With regards to the Plaintiff’s claim that they needed more time for discovery, the court rejected that claim as being without merit. The court noted that the Plaintiff had already been provided with two (2) extensions. The court stated that litigants who ignore the court’s Orders and deadlines do so at their peril.
With regards to the merits of the Motion for Summary Judgment, the court held that a Plaintiff who fails to produce any evidence beyond the fact that they were simply allegedly hit by a falling box in a store has not adequately proven either a breach of any duty or causation. The court noted that, without any evidence as to why the box fell, summary judgment was appropriate.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE
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 Bernard Hermant on www.unsplash.com.