Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-07046 .j" " ", ',- .;......~ "-....0 ,,~ -. , S- ;r \ .N. - ~~:;:':~~ .,', .;;il "''-:"';:~J~ . : ";;"1" 1- ,,~, "" '1- '.~:~ \'zfl ,-,-...:<:~;1z~ "'I .,~.~ -;~'\ "1:-,_, '_!-;~ - -,~' NOTICE OF APPEAL COMMONWEALTH Of PENNSYLVANIA COURT Of COMMON PLEAS CUM8BRLAND COUNTY 9thJUOICIAL DISTRICT HlOM DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT ____~OMM~'}_!'~EA~~_qr --7.t:.!tk CU"<..f. p,~-;~ NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is yi\lcn that the apl)cllanl IHls fIled in till! alHJVIJ CUIIII of COlll11l0ll PhlilS 1111 tllllWtll 11011I lhl! jutllJllwl1l rt!lHltHcd!ly 11m District Justico on the date and in the case mentionml helow, APPLIANCE SERVICE CO. -.-------- '~,:_-.;o-, -0'", '''U" UP Q,'. D.J.Robert V. Malllove I I)? ., 'I IlPc;cUt. N.... 0.. A".~"."' ....... Of' ........",,", It,," 99 Front Street We~! Fal rv!m.: I'A 17025 '1"'...-"..." .A'. Of' 1101....."' '" THO C..... a.. ,",,," ", 11/28/95 PATSY JUDY .., IIO'U"U'" OP ..........A"' ON H.I ,."0"...., O. "..", APPLIANCIl SERVICB CO. C..,UM "0, T A 19 Q~ - CV _0000.63.95 LT 19 This hlock will be signed ONL V when this nutation R,C.P.J.P. No, 10088. This Notice of Appeal, when received bV tlw District Justicl!, will npmatc as a SUPERSEDEAS to the judgmenl for pUUl!ssion in this casu, Appliallce Service Co. ~, c:' ,,' uY' -..,-.,~ ,;. ," ~," ..--<'-/ ""~Ier U . ,,/ .' _- / ""'I IS requill!d under Pa, If appe/lam was Claimam (see Pa, R.C.P.J,P. No. 1001(61 ill aClioll lJe(ore District Justice, he MUST FILE A COMPLAINT withill twellty (201 (lays alrer /ilillY his NOTICE 01 APPEAL. S/g/liJtur~ of ProrhullutJry Of Df'lUllY PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (T"'s seclioll o( (orm 10 lJe IISer! ONL Y whell appe/lam was DEFENDANT (see Pa. R,C.P,J,P, No. 1001(71 ill actiolllJe(ore District Justice. IF NOT USED, r/otac" from copy of notice of ,1ppeal to be wfvecJ IIpon iJp/J'lllet-J. PRAECIPE: To ProthonolOrY PATSY JUDY . appellec(s). to file iJ complaint in this appeal Enter rulo upon (Common Plea, No, q i' ~ 70 'i" C,,:.:( RULE: To PATSY JUDY N.Jnlc of oJlJ/lcffeelsJ 7i't,.~wilhin twentv (201 days aftl!rA~e~~cp of rulc..or suller ontrv of judgmmn of non pros. . Jl~lIlllCe :sWV ~~ ~ 8y.: ,;;--'C ~ ~ r. ~ler e SigrlJtUfe of JPpellarrt Of Ilil .,uomey or ..gent Lt!r?- 'f-/.WIll!r . apllulleu(s) Nimw 01 oJppcl/cl'IJJ n) You arl! notified that a rulu is herehv tJl1tmccI upun vou 10 fill! a complttint in this ilPPCi11 within twenty (201 days aller tho uale of service of Ihis rule opon you by personal stlrvice ()! hV cCltllicd ur WYIUl!Il!l1 milil. (2) II yo~ uo nOlllle a complaint within Ihi. time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS Will. BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU, .. (31 The <fate ot servIce of Ihis rulu it service was hy mail is the tlnll! of l11illlil1!J, Date: Decl'JIIber ,19~, {'", i 1M' ~ Ut-y:L<.f1/i- ft, / MZt~ " rdi , SlgtldUUO 01 Prorh6t10loJry 0 Dtlputy COUHT FILE TO BE FILED WITH I'HlJ 11lONOTAnV ~ 0: ~ JUl'IU" Jfl.llflll'ub,S ll- a .:2" M :r: Q.. co I u t..u Cl In en 'j ~~ j ,) . ,~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ \,., R;E \... c;;, ~~ ~ Cl~ ("I '" l~ '"'7' 4 V) ~5~ C) ~ ::r ffii6 ~ .~ .....u. :3 CJ \.J ;:r- )- ,\., \,1' r. "'> r0 en !. ~ .., ~ ~ ~ -"'.0\' <---UO SI1l!(hw UU!\'.iIUlUIIJ:J ^~ ,'.'I.JIJjO/rJ.1/1/.l ,~"ww l/.',~' 1/,11'/1'1;1' Wfll/,\l ,1U'J,J(II"/./'HU III JJtllI'ljii,S -'--01 ,------- -...----- u JO AVU .'.'.---.....'SIHl Jf~ Jl-JOnu OJlIlll:Jsnns rtNV IrtJWlIl,J:Jltl NtJOMS OluliJlJ Ihlq~li;ill! llJldOilJ 'i,litPUii!j, 'I!CUI Ipahlls!ll,Jl) 1j1;lIjI11.1:1) All 1 i il;J!I\I,I'. jl'lln~ldd All ['J lil '_n___ '---II11ILI"",IlPPI' ~l',\' ,'qnlj dljlllHHjf., 01 I'iJolilllilihll' ,lilt lIIlilll WilllllV 10 ;I,lt\lIN .IMIII" ,ilfl lillll\updlllll,t,lI' IHII'llIul.l:) " .ttt:! 01 iijl11l till I l},ft\.,l'i I 111\11 j.ltHml p\ll! L.J 'lHilhllllhHpl'lIl' \rl!.n.lI 'i...iJplJ;l~ '!lPlI) IPoll<l\!,i!idl) IP.J!Plhl.J) Aq [-'I ;J:li,\J,l'. ll'llll"'dtl '("t 11 ~.- ..~ tit '--- lltl _n "{,lull:ll} ',ldt(:'jldl' All lllhtll 11111' '!ll<lldq P;lIPI'III! llh,}:)dl \, hil'Hla~ 'II"UJ IP,1IiIJ'i1li,)l) IPdljJllil:l) Aq"['J ',I:l!!'\JII'\ 1'!t1u'..I,HI hi [] 'Hi' -- ;./:!!.\J,'" jO ,ill'P) lit) ul,II"1/1 P,1l1'111i!Si1P 1I,)Ii~nr \:l'lI!>IO ;HlI Illldn ,-----------~-.- 'oN ';l';lltl U(J'llltlHI,:J 'j",llltIVlll ;i:lIjrlN .dllll1\do:J.... 1"] p;h\l,l~ IIPIJllllIlJj" III 11"01,\',', Aq,llOlIt I :11^,vOI::l::l'o' ,.. ~ -~--- ---- JO ^lNnO~ VlflH1^'ASNN:1tI JO Hi 1VJMNOWVo.!O:> (~',""()q iJlf/f'j,llfI{II' ,!)dlf:J '/I.'ih/(/I')tJ ,/.'/.IJ()lJ Ol/J filil/!J UJ1_'JV S,( \I(j (;;,1 .71\f:1 /l/JJU lilt OJ "11:.1 .In J_S/lt\"ul,",).\"}O ICloH/S!JIl) 1NI\tldINO:l 311:! 01 ,l1nU ON\t 1\t3ddV :!O 3:J110N ::10 3:lIMJ3S ::10 ::I00Hd NOTICE OF APPEAL ~NWIAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBBRLAND COUNTY (9th JUOICIAL OISTRICT FROM DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT COMMON PLEAS No, 95 -70'16 ~ T~ c NOTICE OF APPEAL ~ ' " ' Notice II given tha,'tho apl-lellnnt has liled in Ihe ilhuvt! Cuurt 01 Commun PItHU un lIlIPl'al horn thu judgmul1t rtmcJmml by the District Justice on tho uatu and in thu casu n'iufltionud below, " ," .......0.. "..."..".., I CIf" ..,' cun,"~ a~ ~A". 'l.'; 11""'--1 , D.J.lUlO6rt v. _I we " - II!' ....... at' .".LL"'" t. 99 Pront' Street : APPLIAtl.1l SIlRVI<'1l CO. I'" ca.. West Pairvicv PA 17015 'I..........." ..,.. ... HI..IIII."t' nil ,.... CA" 11II""'-"'" UOI/95 PATSY' .llDY '0, 1I00",.TU"1t a.. "......."'"ilY Dill "'S ""TOIt..,,,, a. ....., APPLIArCl SIlRVICB CO. c....... NO, TA la'15 . CV.fIIJOlW63.95 LT 10% .. Thll block will be .Igned ONLY when thl. not.tion Is ,ellulrod undor P., R.C,P.J.P. No. 10088. Thl. Notlco of Appoal, wh.n received by tho Dlstrlcl Ju.tlc.. will ope,.t. a. a SUPERSEDEAS to tho judgm.nt for pu.....lun inlhi. ca... Appliance .Service Co. By: '/' . . ..- /..,44--.-"7 . OWner /I .!'Pell.llt w.s CI.imallt 1_ Pa. R.C,P,J.P. No. /001161 ill actioll before District Justice, he MUST FILE A COMPLAINT withill twellty (20) clays after filillg I,is NOTICE of APPEAL, Sign,Huffl 01 PrOf/roltorary or Depurr PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE, TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE IThis sectioll of farm to be ",sed ONL Y wilen appell.tlt was DEFENDANT Isee P., R,C,P,J,P. No. lOOl(7J ill actiotl Mfore District Julti..., IF NOT USED, detach from copy of 1I0tice of aplleal to be served UPOI, appell.el, PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary PATSY' JUDY Enter rule upon ICommon Pl.a. No. qS-- , appell..hl, to fIl. a complaint I" thl. appell . No,m" 01 jJ/lpell..