Marks, D. & K. v. Redner's Warehouse Markets
136 A.3d 984
Pa. Super. Ct.2016Background
- Deliveryman Darrell Marks (PA resident) tripped on pallet jack forks and injured his knee while entering a Redner’s warehouse in Elkton, Maryland during a delivery route.
- Marks worked for a Pennsylvania company and delivered to Redner’s, a Pennsylvania corporation that operates stores in PA, MD, and DE; the accident occurred in Maryland.
- Appellants sued in Lackawanna County, PA for negligence and loss of consortium; Redner’s moved for summary judgment arguing Maryland law applies and bars recovery under contributory negligence.
- Trial court applied Maryland law and granted summary judgment, finding Marks contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
- On appeal the Superior Court addressed choice-of-law (Griffith framework / Restatement §§145,146,6) and whether contributory negligence could be decided as a matter of law.
- Court affirmed choice-of-law (Maryland law applies) but reversed the grant of summary judgment because contributory negligence was a factual question for the jury under Maryland precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which state’s substantive law applies? | Pennsylvania law should apply because parties and corporations are PA-based and PA has greater interest. | Maryland law applies because the injury and conduct occurred in MD and MD has an interest in regulating businesses in-state. | Maryland law governs (Restatement/Griffith analysis: contacts favor MD as place of injury and local regulation). |
| Can defendant win on summary judgment by proving contributory negligence as a matter of law? | Marks: his failure to look down was not a "prominent and decisive" act; factual disputes (lighting, prior unobstructed entry, heavy cart, door handling) require jury resolution. | Redner’s: Marks admitted he didn’t look down and knew pallet jacks were used there, so his negligence is obvious and bars recovery. | Reversed summary judgment; contributory negligence is ordinarily a jury question under MD law and reasonable minds could differ here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffith v. United Air Lines, Inc., 203 A.2d 796 (Pa. 1964) (adopts government-interest / Restatement approach to choice-of-law in torts)
- Cipolla v. Shaposka, 267 A.2d 854 (Pa. 1970) (true-conflict test and interest analysis for choice-of-law)
- Troxel v. A.I. duPont Inst., 636 A.2d 1179 (Pa.Super. 1994) (applies contacts analysis where injury occurred out-of-state and local law governs conduct occurring there)
- Shuder v. McDonald’s Corp., 859 F.2d 266 (3d Cir. 1988) (supports applying law of state where accident and associated property conditions occurred)
- Diffendal v. Kash & Karry Serv. Corp., 536 A.2d 1175 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1988) (refused summary judgment on contributory negligence where customer tripped over newly placed cart; jury question)