MICHAEL M. BAYLSON, District Judge.
In this premises-liability negligence action, defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. ("Defendant" or "Home Depot") moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff William Roy Johnson, Jr.'s ("Mr. Johnson" or "Plaintiff") personal injury claim stemming from an incident in which Mr. Johnson, shopping for a closet wardrobe (the "Closetmaid") at a Home Depot store, dropped the Closetmaid box on his foot while attempting to move it from the shelf to his cart.
Defendant argues that it did not breach its duty of care to Plaintiff because there was ample warning of the Closetmaid box's weight on its label. Defendant also argues that even if it breached its duty of care to Plaintiff, this breach did not cause Plaintiff's injuries because Plaintiff would have ignored a more adequate warning. In the alternative, Defendant contends that Plaintiff knowingly encountered the obvious dangers of lifting the Closetmaid by himself under the assumption of risk doctrine, and, accordingly, that Plaintiff should be precluded from recovery.
In response, Plaintiff argues that Defendant breached its duty of care to Plaintiff because it did not include adequate warning of the Closetmaid box's weight, contrary to its own safety standards. This failure to warn caused Plaintiff's injuries, because had Plaintiff been properly warned of the product's weight, he would have adjusted the manner in which he lifted it. Plaintiff also contends that the assumption of risk doctrine is inapplicable because the Closetmaid's dangers were not known and obvious.
The Court concludes that there are disputes of material fact and will deny Home Depot's motion for summary judgment.
Upon arriving at the cabinet aisle, Mr. Johnson saw a "2 Door Wardrobe Cabinet — Closetmaid," which he decided to purchase. (
Mr. Johnson did not notice the product's weight on its box. (Pl.'s Aff. ¶ 6). Mr. Johnson did not look for the product's weight on its box, and generally does not look for weights on boxes. (Johnson Dep. at 51:8-12, 52:11-12). Without knowing the box's weight, Mr. Johnson began to slide it off the shelf until one end was resting on his cart. (
Following his injuries, Mr. Johnson brought the instant premises-liability negligence claim against Home Depot.
The parties dispute whether Defendant looked at the side of the Closetmaid prior to moving it. Defendant contends that Plaintiff did not look at the side of the Closetmaid facing the public, with the warning label and weight, because Mr. Johnson testified that he did not look to see if any signs or emblems were there. (Johnson Dep. at 95:3-18). Plaintiff contends that he did look at the display prior to moving the Closetmaid, but did not notice the weight label. (Pl.'s Aff. ¶¶ 5-6).
The parties also dispute whether the label indicating the box's weight was clearly visible to the public. Defendant contends that the box's weight label was clearly visible to the public because the label was outward-facing (Pentangelo Dep.at 47:6-12), and Plaintiff's girlfriend acknowledged she "could see on the side of the box that it had the weight"(ECF 18-1, Ex. L, ("Sypniewski Dep.") at 74:6-7). Plaintiff contends that the weight label was not clearly visible to the public because the label was very small and did not satisfy Home Depot's own warning standards. (Label 2;
Finally, the parties dispute whether Plaintiff could explain why the Closetmaid box slipped. Defendant contends Plaintiff did not know why it slipped. (Johnson Dep. at 98:5-10). Plaintiff contends he believes it slipped because he was not aware that the product weighed 125 lbs; if Mr. Johnson had known it weighed 125 lbs, he would have lifted it differently and avoided harm. (Pl.'s Aff. ¶¶ 9-10). While Defendant notes that Mr. Johnson testified that he could lift the box himself, Mr. Johnson contends that he meant the 125 lb box was not too heavy for him to lift himself if he expected that amount of weight and could prepare for it. (Johnson Dep. 98:17-20).
On October 14, 2015, Mr. Johnson filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, alleging negligence. (ECF 1, ("Notice of Removal") ¶ 4). On February 9, 2016, Home Depot removed the action to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 based on diversity of citizenship. (Notice of Removal ¶ 12). On June 29, 2016, Home Depot moved for summary judgment. (ECF 17). Mr. Johnson opposed Defendant's motion on July 12, 2016. (ECF 2)). Home Depot replied in further support of its motion on July 14, 2016. (ECF 21).
A district court shall grant a motion for summary judgment if the movant can show "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute is "genuine' . . . if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party."
