Court: Church Owed Duty to Patrons Crossing Street From Overflow Lot
A church owed a duty to protect its visitors crossing a busy street from a designated overflow parking lot, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled, clarifying the boundaries of a ruling from last year in which it held that a nightclub owed no such duty under similar circumstances.
April 26, 2018 at 11:40 AM
4 minute read
Photo: Getty Images/iStockphoto
A church owed a duty to protect its visitors crossing a busy street from a designated overflow parking lot, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled, clarifying the boundaries of a ruling from last year in which it held that a nightclub owed no such duty under similar circumstances.
In Charney v. Reitz, a three-judge panel of the court unanimously ruled in a nonprecedential decision that defendant Friends of Peace Church (FOPC) owed a duty to D'Arcy Wagonhurst, an 84-year-old woman who was struck and killed by a car while crossing a busy street to attend a Christmas program at the church. Wagonhurst had parked in a private commercial lot that the church had instructed visitors to use.
The appeals court reversed a Cumberland County trial court's ruling granting summary judgment in favor of the church and against the plaintiff, Wagonhurst's son, Douglas Charney.
Writing for the panel, Judge Deborah Kunselman drew a distinction between Charney's case and the 2017 case Newell v. Montana W., which the trial court relied on in siding with FOPC.
In Newell, the Superior Court had held that a nightclub owed no duty to a man who was killed crossing the street as he returned to his car after a show. The decedent, Victor Newell, had parked in a commercial lot across from the club, but had not been directed to park there by the club and did not have the permission to do so from the owner of the lot.
According to Kunselman, that fact is what distinguished Newell from Charney.
“Although the facts here are somewhat similar to Newell, they differ significantly, because, unlike Montana West, FOPC regularly undertook actions to assist visitors when crossing the street,” Kunselman said. “Therefore, we are constrained to reverse the decision of the trial court in this matter, with respect to the issue of whether FOPC owed a duty to pedestrians, like Ms.
Wagonhurst, and remand for a jury trial consistent with this memorandum.”
Kunselman was joined by Judges Anne E. Lazarus and Kate Ford Elliott.
According to Kunselman's opinion, FOPC, which has only four on-site parking spaces, had, at various times in the past, instructed patrons to park at a lot across St. John's Church Road, which has very heavy traffic. Sometimes the FOPC enlisted the local police or firefighters to assist with traffic control. Other times, including the night Wagonhurst was killed, the church used reflective cones. The location of the cones on that night are in dispute, Kunselman said.
Kunselman said that, based on those facts, the church ”undertook sufficient steps to voluntarily assume a duty to protect its visitors who parked in the lot across St. John's Church Road on the night of the accident.”
“This duty started when FOPC instructed its visitors to park in this lot,” Kunselman continued. ”This fact, alone, might not create a duty on the part of FOPC. However, this, coupled with the additional facts that FOPC hired an employee to assist in ensuring the safety of pedestrians, and used reflective traffic cones regularly, including on the night in question, suggests FOPC undertook 'a consistent or ongoing pattern of conduct to voluntarily protect invitees who parked across the street.' Thus, whether it acted negligently in undertaking these duties on the night Ms. Wagonhurst was killed created a question of fact for the jury to decide.”
Counsel for Charney, David B. Dowling of Cunningham, Chernicoff & Warshawsky, said the ruling clarified the Newell decision.
“I think the takeaway from the case is that Newell should not be read to exclude or prevent liability against a property owner if someone is crossing the street to get to their place of business. It is really fact-specific,” he said.
FOPC's attorney, Timothy Kepner of William J. Ferren & Associates in Hartford, Connecticut, could not be reached for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllImmunity for Mental Health Care and Coverage for CBD: What's on the Pa. High Court's November Calendar
5 minute readSlip-and-Fall Suit Cleared to Proceed Against Kalahari Indoor Waterpark
3 minute readVolunteering for Voter Protection Efforts, Pa. Firms Brace for Contentious Election
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Ex-CFO of San Francisco Law Firms Pleads Guilty to $1.3M Embezzlement Scheme, DOJ Announces
- 2What Does Ohio Supreme Court's Opioid Decision Mean for Public Nuisance Claims?
- 3Bucking Industry Trend, Sidley Austin Elects Biggest Class of Partners in Firm History
- 4US Judge Throws Out Sale of Infowars to The Onion. But That's Not the End of the Road for Sandy Hook Families
- 5‘Really Deflating’: Judges React to Biden Threat to Veto New Judgeships Bill
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250