Demisew, G. v. Coakley & Williams Hotel
Demisew, G. v. Coakley & Williams Hotel No. 467 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 15, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Gela Demisew slipped on a stair in a Days Inn (managed by Coakley & Williams) on October 16, 2013, and reported a swollen ankle the next day.
- Demisew described the step as ‘‘different’’ and ‘‘treacherous’’ underfoot but never saw or identified any substance and produced no physical evidence.
- Hotel maintenance testified to twice-daily property checks, a daily checklist including stairwells, and daily cleaning of the stairwell; no defects were recorded for the relevant date.
- Demisew sued for negligence in March 2015; the hotel moved for summary judgment in September 2015.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the hotel; Demisew appealed arguing sufficient evidence of negligence, constructive notice, and that expert testimony was unnecessary.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding Demisew’s showing was speculative and insufficient to prove the hotel had actual or constructive notice or that it created the hazard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of negligence to survive summary judgment | Demisew: she slipped on a noticeably slippery step; hotel had duty to discover and remedy (constructive notice); cleaning schedule may be unreasonable | Hotel: no evidence of what substance was on the step, no notice of hazard, maintenance records show routine inspections/cleaning | Held: No. Plaintiff’s evidence was speculative and insufficient to show breach or notice; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether constructive notice existed because of guest traffic and rain | Demisew: misty conditions and frequent stair use could have led to tracked water/slippery condition | Hotel: no proof of tracked water, no record of condition, routine inspections negate inference of notice | Held: No constructive notice proven; speculation about weather/traffic insufficient |
| Whether a liability expert was required | Demisew: expert not necessary; jury can infer negligence from facts | Hotel: implicit that plaintiff bears burden to prove breach/notice; facts do not support inference | Held: Expert not required, but plaintiff still failed to present concrete evidence to support negligence claim |
| Whether reliance on Martin and Churilla was erroneous | Demisew: trial court misapplied Martin/Churilla to preclude jury consideration | Hotel: Courts properly applied precedent that mere occurrence or speculation does not establish negligence | Held: Trial court correctly applied Martin and Churilla; mere accident/theories do not substitute for evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Barton v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 124 A.3d 349 (Pa. Super. 2015) (elements of negligence)
- Rodriguez v. Kravco Simon Co., 111 A.3d 1191 (Pa. Super. 2015) (invitee/notice and proprietor’s duty)
- Neve v. Insalaco’s, 771 A.2d 786 (Pa. Super. 2001) (accident alone does not prove negligence)
- Myers v. Penn Traffic Co., 606 A.2d 926 (Pa. Super. 1992) (non-moving party cannot rely on speculation at summary judgment)
- Toro v. Fitness Int’l LLC, 150 A.3d 968 (Pa. Super. 2016) (summary judgment proper where plaintiff failed to show notice or causation)
- Estate of Swift v. Ne. Hosp. of Phila., 690 A.2d 719 (Pa. Super. 1997) (need to show how hazard occurred and how long it existed)
- Martin v. Evans, 711 A.2d 458 (Pa. 1998) (mere occurrence of accident does not establish negligence)
- Churilla v. Barner, 409 A.2d 83 (Pa. Super. 1979) (mere theories are not a substitute for concrete evidence)