x. failing to inspect and maintain the school bus in safe and proper

working order;

violation of applicable laws and regulations;

negligence at law and in fact as will be further revealed through

discovery and trial; and

aa. __ violation of the applicable Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations including, but not limited to, §383.123 and §383.91.

NS

41. Due to the foregoing, Plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Meehl, suffered damages as
set forth fully in paragraphs twenty five (25) through twenty nine (29) above.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Richard and Margaret Meehl, demand damages herein
in a sum in excess of one hundred fifty thousand ($150,000.00) dollars, plus costs and

fees.

SILVERMAN BERNHEIM & VOGEL

BY:

Jeffrey A. Krawitz, Esquire
Attorney Identification No. 49530
Jennifer L. Haeberle, Esquire
Attorney Identification No. 89733
Suite 910

Two Penn Center Plaza
Philadelphia, PA 19102

(215) 569-0000

Attorneys for Plaintiffs,

Richard and Margaret Meehl, h/w

Date: June 2, 2005



0. failing to perform safety training and establish safety training
procedures for their employees, agents and drivers;

p. failure to adopt and place into operation procedures to ensure that
their equipment would remain in proper working order;

q. failing to follow safety procedures which they had adopted;

t failing to inspect and maintain the school bus in safe and proper
working order;

s. setting policies and practices which caused drivers to meet time
deadlines and schedules in an unsafe manner;

t. setting time deadlines and/or schedules which caused drivers to

engage in unsafe acts and driving;

uu failing to properly and thoroughly check Defendant, Pringle’s,
driving record, references, qualifications, licenses and certificates
to ensure that she was a competent and safe school bus driver;

v. failing to property and thoroughly train, supervise, test and recheck
Defendant, Pringle’s, competency to operate a school bus safely
and competently, including but not limited to, medical checks;

w. violation of applicable laws and regulations;

negligence at law and in fact as will be further revealed through

discovery and trial; and

y. violation of the applicable Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations including, but not limited to, §383.123 and §383.91.

fal

33, Due to the foregoing, Plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Meehl, suffered damages as
set forth fully in paragraphs twenty-three (23) through twenty-seven (27) above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Richard and Margaret Meehl, demand damages herein*

in a sum in excess of one hundred fifty thousand ($150,000.00) dollars, plus costs and

fees.

COUNT THREE
PLAINTIFFS, RICHARD AND MARGARET MEEBL y.
DEFENDANT, FIRST VEHICLE SERVICES

36. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the well-pleaded averments in
paragraphs 1 through 35 as if same were set forth herein fully and at length.

37. The negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the Defendant, First



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.

RICHARD AND MARGARET MEEHL,  : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
h/w :
Plaintiffs,
NO.
Vv.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

FIRST STUDENT, INC. a/k/a FIRST
STUDENT SERVICES, LLC
and
FIRSTGROUP AMERICA, INC.
and
FIRST VEHICLE SERVICES
and
FIRST TRANSIT, INC.
and
HAZEL PRINGLE

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, Richard and Margaret Meehl, husband and wife, by and through their
counsel, Silverman Bernheim & Vogel, by way of Complaint, hereby aver the following:

1. The Plaintiffs, Richard and Margaret Meehl (“the Meehls”), are citizens
and residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and reside therein at 1002 Napfle
Street, Second Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19111.

2. Defendant, First Student, Inc., a.k.a. First Student Services, LLC (‘First
Student”), is, and was, at all times relevant hereto, a corporation with corporate
headquarters located at 705 Central Avenue, Suite 300, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. At all

times relevant, First Student owned and possessed a certain motor vehicle involved in the



engage in unsafe acts and driving;

u. failing to properly and thoroughly check Defendant, Pringle’s,
driving record, references, qualifications, licenses and certificates
to ensure that she was a competent and safe school bus driver;

v. failing to property and thoroughly train, supervise, test and recheck
Defendant, Pringle’s, competency to operate a school bus safely
and competently, including but not limited to, medical checks;

w. violation of applicable laws and regulations;

x. negligence at law and in fact as will be further revealed through
discovery and trial; and

y. violation of the applicable Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations including, but not limited to, §383.123 and §383.91.

41. Due to the foregoing, Plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Meehl, suffered damages as
set forth fully in paragraphs twenty-three (23) through twenty-seven (27) above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Richard and Margaret Meehl, demand damages herein
in a sum in excess of one hundred fifty thousand ($150,000.00) dollars, plus costs and
fees.
COUNT FIVE

PLAINTIFFS, RICHARD AND MARGARET MEEHL v.
DEFENDANT, HAZEL PRINGLE

39. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference herein all of the well-pleaded averments
in paragraphs 1 through 38 as if same were set forth herein and at length.
40. The negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the Defendant, Hazel
Pringle, consisted of the following:
a. maintaining, controlling or operating the bus in a careless,

negligent and reckless manner, without regard for the rights and
safety of persons in the position of Plaintiffs;

db. failing to exercise and use the highest degree of skill and care in
the maintenance of said vehicle;
c. failing to exercise due and proper care;

d. violations of the statutes of the State of New Jersey pertaining to
motor vehicles including, but not limited to, N.J.S.A. 39:4-97,
N.IS.A. 39:4-81, N.I.S.A. 39:4-120.9, N.I.S.A. 39:4-105, N.LS.A.



mental anxiety, trauma and anguish and a severe shock to her entire nervous system and
other injuries the full extent of which is not yet known, and aggravation and/or
exacerbation of injuries both known and unknown. She has, and will in the future,
undergo severe pain and suffering as a result of which she has been in the past and will in
the future be unable to attend to her usual activities and lifestyle.

