The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About95-07220 "," , , " :LI .. '! " (, I, " , ., " , " , , I \ I I " , , , , , " , 1 ['I d'i: ;/ " ., " I " .iI , 'I 1/ \ If I " I, , , , , , ' ," , " " ,I , I , 'I , " , " ! 'I, , II ii, , " , " , , , , \ , , , , '" ',' '/1' I' !lij: " i, ' " , i " , , , ,:' j" .1 I , Ii, , , " '~ VI' UJ , " 11"' " ., " ~" ~, !. , , , " " " ',' , , , " " , I' 'I ." " , '1' .1" , " Ii " ~ (/J r- " " '-I' , jl' '" ~ ' 'I,' "-I , l() CT , " , ',' , , , I I,! .. " , , , " ' ., , ,1 ,',I ,.J '!r"l " ",} " ~ ~ . t i ...: z ~. ... ~ ~ ~ /10 jll . f!l . . ~ U rilU /lll e\ oz ~ ~ ~ n ~ H ... ... ~ ~ .... . ~ o . /lll ~ 3 d 1- ~ ~j UlIll 0 UI III o . ~ ~~ N ~~ ~ ~] N ~ ~ ~ = 8 ,... ~... 0 ~~ il . ~21 I al;j ell e el gj/lo ~ '" '" o-l ~ UI "':UI H . HH ~ fiI 0 e;~ z " , . ,)111\\ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA MAE ESHELMAN, I plaintiff I I -vs- I I WEIS MARKETS, INC, I Defendant I NO, 95-07220 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDBD TRIAL BRIEF OF DEFENDANT, WlIS HARJETS, INC. The mere happening of an aocident does not establish negligenoe nor raise an inference ox presumption of negligence nor make out a prima facia case of negligenoe, Laubach v. Haiah, 433 Pa, 487, 252 A,2d 682 (1969). The burden of proof of defendant'. negligence, in the senoe being a burden of persuasion, is everywhere on the plaintiff, who must per.suade the jury that a preponderance of evidence is in its favor, Sowizral v, Huohes, 333 F, 2d 829 (C.A, Pa. 1964), In the preoent case, Plaintiff io aeking the Defendant to aosume liability for B fall alleged to have been caused by a raioed metal ohopping cart otop otrip on the Defendant 'a porch area. In order to prove liability for negligence, the Plaintiff muot prove eaoh of the following I 1, That defendant had a duty owing to the p1ailltiff; and 2, That the defendant breached that duty; and 1 3, That the breaoh of the duty was a proximate cause of the harm to the plaintiff, and 4, That plaintiff suffered damages as a resLIlt , In the present oase, Defendant is a landowner, and Plaintiff was an invitee, That alono does not make the Defendant liable, While a store owner owes a duty of oare to patrons of the store/ the owner is not an insurer of the safety of its customers, ~tl v. Penn Traffic Comcanv, 606 A,2d 926, 414 Pa. Super, 181, appeal denied 620 A,2d 491/ 533 Pa. 625 (1992), Szumski v, Lehman Homes, 1.I1sl.../ 408 A,2d J.142, 267 Pa, Super. 471l (1979), In the present case, Defendant, Weis Markets/ had a duty to warn of a dangerous condition on its premises about which it knew or should have known, Plaintiff alleges that the metal shopping oart stopper strip (hereinafter metal strip) was a dangerous oondition as it was placed in such a manner ae to cause individuals to trip or fall over it, However, a landlord may not be expeoted to make his land safe for all conceivable uses/ but only for those cases which are roasonably foreseeable, ll2n!tr v, Board of Bducation of School District of Philadelphia, 496 A,2d 1288, 91 Pa, C, 145 (1985), The Defendant owed to Plaintiff a duty to repair or warn of a dangerous condition on its premises about which Weis Markets knew or should have known, Proof is then required to show that a metal strip on the porch area of a store is a dangerous oondition and that Defendant knew or should have known of that condition because 2 t", , , . , i :' \ .',' :'\ : \ it wa. r...on.bly for.....bl. th.t . ..t.l .trip i. . danv.rouB condition, Th. ..tal .trip wa. not hidd.n, The _tal .trip wa. not obBcur.d by dirt, debri., Bnow, Qr d.rkn..., Ind..d, the m.tal .trip h.d b..n in plac. for a long p.riod of ti_, Furth.r, th.re i. no .vid.nc. that it wa. 100Be, worn down, or had any pi.c.. .ticking from it, If the Plaintiff CGn prove a duty owed by Defend.nt to the Plaintiff, th. Plaintiff muet then prove that the Def.ndant, Wei. Mark.te, breach.d that duty in thatl 1, Def.ndant permitted to exiBt on it. property a dangerou. condition involving an unreasonable risk of harm to th. plaintiff, '1 " t , ,,0, ',( 'Id I' 11' ,t, j ,I and 2, Defendant knew or by the exercise of rea.onable care would disoover the dangeroue condition, and 'j L 3, The dangeroue condition was not known or obvious to the invitee, nor did the invitee have reaeon to diecover or realize the danger, \' I ~ ;; j , ^flll ,') '~ I ' , r:.,. and 4, The defendant doee not exercie. reaeonable care to protect the plaintiff aqainet the dangeroue condition, The Plaintiff muet prove all four of the above in order to "..1 }j ,) , ,-! I euco..d on proving a breach of duty by the Def.ndant. In this 1.,1. , ca.e, Plaintiff cannot prove that there wae a breach of duty by the " ~, ! fr ~ :1 ' .1 :vi_ I, ,II 1'1 ~;:}'1' , "' ',i-'; 3 Defendant in allowing the metal strip to be plaoed and remain in the porch area ovsr a number of years, First, Plaintiff claims that the dangerous condition on the property was the metal strip attachsd to the poroh area, The plaintiff claims that if this strip waa not on the porch, the Plaintiff would not hav", been injured, 'rhere is no evidence that the .trill> was oovered by debris of any kind or obscured in any way, There is no evidence that the metal strip was in any way hidden, The second element necessary to prove that there was a breach of duty is to IIhow that Defendant knew or by the exercise of reasonable oare would discover the dangerous condition, Again, the metal otrip wall in place for many years, The Defendants have no documentati'on, knowledge, or recollection of any problems caused to invitees by the metal otripo. The porch area was kept clean of debris / was maintained in excellent condition, and further was protected by the alements by a roof area, There is no reason that the Defendants knew or could have known that the metal strip was in any way dangerous. Thirdly, the Plaintiff must then prove that the dangerous condition was not known or obvious to the Plaintiff/invitee, nor did the invite~ have reason to discover or realize the danger, If the Plaintiff's reasoning is to be accepted, that the metal strip is a dangerous condition, then that condition, that there was a metal strip extending along the porch area, was