After reviewing the records before it, the trial court had ultimately ruled that there was no evidence to establish a genuine question of material fact as to any alleged duty owed or breached by the Steamtown Mall. As such, the summary judgment motion was granted at the trial court level.
UPDATE: This Young decision was appealed and, under an Opinion and Order written by Judge David N. Wecht of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, the decision of the trial court judge granting summary judgment was reversed.
Judge David N. Wecht Pennsylvania Superior Court |
However, the Superior Court went on to find that genuine issues of material fact existed to be decided by the jury on whether or not the landowner defendant owed and breached a duty of care to the Plaintiff. As such, the entry of summary judgment by the trial court in favor of the defendants was reversed and the case remanded.
Should you have a case involving a business invitee plaintiff allegedly injured as a result of criminal acts of a third party, the Young Opinion presents as the latest pronouncement by the Pennsylvania Superior Court of the applicable law and analysis of potential liability on the part of a defendant landowner.
Anyone wishing to review this Opinion may click HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.