25. Solely by reason of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and recklessness
of the Defendants, Mr. Meehl has suffered and will in the future continue to suffer mental
anguish, humiliation, loss of sense of worth and “well-being”, inability to engage in his
normal activities, and inability to pursue the normal and ordinary pleasures of life. Mr.
Meehl has been prevented from attending to his usual daily activities and duties, and will
be prevented for an indefinite period of time in the future, all to his great detriment and
loss.

26. Solely by reason of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and recklessness
of the Defendants, Mrs. Meehl has suffered and will in the future continue to suffer
mental anguish, humiliation, loss of sense of worth and “well-being”, inability to engage
in her normal activities, and inability to pursue the normal and ordinary pleasures of life.
Mrs. Meehl has been prevented from attending to her usual daily activities and duties, and
may so be prevented for an indefinite period of time in the future, all to her great
detriment and loss.

27. Solely by reason of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and recklessness
of the Defendants as herein alleged, the vehicle owned by the Plaintiffs was severely

damaged and declared a total loss.



Lakes, New Jersey 08094. At all times relevant, Pringle was employed as a bus driver for
the Defendants, FGA, First Student, First Services and First Transit, and operated and
controlled a school bus involved in the accident hereinafter more fully described with the
express permission and authority of the other Defendants.

8. Defendants, First Student, First Services and First Transit, are operating
units of FGA.

9. Defendant, FGA, is the United States based North American operating unit
of its parent company, First Group, PLC (a worldwide public transportation company)
and provides transportation services throughout the United States to school students.

10. Defendant, Pringle, was at all times relevant an employee, agent, servant,
contractor, workman and/or representative of Defendants, First Student, FGA, First
Services and/or First Transit.

Il. At all times relevant, Defendants, First Student, FGA, First Services and
First Transit were acting by and through their agents, servants, workpersons, operators
and employees, all within the course and scope of their employment.

12. On or about Thursday, December 4, 2003, at approximately 10:02 a.m.,
Plaintiff, Richard W. Meehl was lawfully operating a 1991 silver Toyota Corolla, bearing
Pennsylvania license plate number DCG0228, and was traveling southbound on CR
561/Eighth Street in Hammonton, New Jersey.

13. At the same time, a yellow school bus bearing New Jersey license plate
number $1G313, operated by Defendant, Pringle on behalf of Defendants, First Student,
FGA, First Services and First Transit, was traveling westbound on US 322 in

Hammonton, New Jersey.



accident hereinafter more fully described.

3. Defendant, First Student is, and was, at all times relevant hereto, a
corporation doing business in the State of New Jersey with a bus depot located at Cologne
Avenue and White Horse Pike, Cologne, New Jersey 08213. At all times relevant, First
Student owned, possessed and/or maintained a certain motor vehicle involved in the
accident hereinafter more fully described.

4. Defendant, FirstGroup America, Inc. (“FGA”), is, and was, at all times
relevant hereto, a corporation with corporate headquarters located at 705 Central Avenue,
Suite 300, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. At all times relevant, FGA owned, possessed,
contracted for and/or maintained a certain motor vehicle involved in the accident
hereinafter more fully described.

5. Defendant, First Vehicle Services (“First Services"), is, and was, at all
times relevant hereto, a corporation with corporate headquarters located at 705 Central
Avenue, Suite 300, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. At all times relevant, First Services owned,
possessed, contracted for and/or maintained a certain motor vehicle involved in the
accident hereinafter more fully described.

6. Defendant, First Transit, Inc. (“First Transit”), is, and was, at all times
relevant hereto, a corporation with corporate headquarters located at 705 Central Avenue,
Suite 300, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. At all times relevant, First Transit owned, possessed,
contracted for and/or maintained a certain motor vehicle involved in the accident
hereinafter more fully described.

