E. King v. Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority
139 A.3d 336
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- In Aug. 2012 Elizabeth King fell through a corroded sewer catch-basin grate in Pittsburgh and sued the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority (Authority) for negligent maintenance under the "utility service facilities" exception to local agency immunity (42 Pa. C.S. §8542(b)(5)).
- King waived a jury; the case proceeded through arbitration, then a non-jury trial; the trial court entered judgment for the Authority and denied King’s post-trial motions. King appealed.
- King conceded she had no proof of actual notice but argued constructive notice could be inferred if the grate had been preserved and examined to show long-standing corrosion.
- Authority employees acknowledged the grate was connected to a "law claim" and that the Authority replaced/scrapped the grate rather than preserving it; they also testified the Authority does not routinely "bag and tag" such evidence.
- King sought sanction (judgment n.o.v. or new trial and exclusion of a notice defense) based on spoliation; the trial court denied relief after applying the three-factor spoliation test (fault, prejudice, lesser sanctions) and finding King had not shown prejudice.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion because King failed to show that expert examination of the preserved grate would have established the timing of damage or constructive notice to the Authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether severe spoliation sanction (judgment n.o.v. or new trial barring notice defense) was warranted after Authority destroyed the grate | Authority destroyed the only physical evidence tied to constructive notice; destruction was foreseeable and prejudicial so court should infer the missing evidence would be unfavorable to Authority and grant sanction | Authority admits replacing/scrapping grate but argues plaintiff cannot show that preservation would have produced evidence proving constructive notice or that destruction caused demonstrable prejudice | Denied — trial court’s refusal to impose drastic sanction affirmed; appellate court found no abuse of discretion because plaintiff failed to prove she was prejudiced (no evidence an expert exam of grate would have established timing/notice) |
| Whether spoliation occurred and, if so, what sanction is appropriate | Spoliation occurred and common sanction is an adverse inference; serious fault and foreseeable prejudice justify strong sanctions | Even if spoliation occurred, doctrine permits a range of sanctions; severe sanctions are last resort and require proof of prejudice and bad faith | Found that spoliation doctrine applies but sanctions discretionary; here prejudice not established and no showing of bad faith, so severe sanction not warranted |
| Whether Authority’s practices (limited inspections, scrapping evidence) undermine constructive-notice exception or public policy | Authority’s non-inspection and routine destruction of evidence nullifies constructive notice and should be deterred by sanctions to protect public safety | Statute requires proof of notice; exceptions to immunity construed narrowly; policy arguments cannot override statutory text and King failed to prove notice | Rejected — court applied statutory framework narrowly and required proof of notice; public-policy complaints do not replace evidentiary showing of prejudice/notice |
| Whether constructive notice can be inferred without a specific prior complaint | (argued intermittently) constructive notice can be inferred if condition existed long enough; preservation would enable expert proof | Authority argued no evidence showed prior complaints or condition existing for substantial time at the specific location | Court and concurring judge: constructive notice may be inferred from a condition apparent on reasonable inspection, but King failed to present evidence (expert or otherwise) tying timing of deterioration to constructive notice here |
Key Cases Cited
- Schroeder v. Dep’t of Transp., 710 A.2d 23 (Pa. 1998) (adopts multi-factor approach to spoliation sanctions and recognizes adverse-inference instruction as a common remedy)
- Schmid v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp., 13 F.3d 76 (3d Cir. 1994) (federal model for assessing spoliation sanctions adopted in Schroeder)
- Pyeritz v. Commonwealth, 32 A.3d 687 (Pa. 2011) (defines spoliation and confirms trial court discretion to impose a range of sanctions)
- Pia v. Perrotti, 718 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 1998) (upheld adverse-inference spoliation instruction where plaintiff failed to preserve potentially relevant fire-related evidence)
- Rogers v. Horn & Hardart Baking Co., 127 A.2d 762 (Pa. Super. 1956) (time a defect exists is an important factor for constructive-notice in non-immunity contexts)