Pastuszek v. Murphy Plywood Corp.
219 Pa. Super. 59, 280 A.2d 644, 1971 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1335 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A business owner owes a high duty of care to keep the premises reasonably safe for a business invitee. An invitee whose attention is legitimately focused on merchandise is not contributorily negligent as a matter of law for failing to observe a latent hazard, and evidence of such an injury is sufficient to present a prima facie case of negligence to a jury.
Facts:
- Harry Pastussek, Sr. was invited to a warehouse owned by Tacony Industrial Storage Company to inspect plywood sold by Murphy Plywood Company, a lessee.
- An officer from Murphy Plywood, Mr. Murphy, accompanied Pastussek to the plywood section.
- Mr. Murphy had to leave to answer a telephone call and instructed Pastussek to continue inspecting and counting the plywood on his own.
- While engaged in counting the plywood, Pastussek's attention was focused on the merchandise.
- He fell into a manhole located in a poorly lit aisleway.
- The manhole was not securely covered.
- Pastussek did not see the manhole cover until after he had fallen into it.
Procedural Posture:
- Harry Pastussek, Sr. sued Tacony Industrial Storage Company and other lessees in a state trial court for negligence.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case at trial, the defendants moved for a directed verdict.
- The trial court judge granted the motion for a directed verdict for the defendants.
- Pastussek, the plaintiff, filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court dismissed.
- Pastussek, as appellant, appealed the dismissal of his motion 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:
Does a plaintiff business invitee, who falls into an improperly covered manhole while his attention is focused on inspecting merchandise, present a sufficient prima facie case of negligence and avoid a finding of contributory negligence as a matter of law, such that the case must be submitted to a jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Watkins, J.
Yes. A plaintiff business invitee who is injured by a hazard while distracted by merchandise presents a sufficient case to be heard by a jury. First, the plaintiff established a prima facie case of negligence because a business owes an affirmative duty to an invitee to keep its premises reasonably safe, and the mere existence of a potential hazard like a manhole is sufficient to establish constructive notice of the defect. It is a reasonable inference for a jury that the defendants breached their duty. Second, the plaintiff cannot be held contributorily negligent as a matter of law. A business invitee is held to a lower standard of care for his own safety than a person on a public sidewalk because his attention is legitimately directed towards the business purpose, in this case, inspecting plywood. He had no reason to suspect a hidden danger, and therefore the question of his potential negligence is a matter of fact for the jury to decide.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high duty of care property owners owe to business invitees and clarifies the standard for defeating a directed verdict in a negligence case. It solidifies the principle that questions of negligence and contributory negligence are typically factual inquiries reserved for the jury, not questions of law for a judge. The case is significant for its application of the 'distraction doctrine,' which recognizes that an invitee's attention may be focused on merchandise, thus lowering the degree of care required for their own safety and making it more difficult for defendants to win on a contributory negligence defense as a matter of law.
