Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-00319 I l- I ~ 1 J \ \~ I I / ~ ~ ' JI 1 I . I III ;1 J. J. i (J - N) CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO & MAUER, P.C. By: Mark A. Corchin, Esq. Attorney I.D. '17456 Suite Seven Valley Forge Commons P.O. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, PA 19482 Phone: 610-933-3333 Attorney for Plaintiff Alberta Horner, Administratrix for the Estate of Charles L. Carter 836 Franklin street Carlisle, PA 17013 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs (\~(,~ C vs. NO. flY-3/r Stanley A. Lanoue Conodoguinet Mobile Estates Lot 158 Newville, PA 17241 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance on behalf of Plaintiff, Alberta Horner, Administratrix for the Estate of Charles L. Carter, in the above captioned matter. CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO & MAUER, P.C. ,<A..lc.. t!t..( (l/ ~~ ALAN CORCHIN torney for Plaintiff < -.' I I I I , I r ~ en >- I <.~ c':> !..:: ,-- ,,'> ~-; ~... n UI,;" ()..l:: Ul,.- ;.J:.:~ rc~--j u.. 1I.r- .~ :~j O~ , , "'- fi3': N '(0:- ~ ,",. "J . ", ;.~: ~I'~ '---, -' :-ii;'] F , ~ t 1 u... 11- ,r. :5 c' c;.' u CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO & MAUER, P.C. By: Mark A. Corchin, Esq. Attorney I.D. 117456 Suite Seven Valley Forge Commons P.O. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, PA 19482 Phone: 610-933-3333 Attorney for Plaintiff Alberta Horner, Administratrix for the Estate of Charles L. Carter 836 Franklin street Carlisle, PA 17013 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs vs. NO. 9ft: 3'1 (!~:jL Stanley A. Lanoue Conodoguinet Mobile Estates Lot 158 Newville, ~A 17241 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant 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. Court Administrator CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE 4th floor, One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 . CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO & MAUER, P.C. By: Mark A. Corchin, Esq. Attorney I.D. 117456 Suite Seven Valley Forge Commons P.O. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, PA 19482 Phone: 610-933-3333 Attorney for Plaintiff Alberta Horner, Administratrix for the Estate of Charles L. Carter 836 Franklin street Carlisle, PA 17013 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs vs. NO. Stanley A. Lanoue Conodoguinet Mobile Estates Lot 158 Newville, PA 17241 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff Alberta Horner is an individual residing at 836 Franklin Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff is the Administratrix of the estate of Charles L. Carter, deceased ("decedent"), having been appointed by the Register of Wills of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, on December 26, 1995. 2. Plaintiff, surviving daughter of the decedent, brings this action for damages incurred due to the negligence of defendant, and is entitled by law to recover damages based upon the death of the decedent. 3. Defendant Stanley A. Lanoue is an adult individual residing at Conodoguinet Mobile Estates, Lot 158, Newville, I:'.." - -"\ .. Pennsylvania. 4. Hazel E. Carter, surviving spouse of the decedent, is an adult individual residing at 836 Franklin street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and is entitled by law to recover damages based upon the death of the decedent. 5. On September 26, 1994, at approximately 3:20 p.m., the decedent was driving his automobile south on N. Bedford street approaching the intersection of East High Street and Bedford Street in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6. At the same time the defendant, travelling west on East High Street, failed to stop for the red traffic light at the intersection of East High Street and Bedford Street and struck plaintiff's vehicle. 7. As a result of the negligence of defendant, and not due to any act or failure to act on the part of decedent, said decedent endured great pain, suffering and injuries, including wounds on both knees, and leading to his death. 8. At the time of the accident, the negligence of the defendant consisted of, inter alia, the following: (a) failing to keep his vehicle under proper and adequate control; (b) failing to keep a proper lookout ahead; (c) disregarding the rights, safety and position of other vehicles on the road; (d) operating his vehicle too fast for conditions; (e) failing to slow c~ to bring his vehicle to a stop in order to avoid the impact with the decedent's vehicle; and (f) failing to comply with the provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code relating to the operation of motor vehicles, specifically as they relate to the aforesaid acts of negligence. 