Retained Control Theory Used By Court to Deny Landowner's Motion For Summary Judgment in Premises Liability Case

In the case of Miller v. Kinley, No. CV-20-1214 (C.P. Lyc. Co. May 5, 2022 Tira, J.), the court denied a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant landowners in the case in which a Plaintiff who was hired to cut down a large tree on the property was injured in the process.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff alleged, and offered proof, that the Defendant landowners were present at the time of the incident and that they directed the Plaintiff on the manner in which to cut the tree. The Defendants also specifically indicated the area where the tree was to be dropped. It was therefore alleged by the Plaintiffs that the Defendant landowners had retained control of all, or at least, a portion, of the work that the Defendants had requested the Plaintiff to perform.

In his Opinion, Judge Tira referred to the Retained Control Theory found under the Restatement (Second) of Torts §414 to rule that the evidence raised issues of fact that allow the Plaintiff to overcome the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the liability issues presented.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (July 6, 2022).

Source of image:  Photo by Jacky on www.pexels.com.