J. 

### S29045/19 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION 

## - SEE 

### SUPERIOR COURT 

### I.O.P. 

### 65.37 NICOLE STAMPS, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

### Appellant

v. No. 2069 EDA 2018 KAREN WILK AND RONALDWILK Appeal

### from the Order Entered June 28, 2018, in 

### the Courtof Common Pleas of 

### Montgomery County Civil Division 

### at No. 

### 2016-11049

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: 

### FILEDAUGUST 

### 12, 

### 2019 Nicole Stamps 

### ("appellant") appeals 

### from the June 28, 2018 

### order" of the Court of Common Pleas 

### of Montgomery County entering 

### summary 

### judgment in 

### favor of Karen 

### Wilk and Ronald 

### Wilk 

### (collectively, "appellees") and 

### against appellant. 

### After careful review, we 

### affirm. The 

### trial court provided the 

### following factual and procedural 

### history: The 

### instant 

### mattercommenced on June 2, 2016,when appellant filed 

### [a] complaint in civil action 

### averring negligence onthe 

### partof [appellees] 

### after sheslipped and fell on ice 

### outsideof

### appellees'residence resulting in 

### injuries to her leg. The 

### underlying factswhich resulted in the 

### instant civil action began on February 9, 2015, when 

### appellant travelled to 

### appellees' hometo 

### partake in a personal

1

### Appellant purported to appeal 

### from an 

### orderenteredJuly 9, 

### 2018; however, a review of

### the docket reflects

### thatthe

### trial court entered 

### summary

### judgment on June 28, 2018. We have amended 

### the caption accordingly.J. 

### S29045/19 physical 

### training session conducted by Mrs. Karen Wilk. 

### Appellant had a standing 

### appointment for personal 

### training sessions 

### every Monday and Wednesday morning at 

### [appellees'] home gym at 

### 7:15 a.m. or 

### 7:30 a.m. 

### Appellant compensated Mrs. 

### Wilk $60.00 for each 

### training session. Upon pulling into 

### appellees' driveway, appellant overheard a 

### cautionary statement on the radio, warning people to be careful on the road because the roads are 

### slippery. Appellant purported to be surprised by

### this 

### statement as she did not experience slippery conditions while 

### driving to 

### [appellees'] residence. Moreover, 

### appellant did not recall any 

### weather eventthe 

### night prior and described the 

### night as, 

### "being a cool, cold, normal night. No 

### precipitation." Appellant then exited hervehicle and noticed 

### that the pavers leading to 

### the

### front entrance of

### the homewere wet. 

### Appellant 

### further testified 

### that she did not see ice or mounds of ice 

### prior to walking on the pavers. At some 

### point upon walking on the pavers, appellant slipped and fell, incurring an 

### injury to her 

### left ankle area. 

### After appellant slipped and 

### fell, Mr. 

### Wilk opened the 

### front door, 

### took a step outside and fell down before making his way to 

### appellant. Soon 

### after reaching 

### appellant, Mr. 

### Wilk dialed 

### 9-1-1 and requested medical assistanceto his home. Oncethe emergency rescue squad 

### arrived, they parked

### theirvehicle on the 

### street and salted 

### from the beginning of the 

### driveway up to where appellant was lying. 

### After the completion of discovery, appellees filed a 

### motion 

### for summary

### judgment on April 16, 2018. On June 15, 2018, the 

### trial court scheduled an oral 

### argument pursuant to 

### appellees' motion. Upon 

### consideration of said 

### motion, appellant's response, and hearing oral

### argument onJune 25, 2018, the

### trial court granted appellees' motion 

### for summary 

### judgment on June 28, 2018.J. 

### S29045/19

On July 10, 2018, 

### appellantfiled her 

### timely notice of appeal

### from the

### trial court'sJune 28, 2018 order. The 

### trial court required a 

### clarification of the 

### errors complained of on appeal, and 

### thus, it directed 

### appellant to file a concise 

### statement of issues complained of on appeal in accordance 

### with Pa.R.A.P. 

### 1925(b). Trial 

### court opinion, 

### 1/4/19 at 1-2 

### (citations to the record and 

### extraneous capitalization 

### omitted). Appellant

### timely complied 

### withthe 

### trial court's order. The 

### trial courtfiled an opinion 

### pursuantto Pa.R.A.P. 

### 1925(a). Appellant raisesthe following issue 

### for our review: Whether the 

### trial court abused its 

### discretion and 

### otherwise committed an 

### error of law when it 

### improperly granted [appellees'] Motions

### for Summary Judgment and discontinued 

### [appellant's] case? 

### Appellant's brief at vii. A reading of 

### appellant's brief, reflects 

### that beyond the 

### Statement of Question Presented, 

### appellant does not 

### directly address her 

### identified issue 

### further; rather, she has divided the 

### argument section into the following 

### three sub-issues: A. 

### [Whether] entry of 

### summary 

### judgment is 

### improper under the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's holding in 

### [Boroughof] 

### Nanty Glo[ v. 

### Am.Sur. Co., 163 A. 523 (Pa. 

### 1932)?]

B. 

