J-A03007-18

____________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

ANDRE MURRAY

v.

DOMINIC TRIPODI & JOSEPHINE 

TRIPODI

APPEAL OF: JOSEPHINE TRIPODI

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 98 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Order November 15, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Civil Division at No(s): June Term, 2014 No. 0495

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PLATT*, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JANUARY 30, 2018

Appellant, Josephine Tripodi, appeals from the order entered in the 

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which vacated the jury verdict 

awarding Appellee Andre Murray no damages for pain and suffering and 

granted Appellee a new trial on non-economic damages, in this negligence 

action. On June 4, 2014, Appellee filed a complaint against Appellant and 

her husband Dominic Tripodi, claiming the Tripodis negligently failed to

remove snow and ice on their property within a reasonable amount of time 

following a snow event in February 2014, which caused Appellant to slip and 

fall and sustain injuries. The parties proceeded to compulsory arbitration on 

January 20, 2016; the panel decided Appellant was not negligent. The 

parties stipulated to dismiss the claims against Appellant’s husband. 

Appellee timely filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Common Pleas on 

January 22, 2016.
J-A03007-18

- 2 -

On August 31, 2016, a jury found Appellant liable and awarded 

Appellee $2,729.00 in damages for medical expenses but awarded no

damages for pain and suffering. On September 7, 2017, Appellee filed a 

post-trial motion for a new trial on damages. Appellant subsequently filed a 

post-trial motion seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”). 

On November 15, 2016, the court granted Appellee’s post-trial motion for a 

new trial on damages and denied Appellant’s post-trial motion for JNOV. 

Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on December 9, 2016. By order 

entered December 12, 2016, with Pa.R.C.P. 236 notice issued the next day, 

the court directed Appellant to file a concise statement of errors per

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), within 21 days. Appellant electronically filed her 

statement on the docket on December 30, 2016. The certificate of service 

indicates counsel hand-delivered the statement to the trial judge’s chambers

on that date. 

Preliminarily, appellants must timely comply whenever the trial court 

orders them to file a Rule 1925(b) concise statement. Commonwealth v. 

Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 719 A.2d 306 (1998). Regarding civil cases:

Our Supreme Court intended the holding in Lord to 

operate as a bright-line rule, such that failure to comply 

with the minimal requirement of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) will 

result in automatic waiver of the issues raised. Given the 

automatic nature of this type of waiver, we are required to 

address the issue once it comes to our attention. ... 

Greater Erie Indus. Development Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 

88 A.3d 222, 224 (Pa.Super. 2014) (en banc) (internal citations and 
J-A03007-18

- 3 -

quotation marks omitted) (emphasis omitted). In addition to filing a concise 

statement on the docket, an appellant must concurrently serve the trial 

judge. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(1). Failure to serve the trial judge can constitute 

waiver of issues on appeal. See Forest Highlands Community Ass’n v. 

Hammer, 879 A.2d 223 (Pa.Super. 2005) (explaining Rule 1925(b) imposes 

waiver consequences upon appellant who fails to serve trial judge with 

concise statement of errors). Nevertheless, upon application of an appellant 

for good cause shown, this Court may remand in a civil case for the filing of

an initial, amended or supplemental concise statement and/or a 

supplemental trial court opinion. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(2), Note. 

Instantly, by order entered December 12, 2016, with Rule 236 notice 

issued the next day, the court directed Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) 

statement. Thus, Appellant’s concise statement was due January 3, 2017. 

Appellant electronically filed her statement on the trial court docket on 

December 30, 2016. The certificate of service indicates counsel handdelivered the statement to the trial judge on that date. Nevertheless, the 

court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion, acknowledging that Appellant timely 

filed her concise statement electronically on the docket but insisting 

Appellant failed to serve the trial judge until January 9, 2017, constituting 

waiver of all issues on appeal. Consequently, the trial court declined to 

address any of Appellant’s issues on the merits. In response, Appellant filed 

an application for relief in this Court, claiming appellate counsel personally 
J-A03007-18

- 4 -

hand-delivered the concise statement to the trial judge’s chambers on 

December 30, 2016. Counsel stated he knocked on the door of the trial 

judge’s chambers and, when no one answered, he placed the statement in 

the appropriate mail slot around 1:30 p.m. on that date. Appellant attached 

to the application for relief, inter alia, a copy of the cover letter with the 

concise statement, dated December 30, 2016, and an affidavit swearing and 

affirming counsel personally hand-delivered the statement to the trial 

judge’s chambers on that date. This Court denied the application without 

prejudice to renew the issue before the merits panel. 

Under these circumstances, particularly in light of court closures and 

vacations around the New Year’s holiday, Appellant has demonstrated good 

cause to consider her Rule 1925(b) statement as timely filed and delivered

to the judge on December 30, 2016. Accordingly, we remand for a 

supplemental trial court opinion addressing all issues raised in Appellant’s 

Rule 1925(b) statement, within 30 days from the date of remand. See

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(2), Note. Oral argument shall proceed as scheduled, 

unless this Court is notified otherwise. 

Case remanded with instructions. Panel jurisdiction is retained. 
J-A03007-18

- 5 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/30/18