Matthews v. Prospect Crozer, LLC., d/b/a Crozer Keystone Health System, et al., No. 355 EDA 2020 (Pa. Super. Nov. 23, 2020)

Pennsylvania Superior Court holds that appellees did not owe a legal duty under Section 324A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.

The plaintiff was injured when a large branch fell off of a maple tree adjacent to a property owned by Prospect Crozer. The appellant filed a complaint against numerous parties, including Anthony’s Landscaping and Tree Service Co. and IVS Landscaping, Ltd. The evidence revealed that Anthony’s had a contract to provide snow removal at Prospect Crozer, while IVS had a contract to provide landscaping service for Prospect Crozer. The appellees argued that they did not owe the appellant a legal duty under their contracts, and the court agreed, holding that the appellees did not undertake to inspect and maintain the trees at Prospect Crozer and, therefore, did not have a duty under Section 324A of the Restatement (Second of Torts). This holding of the Pennsylvania Superior Court shows a hesitance to determine that a contractor performing work on a property has undertaken a duty to perform ongoing inspections or maintenance, even in the face of evidence and testimony that the owner of the property had an expectation that the contractor would take these steps.


Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2021 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 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 © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.