Judge Allows Trip And Fall Case To Proceed Beyond Summary Judgment

In the case of Bonnell v. Knight-Confer Funeral Home, Inc., No. CV0-2023-01345 (C.P. Lyc. Co. March 23, 2026 Carlucci, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a trip and fall case based upon the expert opinion of the Plaintiff’s expert engineer creating questions of fact to be decided decision by the jury.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on a step on the Defendant’s premises. During her deposition, the Plaintiff did not assert that there was any debris on the step where she fell,  Nor did the Plaintiff point to any defect in the step itself.

Rather, the Plaintiff testified that she opened the door and thought she was stepping onto the sidewalk and, as a result, missed the step and fell.

The Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that the complete absence of any debris or any defects with regards to the step confirm that there was no material evidence upon which a jury could base any finding of negligence. The Defendant additionally pointed out that the Plaintiff had traveled over the same step on her way into the building without incident.

The Plaintiff’s opposition to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was based, in part, on the fact that the Plaintiff produced an expert engineering report. That expert offered an opinion that the single step condition at the threshold of the doorway created a hazardous condition which endangered the public. The expert further concluded that the actions and/or inactions of the Plaintiff did not cause the incident to occur. The expert otherwise noted that the step was below the normal line of sight and the Plaintiff was therefore unable to perceive it as she exited the doorway.

After reviewing the record before him as applied to Pennsylvania law, the judge noted that, if the jury believed the testimony of the Plaintiff’s engineering expert, a jury could reasonably find that the condition at the threshold of the doorway was a hazardous condition which endangered the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff’s own conduct was not a legal cause of her injuries. 

Accordingly, the court denied the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and allowed the case to proceed forward.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (May 28, 2026).

Source of image:  Photo by Becca Lavin on www.unsplash.com.

Summary Judgment Granted in Supermarket Slip and Fall Case

In the case of Jordan v. Brown’s Superstores, Inc., Aug. Term 2023, No. 02262 (C.P. Phila. Co. Dec. 5, 2025 Yu, J.), the court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in a slip and fall case involving a Plaintiff who allegedly slipped and fell on pieces of watermelon on a supermarket floor.

The trial court noted that the Plaintiff did not present any evidence that the Defendant had created the hazard. The Plaintiff also did not produce any evidence that the store had any actual knowledge of the pieces of watermelon being on the floor prior to the Plaintiff’s fall.

Moreover, no evidence was produced that would enable the Plaintiff to prove constructive notice on the part of the store. More specifically, there is no evidence presented as to how the pieces of watermelon came to be on the floor, or how long they had been present.

In addition to entering summary judgment for these reasons, the court also noted that the Plaintiff did not file any response to the Motion.

The court noted that the Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment provided an independent procedural basis to support the granting of the summary judgment motion under Pa. R.C.P. 1035.3(d).

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

Source of image: Photo by Shamblen Studios on www.unsplash.com.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Feb. 12, 2026).

LOOKING TO MEDIATE A SLIP OR TRIP AND FALL CASE?

Contact:

dancummins@cumminslaw.net

570-591-3969

Court Rules that Placement of Wet Floor Signs Constitute Adequate Warning

In the case of Pitts v. Sonesta Intern. Hotel, Corp., No. 231002600 (C.P. Phila. Co. Nov. 24, 2025 Moore, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of a hotel in a case where a Plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet floor in the hotel’s foyer area.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff slipped and fell in an area where a maintenance worker for the hotel had recently mopped the floor but had also put out yellow caution signs. Videos surveillance footage confirmed that the maintenance worker had put the signs out.

According to the Opinion, during her testimony, the Plaintiff acknowledged the presence of the signs inside the foyer. However, the Plaintiff claimed that she did not see the signs before she slipped and fell.

At trial, the court granted the defense Motion for a Non Suit on the basis that there was no genuine issue of material fact to be resolved by the jury once the Plaintiff rested and given that the Plaintiff had failed to establish a right to relief.

