Gamble, C. v. Anderson, M., 705 EDA 2017

On April 8, 2013, Clarissa Gamble tripped on a cracked/uneven sidewalk in front of 4524–4526 N. Broad St., fell, and was injured.
Gamble sued multiple defendants, including S3 Enterprises, LLC (S3), alleging negligence in maintaining the abutting sidewalk.
At trial, the City obtained a nonsuit; an adjacent owner was found not negligent; the jury returned a $65,000 verdict against S3.
S3 filed post-trial motions (denied) and appealed, arguing the trial court erred by refusing two requested jury instructions.
The trial court instructed the jury on the duty of a land possessor to maintain abutting sidewalks and on comparative negligence; it refused S3’s requested licensee-duty instruction and an assumption-of-risk instruction.
The Superior Court affirmed, holding the court’s instructions, taken as a whole, were correct and refusal to give the requested charges was not reversible error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred in refusing S3’s requested jury instruction on the duty to a licensee (Restatement §342/Sharp)	Gamble: Land possessor must exercise reasonable care to maintain/ warn; jury should be instructed on licensee standard	S3: Requested Restatement-based licensee instruction was required and necessary for jury to apply correct duty	Court: No error — trial court used a standard instruction specific to duty for possessor of land abutting a sidewalk that properly explained the duty; refusal harmless
Whether the court erred in refusing an assumption-of-risk instruction (Std. Jury Instr. 13.220)	Gamble: Assumption of risk not appropriate in a simple negligence case where comparative negligence applies	S3: Assumption-of-risk instruction should have been given to account for Gamble’s awareness of sidewalk condition	Court: No error — assumption of risk is generally supplanted by comparative negligence and applies primarily in strict liability or statutorily preserved contexts; comparative negligence instruction was proper

Sharp v. Luksa, 269 A.2d 659 (Pa. 1970) (adoption of Restatement §342 licensee-duty framework)
Cresswell v. End, 831 A.2d 673 (Pa. Super. 2003) (discusses Pennsylvania law adopting Restatement §342)
Palange v. City of Philadelphia, 640 A.2d 1305 (Pa. Super. 1994) (pedestrians on sidewalks treated as licensees for duty analysis)
Commonwealth v. Simpson, 66 A.3d 253 (Pa. 2013) (suggested jury instructions are guides, not binding)
Amato v. Bell & Gossett, 116 A.3d 607 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for jury charge refusals)
Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 77 A.3d 663 (Pa. Super. 2013) (jury charge reviewed for abuse of discretion or controlling legal error)