Sanchez-Guardiola v. City of Philadelphia
87 A.3d 934
Pa. Commw. Ct.2014Background
- Plaintiff tripped at Philadelphia International Airport between terminals B and C due to an unmarked platform/stage about 12–14 inches high, obscured by flower pots.
- Platform resembled furniture, not affixed to the floor or real property, leading plaintiff to claim negligence in construction, maintenance, and placement.
- City moved for summary judgment arguing governmental immunity under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(b) and that the real property exception does not apply.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, concluding the platform was movable personal property, not part of realty.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing Nanty-Glo concerns and existence of genuine issues of material fact as to permanency/attachment and dangerous condition.
- Court affirms the grant of summary judgment, applying Blocker/Mandakis/Repko lineage to treat platform as personal property.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Nanty-Glo disqualification appropriate here? | Nanty-Glo precludes reliance on moving-party affidavits alone. | Nanty-Glo allows reliance on moving-party affidavits when supported by opposing-party evidence. | No reversible error; Nanty-Glo not violated; no genuine issue. |
| Is the platform a permanently attached fixture or movable personal property? | Evidence could show permanent attachment suggesting real property. | Platform not attached; movable personalty. | Platform not attached; real property exception inapplicable. |
| Did placement of the platform create a dangerous condition on the real property? | Hazardous condition existed despite being movable. | No defect in real estate; risk from movable personal property. | No real-property defect; real property exception not triggered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blocker v. City of Philadelphia, 563 Pa. 559, 763 A.2d 373 (2000) (real property exception excludes movable personalty)
- Repko v. Chichester Sch. Dist., 904 A.2d 1036 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2006) (two approaches to real property immunity; personalty vs realty)
- Rieger by Rieger v. Altoona Area Sch. Dist., 768 A.2d 912 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2001) (personalty vs fixtures in real property analysis)
- Kniaz v. Benton Borough, 164 Pa.Cmwlth. 109, 642 A.2d 551 (1994) (summary judgment and real property immunity when evidence is insufficient)
- Nanty-Glo v. American Surety Co. of New York, 309 Pa. 236, 163 A.2d 523 (1932) (test for credibility in affidavits; Nanty-Glo rule)
- Kelly v. Curwensville H.S., 141 Pa.Cmwlth. 449, 595 A.2d 787 (1991) (ladder/skylight permanent fixtures; real property defect)
- Grieff v. Reisinger, 548 Pa. 13, 693 A.2d 195 (1997) (real property exception triggered by negligent care of property)
- Hanna v. West Shore School District, 717 A.2d 626 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1998) (slipper on floor; negligent care of real property)
- Mandakis v. Borough of Matamoras, 74 A.3d 301 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2013) (weighs Blocker vs Grieff approach; real property immunity)