The court emphasized that, in Pennsylvania, a business owner had a duty to maintain a reasonably safe property and must either fix dangerous conditions or warn invitees about them.

The court additionally noted that invitees are expected to be aware of their surroundings in order to appreciate possible dangers and also to appreciate warnings of any hazards.

Here in this case, the court found that, by clearly placing the yellow “Wet Floor” signs on the floor in the hotel foyer, the Defendant had adequately warned the Plaintiff about the possibility of the foyer floor being slippery.

The court emphasized that the Plaintiff acknowledged the presence of the wet floor signs inside the foyer before she walked into the area. On cross-examination at trial, the Plaintiff agreed that she had seen at least one (1) of the yellow signs before she entered the foyer and prior to falling down. The trial court noted that, even viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff, it was the trial court’s opinion that the Plaintiff had failed to meet her burden of proving that the Defendant was liable for her fall.

Notably, the court noted in its Opinion that the placement of yellow warning signs in and around the foyer was conduct that established that the Defendant had adequately warned the Plaintiff of the dangers of the wet floor.

The court rejected the Plaintiff’s suggestion that the hotel should have also have had someone standing near the foyer to tell customers inside the hotel that the floor was wet. The court found that this was not a reasonable requirement and that the law does not require a business owner to undertake such unreasonable measures to warn of hazards on the property.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (March 5, 2026).

Source of image:  Photo by Sandiyu Nuryono on www.pexels.com.

Summary Judgment Denied in Federal Court Snow and Ice Slip and Fall Case

In the case of Spa Resort, L.P., No. 3:24-CV-0796 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 9, 2026 Saporito, J.), the court denied the Defendant resort’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a slip and fall case.

The Defendant landowner argued that the hills and ridges doctrine applied because the Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell due to icy conditions that resulted from snowfall on the day of the incident.

In opposition, the Plaintiffs argued that the Plaintiff did not slip and fall due to icy conditions caused by the snowstorm, but rather, because the Defendants’ driveway was improperly maintained and repaired such that the hills and ridges doctrine did not apply.

The court ultimately concluded that questions of fact remained as to whether the hills and ridges doctrine applied to shield the property owner from liability regarding the allegedly slippery conditions on the premises.

Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.
M.D. Pa.

In his decision, Judge Saporito provided a detailed review of the current status of the law in Pennsylvania regarding the hills and ridges doctrine.

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


Source: Article – “Jury To Decide If Spa Resort Can Be Liable Under ‘Hills and Ridges’ Doctrine In Slip-And-Fall Case,” By Riley Brennan of The Legal Intelligencer (Jan. 12, 2026).

Summary Judgment Granted Due to Lack of Actual or Constructive Notice of a Spill

In the case of Donahue v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, No. 2:24-68 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 13, 2025 Dodge, M.J.), the court granted summary judgment in a slip and fall case.

The court ruled that the mere existence of an allegedly harmful condition or the mere happening of an accident is not evidence of negligence nor does it create a presumption of negligence.

In this matter, the court confirmed that the Plaintiff did not have any evidence of any actual notice on the part of the Defendant of the alleged spill.

The court additionally found that evidence of seven (7) incidents over the previous five (5) years in other areas of the store were insufficient to impute knowledge on the part of the Defendant.

The court also noted that the Plaintiff failed to present any evidence as to the amount of time that the alleged spill existed.

Without such evidence, the court noted that a claim of constructive notice cannot be supported. The court also noted that constructive notice cannot be shown by a negative inference.

Any speculation about how long the alleged condition may have existed before the start of the surveillance video available was insufficient.

The court also held that liability cannot be based on the Defendant’s failure to adhere to its own inspection policies or that its inspection policies were generally inadequate. Rather, there may be a duty of care before there can be a breach.

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


I send thanks to Attorney James Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Eva Bronzini on www.pexels.com.

