J. A21030/16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

GRACE ZANGENBERG, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

APPELLANT :

:

v. :

:

:

: No. 2574 EDA 2015

WEIS MARKETS, INC., CONTRAST :

LLC AND ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS :

:

:

:

Appeal from the Order Entered August 7, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County 

Civil Division at No(s): 10500-CV-2012

BEFORE: Bender, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 17, 2016

Appellant, Grace Zangenberg, appeals from the August 7, 2015 Order 

entered in the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas granting the Motions 

for Summary Judgment filed by Appellees Contrast LLC, and Enterprise 

Solutions and making final the April 2, 2015 Order granting Appellee Weis 

Markets, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment. After careful review, we 

affirm on the basis of the trial court’s Opinions filed April 2, 2015, and 

October 23, 2015. 

The trial court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion includes a thorough and 

complete narrative of the facts and procedural history in this case, which we 
J. A21030/16

- 2 -

adopt for purposes of this appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, filed 10/23/15, 

at 1-3; see also Trial Court Opinion, filed 4/2/15, at 5-7. While we will not 

go into exhaustive detail here, we briefly summarize the case as follows. 

On May 23, 2013, Appellant slipped and fell while entering Appellee 

Weis’s store. She did not see anything on the floor before or after she fell. 

She stated that she “just slipped” and that the floor was very slippery 

although she did not know why. Trial Court Opinion, filed 4/2/15, at 6. An 

employee of the store examined the area immediately after Appellant fell, 

and did not see anything. Appellant’s daughter, who did not witness the fall, 

visited the store a few hours later and noticed a black scuffmark in the area 

where her mother stated she fell. 

In the days leading up to Appellant’s fall, Appellee Weis had had the 

floors of the store cleaned and waxed by Appellees Contrast LLC, and 

Enterprise Solutions. Following the fall, Appellant sued under a theory of 

negligence, alleging that a waxy buildup must have caused Appellant’s fall 

and that Appellees “were careless and negligent because they caused and 

allowed the floor in question to be excessively slippery due to wax.” Trial 

Court Opinion, filed 10/23/15, at 2.

On November 24, 2014, Appellee Weis filed a Motion for Summary 

Judgment. Following oral argument, the trial court granted the motion by 

entering an Order and Opinion on April 2, 2015. Appellees Contrast LLC and 

Enterprise Solutions filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on June 4, 2015, 
J. A21030/16

- 3 -

which the trial court granted in an Order filed on August 7, 2015. On August 

25, 2015, Appellant timely appealed. Both Appellant and the trial court 

complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue:

Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in granting summary judgment 

in favor of all Appellees when a genuine issues [sic] of material 

fact existed as to the cause of Appellant’s fall.

Appellant’s Brief at 6.

Our standard and scope of review of a trial court’s grant of summary 

judgment are well-settled: 

We view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving 

party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of 

material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Only 

where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and it is 

clear that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter 

of law will summary judgment be entered. Our scope of review 

of a trial court’s order granting or denying summary judgment is 

plenary, and our standard of review is clear: the trial court’s 

order will be reversed only where it is established that the court 

committed an error of law or abused its discretion. 

Indalex Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 83 A.3d 

418, 420 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted). “[W]here a motion for 

summary judgment has been made and properly supported, parties seeking 

to avoid the imposition of summary judgment must show by specific facts in 

their depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions or affidavits that 

there is a genuine issue for trial.” Marks v. Tasman, 589 A.2d 205, 206 

(Pa. 1991) (citations omitted).
J. A21030/16

- 4 -

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the 

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court we conclude 

that there is no merit to the issue Appellant has raised on appeal. The trial 

court opinion properly disposes of the questions presented, including a 

thorough analysis of Pennsylvania jurisprudence regarding slip and fall 

claims. See Trial Court Opinion, filed 4/2/15, at 4-8 (concluding: (i) no 

genuine issues of material fact existed to preclude summary judgment in 

favor of Appellee Weis; (ii) Appellant did not offer any evidence that 

Appellees had actual notice of a dangerous condition; and (iii) Appellant “has 

not produced any evidence that an application of wax created a dangerous 

condition so obvious as to amount to evidence [from] which an inference of 

negligence would arise.”). As the trial court aptly summarized: “[Appellant] 

