Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

<p style="text-align: justify;">In<em> <a href="https://www.wcmlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Andre-Abney-v.-American-Expo-Corp..pdf">Andre Abney v. American Expo Corp.</a></em> plaintiff Abney sued defendants American Expo Corp, Suburban Investment Corp. (“Suburban”), and Len Sammons Productions (“Sammons”) (collectively “defendants”) after he tripped over a dolly while walking through his employer’s trailer located on American Expo Corp.’s property.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">American Expo Corp., who leased and operated the expo center, contracted with Sammons to put on a show at the property and Sammons hired plaintiff’s company as independent contractors. Plaintiff alleged that while packing up the trailer, it was too dark for him see and he sustained injuries while in the trailer. All defendants filed motions for summary judgment—Suburban filed separately from the others—and all motions were granted. Plaintiff appeals on the grounds that he was a business invitee and the defendants owed him a duty to protect him from dangerous conditions on the property.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Pennsylvania law states that a land owner is liable for physical harm that he causes a business invitee (visitor) under the following rules: (1) he knows or reasonably could have discovered the condition and knows the condition raises an unreasonable risk of harm to visitors; (2) he should expect that the visitors will not discover the condition or protect themselves from it; and (3) he fails to take reasonable care to protect visitors from the risk. This duty extends to independent contractors. However, there is an exception when the landowner conveys temporary possession of a portion of the property to the independent contractor and there is an obviously dangerous condition on the property.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In this case, the plaintiff knew and testified that it was extremely dark in the trailer. He was able to access the trailer because of the lights set up by American Expo Corp. However, he knew once he entered his employer’s trailer that he could not see his surroundings. He had his cell phone with him and chose not to use the flashlight feature. Ultimately, plaintiff’s problems began when he entered the trailer, which was provided by his own employer. Defendants could not be held liable for a condition that they lacked control over. Additionally, the condition was obvious to the plaintiff. The Court emphasized that plaintiff knew that he was unable to see within the trailer and proceeded to wander around anyway. Therefore, the Superior Court upheld the rulings in favor of summary judgment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Thanks to Gabrielle Outlaw for her contribution to this post. Please email <a href="mailto:VPinto@wcmlaw.com">Vito A. Pinto</a> with any questions.</p>