Application of Sidewalk Exception to Governmental Immunity Statute Defeats Summary Judgment Motion

Jim Thorpe, PA

In the case of Hontz v. McFarland, No. 22-CV-2524 (C.P. Carbon Co. Dec. 5, 2025 Matika, J.), the trial court denied a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Borough of Jim Thorpe after determining that the Borough was not immune from liability under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff tripped and fell over the base of a broken pole that was affixed to a sidewalk. Two days prior to the Plaintiff’s trip and fall, there was a motor vehicle accident during which a vehicle collided with the metal pole and broke it. This left a base of the sign protruding out of the sidewalk surface by 5-6 inches. 

In response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Plaintiff asserted that it was permitted to proceed against the Borough under the sidewalk exception to the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. That exception is found at 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8542(b)(7).

Here, the court found that the Borough was not permitted to raise the defense of governmental immunity where the dangerous condition at issue was “of” the sidewalk where the defect was caused by the Borough’s failure after due notice to properly maintain or to repair the defect in question.

As such, the court denied the Borough’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

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

Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert” www.Law.com (Jan. 21, 2026).

Source of image:  Photo by Mariya E. on www.pexels.com.

Court Grants Summary Judgment and Rejects Plaintiff's Reliance Upon Local Ordinance Requiring Ice and Snow Removal

In the case of Foxx v. City of New Castle, No. 11038 of 2023, C.A. (C.P. Lawr. Co. Hodge, J.), the court granted summary judgment in a premises liability case.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved a Plaintiff who left her residence and proceeded two (2) blocks to a Rite Aid pharmacy in a motorized wheelchair. As the Plaintiff approached the corner of one intersection, she attempted to proceed through a crosswalk but noted that snow was not cleared from the sidewalk. As a result, the Plaintiff was forced to cross the street in a different area and enter the Rite Aid parking lot utilizing a vehicle ramp. The Plaintiff was able to safely traverse that area and enter the store.

After leaving the store, the Plaintiff went to the end of the parking lot and stopped on the sidewalk as she noticed that it was full of snow and ice. Accordingly, she went back over to the same vehicle ramp that she had previously used to enter the parking lot. 

As she proceeded down to the bottom of the ramp, her wheels got caught in a hole which resulted in her falling from the motorized wheelchair and onto the street. The Plaintiff stated that she could not see the hole as it was slushy, dark brown water was coming down the street. 

Plaintiff later filed suit for her personal injuries.

The Defendant making the motion for summary judgment in this matter was the out-of-possession owner of the Rite Aid premises. The Defendant landowner asserted that its tenant was in possession of the premises and had the responsibility to repair and maintain the premises. The Defendant owner asserted that the tenant’s responsibility extended to the exterior facility such as the sidewalks and parking areas.

The Defendant asserted in its Motion for Summary Judgment that the Plaintiff had not presented any evidence that the Defendant, as a landlord out-of-possession, had breached any duty of care owed to the Plaintiff. 

The Defendant also asserted that the condition that allegedly caused the Plaintiff’s injuries was an open and obvious condition.

After reviewing the record before it, the court provided a detailed recitation of the current status of the premises liability law in this regard relative to a landlord out of possession. The court ruled that the record before it confirmed that the landlord out-of-possession had leased the premises to a tenant who exercises exclusive possession of the premises at the time. The lease agreement also required that the tenant was responsible for maintaining and repairing the premises including the sidewalk areas and the place where the Plaintiff was injured.

The trial court rejected the Plaintiff’s reliance upon a local ordinance regarding ice and snow removal in an effort to attach liability to the out-of-possession landlord.  The court found that the local ordinance did not appear to be applicable as the Plaintiff’s injuries were not sustained as an accumulation of snow and ice but due to the motorized wheelchair encountering a hole near the end of the vehicle ramp. The ordinance at issue appeared to only apply to ice and snow that rendered sidewalks dangerous to pedestrian travel.

It appears that, given the court’s decision on the landlord out of possession issue, it did not reach the open and obvious argument presented by the defense.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Gerald Connor of the Scranton office of the Margolis Edelstein law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Damian McCoig on www.unsplash.com.

