Janik, M. v. Zoological Society of Philadelphia
2025 PA Super 90 (2025)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a premises liability action, the question of whether a dangerous condition is open and obvious is generally a question of fact for the jury. A trial court's failure to provide a jury instruction on this doctrine, when evidence of the condition's obviousness has been presented, constitutes an error of law that can warrant a new trial.
Facts:
- On April 17, 2021, Michael Janik was a visitor at the Philadelphia Zoo's Big Cat Falls exhibit.
- A large decorative boulder, measuring approximately 3 feet by 2 feet, was situated adjacent to the pedestrian walkway in the exhibit.
- The exhibit area contained potential distractions, such as an animal walkway located above the pedestrian path.
- While walking, Janik's left foot struck the bottom of the decorative boulder.
- Janik fell as a result of the impact, sustaining a fracture in his right arm that required surgery.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Janik filed a negligence complaint against the Philadelphia Zoo in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court).
- The Zoo filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial, where the jury returned a verdict in favor of Janik, finding the Zoo negligent and awarding damages.
- The Zoo filed a post-trial motion seeking a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, a new trial.
- The trial court granted the Zoo's motion and ordered a new trial, concluding it had made errors during the trial.
- Janik, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order granting a new trial to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the question of whether a dangerous condition is 'open and obvious' a question of fact for the jury, thereby requiring a jury instruction on the doctrine when evidence has been presented, even if the plaintiff testifies he was unaware of the condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Panella, P.J.E.
Yes, the question of whether a danger is 'open and obvious' is a question of fact for the jury. The court held that because evidence was presented from which a jury could conclude the boulder was an open and obvious condition, the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the relevant legal standard. The 'open and obvious' doctrine applies an objective standard based on what a 'reasonable man' would recognize, not the plaintiff's subjective knowledge. Janik's testimony that he was unaware of the boulder does not preclude the application of the doctrine. Given the evidence presented—including photographs of the large boulder and the presence of potential distractions—it was a question for the jury to resolve whether a reasonable person would have recognized the danger. The trial court's failure to provide this instruction, combined with its error in excluding relevant architectural plans, had the potential to confuse the jury and therefore justified its own decision to grant a new trial.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that the open and obvious doctrine is typically a factual issue reserved for the jury, not a legal question for the court to decide, particularly when evidence of potential distractions exists. The ruling clarifies that the test for obviousness is objective (what a reasonable person would perceive) rather than subjective (what the specific plaintiff perceived). By affirming the grant of a new trial, the court underscores the importance of proper jury instructions to prevent juror confusion and ensures that defendants can present a complete defense based on established tort principles. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to defeat the open and obvious defense simply by testifying that they did not see the hazard.
