According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff had parked in a Kohl's department store parking lot and began to walk to the store. As she made her way from the parking lot surface and onto an entrance ramp that led to the store, the toe part of her shoe caught on an elevated section of the walking surface, allegedly causing her to fall.
In so ruling, the court noted that Pennsylvania law does not recognize any bright dividing line between trivial and non-trivial defects on a landowner’s land.
In this case, the court could not say, as a matter of law, that a pavement height differential between one half and one inch was de minimis as asserted by the Defendant store.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
In so ruling, the court noted that Pennsylvania law does not recognize any bright dividing line between trivial and non-trivial defects on a landowner’s land.
In this case, the court could not say, as a matter of law, that a pavement height differential between one half and one inch was de minimis as asserted by the Defendant store.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.