Pennsylvania Court Holds Summary Judgment Not Proper When Invitee Presented Evidence, Including Surveillance Video Screenshots, that Possessor Created Dangerous Condition on Its Property
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the defendant-casino placed a hand-sanitizer dispenser on the side of a slot machine, above a marble pathway and through the casino floor. The plaintiff, an invitee, walked on the marble floor in front of the dispenser and slipped and fell.
The plaintiff and her husband filed a negligence case against the casino. During discovery, screenshots of the casino’s surveillance video were produced that showed three patrons using the dispenser in the 30 minutes prior to the incident. The casino filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court.
The trial court ruled the plaintiff’s deposition did not establish the casino created the dangerous condition and the plaintiff failed to offer evidence regarding how the condition was created, how long the condition was on the floor prior to the incident, or when it was last cleaned.
On appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reasoned, under Section 343 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, liability is established in one of three ways, one of which is the possessor created the condition. While the plaintiff advanced all three theories of liability, the Superior Court determined the plaintiff only presented sufficient evidence to support the liability theory, that the casino created the condition. The Superior Court ruled the trial court erred in limiting its scope of review to the deposition of the plaintiff, as it ignored the surveillance video evidence. The court ruled that when considering all evidence, there were questions of fact as to whether the casino created the dangerous condition by placing the dispenser directly above the marble floor in a public section of the casino. The court reasoned, a slipping hazard was reasonably foreseeable to the casino and, “‘[i]n this setting, it was inevitable that something untoward would happen, and it did.’”
Based on the evidence in the record, including the surveillance video, the Superior Court held the casino took no precautions to prevent liquid hand-sanitizer from falling onto the marble floor. As such, the Superior Court ruled the trial erred by granting summary judgment on this theory of negligence.
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.