equally as evident 4 to the Plaintiff a. it wa. to the property owner, Wei. Market.. The metal _trip i. approximately 5" in width and 20' long, Then are gap. between the leveral metal .trip. along the entire length of the porch area, Further, Plaintiff te.tified in depo.itionl that it i. her habit to look down and watch where ehe b going, and that ehe wae watching where she was going at the time of the accident, If indeed Plaintiff wae watching where she wae going, then there ie no relllon that she could not have IlIen the metal I I I I I I I strip as Dhe was approaching it from an angle otherwbe and directly on top of it, she had etepped forward with her right foot prior to the alleged fall. The fourth element the Plaintiff must prove in order to show a breach of duty is that the Defendant did not exercile realonable care to protect the Plaintiff againlt the danger, In this cale, the teltimony will Ihow that the porch area and the butting parking lot were kept clean and clear of debris and Inow, Signl along the porch area indicated that the length of the parking lot along the Defendants did porch .hould not be ueed as a stopping area, nothing to hide the condition of the metal strip, The third element required to prove negligence il caumation, Plaintiff cannot prove caulation, the requisite link between the breach of duty (only once it hal been established), and damage., The cauee of the accident was not the fact that there wae a metal etrip on the porch area of the store, The cauee of the ac~ident 5 wa. a .upereeding aut by which Plaintiff'. hip broke .pontaneou.ly which then cau.ed her to fall downward, The proper inquiry i. whether the breaking of plaintiff'. hip wa. an intervening caU.. which would not ab.olvQ the Defendant or a 8upereeding cau.., which would, Vattimo v, Lower Bucks "osDital Inc" 502 Pa. 241, 465 A,2d 1231 (1983), Chac~o v, CommonwQalth, DeDartment of TranlDortation, 148 Pa, C, 494, 611 A,2d 1346 (1992), The Restatement (Second) of Torts defines a luperseding cause a. "an act of a third person or force which by its intervention permits the octor from being liable for harm to another which its antecedent negligence is a aubstantial foetor in bringing about," Re.tatement (Second) 5440. Among the factors to con8ider in determining whether a subsequent force is an intervening or 8uperseding cause, are whethur the forae is operating independently of any 8ituation created by the first actor's negligence and whether it is or is not a normal result of that situation, Restatement (Second) 5442(c). In Vattimo, SUDra, the Supreme Court quoted with approval of. Pennsylvania Commonwealth'8 Court analysi8 of superseding causel {E}ven where an intervening act is wrongful it does not become a 8uperseding caU8e unless, looking retrospectively from the harm through the sequence of eventB by which it was produced, it is so extraordinary as to not have been reasonably foreseeable, 502 Pa, at 253, 465 A,2d at 1237 (quoting 59 Pa, C, 1, 9-10, 428 A,2d 765, 769 (1981)), 6 In thia case, Mn, Bshelman's injury iI QODlDlonly seen in ladies of her age, The fact of where the break occurred leads to the reasonable assumption that the incident occurred spontaneously and not as a result of tripping, Further, the fact that Mre, BBhslman landed near ths curb edge, she suffered no injurie. to arm., knees, hands, head, elbows, eto, or anything else other than her hip (not even an abrasion or contusion) which would logically and reasonably lead a jury to conclude that the break in her hip occurred prior to falling to the porch area of Defendant's property, The actions of Mrs, Eshelman spontaneously breaking her hip were extraordinary and not reasonably foreseeable, Therefore, the actions of the hip breakJ.ng spontaneously became a superseding cause which absolves the Defendant of any negligence/liability to the Plaintiff, Only if Plaintiff can prove duty, breach of duty, and causation, can then Plaintiff set about to prove negligence which are damages, It is undisputed that Plaintiff has not worked for many years, Therefore, Plaintiff's claim in the Complaint that she. has been precluded from working is insupportable and cannot be proven at trial, Further, there has been no testimony of any type nor will there be evidence that prior to the accident Plaintiff was going to look for a paid position for employment in the future, Therefore, any argument of claim that the Plaintiff had made in the Complaj.nt for lost wages must be stricken, 7 . I Plaintiff has claimed in the Complaint that she i. unable to perform routine, day-to-day activitie., There is no medioal t.,.timony which say. that she cannot preform routine, day-to-day aotivitie., Indeed, Plaintiff te.tified that .he livll. alone, climb. the stair. in front of her house, oan drive, shop., does her laundry, and cleans her houee, except for times when her niece unpaid oomee .poradically to assist her with larger cleaning job., Presently, Plaintiff has no medical care expensee for her injury, She hAR been discharged from the care of her treating physician, Dr, Litton, Her recovery has been uneventful and excellent, Her preeent balance and <jait problems have been related by 110 dootor either her treating physician or the Independent Medical ExftDlination expert ae being caused by or related to the fall of February 7, 1994, Damagee cannot be speculative but must be proven, In this oase Defendants are willing to stipulate that Plaintiff has incurred medical bills from February 7, 1994 through May 24, 1994 in the amount of $44,275,52, Conclusion The Plaintiff is unable to prove that Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty, that Defendant breached any duty to Plaintiff and that a breach was the proximate cause of any or all damages .uffered by 8 '\ ' , '. . , , , STETLER 61 GRIBBIN ^ITOro.N!YS ^T I.'IW ue loUr W>km 1r~~1T ,. O. 10'. ~... YOkk, PINNSYl.VANIA 17010& , . €Jl . ' Vfe .:11) i@it1 j1' . " I . , II, STATEMENT AS TO BASIS FACTS AS TO DAMAGBSI Plaintiff broke hur right hip, spent time in the hospital for a hip replaoement, and t.hen spent time in a nursing oare faoility and a rehab hospital, III. STATBMENT AS TO THB PRINCIPAL ISSUES OF [.IABILITY MID DAMAGES I In order for