Judge Allows Trip And Fall Case To Proceed Beyond Summary Judgment

In the case of Bonnell v. Knight-Confer Funeral Home, Inc., No. CV0-2023-01345 (C.P. Lyc. Co. March 23, 2026 Carlucci, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a trip and fall case based upon the expert opinion of the Plaintiff’s expert engineer creating questions of fact to be decided decision by the jury.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on a step on the Defendant’s premises. During her deposition, the Plaintiff did not assert that there was any debris on the step where she fell,  Nor did the Plaintiff point to any defect in the step itself.

Rather, the Plaintiff testified that she opened the door and thought she was stepping onto the sidewalk and, as a result, missed the step and fell.

The Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that the complete absence of any debris or any defects with regards to the step confirm that there was no material evidence upon which a jury could base any finding of negligence. The Defendant additionally pointed out that the Plaintiff had traveled over the same step on her way into the building without incident.

The Plaintiff’s opposition to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was based, in part, on the fact that the Plaintiff produced an expert engineering report. That expert offered an opinion that the single step condition at the threshold of the doorway created a hazardous condition which endangered the public. The expert further concluded that the actions and/or inactions of the Plaintiff did not cause the incident to occur. The expert otherwise noted that the step was below the normal line of sight and the Plaintiff was therefore unable to perceive it as she exited the doorway.

After reviewing the record before him as applied to Pennsylvania law, the judge noted that, if the jury believed the testimony of the Plaintiff’s engineering expert, a jury could reasonably find that the condition at the threshold of the doorway was a hazardous condition which endangered the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff’s own conduct was not a legal cause of her injuries. 

Accordingly, the court denied the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and allowed the case to proceed forward.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (May 28, 2026).

Source of image:  Photo by Becca Lavin on www.unsplash.com.

Summary Judgment Denied in Supermarket Parking Lot Pothole Case

In the case of Schwab v. Giant Food Stores, No. 2024-CV-3936 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Dec. 2, 2025 Nealon, J.), the court denied summary judgment in a supermarket parking lot slip and fall involving a pothole.

In its responsive pleadings, the supermarket denied liability and also asserted that it did not own or control the parking lot at issue.

In response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Plaintiff asserted that discovery was ongoing with respect to the ownership and maintenance of the parking lot at issue.

The court noted that the supermarket Defendant merely alleged in its pleadings and its Motion for Summary Judgment that it did not own or maintain the parking lot. However, the supermarket Defendant did not submit any evidence in support of that allegation.

As such, the court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment based on issues of fact and allowed the case to proceed.

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

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).

Issues of Fact Defeat Summary Judgment Relative To Fall Allegedly Caused by Floor Mat

In the case of Montanez-Fontanez v. Lehigh Valley Health Network, No. 2023-CV-0880 (C.P. Leh. Co. Dec. 17, 2024 Reichley, J.), the court denied summary judgment in a case involving a Plaintiff who was allegedly injured when the wheel was of a walker she was using caught on a worn floor mat and caused her to fall at the entrance to the Defendants’ building where she was visiting for physical therapy. The court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment based upon the existence of genuine issues of material fact that required resolution by a jury.

The court found that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the Defendants had notice of the alleged dangerous condition asserted by the Plaintiff.

The court also found that a genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the alleged condition of the floor mat amounted to an unreasonable risk of harm for visitors to the facility.

Based upon these issues of fact, the court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (May 8, 2025).

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

New Trial Ordered Based on Application of Open and Obvious Doctrine in Premises Liability Case

In the case of Janik v. Zoological Society of Philadelphia, No. 1590 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. April 22, 2025 Panella, P.J.E., Lane, J., and Stevens, P.J.E.) (Op. by Panella, P.J.E.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the trial court correctly granted a new trial after recognizing its error in failing to instruct the jury on the open and obvious doctrine where the trial evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a reasonable person would have recognized an architectural feature as a potential hazard.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was walking in the Philadelphia Zoo’s Big Cat Falls exhibit when his left foot struck the bottom of a decorative boulder, which allegedly caused him to fall and sustain injuries.

The Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the Zoo was negligent in placing the decorative boulder adjacent to the walkway because it created a dangerous or defective condition.

