Shaw v. Thomas Jefferson University, 80 A.3d 540

Shaw fell on a Center City sidewalk in front of Thomas Jefferson University and sued the University and the City for injuries caused by a dangerous sidewalk condition.
The City asserted governmental immunity under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8541 and sought contribution/indemnity from the University; the University was argued to be primarily liable.
The University moved for summary judgment, contending the defect was trivial and there was no notice; the trial court granted this motion on January 18, 2011.
Shaw appealed; the Superior Court quashed the appeal as interlocutory since the City remained a defendant.
The City moved for summary judgment on the same grounds and also invoked the coordinate jurisdiction rule; the trial court granted the City’s motion, leading to this appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sidewalk defect was obviously trivial as a matter of law	Shaw argues the defect is not obviously trivial given circumstances.	University/City contend the defect was trivial and not actionable.	Not obviously trivial; issues for the jury; reversal and remand.
Whether the grant of summary judgment to the City was proper under coordinate jurisdiction after the University was dismissed	Shaw contends City cannot be summarily judged solely by the triangular coordinate rule when genuine issues remain.	City relied on coordinate jurisdiction because the University had been granted summary judgment.	Coordinate rule does not sustain City’s judgment; remand for jury consideration.
Whether constructive notice of the sidewalk defect was an issue for the jury	Shaw argues there is evidence of notice to the City through surrounding circumstances.	Defendants maintain lack of notice; urged summary judgment on notice grounds.	Constructive notice under § 8542(b)(7) is for the jury to decide.

Bosack v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., 410 Pa. 558, 189 A.2d 877 (Pa. 1963) (defect not always actionable; jury determines negligence unless obviously trivial)
Henn v. City of Pittsburgh, 343 Pa. 256, 22 A.2d 742 (Pa. 1941) (whether defect is trivial depends on surrounding circumstances)
Breskin v. 535 Fifth Ave., 381 Pa. 461, 113 A.2d 316 (Pa. 1955) (no bright-line rule; surrounding circumstances for jury question)
McGlinn v. City of Philadelphia, 322 Pa. 478, 186 A.747 (Pa. 1936) (no bright-line rule; circumstances determine negligence question)
Mull v. Ickes, 994 A.2d 1137 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010) (no definite standard; surrounding facts trap summary judgment)
Massman v. City of Philadelphia, 430 Pa. 99, 241 A.2d 921 (Pa. 1968) (circumstances may create jury questions about triviality)
Commonwealth v. Starr, 541 Pa. 564, 664 A.2d 1326 (Pa. 1995) (exceptional circumstances permit departure from coordinate rule; outlines exceptions)
Summers v. Certainteed Corp., 606 Pa. 294, 997 A.2d 1152 (Pa. 2010) (de novo review for legal questions; no-upon-finding of facts for summary judgment)
Burns v. Crossman, 740 A.2d 773 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (corollary to coordinate jurisdiction: release of primary party affects secondary)