Barnes, R. v. PHL Rental Properties, LLC
Barnes, R. v. PHL Rental Properties, LLC No. 2692 EDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.Mar 20, 2017Background
- Tenant Rachita Barnes leased an apartment from PHL Rental; lease signed by property manager Johnny Dang.
- Barnes alleged building defects (slippery exterior steps and improperly low handrail) and testified she told Dang about the conditions before her fall.
- Barnes suffered serious injuries requiring surgery; she sued Dang and PHL Rental for negligence.
- PHL Rental had a written management agreement with Dang that used the term "agent," gave Dang authority to lease/manage the property, hire contractors, and share profits; PHL Rental argued Dang was an independent contractor.
- At trial a jury found Dang negligent, concluded Dang was acting within the scope of agency, and awarded Barnes $450,000; Dang did not appeal.
- PHL Rental appealed, challenging denial of summary judgment, denial of directed verdict / JNOV, the jury determination on agency, and the trial court's exclusion of evidence about Barnes' eviction/late rent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Barnes) | Defendant's Argument (PHL Rental) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of summary judgment | Barnes argued genuine issues of fact (notice, condition, agency) precluded summary judgment | PHL Rental argued no duty/notice and Dang was an independent contractor so his knowledge can't be imputed | Court affirmed denial: disputed facts (notice/reasonableness/agency) precluded summary judgment under Summers/Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2 |
| Denial of directed verdict / JNOV | Barnes relied on trial evidence showing duty, breach, causation, and agency/respondeat superior | PHL Rental argued evidence insufficient and that no reasonable jury could find liability or agency | Court affirmed denial: evidence was sufficient and reasonable minds could differ; jury's verdict stands |
| Whether Dang was agent or independent contractor | Barnes argued management agreement and Dang's authority/supporting facts showed agency and knowledge imputable to PHL Rental | PHL Rental argued Dang was an independent contractor and agency was a question of law for the court | Court held question was factual here; jury properly decided agency given disputed facts and parties' agreed jury instructions/verdict questions |
| Exclusion of evidence of tenant's eviction/late rent | Barnes argued eviction/late rent were irrelevant and prejudicial to negligence claim | PHL Rental argued eviction/late rent bore on Barnes' credibility and motive | Court affirmed exclusion: probative value outweighed by unfair prejudice and potential jury confusion; exclusion within trial court's discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Summers v. Certainteed Corp., 997 A.2d 1152 (Pa. 2010) (summary judgment standard; view record in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc., 812 A.2d 1218 (Pa. 2002) (summary judgment principles)
- Basile v. H & R Block, Inc., 761 A.2d 1115 (Pa. 2000) (elements of agency relationship)
- Rosenberry v. Evans, 48 A.3d 1255 (Pa. Super. 2012) (knowledge of agent acting within scope imputable to principal)
- Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc., 7 A.3d 830 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review for directed verdict and JNOV)
- Campisi v. Acme Markets, Inc., 915 A.2d 117 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standards for judgment as a matter of law)
- Shiner v. Moriarty, 706 A.2d 1228 (Pa. Super. 1998) (admission of evidence bearing on motive/credibility balanced against prejudice)