Alloway, C. v. The Franklin Institute, 2840 EDA 2016

Plaintiff Christina Alloway, a patron at The Franklin Institute, fell while exiting the interactive "Neural Climb" exhibit and injured her ankle.
Alloway alleges she stepped off what appeared to be a normal step onto an uneven, padded/spongy surface where it met hard flooring, causing her to trip and fall.
She sued the Franklin Institute for negligence in design and maintenance of the exhibit and for failure to warn.
The Franklin Institute moved for summary judgment after discovery; museum evidence included a diagram showing a 1¼ inch slant and testimony that some exit areas were slightly unlevel.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the Institute; the Superior Court reversed and remanded, finding genuine issues of material fact for a jury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a defect existed that the owner knew or should have known about	Alloway: step and transition to uneven padded surface constituted a latent defect causing the fall	Institute: flooring was largely uniform; any slant/unevenness was slight and not a defect as a matter of law	Reversed — evidence (diagram and testimony) could support a finding of a defect; question for factfinder
Whether the defect presented an unreasonable risk of harm	Alloway: uneven/slanted surface created an unreasonable danger to patrons	Institute: exhibit’s nature (Neural Climb) gave notice of atypical conditions; patrons should be attentive	Reversed — unreasonableness is typically for the jury; conflicting evidence on what a reasonable patron would know/see
Whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent / comparative negligence	Alloway: she reasonably stepped off what looked like a normal step and did not perceive danger	Institute: plaintiff should have adjusted behavior given the interactive climbing exhibit	Remanded — plaintiff’s conduct is a question for the factfinder; summary judgment inappropriate
Whether the defect was trivial so as not to impose liability	Alloway: triviality is for jury; even small irregularities can be actionable	Institute: the slant/unevenness is de minimis and not legally actionable	Reversed — triviality is a jury question; court cannot decide as a matter of law

Carrender v. Fitterer, 469 A.2d 120 (Pa. 1983) (articulates landowner duties to invitees and Restatement §343A principles)
Reinoso v. Heritage Warminster SPE LLC, 108 A.3d 80 (Pa. Super. 2015) (discusses invitee duty and that triviality of defects is for the factfinder)
Krauss v. Trane U.S. Inc., 104 A.3d 556 (Pa. Super. 2014) (summary judgment standard and review principles)