Spady, L. v. Acme Markets, Inc., 1900 EDA 2016

On Feb. 18, 2014, Spady slipped and fell on a mound of snow in the parking lot of an Acme supermarket and was injured. The mounds were located at the end of parking rows; the rest of the lot (spaces and travel lanes) was clear.
Spady sued Acme and FHG (snow-removal contractor); FHG filed a joinder complaint against DeMasi (landscaper).
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing (inter alia) the "choice of ways" doctrine, no duty to warn/remove obvious snow, and plaintiff assumed the risk by choosing the snowy route.
The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on June 9, 2016; Spady appealed.
The Superior Court reviewed de novo, viewed the record for the nonmoving party, and affirmed summary judgment, finding the snow mound an obvious, avoidable risk and that Spady voluntarily encountered it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants owed a duty to remove or warn about the snow mound	Spady argued defendants were negligent in leaving a hazardous snow mound in an area invitees would traverse	Defendants argued the mound was an open, obvious danger and they owed no duty; Spady could have avoided it	Court held no duty as a matter of law because the risk was obvious and avoidable, so defendants not liable
Whether summary judgment was proper given disputed facts (contributory negligence/assumption of risk)	Spady contended factual disputes (why he took that route) precluded summary judgment	Defendants argued evidence showed Spady knowingly and voluntarily chose the snowy path despite clear alternatives	Court held summary judgment appropriate: plaintiff subjectively knew/encountered an obvious risk, so no material factual dispute defeating judgment as a matter of law

Reinoso v. Heritage Warminster SPE LLC, 108 A.3d 80 (Pa. Super. 2014) (summary judgment standard and appellate review)
Mull v. Ickes, 994 A.2d 1137 (Pa. Super. 2010) (summary judgment principles)
Carrender v. Fitterer, 469 A.2d 120 (Pa. 1983) (invitee assumed risk where dangerous condition was obvious and avoidable)
Barrett v. Fredavid Builders, Inc., 685 A.2d 129 (Pa. Super. 1996) (assumption of risk requires perceived risk and voluntary encounter)
Staub v. Toy Factory, Inc., 749 A.2d 522 (Pa. Super. 2000) (assumption of risk analyzed as part of duty inquiry)
Gutteridge v. A.P. Green Servs., Inc., 804 A.2d 643 (Pa. Super. 2002) (possessor-of-land duty to invitees)
Howell v. Clyde, 620 A.2d 1107 (Pa. 1993) (example of assumption of risk where plaintiff knowingly faced an obvious danger)