and/or severally, for any amount whatsoever and, in turn, demands judgment in its favor. COUNT V 40. OM incorporates by reference its responses 10 paragraphs (1) through (39) of plaintiffs' Complaint as though the same were set forth fully herein. 41. Denied. WHEREFORE. OM specifically denies that the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment against it, individually or jointly and/or severally, for any amount whatsoever and, in turn, demands judgment in its favor. NEW MATTER 42. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. - 6 - U\'IN. CClI,F.M,IN. "'NAllI:I.I,1 '" "R.II'. AnORNF.I'S AT I_IW 43. If it is determined that OM designed, manufaetured in part, assembled, sold and/or distributed the truek identified by pluintiffs, the truck was substantially altered after it left the possession of OM. 44. Any damages allegedly sustained by plaintiffs are due to the negligent acts and/or omissions of individuals and/or entities other than OM. 45. The negligent aets and/or omissions of individuals and/or entities other than OM constituted an intervening and superseding cause of the damages allegedly sustained by the plaintiffs. 46. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part by the applicable Statute of Limitations. 47. Plaintiffs failed to properly notify OM of any alleged defect in n timely fashion us mandated by the law of express and implied warranty. 48. Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages. 49. OM pleads us an affinnative defense any and all releases entered into by the plaintiffs or to be entered into by the plaintiffs as a reduction, in whole or in part, of any damages the plaintiffs ore entitled to recover in this action. 50. OM believes and therefore avers that the subject vehicle was supplied with a Written Limited New Cor Worranty at the time of its original purchase. Beyond the Written Limited New Cor Warranty, OM provided no other warranties, expressed or implied, for the subjeet vehicle. 51. OM hereby reserves the right upon completion of its investigation and diseovery to plead such additionul defenses, affirmative defenses, counterclaims and/or third-party complaints as may be appropriate, including the existence of any release that may have been or may be executed by the plaintiffs. - 7 - 1.\ VIN. COI,f.MAN. f'lNAnl:l.I.1 '" "n,\ \' . A TronNl:l'S AT I.A \\' LAVIN, COLEMAN, FINARELLI & GRAY BY: Francis J. Grey, Jr. / Peter W. Lee Attorney J.D. No.: 56145/70627 510 Walnut Street, Suite 1000 Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 627-0303 Attorney(s) for Defendant, General Motors Corporation JOREEN C. GATES and ROBERT GATES CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS v. LAWRENCE CHEVROLET-GEO and GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, CHEVROLET MOTORS DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 95-5214 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that defendant's, General Motors Corporation, Answer with New Matter was served via United Stutes First Class mail, postage prepaid, on the following party on the date below: Riehard W. Cleekner, Esq. CLECKNER AND FEAREN 31 N. Seeond Street P.O. Box 11847 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1847 LA VIN, COLEMAN, FINARELLI & GRAY DY: F ANCIS J. GR ,J. Attorney for Defen ant, General Motors Corporation DATED: May 14, 1996 VERIFICATION I, FRANCIS J. GREY, JR., ESQ., hereby eertify that I urn the attorney for GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, defendant herein, and further certify that the statements contained in the foregoing defendant's Answer with New Matter are true and correct and are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. ~ 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ;:[i --:J?f3 Attorney for Defendant, General Motors Corporation , LAVIN, COLEMAN, FINARELLI & GRAY BY: Franeis J. Grey, Jr. / Peter W. Lee Attorney I.D. No.: 56145/70627 510 Walnut Street, Suite 1000 Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 627-0303 Attorney(s) for Defendant, General Motors Corporation I JOREEN C. GATES and ROBERT GATES v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LA WRENCE CHEVROLET-GEO and GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, CHEVROLET MOTORS DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 95-5214 PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE VERIFICATION TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly substitute the attached Verification of Susan Sznfnrek as the Authorized Agent of General Motors Corporation for the attorney Verifieation previously filed in support of defendant's, General Motors Corporation, Answer with New Matter to plaintiffs' Complaint in the above-captioned action. LAVIN, COLEMAN, FINARELLI & GRAY BY: at0uwlhv FRANCIS J. GREY, JR. PETER