HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-2088 civilELIZABETH EARLES,
Plaintiff
Vo
SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY
OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE
SYSTEM OF HIGHER
EDUCATION,
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant
· IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
· CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
..
' NO. 99-2088 CIVIL TERM
· CIVIL ACTION- LAW
·
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BEFORE HESS~ OLER~ GUIDO~ JJJ.
AND NOW, this
ORDER OF COURT
{/9~ day o£MAY, 2001, defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment is DENIED.
By the
Edward E. Guido, J.
Lawrence J. Neary, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Jay W. Stark, Esquire
For the Defendant
'sld
ELIZABETH EARLES,
Plaintiff
Ve
SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY
OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE
SYSTEM OF HIGHER
EDUCATION,
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant
· IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
· CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
· NO. 99-2088 CRIMINAL TERM
· CIVIL ACTION- LAW
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BEFORE HESS, OLER, GUIDO, JJJ.
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
Before us is defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The motion is based~
upon sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity applies to the Commonwealth and its
agencies unless specifically waived by the General Assembly. Pa. C.S. § 2310. The
parties agree that the only exception to sovereign immunity that could possibly be
applicable to the instant case is the "care, custody or control of personal property"
provision contained in 42 Pa. C.S. § 8522(b)(3).1
The personal property at issue is a bunk bed maintained by the defendant in
plaintiff's dorm room. The upper bunk had no side rails. The plaintiff alleges that she
was injured when she fell from the top bunk during the middle of the night. Defendant
~ 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b)(3) provides in relevant part:
(b) Acts which may impose liability.-The following 'acts by a Commonwealth party may result
in the imposition of liability on the Commonwealth and the defense of sovereign immunity
shall not be raised to claims for damages caused by:
(3) Care, custody or control of personal property. - The care, custody or control of personal
property in the possession or control of Commonwealth parties, including Commonwealth-owned
personal property and property of persons held by a Commonwealth agency ....
99-2088 CIVIL TERM
counters that plaintiff has not come forward with sufficient evidence to show that she fell
from the bunk bed. Therefore, it argues that the exception to sovereign immunity does
not apply and that summary judgment should be granted.
The parties have briefed and argued their respective positions. This matter is now
ready for disposition.
DISCUSSION
Defendant has requested summary judgment in accordance with Pa. Rule of Civil
Procedure 1035.2, which provides as follows'
After the relevant pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to
unreasonably delay trial, any party may move for summary judgment in
whole or in part as a matter of law
(1) whenever there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a
necessary element of the cause of action or defense which could be
established by additional discovery or expert report, or
(2) if, after the completion of discovery relevant to the motion, including
the production of expert reports, an adverse party who will bear the
burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence of facts essential
to the cause of action or defense which in a jury trial would require the
issues to be submitted to a jury.
Pa. R.C.P. 1035'2. Defendant contends that it is entitled to summary judgment because
plaintiff has failed to come forward with sufficient evidence to enable a jury to conclude
that her injuries were caused by a fall from her bunk bed, or that she even fell from a
bunk bed.
In determining whether to grant a motion for summary judgment, we must view
the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Ertel v. Patriot News
Company, 544 Pa. 93,674 A.2d 1038 (1996). Summary judgment should only be
99-2088 CIVIL TERM
gran. ted in cases, which are clear and free from doubt.. Hoffman v. Brandywine Hospital,
443 Pa. Super. 245, 661 A.2d 397 (1995).
Applying the above standard to the case at bar, we are satisfied that the record
contains sufficient circumstantial evidence to allow a jury to conclude that the defendant
sustained her injury as a result of a fall from the bunk bed. Plaintiff got into her bunk bed
at about 12:30 a.m.2 She woke up on the floor at 5'30 a.m. and "knew I like fell.''3 She
knew that she would be getting up soon, so she climbed back into bed.4 She felt achy at
that time.5 When she awoke an hour later, she realized she had been hurt.6 There was
blood everywhere, she was in a lot of pain, and her head hurt.7
Defendant argues that since plaintiff does not specifically remember falling out of
the bunk bed and since no one else actually saw her fall out of the bunk bed, the jury
cannot conclude that she did, in fact, fall out of the bunk bed. We disagree.8 Therefore,
defendant's Motion for Summary Judgement will be denied.
2 Earles deposition, p. 30.
3 Earles deposition, p. 31.
4 Earles deposition, p. 31.
5 Earles deposition, p. 33.
a Earles deposition, p. 31.
7 Earles deposition, p. 35.
s If there are elephant footprints in the mud, it is a pretty good bet that an elephant was there.
99-2088 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this .~/ ~ay of M^Y, 2001, defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment is DENIED.
By the Court,
/s/Edward E. Guido
Edward E. Guido, J.
Lawrence J. Neary, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Jay W. Stark, Esquire
For the Defendant
.sld