The Defendant’s pre-trial Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that the boulder was an open and obvious condition was denied. At trial, the trial court denied the Zoo’s Motion for a nonsuit on the same grounds. The jury then returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff.

On appeal, the Zoo asserted that the trial court erred in denying the Motion for Summary Judgment and denying the Motion for a Nonsuit, and in excluding jury instructions on the open and obvious doctrine. Other issues were also raised in the post-trial motions.

In its post-trial Opinion, the trial court felt that a new trial should be granted given its own errors, in part, in failing to admit certain evidence and in failing to instruct the jury on the open and obvious doctrine.

Relative to the issue of the open and obvious doctrine, the Superior Court agreed that there were issues of fact presented at trial that should have compelled the trial court to instruct the jury on that doctrine.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (May 6, 2025).

Court Rejects Summary Judgment For Open and Obvious Condition in Trip and Fall Case

In the case of Knepp v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., No. 3:22-CV-144 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2025 Fischer, J.), the court denied a Motion for Summary Judgment in a case in which the Defendant relied upon the open and obvious doctrine relative to a trip and fall incident.

According to the Opinion, this matter arose out of an incident during which the Plaintiff tripped over a pallet corner that was protruding out from a watermelon display.  The Plaintiff offered a liability expert who offered an opinion that the store's placement of the watermelon display in a store aisle with the corner of the pallet protruding out violated OSHA standards to keep walkways clear.  The expert also opined that the display created a tripping hazard for customers and employees alike.   

In denying the summary judgment motion, the court ruled that, even assuming that the condition that caused the Plaintiff to trip was open and obvious, summary judgment was denied in this case where a jury could decide that the Defendant was negligent because the Defendant had reason to expect that a business invitee could be distracted, could fail to discover, and/or could fail to remember what was obvious and, could thereby fail to protect himself or herself.

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


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

Source of image:  Photo by Bo Cho on www.pexels.com.

Summary Judgment Granted in Case Where Plaintiff Did Not Know What Caused Her to Fall

What caused you to fall?

In non-precedential decision in the case of Harkins v. Three Monkeys Croyden, Inc., No. 637  EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Aug. 2, 2024 Olson, J., Stabile, J., and McLaughlin, J.) (Op. by Olson, J.), the court affirmed the entry of summary judgment in a premises liability fall down case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff denied knowing what caused her to fall at a brew pub and offered no other factual evidence in support of her claims presented.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff confirmed that there was no food or liquid on the floor that could have caused her to fall.  Although she initially suggested that her fall may have been caused by uneven floor tiles, or an uplifted section of a floor mat, or a wave in a floor mat, she confirmed that she was not certain.  

The Plaintiff then testified that uneven floor tiles did not cause her to fall and that perhaps she instead fell due to the heel of her shoe catching a rubber edge of a floor mat.  The Plaintiff confirme that she did not know how her heel might have caught the rubber edge of a mat or whether or not the edge of that rubber mat was sticking up at the time she allegedly encountered it.

The court additionally noted that the trial court had properly precluded the Plaintiff’s liability expert because that expert’s opinion expressed no specialized knowledge, failed to explain the expert’s conclusions with specific references to cited standards, and where the expert failed to offer opinions specifically tailored to the facts established by the record. 

With regards to spoliation issues raised by the Plaintiff in this matter, the court indicated that the record revealed that no notice was given to the Defendant about the need for the videos until after the surveillance videotapes were routinely overwritten.

The court emphasized that the duty to preserve evidence is not boundless.

It was also emphasized that a deleted video causes little prejudice to a litigant who has no proof of liability such as was the case in this matter. The court noted that absent any affirmative evidence of liability, spoliation allegations in and of themselves cannot take the place of carrying the Plaintiff’s burden of proof on the liability issues presented.

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


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

Summary Judgment Granted in Parking Lot Case Based on Open and Obvious Doctrine

In the case of Ersick v. Joe’s Store, No. 3082-CV-2022 (C.P. Westmoreland Co. July 25, 2024 Smail, J.), the court addressed issues in a premises liability case.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved a trip and fall in the parking lot of a store. The Plaintiff allegedly fell over a black and yellow parking block that she allegedly could not see because her view was obscured by the truck from which she exited in a parking spot immediately before she fell.

