CATER et al v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION et al
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE LOUIS H. POLLAK ON 8/10/10. 8/11/10 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.(fdc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
G E O R G E CATER and CHERYL CATER, P la in tif f s , v. S T A R B U C K S CORPORATION, et al., D e f e n d a n ts.
C iv il Action No. 07-2660
M EM ORANDUM A u g u s t 10, 2010 Pollak, J.
P la in tif f s George Cater and Cheryl Cater filed suit in the Court of Common Pleas o f Philadelphia County, alleging negligence and loss of consortium arising from a fall on th e allegedly icy Starbucks parking lot (docket no. 1). The defendants were Starbucks a n d Paul Mastropieri, the owner of the parking lot, who leased to Starbucks the building in which Starbucks was located and which was adjacent to the parking lot (docket no. 1). O n grounds of diversity defendants removed the suit to this court (docket no. 1). In its answer, Starbucks brought a cross-claim for indemnification and breach of contract a g a in s t Mastropieri (docket no. 3). Starbucks then joined as third-party defendants the B e e r Yard, which shared the parking lot with Starbucks, and Anthony Marchesani, who p lo w e d the parking lot (docket nos. 9 & 10). Marchesani then brought a claim for
indemnification against Mastropieri (docket no. 20). The Caters, in an amended c o m p la in t (docket no. 30), then brought claims against the third-party defendants, M a rc h e s a n i and the Beer Yard. S e v e ra l motions for summary judgment have been filed, including: Starbucks' m o tio n for summary judgment against the Caters, based on an open, obvious, and known c o n d itio n /a s s u m p tio n of risk (docket no. 89); Starbucks' motion for summary judgment a g a in s t the Caters and Mastropieri, based on a lack of duty and for indemnification (d o c k e t no. 90); Mastropieri's motion for summary judgment on all claims against him (d o c k e t no. 88), Beer Yard's motion for summary judgment on all claims against it (d o c k e t no. 86); and Marchesani's motion for summary judgment on all claims against h im (docket no. 87). T h is memorandum and accompanying order address the motion for summary ju d g m e n t against the Caters and Starbucks (docket no. 86) filed by the third-party d e f e n d a n t 218 MJG, Inc., which does business as the Beer Year (hereinafter, Beer Yard). Plaintiffs (docket no. 98) and defendant Starbucks (docket no. 100) have responded and th e Beer Yard has replied (docket no. 103). I. F acts C h e ryl Cater alleges that she fell in the parking lot located at 218 East Lancaster A v e n u e , Wayne, Pennsylvania. The property consists of a circular building leased to S ta rb u c k s and a rectangular building leased to the Beer Yard, a retail store and beverage
distributor. The property includes a common parking lot and driveway between the two b u ild in g s , portions of which the Beer Yard admits its customers use. 218 MJG, Inc.'s M o t. for. Summ. J., at 7. In an addendum to the lease between the Beer Yard and M a s tro p ie ri, the owner of the property, the Beer Yard agreed to "cooperat[e] with the f ro n t tenant in keeping the driveway and parking lot clean and clear of ice and snow." 218 MJG's Exh. E, at ¶ 6. O n February 15, 2006, Cheryl Cater and her husband, George, drove to the S ta rb u c k s at 218 East Lancaster Avenue. 218 MJG's Exh. C, at 64-65 (Depo. of Cheryl C a te r). The night before there was "an icy rain." Id. at 77. Cheryl Cater described the ic e as "all across the entire parking lot" and "continuous throughout the entire yard or lo t." Id. at 77, 80. The Caters observed a woman, Libby Schwartz, lying in the middle of th e parking lot. Id. at 56. The Caters stopped their car and George carried Schwartz to th e back door of the Starbucks. Id. at 74. A s she got out of her car, Cheryl Cater was concerned about her ability to walk a c ro s s the parking lot due to the ice. Id. at 81. Cheryl Cater went inside the Starbucks to w h e re Schwartz and George Cater were located. Id. at 82. Cheryl Cater stayed with S c h w a rtz until an EMT arrived. Id. at 83-84. At that point Schwartz asked Cheryl Cater to retrieve Schwartz's purse from her car, because it contained her medical information. Id. at 86-87. To reach Schwartz's car, Cheryl Cater had to again cross the parking lot w h e re any path she chose to take would be icy. Id. at 87-89. In trying to reach