Superior Court Rules That 3 Hour Delay Between End of Snowstorm and Beginning of Cleanup Was Not Unreasonable (Non-Precedential)

It appears that it is reasonable in Pennsylvania to have a cup of coffee or tea and enjoy the sight of a freshly fallen snow before having to go out and shovel.

In its non-precedential decision in the case of Melvin v. Sellani, No. 1234 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Dec. 31, 2025 Bowes, J., Stabile, J., and Stevens, P.J.E.) (Mem. Op. by Stabile, J.), the court affirmed the entry of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant landowners and property manager in a slip and fall matter involving ice and/or snow.

The trial court decision entering summary judgment in favor of the Defendants had been entered by Judge Richard M. Hughes, III of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas.

Relative to the hills and ridges argument, the court noted that the Plaintiff failed to present evidence to establish when photographs of the scene of the incident were taken. There were conflicting statements as to whether the photos were taken the day of the incident or shortly thereafter. As such, the court noted that the photographs relied upon by the Plaintiff were not sufficient to create any material issues of fact as to whether the Defendants were under a duty to remedy any alleged hills and/or ridges of snow at the time of the incident.

The Superior Court otherwise observed that the Plaintiff failed to establish that an unreasonable of time had passed between the snowstorm and the alleged dangerous accumulation of snow or ice.

By the Plaintiff’s own testimony, it was snowing when she arrived at work at 6:30 in the morning on the day of the fall. The Plaintiff also confirmed that the snow had stopped by 3:00 p.m. when she left work. Three (3) to five (5) inches of snow had accumulated.

It was additionally indicated that the Defendant property manager indicated that he had begun to remove snow at 9:30 a.m. at the Plaintiff’s residence. The Plaintiff confirmed that the property manager was still working at snow removal when the Plaintiff arrived at home.

The court noted that, even if the snow had stopped immediately when the Plaintiff arrived at work earlier that morning, the Plaintiff provided no case law to support an argument “that a 3-hour delay between the cessation of the snow and the beginning of the clean up effort constitute[d] an unreasonable delay.” See Op. at 7.

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

Source of image:  Photo by Jill Wellington on www.pexels.com.

Summary Judgment Denied in Supermarket Parking Lot Pothole Case

In the case of Schwab v. Giant Food Stores, No. 2024-CV-3936 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Dec. 2, 2025 Nealon, J.), the court denied summary judgment in a supermarket parking lot slip and fall involving a pothole.

In its responsive pleadings, the supermarket denied liability and also asserted that it did not own or control the parking lot at issue.

In response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Plaintiff asserted that discovery was ongoing with respect to the ownership and maintenance of the parking lot at issue.

The court noted that the supermarket Defendant merely alleged in its pleadings and its Motion for Summary Judgment that it did not own or maintain the parking lot. However, the supermarket Defendant did not submit any evidence in support of that allegation.

As such, the court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment based on issues of fact and allowed the case to proceed.

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

Summary Judgment Denied in Parking Lot Slip and Fall Case

In the case of Shea v. Kalahari Resorts & Conventions – Poconos, No. 3:23-CV-814 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 22, 2025, Mariani, J.), the court denied a Motion for Summary Judgment in a slip and fall matter involving ice and snow on sidewalks.

In this matter Judge Mariani initially overruled the Defendant's Motion in Limine to preclude the Plaintiff's engineering expert from testifying at trial.

The court also noted that it could not state, from the information in the record, that the winter conditions in the parking lot of the Defendant's premises amounted to an open and obvious condition.   

The court found that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether or not the hills and ridges doctrine applied. In this regard, the court noted that the storm at issue had ended eleven (11) hours prior to the accident.

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.

Court Denies Motion For Summary Judgment in Store Trip and Fall Case

In the case of Vargas v. Wal-Mart Supercenter, No. 3:22-CV-01642 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 7, 2025 Latella, Mag. J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a premises liability case. 

