Shipton, D. v. Comfort Suites Scranton ( 2021 )

J-A07016-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
DOREEN SHIPTON : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
COMFORT SUITES SCRANTON : No. 1150 MDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered August 6, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Civil Division at
No(s): 2014-4960
BEFORE: BOWES, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JULY 23, 2021
Appellant, Doreen Shipton, appeals from the trial court’s Order granting
summary judgment in favor of Appellee Hotel, Comfort Suites Scranton, on
the basis that the hotel could not be liable for injuries Appellant suffered in a
fall on its property. After careful review, we reverse and remand.
On May 11, 2013, Appellant suffered injuries when she slipped and fell
on a wet floor as she exited a hot tub on Appellee Hotel’s property. At the time
of her fall, Appellant and her family were staying as guests at the hotel.
Appellant initiated litigation on September 5, 2014. On March 13, 2020,
Appellee Hotel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The court held argument
on Appellee Hotel’s Motion on July 21, 2020. The court granted summary
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A07016-21
judgment in Appellee’s favor on August 6, 2020, finding that the dangerous
condition posed by the wet floor was “open and obvious” to Appellant.
Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration on September 2, 2020,
which the court denied on September 9, 2020. In the interim, on September
4, 2020, Appellant timely filed a Notice of Appeal to this Court. Both Appellant
and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:
1. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt committed an error of law by
granting Appellee[ Hotel’s] Motion for Summary Judgment and
concluding that the dangerous condition present on Appellee[
Hotel’s] property was open and obvious.
2. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt committed an error of law by failing
to conclude that Appellee [Hotel] should have anticipated the
harm to Appellant despite its open and obvious nature.
Appellant’s Br. at 4. Appellants issues are interrelated and, therefore, we will
address them together.
We review a trial court’s grant of summary judgment for an error of law
or abuse of discretion. Summers v. Certainteed Corp., 997 A.2d 1152, 1159
(Pa. 2010). Our inquiry solely involves questions of law and, therefore, our
review is de novo. Reinoso v. Heritage Warminster SPE LLC, 108 A.3d 80,
84 (Pa. Super. 2015).
A trial court may grant summary judgment “only in those cases where
the record clearly demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact
and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Summers, supra at 1159 (citation and quotation omitted); see also
-2-
J-A07016-21
Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2(1). “When considering a motion for summary judgment, the
trial court must take all facts of record and reasonable inferences therefrom
in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Summers, supra at 1159
(citation omitted). “If there is evidence that would allow a fact-finder to render
a verdict in favor of the non-moving party, then summary judgment should
be denied.” Reinoso, supra at 85 (citation omitted).
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A governs Appellant’s issues. It
holds that “[a] possessor of land is not liable to [its] invitees1 for physical
harm caused to them by any activity or condition on the land whose danger is
known or obvious to them, unless the possessor should anticipate the harm
despite such knowledge or obviousness.” Restatement (Second) of Torts §
343A. Relevant to the instant appeal, comment f to Section 343A explains that
“[t]here are[] cases in which the possessor of land can and should anticipate
that the dangerous condition will cause physical harm to the invitee
notwithstanding its known or obvious danger. In such cases the possessor is
not relieved of the duty of reasonable care which he owes to the invitee for
his protection.” Id. at cmt. f.
In the instant case, soon after arriving at the hotel, Appellant and her
family went to the hotel’s pool room, which included the hot tub. Trial Ct. Op.,
at 1. Once at the pool room, and before getting into the hot tub, Appellant
noticed the wet floor around the hot tub. N.T. Deposition of Doreen Shipton,
____________________________________________
1 The parties agree that Appellant was an invitee on Appellee Hotel’s property
at the time of the incident.
-3-
J-A07016-21
11/7/17, at 44-45 (“Shipton Deposition”). She explained that “[i]t wasn’t a
pool of water, but you could tell it was damp . . . you could tell the floor was
wet.” Id. A warning sign, hung on the wall by the hot tub, stated: “CAUTION
Floors are Slippery When Wet.” Id. at 55. The sign was “[i]n close proximity
to the swimming pool/hot tub[.]” Trial Ct. Op., at 3.
From this evidence, the trial court determined that the wet floor around
the hot tub was obvious to Appellant and, therefore, Appellee Hotel could not
be liable for Appellant’s injuries. Id. at 6-7. The trial court failed to consider
whether the following evidence, proving Appellee Hotel’s actual knowledge of
the danger condition around the hot tub, was sufficient to impose liability
under Section 343A.
Appellant testified at deposition that, several days after she fell, she
spoke to a hotel manager, who told her “that they’ve had other people that
have fell [sic] at that hotel before and that they tried doing something to the
floor [around the hot tub], treating it.” Shipton Deposition, at 59. She further
explained that the manager “said that they had had problems in the past with
people, you know, with the floor, falling, and they’ve tried to rectify this matter
by treating the floor.” Id. at 61. Appellant explained that the floor was made
of ceramic tile. Id. at 62.
Appellee Hotel’s insurance claim file, which it produced in discovery, is
consistent with Appellant’s recollection of her conversation with the hotel
manager. The file includes several claims notes demonstrating that another
patron had fallen near the same hot tub six months earlier. Three particular
-4-
J-A07016-21
notes related that “there is a similar claim where a guest is getting out of the
hot tub and slips and fall[s]. [Date of loss]: 11-30-12[,]” “the area of the hot
tub . . . is the same as it was back in November when another guest had fallen
almost in the exact same area[,]” and “a similar claim [occurred] in Nov 2012.
According to the insured the area of both accident[s] is the same and nothing
changed[.]” Claim File Notes, dated 5/24/13, 6/25/13, and 6/28/13.
Viewed in the light most favorable to Appellant, a jury could reasonably
conclude from the above evidence that Appellee Hotel had actual knowledge
of the issue and, therefore, it should have anticipated that it would cause harm
to Appellant. Thus, a question of fact exists regarding Appellee Hotel’s
potential duty to Appellant under Section 343A. As a result, the trial court
erred by granting summary judgment in Appellee Hotel’s favor.
Order reversed. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/23/2021
-5-