Appellate Court Addresses Liability Issues Relative to Placement of Bus Stop In Pedestrian Injury Case

Bus Stop

In the case of Essington v. Monroe Co. Trans. Auth., No. 1081 C.D. 2022 (Pa. Cmwlth. July 11, 2023 McCullough, J., Dumas, J., and Wallace, J.) (Op. by McCullough, J.), the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded in part a trial court decision regarding the liability of certain Defendants in a case where a pedestrian was struck by a motorist after exiting from a bus at a bus stop near a residential development.

The appellate court held that, although the trial court properly ruled that PennDOT and the residential development had no control over safety conditions of a local transit authority’s bus stop, the trial court erred in granting the local transit authority summary judgment where there were allegations that the transit authority’s driver’s use of high beams allegedly blinded the other driver who struck the decedent.

The appellate court otherwise affirmed the entry of summary judgment in favor of PennDOT and the residential homeowner’s association.

The trial court had ruled that PennDOT was not liable because the real estate exception did not apply to policies or activities such as designing state roads.

The trial court had ruled that the homeowner’s association was not liable because it had no control over the bus stops and owed no duty to permit the transit authority buses to enter the development.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  To view the Court's September 23, 2023 Order changing its July 11, 2023 Opinion on the case from a Memorandum Opinion to an Opinion that shall be reported, please click HERE.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Sept. 19, 2023).

ARTICLE: A Primer on the Law of Liability of Homeowners' and Condominium Associations

Here is a LINK to an article of mine that was recently published in the July/August 2023 edition of the Pennsylvania Lawyer Magazine.  The article is entitled "A Primer on the Law of Liability of Homeowners' and Condominium Associations."

Given the dearth of case law and commentary on this area of the law, it is hoped that this article may provide background on how to approach liability matters involving homeowners and condominium associations and/or provide a jumpstart for any research you may have to complete on issues presented in this particular area of civil liability law.

I send thanks to the Pennsylvania Bar Association and to Patricia Graybill, the editor of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, for selecting this article for publication.

Court Finds No Liability Against Property Owners Assocation Relative to Location of Bus Stop

Judge David J. Williamson of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas recently addressed the liability of homeowners associations in the case of Essington v. Monroe Co. Transit Auth., No. 5117-CV-2020 (C.P. Monroe Co. Aug. 15, 2022).

In Essington, the plaintiff’s decedent was fatally injured when he was hit by an oncoming car at night after exiting a bus at a bus stop that was located just outside of the residential gated community known as the Pocono Country Place Property Owners Association. 

The plaintiff asserted that the property owners association was negligent for failing to ensure that the bus stop located outside of their gated community was safe and/or for not allowing the buses to come inside the gated community to drop off passengers.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the property owners association after finding that the property owners association had no control over the bus company’s selection and location of its bus stops and that, therefore, the property owners association owed no duty to the plaintiff’s decedent in this regard. 

The court additionally confirmed that there was no evidence in the record that the property owners association encouraged or endorsed its residents to use the bus system, let alone to use it at any particular stop.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

Source:  "Digest of Recent Decisions. Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Oct. 3, 2022).

Source of image:  Photo by Darren Viollet on www.pexels.com.

Summary Judgment Granted in Fall on Ice Case

In the case of Sanchez v. Snowshoe Condo. Ass’n, Inc., No. 9276-Civil-2015 (C.P. Monroe Co. Sept. 19, 2019 Williamson, J.), the court granted summary judgment in favor of a Defendant in a slip and fall case where the Plaintiff failed to establish how the icy condition was created or how the Defendant could have had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff lived at a property located within the Defendant’s condominium association.

At approximately 6:00 a.m. on a December morning, the Plaintiff left her home to take her dog for a walk. When she returned to her unit approximately 15 minutes later, the Plaintiff slipped and fell on an icy spot on a bottom step leading into her unit.

