Reinoso, G. v. Heritage Warminster SPE, 108 A.3d 80

Reinoso and her granddaughter tripped on a raised sidewalk at Warminster Towne Center on May 15, 2009.
Heritage owned and maintained the exterior sidewalks, including the area where Reinoso fell.
Reinoso was an invited volunteer for a Kohl’s charity event occurring near Kohl’s; she was not on duty.
A February 2012 expert measured a height difference of 5/8 inch at the location; the far-right slab differed by 1-1/8 inch.
Heritage moved for summary judgment, arguing the defect was de minimis; the trial court granted summary judgment.
The appellate court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed and remanded for trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the defect a trivial defect as a matter of law?	Height differential and expert opinion show a hazard beyond trivial.	Defect is obviously trivial given measurements and lacks evidence of unreasonableness.	Not dispositive; remand for fact-finder
Did Heritage owe a duty to Reinoso as a business invitee and breach it?	Invitee status carries a high duty to maintain safe premises; hazard was known or should have been discovered.	No negligence if defect is trivial and not unreasonably dangerous.	duty recognized; disputed facts remain
Are there genuine issues of material fact beyond the height differential?	Evidence includes expert opinions, codes, and a maintenance supervisor’s warning.	Only the height difference matters; other facts are undisputed.	Yes; issues exist requiring jury resolution
Should the Breskin/Massman line of cases govern whether a defect is trivial?	Court should submit to jury when circumstances show hazard despite small size.	No universal rule; the defect can be deemed trivial under proper circumstances.	Question for jury in light of circumstances

Breskin v. 535 Fifth Avenue, 381 Pa. 461 (Pa. 1955) (no definite rule; triviality depends on circumstances; jury may decide)
Mull v. Ickes, 994 A.2d 1137 (Pa. Super. 2010) (defect not obviously trivial; case-based based on surrounding facts)
Massman v. City of Philadelphia, 430 Pa. 99 (Pa. 1968) (test: triviality balanced against practicality and safety)
Bosack v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., 410 Pa. 558 (Pa. 1963) (triviality test tied to practicality and risk to pedestrians)
Van Ormer v. City of Pittsburgh, 347 Pa. 115 (Pa. 1943) (recognizes common and usual sidewalk imperfections as non-actionable)
Henn v. City of Pittsburgh, 343 Pa. 256 (Pa. 1941) (shadow zone where jury should decide under circumstances)