From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Santangini v. Bhagvati Krupa, Inc.

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Feb 28, 2017
No. 522 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 28, 2017)

Opinion

J-A02004-17 No. 522 EDA 2016

02-28-2017

GERALDINE SANTANGINI Appellant v. BHAGVATI KRUPA, INC., T/A SUBWAY Appellee


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered January 12, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No(s): January Term, 2015 No. 67 BEFORE: OTT, J., RANSOM, J., and FITZGERALD, J. MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.:

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

Geraldine Santangini appeals from the order entered on January 12, 2016, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, granting summary judgment in favor of Bhagvati Krupa, Inc., T/A Subway ("Subway"). In this timely appeal, Santangini raises two issues; she claims the trial court erred in (1) failing to examine the evidence in the light most favorable to her as the non-moving party, and (2) determining the alleged defect in the restaurant required expert testimony to prove. After a thorough review of the submissions by the parties, relevant law, and the certified record, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion, dated July 14, 2016.

The underlying facts of this matter are easily related. On September 20, 2013, at approximately 2:45 p.m., Santangini went to the Subway restaurant located at 106 S. 16th Street, Philadelphia. Complaint, at ¶ 4. The store required a patron to walk up two steps after entering in order to approach the counter, which is located to the left of the entry doors. See Photo Exhibits, Deposition of Santangini, 8/31/2015. There is a self-serve soft drink dispenser located at the top of the two steps to the extreme right of the restaurant. Id . The photo exhibits demonstrate if a patron walked into the restaurant and straight up the steps, the patron would be at the soft drink dispenser. Id . Santangini purchased a sandwich, cookie and a soft drink. N.T. Deposition, 8/31/2015 at 20. She took the cup given to her at the counter to the soft drink dispenser, located near the top of the two steps. Id . She filled her cup, turned toward the front doors, took a step and fell down the stairs, breaking her wrist. Id ., Complaint, at ¶¶ 7, 10. Santangini filed suit against Subway, alleging the store was negligently designed and had failed to give proper warning of the dangerous condition created thereby.

At the close of discovery, Santangini had provided no expert report regarding the existence of an allegedly dangerous condition/negligent design of the restaurant. Subway filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing expert testimony was required to inform the jury of the proper standards regarding such allegations. The trial court agreed and entered the order currently on appeal before this panel.

Our standard of review regarding the grant of summary judgment is well-settled, and is as follows:

A reviewing court may disturb the order of the trial court only where it is established that the court committed an error of law or abused its discretion. As with all questions of law, our review is plenary.

In evaluating the trial court's decision to enter summary judgment, we focus on the legal standard articulated in the summary judgment rule. Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2. The rule states that where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to relief as a matter of law, summary judgment may be entered. Where the non-moving party bears the burden of proof on an issue, he may not merely rely on his pleadings or answers in order to survive summary judgment. Failure of a non-moving party to adduce sufficient evidence on an issue essential to his case and on which it bears the burden of proof establishes the entitlement of the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. Lastly, we will view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party.
Nobles v. Staples , Inc., 150 A.3d 110, 120 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted).

Here, the trial court reviewed the evidence, the complaint and the motion and found that the question of negligent design, from which all claims of injury flowed, required expert testimony. We find no abuse of discretion or error of law in that ruling. In making our determination, we rely upon the sound reasoning of the trial court as found in the Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. We note that the trial court did not specifically address Santangini's claim that the evidence was not viewed in the light most favorable to her as the non-moving party. However, because the trial court correctly determined expert testimony was required to prove Subway's negligence, Santangini's testimony regarding the design of the restaurant alone cannot suffice.

Order affirmed. The parties are directed to attach a copy of the trial court opinion in the event of further proceedings. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 2/28/2017

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

Santangini v. Bhagvati Krupa, Inc.

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Feb 28, 2017
No. 522 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 28, 2017)
Case details for

Santangini v. Bhagvati Krupa, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:GERALDINE SANTANGINI Appellant v. BHAGVATI KRUPA, INC., T/A SUBWAY Appellee

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Feb 28, 2017

Citations

No. 522 EDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 28, 2017)