Truax, T. v. Roulhac, T., 126 A.3d 991

Truax was injured when a minivan struck her on the Madd Anthony's sidewalk in Effort, PA; the parking lot abutted the sidewalk with five-inch wheel stops.
Vitiello owned the parcel; Wildwood operated Madd Anthony's and La Roma Pizza and shared the parking lot with nonexclusive use for tenants.
Two bump-outs protruded onto the sidewalk, narrowing pedestrian space and redirecting pedestrians toward the parking area; bollards protected a well casing elsewhere on site.
Truax sued Roulhac (driver), Wildwood, and Vitiello for negligence/premises liability; dram shop claim against Wildwood was later dismissed.
The trial court granted summary judgment, holding the harm unforeseeable and that compliance with codes satisfied the duty.
This Court reversed and remanded, holding questions of foreseeability and breach were improper for per se resolution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was curb-jumping foreseeability a jury question?	Truax argues foreseeability of a vehicle encroaching was reasonably anticipated.	Appellees contend such risk was too remote to be foreseeable as a matter of law.	Foreseeability is for the jury to decide.
Does compliance with building codes/zoning ordinances preclude finding negligence as a matter of law?	Compliance may be evidence of due care but is not conclusive and does not foreclose negligence.	Adherence to codes shows due care, resolving duty as a matter of law.	Compliance does not automatically absolve duty; extra precautions may be required; not dispositive.

Charlie v. Erie Ins. Exch., 100 A.3d 244 (Pa. Super. 2014) (duty of care for business invitees includes reasonable precautions)
Moran v. Valley Forge Drive-In Theater, Inc., 246 A.2d 875 (Pa. 1968) (Restatement 344 adoption of duty to protect third-party acts)
Summers v. Certainteed Corp., 997 A.2d 1152 (Pa. 2010) (premises liability and summary judgment standards)
Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corp., 281 A.2d 707 (Pa. Super. 1971) (negligence; compliance evidence not conclusive of due care)
Paliometros v. Loyola, 932 A.2d 128 (Pa. Super. 2007) (duty to protect business invitees from foreseeable harm)
Emerich v. Phila. Ctr. for Human Dev., Inc., 720 A.2d 1032 (Pa. 1998) (negligence questions may be for jury unless no doubt remains)
Alumni Ass’n, Delta Zeta Zeta of Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity v. Sullivan, 535 A.2d 1095 (Pa. Super. 1987) (foreseeability and duty scope; jury questions on foreseeability)
Young v. Prizm Asset Mgmt. Co., 100 A.3d 594 (Pa. Super. 2014) (actual or constructive notice of third-party acts as a factor for jury)
Rabutino v. Freedom State Realty Co., Inc., 809 A.2d 933 (Pa. Super. 2002) (summary judgment in foreseeability-based premises liability)