General Liability

In a non-precedential opinion, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that when determining whether a freestanding sign was an open and obvious condition, the legs of the sign were to be considered separately and warranted separate analysis.

The plaintiff, while walking into the defendant store, tripped and fell on a leg of a freestanding lottery sign that was placed on the sidewalk outside of the store. While the plaintiff admitted she was able to observe the sign prior to the incident, she claimed that she did not notice the legs of the freestanding frame that supported the sign. The plaintiff filed negligence claims against the defendant store and, after discovery, the defendant store filed a motion for summary judgment.  In its motion for summary judgment, the defendant store argued that the sign was an open and obvious condition.  In her response in opposition, the plaintiff argued that the legs of the sign were not open and obvious, and created a tripping hazard. In support of her opposition, the plaintiff presented expert reports. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and ruled that there were no genuine issues of fact as to whether the sign was open and obvious. The trial court concluded that it did not consider the legs separate from the sign as a matter of law when considering the issue of whether the dangerous condition was open and obvious. Instead, the trial court found the sign with its legs was open and obvious. In support of its ruling, the trial court relied upon the Superior Court of Pennsylvania’s reasoning in Larose v. Berish, 334 A.3d 406 (Pa. Super. 2002). The plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that created genuine issues of material fact as to the open and obvious nature of the sign’s legs.  The Superior Court held the trial court erred when it determined that Larose required it to consider the sign and its legs as one to determine whether it was open and obvious.  The Superior Court reasoned that Larose does not stand for the proposition that an object resting on another object must be considered as one for purposes of determining whether the condition is open and obvious.  Instead, the Superior Court found the circumstances in Larose to be distinguishable and that Larose did not dictate as a matter of law that the legs of the sign created an open and obvious danger. The Superior Court ruled that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant store and reversed the order.