7. Defendant, Hazel Pringle (“Pringle”), is a citizen and resident of the State

of New Jersey and resided therein at all times relevant at 56 Park Avenue, Collings



18A:39-1, et. seq., N.J.S.A. 18A:39-19.1, N.J.S.A. 18A:39-17,
N.JS.A. 18A:39-18, N.J.S.A. 18A:39-20, N.J.S.A. 39:3-10.1a,
N.1.S.A. 39:5B-32, N.J.S.A. 39:3B-25, N.J.S.A. 39:3-10.1;
maintaining, controlling or operating the school bus in a careless,
reckless and negligent manner in violation of the Motor Vehicle
Code of the State of New Jersey and the Rules of the Road as set
forth in, but not limited to, N.J.S.A. 39:4-97, N.J.S.A. 39:4-81,
N.J.S.A. 39:4-120.9, N.I.S.A. 39:4-105, N.J.S.A. 18A:39-1, et.
seq., N.J.S.A. 18A:39-19.1, N.J.S.A. 18A:39-17, N.I.S.A. 18A:39-
18, N.J.S.A. 18A:39-20, N.J.S.A. 39:3-10.1a, N.J.S.A. 39:5B-32,
N.J.S.A. 39:3B-25, N.J.S.A. 39:3-10.1;

operating the school bus in a manner not consistent with the road
and weather conditions prevailing at the time;

failing to keep a reasonable lookout for other vehicles lawfully on
the road;

failing to warn Plaintiffs that Defendant, Pringle, was heading
toward them and was going to collide with the Toyota;

operating the school bus at an excessive speed so that it could not
be stopped within the assured clear distance between it and
vehicles ahead and lawfully in the intersection;

failing to properly maintain the school bus involved in the
accident;

driving at an excessive and unsafe rate of speed under the
circumstances;

failing to yield the right of way;

operating the school bus in a manner inconsistent with its safe
operation pursuant to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Regulations and similar Regulations in the State of New Jersey;
operating the school bus while under the influence of medication;
failing to operate the school bus in a manner consistent with traffic,
traffic patterns and traffic controls;

failing to perform adequate safety inspections upon the school bus
prior to putting it into service on the day of the accident;

placing the school bus into operation upon the roadway with
defective and improperly maintained mechanical systems;

driving in excess of hours permitted under Federal Safety
Regulations;

driving while too fatigued to operate a school bus safely,

failing to drive defensively;

failing to establish safety procedures to ensure the safe operation of
their school buses on the highway;

failing to establish safety procedures to ensure that their school
buses and equipment would be adequately inspected, maintained
and kept in good repair;

failing to follow safety procedures which they had adopted;



failure to act on the part of the Meehls. In fact, the Defendants, by and through a Third-
Party Administrator, Cambridge Integrated Services Group, Inc., have conceded and.
accepted liability for this accident.

23. Solely by reason of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and recklessness
of the Defendants, Mr. Meehl sustained severe and permanent injuries to the bones,
muscles, tendons, ligaments, nerves and tissues of his head, neck, back, arms, legs and
body, including, but not limited to, concussion, cerebral concussion, loss of
consciousness, bilateral multiple rib fractures, liver laceration, vertigo, chest pain,
continuing stabbing rib pain, continuing muscle spasms across chest and back, significant
respiratory distress, swelling, bleeding, damage to his lungs and 50% loss of lung
capacity on the left side and heart contusion, as well as severe aches, pains, post
traumatic stress syndrome, mental anxiety, trauma and anguish and a severe shock to his
entire nervous system and other injuries the full extent of which is not yet known, and
aggravation and/or exacerbation of injuries both known and unknown. He has, and will
in the future, undergo severe pain and suffering as a result of which he has been in the
past and will in the future be unable to attend to his usual activities.

24. Solely by reason of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and
recklessness of the Defendants, Mrs. Meehl sustained severe and permanent injuries to
the bones, muscles, tendons, ligaments, nerves and tissues of her head, neck, back, arms,
legs and body, including, but not limited to, chest pain, lower back pain, continuing
severe lower left leg pain, left rib contusion, linear fracture of pelvis, left hip pain,
continuing severe left lower leg swelling, continuing severe left lower leg bruising,

possible compartment syndrome and loss of consciousness; as well as severe aches, pains,



SS dd (Rev. 104)

The JS 4 civil cover sheet and the information containcd herein neither replace nor si

up es orother
by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Canfcrence of the United States in September 1974, is required far the use ofthe!

the civil docket shect. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

APPENDIX H

pers ns required by law, exceptas provided

jplement the filing and service of pleadin
Clerk of Court for the purposeof initiating

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
Richard and Margaret Meehl, h/w

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plainti
{EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

Silverman Bernheim & Vogel
Two Penn Ctr., Ste 910,Phila., PA 19102

(c) Attorney's (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) 9945_569-0000

Jennifer L. Haeberle, Esquire
Jeffrey A. Krawitz, Esquire.

Philadelphia

DEFENDANTS
First Student, Inc. a/k/a First Student Service
and Firstgroup America, Inc., et al. Tic

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Hamilton County

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE
LAND INVOLVED.