The defense filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that, first, the Plaintiff failed to present evidence to identify what caused her to fall and, secondly, that the parking blocks at issue were known by the Plaintiff or were otherwise open and obvious. 

The Plaintiff countered with an argument that the evidence revealed that her fall was caused by a defective parking block and that the question of a dangerous condition should be lift to a jury.

Reviewing then record before it, the court found that the Plaintiff did indeed identify which parking block allegedly caused her to fall.

However, the court agreed with the defense that the parking block at issue was an open and obvious condition that the Plaintiff admittedly observed prior to her fall down event. It was additionally indicated that the incident occurred during daylight conditions, that the Plaintiff had previously visited the store during the day, that the Plaintiff recalled attempting to step over the block, and that the Plaintiff was able to recall that the parking block had yellow or orange stripes on it.

As such, the court granted summary judgment to the defense after finding that the condition which allegedly caused the Plaintiff to fall was an open and obvious condition.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Thomas W. Summers of the Pittsburgh office of the Summers McDonnell Hudock, Guthrie & Rauch, P.C. law firm.

Issues of Fact On Whether Condition That Caused Slip and Fall Was Open and Obvious Results in Reversal of Entry of Summary Judgment

In its Non-Precedential decision of Robinson v. Seven Springs Mountain Resort, No. 313 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. June 12, 2024 Bowes, J, Kunselman, J., and Murray, J.) (Op. by Bowes, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in a trip and fall matter.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was involved in playing a disc golf (golf with a frisbee) at the time of the incident.  She slipped and fell on a steep slope that had gravel on it and sustained a fractured ankle.

The trial court granted summary judgment after noting that the natural condition at issue was known and obvious since the Plaintiff knew she was walking down a steep slope with patches of rocky and loose dirt when she fell.  The trial court had ruled that the defendant landowner did not owe any duty to protect the Plaintiff from the natural conditions of the terrain that led to the Plaintiff's fall.

On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that there were issus of fact as to whether the conditions at issue were open and obvious.  

The Court also noted that, even if the condition on the Defendant’s playing field that cause the Plaintiff’s fall was an open and obvious condition, the Defendant was not relieved of its duty of care when it had reason to expect that the invitee’s attention might be distracted.  Here, the appellate court noted that the Plaintiff's attention could have been distracted while playing disc golf.

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 Priscilla Du Preez on www.pexels.com.

Issues of Fact Preclude Summary Judgment in Case of Fall Through Porch Railing

In the case of Rockey v. Stearns, No. CV-2022-00791 (C.P. Lyc. Co. Feb. 29, 2024 Carlucci, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a case where a Plaintiff allegedly fell off of a porch when the railing broke loose from a structural post and collapsed.

The court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment after finding that there were genuine issues of material fact to be considered by a jury.

More specifically, the court noted that the fact that the railing collaposed allegedly under only a light load, and given the condition of the railing as described by the Plaintiffs, there was support in the records that a jury could find that the railing was in a defective condition.

The court also noted that, the fact that the railing had been repaired earlier, and that the homeowner had owned the home for forty (40) years, supported a possible conclusion by a jury that the homeowner had either actual or constructive notice of the allegedly defective condition of the railing.

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

Source: Law.com, “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert” (June 5, 2024).

Summary Judgment Denied in Premises Liability Case Brought by Jogger in Which Defense Alleged Trivial Defect with Sidewalk

In the case of Jennings v. Garner, No. CV 2021-CV-00391 (C.P. Lyc. Co. Feb. 2, 2024 Carlucci, J.), the court addressed a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a case filed by a Plaintiff who had allegedly tripped and fallen on the Defendant’s uneven sidewalk while jogging at night.   

The Defendant asserted that the alleged 2-inch defect in the sidewalk was a trivial defect and that no duty rested upon the Defendant to correct the same.  The Defendant additionally asserted that the Plaintiff assumed a risk of injury by jogging at night.   

The court denied summary judgment after finding that, as a matter of law, a 2-inch defect in the sidewalk was not a trivial defect as asserted by the defense.   

