Key Points:
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reaffirms a plaintiff’s burden to prove causation.
Where the plaintiff is unable to identify factual causation, or provides multiple theories of causation, a dispositive motion should be considered.
A jury is not permitted to reach a verdict based on speculation or conjecture as to causation.
Where a plaintiff cannot establish the factual cause of an injury, summary judgment may be appropriate. For example, in Mohar v. Shawver et al., 317 A.3d 607 (Pa. Super. 2024), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reaffirmed a plaintiff’s burden to establish a prima facie negligence claim; specifically, the causal connection between the alleged injuries and the alleged negligence. The court affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to identify the specific defect that caused her to fall.
The plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell while attending a house showing. While touring the property, the plaintiff walked up a ramp to a shed in the backyard; she slipped and fell as she turned.
She filed a lawsuit, sounding in negligence, against several defendants, including the property owners and real estate professionals. Notably, during discovery, the plaintiff could not identify what caused her to fall. She testified: “It happened so fast. I was standing and then I wasn’t. I can’t answer that.” Furthermore, she was unable to describe the defective or slippery condition, attributing it to multiple defects, including wet leaves, moss, or the wet wood. Notably, the plaintiff could not rule out the possibility that she may have just lost her balance.
At the conclusion of discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment based on the plaintiff’s failure to establish a connection between her alleged injuries and the alleged negligence. While the plaintiff identified multiple potential defects, she failed to identify which, if any, of the alleged defects actually caused her to slip.
In granting summary judgment, the trial court relied upon Houston v. Republican Athletic Ass’n, 22 A.2d 715, 716 (Pa. 1941), where the court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the element of causation sufficient to submit the case to a jury as there were multiple theories attributing an accident to a variety of causes for which the defendants could not be held liable. The court also relied on Freund v. Hyman, 103 A.2d 658 (Pa. 1954), where the Supreme Court granted compulsory nonsuit as the testimony did not identify the cause of the fall, and Erb v. Council Rock Sch. Distr., 2009 WL 9097261 (Pa. Cmwlth. Mar. 26, 2009), where the court granted summary judgment after determining that the plaintiff did not produce any evidence that a defective condition was the proximate cause of her fall and injury.
In affirming the trial court’s order granting summary judgment, the Superior Court explained, in viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the evidence of causation was completely circumstantial and there was no evidence that any of the alleged potential defects actually caused the plaintiff to fall. Furthermore, there was an equal possibility that the plaintiff’s alleged injuries resulted from a trip or stumble without such tripping or stumbling having any connection with the alleged defect. Even though the plaintiff could testify as to where she slid, she failed to make the connection between slipping and the alleged negligence. A jury is not permitted to reach a verdict based on speculation or conjecture as to causation.
The Mohar decision reiterates and underscores the importance of holding a plaintiff to their burden of establishing proximate causation as a prima facie element of a negligence claim. If a plaintiff is unable to identify the cause of an accident, provides vague discovery responses or multiple theories of causation, defense counsel should consider filing a dispositive motion.
Finally, the Mohar decision has been cited in recent orders granting summary judgment, including Regina v. Summit Pointe Property Owners Ass’n, Monroe County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 1172-CV-2020 and Orwig v. Shinn, 323 A.3d 216 (Pa. Super. 2024).
Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 4, December 2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.
