241 A.3d 455
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- Feb 22, 2017: Brownlee slipped and fell in Home Depot’s lumber aisle, alleging he stepped on a small piece of wood and sustained injuries.
- At the time Brownlee fell there were three Home Depot employees standing nearby and a lumber saw about 12–14 feet from the fall site; employees inspected for slip hazards daily at 10 a.m., but the fall occurred at 4 p.m.
- Home Depot moved for summary judgment arguing the wood was an open-and-obvious condition and Brownlee could not prove constructive notice; the trial court denied the motion.
- Jury returned a $510,500 verdict for Brownlee; Home Depot filed post-trial motions and appealed.
- The Superior Court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial because the trial court improperly removed the factual-causation question from the verdict sheet.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brownlee) | Defendant's Argument (Home Depot) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment/nonsuit should have been granted (open-and-obvious; constructive notice) | The wood created an unsafe condition for which Home Depot was responsible; reasonable minds could find the condition was not open and obvious and that Home Depot had actual/constructive notice. | The wood was visible and open-and-obvious; no evidence how long it had been on the floor, so Home Depot lacked actual or constructive notice. | Denial of summary judgment affirmed: photos and testimony left room for reasonable minds to disagree about obviousness; circumstantial evidence permitted an inference of notice. |
| Whether the trial court erred by removing factual-causation from the verdict sheet | Brownlee argued factual causation was conceded because both medical experts agreed he suffered injury from the incident. | Home Depot argued the causation link between the recovered wood and Brownlee’s fall was contested (witness said wood was not near him) and the defense expert did not say the wood caused the fall. | Reversed: Superior Court held removal of factual-cause question was error because causation of injury by the specific wood was disputed; vacated judgment and remanded for new trial. |
| Adequacy of jury instructions on open-and-obvious and constructive notice | Implicitly contends standard instructions were sufficient to support plaintiff’s case. | Requested additional/defined instructions (define “obvious,” compare attentiveness analogies, specific constructive-notice language). | No abuse of discretion: court’s standard instructions adequately reflected the law and Home Depot’s proposed instructions were cumulative. |
| Juror bias (Juror #2 cried/appeared upset) | Brownlee did not seek removal of juror; no issue raised that required reversal. | Home Depot sought juror removal for bias during trial. | Not decided on appeal—court declined to address because remand for retrial was required; preserved but not resolved. |
| Evidentiary rulings (exclusion of the physical wood; negative-inference charge) | Brownlee objected and prevailed on exclusion at trial; relied on discovery rules as applied by trial court. | Home Depot argued exclusion and adverse inference were prejudicial because it produced the wood late. | Not addressed on appeal—Superior Court noted the issue may be moot on retrial and observed the negative-inference charge was unwarranted given Home Depot produced the item untimely rather than destroyed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carrender v. Fitterer, 469 A.2d 120 (Pa. 1983) (open-and-obvious doctrine; proprietor not liable where danger is known or obvious unless harm was foreseeable despite obviousness)
- Krepps v. Snyder, 112 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (summary-judgment standard; review in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Andrews v. Jackson, 800 A.2d 959 (Pa. Super. 2002) (where negligence and an uncontroverted injury from the accident are established, jury cannot properly find no causal connection)
- Daniel v. William R. Drach Co., Inc., 849 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2004) (distinguishing Andrews where multiple possible causes of the accident exist such that negligence alone does not establish causation)
- Koziar v. Rayner, 200 A.3d 513 (Pa. Super. 2018) (verdict for negligence but no factual cause may stand where evidence supports alternative explanations of how injury occurred)
- Grove v. Port Auth. of Allegheny Cty., 218 A.3d 877 (Pa. 2019) (standards for reviewing jury-charge challenges; error requires prejudice or fundamental omission)
- Zito v. Merit Outlet Stores, 647 A.2d 573 (Pa. Super. 1994) (elements plaintiff must prove in slip-and-fall: duty, breach, notice (actual or constructive) or creation of condition)