Schwartz's car, Cheryl Cater slipped and fell in the area where Schwartz's car was lo c a te d . Id. at 92-93. These events occurred at approximately 9:00 a.m. Id. at 61. According to M a tth e w Guyer, the sole proprietor of the Beer Yard, the Beer Yard did not open until 1 0 :0 0 a.m. that day. 218 MJG's Exh. D, at 10 (Depo. of Matthey Guyer). Guyer also s ta te d at this deposition that, prior to the autumn of 2005, both Starbucks and the Beer Y a rd would contact the person doing the snow removal, Joseph Nudy, when needed. Id. a t 29. However, in 2005, once defendant Anthony Marchesani begun to plow the parking lo t, only Starbucks and not the Beer Yard would contact him. Id. Guyer was aware that th e parking lot had a drainage problem that would result in run-off forming puddles and th e n freezing. Id. at 35-37. An employee of the Beer Yard, Mark Sauerbrey, stated that he had observed ice in th e parking lot. Starbucks Exh. B-1, at 30 (Depo. of Mark Sauerbrey). If there was ice, h e would either salt it or inform Starbucks. Id. This included the area where Mrs. Cater f e ll. Id. at 34. He also indicated that Guyer had done the same. Id. at 38. Saurbrey s ta te d that there was an area where water would regularly pool and freeze that he would s a lt as needed. Id. at 45-46, 51. He also indicated that he began salting the parking lot a f te r seeing Mrs. Cater cross the icy lot on the day of the incident but its unclear from the d e p o s itio n transcript whether this was before or after she fell. Id. at 52.
A n a ly sis S u m m a ry judgment is appropriate where "the pleadings, depositions, answers to
in te rro g a to rie s , and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a ju d g m e n t as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); IFC Interconsult, AG v. Safeguard In t'l Partners, L.L.C., 438 F.3d 298, 317 (3d Cir. 2006). Facts are material if they "bear o n an essential element of the plaintiff's claim." Fakete v. Aetna, Inc., 308 F.3d 335, 337 (3 d Cir. 2002) (quoting Abraham v. Raso, 183 F.3d 279, 287 (3d Cir. 1999)). Further, th e re is a genuine issue of material fact if "a reasonable jury could find in favor of the n o n m o v in g party." Id. A party seeking summary judgment carries the initial burden of informing the c o u rt of the basis for its motion and identifying the portions of the record that show that th e re is no genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1 9 8 6 ). In this instance, the non-moving party would bear the burden of proof at trial. Consequently, the moving party must show that the non-moving party cannot support her c a s e with the evidence in the record. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. To rebut, the non-moving p a rty must identify facts that create a genuine issue of dispute for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 6 (e ); Hampton v. Borough of Tinton Falls Police Dept., 98 F.3d 107, 112 (3d Cir. 1996). "Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate in f e re n c e s from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge . . . . The evidence of the
non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). T h e Beer Yard argues that, as the plaintiffs were in the parking lot for the purpose o f going to the Starbucks, and the Beer Yard was not open at the time, plaintiffs have the s ta tu s of a licensee, and not an invitee, when determining to what extent the Beer Yard o w e d them a duty. It also argues that the addendum to its lease absolves it from any p rim a ry responsibilities with regard to keeping the parking lot free of snow and ice. A. T h e Beer Yard may have Voluntarily Assumed Duties to Keep the P a r k in g Lot Free of Ice and Snow T h e Beer Yard argues that it owes the Caters, not the duty owed to an invitee, but th e lesser duty owed to a licensee. "A business invitee is a person who is invited to enter o r remain on the land of another for a purpose directly or indirectly connected with b u s in e s s dealings with the possessor of the land." Emge v. Hagosky, 712 A.2d 315, 317 (P a . Super. Ct. 1998) (citations omitted). "The duty owed to a business invitee is the h ig h e s t duty owed to any entrant upon land." Id. (citation omitted). The duty owed to a licensee would be less than that owed to an invitee. For lic e n s e e s , the Pennsylvania courts have adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343, w h ic h states: Regarding conditions on the land which are either known to or discoverable by the p o s s e s s o r, the possessor is subject to liability only if he (a ) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and s h o u ld realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and (b ) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to 6
