Rodriguez, M. v. Kravco Simon Co.
111 A.3d 1191
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Rodriguez slipped at Lehigh Valley Mall on June 6, 2011, injuring his leg and filing a negligence action.
- Defendants Kravco Simon Co. d/b/a Lehigh Valley Mall and ESC moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted.
- The trial court held Rodriguez failed to show proof of actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition.
- Rodriguez argued the puddle's drying edges and affidavits from others showed constructive notice; he also asserted a spoliation issue.
- The appellate court held there was a material issue of fact regarding how long the liquid was on the floor and whether notice could be inferred, and it rejected the ‘admission of liability’ argument as not showing liability, remanding for further proceedings.
- The court concluded that the open spoliation question precluded summary judgment and required consideration on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of constructive notice | Rodriguez argues the drying edges show sufficient time for notice. | Mall/ESC contend no proof of how long the liquid persisted to infer notice. | Summary judgment reversed; questions about duration create genuine issue. |
| Effect of alleged liability admission | Injury report suggests liability admission by Defendants. | No admission of liability; report simply notes conditions and lack of action to prevent. | No liability admission; no error in granting summary judgment on this ground. |
| Spoliation and adverse inference | Missing maintenance records support an adverse inference against Defendants. | No sanction or inference appropriate without proper spoliation motion; record insufficient. | Open spoliation question precludes summary judgment; inference may be warranted on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sokolsky v. Eidelman, 93 A.3d 858 (Pa. Super. 2014) (summary-judgment standard and burden on non-movant)
- Myers v. Penn Traffic Co., 606 A.2d 926 (Pa. Super. 1992) (owner not insurer of customer safety; duty to exercise reasonable care)
- Zito v. Merit Outlet Stores, 647 A.2d 573 (Pa. Super. 1994) (requirement to prove owner knew or should have known of harmful condition)
- Mount Olivet Tabernacle Church v. Edwin L. Wiegand Div., 781 A.2d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2001) (spoliation doctrine and inference concepts in summary judgment context)
- PTSI, Inc. v. Haley, 71 A.3d 304 (Pa. Super. 2013) (three-factor test for spoliation sanctions)