Motion for Summary Judgment Denied in Slip and Fall Case

In the case of Yearwood v. Mountain Valley Orthopedics, No. 10812-CV-2014 (C.P. Monroe Co. July 15, 2021 Higgins, Jr., J.), the court found genuine issues of material fact existed in a slip and fall case such that a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied.

In this matter, the Plaintiff alleged that he slipped and fell on the premises occupied by Mountain Valley Orthopedics.

While the Defendants asserted that they could not be held liable under Pennsylvania law as the Plaintiff slipped and fell during the course of an ongoing snowstorm, the Plaintiff’s countered with the argument that the cause of the icy patch upon which the Plaintiff fell was frozen water runoff from an overhead metal canopy.

The court noted that deposition testimony in the matter showed that runoff was a common problem at the premises. As such, the court noted that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the icy patch was form by runoff, was the product of a premise snowstorm, or was the product of the snowstorm that was occurring on the same day of the incident.

The court also found issues of material fact with regards to the Defendants raising the Choice of Ways Doctrine. The court noted that the Plaintiff testified that he did not perceive the risk of the icy patch as it was covered by snow at the time of the incident. As such, the court found that issue of fact regarding the Plaintiff’s awareness of any risk barred the entry of summary judgment.

Finally, the court noted that there were issues of material fact relative to whether or not the Hills and Ridges Doctrine should be applied since there were issues of fact about the cause of the icy patch and whether the runoff from the canopy constituted a defect. For this additional reason, the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied.

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Sept. 28, 2021).

Source of image:  Photo by Damian McCoig on Unsplash.com.

LOOKING TO TRY TO SETTLE YOUR SLIP OR TRIP AND FALL CASE

BRING YOUR CASE TO A CLOSE BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR

dancummins@Cumminslaw.net

(570) 319-5899

Choice of Ways Doctrine Helps Convince Court To Deny Summary Judgment in a Fall Down Case

In the case of Ruddick v. Calandra, No. 4572-CV-2018 (C.P. Monroe Co. Oct. 21, 2019 Williamson, J.), the court found that issues of fact prevented the entry of summary judgment in a fall down case.

According to the Opinion, as the Plaintiff was leaving the home of the Defendant, the Plaintiff turned to respond to a person who had called to her. The Plaintiff then stepped off a paved walkway and fell into a depression in the ground, allegedly sustaining injuries as a result.

The defense filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that the Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence of a dangerous condition on the property or that the Defendants had acted negligently. The defense also asserted that the Plaintiff had elected to step off of the walkway and onto the grass, thereby implicating the “change of ways” rule.

The court found issues of fact that prevented the entry of judgment in favor of the defense. More specifically, the evidence revealed that the Defendants admitted that a soft depression formed in their yard when it rained. As such, there was an issue of whether or not weather conditions created a defect in the yard and whether that defect was the cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries. The court thought that these issues should be left for the jury.

Judge Williamson additionally ruled that the contributory negligence issues related to the Plaintiff stepping off of the path was also a jury question.

In this regard, the defense raised the "Choice of Ways" Doctrine which holds that where a person has a choice of ways, one of which is perfectly safe, and one which is attendant with risk and dangers, and that person voluntarily chooses the dangerous way, that person is contributorily negligent and cannot recover.

There was a question as to whether the Plaintiff made a voluntary “choice of ways” in this case as both Defendants admitted that he walkway upon which the Plaintiff was located was very narrow.

The court denied the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and allowed the issues to proceed to a jury.

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 10, 2019).


Should you need any assistance bringing your premises liability case to a close, please do not hesitate to contact me to set up a mediation through Cummins Mediation Services.  I can be reached at 570-319-5899 or at dancummins@CumminsLaw.net.  Thank you.

Assumption of Risk Found to Bar Trip and Fall Plaintiff's Recovery

In the case of Sycalik v. Hoover, No. 2016-1227-CD (C.P. Clearfield Co. April 16, 2018 Ammerman, P.J.), the court granted summary judgments filed by the Defendants in a trip and fall case after finding that the Plaintiff had voluntarily assumed the risk of her own injuries.  

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff tripped and fell near the bottom of the steps to the outside portion of the property.   There was no dispute in the record that the bottom portion of the steps to the property, along with the berm at the bottom and adjacent to the road, were damaged.  

However, the record also established that the Plaintiff was very familiar with the premises having lived there for many years in the past and given that her father currently resided in the home for the past ten (10) years such that the Plaintiff visited the home “thousands” of times since her childhood. The court noted that this meant that she had ascended and descended the front steps thousands of times as well as the steps were the only entrance/exit from the home.  

