Alloway, C. v. The Franklin Institute

Citation: Not availableDocket: 2840 EDA 2016

Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania; September 8, 2017; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Christina Alloway appealed the August 11, 2016 summary judgment order favoring The Franklin Institute, following her ankle injury sustained in August 2014 while exiting the 'Neural Climb' attraction at the museum. Alloway alleged that her fall was caused by stepping onto an uneven surface, resulting from the museum's negligent design and maintenance of the exhibit, as well as its failure to warn patrons of the hazardous condition. After Alloway filed a complaint in August 2015 and the parties completed discovery, The Franklin Institute sought summary judgment on June 30, 2016, which the trial court granted on August 16, 2016. On appeal, Alloway argued that genuine issues of material fact existed, warranting reversal. The appellate court emphasized that it could only overturn the trial court's decision if an error of law or abuse of discretion was established. It reviewed the summary judgment standard, noting that for judgment to be entered, no genuine issue of material fact must exist and the moving party must be entitled to relief as a matter of law. The court reiterated the landowner's duty to maintain safe premises for business invitees and highlighted the varying standards of care based on the status of the entrant. The appellate court ultimately decided to reverse the trial court's decision and remand for further proceedings.

Possessors of land are obligated to protect invitees from foreseeable harm, as established in Carrender and the Restatement (Second) of Torts, sections 341A, 343, and 343A. Liability arises when a possessor is aware or should reasonably discover a hazardous condition that poses an unreasonable risk to invitees, and fails to take adequate precautions against it. A possessor is not liable for known or obvious dangers unless they could foresee harm despite the invitee's awareness. The concept of "known" includes both recognition of the danger and an understanding of its potential severity. The duty owed to business invitees is particularly stringent, requiring landowners to take reasonable steps to ensure safety and inform invitees of any risks.

The trial court's determination of potential liability for The Franklin Institute depends on whether a latent defect, which the landowner should have known about, existed. The court found that Alloway did not provide sufficient technical evidence to substantiate claims of hazardous conditions, leading to a conclusion that no legal defect was present. Despite testimony from Mark Harmon, a representative of The Franklin Institute, acknowledging unevenness in the exhibit floor, he asserted that the overall ground was generally even. Alloway described the exhibit as poorly lit with uneven foam flooring, asserting that her fall was due to this unevenness. The court's decision to dismiss claims as a matter of law is contested by Alloway, who argues that her evidence merits examination by a fact-finder.

The Franklin Institute's motion for summary judgment was supported by a diagram depicting a 1¼ inch slant on the step where Alloway fell, and testimony from Harmon indicating there were no safety or warning signs for the Neural Climb exhibit. Harmon acknowledged the presence of slight slants and agreed that some areas of the exhibit were unlevel. The court found sufficient evidence that could suggest The Franklin Institute knew or should have known about the defect. The trial court's conclusion that any defect did not present an unreasonable danger was challenged, as the determination of danger's reasonableness is typically for a fact-finder. The court noted that while the slant may seem trivial, such assessments should also be left to a fact-finder. The trial court posited that the name "Neural Climb" and Alloway's prior experience with the exhibit implied a reasonable patron would be cautious. However, Alloway contended that the step appeared normal, and she was unaware of the unevenness. The court concluded that Alloway's potential comparative negligence is also a matter for fact-finding. Given the evidence that could support a verdict for Alloway, the court ruled that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for The Franklin Institute and reversed the order, remanding the case for further proceedings.