Issues of Fact Preclude Summary Judgment Against Landlord-Out-Of Possession In Parking Lot Slip and Fall Case

In the case of Alexander v. ECM Realty Management, Inc., No. CV 24-00061 (C.P. Lyc. Co. 2025 Carlucci, J.), the court denied a Motion for Summary Judgment in a slip and fall case involving ice and/or snow in a parking lot area.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff slipped and fell at the rear of a property that her husband rented from the Defendants. The Plaintiff had previously been a tenant of the same premises.

The court noted that, while it was apparently undisputed that the Defendants were landlords out-of-possession of the apartment, the Plaintiff was maintaining that the Defendants retained control over the parking lot area.

In this matter, the court agreed that, where a landlord leases out some areas of a property, but retains control over others, a landlord may be found negligent in the maintenance of the areas over which the landlord retained control. 

Here, however, the court noted the record was clear that the Defendants were landlords out-of-possession relative to the apartment.

The dispute in this matter was whether the parking space where the Plaintiff slipped and fell should be considered a portion of the leased apartment under the control of the tenant, or a “common area” over which the landlord Defendant had retained control.

The court found that the issues of fact in this regard prevented the entry of summary judgment. As such, the Defendant's Motion was denied.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Aug. 14, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Erik McLean on www.unsplash.com.

Summary Judgment Granted Where Plaintiff Could Not Pinpoint Which of Multiple Alleged Defects Caused Her to Fall

In the case of Regina v. Summit Pointe Prop. Owners Assoc., No., 1172-CV-2020 (C.P. Monroe Co. July 21, 2025 C. Daniel Higgins, J., J.), the court granted a Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration as well as the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a trip or slip and fall case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on a sidewalk concrete slab that was broken at the time and on which there was gravel.

The court had originally previously denied the moving Defendant’s original Motion for Summary Judgment, finding issues of fact. 

The Defendant followed up with a Motion for Reconsideration.  When reviewing the Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, the court reviewed an additional unpublished Superior Court case provided by the Defendant. In that Superior Court case, the appellate court had granted summary judgment where that plaintiff had not specifically identified which of multiple defects on the walking surface actually caused that Plaintiff to fall.

Similarly in this matter, upon further review of the case presented, the court noted that the Plaintiff, who had since passed away since the happening of the incident, testified at her deposition that she could not remember important details such as what happened right after she took the step that allegedly resulted in her falling.

The court also noted that, review of the pictures provided by the Plaintiff did not reveal any clear images that depicted the alleged broken or defective concrete, or any other defects, that the Plaintiff alleged.

Accordingly, upon reviewing the record again, the court found that the Plaintiff’s case was circumstantial and, at best, only revealed that there was gravel present when she fell.

The court ultimately held that the Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that linked any of the alleged potential defects to the Plaintiff’s fall and the Plaintiff's resultant injuries.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Sept. 18, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Victor Moragriega on www.pexels.com.

Upcoming Opportunity for Credits via Zoom CLE on Incorporating AI Into Your Practice

 

PA Supreme Court Clarifies Burden of Proof Under Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens

In the case of Tranter v. Z & D Tour, Inc., No. 32 EAP 2024 (Pa. Sept. 25, 2025) (Op. by Wecht, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court provided clarity on the test to be applied in reviewing a Petition to Transfer Venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved a multi-vehicle collision that occurred in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania involving a passenger bus and commercial vehicles. The crash resulted in five (5) deaths and numerous injuries.

Plaintiffs who resided in various locations across the country and abroad, filed personal injury lawsuits in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas against several corporate Defendants, all of which conducted business nationwide.

The Defendants sought to transfer the cases to Westmoreland County under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The Defendants argued that a majority of the witnesses, including first responders and investigators, were located in Westmoreland County and would face significant hardship if required to travel over two hundred (200) miles to Philadelphia for trial.

The Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas granted the Defendants’ Petition to Transfer under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The Superior Court reversed, holding that the Defendants failed to show that the identified witnesses were “key witnesses” whose testimony was “critical” to the defense. The Superior Court also found that the affidavits of the witnesses provided did not sufficiently detail the necessity of the witnesses’ testimonies.

Higher up on the appellate ladder, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court’s decision in this matter.

The Supreme Court held that the Superior Court’s imposition of a “key witness” requirement was inconsistent with Pennsylvania precedent on the issue of the evidence required to secure a transfer of a matter under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The Supreme Court clarified that a party seeking a transfer of a matter under the doctrine of forum non conveniens must identify the burdened witnesses and provide a general statement of their respective testimony. The Supreme Court confirmed that the petitioner need not show that the testimony of the witnesses is “critical” or “necessary” to the defense.

As such, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision to transfer the cases out of Philadelphia County and to Westmoreland County as a proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Concurring Opinion by Justice Mundy can be viewed HERE.


Source: Justia Daily Opinion Summaries, www.justia.com (Sept. 26, 2025).