9. By reason of the severe injuries decedent suffered, he has overcome the limited tort option and retains his right to sue for and recover non-economic damages. COUNT I SURVIVAL ACTION ALBERTA HORNER. ADMINISTRATRIX V. STANLEY LANOUE 10. Paragraphs 1 through 9 of the Complaint are incorporated by reference as if set forth at length. 11. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the estate of Charles L. Carter, deceased, by virtue of the Probate, Estate and Fiduciaries Code, 20 Pa.C.S.A. 93373, and the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. 98302 and plaintiff claims on behalf of said estate damages suffered by the said estate by reason of the death of the decedent, as well as for the pain, suffering and inconvenience the decedent underwent prior to his death, and the loss of probable future earnings less the sum necessary for the decedent's usual personal support and maintenance. WHEREFORE, plaintiff seeks judgment in her favor in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional amount requiring arbitration. COUNT II THE WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION ALBERTA HORNER. INDIVIDUALLY V. STANLEY LANOUE 12. Paragraphs 1 through 11 of the Complaint are incorporated by reference as if set forth at length. 13. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Pennsylvania Wrongful Death Act, 42 Pa. Cons. stat. ~8301 and Pa.R.C.P. No. 2202(a), on behalf of herself and Hazel Carter, decedent's surviving spouse. 14. The decedent was survived by plaintiff and his spouse, Hazel Carter, who are entitled to recover damages for his death. 15. The decedent did not bring an action for personal injuries during his lifetime, and no other action for the death of the decedent has been commenced against the defendant. 16. As a direct and proximate result of the defendant's aforesaid negligence, plaintiff suffered and defendant is liable for the following damages: (a) funeral expenses for the decedent; (b) expenses of administration related to the decedent' s injuries; (c) the plaintiff's deprivation and injury as a result of the loss of the support, comfort, counsel, aid, association, care and services of the decedent; and (d) such other damages as are permissible in a wrongful death action. WHEREFORE, plaintiff seeks judgment in her favor in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional amount requiring arbitration. CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO & MAUER, P.C. . .t , ALAN CORCHIN orney for Plaintiff , . "," .J''';}f ' . C . VERIFICATION I, Alberta Horner, hereby state that I am the plaintiff in this Action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 1 B Pa. C. S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date:~ I~I 17ft %I!lit Wn__ Alberta Horner , ~ ~ ?'l . .'. \' .f L; >-" n (~ ., f. I~L" , f ,; If '~ ,'. (:',; x:', t.... , ',. .. c,;;; , N :: ~:'j iii "J , : ,';", j ~ . . ,.. ..... t;' ::.. U .,1 <-, 'J ~ ..~ .' ..<) ~ .", IS ,P ""=:::( ~ ..... :. ......... M "'-., -j... '... \..i.. ~ ~ d~ ~ - . SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 1995-00319 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND HORNER ALBERTA ETC VS, LANOUE STANLEY A ROBERT L. FINK, SR. CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, who to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & upon LANOUE STANLEY A defendant, at 1215:00 HOURS, 1995 at CONODOGUINET MOBILE , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of being duly sworn according NOTICE was served the on the 25tQ day of Ja~~ ESTATES LOT 158 NEWVILLE, PA 17241 ,CUMBERLAND -' County, Pennsylvania, by handing to STANLEY LANOUE a true and attested copy of the COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOC. and at the same time directing Hi>; attention to the cont\?nts thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So answers: 18,00 5,72 .1210 2.00 526.72 z';k~-'~~i'<::: "''';~.!J jH. S t\ l.nr.-'~ner~"f1 CORCHIN GRAHAM ROSATO MAUER 01130/~:96 /'? / 7 ~~o-- -t--:- '7._~~ epu y ~A! Sworn 2nd subscribed to before me this _7~ _ day of :t-t.~..., 19~__ A. D. ._~'.)~~_~.p)1l.1 tI(~ ' .!:!1!5-' -'7' ro 1I0nol.ary Jo((oroon J. Shipman. Eequire 1.0.', 51785 GOLDBERG. KATZMAN & SHIPMAN. P.C. 320 Market Street P.O. Box H68 Harriebur9. PA 17108-1268 Telophone. (717) 234-4161 Attorneyo for Defendant ALBERTA HORNER, Administratrix of the Estate of Charles L. Carter, Plaintiff vs. STANLEY A. LANOUE, Defendant TO THE PROTHONOTARY: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 96-319 PRAECIPE PLEASE enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of the Defendant in the above-captioned matter. DATE: February 13, 1996 GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. . J. Sh man, Esqu re for Defendant .. