20 Pa. D. & C.5th 49
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2010Background
- Alston sued the City of Philadelphia, PennDOT, the property owner Cook, and others for injuries from a slip and fall at the corner of 52nd St and Baltimore Ave near a handicap ramp (June 5–1, 2005 incident in 5210 Baltimore Ave vicinity).
- Claims against the City and PennDOT were settled; plaintiff signed releases that satisfied all claims, including those against Cook.
- The City pursued its cross-claim against Cook to recover amounts paid to resolve Alston’s claims; PennDOT did not join cross-claims.
- A jury trial commenced July 7, 2010; on July 12, 2010, the court entered compulsory non-suit against Cook and on the City’s cross-claim, finding the defect in the sidewalk trivial (approximately 5/8 inch).
- The City moved for post-trial relief; the trial court denied it on October 12, 2010. The City timely appealed November 10, 2010.
- The central issue is whether a 5/8-inch defect at the ramp/sidwalk junction supports liability; the record shows no negligence by Cook under established precedent that minor defects are not actionable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 5/8-inch defect was legally trivial | Alston v. Cook argues defect could be actionable; City contends defect trivial. | Cook (and City’s cross-claim) argues minor defect not actionable under precedent. | Compulsory non-suit proper; defect treated as trivial as a matter of law. |
| Standard of review for denial of a compulsory non-suit | Plaintiff asserts standard favors viewing favorable evidence for Alston. | City argues standard requires clear non-liability before nonsuit. | Review favors the standard that a compulsory non-suit is proper when evidence shows no cause of action. |
| Whether federal handicap-ramp guidelines govern the outcome | City cites federal guidelines as controlling. | Guidelines are non-binding; courts rely on state caselaw. | Guidelines not binding; state case law controls the outcome. |
| Adequacy of the trial court’s reliance on precedent cases | City argues deeper liability could be warranted by higher elevations. | Cook relies on long-standing cases holding sidewalks not insurers of safety. | Court affirmed non-suit consistent with longstanding precedent that minor defects do not establish liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Breskin v. 535 5th Ave, 381 Pa. 461 (Pa. 1955) (depths greater than trivial still may not create liability)
- McGlinn v. Philadelphia, 186 A.2d 747 (Pa. 1936) (standard of reasonable safety; not absolute safety; not every depression liable)
- Newell v. Pittsburgh, 123 A.768 (Pa. 1924) (surface cannot be perfectly level; reasonable safety standard)
- Pischke v. Dormont Borough, 33 A.2d 480 (Pa. Super. 1943) (no liability for saucer-like depression of 1½ inches)
- German v. McKeesport City, 8 A.2d 437 (Pa. Super. 1939) (defect must be large and unusual to warrant liability; not every imperfection is liable)
- Bosack v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., 410 Pa. 558 (Pa. 1963) (elevation or depression may be so trivial that no negligence)
- Burns v. City of Pittsburgh, 320 Pa. 92 (Pa. 1924) (duty of maintenance is reasonable safety; not insurer of absolute safety)
- Foster v. West View Borough, 195 A.82 (Pa. 1937) (summary: need for reasonable safety; elevation differences can be non-negligent)