Premises Liability Claim Against An Out-of-Possession Landlord Allowed To Proceed

In the case of Poplawski v. Jiunta, No. 3338 CIVIL 2023 (C.P. Monroe Co. Aug. 28, 2023 Williamson, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to a Plaintiff’s Complaint in which the Plaintiff alleged that he was injured when a large mirror fell on him in a business leased from the Defendant landowner.

The Defendant asserted that, as an out-of-possession landlord Defendant, the Plaintiff had failed to state a cause of action against that particular Defendant.

The court noted that a Complaint must not only give notice of a claim but also summarize the essential facts at issue. 

In this case, the Complaint alleged that the Defendant was the owner of the building where the Plaintiff was a customer, that a defect existed on the property in the form of an allegedly improperly secured mirror, and that the Plaintiff suffered injury when the mirror fell. 

The court found that these factual allegations were sufficiently specific to assert a negligence cause of action against the Defendant landlord.

Judge David J. Williamson
Monroe County

While Judge David J. Williamson of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas noted that, as a general rule, a landlord out-of-possession is not liable for injuries on a lease premises unless certain exceptions applied, he could not sustain the landlord Defendant’s Preliminary Objections in this case. The court found that it remained unclear as to whether or not any of the exceptions to the rule applied. 

As such, the court allowed the case to proceed into discovery so that there could be a determination if there were any additional facts to clarify the Defendant’s role and potential responsibility.

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

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

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

Attempt to Extend Medical Malpractice Liability to a Landlord of a Nursing Home Rejected

In the case of Drake v. Schwartz, No. 2019 - 07345-PL (C.P. Chester Co. Dec. 12, 2022 Binder, J.), an interesting and innovative theory of liability in a medical malpractice case was attempted by a plaintiff but rejected by the court.

In this case, the court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Defendant, who was the owner and out-of-possession landlord of a property leased to a nursing home. 

The landowner Defendant had been brought into this nursing home negligence case under a theory that one of the dangerous conditions that caused the patient’s injuries was a condition of severe understaffing at the nursing home that was caused, in part, by financial hardships imposed on the tenant nursing home by its lease agreement with the landlord.

The trial court noted that the issue presented was one of first impression. In its filings, the Plaintiffs acknowledged that they had no authority for extending a landlord’s control over a dangerous condition to a lease that was allegedly unduly economically burdensome to a tenant.

The court declined to create a new avenue for liability against the out-of-possession landlord based solely on a tenant’s invitee alleging that the tenant’s lease was overly costly or burdensome.

As such, the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment was granted.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 22, 2023).

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

Summary Judgment Granted to Gym and Landlord in Slip and Fall Case

In the case of Rifkin v. Fitness International, LLC, No. 19-CV-5686 // 20-CV-4547 (E.D. Pa. June 15, 2022 Sitarski, J.), the court granted summary judgment in favor of the possessor of land in this slip and fall case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff slipped and fell in the locker room of the gym.

The court found that, based upon the record developed during discovery, that the out-of-possession landlord did not retain control over the premises and/or the area where the Plaintiff fell.   

As such, the court found that the landlord-defendant was entitled to summary judgment.    

 Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  Here is a LINK to the court's companion Order.

In a separate Opinion issued by the same court in the same case on the same date, the court granted summary judgment to the gym, which was the tenant-defendant, as well.

In that decision, the court initially noted that issues of fact on the issue of whether the Plaintiff had signed a waiver form when he joined the gym precluded the entry of summary judgment in favor of the gym in that regard.  

However, the court found that the tenant-defendant was entitled to summary judgment on other grounds.

In its decision, the court stated that, absent any evidence of prior similar incidents in the same location, a Plaintiff cannot establish actual notice on the part of the possessor of land in a slip and fall case.

The court additionally found that the Plaintiff failed in proving any constructive notice in this case where the Plaintiff did not know what caused him to fall, let alone how long any such condition was present.

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.

Source of image: Photo by Ron Lach on www.pexels.com.

Preliminary Objections by Out-of-Possession Landlord Sustained in Part and Overruled in Part in Dog Bite Case

In the case of Rodgers v. Guerrieri, No. 1526 of 2020 G.D. (C.P. Fayette Co. April 1, 2021 Vernon, J.), the court granted an out-of-possession landlord’s Preliminary Objections to a Plaintiff’s dog bite Complaint. However, the right to amend was granted to the Plaintiff.

