Court Opinion

ID: 9411362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 17:07:24.284667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:06.231392
License: Public Domain

J-A23041-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  MICHAEL J. MUDRA, SR.                        :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY                      :
  CORPORATION                                  :
                                               :   No. 1439 MDA 2021
                       Appellant               :

           Appeal from the Judgment Entered November 8, 2021
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford County Civil Division at No(s):
                              2012CV0283

BEFORE:      BOWES, J., McCAFFERY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.:                 FILED: JULY 26, 2023

       I agree with my learned colleague’s decision to affirm the November 8,

2021 judgment entered in favor of Michael J. Mudra, and I join Parts II-VI of

the memorandum. Likewise, I share the majority’s concern about the conflict

within our jurisprudence as to whether a party may appeal the denial of a

motion for summary judgment after a trial has been held without first reviving

the issues in a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”).

However, I write separately to highlight the non-reviewability of the legal issue

the majority addresses concerning the open and obvious doctrine based upon

Appellant’s failure to assert it in the predicate motion for JNOV or challenge

the denial of JNOV in its post-trial motion.

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A23041-22

       A succinct review of the relevant facts and procedural history is

warranted. Mr. Mudra sued Appellant alleging that he suffered injuries when

he tripped over a twelve-inch diameter hose that obstructed his descent of a

ladder at a gas-drilling site that Appellant was supervising on behalf of the

leaseholder, Chesapeake.         Essentially, Mr. Mudra contended that Appellant

negligently placed the hose near the ladder. Following discovery, Appellant

filed a motion for summary judgment invoking, inter alia, the open and

obvious doctrine, i.e., “Because the facts of record establish that the hose was

an open and obvious condition of which [Mr. Mudra] was already admittedly

aware prior to tripping, [Appellant] therefore owed no duty to protect

[Mr. Mudra] from it and is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Motion

for Summary Judgment, 9/13/19 unnumbered at 2. The trial court denied the

motion, finding, in part, “despite the fact that the danger the hose posed was,

at least to some extent, open and obvious, there is an issue of fact as to

whether     [Appellant] should       have      anticipated   that harm could occur

notwithstanding the open and obvious nature of the dangerous condition.”

Order, 1/24/20, at 1.

       Thereafter, the case proceeded to trial. At the close of Mr. Mudra’s case

in chief, Appellant orally moved for a directed verdict1 based upon the open

____________________________________________

1 Appellant’s motion for a directed verdict was premature insofar as it was
presented before the submission of all evidence. Phrased differently, unlike
a motion for compulsory nonsuit, a motion for directed verdict challenges the
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -2-
J-A23041-22

and obvious rule, which the trial court denied for the “same reason [it]

discussed [in denying] the summary judgment motion.” N.T., 11/4/20, at 38.

The trial court succinctly explained, “there’s been plenty of evidence for them

to determine that [Appellant] was in control of that area. That they were in

control of those hoses, that it was a dangerous condition, that it was reported,

. . . and that you owed a duty to [Mr. Mudra].” Id. at 39. Then, after the

jury verdict in favor of Mr. Mudra, Appellant made a general, unspecified oral

motion for JNOV arguing, in total, “I don’t think the evidence supports the

verdict.” The oral motion was summarily denied. Id. at 229.

       Presently, Appellant questions, inter alia, “[w]hether the trial court erred

in denying the motion for summary judgment of Appellant . . . because the

open and obvious doctrine precluded the claims of [Mr. Mudra].” Appellant’s

brief at 5. The majority concluded that this claim was not properly framed for

appellate review, relying upon Whitaker v. Frankford Hospital of City of

Philadelphia, 984 A.2d 512, 517 (Pa.Super. 2009), for the proposition that

once a case proceeds to trial and the defendant presents a defense, the denial

of a motion for summary judgment becomes moot.                      See Majority

Memorandum at 7.