a Plaintiff to have liability found against Defendant as a olaim by an invitee againet'. an owner/possessor/ Plaintiff must prove by a preponderanoe of the evidenoe that a dangerous condition involving an unreasonable risk of harm to the invitee existed. Secondly, that the possessor knew or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the dangerous condition, Thirdly, that the condition was not known or obvious to the invitee nor did the invitee have any reason to discover or realize the danger and finally that possessor did not exercise reasonable care to protect the invitee against the danger, IV. SUMMARY OF LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY I None, V, IDENTITY OF WITNESSES TO BE CALLED I 1. Patrick Leasure; 2, Jeffrey W, Hughes, J, Balint Balog/ M,D,; 2 -. . , MAS SSHBLMAN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLBAS Plaintiff CUMBBRLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA v. NO. 95-7220 WBIS MARKBTS, INC. I CIVIL AL~ION - LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DBMANDED PLAINTIrF'S PRB-TRIAL CONPBRBNCB MBMORANDUM 1. STATBMBN'l' OP BABIC PACTS AS TO LIABILITY: On February 7, 1994, Plaintiff, age 66, was going to Weis Markets in Mechanicsburg and was driven there by her son. Due to the potentially slippery conditions in the parking lot, Plaintiff's son pulled up beside the "porch" area of the market, as two (2) , cars were parked dir.ectly in front of him, and he was unable to pull any closer to the main entranceway. At the end of the "porch" area there is a curb, and then there is a grey, metal strip, used to stop or hold the shopping carts and prevent them from rolling into the parking lot. These strips are only in certain sections of the store front, and lay between several pillars/columns, along the curb area of the "porch" . As Plaintiff got out of the vehicle, she first stepped up onto the curb with her right foot, and then she stepped forward with her left foot, and then tripped over the metal strip, causing her to fall, falling forward and landing on her right side and severely fracturing her right hip. Plaintiff was then helped back into the vehicle by her son and a store employee who came out to assist her, and her son took her to the Holy Spirit Hospital. PlaintUf was operated on by Dr. Jason Litton and was then in rehabilitation facilities for .everal months thereafter. At or near the time of the completion of her rehabilitation and discharge, Plaintiff contacted Defendant regarding her injury, as although the Weis employea was aware of the fall and told his supervisor, because the Weis employee did not have plaintiff's name, no report was prepared. II. STATBMJDIT OP BASIC PACTS AS TO DAMAGBS: As a result of the fall, plaintiff severely fractured her hip, and had mejor hip surgery and hip replacement and spent several months after the fall in rehabilitation, with medical bills in exceDS of $40,000.00, and with the future propensity of the hip deteriorating even more, causing complete physical incapacitation in the future. III. STAul'l.lDfl' AS TO THB PRINCIPAL ISSUBS OP LIABILITY AND DAMAGBS: plaintiff. need only prove the "slightest negligence" by a preponderance of the evidence, against Defendant as Plaintiff waD an invitee at Defendant's business establishment. Under pennsylvania law, Defendant owes the highest duty of care to its patrons/invitees. 2 The metal strip, and the area itself, created and caused a hazardous condition to exist, involving a tripping hazard, particularly in view of the lack of adequate warnings in the area as to the existence of the metal strip, and/or warning markings on the metal strip, especially for elderly persons walking in this area. Further, the metal strip created and caused a tripping hazard as a result of the slope of the walkway surface areal and also, without adequate warnings or warning markings, the metal strip should have be~n eliminated altogether, as there are safer, more obvious alternatives for stopping the shopping cartBI all of which created an unreasonable risk of harm to patrons/ invitees. Plaintiff was acting in a reasonable manner as an invitee, at all relevant times hereto. It is undisputed that when Plaintiff fell at Defendant's premises on February 7, 1994, Plaintiff fractured her right hip. IV. SUJlMARY OF LBGAL ISSUBS RBGARDING ADMISSIBILITY: None. V. IDBNTITY OF "ITNBSSBS TO BB CALLBD: 1. Plaintiff 2. Plaintiff's son, Jerry Brvin 3. Plaintiff's brother, Harold Brvin 4. Dr. Jason Litton (videotape) 5. Charles J. Goedken, P.B. 6. All Defense witnesses and Weis employees on cross-examination. 3 ~ MAE ESHELMAN I IN THE COUR'l' Olr COMMON PLEAS plaintitt I CUMBERLAND COUN'l'Y I PENNA. I v. I NO. 95-7220 I WEIS MARKE'rf, , I NC . : CIVIL AC'l'ION - LAW 'Defendant t JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED POINTS FOR CHARGE .,- for the 1. Plaintiff, Mae Eshelman, iR claiming damages injuries she received from her fall at Weis Markets on Wesley Drive, in Mechanics'/Jurg, Pennsylvania, on February 7, 1994. she is claiming that the metal strip which acts as the shopping cart catcher, cr~ated a hazar.dous condition at the market for its patrons, and particularly for elderly patrons, because it was not marked with any warning or cautionary yellow markings or signs, that there are safer, inexpensive and commonly used alternatives to the Defendant's cart catcher, and that the Defendant failed to take proper safety measures to make the area safer, when the entrance area is busy. 2. Weis Markets, Inc. is claiming that Mae Eshleman was contributorily negligent and that the metal strip was obvious and does not create a hazardous condition to patrons. 3. In order for the Plaintiff to recover in this case, she must establish that the Defendant's conduct must have been a substantial factor, although it need not be the only factor, in [ bringing about the plaintiff's injury. This is what the law recognizes as legal cause. A substantial factor is an actual, real factor, although the result may be unusual or unexpected. 1 Ell. SUlllLlllltll.L5t.....qJ..vl,L.lut:y.,lnfJtnIQU9ne... .S!iI,9,ttO.ILJ...2li,.. 