has only produced the testimony of her daughter who stated that there was 

a black skid mark on the floor. This is not evidence of improper application 

of wax which created a dangerous condition. Moreover, [Appellant’s] 

daughter was not present at the time she fell [and could not say that the 

skid mark was related to her mother’s fall].” Id. at 5, 7. See also Trial 

Court Opinion, filed 10/23/15, at 13 (incorporating the reasoning of the April 

2, 2015 Opinion as to all Appellees).

Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s Opinions filed 

April 2, 2015 and October 23, 2015. 
J. A21030/16

- 5 -

The parties are instructed to attach copies of these Opinions to all 

future filings. 

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/17/2016

 
1 1 

We submit this statement pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a), in response to Grace 

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a) 

1925(a) STATEMENT 

WEIS MARKETS, INC. and 

CONTRAST, LLC and 

ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS 

Appellees 

vs. 

GRACE ZANGENBERG : 10500 CV 2012 

Appellantappeals this Court's granting of Defendants', Contrast, LLC. And Enterprise Solutions, 

. . . I 

("Appellees") Motion for Summary Judgment entered on August 7, 2015. In summary, 

. Appellant complains on appeal that: (l)the Trial Court erred in granting the .Defendanls' Motion 

for Summary Judgment as genuine issues of material fact existed as to Defendants' notice of 

dangerous conditions and as to the cause of her fall; (2)the Trial Court erred in conducting its 

own independent research -~d raising arguments not raised by counsel in the grant of!the Motion 

for Summary Judgment; and (3)the Trial Court's Order granting the Motion for Summary 

. I . 

Judgment was contrary to the facts of this case. I 

Plaintiff commenced the first of the consolidated actions on December 12, 201!2, by filing 

a Complaint against defendant, Weis Markets, Inc. Plaintiff commenced the second ~fthe 

consolidated actions by Praecipe for Writ of Summons filed on November 8, 2013 and on March 

. I I 

. . . i . 

28, 2014 by filing a Complaint against defendants Contrast LLC and Enterprise Solution. By : 

Zangenberg's ("Appellant") Concise Statement of Matter.s Complained of_ on Appeal. Appellant 

; l r---- --·--- . . ~ 

II

~. ;;-\ r~ m =c: 1• "i i ,v7 [~~ .. 1 J: J !.s LID ,r; , 1::1 .!!, •1 h 

COURT OF coMMoN PLEAS OF MONROE comi& oc T 2 3 1015 j J 

FORTY-TIDRDJUDICIALDISTRICT I . I I 

COMMONWEALTHOFPENNSYLVANIA !By __ (81lli~ __ j 

Circulated 10/28/2016 02:54 PM
12 

Weis Markets contracted with Appellee Enterprise Solutions to provide cleaning services 

to tl1e store in question in Tannersville, which included bi-annual floor waxing. In rul. I 

Enterprise Solutions subcontracted with Appellee Contrast LLC to provide the actual icleilning 

services at the Weis Markets in Tannersville. The bi-annual floor waxing is done in sections 

. . . . I 

overa period of several days. Appellee Contrast LLC stripped and waxed the floor of the subject 

Weis Market from March 22-26 2012. The record provides that while an area offloJ is being 

waxed, the area is cordoned.off and there is no access to those areas until the wax is entirely dry[ 

The night prior to Appellant's accident, Appellee Contrast LLC personnel stripped Jd re-waxed 

a section of the subject Weis Markets store ru{d finished their work by 6:00 am. The tax used 

I 

by Contrast LLC takes ten to fifteen minutes to dry. Exhibit L9 at page 9. Appellant'' s accident 

. . I 

occurred late in the afternoon. Zangenberg deposition, page 22, lines 11-12. Appellant testified 

at the time ~fher deposition that she fell because the floor was slippery but she did nL know 

why it was slippery. Id., page 28 line 19 to page 29 line 15. No testimony or evidenJe was 

. - . I . 

presented that identified the cause of the slippery floor was the floor wax used by aplellees. In 

the "Customer Accident Report" forms produced by the Weis for the two year time period 

denied these averments and denied all liability to Appellant. 

