The Pennsylvania Superior Court has reversed a trial court decision granting summary judgment for the defense in a sidewalk defect case, after determining that the trial court erroneously held as a matter of law that the defect in question was “trivial.” Reinoso v. Warminster Heritage concerned an accident at a shopping center in which the plaintiff tripped and fell on a raised piece of sidewalk, resulting in a broken left hand and fractured ribs. The plaintiff’s expert engineer/architect determined that there was a differnce of 5/8 of an inch between sidewalk sections in the area where the plaintiff fell. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant, based upon its determination that the sidewalk defect was “trivial” and was not “unreasonably unsafe.”

​The Superior Court began its analysis by noting that under Pennsylvania law, a landowner is under an affirmative duty to protect business visitors against both known dangers and dangers that might be discovered with reasonable care. While noting that the trial court correctly determined that the height difference between the sections of sidewalk was undisputed, the Court observed that the trial court’s opinion failed to consider several facts presented by the plaintiff. These included an expert opinion that the sidewalk defect was in excess of the 1/4 inch standard for a tripping hazard, as well as evidence that the defect violated several applicable codes and standards. In addition, the owner of the corporation maintaining the sidewalks testified at a deposition that he believed the defect to be a tripping hazard, and had brought the defect to the attention of the management company.

​The Court acknowledged that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that some sidewalk defects may be so trivial that a court is bound to hold as a matter of law that it was not negligent to allow such defects to exist. However, as the Reinoso court emphasized, courts have held that the triviality of a defect is not determined by its precise measurements. Courts have also recognized that the question of whether a sidewalk defect is trivial should be submitted to a jury when there are genuine issues of material fact based on the surrounding circumstances.

​The Court found that in light of the heightened duty to the plaintiff as an invitee, expert testimony that the height differential exceeds safety standards, and the testimony of the maintenance company owner that he reported the defect as a tripping hazard, the plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to establish genuine issues of material fact. The Court therefore reversed the trial court order granting summary judgment for the defendant and remanded the matter.

​As Reinoso reflects, it may quite challenging for Pennsylvania defendants to obtain summary judgment in sidewalk defect cases, even if the defect at issue is relatively insignificant. The determination of whether a sidewalk defect should give rise to liability under Pennsylvania law will rarely be clear-cut, but will often require a fact-intensive analysis. Even when sidewalk defects are minor, defending subsequent litigation may be far from simple.