Court Opinion

ID: 9384604
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-04 14:07:54.707319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:54.932076
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Portia Young,                                     :
                        Appellant                 :
                                                  :
                v.                                :
                                                  :     No. 1082 C.D. 2021
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania                      :     Submitted: October 28, 2022

BEFORE:         HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
                HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
                HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON                                 FILED: April 4, 2023

                Portia Young (Appellant) appeals the June 11, 2021 order (Trial Court
Order) of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) granting
summary        judgment      in    favor     of   the    Commonwealth     of   Pennsylvania
(Commonwealth) and dismissing Appellant’s Complaint with prejudice. Upon
review, we affirm.
                On December 3, 2019, Appellant filed a Complaint in which she
sparsely alleged that, on December 6, 2017, she was injured as a result of a defective
chair on premises owned/controlled by the Commonwealth. See Complaint ¶¶ 3-5.1

      1
          In its entirety, the Complaint alleges as follows:

                                        COMPLAINT
                                     PREMISES LIABILITY
1. Plaintiff, Portia Young, is an individual, residing at the above-
captioned address.

2. Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, is a political
subdivision conducting business at the above-captioned address.

3. On or about December 6, 2017, [sic] owned, possessed, inspected,
maintained, repaired, and/or controlled and/or had the right to
control the defective, hazardous condition.

4. At that place, Plaintiff, Portia Young, sat in a chair, provided by
[Appellee] and exclusively in Defendant Pennsylvania Department
of Public Welfare[’s], control, custody and care.

5. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant[] knew or should have
known that the dangerous defective condition of the premises and
that poses a serious risk of harm.

                   COUNT I – NEGLIGENCE

        Portia Young v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

6. Plaintiff, Portia Young, hereby incorporates by reference all
preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth at length.

    a) Failing to warn Plaintiff of a dangerous condition;

    b) Placing a defective chair in a public place;

    c) Failure to inspect, maintain, repair, refurbish or stabilize
    the chair that injured Plaintiff;

    d) Failure to remove the chair once it became apparent that
    it was dangerous;

    e) Causing a dangerous condition as a direct result of
    Defendant[’]s negligence.

7. As a result of the aforesaid negligence, Plaintiff, Portia Young,
sustained serious, severe, and debilitating injuries including but not
limited to: trauma and other injuries which may be unknown and
others which may develop, some or all of which may be permanent
in nature.

                                  2
The Complaint makes a reference to “Defendant Pennsylvania Department of Public
Welfare” (Department of Public Welfare)2 but does not formally name the
Department of Public Welfare as a defendant. See Complaint ¶ 4. Additionally, the
caption lists only the Commonwealth as a defendant. See Complaint at Caption and
¶ 2.       Further, the Return of Service filed by the sheriff indicates that the
Commonwealth was the only defendant served with process in this matter. See
Return of Service dated December 18, 2019.
                On January 22, 2020, the Commonwealth filed an answer and new
matter that denied the allegations of the Complaint and raised the defense of
sovereign immunity. See Defendant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Answer and
New Matter to Plaintiff’s Complaint (Answer and New Matter). Appellant did not
file a reply to the New Matter.
                On February 27, 2020, the Commonwealth filed a motion for judgment
on the pleadings arguing that the Commonwealth – the sole named defendant in the
Complaint – enjoyed sovereign immunity.                   See Defendant Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings) at 3-4 (pagination supplied). Appellant filed no response to the Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings. Nonetheless, the trial court, through the Honorable
Edward C. Wright, denied the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings by order
entered June 9, 2020.            See Trial Court Order dated June 9, 2020.               The

                8. As a result of the said accident, Plaintiff, Portia Young, may have
                suffered a permanent disability and permanent impairment of her
                capacity an [sic] health.

Complaint.
       2
           The Department of Public Health’s name changed to the Department of Human Services
in 2014.