The Defendant was attempting to rely upon surveillance videotape evidence that showed the Plaintiff's actions at the time of the incident.  The Defendant also asserted that the video confirmed that the condition that the Plaintiff encountered was open and obvious.

Federal Mag. Judge Leo Latella

Federal Middle District Court Magistrate Judge Leo Latella ruled that the Defendant’s surveillance videotape evidence did not reach the level of an irrefutable physical fact that could support summary judgment in this slip and fall matter.  

With regards to the Defendant’s argument that the interpretation of the video established the assumption of the risk defense as a matter of law, the court noted that it was for the jury to decide whether the Plaintiff’s account of the events leading to the fall down event was believable.  

The court additionally noted that the Defendant should have taken customer distraction into account in maintaining safety on the premises. 

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.  

Summary Judgment Granted Where Plaintiff Could Not Pinpoint Which of Multiple Alleged Defects Caused Her to Fall

In the case of Regina v. Summit Pointe Prop. Owners Assoc., No., 1172-CV-2020 (C.P. Monroe Co. July 21, 2025 C. Daniel Higgins, J., J.), the court granted a Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration as well as the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a trip or slip and fall case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on a sidewalk concrete slab that was broken at the time and on which there was gravel.

The court had originally previously denied the moving Defendant’s original Motion for Summary Judgment, finding issues of fact. 

The Defendant followed up with a Motion for Reconsideration.  When reviewing the Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, the court reviewed an additional unpublished Superior Court case provided by the Defendant. In that Superior Court case, the appellate court had granted summary judgment where that plaintiff had not specifically identified which of multiple defects on the walking surface actually caused that Plaintiff to fall.

Similarly in this matter, upon further review of the case presented, the court noted that the Plaintiff, who had since passed away since the happening of the incident, testified at her deposition that she could not remember important details such as what happened right after she took the step that allegedly resulted in her falling.

The court also noted that, review of the pictures provided by the Plaintiff did not reveal any clear images that depicted the alleged broken or defective concrete, or any other defects, that the Plaintiff alleged.

Accordingly, upon reviewing the record again, the court found that the Plaintiff’s case was circumstantial and, at best, only revealed that there was gravel present when she fell.

The court ultimately held that the Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that linked any of the alleged potential defects to the Plaintiff’s fall and the Plaintiff's resultant injuries.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Sept. 18, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Victor Moragriega on www.pexels.com.

Court Punts On Summary Judgment in Football Stadium Trip and Fall Case

In the case of DeLuca v. Scranton School District, No. 2021-CV-3506 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Aug. 19, 2025 Powell, J.), the court denied Motions for Summary Judgment filed by the Scranton School District and Scranton Preparatory School relative to a trip and fall action brought by the Plaintiff after the Plaintiff tripped on an alleged uneven slab of sidewalk at the Scranton Memorial Stadium during a football game.

According to the Opinion, the stadium is owned by the Scranton School District and was leased to the Scranton Preparatory School under an oral agreement.

The Plaintiff alleged negligence against both Defendants.

The Scranton School District argued that it was immune from liability under the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act given that it allegedly lacked notice of the defect and given that the Plaintiff had not suffered a “permanent injury” as required by law to proceed with such a claim in this context.

The court found that the Plaintiff had produced liability and medical expert evidence on the claim presented such that issues of fact precluded the entry of summary judgment.

More specifically, on the liability issues, the Plaintiff produced an expert who asserted that the walkway’s 1.5 inch uneven slab not only constituted a trip hazard, but had also existed for years and allegedly remained unaddressed despite safety inspections.

Regarding the Plaintiff’s injuries, the Plaintiff’s medical experts reported ongoing hand dysfunction and other chronic conditions. The court noted that genuine issues of fact existed for a jury to decide on the alleged permanence of the Plaintiff’s injuries.

The Co-Defendant, Scranton Prep, asserted that it did not bear any responsibility for maintaining the stadium given that it was a lessee without possession or control premises. The court found issues of fact regarding control and responsibility over the premises. As such, summary judgment was denied in this regard as well.