' I 

Order dated August 29, 2014, this Court approved a Stipulation to Consolidate signedlby all 

I 

counsel and consolidated these two actions for all purposes at docket No. 20.'2 CV I OFOO 

In her Complaint against Appellees, Appellant averred that on March 26, 2012, at the 

Weis Markets store on Route 611 in Tannersville, she was caused to slip on the floor lear the 

podium as a result of the floor being slippery. Appellant averred against both Appellees that 

they were careless and negligent because they caused and allowed the floor in question to be 

excessively slippery due to wax. In their Answers to Appellant's Complaint, both apJellees 
13 

The Appellant's 'remaining argument on appeal is that this Court erred in conducting its 

own independent research and raising arguments not raised by couns~l in the grant of lthe Motion 

for Summary Judgment. Specifically, A~pellant argues that before this Court's referehce to the 

same, no party in ~1is matter relied upon the factual analysis contained in Myers v. Pel Traffic 

Co., 606 A.2de 926 (Pa. Super. 1992). Appellant argues this Court erred in conductink 

independent research and raising arguments not raised by counsel for any party in ourlgrant of 

the Motion of Summary Judgment in favor of Weis Markets. The case the Appellant is referrin , 

. I ! 

to was cited by this Court only in reference to when the burden shifts from the moving party to 

notice of dangerous conditions and the cause of Appellant's fall. 

was contrary to the facts of this case. Appellant further argues that this finding was not 

. I 

supported by the record. We incorporate our Opinion, dated April 1, 2015, which addresses the 

. . I 

reasoning for finding that there were no genuine issues of fact in respect to the Defendants' 

Appellant's third matter on appeal that this Court's granting the Motion for Summary Judgment 

Appellant's first matter on appeal asserts that this Court erred in granting the Defendants' 

I 

Motion for Swnmary Judgment as genuine issues of material fact existed as to Defendants' 

notice of dangerous conditions and as to the cause of her fall. This relates directly to be 

filed a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. 

including the Appellant's fall, none of the forms stated the cause of a fall was due to h slippery 

floor caused by floor wax. On April 1, 2015, this Court granted the Motion for Sj.aary 

Judgment of defendant Weis Markets, finding that there were no genuine issues of mLerial facts. 

We incorporate the factual and procedural history from this Court's Opinion filed ApL 1, 20151 

On September 4, 2015, after Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal, we direct;d that ApJ.ellant file l 

Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. On September 21, 2015, A!pellant 
14 

cc: Stephen M. Higgins.J. 

,--....) 

Maureen E. Kelly, Esq. 

=' 

z; 

_. 

er» 

John R. McHaffie, Esq. 0 (::'.) --0 

- ::0 ..,,_ :i':""7: 

. James Conaboy, Esq. ;8 --i 0 

0 --{ 

Christopher J. O'Connell, Esq. r,·1 !-' ?: 

(.0 0 

Prothonotary of the Superior Court c» ....,.. 

0 -"- 

C) 

c: -0 -\ 

.,;.- 3 J> 

; ::::0 

---- w --< 

-e w > -...J 

BY THE COURT: 

., 

!~~Lv1., l ~«t.,,,. 

STEPHEN M. HIGGINS, J.- ! 

' 

the non-movant. This Court did not liken the facts of the present case to those in MyJ:rs v. Penn 

Traffic Co., nor did it decide the present case solely on the facts and decision in MyJs v. Penn 

Traffic Co. As such, the Appellant's arguments on appeal are without merit. For this: reason, 

1 

and for the reasons stated in our April 1, 2015 Opinion, we believe that Appellant's assertions of 

trial court error are without merit. ! 

I