As such, the record confirmed that the Plaintiff knew that the bottom step was damaged and problematic and that the Plaintiff had discussed the damaged step with the persons who lived on the premises.  It was also noted that the Plaintiff confirmed at her deposition that she had a habit of stepping to the left of the last damaged step, onto a grassy slope, in order to avoid the step.  

According to the Opinion, on the date of the Plaintiff’s injury, the Plaintiff had stepped to the left as usual, but missed the spot where she would usually step and instead caught her left foot on the corner of the last step, as a result of which she was caused to fall.  

Turning to the law, the court referred to the §342 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts which covers the liability of a possessor of land towards a licensee and confirms that liability applies if the possessor of land knew of the condition and realized that it involved an unreasonable risk of harm that is likely to be undiscoverable and fails to make the condition safe or provide adequate warning. 

The Restatement also indicates that, in order for liability to apply, it must be established that the licensee did not know or have reason to know of the condition and the risk involved.  

Relying on the case of Carrender v. Fitterer, 469 A.2d 120, 126 (Pa. 1983), the court in Sycalik applied the assumption of risk doctrine to bar the Plaintiff’s recovery.  

The court also rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the assumption of risk cases were distinguishable because the Plaintiff had no alternative route.  

The Sycalik court additionally noted that Pennsylvania law also establishes that, when a Plaintiff voluntarily chooses to walk upon an area not intended to be traversed, such as a grassy slope, the Plaintiff has not stated a valid cause of action.   By way of an example, the court cited to the case of Gilligan v. Villanova University, 584 A.2d 1005, 1008 (Pa. Super. 1991), in which judgment was entered against a Plaintiff who fell when the Plaintiff chose to walk over a grassy area instead of the nearby sidewalk..   

Given that there were no genuine issues of material fact and given that the court found that the Plaintiff had assumed the risk of her injury, summary judgment was granted. in this Sycalik case. 

 

Anyone wishing to read this decision, may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Thomas McDonnell of the Pittsburgh law firm of Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Rauch for bringing this case to my attention.

Summary Judgment Denied In Lackawanna County Premises Liability Case

In his recent Opinion in the case of Gunsior v. K Investments, et.al., No. 2011-CV-4742 (C.P. Lacka. Co. May 25, 2016 Minora, S.J.), Lackawanna County Senior Judge Carmen D. Minora addressed a summary judgment motion filed by Defendant Quaker Steak and Lube restaurant in a slip and fall matter.  

Defendant Quaker Steak first asserted that it was entitled to summary judgement in that the injured Plaintiff, initially a business invitee, should be legally determined to be a trespasser after improperly exiting premises over a guardrail and through landscaping.   The Defendant asserted that, as such conduct was not authorized, the only duty owed to the alleged Plaintiff was that the landowner avoid willful or wanton misconduct towards alleged trespassers.    

After reviewing premises liability law regarding the status of the injured party plaintiffs (trespasser, licensee, invitee) and the duty of care owed to different types of plaintiffs, Judge Minora noted that, generally speaking, the determination of whether or not a person is a trespasser, licensee, or a business invitee, is one of fact typically left for a jury’s determination.   The court found that issues of fact in this regard precluded the court from entering summary judgment.  

As a second basis for its Motion for Summary Judgment, Quaker Steak asserted that the Plaintiff chose a route to the parking lot which was unsafe as opposed to the safer alternative route that the Plaintiff had previously used to enter the premises earlier.   In this regard, Quaker Steak asserted the Plaintiff’s comparative negligence as a result of this choice of route barred the Plaintiff recovery.  

The court likewise found that issues of fact prevented it from entering summary judgment in this regard. 

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

Choice of Ways Doctrine Reviewed in Premises Liability Case

In the case of Graham v. Mohegan Sun, No. 3:14-CV-0908 (M.D. Pa. June 14, 2016 Kosik, J.), the court denied a landowner Defendant’s request for summary judgment in a trip and fall case.  

In this matter, the Plaintiff allegedly fell on a well-worn, but informal dirt path through grass on the premises.  

Judge Kosik held that it could not be held as a matter of law that the well-worn, but informal, dirt path through grass upon which the Plaintiff fell was an obviously dangerous condition so as to require dismissal under the choice of ways doctrine.

Judge Kosik reaffirmed that the choice of ways doctrine requires (1) a safe course, (2) a dangerous course, and (3) facts which would put a reasonable person on notice of the danger or actual knowledge of the danger.  

In this matter, there was no evidence of any signs advising of a safer route.  

The court otherwise ruled that a construction company’s whose worker allegedly directed the Plaintiff on a path to take could also be liable under a contractual provision requiring the construction company to take reasonable precautions on the land.  

Overall, the court found that issues of fact precluded the entry of summary judgment in favor of the defense.

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

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