____________________________________________

sufficiency of all evidence and not simply the plaintiff’s evidence. See Rogers
v. Thomas, 291 A.3d 865, 882 (Pa.Super. 2023) (en banc). Hence,
Appellant’s purported motion for a directed verdict is more accurately
characterized as a motion for compulsory nonsuit.

                                           -3-
J-A23041-22

      In my view, the majority correctly concludes that we cannot review

Appellant’s post-verdict challenge to the denial of summary judgment.

Indeed, from my perspective, the denial of summary judgment simply is not

appealable, absent limited exceptions that are not applicable in this case.

Rather, a party wishing to challenge the denial of a motion for summary

judgment should seek immediate permission to appeal that interlocutory order

to this Court. This is particularly so when the motion involves solely a legal

issue. If a party chooses not to seek permission to appeal, it must reassert

the basis for relief in a motion for JNOV following trial to preserve it, with the

disposition of that motion supplying the basis for appellate review.

      Recognizing that the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion for

summary judgment regarding the open and obvious doctrine was not properly

framed for appellate review, the majority sought to address that issue in the

context of the denial of JNOV. Id. at 7-9. There are two problems with this

perspective. First, as I indicated supra, Appellant did not assert any issues

concerning the application of the open and obvious doctrine in the oral motion

for JNOV that simply asserted, “I don’t think the evidence supports the

verdict.”   N.T., 11/4/20, at 229.        Thus, unlike the circumstances of

Turnpaugh Chiropractic Health & Wellness Ctr., P.C. v. Erie Ins. Exch.,

--- A.3d---, 2023 PA Super 99 (Pa.Super. 2023) (Stevens, J.), (Bowes, J.,

concurring), where this Court recently addressed the denial of summary

judgment in the context of the trial court’s denial of appellant’s subsequent

                                      -4-
J-A23041-22

motion for JNOV asserting the same underlying claim, in the case at bar,

Appellant failed to revive the pertinent claim in its motion for JNOV.

       Moreover, while Appellant filed a comprehensive post-trial motion, it

neglected to challenge the trial court’s denial of the oral motion for

JNOV.    Instead, in pertinent part, Appellant’s post-trial motion asserted that

the trial court “erred and abused its discretion in denying [its] motion for

summary judgment” and the motion for directed verdict.2 Motion for Post Trial

Relief, 11/13/20, at ¶¶15 and 20. Insofar as Appellant’s post-trial motion

failed to challenge the denial of JNOV, that issue is waived. See Garwood v.

Ameriprise Financial, 240 A.3d 945, 948 (Pa. Super.2020) (issue not raised

by post-trial motions were waived)). Hence, the majority errs in choosing to

address the merits of the issue in this context on appeal.

____________________________________________

2 While the majority concludes that the denial of a motion for directed verdict

is not properly framed for review, see Majority Memorandum at 7, I would
not summarily foreclose post-verdict review of orders denying motions for
directed verdict considering the functional overlap between a motion for
directed verdict and a motion for JNOV. See Rogers v. Thomas, 291 A.3d
865, 882 (Pa.Super. 2023) (en banc) (“A motion for directed verdict, like a
motion seeking [JNOV], requires a court to test the sufficiency of all evidence
at the close of a case”). However, as I explained in footnote one on page two
of this concurrence, the premature motion for a directed verdict that Appellant
filed in this case was, essentially, a motion for compulsory non-suit, which is
unquestionably mooted by the subsequent presentation of evidence by the
defense. See Whitaker v. Frankford Hospital of City of Philadelphia,
984 A.2d 512, 517 (Pa.Super. 2009) (recognizing that, once defendant
presented defense, “the trial court’s refusal to grant . . . a compulsory nonsuit
became moot.”). Thus, I agree with the majority’s conclusion that Appellant’s
motion for a directed verdict did not provide a basis for review in this case.

                                           -5-
J-A23041-22

      Accordingly, I do not join Part I of the memorandum. However, since

the majority ultimately rejected the merits of Appellant’s argument, I concur

in the resulting disposition and join the learned majority only as to Parts II-VI

of the memorandum.

                                      -6-