Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Eric and Mary Haberkorn, Arthur and Sonja Pereschuk, and James and Renee Rudolph v. Jeffrey Lynn Hurd
Date: 05-09-2010
Case Number:
Judge: John H. McDowell
Court: Circuit Court, Washington County, Maryland
Plaintiff's Attorney: D. Bruce Poole, Poole & Kane, P.A., Hagerstown, Maryland
Defendant's Attorney: William C. Wantz
Description:
Eric and Mary Haberkorn, Arthur and Sonja Pereschuk, and James and Renee Rudolph sued Jeffrey Lynn Hurd, at 56, on intentional infliction of emotion distress and nuisance theories. Specifically, Plaintiffs claimed that for wrongfully shooting and killing their dogs. The Haberkorns claimed Hurd spied upon, threatened and harassed them.
Arthur Pereschuk claimed that Defendant fatally shoot his dog, Bristol, on July 27, 2007.
Renee Rudolph claimed that she suffered emotional distress as a result of May 8, 2008, fatal shooting of her dog, Harley. She also claimed to have suffered emotional distress as a direct result of Hurd patrolling of his property line while carrying a firearm.
The Pereschuks and Rudolphs claimed to have suffered emotional distress and have been harmed by Hurds repeated discharging guns on his property and from his patrolling near their property lines while armed.
The Haberkorns claimed that they suffered emotional distress from Hurd shooting guns on his property and from his blocking access to the lane with equipment; spying on them and their visitors; maintaining observation posts to spy on them and their visitors; and patrolling near their property line while armed.
The defenses asserted by Defendant are not available.
Arthur Pereschuk claimed that Defendant fatally shoot his dog, Bristol, on July 27, 2007.
Renee Rudolph claimed that she suffered emotional distress as a result of May 8, 2008, fatal shooting of her dog, Harley. She also claimed to have suffered emotional distress as a direct result of Hurd patrolling of his property line while carrying a firearm.
The Pereschuks and Rudolphs claimed to have suffered emotional distress and have been harmed by Hurds repeated discharging guns on his property and from his patrolling near their property lines while armed.
The Haberkorns claimed that they suffered emotional distress from Hurd shooting guns on his property and from his blocking access to the lane with equipment; spying on them and their visitors; maintaining observation posts to spy on them and their visitors; and patrolling near their property line while armed.
The defenses asserted by Defendant are not available.
Outcome:
Plaintiffs' verdict for $138,550 and $13,000 in punitive damages.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
Editor's Note: Having a neighbor that is not user friendly can create major problems for anyone.
About This Case
What was the outcome of Eric and Mary Haberkorn, Arthur and Sonja Pereschuk, and ...?
The outcome was: Plaintiffs' verdict for $138,550 and $13,000 in punitive damages.
Which court heard Eric and Mary Haberkorn, Arthur and Sonja Pereschuk, and ...?
This case was heard in Circuit Court, Washington County, Maryland, MD. The presiding judge was John H. McDowell.
Who were the attorneys in Eric and Mary Haberkorn, Arthur and Sonja Pereschuk, and ...?
Plaintiff's attorney: D. Bruce Poole, Poole & Kane, P.A., Hagerstown, Maryland. Defendant's attorney: William C. Wantz.
When was Eric and Mary Haberkorn, Arthur and Sonja Pereschuk, and ... decided?
This case was decided on May 9, 2010.