Court Opinion

ID: 9700711
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:46:27.946477+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:13.971413
License: Public Domain

MONTEMURO, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the decision to affirm the summary judgment granted in favor of the Forest Lakes Council Boy Scouts of America. The record amply supports the trial court’s finding that “... the Boy Scouts owed no duty to [Chiricos] because of the obviousness of the danger____” Op. of Trial Court, April 5, 1989, at 5. See Carrender v. Fitterer, 503 Pa. 178, 469 A.2d 120 (1983). Further, there is no evidence in. the present case which would bring it within the rule of law enumerated in Skalos v. Higgins, 303 Pa.Super. 107, 449 A.2d 601 (1982) (possessor of land is not liable to *507invitees for physical harm caused by obvious conditions on the land, unless the possessor should have anticipated the harm despite such obviousness).
Although I would affirm the dismissal of the cross-claim filed by the DeLongs against Forest Lakes, I would not address the oral motion for summary judgment raised by the DeLongs. As is evident from their appellate brief, the DeLongs’ oral motion for summary judgment concerned the remaining litigation between Chiricos and the DeLongs.1 This portion of the case is pending in the trial court and is not directly controlled by the court’s decision to enter summary judgment in favor of Forest Lakes on the claims between Forest Lakes and Chiricos. Thus, a denial of summary judgment under these circumstances would result in an interlocutory order, not subject to appellate review.

. This pending litigation involves issues concerning negligence in the operation of the ATV, negligence in the supervision of William S. DeLong by his parents, and the contributory negligence of Chiricos.