Despite Undisputed Facts that Dangerous Condition Was Known and Obvious, PA District Court Held Summary Judgment Not Warranted When There Were Genuine Issues of Material Fact

The plaintiff and his wife brought an action against the defendant for personal injuries the plaintiff received when he slipped and fell on a ramp while unloading a forklift from a tractor-trailer. It was undisputed that the surface of the ramp was covered in a substance that made it slippery. It was also undisputed that prior to the incident, the plaintiff walked up and down the ramp at least three times and he admitted he knew the ramp was slippery and dangerous. It was, however, disputed whether it was a requirement of the plaintiff’s job to help unload the forklift from the tractor-trailer. 

The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment based upon the argument it had no duty to the plaintiff since he knew of the dangerous conditions on the ramp but voluntarily traversed it. 

Using Pennsylvania law, the federal district court held, under Section 343A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, to determine whether summary judgment is appropriate, the court must undertake a two-point inquiry. First, the court must determine whether there are genuine issues of fact as to whether the danger posed by the conditions were known or obvious. Second, the court must also consider whether a defendant should have anticipated the harm, despite such knowledge or obviousness. 

In using the two-point inquiry, the federal court held it was undisputed the danger posed by the ramp was known and obvious to the plaintiff. However, the court found there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendant should have anticipated the harm to the plaintiff despite the plaintiff’s knowledge. 

The court noted that, per comment f of Section 343A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, there were facts that could lead a jury to determine the defendant could have anticipated the plaintiff’s harm from the condition of the ramp as the slippery condition of the ramp was not hidden from the defendant. 

The court also reasoned the disputed fact as to whether the plaintiff was required to help unload the forklift impacted the analysis. As such, the federal court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}