Arnold, L. v. Kaposy, R.
1693 WDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.Oct 19, 2016Background
- On April 20, 2010 Eric Arnold (decedent) was electrocuted and killed while trimming a tree on property owned by Kayla and Matthew Weller; the limb contacted an overhead Duquesne Light distribution line.
- The Wellers had contracted Richard Kaposy (tree contractor); decedent was an employee of Kaposy and was on the property performing the contracted work.
- Plaintiff Larry Arnold (administrator of the estate) sued the Wellers, Duquesne Light, Kaposy and others alleging negligent failure to warn, to secure/de-energize lines, and to maintain vegetation, causing decedent’s death.
- After discovery defendants moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted summary judgment for the Wellers and Duquesne Light and dismissed all claims with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed.
- The trial court found (1) no evidence the Wellers retained control of the work or had superior knowledge compared with the contractor; (2) the hazard of overhead lines was known/obvious to the contractor; and (3) plaintiff’s expert reports (Samuel Sera, P.E.) were conclusory and lacked factual foundation to create genuine issues of material fact as to Duquesne Light’s negligence or code violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Landowner (Wellers) liability to independent contractor’s employee | Wellers knew of lines, failed to warn, to de-energize, or otherwise protect workers; danger was not obvious to decedent (hidden in tree); §343A and "peculiar risk" doctrines apply | Wellers did not retain control over the work, had no superior knowledge, and the danger of lines near trees is an ordinary risk known to experienced tree contractors | Summary judgment for Wellers affirmed — no evidence Wellers retained control or had superior knowledge; hazard was known/obvious to contractor; §343A and peculiar risk not established |
| Utility (Duquesne Light) negligence for vegetation/inspection/trimming | Duquesne failed to inspect/trim per NESC and its standards (last trimming/inspection allegedly inadequate), creating a dangerous condition that contributed to death | Duquesne performed routine inspection/maintenance on a multi‑year cycle, complied with its standards; plaintiff’s expert opinions lack factual basis to show violation or notice | Summary judgment for Duquesne affirmed — plaintiff’s expert reports were conclusory, unsupported, and did not create a genuine issue that Duquesne breached applicable standards or had notice |
| Sufficiency/credibility of plaintiff’s expert (Sera) | Sera’s reports identify defective trimming/inspection and causation and thus raise factual disputes | Defendants: Sera’s reports are speculative, rely on incorrect assumptions (wrong inspection date), lack tree species/growth data, and cite no supporting records | Court excluded Sera’s opinions as inadequately supported for summary judgment purposes; his conclusions could not defeat summary judgment |
| Appropriate use of summary judgment where factual disputes alleged | Plaintiff: factual disputes (warnings, knowledge, inspections) require jury resolution | Defendants: after discovery plaintiff failed to produce admissible evidence creating genuine issues of material fact | Court applied summary judgment standard, viewed record in plaintiff’s favor, and concluded plaintiff failed to present more than conjecture — summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Farabaugh v. Pa. Tpk. Comm’n, 911 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2006) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment and summary judgment principles)
- Karoly v. Mancuso, 65 A.3d 301 (Pa. 2013) (summary judgment proper where no genuine issue and nonmoving party lacks evidence essential to cause of action)
- Stark v. Lehigh Foundries, Inc., 130 A.2d 123 (Pa. 1957) (landowner/supplier of electricity may have superior knowledge of non‑obvious hazards; high degree of care owed by electricity suppliers)
- Colloi v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 481 A.2d 616 (Pa. Super. 1984) (utility with superior knowledge must warn independent contractor of non‑obvious dangerous conditions)
- Brletich v. U.S. Steel Corp., 285 A.2d 133 (Pa. 1971) (general rule that landowner who hires independent contractor is not liable for contractor’s employees when contractor controls work)
- Gillingham v. Consol Energy, Inc., 51 A.3d 841 (Pa. Super. 2012) (expert opinion is inadmissible when based on mere speculation or lacks adequate factual foundation)