Summers v. Giant Food Stores, Inc.
Decision Date | 17 December 1999 |
Citation | 743 A.2d 498 |
Parties | Kay SUMMERS, Appellee, v. GIANT FOOD STORES, INC., Hershocks, Inc., and Stanley Magic Door, Inc., a Division of the Stanley Works, Inc., Appellees, v. Microwave Sensors, Inc., Appellee. Appeal of Giant Food Stores, Inc. Kay Summers, Appellant, v. Giant Food Stores, Inc., Hershocks, Inc., and Stanley Magic Door, Inc., a Division of the Stanley Works, Inc., Appellees, v. Microwave Sensors, Inc., Appellee. |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
George B. Faller, Jr., Carlisle, for Giant Food Stores, Inc.
Mark Schwartz, Mechanicsburg, for Summers.
Jonathan F. Ball, Philadelphia, for Stanley.
Before McEWEN, President Judge, and CAVANAUGH, DEL SOLE, JOHNSON, HUDOCK, EAKIN, JOYCE, MUSMANNO, and ORIE MELVIN, JJ. McEWEN, President Judge:
I. PROCEDURAL POSTURE
¶ 1 These consolidated appeals1 have been taken from the order which, following a jury verdict in favor of all defendants, Giant Food Stores, Inc. (hereafter "Giant"), Hershocks, Inc. (hereafter "Hershocks"), and Stanley Magic Door, Inc. (hereafter "Stanley"), granted, in part2, the post-trial motion of the plaintiff, Kay Summers (hereafter "Summers"), and ordered a new trial as to the defendant Giant Food Stores, Inc., only.3 Giant, as appellant in Appeal No. 637 Harrisburg 1997, challenges the award of a new trial against it, while Summers, as appellant in Appeal No. 708 Harrisburg 1997, challenges the denial of her request for a new trial as to defendant Stanley.4 For the reasons set forth hereinafter, we reverse the order which awarded a new trial as to defendant Giant only, and remand for entry of judgment on the verdict of the jury.
II. FACTS
¶ 2 The trial court provided the following summary of the evidence introduced at trial:
1 The testimony did not indicate if the inspector walked through the door with a normal gait or as a person, disabled or elderly, walking slowly leading with a cane.
2 In 1987, the entrance/exit area to the store was remodeled and the doors were reinstalled. The StanRay sensors were misplaced, however, since they were no longer on the market, Hershocks ordered Microwave's product. Microwave is not a party to this suit, having settled with plaintiff prior to trial.
3 This testimony was creible. Plaintiff attempted to minimize her handicap: not uncommon for disabled people with self-pride and determination.
Plaintiff elicited testimony regarding the occurrence of seven substantially similar automatic door closings on Giant customers in its various stores involving the elderly or handicapped, and in one case, the very young.4
4 During an evidentiary hearing, following numerous motions, volumes of accident reports involving automatic door closings on Giant customers in the surrounding geographical area were received. Seven were determined to be substantially similar.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. United States Mineral Products Co.
...186 (1997). Causation involves two separate and distinct concepts, cause in fact and legal (or proximate) cause. Summers v. Giant Food Stores, Inc., 743 A.2d 498 (Pa.Super.1999),petition for allowance of appeal denied, 564 Pa. 713, 764 A.2d 1071 (2001). Cause in fact or "but for" causation ......
-
Fulgham v. Daniel J. Keating Co.
...(3) that he was injured; and (4) that his injuries were proximately caused by the breach of that duty. Summers v. Giant Food Stores, Inc., 743 A.2d 498, 504 (Pa.Super.1999); Martin v. Evans, FORC Co., 551 Pa. 496, 502, 711 A.2d 458, 461 (Pa.1998). Absent a duty owed by the defendant to the ......
-
Hamilton v. Emerson Elec. Co., 4:00-CV-00068.
...(2) that the defect existed when it left the hands of the defendant; and (3) that the defect caused the harm. Summers v. Giant Food Stores, Inc., 743 A.2d 498, 508 (Pa.Super.1999) (citing Riley v. Warren Manufacturing Inc., 455 Pa.Super. 384, 688 A.2d 221, 224 (1997)). "There are three diff......
-
Corrigan v. Methodist Hosp., CIV.A. 94-CV-1478.
...breach of that duty and the resulting injury, and actual loss or damage suffered by the complainants. Summers v. Giant Food Stores, Inc., 743 A.2d 498, 509 (Pa.Super.1999), citing Reilly v. Tiergarten, Inc., 430 Pa.Super. 10, 633 A.2d 208, 210 (1993). See Also: Ellis v. Sherman, 512 Pa. 14,......