Judge Williamson cited to Pennsylvania law that confirmed that property owners were not required to keep the premises completely free of snow and ice at all times. Rather, under the hills and ridges doctrine, owners were not liable when there were generally slippery conditions and where the ice and/or snow had not yet accumulated into unreasonable ridges or elevations. Rather, the law only requires that a property owner act within a reasonable time, after notice, to remove snow and ice when it presents as a dangerous condition.

In this matter, both the Plaintiff and her daughter testified that they did not know when or how the ice had formed. The Plaintiff also admitted that she did not notice the ice the night before or even when she had left her home to begin to take a walk with her dogs. The court also noted that her fall occurred while it was still dark outside.

In the record before the court there were weather reports that showed that no precipitation had fallen on the date in question. The court found that, given the lack of precipitation, it was unclear how a Defendant landowner would have known about the alleged formation of any ice.

Judge Williamson stated that there was no other evidence to indicate that the icy condition had existed for such a long period of time that the Defendant knew about it or should have known about it. At most, it appeared that the condition may have existed for a few hours between the sunset and sunrise. The court held that this was not a reasonable time frame in which to expect a Defendant to locate and correct an allegedly icy condition.

Based upon the above, the court granted the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment after finding that the Plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of negligent in terms of how the alleged icy condition occurred or how the Defendant could have known about it.

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” The Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Oct. 22, 2019).

Licensee vs. Invitee Status in a Slip and Fall Case

In its recent decision in the case of Hackett v. Indian King Residents Ass’n., No. 3600 EDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Aug. 29, 2018 Shogan, J., Gantman, J., and Platt, J.), the court affirmed the denial of a Plaintiff’s post-trial motions after a defense verdict in a slip or trip and fall case.   

In this matter, the Plaintiff alleges she tripped and fell in a common area of a community.   One of the main issues in this case was whether the Plaintiff should be deemed to be a licensee or an invitee.

The Plaintiff asserted that, since she had paid common area maintenance fees to the residents’ association, she should be considered to be a business invitee.

The Superior Court disagreed and found that the mere paying of common area maintenance fees did not create invitee status under Pennsylvania law.   Rather, the Plaintiff was deemed to be licensee since, as a resident of the community, she used the common areas by permission, and not by the Defendant’s invitation.  

The court also noted that an invitation must be more than mere permission to access common areas in order to make one a business invitee in this context.  

Also of note in this decision was the court’s ruling that the Condominium Act does not apply to homeowners’ associations.

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

No Duty on Homeowner's Association to Maintain Stop Sign

In his recent decision in the case of Brown v. Russaw, No. 8953-CIVIL-2014 (C.P. Monroe Co. May 10, 2017  Williamson, J.), Judge David J. Williamson of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment in favor of a homeowner’s association in a motor vehicle accident case involving a missing stop sign.  

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff alleged personal injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred when she was struck by another vehicle which had entered into the intersection from a roadway at which a stop sign was missing.  

While the court agreed that issues of fact prevented the entry of summary judgment on this issue of whether the Defendant Property Owner’s Association had actual or constructive notice of the missing stop sign, the court still granted summary judgment after finding that the Defendant homeowner’s association had no duty to maintain or replace the stop sign.  

In his Opinion, Judge Williamson noted that the duties of a private community association with regards to stop signs did not appear to be addressed under Pennsylvania case law.  

The Defendant association pointed to analogous cases involving municipalities which indicated that there was no duty upon a municipality to erect, maintain, or replace a missing stop sign at an intersection.   

Although the court acknowledged that the Defendant community association was not a municipality, the court felt that the municipality cases were indeed analogous and noted that, if a municipality as no obligation to erect, maintain, or repair stop signs, then, for the same reasons, the court found that a private road owner should likewise not have that obligation.  

The court also noted that, there were no facts set forth under which the Plaintiff could recover against the homeowner's association in any event under the law pertaining to a lack of a stop sign as it appeared that the tortfeasor Defendant driver allegedly failed to follow the rules of the right-of-way at the intersection.  

As stated, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the property owner’s association.  

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


To view a Tort Talk post on another missing stop sign case, click HERE.