NOTE:

Attomeys (If Known) :

HI. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an“X" in One Box Only) If. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X" in One Bax for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cuses Only) an One Box for Defendant)
G1 WS. Government 3 Federal Question mF DEF PTF DEF
Plointift (US. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 CL tncorponmted ur Principal Place = 44
‘of Business In This State
2 US. Government A Diversity Chizen of Another State = 2B 2 Incorporated and! Principal Ploce «5 HS
Defendant Undicate Citizenship of Parties in lem It) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 03 G3. Foreign Nation os oe
Foreiun Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place un “xX” in One Box Only)
[contrac TORTS. FORFEITUREIPENALTY. ‘BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES]
110 tnsurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INSURY |) 610 Agriculture 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 | 400 State Reapportionment
CF 120 Marine 310 Aizplane 362 Personal injury- | 620 Other Food & Dug | 0) 423 Withdrawal CF 410 Antitrust
GF 130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Med, Malpractice |{) 625 Drug Related Seizure 2B USC 157 D430 Banks nnd Banking,
Gi 140 Negotiable Instrument Liubitity 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC #81 Gi 450 Commerce
Gi 150 Recovery of Overpayment | 320 Assault Libel & Product Liability — CF 630 Liquor Laws PROPERTY RIGHTS 10) 460 Deportation
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander GF 368 Asbestos Personal | 640 R.R, & Truck 820 Copyrights 7 470 Rucketeer influenced and
151 Medicare Act C330 Federal Employers’ Injury Product (D650 Airline Reus. C1 830 Patent Corrupt Organizations
1 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability Liability 660 Occupational © 840 Trademark D480 Consumer Credit
‘Student Loans O 340 Marine PERSONAL PROPERTY Safety/Health D490 Cable/Sar TV
(Exel. Veterans) ©) 345 Marine Product D370 Other Fraud 690 Other © 810 Selective Service
1 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability 371 Truth in Lending LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY. a
of Veteran's Benefits $f 350 Motor Vehicle CF 380 Other Personal (F710 Fair Labor Standards CB 861 HiA (1395M Exchange
GF 160 Stockholders" Suits D355 Motor Vehicle Property Daniage ‘Act GF 862 Black Lung (923) 875 Customer Challenge
190 Other Contract Product Liability 385 Property Damage | 720 Lubor/Mgmt. Relations |) 863 DIWC/DIWW (405ig)} 12. USC 3410
195 Contract Product Liability [C360 Other Personal Product Liubitity |) 730 Labor’Mgmt.Reporting |) B64 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
21196 Franchise Anjury & Disclosure Act B65 RSI 405) 891 Agricultural Acts
[REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS: PRISONER PETITIONS [© 740 Ruilway Labor Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS |} 892 Economic Stabilization Act
F210 Lond Condemnation ASI Voting IE 510 Motions to Vacate | 790 Other Labor Litigation [E7870 Tuxes (U.S. Plainti — |C) 893 Environmental Matters
C220 Forectosure 442 Employment Sentence 791 Empl. Ret. tne. or Defendant) GF 894 Energy Allocation Act
GF 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment |} 443 Housiny’ Habeas Corpus: Security Act 7 871 RS—Third Paty (F895 Freedom of Information
240 Torts to Land Accommodations |}_530 General 26 USC 7609 ‘Act
C1245 Tort Product Liability 444 Welfire 535 Death Penahy {D 900Appeal of Fee Determination
5200 All Other Real Property |} 445 Amer. w/Disubilities - }CJ 540 Mandamus & Other Under Equal Access
Employment 550 civit Rights to Justice
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - |) 555 Prison Condition 950 Constitutional of
Other State Statutes
1 A40 Other Civil Rights
_ ON i Appeal to District
Vv. j ORIGIN (face an X” in One Box Only) 3 aa... C5 Tanstemed from 1 6 eles io D
cf Original ~ Removed from Remanded from Reinstated or another district M Magistrate
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reonened (specify) Litie Judement

Cite the U.S, Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
28 U.S.C.A. Section 1332

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION [arerdescriptian of cause:

VII. REQUESTED IN 07 CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

COMPLAINT: UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 in excess of $150,000 JURYDEMAND: Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S) + .

IF ANY (See instructions UDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

(./2 lox Qeinhiife. Z dlasoeh
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY V4 7

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP

JuDGE MAG, JUDGE



30.

failing to establish safety procedures to ensure the safe operation of
their school buses on the highway;

failing to establish safety procedures to ensure that their school
buses and equipment would be adequately inspected, maintained
and kept in good repair;

failing to properly train their employees, servants, agents, and
persons working under their direction, control and authority;
failing to perform safety training and establish safety training
procedures for their employees, agents and drivers;

failure to adopt and place into operation procedures to ensure that
their equipment would remain in proper working order;

failing to follow safety procedures which they had adopted;
failing to inspect and maintain the school bus in safe and proper
working order;

setting policies and practices which caused drivers to meet time
deadlines and schedules in an unsafe manner;

setting time deadlines and/or schedules which caused drivers to
engage in unsafe acts and driving;

failing to properly and thoroughly check Defendant, Pringle’s,
driving record, references, qualifications, licenses and certificates
to ensure that she was a competent and safe school bus driver;
failing to property and thoroughly train, supervise, test and recheck
Defendant, Pringle’s, competency to operate a school bus safely
and competently, including but not limited to, medical checks;
violation of applicable laws and regulations;

negligence at law and in fact as will be further revealed through
discovery and trial; and

violation of the applicable Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations including, but not limited to, §383.123 and §383.91.

Due to the foregoing, Plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Meehl, suffered damages as

set forth fully in paragraphs twenty-three (23) through twenty-seven (27) above.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Richard and Margaret Meehl, demand damages herein

in a sum in excess of one hundred fifty thousand ($150,000.00) dollars, plus costs and

fees.

