Gresik v. PA Partners, L.P., 33 A.3d 594

PA Partners, L.P. possessed and operated a steel plant in Hollsopple, PA from 1983 to 1988 and modified furnaces by thinning firebrick lining and increasing melting voltage, leading to burn-through incidents and steam explosions.
Each burn-through ruptured nearby water lines, causing steam and debris to spew onto the pouring platform where workers labored, and an access drawbridge on the platform was later removed.
PA Partners did not install an alternate escape route or shield water lines from damage after the drawbridge removal.
In 1988, PA Partners sold the mill to First Mississippi Steel, Inc. (FMS) in a turn-key transaction; the plant’s physical layout remained substantially unchanged and the drawbridge was not replaced.
In June 1994, a burn-through and series of steam explosions occurred during operation of a furnace, fatally injuring Livingston and injuring Beltowski.
Appellants filed civil actions against PA Partners (among others) alleging liability under theories including Section 385 of the Second Restatement; the trial court granted summary judgment to PA Partners on the remaining Section 385 claim, and the Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Section 385 apply to PA Partners as contractor?	Gresik contends PA Partners acted as a contractor creating a dangerous condition on land.	PA Partners argues Section 385 applies only to contractors/servants, not to possessors/vendors, and here PA Partners was the possessor.	Section 385 does not apply to PA Partners; two entities framework applies and PA Partners was the possessor.
Did the Superior Court err in grafting an unlikelihood of discovery prerequisite onto Section 385?	Appellants say the court relied on an official comment to create a discovery-unlikelihood prerequisite contrary to text.	PA Partners contends the court correctly interpreted Section 385 and its comments and that discovery likelihood is improper.	Court rejects need for latent/unlikelihood prerequisite; nonetheless Section 385 does not apply due to possession/contractor framework.
Whether the evidence shows PA Partners acted as contractor/dual capacity and thus liable under Section 385.	Appellants argue a dual-capacity theory or that PA Partners’ actions as contractor created liability.	PA Partners denies dual-capacity liability and maintains it was not a contractor in post-sale context.	No Section 385 liability; PA Partners was the possessor during alterations, and contractor liability does not attach.

Gilbert v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 154 Pa. Cmwlth. 249, 623 A.2d 873 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (disagreed with latent-only reading of Section 385)
Stecher v. Ford Motor Co., 571 Pa. 312, 812 A.2d 553 (Pa. 2002) (latent defect issue not decided where moot)
Beltowski v. PA Partners, L.P., Unknown reporter; 2008 WL 7626265 (Somerset County, 2008) (discusses Section 353 and agency knowledge imputation; not central to final holding)
Prost v. Caldwell Store, Inc., 409 Pa. 421, 187 A.2d 273 (Pa. 1963) (early adoption of Restatement principles in Pennsylvania tort law)