(JJ 7 0'1 ~ ~ T~~ withinlwl!nty 1201 day. aflC~:.or,~i~o of rul'\;,,?!.!.~lf.' U1l\'y of judgm.nt of non prol. !~p}"li!.lce "'" ole-,_ ~o. ~ ~ ~ ""'-' By: /' c. l, 4 . ~r _ '\ _ ~ ~'-.J e J 15;9".ru", 01 IPPtlll.nt or hI' IIttOrM., or.",.' RULE: To m JUDY ..ppell..Is) Lee 'nor-ner Nallle of .pptJllfJlJ(s} U) You arc notified that a rulo is hereby elllurcclupon you to fila a cornpluint in this uPPl.lal within tWtU\ty (:20) daVI after the date of r.er"lcu of Ihls rule upon you by porsonal service ur hy em'Hied or lUuistcrcd milll. 121 If you ,10 not file a compl.lnl within thl. tlml!, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS WILL BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. ..... , ,. Dat.~r ,10 95 t~d/ t1. . , , I , . , , , , , . ,}~.:~ SI"",u,. 01 Protlfonor O."urv " ',.J I " ./ .:/ . " " t3) The date of service of this rule If 5crvicu was by l1lail is ttH! dale of milillnu, COURT FILE . '. ,,! p .0 0 \ (.11 -11 ~. .~- a -J ) ".,b.:l P1 ~I ~m t' *". - - ~,;. - c.:c -0 :~ ~o ~,c ~ s:~ ~ ~I ~ c,.) ~ \D ., PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT ., '- (This "rem' of s~rvi(:~ MUST BE Fli, E'tJ WitHIN t:..A'r~).\ \'5 A r rr I? filill!! thl' ,W(/f',' of ",,/H.'a/. Clwc}., '-'JJPIiCdlJlu bUAtlS} . I~n (IU COMMONWEAL Tli OF "ENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF Dn'''''.n ;" AFFIDAVIT: I hu,uhy .IVIl,II "' illlill'llh,,1 I ,,,,,"II i..'" ,,-,.,H' ,l!J n COllY nf thl! NOlie" of ^JlPI~lll, ClllUlIltlll Ph'.l' No, 95..70.6-. \/POI1 th\! DI!'Illlc:t JlIUicl! desiUlIlItl!d thefoin un (dare of s..vicol Dec....r-Il.-,"-. 101l5_, [.I hy 1'"",,",,1 ""'''''' [XI hy IClIllil",,1I1ruui'lu'Ullll11i1il. ,j'l,tJu,', 1Cr.~111l .lttaclwd hmuto, ilnd UpOfl .~Ill' jlppl'lll~I', (n.IIIWJ Patsy. Judy ~_~_u_..__,__. on' .DeCellbeLL-. 19 _-95_ f I l,v IJI!'''tlllill .,1!lvil'1' IXI IIV tCI~"itil'lll (ll'Ui\11!'I!tlllllilil. ~mHllJt'5 ft'ctdpt llltilched tu:uuo',; I:f, 00 ilnd fUlthtll ,h.ll I stJIvtHl till! Rule to hIe iJ COlllpl.lIllt ilt:l:OlTlPJIIYllll~lhe i1IJO\'t! Nutlt:t! uf_ ^~cJI upon thu i1Pflcllcllhl to whom tht! Rule \'\IllS .uhhl'....l'd tIIL.._DecemberJt.~_u__. 1995_, !.1 hy pl~I"lHlill SI!IVll:I'~ 1 hy Icmtiticd) (rt!t1istmmtl mail, scnder', fCCl!im i1ltadll!tl htlWtu, .i' SWORN lAFFIRMED) AND SUIlSCRlIlED IIEFURE ME THIS 13th DAY OF----DeCelllbeL___, 19__9-5. ~,- ~~~~- ~'nll"" 01 ollor',ll h<I":~:'" "fI":,, ,~":,~"""__._ T"',of flCl,' MVCOmrntUllJnt!XI)ln~IlIl~~ - ~ ~ ,lg~4' ___'C/~~_.~-~ S,!}IIiJIUrl.'ul,,"/tJIlt I NOTARIAL SEAL .' AN10INEllE F, HOR~E. S(lI'\I1' F~~L.IC H.rrll~ur&, O.UP~':I CtLnl1 "'~ C,nlmlnlDn EKplr.. April l",. 1931 . . II. Defendant Bryson returned to Ihe I'lainliO"s residence at approximately 5:00 p.m. on Monday, March 20, 1995. 12. PlaintitTpaid Defendant Bryson in advance $25.00 for Ihe service call, $20.00 for labor, nnd $20.00 for the value plus tax totaling $68.90. 13. I'laintitTreceived a receipt. a copy of which is allached as I'laintiO"s exhitit A. 14. Defendant Bryson brought the improper valve for I'laintilfs make and model dishwasher on his 5:00 p,m. Monday, March 20, 1995 visit. 15. On Tuesday, March 21, 1995, Defendant Bryson returned 10 install the valve. 16. Defendant Bryson did nolturn otT the circuit breaker when installing the valve. 17. Defendant Bryson allempted to install the improper valve by culling wires, rc-wiring, and bypassing safety circuits causing wires to melt. 18. Defendant Bryson removed the snubber from I'lalntiO"s dishwasher, an electrical safety device designed to protect the printed eircuil boards, the micro-computer and the timer from electrical damage. 19, When Defendant Bryson shorted outl'l~intiO"s dishwasher, the printed circuit boards, the micro computer and the timer were destroyed. 20. The wiring harnesses were also damaged. 21. The full extent of the damage is not known at this time. 22. Defendant Bryson admilled to the I'laintitTthat he shorted out the entire electrical system in I'laintiO"s dishwasher. 23. Defendant Bryson's allemptto rewire Plaintiff's appliance to accommodate the wrong valve caused a dangerous fire and electricnl hazard pUllingl'lnintilfs life and that of her 92-year-old mother at risk of serious bodily harl11 or denth as well as risking the loss of Plaintiff's entire residence. -2- 24, Defendant Bryson oITered to replace Plaintltrs top of the line dishwasher with 0 dlfti:rent brand- on inferior reconditioned model free of charge. 25. PlaintllT called Defendants and sold she wonted her dishwasherrepalred instead of trading for on inferior reconditioned unit. 26. Defendant Bryson then oITered to repair I'laintitrs dishwasher. 27, PIBintiITaccepted Defendant Bryson's oITer. 28. Defendants mode no further contact with PlaintllT for two weeks. 29. PlaintllT called Defendants to Inquire os 10 when Defendant Bryson would show up to repair the damage he caused to l'lainlitrs dishwasher. 30. Defendant Bryson told PlaintilT that he could not locate the printed circuit boards, the microprocessor, or any other ports needed for I'laintitrs dishwasher because they were discontinued. 31. Defendant Bryson told PlaintllT that If Plainlift. could find the ports, he would repair the dishwasher. 32, PlaintilT called 0 supplier herself and located the known ports that Defendant Bryson damaged. 33, PlalntllT called Defendant Bryson soon oller locating the ports and told Defendant Bryson where he could buy the ports and how much they would cost. 34. Defendant Bryson did not return to Plaintltrs residence to repair the dishwasher. 35, PlaintllT called Defendants again to determine when Defendant Bryson would return to repair the damage Defendant caused to I'laintitrs dishwasher. 36, Defendanls Bryson and Homer upon hearing the price of the ports, said they would not put that much money into repairing I'laintitrs dishwasher. 37. Defendant lIarner agreed to PRY an outside factory-trained representative to assess the damage that Defendantllryson eallsed. -3- 38. The factory-trained representative arrived at Ihe Plainliff's residence, assessed the damage and billed PlaintilT. (see attached Exhibit B) 39. The full extent of damages is undetenninable until repairs commenee and cenain pans known to be damaged, as well as the wiring harnesses are replaced. 40, Defendant Hamer paid $49.95 by check for the service call from the factory Irained representative, 41, Defendant Harner did not include the $3.00 tax on the service call which PlaintilTpaid in cash. 42. When apprised of the possible extent of the damages and Ihe dangerous lire and eleetrical hazard caused by Defendant Bryson after the inilial detennination from Ihe factory-trained representative, Defendant's Bryson, Hamer and ASC continued to refuse 10 pay for the repairs, 43, Defendant Hamer refused 10 pay for the damages despite repeated requests to do so. 44. The comparable model costs $849.00 plus $99,00 to install, plus tax. Count I Breach of Contract 45. Paragraphs I through 44 are incorporated herein by reference as if set fonh at length. I) Valve Replacement 46. Defendant Bryson olTered to repair Plaintiff's dishwasher by replacing a new inlet valve for consideration in the amount of$68.90. 