In Neyman v. Sunbelt Rentals, the court concluded a jury would have to determine whether the injured party was expected to come in contact with the wet, slippery ramp, and whether Sunbelt could have anticipated the harm that occurred.
A slip-and-fall suit is moving forward against a rental tools and equipment company after a federal judge in Pennsylvania determined questions remained regarding whether the rental company could have anticipated the plaintiff's fall.
In a Dec. 13 decision, U.S. District Judge William S. Stickman IV of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied defendant Sunbelt Rental's motion for summary judgment. The court concluded a jury would have to determine whether the injured party, Randall Neyman, was expected to come in contact with the slippery ramp and whether Sunbelt could have anticipated the harm that occurred. The parties disputed whether Neyman was expected to play a role in unloading the trailer.
The court held it was clear Neyman knew about the dangerous condition of the ramp based on his testimony that the ramp was muddy and wet. However, it held that issues of fact remained regarding whether Sunbelt should have anticipated the harm to Neyman despite his knowledge of the ramp conditions.
"In this case, if a jury determines that truck drivers like Neyman were required or expected to help unload their trucks, and thus needed to walk on the ramp, it could find that Sunbelt should have known that drivers, like Neyman, would voluntarily traverse dangerous conditions on the ramp," Stickman said. "Thus, there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Sunbelt could have anticipated the harm to Neyman."
In Neyman v. Sunbelt Rentals, Neyman and his wife filed suit against Sunbelt to recover for a severe ankle fracture Neyman sustained while unloading a forklift from a tractor-trailer. Neyman argued he was expected to help unload the forklift as part of his job as the driver and testified that Sunbelt employees told him drivers were responsible for helping unload. According to the court, Sunbelt's district safety manager testified that drivers "are responsible to at least unsecure the load," and that the drivers "are supposed to be involved in the unloading of pieces of equipment," the opinion said.
Sunbelt, which is headquartered in a Charlotte, North Carolina, suburb, argued Neyman acted of his own volition and wasn't required to unload the trailer. In support of its argument, Sunbelt cited Neyman's testimony where he said no one had asked him to unload the truck, but that he typically did it on his own. Sunbelt further argued it didn't "owe Neyman a duty because the danger of slipping and falling on the ramp was not only objectively obvious, but actually known to him."
In its analysis, the district court cited Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 343A, which instructs courts to undertake a two-point inquiry to determine if summary judgment is warranted. According to Stickman, the inquiry includes determining whether genuine issues of fact exist regarding whether the danger posed by the conditions of the ramp was known and obvious to Neyman and whether Sunbelt should have "anticipate[d] the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness."
According to Stickman, this was a critical dispute of fact because it could impact the analysis of the company's reasonable anticipation of potential injury to Neyman, regardless of his knowledge of the ramp's dangerous condition.
"Here, there are a number of facts that could lead a jury to determine that Sunbelt could have anticipated Neyman's harm from the condition of the ramp. It is undisputed the slippery condition was not hidden from Sunbelt. Prior to Neyman's fall, an employee of Sunbelt slipped on the ramp. A jury could reasonably determine not only that Sunbelt knew that the ramp was slippery, but that its slippery condition could lead to workers falling," Stickman said. "It will be up to a jury to determine whether, despite Neyman's knowledge of the dangerous condition on the ramp, Sunbelt should have 'anticipat[ed] the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.'"
The plaintiffs' attorney, Brendan B. Lupetin, of Lupetin & Unatin in Pittsburgh, and Sunbelt's attorney, John W. Zotter, of Zimmer Kunz in Pittsburgh, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.