The court additionally noted that the degree of assumption of risk by the Plaintiff was a matter to be resolved by the jury because it was certainly not 100% against the Plaintiff. 

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

Source:  The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert at Law.com (April 17, 2024). 

Source of imaging: Photo by Lara Jameson on www.unsplash.com.

Superior Court Confirms That, At Times, Plaintiff Can Prove Obvious Injuries Without Medical Expert

In a decision marked as "Non-Precedential" in the case of Kent v. Williams, No. 1855 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Feb. 13, 2024 Murray, J., Lazarus, J., and Stevens, P.J.E.) (Op. by Murray, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the entry of a nonsuit by a trial court in a fall down case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff fell while on a ladder.  The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for not properly securing the ladder and/or providing a defective ladder.    

In this case, the Superior Court noted that a compulsory nonsuit cannot be entered prior to trial but can be treated as an entry of summary judgment by the trial court on appeal.

The appellate court additionally ruled in this case that a medical expert is not necessary to testify as to those types of injuries that may fall within the common experience and understanding of lay people on a jury, such as certain injuries that may result from a fall-down event where, as here, the Plaintiff fell 15 feet down from a ladder and landed on the surface below and allegedly sustained immediate injuries.

The court otherwise ruled that a personal injury Plaintiff is competent to testify as to his or her pain and suffering.

The appellate court additionally found that the trial court had erred in excluding the Plaintiff’s medical records entirely as hearsay. The Superior Court noted that, while some medical records or portions of records may indeed be hearsay, other portions may contain statements made for medical diagnosis which would fall under an exception to the hearsay rule. The trial court was ordered to consider each medical record individually on remand.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this non-precedential 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 Raphael Brasileiro on www.pexels.com.

Plaintiff's Shot at Kohl's Cash Stays Alive -- Summary Judgment Denied

In the case of Debo v. Kohl’s, Inc., No. 2:21-CV-00811-MJH (W.D. Pa. Feb. 8, 2024 Horan, J.), the court denied summary judgment in a trip and fall case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff had parked in a Kohl's department store parking lot and began to walk to the store.  As she made her way from the parking lot surface and onto an entrance ramp that led to the store, the toe part of her shoe caught on an elevated section of the walking surface, allegedly causing her to fall.   

In so ruling, the court noted that Pennsylvania law does not recognize any bright dividing line between trivial and non-trivial defects on a landowner’s land.

In this case, the court could not say, as a matter of law, that a pavement height differential between one half and one inch was de minimis as asserted by the Defendant store.

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.

Plaintiff's Trip and Fall Over Pallet of Products in Store Barred By Open and Obvious Doctrine

In the case of Ziadeh v. Wal-Mart, Inc., No. 1:22-CV-00094 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 2, 2024 Wilson, J.), the Middle District Court granted summary judgment to a store in a trip and fall case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff allegedly tripped over a pallet with supplies on it that was located within an aisle of the store.    

The court ruled that the object that the Plaintiff tripped over was sufficiently large and visible as to be considered to be open and obvious. As such, the court found that the Defendant did not owe the Plaintiff any duty under the open and obvious doctrine.

The court also found that the Plaintiff’s speculation about another similar object possibly being involved in the incident, the presence of which was not supported by any evidence, was insufficient to prevent the entry of summary judgment.

The court ruled that the question of whether a condition is open and obvious is an objective analysis, and one that does not require any subjective apprehension of danger by the Plaintiff.

In this case, the court found that the Defendant was entitled to rely upon the assumption that a Plaintiff would employ ordinary care to protect herself from obvious harm.

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


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

Source of image:  Photo by Justus Menke on www.unsplash.com.

Watch Your Step -- Step Down from Raised Restaurant Table Ruled an Open and Obvious Condition -- Summary Judgment Granted

In the case of O’Meara v. Texas Roadhouse, No. C-0048-CV-2022-752 (C.P. North. Co. Dec. 21, 2023 Sletvold, J.), the court granted a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Texas Roadhouse in a slip and fall case.

The Plaintiff alleged that she was caused to slip and fall at the restaurant as she was stepping away from her table which was up on a raised floor.