4. In a civil case, the Plaintiff must establish her proof by a preponderance of the evidence, '1'0 put it another way, if you consider an ordinary balance scale, with a pan on each side. On the one side, place all of the evidence favorable to the Plaintiff, and on the other side, place all of the evidence favorable to the Defendant. If you feel that the scales tip ever 6 so slightly or to the slightest degree, in favor of the Plaintiff, your verdict must be for the Plaintiff; or if they are even, the verdict must be for the Plaintiff. EaJ_.s.ll.9\J!l..S.t~lJLS.t.... lli.iL..JJ.\.ry--InIiitJ::J.lQ.tj..9Jlt>._.S(l9.ti.Qn..l,..2~... 5. The Plaintiff in this case is classified as a business invitee. The standard of care and duty that a store owner owes to a business invitee is the highest standard and highest duty owed to any person entering onto a property, and the owner of the property is under an affirmative duty to protect the business invitee, not only against known danger.s, but also against those it might discover fiS dangerous or hazardous with reasonable care. Rippee v-, Gran!1-H.l,ln!!.f.a9.tJ.lrinQ..-C(h, 760 F.2d 25 (Jrd Cir. Pa. 1985). The owner of property has a duty to protect business invitees, to use care not to injure business invitees by negligent activities, to warn them ot latent dangers which the owner knows or should know, to inspect the premises to di scover possible dangerous conditions, and to take reasonable precautions 2 to protfl.:Jt invi tees trom foreseeable dnngers. H.onttlpytlo-'l.... SPlltJRoD~BlBQrt, 765 F.Supp. 852 (M.D. Pa 1991) 6. The Defendant claims that the Plantiff was contributorily negligent. 'rhe Defendant must prove, that Plaintiff, as an ordinary prudent person, under all circumstances present, failed to exercise reasonable care for her own protection. If you find that the Plaintiff was contributo~ily negligent, you must then determine whother Plaintff's conduct was substantial factor in bringing about her injury. If so, you muet compare and apportion her percentage of negligence with that of the Defendant. ~~~yg~~ st. Civil Jury InstruQlli.llii.._:3.!lglliD-.J~J.... 7. It you find that the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff, you must then find an amount of money damages which yuu believe will fairly and adequately compensate Plaintiff for all of the physical injury, past and future, that the Plaintiff will suffer as a result of the negligence. The amount you award today must compensate the Plaintiff completely for the damages she sustained. J>~.s..y'q~!l.d-S-t_.,_.(;j,yj,L -Iury..lns t r!lc.t,i.ons,._ Sec!.J..oD_l;i...JLQ.. B. The Plaintiff is entitled to be fairly and adequately compensated for her physical pain and SUffering, past and future; and her loss of of her ability to enjoy any of the pleasures of life as a result of her injuries, the loss of the her quality of life which you find she has endured, and will endure in the future. p..fi,_..J.lY9.q\lI>J;e~LCJ.Y..iL_J.YrY_Jn!;ltJ::JJcJ;j..oM.,. ~iQn-!i_._Q1E.._..Ji,_01.I. 3 , , , rn S ~ r.. ~ o . ~ tIl Iz: ~~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . e~ III . . III U ~ U ; ~ ~ r.. ~ i><tIl (,:l ~ ~ n 0 ..... ~ ~i G8 0 ...... '1':: ~ 3 n f4 U ~~ tIlnl 0 III S ~~ N ~ ~ N IX . 8 'rl I"- ~~ ~ ~ ~ !:l~ i~ 0 . I ..: ~ ~ !:l f2ll< I> III ~ ~ . '" '" ~ tIl a H . Hf;1U ~ ~ 0 o z Z ~OH i, :. " " . I',' '. . . ~ . . ,; . ~ " , . IN THB COURT OF COMMON PLBAS, CUMBBRLANO COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA MAl BSHBLMAN, I Plaintiff I I -v.- I I WBIS HARltBTS, INC, I Oefendant I NO, 95-07220 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DBMANDBD ,OINTS POR JURY CHARO. or D.r.NDAM!. HBI8 NARKIT8, lIe, 1, Under all of the facts and the law, your verdict must be in favor of Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc" and against the Plaintiff. I.). I .,' , 1 3, In civil cnes such aa thia one, the Plaintiff haa the burden of proving those contentiona which entitle her to relief, When a party has the burden of prqof on a particular issue, its contention on that iuue muet be establiehed by a fair preponderanoe of the evi.dence, 'l'he evidence establishes a contention by a fair preponderanoe of the evidence if you are perauaded that it is more probably accurato and true than not. To put it another way, think, if you will, of an ordinary balance scale, with a pan on each side. Onto one side of the soale, place all of the evidence favorable to the Plaintiff, onto the other, place all of the evidence favorable to the Defendant, If, after considering the comparable weight of the evidence, you feel that the scales tip, ever so slightly or to the siightest degree, in favor of the Plaintiff, your verdict must be for the Plaintiff, If the scales tip in favor of the Defendant, or are equally balanced, your verdict must be for the Defendant, In this case, the Plaintiff has the burden of proving the following propositionel That the Defendant owed a duty of car.e to the Plaintiff to repair or warn of a dangerous condition of the parking lot about which it knew or should have known, Secondly, that the Defendant permitted a dangerous condition involving an unreasonable risk of harm to the Plaintiff to exiat on the property and that the Defendant knew or by the exercise of rllasonable care would discover the dangerous condition and the dangerous condition was not known or obvious to the invitee/Plaintiff nor did the Plaintiff have reason to discover or realize the danger and the Defendant did not exercise reasonable care to protect tho Plaintiff against the dangerous condition, Thirdly, Plaintiff must prove the Defendant's failure to use reasonable care in breaching its duty to the Plaintiff was a substantial factor in causing the Plaintiff'S harm, If after coneidering all of the evidence, you feel persuaded that these propositions are more probably true than not true, your verdict must be for the Plaintiff, Otherwiae, your verdict should be for the Defendant, Pa. SSJI /Civ, 5,50l, In the present caae, the Defendant is a landowner, and the Plaintiff was an invitee. That alone does not make Defendant liable. While a etore owner owes a duty of care to patrons of the store, the owner is not a guarantor of the safety of its customers, Mvers v, Penn Traffic Company, 606 A,2d 926, 414 Pa, Super. 