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served on the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on February 13, 1996: Mark Allen Corchin, Esquire Corchin, Graham, Rosato & Mauer, P.C. suite? Valley Forge Commons P.O. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, PA 19482 GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. DATE: February 13, 1996 ',- M >.. r; (:; i-:J ).;- ttJ5-~' 0" li:t. ~~- c;;> ., C',t. 'r',' " U...l ., .'.:, r' ,- ~ j ,.... ['. j l,_ 11. \.-.:! :_; ...' Lo U "'l'f".~",.. Jeffereon J. Shipman, Esquire 1.0.'. 517B5 GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. 320 Market Street P.O. Box 126B Harrieburq, PA 1710B-126B Telephone. (717) 234-4161 Attorneys for Defendant ALBERTA HORNER, Administratrix of the Estate of Charles L. Carter, Plaintiff vs. STANLEY A. LANOUE, Defendant TO THE PLAINTIFF: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 96-319 NOTICE You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days from the date of service hereof, or a default jUdgment may be entered against you. Date: March?, 1996 GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. on J. . O. ox 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorneys for Defendant Identification No.: 51785 Telephone: (717) 234-4161 , Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire 1.0.'. 51785 GOLD8ERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 Telephone. (717) 234-4161 Attorneys far Defendant ALBERTA HORNER, Administratrix of the Estate of Charles L. carter, Plaintiff . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 96-319 vs. STANLEY A. LANOUE, Defendant ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT. STANLEY A. LANOUE AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Stanley A. Lanoue, by and through his counsel, GOldberg, Katzman & Shipman, P.c., and files the following Answer and New Matter to the Complaint of Alberta Horner, Administratrix of the Estate of Charles L. Carter: ANSWER 1. Denied. The Defendant, Stanley Lanoue, is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 1 and the same are, therefore, denied. 2. Denied. The averments contained Paragraph 2 are merely conclusions of law to which no response is required., denied. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. The answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 4, and the same are, therefore, denied. 5. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that on September 26, 1994 Charles L. Carter was driving an automobile south on North Bedford Street. The remaining averments contained in Paragraph 5 are denied. 6. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant was traveling west on East High Street. The remaining averments of Paragraph 6 are denied. 7. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 7 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments of Paragraph 7 are specifically denied. 8. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant was negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiff's alleged cause of action. 2 o a. It is specifically denied that the answering Defendant failed to keep his vehicle under proper and adequate control; b. It is specifically denied that the answering Defendant failed to keep a proper lookout ahead; c. It is specifically denied that the Defendant disregarded the rights safety and position of other vehicles on the road; d. It is specifically denied that the answering Defendant operated his vehicle too fast for conditions; e. It is specifically denied that the answering Defendant failed to slow or bring his vehicle to a stop in order to avoid the impact with the decedent's vehicle; and f. It is specifically denied that the answering Defendant failed to comply with the provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code relating to the operation of motor vehicles, specifically as they relate to the aforesaid alleged acts of negligence. 9. Denied. The averments contained Paragraph 9 are merely conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, it is averred that the decedent's injuries were not serious. 3 I, <, , ,H. COUNT I Survival Action Alberta Horner. Administratrix vs. Stanlev Lanoue 10. The answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference his answers to Paragraphs 1 through 9 above as though fully set forth herein at length. 11. The averments contained in Paragraph 11 are merely conclusions of law to which no response is required under Rules of civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Stanley Lanoue, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in his favor and that the Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. COUNT II Wrongful Death Action Alberta Horner. Individuallv vs. stan lev Lanoue 12. The answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference his answers to Paragraphs 1 through 11 above as though fully set forth herein at length. 13. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 13 are merely conclusions of law to which no response is required under Rules of civil Procedure. 4 14. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 14 are merely conclusions of law to which no response is required under RUles of civil Procedure. 15. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 15 are merely conclusions of law to which no response is required under Rules of civil Procedure. 16. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 16 are merely conclusions of law to which no response is required under RUles of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Stanley Lanoue, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in his favor and that the Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. NEW MATTER By way of additional answer and reply, Defendant, Stanley Lanoue, interposes the following new matters: 17. That the Plaintiff's injuries and damages were not caused by any acts, omissions, or breaches of duty by Defendant, Stanley Lanoue, but were caused in whole or in part or were contributed to by the negligence, fault or want of care of the Plaintiff's decedent. 18. The Plaintiff's alleged cause of action is barred in whole or in part by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 5 L 42 Pa. C.S.A. 57102, et seq., or by the Doctrine of Comparative Negligence. 19. That the negligence of the Plaintiff's decedent included, without limitation, the following: (a) Failing to have his vehicle under proper control; (b) Failing to keep a proper look-out for other vehicles on the highway and in the intersection; (c) Failing to drive at a speed which was safe and appropriate for the conditions then and there existing; (d) Failing to keep a proper distance from vehicles ahead; (e) Failing to comply with provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code relating to the operation of motor vehicles, specifically as they relate to the aforesaid acts of negligence. 20. That the Plaintiff's decedent may have assumed the risk of injuries allegedly sustained by reason of his own negligence and carelessness. 6 '-' 21. That any damages the Plaintiff may be entitled to recover in this action are limited to those damages which are recoverable under the provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S.A. 51701, et seq. 22. That the Plaintiff's claims may be limited or barred by the "Limited Tort" option, pursuant to 75 Pa. C.S.A. 51705, et seq. (Supp. 1992). 23. That the accident and any injuries and damage sustained, may have been caused in whole or in part by the negligence of third persons and/or entities not presently involved in this action. 24. That if it should be found that there was any negligence on the part of Defendant, stanley Lanoue, which negligence is expressly denied, then in that event, any such negligence was not a proximate cause of any damages to Plaintiff and/or the Plaintiff's decedent. 25. That the accident, and any resulting injuries and damages, were caused in whole or in part by an act of God or by forces beyond the control of Defendant Lanoue. 26. That the Plaintiff's decedent, Charles Carter, failed to take reasonable measures to cure any injury related to the 7 ~..... "'."T-.' Identification No.: 51785 Telephone: (717) 234-4161 accident and/or to prevent further injury and/or loss from taking place, and did fail to mitigate the damages asserted. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Stanley Lanoue, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in his favor and that the Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. 8 VERIFICATION I, Stanley A. Lanoue, have read the foregoing and hereby affirm that it is true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, or information and belief. This Verification and statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 54904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities; I verify that all the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct and that false statements may subject me to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 54904. ~7f.,~ /l. d'UTr~2 stanley . Lanoue - DATE: J//I'IC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served on the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on March 7, 1996: Mark Allen corchin, Esquire Corchin, Graham, Rosato & Mauer, P.C. suite 7 Valley Forge Commons P.O. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, PA 19482 GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. DATE: March 7, 1996 re ~- .1-' !~c,;:;::.&,-.;.,.~ f':: " lIJt i CJ. f'~' (r'. I.., 'j; - . I -. ~> j' " c., I :~ (~ ~ ~- :"':, , r . .., t-. -.J ..