After reviewing the record before the court, which included confirmation that the Plaintiff had, minutes before her fall, observed the step in question, ascended into the booth, and then noticed a warning sign on the table about the raised area. The court also noted that, during her deposition, the Plaintiff admitted that, if she had looked down as she was leaving the booth, she would have noticed the step.

Applying the law on premises liability in Pennsylvania, the court ruled that the unobscured raised threshold to the table was an open and obvious condition and that a reasonably diligent invitee would have noticed the same. As such, the court found that the Defendant owed no duty to the Plaintiff with respect to this open and obvious condition. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted in favor of the Defendant.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Jennifer G. Shorr of the Philadelphia office of Weber Gallagher for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of Image:  Texas Roadhouse Facebook Page.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Approves Personal Injury Claim by Plaintiff Against a Contractor Based Upon Work Completed Years Before

In the case of Brown v. City of Oil City, No. 6 WAP 2022 (Pa. May 16, 2023) (Op. by Todd C.J.)(Mundy, J., Dissenting), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether §385 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts imposes liability upon a contractor to a third party whenever the contractor, during the course of his or her work for a possessor of land, creates a dangerous condition on the land that injures the third party, even though, at the time of the injury, the contractor was no longer in possession of the land, and the possessor of the land was aware of the dangerous condition.

The court noted that §385 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts is entitled “Persons Creating Artificial Conditions on Land on Behalf of Possessor, Physical Harm Caused After Work Has Been Accepted.”

Section 385 addresses the liability of a party erecting or repairing a structure on behalf of a possessor of land after that work has been completed and accepted.    

This case arose out of an incident during which a Plaintiff tripped and fell on deteriorated sections of concrete steps outside of a library, which steps had been replaced by a contractor years before. The Plaintiff sued the owner of the library as well as the contractors who performed work on the exterior stairs to the library.  According to this decision, the Plaintiff stated cognizable causes of action.

After reviewing the law, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded, as did the Commonwealth Court below, that a contractor may indeed be subjected to liability under §385 in such circumstances. As such, the judgment of the Commonwealth Court was affirmed.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  Justice Mundy's Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.


I send thanks to Attorney Kenneth T. Newman of the Pittsburgh, PA office of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP  for bringing this case to my attention.

Issue of an Alleged Open and Obvious Danger in a Premises Liability Case Allowed to Proceed to Jury

In the case of Pusateri v. Wal-Mart East, LP, No. 21-1137 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 20, 2022 Kelly, M.J.), the court denied a Defendant store’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a trip and fall case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was shopping in a Wal-Mart store during which the Plaintiff walked four (4) times passed a partially empty black pallet that held large screen televisions. The Plaintiff alleged that she did not remember the presence of the pallet during each pass, but conceded that nothing blocked her view of the pallet.

After her fourth pass, a store employee entered the aisle with a top stock shopping cart that was loaded.

In order to avoid the stock cart and permit it to pass, the Plaintiff backed up and tripped on the base of the protruding pallet that was behind her. The Plaintiff alleged injuries as a result.

The Federal Magistrate Judge that decided this case noted that, while a store owner owes no duty to invitees for an obvious danger that is avoidable by the exercise of ordinary care, the court found that the issue of whether the hazard in question was open and obvious is a question for the jury. In this case, the court also noted that the Plaintiff may have been distracted by the Defendant employee’s actions.

Given the issues of fact presented, the court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment.

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.

Court Finds That Plaintiff's Claims Are Barred By Open and Obvious Doctrine

A U-Boat

In the case of Doundas v. Redner’s Market, Inc., No. 2020-CV-1747 (C.P. Leh. Co. May 9, 2022 Pavlack, J.), the court entered summary judgment in favor of a Defendant supermarket after finding the Defendant was not liable for the alleged personal injuries suffered by a Plaintiff while a business invitee in the Defendant’s store given that the condition involved was allegedly open and obvious and would be recognized by a reasonable person in the position of the Plaintiff, exercising normal perception, intelligence and judgment.

According to the Opinion, while the Plaintiff was in the Defendant supermarket, there was a “u-boat,” that is, a cart used to stock shelves, positioned in close proximity to the refrigerators in the dairy aisle.

