A Landowner is Responsible for Plaintiff's Injuries as a Result of a Trip and Fall, Even When the Defect is Small/Trivial

In Ozer v. Metromedia Restaurant Group, et al., 2005 WL 525400 (E.D. Pa., 2005), the Court stated at page 6:

Under Pennsylvania law, a business owner is obligated to (1) keep
the premises in a reasonably safe condition and (2) to warn an
invitee or business visitor of latent defects or dangers which it
knows exist or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known.

The standard to determine whether a defect is trivial as a matter of law is that “‘it would be completely unreasonable, impractical and unjustifiable’ to hold a defendant liable for its existence.” Gosha v. City of Philadelphia, 30 Pa. D. & C.3d 190, 1982 WL 135 (Pa. Com.Pl. 1982) quoting Bosack v. Pittsburgh Railway Co., 410 Pa. 558, 189 A.2d (1963). However, a plaintiff will not be denied relief simply because a defect is so small. Gosha, 30 Pa. D. & C.2d at 202 citing Henn v. City of Pittsburgh, 343 Pa. 256, 22 A.2d 742 (1941).

The Court in Breskin v. 535 Fifth Avenue stated:

“What constitutes a defect sufficient to render the property owner
liable must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the
particular case, and except where the defect is obviously trivial,
that question must be submitted to the jury. But there is a shadow
zone where such question must be submitted to a jury whose duty
it is to take into account all the circumstances. To hold otherwise
would result in the court ultimately fixing the dividing line to a
fraction of an inch, a result which is absurd.”

381 Pa. 461, 113 A.2d 316 (1955) citing Aloia v. City of Washington, 361 Pa. 620, 623, 65 A.2d 685, 686 (1949); Henn v. City of Pittsburgh, 343 Pa. 256, 258, 22 A.2d 742, 743 (1941).

Factors to be considered include the “amount of travel, actual location of the rise or depression, character of the material with which the pavement or walk is constructed, nature of the irregularity and other circumstances.” Gosha, 30 Pa. D. & C.3d at 202 citing Henn v. Pittsburgh, 343 Pa. 256, 22 A.2d 742 (1941). Triviality is not determined by the precise measurements of the defect at issue. Massman v. City of Philadelphia, 430 Pa. 99, 101, 241 A.2d 921, 923 (1968).

The plaintiff in Gosha v. City of Philadelphia, caught her heel in a defect in the sidewalk. 30 Pa. D. & C.3d at 204. The Court held that the defect was not so trivial that defendants were relieved from liability because the defect was clearly visible, the hole was large enough for plaintiff’s heel to go into causing injury and it was a heavily trafficked area. Id. In Breskin v. 535 Fifth Avenue, where plaintiff was injured when she caught her foot in broken cement on a crowded sidewalk, the Court held that the defect was not trivial. 381 Pa. 461, 113 A.2d 316 (1955).

In Massman v. City of Philadelphia, the Court held that the defect resulting in plaintiff’s injury was not trivial and would not impose an impractical and unjustifiable burden upon defendant to repair it. 430 Pa. at 101, 241 A.2d at 923-924. The plaintiff in Massman caught her heel in an irregular crack that measured one-half inch deep, six inches at its widest point and twenty-eight inches long, was visibly discernible and located in a busy thoroughfare. Id.

In Smith v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 707 A.2d 604, 610 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1998), the de minimus defect argument of defendant was rejected where plaintiff fell on a one-fourth (1/4) inch crack that was seven (7) to eight (8) feet long.

Even where the defect on the premises is small, the landowner may still be held responsible for the injuries that result.