PA Supreme Court Rules that Parents Cannot Bind Children to an Agreement to go to Arbitration

In the case of Shultz v. Skyzone, No. 25 EAP 2023 (Pa. Sept. 25, 2025) (Op. by Donohue, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a parent who signs an Arbitration Agreement cannot bind a non-signing spouse or a minor child to its terms.

This matter arose out of claims that several minors were injured at trampoline parks operated by Skyzone in Philadelphia. In each instance, only one (1) parent signed a “Participation Agreement, Release, and Assumption Of The Risk” on behalf of their child, which included an arbitration provision waiving the right to sue in court.

After the injuries, both the signing and non-signing parents, along with the injured minors, filed lawsuits seeking personal injury damages. The Defendant filed Petitions to Compel Arbitration, relying upon the signed Agreements.

The trial court denied these Petitions, finding that the Agreements were enforceable only against the signing parents. The Superior Court affirmed, holding that neither the non-signing parents nor the minors were bound by the Arbitration provisions.

As noted, on further appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Orders of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that parent lacked the authority to bind a minor to an agreement to arbitrate, as this would deprive the minor of judicial protections and oversight design to safeguard their interests. As noted above, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court also held that a parent who signs an Arbitration Agreement cannot bind a non-signing parent, or minor child, to its terms.

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


The Pennsylvania Supreme Court the same decision in the consolidated case of Santiago v. Philly Trampoline Park, No. 24 EAP 2023 (Pa. Sept. 25, 2025) (Op. by Donohue, J.). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in this case can be viewed at this LINK.  Justice Brobson's Concurring and Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.


Source: Justia Daily Opinion Summaries, www.justia.com (Sept. 26, 2025).

Source of image: Photo by Ben Moses M on www.unsplash.com.

Appellate Court Overrules Trial Court's Application of Archaic Local Rule

The Superior Court has ruled against another archaic local rule in its recent decision in the case of Biros v. U Lock, Inc., No. 113 WDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Aug. 1, 2025 Lazarus, P.J., Bowes, J., and King, J.) (Op. by Lazarus, P.J.).

In this matter, the court vacated the trial court Order out of the Common Pleas of Westmoreland County in which the trial court had denied, with prejudice, an appellant’s Motion to file her Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, nunc pro tunc.  

The appellate court noted that the appellant had timely filed her Notice of Appeal but her otherwise compliant electronic filing was rejected by a County Prothonotary pursuant to a local rule of court requiring that notices of appeal be filed in person or by mail.  

The appellate court further held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to deny the appellant’s Motion to Leave to File a Rule 1925(b) Statement while the appellant’s Petition for Allowance of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania remain pending.  

The Superior Court noted that, Pa. R.C.P. 205.4(e)(2) bars any refusal of an otherwise compliant pleading for filing based upon a requirement of a local rule pertaining to the electronic filing of legal papers.  The court found that Westmoreland County’s requirement that notices of appeal could be filed only in person or by mail was such a local rule. 

Accordingly, the appellate court ruled that the appellant’s initial filing was properly and timely filed and was sufficient to initiate the appeal.  

As such, the appellate court vacated the trial court’s Order and remanded the case for further proceedings.  

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

Source:  The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (Aug. 19, 2025).

Source of image: Photo by Priyank V on www.unsplash.com.

Claims of Immunity Must Be Pled as New Matter, Not Via Preliminary Objections

In the case of Cullen v. Boomer Flooring, LLC, No. 6009-Civil-2025 (C.P. Monroe Co. July 15, 2025 Williamson, J.), Judge David J. Williamson of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas addressed various Preliminary Objections filed in a premises liability case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was employed by a plumbing subcontractor and was working on a construction site when he fell through holes in the floor that were covered by cardboard and suffered injuries as result.

In this case, one of the Defendants filed Preliminary Objections asserting that, since that Defendant was a statutory employer, it was entitled to immunity for any tort related injuries suffered by a subcontractor’s employees.

The Plaintiff in this matter filed Preliminary Objections to this Defendant’s Preliminary Objections and asserted that any defenses regarding immunity should not be considered during the Preliminary Objections stage and should instead be pled as new matter.

After reviewing Pa. R.C.P. 1030(a) which list all affirmative defenses, including “immunity from suit,” the court agreed with the Plaintiff’s argument and sustained the Plaintiff’s Preliminary Objections to the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections.

The court otherwise reviewed other Preliminary Objections asserted by the Defendants relative to the Plaintiff’s claims of “carelessness and recklessness conduct.” Relying upon the Superior Court decision in the case of Monroe v. CBH2O, LP, 286 A.3d 785 (Pa. Super. 2022), the court allowed the allegations of recklessness to proceed into discovery. As such, the Preliminary Objections asserted by the Defendants in this regard were overruled.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Sept. 11, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Sylvia Brazzoduro on www.pexels.com.