181, appeal danied 620 A,2d 491, 533 Pa, 625 (1992); Szumski v. Lehman Homes. Inc" 408 A,2d 1142,267 Pa, Super, 479 (1979), 3 4, A landowner may not be expected to make hie land eafe for all conceivable ueee, but only for thoe. ca.e. which are rea.onably foree.eable. ;roner v, Board of Bducation of School pietrict of philad,lphia, 496 A,2d 1288, 91 Pa, C, 145 (1985), (,! I ' , 4 ':1 " .'1 '. , I , , ,"!',Jiljli Ii, You mUlt con.ider whether there wal a luper.eding caule between the aotionl of the Defendant, Wei. Harket., Inc" and the ultimate outcome of the accident, Among the factor. to ooneider in determ.l.ning whether a lublequent force in an intervening or lupeneding cau.e, ie whether the force ie operating independently of any .ituation oreated by the firlt actor'l negligence and whether it il or i. not a normal relult of that lituat!on, Reltatement I Second I 5442(c), Bven where an intervening aot i. wrongful it doe. not become a luperleding caule unl..., looking r.tro.p.ot.ively from the harm through the .equence of event I by whioh it was produc.d, it i. 10 .xtraordinary al to not have been rea.onably for....abl., Vattimo v, Low.r Buok. HOBDital Ino" 502 Pa. 241, 465 A,2d 1231 (1983)1 and Chacko v, CODlDlonw.a1th, DeDartment of TranlDortation, 148 Pa, CODIDI, ct, 494, 611 A,2d 1346 (1992), r ). " ." . I .' 6 iji, FlW;D-OI:J:ICE OF n 'r mr)11 "f!f,mNlY 97 ,''''I~:! Ml 91 fi3 ~UM\)l.lIl'''l.i \"I.(JNIY PENN$YLVNIIA , , " I , .. I , II , , " " " , 'I, . . :rlm . James W. Abfllham, Esquire For the ~Iaintiff OlorlRnll Noreika, Esquire For tlte Defendant '(1 Ii iI, , " " ,,) '" "'":l ...., <-' ''<) ~ N ~ ~ ~ IY) (',J 'n 8 tr-. .';,t..,. ..... - 8,;;) ~ ';tJ x: '" t' I ~ '" t;'-'i-J ~ 0 ~': :.... ..;:) N <" \9 '- ...... I'J 1,,/~ U ..:: , ...... \ J!: 1::.! 1,IIm r:Qu.. 0~ ~ (~\ ~ ~ ~ -- ., , ,', , " " .., ',~ . I. , ' Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland Mae Eshelman VI. Court of Commoll Pie.. No, ____2~_:J.~~5L!:~X~L:r-~:-IlJ-;_-n- 19__n In _____C;~X~_J,_!:g!~~.?___: - _~_f!.~.__n_n.n__ Weis Markets, Inc, Wesley Drive/Plaza Mechanicsburg' PA 17055 Wei~ Markets, Inc.: To .________._______..____.___________________._ .~_M_____________________________________________.____-------------------------------------.------ You are hereby Mulled thaI Mae Eshelman the Plaintiff hasScommenced an action in ____~_\!'!!!!l_~!I_"!__:_.c:~:::~_~_~c::_~?_~_.::_~~~___..._____ agaln.t you which you are required 10 de/end or a defaull judgmllnl may be entered agaln.t you. (SEALl Date ____P..~p_~!!'_l:!~.x.:_~_Q_'...______ 19J1.~_ .---!:.~~-~~~-~--El~;WiJ~.~ ~r.~ :---. - .-- -.- ___n_n.. B .. \ /I .L' JCI~ ' (I y --...U-'U.--TD;,~iYV-.;-..-,--tU....---- , " " , ' J ~ 0 1"1 u oM :- I S I'l ill 'M ... J '"" u - j . I 0 j IJl N ~ ~ N ~ 0 r-- 'M I I\) ~ ~ In .t: ill 0 Cl\ ~ :E ..0: 1Il .-i I~ g . I\) OM 'M ill ~ > :E 'M U " I I MAB BSHBLMAN P1aint!t:f v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PBNNA. I NO. 95 -07220 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEI~BD WEIS MARKETS, INC. Defendant COMPLAINT AND NON, comes, Plaintiff, Mae Eshelman, by and through her attorney, James W. Abraham, Esq., Abraham Law Offices, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and files the following: 1. Plaintiff, Mae Eshelman, is an adult individual who currently resideR at 5169 E. Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17055. '2. Defendant, Wets Markets, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation, which conducts business on a regular basis, and owns and operates a food market store, at Wesley Drive Plaza, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 3. On or about February 7, 1994, Plaintiff was being driven by her son to Defendant's aforesaid store for purposes of food shopping at Defendant's store. 4. At saId time and place, the weather conditions on said day involved ice and snow, and the parking lot of Defendant's store was covered in many areas by ice and snow. 5. At said time and place, in view of the fact that Plaintiff is an elderly person, age sixty-six (66) at said time, walking across the parking lot with the ice and snow covered condition of the parking lot, would be hazardous, and therefore the vehicle in which she was riding, pulled up along the curb in , front of Defendant's store, and several car. lengths from the entrance to Defendant'n store, in order to be dropped off in front of the store, while Plaintiff's son parked the vehicle. 6. At the aforesaid time and place, when Plaintiff's vehicle pulled up in front of the store, Plaintiff was unable to be dropped off at or near the entrance to said Btore, as at least two (2) vehicles were parked or stopped at or near the entrance, along the curb in front of the Btore. 7. Plaintiff, aware of. the weather conditions, wearing proper footware for Ice and snow, stepped out of the vehicle, from the passenger side, and onto the curb on Defendant's property, and as Plaintiff took another step or two, her foot was stopped by a metal strip on Defendant's property, used as a shopping cart "catcher", which protrudes upward from the pavement on Defendant's property i and is also higher than the level of the pavement on Defendant's property, and therefore Plaintiff tripped over said metal strip, falling forward and to the side, and suffering personal injury, which said injuries are stated hereafter. 8. Plaintiff, as a result of the fall, suffered numerous injuries, including but not limited to, a severely fractured right hip, causing constant and chronic pain and stiffness in the hip region, lower and upper back, and legs, severely restricting Plaintif.f's mobility and range of motion, loss of flexibility and strength to an incapacitat ing degree i and said injuries continue to cause severe pain, suffering and incapaCity, which precludes Plaintiff from working, and from perfoming routine, day-to-day, activities. 9. At the aforesaid time and place, and at all relevant times hereto, Defendant had the duty to maintain Defendant's business premises in a reasonably safe condition for business invitees, as Pl~intiff was a business invitee. 