UPS Delivery Person Deemed a Licensee Relative to a Trip and Fall Event on a Homeowner's Property

In the case of Cornfield v. Mitchell, No. 10596-CV-2021 (C.P. Erie Co. Oct. 2, 2023 Mead, J.), the trial court addressed the issue of what status a home delivery person, such as a UPS delivery person, had in the eyes of the law in a fall-down case on a homeowner’s property, i.e., whether that Plaintiff delivery person would be a business invitee, or a licensee.

In this case, the judge ruled that a UPS driver who fell on the Defendant’s property was a licensee and not a business invitee. 

In so ruling, the court cited to the case of Figueroa v. Meitzner, 2022 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1832 *8-9 (Pa. Super. 2020) citing Sharp v. Luksa, 269 A.2d 659 (Pa. 1970), noting that “the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania adopted §342 of the THE RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS to express the duty that landowners in this Commonwealth owed to business licensee, such as packaged deliverers….”  Under that analysis, delivery persons are deemed to be licensees in premises liability cases where the delivery driver is injured on a homeowner's property.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this detailed Order, which does to come with any Opinion, may click this LINK.

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

Source of image:  Photo by Aaron Doucett on www.Pexels.com.

Community Use of Property Doctrine Utilized to Find that a Plaintiff Was a Licensee in a Premises Liability Case

In the case of Sallum v. The Pennsylvania Conf. Assoc. of Seventh-Day Adventists, No. 2021-CV-00234 (C.P. Lehigh Co. April 13, 2023 Caffrey, J.), the court addressed a Motion for Summary Judgment in a slip and fall case.

One of the central issues addressed by the court was whether or not the Plaintiff was a licensee where he slipped and fell in a parking lot and the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was not authorized to park in the parking lot.

According to the record before the court, the Plaintiff was a member of a mosque that had previously occupied the property and had parked his vehicle in the parking lot in the premises for over eight (8) to nine (9) years. After the Defendants in this case purchased the property, the Plaintiff allegedly spoke with two (2) individuals about whether or not he would be permitted to continue to use the parking lot. Those individuals, who allegedly identified themselves as employees of the new owner, allegedly told the Plaintiff that he could continue to park his vehicle in the parking lot.

The Plaintiff estimated that he then continued to park in that lot on hundreds of occasions without anyone telling him that he could not park there.

The Defendants asserted that they had notified the public at large that the parking lot was not available for public parking given that the Defendants had posted a sign indicating that unauthorized vehicles would be towed. It was also indicated by the Defendant that they would periodically use chains and a padlock to secure the entrance to the parking lot.  However, the Defendants also noted that, when they noticed unauthorized vehicles in the lot, they did not take steps to have those vehicles removed.

A witness who lived in the neighborhood testified that everyone in the neighborhood parked in the parking lot without any issue.

On the day of the incident, snow and ice had accumulated in the parking lot. The Plaintiff was able to enter the parking lot because it was not secured by any change or a padlock. The record also revealed that the parking lot was full of vehicles but the Plaintiff was able to find the last open space. As the Plaintiff stepped out of his vehicle, he slipped and fell.

The court denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment after finding material issues of fact as to whether or not the Plaintiff was a licensee based upon the alleged implied consent of the use of the land by the landowner.

In so ruling, the trial court recognized the notation of “community use of a property” under the Restatement (Second) of Torts §332 as a basis for denying the Motion for Summary Judgment.  Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that, based upon his research, this may be the first Pennsylvania state court in which that rationale was utilized in this context.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Michael J. McKarski of the Bethlehem, PA law firm of Cohen, Feeley, Altemose & Rambo for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image: Photo by Welhim Esaga on www.pexels.com.

Judge Nealon of Lackawanna County Recites the Law of Invitees, Licensees, and Trespassers

As noted in the case below, a plaintiff's ability to recover in a premises liability case may turn on whether that plaintiff is deemed to be a business inviteee, licensee, or a trespasser.

In the case of Giles v. Pennsylvania American Water Co., No. 17-CV-5616 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Jan. 23, 2020 Nealon, J.), the court addressed Preliminary Objections filed by a landowner Defendant in a case involving a minor Plaintiff who was allegedly injured as a result of a fall on the Defendant’s property surrounding a reservoir.

In his Opinion, Judge Terrence R. Nealon provided a detailed recitation of the current status of premises liability law and the issues of whether a Plaintiff may be deemed as an invitee, licensee, or trespasser under the care presented. In this matter, the issue appeared to center around whether the Plaintiff was a licensee or a trespasser.

Finding that the Plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to get beyond a demurrer, the court denied the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections in this regard.

The court also denied the Preliminary Objections filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff’s general allegations of reckless and willful conduct.

Judge Nealon once again ruled, as he has done on numerous occasions in the past, that such claims may be generally pled under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court noted that, upon the completion of discovery, the Defendant could test the of the validity of the punitive damages claim by way of a Motion for Summary Judgment.

The court also noted that the Plaintiffs would not be able to obtain any financial wealth discovery against the Defendant under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.7 unless the Plaintiff first demonstrated a prima facie right to recover punitive damages under Pennsylvania law.

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


If you need help bringing your premises liability case to close by way of a settlement at a Mediation, please do not hesitate to contact me to schedule a Mediation with Cummins Mediation.  I can be reached at dancummins@cumminslaw.net or at 570-319-5899.

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.

Trespasser vs. Licensee Issue in Trip and Fall Case Left for Jury to Decide

In the premises liability slip and fall case of Heuring v. Ringmaker, PICS Case No. 16-0297 (C.P. Monroe Co. Nov. 16, 2015 Harlacher Sibum, J.), the court addressed duties owed to a trespasser and/or a licensee in a trip and fall case.  

According to the Opinion, this matter arose out a slip and fall and the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was a trespasser on the premises at the time of the incident.   According to the Opinion, the lease allowed the landlord to elect to treat a tenant as a trespasser, tenant by sufferance or as a holdover tenant in the event that the tenant remains in possession after a lease expiration.  

When a Plaintiff failed to vacate the premises at the end of a lease, the landlord began proceedings to have the Plaintiff vacate the premises.   During the course of these proceedings, the Plaintiff slipped and fell while on the premises.  

An issue arose over whether or not the landlord consented for the Plaintiff to remain in possession of the premises during the course of the eviction proceedings.   As such, the issue is whether or not the Plaintiff was a trespasser or a licensee at the time of the incident.  



Judge Jennifer Harlacher Sibum
Monroe County

Judge Harlacher Sibum ruled that the question presented was a jury issue and required a factual determination as to whether or not consent was given for the Plaintiff to remain on the premises up to the time of the slip and fall incident.  
The court also found in favor of the Plaintiff on the Defendant’s claims that the Plaintiff.t failed to allege willful and wanton conduct in the Complaint.  The court found that such allegations were within the allegations of negligence and recklessness pled by the Plaintiff.

Overall, the court denied the Defendant landlord’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the issues presented.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may email me at dancummins@comcast.net.
   

Source:  “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (March 15, 2016).