Castaldi, D. v. Light Acadia 11-89, LLC (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-A11012-17 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 DINA CASTALDI, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. LIGHT ACADIA 11-89, LLC, GRASS WORKS LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT, INC., SNOW MANAGEMENT, INC., Appellees No. 1441 MDA 2016 Appeal from the Order Entered August 3, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Civil Division at No(s): 13 CV 6327 BEFORE: SHOGAN and MOULTON, JJ., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED JULY 24, 2017 Appellant, Dina Castaldi (“Castaldi”), appeals from the order entered on August 3, 2016, in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas that granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees, Light Acadia 11-89, LLC (“Light Acadia”), and Grass Works Landscape Management, Inc. and Snow Management, Inc. (collectively “Grass Works”). We affirm. The facts underlying this case were set forth by the trial court as follows: [Castaldi] initiated this action after sustaining injuries from a slip and fall incident which occurred on January 17, 2012 at ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A11012-17 3370 Birney Avenue, Moosic, Pennsylvania, 18507. Located at 3370 is a shopping center owned by [Light Acadia]. At that time, [Castaldi] was a registered student at Empire Beauty School in Moosic, Pennsylvania. Empire Beauty School operates a site within the shopping center owned by … Light Acadia. [Castaldi] contends that because of this she was a business invitee on the premises owned by … Light Acadia. [Castaldi] parked her car in a spot within the shopping center at approximately 9:00 a.m. on the morning of January 17, 2012. As she walked across the parking lot [Castaldi] slipped and fell on an alleged patch of ice in the parking lot. As a result of this fall, [Castaldi] sustained injuries which she claims are a result of negligence [by] Light Acadia. Light Acadia filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on April 25, 2016. Oral argument on the motion took place before the Honorable Senior Judge Peter O’Brien on July 6, 2016. At the time of the incident in question, [Grass Works was] retained to perform all ice and snow removal on the premises and make sure the premises was kept in a safe manner for pedestrians. Since snow and ice removal fell within the job description of Grass [W]orks, [Castaldi] alleges her sustained injuries were a result of negligence on the part of Grass Works. Grass Works filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on April 13, 2016. Oral [argument] on the motion took place before the Honorable Senior Judge Peter O’Brien on July 6, 2016. Trial Court Opinion, 8/3/16, at 1-2. On August 3, 2016, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Light Acadia and Grass Works, with prejudice. Castaldi filed a timely notice of appeal on August 31, 2016. The trial court did not order Castaldi to file a statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On appeal, Castaldi presents the following issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to … Light Acadia and Grass Works where genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the condition causing [Castaldi’s] fall was entirely natural, thereby implicating whether -2- J-A11012-17 the hills and ridges doctrine applies in this case, and where genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether snow and ice were permitted to remain in the parking lot for such time as to allow hills and ridges to develop? 2. Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to … Light Acadia where genuine issues of material fact exist as to an out of possession landlord still being liable for injuries sustained on the premises? Castaldi’s Brief at 5-6. In reviewing an appeal from an order granting summary judgment, we are guided by the following well-established principles: Our scope of review of an order granting summary judgment is plenary. We apply the same standard as the trial court, reviewing all the evidence of record to determine whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact. We view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Chenot v. A.P. Green Services, Inc., 895 A.2d 55, 60-61 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted). Motions for summary judgment implicate the plaintiff’s proof of the elements of his cause of action. Chenot, 895 A.2d at 61 (citation omitted). Summary judgment is proper “if, after the completion of discovery relevant to the motion, including the production of expert reports, an adverse party who will bear the burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the cause of action or defense which in a jury trial would require the issues to be submitted to a jury.” Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2(2). In other words, “whenever there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a necessary element of the cause of action or defense which could be established by additional discovery or expert report,” Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2(1), and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment is appropriate. Thus, a record that supports summary judgment either (1) shows the material facts are undisputed or (2) contains insufficient evidence of facts to make out a prima facie cause of action or defense. Chenot, 895 A.2d at 61. -3- J-A11012-17 When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we are not bound by the trial court’s conclusions of law, but may reach our own conclusions. Id. We will disturb the trial court’s order only upon an error of law or an abuse of discretion. “Judicial discretion requires action in conformity with law on facts and circumstances before the trial court after hearing and consideration.” Chenot, 895 A.2d at 61 (citation omitted). Consequently, the court abuses its discretion if, in resolving the issue for decision, it misapplies the law, exercises its discretion in a manner lacking reason, or does not follow legal procedure. Id. (citation omitted). Where the discretion exercised by the trial court is challenged on appeal, the party bringing the challenge bears a heavy burden. It is not sufficient to persuade the appellate court that it might have reached a different conclusion if charged with the duty imposed on the court below; it is necessary to go further and show an abuse of the discretionary power. Chenot, 895 A.2d at 61 (citation omitted). An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will, as shown by the evidence or the record, discretion is abused. Id. at 61-62 (citation omitted). Continental Casualty Company v. Pro Machine, 916 A.2d 1111, 11151116 (Pa. Super. 2007). After a careful review of the parties’ arguments, the certified record, and applicable legal authority, we are satisfied that the trial court’s opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. Accordingly, we affirm the August 3, 2016 order on the basis of -4- J-A11012-17 the trial court’s August 3, 2016 opinion.1 The parties are directed to attach copies of that opinion in the event of future proceedings. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 7/24/2017 ____________________________________________ 1 We note a typo in the trial court opinion. On page 8, the trial court states that “Grass Works has submitted certified weather records showing an ongoing weather event in the area of the shopping center from the night of January 16, 2012 through the morning of January 17, 2017.” Trial Court Opinion, 8/3/16, at 8 (emphasis added). We are satisfied that the trial court intended “January 17, 2017” to read “January 17, 2012,” which was the morning of Castaldi’s fall. -5- Circulated 06/26/2017 02:33 PM

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.