Martin v. Rite Aid of Pennsylvania, Inc.
80 A.3d 813
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Appellant Joseph Martin, a business invitee, was robbed and assaulted at a Rite Aid on premises owned/leased by NBDC on May 16, 2010.
- Martins sought help from on-site security and staff, but he was rebuffed.
- He filed a negligence complaint on July 11, 2012 against Rite Aid and NBDC; assailants were not named as defendants.
- Rite Aid and NBDC raised preliminary objections: failure to include notice to defend, lack of specificity, and failure to join indispensable parties.
- The trial court sustained the objections and dismissed the complaint with prejudice; it did not rule on other objections.
- Appellant appeals the indispensability issue; the court reviews de novo using the Mechanicsburg framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the alleged assailants indispensable to Martins' claims against Rite Aid and NBDC? | Martin contends assailants are necessary for complete relief and proper apportionment of liability. | Rite Aid/NBDC argue assailants have an interest related to the claim and should be joined. | No indispensable parties; assailants have no right/interest relevant to the premises-liability claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mechanicsburg Area Sch. Dist. v. Kline, 494 Pa. 476 (Pa. 1981) (four-factor test for indispensability of absent parties)
- Pal-iometros v. Loyola, 932 A.2d 128 (Pa. Super. 2007) (duty to take reasonable precautions for public invitees)
- Rabutino, Administratrix of the Estate of William Impagliazzo v. Freedom State Realty Co., Inc., et al., 809 A.2d 933 (Pa. Super. 2002) (innkeeper liability framework under premises-liability law)
- Moran v. Valley Forge Drive-In Theater, Inc., 246 A.2d 875 (Pa. 1968) (adopting Restatement not explicit here; innkeeper doctrine support)
- T.A. v. Allen, 669 A.2d 360 (Pa. Super. 1995) (premises liability duties to invitees)