HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-4448ANGELA HYKES,
Plaintiff
v.
MORGAN C. HUGHES, INGRID
HUGHES, WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT, INC., and WILLIAMS
GROVE, INC., d/b/a WILLIAMS
GROVE AMUSEMENT PARK,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02- 4yy~ Civil Term
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE
You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the
following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are
served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the
Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you
fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the
court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief
requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO
NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE
SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Cumberland County Bar Association-
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
Telephone (717) 249-6166
BERG
Greg ry M. Feather, Esq.
i. D. 9456
1 Linglestown Rd.
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
Attorneys for Plaintiff
~' l3' d ~
DATE:
JJW/complaints/hykes_refile_compl.wpd
ANGELA HYKES,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02- ~/4yP Civil Term
v.
MORGAN C. HUGHES, INGRID
HUGHES, WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT, INC., and WILLIAMS
GROVE, INC., d/b/a WILLIAMS
GROVE AMUSEMENT PARK,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, by and through her attorneys,
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by Gregory M. Feather, Esq., and makes
this Complaint against the Defendants, Morgan C. Hughes, Ingrid Hughes, Williams
Grove Amusement, Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement
Park, as follows:
1. Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, is an adult individual who resides at 200 North
Locust Street, Shiremanstown, Cumberland County, PA 17011.
2. Defendants, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc.,
d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park are corporations organized and existing under
the laws of Pennsylvania and have their registered address at One Park Avenue,
Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, PA 17055.
1
3. Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, is an adult individual who, at all times
material to this action, is the owner, agent, representative, employee and/or servant of
Defendant, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams
Grove Amusement Park, at One Park Avenue, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County,
PA 17055.
4. Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, is an adult individual who, at all times material
to this action, is the owner, agent, representative, employee and/or servant of
Defendant, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams
Grove Amusement Park, at One Park Avenue, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County,
PA 17055.
5. At all times material hereto, Defendants, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc.
and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park, acted, or failed to act,
through their agents, servants and/or employees, acting for, or on behalf of, Defendants
under Defendants' control, and within the course and scope of their authority and/or
employment with Defendants.
6. At all times material hereto, Defendants, Williams Grove Amusement,
Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park, owned and
operated an amusement park under the name of Williams Grove Amusement Park,
located at One Park Avenue, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, PA 17055.
7. On or about August 7, 1999, Plaintiff, who was 15 years old at the time,
reported to work at Williams Grove Amusement Park. Plaintiff was instructed by the
office to get a cash box and report to the ticket window to sell tickets.
8. While working her shift, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, was instructed to do
2
conflicting tasks by Defendants Morgan C. Hughes and Ingrid Hughes.
9. During her shift, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, was relieved by Nicole, another
employee of Williams Grove, so Angela could take a break. Plaintiff informed Nicole
that she had quit.
10. While the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, was walking to the pay phone to call
her mother to pick her up, two employees of Williams Grove Amusement Park
approached Plaintiff and indicated that they heard she was quitting.
11. Defendants' employees instructed Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, that she had
to come to the office and have the monies in the cash box assigned to her counted
before she could leave.
12. Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, was taken to the office while an employee of
Defendants went to retrieve her cash box at the ticket window.
13. The cash boxes are kept in a drawer at the ticket window, where any
employee has access to them.
14. Employee(s) of the Defendants took the cash box back to the office. The
employees then took the cash box into another room at the office to count the money
out of sight of Plaintiff, Angela Hykes. Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, was then informed that a
sum of money was missing from the cash box.
15. Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, told Defendants' employees that she did not take
the money.
16. Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, was then placed in a room in the office area. The
employees told Ms. Hykes to stay in the room and not come out. The door was closed.
3
17. Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, was accused several times that she took the
money and the police were going to be called. She was required to remain in the room
and was told to sit and think about what she had allegedly done.
18. After Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, was in the room for approximately 30 to
60 minutes, Defendants' owner, Mrs. Hughes, instructed two female employees to enter
the room and search Plaintiff Angela Hykes' person and possessions.
19. Defendants' female employees first searched Plaintiff, Angela Hykes,
backpack.
20. Next, Defendants's female employees strip-searched Plaintiff, Angela
Hykes, requiring Plaintiff to remove her pants, blouse, and bra and remain unclothed
while they searched her articles of clothing.
21. Plaintiff, Angel Hykes, stayed in the office for a total of approximately one
to two hours and, possibly, as long as three hours. She sat and cried. She did not try
to leave because she was scared. She could not call her parents because no
telephones were available.
22. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants,
Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove
Amusement Park, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, sustained injuries and indignities as set
forth more specifically below.
COUNT I - Respondeat Superior
23. Paragraphs 1-22 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length.
24. Defendants, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc.,
4
d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park, Inc., are vicariously liable for the intentional
and/or negligent acts or omissions of their agents, servants and/or employees, pursuant
to the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior.
25. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries
to the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence
of the Defendants, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a
Williams Grove Amusement Park, Inc., in the following particulars:
(a) In failing to have policies and procedures in effect instructing employees
how to deal with suspected employee theft.
(b) In failing to properly hire and train its employees in how to deal with
suspected employee theft;
(c) In failing to have policies and procedures in effect against falsely
imprisoning minor employees;
(d) In failing to have policies and procedures in effect against strip-searching
minor employees;
(e) In allowing their employees, servants, agents and/or representatives
conduct themselves in an unlawful manner.
26. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and/or intentional acts
of the Defendants, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a
Williams Grove Amusement Park, Inc., the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, suffered severe
emotional distress, pain, anguish, humiliation and embarrassment and various physical
injuries resulting from the false imprisonment, emotional distress and assault and
battery.
5
27. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and/or intentional acts
of Defendants, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a
Williams Grove Amusement Park, Inc., and the resulting injuries and emotional trauma
sustained by, and inflicted upon her, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has been, and will in the
future be, hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation and
from attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and
embarrassment.
28. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and/or intentional acts
of Defendants, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a
Williams Grove Amusement Park, Inc., the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes has suffered
discomfort and mental anguish, and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite
period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and
loss.
29. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, Williams
Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement
Park, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will
continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, seeks damages from the
Defendants, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams
Grove Amusement Park, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand and 00/100
dollars ($25,000.00).
6
COUNT II -False Imprisonment
Angela Hykes v. Williams Grove Amusement. Inc., and
Williams Grove Inc. d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park
30. Paragraphs 1-29 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length.
31. At the same time and place, employees of the Defendants, Williams Grove
Amusement, Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park,
falsely, publicly, and maliciously accused the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, of having stolen
money from the cash box.
32. At such time, the Defendants, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc., and
Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park's, female employees by
and through the direction of the Defendants, forcibly seized, held and detained Plaintiff,
Angela Hykes, against her will and consent by:
(a) falsely and maliciously detaining and imprisoning the
Plaintiff for several hours by placing her in a room,
closing the door, telling her she could not leave, and
threatening to call the police;
(b) compelling the Plaintiff to submit to a search of her
possessions by Defendants' female employees;
(c) compelling the Plaintiff to submit to astrip-search by
Defendants' female employees before she could leave; and
(d) In failing to have policies and procedures in effect against falsely
imprisoning minor employees.
33. Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, did not steal any money from the cash box
7
assigned to her. Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, repeatedly stated this to Defendants, Williams
Grove Amusement, Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement
Park's, employee(s) and requested to be released.
34. Plaintiffs mother was advised several days later by Defendants, Williams
Grove Amusement, Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement
Park's owner, Mrs. Hughes, that the money had actually been stolen by another
employee and was subsequently returned by that employee.
35. Defendants, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc.,
d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park's, employees refused to release Plaintiff,
Angela Hykes, but continued their forcible seizure, holding and detaining Plaintiff and
threatening her with prosecution for the alleged theft of money from the cash box. They
did not allow her to contact her parents or anyone else for assistance.
36. Defendants, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc.,
d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park's, employees acted in the aforementioned
manner without any reasonable or probable cause to falsely imprison Plaintiff, Angela
Hykes, which is contrary to the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
37. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and/or intentional acts
of Defendants, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a
Williams Grove Amusement Park, and the resulting injuries and emotional trauma
sustained by, and inflicted upon her, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has been, and will in the
future be, hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation and
from attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and
embarrassment.
8
38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants, Williams Grove
Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park, the
Plaintiff, Angela Hykes has suffered discomfort and mental anguish, and will continue to
endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical,
emotional, and financial detriment and loss.
39. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, Williams
Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement
Park, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will
continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, seeks damages from the
Defendants, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams
Grove Amusement Park, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand and 00/100
dollars ($25,000.00).
COUNT III -False Imprisonment
Angela Hykes v. Morgan C. Hughes
40. Paragraphs 1-39 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length.
41. At the same time and place, Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, falsely,
publicly, and maliciously accused the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, of having stolen money
from the cash box for personal reasons, in that Plaintiff informed Defendant, Morgan C.
Hughes, that she had quit.
9
42. At such time, the Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, ordered female
employees by and through his direction to, forcibly seize, hold and detain Plaintiff,
Angela Hykes, against her will and consent by:
(a) In falsely and maliciously detaining and imprisoning the Plaintiff,
Angela Hykes, for several hours for personal reasons arising from
her having informed Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, that she had
quit, by placing her in a room, closing the door, telling her she could
not leave, and threatening to call the police;
(b) In compelling the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, for purely personal
reasons arising from her having informed Defendant, Morgan C.
Hughes, that she had quit, to submit to a search of her
possessions by Defendants' female employees; and
(c) In compelling the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, for purely personal
reasons, arising from her having informed Defendant, Morgan C.
Hughes, that she had quit, to submit to astrip-search as ordered by
Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, before she could leave;
43. Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, did not steal any money from the cash box
assigned to her. Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, repeatedly stated this to Defendant, Morgan
C. Hughes, and requested to be released.
44. Plaintiffs mother was advised several days later by Defendants, Williams
Grove Amusement, Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement
Park's owner, Mrs. Hughes, that the money had actually been stolen by another
employee and was subsequently returned by that employee.
10
45. Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, refused to release Plaintiff, Angela Hykes,
but continued his forcible seizure, holding and detaining Plaintiff and threatening her
with prosecution for the alleged theft of money from the cash box. He did not allow her
to contact her parents or anyone else for assistance.
46. Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, acted in the aforementioned manner
without any reasonable or probable cause to falsely imprison Plaintiff, Angela Hykes,
which is contrary to the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
47. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and/or intentional acts
of Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, and the resulting injuries and emotional trauma
sustained by, and inflicted upon her, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has been, and will in the
future be, hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation and
from attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and
embarrassment.
48. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendant, Morgan C.
Hughes, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes has suffered discomfort and mental anguish, and
will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her
great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss.
49. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendant, Morgan C.
Hughes, Angela Hykes, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will continue to
suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, seeks damages from the
Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand and
00/100 dollars ($25,000.00).
11
COUNT IV -False Imprisonment
Angela Hykes v. Ingrid Hughes
50. Paragraphs 1-49 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length.
51. At the same time and place, Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, falsely, publicly,
and maliciously accused the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, of having stolen money from the
cash box for personal reasons, in that Plaintiff informed Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, that
she had quit.
52. At such time, the Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, ordered female employees by
and through her direction to, forcibly seize, hold and detain Plaintiff, Angela Hykes,
against her will and consent by:
(a) In falsely and maliciously detaining and imprisoning the Plaintiff,
Angela Hykes, for several hours for personal reasons, arising from
her having informed Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, that she had quit,
by placing her in a room, closing the door, telling her she could not
leave, and threatening to call the police;
(b) In compelling the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, for purely personal
reasons, arising from her having informed Defendant, Ingrid
Hughes, that she had quit, to submit to a search of her possessions
by Defendants' female employees; and
(c) In compelling the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, for purely personal
reasons, arising from her having informed said Defendant that
12
she had quit, to submit to astrip-search as ordered by
Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, before she could leave;
53. Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, did not steal any money from the cash box
assigned to her. Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, repeatedly stated this to Defendant, Ingrid
Hughes, and requested to be released.
54. Plaintiffs mother was advised several days later by Defendants, Williams
Grove Amusement, Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement
Park's owner, Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, that the money had actually been stolen by
another employee and was subsequently returned by that employee.
55. Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, refused to release Plaintiff, Angela Hykes,
but continued her forcible seizure, holding and detaining Plaintiff and threatening her
with prosecution for the alleged theft of money from the cash box. She did not allow
her to contact her parents or anyone else for assistance.
56. Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, acted in the aforementioned manner without
any reasonable or probable cause to falsely imprison Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, which is
contrary to the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
57. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and/or intentional acts
of Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, and the resulting injuries and emotional trauma sustained
by, and inflicted upon her, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has been, and will in the future be,
hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation and from
attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and
embarrassment.
58. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, the
13
Plaintiff, Angela Hykes has suffered discomfort and mental anguish, and will continue to
endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical,
emotional, and financial detriment and loss.
59. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendant, Ingrid
Hughes, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will
continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, seeks damages from the
Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand and 00/100
dollars ($25,000.00).
COUNT V -Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
Angela Hykes v. Williams Grove Amusement. Inc., and
Williams Grove. Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park
60. Paragraphs 1-59 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length.
61. The statements made by the Defendants, Williams Grove Amusement,
Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park, were false, in so
far as they related to Plaintiff, Angela Hykes. First, she did not steal the money from
the cash box assigned to her. Second, she has never committed any crimes. Third,
she has at all times complied with the law.
62. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants,
Williams Grove Amusement, Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove
Amusement Park, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has been, and is, injured in her good
name and reputation, to her great financial loss and damage.
14
63. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants,
Williams Grove Amusement, Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove
Amusement Park, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, suffered severe emotional distress, pain,
anguish, humiliation and embarrassment and various physical injuries resulting from the
emotional distress.
64. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants,
Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove
Amusement Park, Inc., and the resulting injuries and emotional trauma sustained by
and inflicted upon her, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has been, and will in the future be,
hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation and from
attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and
embarrassment.
65. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants, Williams
Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc. d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement
Park, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes has suffered discomfort and mental anguish, and will
continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great
physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss.
66. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, Williams
Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement
Park, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will
continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, seeks damages from the
Defendants, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams
15
Grove Amusement Park, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand and 00/100
dollars ($25,000.00).
COUNT VI - Negliaent Infliction of Emotional Distress
Angela Hykes v. Morgan C. Hughes
67. Paragraphs 1-66 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length.
68. The statements made by the Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, were false,
in so far as they related to Plaintiff, Angela Hykes. First, she did not steal the money
from the cash box assigned to her. Second, she has never committed any crimes.
Third, she has at all times complied with the law.
69. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant, Morgan
C. Hughes, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has been, and is, injured in her good name and
reputation, to her great financial loss and damage.
70. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant, Morgan
C. Hughes, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, suffered severe emotional distress, pain,
anguish, humiliation and embarrassment and various physical injuries resulting from the
emotional distress.
71. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant, Morgan
C. Hughes, and the resulting injuries and emotional trauma sustained by and inflicted
upon her, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from
performing the duties required by her usual occupation and from attending to her daily
duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and embarrassment.
16
72. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendant, Morgan
C. Hughes, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes has suffered discomfort and mental anguish,
and will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her
great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss.
73. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendant, Morgan
C. Hughes, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she
will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, seeks damages from the
Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand and
00/100 dollars ($25,000.00).
COUNT VII - Negliaent Infliction of Emotional Distress
Angela Hykes v. Ingrid Hughes
74. Paragraphs 1-73 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length.
75. The statements made by the Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, were false,
in so far as they related to Plaintiff, Angela Hykes. First, she did not steal the money
from the cash box assigned to her. Second, she has never committed any crimes.
Third, she has at all times complied with the law.
76. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant, Ingrid
Hughes, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has been, and is, injured in her good name and
reputation, to her great financial loss and damage.
77. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant, Ingrid
17
Hughes, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, suffered severe emotional distress, pain, anguish,
humiliation and embarrassment and various physical injuries resulting from the
emotional distress.
78. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant, Ingrid
Hughes, and the resulting injuries and emotional trauma sustained by and inflicted upon
her, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from
performing the duties required by her usual occupation and from attending to her daily
duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and embarrassment.
79. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendant, Ingrid
Hughes, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes has suffered discomfort and mental anguish, and
will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her
great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss.
80. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendant, Ingrid
Hughes, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will
continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, seeks damages from the
Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand and 00/100
dollars ($25,000.00).
COUNT VIII -Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Angela Hykes v. Williams Grove Amusement. Inc., and
Williams Grove. Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park
81. Paragraphs 1-80 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length.
18
82. Defendants, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc.,
d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park, by and through its agents, employees, and
representatives, intentionally and/or recklessly caused Plaintiff severe emotional
distress by Defendants' extreme and outrageous conduct.
83. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants, by and
through its agents, employees and representatives, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes,
suffered severe emotional distress, pain, anguish, humiliation and embarrassment and
various physical injuries resulting from the emotional distress.
84. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants, the
Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has been, and is, injured in her good name and reputation, to
her great financial loss and damage.
85. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and/or intentional acts
of Defendants, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a
Williams Grove Amusement Park, Inc., and the resulting injuries and emotional trauma
sustained by, and inflicted upon her, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has been, and will in the
future be, hindered from pertorming the duties required by her usual occupation and
from attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and
embarrassment.
86. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, Williams
Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement
Park, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has suffered discomfort and mental anguish, and will
continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great
physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss.
19
87. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, Williams
Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement
Park, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will
continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, seeks damages from the
Defendants, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams
Grove Amusement Park, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand and 00/100
dollars ($25,000.00).
COUNT IX -Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Angela Hykes v. Morgan C. Hughes
88. Paragraphs 1-87 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length.
89. Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, intentionally and/or recklessly caused
Plaintiffs severe emotional distress by Defendant's extreme and outrageous conduct
directed at Plaintiff for purely personal reasons, in that she informed Defendant, Morgan
C. Hughes, that she had quit.
90. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant, Morgan
C. Hughes, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, suffered severe emotional distress, pain,
anguish, humiliation and embarrassment and various physical injuries resulting from the
emotional distress.
91. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant, Morgan
20
C. Hughes, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has been, and is, injured in her good name and
reputation, to her great financial loss and damage.
92. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and/or intentional acts
of Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, and the resulting injuries and emotional trauma
sustained by, and inflicted upon her, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has been, and will in the
future be, hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation and
from attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and
embarrassment.
93. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendant, Morgan C.
Hughes, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has suffered discomfort and mental anguish, and
will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her
great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss.
94. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendant, Morgan C.
Hughes, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will
continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, seeks damages from the
Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand and
00/100 dollars ($25,000.00).
COUNT X -Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Angela Hykes v. Ingrid Huahes
95. Paragraphs 1-94 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length.
96. Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, intentionally and/or recklessly caused
21
Plaintiffs severe emotional distress by Defendant's extreme and outrageous conduct
directed at Plaintiff for purely personal reasons, in that she informed Defendant, Ingrid
Hughes, that she had quit.
97. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant, Ingrid
Hughes, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, suffered severe emotional distress, pain, anguish,
humiliation and embarrassment and various physical injuries resulting from the
emotional distress.
98. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant, Ingrid
Hughes, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has been, and is, injured in her good name and
reputation, to her great financial loss and damage.
99. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and/or intentional acts
of Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, and the resulting injuries and emotional trauma sustained
by, and inflicted upon her, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has been, and will in the future be,
hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation and from
attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and
embarrassment.
100. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendant, Ingrid
Hughes, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has suffered discomfort and mental anguish, and
will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her
great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss.
101. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendant, Ingrid
Hughes, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will
continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss.
22
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, seeks damages from the
Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand and 00/100
dollars ($25,000.00).
COUNT XI -Assault and Battery
Angela Hykes v. Williams Grove Amusement. Inc. and
Williams Grove. Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park
102. Paragraphs 1-101 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length.
103. Employees of Defendants, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams
Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park, assaulted and battered the
Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, by strip-searching her.
104. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants,
Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove
Amusement Park, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, suffered severe emotional distress, pain,
anguish, humiliation and embarrassment and various physical injuries resulting from the
emotional distress.
105. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and/or intentional acts
of Defendants, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a
Williams Grove Amusement Park, Inc., and the resulting injuries and emotional trauma
sustained by and inflicted upon her, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has been, and will in the
future be, hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation and
from attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and
embarrassment.
23
106. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants, Williams Grove
Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park, the
Plaintiff, Angela Hykes has suffered discomfort, and mental anguish, and will continue
to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical,
emotional, and financial detriment and loss.
107. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, Williams
Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement
Park, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will
continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, seeks damages from the
Defendants, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc. d/b/a Williams
Grove Amusement Park, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand and 00/100
dollars ($25,000.00).
COUNT XII -Assault and Battery
Angela Hykes v. Morgan C. Hughes
108. Paragraphs 1-107 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length.
109. As Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, assaulted the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes,
by personally attacking Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, while she was a minor, repeatedly, over
the course of her employment, through the use of foul and otherwise abusive language
and by ordering astrip-searching her;
110. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant,
24
Morgan C. Hughes, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, suffered severe emotional distress,
pain, anguish, humiliation and embarrassment and various physical injuries resulting
from the emotional distress.
111. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and/or intentional acts
of Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, and the resulting injuries and emotional trauma
sustained by and inflicted upon her, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has been, and will in the
future be, hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation and
from attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and
embarrassment.
112. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, the
Plaintiff, Angela Hykes has suffered discomfort, and mental anguish, and will continue
to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical,
emotional, and financial detriment and loss.
113. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendant, Morgan C.
Hughes, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will
continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, seeks damages from the
Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand and
00/100 dollars ($25,000.00).
COUNT XII -Assault and Battery
Angela Hykes v. Ingrid Hughes
25
114. Paragraphs 1-113 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length.
115. As Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, assaulted the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes,
by personally attacking Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, while she was a minor, repeatedly, over
the course of her employment through the use of abusive language and by ordering a
strip-searching her;
116. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant,
Ingrid Hughes, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, suffered severe emotional distress, pain,
anguish, humiliation and embarrassment and various physical injuries resulting from the
emotional distress.
117. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and/or intentional acts
of Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, and the resulting injuries and emotional trauma sustained
by and inflicted upon her, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has been, and will in the future be,
hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation and from
attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and
embarrassment.
118. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, the Plaintiff,
Angela Hykes has suffered discomfort and mental anguish, and will continue to endure
the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotional,
and financial detriment and loss.
119. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendant, Ingrid
Hughes, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will
continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss.
26
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, seeks damages from the
Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand and 00/100
dollars ($25,000.00).
COUNT XIII -Gross Nealiaence/Outrageous Conduct
Angela Hvkes v. Williams Grove Amusement, Inc., and
Williams Grove. Inc., d/bla Williams Grove Amusement Park
120. Plaintiff incorporates and makes part of this Complaint paragraphs 1-119,
as if set forth at length.
121. The actions of Defendants, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams
Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park, were outrageous and grossly
negligent, generally, and more specifically, as described below:
(a) In willfully, wantonly, and with conscious disregard for the consequences
and the safety and health of Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, falsely and
maliciously detaining and imprisoning Plaintiff;
(b) In willfully, wantonly, and with conscious disregard for the consequences
and the safety and health of Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, searching Plaintiffs
possessions;
(c) In willfully, wantonly, and with conscious disregard for the consequences
and the safety and health of Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, compelling Plaintiff to
submit to astrip-search; and,
(d) In otherwise acting with reckless indifference to the rights and safety of
Plaintiff, Angela Hykes.
122. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants, the
27
Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, suffered severe emotional distress, pain, anguish, humiliation
and embarrassment and various physical injuries resulting from the emotional distress.
123. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and/or intentional acts
of Defendants, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a
Williams Grove Amusement Park, Inc., and the resulting injuries and emotional trauma
sustained by and inflicted upon her, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has been, and will in the
future be, hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation and
from attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and
embarrassment.
124. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants, Williams Grove
Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park, the
Plaintiff, Angela Hykes has suffered discomfort, and mental anguish, and will continue
to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical,
emotional, and financial detriment and loss.
125. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, Williams
Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement
Park, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will
continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss.
126. Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, believes and, therefore, avers that her injuries are
permanent in nature.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, seeks compensatory and punitive
damages from Defendants, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc.,
28
d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand
and 00/100 dollars ($25,000.00).
COUNT XIV -Gross Negligence/Outrageous Conduct
Angela Hykes v. Morgan C. Hughes
127. Plaintiff incorporates and makes part of this Complaint paragraphs 1-126,
as if set forth at length.
128. The actions of Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, were outrageous and
grossly negligent, generally, and more specifically, as described below:
(a) In willfully, wantonly, and with conscious disregard for the consequences
and the safety and health of Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, falsely and
maliciously detaining and imprisoning Plaintiff for purely personal reasons,
in that she informed Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, that she had quit;
(b) In willfully, wantonly, and with conscious disregard for the consequences
and the safety and health of Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, searching Plaintiffs
possessions for purely personal reasons, in that she informed Defendant,
Morgan C. Hughes, that she had quit;
(c) In willfully, wantonly, and with conscious disregard for the consequences
and the safety and health of Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, compelling Plaintiff to
submit to astrip-search for purely personal reasons, in that she informed
Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, that she had quit; and,
29
(d) In otherwise acting with reckless indifference to the rights and safety of
Plaintiff for purely personal reasons, in that Plaintiff, Angela Hykes,
informed Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, that she had quit,.
129. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant, Morgan
C. Hughes, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, suffered severe emotional distress, pain,
anguish, humiliation and embarrassment and various physical injuries resulting from the
emotional distress.
130. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and/or intentional acts
of Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, and the resulting injuries and emotional trauma
sustained by and inflicted upon her, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has been, and will in the
future be, hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation and
from attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and
embarrassment.
131. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, the
Plaintiff, Angela Hykes has suffered discomfort, and mental anguish, and will continue
to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical,
emotional, and financial detriment and loss.
132. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendant, Morgan C.
Hughes, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will
continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss.
133. Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, believes and, therefore, avers that her injuries are
permanent in nature.
30
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, seeks compensatory and punitive
damages from Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, in an amount in excess of twenty-five
thousand and 00/100 dollars ($25,000.00).
COUNT XV -Gross Negligence/Outrageous Conduct
Angela Hykes v. Ingrid Hughes
134. Plaintiff incorporates and makes part of this Complaint paragraphs 1-133,
as if set forth at length.
135. The actions of Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, were outrageous and
grossly negligent, generally, and more specifically, as described below:
(a) In willfully, wantonly, and with conscious disregard for the consequences
and the safety and health of Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, falsely and
maliciously detaining and imprisoning Plaintiff for purely personal reasons,
in that she informed Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, that she had quit;
(b) In willfully, wantonly, and with conscious disregard for the consequences
and the safety and health of Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, searching Plaintiffs
possessions for purely personal reasons, in that she informed Defendant,
Ingrid Hughes, that she had quit;
(c) In willfully, wantonly, and with conscious disregard for the consequences
and the safety and health of Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, compelling Plaintiff to
submit to astrip-search for purely personal reasons, in that she informed
Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, that she had quit; and,
31
(d) In otherwise acting with reckless indifference to the rights and safety of
the Plaintiff for purely personal reasons, in that Plaintiff, Angela Hykes,
informed Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, that she had quit,.
136. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant, Ingrid
Hughes, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, suffered severe emotional distress, pain, anguish,
humiliation and embarrassment and various physical injuries resulting from the
emotional distress.
137. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and/or intentional acts
of Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, and the resulting injuries and emotional trauma sustained
by and inflicted upon her, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has been, and will in the future be,
hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation and from
attending to her daily duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and
embarrassment.
138. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, the Plaintiff,
Angela Hykes has suffered discomfort, and mental anguish, and will continue to endure
the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotional,
and financial detriment and loss.
139. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendant, Ingrid
Hughes, the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and she will
continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss.
140. Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, believes and, therefore, avers that her injuries are
permanent in nature.
32
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, seeks compensatory and punitive
damages from Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, in an amount in excess of twenty-five
thousand and 00/100 dollars ($25,000.00).
Respectfully Submitted,
Date: ~-(3-ov
Gregory .Feather, Es
I # 456
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LLP
33
VERIFICATION
THE UNDERSIGNED hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing document
are based on information that was gathered by counsel in preparation of this lawsuit. The
language of the above-named document is of counsel and not of my own. I have read the
said document and, to the extent that it is based on information that I gave to counsel, it is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the
contents of the said document is that of counsel, I have relied upoa my counsel in preparing
this Verification.
THE UNDERSIGNED also understands that the statements therein are made subject
to the penalties of 18 Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d;
DATE: ~ i3 o Z
authorities.
. .
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on
the Defendants, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc.,d/b/a
Williams Grove Amusement Park on/v, by sending a copy of the same to their
attorneys of record, David R. Breschi, Esq., Shumaker Williams, P.C., P.O. Box 88,
Harrisburg, PA 17108, by United States Mail, Certified mail, return receipt requested,
in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on September L, 2002.
HAN
By ~' % /'
~Gr ory eat ,'Esq.
%~ A rney LD. #79456
300 Linglestown Rd.
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DATE: ~~ ~~
~~
O
d
w ~
~ ~--
r~
-
,
~,
:. _
_ .,
_~
-. ~,~
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NO: 2002-04448 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
HYKES ANGELA
VS
HUGHES MORGAN C ET AL
RONALD E. HOOVER
Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE
was served upon
HUGHES MORGAN C
DEFENDANT the
at 0011:51 HOURS, on the 19th day of Sep_ ti e~er 2002
at WILLIAMS GROVE AMUSEMENT PARK ONE PARK AVENUE
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055
by handing to
SALLY LOH (SECRETARY)
a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE
together with
and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing
Service 18.00
Affidavit 5.52
Surcharge •00
10.00
33.52
Sworn and Subscribed to before
me this ~ day of
~2~ A.D.
"` >0 T'
~P othonotary
So Answers:
~~~~~~~
R. Thomas Kline
09/20/2002
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG
By: -~/
Deputy She iff
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NO: 2002-04448 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
HYKES ANGELA
VS
HUGHES MORGAN C ET AL
RONALD E. HOOVER Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE
was served upon
HUGHES INC;RTn
the
DEFENDANT at 0011:51 HOURS, on the 19th day of September, 2002
at WILLIAMS GROVE AMUSEMENT PARK ONE PARK AVENUE
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055
by handing to
SALLY LOH (SECRETARY)
a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE
together with
and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing 6.00
Service
Affidavit .00
Surcharge .00
10.00
.00
16.00
Sworn and Subscribed to before
me this Z= day of
~t~) ~~ z, A.D.
C L , ~a 7'1~ iD ,tQ,p't.,
~ Prothonotary '
So Answers:
R. Thomas Kline
09/20/2002
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG
By ~ ce~~ ~
,~eputy Sheriff
ANGELA HYKES,
Plaintiff.
v.
MORGAN C. HUGHES, INGRID
HUGHES, WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT, INC., and
WILLIAMS GROVE, INC.,
d/b/a WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT PARK
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
NO. 02-4448 Civil Term
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OF DEFENDANTS
MORGAN C. HUGHES INGRID HUGHES
WILLIAMS GROVE AMUSEMENT INC. AND WILLIAMS GROVE INC.
TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
NOW COME Defendants Morgan C. Hughes, Morgan Ingrid, Williams Grove Amusement,
Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc. d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Pazk by its attorneys, Shumaker
Williams, P.C., to make the following Preliminary Objection, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil
Procedure 1028(a)(4), to Plaintiff s Complaint:
In Count I of Plaintiff s Complaint, she purports to state a cause of action for
"Respondeat Superior" against Defendants Williams Grove Amusement, Inc., and Williams Grove,
Inc. d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park and seeks damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.
2. In Counts II through IV of Plaintiff's Complaint, she purports to state a cause of
action for "False Imprisonment" against all Defendants and seeks damages in an amount in excess
of $25,000.
3. In Counts V through VII of Plaintiff's Complaint, she purports to state a cause of
action for "Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress" against all Defendants and seeks damages
in an amount in excess of $25,000.
4. In Counts VIII through X of Plaintiff's Complaint, she purports to state a cause of
action for "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress" against all Defendants and seeks damages
in an amount in excess of $25,000.
5. In Counts XI through XII (sic) of Plaintiff's Complaint, she purports to state a cause
of action for "Assault and Battery" against all Defendants and seeks damages in an amount in excess
of $25,000.
6. In Counts XIII (sic) through XV of Plaintiff s Complaint, she purports to state a cause
of action for "Gross Negligence/Outrageous Conduct" against all Defendants and seeks damages
in an amount in excess of $25,000.
7. Plaintiff claims in Counts I through XV are premised on an investigation that
Defendants Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc. d/b/a Williams Grove
Amusement Park, its owners, and/or employees conducted, including examination ofPlaintiff, when
they suspected that Plaintiff stole money while selling tickets as an employee of such Defendants.
8. Plaintiff claims that she was injured by this investigation.
9• Thus, Plaintiff alleges that she was injured by the negligent and/or intentional acts
of her employer, Defendants Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc. d/b/a
Williams Grove Amusement Park, its owners, and/or its employees.
2
10. Plaintiff has failed to state any valid cause of action in her Complaint against the
Defendants because the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act ("PWCA") provides the
exclusive remedy against an employer for injuries occurring within the course and scope of
employment. 77 Pa.C.S.A. §481(a).
11. The legal immunity which is afforded to employers under the P WCA extends not only
to acts of negligence, but also to claims based on intentional, wanton, and willful misconduct.
12. Furthermore, as a result of the PWCA, an employer cannot be held directly or
vicariously liable to a plaintiff for any harm caused by the acts of its employees, regardless of
whether the conduct was intentional or negligent.
13. Section 411 of the PWCA provides that "[t]he term `injury arising in the course of
[her] employment' ...shall not include an injury caused by an act of a third person intended to
injure the employe because of reasons personal to him [or her], and not directed against him [or her]
as an employe or because of his [or her] employment." 77 Pa.C.S.A. §411(1).
14. The injuries alleged by Plaintiff in her Complaint are clearly compensable under the
PWCA.
15. In order for an injury to an employee, caused by the act of a third party, to come
within this "personal animus" exception to the PWCA, a plaintiff must allege that the injury was
caused for purely personal reasons and not because of his or her employment. Groff v. Southland
Corn., 956 F. Supp. 560 (M.D. Pa. 1997).
16. In an effort to circumvent the PWCA, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Morgan C.
Hughes and Ingrid Hughes falsely accused Plaintiff of stealing money `for personal reasons."
3
17. In direct contradiction of this averment, Plaintiff also contends that Defendants
Morgan C. Hughes and Ingrid Hughes, "at all times material to this action, [are] the owner[s],
agent[s], representative[s], employee[s] and/or servant[s] of Defendants Williams Grove
Amusement, Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc. d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park." See
Complaint, ¶¶3-4.
18. Plaintiffhas failed to aver in her Complaint that she was not acting within the scope
of her employment when she was allegedly injured by the investigation or that any of the Defendants
were acting outside the scope of their employment.
19. Furthermore, Plaintiff has failed to state any allegations establishing a personal
animus, concerning the conduct of Defendants Morgan C. Hughes and Ingrid Hughes.
20. A mere recital that the owners and agents ofDefendants Williams Grove Amusement,
Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc. d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park accused the Plaintiff of
stealing "for personal reasons" does not avoid the bar of the PWCA.
21. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state valid claims of "Respondeat Superior," "False
~, «
Imprisonment," "Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress," "Assault and Battery," and "Gross Negligence/Outrageous Conduct" against any of the
Defendants.
4
WHEREFORE, Defendants Morgan C. Hughes, Morgan Ingrid, Williams Grove
Amusement, Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc. d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park respectfully
request that, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(4), this Honorable Court
sustain its Preliminary Objection to Plaintiff s Complaint on the basis that it is legally insufficient.
SHUMAKER WILLIAMS, P.C.
Dated: ~ ~l ~~ I ~ oZ By I~'~~Gt C1~c~ wc1N /~
David R. Breschi, I.D. #59001
Melissa A. Swauger, I.D. #82382
P.O. Box 88
Harrisburg, PA 17108
(717)763-1121
Attorneys for Defendants
:148144
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Melissa A. Swauger, Esquire, of the law firm of Shulnaker Williams, P.C., hereby certify
that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Preliminary Objection of Defendants Morgan
C. Hughes, Morgan Ingrid,
Complaint on this date by depositing a copy of the same in the possession of the
first-class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Dated:
Williams Grove Amusement, Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc. to Plaintiff's
Gregory M. Feather, Esquire
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
P.O. Box 60337
Harrisburg, PA 17106
United States Mail,
SHUMAKFR WILLIAMS, P.C.
~~~ ~`'~ ~ ~ By ~~U ~~5~~
Melissa A. Swauger
P.O. Box 88
Harrisburg, PA 17108
(717) 763-1121
C? i
c_. r~
n,~ ; _..~
%' =--
?~ ` .,
r. i_
,,, ~~...
' ~" ~.~
Y (. '~
-f~ ..J
(ti
;~,
-:,
' ~ -,
. ;`
~~)
_L
ANGELA HYKES,
Plaintiff.
v.
MORGAN C. HUGHES, INGRID
HUGHES, WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT, INC., and
WILLIAMS GROVE, INC.,
d/b/a WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT PARK
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
N0.02-4448 Civil Term
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO: Prothonotary
Please enter the appearance of David R. Breschi, Esquire, Melissa A. Swauger, Esquire, and
the law firm of Shumaker Williams, P.C., as counsel for Morgan C. Hughes, Ingrid Hughes,
Williams Grove Amusement, Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement
Park.
SHUMAKER WILLIAMS, P.C.
Dated: ~ ~ + ~~ d ~ BY '~~~G+ ~~ ~W1GtJ`,~~~
David R. Breschi, I.D. #59001
Melissa A. Swauger, I.D. #82382
P.O. Box 88
Harrisburg, PA 17108
(717)763-1121
:144579
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Melissa A. Swauger, Esquire, of the law firm of Shumaker Williams, P.C., hereby certify
that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Entry of Appearance on this date
by depositing a copy of the same in the possession of the United States Mail, first-class, postage
prepaid, addressed as follows:
Gregory M. Feather, Esquire
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SHUMAKER WILLIAMS, P.C.
Dated: t ~ ,~ ~~J va By I l l~X/~7G~ ~L ~~nJGw~
David R. Breschi, I.D. #59001
Melissa A. Swauger, I.D. #82382
P.O. Box 88
Harrisburg, PA 17108
(717)763-1121
~ ~ o
_
~ !'J :1
i ~ _i
.J-
7r ~s .- l
v% ~" -
.
`''--
~~_ - ;;;,
ra
r;
a ~'~ ~-`
`
_^ t,s .
PRp,ECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT
(Must ~ typewritten and sulinitted in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Please list the within matter for the next A=gunent Court-
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated in fu]-1)
ANGELA HYKES,
Plaintiff
(plaintiff)
vs.
MORGAN C. HUGEIES, INGRID HUGHES,
WILLIAMS GROVE AMUSII~V'I', INC. , and
WILLIAMS GROVE, INC., 8/b/a WILLIAMS
GROVE AM[7SEMFNT PARR,
Defendants
(Defendant)
Civil mo,,,, 19 ww^2
NO. dddR -..~--r----
1. State matter to be argued (i.e.. Plaintiff's motion for new trial. defendant's
darnirrer to complaint, etc.): preliminary Objection of Defendants Morgan C.
Hughes, Ingrid Hughes, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc.
to Plaintiff's Complaint
2. Identify del who wiu ~1e case:
(a) foar plaintiff: David R. Breschi and Melissa A. Swauger
Address: ~Iiumaker Williams, P.C.
P.O. Box 88
Harrisburg, PA 17108
(b) for defendant: Gregory M. Feather
Addrnss: Handler, Henning & Rosenbert3
P.O. Box 60337
Harrisburg, PA 17106
3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has
been listed for arrn*c+_nt.
q, Argunent Court Date: December 6, 2002
~~S wUw
Hated: / 6 / /y,~ a Attorney for fie, end a~~
n D ~
C N - r
C C'~
-
z
~ c : n
~
~ --+ -
_
C ~
r~' ;~-,
r
~._` __.
'
.~.. N .
.
~ J~
` '\
JJWlbrieflprelim objectionslresponse against_hykes
ANGELA HYKES, ,
Plaintiff
v.