COUNT TWO

PLAINTIFFS, RICHARD AND MARGARET MEEHL v. DEFENDANT,

31.

FIRSTGROUP AMERICA, INC.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the well-pleaded averments in



COUNT ONE
PLAINTIFFS, RICHARD AND MARGARET MEEBL v.
DEFENDANT. FIRST STUDENT, INC. a/k/a FIRST STUDENT SERVICES, LLC

28. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the well-pleaded averments in
paragraphs 1 through 27 as if same were set forth herein fully and at length.
29. The negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the Defendant, First
Student, consisted of the following:
a. maintaining, controlling or operating the bus in a careless,

negligent and reckless manner, without regard for the rights and
safety of persons in the position of Plaintiffs;

b. failing to exercise and use the highest degree of skill and care in
the maintenance of said vehicle;

c. failing to exercise due and proper care;

d. failing to train, supervise, monitor and otherwise control its agents,

servants, workpersons, operators and employees including, but not
limited to, Hazel Pringle;

e. failing to hire and/or employ adequately skilled and experienced
agents, servants, workpersons, operators and employees including,
but not limited to, Hazel Pringle;

£ violations of the statutes of the State of New Jersey pertaining to
motor vehicles including, but not limited to, N.J.S.A. 18A:39-1, et.
seq., N.J.S.A. 18A:39-19.1, N.I.S.A. 18A:39-17, N.J.S.A. 18A:39-
18, N.J.S.A. 18A:39-20, N..S.A. 39:3-10.1a, N.J.S.A, 39:5B-32,
N.J.S.A. 39:3B-25, N.J.S.A. 39:3-10.1;

g maintaining, controlling or operating the school bus in a careless,
reckless and negligent manner in violation of the Motor Vehicle
Code of the State of New Jersey and the Rules of the Road as set
forth in, but not limited to, N.J.S.A. 18A:39-1, et. seq., N.J.S.A.
18A:39-19.1, N.J.S.A. 18A:39-17, N.J.S.A. 18A:39-18, N.J.S.A.
18A:39-20, N.J.S.A. 39:3-10.1a, N.J.S.A. 39:5B-32, N.J.S.A.
39:3B-25, N.J.S.A. 39:3-10.1;

h. operating the school bus in a manner not consistent with the road
and weather conditions prevailing at the time;

i., failing to perform adequate safety inspections upon the school bus
prior to putting it into service on the day of the accident;

j. placing the school bus into operation upon the roadway with
defective and improperly maintained mechanical systems;

k. driving in excess of hours permitted under Federal Safety

Regulations;



14. Richard Meehl was driving the above-referenced vehicle with his wife,
Margaret Meehl, as a front seat passenger in the vehicle.

15. The yellow school bus operated by Pringle was owned, leased, maintained,
contracted for or otherwise controlled at all times relevant by Defendants, First Student,
FGA, First Group and First Transit.

16. | The Meehls stopped at a red traffic light at the intersection of CR
561/Eighth Street and US 322. When the light turned green for traffic on CR 561/Eighth
Street, the Meehls proceeded to travel across the intersection in order to make a left turn
onto eastbound US 322.

17. Simultaneously, Defendant, Pringle, while operating the school bus
westbound on US 322, negligently, carelessly and recklessly disregarded a red traffic light
governing her lane of travel and proceeded at full speed into the intersection of US 322
and CR 561/Eighth Street.

18. Defendant, Pringle, was unable to stop the bus prior to impact because it
was being operated negligently, carelessly, recklessly and at an excessive rate of speed.

19. Asa result, the front of the bus being operated by Defendant, Pringle,
violently collided with the driver’s side of the Meehls’ vehicle.

20. The violent impact caused the Meehls’ vehicle to spin 360°, eventually
coming to rest facing westbound in the eastbound lane of traffic on CR 561/Eighth Street.

21. As aresult of this accident, Richard and Margaret Meehl sustained serious
and permanent injuries, along with related damages.

22. — The aforesaid collision resulted from the negligence, carelessness and

recklessness of the Defendants, and was in no manner whatsoever due to anyact or



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT APPENDIXF

FORTHE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA — DESIGNATION FORM to beused by counsel to indicate the category of the case for the purpose of
asdgnment to appropriate calendar.

Address of Plaintiff: 1002 Napfle Street, Second Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19111

Addrass of Defendant; _705 Central Avenue, Suite 300, Cincinnati,OH 45202.

Place of Accident, Incident or Transaction; New Jersey
(Use Reverse Side For Additional Space)

Does this clvil action involve anongovernmental corporate party with any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock?