W. LEE Attorneys for Defendant, General Motors Corporation lAVIN, COI.EMAN. FINARELLJ '" GIlA V' ATTORNEVS AT lAW LAVIN, COLEMAN, FINARELLI & GRAY BY: Francis 1. Grey, Jr. / Peter W. Lee Attorney I.D. No,: 56145/70627 510 Walnut Street, Suite 1000 Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 627-0303 Attorney(s) for Defendant, General Motors Corporation JOREEN C. GATES and ROBERT GATES CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS v. LAWRENCE CHEVROLET-GEO and GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, CHEVROLET MOTORS DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 95-5214 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, PETER W. LEE, attorney for defendant, General Motors Corporation, hereby certify that on the date below the Praecipe for Substitution of Verification was sent via First Class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the following counsel: Richard W. Cleckner, Esq. CLECKNER AND FEAREN 31 N. Second Street P.O. Box 11847 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1847 (Jd:"iv 0. ~ PETER W. LEE Attorney for Defendant, General Motors Corporation DATED: May 22, 1996 LAVIN. COLEMAN. FINAREI.I.J" GRAV' ATIORNEVS AT LAW JOREEN C. GATES and ROBERT GATES, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 95-5214 Plaintiffs v. CIVIL TERM LAWRENCE CHEVROLET-GEO, INC., and GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, CHEVROLET MOTORS DIVISION, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIPPS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO NEW MATTER OP DEPENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION AND NOW, this 31st day of May, 1996, come the Plaintiffs, Joreen C. Gates and Robert Gates, by their attorneys, Cleckner and Fearen, and file the following Preliminary Objections to New Matter of Defendant, General Motors Corporation, in the above-captioned matter, for the reasons hereinafter set forth: I. preliminarv Obiection Based Uoon Failure of Pleadinq to Conform to Law or Rule of Court. 1. Paragraphs 46,47,49, 50 and 51 should be stricken for failure to state any material facts upon which the defenses alleged are based as required by Pa. R.C.P. 1019(a). 2. Paragraphs 49 and 50 should be stricken for failure to comply with Pa. R.C.P. 1019(b) by attaching copies of the writings referenced in said paragraphs and which Defendant alleges form the bases for defenses. 3. Paragraph 51 improperly attempts to amend the rules of civil procedure regarding the time limits for filing pleadings by unilaterally reserving the right to file further pleadings at some future date. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully ask that Your Honorable Court strike paragraphs 46, 47, 49, 50 and 51 of Defendant, General Motors Corporation's New Matter. l, II. Preliminary Obiection Based upon Insufficient Specificity in a Pleadinq. By ~ Cleckner, Esquire I.D. No. 07053 4. Paragraphs 1 - 3 above are hereby incorporated herein by reference. 5. Paragraphs 46, 47, 49, 50 and 51 of Defendant, General Motors Corporation's New matter contain general averments to which Plaintiffs cannot reasonably formulate a reply. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully ask that if Your Honorable Court does not strike the pararaphs to which these objections have been made, it will order Defendant General Motors Corporation to file an Amended Answer and New Matter stating the material facts which form the bases for its averments of defenses in its New Matter. 31 North Second Street P. O. Box 11847 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1847 717-238-1731 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Joreen C. and Robert Gates , CERTIPICATE OP SERVICE . CLECKNER, ESQUIRE I, RICHARD W. CLECKNER, ESQUIRE, certify that I have this 31st da}' of May, 1996, served the foregoing Preliminary Objections upon the Defendants in this action by depositing true and correct copies of the same in the UJlited States mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Peter W. Lee, Esquire Lavin, Coleman, Finarelli & Gray Suite 1000 Penn Mutual Tower 510 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo, Inc. 6445 Carlisle pike P. O. Box 510 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Donald M. Lewis, III, Esquire Keefer, Wood, Allen & Rahal 210 Walnut Street P. O. Box 11963 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963 ". '} , I ' . . ~ ~ ~i I~ III z 0 .fl w " . 0: ~ < ~~~j i~ 0( ~ '" z ~II w :s ~ < ';;j . t:: .... .... ll.. ~ > .J @\i: ~IE8 D ~ ~ ~ II!: I ~ II ~ ~ 8 Z ~ 0 '" Z 0: z VI W ~~! :t .. I w 0: " . o Cl z l: 0 0: I!i ~ < z :> I!~i u - m . . w "!!! t) l> 0: ' Iii -l 0: ! u < ~~~ :r - .- . , - " CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, David L. Schwalm, Esquire, of the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, attorneys for Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo, Inc., do hereby certify that on this date I served the foregoing Praecipe for Entry of Appearance, by placing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Richard W. Cleckner, Esquire Cleckner and Fearen 31 North Second Street P.O. Box 11847 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1847 Francis J. Grey, Jr., Esquire Lavin, Coleman, Finarelli & Gray 510 Walnut street 12th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106 ( DATED: bll~1 lib s, THOMAS & HAFER '---B\'.~ Dav d L. Schwalm, Esqu re Attorneys for Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo, Inc. 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 ,,. "" ii: en .. . t.~ r.; i:<:: G2 .,- luL' I ~t )":' ~i.' . : Ir".1 ]r:. r- 'i/! ! t-:~ ftl' . . :lii) r" ~l :'!!..\.. -, '. "_ V'! ~j (.) C1. U r. ~ ~ t; ~ . '" .. ~ a: 0 0- S .. .. .. 0- .. i t:l 1; z .. e 0 ~ .; S- a: 0 a: Q .. .. " ~ E z ci " 0- .. .. ~ i ,ll 0 z .. .. ~ c .. z t:l 0 e ... Q ~ " JOREEN C. GATES AND ROBERT GATES, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 95-5214 CIVIL ACTION . LAW Plaintiffs v. LAWRENCE CHEVROLET.GEO, INC., AND GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, CHEVROLET MOTORS DIVISION, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT. LAWRENCE CHEVROLET-GEO'S ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW. Defendant. Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo, by their attorneys, Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, files its Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Compialnt as follows: 1. After reasonable investigation, Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained In Paragraph 1. and proof thereof is demanded. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. The averments set fonh In Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs' Complaint do not penain to answering Defendant and no answer is required under the applicable rules of civil procedure. S. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 11. Although It is admitted that Plaintiffs returned to Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo, the remaining allegations are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 12. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 13. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 14. Admitted. IS. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 16. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 17. _ 20. After reasonable investigation, Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo is without knowledge or Information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 17 through 20, and proof thereof is demanded. COUNT I . STRICT LIABILITY 21. By way of answer, Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo Incorporates herein by reference, the averments and denials contained In Paragraphs 1 through 20 of this Answer and New Matter. 22. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 23. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of funher answer, Defendant Lawrence Chevro1et-Geo specifically denies that it designed or manufactured said vehicle. 24. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo respectfully requests your Honorable coun to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint without cost or judgment to it. -3- COUNT II . BREACH OF WARRANTY 25. By way of answer, Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo Incorporates herein by reference, the averments and denials contained In Paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Answer and New Matter. 26. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 27. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 28. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo respectfully requests your Honorable Coun to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint without cost or judgment to it. COUNT III. BREACH OF WARRANTY 29. By way of answer, Defendant Lawrence Chevrolel-Geo Incorporates herein by reference, the averments and denials contained In Paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Answer and New Maller. 30. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 31. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 32. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 33. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo respectfully requests your Honorable Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint without cost or judgment to it. COUNT IV . NEGLIGENCE 34. By way of answer, Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo incorporates herein by reference, the averments and denials contained in Paragraphs I through 33 of the Answer and New Maller. 