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


Source: Lackawanna Jurist (Aug. 29, 2025).

Summary Judgment Granted in Store Bathroom Slip and Fall Case

In the case of Staley v. Price Chopper, No. 3908-CIVIL-2024 (C.P. Monroe Co. Aug. 11, 2025 Williamson, J.), the court granted summary judgment in a slip and fall matter that occurred at a grocery store.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff visited a grocery store and went to use the lady’s restroom. While in the restroom, the Plaintiff allegedly slipped on some unknown substance and fell.

After the completion of discovery, the defense filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that the Plaintiff had failed to offer any evidence to show how or when the alleged substance came to be on the floor and/or that the store employees had any actual or constructive notice of the condition.

The court agreed with the defense position. The court noted that the Plaintiff failed to offer any evidence as to what substance allegedly caused her to fall. The Plaintiff admitted that she did not notice any wet spots on the floor before she fell. 

All the Plaintiff could state at her deposition was that she knew there was a liquid on the floot because her clothes were wet after the incident.  However, the record revealed not only that it may have been raining on the day of the accident but also that, when the Plaintiff fell in the bathroom stall area, her arm and hand had gone into the toilet.

The court also noted that, even considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the only conclusion is that the Plaintiff allegedly may have slipped on something wet. The court noted that it is not unusual for wet spots to be found in public restrooms, particularly around the toilet area. The court held that, without some indication of what the substance actually was, for example, from a leaking toilet or a spilled hand soap, it was difficult to determine from the record whether the condition that caused the Plaintiff was a long-standing condition as opposed to a transitory one.

In this regard, the court also noted that the Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence as to the length of time that the condition existed or if the Defendant store employees knew or should have known of the alleged condition.

The court also rejected the Plaintiff’s contention that the Defendant should have regularly checked the bathroom during the course of the day. The court noted that the Plaintiff did not produce any evidence in this regarding, including any chart under which employees would check off whether or not they had inspected the bathroom at certain times during day.

The Plaintiff also pointed to surveillance video of the store that shows that no employee entered the restroom for thirty (30) minutes prior to the Plaintiff’s fall. 

The court noted that while the video may show that no one attended to the restroom for thirty (30) minutes before the Plaintiff’s fall, that evidence does not translate to a finding that the Defendant was negligent in not cleaning the restroom that entire day. 

Rather, the court noted that the surveillance video simply showed that the restroom was not checked for thirty (30) minutes before the Plaintiff’s fall. The court held that this did not mean that the Defendant was aware of, or should have been aware of, an alleged dangerous condition that went unattended.

For these reasons, and others noted in the Opinion, the court granted summary judgment to the Defendant store.

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

It is noted that Daniel E. Cummins of Cummins Law was defense counsel in this matter.

Source of image: Photo by Juno Jo on www.unsplash.com.

Issues of Fact Defeat Summary Judgment Relative To Fall Allegedly Caused by Floor Mat

In the case of Montanez-Fontanez v. Lehigh Valley Health Network, No. 2023-CV-0880 (C.P. Leh. Co. Dec. 17, 2024 Reichley, J.), the court denied summary judgment in a case involving a Plaintiff who was allegedly injured when the wheel was of a walker she was using caught on a worn floor mat and caused her to fall at the entrance to the Defendants’ building where she was visiting for physical therapy. The court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment based upon the existence of genuine issues of material fact that required resolution by a jury.

The court found that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the Defendants had notice of the alleged dangerous condition asserted by the Plaintiff.

The court also found that a genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the alleged condition of the floor mat amounted to an unreasonable risk of harm for visitors to the facility.

Based upon these issues of fact, the court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (May 8, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by RDNE Project on www.pexels.com.