### [Whether] in 

### granting appellees' motions for summary 

### judgment, the 

### trial court improperly inserted 

### itself as the fact 

### finder in 

### determining several 

### material issues of

### fact

### that should have been 

### determined by a

### jury[?]



## -3J. 

### S29045/19

C. 

### [Whether] the hills and ridges 

### doctrine does not applyto the 

### instantaction; thus,thereexists an issue of 

### material 

### fact[?] Appellant's brief at 1, 2, 4 

### (extraneous capitalization omitted).2 In reviewing an appeal 

### from the 

### trial court's 

### grant of a 

### motion for summary

### judgment, we are governed bythe following standard of review: 

### [O]ur standard of review of an 

### order granting summary 

### judgment requires us to 

### determine whether the 

### trial court abused its 

### discretion or 

### committed an 

### error of law. Our scope 

### of review is plenary. In reviewing a 

### trial court's grant of

### summary

### judgment, we

### applythesame standard as the 

### trial court, reviewing all the evidence of record to 

### determine whether there exists a genuine issue of 

### material fact. We 

### view the record in the 

### light most favorable to the non-moving 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 

### of material fact and it is clear 

### that the moving 

### party is 

### entitled to a

### judgment as a 

### matterof lawwill 

### summary

### judgment be entered. All doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of a 

### material fact must be resolved 

### againstthe moving 

### party.

* * *

2The Pennsylvania Rules of

### Appellate Procedure 

### requirethe 

### argumentsection of a 

### brief to be 

### "divided into as 

### many parts as 

### there are questions to be 

### argued[.]" Pa.R.A.P. 

### 2119(a). Here,

### the 

### argumentsection in 

### appellant's brief contains

### three parts,despiteonly presenting onequestion

### forargument. (See appellant's brief at 

### vii, 1-7.) We will address the 

### three sub-issues 

### identified in 

### appellant's 

### argument section, as our 

### ability to 

### render meaningful appellate review has not been hindered. 

### See PHH

### Mortg. Corp. v. 

### Powell, 100 A.3d 611, 615 (Pa.Super. 

### 2014). 

## -4J. 

### S29045/19 Upon 

### appellate review, we are not bound by

### the

### trial court's conclusions 

### of law, but may reach our own conclusions. 

### Petrina v.

### AlliedGloveCorp.,46A.3d 795, 

### 797-798 (Pa.Super. 

### 2012) 

### (internal citations omitted). Rule 

### of Civil Procedure 1035 governs motions 

### for summary

### judgment and provides, in 

### relevant part, as 

### follows: 

### After the 

### relevant pleadings are closed, but 

### within such 

### time as not to 

### unreasonably delay 

### trial, any 

### party may move

### for summary

### judgment in whole or in 

### part as a 

### matterof law (1) Whenever 

### there is no genuine issue 

### of any 

### material fact as to a necessary 

### elementof the cause 

### of action or defense which could be established by 

### additional discovery or 

### expert report, or (2) 

### If, after the completion of discovery 

### relevant to the 

### motion, including the production of 

### expert reports, an adverse 

### party who will bear the burden of 

### proof at 

### trial has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the cause 

### ofaction or defense which in a 

### jury trial would 

### require the issues to be 

### submitted to a

### jury. Pa.R.C.P. 

### 1035.2. This Court has explained 

### the application of

### this rule as

### follows: Motions 

### for summary 

### judgment necessarily and 

### directly implicate the 

### plaintiff's proofofthe elements of a cause 

## -5J. 

### S29045/19 of action. 

### Summary

### judgment is 

### proper if, 

### after the completion of discovery 

### relevant to the 

### motion, include 

### the production of 

### expert reports, an adverse 

### party who will bear the burden of 

### proofat 

### trial hasfailed to produce evidence 

### offact essential tothe cause 

### of actionor defense which in a 

### jury trial would 

### require the issues to be 

### submitted to a

### jury. In 

### other words, 

### whenever there is no genuine issue of any 

### material fact as to a necessary 

### element of the cause of action ordefense, which could be established by 

### additional discovery or 

### expert report and the moving 

### party is 

### entitled to

### judgment as a 

### matter of law, 

### summary

### judgment is 

### appropriate. Thus, a record

### thatsupports summary

### judgment either (1) shows 

### the material facts are undisputed or (2) contains 

### insufficient evidence 

### offacts to make 

### out a prima facie cause 

### of action or defense. 

### Petrina, 46 A.3d at 798. 

### Criswell v.

### At/. 

### RichfieldCo., 115 A.3d 906, 

### 908-909 (Pa.Super. 

### 2015). In her 

### first issue, 

### appellant contends 

### that the 

### trial court abused its 

### discretion when it 

### granted appellees' motion 

### for summary

### judgment because it precluded a 

### jury from making "a 

### determination as to the 

### credibility of 

### [the witnesses']

### testimony." (Appellant's briefat 1.) 

### Appellant

### furtherargues 

### that, 

### "[o]ral testimony alone,

. . . of the moving 

### party or 

### the moving 

### party's witnesses, even if 

### uncontradicted, is 

### generally insufficient to establish the absence 

### of genuine issues 

### of material 

### fact." 

### (Id. (emphasis 

### omitted), citing 

### Penn 

### Center House, 

### Inc. v. 

### Hoffman, 553 A.2d 900 (Pa. 

### 1989), Pa.R.Civ.P. 1035.2 note.) 

### See 

### also 

### Nanty Glo, 163 A. at 524. Appellees 

## -6J. 

### S29045/19

aver 

### thatappellant failed to preservethis issue 

### for appellate review, 

### thereby waiving it on appeal. 

### (Appellees' brief at 

### 9-12.) 

### It is 

### axiomatic

### that in 

### this Commonwealth, issues not raised before the 

### trial court arewaived on appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 

### 302(a). See

### also B.G. 

### Balmer& Co.,

### Inc. v. 

### FrankCrystal& Co.,

### Inc., 148A.3d 

### 454, 468 (Pa.Super. 

### 2016), 

### appeal denied, 169 A.3d 9 (Pa. 

### 2017). Here, 

### appellant failed to raise a 

### Nanty Glo 

### argument in her response to appellees' motion 

### for summary 

### judgment, nor did she raise 

### the issue in the accompanying 

### memorandum of law. 

### Accordingly, appellant waivedthe

### first issue on appeal. 

### See

### Lineberger

v. 

