Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Young v. Prizm Asset Mgmt. Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

September 9, 2014, Decided; September 9, 2014, Filed

No. 2078 MDA 2013


 [*595]  OPINION BY WECHT, J.:

Sharon and James Young1 appeal the trial court's November 4, 2013 order granting summary judgment to Prizm Asset Management Company, Steamtown Mall Partners, L.P., and the Mall at Steamtown (collectively, "Steamtown Mall" or "the Mall") in this premises liability action. We reverse.

The trial court has provided the following summary of the factual and procedural history of this case:

On November 24, 2010, [Young] filed a complaint against [Steamtown Mall] resulting from an assault on Young in the parking garage of Steamtown Mall in February 2009. Young, an employee of The Children's Place, a tenant of Steamtown Mall, was reporting to work at approximately 12:45 p.m. on February 6, 2009, when she was attacked by an unknown, unidentified assailant, who is alleged to have attempted to steal her [**2]  car. The assault left Young with various injuries for which she alleges Steamtown Mall is liable.

After the completion of discovery, Steamtown Mall filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, alleging [that] it  [*596]  breached no duty to Young in failing to ensure her safety from an unanticipated criminal assault in an area open to the general public, and that no act or omission on behalf of Steamtown Mall was the cause of Young's injuries.

Trial Court Opinion ("T.C.O."), 11/4/2013, at 1-2.

On November 4, 2013, the trial court granted Steamtown Mall's motion for summary judgment. On November 14, 2013, Young filed a timely notice of appeal. The trial court did not order Young to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The trial court did not file an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).2

Young presents the following issue for our review: "Whether the trial court erred in granting [Steamtown Mall's] motion for summary [**3]  judgment." Brief for Young at 4.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

100 A.3d 594 *; 2014 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2900 **; 2014 PA Super 195


Prior History:  [**1] Appeal from the Order Entered on November 4, 2013. In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County. Civil Division at No.: 2010 Civil 8445. Before SAXTON, J.


Mall, assault, garage, trial court, parking garage, Deposition, cameras, summary judgment, third person, surveillance, material fact, employees, occurring, parking, notice, sting, summary judgment motion, stairwell, lighting, purposes, genuine, patrons, premises, invitee, gates

Civil Procedure, Judgments, Entry of Judgments, General Overview, Appeals, Reviewability of Lower Court Decisions, Preservation for Review, Summary Judgment, Evidentiary Considerations, Absence of Essential Element, Motions for Summary Judgment, Timing of Motions & Responses, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Genuine Disputes, Materiality of Facts, Standards of Review, Abuse of Discretion, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Torts, Duty On Premises, Invitees, Business Invitees, General Premises Liability, Types of Premises, Duties of Care, Reasonable Care, Activities & Conditions, Criminal Activity, Dangerous Conditions, Duty to Warn, Known Dangers