Medsger, G. v. Hawaiian Tan
1635 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 20, 2017Background
- On November 8, 2011, Matkovich exited a Hawaiian Tan salon parking lot onto Perry Highway and collided with Medsger’s motorcycle; Medsger suffered serious injuries.
- Hawaiian Tan leased premises from property owner Kuntz; Hawaiian Tan had placed five temporary advertising yard signs on the grassy strip adjacent to the roadway near the parking lot exit.
- Appellants (Gary and Regina Medsger) sued Hawaiian Tan and Kuntz alleging negligent placement of the signs (including alleged ordinance violations) that blocked a motorist’s view and caused the collision.
- At summary judgment, Matkovich testified she did not believe the signs blocked her view; Appellants submitted an affidavit from their son, Nathan Medsger, with photographs purporting to show the signs’ placement and potential visual obstruction.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Hawaiian Tan and Kuntz, concluding Appellants failed to present sufficient circumstantial evidence that the signs impaired Matkovich’s view.
- The Superior Court vacated the summary judgments and remanded for trial, holding the affidavit and photographs, when viewed in the light most favorable to Appellants, raised a factual dispute for the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether placement of Hawaiian Tan’s signs could be a factual (proximate) cause of Medsger’s injuries, precluding summary judgment | Signs were placed so close to the roadway and exit that they impaired drivers’ views; photographs and affidavit create a triable issue of fact | Matkovich denied the signs blocked her view; photographic affidavit is an unreliable, unscientific recreation and insufficient circumstantial evidence for causation | Reversed: summary judgment was improper because the affidavit and photos, viewed favorably to Appellants, raised a plausible factual dispute for the jury; credibility and weight are for the jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, 812 A.2d 1218 (Pa. 2002) (summary judgment appropriate only where no genuine issue of material fact exists)
- Toy v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 928 A.2d 186 (Pa. 2007) (court must view facts and reasonable inferences in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Summers v. Certainteed Corp., 997 A.2d 1152 (Pa. 2010) (summary judgment review is de novo on whether genuine issues of material fact exist)
- In re Estate of Hunter, 205 A.2d 97 (Pa. 1964) (credibility and weight of witness testimony are for the factfinder)