### Wyeth, 894 A.2d 141, 149 (Pa.Super. 

### 2006) (finding 

### waiver when 

### appellant raised a 

### NantyGlo issue 

### forthe

### firsttime on appeal).3 

### Appellant next contends 

### that the 

### trial court ignored issues 

### of material fact and failed to considerthose issues when it 

### granted appellees' motion 

### for summaryjudgment. (Appellant'sbriefat2.) Specifically,appellant avers

### that 

### "[t]herewas no 

### testimonyas toany 

### precipitation 

### [the] morning"ofappellant's fall. 

### (Id.) Appellant, however, 

### further argues 

### that 

### "[t]here is also 

### contradictory testimony as to 

### whether or not

### there was any 

### precipitation on the day of the 

### fall." 

### (Id. at 3.) Appellees argue 

### that appellant failed to

3 Even if

### appellant had 

### properly raised her

### first issue before

### the 

### trial court, the issue would 

### nevertheless be waived on appeal because she failed to include the issue in her Rule 

### 1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 

### 1925(b)(4); U.S. 

### Bank, N.A. 

### for Certificateholders 

## of LXS 

### 2007-7N Trust Fund v. 

### Hua, 193 A.3d 994, 

### 996-997 (Pa.Super. 

### 2018), citing 

### Greater Erie 

### Indus. Dev. Corp. v. 

### Presque 

### Isle Downs, 

### Inc., 88 A.3d 222, 224 (Pa.Super. 2014) 

### (en 

### banc) (citations omitted). 

## -7J. 

### S29045/19
establish 

### that appellees had any notice 

### of the dangerous condition, thus 

### justifying summary

### judgment. (Appellees' brief at 

### 14-24.) In any negligence cause 

### of action, a 

### plaintiff is required to establish 

### the following by a preponderance of the evidence: 

### "(1) a 

### duty or 

### obligation recognized by law; 

### (2) a breach of

### thatduty; (3) a causal connection between the conduct and the resulting 

### injury; and (4) actual 

### damages." 

### Toro v. 

### Fitness

# IntlLLC, 150 A.3d 968, 

### 976-977 (Pa.Super. 

### 2016), quoting 

### Estate 

## ofSwiftby

## Swift v. 

### Northeastern Hosp., 690 A.2d 719, 722 (Pa.Super. 

### 1997), 

### appeal denied, 701 A.2d 577 (Pa. 1997). In 

### order to prevail in a premises 

### liability case, a 

### plaintiff must prove 

### that: [the land possessor] knows of or reasonably should have known of the 

### condition and 

### the condition involves an unreasonable risk of harm, 

### [the possessor] should expect 

### that the invitee[4] will not realize it or will fail to 

### protect [herself] against it, and 

### the [possessor] fails to exercise reasonable care to 

### protect the invitee against the danger. 

### Estate 

## of Swift[,] 690 A.2d 

### [at 722] (citation 

### omitted). An 

### invitee must present evidence proving 

### "either the [possessor] of the land had a hand in creating the harmful condition, or he had actual or 

### constructive notice 

### of such 

### condition." 

### Id. What 

### constitutes constructive notice depends on the circumstances of the case, but one 

### of the most 

### important factors to consider is the 

### time 

### that elapsed between the 

### origin of the 

### condition and the accident.

4 There is no 

