Recently, in Warwick v. Golden Properties LLC et al. No. 1316 WDA 2023, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the lower court verdict, in which the jury found in favor of the defendants when it determined that the plaintiff did not meet her burden of proof in establishing causation for her injuries. Warwick thus confirms that all elements of a negligence claim must be met before a plaintiff can recover damages.
The plaintiff, Ellen M. Warwick, slipped and fell on a snow- and ice-covered sidewalk owned by defendant, Golden Properties LLC (“G.P.”), and as a result sustained dislocation and fractures in her ankle. On the date of the subject incident, several inches of snow had fallen, and, despite snow removal, a patch of snow and ice allegedly remained. After a three-day trial, the jury found in favor of all three defendants, ultimately concluding that, while G.P. was negligent, its negligence was not the factual cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.
The plaintiff then filed a Motion for Post-Trial Relief, arguing that the jury erred in finding that G.P.’s failure to remove the snow and ice from the sidewalk was not a factual cause of the fall. G.P. contended that the plaintiff’s argument questioned the capacity of the jury, rather than the weight of the evidence, and that the plaintiff waived her claim by not objecting to the jury verdict form. The trial court denied the motion and the plaintiff appealed.
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed. First, the Court cited to precedential case law where it had previously held that a party waives any argument that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict when the party fails to object to the interrogatories, the jury instructions, or the verdict, but instead filed a post-trial motion. Thus, the plaintiff’s failure to raise that objection to the jury verdict form at trial was fatal.
Next, the Court further held that, even if Ms. Warwick had made a true “weight of the evidence” claim, she would be owed no relief. The decision to grant a new trial, based on a claim that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, is within the discretion of the trial court. The Court further noted that an appellate court would only overturn the trial court’s decision if there was an abuse of discretion or “when the judicial conscience is not merely disappointed or uncomfortable but shocked.”
Here, the Court found there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court, but rather the fact finder at trial determined that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proof. The Court noted that the “mere existence of a harmful condition in a public place of business, or the mere happening of an accident due to such a condition is neither, in and of itself, evidence of a breach of the proprietor’s duty of care to his invitees, nor raises a presumption of negligence.” Myers v. Penn Traffic Co., 414 Pa. Super. 181, 185, 606 A.2d 926, 928 (1992). The Court further noted the protection offered to landowners through the “hills and ridges” doctrine and, combined, the Court clarified that a plaintiff must prove three elements to recover for a slip and fall on ice or snow: (1) the snow and ice on the sidewalk had accumulated in ridges or elevations of such size that they unreasonably obstructed travel (2) the property owner had actual or constructive notice of the condition and (3) it was the dangerous accumulation of snow and ice that caused the plaintiff to fall.
In consideration of the standard of review and Ms. Warwick’s burden of proof, the Superior Court held that the jury verdict was not so contrary to the evidence so as to “shock the conscience” and necessitate overturning the trial court’s decision. The Court again emphasized the plaintiff’s burden of proof, and that a finding of negligence does not create a presumption that defendant’s negligence caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The Court further noted that defendant is not responsible for providing alternate theories of factual causes, and that the jury may come up with their own theories. In other words, the Superior Court’s decision emphasizes the burden for the plaintiff to prove all elements of the claim, and that the existence of one element does not create a presumption of the existence of the other elements.
The Warwick decision can be found here.
For additional questions, please contact Conrad James Benedetto, Esq. and/or Molly Hecht, Esq.
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C