MORGAN C. HUGHES, INGRID
HUGHES, WILLIAMS GROVE ;
AMUSEMENT, INC., and
WILLIAMS GROVE, INC.,
d!b/a WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT PARK, ,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
NO. 02-4448 Civil Term
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
--•--•••-....+. nvvnC~l IryVK1U F1UGH
WILLIAMS GROVE AMUSEMENT INC. AND WILLIAMS GROVE INC. d/b/a
ILLIAMS GRGVF OMB ~cGiucsrr o~.~~~,., ....._..__._. _ __
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, and hereby files this Reply to
Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint filed by Defendants, Morgan C. Hughes,
Ingrid Hughes, Williams Grove Amusement Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a
Williams Grove Amusement Park, and aver the following in support thereof.
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted.
1
7. Denied. At no time does Plaintiff claim that the Defendants
conducted an investigation, rather Plaintiff claims that Defendants unreasonably
attacked and strip-searched Plaintiff without conducting a reasonable investigation. At
no time does Plaintiff claim that she was employed by the Defendants at the time that
she was unreasonably attacked.
8. Denied. Plaintiff claims that she was injured when Defendants
unreasonably attacked and strip-searched Plaintiff without conducting a reasonable
investigation.
9. Admitted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff admits that she was
injured by the negligent and/or intentional acts of Defendants, Morgan C. Hughes,
Ingrid Hughes, Williams Grove Amusement Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a
Williams Grove Amusement Park. Plaintiff denies that said Defendants were her
employer at the time of her injury.
10. Denied. The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act
("PWCA") does not provide the exclusive remedy because Plaintiff was not employed at
the time she was unreasonably attacked and forced to remove her clothes.
Furthermore, if the Plaintiff was employed, the term "injury occurring within the course
and scope of employment" does not include an injury caused by an act of a third person
intended to injure the employee because of reasons personal to him, such as is alleged
by the Plaintiff. 77 Pa.C.S.A.§411(1). See Complaint, ¶¶ 9-11, 41-42, 51-52, 89, 96,
109, 115, 128, 135.
2
11. Denied. The allegations in Paragraph 11 contain conclusions of
law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be
required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied.
12. Denied. The allegations in Paragraph 12 contain conclusions of
law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be
required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied.
13. Denied. The allegations in Paragraph 13 contain conclusions of
law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be
required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied.
14. Denied in part. Plaintiff s injuries may or may not be compensable
under the PWCA, however, the PWCA is not the Plaintiff's exclusive remedy in this
matter and Plaintiff has successfully alleged an action which is compensable at
common-law.
15. Denied. The allegations in Paragraph 15 contain conclusions of
law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be
required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied.
16. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants, Morgan C. Hughes and Ingrid Hughes, falsely accused Plaintiff
of stealing money for purely personal reasons. It is denied that this was done solely in
an effort to circumvent the PWCA.
17. Admitted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff admits that she alleged
that Defendants, Morgan C. Hughes and Ingrid Hughes, "at all times material to this
3
action [are] the owners[s], agent[s], representative[s], employee[s] and/or servant[s] of
Defendants, Williams Grove Amusement Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams
Grove Amusement Park. It is denied that the above allegation is in contradiction to the
allegation that Defendants, Morgan C. Hughes and Ingrid Hughes, falsely accused
Plaintiff of stealing money for purely personal reasons. If the third-party attack
exception applies, an employee is permitted to maintain acommon-law action against
the employer, typically on the theory that the employer was negligent in failing to take
precautions necessary to prevent a foreseeable attack by athird-party. Kohler v.
Kohler v: McCrory Stores, 532 Pa. 130, 615 A.2d 27 (1992); Krveski v Schott Glass
Technolo~c ies Inc , 426 Pa. Super 105, 626 A.2d 595 (1993). Plaintiff alleged such a
cause of action. See Complaint, ¶ 25. Furthermore, A co-employee may, under certain
circumstances, be considered "a third person" within the meaning of the 77 PS §411 (1)
excluding coverage for injuries caused by an act of a third person intended to injure the
employee because of reasons personal to him, and not directed at him as an employee
or because of his employment. Kohler v McCrory Stores, 532 Pa. 130, 615 A.2d 27
(1992).
18. Denied. Plaintiff, in her Complaint, repeatedly alleged that she
had quit her employment with Defendants and Plaintiff repeatedly alleged that
Defendant's, Morgan C. Hughes and Ingrid Hughes knew that she had quit, in that they
forced her to remain on the premises. See Complaint, ¶¶ 9-11, 41-42, 51-52, 89, 96,
109, 115, 128, 135.
19. Denied. Plaintiff alleges Defendants, Morgan C. Hughes and Ingrid
Hughes', personal animus arose when they found out that she had quit her employment
4
and then ordered, for such purely personal reasons, that Plaintiff be held against her
will, have her clothing removed, and have her body searched for money that she was
falsely accused of taking. See Complaint ¶¶ 9-11, 41-42, 51-52, 89, 96, 109, 115, 128,
135. Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, Morgan C. Hughes and Ingrid
Hughes', personal animus towards the Plaintiff manifested itself during and after the
period of her employment with Defendants, in that Defendants, Morgan C. Hughes and
Ingrid Hughes', personally attacked Plaintiff while she was a minor, repeatedly, through
the use of foul and otherwise abusive language. See Complaint, ¶¶ 109,115.
20. Defendant's paragraph 20 does not call for a response. However,
Plaintiff incorporates her same response her paragraphs 18 and 19 in support of her
allegation of personal animus on behalf of Defendants, Morgan C. Hughes, Ingrid
Hughes, Williams Grove Amusement Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams
Grove Amusement Park.
21. Denied. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-20 into this response
and for reasons stated in those paragraphs, Plaintiff states valid claims for "Respondeat
Superior," "False Imprisonment," "Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress," "Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress," "Assault and Battery," and "Gross Negligence/
Outrageous Conduct" against Defendants, Morgan C. Hughes, Ingrid Hughes, Williams
Grove Amusement Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement
Park.
5
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, respectfully requests that this
Honorable Court dismiss Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint of the
Defendants, Morgan C. Hughes, Ingrid Hughes, Williams Grove Amusement Inc., and
Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park and enterjudgment in
favor of Plaintiff.
Respectfully Submitted,
Date: ~~~?~ HANDLE NNING $..R6S BERG LLP
Gregory M. Feather, Esquire
No. 79456
00 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000 phone
(717) 233-3029 facsimile
6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on
the Defendants, Morgan C. Hughes, Ingrid Hughes, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc.,
and Williams Grove, Inc.,d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park by sending a copy of
the same to their attorneys of record, David R. Breschi, Esq., Shumaker Williams,
P.C., P.O. Box 88, Harrisburg, PA 17108, by United States Mail, Certified mail, return
receipt requested, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on November ~ , 2002.
LLP
By
egory M. Feather, Esq.
torney I.D. #79456
1300 Linglestown Rd.
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DATE: !/ ~ bZ
ANGELA HYKES,
PLA-NTIFF
V.
MORGAN C• HUGHES, GROVE
INGRID HUGHES, WILLI WILLIAMS
AMUSEMENT, INC. AND
GROVE, INC~ d~b~a WILLIAMS
GROV DEFENDANTST PARK,
COMMON PLEAS OF
IN THE COURT ~~UNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CUMBERLp,ND
02_4448 CIVIL TERM
TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
BEFORE BAYLEY J. AND HESS J•
ORDER OF COURT
the preliminary objection of
~~,S'rday of January, 2003,
this ~ NTED. Plaintiff s
AND NOW,
laintiff s complaint in the form of a demurrer, IS GRA
defendants to p
complaint, IS DISMISSED.
Gregory M. Feather, Esquire
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
For Plaintiff
David R. Breschi, Esquire
p.p. Box 88PA 17108
Harrisburg,
For Defendants
nom,-°,~,P'`'•L i , ~ i , 0 3
:sal
[f )
_._
-_. J
ANGELA HYKES,
PLAINTIFF
V.
MORGAN C. HUGHES,
INGRID HUGHES, WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT, INC. AND WILLIAMS
GROVE, INC. d/b/a WILLIAMS
GROVE AMUSEMENT PARK,
DEFENDANTS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
02-4448 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS
TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
BEFORE BAYLEY, J. AND HESS J.
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
Bayley, J., January 21, 2003:--
Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, filed a complaint against defendants, Morgan C. Hughes,
Ingrid Hughes, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc. d/b/a Williams
Grove Amusement Park, seeking damages on causes of action for false imprisonment,
negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and
assault and battery. Morgan Hughes and Ingrid Hughes are averred to be owners,
agents and employees of Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. In her complaint, plaintiff
avers that on August 7, 1999, when she was fifteen years old, she was employed by
defendants as a ticket taker at the Williams Grove Amusement Park. During a work
shift, she was relieved by Nicole, another employee, so she could take a break.
Because she was upset at having been given "conflicting tasks" by Morgan Hughes and
02-4448 CIVIL TERM
Ingrid Hughes, she told Nicole "that she had quit." As she was about to telephone her
mother to pick her up, employees of defendants told her she had to come to an office
so that the money in her cash box could be counted. In the office the money was
counted and plaintiff was told that some was missing. She denied taking any money.
She was told that the police were being called and that she could not leave. Two
female employees of defendants searched her backpack, and strip searched her. She
was not allowed to leave until at least an hour had passed. She was later informed that
the money she had been accused of stealing was taken by another employee, and had
been returned. Plaintiff avers that the actions taken against her by defendants were for
personal reasons because she told Morgan Hughes and Ingrid Hughes that she had
quit.
Defendants filed a preliminary objection to plaintiffs complaint maintaining that it
must be dismissed because plaintiff has an exclusive remedy under the Worker's
Compensation Act.' A demurrer should only be sustained where the complaint is
insufficient to establish the pleader's right to relief. County of Alleghany v.
Commonwealth, 507 Pa. 360 (1985). A demurrer admits as true all well pleaded,
material, relevant facts and every inference fairly deducible from those facts. Id.
A common law action against an employer for a work related injury, which
generally includes intentional torts, is barred by the Worker's Compensation Act.
' 77 P.S. § 1 et seq.
-2-
02-4448 CIVIL TERM
Poyser v. Newman 8~ Co., 514 Pa. 32 (1987); Kline v. Arden H. Verner Co., 503 Pa.
251 (1983). The Act covers an "injury to an employe, regardless of his previous
physical condition, arising in the course of his employment and related thereto ..."
77 Pa.C.S. § 411(1). (Emphasis added.) Section 411(1) provides that a compensable
injury under the Act includes:
All other injuries sustained while the employe is actually engaged in the
furtherance of the business or affairs of the employer, whether upon
the employer's premises or elsewhere, and shall include all injuries
caused by condition of the premises or by the operation of the
employer's business or affairs thereon, sustained by the employe,
who, though not so engaged, is injured upon the premises occupied
by or under the control of the employer, or upon which the employer's
business or affairs are being carried on, the employe's presence
thereon being required by the nature of his employment. (Emphasis
added.)
Defendant maintains that plaintiffs claims are within the jurisdiction of the
Worker's Compensation Act because the investigation it conducted when it suspected
that plaintiff had stolen money while selling tickets was done in furtherance of her
employment and in the course of her employment. Plaintiff maintains that her causes
of action arose after she quit her employment; therefore, this suit is not barred by the
Worker's Compensation Act. We agree with defendants that, accepting as true
plaintiff's pleading of facts and every inference fairly deducible therefrom, plaintiffs
z Under the Worker's Compensation Act, an employee may recover for psychological
stimulus causing physical injury; physical stimulus causing psychic injury; and
psychological stimulus causing psychic injury. Whiteside v. Workmen's
Compensation Appeal Board, 650 A.2d 1202 (Pa. Commw. 1994).
-3-
02-4448 CIVIL TERM
injuries occurred by operation of her employer's business during an investigation of her
having just stolen money while on the business premises. As such her presence was
required by the nature of her employment. Accordingly, plaintiff was engaged in the
furtherance of her employer's affairs at the time that her alleged injuries occurred.
Simply saying she quit was not, under the circumstances, sufficient to constitute a
break in the course of her employment during the investigation that was conducted on
the employer's premises immediately after she was accused of stealing.
Plaintiff further maintains that Section 411(1) of the Worker's Compensation Act,
which provides an exception to the general rule that work related injuries includes
intentional torts, warrants that this suit should proceed.
The term "injury arising in the course of his employment," as used in this
article, shall not include an injury caused by an act of a third person
intended to injure the employe because of reasons personal to him,
and not directed against him as an employe or because of his
employment ... (Emphasis added.)
This provision has been interpreted in Vosburg v. Connolly, 405 Pa. Super. 121
(1991), to permit an employee to maintain a common law tort action against an
employer:
whenever his or her injury is the result of an attack or assault by a third
person or fellow employee for reasons that are personal to the attacked
and not connected with the victim's employment. To fit within this
exception, the third party's or fellow employee's act must have been
motivated by his animosity against the injured employee. If the third
party would have attacked a different person in the same position as
the injured employee, the attack falls outside the "third party attack"
exception. (Emphasis added.)
-4-
02-4448 CIVIL TERM
The theory for allowing such a suit against an employer is that the employer was
negligent in failing to take precautions necessary to prevent a foreseeable attack by a
third party. Kohler v. McCrory Stores, 532 Pa. 130 (1992). In order to set forth a
valid cause of action the employee must assert that his or her injuries are not work-
related because the injury was caused by a co-worker for purely personal reasons. Id.
