Hitchner, A. v. Bartell, E.
38 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 24, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Adriene Hitchner, a home-health nurse employed by Lori’s Angels, regularly provided in-home care to defendant Eleanore Bartell and her mother at Bartell’s residence.
- On May 11, 2013, while leaving Bartell’s house to get breakfast, Hitchner fell on the front concrete steps and was injured; she alleged the steps were dilapidated, uneven, and dangerous.
- Hitchner sued Bartell for negligence (complaint filed April 14, 2014). After pleadings closed, Bartell moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on December 15, 2015, reasoning Hitchner lacked evidence of causation and that the steps’ condition was open and obvious negating duty; Hitchner appealed.
- The Superior Court reviewed the record, including depositions and photographs (but excluded Hitchner’s affidavit that contradicted her deposition), and reversed and remanded, finding genuine issues of material fact on causation and duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence of causation to survive summary judgment? | Hitchner: deposition, photos, and affidavit (clarifying where step crumbled) show steps’ condition caused fall. | Bartell: plaintiff couldn’t identify the specific step or prove the steps caused the fall. | Reversed: viewing evidence favorably to Hitchner, a jury could reasonably infer the dilapidated steps caused the fall; summary judgment improper. |
| Does the open-and-obvious doctrine bar recovery where the plaintiff had to use the hazard to perform her job? | Hitchner: employment required use of those steps as sole practical access; defendant should have anticipated harm. | Bartell: condition was open and obvious; no duty owed. | Reversed: under Restatement §343A comment f, owner may still owe duty if she should have anticipated invitee would encounter the danger; here steps were sole access and owner knew of their condition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cresswell v. End, 831 A.2d 673 (Pa. Super. 2003) (summary judgment standard; view record in favor of nonmovant)
- Scampone v. Highland Park Care Ctr., LLC, 57 A.3d 582 (Pa. 2012) (elements of negligence and causation require showing breach increased risk and was a substantial factor)
- Bilt‑Rite Contractors, Inc. v. The Architectural Studio, 866 A.2d 270 (Pa. 2005) (negligence requires duty, breach, causation, and damages)
- First v. Zem Zem Temple, 686 A.2d 18 (Pa. Super. 1996) (circumstantial evidence may suffice for causation; jury may infer link between defect and fall)
- Agriss v. Roadway Express, Inc., 483 A.2d 456 (Pa. Super. 1984) (plaintiff relying on circumstantial evidence must produce substantial evidence that preponderates in favor of the claimed conclusion)