Reason v. Kathryn's Korner Thrift Shop
169 A.3d 96
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- Reason sued Kathryn’s Korner Thrift Shop, Drueding Center, Holy Redeemer Health System, Nadine Riley, and Tamika Thomas for negligence and related claims after an assault at the thrift shop on Sept. 19, 2012.
- Reason, a business invitee, was attacked during an incident involving Thomas, Riley’s daughter, who was present at the store; Thomas had a mental health history but no proven history of violence in the record.
- The incident began inside the store with a dispute at the register, followed by a fight outside; three men on bikes aided in subduing Reason, and store employees intervened to end the confrontation.
- Riley allegedly summoned help by an alarm button that may have routed to Drueding’s reception desk rather than directly to police; Riley also testified to calling the police on her cell phone.
- Reason filed the Fourth Amended Complaint (Feb. 2, 2015) alleging multiple tort theories; summary judgment was granted against all defendants except Thomas on Dec. 17, 2015.
- Reason’s appeal challenged only the summary judgment on the remaining negligence claims; the trial court later entered judgment against Thomas (May 25, 2016) and Reason timely appealed (June 9, 2016).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Reason's appeal | Appeal timely after final judgment against Thomas. | Argument framed around earlier, non-final order; waiver if untimely. | Timely after May 25, 2016 final judgment against Thomas. |
| Duty to protect business invitees from third parties | Appellees owed duty to anticipate and protect against Thomas’ potential harm to Reason. | No evidence of Thomas's violent history; no duty to protect absent foreseeability. | No duty found; no genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment proper. |
| Duty to aid Reason during the assault | Appellees had duty to render aid and respond adequately to the assault. | Duty limited to summoning professional assistance; no duty to provide first aid. | Duty satisfied by summoning aid; Campbell framework controls; no viable breach. |
| Breach and causation in the alleged failure to summon aid | Reasonable jurors could find failure to call police or respond adequately caused her injuries. | Evidence showed alarm button and cell-phone calls, or equivalent assistance, were invoked. | No triable issues; evidence supports timely aid; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Truax v. Roulhac, 126 A.3d 991 (Pa. Super. 2015) (duty to protect invitees arises when third-party conduct is anticipated)
- Paliometros v. Loyola, 932 A.2d 128 (Pa. Super. 2007) ( Restatement 2nd §344 duty to protect invitees against third-party harm)
- Campbell v. Eitak, 893 A.2d 749 (Pa. Super. 2006) (duty to aid invited patrons limited to summoning professional assistance)
- Lee v. GNLV Corp., 22 P.3d 209 (Nev. 2001) (support for medical aid/duty frameworks outside Pennsylvania)
- Newell v. Montana West, Inc., 154 A.3d 819 (Pa. Super. 2017) (summary judgment standard; four elements of negligence)
- T.A. v. Allen, 669 A.2d 360 (Pa. Super. 1995) (definition of business invitee and special relationship)
- Feld v. Merriam, 485 A.2d 742 (Pa. 1984) (public invitation and duty considerations for foreseeability)
- Martin v. Rite Aid of Pa., Inc., 80 A.3d 813 (Pa. Super. 2013) (duty owed to business invitee to protect from third-party harm)