10. Defendant breached its duty to maintain its business premises in a reasonably safe condition for business invitees, and was negligent, and/or grossly negligent, as said negligence and/or gross negligence was the sole, direct and proximate cause of , plaintiff's injuries, in that Defendant created a ha2ardous and/or dangerous condition on its premises to business invitees, including Plaintiff, in that Defendant: A. failed to provide any warnings or adequate warning to business invitees of the existence of the protruding metal strip and hazards in walking in the area of the metal strip; B. failed to place appropriate barriers in the area of the metal strip to prevent business invitees from walking in said area; C. failed to reasonably restrict access to the area of the metal strip by business invitees, for purposes of walking to the store entrance; D. failed to provide any warnings or adequate warnings regarding dropping off business invitess in the front of Defendant's store in the area of the metal strip; E. failed to reasonably resrict business invitees from being dropped off business invitees in front of the store in the area of the metal strip; F. failed to take proper safety precautions and/or implement prop18r safety measures, and/or failed to clear or provide alternative or additional designated pathways or areas for businees invitees to walk of during times of inclement weather, such as at all relevant times hereto, in order to prevent congestion at the front of the Defendant's store and/or the entrance area, and restrict the access of business invitees in and around the store, particularly in the area of the metal strip. G. failed to implement a less hazardous and/or dangerous method of catching and/ or containing Defendant /6 shopping carts from leaving Defendant/s property, than by utilizing a metal strip which creates a dangerous and/or hazardous condition to business invitees. 11. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that subsequent to Plaintiff's fall, Defendant i.mplement:ed numerous measures at said store regarding warnings to business inviteee walking in the area of the metal strip, and othewise restricted access to business invitees from the area of the metal strip. 12. As a further result of Plaintiff's negligence, as stated in Paragraph 10 hereto, Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to suffer in the future, pain and suffering, loss of life's pleasures, loss of the feeling of well being, anxiety, and the expense and inconvenience of further medical care and treatment. V) ~ ~ -.. ....., r., j' 'II " nf'; - , '., ;,,: i ~;: L;.... f." -- ,i 'lii, - \ "J L..' " " ,) I . ...,:, .... " I' ...-. , l~ u) ] C'. '.J .' " , , , " . IIi 1.111" 1-.1. jill'!l 1,1' (i' 1\ h (A~~'I': IFI: l'i'I'IIY,'; If) I ",'I"II'!I~W",N..TH ',',W I'I<tltI';"'/''1,1I11 i" ..IIINn 'iI "111''1-'1'1 ANI' i:~'j.lp::I,I'!^11 11/010' v. WI'; t'.i 11'11,1';1';'1', l,tI' U:lj'.Ij II ,I I'I'FWII~I:;I,., 11, ;-;tJ~11 i fl 1,:1 Llt,.pul; '! '.',hl-,lrl.t i l;t' l'IJ!'lI'FI;lfitil.' 1.;lllJIlI'y, !"'r'llq;.'/l.'/;JIlI.'j, wll'! Ill:'}ll" dol'l ;\W11l/l """11JdIIJl) , ., I~, ("'Y". I,ll' ~ I.;!,.,." Ifll'II'Lf')J.IT I\'HI)I"',I' II". "I <1 ir lifll'VI.I..J tht:;. '.11"'11 ',H:1: 11.1d::".ET:; IN'; , .k'f;''11,j..nl II' I~Hl/t,I/.1~~ 1'1"'11I"~" j'I'1 I,hl,. l,;t~\ '101'.' 'iJ 1',1 iI" I, )'",,,.., "11.-:-'11'"'' 'iliIVI.,;' I ,,:", !'\l-'('lIj\.t~ll ',a"lr}'I), I~J\ l/I:"'-\:'! .,'1f1IiL!{f'A!!li ('ilJrl1'/, FPI'lFlI '/!':.!rI1.i1, I;}' Illlldlll<l ") f!,Yr~' IllJ'dlk:','1 t\~;,' \::iT.AI'rr /'1 f./I /\')1,';" .1 ,i,! .1 , t I,ll'; ,111'.1 ,II. 1,1. .. I. I~ ., I,~l:' p y '~J I I . Ill; 1'''J~p'l A I iIT ^"" WIT I I. I .J' .. ':lll,i " . ,,~, .:.",1111,1' t, I '11'(~ 01 I 1 1-'. i" " i.lli'J II , . :,tl l"li' \. 'II I .. I hl:l 1;'.)11 t',ltl 1,1:1 t.hl_'l , II:; " . - tp~'l 1 1 I' ';3 r:IJ ,;,' ri r If 'l~ l,' I: i rill """1 v l' I.' I' r, I ,j'l'} i' " \J r,' tl.} r 91.1 " ."" ":/');1~' ~~~""~ #~~ ,,' --,,':....."'.., 1.1' 1 H. ...'Jl'1 ','. ',;,,) I Ii) 1/ .:.I,WI E. '~I'1111I1 I: 1< l. i (i' " 1'1\, I j r r .~:'!~;, (,r.1 11\/'1Y',1 H. (11./111/11\ I" j/ j ii 1 'J','I' I: t7 .f.1#f;~~t.?f, t " ! Illr' ,Iii'! L\"~t":.'L I.lJ,.d 1,':1 Jlll,'! ',II',," 1111 /"1!- ,I,,!, "I 'nt-(LA,~ 9~. 11.. t!, q..,~" ~\, ~f<-::I' upt:f ~~ W') I'J 'I ':"! ,_ >" r') /. IJ) i .. , .. ~". I . . ). ". p..'. . . ~ '; 1..1 ,. , Si', I,D , ) I" , Lj' "I I lL' r 'I I , " I t1 , .;. I ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ; o II< I a i!; ~ o i ~ 11 S ! ~ g ~ ~I~j~ ~ ~ d' o S ~ ~ ~ ~ '" >" . tJ ~ rz: ~ ~ III III III ~ > ~ 0" N N ,.. o I III 0\ II: o ~~ wz e:~ ~~ II<~ . ~ 8 IW\ @l I>< III H ~ a . o rz: .1 . i '. .'1 .,... . . . z ... ~ ~ ! IlQ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ GQ ~ ~ I i <I d Q 3 ~ . ~!l " ~ , " ! \ j. l ~) ., 'lI'} , .,. l'n p tl'. j" ". 'i , ~ :_~.} I.'{ .-.: !:. i " . ~' I., I ':';~ " I \ ,;j 1~ I' -:~ \': ~., i I"" f.,) .I. , I " 'U... . " '" '- '- , '.J IN TBB COURT or COMMON PLBAS, CUMBBRLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA NAB BSBBLIWt, plaintiff I I I I I I I NO, 95-07220 CIVIL ACTION - LAW -y.- WBIS HARlBTS, INC, D.hndant JURY TRIAL DBMANDBD KoorICI TO PLOD You ar. hereby notified to file a written reapon.. to the enelo.ed An.wer of Defendant. with New Matter within twenty (20) day. from .erviee hereof or a judqment may be entered again.t you, Re.peetfully eubmitted, STBTLBR , GRIISBllt., "..-- / . ..,..1/....' ) B,t~i~ .(n~.)~~~eik~~B '~~ire ( Attor y I,D, No, SS7~3 138 Ba t Market street. p;O;'Box 2588 York, PA 17405-2588 Telephone No, (717) 854-9506 Attorney for Defendant Dated I / )') (;(. . , , . IN TIll COURT or COMMON PLBI\8, CUMBBRLAND COUNTY, 1'IlflISYLVAlUA NAIl BSIILMAN, I NO, 9&-07220 plaintiff I I CIVIL ACTION - LAW -v.- I I WIIS HAlUtBTB, IHC, I Defendant I JURY TRIAL DBMANDID ulMBI!. 