Trial court erred when it failed to review evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff.

This case concerned a fall by the plaintiff at Harrah’s casino in Chester, Pennsylvania, on a torn section of carpeting. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendant on notice grounds since the plaintiff presented no evidence as to how long the carpet had been torn. The Superior Court reversed, finding a genuine issue of material fact existed as to constructive notice of the carpet tear by the defendant. The court held that a carpet tear is not “a transitory condition” but, rather, one with an “inherently sustained duration” so as to give rise to an inference of constructive notice due to the carpet’s durability. While non-precedential, the impact of this case is that the Pennsylvania appellate court appears to disfavor summary judgment on the lack of notice defense in a hospitality setting if the defect can be argued to be “durable” in nature without any evidence as to how recently it manifested. 

^{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}