-:j ., ,,':,",:?'" . , , - ~'j , } , ."0 II.,) :1.;;... -.., '...; . < o .. CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO & MAUER, P.C. By: Mark Alan Corchin, Esquire Attorney I.D. 17456 By: Lisa J. Mauer, Esquire Attorney I.D. 65426 Suite Seven, P.O. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 19482 (610) 933-3333 Plaintiff Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 96-319 civil Term Alberta Horner, Administratrix for the Estate of Charles L. Carter vs. Stanley A. Lanoue Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER 17. Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by c.ounsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. By way of further response, Plaintiff specifically denies that the injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiff's decedent were in any way caused, in whole or in part, by the negligence, fault or want of care of the Plaintiff's decedent. 18. Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. By way of further response, Plaintiff specifically denies that the Plaintiff's injuries and damages were caused in whole or in part or were contributed to by the negligence of the Plaintiff's decedent. 19. Denied. Answering Plaintiff, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Defendant's New Matter and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. By way of further response, Plaintiff specifically denies that the Plaintiff's decedent (a) failed to have his vehicle under proper control; (b) failed to keep a proper look-out for other vehicles on the highway and in the intersection; (c) failed to drive at a speed which was safe and appropriate for the conditions then and there existing; (d) failed to keep a proper distance from vehicles ahead; and (e) failed to comply with provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code relating to the operation of motor vehicles. ..,; , ; .1 \ I II I' " II Ii II J :1 II I I I 20. Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. By way of further answer, Plaintiff specifically denies that the Plaintiff's decedent assumed the risk of the injuries sustained. 21. Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. 22. Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. By way of further response, Plaintiff specifically denies that the Plaintiff's claims are limited or barred by the "Limited Tort" option, pursuant to 75 Pa. C.S.A. S1705, et seq. By way of further answer, pursuant to 75 Pa. C.S.A. S1705(a) (1), Plaintiff's claims are not limited or barred by the "Limited Tort" option. 23. Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. By way of further response, answering Plaintiff, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Defendant's New Matter and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. I I I, Ii I' ,I il , I: Ii I' I i 24. Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by counsel and therefore avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. By way of further response, Plaintiff specifically denies that Defendant's negligence was not a proximate cause of damages to Plaintiff and Plaintiff's decedent. 25. Denied. Plaintiff specifically denies that the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff's decedent were caused in whole or in part by an act of God or by forces beyond the control of Defendant Lanoue. By way of further response, injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff and Plaintiff's decedent were proximately caused by Defendant Lanoue, as more fully set out in Plaintiff's complaint. 26. Denied. Plaintiff specifically denies that Plaintiff's decedent failed to take reasonable measures to cure the injuries caused by the accident or failed to mitigated the damages. To the contrary, Plaintiff's decedent took every reasonable and necessary action in order to cure and/or mitigate the injuries and damages caused by the accident. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Alberta Horner, Administratrix of the Estate of Charles L. Carter, respectfully requests judgment in its favor and that the Defendant's New Matter be dismissed with prejudice. CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO , KAUBR, P.C. BY~-----';~--':';( (( (1(, '..." ("., I _ "~ar~ Alan Corchln, Esquire Attorney I.D. 17456 The Commons at Valley Forge Suite Seven, P.O. