Mears v. Saidi (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A01014-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 FRANK MEARS, Appellee v. HASSOUNA SAIDI AND KIMBERLY SAIDI, Appellants : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 2761 EDA 2011 Appeal from the Judgment entered August 29, 2011, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, at No: 002169 Feb. Term 2009 FRANK MEARS, Appellee v. KIMBERLY SAIDI, Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 2762 EDA 2011 Appeal from the Judgment entered August 29, 2011, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, at No: 002169 Feb. Term 2009 BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OTT, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.* MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: Filed: March 13, 2013 In these consolidated appeals, Hassouna Saidi and Kimberly Saidi (collectively, the Saidis) appeal from the judgment entered on August 29, 2011, following a jury verdict in favor of Frank Mears and against the Saidis in this slip-and-fall case. We affirm. *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A01014-13 Succinctly, the facts of the case are as follows. On February 18, 2007, Mears slipped and fell on ice and snow covering the sidewalk in front of property owned by Mrs. Saidi, suffering serious injuries to his shoulder and wrist. Mears sued Mrs. Saidi, who testified at her deposition that Mr. Saidi was responsible for the snow removal at the property in question. Mears filed another action naming both Saidis as defendants. After a two-day trial of the consolidated cases, a jury returned a $175,000 verdict in favor of Mears, finding Mrs. Saidi 60% responsible and Mr. Saidi 40% responsible. The Saidis filed post-trial motions which were denied by order of August 29, 2011, which also entered judgment in favor of Mears at both docket numbers. The Saidis filed timely notices of appeal at each docket number, and both the Saidis and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. This court consolidated the two appeals sua sponte. The Saidis present the following questions for our review, which we have re-ordered to correspond with the trial court s opinion.1 [A.] Was there evidence of significant elevations or the size and character of snow and ice? [B.] Was it error to allow a new factual theory barred by the statute of limitations? [C.] Did [Mears] prove choice of way? 1 The Saidis raised two additional issues in their 1925(b) statement, addressed by the trial court at parts D and I of its opinion, which they have abandoned on appeal. -2- J-A01014-13 [E.] Was it error to allow a new factual theory barred by the statute of limitations? [F.] Does Restatement 2nd Torts ยง324A create spousal liability? [G.] Was it error to allow testifier to opine on causation? [H.] Was administrative finding [that Mears was] able to engage in light duty work relevant? [J.] Was it error to enter a duplicate judgment at separate dockets on a single jury verdict? Saidis Brief at 3 (trial court answers omitted). Following our review of the certified record, the briefs for the parties, and the relevant law, we conclude that the opinion of the Honorable Patricia A. McInerney thoroughly and correctly addresses and disposes of the Saidis issues and supporting arguments. Accordingly, we adopt the trial court s opinion of December 19, 2011 as our own, and affirm the court s disposition of the Saidis issues on the basis of that opinion. The parties shall attach a copy of the trial court s December 19, 2011 opinion in the event of further proceedings. Judgment affirmed. -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