Plaintiff argues in the case sub judice, that this exception applies since she has
pleaded that Morgan C. Hughes and Ingrid Hughes caused her injury because they
found out that she had quit her employment; therefore, the actions they directed against
her were personal. The logic of this argument escapes us. If the conduct that plaintiff
has pleaded was directed against her was because she quit her employment, quitting
was certainly work related. Saying it was personal is a conclusion not supported by the
facts pled. A pleader's conclusions are not admitted as true by a demurrer. County of
Alleghany v. Commonwealth, supra. The exception in Section 411(1) of the Act for
conduct which is personal to the act of a third person does not apply to this case.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed because she
has an exclusive remedy under the Worker's Compensation Act. Accordingly, the
following order is entered.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ~ day of January, 2003, the preliminary objection of
defendants to plaintiffs complaint in the form of a demurrer, IS GRANTED. Plaintiffs
complaint, IS DISMISSED.
-5-
02-4448 CIVIL TERM
Gregory M. Feather, Esquire
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
For Plaintiff
David R. Breschi, Esquire
P.O. Box 88
Harrisburg, PA 17108
For Defendants
:sal
Edgar
i
-6-
ANGELA HYKES,
Plaintiff
v.
MORGAN HUGHES,
INGRID HUGHES,
WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT, INC., and
WILLIAMS GROVE, INC.,
d/b/a WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT PARK
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
NO. 02-4448 Civil Term
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE OF APPEAL
NOTICE is hereby given that Plaintiff, ANGELA HYKES, hereby appeals to the
Superior Court of Pennsylvania from the Order entered in this matter on the 21st day
of January, 2003. This Order was entered in the docket, .as evidenced by the docket
entry, attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked, '"Exhibit A."
Respectfully submitted,
HAND , HENAFF~G~&. SI
;-
.__,,_
By l1
eg M. Feather,- Esq.
/~.D. # 9456
43$0 Linglestown Rd.
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-200(1
NBERG, LLP
Attorneys for Plaiintiff
DATE: ~~3J~
YYS510 Cumberland County Protrionotary s Uzzice rayc 1
Civil Case Inquiry
2002-04448 HYKES ANGELI; (vs) HUGHES MORGAN C ET AL
Reference No... Filed........ .• 9/17/2002
11.23
Case Type...... COMPLAINT
Judgment...... .00 Time. ...
Execution Date 0/00/0000
Judge Assigned:
Disposed Desc.: Jury Trial....
Disposed Date.
0/00/0000
-
------- Higher Crt 1.:
------------ Case Comments ----- Higher Crt 2.:
General Index Attorney Info
HYKES ANGELA PLAINTIFF FEATHER GREGORY M
200 NORTH LOCUST STREET
SHIREMANSTOWN PA 17011
HUGHES MORGAN C DEFENDANT BRESCHI DAVID R
WILLIAMS GROVE AMUSEMENT PARK
ONE PARK AVENUE
MECHANICSBURG PA 17055
HUGHES INGRID ~ DEFENDANT BRESCHI DAVID R
WILLIAMS GROVE AMUSEMENT PARK
ONE PARK AVENUE
MECHANICSBURG PA 17055
WILLIAMS GROVE AMUSEMENT INC DEFENDANT BRESCHI DAVID R
WILLIAMS GROVE AlyIUSEMENT PARK
ONE PARK AVENUE
MECHANICSBURG PA 17055
WILLIAMS GROVE AMUSEMENT PARK DEFENDANT BRESCHI DAVID R
WILLIAMS GROVE P1"IUSEMENT PARK
ONE PARK AVENUE
MECHANICSBURG PA 17055
* Date Entries
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
9/17/2002 COMPLAINT
9/20/2002 SHERIFF'S FILE RETURNED FILED.
Case T'ype: COMPLAINT & NOTICE Ret Type.: Regular
Litigant.: HUGHES MORGAN C
Addre:~s..: WILLIAMS GROVE AMUSEMENT PARK ONE PARK AVENUE
Ctyy/St./Z MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055
Hnd Ta: ALLY LOH (SECRETARY)
Shf/D ty.: RONALD E. HOOVER •.
Date/Time: 09/19/2002 0011:51
Costs....: $33.52 Pd By: HANDLER, HENNI:NG & ROSENBERG 09/20/2002
9/20/2002 SHERIFF'S FILE RETURNED FILED.
Case Type: COMPLAINT & NOTICE Ret Type.: Regular
Litigant.: HUGHES INGRID
Address..: WILLIAMS GROVE AMUSEMENT PAF:K ONE PARK AVENUE
Ctyy/St/Z MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055
Hnd To : -•-ALLY LOH ( SECRETARY )
Date/~I'ime: 09/ 9/2002HOOVE0011:51
Costs....: $16.00 Pd By: HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG 09/20/2002
10/14/2002 PRELIP~INARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFT MORGAN C: HUGHES INGRID HUGHES
WILLIP..MS GROVE AMUSEMENT INC AND WILLIAMS GROVE INC TO PLFF'S
COMPL~~INT BY DAVID R BRESCHI ESQ FOR DEFT
10/14/2002 WILLI~~4S GROVETAMUSEMENTAINC AND W~LLIAMS GROVESINCGD/B/AUWILLIAMS
GROVE AMUSEMENT PARK - BY DAVID R BRESC'_HI ESQ
---------------------------------------------------------------------
10/14/2002 PRAEC:CPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT - PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF
DFTS ARORGAN C HUGHES INGRID HUGHES WILI~IAMS GROVE AMUSEMENT INC
AND WTLLIAMS GROVE INC TO PLFF'S COMPLAINT - BY MELISSA A SWAUGER
ESQ FUR DEFTS
EXHIBIT A
PYS510 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Page
r: _ Civil Case Inquiry ~ -
. ;
2002-04448 gyKES ANGELA (vs) HUGHES MORGAN C ET AL -
Reference No... Filed......... 9/17/2002
Case Type...... COMPLAINT Time. ... 11.23
Judgment..... .00 Execution Date 0/00/0000
Judge Assigned: Jury Trial....
Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. 0/00/0000
------------ Case Comments ------------- Higher Crt 1.:
Higher Crt 2.:
11/04/2002 PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFTS MORGAn; C HC>UGHES INGRID HUGHES WILLIAMS
GROVE AMUSEMENT INC AND WILIAMS GROVE INC DBA WILLIAMS GROVE ~ -
AMUSEMENT PARK'S PRELIMINARY OBJF;CTIOnfS TO THE PLFFS COMPLAINT -
BY GREGORY M FEATHER ESQ
1/21/2003 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 1/21/03 - IN RE; PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF
DEFTS TO PLFFS COMPLAINT - IS GRANTED PLFFS COMPLAINT IS
DISMISSED - BY THE COURT EDGAR B BAYLE;Y J COPIES MAILED 1/21/03
1/21/2003 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 1/21/03 - TN RE~ PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF
DEFTS TO PLFFS COMPLAINT - GRANTE7 AnfD PLFFS COMPLAINT IS
DISMISSED - BY THE COURT EDGAR B BAYLE;Y J COPIES MAILED 1/21/03
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY' - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*************************************************a•******************************
* Escrow Information
* Fees & Debits Beq Bal Py*mts/Ad~ End Bal
******************************** ******** ****** ******~,t***********************
COMPLAINT 35.00 35.00 .00
TAX ON CMPLT .50 .50 .QO
SETTLEMENT 5.00 5.00 .OG
AUTOMATION 5.00 5.00 .OC
JCP FEE 5.00
-------------- 5.00 .00
-
50.50 --------- ---
50.50 ---------
.00
* End of Case Information *
ANGELA HYKES,
Plaintiff
v.
MORGAN HUGHES,
INGRID HUGHES,
WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT, INC., and
WILLIAMS GROVE, INC.,
d/b/a WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT PARK
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
. NO. 02-4448 Civil Term
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ATTORNEYS' CERTIFICATION
REGARDING TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
I, GREGORY M. FEATHER, hereby certify that there is no verbatim record
of the proceedings in the above-captioned matter.
HANDLERrHf NNING
By r~
regory ~ttier,-E
A rney II. D. #79456
13 Lincllestown Rd.
rrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 23F~-2000
Date: ~C~.'~~~3 Attorneys, for Plaintiff
RG, LLP
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE:
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on the
following:
The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley, Judge
Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County
Defendants, Morgan Hughes, Ingrid Hughes, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc.,
and Williams Grove, Inc.,d/b/a Williams Grove Amuserent Park,
c/o David R. Breschi, Esq., Shumaker Williams, P.C.,
P.O. Box 88,
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Attorneys of Record to Defendants
Pamela Shaeffer, Court Reporter,
Cumberland County
Taryn Dixon, Court Administrator
Cumberland County
by United States Mail, first-class service, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on February .~, 2003.
HANDLER,-~EN~NING 8~6~EN~RG, LLP
By
cja'egory nn. r~
Attorney I . D. #79456
1 00 Linglestown Rd.
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
Date: ~~ ~?
Attorneys for Plaintiff
~~
W
W
~i
Lu
O
r
\~
C
~-
~
x
~ " ~ _
'
f , ~~ ~
~
G .?
~ -
~
_
~ "'
~~ ~-'
_
1. ..~ ,,
~' '_i
:
~_
tr
<J7 ==3
-~c:
ANGELA HYKES, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
:CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
v, :CIVIL ACTION -LAW
MORGAN C. HUGHES, INGRID
HUGHES, WILLIAMS GROVE : N0.02-4448 Civil Term
AMUSEMENT, INC., and
WILLIAMS GROVE, INC.,
d/b/a WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT PARK
Defendants
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: ANGELA HYKES, Plaintiff
-and-
GREGORY M. FEATHER, ESQUIRE, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP,
Plaintiffs' attorney
You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed New Matter of Defendants
Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc. within twenty (20) days from service
hereof or a judgment maybe entered against you.
Dated: `l ~ ~c~-/(~j By ~~U U ~J y.`CW~
Melissa A. Swauger, I.D. #82382
P.O. Box 88
Harrisburg, PA 17108
(717)763-1121
Attorney for Defendant
ANGELA HYKES,
Plaintiff
v.
MORGAN C. HUGHES, INGRID
HUGHES, WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT, INC., and
WILLIAMS GROVE, INC.,
d/b/a WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT PARK
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
NO.02-4448 Civil Term
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS WILLIAMS
GROVE AMUSEMENT, INC. AND WILLIAMS GROVE, INC.
NOW COME Defendants, Morgan C. Hughes, Ingrid Hughes, Williams Grove Amusement,
Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc., by their attorneys, Shumaker Williams, P.C., to answer the
Complaint filed in the above-captioned matter, averring as follows:
1. Denied. Afterreasonable investigation, Defendants are without sufficient information
or knowledge to admit or deny the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 1 of the Complaint
and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial.
2. Denied as stated. Williams Grove, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with an
address of One Park Avenue, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 171)55. Williams Grove Amusements,
Inc. is a foreign business corporation registered in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with an
address of One Park Avenue, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055. By way of further response,
Williams Grove Amusement Park is a fictitious name owned by Williams Grove, Inc.
3. Denied as stated. Defendant Morgan C. Hughes is the president of Williams Grove
Amusements, Inc.
4. Admitted with clarification. Defendant Ingrid Hughes is an employee of Williams
Grove, Inc. and Williams Grove Amusements, Inc. In addition, Williams Grove Amusement Park
is a fictitious name owned by Williams Grove, Inc.
5. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 5 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied.
6. Admitted with clarification. Williams Grove Amusement Park is a fictitious name
owned by Williams Grove, Inc.
7. Admitted with clarification. Plaintiff was instructed by one of Defendants'
employees to report to the ticket window to sell tickets.
8. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[w]hile working her shift, Plaintiff, Angela
Hykes, was instructed to do conflicting tasks by Defendants Morgan C. Hughes and Ingrid Hughes."
9. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff was relieved by
Nicole, another employee of Defendants. The remaining averments set forth in paragraph 9 of the
Complaint aze denied on the basis that after reasonable investigation, Defendants are without
sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny these remaining averments in paragraph 9 of
the Complaint and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial.
10. Admitted in part with clazification and denied in part. It is admitted that two
employees of Defendants approached Plaintiff and requested that she go with them to the office so
that her cash box could be counted. The averments that Plaintil f was walking to the pay phone to
call her mother to pick her up and two employees of Defendants indicated to Plaintiffthat they heard
she was quitting set forth in paragraph 10 of the Complaint are denied on the basis that after
2
reasonable investigation, Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or
deny these averments in paragraph 10 of the Complaint and strict proof of same is demanded at the
time of trial.
11. Denied. It is specifically denied that "Defendants' employees instructed Plaintiff,
Angela Hykes, that she had to come to the office and have the monies in the cash box assigned to
her counted before she could leave." To the contrary, Defendants' employees asked Plaintiff to
come to the office so that her cash box could be counted.
12. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff went to the
Defendants' office. The following averment is specifically denied: "while an employee of
Defendants went to retrieve her cash box at the ticket window."'
13. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[t]he cash boxes are kept in a drawer at the
ticket window, where any employee has access to them." To the contrary, cash boxes are kept in the
office when an employee is not selling tickets.
14. Admitted in part with clarification and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs
cash box was taken to another room in the office to be counted and Plaintiffwas informed that a sum
of money was missing from her cash box. It is specifically denied that "[e]mployee(s) of the
Defendants took the cash box back to the office."
15. Admitted.
16. Denied. It is specifically denied that "Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, was then placed in a
room in the office area. The employees told Ms. Hykes to stay in the room and not come out. The
door was closed."
3
COUNT I - Respondeat Superior
23. The above answers to the Complaint in paragraphs 1 though 22 are incorporated
herein by reference.
24. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 24 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said avernents are denied.
25 (a) - (e). Denied as a conclusion of ]aw. The averments contained in paragraph 25 (a)
through (e) of the Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. In the event that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are
denied.
26. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 26 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said avernents are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
27. Denied. The averment that "Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has been, and will in the future
be, hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation from attending to her daily
duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and embarrassment," is denied on the basis that
after reasonable investigation, Defendants aze without sufficient information or knowledge to admit
or deny the truth of this averment set forth in paragraph 27 o1.'the Complaint and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages is demanded at the time of trial. The remaining averment contained in
paragraph 27 ofthe Complaint is denied as a conclusion oflaw.'I'his remaining averment constitutes
5
a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event that a responsive
pleading is deemed to be required, said averment is denied.
28. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in pazagraph 28 constitute
conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event that a responsive
pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of Plaintiff's alleged
damages are demanded at the time of trial.
29. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in pazagraph 29 constitute
conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event that a responsive
pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied acid strict proof of Plaintiff s alleged
damages are demanded at the time of trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendants, Morgan C. Hughes, [ngrid Hughes, Williams Grove
Amusement, Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc., respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter
judgment in their favor, dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice, and further award
Defendants such other relief as is proper and just.
COUNT II -False Imprisonment
Angela Hykes v. Williams Grove Amusement. Inc., and
Williams Grove. Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park
30. The above answers to the Complaint in paragraphs 1 though 29 are incorporated
herein by reference.
31. Admitted in part with clarification and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants
questioned Plaintiff about stealing money from her cash box. The remaining averments set forth in
pazagraph 31 of the Complaint are specifically denied.
6
32. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 32 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied.
(a) Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants "falsely and maliciously
detain[ed] and imprison[ed] the Plaintiff for several hours by placing her in a room, closing the door,
telling her she could not leave, and threatening to call the police."
(b) Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants compelled "the Plaintiff to
submit to a search of her possessions by Defendants' female employees."
(c) Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants compelled "the Plaintiff to
submit to astrip-search by Defendants' female employees before she could leave."
(d) Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 32(d)
constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event that a
responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied.
33. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff stated that she did not
steal any money from the cash box. It is specifically denied that. Plaintiff "did not steal any money
from the cash box assigned to her." In addition, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff "requested to
be released." To the contrary, Plaintiff could have left the office at any time and money from her
cash box was missing.
34. Admitted with clarification. It is admitted that Defendants advised Plaintiff s mother
that the stolen money was found because Defendants did not want Plaintiffto get in trouble with her
parents.
35. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants' "employees refused to release
Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, but continued their forcible seizure, holding and detaining Plaintiff and
threatening her with prosecution for the alleged theft of money from the cash box. They did not
allow her to contact her parents or anyone else for assistance." To the contrary, Defendants
contacted Plaintiff s mother to come pick her up and Plaintiff chose to wait at the office until her
her mother could pick her up.
36. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 36 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments aze denied.
37. Denied. The averment that "Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has been, and will in the future
be, hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occ:upation from attending to her daily
duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and embarrassment," is denied on the basis that
after reasonable investigation, Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit
or deny the truth of this averment set forth in paragraph 37 of the Complaint and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages is demanded at the time of trial. The remaining averment contained in
pazagraph 37 ofthe Complaint is denied as a conclusion of law. This remaining averment constitutes
a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event that a responsive
pleading is deemed to be required, said averment is denied.
38. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 38 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
8
39. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 39 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Williams Grove Amusement, Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc.
respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor, dismiss the Plaintiff's
Complaint with prejudice, and further award Defendants such other relief as is proper and just.
COUNT III -False Imprisonment
Angela Hykes v. Morgan C. Hughes
40. The above answers to the Complaint in paragraphs 1 though 39 are incorporated
herein by reference.
41. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[a]t the same time and place, Defendant,
Morgan C. Hughes, falsely, publicly, and maliciously accused the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, ofhaving
stolen money from the cash box for personal reasons, in that Plaintiff informed Defendant, Morgan
C. Hughes, that she had quit." To the contrary, Plaintiff never told Defendant Morgan C. Hughes
that she quit.
42. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 42 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied.
(a) Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Morgan C. Hughes "falsely
and maliciously detain[ed] and imprison[ed] the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, for several hours for
9
_.. _.
personal reasons arising from her having informed Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, that she had quit,
by placing her in a room, closing the door, telling her she could not leave, and threatening to call the
police." To the contrary, Plaintiff never advised Defendant Morgan C. Hughes that she quit.
(b) Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Morgan C. Hughes compelled
"the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, for purely personal reasons arising from her having informed
Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, that she had quit, to submit to a search of her possessions by
Defendants' female employees." To the contrary, Plaintiff never advised Defendant Morgan C.
Hughes that she quit.
(c) Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Morgan C. Hughes compelled
"the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, for purely personal reason, arising from her having informed
Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, that she had quit, to submit to a strip-seazch as ordered by
Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, before she could leave." To the contrary, Plaintiff never advised
Defendant Morgan C. Hughes that she quit, and Defendant Morgan C. Hughes never ordered a strip
seazch of Plaintiff. In fact, Plaintiff was never strip seazched by Defendant Moran C. Hughes, any
of the other Defendants, or any of the Defendants' employees.
43. Denied. It is specifically denied that "Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, did not steal any
money from the cash box assigned to her. Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, repeatedly stated this to
Defendant, Morgan C. Hughes, and requested to be released."
44. Admittedwithclarification.ItisadmittedthatDefendantsadvisedPlaintiff'smother
that the stolen money was found because Defendants did not want Plaintiffto get in trouble with her
pazents.
10
45. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Morgan C. Hughes "refused to release
Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, but continued his forcible seizure, holding and detaining Plaintiff and
threatening her with prosecution for the alleged theft of money Isom the cash box. He did not allow
her to contact her parents or anyone else for assistance."
46. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in pazagraph 46 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied.
47. Denied. The averment that "Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has been, and will in the future
be, hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation from attending to her daily
duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and embarrassment," is denied on the basis that
after reasonable investigation, Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit
or deny the truth of this averment set forth in pazagraph 47 of the Complaint and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages is demanded at the time of trial. The; remaining averment contained in
paragraph 47 ofthe Complaint is denied as a conclusion of law. This remaining averment constitutes
a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event that a responsive
pleading is deemed to be required, said averment is denied.
48. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 48 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages aze demanded at the time of trial.
49. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in pazagraph 49 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
11
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Morgan C. Hughes respectfully requests that this Honorable
Court enter judgment in his favor, dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice, and further
award Defendant such other relief as is proper and just.
COUNT IV -False Imprisonment
Angela Hykes v. Ingrid Hughes
50. The above answers to the Complaint in paragraphs 1 though 49 are incorporated
herein by reference.
51. Denied It is specifically denied that "[a]t the same time and place, Defendant, Ingrid
Hughes, falsely, publicly, and maliciously accused the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, of having stolen
money from the cash box for personal reasons, in that Plaintiff informed Defendant, Ingrid Hughes,
that she had quit." To the contrary, Plaintiff never told Defendant Ingrid Hughes that she quit.
52. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 52 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive; pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied.
(a) Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Ingrid Hughes "falsely and
maliciously detain[ed] and imprison[ed] the Plaintiff, Angela H}~kes, for several hours for personal
reasons arising from her having informed Defendant, Ingrid Hughes, that she had quit, by placing
her in a room, closing the door, telling her she could not leave, and threatening to call the police."
To the contrary, Plaintiff never advised Defendant Ingrid Hughe;s that she quit.
12
56. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 56 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said avernents are denied.
57. Denied. The averment that "Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, has been, and will in the future
be, hindered from performing the duties required by her usual occupation from attending to her daily
duties and chores, to her great loss, humiliation, and embarrassment," is denied on the basis that
after reasonable investigation, Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit
or deny the truth of this averment set forth in paragraph 57 of the Complaint and strict proof of
Plaintiff's alleged damages is demanded at the time of trial. The remaining averment contained in
paragraph 57 ofthe Complaint is denied as a conclusion of law. This remaining averment constitutes
a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event that a responsive
pleading is deemed to be required, said averment is denied.
58. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 58 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff's alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
59. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 59 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
14
WHEREFORE, Defendant Ingrid Hughes respectfully requests that this Honorable Court
enter judgment in her favor, dismiss the Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice, and further awazd
Defendant such other relief as is proper and just.
COUNT V - Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
Angela Hykes v. Williams Grove Amusement. Inc., and
Williams Grove. Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park
60. The above answers to the Complaint in pazagraphs 1 though 59 aze incorporated
herein by reference.
61. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[t]he statements made by the Defendants,
Williams Grove Amusement, Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement
Park, were false, in so far as they related to Plaintiff, Angela Ilykes. First, she did not steal the
money from the cash box assigned to her. Second, she has never committed any crimes. Third, she
has at all time complied with the law." To the contrary, Plaintiff did steal money from her cash box.
62. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 62 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said avernents are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
63. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in pazagraph 63 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said avernents are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
64. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 64 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
15
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
65. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 65 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said avern~ents are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiffls alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
66. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 66 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Williams Grove Amusement, Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc.
respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor, dismiss the Plaintiffls
Complaint with prejudice, and further award Defendants such other relief as is proper and just.
COUNT VI - Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
Angela Hvkes v. Morgan C. Hughes
67. The above answers to the Complaint in pazagraphs 1 though 66 are incorporated
herein by reference.
68. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[t]he statements made by the Defendant,
Morgan C. Hughes, were false, in so far as they related to Plaintiff, Angela Hykes. First, she did
not steal the money from the cash box assigned to her. Second, she has never committed any crimes.
Third, she has at all time complied with the law." To the contrary, Plaintiff did steal money from
her cash box.
16
69. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 69 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
70. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in pazagraph 70 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments aze denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
71. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in pazagraph 71 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said avern~ents are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages aze demanded at the time of trial.
72. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 72 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff's alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
73. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 73 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages aze demanded at the time of trial.
17
T
WHEREFORE, Defendant Morgan C. Hughes respecl:fully requests that this Honorable
Court enter judgment in his favor, dismiss the Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice, and further
award Defendant such other relief as is proper and just.
COUNT VII - Negl-yent Infliction of Emotional Distress
Angela Hykes v. Ingrid Hughes
74. The above answers to the Complaint in paragraphs 1 though 73 are incorporated
herein by reference.
75. Denied. It is specifically denied that "[t]he statements made by the Defendant, Ingrid
Hughes, were false, in so far as they related to Plaintiff, Angela Hykes. First, she did not steal the
money from the cash box assigned to her. Second, she has never committed any crimes. Third, she
has at all time complied with the law." To the contrary, Plaintiff did steal money from her cash box.
76. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 76 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive; pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
77. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 77 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
78. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 78 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
18
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said avernents are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiffls alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
79. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 79 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive; pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiffls alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
80. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 80 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiffls alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Ingrid Hughes respectfully requests that this Honorable Court
enter judgment in her favor, dismiss the Plaintiffls Complaint with prejudice, and further award
Defendant such other relief as is proper and just.
COUNT VIII -Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Angela Hykes v. Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and
Williams Grove. Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park
81. The above answers to the Complaint in paragraphs 1 though 80 are incorporated
herein by reference.
82. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 82 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied.
83. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 83 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
19
_,
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
84. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 84 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
85. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 85 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
86. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 86 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
87. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 87 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsivE; pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said avernents are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Williams Grove Amusement, Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc.
respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor, dismiss the Plaintiffs
Complaint with prejudice, and further award Defendants such other relief as is proper and just.
20
COUNT IX -Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Angela Hykes v. Morgan C. Hughes
88. The above answers to the Complaint in paragraphs 1 though 87 are incorporated
herein by reference.
89. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff "informed Defendant, Morgan C.
Hughes, that she had quit." The remaining averments set forth in paragraph 89 ofthe Complaint are
denied as a conclusion of law. This remaining averments constitute a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required In the event that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required,
said averment is denied.
90. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 90 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
91. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 91 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff's alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
92. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 92 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
21
93. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 93 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiffls alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
94. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 94 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Morgan C. Hughes respectfully requests that this Honorable
Court enter judgment in his favor, dismiss the Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice, and further
award Defendant such other relief as is proper and just.
COUNT X -Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
AnPela Hykes v. Ingrid Hughes
95. The above answers to the Complaint in paragraphs 1 though 94 are incorporated
herein by reference.
96. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff"informed Defendant, Ingrid Hughes,
that she had quit." The remaining averments set forth in paragraph 96 of the Complaint aze denied
as a conclusion of law. The remaining averments constitute a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. In the event that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required,
said averment is denied.
97. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 97 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
22
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff's alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
98. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 98 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive; pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said avernients are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
99. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 99 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said avernents are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff's alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
100. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 100 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff's alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
101. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 101 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiffs alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Ingrid Hughes respectfully requests that this Honorable Court
enter judgment in her favor, dismiss the Plaintiffls Complaint with prejudice, and further award
Defendant such other relief as is proper and just.
23
COUNT XI -Assault and Battery
Angela Hykes v. Williams Grove Amusement. Inc., and
Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park
102. The above answers to the Complaint in paragraphs 1 though 101 are incorporated
herein by reference.
103. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 103 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required. To the contrary, Defendants neither directed
nor conducted a strip search of Plaintiff.
104. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 104 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive; pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages aze demanded at the time of trial.
105. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 105 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said avernients are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
106. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 106 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages aze demanded at the time of trial.
107. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 107 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
24
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Williams Grove Amusement, Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc.
respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor, dismiss the Plaintiffs
Complaint with prejudice, and further award Defendants such other relief as is proper and just.
COUNT XII -Assault and Battery
Angela Hykes v. Morgan C. Hughes
108. The above answers to the Complaint in paragraphs 1 though 107 aze incorporated
herein by reference.
109. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Morgan C. Hughes used "foul and
otherwise abusive language and [ordered] astrip-search" of Plaintiff. To the contrary, Defendant
Morgan C. Hughes neither directed nor conducted a strip search of Plaintiff. The remaining
averments of paragraph 109 of the Complaint aze denied as conclusions of law. The remaining
averments constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averment is denied.
110. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 110 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
111. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 111 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
25
_,
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
112. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 112 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments aze denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
113. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 113 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff's alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Morgan C. Hughes respectfully requests that this Honorable
Court enter judgment in his favor, dismiss the Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice, and further
award Defendant such other relief as is proper and just.
COUNT XII -Assault and Battery
Angela Hykes v. Ingrid Hughes
114. The above answers to the Complaint in paragraphs 1 though 113 are incorporated
herein by reference.
115. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Ingrid Hughes used "foul and
otherwise abusive language and [ordered] astrip-search" of Plaintiff. To the contrary, Defendant
Ingrid neither directed nor conducted a strip search of Plaintiff. The remaining averments of
pazagraph 115 of the Complaint are denied as conclusions of law. The remaining averments
26
constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event that a
responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averment is denied.
116. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 116 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiffls alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
117. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 117 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiffls alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
118. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 118 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiffls alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
119. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 119 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiffls alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Ingrid Hughes respectfully requests that this Honorable Court
enter judgment in her favor, dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice, and further award
Defendant such other relief as is proper and just.
27
COUNT XIII -Gross Negligence/Outrageous Conduct
Angela Hykes v. Williams Grove Amusement. Inc., and
Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park
120. The above answers to the Complaint in pazagraphs 1 though 119 are incorporated
herein by reference.
121(a) - (d). Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in pazagraph 121 (a)
through (d) of the Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. In the event that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments aze
denied. To the contrary, Defendants neither directed nor conducted a strip search of Plaintiff.
122. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 122 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments aze denied and strict proof of
Plaintiffls alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
123. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in pazagraph 123 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said avements are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiffls alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
124. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 124 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said avernents are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
125. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 125 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
28
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff's alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
126. Denied. Afterreasonable investigation, Defendants are without sufficient information
or knowledge to admit or deny the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 126 ofthe Complaint
and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Williams Grove Amusement, Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc.
respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor, dismiss the Plaintiff's
Complaint with prejudice, and further award Defendants such other relief as is proper and just.
COUNT XIV -Gross Negligence/Outrageous Conduct
Angela Hykes v. Morgan C. Hughes
127. The above answers to the Complaint in paragraphs 1 though 126 are incorporated
herein by reference.
128(a) - (d). Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 128 (a)
through (d) of the Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is
required. In the event that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are
denied. To the contrary, Plaintiff never informed Defendant Morgan C. Hughes that she quit.
129. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 129 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff's alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
130. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 130 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
29
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
131. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 131 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
132. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 132 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
133. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant Morgan C. Hughes is without
sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny the truth of the averments set forth in
paragraph 133 of the Complaint and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Morgan C. Hughes respectfully requests that this Honorable
Court enter judgment in his favor, dismiss the Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice, and further
award Defendant such other relief as is proper and just.
COUNT XV -Gross Negligence/Outrageous Conduct
Angela Hvkes v. Ingrid Hughes
134. The above answers to the Complaint in paragraphs 1 though 133 are incorporated
herein by reference.
135(a) - (d). Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 135(a)
through (d) of the Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is
30
required. In the event that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are
denied. To the contrary, Plaintiff never informed Defendant Ingrid Hughes that she quit.
136. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 136 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said avernents are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
137. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 137 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
138. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 138 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiffls alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
139. Denied as a conclusion of law. The averments contained in paragraph 139 of the
Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the event
that a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof of
Plaintiff s alleged damages are demanded at the time of trial.
140. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant Ingrid Hughes is without sufficient
information or knowledge to admit or deny the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 140 of
the Complaint and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial.
31
WHEREFORE, Defendant Ingrid Hughes respectfully requests that this Honorable Court
enter judgment in her favor, dismiss the Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice, and further award
Defendant such other relief as is proper and just.
NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS WILLIAMS
GROVE AMUSEMENT, INC. AND WILLIAMS GROVE, INC.
141. The above responses to the Complaint in paragraphs 1 through 140 are incorporated
herein by reference.
142. Prior to August 7, 1999, Plaintiff was fired for stealing from Defendants.
143. Plaintiff approached Morgan C. Hughes and asked him to hire her again.
144. Plaintiff cried and begged Morgan C. Hughes to give her a second chance.
145. Plaintiff admitted to Morgan C. Hughes that her and another employee were stealing
money from Defendants and that was why she was fired.
146. Prior to being fired, Plaintiff worked in the ticket booth.
147. Plaintiff received tickets in a newspaper from another employee.
148. Plaintiff would resell these tickets to customers.
149. Plaintiff would split the money she received for reselling the ticket with another
employee of Defendants.
150. In an effort to get hired again, Plaintiffadmitted the following to Morgan C. Hughes:
(1) she was working in the ticket booth, (2) her boyfriend was taking tickets at the roller coaster, (3)
her boyfriend was not tearing the tickets he took at the roller coaster from customers, (4) her
boyfriend would give Plaintiff the tickets in a newspaper, (5) Plaintiff would resell the ticket to
32
another customer and keep the money from selling the ticket a second time, and (6) Plaintiffand her
boyfriend split the money.
151. Another employee ofDefendants also admitted that he and Plaintiff stole money from
Defendants.
152. Morgan C. Hughes gave Plaintiff her j ob back, but told her she could not do any tasks
where she collected money from customers.
153. On August 7,1999, Defendants did not have an employee to work in the ticket booth.
154. Because the Defendants were in need of someone to sell tickets, Plaintiff was
instructed to report to the ticket booth and sell tickets when she reported to work at Williams Grove
Amusement Pazk on August 7, 1999.
155. When PlaintiffsellsticketsatWilliamsGroveAmusementPark,oneofherjobduties
is to have her cash box counted at the end of her shift.
156. Another job duty Plaintiffwas required to perform when selling tickets was to take
her cash box to the office to check it in when she went on a break or left the ticket booth.
157. Cash boxes are kept in the Defendants' office while an employee is not selling
tickets, not the ticket booths.
158. Defendants' employees are responsible for the money they collect and if money is
missing from a Defendants' employee's cash box, the employee is responsible for the missing
money.
159. On August 7, 1999, Plaintiffwaited in the front of Defendants' office while her cash
box was counted.
160. Plaintiffs cash box was approximately $300.00 short.
33
r
161. After Plaintiff s cash box was counted, Defendants asked Plaintiffifshe took $300.00
from her cash box.
162. Plaintiff denied taking any money from the Defendants' cash box.
163. Two ofDefendants' employees took Plaintiff into a room in the Defendants' office.
164. One ofDefendants' employees searched Plaintiff's backpack for the missing money.
165. The other employee ofDefendants asked Plaintiffto remove her shoes.
166. Plaintiff removed her shoes, but no money was found.
167. In addition, the other employee ofDefendants asked Plaintiffto shake out her blouse.
168. While looking for the missing money, neither Defendants nor any of its employees
touched Plaintiff.
169. While searching Plaintiff, neither Defendants nor any of its employees conducted a
strip search of Plaintiff.
170. Also, the other employee ofDefendants asked Plaintiffto open and/or pull out her
pockets.
171. Plaintiff opened and/or pulled out her pockets, but no money was found.
172. Plaintiffwas paid by Defendants for the time it took Defendants and/or its employees
to count her cash box and search for the missing money.
173. Plaintiff did not punch out on the time clock on August 7, 1999.
174. Defendants contacted Plaintiff's mother to pick her up at the amusement park.
175. Defendants had a policy that if an employee is under the age of sixteen, the employee
must be picked up and dropped off by a parent or guardian.
34
176. When Defendants contacted Plaintiff s mother, she apologized to Defendants that she
could not come and pick up Plaintiff right away because she was at work, but she informed
Defendants that she would get there as soon as she could.
177. Plaintiff was not old enough to drive on August 7, 1999.
178. Plaintiff chose to wait in the front of Defendants' office for her mother.
179. Plaintiff did not wait for her mother in a closed room of Defendants' office.
180. While Plaintiff waited for her mother, she was only a couple steps from the office
door and free to leave at any time.
181. On August 7, 1999, the public as well as Defendants' employees came in and out of
Defendants' office through a screen door.
182. On August 7, 1999, there was a telephone in each room of the Defendants' office.
183. After Plaintiff left the Defendants' office with her mother, the missing money was
found in the Defendants' office.
184. Because the missing money was found, Defendants did not want to get Plaintiff in
trouble with her parents.
185. Plaintiff s alleged injuries, if any, occurred on Defendants' premises.
186. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against any of the Defendants for which
relief may be granted.
187. Plaintiff s claims may be barred by the doctrine of estoppel and/or waiver.
188. Plaintiffls claims may be barred by the doctrine of consent.
189. Plaintiff s claims maybe bared by the doctrine of justification.
190. Plaintiff s claims may be barred by the doctrine of lathes.
35
_.. ,
191. Plaintiff s claims may be barred by the parole evidence rule.
192. Plaintiffls claims may be barred by the statute of limitations.
193. Plaintiffls claims may be barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction.
194. Plaintiff s claims may be barred by the doctrine of release.
195. Defendants raise the defense of illegality.
196. Defendants raise the defense of fraud.
197. Plaintiff s alleged losses, if any, were caused by Plaintiff s own actions or inactions.
198. Plaintiff s claims are barred by her failure to mitigate damages.
199. If Plaintiffestablishesthat she suffered damages as alleged in her Complaint, which
allegations are specifically denied by Defendants, said damages were not caused by any of the
Defendants.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Williams Grove Amusement, Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc.
respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor, dismiss the Plaintiff s
Complaint with prejudice, and further award Defendants such other relief as is proper and just.
SHUMAKER WIL/L``IAMS, P.C.
Dated: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ `~ By ~/G7U 1.1 ~ ~ WGw~
Melissa A. Swauger, I.D. #82382
P.O. Box 88
Harrisburg, PA 17108
(717)763-1121
Attorney for Defendants
:160493
36
VERIFICATION
The undersigned, Morgan C. Hughes, hereby verifies and states that:
I. He is President of Williams Grove Amusements, Inc.;
2. He is authorized to make this Verification on their behalf;
3. The facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of his
knowledge, information, and belief; and
4.
Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to
Dated: l ~ ~ ~ ~) U
He is aware that false statements herein are made subject to the
of 18
#160170
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Melissa A. Swauger, Esquire, of the law firm of Shumaker Williams, P.C., hereby certify
that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer with New Matter of Defendants
Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and Williams Grove, Inc. on this date by depositing a copy of the
same in the possession of the United States Mail, first-class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Gregory M. Feather, Esquire
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
P.O. Box 60337
Harrisburg, PA 17106
SHUMAKER WILLIAMS, P.C.
Dated: ~, ~ ~ 1 a-~~ By l~,~G~G ~-C°/wuv~_
{ Melissa A. Swauger
P.O. Box 88
Harrisburg, PA 17108
(717)763-1121
f-_
L..: ~ 7
~, .~ -:1
~~~,.; ~:
z i-
c~~ , ~._
~~ ~
s _,_ -
c_
j..
~ c `-'7
ANGELA HYKES, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff .
v CIVIL ACTION -LAW
MORGAN C. HUGHES, INGRID
HUGHES, WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT, INC., and NO. 02-4448 Civil Term
WILLIAMS GROVE, INC.,
d/b/a WILLIAMS GROVE .
AMUSEMENT PARK,
Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, by and through her attorneys,
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by Gregory M. Feather, Esq., and provides
the following answers to Defendants' New Matter:
141. This paragraph is an incorporation by reference pazagraph to which no response is
required.
142. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff was ever fired for stealing. It is admitted that on one
occasion Plaintiff was told she was fired because she was standing outside the ticket
booth talking to her friends and Mr. Hughes told her she was fired because she was
standing outside the ticket booth. However, Plaintiff did not miss any time from work
and denies that she was actually fired.
143. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is denied that Plaintiff approached Mr. Hughes and
asked him to hire her again. It is admitted that friends of Plaintiff apologized to Mr.
Hughes for congregating outside the ticket booth talking to Plaintiff and Plaintiff s friend
asked Mr. Hughes to give Plaintiff her job back.
ANGELA HYKES, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
v. CIVIL ACTION -LAW
MORGAN C. HUGHES, INGRID
HUGHES, WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT, INC., and NO. 02-4448 Civil Term
WILLIAMS GROVE, INC.,
d/b/a WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT PARK,
Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Angela Hykes, by and through her attorneys,
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by Gregory M. Feather, Esq., and provides
the following answers to Defendants' New Matter:
141. This pazagraph is an incorporation by reference pazagraph to which no response is
required.
142. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff was ever fired for stealing. It is admitted that on one
occasion Plaintiff was told she was fired because she was standing outside the ticket
booth talking to her friends and Mr. Hughes told her she was fired because she was
standing outside the ticket booth. However, Plaintiff did not miss any time from work
and denies that she was actually fired.
143. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is denied that Plaintiff approached Mr. Hughes and
asked him to hire her again. It is admitted that friends of Plaintiff apologized to Mr.
Hughes for congregating outside the ticket booth talking to Plaintiff and Plaintiff's friend
asked Mr. Hughes to give Plaintiff her job back.
144. Denied.
145. Denied.
146. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff worked in the ticket booth.
It is denied that Plaintiff was fired.
147. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that another employee gave Plaintiff
tickets. It is denied the tickets were in a newspaper.