35. The averments set fonh In Paragraph 35 of Plaintiffs' Complaint do not penain to answering Defendant and no answer Is required under the applicable rules of civil procedure. -4- 36. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 37. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 38. After reasonable investigation, Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained In Paragraph 38, and proof thereof is demanded. 39. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo respectfully requests your Honorable Coun to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint without cost or judgment to it. COUNT V . LOSS OF CONSORTIUM 40. By way of answer, Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo incorporates herein by reference, the averments and denials contained in Paragraphs 1 through 39 of the Answer and New Maller. 41. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo respectfully requests your Honorable Coun to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint without COSI or judgment to it. NEW MATTER 42. Plaintiffs' Injuries and damages, which are specifically denied, were not caused by any acts, omissions, or breaches of duty of Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo, but were caused in whole or in pan or were contributed to by the negligence, fault, or want of care of Plaintiff or persons other than Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo. 43. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in pan by Plaintiffs' comparative negligence. -5- 44. lfany defective or unreasonably dangerous condition existed, which is specifically denied, Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo had no actual or constructive notice of such condition existing at the time. 45. Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo's conduct was not a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs' injuries and damages, If any. 46. Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo Is not liable for Plalnlifrs injuries or damages, If any, since it had no actual or constructive knowledge that the truck it purchased from Defendant General Motors was defective In its design or manufacture. 47. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be gramed against Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo. 48. Defendant Lawrence Chevrolel-Geo did not supply any warranties with lhe vehicle other lhan the GM Wrillen Limited New Car Warranty issued atlhe time of the original purchase. 49. If the vehicle was defective, which is specifically denied, it was substantially altered after It left the possession and control of Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet Geo. WHEREFORE, Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet-Geo respectfully requests your Honorable Coun to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint without cost or judgment to it. -~-- THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER .~ --". .t-,\(/ \ \ Q}~..t'XJ~rU -'DAvfD L. SCHWALM, ESQUIRE 305 NORTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 255.7643 ATTORNEY I,D. NO. 32574 DATE:'7!1:l)Qb ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT LAWRENCE CIIEVROLET.GEO -6- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, DAVID L. SCHWALM, ESQUIRE of the law firm of THOMAS, TlIOMAS, & HAFER, do cenify that I served the foregoing document on the following person(s), by depositing the same in the United States Mall, poslage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania addressed as follows: Richard W. Cleckner, Esquire CLECKNER & FEAREN 31 North Second Street P.O, Box 11847 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1847 Peter W. Lee, Esquire LAVIN, COLEMAN, FINARELLI & GRAY Penn Mutual Tower, Suite 1000 510 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER C-----~ . ("" I )JJ,~~~-_.--_ ~ ./ ~- DAVID L, SCHWALM, ESQUIRE Date: ., }Jl.)% I, ~ ~ t.:; ~~ w .. ~ 0 .. E !i: .. ~ ~ ... .. Q i " IS t .. 0 .. Q .. " ~ :z: d .. I< .. oS 0 '" ii1 z .. to ~ .. ~ :z: ~ 0 '" ~ . . . j~'7 /,., C r:;'"-",,u. IH..~ ~1.t:' /'. 7i~ ('141../#4 I In the Cuurtor Common Pleas or Cumberland Cuunly, Pennsylvania VB, t::~'~1-...L; J1/ ,-z,~ (!""VltJ~,.rI~~.t /}.v1.JJ-- '! r - j 2-1 'I Civil. 19 No, Cl.-.i...r - C;.. I"d-. e.l.,..~ :0'",_ , . 1." f . / ;.> (c..."~~~ ~ c."p inuv C: ''* u.' /\'Y'a-.....4.- .-u:l.'4 A-""/ c~..C"'-.l/ .......( /!&,.-r.-;,p ,-'Ci-'t')I'/ ,.~~'.. k/L. ,y t1 To Prolhorlll~lry rf.tfl"'.JJ<- z.( IY?'" / (::. . .-- ,.,_.---;:::.-~ I,' , /" 'W;/ ~(;'d"..__ :..<....~ / ( I' Allurncy fur Plaintiff 1t..(~Jlt:.O IJ. Cq~o!tt...,~;... I FilrD,(rr:C,f' c.;~ ~: . r '",., ,,'- ~} f"\1 , , ' 'f,",11 Nu, Tcrm, 19 _ r'~ ,..... I' , I .;\) I;:! /' '" II "{] I::. :..... t. . . ,. . ., I h.':j";;<;j'jL\','..'::.\ VS. PRAECIPE Filed 19_ , Ally. t , ,