47. PlaintilTaccepted Defendant Bryson's olTer. 48. PlaintilTpaid Defendants $68.90 in cash (see.~ttached Exhibit A). 49. Defendant Bryson breached the contract by failing 10 elTect the repair agreed upon by using the wrong valve for the Plaintiff's model. 50, Defendant Bryson failed to infonn PlainlilTthat he was not qualilied to work on Plaintiff's appliance. -4- , . 5'. Defendant Bryson attempted to rewire Plaintiff's dishwasher to accommodate the wrong valve. and in so doing. cut wires. and bypassed safety clreults designed to protect the micro-computer. timer, printed cireuit boards and other electrical devices and motors. 52, Defendant Bryson destroyed Plaintiff's appliance and did not repair the same after PlaintilT paid for such repairs, 53. Defendant Bryson rendered Plaintiff's dishwasher completely inoperable and in fact caused a fire and electrical hazard. 2) Electrleal Damaae Due To Defendant Drylon'l Rewlrlna 54, Defendant Bryson olTered to repair the extensive damage he caused to Plaintiff's dishwasher in his rewiring attempt, 55, PlaintilT accepted Defendant's olTer. 56. Plaintiff's consideration was the time and effort expended in locating parts known to be damaged. 57, Defendant breached the contract by refusing to elTect repairs upon learning the price orthe parts. 58. Plaintiff's dishwasher is completely inoperable and is in fact a fire and electrical hazard due to Defendant's actions. WHEREFORE, PlalntilT demands judgment in favor IlfPlaintilT and against Defendant's In the amount of$I073.78 plus interests and costs ofsuil. Count II Fra!ld 59, Paragraphs I through 44 are Incorporated herein by reference as Ifset forth ot length, - 5'- I) Valve Replacement 60. Defendant Bryson misrepresented 10 Plaintiff that he had the knowledge, skill and ability to repair Plalntirrs dishwasher by telling Plaintifflhat he could repair her appliance. 61, Defendant Bryson misrepresented to PhiintitT.that the valve he installed In Plaintirrs dishwasher was the correct part and that it would work properly in Plaintirrs dishwasher. 62. Defendant Bryson intended that Plaintiff be induced to act on his misrepresentation by allowing Defendant Bryson to repair Plaintirrs dishwasher for Ihe sum of$68.90. 63. Plaintlffjustiliably relied on Defendant Bryson's misrepresentations because of Defendant Bryson's employment with ASC- an established appliance repair company, and because Defendant Bryson announced he could in fact repair Plainllrrs dishwasher. 64, The complete destruction of Plaintlrrs dishwasher was the direct and prOldmate result of Defendant Bryson's willful and intenlional attempt to force a valve into Plaintirrs dishwasher which was not designed for that model dishwasher. 65, Defendant Bryson also intentionally did not turn off the circuit breaker to the dishwasher wbile working on it which contributed to the damage done to Plaintlrrs dishwasher and was also a direct and proximate cause of the damage to Plalntirrs dishwasher. 66. Because ofPlaintirrs reliance on Defendant Bryson's misrepresentations, Plaintiff not only suffered the complete loss of her appliance. but also exposure by lire and/or eleclrieal shock to severe bodily harm or death to plaintiff and her 92-year-old mother and the destruction by lire of her residence. 2) Electrical Damage Due To Derendant Bryson's Rewiring 67. Paragraphs I though 44 and 60 through 66 arc incorporated herein by reference as set forth at length. 68. Defendant Bryson misrepresented to PlaintitTthat he had the knowledge, skill and ability to repair Ihe damage he caused 10 Plaintirrs dishwasher by telling Plaintiff he could repair il. -6- 69, Defendanl Bryson misrepresented Ihallhe parts needed to repair Ihe damage thai Defendant caused were disconlinued and unavailable and therefore PlalnlilT should accepl Defendanl's deal 10 lrade Plainliffs lOp oflhe line model for an Inferior, reconditioned model. 70. Defendanl Bryson Ihen misrepresenled 10 PlainlilTlhal he was willing to repair Ihe damage he had caused 10 Plalnliffs dishwasher If PlainlilT could locale Ihe necessary replacemenl parts 10 do so. 71, PlainlilT localed Ihe necessary parts bUI Defendanl Bryson refused 10 elTecllhe repdirs he promised 10 make. 72. Defendanl Bryson Inlended Ihal PlainlilTbe induced 10 acl on his misrepresenlalions by Irading her lop of Ihe line model for an inferior, recondilioned model or in Ihe allernalive -to lake aClion and search for Ihe replacemenl parts. 73. PlainlilT juslifiably relied on Defendanl Bryson's misrepresenlalions in conducling a search for Ihe parts because of Defendanl Bryson's ernploymenl with ASC - an eSlablished appliance repair company, and because Defendanl Bryson said he could in facl repair Ihe damage he caused. 74. The complele deslruclion of Plainliffs dishwasher and subsequenl refusal 10 repair il were Ihe resull of Defendanl Bryson's willful and inlenlional acllons which rendered Plainliffs appliance useless. WHEREFORE, PlainlilT demands judgmenl in favor of PlainlilT and againsl Defendanls in the amounl of $1,073,78 plus inleresl, cosl of sui I and attorney's fees and such addilional relief so Ihe court deems necessary or proper including punilive damages In Ihe amounl of $1 5,000.00 or any grealer amounllhe court deems sufficienllo punish and deter Defendanls from further similar conducl, -7- Count III Violation orUnr.lr Tnde Pndlees and Consumer Protection Law 73 P,S. 1201-1 et. seq, 1) Valve Replacement 7S. Paragraphs I through 44 and 60 through 74 ore incorporated herein by reference os if set Ibrth at length. 76. Defendants acting through Defendant Bryson misrepresented to PlaintitTthat the valve Defendant Bryson installed in Plaintilrs appliance was of a particular style or model which was designed for use in Plaintilrs dishwasher. 77, Defendant's acting through Defendant Bryson represented to PlaintitTthat the valve he installed in Plaintilrs appliance had particular characteristics or uses that it did not have i.e. that it would work properly in Plaintilrs dishwasher. 78. Defendant's acting through Defendant Bryson in dealing with PlaintitT engaged in deceptive, unconscionable and fraudulent conduct which created the likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding on the part of PlaintitT. 