Michael S. Takacs

Michael S. Takacs (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) and Andrew Rossi (Associate-Philadelphia, PA) prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a property owner/landlord. The plaintiff, a tenant at the client’s apartment complex, allegedly sustained a forehead laceration, concussion, post-concussion syndrome, and injuries to her neck after striking her forehead on a dumpster’s trunnion bar while taking out her trash. She claimed the trunnion bar, which a truck uses to lift the dumpster during emptying, was a dangerous condition because it “sticks out inconspicuously” and lacked warnings or contrasting paint to make it more visible. The codefendant waste management company supplied and serviced the dumpster under a customer service agreement with our client, retained ownership, and specifically prohibited the client from altering it. The plaintiff, who had lived at the property for more than a year, admitted to using the dumpster at least weekly to dispose of her trash. Michael and Andrew moved for summary judgment, asserting that the client neither owed nor breached a legal duty of care to protect the plaintiff where the alleged condition of the trunnion bar was open, obvious, and readily visible on equipment the client did not own or control. The court entered summary judgment on behalf of the client, dismissing all claims and crossclaims.

Michael S. Takacs (Partner-Philadelphia) secured a complete dismissal of a commercial property owner client on a contested Motion for Summary Judgment. The ruling proves once again that while difficult, obtaining summary judgment in plaintiff-friendly Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, is not impossible. Under the facts presented, the plaintiff, a schoolteacher who often frequented a delicatessen in the client’s building, parked her vehicle in a “no parking zone” outside the building on the day in question. When she left the delicatessen, rather than walking on the sidewalk to reach her vehicle, she took a shortcut across a “wooden landscape box” comprised of four railroad ties formed into a square and enclosing a street sign. When she stepped on one of the wood ties, her foot slipped and she suffered a ruptured quadriceps tendon requiring surgery.

Takacs moved for summary judgment asserting that the client neither owed nor breached a legal duty of care to protect the plaintiff from the alleged dangerous condition and therefore could not set forth a prima facie case of negligence. Relying on existing case law involving slip and falls on snow and ice emanating from the Pennsylvania Superior Court and other lower court cases that followed it, Takacs crafted a persuasive argument that the underlying basis for the courts’ decisions in those cases – that no duty was owed where a plaintiff voluntarily chose a path of travel not meant to be traversed out of convenience rather than taking the safer alternative route available to her – should apply to the facts of the case. While plaintiff attempted to assert that numerous genuine issues of material fact existed, the court disagreed, entering summary judgment on behalf of the client, dismissing all claims and crossclaims.

Michael S. Takacs (Partner-Philadelphia) secured the dismissal of a building owner client on a contested motion for summary judgment in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, a particularly plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction where even uncontested summary judgment motions are often denied. The client retained the codefendant general contractor to perform a build-out of office space, who, in turn, retained numerous subcontractors to perform the work. The plaintiff, an employee of a sub-subcontractor, was injured while descending a ladder when he stepped on a sheet rock cart allegedly placed at its base by an unknown, never identified individual only moments before the incident. The plaintiff sued our client, the general contractor, and several subcontractors on-site on the date of the accident. Following fact and expert discovery, Mike argued that summary judgment was warranted because: 1) the plaintiff failed to establish that the client created, knew, or should have known and/or had actual or constructive notice about the cart’s placement; and 2) the client owed no legal duty to the plaintiff, a sub-subcontractor of the client’s independent general contractor, under long-established Pennsylvania law holding that a hirer of an independent contractor is not responsible for injuries sustained by the contractor’s employees or subcontractors where the hirer neither controls the work, nor does it present a peculiar risk. Rejecting the plaintiff’s claims asserting the existence of numerous genuine issues of material fact, the court granted summary judgment dismissing all claims and crossclaims against Wilson Elser’s client.