In the case of Medina v. Zorrilla, June Term, 2023, No. 1233 (C.P. Phila. Co. June 9, 2025 Bright, J.), the court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion in a case of a pedestrian hit by a vehicle at an intersection with allegedly deficient street lighting.
The trial court assserted in its Opinion that its Order granting summary judgment in favor of the City Defendants should be affirmed where the Plaintiff did not offer up any evidence that the City had notice of an allegedly defective streetlight. The trial court also noted that there was no evidence that the City had negligently maintained the streetlight.
The Plaintiff asserted that he had provided adequate evidence to support a claim under the Trees, Traffic Controls and Street Lighting exception to the municipal immunity afforded under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8542(b).
The trial court disagreed. The court noted that the Plaintiff never provided that any evidence that the City had notice, actual or constructive, regarding the alleged defect or malfunctioning of the streetlight where the accident happened.
The Plaintiff asserted that he had provided adequate evidence to support a claim under the Trees, Traffic Controls and Street Lighting exception to the municipal immunity afforded under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8542(b).
The trial court disagreed. The court noted that the Plaintiff never provided that any evidence that the City had notice, actual or constructive, regarding the alleged defect or malfunctioning of the streetlight where the accident happened.
There was also no evidence in the record to suggest that, even if the City had notice, there would have been sufficient time to repair the allegedly defective streetlight before the accident happened.
The court did confirm that, once the City installed a streetlight in the area in question, it did have a duty to maintain it. However, the court found that there was no evidence in the record to show that the City failed to properly to maintain the streetlight in question.
Relative to any liability expert evidence offered by the Plaintiff, the court noted that the test completed on the streetlight by the Plaintiff’s expert were completed 1-2 years after the accident. Accordingly, the court stated that the test results did not shed any light onto the condition of the streetlight as of the day of the incident.
The court did confirm that, once the City installed a streetlight in the area in question, it did have a duty to maintain it. However, the court found that there was no evidence in the record to show that the City failed to properly to maintain the streetlight in question.
Relative to any liability expert evidence offered by the Plaintiff, the court noted that the test completed on the streetlight by the Plaintiff’s expert were completed 1-2 years after the accident. Accordingly, the court stated that the test results did not shed any light onto the condition of the streetlight as of the day of the incident.
As such, the trial court requested the appellate court to affirm the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: The Legal Intelligencer Weekly Case Alert, www.Law.com (Aug. 28, 2025).
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: The Legal Intelligencer Weekly Case Alert, www.Law.com (Aug. 28, 2025).