79. Defendants acting through Defendant Bryson made repairs to Plaintilrs dishwasher which were inferior to or below the standard of that agreed 10 in writing. (see attached Exhibit A) 2) Electrical Damage Due To 1,)erendant Bryson's Rewiring 80. Paragraphs I through 44, and 60 through 74 ore incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in length. 81, Defendants acting through Defendant Bryson represented to PlaintitT that Defendant Bryson would repair the damage that he caused to PI~intilrs dishwasher when Defendant Bryson had no intention of doing so thus engaging in fraudulent conduct creating the likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding on the part of PlaintitT, -8- 82. Defendants acting through Defendant Bryson told PlalntltTthe partsnecded to rcpair Ihe damage Defendant Bryson caused were unavailable and discontinued when in fact they were readily available Ihus engaging 111 fraudulent conduct creating the likclihood of confusion or of misunderstanding on the part of PlaintitT. 83, Defendant Bryson misrepresented to PlaintltTthat his services to repair Plaintiffs dishwasher had uses, benefits and characteristics that they did not have in that he was qualified 10 repair the damage he caused to Plaintiffs dishwasher when In fact he was not. WHEREFORE, pursuant to 73 P,S. ~ 201-9.2., PlaintitTdemandsjudgment in favorofPlaintltTand against Defendant's in the amount of $3,221.34 plus Interest, cost of suit, attorney's fees, and such additional relief as the court deems necessary or proper Including punitive damages In Ihe amount of $15,000.00 or any greater amount the court deems suJlicient to punish and deter Defendants from further similar conduct. Count IV l\Ieglllenee 84. Paragraphs 1 through 44 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 85. Defendant Bryson had a duty to Infonn PlaintitTthat he did not possess the knowledge, skill and ability to repair Plaintiffs dishwasher. 86. Defendant Bryson had a duty to etTect repairs, in a safe, proper, and workmanlike manner, 87, Defendant Bryson installed Ihe improper valve In Plaintiffs dishwasher. 88. Defendants acting through Defendant Bryson breached the duties listed in 85 and 86 above. 89. Defendants acting throngh Defendant Bryson acted in a negligent manncr when etTecting repairs with the improper parts and no knowledge of the type of appliance PlaintitTowned. 90. Defendants acting through Defendant Bryson altercd the wiring which shortcd out and destroyed the cntire appliance. -9- 91, Defendant Bryson's actions were the direct and proximate cause of the extensive damages to Plaintiff's appliance. 92, Defendants acting through Defendant Bryson exhibited negligent and/or grossly negligent behavior in altering the wiring in Plaintitrs appliance to the point where the wires melted and the dishwasher became a tire and electrical hazard endangering the lives of PlaintilT, her 92-year- old mother, and placing Plaintitrs residence at risk of loss by tire. WHEREFORE, PlaintilTdemandsJudgment in favor of Plain tilT and against Defendants in the omount of S 1.073,78 plus interest and costs of sUil. Respectfully submitted, g~j~ Richard J, Storbecli, Esq. hD. //33186 2830 Sunset Drive Camp Hill. PA 17011 Attorney for the PlaintilT -10- ... -. """ I~ I~ ~ ~ ~~ . ~ ~ ~. .. ...... '~~ u ~>' ~ ) 0 ~ ~ ' ~ ' ' 1- ~ ,\ I .~'"' } , ~ ;0.- ! ~I~'i ~ ~ " .., it , , y l-c ~ ~ ' ~ I 1~ ~ Ii _ '< c ~ ~~1 J 5 i ., ,~ '9 ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ \f "''' II~ l ~~ ~t \.. , ' i~I~~~ A'J.: f'\ I J S ~ .......~ , ~~ ~ .1 ~~~ !- ~~ ~....... .. V) ~r" r- ,:~ ... ~ ; .. ~ ~. ' ~~ ,~~ ~.. '----=:;I- ~ ~-....;: i ~"- ;; ~~ I ~, r~ ~~ ~~....., I...~ ~J) ~ ,~ ~~ I~LG ' ~': ~~ i Qfi<: J ~..."! f '-.;~ ~~ ~ 1\ ("Ir I.~ l\i I~ ~ I" I:'l" ~ Id' I~ ~ ~.. \ 1.~ I t~ ! ~J ~ ! I i :!,.... , . . . )~si B P=- I ,; Ii' [ ~i 3; I R / !O.-)i ...' i I I I i \., 1.8 I ' i ! i R ~ IY~ .. AdO:l1l3NO.LSn:l ~ ~ . w ~" " ~i ~ i.~ ~f~- 5l .~~;- Q. ~ c='=~ ~ aU ~ :: :;:~: ~ ~~:::: ,l.~' _ -el -~ '\ ~ i -'. ~ ;q $ L! .. A k L 'ON 1OlIJNOO . .:r ~<. ~.,. .. I~ M ~ tt. :c ;::: c... >. 9~ ~ ,.. .~ v.} N Si- Lo) ill~ Ld Cl ~ ~ If) en 4, That Defendant Bryson represented to PlalntilT thdt he worked for Defendant Appliance Service Company (hereinafter" ASC"). ' Rtsponse: S, That Defendant Bryson did not Install a genuine KltchenAld or Whirlpool valve Into Plaintltrs dishwasher, Rtsponse: 6. That Defendant Bryson rewired Plalntil1's dishwasher, Response: 7, That PlalntilT Bryson did nottum 01T the circuit breaker while working on Plalntil1's dishwasher, Response: " -2- l' '. -; 8. That Defendant Bryson olTered PlaintilT a free replacement of her dishwasher with a reconditioned one, Response: 9, That the reconditioned dishwasher PlaintllT olTered to replace Plaintiffs was not a fully-automatic. push-button KitchenAid, Response: 10, That Defendant Bryson told PlaintilT the parts needed to replace the subsequent electrical damages were not available to Defendant Bryson. Response: II, That Defendant Bryson told PlaintilT the parts needed to replace the subsequent electrical damage were discontinued. Re.fponse: -3- 16. That Defendant Bryson is trained to repair this model KltchenAld dishwasher. Response: 17. That Defendant Bryson Is not trained to repair this model KltchenAid dishwasher. Response: 18. That Defendant ASC and Defendant Lee Hamer are in the business of receiving, reconditioning and selling appliances, including dishwashers. Response: 19. That the KitchenAld brand is the top of the line of dishwashers. Response: -5- PATSY JUDY Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. APPLIANCE SERVICE COMPANY AND LEE HARNER, D/B/A APPLIANCE SERVICE COMPANY, AND LEE HARNER AND BURT BRYSON No: 95-7046 CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ,;tA I, Richard J. Storbeck, Esq. Do hereby certify that on the 27 day of December, 1995, I served a true and correct copy of the PlaintiWs Request for Admissions to Defendants by depositing same in the U.S. Mail- Certified Mall- Return Receipt Requested, addressed as follows: FLOYD BA TURIN BATURIN & BATURIN 717 NORTH SECOND STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17102 ( , , I ~4~f ~ Richard J. Sto~, Esq. I.D.1I33186 2830 Sunset Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for the Plaintiff i ~ ?:: .;;.r ~~ M S:'1 :r:: ~~ i&\ c- q:j r- :',"(1) ," N ~.'}7 ." (.... (;1r~ ~ L',I L~'"" Co'::' \5 ,.'1 ~ '" U I -" ~ ~ ., M 8~ ~i :c: ." c... 9.~ i~ r- 0' N .)2.