(Attach two coplas of the Disclosure Statement Form in accordance with Fed.R.Clv.P. 7.1(2)) yell No
Doas this case involve multidistrict litigation possibilities? yest] No
RELATED CASE, IF ANY:

Casa Number: Judge Dats Terminated:

Civil cases are deemed related when yes Is answered to any of the following questions;

1. Isthls case related to property Included in an earlier numbered ault pending or within one year previously term inated action In thie court?
yoo] Nol

Doasthis case involve the same Issue of Fact or grow out of the same transastion as @ prior suit pending or within one year previously term inated

action in this court? yell olf

np

. Doss this casa involve the validity or infringement of a patent already in sult or any earller numberad case pending or within one year previously
terminated action in this court? yell nod

CIVIL: (Place v in ONE CATEGORY ONLY)

A. Federal Question Cases: B. Diversity Jurisdiction Cases:

3, © indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts 1. O insurance Contract end Other Contracts.
2, 0 Feta 2. C1 Atpiane Personal injury

3, © Jones Act-Persanal Injury 3, ©) Assault, Defamation

4, OF antitrast 4, 0 Marine Personal Injury

s, O1 Patent s, BB Motor Vehicle Personal Injury

6, [1 Labor-Management Relations 6. C other Personal Injury (Please specify)
7, O civil Rights 7, O Products Liability

8. OC Habeas Corpus 8, O products Liability — Asbestos

9. O Seourities Act(s) Casas 9. O atlother Diversity Cases

10. C1) social Security Review Cassa (Please specliy)

11, G1 altother Federal Question Cases

(Pleage specify)

ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION
. . (Check appropriate Category)
,__Jennifer L. Haeberle, Esquire counsel ofrecord do hereby certify:
CX pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53,2, Section 3(0X2), that to the bast of my knowledge and bellef, the damages recoverable in this elvil action case
aueead the sum of $150,000.00 exclusive of interast and costs;

C1 Relief other than monetary damagen Is sought.

DATE:_ (4 Z >

“Attomey“at-Law ‘Attomey ILD
Jennifer L. Haeberle, Esquire

NOTE: A trial de novo will be a trial by jury only if there has been compliance with F.R.C.P. 38.

Teertity that, to my Imowledge, the within case is not related to any case now pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court

except as noted above, i.
pare:_U/Z [O05 Leuven LHbol 89733

‘Jennifer’i. Haeberle, Esquire



Services, consisted of the following:

a.

maintaining, controlling or operating the bus in a careless,
negligent and reckless manner, without regard for the rights and
safety of persons in the position of Plaintiffs;

failing to exercise and use the highest degree of skill and care in
the maintenance of said vehicle;

failing to exercise due and proper care;

failing to train, supervise, monitor and otherwise control its agents,
servants, workpersons, operators and employees including, but not
limited to, Hazel Pringle;

failing to hire and/or employ adequately skilled and experienced
agents, servants, workpersons, operators and employees including,
but not limited to, Hazel Pringle;

violations of the statutes of the State of New Jersey pertaining to
motor vehicles including, but not limited to, N.J.S.A. 18.A:39-1, et.
seq., N.J.S.A. 18A:39-19.1, N.LS.A. 18A:39-17, N.J.S.A. 18A:39-
18, N.J.S.A. 18A:39-20, N.J.S.A. 39:3-10.1a, N.J.S.A. 39:5B-32,
N.1S.A. 39:3B-25, N.J.S.A. 39:3-10.1;

maintaining, controlling or operating the school bus in a careless,
reckless and negligent manner in violation of the Motor Vehicle
Code of the State of New Jersey and the Rules of the Road as set
forth in, but not limited to, N.J.S.A. 18A:39-1, et. seq., N.J.S.A.
18A:39-19,1, N.I.S.A. 18A:39-17, N.J.S.A. 18A:39-18, N.J.S.A.
18A:39-20, N.J.S.A. 39:3-10.1a, N.J.S.A. 39:5B-32, N.J.S.A.
39:3B-25, N.J.S.A. 39:3-10.1;

operating the school bus in a manner not consistent with the road
and weather conditions prevailing at the time;

failing to perform adequate safety inspections upon the school bus
prior to putting it into service on the day of the accident;

placing the school bus into operation upon the roadway with
defective and improperly maintained mechanical systems;

driving in excess of hours permitted under Federal Safety
Regulations;

failing to establish safety procedures to ensure the safe operation of
their school buses on the highway;

failing to establish safety procedures to ensure that their school
buses and equipment would be adequately inspected, maintained
and kept in good repair;

failing to property train their employees, servants, agents, and
persons working under their direction, control and authority;
failing to perform safety training and establish safety training
procedures for their employees, agents and drivers;

failure to adopt and place into operation procedures to ensure that
their equipment would remain in proper working order;



the maintenance of said vehicle;

failing to exercise due and proper care;

failing to train, supervise, monitor and otherwise control its agents,
servants, workpersons, operators and employees including, but not
limited to, Hazel Pringle;

failing to hire and/or employ adequately skilled and experienced
agents, servants, workpersons, operators and employees including,
but not limited to, Hazel Pringle;

violations of the statutes of the State of New Jersey pertaining to
motor vehicles including, but not limited to, N.J.S.A. 18A:39-1, et.
seq., N.J.S.A. 18A:39-19.1, N..S.A. 18A:39-17, N.J.S.A. 18A:39-
18, N.J.S.A. 18A:39-20, N.J.S.A. 39:3-10.1a, N.J.S.A. 39:5B-32,
N.J.S.A. 39:3B-25, N.J.S.A. 39:3-10.1;

