Legal Opinion · Dissent

Reinoso, G. v. Heritage Warminster SPE

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 14, 2015No. 3174 EDA 2012Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

OTT, J.:

Because I do not believe the trial court committed an error in granting summary judgment1 by determining the 5/8 inch misalignment between sidewalk blocks was, as a matter of law, a trivial defect, I respectfully dissent.

The standard used to evaluate the nature .of a defect has been succinctly set forth as follows:

What constitutes a defect sufficient to render the property owner liable must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the particular case, and ‘except where the defect is obviously trivial, that question must be submitted to the jury’. Aloia…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Charlie, A. v. Erie Insurance ExchangeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  2. German v. McKeesport City (Et Al.)Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  3. Mull v. IckesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  4. Bosack v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  5. Breskin v. 535 Fifth AvenueSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API