Kreuzer-Foster, C. v. Whole Foods Market ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • J-S23034-23
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37
    CONNIE KREUZER-FOSTER                  :    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :         PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellant            :
    :
    v.                        :
    :
    WHOLE FOODS MARKET                     :
    :
    Appellee             :         No. 261 EDA 2023
    Appeal from the Order Entered January 11, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
    Civil Division at No(s): 2019-19571
    BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and KING, J.
    JUDGMENT ORDER BY KING, J.:                           FILED JULY 27, 2023
    Appellant, Connie Kreuzer-Foster, appeals from the order entered in the
    Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, granting summary judgment in
    favor of Appellee, Whole Foods Market (“Whole Foods”). We affirm.
    The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows:
    This appeal stems from a 2018 slip and fall that occurred in
    the entranceway of property possessed and operated by
    [Appellee], Whole Foods. [Appellant’s] initial complaint,
    filed on August 5, 2019, alleges that on or about January
    12, 2018, [Appellant] slipped on “water and/or a wet and/or
    slippery substance on the floor of the Whole Foods Market
    located at 500 West Germantown Pike, Plymouth Meeting,
    PA 19462 in the entry area of the store which was a
    dangerous and/or hazardous condition.” On July 14, 2022,
    at the conclusion of discovery, [Whole Foods] filed a
    [m]otion for [s]ummary [j]udgment in which evidence was
    presented from [Appellant’s] deposition establishing that
    [Appellant] did not know what she slipped on and
    establishing a lack of knowledge of [Whole Foods] of any
    substance that may have resulted in [Appellant’s] fall.
    [Appellant] failed to respond to the [m]otion to [s]ummary
    J-S23034-23
    [j]udgment.
    [The] court entered an Order on September 14, 2020
    granting Whole Foods’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
    [Appellant] then petitioned [the] court for reconsideration
    claiming lack of notice. The [m]otion was granted and
    [Appellant] was given the opportunity to file a reply to
    Whole Foods’ [m]otion for [s]ummary [j]udgment.
    [Appellant] provided a cursory response on October 11,
    2022 with no accompanying brief, after which this [c]ourt
    granted the [m]otion for [s]ummary [j]udgment in favor of
    [Appellee], Whole Foods on the merits of its [m]otion.
    [Appellant] filed a timely appeal and was ordered to submit
    a [s]tatement of [m]atters [c]omplained of pursuant to
    Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
    (Trial Court Opinion, filed 3/8/23, at 1-2) (internal record citations omitted).
    Preliminarily, we observe that a Rule 1925 statement of errors must
    concisely identify each ruling or error that the appellant intends to challenge
    with sufficient detail to identify all pertinent issues; issues not included in the
    Rule 1925 statement are waived on appeal.            In re A.B., 
    63 A.3d 345
    (Pa.Super. 2013).
    This Court has considered the question of what constitutes
    a sufficient [concise] statement on many occasions, and it
    is well-established that [an a]ppellant’s concise statement
    must properly specify the error to be addressed on appeal.
    The [concise] statement must be specific enough for the
    trial court to identify and address the issue an appellant
    wishes to raise on appeal. Further, this Court may find
    waiver where a concise statement is too vague. When a
    court has to guess what issues an appellant is appealing,
    that is not enough for meaningful review. A [c]oncise
    [s]tatement which is too vague to allow the court to identify
    the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent of no
    [c]oncise [s]tatement at all.
    
    Id. at 350
     (internal citations omitted).
    -2-
    J-S23034-23
    Instantly, the trial court opined that Appellant did not comply with Rule
    1925(b). Specifically, the court stated:
    Here, Appellant’s Concise Statement fails to preserve any
    applicable issues due to its lack of specificity. Appellant’s
    very general contention seems to be that the [c]ourt did not
    engage and discuss the facts in the Order granting [Whole
    Foods’] Motion for Summary Judgment.               Appellant’s
    statement does not discretely identify issues to be
    addressed. Even if the trial court correctly guesses the
    issues [a]ppellants raise on appeal and writes an opinion
    pursuant to that supposition the issues [are] still waived.
    (Trial Court Opinion at 5) (internal citations omitted). Consequently, the trial
    court deemed Appellant’s issues waived on appeal.        (Id.).   We agree that
    Appellant’s prolix Rule 1925 statement is insufficient to provide meaningful
    review.1 See In re A.B., 
    supra.
     Accordingly, we affirm.
    Order affirmed.
    ____________________________________________
    1 Further, Appellant provides minimal citation to relevant authority in her
    appellate brief. Specifically, Appellant cites one case governing the scope and
    standard of review, the Rule of Civil Procedure governing summary judgment
    motions generally, and one case cited by Whole Foods, which Appellant
    purports to distinguish. Nevertheless, Appellant fails to cite any legal
    authority concerning negligence generally, or more specifically, as to whether
    Whole Foods had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous
    condition. See, e.g., Collins v. Philadelphia Suburban Development
    Corporation, 
    179 A.3d 69
     (Pa.Super. 2018) (explaining elements of
    negligence action and that invitee must present evidence proving possessor
    of land had hand in creating harmful condition or had actual or constructive
    notice of such condition). On this ground, Appellant’s issues are also waived.
    See Lackner v. Glosser, 
    892 A.2d 21
     (Pa.Super 2006) (explaining
    appellant’s arguments must adhere to rules of appellate procedure, and
    arguments which are not appropriately developed are waived on appeal;
    arguments not appropriately developed include those where party has failed
    to cite relevant authority in support of contention); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a)
    (governing argument section in brief).
    -3-
    J-S23034-23
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 7/27/2023
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 261 EDA 2023

Judges: King, J.

Filed Date: 7/27/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/13/2024