                                                  3
Commonwealth filed a motion for reconsideration on July 2, 2020, which the trial
court, again through Judge Wright, denied by order dated July 20, 2020. See
Defendant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court’s June 9, 2020 Order (Motion for Reconsideration); see also Trial Court Order
dated July 20, 2020.
               On August 6, 2020, Appellant filed her reply to the New Matter that
consisted of a simple blanket denial of all paragraphs contained in the New Matter.
See Plaintiff Portia Young Reply to Defendant New Matter (Reply to New Matter).3
               On April 20, 2021, the Commonwealth filed a motion for summary
judgment that reiterated the argument from the Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings that the Complaint was barred by sovereign immunity. See Defendant
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Summary
Judgment Motion). Appellant filed a response to the Summary Judgment Motion
that did not address the sovereign immunity issue, but instead argued that the
coordinate jurisdiction rule prevented the trial court from overruling Judge Wright’s
previous orders denying the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and
reconsideration thereof.4 See Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Summary Judgment Opposition). On June 7, 2021, the Commonwealth
filed a reply to the Summary Judgment Opposition in which it argued that the

       3
          The Reply to New Matter states, in its entirety: “9-37. Denied. The averments in these
paragraphs are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is necessary. To the extent of
[sic] these averments are not conclusions of law, the [sic] are specifically denied.” Reply to New
Matter.
       4
          The Summary Judgment Motion had been assigned to a different trial court judge for
disposition.

                                                4
coordinate jurisdiction rule was inapplicable to the instant matter. See Reply in
Support of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
               On June 11, 2021,5 the trial court, through the Honorable D. Webster
Keough, entered the Trial Court Order, which granted the Summary Judgment
Motion and dismissed the Complaint with prejudice. Appellant timely appealed the
matter on July 7, 2021.6
               On appeal,7 Appellant raises a single claim: that the trial court erred in
granting summary judgment in this matter because the trial court judge assigned to
determine the Summary Judgment Motion violated the coordinate jurisdiction rule
by granting summary judgment where a different trial court judge had previously
denied the Commonwealth’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion for
Reconsideration. See Appellant’s Br. at 7. This claim lacks merit.
               As this Court has explained, “[u]nder the coordinate jurisdiction rule,
judges of coordinate jurisdiction sitting in the same case should not overrule each
other’s decisions.” City of Philadelphia v. Galdo, 181 A.3d 1289, 1291 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2018), aff’d, 217 A.3d 811 (Pa. 2019). However, the Court has expressly
noted that “[t]he coordinate jurisdiction rule does not apply where the motions are
of a different type and does not bar a judge on summary judgment from overruling

       5
        The trial court dated and signed the Trial Court Order on June 10, 2021, but the same was
not docketed until the following day, June 11, 2021. See Trial Court Order.
       6
        Appellant originally filed the appeal of this matter in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania,
which transferred the matter to this Court by order filed August 17, 2021. See Superior Court
Order, Docket No. 1414 EDA 2021, filed August 17, 2021.
       7
         “An order of a trial court granting summary judgment may be disturbed by an appellate
court only if the court committed an error of law []; thus, [a reviewing court’s] standard of review
is de novo, and [the] scope of review is plenary.” LJL Transp., Inc. v. Pilot Air Freight Corp., 962
A.2d 639, 647 (Pa. 2009) (internal citations omitted).

                                                 5
another judge’s decision on preliminary objections or judgment on the pleadings,
even on an identical legal issue.” Id.
             In the instant matter, a trial court judge granted a summary judgment
motion where a different trial court judge had previously denied a motion for
judgment on the pleadings in the same case, despite each motion being based on the
identical claim of sovereign immunity. Very simply, the coordinate jurisdiction
rules does not apply to these motions, which are of different types, even though the
motions concern the identical legal issue. See Galdo. Therefore, the trial court did
not violate the coordinate jurisdiction rule by granting the Summary Judgment
Motion.
             Accordingly, we affirm the Trial Court Order.

                                         __________________________________
                                         CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

                                           6
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Portia Young,                         :
                 Appellant            :
                                      :
           v.                         :
                                      :   No. 1082 C.D. 2021
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania          :

                                 ORDER

           AND NOW, this 4th day of April, 2023, the June 11, 2021 order of the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is AFFIRMED.

                                   __________________________________
                                   CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge