HARRISBURG – A panel trio of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld the trial court denial of summary judgment to Home Depot, in a case where an employee was bitten by a dog brought into a store by a customer.
Superior Court judges Mary P. Murray, Megan McCarthy King and John L. Musmanno affirmed the denial of summary judgment to defendants Home Depot and store managers Philip Rogers and Thomas Mason on Sept. 24, in litigation initiated by plaintiff Lindsay Franczyk.
Franczyk first filed suit on Aug. 8, 2018, in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, alleging the defendants failed to maintain a safe work environment.
Franczyk alleged that on Dec. 9, 2016, she was working at Home Depot’s Ohio Township store when she was bitten by a dog brought in by a customer. She allegedly suffered severe and extreme pain to her right elbow, forearm and hand, and was diagnosed with cubital tunnel syndrome.
The plaintiff holds Home Depot, Rogers and Mason responsible, because despite posting a store policy prohibiting customers from bringing pets inside the store, the defendants allowed them to do so and permitted the dog owner to leave without obtaining any identifying information.
Franczyk claimed that neither Rogers nor Mason offered her an opportunity to seek medical treatment and informed her that if she did not report for work in two days for her next shift, she would cost the store $130,000.
The defendants filed for summary judgment in December 2019 based on 77 P.S. Section 481(a), which provides that workers compensation is the sole relief available against any employer for a work-related injury sustained by an employee.
The trial court denied that summary judgment motion on May 15, 2020, leading the defendants to appeal to the Superior Court.
In its view, the trial court said that the defendants cannot fail to obtain any identifying information from the third party, and then turn around and tell Franczyk that her only other remedy in this case is against that third party who she has no way to identify.
The trial court added that at a minimum, there exists a genuine question as to whether the failure to obtain that information rises to the level of negligence and summary judgment is inappropriate.
On appeal, the Superior Court agreed and said that because the defendants prevented the plaintiff from obtaining information to seek legal recourse, they cannot then turn around and expect protection from the Workers Compensation Act.
“Appellee alleged that after the dog bite, she reported the incident to her direct supervisor, and then to appellants Mason and Rogers, who were managers of the store. Although appellants Mason and Rogers spoke to both the owner of the dog who bit appellee and the customer who witnessed the dog bite, they permitted both customers to leave the store without obtaining any of their identifying information. These actions effectively stripped appellee of her ability to file a claim against the third-party dog owner, as contemplated by our legislature in Section 481(b),” King said.
“Appellee insists that her negligence claim against appellants is not based on the actual dog bite, but on appellants’ interference with her right to commence an action against the third-party tortfeasor. We agree with the trial court that appellants are estopped from claiming immunity under the WCA when they are responsible for appellee’s inability to seek redress from the wrongdoer. On this record, we cannot say that the trial court committed an error of law or abused its discretion in denying appellants’ motion for summary judgment.”
Superior Court of Pennsylvania case 1090 WDA 2020
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-18-010285
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com