### dispute

### that appellantwas an 

### invitee at the 

### time of herfall and 

### that appellees possessed the premises.

- 8 -J. 

### S29045/19 

### Neve v. 

### Insalaco's, 771 A.2d 786, 791 (Pa.Super. 

### 2001). 

### Collins v. 

### PhiladelphiaSuburbanDev. Corp., 179 A.3d 69, 74 (Pa.Super. 2018.Proof of notice, however, cannot be the product of mere speculation. Indeed, our cases hold 

### that a 

### non-moving party "cannot survive summary 

### judgmentwhen mere speculationwould be required 

### forthe

### jury tofind in 

### [the non-moving 

### party's] 

### favor." 

### Krishack v. 

### Milton HersheySchool, 145 A.3d 762, 766 (Pa.Super. 

### 2016), quoting 

### Krauss v. 

### Trane U.S. 

### Inc., 104 A.3d 566, 568 (Pa.Super. 

### 2014). The 

### Krauss court

### further explained 

### that,
A

### jury is not 

### permittedtofind

### that itwas a

### defendant's [negligence] 

### that caused 

### the 

### plaintiff's 

### injury based solely upon speculation and 

### conjecture; theremust be evidence upon which logically its conclusion 

### must be based. 

### In fact, the 

### trial court has a 

### duty to preventquestionsfrom going 

### tothe

## jurywhich would require 

## it to reach a 

### verdict based on 

### conjecture, surmise, guess 

### or speculation. 

### Additionally, a 

### party is 

### not 

### entitled to an 

### inference

### offact

### thatamounts merely

### to a 

### guess 

### or 

### conjecture. Krauss, 104 A.3d at 568 

### (citations and 

### quotation marks 

### omitted; brackets in 

### original; emphasis added). When it addressed notice, the 

### trial court reached 

### the following conclusion:

. . .

### Appellant has not provided anyevidence asto how long the icy 

### condition existed on 

### [a]ppellees'walkway prior to her accident. Neither 

### [a]ppellant nor 

### [a]ppellees rememberany

### precipitation inthe evening prior to the accident, nor can 

### they recall the 

### definite 

## -9J. 

### S29045/19
date

### that the last snowfall occurred. 

### Appellant offers a 

### speculative

### theory

### thatthe possibilitythe dangerous condition may have

### formed as a 

### resultof

### morning dew freezing over. Trial 

### court opinion, 

### 1/4/19 at 5 

### (citationsto the record 

### omitted). Based on our review of the record, we find 

### that the 

### trial court did not abuse its

### discretion when itgranted appellees' motion 

### for summary

### judgment. As noted, 

### appellant presented no evidence 

### that appellees had actual or 

### constructive notice 

### ofthe harmful condition and relied on mere speculation. 

### See 

### Petrina, 46 A.3d at 798. Because 

### appellant failed to produce evidence of facts to make 

### out a 

### primafacie negligence cause 

### ofaction, we need not address

### appellant'sthird issue on appeal. Appellees' application to 

### strike portions of the reproduced record is 

### granted. Pages 

### 18-60 of 

### appellant's reproduced record were stricken 

### from consideration. Order

### affirmed. Application to 

### strike granted. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. 

### Seletyn, Prothonotary

Date: 

### 8/12/19

- 10 -