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 19482 (610) 933-3333 Attorney for Plaintiff I I I I I I I I I; ATTORNEY VERIFICATION Mark Alan corchin, Esquire, states that he is the attorney for the within named plaintiffs and that the facts set forth in the foregoing Reply to New Matter are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief I and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 54904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ,---;IA-(, I ({ (f(({(u eLl( f : _ - ~ ALAN CORCHIN, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiffs DATED: 03/22/96 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this '/7. day of March, 1996, a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's ReDlv to New Matter was mailed first class, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-1268 CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO , HAUER, P.C. BY:~-----'''.{ d, t( ri~/tal ~ 10" '._ Mar~)n Corchin, Esquire Attorney 1.0. 17456 The Commons at Valley Forge Suite Seven, P.O. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 19482 (610) 933-3333 Attorney for Plaintiff " .... N '.- ~~. : u, .- ,- .. .;--.: ( wo " . f)' i ..., ~ f:.. I... ~ L'. '" '.' r. ,.' ,.. .. - " ~. 'I ( ,.. , , .., ( ,. 0 . , . .' CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO & MAUER, P.C. By: Mark Alan Corchin, Esquire Attorney I.D. 17456 By: Lisa J. Mauer, Esquire Attorney I.D. 65426 Suite Seven, P.O. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 19482 (610) 933-3333 Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW Alberta Horner, Administratrix for the Estate of Charles L. Carter Plaintiff vs. NO. 96-319 civil Term Stanley A. Lanoue Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE VERIFICATION TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly substitute the attached Verification of Plaintiff Alberta Horner for the attorney Verification attached to the Reply to New Matter filed of record on March 26, 1996. CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO , KAUER, P.C. ^ .....~r......, ...:...i"f'\~ ." VERIFICATION Alberta Horner states that ahe is a Plaintiff in this action, and verifies that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief, and understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated 51~8Iq~ ~HO~ . < "'-;;.: . . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 1st day of April, 1996, a true and correct copy of praecice to Substitute Verification was mailed first class, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire GOLDBERG, KATZMAN & SHIPMAN, P.C. 320 Market Street P.o. Box 1268 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-1268 CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO , MAUER, P.C. BY: t? I~( &u<<< (~~ Mark~an Corchin, Esquire Attorney I.D. 17456 The Commons at Valley Forge Suite Seven, P.O. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 19482 (61D) 933-3333 Attorney for Plaintiff .. .. -. t.: c.: ,- II f ~ -. ~ .. ), ,:;": f:,:' .." ~.- ~ .-- :;J l~) , - (. t: : I - , I_ I ,. ] i ,.- , , " . - ,- , ) . " ~. - .. .....,..'_. ",~l LAW apPle.. '.OOLDBBRD, KATZMAN Be SJIIPNAN, P.C. . DUO ......BT BTN.n -r.AW8~..~.-o~4.. r. n. I!OLu::rs.a.;:;...;;.::::"-:-...;,~~- - "A.HI.DUMa, ..aNNaYLYANIA l'IOft'lunn ALBERTA HORNER, Administratrix of the Estate of Charles L. Carter, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 96-319 Vs. STANLEY A. LANOUE, Defendant STIPULATION OP COUNSEL It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between Mark Allen Corchin, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiff, Alberta Horner, Administratrix of the Estate of Charles L. Carter, and Jefferson J. Shipman, counsel for Defendant, stanley A. Lanoue, that Count II of the Complaint captioned the Wrongful Death Action, Alberta Horner, Individually v. Stanley Lanoue at Paragraphs 12 through 16(a)-(d) is hereby stricken and dismissed from the Complaint. Date: 1- $th t:t ~ Alberta Horner, Administratrix of the Estate of Charles ~carter . ~L ~..~~ ~ ~~Allen corchin, Esquire Corchin, Graham, Rosato & Mauer, P.C. suite 7 Valley Forge Commons P.O. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, PA 19482 stanley Lanoue Date: ? /11/16 By: f rson J. S Esqu re Gold rg, Katzman & Shipman, P.C. 320 Market street, strawberry Square P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 ~.' ., .... "'" iX; - >- co: ..... ~ .. -'-3 ,~ M Y';: - ':)~ - U- :.~,=?j fi' c:l ;~ u. I ',~-'; LI' e.; :..1 in ?..: :=> "'-la. 00:: .- ~: ~ \0 :.::> (J' u .. ALBERTA HORNER, Administratrix ot the Estate ot Charles L. Carter, Plaintitt vs. STANLEY A. LANOUE, Defendant TO THE PROTHONOTARY: .;.>.,--". ~ .. . . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 96-319 PRAECIPE prejudice. PLEASE mark the subject case settled and discontinued with DATE: 11/%'/tf6 .'J.{i/l auer, squire The Co ,ons at Valley Forge Suite 7 P.O. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, PA 19482 Attorney for Plaintiff '. C". l!' ",'."; t':": (.j . ."~ UJ: ..': c..;r fJ; ~ l ~_~ 11__ :.J y: 0' ,-., :,o! LL' . (-...: .~J. . :-.. lU] L' f"' ~. ~ :J.. I!. .,., ..j U V'l U , . \ ." ,,< . '" .