### 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 ENTERPR ISE 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 Appell ant, 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 gra nting 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

co mplete 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 detai l 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 Sol utions. 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. Appe llees 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. Appell ant’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 co urt’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 Pe nnsylvania 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 evi dence 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 a rise.”). 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



### S TATEME

N T PURS

U ANT TO Pa. R.A .P. 192 5 ( a ) 1925 ( a ) STA T EMENT WEIS MARKE

T S , INC. and C ONTRAST, LLC a

nd E NT E RPRI S E SOLUT

I ONS A ppe l lee s 

### v s. : 10 5 00 CV 2 012 G RA CE ZA

NG ENB ERG App e ll a n tappeals t hi s Co u rt ' s granting of Defendants ' , Contrast, LLC. And Enterprise Solu t ions,



# . . . I ("Appellees") Motion for Summary J udgment entered on August 7, 2015. 

### In summary,

. Appellant complains on appeal that: (l)the Trial Court erred in grant i ng the

. Defendan l s' Motion
for S u mmary Ju dgment as genuine issues of material fact existed as to Defendants' n o tice of dangerous conditions and as to the cause of her fall; (2)the Tr i al Court e rr ed 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 Decem b er 12 , 201 ! 2 , by fil i ng 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 , 2 014 by filing a Complaint against defendant s Contrast LLC and Ent e rp ri s e Solution. By : Zangenberg's ("Appellant") Concise Statement of Matter

. s Complained of_ on Appeal. Appe ll ant 

# ; l r- -- - - -· -- - . . ~ 

# I I ~ . ;;-\ r~ 

# m = 1 •

c: "i i 

## , v7 [ ~~ .. 1 

### J : J 

### !. s LI D 

### , r; , 1:: 1 .!! , • 1 

### h 

### CO U RT OF coMMo N PLEA S O F MO N ROE 

# c o mi& oc T 

## 2 3 1 015 

# j J 

### F OR T Y-TIDRD

JU DI C IALDI

S TRI C T 

# I

. I 

# I C OMMO

NWE ALTHOF

PENNSYLVANIA ! B y

__ 

# ( 81lli~

__ j Circulated 10/28/2016 02:54 PM

### 1 2 W eis Markets contracted w i th Appellee Enterprise So l utions to provi d e cl eaning s e r vice s
t o tl1 e st or e in question in Tannersville, which i ncluded b i -annu al floor wax in g. 

### In 

# rul. I
Enterprise S o lutions su b contracted with Appellee Contras t LL C t o pro vi de t he ac tual i cl eiln i n g

s e rvices a t the Weis Markets i n Tannersville. T h e bi -annual floo r wa xing i s done in se ct ions



## . . . . I
overa perio d of several days. Appellee C ontrast L L C str i ppe d and wax ed the fl oo r o f the s ubje c t
W ei s M ark et from March 22

- 26 20 1 2

. The record provides that wh i le an ar ea offlo J i s be i ng

waxe d , th e area is cordone d

. off and there is no access to those areas u n ti l the w ax i s en t i re ly dr y [ The ni ght prior to Appellant's accident, Appellee Contrast L LC personnel stripped 

# Jd
re- wax ed
a section of the subject Weis Markets store ru{d finish e d th eir wor k b y 6: 00 am. Th e t a x u s ed 

# I by Contrast L LC takes ten to fi ft een minutes to dry. Exhibit L9 at page 9. App ellan t '' s a cc iden t



# . . I occurred late i n the afternoon

. Zangenberg deposition , page 22, l i nes 11-1 2. Appe ll ant te st ified
at the t i me ~fher depos i tion that she fell because the floor was sl i ppery b ut she did n L know why i t was slippery. Id., page 28 line 19 to page 29 line 15. No testimony o r evi d enJe w a s



# . - . I

. presented that identified the cause o f the slippery fl oor was the floor wax used b y aple ll e e s . In th e "Customer Accident Report" forms prod u ced by the Weis for the two year time period d en ied th es e averments and den i ed all liability to Appellant. ' I Order date d August 29 , 2014 , this Court approved a Stipulation to Conso li da t e signe d l by al l I counsel and consolidated these two actions for all purposes a t docke t No. 20.'2 CV I 

## O F O O
In her Complaint against Appellees, Appellant averred that o n March 26 , 2 01 2, a t the
Weis Markets store on Ro u te 611 i n T annersv i lle, she was caused to slip o n th e floor l e ar th e podium as a result of the floor being sl i ppery . Appellant ave rr ed aga i ns t b o th App e l l e e s that they were careless and negligent because they caused and allowed the fl oor in que st i o n to b e

e xcess i vely slippery due to wax . 

### In their Answers to Appe ll ant's C omplaint, both a p J e ll ee s

### 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 i n the grant of l the Motion for Summary Judgment. Specifica ll y, A~pellant argues that before this Court's refere h ce to the same, no party 

### in ~1is matter relied upon the factual analysis contained in Myers v. P e l Traffic Co., 6 0 6 A.2de 926 (Pa. Super

. 1992)

. Appellant argues this Court erred i n conductin k
i ndepen d ent research and rais i ng arguments not raised 

### by counsel for 

### any party i n our l grant of
the M ot i on of 

### Summary J u d gment in favor of Weis Markets. The case the Appellant is referrin ,



## . I 

# ! t o w as ci t e d b y this Court on l y in reference t o when the burden sh i fts from the moving party to notice of dangerous conditions and the cause of Appellant's fall. w as contrary to the facts of this case . Appellant further argues that this finding was not



# . I supported by the record

. We i ncorporate our Opinion, dated April 1, 2015, which addresses the



# . . I reasoning for finding that there w ere no genuine i s sues 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 t his Court erred 

### in granting the Defendants' 

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

not i ce of dangerous conditions and as to the cause of her fall. This relates directly to b e filed a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. inc l uding 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 S j.a ary Judgment of defendant Weis Markets, finding that there were no genuine issues of m L erial fact s . We i ncorporate the factual and procedural history from this Court' s Opinion filed Ap L 1, 2015 1 On September 4, 2015, after Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal, we direct;d that Ap J. ellant file 

# l

Concise S t atement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. On September 21, 20 1 5, A ! pellant

### 14

cc: Ste p hen M

. H iggins. J

. , --....) Maureen E

. Ke lly, Esq

. =' z; _. er» Jo hn R

. McHaffie, E sq. 0 ( ::'.) --0 

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

. J ames Co n ab oy, Esq. ;8 --i 0 0 --{ C hr i s top h er 

### J. O' C onnell, Esq. r, · 1 !-' ?: (.0 0 Pr o th o not ary o f the S uperi o r C o urt c» ....,.. 0 -"- C) c: -0 -\ .,;. - 3 J> ; ::::0



### - --- w --< -e 

### w > -...J 

### BY THE COU R T :

. , 

# ! ~ ~ Lv1., l 

# ~«t.,,,.

S T E P HEN M

. HI GGINS, J .- ! ' the non-movant
. This Court did not li k en the facts of the prese n t case to those i n My J :rs v. P enn Traffic Co., n o r di d it decide the present case solely on the facts and decisio n in M yJs v. Pe nn Traffic C o. As suc h , t he Appellant ' s arguments o n appeal are withou t merit. For this: reaso n , 1 an d for the reasons stated in o ur Apri l 1, 20 1 5 Opi ni o n , we believe that Appellant's asserti on s of
tri al court error are withou t merit. 

# ! 

# I