~ u m~ w c a t; In en I. Identify each penon from whom you, your attorney, or anyone acting on your behalf has obtained a statement concerning any matter relating to this action and provide the date on which any such statement was obtained. a) If any statement was obtained describe in detail the substance of each statement corresponding with the person who made It. 2. List and describe all exhibits which you intend to use at the trial of this case. -2- 5. With regard \0 the each expert idenlified In 4 above, state the following: a) the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify; b) a summary ofthe grounds for each opinion to which each expert is expected to testify. Note: As your onswer. you may allae" hereto a report signed by eae" expert. 6. Identify each separate Item of information supplied to each expert identified above for hislher review, use or consideration as a basis for fomlulatlng his/her opinion{s), including all objects and documents examined. -4- a) If so, provide the dates, names, addresses and phone numbers of all owners of such modelu and the dates of repair; 0\ b) ifso, identify model numbers and which repairs were made during employment with ASc and which were prior to such employment. 15. If Defendant ASc and/or Lee Hamer require any testing as a prerequisite to employment with ASc regarding knowledge of dishwasher repair, and the test Is oral, describe the substance of the test In detail; ifwrlllen allach a copy hereto. -8- -( r' A r !t !" "t'; -'.i , 16. Do Defendant's ASC and Lee Hamer require any training program for employees regarding dishwasher repair? .. a) if so, state the nature and duration of each program Including: formal training offered, sponsored or required, on-the-job training, or apprenticeship programs. b) ifnot, why not? ";" . ! , -9- 17. Did any of the Individuals listed In 10 and II above attend or Ilraduate any of the training program(s) listed In 16, l6(a) and 16(b) above? a) if so, identify which employee allended which programs, and give dates ofattendance for each. b) ifso, state whether or not diplomas or certificates were Issued and to whom. -10- 23. Describe In detail the specific areas of expertise of Defendant Bryson with regard to repairing KitchenAld brand dishwashers. 24. Provide a complete resume including work history and educational background for each Individual listed in II above Including dates of employment and of completion of courses in training. 25. List the names and addresses of all suppliers who supply Defendant's with parts for KitchenAld and/or Whirlpool dishwashers. -13- PATSY JUDY Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS cOUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. APPLIANCE SERVICE COMPANY AND LEE HARNER, D/B/A APPLIANCE SERVICE COMPANY, AND LEE HARNER AND BURT BRYSON No: 95-7046 CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE :;i.A I, Richard J. Storbeck, Esq. Do hereby certify that on the 27 day of December, 1995, I served a true and correct copy of the PlaintiWs Interrogatories to Defendants by depositing same In the U.S. Mail- Certified Mall- Return Receipt Requested, addressed as follows: FLOYD BA TURIN BA TURIN & BA TURIN 717 NORTH SECOND STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17102 ! . ,. '........ '. ~~ fftlnM Ric ard J. Storbeck:1lsq. 1.0. 1133186 2830 Sunset Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for the Plaintiff ~~ -" ~ ..:r M 8~ ~- .."I ~ :c u.... "- :.1; C);:J ~o ,... ~<I g: ..s ' N ,. % ~ u rsZ t.d L:i"il 0 ('_c- ll. In a 0 en PATtlY .lUDY, Plainliff III TilE COURT OF COHHOtl PLEAS CUMBERI.AND COUNTY, PENNIiYloVANIA v. No. 95..7046 APPLIANCE SERVICE COMPANY and LEE HARNER d/b/a APPLIANCE SERVICE COMPANY and LEE IIT1RNER and BURT BRYSON, De!endanls CIVIL ACTION' LAW NOTICE TO PI,ETlD TO: Richard J. Storbeck, Esquire 2030 Sunset Drive Camp lIill, PA 17011 (Tlltorney for Plainli!!) YOU ARE IIEREBY notified lo file a writlcn response to the enclosed Preliminary Objections wilhin lwenty (20) days !rom service hereof or a judgment may be enlorcd againsl you. BATURIN & BATURItI By:Jil(')'1'))( Jl-.. t: &luJL(j1:) Ho~~~a E. Balul i II, Esquire (Tlllorney 1.0. 173356) 717 Norlh Second lilreel lIarrlsbnl9, PTI ]7]02 (717) 234-2427 (At.to1'lley COI PeCcl\llilnl:1, Appliance SClviee Company and Lee lIarne! J/b/a Tlppliancu SUlvice Company and LN' Harnel) PATSY JUDY, IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA No. 95-7046 plaintiff v. APPLIANCE SERVICE COMPANY and LEE HARNER d/b/a APPLIANCE BERVICE COMPANY and LEE HARNER and BURT BRYSON, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS. APPI,IANCE SERVICE COMPANY AND I,EE HARNER D/B/A APPLIANCE SERVICE COMPANY AND LEE HARNER. TO PLAINTIFF' S COMPI.AINT TO THE HONORABLE. THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: AND NOW. to wit. this 13th day of February. 1996, Appliance Bervi':<l Company and Lee Harner d/b/a Appliance Service Company and Lee Harner, the Defendants. acting through its attorneys. Baturin & Baturin. without admittinq or acknowledging any of the averments set forth in the said Complaint to be true, in such manner and form as the same are alleged. and without answering thereto, reserving unto the said Defendants the right to file an answer in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1017, makes Preliminary Objections in the nature of: I. INSUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 1028(A)(3) 1. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to allege in Paragraphs 21 and 29 particularized damages claimed as required under 1019(f) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. Paragraphs 21 and 39 allege damage to said dishwasher. but fail to attach documentation which would itemize assessed damage as required under Rule 1019. - 1 - 3. Plaintiff's Complaint in Paragraph 4 states that Plaintiff's dishwasher is the "top of line" Kitchenaid model, however, fails to specifically state what year the subject dishwasher was made and subsequently purchased. 4. The allegations in Counts II and III of Plaintiff's Complaint are mere suppositions and lack specificity as to how Defendants acted with "deceptive, unconscionable and fraudulent conduct" as opposed to mere negligence, if any, in the alleged damage to Plaintiff's dishwasher. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Appliance Service Company and Lee Harner d/b/a Appliance Service Company and Lee Harner, respectfully request that this Honorable Court require that the Plaintiff file a more specific Complaint which sets forth allegations of fact, including proper dates, times and specific amounts, so that Defendants are able to file, if necessary, a proper answer or responsive pleading to the allegations raised in Plaintiff's Complaint. II. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS ON GROUNDS OF SCANDALOUS OR IMPERTINENT MATTER PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. I028(A)(2) 5. Defendants, Appliance Service Company and Lee Harner d/b/a Appliance Service Company and Lee Harner, moves the Court for an Order striking Counts II and III, in their entirety, from Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Rule I028(A)(2) on the grounds that they are scandalous and impertinent in that such allegations are inappropriate to the cause of said action regarding alleged damage to Plaintiff's dishwasher. 6. Counts II and III of plaintiff's Complaint hold Defendants up to distrust and scorn and impugn its honesty and integrity as a small Pennsyl- vania business while at the sallie time being inunaterial and inappropriate to prove the cause of alleged damage. - 2 - WHEREFORE, Defendants, Appliance Service Company and Lee Harner d/b/a Appliance Service Company and Lee Harner, respectfully request that this Honorable Court strike Counts 11 and III from Plaintiff's Complaint as they serve no proper or bona fide purpose to the Plaintiff's cause of action other than to highly prejudice and offend Defendants. Ill. FAILURE OF A PLEADINO TO CONFORM TO LAW OR RULE OF COURT PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 1028(Al(21 7. Paragraphs 21 and 39 of Plaintiff's Complaint fail to specifically state and itemize the extent of damage which is in violation of Pa.R.C.P. 1019(f). WHEREFORE, Defendants, Appliance Service Company and Lee Harner d/b/a Appliance Service Company and Lee Harner, respectfully request that this Honorable Court require the Plaintiff file an Amended Complaint in accordance with the Rules of Court. Respectfully submitted, BATURIN & BATURIN By: --f)1....1IC iL Po &a lw:.v~ Honi~E. Baturin, Esquire (Attorney I.D. 173356) 717 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717) 234-2427 (Attorney for Defendants. Appliance Service Company and Lee Harner d/b/a AppliAnce Service Company and Lee Harner) - 3 . PATSY JUDY Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS cOUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. APPLIANCE SERVICE COMPANY AND LEE HARNER, D/B/A APPLIANCE SERVICE COMPANY, AND LEE HARNER AND BURT BRYSON No: 95.7046 CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard J. Storbeck, Esq. Do hereby certify that on the 25th day of January, 1996, I served a true and correct copy ofPlalntiWs Complaint, PlaintiWs Interrogatories to Defendants, PlaintiWs Request for Production of Documents, and PlaintiWs Request for Admissions by depositing same in the United States First Class Mall- Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, Restricted Delivery, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: APPLIANCE SERVICE COMPANY ATIN: MR. LEE HARNER 99 FRONT STREET WEST FAIRVIEW, PA 17025 The above pleadings were received by Defendants on the 26th day of January, 1996 as evidenced by the attached signature card. ~/.~ Rlcha J. Storbec~sl(.' I.D. #33186 2830 Sunset Drive Camp Hili, PA 17011 Attorney for the Plaintiff i .~';"'_21ot_""'-, I....,wllhto.......,. I .~_I............ IallawtngHMceI(loun I .... WU''''''' iIdIhII on...,........ 01 thIa form 10 tw.. CM rMLm IN, .xtra feI): I .....- ._.........Io...........~.OI...._N_-na1 1.0 AddrU,-'IAddrMI l' .=="--- .....__.._rumIlor, 2,0 RII\rIctIdIllliWlY .TllI__...-..""""'..---......- I I tL. I /'. G ea.M'::-~/:-' \ I :::;ittnu.... ~er" ic..e () 4a. ~ (C::J, I IU",: Lee /-Ia.mer c'~ ~CeltIIId qq Fr~n1 S+r~d- CExpfMlMII C I...... I t)JeSt fairVic.W, fA /7d;'S C FlIUnl\lOllllllor C coo 1 1. I J. \1:: . x P8 Fonn l . (PrInt""") :r .II a- .... U1 :r c::, ..... .II .... fT1 9 ~ .! I ~ It J! a 8 J I I J Ji:~; ~ >> a. CJti6l IlllSV 'OO8C uuo.:l SJ ~ co . ~ <'"> M e~ ~~- '.. 9- - ... ~ ~ 5 u.. n~ ~u: 0 :::;f,;; ~ ('J .. z (1:-'" ..- ..016:1 r.:: ...:.: ~qu. -> -. ~ ..n 5 , 0' u .... .. .. PATSY JUDY Plaintiff IN mE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. APPLIANCE SERVICE COMPANY AND LEE HARNER, D/B/A APPLIANCE SERVICE COMPANY, AND LEE HARNER AND BURT BRYSON No: 95-7046 CIVIL ACTION - LA W PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT To the Honorable Judges of Said Court: And now this the 20th day of February, 1996. comes the Plaintiff to file this response to the Defendants Preliminary Objections to PlaintiWs Complaint. I. INSUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 1018 lAIl31 I. Dealed, Furthennorc, paragraph 29 docs nOllend itself to allegations of particular damages. 2. Denied. See exhibit B aUached to PlaintitTs complaint. 3. Admitted. Paragraph 4 of PlaintiWs complaint correctly states that PlaintiWs dishwasher is the top ofthe line Kitchenmaid model. The ycar of manufacture was 1985, the price was 5840.00 plus 5200.00 installation, totaling $1 04(),OO plus $62.40 tax which equals 5 II 02.40. The PlaintiWs brother-in-law purchased it brand new in December. 1985, and used it for six months until June 1986. The Plaintill' purchased the dishwasher in Fall, 1986, from her brother-in-law for $400.00. 4. Denied. This is a conclusion of law. WHEREFORE, Plaintill' requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Defendant's motion with prejudice. ./ PATSY JUDY Plaintlll' IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON !'LEAS COUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA v. API'L1ANCE SERVICE COMPANY AND LEE HARNER, D/B/A APPLIANCE SERVICE COMI'ANY. AND LEE HARNER AND BURT BRYSON No: 95- 7046 CIVil. ACTION - LAW CERTlFlC A TF. OF SERVICE I, Richard J. Storbeck, Esq, Do hereby certify that on the 20th day of February, 1996, I served a true and correct copy ofPlaintlWs Response to Defcndant's Preliminary Objections 10 Plaintitl's Complaint by depositing same in th~ United Stales First Class Mail. addressed as follows: MONICA E. BATURIN. ESQ. 717 NORTH SECOND STREET HARRISBURG. PA 17102 Riehard J, Storbc 1.0. 1133186 2830 Sunsct Drivc Camp Hill. PA 17011 Allorney for the Plaintill' ~ Cl ... l!) ,- ,~ " l~ :3<\. - '.J~ ~ ,::: ~. J ::1: ~'- ,'y.J Co . " p: r;) :..,(;, -~l N 1--' ~ ~ ..-. ,---... CO, tqii1 f!.: "'I ~.""'U.. ..... :0 \;5 ...:3 \3 CJ' , >- Ij' 17; C', " , 'i..of" t.... UJk) )..- -. l.)(-1 .~:= 0" Il:j--, (,.. i;-:i O. @;, '.r) ~ (.~1 -'," I J;'jl ~!.~ ; 1rl' I' It)... ,. ..'- II- ~0 -' L) <;i'l C.J FlLED-QFF/CE OF iH~ P:::nn.rOMJTARY 96 .!IJ!/II, .11'1 9: 21 CUMB::hI.A~,) CCU,llfY PENNS't1.Vlu\~ \ 8. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. at time of trial. 9. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 10. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 11. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 12. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 13. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and. therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 14. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 15. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. - 2 - 16. Neither admitted nor denied. plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and. tberefore. strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 17. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and. therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 18. Neither admi Hed nor denied. pi ainti ff is wit:hout knowl edge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 19. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracily of this averment and, therefore. strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 20. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff in without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the trulh or veracity of this averment and. therefore. strict proof thereof is demanded at lime of trial. 21. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a helief au to the truth or veracity of this averment and. therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 22. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore. strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 23. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief an to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof Is demanded at time of trial. 24. Neither admiU",1 nor denied. plainti[[ is wit.hout knowledge or sufficient information t.o forln il bt'l ic[ an to 1.1", truth or veracity of this averment and. thereFore, stricl proof therco[ in demand"d at \.Ime of trial. - 3 - 25. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as 10 the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 26. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 27. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 28. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 29. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 30. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 31. Neither admitted nor denied. Plainliff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 32. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or verscity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 33. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, stricl. proof tlll'reof is demand..d at lime of I rial. - 4 - 34. Neilher admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient informalion lo form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded al time of trial. 35. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is wilhout knowledge or sufficient information lo form a belief as lo the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 36. Denied. Il is denied thal Defendant Harner told Plaintiff that he would not repair said dishwasher upon learning the price of parts. Defendant Harner never knew the price of parls because he was never able lo locate the parts . 37, Admit ted. 38. Neilher admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as lo the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof lhereof is demanded at time of trial. 39. This paragraph contains no averments of fact to which a response is required. 40. Admitted. 41. Neilher admitled nor denied. Plainliff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the trulh or veracity of this averment and, therefore, slricL proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 42. Denied. It is denied that Defendant Harner refused to pay for the repairo upon learning LlII' possible cOIlL of damages La Plaintiff's dishwaoher. Defendant Harner Lried to locale parLo and callod Lhe Whirlpool diotrlbutor and called all oLher m1l'plieu;, bul Lhe parln were not available and Defendant could not locaLe Lhe parls. 43. Denied. IL ill denied LhaL DefendanL Harner refused to pay for Lhe alleged damage Lo Plainliff's dishwasher. DefendanL Harner attempted to locaLe parLs lo repair Lhe dishwasher, buL was unable La locate them. - 5 - 44. Denied. No comparable model exists at present time. Whirlpool bought Kitchenaid out and that model of dishwasher is no longer built by Kitchenaid. 45. Thin paragraph contains no avermentn of fact to which a response is required. 46. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof in demanded at time of trial. 47. Admi tted. 48. Admitted. By way of further answer, Defendant Harner reimbursed Plaintiff her $68.90. 49. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff in without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 50. Denied. Burt Bryson is a self-employed independent contractor who deals with repairing household appliances. 51. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge ur sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 52. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of thin averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at lime of trial. 53. Neither admlllml nor denied. PIJintiff is without knowledge or nufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. - 6 - 54. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 55. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 56. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and. therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 57. Denied. Defendant Harner did not refuse to repair the dishwasher. Defendant Harner did not know the price of parts because he could not locate the parts to repair the dishwasher. 58. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 59. This paragraph contains no averments of fact to which a response is required. 60. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 61. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 62. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, atrict proal thereof in demanded at time of trial. - 7 - 63. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff in without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, utrict proof thereof in demanded at time of trial. 64. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff iu without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 65. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof Is demanded at time of trial. 66. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief au to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 67. Neither admitled nor denied. Plainliff iu without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 68. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 69. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, utrlct proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 70. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without Imowledge "t uufficient information to form a belief au to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, utrict proof thereof Is demanded at time of trial. 