New Trial Ordered Based on Application of Open and Obvious Doctrine in Premises Liability Case

In the case of Janik v. Zoological Society of Philadelphia, No. 1590 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. April 22, 2025 Panella, P.J.E., Lane, J., and Stevens, P.J.E.) (Op. by Panella, P.J.E.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the trial court correctly granted a new trial after recognizing its error in failing to instruct the jury on the open and obvious doctrine where the trial evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a reasonable person would have recognized an architectural feature as a potential hazard.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was walking in the Philadelphia Zoo’s Big Cat Falls exhibit when his left foot struck the bottom of a decorative boulder, which allegedly caused him to fall and sustain injuries.

The Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the Zoo was negligent in placing the decorative boulder adjacent to the walkway because it created a dangerous or defective condition.

The Defendant’s pre-trial Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that the boulder was an open and obvious condition was denied. At trial, the trial court denied the Zoo’s Motion for a nonsuit on the same grounds. The jury then returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff.

On appeal, the Zoo asserted that the trial court erred in denying the Motion for Summary Judgment and denying the Motion for a Nonsuit, and in excluding jury instructions on the open and obvious doctrine. Other issues were also raised in the post-trial motions.

In its post-trial Opinion, the trial court felt that a new trial should be granted given its own errors, in part, in failing to admit certain evidence and in failing to instruct the jury on the open and obvious doctrine.

Relative to the issue of the open and obvious doctrine, the Superior Court agreed that there were issues of fact presented at trial that should have compelled the trial court to instruct the jury on that doctrine.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (May 6, 2025).

Court Rejects Summary Judgment For Open and Obvious Condition in Trip and Fall Case

In the case of Knepp v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., No. 3:22-CV-144 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2025 Fischer, J.), the court denied a Motion for Summary Judgment in a case in which the Defendant relied upon the open and obvious doctrine relative to a trip and fall incident.

According to the Opinion, this matter arose out of an incident during which the Plaintiff tripped over a pallet corner that was protruding out from a watermelon display.  The Plaintiff offered a liability expert who offered an opinion that the store's placement of the watermelon display in a store aisle with the corner of the pallet protruding out violated OSHA standards to keep walkways clear.  The expert also opined that the display created a tripping hazard for customers and employees alike.   

In denying the summary judgment motion, the court ruled that, even assuming that the condition that caused the Plaintiff to trip was open and obvious, summary judgment was denied in this case where a jury could decide that the Defendant was negligent because the Defendant had reason to expect that a business invitee could be distracted, could fail to discover, and/or could fail to remember what was obvious and, could thereby fail to protect himself or herself.

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


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Reed Smith office in Philadelphia for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Bo Cho on www.pexels.com.

Summary Judgment Granted in Alleged Trip and Fall Case Based on Trivial Defect Doctrine

In the case of Klobusnik v. Cafaro Company, No. 2021-CV-11132 (C.P. Erie Co. Dec. 31, 2024 Walsh, J.), the court granted the Defendant mall summary judgment in a slip and fall case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was walking on the premises and alleged that her foot hit the edge of a lifted tile on the floor which allegedly caused her to fall down.

After reviewing the record before it, the court noted that the Plaintiff presented photographic evidence purportedly showing a raised tile in the area where she fell. However, the Plaintiff admitted that she did not know exactly where she fell. The Plaintiff asserted that she tripped over the tile in the photograph or a similar tile.

The record revealed that the photograph of the tile in question showed a ruler with both metric and imperial units stationed in the grout line between two (2) tiles. The imperial measurement was below the “0” inch line. The metric measurement was at the “1” millimeter line.

As such, the court granted summary judgment after finding that the Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the trivial defect doctrine. The court also found that the Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the fact that the Plaintiff could not identify the exact tile that caused her to fall. The court noted that the evidence fairly suggested that it was just as likely that the Plaintiff had tripped over the grip of her own shoe on the tile, as opposed to catching her foot on the edge of an allegedly raised tile.

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

I send thanks to Attorney William C. Wagner of the Erie, PA law firm of Marnen, Mioduszewski, Bordonaro, Wagner & Sinnott, LLC for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Mitchell Luo on www.unsplash.com.