1. Denied, After re..onab1e inve.tigation, Defendant b without knowledge or information sufficient to fo~ a belief .. to the truth of this averment and proof thereof is demanded at trial, 2, Admitted, 3, Denied, After re..onable inveetigation, Defendant b without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief a. to the truth of thi,8 averment and proof thereof i8 demanded at trial, 4, Denied, After rea.onable inve8tigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information 8ufficient to fo~ . belief .s to the truth of thi8 averment and proof thereof i8 demanded at trial. S, Denied, After rea.onable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to fo~ . belief as to the truth of thi8 averment and proof thereof is demanded at trial, 6, Denied, After reasonable investigation, Defendant b without knowledge or information 8ufficient to form a belief a. to the truth of thi8 averment and proof thereof is demanded at trial, 7, Denied, After rea.onable inve8tigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information 8ufficient to form a belief as to the truth of thi8 averment and proof thereof i8 demanded at trial, 1 B, Denied, Th. metal strip i. obviou. and visible alonq the portion of Defendant'. prop.rty wh.r. it i. u.ed, Furth.r, it wa. Plaintiff'. d.ai.ion to aliqht from the vehicle in which .he wa. a p....nq.r at the point where the injury all.qedly occurred, rather than waitinq for any and all vehicle. in front of her v.hicle to move or proc..d away froDl the point clo.e.t to the main entrance, 8, Denied, After reuonable inve.ti'iJation, Defendant b without knowledqe or information .ufficient to form a belief a. to the truth of thi. averment and proof thereof i. demanded at trial. 9, Denied a. a conclu.ion of law to which no anawer i. required, 10, D.nied a. a conclu.ion of law to whiuh no an.wer i. required, To the extent that an an.wer i. required, it i.1 A, Denied, The metal .trip i. obvious and vieible alonq the portion of Defendant'. property where it i. used, B, Deniel!, It 11 denied that Defendant fail.d to m.et allY and all dutie. or obligation. to its invitee., The metal .trip i. obvious and vi.ible alonq the portion of Defendant'. property where it is u.ed, C, Denied, At all time. Defendant'. action. were rea.onable, The metal .trip ie oblrioUl and vhible alon9 the portion of Defendant'. property where it i. u.ed, D, Denied, The metal .trip i. obviou. and vieible alon9 the portion of Defendant" property where it i. u.ed, 2 P. D.n1.d, Th. metal .tr1p 1. obv1ou. and v1e1bl. along the portion of Def.nd.nt'. prop.rty where it 18 u..d. Furth.r, it w.. Plaintiff'. d.c1.1on to .11ght from the v.h101. in which .h. wa. . p....ng.r .t the point wh.re the injury .ll.g.dly occurred, r.th.r th.n waiting for any and all v.h1ole. in front of h.r v.h1cl. to move or proc..d away from the point clo...t to the main tlntranc., ,. . 'I G, Denied. Th.t .ny m.thod u.od by the Def.nd.nt cre.t.d e dang.rou. or hazardou. condition to invit..., To the contr.ry, the metal .trip i. obviou. and vidble along the portion of D.f.ndant'. property wh.r. it i. u.ed, 11, Denied, After rea.onable inv..tigation, Def.ndant 1e without knowledge or information suffioient to form a beli.f as to the truth of thi. averment and proof thereof is demanded at trial, 12, Denied, After nAtlonable investigation, Def.ndant h without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this av.rment and proof thereof i. d.mand.d at trial, WHBRBFORB, Defendant, Wei. Market., Ino" respectfully requ..t. thi. honorable court to enter judgment in it. favor and again.t the Plaintiff a. to all i.sue. of liability and damag... .n MATTIR 13, Defendant inoorporates by referenoe the an.w.r. to paragraph. 1 through 12 a. though fully .et forth her.in, 14, The a1leg.d injurie. and damage. of the Plaintiff w.re oontributed to by her and any award mu.t be reduo.d accordingly, 3 ., '" 15. Plaintiff wa. aware and und.r.toed the ha.ard in whioh .he wa. eng.g.d but knowingly and voluntarily oon.ented to ...ume the rbk, 16, Some or .11 of the damage. ol.imed by the Plaintiff are unrelated to the alleged f.ll and are due to previouely or .ub.equently ooourring medioal oonditions, 17, Some or all of the mediaal tre.tment .llegedly obtained by the Pl.intiff wa. not neo....ry or appropriate tr.atment for the injurie., if .ny, whioh were .ll.gedly .u.tained in the fall. WBBRBFORB, Defend.nt, Wei. Market., Ino" re.peotfully reque.t. thi. honor.ble to enter judgment in it. f.vor and againat Plaintiff .. to all i..ue. of liability and damage., Date4c 7.- /') - <1(; Reepeotfully submitted, 8TBTLIR , GRIBBIN BY'(/(:~(:' ~ ) ,/1,,1~_ Gl ana Noreika, At or ey I,D, No, 55793 13 8 et Market Street P,O." ox 2588 York, PA 17405-2588 Telephone No, (717) 854-9506 Attorney for Defendant 4 !R 01 r - Ct~ " ") 1.0(. .,- "" . ~,' "'. ' ].'f. 'r <L. 112l I,. f,' a. . .- ... (/1 I. I ,11'1' II" [-,'J "Fe - J I , f. .. ~) lJ".1 ~, tJl .:. ,,' ;, - 1Il ~ 0 e ~ ~ ~ ll. ~~ IZ ! 0 0 ~ ~ ll. rolrol ~! ~ <Ill>: /Ill . . z !!! u i u O~ 3 < z p.,lJl , III ~n ~ H f3~ c.:> .... ~ G$ ~ h ~ ..... . l: l>:~ ~ U ~.~ <II1\l 0 poi r' l"l <IIlJl ~ (j ~ ~ ~ l"l - .. lJl ~ . ~ ..-4 ..... t;~Z ~! w u :3 ~~ ~~ 0 ~o ~ . I oO:HH ~ Cl 1Ilp., I> III ffit;~ V) rol '" ~ 1Il HH ~ H . ~::3ll: ~ ~ 0 ~p.,~ Z , ' , IN TUB COURT or COMMON PLBAB, CUMBBRLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA NO, 95-07220 CIVIL ACTION - LAW MAl BSBBLMAlf, I Plaintiff I I -v.- I I WlIS NARKBTS, INC, I Defendant I JURY TRIAL DBMANDBD DBP.IDAIT" "8'01'. TO 'LAIITIPP'I PIRST RlQUlIT rOR AUNII'IOIII 1, Admitted, 2, Denied, Defendant'. employee, Patrick Leaeure, .aw Plaintiff after .he had fallen, came out. ide to the accident .cene, and inquired .. to Plaintiff'. condition, He then went into the .tore to alert the manQger on duty, Returning to the .cene with the manager, they found Plaintiff had left without leaving her name, addre.., or description of the accident, 3, Denied. Plaintiff's testimony at deposition was that .he exited the car approximately l' to 1 1/2' from the curb, .tepped with her right foot up onto the curb, then when bringing her left foot onto the curb, struck t.he metal piece with the front of her foot, She then fell forward landing on her right arm and rJ.ght hip, lihe injured only her dght hip, 4, Admitted, 5, Admitted in part, denied in part, Admitted to the extent ~hat if a patron or person tripped over the metal strip on Defendant'. property and was injured Defendant would have no record of this accident unless Defendant was info4~ed end/or aware of the accident, and Defendant we. informed of the name of the patron or per.on. 1 Denied that there would be an "aaaident" if a patron or pltnon tripped over the metal strip and was not in any way injured, Then i. no need to make an accident report of a non-injury .ituation, Further, if the patron did not report the situation, then Defendant would not know about it, 6. Objection, po.t-aooident activitie. or actions of the Defendant which may be remedial in nature are irrelevant and cannot be used a. Plaintiff'. evidenoe to prove negligence on the part of the Defendant, Further, there was testimony that there exi.ted .ign. on poles at the time of the incident involving Plaintiff, 7, Objection, The iSSUG in the pre.ent matter i. whether Plaintiff tripped or fell on Defendant's property a. a result of the metal strip located on the porch area of that .tore, It is unduly burden.ome to request that Defendant monitor and/or contact any and all of it. competitor'. individual .tore. to a.certain whether they employ the use of metal strips on their porch area. a. a means of stopping shopping aarts from entering the driveway/parking lot, 8, Denied, Defendant has used the metal strip at the WeBley Drive Weis Market for approximately the past 20 years, g, Admitted in part, denied in part, Denied that Bign .tating "No Parking Parcel Piok-Up" was not located on porch area prior to Plaintiff'. accident, To the contrary, such signs exi.ted and were placed on movable poles along the porch area, Admitted that there are no other ohanges to the area, Further, the 2 Defendant object. to the Plaintiff'. u.e of any po.t-accident chanv.. being u.ed by Plaintiff a. a m.an. of atte.pting to prove Defendant'. n.gligence, 10. AdIIitted. R..pectfully .ubmitted, '. Dated. () Nov. I'N6 1'1 , ' 3 MAS ESHBLMAN plaintiff IN THB COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBER'~ COUNTY, PBNNA, I NO. 95.,7220 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. WEIS MARKBTS, INC. Defendant PLAINTIFF'S ANSIfBR TO DBPBNDANT'S NB1f MA'l"I'BR 13. Denied. Paragraph 13 is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is r.equired. 14. Denied. The averments contained i,n paragraph 14 constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 'ro the extent a response is required, it is denied that Plaintiff in any way, contributed to her injuries. The averments contained in the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference ther~to and made part hereof. 15. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 15 constitute a legal conclusion to which no response i.s required. To the extent a response is required, it is denied that Plaintiff was aware and understood the hazard i11 which she was engaged and knowingly and voluntarily consented to assume the ri.sk, as Defendant was unaware of the hazardous condition on Defendant's premises and therefore could not have assumed the risk. 16. Denied. The damages requested by plaintiff in the Complaint ar.e directly related to, and were factually and proximately caused by the negligence of Defendant, and resulted from Plaintiff's fall on'Defendant's premises, i'i; ell - "'" ,.. ~.. r:Q ~' .,,'''')' of; ;.(~ . :1,' 'f. .Ii:! f'j , r~, "I , j. N , . Itll ~'... :>. .... ',l.l If :...; "'.'.'\.: II. r.. i () U\ .) , , ,t tI I " " " , ,I 'I " , , ". .. ~ , , MAE ESHELMAN, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 95.7220 CIVIL TERM va, WEIS MARKETS, INC., Defendant CIVIL AcrlON . LAW VERDlq QUEST/ON I: Do you find that the defendnnl, Wci~ Mnrkets, Inc., was negligent" Yes No ~ If you allllwer Question I "No," the plnintiff cannot reeovcr and you should notnnswcr any further questions and should return to the courtroom, QUESTION 2: Wns Wds Mnrket, Inco's negligence a substantial factor In bringing about the plaintiff's harm" Yes No - If you answer Ouestlon 2 "No." the plninUff cannot reeovcr nnd you should not nnswer any further questions and should rcturn to the courtroom, QUEST/ON 3: Was the plaintiff, Mac Eshelman. contributorily negligent" Yes No If you answer Question 3 "No," proceed to Question 6, If you nnswer "Yes." proceed to Question 4. .. oil' ... r QUESTION 4: WIIS thc pllllntll'l's eunlril1ulury ncgligcnce II suhstllnlllll fllelllr In bringing ubout hcr hunn'! Ycs Nu If you unswcr Qucstlun 4 "Ycs," procecd lu Qucstlun 5. If yuu nl1KWCr Qucstlun 4 "Nu," prucecd to Qucstlon 6. QUESTION 5: Tllklng thc cUlllhlned IIcgligencc Ihlll wnK II suhstlll1titll fllctm In hrlnglng uboutthc plnintift's hllrlll ns 100 pcrcent, wllllt pcrcentllgc of thllt cllusnl ncgligence wns ullrlbutllblc to the dcfcndllntllml whnt pcrccntngc WIIS lI11rlhutllhlc to thc phllntllr! Pcrcentllgc of clluslIl ncgligcnce Illlrlhulllhlc to Dcfcndllnt % Pcrcentllgc of CllllS1I1 ncgligcncc IIl1rlhutnhlc tu Plllintiff __'if 1 TOTAL 100% If you hnve fuund MIlC Eshclllllln's cnusalncgllgcnce to hc grcntcr thlln 50 pcrcent. thcn the plaintiff can nut nlcuvcr IInd you should nutllllswcr Question 6 Ilnd should rcturn to the courtroom. QUESTION 6: Stlltc thc IImountof dlllllllgcS, If Ilny, sustlllncd hy the plllintlfl' as a result of thc accidcnt. without rcgllrd to Ilnd without reduction by the percentllgc of causal negligence, if any, that you hllvc nllrlhllted to thc plaintiff, $- Aftcr yuu rcturn your IInswcrs to thcsc qucstions on thc vcrdlct form, signcd hy your foreman, the Court will dctcrmine thc 1I1l10unt to hc IIwllrdcd to the plaintiff. if IIny, by rcducing the alllllunt of dllmllgcs found hy you in proportion to thc pcrcentngc uf thc plninlifl's cnusnl IN THB COURT OF COMMON PLBAI, CUMBIRLAND COUNTY, PBHHSYLVANIA MAl BBHBLMAH, I Plaintiff I I .VI- I I WlIB HARltBTB, INC, I Defendant I NO, 9!1-07220 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DBHANDBD .KAlCI.. POR I~RI or 'II JURI V.RDZC! TO THB PROTHONOTARY I Pleue enter the jury verdict of January 28, 1997 which wae in favor of the Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc, No appeals or post- trial motions were filed by any of the parties to this matter, Dated I .3 ~ 2/.} .' ell /' - '~--)" , - , ;;;Lh{,v / a Noreika, y I,D, No, 55793 t Market Street 2588 A 17405-2588 Telep ne No, (717) 854-9506 Attorney for Defendant Weis Market. Inc, ... " 'J ~ " ,~ s " q.; .. ~ i r- ~~ '" f M " x: 0.. i~i g N " I '~ ~ ; q ~ ~ , , ,II' .,. , " ~ ... '" ~ ',. SJ If"' '" r-