71. Nelt.her admllted nor denied. Plaintiff Iu without knowledge or sufficient information to form a helief an to lhe lruth or veracily of thiu - 8 - averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 72. Neilher admitted nor denied. Plaintilf in wilhout knowledue or sufficient information lo form a belief as to the lruth or veracily of thin averment and, therefore, ntricl proof thereof in demanded at time of trial. 73. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff in withoul knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief an to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 74. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof In demanded at. time of trial. 75. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belj('f as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof 15 demanded at time of trial. 76. Nei ther admit led nor denied. PI al uti ff in without knowledge or sufficient information to (orm a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, s t ri ct proof thereof III demanded at time of trial. 77. Nei ther adml tl ed nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficienl information to form a bel i ef a~ 1.0 the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, slrict proof thereof is demanded at time of b ;'11. 70. Ne i the I' adml It I'd nor deuied. PlaintiH is withoul knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this avermenl and, therefore, D1ricl. prool tllI'reof ill dpmanded at lime of trial. 79. Neither admitted nor deuiod. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient. information to form a belief all to rhe truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof therf'of in demauded at Um.! of trial. - 9 - 80. Nellher admilled nor denied. Plainliff is wilhout knowledge or sufficient information lo form a holiof as to tho truth or veracity of this avermenl and, therefore, slrict ('roof thereo[ is demanded at Ume of trial. 81. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as lo the lruth or veracity of this averment and, there[oru, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 82. Neither admitted nor denied. Plalnliff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 83. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veraci ty of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereo[ is demanded at time of trial. 84. This paragraph contains no averments of fact to which a response is required. 85. Neither admit ted nor deni ed, pi ai nU ff is without knowl edge or sufficient information to form a beliaf as to the truth or veracity o[ this averment and, therefore, strict proof lhereo[ is demanded at time of trial. 86. Neither admitted nor danied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belie[ as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 87. Neither admitled nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the trulh ur veracity of this averment. and, therefore, strict ('roof thoreo! in dl'lnanded al time of trial. 88. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient informalion lo form a bel I d as 1,0 the truth or verael ly of this averment and, therefor", strid proof thereof b dl'manded at. t.ime of trial. - 10 - 89. Neilher admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficienl information lo form a bellel as lo the truth or veracity of thin averment and, therefore, strict proof lhereof is demanded at time of trial. 90. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, stdct. prool lhereof is demanded at. time of trial. 91. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information t.o form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 92. Neither admit.ted nor denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the trulh or veracity of this averment and, therefore, strict. proof lhereof is demanded at time of trial. "!II MAnER 93. Paragraphs 1 through 92 are incorporated herein by reference as if textually sel forth below. 94. Plaintiff, Pat.llY Judy, filed a Civil Complaint. t.o Docket No. 95-7046 against Defendants Appliance Service Company and Lee Harner d/b/a Appliance Service Company and [,ec lIarner and Burt Bryson on January 25, 1996, in the Cumberland Count.y Courthouse, .tlleging four (4) countll of damage to Plaintiff's dishwasher. 95. Dufendant. Bud Brynon wan nallled as a co-defendant, but was never served by Plaintiff. - 11 - 96. Defendant Burt Bryson, at the time pertinent heroin, was an independent contractor and was never an employee of Appliance Service Company and/or Lee Harner. 97. The last known address of Defendant Bryson is Six Hilltop Road, Duncannon/Perdix, Pennsylvania 17020. 90. Plaintiff called Applianr.e Service Company and Lee Harner d/b/a Appliance Service Company and Lee Hamer in Harch 1995/ to complain that her dishwasher, which was approximately ]5 years old at the time, had mal functioned. 99. Defendant. Appliance Service Company and Lee Harner d/b/a Appliance Service Company and Lee Harner then called Burt Bryson, at the time an independent. contractor, who was never under the scope of Appliance Service Company's employment. ]00. Defendant Bryson did at.t.empt to repair Plaintiff's dishwasher. 101. Defendant Bryson, therefore, is alono liable to Plaintiff for any damage that allegedly occurred as he at.t.empt.ed to repair Plaintiff's dishwasher. WHEREFORE, since Defendant. Burt. Bryson had w(\rked on Plaint.iff's dishwasher In his capacity as an independent contractor, and not. as an employee of Appliance Service Company and/or I.ee Ilarner / Defendant. Appl iance Service Company and [,ee Hamer d/b/a Appl lance Servlco Company and Lee Ilarner / rellpect.fully request t.hat. this Ilonorable Court. dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint - 12 - against Defendant Appl iance Service Company and l.ee Harner d/b/a Appl iance Service Company and I.ee Harner with prejudice and award any other relief which the Court deems just and equltable. Respectfully submitted, BATURIN & BATURIN t By: Ho Esqulre (A~ orney I.D. No. 73356) (Attorney for Defendant, Appliance Service Company and Lee f1arner d/b/a Appliance Service Company and Lee f1arner) 717 North Second Street f1arrisburg, PA 17102 (717) 234 -2427 - 13 - ~ Cl G <-. -, "- I- ~1 . )4: lU~ ,')t:.-" iE{~ -'.. '-)~ . f'~ Cl.. )~ ~k m :':'9 1 ",: {'i~ fi::!!J' o. ' !l W ~na.. r~. V1 ,,- '.n :5 (,) o. U ~ '. ~ C) ~ N r ,. (.) :.,~ ID ')~ To ,_1 CJ.. :.)~ ~ en I 5-... - '- n.. ,-rt5 "I :;1 iE l.U irlo.. (I) >~ u. tl) :;) 0 a-. U ~ M (:: tr. ~5 r;; ;~~ ';..' ()~ -0 0"~ ~t~ 01 0- Cl~ " - i r- ~," (f) , _.l~': - I+J ~... flirb F 8 L:]u... - :.i 1-1_ \.0 0 en Co) " .