According to the Opinion, a minor Plaintiff was attacked by a dog on the premises. In addition to suing the owners of the dog, the Plaintiffs also sued the out-of-possession landlord Defendant.

The out-of-possession landlord Defendant filed Preliminary Objections on various grounds.

The court sustained the landlord Defendant’s Preliminary Objections with respect to the claims of negligence given that the Plaintiff only utilized conclusory allegations.

However, the court denied the Motion of the out-of-possession landlord Defendant to strike the claim for punitive damages. While the court found that the allegations of punitive damages set forth under a separate count was procedurally improper, the court noted that, if the Plaintiff included allegations of outrageous conduct or reckless indifference, a punitive damages claim would be pursued under the facts presented.

The court noted that, where an out-of-possession landlord had knowledge of the presence of a dangerous animal on the premises and had the right to control or remove the animal by retaking possession of the premises, the landlord could be held liable for injuries caused by the animal.

As noted above, the Preliminary Objections of the landlord Defendant sustained but the Plaintiff was allowed to file an Amended Complaint.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (July 27, 2021).

Source of Image: Photo by Julissa Helmuth from Pexels.com.

Judge Nealon Addresses Potential Liability of Out-of-Possession Landlord in a Dog Bite Case

In the case of Vicki v. Altuner, No. 17-CV-3602 (C.P. Lacka. Co. March 12, 2020 Nealon, J.), the court addressed issues of liability with respect to a dog’s owner and an out-of-possession landlord in a case where a jogger was allegedly attacked and bitten by unrestrained pitbulls.

According to the Opinion, there was evidence in the case that the landlord had prior knowledge that the dog had bitten and attacked the landlord’s handyman twenty (20) days since the incident.

The out-of-possession landlord Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that she did not owe any duty of care to the jogger since she did not have any prior knowledge as to the pitbulls’ dangerous propensities. In the alternative, the out-of-possession landlord asserted that she cannot be found to be breached any duty given that she had already initiated an eviction proceeding against the owner for non-payment of rent at the time the tenant’s dog attacked the jogger. 

The Motion for Summary Judgment was denied as the court found that there were issues of fact on the liability questions presented.

Judge Nealon noted that, even though the landlord had already begun eviction proceedings, the landlord also had other avenues available to remove the dogs from the premises after the prior attack upon the handyman, such as seeking immediate injunctive relief or the intervention of a local animal control authority in order to have the dogs removed. Given this issue, and other issues noted in the Opinion, the summary judgment was denied. 

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

Liability of Landlord Out-Of-Possession In Premises Liability Matters

In his recent decision in the case of Mills v. Gubbio’s, LLC., No. 2013-CV-2940 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Oct. 2, 2015 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas granted a Defendant landlord’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a slip and fall case.  

This personal injury action arose out of an alleged slip and fall on an icy sidewalk.

According to the Opinion, the property owner/landlord out of possession filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that he did not have a duty to maintain the sidewalk or remove ice and snow from the sidewalk.

The Opinion provides a detailed summary of the current status of the law pertaining to the liability of a landlord-out-of possession in premises liability matters.

The Opinion confirmed that it was undisputed between the parties that the out-of-possession landlord leased the entire property to two tenants. It was also confirmed in the Opinion that the terms of the written Release required that the first floor commercial tenant keep sidewalks free from snow and ice. Both tenants were noted to have also confirmed in discovery that the first floor commercial tenant was solely responsible for the removal of snow and ice from the sidewalk and that the commercial tenant had hired a third party to shovel and salt the sidewalks.

Based on these facts, the Court ruled that, since it was undisputed that the out-of-possession landlord did not retain control over the sidewalks or the common areas and given that the written Lease imposed exclusive responsibility upon the commercial tenant for the removal of snow and ice from the sidewalk areas, the Court found that the out-of-possession landlord did not owe a duty of care to the Plaintiff as a matter of law. Accordingly, the landlord’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted.

Since the court granted summary judgment on the above issue, the Hills and Ridges Doctrine argument raised was not addressed.

 Anyone wishing to review this Opinion by Judge Nealon may click this LINK.