Pennsylvania Court Affirms Dismissal of Roofer’s Injury Claim Over Ladder Accident

In a recent decision, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld the dismissal of a roofer’s negligence lawsuit, ruling that the alleged danger posed by an improperly placed ladder was “open and obvious.” The plaintiff claimed he was injured when the ladder provided by the defendant’s son slipped from an unstable position. However, the court found no duty on the part of the defendant to warn the plaintiff of the hazard, affirming the trial court’s decision to dismiss the case.

The plaintiff was retained by the defendant to perform work on the roof of a home owned by the defendant. Prior to the plaintiff’s arrival, the defendant’s son placed a 20-foot aluminum extension ladder on the premises for the plaintiff to use. It was alleged that the ladder was placed on an unstable wooden block and against an unstable part of the roof. As the plaintiff was in the process of descending the ladder, he claimed that the ladder “kicked out” from under him, causing him to fall and sustain injuries. 

The defendant filed preliminary objections to the plaintiff’s complaint, arguing that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to sustain a negligence cause of action. The trial court granted the preliminary objections, and the plaintiff appealed. 

One of the issues the plaintiff presented on appeal was whether the hazard of the ladder was open and obvious.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that “reasonable minds could not differ as to the conclusion that the positioning of a ladder on an unstable piece of wood to be used to ascend to a building roof presents a potential condition that is both open and obvious.” The court found “[t]his is especially true as to [the plaintiff], a person contracted to perform roof work whose task at the house necessarily entailed utilizing a ladder to perform his duties.” 

The Superior Court also held that the alleged facts failed to demonstrate that the defendant had a duty to warn the plaintiff “as to any dangerous condition arising from the position of the ladder.” 

The court ruled that the trial court did not err in sustaining the preliminary objections and dismissing the amended complaint.  

_{Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey 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 © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}