148. Denied.
149. Denied.
150. Denied.
151. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information
sufficient to determine what other employees of Defendants admitted to doing or not
doing. Therefore, Plaintiff is unable to respond to this allegation. However, if it is
judicially determined that Plaintiff must respond to this allegation, it is denied and strict
proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
152. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Mr. Hughes told Plaintiff that she
could not work in the ticket booth after she gave him the tickets another employee gave to
her; however, she continued to be scheduled by the Defendants to work in the ticket
booth. It is denied that Plaintiff was fired.
153. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information
sufficient to determine whether Defendants had other employees to work the ticket booth
on August 7, 1999. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot respond to this allegation. However, if it
2
is judicially determined that a response is required, it is denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at time of trial.
154. Admitted in part. Denied in part. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without
knowledge or information sufficient to determine the Defendants' needs to have someone
sell tickets. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot respond to this allegation. However, if it is
judicially determined that a response is required, it is denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at time of trial. It is admitted that Plaintiff was instructed to report to the ticket
booth to sell tickets on August 7, 1999.
155. Denied. Plaintiff would take her cash box to the office. It is denied that Plaintiff s cash
box would be counted before she would leave. Plaintiff s cash box was not counted in
front of her; therefore, Plaintiff does not know if Defendants counted her cash box.
156. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff would take her cash box to
the office at the end of her shift. Plaintiff does not recall whether she was required to take
her cash box to the office during breaks. Therefore, this part of the allegation is denied
and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
157. Admitted. It is admitted that the cash boxes are not kept in the ticket booth when the park
closes.
158. Denied.
159. Denied.
160. Denied.
3
161. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff was asked if she took money
from the cash box after it was counted. It is denied that Plaintiff was asked if she took
$300.
162. Admitted..
163. Admitted.
164. Admitted.
165. Admitted.
166. Admitted.
167. Admitted.
168. Admitted.
169. Denied.
170. Admitted It is admitted that Plaintiff was asked to pull out her pockets.
171. Admitted.
172. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information
sufficient to determine whether she was paid by Defendants for the time the Defendants
took to count her cash drawer and search her. Therefore, Plaintiff is unable to respond to
this allegation. However, if it is judicially detennined that a response is required, it is
denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
173. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information
sufficient to determine whether or not she punched out the time clock on August 7, 1999.
Therefore, Plaintiff is unable to admit or deny this allegation. If it is judicially
4
determined that a response is required, it is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at
time of trial.
174. Admitted.
175. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information
sufficient to determine the Defendants' policies. Therefore, Plaintiff is unable to respond
to this allegation. If it is judicially determined that a response is require, it is denied and
strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
176. Denied
177. Admitted.
178. Denied.
179. Denied.
180. Denied.
181. Admitted.
182. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information
sufficient to determine whether Defendants had telephones in each of their rooms in the
office. Therefore, Plaintiff is unable to respond to this allegation. If it is judicially
determined that a response is required, it is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at
time of trial.
183. Denied.
184. Denied.
5
185. Denied. This allegation is a conclusion to which Plaintiff is not required to respond. If it
is judicially determined that a response is required, it is denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at time of trial.
186. Denied. This allegation is a conclusion of law to which Plaintiff is not required to
respond. If it is judicially determined that a response is required, it is denied and strict
proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
187. Denied. This allegation is a conclusion of law to which Plaintiff is not required to
respond. If it is judicially determined that a response is required, it is denied and strict
proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
188. Denied. This allegation is a conclusion of law to which Plaintiff is not required to
respond. If it is judicially determined that a response is required, it is denied and strict
proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
189. Denied. This allegation is a conclusion of law to which Plaintiff is not required to
respond. If it is judicially determined that a response is required, it is denied and strict
proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
190. Denied. This allegation is a conclusion of law to which Plaintiff is not required to
respond. If it is judicially determined that a response is required, it is denied and strict
proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
191. Denied. This allegation is a conclusion of law to which Plaintiff is not required to
respond. If it is judicially determined that a response is required, it is denied and strict
proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
6
192. Denied. This allegation is a conclusion of law to which Plaintiff is not required to
respond. If it is judicially determined that a response is required, it is denied and strict
proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
193. Denied. This allegation is a conclusion of law to which Plaintiff is not required to
respond. If it is judicially determined that a response is required, it is denied and strict
proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
194. Denied. This allegation is a conclusion of law to which Plaintiff is not required to
respond. If it is judicially determined that a response is required, it is denied and strict
proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
195. Denied. This allegation is a conclusion of law to which Plaintiff is not required to
respond. If it is judicially determined that a response is required, it is denied and strict
proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
196. Denied. This allegation is a conclusion of law to which Plaintiff is not required to
respond. If it is judicially determined that a response is required, it is denied and strict
proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
197. Denied. This allegation is a conclusion of law to which Plaintiff is not required to
respond. If it is judicially determined that a response is required, it is denied and strict
proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
198. Denied. This allegation is a conclusion of law to which Plaintiff is not required to
respond. If it is judicially determined that a response is required, it is denied and strict
proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
199. Denied. This allegation is a conclusion of law to which Plaintiff is not required to
respond. If it is judicially determined that a response is required, it is denied and strict
proof thereof is demanded at time of trial.
Date: HANDLER, HEN~NING &
By ~ - /~
Gre or .Feather,
IUD # 7945
1300 Lingl stown Road
Harrish g, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
Attorneys for Plaintiff
VERIFICATION
PURSUANT TO Pa R.C.P. No. 1024(cl
GREGORY M. FEATHER, ESQ. states that he is the attorney for the
party filing the foregoing document; that he prepared this Plaintiff s Answer to
Defendants' New Matter as an attorney and verifies that it is correct and accurate to the
best of his knowledge, information and belief and that this statement is made subject to
the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A., Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
DATE: ~ ~ ~ 2 U5
.~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on
the Defendants, Morgan C. Hughes, Ingrid Hughes, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc.,
and Williams Grove, Inc.,d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park by sending a copy of
the same to their attorneys of record, David R. Breschi, Esq., Shumaker Williams,
P.C., P.O. Box 88, Harrisburg, PA 17108, by United States Mail, Certified mail, return
receipt requested, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on December / 7% 2003.
HANDLER,.~iENNING OS BERG, LLP
By j
Attor y I.D. #79456
1300 inglestown Rd.
rrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DATE: Z b
(7 N
~~
~
~ ~o
,
_ :~
r"+
~'
c- S_
m ^
-.-~~-.
~,-, r, n~
=~~ 4
~,
:-_~ < ,
~' !'' c ~
~,~ ~`~~~
-' ~..,
ANGELA HYKES,
Plaintiff
v.
WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT, INC., and
WILLIAMS GROVE, INC.,
d/b/a WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT PARK
Defendants
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
NO. 02-4448 Civil Term
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE
Please substitute the attached Verification for the attorney's Verification in the
Plaintiffs Answer to Defendants' New Matter filed with your office on December 15,
2003, in this matter.
Thank you.
HAN
RO$~NBERG, LLP
~ _ ~]
By (, ~~~ ~~~ ~~~r' L--
X
Grego M. Feather, Esq.
Attor ey LD. #79456
~-fi~0 Linglestown Rd.
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DATE: C` C~
VERIFICATION
THE UNDERSIGNED hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing document
are based on information that was gathered by counsel in preparation of this lawsuit. The
language of the above-named document is of counsel and not of my own. I have read the
said document and, to the extent that it is based on information that I gave to counsel, it is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the
contents of the said document is that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in preparing
this Verification.
THE UNDERSIGNED also understands that the statements therein are made subject
to the penalties of 18 Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d), relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
DATE: "`T~t(~3_ , ~~
ANGELA YKES
,~
c a ~
'fit 1 r
t..
~7=~ ~
Z m
-:'
"_ I
.
Vi 1; C+)
~.
.,[ C., O
C, ~ O~
~ c ~j m
a
0
F
"t
ti
ANGELA HYKES,
Plaintiff
v.
MORGAN C. HUGHES, INGRID
HUGHES, WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT, INC., and
WILLIAMS GROVE, INC.,
d/b/a WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT PARK
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
NO. 02-4448 Civil Term
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF NON PROS
Defendants, Morgan C. Hughes, Ingrid Hughes, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc. and
Williams Grove, Inc., by undersigned counsel, respectfully submit this Motion for Judgment of
Non Pros, and state as follows:
1. Plaintiff has exhibited a lack of due diligence in failing to proceed with
reasonable promptitude.
2. Plaintiff has offered no compelling reason for the delay with regard to the
prosecution of this case.
3. Plaintiff s delay has resulted in actual prejudice to Defendants.
4. On January 31, 2003, the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley granted Defendant's
preliminary Objections and dismissed Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.
5. The concurrence of Plaintiff's counsel was sought unsuccessfully with regard to
this Motion.
WHEREFORE, for all of these reasons and for the reasons set forth in the supporting
Brief, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment of non pros,
1
dismissing this action with prejudice, and award any further relief that the Court deems
appropriate.
Respectfully submitted:
SHUMAKER WILLIAMS, P.C.
4
Dated: ~ ~ ~~~-~ By
Jam s E. Reid, Jr., I.D. # 18032
Michael E. Rowan, I.D. #85$18
P.O. Box 88
Harrisburg, PA 17108
(717) 763-1121
Attorneys for Defendants
2
,t
. ,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this I `I~day of March, 2007, a copy of Defendants'
Motion for Judgment of Non Pros was mailed, first-class, postage prepaid, to:
f
Gregory M. Feather, Esquire
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
SHUMAKER WILLIAMS, P.C.
Dated: 3 ~ ~{~ ~~ By
Michael E. Rowan, I.D. #85818
P.O. Box 88
Harrisburg, PA 1710$
717-763-1121
197604
R
3
r'-' C~:~
t-^-7 z:.-> -Tl
---#
r-~ --n_
- ~ ,E.~ ~'
_ ~+. ~ i
i~
,-~- ~ _
,,... ~- . (, 1
`-
C.-+
• ..ham
.~-_- ~..' aA„
,• wY
ANGELA HYKES,
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
V.
MORGAN C. HUGHES, INGRID
HUGHES, WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT, INC., and
d/b/a WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT PARK,
DEFENDANTS/PETITIONERS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
02-4448 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ~ day of March, 2007, upon consideration of the
foregoing petition, IT IS ORDERED:
(1) A Rule is issued against respondent, Angela Hykes, to show cause why the
petition to open a judgment should not be granted.
(2) Respondent shall file an answer to the petition within fifteen (15) days of
service.
(3) The petition shall be decided under Pa. Rule of Civil Procedure 206.7.
(4) Any depositions shall be completed within thirty (30) days of service.
(5) Briefs shall be filed in chambers by Friday, April 27, 2007. Argument shall
be held on Tuesday, May 1, 2007, at 8:45 a.m., in Courtroom No. II of the Cumberland
County Courthouse.
(6) Notice of the entry of this order shall be provided to all parties by petitioners.
(7) All proceedings shall stay pending further ord
the C
Edgar B. Battey, J.
FI[rEi~--~i=FEGF
OF THE F;~~"~<<w~?~J7ARY
2QD] MAR t 9 PM 2~ 3
~IY{:.1..~: 1...1~~1i Vy ~..~y~V# ~I i
h~~l ~(~JY~..~rr-4~~
ichael E. Rowan, Esquire
For Defendants/Petitioners
regory M. Feather, Esqu~r°
For Plaintiff/Respondent
:sal
-2-
r
Gregory M. Feather, Esq.
I.D.#79456
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 238-2000
Fax: (7i7) 233-3029
E-mail: Feather(a)_hhrlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ANGELA HYKES,
vs.
. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MORGAN C. HUGHES, INGRID
HUGHES, WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT, lNC., and
WILLIAMS GROVE, INC.,
d/b/a WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT PARK
N0.02-4448 Civil Term
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the following documents:
1. Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories Directed Upon the Defendants,
Morgan C. Hughes, Ingrid Hughes, Williams Grove Amusement, Inc., and
Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove Amusement Park and
2. Plaintiffs First Request for Production of Documents Directed Upon
the Defendants, Morgan C. Hughes, Ingrid Hughes, Williams Grove
Amusement, Inc., and Williams Grove, Inc., d/b/a Williams Grove
Amusement Park
.-
v~
were served on the Defendants, by sending copies of the same to their counsel of
record, Michael Rowan, Esq., Shumaker Williams P.C., P.O. Box 88, Harrisburg, Pa
17108, by United States Mail, regular service, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on March 2 ~,
2007.
HANDLER, HENNING 8~ ROSENBERG, LLP
t
DATE: 3 ~ ° (~0~'
By
. Feather, Esq.
for Plaintiff
~ ~v
° ~
-r~
.
'~ ~ ~ -n
~7 ~ ~`'
x"11. ~ ~; ~ ~ '""
Y~
~~ ~
~ ~_ ~~ -~
~
' .~
.~
Gregrory M. Feather, Esq.
I.D.#79456
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 238-2000
Fax: (717) 233-3029
E-mail: FeatherCa~hhrlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ANGELA HYKES,
Plaintiff
v.
MORGAN C. HUGHES; INGRID
HUGHES; WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT, INC., and
WILLIAMS GROVE
AMUSEMENT PARK,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
NO. 02-4448 Civil Term
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Please mark the above-captioned matter settled, discontinued and satisfied.
DATE: 4 ~ ~ ZUd~--
HANDLER ,HENNING & ftb NB
,, .
~-
BY:
Gr,~gor~lA. Feather; Esq.
,LLP
c^ °~ -n
~` ~ ..~i
~a
t
". ~ t_~i..'s
`;"Y
,:a ~ 9
.. C~