HARRISBURG – A panel of judges from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania ruled that a Westmoreland County court was correct when it granted summary judgment to a property management company that it found was not responsible for injuries suffered by one of its tenants.
Superior Court judges Anne E. Lazarus, Megan Sullivan and Dan Pellegrini ruled on Feb. 28 to affirm a decision in favor of defendant Phantom Enterprises, L.P. and others, and against plaintiffs William Lee Clark and Holly Clark.
Pellegrini authored the Court’s opinion in this matter.
On Sept. 5, 2012, a residential lease between Tenants and Landlord commenced for the rent of the “leased property” identified as the single home at 476 Youngstown Ridge Road, Latrobe, Pennsylvania 15650. On Nov. 14, 2014, tenant William Lee Clark slipped and fell on a walkway on their Latrobe side of the driveway of the leased property on “black ice.” As a result, he sustained injuries, including a fractured femur that required surgery.
On Nov. 10, 2016, the tenants filed a complaint against Landlord alleging negligence and breach of contract contending that the lack of gutters on the property caused the black ice on which he fell. Landlord responded that the black ice was the defective condition, not the lack of gutters, and as landlord out of possession, it had no duty to Tenants to remove and treat the area for potential black ice.
After the pleadings were closed, Landlord filed a motion for summary judgment relying on the following evidence educed through discovery: The residential lease entitled Tenants to possession of the residence, while a portion of the property with a garage remained in the possession of Landlord for business use. The residence was located on the left side (Latrobe side) of the driveway from the garage, and to the right of the garage was the Ligonier side of the driveway.
The residential lease did not specify who retained control over roof and/or gutter repairs on the residence, which was a round structure. Paragraph 13 of the residential lease provided that Landlord was not liable for any injury to any person while on the leased property.
Landlord agreed to keep the “electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating, and all other services” in good repair and working order and, if any of the identified items were not kept in such condition, Tenants were to notify Landlord in writing.
Tenants also agreed not to paint the walls of the leased property a different color, install a border or wallpaper or install ceiling tiles or other objects that would require drilling into floors, doors or ceilings.
“After oral argument on the motion for summary judgment, the trial court gave the parties the opportunity to submit additional briefs in support of their positions, which they did. Landlord argued that it did not have a duty to tenants because it was a landlord out of possession with no responsibility for snow removal and salting in the area where William Lee Clark fell,” Pellegrini said.
“In response, tenants argued that there was an issue of fact as to whether Landlord was in or out of possession and as to whether the defective condition, i.e., the lack of gutters, created a dangerous condition by interfering with the water runoff on the leased property. After a review of the record and counsel’s arguments, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Landlord. Tenants timely appealed and complied with Rule 1925(b) by filing a statement of errors on appeal.”
“On appeal, Tenants first argue that the trial court erred in granting Landlord’s motion for summary judgment because there was a genuine issue of material fact about whether they were business invitees whom Landlord owed an increased duty of care,” Pellegrini said.
“Tenants’ bald claim that they were business invitees because Landlord’s business was leasing property lacks merit where they possessed the leased property pursuant to a lease agreement. Instead, Landlord’s duty to Tenants was pursuant to landlord-tenant law.”
Pellegrini added that trial testimony was “undisputed that Tenants were aware of the lack of gutters before they signed the residential lease and discussed it with Landlord Mike Rossi during one of Tenants’ inspections of the property” – and that “based on the general rule of liability, even assuming the lack of gutters was a defect, Landlord was not liable to Tenants because Tenants were aware of it before signing the residential lease.”
“Tenants argue, however, that there is a genuine issues of material fact about whether Landlord, even if out of possession, maintained limited possession and control over the premises and whether it exercised reasonable care to discover the hazardous condition caused by the lack of gutters. They maintain that the court improperly made inferences from the facts in a light most favorable to Landlord by finding that it would have been reasonable to argue that Tenants should have known that the lack of gutters could have caused the pooling water and ice,” Pellegrini said.
“Here, there is nothing in the residential lease granting Landlord limited possession and control of the roof, including any gutter system. We are not persuaded by Tenants’ argument that Paragraphs 11 and 18 of the residential lease led to the reasonable inference that Landlord possessed and controlled the gutters. Section 11 prohibits Tenants from making certain changes inside the residence, and Section 18 directs that Landlord shall ‘keep the electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating and other services’ in good repair. This language is clear and specific, omitting any mention of the care of the residence’s roof.”
Pellegrini and his colleagues found there “was no evidence that he reported to Landlord that ice on Tenants’ walkway was being caused by the lack of gutters.”
“In summary, as properly found by the trial court, even if the lack of gutters was a defect, Landlord had no obligation to repair it where there was no contractual agreement that it do so, and Tenants were aware that there were no gutters at the time of entering the residential lease,” Pellegrini concluded.
“Moreover, even if Landlord had a duty to Tenants to control the roof run-off because they maintained limited possession and control of the roof, it had no actual or constructive notice that a dangerous condition had been caused due to the lack of gutters. For all these reasons, we conclude that the trial court properly found that Landlord did not violate a duty to Tenants and could not be negligent as a matter of law.”
Superior Court of Pennsylvania case 777 WDA 2021
Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas case 4955 of 2016
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com