According to the Plaintiff, when she took a step to get between the u-boat and the refrigerator door to get an item, her foot got caught under the u-boat, causing her to fall to the ground.

The Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that the store was negligent and caused the Plaintiff to fall and be injured. The Plaintiff alleged that the store created an unreasonable risk of harm when the store employee positioned a u-boat in a dangerous manner because the position of the u-boat allegedly funneled patrons, including the Plaintiff, towards and against the refrigerators and that caused her foot to go underneath the u-boat, which allegedly led to her fall.

The defense filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that the condition was open and obvious and that, therefore, the store did not owe the Plaintiff any duty in this regard as a matter of law.

According to the Opinion, the record more specifically revealed that the Plaintiff attempted on multiple times to retrieve yogurt out of the refrigerator but that the door would only partially open because of the position of the u-boat. As such, the court concluded from the record that the Plaintiff was aware of, and understood, the position of the u-boat. The record also confirmed that the Plaintiff admitted that she had noticed the u-boat from the time she began walking down the dairy aisle and walked up to it.

The court found from the evidence that the u-boat and its position was therefore known and obvious to the Plaintiff. The court additionally found that any risk related to the u-boat or its position would be apparent to a reasonable person because a reasonable person would understand that a temporary cart could pose a risk if a person walks so close to the cart that she came into contact with it.

As such, the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted under the doctrine of an open and obvious condition.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 23, 2022).

Court Rules That (Under Local Rule) Complaints Referring to Statutes Must Provide the Citation to the Statute

In the case of Comerford v. Burrier, No. 20-CV-1368 (C.P. Lacka. Co. July 22, 2022 Nealon, J.), the court addressed Preliminary Objections asserting a demurrer against claims asserted by a basketball game spectator who filed suit after she was allegedly injured while seated in the bottom row of bleachers when another fan fell onto her, allegedly due to the absence of any designated stairs or handrail for the bleachers. The lawsuit was commenced against the owner of the gymnasium and the fan who fell upon the Plaintiff.

The court denied the Defendant’s demurrer, in part, based upon the spectator’s contention that she was a “business invitee” of the owner of the premises, and in light of the owner’s obligation to protect invitees from dangerous conditions that were either known to the owner or discoverable by the exercise of reasonable care.

However, the court did note that, under previous precedent in Lackawanna County, as well as an application of Lacka. Co. R.C.P. 1019, if the Plaintiff was opting to affirmatively assert in a Complaint that a negligence claim was based upon a Defendant’s violation of a statute, ordinance, regulation, or rule, then the Plaintiff must cite to that specific statute, ordinance, regulation, or rule allegedly violated.

As such, while the owner’s demurrer to the negligence claim was overruled, the Preliminary Objections asserted by the Defendant relative to the Plaintiff’s failure to provide citations for allegedly applicable statute, ordinances, regulations, and rules was sustained.

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

Summary Judgment Granted in Trip and Fall Case Due to Lack of Evidence of Actual or Constructive Knowledge

In the case of Hendershot v. Wal-Mart, Inc., No. 5:21-CV-02422-JMG (E.D. Pa. July 11, 2022 Gallagher, J.), the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant in a slip and fall case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff asserted that she tripped and fell on a rolled up mat in the entryway of the Wal-Mart store.  At her deposition the Plaintiff admitted that she could only speculate as to how the mat became in a rolled up state.  The Plaintiff also admitted that she could not testify as to how long the mat had been in that condition before she encountered it.   

The court noted that the record did not establish that the Defendant had any actual or constructive notice of any alleged condition that allegedly caused the Plaintiff to fall. Moreover, the court stated that there was no evidence presented by the Plaintiff that the Defendant was responsible for the alleged condition that allegedly caused the Plaintiff to fall.

The court additionally found that the lack of any evidence that the condition was a recurring one precluded any finding of actual notice on the part of the Defendant. 

It was also emphasized by the Court that the Plaintiff had not presented any evidence of the passage of time that was sufficient to support a claim of constructive notice on the part of the Defendant.

As such, summary judgment was granted in favor of the Defendant.

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.