Young v. Prizm Asset Management Co.
100 A.3d 594
Pa. Super. Ct.2014Background
- Sharon Young, a Children’s Place employee required to park on upper levels of Steamtown Mall’s garage, was assaulted in the garage in February 2009 while arriving for work; she sued the mall for premises liability.
- Mall defendants moved for summary judgment arguing no duty breached or causation for an unanticipated public-area criminal assault.
- Record included testimony and police Incident Analysis Reports showing numerous prior incidents at or near the mall (assaults, fights, drug activity, trespasses) and police sting operations in the mall.
- Evidence showed: absence of surveillance cameras on the garage level where Young was attacked, dim lighting in that area, unlocked/accessible stairwell entries during daytime, and prior violent incident involving a Children’s Place employee in adjacent leased parking.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the mall, finding no prior notice of an assault of comparable severity at the precise garage location and rejecting that lighting, cameras, or access deficiencies created a triable issue.
- Superior Court reversed, holding summary judgment improperly resolved genuine disputes of material fact about notice, foreseeability, and adequacy of security under Restatement §344 principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employee of a lessee is a business invitee under Restatement §344 | Young: as an employee required to park for business, she is a business invitee | Mall: statute/precedent not controlling; declined to contest application | Held: Yes — employee is a business invitee for §344 purposes |
| Whether prior incidents gave notice to Mall to take precautions | Young: police reports, stings, assaults/fights on premises and adjacent lots gave actual/constructive notice | Mall: earlier incidents were lesser in severity and not at the exact garage location, so no notice of similar violent assault | Held: Triable issue exists — exact location not required; prior incidents could furnish notice |
| Whether lack of cameras/poor lighting and unsecured stairwells created a duty to take precautions | Young: absence of cameras, dim lights, and accessible stairwells made garage unsafe and were facts from which jury could infer negligence | Mall: no evidence these defects caused the assault; employee could see and navigate area; no prior incidents tied to those specific features | Held: Triable issues of fact exist as to whether precautions were reasonable/required; summary judgment improper |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Young: disputed material facts and reasonable inferences preclude summary judgment | Mall: no proof of foreseeability or causal link; therefore entitled to judgment as matter of law | Held: Reversed — summary judgment was improper because genuine factual disputes should go to jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Moran v. Valley Forge Drive-In Theatre, 246 A.2d 875 (Pa. 1968) (occupant liable if had notice of prior acts on premises sufficient to create jury question about precautions)
- Murphy v. Penn Fruit Co., 418 A.2d 480 (Pa. Super. 1980) (exact locale of prior crimes immaterial; prior crimes on premises can impose duty to take precautions throughout)
- Carswell v. SEPTA, 393 A.2d 770 (Pa. Super. 1978) (section 344 liability arises when possessor fails to discover likely third-party misconduct or fails to warn/protect)
- Abrams v. Pneumo Abex Corp., 981 A.2d 198 (Pa. 2009) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment and resolving factual disputes)
- Morgan v. Bucks Assocs., 428 F. Supp. 546 (E.D. Pa. 1977) (employee of a store treated as business invitee for owner’s duties under §344)
- Bouzos-Reilly v. Reilly, 980 A.2d 643 (Pa. Super. 2009) (abuse of discretion standards for trial court decisions)