Sidewalk Accident Victim's Claim Can Go To Trial

A 2010 decision by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania overruled a trial court decision and permitted a PA slip & fall case to proceed to trial.  A woman was walking in front of an insurance agency.  The concrete slabs that made up the sidewalk were uneven.  As the slip and fall victim stepped on a gap between the uneven concrete slabs, she slipped and fell.

The Pennsylvania slip & fall victim sustained an ACL tear, a lateral meniscal tear and an ankle sprain.  Her PA slip and fall attorney filed a lawsuit against the property owner.  Evidence showed that the height differential was approximately 1-1/2".  The defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted by the Somerset County Court of Common Pleas.  Her Pennsylvania slip & fall lawyer filed an appeal.

Pennsylvania law mandates that property owners have a duty to keep their sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition for travel by the public.  Property owners must maintain their sidewalks so that they do not present an unreasonable risk of harm to pedestrians.  A pedestrian is not required to keep his/her vision fixed continually on the ground immediately in front of them to discover possible points of danger.  The PA slip & fall victim was entitled to present her case to a jury.  Mull v. Ickes, 994 A.2d 1137 (Pa. Super. 2010)

********************

Jury's Role to Decide - Location of Slip and Fall

A 2009 Decision by the PA Superior Court permitted a Northampton County slip and fall victim to present her personal injury claim to a jury. A woman slipped and fell at her apartment complex in the Lehigh Valley. When the parties could not agree to a settlement, her Bethlehem slip and fall attorney filed a lawsuit versus the landlord.

After depositions were taken, the Defendant's lawyers filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. They claimed that the slip and fall took place on snow covered grass and that the injury victim's decision to not use the sidewalk prevented any finding of negligence against them. The Northampton County Trial Judge agreed and dismissed the slip and fall lawsuit.

The PA Superior Court overruled the Trial Judge's decision. Witnesses who came to help the victim testified that they found her by the curb separating the sidewalk from the parking lot. Her medical records contained statements such as 'fell on ice in driveway' and 'slipped on ice and fell.' The Appeals Court ruled that it was up to a jury to hear all of the evidence and make its own conclusion as to where the victim fell and what legal duty the landlord owed to her. Turner v. Valley Housing Development Corp., 972 A.2d 531 (Pa. Super. 2009)

ATV Crash Victim Cannot Make UM Claim

A 2008 decision by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania closely examined the issue of Pennsylvania uninsured motorist (UM) insurance and an ATV accident. A driver of an all-terrain vehicle lost control while riding on private property resulting in a passenger being ejected from the ATV.

A Pennsylvania uninsured motorist lawyer filed a UM case against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company which insured 2 automobiles owned by the passenger's father. The attorney for Nationwide filed a Motion for Declaratory Judgment claiming that there was no valid PA uninsured motorist claim. Judge O'Brien of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas denied the motion and permitted a UM claim to be made.

The PA Superior Court ruled that Nationwide's exclusion for Pennsylvania uninsured motorist claims pertaining to off-road vehicles involved in accidents off public roads was valid. Since the ATV was not a covered uninsured motor vehicle at the time of the crash, there could not be a valid PA uninsured motorist claim. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Yungwirth, 940 A.2d 523 (Pa. Super. 2008)

********************

Trip & Fall Recovery for Business Invitee

A 2009 PA Superior Court decision upheld a Philadelphia County decision in favor of a Pennsylvania trip and fall victim. As a man was unloading a delivery truck he tripped and fell over an elevated bumper on the loading dock. The injuries included a right knee meniscus tear and lumbar radiculopathy.

The Pennsylvania trip & fall attorney filed a lawsuit against the property owner. The Trial Court ruled that the victim was a business invitee and was not required to be on alert to discover defects which were not obvious. The property owner had a duty to keep its premises safe for business invitees and to warn them of potential hidden perils which it knew or should have known of in the exercise of reasonable care.

A jury heard the evidence and found that the property owner permitted an unreasonably dangerous condition to exist and that it failed to replace, fix or lower the bumpers. The property owner was found to be 70% at fault for the trip and fall, and comparative negligence of 30% was assessed to the victim. Motions filed by the defense lawyers were dismissed by the Trial Judge and the Pennsylvania Superior Court. Walker v. Drexel University, 971 A.2d 521 (PA Super. 2009)

PA Slip & Fall Case
To Go To Trial

A November 2009 Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas Decision permitted a Pennsylvania slip and fall claim to proceed to trial.  A woman prepared and served food at the Defendant social club.  She and a friend arrived one evening to clean the deep fryers in preparation for a social the next day.  The Plaintiff slid on the tile floor as she was carrying a tray of boiling grease and water from the fryer.  The grease and water spilled on the woman and she suffered burns and scarring to her arms, legs and buttocks.

Her Pennsylvania slip & fall attorney filed a lawsuit versus the social club alleging negligence.  The Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment alleging that its floor was not in an unreasonably dangerous condition, it did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition and, the condition of the floor was open and obvious to the slip and fall victim.

The parties agreed that the injured woman was a business invitee under PA law.  Pennsylvania law requires that when a property owner has previous knowledge that a slippery substance accumulates on the floor, the owner must take steps to warn all of the problem and mop the floor regularly or place a rug in the area to help avoid a fall.  Here the slip & fall victim presented evidence that the tile floor beneath the fryer was dangerous because oil frequently spilled from the fryer onto the tile floor which did not have any mats on it that day.