Summary Judgment Granted Relative To Slip and Fall That Occurred During an Active Snowstorm

In the case of King v. Hermitage Plaza, No. 2023-CV-1055 (C.P. Mercer Co. Jan. 14, 2025 Amrhein, Jr., J.), the court entered summary judgment in a slip and fall case where the Plaintiff slipped and fell in a parking lot owned by the Defendant during an ongoing snowstorm.

According to the Opinion, on the day of the incident, the Plaintiff exited her place of employment during an ongoing snowstorm, walked across the parking lot owned by the Defendant and went to her vehicle. The Plaintiff then moved her vehicle closer to her place of business by parking at the curb. When the Plaintiff then exited her vehicle again at that point, she slipped and fell on the snow and/or ice that had accumulated near the curb.

The Plaintiff alleged injuries as a result and attributed the incident to the Defendant’s failure to fully remove snow and ice from the premises. The Plaintiff sued both the landowner and a snow removal contractor.

In its decision, the court reviewed the current status of the hills and ridges doctrine in Pennsylvania. The court also cited to the case of Collins v. Phila. Suburban Dev. Corp., 179 A.3d 69, 75 (Pa. Super. 2018), for the proposition that a landowner has no obligation to address any snow and ice on the premises “until a reasonable time after the winter storm has ended.”

The court in this case, again relying on the Collins decision, ruled that a period of approximately six (6) hours (or overnight) does not constitute an unreasonable passage of time concerning a landowner’s failure to remove ice and snow, particularly when a winter storm is ongoing during that period.

The court emphasized that the record in this case demonstrated that the site of the incident experienced severe winter weather conditions before, during, and after the subject slip and fall incident. The Plaintiff noted that she had observed the Defendant snow removal contractor plowing the lot approximately one hour before her fall. The court stated that this plowing activity fell within the six hour to overnight window established in the Collins case.

The court also noted that photographs of the parking lot which were taken by the Plaintiff immediately after the fall demonstrated that the lot was actively being cleared throughout the day. There was also a continued snow fall thereafter.

The court also found here that the Plaintiff did not present evidence to show that snow and ice has unreasonably accumulated to such a degree as to unreasonably obstruct travel so as to satisfy the elements of the Hills and Ridges Doctrine, or that an unreasonable time has passed after the end of a storm. 

Consequently, the Plaintiff was unable to prove the breach of duty element essential to this negligent claim. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was not able to sustain a negligence claim and the court therefore entered summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Joseph Hudock of the Pittsburgh office of Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Rauch, P.C. for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Annie Niemaszyk on www.unsplash.com.

Third Circuit Affirms Trial Court's Giving Plaintiff the Boot in a Shoe Store Slip and Fall Case

In its non-precedential decision in the case of Liveshitz v. Designer Brands, Inc., No. 23-3082 (3d Cir. Jan. 13, 2025 Matey, J., Shwartz, J., and McKee, J.) (Op. by Matey, J.), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the entry of summary judgment in a slip and fall case.

In this case, the Plaintiff alleges that she slipped and fell on a clear and odorless substance on the restroom floor of a store.

The Third Circuit reaffirmed the well-settled rule that a premises liability case requires that a defendant either created the harmful condition that caused the plaintiff to fall or had actual or constructive notice of that condition a sufficient time prior to the event to enable the defendant to address the condition.

Here, the court found that whether the Defendant exercised reasonable care was immaterial because there was no duty owed in the first place. The court found that the Plaintiff had failed to establish actual or constructive notice of the condition on the part of the Defendant.

The court also ruled that the Plaintiff's spoliation of evidence argument failed to create a genuine issue of material fact where there was no evidence of any actual or constructive notice on the part of the Defendant of the alleged condition that allegedly caused the Plaintiff to fall.  

The court ruled that a jury could only speculate on how long the substance at issue was on the floor before the Plaintiff encountered it.

As such, the trial court’s entry of summary judgment was affirmed.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this non-precedential 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.