Liberty Place Retail Associates, L.P. v. Israelite School of Universal Practical Knowledge
102 A.3d 501
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- The Shops at Liberty Place operates a commercial mall in Center City Philadelphia; an 800 sq. ft. private setback area adjoins the public sidewalk at 16th & Chestnut.
- ISUPK, a nonprofit Hebrew Israelite group whose speech is inflammatory and offensive, held frequent sidewalk demonstrations at that corner, using amplification, signs, handouts, and a small platform; crowd size on the setback area ranged from ~4–20 people.
- The Shops obtained a preliminary injunction barring ISUPK from occupying the setback area; ISUPK thereafter remained on the public sidewalk and faced The Shops while demonstrating.
- The Shops sued for a permanent injunction alleging trespass (via onlookers entering the setback) and private nuisance (noise, crowds, interference with business); it presented limited evidence of economic harm or code violations.
- The trial court denied the permanent injunction, finding The Shops failed to prove ISUPK intended to cause trespass or that demonstrations constituted a private nuisance; the court also found First Amendment protection but the appellate court resolved the case on non-constitutional grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trespass — liability for third‑party entry | ISUPK knowingly attracted crowds that entered The Shops’ setback, so ISUPK caused trespass | ISUPK did not direct or coerce onlookers onto private property; mere likelihood of crowds is insufficient | Trial court correct: plaintiff failed to prove ISUPK intended (substantial certainty) that onlookers would trespass; trespass claim fails |
| Private nuisance — unreasonable interference | Crowds, noise, offensive conduct and use of setback unreasonably interfered with The Shops’ use and business | Activities, while offensive, were lawful, small in scale, and The Shops showed no serious or compensable harm outweighing utility | Trial court correct: plaintiff failed to meet burden under Restatement standard; nuisance claim fails |
| First Amendment — defense to tort claims | (Shops) tort rules should prevail over speech that harms property/business | (ISUPK) demonstrations implicate protected speech; constitutional defense available | Appellate court did not reach merits of First Amendment because trespass/nuisance claims failed; court noted prudence of resolving on non‑constitutional grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Buffalo Twp. v. Jones, 813 A.2d 659 (Pa. 2002) (standard of review for permanent injunctions; appellate review is for error of law while deferring to trial court factual findings)
- J.C. Ehrlich Co. v. Martin, 979 A.2d 862 (Pa. Super. 2009) (elements for permanent injunction; distinction from preliminary injunction)
- Kopka v. Bell Tel. Co., 91 A.2d 232 (Pa. 1952) (actor liable for causing third party to trespass where actor directed the trespass)
- Gilbert v. Synagro Cent., LLC, 90 A.3d 37 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discussion of Restatement §158 and trespass by placing things on or near another’s land)
- Waschak v. Moffat, 109 A.2d 310 (Pa. 1954) (adoption of Restatement nuisance principles)
- Cassel‑Hess v. Hoffer, 44 A.3d 80 (Pa. Super. 2012) (nuisance defined and contrasted with trespass)
- Kembel v. Schlegel, 478 A.2d 11 (Pa. Super. 1984) (adopting Restatement principles for nuisance analysis)