Strothmann, L. v. CHB Sports, Inc.
1565 MDA 2020
Pa. Super. Ct.Feb 8, 2022Background:
- Strothmann (plaintiff/invitee) fell at Hiester Lanes and sued CHB Sports, Inc. (defendant) alleging a dangerous defect in the bowling‑alley floor caused her fall.
- Strothmann could not identify the precise location of her fall or definitively describe the defect; she traversed the area about eight times previously without noticing any problem.
- Strothmann’s witness, Wendy Stamm, testified she found a “large hole” in the floor, but testimony was inconsistent and speculative about size and nature of any defect.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for CHB, concluding Strothmann failed to produce evidence of what caused the fall or that the proprietor had actual or constructive notice of any defect.
- The Superior Court majority reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact; this document is the dissenting memorandum (Judge Stevens) arguing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment should be affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of a dangerous defect causing the fall | Strothmann: some raised portion/hole/divot/seam in the floor caused her to fall | CHB: Plaintiff cannot identify a specific defect; testimony is speculative | Dissent: No reasonable jury could find a dangerous defect based on the record; plaintiff failed to identify cause |
| Constructive notice of defect | Strothmann: proprietor should be charged with constructive notice of the floor defect | CHB: No evidence of prior complaints or knowledge; no reason to discover hidden defect | Dissent: Without proof of the defect, constructive notice cannot be established; summary judgment appropriate |
| Sufficiency of speculative testimony to defeat summary judgment | Strothmann: witness testimony and inferences create factual dispute | CHB: Testimony is speculative and inconsistent; mere occurrence of accident does not prove negligence | Dissent: Speculation cannot create a prima facie negligence case; accident alone does not infer negligence |
| Appellate assessment of witness credibility | Strothmann/Majority: credibility questions support reversing summary judgment | CHB/Dissent: Credibility is for factfinder; trial court’s assessment should stand | Dissent: Appellate court should not reweigh credibility; trial court correctly resolved that record lacked evidentiary support |
Key Cases Cited
- Charlie v. Erie Ins. Exchange, 100 A.3d 244 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate courts should not make credibility determinations)
- Pappas v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 856 A.2d 183 (Pa. Super. 2004) (defendant may obtain summary judgment by showing plaintiff cannot prove an essential element)
- Carrender v. Fitterer, 469 A.2d 120 (Pa. 1983) (landowner liability for known or discoverable dangerous conditions and duties to invitees)
- Estate of Swift v. Northeastern Hosp. of Phila., 690 A.2d 719 (Pa. Super. 1997) (plaintiff must show proprietor created condition or had notice)
- Flagiello v. Crilly, 187 A.2d 289 (Pa. 1963) (the mere happening of an accident does not establish negligence)