Defendant argues that there are three reasons to grant summary judgment in its favor on Plaintiff's negligence claim: (1) there was adequate warning of the Closetmaid box's weight on its label, (2) even if there were an "Ask for Assistance" sticker or other additional warning, Plaintiff would have proceeded to lift the box himself anyway, and (3) Plaintiff was aware there were dangers in lifting the Closetmaid by himself, but he nonetheless proceeded. The parties do not dispute that Pennsylvania law applies to this diversity action.
To sustain a negligence claim under Pennsylvania law, the plaintiff must demonstrate:
The parties do not dispute that Plaintiff has met the first and fourth elements in his negligence claim; Plaintiff is a business invitee owed a duty of protection from foreseeable harm and has suffered an injury.
To prevail on a premises-liability negligence claim, the plaintiff must show that the defendant has breached its duty to the plaintiff.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343;
"It is a general rule that a possessor of land has a duty (1) to use reasonable care to make the premises safe for the use of persons invited to use the premises for business or (2) to give them adequate and timely warning of dangers known to him but unknown to the business invitees."
Here, the parties dispute whether Defendant gave adequate warning of the Closetmaid's dangers. To determine whether a warning is adequate, courts consider "both the expected efficacy of the warning and the availability of more effective alternate precautions."
The following evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff as the non-moving party, shows disputes of material fact as to the adequacy of Home Depot's warning.
Home Depot argues that its failure to follow internal procedures is not "conclusive evidence" it breached its duty of care to Mr. Johnson. (ECF 17-3 at 3). Though it may not decide the issue conclusively, that Home Depot failed to adhere to its own safety standards (ECF 18-1, Ex. K at 2) is sufficient to have the issue of breach brought before a jury. Thus, in light of these disputes of material fact regarding whether Defendant breached its duty to Plaintiff, summary judgment is not warranted as to Plaintiff's negligence claim.
Second, Defendant claims that summary judgment should also be granted because there is no causal connection between its conduct and the injury; Plaintiff would have attempted to lift the box himself even with a more adequate warning. To demonstrate a causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury, the plaintiff must show that the defendant's alleged misconduct was "a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff's harm."
Under Pennsylvania law, a court considers the following factor in determining whether the actor's conduct is a "substantial factor" in bringing about the harm:
"The defendant's negligent conduct may not, however, be found to be a substantial cause where the plaintiff's injury would have been sustained even in the absence of the actor's negligence."
The question of causation "should not be taken from the jury if the jury may reasonably differ as to whether the conduct of the defendant has been a substantial factor in causing the harm."
Here, it is disputed whether any negligent conduct that may be attributed to Defendant was a substantial factor in bringing about Plaintiff's injuries. The following evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff as the non-moving party, shows disputes of material fact over whether Plaintiff would have sustained the injuries had there been a more adequate warning.
In light of these disputes of material fact, summary judgment is not warranted as to whether Defendant's alleged breach caused Plaintiff's harm.
In the alternative, Defendant claims that summary judgment should be granted because even if an inadequate warning caused Plaintiff's injuries, Plaintiff assumed the risk of the Closetmaid's dangerous weight by proceeding to lift it himself. Under Pennsylvania law, a possessor of land has no duty to protect a business invitee against a known and obvious danger.
"[A] plaintiff will not be precluded from recovering except where it is beyond question that he voluntarily and knowingly proceeded in the face of an obvious and dangerous condition."
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has found that the fact that plaintiffs could have seen evidence of a dangerous condition had they looked for it does not give them knowledge of the dangerous condition as a matter of law.
Here, it is disputed whether Plaintiff knowingly proceeded in the face of the Closetmaid's obvious and dangerous condition. Defendant contends the box's dangerous weight was known and obvious because Plaintiff had already slid the Closetmaid far enough out of the shelf to rest it on top of the cart. Thus, he was aware of the Closetmaid's weight before dropping it on his foot. Defendant also argues that the size of the box as well as its marked weight of 125 pounds made the box's danger known and obvious. However, the following evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff as the non-moving party, shows disputes of material fact over whether the Plaintiff knowingly encountered an obvious danger.
In light of these disputes of material fact, summary judgment is not warranted as to whether Plaintiff assumed the risk of the lifting the Closetmaid himself.
Because there are disputes of material fact regarding Plaintiff's negligence claim and the application of the assumption of risk doctrine, the Court will deny Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
An appropriate Order follows.