protect themselves against it, and (c ) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger. C o c h r a n e v. Kopko, 975 A.2d 1203, 1206 (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct. 2009) (quoting Restatement (S e c o n d ) of Torts § 343 (1965)). I need not decide the invitee/licensee status of the Caters with regard to the Beer Y a rd . Pennsylvania has adopted § 323 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts which finds: O n e who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to a n o th e r which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of the other's p e rs o n or things, is subject to liability to the other for physical harm resulting from h is failure to exercise reasonable care to perform his undertaking, if (a ) his failure to exercise such care increases the risk of such harm, or (b ) the harm is suffered because of the other's reliance upon the undertaking. D e J e su s v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 223 A.2d 849, 850 (Pa. 1966) (quoting Restatement (S e c o n d ) Torts § 323 (1965)). A party can gratuitously assume a duty, even if a general c o m m o n -la w rule would have found there to be no duty. See Feld v. Merriam, 485 A.2d 7 4 2 , 746 (Pa. 1984) ("[A]lthough there is a general rule against holding a person liable f o r the criminal conduct of another . . . there is also an exception to that rule, i.e., where a p a rty assumes a duty, whether gratuitously or for consideration, and so negligently p e rf o rm s that duty that another suffers damage."). A genuine issue of material facts exists as to whether the Beer Yard assumed a d u ty to keep the parking lot free of ice and snow. The deposition of Mark Sauerbrey, an e m p lo ye e of the Beer Yard, indicates that he and Guyer, the proprietor of the Beer Yard, w o u ld regularly salt icy areas of the parking lot. In addition, Sauerbrey testified that he w o u ld inform Starbucks if the parking lot needed to be cleared of ice or snow. The Beer 7
Yard may have assumed a duty to salt the parking lot or inform Starbucks of issues in the lo t by regularly doing so as Sauerbrey testified. The failure to continue to do so in a re a s o n a b le manner could have increased the risk to Cheryl Cater. Such facts, if true, c o u ld be construed by a reasonable jury to constitute an assumption of a duty by the Beer Y a rd to keep the parking lot clear of ice and snow. B. T h e Beer Yard's Lease does Not Absolve it of Responsibility for Snow a n d Ice Removal T h e Beer Yard also argues that it cannot be held liable because a provision in the le a s e addendum absolves it of any duty to remove snow and ice. The provision states that B e e r Yard must pay 25% of all parking lot maintenance "in addition to cooperating with th e front tenant in keeping the driveway and parking lot clean and clear of ice and snow." 218 MJG's Exh. E, at ¶ 6. "The fundamental rule in interpreting a contract is to ascertain and give effect to th e intent of the contracting parties." Crawford Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Commonwealth, 888 A .2 d 616, 623 (Pa. 2005) (citations omitted). "When contractual language is clear and u n e q u iv o c a l, its meaning must be determined by its contents alone." Id. I find the Beer Yard's interpretation of the lease unpersuasive. The promise to c o o p e ra te with other tenants, is, if anything, an assumption of the duty to keep the parking lo t clear of ice and snow, not an indemnification for the failure to do so. MerriamW e b s te r's Dictionary defines cooperate as meaning " to act or work with another or o th e rs: act together or in compliance" or "to associate with another or others for mutual 8
benefit."1 The promise to cooperate with another tenant is best interpreted as creating a s h a re d duty and not absolving the Beer Yard of responsibility. III. C o n c lu s io n F o r the foregoing reasons, I will deny the Beer Yards' motion for summary ju d g m e n t against the Caters and against Starbucks. An appropriate order accompanies th is memorandum.
See Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/ (last visited June 21, 2010). 9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?