Testimony that mats were previously used in that area but were stored outside that day due to the previous caterers' failure to remove them while cleaning the tile floor.  The President of the property owner agreed that mats should always be used when the fryers were being operated in order to reduce the possibility of a slip & fall accident.  Judge Cox denied Summary Judgment.  Blakely v. St. Marguerite's Mutual Beneficial Society, Court of Common Pleas Lawrence County PA No. 11079-2008 (Nov. 10, 2009 J. Cox)

*************************

Adequate Warnings Deny
Trip & Fall Claim

An October 2009 ruling of a Beaver County PA trial judge dismissed the legal claim of a Pennsylvania trip and fall victim.  A woman was attending her granddaughter's birthday party at a local bowling alley.  A step separated the area by the bowling lanes from the restrooms.  As the grandmother walked to the bathroom entrance, she tripped and fell.

The PA trip & fall attorney filed a lawsuit against the business owner alleging injuries to his client's shoulder & knee, as well as facial lacerations.  The defense lawyers filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which was granted by the Beaver County Court of Common Pleas.

The step was painted a bright yellow and it contrasted with the dark carpet.  A warning sign of 'Watch Your Step' was posted outside the bathroom and the lighting was quite good.  Judge Kwidis stated that there was no duty to protect the business invitee from an open and obvious dangerous condition when the risks of encountering the situation are obvious.  Orlowski v. Jimmy Magg's, Inc. (C.P. Beaver Co. Oct. 27, 2009)

*************************

Hills & Ridges Jury Verdict

A Lackawanna County PA slip and fall victim fell while exiting a VFW Post in Moscow Pennsylvania during a snowstorm. He allegedly sustained some physical injuries and lost time from work. A settlement could not be reached and the Pennsylvania slip & fall attorney filed a lawsuit. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found the Defendant to be 55% at fault and the Plaintiff 45% comparatively negligent.

Lawyers for both parties filed post-trial motions. The Lackawanna County Trial Judge denied the Defendant's Motion to Reject the jury's decision on liability. The Court found that there was sufficient testimony for the jury to conclude that snow had accumulated in ridges or elevations that unreasonably obstructed travel and was a danger to persons traveling on the walkway. Shebaugh v. Michaels Memorial Post 5207, Lackawanna County, 05CV243 (Aug. 4, 2009)

*************************

Case Dismissed After Slip & Fall on Black Ice in School Parking Lot

A June 2009 legal opinion by Judge John Rufe of the Bucks County PA Court of Common Pleas denied post-trial motions filed by a Bucks County slip and fall attorney.  The slip & fall victim fell on black ice in a school bus parking lot owned and maintained by the Bensalem Township School District.

At trial, the woman testified that although the parking lot had been plowed, it was icy and slippery.  Snow had fallen the night before and testimony was provided that described general icy conditions on the area roads that morning.  At the conclusion of the three day trial, the Bucks County jury ruled in favor of the school district as the Plaintiff did not meet her burden to prove negligence on the part of the Defendant.  Tucker v. Bensalem Twp. School District, 82 Bucks Co. L. Rep. 687 (2009)

*************************

City Immune From Liability
After Slip & Fall on
City Sidewalk

An October 2008 ruling by the PA Supreme Court clarified the law regarding Pennsylvania slip & fall claims vs. local government entities.  A person fell on a sidewalk in front of a city police station.  Their PA slip and fall attorney proved that the city didn't remove ice and snow from the sidewalk after a snowstorm.  The lawyer also placed into evidence proof that the city allowed its employees to park on the sidewalk - making the dangerous condition worse.

In overturning a verdict for the PA slip and fall victim, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the local government agency had no liability.  The Pennsylvania slip and fall lawyer could not prove all of the following legal requirements: a dangerous condition, foreseeable risk of harm to the plaintiff, the local agency had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition and, the local gov't entity had time to take corrective measures.  Reid v. City of Phila., 957 A.2d 232 (Pa. 2008)

Landlord Out-of-Possession Liable if Retained Control Over Defective Portion of Property

A PA Superior Court Decision permitted a Pennsylvania slip and fall victim to present her personal injury claim to a jury.  An employee of a furniture store was walking to her car in a parking lot by the rear entrance to the store when she fell.  Her Pennsylvania slip and fall lawyer filed a lawsuit versus the property owner.  It was alleged that the landlord negligently permitted water runoff, as well as snow and ice to accumulate in a depression in the parking lot causing a dangerous condition.

The attorney representing the parking lot owner filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which was granted by the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County.  The Trial Court ruled that the Defendant was a landlord out of possession and not liable for injuries suffered by a 3rd party on the leased premises because the property owner did not owe a duty to someone not a tenant.The Pennsylvania slip and fall attorney filed an appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.  A specific term of the lease between the property owner and the furniture store stated that the tenant could not make any structural repairs or alteration without the landlord's consent.  The Appeals Court ruled that this language showed there was a material issue of fact as to whether the landlord continued to exercise control over the alleged defective portions of the property.  Therefore, the PA slip and fall victim was entitled to have her day in court.  Jones v. Levin, 940 A.2d 451 (Pa. Super. 2007)