Hackett, R. v. Indian King Residents Assn., 195 A.3d 248

On January 30, 2013, Ruthann Hackett fell on steps in a common-area walkway of the Indian King planned community and later underwent three surgeries for injuries allegedly caused by branches on the steps.
The common areas are owned and managed by Indian King Residents Association (IKRA), a homeowners association governed by a Declaration under the Uniform Planned Community Act.
Hackett was a resident (through her then-husband) of the community from 2010–2016 and used the common areas routinely.
Hackett sued IKRA for negligence; a jury returned a defense verdict finding IKRA not negligent after a two-day trial.
Hackett filed post-trial motions seeking a new trial (denied), appealed, and judgment was entered November 21, 2017; this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff was an invitee or a licensee when she fell	Hackett: as a resident paying maintenance fees and subject to association management, she was an invitee entitled to higher duty	IKRA: Hackett was a resident with permission to use common areas (an easement), not an invitee for business/public purposes — thus a licensee	Court: Hackett was a licensee; the Declaration granted permission/easement, not an invitation or business/public purpose, so licensee status was correct
Whether the trial court erred by refusing a specialized jury instruction tied to IKRA’s obligations as property manager	Hackett: trial court should have given a specialized instruction reflecting IKRA’s management duties	IKRA: no specialized instruction required; general premises-duty framework controls	Court: Issue waived for inadequate briefing and record citation; not considered on merits
Whether inclusion of a factual-cause question on the verdict sheet was improper given concession of injury	Hackett: the verdict form should not have asked factual cause if injury conceded	IKRA: inclusion proper; causal question is appropriate if negligence is found	Court: Court declined to rule as advisory because no new trial was granted; claim not addressed on merits

Stapas v. Giant Eagle, 153 A.3d 353 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for reviewing denial of new trial and premises-liability framework)
T.A. v. Allen, 669 A.2d 360 (Pa. Super. 1995) (elements of negligence)
Reilly v. Tiergarten Inc., 633 A.2d 208 (Pa. Super. 1993) (negligence elements and duty analysis)
Sharp v. Luksa, 269 A.2d 659 (Pa. 1970) (adoption of Restatement approach to duties owed to licensees)
Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014) (Pennsylvania follows Restatement (Second) approach)
Cresswell v. End, 831 A.2d 673 (Pa. Super. 2003) (interpretation of Restatement Section 342 conjunctive requirements)
Saw Creek Cmtv. Ass’n v. County of Pike, 866 A.2d 260 (Pa. 2005) (definition and treatment of planned communities)