maintaining, controlling or operating the school bus in a careless,
reckless and negligent manner in violation of the Motor Vehicle
Code of the State of New Jersey and the Rules of the Road as set
forth in, but not limited to, N.J.S.A. 18A:39-1, et. seq., N..S.A.
18A:39-19.1, N.J.S.A. 18A:39-17, N.ILS.A. 18A:39-18, N.J.S.A.
18A:39-20, N.J.S.A. 39:3-10.1a, N.J.S.A. 39:5B-32, N.J.S.A.
39:3B-25, N.J.S.A. 39:3-10.1;

operating the school bus in a manner not consistent with the road
and weather conditions prevailing at the time;

failing to perform adequate safety inspections upon the school bus
prior to putting it into service on the day of the accident;

placing the school bus into operation upon the roadway with
defective and improperly maintained mechanical systems;

driving in excess of hours permitted under Federal Safety
Regulations;

failing to establish safety procedures to ensure the safe operation of
their school buses on the highway;

failing to establish safety procedures to ensure that their school
buses and equipment would be adequately inspected, maintained
and kept in good repair;

failing to property train their employees, servants, agents, and
persons working under their direction, control and authority;
failing to perform safety training and establish safety training
procedures for their employees, agents and drivers;

failure to adopt and place into operation procedures to ensure that
their equipment would remain in proper working order;

failing to follow safety procedures which they had adopted;
failing to inspect and maintain the school bus in safe and proper
working order;

setting policies and practices which caused drivers to meet time
deadlines and schedules in an unsafe manner;

setting time deadlines and/or schedules which caused drivers to



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT APPENDIX F

FORTHE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA — DESIGNATION FORM to beused by counsel to indicate the category of the case for the purpose of
assignment to appropriate calendar,

‘Address of Plaintiff, __ 1002 Napfle Street, Second Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19111

‘Address of Defendant___705 Central Avenue, Suite 300, Cincinnati,OH 45202.

Place of Accident, Incident or Transaction: New Jersey
(Use Reverse Side For Additional Space)
Does this clvil action involve anongovernmental corporate party with any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 10%6 or mare of Its stock?
(Attach two copies ofthe Disclosure Statement Form in accordance with Fed.R.Clv.P. 7.1(a)) yet] Nol
Does thia case involve mutidistrict litigation possibilities? ye] No

RELATED CASE, IF ANY:

Case Number: Judge, Data Term inated:

Civil cages are deemad ralated when yes Is answered to any of the following questions:

1, Isthis casa related to property included in en earlier numbered suit pending or within one year previously term inated action In thie court?

yes] Nol

2. Doesthis case Involve the game Issue of fact or grow out of the same transaction as 2 prior suit pending or within one yaar previously tarm inated
action in this court? yet] No

3, Doesthls case involve the validity or inftingement of a patent already in sult or any earlier numbered case pending or within one year previously
term inated action in this court? yes] nol

CIVIL: (Place W in ONE CATEGORY ONLY)

A. Federal Question Cases; B. Diversity Jurisdiction Cases;

3, O indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts - 1. © insurance Contract and Other Contracts

2, O Feta 2. 0) Asplane Personal injury

3, © Jones Act-Personal Injury © Assantt, Defamation
4, 0 antinmst O Marine Personal Injury
s. O patent El Motor Vehicle Personal Injury

. C1 Other Personal Injury (Please specify)
O products Liability

© products Liability — Asbestos

C1 Allother Diversity Cases

6, (1 Labor-Management Relations
7. O cwit Rights

8, 0 Hebeos Corpus

9. C1 seouritien Act(s) Ceses

10, C1 social Security Review Cases (Please specify)

11, 1 Another Federal Question Cases
(Please specify)

ye rawr ye

ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION

: . (Check appropriate Category)
|_Jennifer L. Haeberle, Esquire counsel ofrecord do hereby certify:

(CX pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53,2, Saction 3(c)(2), that to the best of my knowledge and ballef, the damages recoverable In this civil action case
exceed the sum of $150,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs;

C1 Relief other than monetary damages Is sought.
DATE: 2/05

‘Attomey L.D.#

NOTE: A trial de novo will be a trial by jury only if there has been compliance with FRCP. 38.

Teattiy that, to my knowledge, the within case is not related to any case now pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court
except as noted above,

pare, 0/2/05

89733
‘Jennifer’L. Haeberle, Esquire


APPENDIX I
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CASE MANAGEMEN’ CKD TON FORM.

RICHARD AND MARGARET MEEHL, h/w
CIVIL ACTION

FIRST STUDENT, INC. a/k/a FIRST :

STUDENT SERVICES, LLC : NO.

and FIRSTRGROUP .AMERICA, INC. and

FIRST WEG e WHNARECANE istics Expense ahd Delay Redlewon FIAT Wtultis court, counsel for
plaintiff shall complete a case Management Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time of
filing the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (See § 1:03 of the plan set forth on the reverse
side of this form.) In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said
designation, that defendant shall, with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on
the plaintiff and all other parties, a case management track designation form specifying the track to
which that defendant believes the case should be assigned.

SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS:
(a) Habeas Corpus — Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. §2241 through §2255. «)

(b) Social Security — Cases requesting review of a decision of the Secretary of Health
and Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits ()

(c) Arbitration — Cases required to be designated for arbitration under Local Civil Rule 53.2, ( )

(d) Asbestos — Cases involving claims for personal injury or property damage from
exposure to asbestos. (3

(e) Special Management — Cases that do not fall into tracks (a) through (d) that are
commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense management by
the court. (See reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation of special
management cases.) ()

(f) Standard Management — Cases that do not fall into any one of the other tracks. 4)

2, 200

PLAINTIFF RICHARD AND MARGARET 'MEEHL
Attorney-at-law Attorney for

JENNIFER L. HAEBERLE, ESQUIRE

215-569-0000 215-636-3999 jjhaeberle@sbvlaw.com
Telephone FAX Number E-Mail Address

ate

(Civ, 660) 10/02


paragraphs | through 30 as if same were set forth herein fully and at length.

32. The negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the Defendant, FGA,

consisted of the following:

a

maintaining, controlling or operating the bus in a careless,
negligent and reckless manner, without regard for the rights and
safety of persons in the position of Plaintiffs;

failing to exercise and use the highest degree of skill and care in
the maintenance of said vehicle;

failing to exercise due and proper care;

failing to train, supervise, monitor and otherwise control its agents,
servants, workpersons, operators and employees including, but not
limited to, Hazel Pringle;

failing to hire and/or employ adequately skilled and experienced
agents, servants, workpersons, operators and employees including,
but not limited to, Hazel Pringle;

violations of the statutes of the State of New Jersey pertaining to
motor vehicles including, but not limited to, N.J.S.A. 18A:39-1, et.
seq., N.J.S.A. 18A:39-19.1, N.J.S.A. 18A:39-17, N.J.S.A, 18A:39-
18, N.J.S.A. 18A:39-20, N.J.S.A. 39:3-10.1a, N.J.S.A. 39:5B-32,
N.J.S.A. 39:3B-25, N.I.S.A. 39:3-10.1;

maintaining, controlling or operating the school bus in a careless,
reckless and negligent manner in violation of the Motor Vehicle
Code of the State of New Jersey and the Rules of the Road as set
forth in, but not limited to, N.J.S.A. 18A:39-1, et. seq., N.J.S.A.
18A:39-19.1, N.JS.A. 18A:39-17, N.J.S.A. 18A:39-18, N.J.S.A.
18A:39-20, N.J.S.A. 39:3-10.1a, N.J.S.A. 39:5B-32, N.J.S.A.
39:3B-25, N.J.S.A. 39:3-10.1;

operating the school bus in a manner not consistent with the road
and weather conditions prevailing at the time;

failing to perform adequate safety inspections upon the school bus
prior to putting it into service on the day of the accident;

placing the school bus into operation upon the roadway with
defective and improperly maintained mechanical systems;

driving in excess of hours permitted under Federal Safety
Regulations;

failing to establish safety procedures to ensure the safe operation of
their school buses on the highway;

failing to establish safety procedures to ensure that their school
buses and equipment would be adequately inspected, maintained
and kept in good repair;

failing to property train their employees, servants, agents, and
persons working under their direction, contro] and authority,



q. failing to follow safety procedures which they had adopted;

Tr failing to inspect and maintain the school bus in safe and proper
working order;

s. setting policies and practices which caused drivers to meet time
deadlines and schedules in an unsafe manner;

t setting time deadlines and/or schedules which caused drivers to

engage in unsafe acts and driving;

u. failing to properly and thoroughly check Defendant, Pringle’s,
driving record, references, qualifications, licenses and certificates
to ensure that she was a competent and safe school bus driver;

v. failing to property and thoroughly train, supervise, test and recheck
Defendant, Pringle’s, competency to operate a school bus safely
and competently, including but not limited to, medical checks;

w. violation of applicable laws and regulations;

negligence at law and in fact as will be further revealed through

discovery and trial; and

y. violation of the applicable Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations including, but not limited to, §383.123 and §383.91.

*

38. Due to the foregoing, Plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Meehl, suffered damages as
set forth fully in paragraphs twenty-three (23) through twenty-seven (27) above.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Richard and Margaret Meehl, demand damages herein
in a sum in excess of one hundred fifty thousand ($150,000.00) dollars, plus costs and

fees.

COUNT FOUR
PLAINTIFFS, RICHARD AND MARGARET MEEHL v.
DEFENDANT. FIRST TRANSIT, INC.

39. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference herein all of the well-pleaded averments
in paragraphs | through 38 as if same were set forth herein and at length.

40. The negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the Defendant, First
Transit, consisted of the following:

a. maintaining, controlling or operating the bus in a careless,
negligent and reckless manner, without regard for the rights and

safety of persons in the position of Plaintiffs;
db. failing to exercise and use the highest degree of skill and care in