R. Rogers v. City of Philadelphia
2678 C.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Nov 30, 2016

Background

  • On December 8, 2011, Ronnie Rogers tripped on a bent rod embedded in South 15th Street in front of 1208 S. 15th St. (CATCH/Anna’s House) and was injured.
  • Rogers sued the City of Philadelphia, Allied Construction Services II, Inc. (Allied), and CATCH, alleging negligence for creating or permitting a dangerous roadway condition.
  • Rogers’ deposition: he crossed outside the crosswalk, did not see anyone place the rod, recalled construction at the site in 2005–2006 (Allied as general contractor), and claimed the rod resembled an electrical grounding rod. He did not observe the rod for years before the accident.
  • Allied and CATCH moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted both motions (CATCH: no responsibility for the street; Allied: plaintiff’s evidence was speculative and failed to connect Allied to the rod).
  • Rogers settled with the City; appeals followed, and the Commonwealth Court affirmed summary judgment for Allied and CATCH.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Allied can be held liable for placement/removal of the rod Rogers argued circumstantial evidence (proximity of Allied’s trailer during construction, rod type, his construction knowledge) permits inference Allied placed/failed to remove the rod Allied argued plaintiff offered no direct or admissible circumstantial evidence linking Allied to the rod; inference would be speculative Summary judgment for Allied affirmed — evidence insufficient; plaintiff reliance on speculation/conjecture inadequate
Whether res ipsa loquitur applies Rogers argued doctrine permits inference of defendant negligence because the instrumentality (rod) ordinarily indicates negligence Allied argued Rogers failed to eliminate other responsible causes or parties and thus cannot satisfy res ipsa element (b) Res ipsa rejected — Rogers did not sufficiently rule out other causes or parties
Whether failure to produce permits supports negligence per se Rogers contended lack of construction permits (temporary electrical service) demonstrates per se negligence Allied and court noted no record evidence proving permits were not obtained; plaintiff failed to invoke discovery remedies or identify any specific statute/ordinance violated Negligence per se claim rejected — no evidentiary support and plaintiff failed to identify applicable law
Whether CATCH is vicariously or directly liable Rogers argued CATCH is vicariously liable for Allied’s agent conduct and independently negligent for failing to inspect/require permits CATCH argued no agent negligence (Allied) exists to ground vicarious liability and plaintiff produced no evidence of independent duty/breach by CATCH Summary judgment for CATCH affirmed — no underlying agent negligence and no record evidence of independent negligence

Key Cases Cited

  • Wenger v. West Pennsboro Township, 868 A.2d 638 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (nonmoving party must produce sufficient evidence to avoid summary judgment)
  • Ario v. Ingram Micro, Inc., 965 A.2d 1194 (Pa. 2009) (summary judgment only where right to judgment is clear)
  • Jones v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 748 A.2d 1271 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (party opposing summary judgment must show specific facts creating a genuine issue)
  • Taylor v. Jackson, 643 A.2d 771 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (elements of negligence and need to prove causation)
  • Krauss v. Trane U.S. Inc., 104 A.3d 556 (Pa. Super. 2014) (jury may not infer causation based on speculation; inferences must be reasonable)
  • InfoSAGE, Inc. v. Mellon Ventures, L.P., 896 A.2d 616 (Pa. Super. 2006) (reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence must be grounded in common sense)
  • Edinger v. Borough of Portland, 119 A.3d 1111 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (resolve doubts against moving party on summary judgment)
  • Shedden v. Anadarko E. & P. Company, 136 A.3d 485 (Pa. 2016) (existence of genuine factual issues is a question of law on appeal)
  • Barra v. Rose Tree Media School District, 858 A.2d 206 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (appellate role is to determine whether genuine issue exists, not to decide facts)
  • Fessenden v. Robert Packer Hospital, 97 A.3d 1225 (Pa. Super. 2014) (elements of res ipsa loquitur)
  • Hamil v. Bashline, 392 A.2d 1280 (Pa. 1978) (plaintiff must establish causal connection between breach and injury)
  • Aiello v. Ed Saxe Real Estate, Inc., 499 A.2d 282 (Pa. 1985) (principle of vicarious liability for agent’s torts)
  • Ford ex rel. Pringle v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 848 A.2d 1038 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (negligence per se requires showing violation of applicable statute designed to prevent the harm)
  • Eckroth v. Pennsylvania Electric, Inc., 12 A.3d 422 (Pa. Super. 2010) (even proving negligence per se, plaintiff must prove proximate causation)
Read the full case