Summary Judgment Denied in Case Involving Trip and Fall on Jogging Trail

In the case of Sember v. Lackawanna Heritage Valley Auth., No. 2024-CV-3255 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Oct. 22, 2025 Powell, J.), the court addressed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by the Defendants claiming immunity under the Recreational Use of Land and Water Act relative to a trip and fall incident that occurred while the Plaintiff was jogging on the Lackawanna Heritage Trail.

The City of Scranton, which was a Co-Defendant, additionally asserted that it was entitled to immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act.

Both Defendants asserted that they were entitled to immunity under the Recreational Use of Land and Water Act given that the trail was on recreational land that was open to the public without charge. 

The Defendants asserted that the Act provided that owners owe no duty to recreational uses to maintain safety or to warn of dangers, including with respect to paved and unpaved trails. The Defendants claimed that the Lackawanna Heritage Valley Authority and the City of Scranton both constituted owners under the Act. 

Here, however, the Plaintiff alleged a man-made hazard, that is, a raised concrete base, and also asserted that the Defendants knew of that condition but failed to repair it or warn the persons entering the land about the condition. 

Judge Mark Powell
Lackawanna County

As such, Judge Mark Powell of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas held that there were issues of fact and that it could not determine from the pleadings alone whether the RULWA applied at this early stage of the litigation.  The court more specifically found that factual development was required to assess whether the condition at issue was part of the trial’s recreational use or an artificial structure beyond the protection of the Act.

Relative to The City’s claim of governmental immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, the City asserted that it was immune because the trail was maintained by the Lackawanna Heritage Valley Authority and was not under The City’s “care, custody, or control.” The City of Scranton also argued that the Plaintiff’s claim did not fall under any of the exceptions to the grant of immunity.

The court found that the record was insufficient to determine the extent of each Defendant's control or whether the defect constituted a dangerous condition of real property that might trigger an exception to immunity. In light of these questions of fact, the court denied the Motion for these additional reasons.

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


Source: Lackawanna Jurist (Oct. 31, 2025).

County Found Immune From Liability Under Recreational Use of Land and Water Act

In the case of Clark v. Schuylkill Canal Ass’n, Inc., No. 611 C.D. 2020 (Pa. Cmwlth. June 13, 2022 McCullough, J., Wallace J., and Leavitt, S.J.) (Op. by McCullough, J.), the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled that a trial court had properly found that Montgomery County was immune from suit under the Recreational Use of Land and Water Act given that the decedent’s fatal accident, caused when a tree fell, occurred in a natural and undeveloped recreational area which came under the protection of the Act.

In so ruling, the appellate court applied the four (4) point test to consider whether the recreational use of Land and Water Act applied to protect a particular landowner from tort liability.

The court noted that these factors included: (1) the nature of the area in question, that is, whether it was urban or rural, indoors or outdoors, large or small; (2) the type of recreation offered in the area, that is, whether persons entered to participate in one of the recreational purposes listed in the Act; (3) the extent of the area’s development, that is, whether the site was completely developed and/or significantly altered from its natural state and the characters of the area’s development; and, (4) whether the area was adapted for a new recreational purpose or would be amenable to recreational purposes of the act even without alteration.

In this case, the accident occurred at a 60-arce outdoor, rural, forested area along a riverbank. The site was not largely developed or improved in any significant way or altered from its natural state in any significant manner. The area was also not adapted for any new recreational purpose. Rather, the court found that the area, which consisted of a muddy riverbank, rocks, and trees left open for those who enjoy the outdoors had dangers that were comparable to those of a natural forest.

As such, the court found that the area in question was the type of which would fall under the protection of the Act. As such, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s finding of immunity in favor of Montgomery County.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (July 6, 2022).

Court Applies Pennsylvania Recreational Use of Land and Water Act

In the case of Baird v. Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, No. 2015-226 (C.P. Elk Co. Dec. 28, 2020 Masson, S.J.), the court addressed a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Defendant in which the Defendant asserted that it breached no duty to the Plaintiff decedent who died in a canoeing incident on the Clarion River. 

The Defendant asserted that it was immune from liability by virtue of the Pennsylvania Recreational Use of Land and Water Act. The Defendant also asserted that the decedent assumed the right of canoeing under the conditions existing.

After applying the facts to the law in question, the court found issues of fact preventing it from entering summary judgment.

Anyone wishing to review this case in which the current status of the law of the Recreational Use of Land and Water Act is discussed may click this LINK.

I sends to Attorney Owen M. Coleman, Esquire of the Law Offices of Harry Coleman in Carbondale, PA for bringing this case to my attention

Court Applies Recreational Use of Land and Water Act in Snowmobile Case

In the case of Conway v. N.E.P. Sno Trails, Inc., No. 15-CV-6543 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Dec. 4, 2020 Nealon, J.), the court granted a landowner’s Motion for Summary Judgment but denied a snowmobile club’s Motion for Summary Judgement in a case arising out of a snowmobile accident.

According to the Opinion, this suit was filed by a Plaintiff snowmobile operator who was injured while traveling on a designated snowmobile trail when his snowmobile suddenly crashed into a six foot deep gully. The Plaintiff filed this negligence suit against his snowmobile club that had established a trail and allegedly assumed the responsibility for ensuring that it was clear of hazards. He also sued the landowner that had granted permission to the snowmobile club and its members to use the land for recreational purposes free of charge.

The court noted that, under the Recreational Use of Land and Water Act, the owner or occupant of land made available to the public for recreational use is immune from negligence liability for harm caused by a dangerous condition, unless the owner or occupant “charges the recreational user” to enter or use the land.

Absent any such monetary charge, the owner or occupant of the land may be liable only for “willful or malicious failure to guard or warn” against a dangerous condition or activity.

In this matter, both the landowner and the snowmobile club filed Motions for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the snowmobiler could not establish a cognizable duty in order to sustain a tort claim under the Recreational Use of Land and Water Act. The snowmobile club alternatively argued that it owed no duty to the snowmobiler who had assumed the risk of his own injury.

After noting that the landowner had not charged either the snowmobile club or the snowmobiler any fee to enter its land or to use the trail, the court noted that the Defendant landowner was entitled to summary judgement under the Act. The court also noted that there was no allegation or evidence that the landowner was chargeable with a willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against the dangerous condition.

With regards to the motion filed by the snowmobile club, the court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the snowmobile club as there were issues of fact as to whether the club charged the Plaintiff a fee to use the trail. The court also found issues of act as to whether the snowmobiler had assumed the risk. As such, the snowmobile club’s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied.

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

I send thanks to Attorney Joseph R. Rydzewski of the Clarks Summit, Pa law firm of Spall, Rydzewski, Anderson, Lalley & Tunis, P.C., for bringing this case to my attention.